• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bill O'Reilly has his own made up war stories. I wonder if Fox will[W:237,343,676]

Grim17 said:
You are the one who claims his El Salvador story wasn't accurate, so please tell us all what O'Reilly said on the air about El Salvador that wasn't acurate?

I looked and I found nothing.
Click to expand...

Excellent. He always folds when pressed for evidence.
 
Threegoofs said:
Its in the story. Thats why they wrote it. If professional writers cant explain it to you, then I cant either.
Click to expand...

And you talk about what side lies.... LMAO. YOU said his story was inaccurate, so it's up to YOU to back it up... So what's it going to be:

a) You provide the link to the transcripts, the audio, or the video showing O'Reilly telling a different story on his TV or Radio show, or in an interview, that differes from his CBS News report from El Salvador.

b) Admit that O'Reilly has not to your knowledge, ever told a story on the air that differed from the report he did from CBS News and retract your claim.

c) Fail to substantiate your claim and refuse to retract it, proving you are just as dishonest as you claim the right to be.

The choices are clear... substantiation, retraction or dishonesty?
 
VanceMack said:
Do you honestly believe they are the same thing?
Click to expand...

O'Reilly was nailed before for embellishing. Something about winning an Emmy that was really a Peabody. But, it's no big deal because no one takes the O'Reilly Factor serious.
 
calamity said:
O'Reilly was nailed before for embellishing. Something about winning an Emmy that was really a Peabody. But, it's no big deal because no one takes the O'Reilly Factor serious.
Click to expand...
I dont take him seriously and he certainly if not embellished offered verbiage which could cause others to connect the dots and create the lie. No doubt. But thats not the question I asked. Do you honestly believe Bill O Reilly saying he was there during the Falklands War (while not saying ON the Falklands but certainly allowing for that inference) is the same as saying...so there I was...lead ship in a 4 helicopter rotation when we took small arms fire and were hit by an RPG. We were forced to make an emergency landing....

?
 
calamity said:
O'Reilly was nailed before for embellishing. Something about winning an Emmy that was really a Peabody. But, it's no big deal because no one takes the O'Reilly Factor serious.
Click to expand...

On May 10, 2008, O'Reilly was presented with the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Governors' Award at an Emmy awards show dinner.[SUP][63][/SUP]
[h=3]It's the Emmy equivalent of the Oscars "Lifetime Achievement Award." Fair enough to call it an Emmy.[/h]
 
calamity said:
O'Reilly was nailed before for embellishing. Something about winning an Emmy that was really a Peabody. But, it's no big deal because no one takes the O'Reilly Factor serious.
Click to expand...

It was a Peabody that wasn't, then he said it was a Polk, but he didn't get it, the show did, before he was on it.
 
VanceMack said:
I dont take him seriously and he certainly if not embellished offered verbiage which could cause others to connect the dots and create the lie. No doubt. But thats not the question I asked. Do you honestly believe Bill O Reilly saying he was there during the Falklands War (while not saying ON the Falklands but certainly allowing for that inference) is the same as saying...so there I was...lead ship in a 4 helicopter rotation when we took small arms fire and were hit by an RPG. We were forced to make an emergency landing....

?
Click to expand...

Details. But, yeah. Saying you were in a chopper that got shot down but weren't is a pretty big whopper.
 
beefheart said:
Not talking about that. Talking about the time he lied about getting a Peabody, but he didn't, then he changed to saying he got a Polk, but he didn't.
Click to expand...

calamity said:
What I referred to happened long before 2008. It was back in 2004 or so, IIRC.
Click to expand...

O'Reilly never claimed to have won a Peabody.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Stick to the OP, which is not other posters.
 
beefheart said:
Not talking about that. Talking about the time he lied about getting a Peabody, but he didn't, then he changed to saying he got a Polk, but he didn't.
Click to expand...

The only lie is the claim that O'Reilly said he won the award.


Truth about the Peabody

If O’Reilly had claimed to have Peabody Awards, this would in fact be quite a lie. The Peabody Award usually recognizes a program, not an individual. In the cases where it does recognize an individual, it is usually for their lifetime body of work, a high honor. Claiming to have more than one would be unprecedented boldness indeed.
Of course, Bill O’Reilly never claimed to have Peabody Awards. O’Reilly had been mixed up about what awards had been won by Inside Edition, a news series he had anchored. O’Reilly had claimed that Inside Edition won two Peabody Awards when, in fact, the two award winners at Inside Edition had actually received Polk awards, not Peabody. Matt Meagher and Tim Peek each got one for their work in an undercover investigation of insurance fraud for the show. . . .
 
calamity said:
yes and no. It seems O'Reilly is good at ambiguity.

Fact Checking Al Franken
Click to expand...

Of course he is. Like the village that was flattened and everyone being killed when he was on camera walking around completely non flattened buildings with people walking around...
 
Grim17 said:
And you talk about what side lies.... LMAO. YOU said his story was inaccurate, so it's up to YOU to back it up... So what's it going to be:

a) You provide the link to the transcripts, the audio, or the video showing O'Reilly telling a different story on his TV or Radio show, or in an interview, that differes from his CBS News report from El Salvador.

b) Admit that O'Reilly has not to your knowledge, ever told a story on the air that differed from the report he did from CBS News and retract your claim.

c) Fail to substantiate your claim and refuse to retract it, proving you are just as dishonest as you claim the right to be.

The choices are clear... substantiation, retraction or dishonesty?
Click to expand...


What Bill O'Reilly has said about his time during the Falklands War - Feb. 20, 2015

The Fox News host insists he never said he was in the Falkland Islands during the conflict. As a reporter for CBS News at the time, O'Reilly and his colleagues were based in Buenos Aires, far from the war zone in and around the islands.

Some of O'Reilly's accounts stem from a protest that occurred in Buenos Aires at the time, though that wouldn't qualify as a war zone.


As longtime CBS News correspondent Bob Schieffer told Mother Jones, "Nobody from CBS got to the Falklands... For us, you were a thousand miles from where the fighting was."


Here is the public record of what O'Reilly has said:

2001: O'Reilly wrote in his book, "The No Spin Zone: Confrontations With the Powerful and Famous in America," that his time covering war made him ready for anything. "You know that I am not easily shocked," he wrote. "I've reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falkland Islands, and in chaotic situations like the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles."

2004: In his syndicated column, O'Reilly recalled how he had "survived a combat situation in Argentina during the Falklands War." He was presumably referring to a protest he covered in Buenos Aires, but his reference to a "combat situation" could reasonably be interpreted as a "war zone."

2008: Seven years ago on the "O'Reilly Factor," the host invoked his experience "in the war zones" to taunt Bill Moyers, the veteran journalist with whom he's feuded for years. "By the way, I missed Moyers in the war zones of the Falkland conflict in Argentina, the Middle East and Northern Ireland," O'Reilly said. "I looked for Bill, but I didn't see him."

2013: During an interview on his Fox News show, O'Reilly once again described the protest but said it took place "in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands."

"Because I was in a situation one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands, where my photographer got run down and then hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete," O'Reilly told his guest.​
 
Grim17 said:
And you talk about what side lies.... LMAO. YOU said his story was inaccurate, so it's up to YOU to back it up... So what's it going to be:

a) You provide the link to the transcripts, the audio, or the video showing O'Reilly telling a different story on his TV or Radio show, or in an interview, that differes from his CBS News report from El Salvador.

b) Admit that O'Reilly has not to your knowledge, ever told a story on the air that differed from the report he did from CBS News and retract your claim.

c) Fail to substantiate your claim and refuse to retract it, proving you are just as dishonest as you claim the right to be.

The choices are clear... substantiation, retraction or dishonesty?
Click to expand...
What part of "its in the story' cant you get?

Here. I'll copy and paste that part for you. I'll even bold the contradictory statements.

During his radio show on January 13, 2005, he declared, "I've been in combat. I've seen it. I've been close to it." When a caller questioned him about this, O’Reilly shot back: "I was in the middle of a couple of firefights in South and Central America." O'Reilly did not specify where these firefights occurred—in The No Spin Zone, the only South America assignment he writes about is his trip to Argentina—and then he hung up on the caller.
In The No Spin Zone, O'Reilly does write vividly about an assignment that took him to El Salvador during the country's civil war shortly after CBS News hired him as a correspondent in 1981. As O'Reilly recalls in the book, he and his crew drove for a full day to reach Morazán province, "a dangerous place," and headed to a small village called Meanguera, where, a Salvadoran captain claimed, guerrillas had wiped out the town. "Nobody in his right mind would go into the guerilla-controlled area," O'Reilly writes. But he did, and he notes he found a horrific scene: "The place was leveled to the ground and fires were still smoldering. But even though the carnage was obviously recent, we saw no one live or dead. There was absolutely nobody around who could tell us what happened. I quickly did a stand-up amid the rubble and we got the hell out of there." He does not mention being in any firefight.

O'Reilly's account of his El Salvador mission is inconsistent with the report he filed for CBS News, which aired on May 20, 1982—shortly before he was dispatched to Buenos Aires. "These days Salvadoran soldiers appear to be doing more singing than fighting," O'Reilly said in the opening narration, pointing out that not much combat was under way in the country at that time. O'Reilly noted that the defense ministry claimed it had succeeded in "scattering the rebel forces, leaving government troops in control of most of the country." He reported that a military helicopter had taken him and his crew on a tour of areas formerly held by the rebels. (This fact was not included in the account in The No Spin Zone.) From the air, O'Reilly and his team saw houses destroyed and dead animals "but no signs of insurgent forces."

As part of the same 90-second story, O'Reilly reported from Meanguera, saying rebels had been driven out of the hamlet by the Salvadoran military after intense fighting. But this was not a wiped-out village of the dead. His own footage, which was recently posted by The Nation, showed residents walking about and only one or two burned-down structures. O'Reilly's CBS report gave no indication that he had experienced any combat on this assignment in El Salvador.
Click to expand...
 
Threegoofs said:
What part of "its in the story' cant you get?

Here. I'll copy and paste that part for you. I'll even bold the contradictory statements.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but there's nothing in there that necessarily contradicts O'Reilly's account.
 
Wiggen said:
Bill O'Reilly is a lying sack of ****. Who would have ever guessed?

Bill O’Reilly’s Argentina story challenged by ex-CBS News journalist - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

Wow. This adds a whole lot of fuel to the fire of fail.

Now they've got a reporter who disputes the account of the riot and mentions it was a pretty minor affair. O'Reilly claimed that 'many were killed' and no one seems to be able to pinpoint a SINGLE death from the riot (or should we say 'combat in a war zone'?).

The gunfire reported by O’Reilly is equally suspicious. One of our camera crews reported that they believed the Argentine police or army had fired a few rubber bullets at the crowd. That was the only report we received of weapons being fired that night. The crowd had been confined to a relatively small area around the president’s palace. It wasn’t like there were protests going on all over the city. I did see soldiers armed with rifles on guard around the presidential palace. But they did not take aim at the crowd and I heard no gunfire. No one I talked to as the crowd was breaking up told me they heard gunfire. O’Reilly’s claim that the army fired weapons into the crowd is not supported by anyone’s recollection.
Click to expand...
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but there's nothing in there that necessarily contradicts O'Reilly's account.
Click to expand...
This Facebook account from a CBS reporter who was there blows O'Reilly's stories out of the water.


Did Fox News bloviater Bill O'Reilly commit Brian Williams type fabrications when he claimed he had been in a "combat situation" while working as a reporter for CBS News during the Falklands War in 1982? Did he pad his resume' as he was laying claim to personal knowledge about what happens in war? The issue has arisen because the "Mother Jones" magazine Washington bureau chief David Corn has written a story, largely based on recollections of CBS News senior staffers, comparing O'Reilly's statements about his war experience to the fabrications which sent NBC anchor Williams into a six-month suspension.


I can provide some eyewitness information on this matter because I was one of the correspondents in Buenos Aires with O'Reilly and the rest of the rather large staff of CBS News people who were there "covering" the war. To begin with "covering" is an overstatement of what we were doing. Corn is correct in pointing out that the Falkland Islands, where the combat between Great Britain and Argentina took place, was a thousand miles away from Buenos Aires. We were in Buenos Aires because that's the only place the Argentine military junta would let journalists go. Our knowledge of the war was restricted to what we could glean from comically deceitful daily briefings given by the Argentine military and watching government-controlled television to try to pick up a useful clue from propaganda broadcasts. 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."

There is so much more so keep on reading. https://www.facebook.com/eric.j.engberg/posts/10204873374051471​
 
Don't worry......"I'LL DO IT LIVE!"

 
pbrauer said:
This Facebook account from a CBS reporter who was there blows O'Reilly's stories out of the water.


Did Fox News bloviater Bill O'Reilly commit Brian Williams type fabrications when he claimed he had been in a "combat situation" while working as a reporter for CBS News during the Falklands War in 1982? Did he pad his resume' as he was laying claim to personal knowledge about what happens in war? The issue has arisen because the "Mother Jones" magazine Washington bureau chief David Corn has written a story, largely based on recollections of CBS News senior staffers, comparing O'Reilly's statements about his war experience to the fabrications which sent NBC anchor Williams into a six-month suspension.


I can provide some eyewitness information on this matter because I was one of the correspondents in Buenos Aires with O'Reilly and the rest of the rather large staff of CBS News people who were there "covering" the war. To begin with "covering" is an overstatement of what we were doing. Corn is correct in pointing out that the Falkland Islands, where the combat between Great Britain and Argentina took place, was a thousand miles away from Buenos Aires. We were in Buenos Aires because that's the only place the Argentine military junta would let journalists go. Our knowledge of the war was restricted to what we could glean from comically deceitful daily briefings given by the Argentine military and watching government-controlled television to try to pick up a useful clue from propaganda broadcasts. 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."

There is so much more so keep on reading. https://www.facebook.com/eric.j.engberg/posts/10204873374051471​
Click to expand...

Fully consistent with O'Reilly's account.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom