BILL O’REILLY WILL REMAIN AT FOX BECAUSE THEY DON’T DO JOURNALISM


fredschwartz1

In the latest exposure of an anchor on television embellishing their “war record” Bill O’Reilly is under fire for allegedly lying about his experiences in 1982 as a “war correspondent for CBS News during the Falkland’s War. O’Reilly has stated numerous times that while working for CBS News he reported from the Falkland Islands during the war between the junta in Argentina and the United Kingdom under the government of Margaret Thatcher. The fact is there wasn’t a single America reporter on any of the islands involved so this cannot possibly be true.

Conservatives rolled on their collective floors with delight over the fallout from the repeated lies told by NBC Nightly News managing editor and anchor Brian Williams about his war reporting record. Now, conservative mouthpieces like Rush Limbaugh are not impressed with the pounds of evidence showing that O’Reilly, like Williams, has lied about his record. Limbaugh claims that piece about O’Reilly’s war reporting record by Mother Jones is both irrelevant and politically motivated.

In classic Fox News form, O’Reilly came out swinging yesterday to a group of reporters. O’Reilly never made any apologies instead he attacked the reporters from Mother Jones, especially David Corn whom he called, “a guttersnipe liar.” And in his interview with TVNewser, O’Reilly made a typically conservative violent comment about what should happen to Corn after he is vindicated of these accusations, saying, “When everybody writes the truth, I’ve talked to about eight or nine reporters, and when they verify what I’m saying, because it’s easily verifiable, then I expect David Corn to be in the kill zone. Where he deserves to be.” Harsh stuff to say the least from the TV talk show host.

hindsight 2321
In Hindsight

This will be quite an angry fight between Fox and Mother Jones. If victory in this battle for journalistic integrity means Bill O’Reilly is suspended or fired then Mother Jones will almost certainly lose unless more people come forward to tell the actual truth about where Bill O’Reilly was in 1982. Conservatives generally don’t care about things like journalistic integrity unless a lack of it can be displayed by someone they consider a Progressive member of the MSM. Fox news isn’t really news it’s more of a salad of tidbits designed to reinforce the ideological beliefs of the base of viewers despite the facts. The fact that they are number one among cable news stations and have been dominant here for many years, is a testament to their ability to preach to a choir of 50 million plus Americans who are certainly conservative in all things publicly. The bottom line here is that Brian Williams lied, numerous times, for 11 years. About this fact conservatives demanded his departure from NBC News. Bill O’Reilly has lied about his record for 33 years, but conservatives both in the media and the rank and file don’t have a problem with this. And here is the definig difference against a real journalistic enterprise like NBC News and a conservative political entertainment organ like Fox News. The former has journalistic integrity standards and the latter does not.

Pax Terra!

Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., CS, O.Q.H [Journ.]
Managing Editor—Research
The Dis Brimstone-Daily Pitchfork
132 Melnar 3 AS

8 Responses to “BILL O’REILLY WILL REMAIN AT FOX BECAUSE THEY DON’T DO JOURNALISM”

  1. First off Fred you need to show some proof that BOR said he was on the Falkland Islands. I have found a few sources that verify he was at Buenas Aires during the war.

    You can decide if that was a war zone or not. I do not care.

    Second problem you have here is assumption of Conservative love for BOR. I will let you in on a open secret. We call him BOR for a reason.

    Since amy has already labeled me as the the “Gate keeper of True Conservatism” I feel I am qualified to tell that BOR is not considered by us TrueCons as conservative by any means.

    If you want his head. You can have it. We do not care. BOR gone? Good bye to bad rubbish.

    Have a good day.
    🙂

  2. Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] Says:

    he said he was reporting from “the Falkland’s War zone” on numerous occasions. These are well documented in the article from Mother Jones. The war zone was limited to Falkland, South Georgia and a few other islands off the coast of Argentina. There was no threat to Argentina from shelling as those islands are more than 1800 kilometers away. To claim that he was in a war zone sitting in a hotel in Buenos Aires would allow a BBC reporter in London to make the same claim. That’s irrational and inaccurate.

    I know that since the Swift Boat veterans thing many conservatives, especially those who have served in the military have an open dislike for Bill O. But millions still watch him every night just to keep the numbers up or they fall asleep after whatever is on before and that is what’s keeping the Fox numbers so high. That did used to happen at CBS when NFL games ran late.

    But as you say you don’t care; fortunately for you I care enough for both of us. If Fox is going to pass off the likes of Sean Hannity, Bill O and Greta as journalists, I expect them to at least be held to the same standard as a “liberal outpost” such as NBC News. NBC suspended their on air talent when his integrity came into question. Williams apologized and likely will never anchor a network news broadcast again and rightly so. O’Reilly came out swinging with brickbats and ad hominem attacks. Classy, but expected.

  3. “NBC suspended their on air talent when his integrity came into question”

    I disagree. They knew about BW’s penchant for lying for many years before this. They only asked him to leave after it became apparent that damage control was actually causing more damage.

    As far as war zones are concerned. Any place within striking distance of the enemy or a hostile force is a war zone. The British had the capability to strike Argentina anywhere within the radius of aircraft from where the Hermes or the Invincible were operating. Shelling as you put it, has little to do with being a war zone.

    As I said. You are free to decide if it was a war zone or not. You are to have his head if you want.

    Fox News is just as legitimate as any of the other alphabet soups that openly push the progtard agenda. You just hate Fox because they might just not push that agenda as hard as msdnc does.

    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] Says:

      The maximum range (combat radius times 2) of the aircraft aboard the Hermes at the time was 1080 nm. The distance to Buenos Aires is 1179 nm. If they were willing to engage in a suicide mission this still would have failed. BA was out of range of all the carriers in this war. Bill O had nothing to worry about in Buenos Aires.

      • How long would have it taken for either carrier to sail with the needed distance?

        Another question. Did the Argentinian High Command treat Buenas Aires as war zone? What coastal zones were treated as a war zone. Any military installation possessed by either side was a valid target.

        BW stated specifics. IE “I stared down the barrel of a rpg” (LOLzer, I love that little factoid.)

        BOR for being one of the most BORish people on television only stated that he was in a war zone.

        Mother Jones is nothing more than apparatus of the progtard party. Masquerading as a blog. They have an agenda. They want revenge for one of their own having been taken down.

        I do not think it will happen. But good luck trying ok?

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] Says:

        To answer your question it would have taken eight hours for either carrier to steam to a point where they could have taken out positions in Buenos Aires. That would have been wasteful when the planes were needed to cover the two thousand mile radius covering South Georgia and the Falklands. I’m not aware if the Argentines mined their coast but I can ask someone who was there if they did. You have said many times you don’t care about BO but you keep defending him as if his lies are lesser than those of Williams. What gives?

      • I am most definitely not defending BOR. I am arguing definition of a “active war zone”

        The British had other assets that could have been used against Argentinian targets on their mainland. Could being the operative word.

        For your enjoyment. The Argentinians certainly thought that any British target was a war zone.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Algeciras

        You can have BOR’s head all you want. However when he says that he was in a “war zone” he is correct. However how many other millions of people can also say that.

        Now had he said that he was in a “active combat zone” I would have no problem calling him a dirty stinking liar, just like BW.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] Says:

        war zone definition 1. “a zone in which belligerents are waging war; broadly : an area marked by extreme violence” 2. “a designated area especially on the high seas within which rights of neutrals are not respected by a belligerent nation in time of war” Now which one of these was Bill O in again?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: