O'Reilly wrong. Again.

[it5five]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/05/oreilly-lies/

Once again, O'Reilly completely mis-leads his viewers into accepting his version of the truth, which couldn't be further from the truth.

[Father Jack]

I'm frequently wrong as well :o

FJ

[it5five]

Well, everyone is wrong from time to time, but not everyone makes "facts" up on national television and passes them off as real news. What's most wrong about this is that even after O'Reilly finds out newspapers actually fold, he won't admit he is wrong.

[Ugg]

Has the man no shame?

Let's see the wingers defend him on this one.

If the NYT can sue him, I hope they do, scum like him needs to be taken out of the spotlight. Scum like Murdoch need to be prevented from buying any more newspapers.

[obeygiant]

http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/7848/nytscan1un9.jpg

Maybe it was so small he couldnt see it. :) Hmm, guess I'm a "winger" now. lol.

I guess you'd think a plot to blow up an airport would get a bigger headline.. over bricks at least.


If the NYT can sue him, I hope they do, scum like him needs to be taken out of the spotlight. Scum like Murdoch need to be prevented from buying any more newspapers.

I sense much fear in you.

[Ugg]

I sense much fear in you.

What you sense is disgust that the English speaking world would allow this charlatan to continue to purchase the media that he has. He's turned them all into sensationalist rags/stations that are only interested in propagating his paranoid worldview.

Freedom of the Press also means diversity.

[atszyman]

http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/7848/nytscan1un9.jpg

Maybe it was so small he couldnt see it. :) Hmm, guess I'm a "winger" now. lol.

I guess you'd think a plot to blow up an airport would get a bigger headline.. over bricks at least.

The size of the article has absolutely no bearing on this.

Was it on the front page? Yes.
Did O'Reilly claim that there was no front page story? Yes

We are given three choices:
1. He's lying.
2. He made a mistake and should correct himself
3. He made a mistake and won't correct himself which puts him back to lying.

Unless he corrects his mistake, he's intentionally lying.

[IJ Reilly]

Maybe it was so small he couldnt see it.

Maybe O'Reilly is so small, he didn't look.

[leekohler]

The size of the article has absolutely no bearing on this.

Was it on the front page? Yes.
Did O'Reilly claim that there was no front page story? Yes

We are given three choices:
1. He's lying.
2. He made a mistake and should correct himself
3. He made a mistake and won't correct himself which puts him back to lying.

Unless he corrects his mistake, he's intentionally lying.

I'd say all three. Remember, neocons never admit it when they're wrong.

[Swarmlord]

The size of the article has absolutely no bearing on this.

Was it on the front page? Yes.
Did O'Reilly claim that there was no front page story? Yes

We are given three choices:
1. He's lying.
2. He made a mistake and should correct himself
3. He made a mistake and won't correct himself which puts him back to lying.

Unless he corrects his mistake, he's intentionally lying.

You call that teaser paragraph a story? Lol! I hope you feel the same way if they cover the DNC the same way next year.

[skunk]

This non-story is so worthless it has already disappeared from the BBC and every other outlet completely. The NYT shouldn't have even bothered to have it on p37. It's a total con trick. Conspiracy, my arse. These "Libertarian" Republicans just love to frighten themselves.

[atszyman]

You call that teaser paragraph a story? Lol! I hope you feel the same way if they cover the DNC the same way next year.

There's a bold heading that reads

4 Charged in Bomb Plot at Kennedy Airport

It's on the front page. Bill said:

In Sunday’s Times, editor Bill Keller put the JFK story on, ready, page 37 right above a story about kids playing at Fuddrucker’s restaurant. Every other New York City paper had the Muslim suspects on page one, where they should have been.

He's either stupid, lying or both. His picture proof had the paper conveniently folded to either cover up the fact that he was lying or because he was too dumb to unfold the paper to see all of page 1.

[leekohler]

You call that teaser paragraph a story? Lol! I hope you feel the same way if they cover the DNC the same way next year.

Is it there, or is it not? Looks like it's there to me. And that looks like page 1.

[aquajet]

Is it there, or is it not? Looks like it's there to me. And that looks like page 1.

Exactly. Swarmlord's side-stepping the issue, as usual.

"It's not long enough. It's below the fold. The font is too small."

Blah blah blah.

[atszyman]

This has very little to do with pointing out the bias in the NYT. It's an outright fabrication. You can point out bias easily with the truth as well:

Truth
In Sunday’s Times, editor Bill Keller put the JFK story in, ready, a tiny paragraph on page one continuing on page 37 right above a story about kids playing at Fuddrucker’s restaurant. Every other New York City paper had the Muslim suspects in a large cover stroy, where they should have been.

Lie
In Sunday’s Times, editor Bill Keller put the JFK story on, ready, page 37 right above a story about kids playing at Fuddrucker’s restaurant. Every other New York City paper had the Muslim suspects on page one, where they should have been.

but the lie is ever so slightly more sensational so Bill opted for outrage over integrity.

[SMM]

Exactly. Swarmlord's side-stepping the issue, as usual.

"It's not long enough. It's below the fold. The font is too small."

Blah blah blah.

Republicans have been brainwashed into believing the truth is in the 'source', not the 'content'. They do not seem to mind being lied to. Bill is one of their heros. He is living proof that stupidity, dishonesty and total lack of any redeeming human values, is not important to get ahead in the conservative world.

[it5five]

This non-story is so worthless it has already disappeared from the BBC and every other outlet completely. The NYT shouldn't have even bothered to have it on p37. It's a total con trick. Conspiracy, my arse. These "Libertarian" Republicans just love to frighten themselves.

Exactly. The consequences of the "attack" were blown way out of proportion in order to scare people into believe Republicans are the only ones capable of "defending freedom". The blast at the fuel tanks would have been self contained and wouldn't have traveled down the pipeline like I've hear some fear mongers saying.

Maybe it was so small he couldnt see it. Hmm, guess I'm a "winger" now. lol.

Finally, you admit what we've all known for ages.

[Swarmlord]

Well, at least I now know that a three sentence teaser on the front page for an article buried on page 37 constitutes a front page story.

[leekohler]

Well, at least I now know that a three sentence teaser on the front page for an article buried on page 37 constitutes a front page story.

Haha! Wow! Amazing! Yeah- something on the first page is "buried". Unbelievable- "conservatives" never cease to amaze me.

Bottom line- O'Reilly lied! Get it yet?

[Swarmlord]

Haha! Wow! Amazing! Yeah- something on the first page is "buried". Unbelievable- "conservatives" never cease to amaze me.

It did look like it was placed where a reader's right thumb would go, so Bill's copy was probably smudged. :)

[cube]

Please post complete names. I thought the thread was about Tim, after all this is the internet, not American TV.

[it5five]

Please post complete names. I thought the thread was about Tim, after all this is the internet, not American TV.

Well, I had assumed that since I had posted this in the PRSI sub-forum, people would know that it was about the political commentator Bill O'Reilly and not a publisher of computer related books.

In the future though, I will post full names.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Please post complete names. I thought the thread was about Tim, after all this is the internet, not American TV.

This is about another loudmouth draft dodging republican. Seems those draft dodgers allways have the biggest mouths for war.

[Ugg]

It did look like it was placed where a reader's right thumb would go, so Bill's copy was probably smudged. :)

My, what big thumbs you have!

The question is whether or not the article was on the front page, not whether you drooled all over your morning newspaper.

[hulugu]

Well, at least I now know that a three sentence teaser on the front page for an article buried on page 37 constitutes a front page story.

Well yes. Any article that is on the front page is technically a 'Front Page' story. The most important story in a newspaper starts above the fold on the front page and is followed by coverage on page A1. Other stories will flow through the paper depending on space, length of stories, importance, etc. This story was important enough to warrant a front-page mention, but not important or mature enough to get A1-A11 space (I'm just guessing here, I can't remember how many pages the NYTimes A-section typically has).

O'Reilly was trying to make a point, and when reality didn't line up to his prejudices, he simply bullsh*tted his way through.

No surprises here.

[obeygiant]

This non-story is so worthless it has already disappeared from the BBC and every other outlet completely. The NYT shouldn't have even bothered to have it on p37.

Well thats a surprise.

Far be it for the BBC to report on the imaginary "war on terror". I guess if you ignore that tumor on your brainstem it will just go away.

[KingYaba]

O'Reilly apologized for his mistake during his radio show on Wednesday.

[it5five]

Glad to see he apologized, but it should have been on his TV show where he said the lie (and where I'm assuming he has a larger audience).

[solvs]

Once again, O'Reilly completely mis-leads his viewers into accepting his version of the truth, which couldn't be further from the truth.
He does this all the time. Just the other day he said something about those who opposed the recent immigration reforms put forth hate America and the white Christian males who run it. Not kidding. He also tried to link the TB guy with Secular Progressives. Whatever that means. Too bad the guy is a church going conservative. :rolleyes:

Maybe it was so small he couldnt see it.

You call that teaser paragraph a story?

Well, at least I now know that a three sentence teaser on the front page for an article buried on page 37 constitutes a front page story.

It did look like it was placed where a reader's right thumb would go, so Bill's copy was probably smudged. :)
So... once again, you guys have nothing. He lied. Again. There it is. Don't know what to tell you.

Far be it for the BBC to report on the imaginary "war on terror". I guess if you ignore that tumor on your brainstem it will just go away.
They reported on 9/11. Better than the local press IMO. They also report on Afghanistan all the time. More than we do actually.

And if I had a wart on my hand, I wouldn't be calling it brain cancer either.

O'Reilly apologized for his mistake during his radio show on Wednesday.
Why didn't he do it on air? And why hasn't he apologized for other things where he's done the same? He intentionally lies, then notes it on a different show, and it's ok? Maybe sometimes, but not as consistently as he does it.

Worse, people believe it and swallow the whole thing as gospel.

[hulugu]

O'Reilly apologized for his mistake during his radio show on Wednesday.

Whoopdedo.

O'Reilly knows his radio show reaches fewer people and thus uses it as a rear-guard action when necessary. Furthermore, his apology would actually mean something if it meant he wasn't going engage in the same behavior tomorrow.

[solvs]

Furthermore, his apology would actually mean something if it meant he wasn't going engage in the same behavior tomorrow.

I'm sorry I hit you baby, I swear I'll never do it again.

[Queso]

Well thats a surprise.

Far be it for the BBC to report on the imaginary "war on terror". I guess if you ignore that tumor on your brainstem it will just go away.
One thing I definitely noticed was the timing of all this. On June 2nd there were G8 riots in Germany. On June 3rd we're magically back to the "War on Terror".

I see nothing to change my long-held view that this security crackdown is more the establishment protecting the rich than anything else. There's a lot of diversion tactic going on.

[skunk]

Well thats a surprise.

Far be it for the BBC to report on the imaginary "war on terror".The "war on terror" - which, surprisingly but correctly, you put in quotes - is entirely imaginary. It is a sales pitch on behalf of all the arms salesmen in the western hemisphere and all their right-wing post-colonial backers. You didn't actually think it was real, did you? What a plonker. :rolleyes:

[obeygiant]

And if I had a wart on my hand, I wouldn't be calling it brain cancer either.


The first step is to admit that there is a wart on your hand. After that you can call it whatever you want.

[obeygiant]

Finally, you admit what we've all known for ages.

If I'm a "winger" as you call it. Then you, sir, are most certainly a "winger" also. :)

[skunk]

The first step is to admit that there is a wart on your hand.The wart is in your mind.

[leekohler]

If I'm a "winger" as you call it. Then you, sir, are most certainly a "winger" also. :)

Say what you will, but making up up excuses for a liar makes you a...hmmm... What should we call you? ;)

[obeygiant]

The wart is in your mind.

what mind? ;)

[obeygiant]

Say what you will, but making up up excuses for a liar makes you a...hmmm. What should we call you?

let me guess... a neocon right?

[leekohler]

let me guess... a neocon right?

Umm...that would be one anyway. ;)

[obeygiant]

Umm...that would be one anyway. ;)

Well at least you're consistent.

[IJ Reilly]

Please post complete names. I thought the thread was about Tim, after all this is the internet, not American TV.

I thought the thread was "IJ Reilly wrong. Again."

I mean, I know -- but why start an entire thread about it?

[mactastic]

Gee, BillO is a compulsive liar? I never would have suspected...

[solvs]

The first step is to admit that there is a wart on your hand. After that you can call it whatever you want.

Why would you call it cancer if it isn't? It's a wart. We do have cancer. A cancer we may be partially responsible for based on our past actions. Personal responsibility is supposed to be big among you guys isn't it? But we're too busy calling the wart cancer, dealing with it (poorly), getting ready to cut off our own hands, while actively making the cancer worse.

And you support a bunch of people blowing cigarette smoke in our faces.