Tag: Bill ORielly

Black Violence White Violence :Watch How O’Reilly Interviews A Former White Biker Gang Leader About Deadly Shootout In Texas

http://mediamatters.org/embed/static/clips/2015/05/19/40050/fnc-factor-20150519-bikergang

Fox News host Bill O’Reilly interviewed a former biker gang leader about a recent biker shootout in Waco, Texas that left nine people dead. O’Reilly’s interview with his white guest was a sharp contrast to interviews the host regularly has with African-American guests, where he lectures them about black violence, culture, and family structure.

On May 17, authorities arrested roughly 170 bikers following the deadly shootout between biker gangs and police in Waco, Texas that left nine people dead and 18 wounded outside of a restaurant. According to The New York Times, “Law enforcement officials and gang experts said the conflicts between two motorcycle groups, the Bandidos and the Cossacks, led to the shooting.”

During the May 19 edition of his show, O’Reilly interviewed former Bandidos biker gang member Edward Winterhalder to comment on the bloody shootout. During the discussion O’Reilly asked Winterhalder about alleged violence and criminal activity among biker gangs and allowed Winterhalder to explain uninterrupted that “there is a lot of different types of individuals in a motorcycle club” but most are law abiding citizens who “are just regular guys who have jobs, families, and kids … the only thing they’re guilty of is having a little too much fun on the weekends”

But when discussing violence in the black community and recent police shootings of unarmed black men, O’Reilly regularly conducts contentious interviews with African-American guests where he blames black culture and family structure for violence and poverty in the inner city.

During the recent protests in Baltimore, O’Reilly hyped black crime statistics and declared “personal behavior” is the problem behind violence and arrests of blacks. In 2014, O’Reilly invited Martin Luther King III to talk about recent police shootings against unarmed black men where O’Reilly suggested that instead of protesting police shootings, African-Americans should wear t-shirts that say “don’t get pregnant at 14.” Following the 2012 killing of unarmed teen Trayvon Martin, O’Reilly demonized the teen claiming that he died because he looked “how gangstas look,” referring to his wearing of a hooded sweatshirt.

O’Reilly Says Slager Video A Clever Hoax: “I Was There” He Claims

bill_oreilly6

NEW YORK – (CT&P) – Last night on The O’Reilly Factor, Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly claimed that the video purporting to show North Charleston police officer Michael Slager gunning down an unarmed black man was a “clever forgery” created by the “liberal media” in cooperation with the Obama White House. “I know because I was there,” said O’Reilly.

slager

The video in question clearly shows Slager firing eight shots at an unarmed and fleeing black man who was later identified as 50-year-old Walter Scott. The video also shows Scott going down after the final shot, Slager approaching him, cuffing his hands behind his back, and later throwing an object down next to the mortally wounded man.

“I watched the entire event from behind a nearby oak tree,” said O’Reilly, “and it just did not happen the way it is depicted in the video.”

“Officer Slager was totally in the right on this shooting. The black man was listening to rap music, ignoring the officer’s commands, and acting disrespectful. Then he turned around and charged the officer, giving Slager no option but to pop him with his nine. I think this is all an attempt by the Obama Justice Department to paint all white cops as bigoted power-mad assholes, just like the liberal media is doing to me. It’s a conspiracy of the highest order.”

slager2

O’Reilly’s account of the incident has been called into question because his housekeeper, cook, butler, and 16-year-old Asian sex slave all told reporters for the New York Times that O’Reilly was staring at himself in the mirror at the time of the shooting, as he does most of the time he is not on the air.

O’Reilly dismissed his employees’ accounts of his whereabouts as being part of a “liberal smear campaign” designed to discredit him. He then threatened to kill them if they said anything else.

Meanwhile, Slager has been charged with murder and the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division has launched an investigation of the shooting. Normally called in to cover up crimes committed by white officers against minority citizens, SLED is being supervised this time by the FBI and other federal agencies.

summey

Mayor Keith Summey and Police Chief Eddie Driggers of North Charleston held a news conference to tell the public that a “full and thorough investigation would be conducted as the result of Slager’s “bad decision.”

“The first thing we need to get to the bottom of is just why it took eight shots to bring down that nigger,” said Summey. “I’m gonna work closely with the Eddie here to reexamine our firearms training program and correct that problem as soon as possible.

“Also, we need to make sure that all our officers understand that when you decide to murder a citizen in cold blood, you need to make damn sure some smart ass ain’t filming it. If there is, the correct procedure is to gun down the photographer and destroy the evidence. That’s just common sense.”

summey2

Slager is currently being held without bond in North Charleston, but he is reported to be working with Fox News and several talk radio personalities to try to turn the tide of public opinion so he can get bail and repair the damage done by the “fabricated” video.

Slager backs up O’Reilly’s version of the story, calling him a “true American hero” and “the greatest broadcaster of all time.”

“Thank God for Fox News and Bill O’Reilly,” he said. “Without them, America would be in smouldering ruins and the rule of law would be a thing of the past.”

O’Reilly Cameraman Disputes Fox News Host’s Falklands “War Zone” Story:O’Reilly claimed he rescued his bleeding cameraman during a riot in Argentina. But the journo who shot O’Reilly’s video says this didn’t happen.

Fox News host Bill O’Reilly continues to insist that he never misrepresented or embellished his wartime reporting experiences and other previous episodes—even after CNN, the Washington Post, the Guardian, Media Matters, and Mother Jones reported significant discrepancies between O’Reilly’s accounts and what actually occurred. Last Tuesday, O’Reilly appeared on David Letterman’s show, where he maintained he had always been “accurate” when discussing his journalistic exploits and had never “fibbed” on air. (“Not that I know of,” he said.) Yet O’Reilly’s characterizations of his reporting during the Falklands war, El Salvador’s civil war, the troubles in Northern Ireland, the Los Angeles riots of 1992, and the 1977 re-investigation of the John F. Kennedy assassination have been repeatedly challenged, in several cases by former colleagues. Now a principal character in one of O’Reilly’s more dramatic tales—in which the Fox commentator plays a heroic role—says this particular story is not accurate.

In recounting his experiences as a CBS News correspondent reporting from a “war zone” during the 1982 Falklands war, O’Reilly has said that he rescued a CBS colleague during a violent protest that erupted near the presidential palace in Buenos Aires after Argentina surrendered to the British. During a 2013 episode of the O’Reilly Factor, he recalled:

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. And the army was chasing us. I had to make a decision. And I dragged him off, you know, but at the same time, I’m looking around and trying to do my job, but I figure I had to get this guy out of there because that was more important.

O’Reilly told a similar version in a 2009 interview: “The camera went flying. I saved the tape because it was unbelievable tape. But I dragged him off the street because he was bleeding from the ear and had hit his head on the concrete.” In this account, O’Reilly claimed that soldiers had fired into the crowd with live ammunition, “gunning down” civilians, and that a soldier pointed an M-16 at him as he tried to assist his injured cameraman. In a 2001 book, O’Reilly reported that “many” people had died during this melee.

“I was not beaten at any time during my Buenos Aires assignment. I do not even recall Mr. O’Reilly being near me.”

The record is clear, and O’Reilly’s own report for CBS News confirms this: Argentine soldiers did not massacre civilians during this protest. And now the cameraman who shot the video that O’Reilly filed from this demonstration says another part of the Fox host’s account is untrue: O’Reilly never came to his aid, nor was he in need of rescue.

Ignacio Medrano-Carbo says he was the cameraman on O’Reilly’s crew that night. Jim Forrest, the crew’s sound man, confirms Medrano-Carbo was paired up with O’Reilly. “I worked with Ignacio during the surrender riots in Argentina during the Falklands war,” Forrest says in an email. “We were O’Reilly’s crew the night of the riots.” (O’Reilly has identified another CBS journalist named Roberto Moreno as his cameraman, but Forrest, Medrano-Carbo, and another former CBS journalist who worked in Argentina say that Moreno was a sound man at that time; Moreno has turned down requests from reporters to talk about the episode.) Medrano-Carbo certainly was shooting video in the middle of the tumult. A BBC documentary (at the 56:28 mark) captured him filming scenes that appeared in O’Reilly’s report.

Medrano-Carbo has sent the following statement to Mother Jones:

After a call from a cameraman friend, I watched Bill O’Reilly’s report filed in 1982 from Buenos Aires for CBS during the Falkland War posted a few weeks ago on the Mother Jones web page. The part that caught my attention was Mr. O’Reilly’s claim that he helped his cameraman to safety who was bleeding out of his ear after he fell when chased by the army.

Ninety-nine percent of the footage in that report was shot by me. Does that make me his cameraman? I never fell nor was I bleeding out my ear at any time during my Buenos Aires assignment. I do not even recall Mr. O’Reilly being near me when I shot all that footage nor after I left the unrest at Plaza de Mayo that evening. But it is not uncommon to be separated from your reporter during a disturbance such as that one.

I also read that some colleagues were accusing Mr. O’Reilly of negligently asking his cameraman to turn on the camera light for his stand up. In his defense, I will attest that he never asked me to turn on the light for any reason. I turned on the camera light at my discretion and possible folly. I also never shot a stand up for Mr. O’Reilly.

In another report…Mr. O’Reilly states that his cameraman that night was Roberto Moreno. Mr. Moreno was indeed there but at that time he was a sound man and working with seasoned CBS cameraman Carl Sorensen. Mr. Moreno, who became my friend, did not pick up a camera until years later. My last name is Medrano perhaps Mr. O’Reilly got confused since Mr. Moreno went on to shoot for CBS News? Medrano? Moreno?

Lastly, I can confirm that no one I know of who worked with me in Buenos Aires during the Falkland War ever heard of any CBS crew member getting beat or hurt. Nor did any demonstrators get killed that night at Plaza de Mayo—to quote a colleague, “or we would’ve been following up at the morgue and interviewing family members.”

Fox News and O’Reilly did not respond to a request for comment.

UPDATE: After this story was posted, O’Reilly told TheWrap, “I never worked with Ignacio Medrano-Carbo. This is nothing more than yet another coordinated attack which predictably comes on the heels of my appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman.” In response, Medrano-Carbo tells Mother Jones, “I don’t know what to say… Ninety-nine percent of that footage in his report was mine. How’d he get that footage, if I’m not his cameraman?…I have the footage to show.” Medrano-Carbo shared with Mother Jones the raw footage he shot that night, and it does match the video in the report O’Reilly filed. He adds, “You can see me in the BBC report. Why would I lie? You used 99 percent of my stuff, and I’m not your cameraman? I certainly did not get beat up. You did not help me.”

O’Reilly Once Praised Obama For The ‘Gutsy’ Call To Kill Bin Laden, Now Says Obama Had ‘Nothing’ To Do With It | Blog | Media Matters for America: The Murdoch influence

O’Reilly Once Praised Obama For The ‘Gutsy’ Call To Kill Bin Laden, Now Says Obama Had ‘Nothing’ To Do With It | Blog | Media Matters for America.

Bill O’Reilly Proves He Is A Lying Right-Wing Idiot Once Again: The $20mill Goliath of Murdoch International stable at work. The Mentor of Murdoch’s world wide media model and non news

Steve

With Thanks from Old dog Australia

This is one of the most lie filled biased right-wing propaganda reports Bill O’Reilly has ever put out. It is full of nothing but right-wing spin and lies, and it ignores all the actual facts. O’Reilly even said The Iraq War “Was A Victory Until President Obama Mucked It Up” Which is just laughable.

Here is what the dishonest right-wing hack said:

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/03/17/oreilly-iraq-war-was-a-victory-until-president/202933

And now here are the facts, point by point.

1) The Iraq war was a disaster and based on lies about WMD’s from Cheney and the bogus intelligence service he set up to feed lies about WMD’s to the media. O’Reilly claims everyone thought Iraq had WMD’s, which is a total lie, because at the time Scott Ritter (the actual weapons inspector in Iraq) was saying they did not have any. Among many others who said the very same thing.

You can read much more if you just google the facts about the Iraq war. And it all proves everything O’Reilly said is a lie in his attempt to slam Obama and defend Bush.

2) The creation of ISIS was a direct cause of getting rid of Saddam, that is a fact. Saddam had control of the country and he did not allow ISIS to operate in Iraq. Saddam also hated Al Qaeda and he did not allow them to operate in Iraq either.

This can be proven with many sources who are experts on Iraq, and some of them are even Republicans, including Colin Powell and Lawrence Wilkerson, who is a retired United States Army Colonel and former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell. They are both Republicans and they have said that ISIS would not be what it is today if Saddam was still in power in Iraq, and O’Reilly ignores it all.

3) And the biggest lie O’Reilly told, about Obama not leaving 10,000 troops in Iraq. That is garbage and total lies. Because Obama “pulled us out” under the terms of an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration. He was going to leave troops there and the Maliki government refused the terms of a Status of Forces Agreement that made U. S. forces immune to prosecution for crimes committed while occupying Iraq.

George W. Bush approved the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq in November of 2008, not Obama. In fact, Obama did not even take office until January of 2009.

The U.S.A -Iraq Status of Forces Agreement was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

George W. Bush agreed to it and signed it, President Obama had nothing to do with it, zero, because he was not even the President yet. And Bill O’Reilly never mentioned this fact one time, not once.

In November 2008, Iraq’s Cabinet approved the agreements; on 27 November, the Iraqi Parliament ratified them; on December 4, Iraq’s presidential council approved the security pacts. And under Obama they refused to change it and allow troops to stay, so Obama was forced to remove them from Iraq, he had no choice, because of the agreement Bush made and signed.

Under that agreement it was impossible for Obama to leave the 10,000 troops O’Reilly claims would have prevented ISIS. O’Reilly says Obama mucked it up by not leaving the troops, when he could not do it, and Iraq would not allow it. Because Bush put the SOFA in place and agreed to it, so how in the hell is that Obama’s fault?

Only a biased partisan right-wing hack could come to that conclusion, to do that you have to leave out all the facts, which is exactly what O’Reilly did. Then on top of that O’Reilly says we won the Iraq war until Obama mucked it up, so what did we win?

Iraq is and was a disaster, and nobody in their right mind thinks we won, even before ISIS was created. Only clueless Bush defending right-wing fools believe we won in Iraq. We attacked a country that did not attack us, based on lies about WMD’s, and it cost us billions and hundreds of thousands of deaths, not to mention creating the terrorist group ISIS, and it was all Bush’s fault.

So when Obama tells the truth about Iraq O’Reilly attacks him, ignores all the facts, and spins out some right-wing fairy tale about how it is all Obama’s fault for not leaving 10,000 troops in Iraq. When it was Bush who signed the SOFA, and even if we had left 10,000 troops the the experts say that would not have stopped ISIS anyway.

The problem was getting rid of Saddam, and that is a fact O’Reilly will never admit to, because he is a Bush defending fool. Bush did it, and Obama had no choice to pull the troops out because of the agreement Bush signed, and those are facts.

Lawerence Wilkerson said this: Before we invaded Iraq and sort of cemented the two sides and caused it to start. I think that was a disaster, invading Iraq in 2003, and we’re seeing the results of that disaster right now.

But I don’t think–that said, I don’t think that adding more American troops to it is the answer to the problem. The answer to the problem is a political answer, but it’s a political answer that’s very complex and would take a long time to work its way out.

It involves Ankara, it involves the Turks, of course, it involves Tehran and the Iranians, it involves Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council, it involves Lebanon, it involves all the region–and I don’t preclude Israel from being in there too–and taking on all the problems that are causing this Islamic State force to be supported by increasing numbers of Muslims, continue to be able to recruit, and recruit even better than before, and continuing to be able to prosecute its agenda in the region.

You don’t stop that with bombs. You don’t stop that with aircraft. You don’t stop that with troops on the ground, for that matter, unless you’re willing, as I said, to mobilize the nation and really go to war. The way you stop that is with political solutions to problems that are causing these people to do what they’re doing, and more importantly, causing Muslims all around the world to support them.

And I could fill this website for weeks with more stuff just like that, it all proves O’Reilly wrong, and proves he is a liar, and that he did it to make the Democrat Obama look bad while defending his Republican hero George W. Bush. O’Reilly is wrong about all of it, and left out all the facts that show he is wrong. Nothing he said was true, not a word, it was all right-wing propaganda.


“I am coming after you”: Why Bill O’Reilly’s train wreck has the right unhinged – Murdoch media loves this stuff. An opportunity to attack and call all the media “leftist assassins” Remind you of an Australian copy cat? An O’Rielly wannabe oh ye!!!

"I am coming after you": Why Bill O’Reilly's train wreck has the right unhinged

“I am coming after you”: Why Bill O’Reilly’s train wreck has the right unhinged – Salon.com.

Bill O’Reilly Responds. We Annotate.: Murdoch media a reliable source misinformation. Andrew Bolt want’s to be like Bill for Rupert

—factchecked.

The Fox News host still hasn’t gotten back to us, but here’s his monologue

On Thursday, Mother Jones published an article by Daniel Schulman and me documenting how Fox News host Bill O’Reilly has mischaracterized his wartime reporting experience. It noted that he has repeatedly stated that during his short stint as a CBS correspondent in the 1980s, he was in the “war zone” during the Falklands war between the United Kingdom and Argentina in 1982. He once claimed he had heroically rescued his cameraman in  “a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands,” while being chased by army soldiers. Yet no American journalist reached the war zone in the Falkland Islands during this conflict. O’Reilly and his colleagues covered the war from Buenos Aires, which was 1,200 miles from the fighting.

O’Reilly responded to the story by launching a slew of personal invective. He did not respond to the details of the story. Instead, he called me a “liar,” a “left-wing assassin,” and a “despicable guttersnipe.” He said that I deserve “to be in the kill zone.” (You can read one of my responses here.) And in his show-opening “Talking Points memo” monologue on Friday evening, he continued the name-calling.

In a way, it’s impossible to win a debate with O’Reilly because he is not bound by reality. In response to the article, he told Fox News’ media reporter, Howard Kurtz, “Nobody was on the Falklands and I never said I was on the island, ever.” Yet our article included video of O’Reilly saying in 2013, “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. And the army was chasing us.” Note the words “war zone” and “in the Falklands.”

Part of our article examined his depiction of a protest in Buenos Aires after the Argentine junta surrendered to the British. O’Reilly covered that event, and in a 2001 book, he wrote, “A major riot ensued and many were killed.” He has called it a “combat situation.” In a 2009 interview, he recalled how soldiers “were just gunning these people down, shooting them down in the streets” with “real bullets.” Yet no media reports of the event that we found referred to such dramatic violence or any fatalities. Not even the CBS News report on the protest that O’Reilly contributed to mentioned soldiers shooting and killing civilians. Erik Wemple, a media critic at the Washington Post, has examined this part of our article in detail. He, too, found that there were no news reports matching O’Reilly’s description—and that this was not “combat.” He concluded that this “appears to be a  a Brian Williams-level embellishment.” (Wemple is married to a Mother Jones reporter. You can watch this Washington Post video and decide if his assessment is fair.)

Another part of the story concerned O’Reilly’s portrayal of a reporting assignment he had in El Salvador in 1982. In a book, he described a harrowing trip to a village that “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.” Yet the 1982 news broadcast he filed and that aired on the CBS Evening News showed residents walking about this hamlet and only one or two burned-down structures.

But now O’Reilly continues to insist that he has not embellished or mischaracterized anything—and that he is the victim of a smear campaign. So let’s turn to his “Talking Points memo” monologue, as published on the Fox News site, with my responses in italics.

TALKING POINTS MEMO
2-20-15

Hi, I’m Bill O’Reilly … thanks for watching us tonight … more proof the American media is corrupt. That is the subject of this evening’s Talking Points memo. This man … 56-year-old David Corn … who works for the far left magazine … Mother Jones … smeared me, your humble correspondent, yesterday … saying I had fabricated some war reporting. Mother Jones … which has low circulation … considered by many the bottom rung of journalism in America. however … in this Internet age … the defamation they put forth … gets exposure. and so I have to deal with this garbage tonight. I’m sorry.

Mother Jones did give O’Reilly a chance to “deal with this” earlier. Before posting the article, we sent him and Fox News a detailed list of questions and asked for comments and clarifications. They chose not to respond at all.

basically David Corn … a liar … says that I exaggerated situations in the Falklands War … and Salvadoran War.

The article did not use the word “exaggerate.” It noted that there were contradictions between his accounts and the factual record.

Here’s the truth … everything I’ve said about my reportorial career … everything … is true.

See above.

33-years ago in June … Argentina surrendered to Great Britain … ending the Falklands War. I was covering the conflict from Argentina and Uruguay for CBS News.

In his own 2001 book, The No Spin Zone, O’Reilly says he arrived in Buenos Aires just before the war ended.

After learning of the surrender … angry mobs in Buenos Aires … stormed the presidential palace … the Casa Rosada … trying to overthrow the government of General Leopoldo Galtieri.

News accounts, including the CBS News report, noted that a crowd numbering in the thousands had gathered to hear the president, but people grew angry after learning Galtieri would not speak, with many denouncing him and his junta as traitors for surrendering to the Brits. Media accounts do not describe the scene as a mob storming the palace, but angry protesters who set fires, broke store windows, and jostled reporters.

I was there on the street … with my camera crews.

In a 2009 interview, O’Reilly claimed other CBS journalists were too fearful to cover this event: “I was out there pretty much by myself because the other CBS news correspondents were hiding in the hotel.” Yet veteran CBS News reporter Bob Schieffer, who was then the lead correspondent in Buenos Aires says, “We were all out with our camera crews that day to cover the protest. I’d been out there with a crew too.”

The violence was horrific. … as Argentine soldiers … fired into the crowd … who were responding with violent acts of their own. My video of the combat … led the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather that evening. and later on … I filed a report … that ran nationwide. That’s what happened.

In tonight’s account, O’Reilly doesn’t say—as he has previously said—that Argentine troops gunned down civilians and many were killed. So is he standing by those prior assertions? He does still refer to the protest as “combat.”

I never said I was on the Falkland Islands… as Corn purports … I said I covered the Falklands War … which I did.

See above. O’Reilly said on his own show in 2013, “I was in a situation one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands.” In his 2001 book, he wrote, “I’ve reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falklands.” The “active war zone” in the Falklands war was 1,200 miles from Buenos Aires, far out in the Atlantic ocean.

Now … in what I consider to be a miracle … I found this CBS internal memo from 33 years ago … praising my coverage that day. The cable was sent to the CBS bureau chief in Buenos Aires … by the news desk here in New York City: “Doyle, O’Reilly didn’t have the time last night but would like to say many thanks for the riot piece last night. WCBS-TV and WCAU-TV both took the entire piece, instead of stripping it for pix. They called to say thanks for a fine piece.” “Thanks again. Your piece made the late feed, a winner last night.”

No one has suggested O’Reilly did not cover the protest or that the footage he obtained was not valuable for CBS News.

Want more? … here it is: Shortly after my crew and I … escaped grave danger on the streets of Buenos Aires … I wrote to CBS News boss Ed Joyce … praising the crew’s bravery. I have the letter: “The crews were great … the riot had been very bad, we were gassed, shot at, and I had the best vantage point in which to report the story.”

No one has suggested that O’Reilly and his crew did not perform well while covering a protest that turned ugly.

So we have rock solid proof … that David Corn … smeared me … and some websites that picked up his defamation … did as well.

Actually, no.

Now … I had to spend hours last night … on the phone with various reporters … and crawling around my basement covered with dust to find documents from 33 years ago. Again, it was a miracle I found them. all because an irresponsible … guttersnipe … a far left zealot … who has attacked Fox News many times before … spit this stuff out on the net. and you know what? … nothing is going to happen to David Corn.

O’Reilly neglected to mention that during one of those interviews he said, “I expect David Corn to be in the kill zone. Where he deserves to be.” In an email to Fox News executives, Mother Jones’ editors in chief asked O’Reilly to renounce this remark and apologize for responding in a violent tone. So far he has not done so.

Mother Jones and the far left websites …couldn’t care less about the truth. They are in business to injure. This is a political hit job. At this point … TV coverage has been scant, but CNN tried to exploit the situation because a guy over there named Brian Stelter … is another far left zealot … masquerading as a journalist.  CNN can do a lot better than this guy.

You can watch that CNN spot here and decide for yourself.

Real journalists … knew this story was B-S from the jump. They knew Corn was trying to take the Brian Williams situation … and wrap it around my neck … for ideological reasons … because he has a history of attacking Fox News. In addition … Corn actually wrote that I hammered Brian Williams … when everyone knows … I went out of my way on Kimmel and the Factor … to be compassionate to the man.

The first paragraph of our story noted that after Williams was suspended, O’Reilly declared that the American press isn’t “half as responsible as the men who forged the nation.” He decried the supposed culture of deception within the liberal media, and he proclaimed that the Williams controversy should prompt questioning of other “distortions” by left-leaning outlets.

Corn must think the folks … are as dumb … as he is.

In one interview yesterday, O’Reilly declared, “Everything I said about my reportorial career—EVERYTHING—is accurate.” Which would be more problematic: If he really believes that, or if he doesn’t?

If You Liked This, You Might Also Like…

%d bloggers like this: