Bill O'Reilly and his Falklands War experience

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@TonySinclair

We have that, too. In his video report, live from the protest in Buenos Aires, he described it as a “disturbance.” In later books, he claimed it was a “war zone.”

When this first came out (before the tape was released), I said that it would be understandable if he had thought the police were firing live ammo at the time, although I could not excuse his reporting people killed without confirmation. But now that we have the video, he didn’t say anything about either live fire or civilian deaths, so evidently those details were not the result of confusion during the fog of war; they were simply made up, years after the fact, when he knew they weren’t true.

I’ve seen the CBS broadcast of the events, and disagree that it’s direct evidence that he’s lying. It doesn’t suggest anything as severe as what he’s now saying, but it’s not clear-cut. (Interestingly, it does suggest something more severe than what the other participants are now claiming to remember.)

As for the tape of his phone call from Dallas, I haven’t seen a response from him. I really don’t see what he could possibly say about it, except maybe claiming there were TWO prominent suicides connected to the JFK investigation, in Florida, in the same week, and he got them mixed up.

I don’t see what he could possibly say either, but a man who claims he really meant he saw pictures of dead nuns has a broader range of possibilities out there than I would.

[Measure_for_Measure]

This fascinates me.

@Fotheringay-Phipps

But more importantly, they are/were in different positions when confronted with the evidence.

Clinton was running for president. She needed for the issue to go away, and she needed to deal with it in a manner that would not alienate undecided voters who she needed to win over. For someone in that situation, even if they have zero integrity (which is not to say that she does) O’Reilly’s approach is not an option, and the SOP for people in that situation is to do exactly what she did, which is to back away from the story while trying to put the best spin possible on it.

O’Reilly, as a professional media loudmouth, is in a completely different position. He does not need to appear presidential and he doesn’t need to win over any undecided voters, and he doesn’t mind if the story keeps him in the news a bit longer. For someone in his position, taking a hostile approach which will rally his supporters to his side is the self-serving approach to take.

So basically modern conservatives -for the moment- hold politicians to a higher standard of truth than they do conservative news reporters. Like I said, fascinating.

I agree then that Hillary Clinton is a far more reliable source than Bill O’Reilly, though my reasoning is different - it’s more direct.

[ElvisL1ves]

O’Reilly’s spent years desperately trying to make himself appear at least as reliable a reporter as that guy with that comedy show. And he’s failed.

[andros]

He’s done nothing of the sort. Papa Bear has certainly succeeded in creating such an appearance. The ratings bear that out.