Bill O’Reilly has an answer for those questions about Ben Carson’s truthfulness: Be a real truth-teller like O’Reilly and focus on questioning Hillary Clinton, instead! And, presumably, forget (for now) the lies and defamation from O’Reilly, himself.
In a Talking Points commentary called “The Defamation Game,” O’Reilly cast himself as a noble crusader for truth and a victim of liberal-media lies.
From the transcript:
O'REILLY: Talking Points well knows the game. Back in 2001, Michael Kinsley a former editor at “The L.A. Times” wrote a column that said I faked my working class upbringing. Three years later the despicable Al Franken wrote a book accusing me of lying saying I did not grow up in Levittown, New York. Gleefully the mainstream media picked up Franken’s incredible deceit calling me all kinds of names.
Thankfully, I still have the deed to my parent’s home in Levittown, New York. You see it there on the screen. My mother got a big kick out of the whole thing but I didn’t find it funny at all. And, of course, there was never any apologies. That’s because Franken and Kinsley and their co- coconspirators were trying to destroy my reputation because The Factor was becoming very successful.
Same thing happened earlier this year. Far left rag printed that I had exaggerated my reporting over the years. Again, I presented the evidence and The Factor’s ratings actually went up.
O’Reilly’s ratings may have gone up. But in fact, the evidence has pointed the other way in the recent spate of accusations of falsehoods against O'Reilly. That’s not counting colleague George Will’s.
O’Reilly seems to think his “liberal-media victim” bona fides prove his credibility in judging questions about Republican candidates Ben Carson and Marco Rubio.
O'REILLY: Now Dr. Ben Carson and Marco Rubio are experiencing the same thing.
O’Reilly says he’ll let “fair-minded Americans” decide the import of the scrutiny. He’ll just drop a big hint named Hillary Clinton.
O'REILLY: So Talking Points will leave it to you, fair-minded Americans, to decide whether or not Rubio’s financial history is a big issue. But the media certainly has made a big deal out of it, almost as big a deal as Hillary Clinton’s financial situation surrounding the Clinton Foundation.
As you may know, she served as secretary of state for more than four years. During that time the Clinton Foundation brought in nearly $500 million in revenue—much of that money from overseas concerns. Conflict of interest—you make the call.
But Talking Points will say this with certainty: Rubio $22,000 -- Hillary Clinton $500 million.
… So Dr. Carson is on the defensive about a number of tiny things in his life while Mrs. Clinton largely got a pass on the entire Benghazi situation by the press.
O’Reilly went on to claim, without a hint of irony, “It is now an industry in America to try to defame individuals with whom you disagree.” No, he wasn’t referring to his own attacks on “Dr. Tiller, the baby killer.” Nor the residents of Bennington, Vermont nor Ward Churchill. O’Reilly was talking about George Will criticizing him and his recent book.
O’Reilly held up his debunking of birtherism as “proof” that he lacks partisanship in his dedication to truth (hoping, apparently, nobody would think of how often he has fear mongered that the country will be destroyed if a Democrat wins in 2016).
O’REILLY: So once again, Talking Points does not analyze from a partisan point of view. We’re in the truth business here. And the truth is that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu.
…He is not a Muslim, he’s not a Manchurian candidate; he’s simply a politician. While we have been very critical of Mr. Obama’s tenure in office and we believe the country has been weakened by it. We do not play foolish games here.
And we suggest to the left wing press that it follow our example.
I guess O’Reilly thinks the right-wing press already has it down.
Watch it below, from the November 9 The O’Reilly Factor.
I’m not going to respond to you about this any further because even if you can’t believe the proof I’ve provided, you should be able to see it when O’Reilly says such ridiculous things as he’s an independent without an agenda (when he regularly fear mongers that a Democratic win in 2016 will be the end of America) or describes just about any liberal he dislikes as “far left” when they are not.
You forget O’Reilly lies daily when he says caution you’ve entered the no-spin zone. 😉
“I got into this story, and I apologize, but blame ____!”
The lies that were all him and done for dozens of segments, though? Not one word of apology, and the people who humiliate him enough bringing it up find Jesse Watters watching them from across the street.
In his second comment here, “David” writes, “Not saying he never has lied” but then tries to make it a “we all do it” bullshit. The fact, “David,” is I don’t have a TV show in which I promote myself as a JOURNALIST. I can get away with a little lie or exaggeration (or even weird self-aggrandizement such as what Mr Ben Carson’s been caught doing) and it’s no big deal—at least until I’m caught, and even then, the lie or whatever isn’t going to affect more than a handful of people.
O’Reilly’s LIES, however, are promoted on NATIONAL television under the guise of “legitimate news and commentary.” This affects not just O’Reilly and a couple of friends or relatives; it can effect how people vote, how they deal with their political representatives.
And, at any rate, Bill also likes to promote himself as a “good Catholic”; last time I checked, part of being a “good Catholic” involves a refraining from LYING . And, Bill has committed a number of both venial and mortal sins under Catholic teachings. Under the cover of the 8th Commandment, “being negative, critical or uncharitable in thought towards others” and “bragging or boasting” and “exaggerating the truth” and “complaining, whining or seeking attention” can ALL be venial sins." And O’Reilly committed a MORTAL sin when he suggested that Dr Tiller should be killed—that falls under the “seriously wish evil upon another person” category. (Then, of course, under the “Michael Jackson rule,” so frequently espoused by “holier-than-thou” types, O’Reilly should NEVER have agreed to pay Andrea Macklis any money to settle her suit against him if there wasn’t SOME serious hanky-panky going on—that also qualifies as ADULTERY under Catholic teaching.)
IOW, lie about reporting from a war zone and sexually assault your producer — right, BillO?
Is that a sufficient lie?