Some reason why you won’t specify which ones you don’t believe?
Please. Do you really expect me to take a list that was put together in bad faith and turn into detective, doing the author’s work, and the work of the persons who provided the link? Uh, no. Not going to happen.
What I suggest is that you and anyone else who things this is so devastating—and considers themselves fair-minded—go through the list yourselves with a more critical eye. I think people should not to hurl accusations of lying willy-nilly. The list goes further than that. It tries to squeeze all manner of incorrect statements, mistakes, and the like into a box emblazoned with LIE INSIDE.
Sure do. You claim the list is biased, you back it up. And every item on the list has a link. No research needed.
I am generally concervative / libertarian, but I find O’Reilly a bloviating grandstander. Now that I have that out the way, ISTM the word choleric is pretty key to a characterization of "choleric denunciation,’ and not nitpicking. Especially when it’s in response to a charge of hypocrisy (BTW, I think O’Reilly is a hypocrite). Otherwise “Son, you did a poor job of cleaning up your room, you need to try again” is also a choleric denunciation. After all, the adjective is irrelevant.
magellan, ISTM you’re approaching this kinda like:
“JoeBob murdered his wife, ate his dog, and ran over a nun in his car.”
“The nun thing was merely an allegation, there’s no proof he did that…therefore he gets a pass on the wife-murder and dog-eating.”
I mean, I hope that’s not what you’re saying…but it’s kinda what you’re saying. I get that you find Alternet to be unreliable, and I’m even willing to concede that some, perhaps many, of their points are not necessarily falsehoods when viewed with a more O’Reilly-friendly eye. But to dismiss the list in toto is to deny that the guy has demonstrably lied, repeatedly and on camera, about a wide variety of things.
If you’d like me to evaluate a list authored by someone else, perhaps yourself, please do so. I’d suggest a title along of the lines of “Bill O’Reilly’s 2 Lies”, and then make sure you have thoroughly cited airtight case for what ever untruths he uttered rising to the classification of “lie”.
The accusation of lying is used much, much too liberally around here. And in society generally.
Bullshit. I reviewed enough of the list to see that the compiler has zero interest in truth or fairness. I’m not yogin to do his work for him. Or your work for you. If you think O’Reilly actually lied about something, lay out your case.
Oh, and just because there’s a link to something doesn’t mean it is primary source material.
So, as it stand now, we have the fact that some guy compiled a list of things that O’Reilly said, or supposedly said, and he’d like the world to be as stupid, loose, and lazy as he is and classify them as lies.
Yeesh! Surely you can do better than he.
Respectfully, I find that a convenient way of eliding and excusing dishonesty.
To take the example Tony Sinclair mentioned above, O’Reilly repeatedly called George Tiller “Baby-killer” over many years. That is hardly in dispute. He later said that he had simply “reported” that “some prolifers branded [Tiller] with that [epithet].”
Now was that a lie? I imagine you would say it was not. But it was dishonest.
Pretty much agree with that, Strat. But let me add that even the word “denunciation” is a stretch, since all BO did was lay out the narrative of how BW got canned. There has to be more of a personal attack on the guy, and if anything BO went out of his way to soften the blow by quoting what LI said and noting that he agreed with it.
For example… Let’s say I get banned, and Strat opens an ATMB thread asking why. LHoD comes in and says: “Well, looking at the record, I can see that Mace racked up 5 warnings in the last 3 months all for breaking the same rule. Seems like the mods were just following SOP in banning him.”
Is that a denunciation? I don’t think so. It’s just the facts. Nothing along the lies of “I’m glad the mods finally got rid of that Mace character. Well done, mods!”
That may very well be a lie. But not necessarily. My take is that in repeating the charge the number pif times he apparently did, he simply got lazy and removed the attribution. It seems to me that he might have actually adopted that view himself. So if he then stated unequivocally that he didn’t say such a thing, he’s clearly wrong. And let’s, for argument’s sake, say it was a lie. So what?
Oh, the answer is that some people then want to hold him accountable in the doctor’s death. And that is pure partisan stupidity. (Not that it matters much, but I say that as someone who is fervently pro-choice.)
So, calling the events corruption, deception, distortion, and destruction of trust–these don’t qualify as denunciation? Saying we should shout that we’re made as hell–that doesn’t qualify as choleric?
So what? That means Bill O’Reilly is a liar, and refuses to admit it. It means he’s a hypocrite for attacking other liars. Who here has blamed him for Tiller’s death? I certainly don’t.
This isn’t a huge deal – media figure is a liar… big whoop. But it’s fun, and so far you’ve presented no argument on why folks shouldn’t look for lies and throw them in Bill O’s (or anyone else’s) face.
You reviewed nothing.
Just the first 10 items.
1.Peabody Award.
Checked the Peabody website. Bill O. is not among the winners.
2. Polk Award
Same deal.
3. Peabody Award
Transcript of Bill O. claiming to have won the Peabody.
4. You’re calling his mom a liar?
5. Numbers were straight from Nielsen
6. He checked “Republican”. And this staunch patriot didn’t notice for nine years he was registered as a Republican?
http://mediamatters.org/research/2005/10/03/oreilly-falsely-claimed-he-did-not-have-option/133928
7. Same issue.
8. Couldn’t find the tape or interview online. This transcript makes mention of it.
- Direct quote from his radio show. And he had no basis to make the claim, he wouldn’t have been in the info loop on such things.
- Read it.
O'Reilly and guest repeated discredited claims on Iraq-Al Qaeda link | Media Matters for America
If you are interested in what I have to say, I’d ask you to pay closer attention to it. If this came up in a vacuum, I doubt I would have even commented. The denunciation of notable conservatives here is so routine as to not merit comment. But, if you’ll simply scroll to see some of my recent responses, you’ll see that my bemusement here has to do specifically with how the lies of Brian Williams knee-jerk into pointing at O’Reilly.
Oh, now you’re calling me a liar.
:rolleyes:
I rest my case.
Bemusement is fine – it was your criticisms and dismissals that I don’t get.
Then detail which points you reviewed and why you reject them and I might believe you.
Refusing to make your case is not debating.
It’s okay folks, nothing to see here. Fox explains it all. When he said he saw nuns killed, or Belfast bombs blow people up, as a justification as to why he should be trusted as a man who has seen very important and challenging things, what he really meant was that he saw pictures of nuns killed, and pictures of people blown up by bombs.
So that’s why we should trust O’Reilly – he’s really been in the shit. Or he’s really seen pictures of the shit, anyway. Something like that.
Good enough, right? Everyone ready to move on?
I think he’s just claiming to have been somewhere on the same continent as the pictures.
One of the most famous scenes in science fiction history:
Batty: I’ve… seen things you people wouldn’t believe… Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate.
Deckard: Really?
Batty: Well, I have seen the photos…