I have no idea. Hopping a private boat for a day-trip from, say, Punta Arenas to Stanley doesn’t seem particularly outrageous, or memoir-worthy if nothing happened during the voyage.
But that’s mere speculation on my part. I certainly don’t think it’s as noteworthy a trip as you cast it to be.
You’re the one making the claim that he lied. It’s not for me to invent scenario after scenario and show how each one is possible. It’s for you to identify two statements which supposedly contradict one another.
I’ve done so: he claimed to be in the Falklands, and others have said it’s extremely unlikely he could have been there.
While not admitting guilt, his response that he’s not required to give viewers unbiased facts and, “It’s perfectly fine for commentators like me to give my opinion about events,” he is telling us there will be no reprimand, no 6 month hiatus without pay. Him lying is “perfectly fine.”
It’s worth noting that O’Reilly was exorciated by a guy named Tucker Carlson for doing exactly that. In fact Carlson laid into O’Reilly for bragging about doing exactly that at a convention of war correspondents, all of whom had seen more action than O’Reilly. He compared it to a guy who’d served in the Army reserves during Vietnam bragging about how brave he was in front of a bunch of Green Berets.
For those not familiar with him, Tucker Carlson is the founder of the Daily Caller and not to be confused with Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow.
This is an order of magnitude apart from Brian Williams’ case: Williams’ claim was specifically and directly contradicted by someone who was there. And even that doesn’t make Williams a liar, just mistaken.
“Unlikely,” in other words, does not prove O’Reilly a liar. There is no contradiction, just a general sense that his story is unlikely.
Yes?
As I cast it to be? We’re talking about O’Reilly’s own, post-memoir, claims of having “been there” and “almost been killed.”
I’ll just remind you that this isn’t a courtroom, and the standards of evidence are significantly lower. I’m pretty satisfied, based on what folks who were there say about security, and based on O’Reilly’s decision not to prove his claims but rather to call the MJ reporter naughty names, that O’Reilly is yet again full of shit. If you’re not so satisfied, and if you care about the issue, I invite you to do your own research, because I’m not particularly interested in doing more for you on this subject.
You may want to look up “burden of proof”. And who has it.
Astonishingly enough, magellan, you’re wrong on this, too. I have no desire to look it up, nor do I care who you think has any burden on a fucking messageboard. If you have something substantive to add to the discussion, however, here I am holding my breath: :o
Oh, you can hold it longer than that. Keep trying. If you fail, then you can go look up burden of proof, which is handy in a forum called Great Debates.
And what, O’Reilly was contradicted by 1/10 of a person?
See link above.
The biggest difference between Williams and O’Reilly is their reactions, I think. Williams said something to the effect of ‘I’m very sorry, I’m terribly embarrassed…’ – I don’t think O’Reilly is constitutionally capable of doing so. It would probably kill him.
As I said above, though, they’re in different businesses. Williams’s business was to report the news. When he became the news, it damaged his reputation and the service he offered. O’Reilly’s business is to entertain geezers who don’t want children on their lawns and who believe that The Kids Have No Respect These Days. His personality IS the product, and generating controversy has about a 50/50 chance of increasing his ratings. I think O’Reilly is a loathsome pustules on the ass of the media, but from a pure profit standpoint, I’m not sure that his boss should do anything about the allegations that, lo and behold, once again he’s distorting the truth to make himself look like an interesting person.
Two interesting O’Reilly quotes, for folks who inexplicably are giving him the benefit of the doubt:
And yeah, I finally did the research that anyone could do if they’re curious: the original MJ article pretty conclusively demonstrates O’Reilly wasn’t there, according to his then-bosses.
There is a much bigger lie in there-- he calls himself a “humble” correspondent. Now, that’s a whopper!!
I’ve admired BW for awhile, but his repeated embellishments of his Gulf War experience have badly damaged his credibility. No matter what he says now, no matter how much time passes, this will always be something that he did - and would have kept on doing, by all indications, until he was called out on it. A network news anchor’s trustworthiness and journalistic credentials should be above reproach. I think, with regret, that NBC should can him.
Impossible that O’Reilly got there? Don’t be silly! One word: jetpack.