Look up. (post 156)
Perhaps you’re unaware that this is a thread for debate. If the only thing you have to add is an announcement that you’re giggling, you might find MPSIMS more amenable to your needs.
Add me to the list of people who would like clarification on why you think the list has no value. To take just one item of the list, would you care to explain this, where O’Reilly claims he never personally called Dr. George Tiller a “baby killer,” when he in fact used that term many times — not while reporting what someone else said (as he claimed), but as his own characterization?
Including this gem: “Now, we have bad news to report that Tiller the baby killer out in Kansas, acquitted. Acquitted today of murdering babies. I wasn’t in the courtroom. I didn’t sit on the jury. But this, there’s got to be a special place in hell for this guy.”
Dr. Tiller was shot and killed by an anti-abortion fanatic two months later.
Missed the edit window, but see here to get a better idea of O’Reilly’s possible influence in the Tiller murder.
So is all this an opportunity to finally rid news culture of this bullshit and bogus news hero thing?
It belongs in WW2 or somewhere. Just read the damn autocue aleady.
Is Brian Williams “one of ours?” I mean, I don’t watch a lot of network news. Before this scandal, if you’d asked me “Who is Brian Williams?” I’d have probably said, “Wasn’t he in the Beach Boys?” So, asking entirely out of ignorance, in what way is Brian Williams a liberal figure, other than being a reporter for a network other than Fox News?
I didn’t think you could.
And I already responded to that. In case you missed it. 
Can you quote the “choleric denunciation” part?
Are you shitting me? I quoted several parts that comprised denunciation. Your response then and now amounts to nothing more than “nuh uh.”
You quoted a whole bunch of text. What part of it, specifically, amounts to “choleric denunciation”. Surely you’re not claiming all of the stuff you quoted. Edit out the fluff and quote the choleric denunciation part. I’m just not seeing it. For instance, I assume you DON’t mean this part of your quote:
Isn’t that exactly what the issue is? He was let go mainly because he lost credibility with his audience. That’s a fact.
As I said in my original response, it looks to me like pretty much a chronology of events.
That bit you quoted wasn’t what he said. It was what Ingraham said, and if you read the bit I quoted immediately after that, you’d see where he was saying you couldn’t trust Williams. Here’s what he said immediately following his quote of Ingraham:
In addition to saying that, he says–you know what? Forget it. I don’t trust that you’re asking this question in good faith.
Are you fucking kidding me? No, he didn’t say it. He quoted it because he said he agreed with it. That is different, how?
See above, and look in the mirror.
Allow me to quote a wise man:
Lefty: How is it “choleric denunciation” when O’Rellly says “if you can’t trust a newscaster you won’t watch him” when that is precisely why NBC booted him? He had become, through no one’s fault but his own, a punch line on late night comedy shows. If even a small percentage of his audience sours on him, he’s toast. That’s a fact, not “choleric denunciation”.
O’Reilly started the piece with:
*"But when hard news people deceive their viewers and readers to advance a political agenda, that’s when the nation gets hurt.
Enter Brian Williams, the anchorman for the NBC Nightly News."*
Then spent 5-7 minutes linking Williams to some sort of left wing conspiracy to push an agenda:
*"With few constraints on the Internet, it is extremely important that the national media stop the corruption and begin telling the truth without an agenda.
I get The New York Times every morning. That paper has tremendous resources, but over the years it has become a left-wing enterprise and that has crept into its hard news coverage."*
And he finishes with a suggestion that he exists on a bastion of honesty (contrasted with Williams):
*"We put together an honest broadcast and we take great pains to present you with information that can be verified.
All Americans who love their country should think about what happened to Brian Williams … to think about other news agencies that are distorting the facts."*
Seriously, you can’t appreciate any sort of pretty intense criticism that he is leveling on Williams? Criticism that may be warranted if not offered by a guy who, it turns out, did the same goddamn thing?
and:
Ookay, is it fair to that testy? Sure. Impatient? Why not? It’s certainly accusatory, and those claims go way beyond the established facts. So much so that one might say they are bad-tempered. They certainly are not good tempered.
Ok, now we’re into a full blown rant. O’Reilly is even swearing during family hour! Extremely irritable? No: I’m afraid we’re beyond that.
So I guess you’re right John: while O’Reilly’s remarks match the synonyms and even definitions of choleric, I haven’t as yet secured testimony from any recognized usage panel. That the rant is an unhinged denunciation though can’t be denied.
Your humble correspondent,
MfM
I certainly agree that BO gets unhinged in his attempt to make the leap from BW to the rest of the media. But that isn’t about BW. That’s about, well, the rest of the media. I’m sure he’s trying to make the case that FoxNews is a bulwark against the fact-challenged, lame stream media as a whole.
To me, that passage says: The MSM has a truth problem. Take BW, who was caught in the act of lying. He had to go. He was thought of as a good guy [hence the LI quote], but if people can’t trust him, he can’t be a news anchor. But that’s not the real story. The real story is all the other fact-distortion out there that hasn’t been exposed, but that you all know is there. You need to just shut them out, and tune into FOX!!
Whether the charge is legitimate has nothing to do with denunciation. Is your problem the “choleric”? Because that word is wholly irrelevant and it’s the height of nitpickery to focus on it. Here are words that amount to denunciation:
I’m not sure how you’re seeing this as anything other than denunciation.
Edit: if you’re under the misapprehension that it’s only denunciation if it’s inaccurate, I don’t know what to tell you. And if you can read “we’re mad as hell” etc. as anything other than irritable, I also don’t know what to tell you.
The list is ridiculous. Are there actual instances of lying pointed to? Possibly. But a lot of the stuff I glanced at are examples of him being wrong, not lying. I’ve seen similarly loose, lazy, unfair, and wrongheaded use of the word here on the SDMB many times, and have called people on it. The problem is that the rabid partisans aren’t satisfied to point out error, so they attempt to divine someone’s motivations so they can bend them with the moral failing of “LIAR”, making the target not just wrong, but a bad person. That this trick often requires being able to read someone’s mind and know what they actually knew. I guess the surprising thing is how comfortable people are imputing motives. That and how many have Kreskin-like mind reading abilities.
Seriously, read through the list and judge the degree of fairness, dispassionate scrutiny and actual proof you think there is for these “lies”. Personally, before classifying a statement of a lie I’d need actual proof of it. Someone can be wrong day in, day out, but that doesn’t make him a liar.
I was alluding to the thread on Brain Williams and what the lefties did there, which prompted the creation of this thread.
I don’t know if the list has “no” value. I do know that it, in it’s entirety, is suspect. I read through quite a few of these “lies” and they qualify as such only in the synapse-challanged minds of hyper-partisans. So, because so many of them are either lies themselves or just wrongheaded mistakes and mutterings, I don’t trust any of it. If you’re going to try to tell me that Person A lied—uttered a falsehood that he knew to be false when he said it—you need an airtight case. Otherwise you’ll probably lose me after showing the statement was, in fact, false.