Bill O'Reilly and his Falklands War experience

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@John_Mace

Here is the quote, but there might be some other context missing. Essentially, he said he was “in the Falklands” when he was actually only in Buenos Aires. He referred to being in the “war zone” when it was a supposed riot in the capital when the surrender was announced.

I’m not really seeing how this is any less of a lie than the stuff Brian Williams said. Though I guess some people still took Williams seriously as a newsman.

[John_Mace]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I’m not really seeing how this is any less of a lie than the stuff Brian Williams said. Though I guess some people still took Williams seriously as a newsman.

Yeah, I guess O’Reilly’s bid for NBC nightly New Anchor is all washed up!

[voltaire]

@tomndebb

Yeah, back on February 11, O’Reilly spent a few minutes blasting Williams, which is probably what prompted Corn’s Mother Jones article the next week.

Regarding the “4” and “8” grades, above: Williams falsely claimed to have been shot at; O’Reilly claimed to have been a hero while falsely claiming that he had been shot at. I would reverse the grades given.

Not to mention, Brian Williams *was *at least in a real war zone with some real dangers to be frightened about during the invasion of Iraq. O’Reilly, not so much.

[Robot_Arm]

@John_Mace

As I said in the other thread, one of his biggest lies is referring to himself as a “humble” correspondent. The guy is one of the biggest, self-promoting blow-hards on the face of the earth!

Bill O’Reilly is proud of his humility.

[Buck_Godot]

@Jackmannii

Well, O’Reilly’s lying certainly lets Brian Williams off the hook.

Yeah, I got to agree. Defending Brian Williams by saying “Well O’Reilly does it too” is rather like trying to defend W’s use of torture by saying, “Well Stalin did it too”.

[Yossarian]

@Elendil_s_Heir

As a Chirstian, I take offense at this.

Danm these joke-ruiningly fat fingers!

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Buck_Godot

Yeah, I got to agree. Defending Brian Williams by saying “Well O’Reilly does it too” is rather like trying to defend W’s use of torture by saying, “Well Stalin did it too”.

Is there anyone this side of Betelgeuse who’s defending Brian Williams by tu quoqueing with O’Reilly? I’ve not seen such an argument anywhere at all. People pointing at O’Reilly are at worst saying, “yeah, there are lousy journalists in mainstream news, but it’s not like Fox is any better.” At best, they’re saying, “this corruption in the news media extends farther than just the one anchor.”

[ElvisL1ves]

And people are only pointing at O’Reilly *because *he’s been lambasting Williams, when his own transgressions are far worse. If he’da’ shut up, he’d be fine.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@John_Mace

Essentially, he said he was “in the Falklands” when he was actually only in Buenos Aires. He referred to being in the “war zone” when it was a supposed riot in the capital when the surrender was announced.

As I said in the other thread, IMO the key question - which seems to have been overlooked in the focus on the Falklands - is to what extent his description of the riot and his whereabouts relative to it are accurate. If he was in the midst of a thousand protestors storming the presidential palace and being fired on by the army, then the exact location seems to be of minor importance. If he was significantly exagerating that - as has been suggested by some - than it’s a BW-type deal.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

As I said in the other thread, IMO the key question - which seems to have been overlooked in the focus on the Falklands - is to what extent his description of the riot and his whereabouts relative to it are accurate. If he was in the midst of a thousand protestors storming the presidential palace and being fired on by the army, then the exact location seems to be of minor importance. If he was significantly exagerating that - as has been suggested by some - than it’s a BW-type deal.

Different parts of his reporting have different problems. The fact that he claimed to be in the Falklands, in a war zone, when he wasn’t–that by itself is a blatant lie.

But you’re right that the reports of rioting are exaggerated. Contemporaneous accounts of the riots are nowhere near as bad as his “recollections” of them.

I strongly encourage anyone who’s in this discussion to go read the original MJ article, if you haven’t already read it. It sets out a very clear case that what he said was, in this instance and at least one other (Central American atrocity reporting), flagrantly dishonest.

[Darth_Panda]

@Robot_Arm

Bill O’Reilly is proud of his humility.

He’s not just humble, he’s the most humble. By far. There really isn’t anyone who comes close when it comes to humility. If you challenge him to a humility contest, you better watch the fuck out.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Different parts of his reporting have different problems. The fact that he claimed to be in the Falklands, in a war zone, when he wasn’t–that by itself is a blatant lie.

If the incident was as described, then this is a technicality IMO. (And not at all comparable to the BW story.)

I’ve seen other reports saying it was exagarated (and it wouldn’t surprise me - I myself have no recollection of having ever seen or heard BOR, but my wife used to listen to his radio show on occasion and she thought he was insufferably arrogant - but don’t know). I’m surprised the people who were with him - and who he claims to have dragged to safety - have not commented one way or the other.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

If the incident was as described, then this is a technicality IMO. (And not at all comparable to the BW story.)

Honestly, I see it as not comparable inasmuch as it’s so much worse. Williams did actually go somewhere that he could have been in danger; he was in a rough helicopter ride that was very close to a helicopter that got shot; he soon afterward saw a helicopter that had been shot. O’Reilly was hundreds of miles away from actual war, and consistently misrepresented what he saw.

It’s much more similar, IMO, to Williams’s story about Katrina, where he described himself in a hellhole of a hotel, when from more reliable accounts the hotel was peripheral at best to the worst conditions in New Orleans.

I’ve seen other reports saying it was exagarated (and it wouldn’t surprise me - I myself have no recollection of having ever seen or heard BOR, but my wife used to listen to his radio show on occasion and she thought he was insufferably arrogant - but don’t know). I’m surprised the people who were with him - and who he claims to have dragged to safety - have not commented one way or the other.

Have you read the MJ story?

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@Darth_Panda

He’s not just humble, he’s the most humble. By far. There really isn’t anyone who comes close when it comes to humility. If you challenge him to a humility contest, you better watch the fuck out.

If I were even a tiny, miniscule, eensy-weensy fraction as humble as he is, lemme tell ya, I’d have a HUGE ego about it.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Honestly, I see it as not comparable inasmuch as it’s so much worse. Williams did actually go somewhere that he could have been in danger; he was in a rough helicopter ride that was very close to a helicopter that got shot; he soon afterward saw a helicopter that had been shot. O’Reilly was hundreds of miles away from actual war, and consistently misrepresented what he saw.

BW “could have been in danger”. BOR - according to his story - was actually in danger, just not in the Falklands. I see the level of danger as being what’s significant, not the location of the incident.

Have you read the MJ story?

Yes. It casts some serious doubt about the story. Most likely BOR is another blowhard exagerating his experiences. But there’s room for further verification.

[camille]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

BW “could have been in danger”. BOR - according to his story - was actually in danger, just not in the Falklands. I see the level of danger as being what’s significant, not the location of the incident.

Yes. It casts some serious doubt about the story. Most likely BOR is another blowhard exagerating his experiences. But there’s room for further verification.

The Plot Thickens.

This Facebook post by a CBS correspondent who was in Argentina with O’Reilly at the time claims O’Reilly was ordered out of Buenos Aires:

When Doyle informed O’Reilly that Schieffer would be doing the report, which would not include any segment from O’Reilly, the reporter exploded. “I didn’t come down here to have my footage used by that old man,” he shouted. Doyle was stunned. First O’Reilly had defiantly ordered a cameraman to disregard his orders on using lights, and now he was claiming the right to do a story the producers had decided should be done by the senior correspondent on the scene, Schieffer. This confrontation led the next day to O’Reilly being ordered out of Argentina by the CBS bosses. Doyle had told them O’Reilly was a “disruptive force” who threatened his bureau’s morale and cohesion.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Wait. Bill O’Reilly, throw a temper tantrum because someone hurt his ego? This doesn’t sound like the Bill O’Reilly I know.

[camille]

More to the point, he was not in danger. For anyone who can’t access Facebook:

We – meaning the American networks – were all in the same, modern hotel and we never saw any troops, casualties or weapons. It was not a war zone or even close. It was an “expense account zone.”

(snip)

I am fairly certain that most professional journalists would refer to the story I have just related as “routine reporting on a demonstration that got a little nasty.” O’Reilly, in defending himself yesterday against Corn’s “Mother Jones” piece, said “We were in a combat situation in Buenos Aires.” He is misrepresenting the situation he covered, and he is obviously doing so to burnish his credentials as a “war correspondent,” which is not the work he was performing during the Falklands war. I don’t think it’s as big a lie as Brian Williams told because O’Reilly hasn’t falsely claimed to be the target of an enemy attack, but he has displayed a willingness to twist the truth in a way that seeks to invent a battlefield that did not exist.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Here’s what Bill O had to say on his radio show on August 9, 2004: [INDENT]O’REILLY: I – I was in a combat situation in Argentina during the Falklands War, OK?

KEVIN: Mm-hmm.

O’REILLY: And I can tell you when the Kool-Aid hits the fan, OK, nobody is locking in on anybody else. Nobody.

KEVIN: And you’re right.

O’REILLY: OK, ad –

KEVIN: I know (inaudible; overlapping dialogue)

O’REILLY: – adrenaline – adrenaline surges and you veterans out there listening right now, you know exactly what I’m talking about here. Adrenaline surges, your senses become very attune, much sharper than they are ordinarily, and you are locked in, focused in, on your survival and achieving the means of staying alive.

You’re not watching what happens in the boat next to year. You’re not watching any of that. OK? You are – you are zeroed in on your situation. [/INDENT] And on August 25, 2004 : [INDENT]You know, sometimes you have to boil it down to just that. He checked the box. Will you go into combat? He checked the box. You got to – you got to respect that. I don’t care who it is. …

Now, I, your humble correspondent, did check the box. Not in Vietnam, but in El Salvador, in Falklands War, and in Northern Ireland. I checked that box. And I respect myself for checking the box. [/INDENT] “Will you go into combat?” I don’t see how anybody can read that as anything other than a claim that he was a war correspondent, reporting directly on a live fire situation. Which he wasn’t. That said, I concede that the gullibility of his viewers, listeners and apologists is a source of non-stop comedy on this board and elsewhere.

Bill O'Reilly's "Combat Situation" Reporting, In His Own Words

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Contemporaneous CBS coverage

Apparently there was a riot by a crowd of 10,000 aimed at bringing down the government, some media cameramen roughed up, tear gas and plastic bullets fired at the crowd and a pistol fired over the heads of the (fleeing) crowd. But despite serious injuries but no one killed (apparently) and no opening live fire at the crowd (or, apparently, storming the palace though they did “beseige” it).

ISTM that BOR exagerated his experiences but not as much as BW.