Bill O’Reilly spent more than 10 minutes responding to the Mother Jones article that raised serious, well-researched questions about the credibility of his claims about his war reporting.
O’Reilly predictably called the piece “a political hit job,” and “this garbage.” He even dragged his arch nemesis Al Franken into it. O’Reilly did make some substantive responses. Mother Jones has annotated and fact checked them point by point. There’s not much I can add to that article.
However, what also struck me was how O’Reilly and colleagues Bernard Goldberg and Geraldo Rivera insisted – without a scintilla of evidence – that Mother Jones’ investigation was revenge for Brian Williams’ disgrace after it was revealed he had made up some of his wartime-reporting anecdotes.
“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,” O’Reilly groused during his Talking Points Memo segment. O'Reilly didn't mention the inconvenient truth that Corn is a former Fox News contributor.
Goldberg immediately distanced himself from the facts of Mother Jones’ article, saying, “I am not going to get into anything that Mother Jones said about you. You’ve dealt with that and if you want to deal with it any further, that’s up to you.” But Goldberg added that there’s a “serious question” as to whether Mother Jones was “using journalism as a weapon, a political weapon, to go after an enemy?”
Goldberg asked, “Is this about, well, if one of ours goes down, a liberal journalist – Brian Williams – then one of theirs, Bill O’Reilly of Fox News is gonna go down?” He said that for a liberal journalist, going after O’Reilly is “like opening presents under the tree on Christmas morning.”
Rivera was more certain about the Williams connection. “I have no doubt the purge of Brian Williams by NBC led directly to this,” Rivera declared. “This was the yin to the yang. This was the action/reaction. They got him, therefore, we had to get you. It was an absolute counterpoint to the Brian Williams scandal. I lament it. I saw it coming. …He was destroyed, now they’re coming after you to try exactly the same thing.”
I hate to break it to Fox but I doubt there are many liberals who feel that Brian Williams is “one of ours.”
Besides, it's not like we haven't already shown that O’Reilly puffs himself up and embellishes the truth. But Fox News did a whole lot of finger pointing at Williams. They should hold themselves to their own standard, don't you think?
O’Reilly and Goldberg went on to attack the internet. Goldberg called it a platform for defamation and O’Reilly called it a platform for destruction. “You can destroy a person’s family, a person’s livelihood and nobody’s going to help you,” he groused.
Oh, you mean like Dr. Tiller? He was actually assassinated after years of character assassination by Bill O’Reilly. Or how about Ward Churchill? He lost his job after O’Reilly made him a target because he didn't like Churchill's comments about 9/11. The fact is that scapegoating and maligning people for political purposes is Fox News’ stock in trade. To paraphrase Churchill and Rev. Jeremiah Wright, another guy Fox deliberately vilified for political purposes – maybe O’Reilly’s chickens are now coming home to roost.
Watch it below, from the February 20 The O’Reilly Factor.
This story definitely has some legs and it’s about to get even better!
For what? I don’t seem to recall any Reich Wingers involved in revealing William’s lies.
Of course, I do have to admit that Bildo’s ability to blow smoke up his own ass is quite impressive…especially for a ‘man’ his age.
In a way, it’s impossible to win a debate with O’Reilly because he is not bound by reality.
Yep, Corn nailed it as that’s how BOR operates. He dismisses the parts of reality that he doesn’t want to deal with and that he thinks are unfair to him. And he believes that if he bellows loud enough and engages in a copious amount of name calling, we won’t notice that he’s completely ignoring many parts of that reality which he needs to address. BOR’s rebuttal last night was all blow and very little substance as he did not address all the contradictions put forth by MJ/Corn. In fact, parts of his rebuttal only serve to beg further questions (which Corn asks in his follow-up). It’s kinda funny how BOR referred to his Buenos Aires video as being “of the combat”. In his “No Spin Zone” book, BOR said, “a major RIOT ensued and many were killed.” Even in these very Talking Points, CBS refers to it as a video of a “RIOT”. Yet, in last night’s Talking points, BOR slipped in the word “combat” to help prop up his case. LOL!
What is hysterical to me is how BOR spent sooo much time last night trying to refute something that MJ/Corn never accused him of lying about (that BOR did indeed cover the events in Buenos Aires for CBS out of which came a video). MJ/Corn have never disputed that BOR was there – they are asking about his contradictions which BOR chose NOT to try and refute. Bwaaah!
BOR: “Corn must think the folks … are as dumb … as he is.” No, BOR, you must think that the folks (and Corn) are as dumb as you are and that we don’t see this game you are playing. Your rebuttal amounted to a bunch of bluster and unprofessional nastiness. We see through your smokescreen of Talking Points that did not address the inconsistencies pointed out to you. By all means, keep digging that hole – it only serves to prove that you are big cog in the dishonest machine that is American media (plus it makes for some good laughs watching your head explode).
Of course, as to be expected, in his Talking Points, BOR tried to carve out a niche of exception for him since he’s an “opinion” guy. But, MJ/Corn were having none of that. Sure, he gives his opinion but he also covers major news stories of the day/week and has also referred to himself as a journalist (with one glaring moment being in a 2006 “60 Minutes” interview in which he said that Limbaugh is an entertainer whereas I’m a journalist). However, no matter how BOR chooses to classify himself, he should be telling the truth (and we know that many times he has not) and he should be consistent with regards to statements about his career (as there’s evidence from interviews and his own books that show his consistency and credibility leave a lot to be desired).
As Corn just said to The Daily Beast, "But just because you have an opinion about the issues of the day doesn’t absolve you of the sacred obligation of being accurate and truthful. Bill has no out in terms of accuracy and truthfulness, and he doesn’t ask for an out. This, after all, is the ‘No Spin Zone.’”