Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

For anyone still confused as to what alarmingrick and Jihadin are going on about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0aAVifJqDE

Short version: O'Reilly basically shouted down a (three star?) general, essentially telling him that Americans massacred SS troops at Malmedy. The only problem is that it was the other way around. There was a retraction later (on his next show, is it daily or weekly?), and Fox whitewashed the transcript of the show so that it showed no record of Bill's screw-up.

The ultimate fallout of the event? Oblermann got more scraps to yap about, people who already believed O'Reilly was full of crap continue to do so, people who believed Bill knows what he's talking about pretended not to notice, and somewhere, an O'Reilly show fact checker was likely fired.

A public apology to the general would have been in order, but I don't recall hearing about that happening.

The O'Reilly Factor isn't a news show, it's a platform for a political pundit (all of whom are generally loud-mouthed fools who make a living by screaming outrageous things). So while you can use it for examples of how Fox news is biased, it's a bit like going to a strip club and being shocked that the ladies remove their clothing.

There's a plethora of examples of Fox news shenannigans without resorting to their pundits.

He didn't lie he bolo the entire opening by mentioning 82nd with Malmedy. That threw off the generals. He got his facts screwed up. I did know what he was refering to and since most of us in the military after 4 years do can of get into military history.

IcyCool wrote:For anyone still confused as to what alarmingrick and Jihadin are going on about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0aAVifJqDE

Short version: O'Reilly basically shouted down a (three star?) general, essentially telling him that Americans massacred SS troops at Malmedy. The only problem is that it was the other way around. There was a retraction later (on his next show, is it daily or weekly?), and Fox whitewashed the transcript of the show so that it showed no record of Bill's screw-up.

The ultimate fallout of the event? Oblermann got more scraps to yap about, people who already believed O'Reilly was full of crap continue to do so, people who believed Bill knows what he's talking about pretended not to notice, and somewhere, an O'Reilly show fact checker was likely fired.

A public apology to the general would have been in order, but I don't recall hearing about that happening.

The O'Reilly Factor isn't a news show, it's a platform for a political pundit (all of whom are generally loud-mouthed fools who make a living by screaming outrageous things). So while you can use it for examples of how Fox news is biased, it's a bit like going to a strip club and being shocked that the ladies remove their clothing.

There's a plethora of examples of Fox news shenannigans without resorting to their pundits.

One thing. The "whitewash" consisted of the LIE. They changed the transcript to him saying 'Normandy' instead of Malmedy.
Still leaving they implication that US troops committed war crimes. And he never apologized, ever. I still think he's an ass. and
i get someone like him misspeaking. He's so full of himself how could he make an error. My problem is with the noncorrection and
changing of the facts to fit the lie.

and as a contrast:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/12/15/MSNBC-apologizes-to-Romney-campaign/UPI-16751323980637/

Think fox will get around to any, ever?

edit:
Speelling

Melissia wrote:I would add in the economist, as sure they're biased (towards free trade and other libertarian ideals), but they're not so extremely so as some other mags.


Though the economist was originally british, wasn't it?

It still is.