I dub this, Memorygate™

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.

**LordofHats**

I think the statements are inherently misleading, but whether Papa Bear intended to mislead is unclear.

At the very least, the way he's used the story to promote himself is blatantly dishonest. A riot, no matter how bad, is not a war zone or a combat situation. And I was correct about his books, where he's used that story as a proof of credibility when talking about combat experiences that aren't remotely similar to what happened to him in Argentina. Maybe if he did a bit on Kent State it would apply, but it's world's away from the Iraq War (or such).

**Stonebeard**

LordofHats wrote:
I think the statements are inherently misleading, but whether Papa Bear intended to mislead is unclear.

At the very least, the way he's used the story to promote himself is blatantly dishonest. A riot, no matter how bad, is not a war zone or a combat situation. And I was correct about his books, where he's used that story as a proof of credibility when talking about combat experiences that aren't remotely similar to what happened to him in Argentina. Maybe if he did a bit on Kent State it would apply, but it's world's away from the Iraq War (or such).

Oh, I agree that his statements are most definitely misleading. I also agree that that using his experience in Buenos Aires to boost his own credibility when discussing the experience of soldiers is, at the very least, inappropriate. That being said, I still don't believe that he lied about his experience in Argentina, and I don't think he lied about being in a combat zone. I say this because, in order for it to have been a lie, he would have needed to know what was talking about, which I'm not entirely sure did. Or does, for that matter. Stupid? Yes. Liar? Mmmm.... maybe, but not because of this.

What makes him screw-up different from Williams'? Williams is smart enough to knew for damn sure his chopper didn't get hit with an RPG, but stupid enough to tell an obvious lie. Bill, on the other hand, is stupid enough to actually think he was in a combat zone, but is just smart enough to know to be vague enough to not screw himself.

EDIT:EDIT:EDIT:EDIT: Grammarz makes my eyes leak.

**LordofHats**

I guess I just don't think he's that stupid

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

O'Reilly is being smeared by David Corn here...

Corn's argument has been corroborated by direct sources.

Regardless: Bill O'Reilly, on Fox News, implicitly claimed journalistic superiority over Mother Jones. Even if we give that claim credence, that's like being the world's tallest hobbit; probably not an argument you want to lead with.

Well, I say that, but he's really just playing to an audience. That's why he'll probably try to claim Engberg's refusal to appear on his show as a victory.

**Ouze**

Some more updates on Billghazi.

CBS staffers dispute Bill O'Reilly's 'war zone' story
By Brian Stelter @brianstelter

Bill O'Reilly's account of a 1982 riot in Argentina is being sharply contradicted by seven other journalists who were his colleagues and were also there at the time.

The people all challenge O'Reilly's depiction of Buenos Aires as a "war zone" and a "combat situation." They also doubt his description of a CBS cameraman being injured in the chaos.

"Nobody remembers this happening," said Manny Alvarez, who was a cameraman for CBS News in Buenos Aires.

Jim Forrest, who was a sound engineer for CBS there, said that when he heard O'Reilly retell the Argentina riot story to interviewer Marvin Kalb several years ago, he contacted Kalb and said "I was on that crew, and I don't recall his version of events."

The contradictions come several days after Mother Jones, a left-leaning magazine, first reported about the discrepancies in O'Reilly's claims about his coverage of the Falklands War. O'Reilly was a young correspondent for CBS News at the time, assigned to cover the war from Buenos Aires, which was more than 1,000 miles from the offshore conflict zone.

In the years since, O'Reilly -- now the biggest star on Fox News -- has repeatedly referred to his experience in the "war zone."

In his 2001 book, "The No Spin Zone," O'Reilly wrote, "I've reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falklands."
On his show "The O'Reilly Factor" in 2013, O'Reilly told a guest, "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."

Mother Jones challenged some of these claims. O'Reilly responded by accusing the magazine of trying to smear him to hurt Fox News, and said the report's co-author, David Corn, is a liar and an "irresponsible guttersnipe."

Eric Engberg, a CBS correspondent who was also in Buenos Aires at the time, defended Corn in a Facebook post on Friday and said, "It was not a war zone or even close. It was an 'expense account zone.'"

Longtime NBC News correspondent George Lewis, who was also there at the time, agreed with Engberg, writing on Facebook, "Cushiest war I ever covered."

Did O'Reilly's photographer get "run down" and bloodied?

CNN has interviewed seven people who were there for CBS, and none of them recall anyone from the network being injured.

"If somebody got hurt, we all would have known," Alvarez said.

In a Friday interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt, O'Reilly said the photographer's last name was Moreno. Roberto Moreno was there for CBS. He now lives in Venezuela, and he declined to comment to CNN.

But Mia Fabius, who was the office manager for the CBS Miami bureau at the time, has stayed in touch with Moreno for decades, and she said Moreno has never spoken about any injury in Argentina.

Further, Fabius said no injury report was ever filed.

Engberg, Alvarez and Forrest spoke on the record about their recollections of the Argentina coverage. Four other people who were there for CBS spoke on condition of anonymity, some because they still work in the television industry and others because they don't want to be publicly criticized by O'Reilly.

All of the people said they're unaware of any civilians being killed in the riot. In O'Reilly's 2001 book, he said "many were killed."

"There were certainly no dead people," Forrest said. "Had there been dead people, they would have sent more camera crews."

Alvarez called the claims of deaths "outrageous, outrageous."

"People being mowed down? Where was that? That would have been great footage. That would have turned into the story," he said.

CNN's report from Buenos Aires at the time described "a squad of tear-gas-armed troops" and a crowd "hurling coins, rocks, and even bricks at both police and journalists," but no deaths.

O'Reilly has repeatedly defended his claims, including on Fox News on Sunday morning. "I don't know if he was there," O'Reilly said, implying that Engberg may not have witnessed the riot. He called Engberg "Room Service Eric," alleging he often stayed in his hotel during unfolding news events.

Speaking on CNN, Engberg called that "the most absurd thing I've ever heard" and said "I never ordered room service during a riot." Engberg also said he, as well as an entire team from CBS, was out in Buenos Aires and in a position to see the protest.

O'Reilly also cited a New York Times account of the riot that said "one policeman pulled a pistol, firing five shots over the heads of fleeing demonstrators." This supports the depiction of a dangerous protest, though does not confirm O'Reilly's claim that people were killed that night.

**Psienesis**

Yeah, Bill O'Reilly is a liar. Has been for decades. He's not a journalist, he's an op-ed blogger with a television show.

**Stonebeard**

I retract my previous comment. Apparently Bill isn't smart enough to be sufficiently vague.

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
Yeah... not even close Ouze.

I agree.

There are going to be actual consequences for Brian Williams.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
Yeah... not even close Ouze.

I agree.

There are going to be actual consequences for Brian Williams.

Now wait a moment...

**whembly**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
Yeah... not even close Ouze.

I agree.

There are going to be actual consequences for Brian Williams.
Now wait a moment...

Heh....

We'll see. (and I don't watch fox)

*shrugs*

It just smacks that "one side" lost and is now out for "the other side's" blood.

I just don't trust anything from MotherJones... they're just as bad as Breibart or InfoWars.

**sebster**

The more I read on this, the more it seems that O’Reilly doesn’t have the wiggle room I first thought he did. His descriptions are just way too far from what really happened.

But I still stand by more comment that FOX doesn’t give a gak, and won’t penalise O’Reilly in any way.

whembly wrote:
We'll see. (and I don't watch fox)

*shrugs*

It just smacks that "one side" lost and is now out for "the other side's" blood.

I think it’s a bit of a stretch to claim Williams is on the opposite side to O’Reilly. Nor do I think there’s much of a feeling that Williams suspension has provoked any kind of a feeling among the left that they ‘got one of ours’. The guy is a news anchor.

Rather, I think this is more a case of opportune timing – people made a big deal out of Williams’ comment, and some guys had likely been sitting on some material they had on O’Reilly that they thought was the same, so out it comes.

I just don't trust anything from MotherJones... they're just as bad as Breibart or InfoWars.

I find MotherJones potentially useful. There’s clearly a bias so you know they’re only going to be putting up the stuff that matches their pov, but I’ve never read anything that straight up bs. Even if you disagree with the message of the piece, and I often do, then spending the time to read through it and think about where you differ is a useful experience that can clarify your thinking on the issue.

**whembly**

Oh don't get me wrong, I get a kick out of reading MotherJones (and other sites like TPM).

I still say the criticism on O'Reilly doesn't pass the smell test...

Here's a op-ed on Mediate.com, which isn't known for being a FoxNews support

Corn and Engberg Claims About O’Reilly Both Politically, Personally Motivated

Upon watching the Bill O’Reilly controversy (or lack thereof) unfold over the past few days, it’s hard not to keep going back to the same theme:

Motive.

As in: Is the Mother Jones story (or non-story) one in search of simple truth or is it a hit piece politically or personally motivated by writer David Corn? The “liberal Mother Jones versus conservative Fox News” theme could suffice as motive on the surface, but this onion seems to have a few more layers to it, and it stinks.

As few are noting, Mr. Corn worked for Fox News as a contributor from 2001-2008. His career would end abruptly there, as the network decided not to renew his contract (which is a nice way of firing someone). Corn would go on to make an impact in the 2012 presidential election after receiving that infamous tape of Mitt Romney‘s “47 percent” comments. It’s still hilarious to see all the acclaim Corn got for basically signing for a FedEx package and uploading a tape to the Mother Jones website. He even won a Polk Award for the effort, even though it was Jimmy Carter‘s grandson who introduced the guy who actually recorded Romney (Scott Prouty) with Corn. Talk about a silver platter, but that never stops Corn from still mentioning it as if he’s trying to beat some kind of quota when appearing on MSNBC, where he serves as a contributor.

So when we look at why Corn would refute O’Reilly’s account of his time working for CBS in Argentina as a reporter covering the Falklands War in 1982, keep all of that in mind in terms of personal and political motivation. As for finding fault in O’Reilly’s account, this appears to be a case of semantics. Note: O’Reilly never said he was on the Falkland Islands, as the Corn piece claims — he’s been consistent in stating he was always in Argentina (Buenos Aires) at the time.

Skeptics — largely from left-leaning blogs — charge that Argentina wasn’t part of the war zone, therefore making O’Reilly a liar for stating he was. But protests there following the war did turn violent. In an internal CBS memo to then-Buenos Aires bureau chief Larry Doyle, the network characterized those protests as riots:

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.

At the time, as reported in the New York Times, Argentine soldiers fired into crowds. Protesters stormed the presidential palace. A CBS photographer got caught in the chaos and O’Reilly — citing blood coming from his ear and being injured — “dragged him out of there.” Add it all up, O’Reilly was covering the Falklands War from Argentina (as almost all reporters were), and while the riot that occurred after Argentina surrendered wasn’t technically in the war zone, it certainly had the elements of one during that particular riot. Again, semantics.

And for Corn to write that O’Reilly claimed to be on the Falklands is patently dishonest, which may explain why major media –outside of Fox’s rival CNN and its media critic Brian Stelter — has largely dismissed this story as the nothing-burger it is.

Late yesterday, O’Reilly’s former CBS colleague Eric Engberg made the claim that O’Reilly might as well been at a spring break destination by saying, “It was not a war zone or even close. It was an ‘expense account zone.’”

Of course, very few are exploring motive here when it comes to Engberg either. For those keeping score at home, this is a very easy dot to connect as to why Engberg — who called O’Reilly a “bloviator” in his opening sentence of his “revelation” — suddenly felt compelled to come forward.

As many of you know, Bernie Goldberg is a Fox News Contributor — primarily dissecting stories focusing on media on The O’Reilly Factor and Kelly File. Goldberg also worked for CBS News as an award-winning reporter for 28 years, where he complained about internal liberal bias to upper management within the organization with no success.

Here’s what happened after Goldberg decided to share his perspective with the general public per a 2002 book review of Goldberg’s best-selling Bias by the Houston Objectivism Society’s Warren Ross:

I
n 1996, he (Goldberg) “went public,” publishing an Op Ed in the Wall Street Journal accusing CBS of bias and fully critiquing an Eric Engberg story supposedly providing a “reality check” on Steve Forbes’ flat tax proposal. Despite the story’s billing as “news,” Goldberg noted that it used all the following techniques of distortion: loaded words (“scheme” and “elixir”), omission of anyone supporting Forbes’ idea (though a number of prominent economists were available), omission of affiliation of “experts” opposing the idea, and snide characterization (Engberg called it a “wacky” proposal that should be tried first in Albania). Goldberg used this egregious example as a starting point to support a broader charge of left-wing bias at the networks, and to explain why the big three TV networks were losing viewers.

Engberg has complained for years about Goldberg singling him out. So what better way to get back at Goldberg and smear O’Reilly and Fox News in the process by disputing O’Reilly’s claim about a riot that absolutely did happen and was even a lead story at the time on the CBS Evening News? Again, motives are worth bring into question. Engberg was invited on O’Reilly’s show on Monday to debate the topic, but he predictably refused (he did have time to appear on Reliable Sources for 30 minutes on Sunday morning). After all, would be hard to win such a debate with things like internal CBS memos and video supporting the host of the program.

Here’s the net-net of the Corn column: Come Tuesday, this story will be dead. Unlike Brian Williams — whom O’Reilly was actually more compassionate to than most during his downfall — the Factor host will not be suspended, reprimanded or even scratched by this non-troversy.

Welcome to the Hunger Games that the media has become in 2015: A polarized game of survival where media members are taking sides against each other.

And the general public yawns at the ridiculousness of it all.

I like that phrasiology... post Brian Williams, it's turned into "The Hunger Games" of the media circus.

**d-usa**

Facts don't become untrue just because the source has questionable motivations.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
Facts don't become untrue just because the source has questionable motivations.

Facts according to whom?

Even though other journalists has come to O'Reilly's defense?

Don Browne was the NBC News Miami bureau chief at the time, and he oversaw the network’s Falklands coverage. And Browne told O’Reilly his account was accurate.

*shrugs*

Again... not the samething as William's Memorygate fiasco.

**d-usa**

A reporter saying "protests got intense" is not exactly the same as backing up a statement that he was in a war zone.

But it's obvious that this is personal. And it is telling that the "left" on this site swiftly criticized Williams while the "right" is trying to make it clear that this lie is totally different.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
Facts according to whom?

Let's just read O'Reilly's statement - “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."

No-one on this Earth would hear that and think 'O'Reilly was in the Beunos Aires in riots that followed the Falklands. People hearing that will think he was in actually in the Falklands during the fighting, because that's what O'Reilly wanted people to think. It really couldn't be clearer that he meant to mislead the listener to thinking he was in an actual combat zone.

Again... not the samething as William's Memorygate fiasco.

It is different and O'Reilly won't cop anything. Most of the difference is because it's FOX News and they just don't give a gak.

I also wonder if it's different because O'Reilly was bullshitting about a war that didn't involve US troops. Part of the outrage, I think, about the Williams thing is that he claimed heroism from US troops, and that's about as big a no no as you can do in America. But this was putting himself in to a fight between to foreign nations, so I think the immediate emotional outrage isn't there.

**whembly**

Heh... so, following this logic to call out O'Reilly....

We going to call out these folks over Ferguson?

"Ferguson police officer, who called the increasingly dangerous city a “war zone”

"Ferguson, Mo., looked like a war zone this week"

“Ferguson resembles Fallujah more than it does Ferguson"

My own governor stated that it looked like "a warzone and it's unacceptable".

Are we?

Even Hillary Clinton stated: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/08/hillary-clinton-breaks-her-silence-on-ferguson/]“Nobody wants to see our streets look like a war zone. Not in America. We are better than that"

Point being... this isn't the same as William's fabulist's take of his own experience.

At a minimum... many of BO’s debatable recollections of these events (that occurred 33years ago mind you) are only just that: It's Debatable. There's too many industry folks saying it's one thing vs. the other.

*shrug*

I got hung up on the whole "warzone" thing... as, evidently, I was living in one recently (rather 10 mins away).

**Ouze**

Well, if you got nothing else, pull out some whataboutism. Even though random public figures claiming something looked like a war zone is absolutely in no way akin to someone intentionally misleading people into believing they were in a war zone they weren't in.

By that logic we need to call out the various authors and inkers of the comic book Punisher: War Zone for not admitting that their work was in fact a comic book, and not an actual war zone.

I mean what even

The only analogy here would be if the police chief of ferguson claimed that he served in a war zone, and that he meant ferguson. I mean, you must see that, right? As you say, you're not a republican and you don't even watch fox news so surely, as an objective guy, you must have no real interest into going into these weird logical contortions to defend guys you don't even support?

Anyway, what Hillary Clinton and some police chief said about random areas isn't exactly on-topic to ~~ethics in video game journalism~~ ethics in actual, I guess, journalism.

**LordofHats**

Ouze wrote:

By that logic we need to call out the various authors and inkers of the comic book Punisher: War Zone for not admitting that their work was in fact a comic book, and not an actual war zone.

Those bastards *shakes fist at the sky*

Also a difference between someone saying something looks like something (simile) and saying it is something it's not (lie). O'Reily never once said it "looked like a warzone" or even drew a comparison. He just called it a combat situation straight faced and is being called on it because a lie is clearly distinguishable from a figure of speech.

**d-usa**

So another cycle complete?

1) Liberals do something bad, everybody look! (this time it's the liberal media)
2) Conservative get caught doing the same.
3) I'm not on Team Right, but it's completely different.
4) I'm still not on Team Right, but here are bunch of links on how this is completely different. I don't really care about this though, because I'm not Team Right.
5) Guys, can't we just agree that everybody sucks and move on...

**Ouze**

I believe the shorthand for this is BSABSVR.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
Well, if you got nothing else, pull out some whataboutism. Even though random public figures claiming something looked like a war zone is absolutely in no way akin to someone intentionally misleading people into believing they were in a war zone they weren't in.

By that logic we need to call out the various authors and inkers of the comic book Punisher: War Zone for not admitting that their work was in fact a comic book, and not an actual war zone.

I mean what even

The only analogy here would be if the police chief of ferguson claimed that he served in a war zone, and that he meant ferguson. I mean, you must see that, right? As you say, you're not a republican and you don't even watch fox news so surely, as an objective guy, you must have no real interest into going into these weird logical contortions to defend guys you don't even support?

Anyway, what Hillary Clinton and some police chief said about random areas isn't exactly on-topic to ~~ethics in video game journalism~~ ethics in actual, I guess, journalism.

Nah man...

It's about the one side of the spectrum (leftist/liberal/anti-FauxNews) are attempting to claim that FauxNews commentators are held to a lower standard... if you going to ding BO over that... then you must also address the ridiculous assertion that the Ferguson riots closely resembled a military engagement.

Because, every news organizations were claiming it as a warzone.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
So another cycle complete?

1) Liberals do something bad, everybody look! (this time it's the liberal media)
2) Conservative get caught doing the same.
3) I'm not on Team Right, but it's completely different.
4) I'm still not on Team Right, but here are bunch of links on how this is completely different. I don't really care about this though, because I'm not Team Right.
5) Guys, can't we just agree that everybody sucks and move on...

9999999) misses the point.

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:

Because,

A reporter stating something "Looked like a war-zone"

every

Not a reporter pretending it's a war zone, but quoting a politician asking if it is a war zone.

Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) tweeted "Images & reports out of #Ferguson are frightening," minutes after the first photos and videos hit Twitter of police firing tear gas at those gathered.

"Is this a war zone or a US city? Gov't escalates tensions w/military equipment & tactics," Amash added.

news

Again, a report quoting what a politician said, not a reporter pretending he is in a war zone:

Missouri Democratic Governor Jay Nixon pulled the Ferguson police department from leading the response to violent protests rocking the small town, which he noted now looks “a little bit like a war zone.”

organizations

Again, an article claiming saying that it looks like a war zone, and even pointing out that it isn't:

Writing for Business Insider, former Marine Paul Szoldra catalogued the military weaponry on display in Ferguson, then observed that “this is not a war zone […]. This is a city outside of St. Louis where people on both sides are angry.”

were

Again, not a reporter claiming that he is covering a war zone, but a reporter quoting the statements of a local citizen:

Barks, owner of the car repair shop, said looters smashed his windows and tried to start a fire inside. They were eventually chased away by some of his friends, not the police.

“It was like a war zone,” he said. “The poor cops that I met down the road when I came in around 4 a.m., they were pale-faced, just scared to death. They just got overrun.”

claiming

Again, not a reporter claiming that he is in a war zone, but a reporter quoting a local citizen:

Fires were raging when a man with a scarf wrapped around his face walked out of the smoke and looked around him in disbelief. “All they had to do was give us justice and look at this,” he said. “This a war zone now.”

it

Again, saying something looks like a war zone =/= pretending that they are covering a war.

as

An editorial saying that this response isn't needed because it makes things look like a war zone. Not a reporter claiming to actually cover a war.

a

Photos saying it looks like a war zone, again no reporter actually pretending they are covering an active war.

warzone.

Again, saying it "looks" like a war zone:

9 Powerful Photos That Show Ferguson Is Pretty Much Being Treated Like A War Zone

I know you are smart enough to realize that there is a pretty significant difference between someone claiming that they are actively reporting in an active war, with bullets flying over their head and while dragging their camera man to safety, and someone saying "this looks crazy, like a war zone".

"I've reported in an active war zone during a war" =/= I reported from a protest after a war that went out of control =/= I reported in Ferguson, it looked like a war zone"

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
It's about the one side of the spectrum (leftist/liberal/anti-FauxNews) are attempting to claim that FauxNews commentators are held to a lower standard... if you going to ding BO over that... then you must also

Must we, though? Must we? See, I don't know who made the assertion you're pushing. I did mention, or at least agree with, the idea that Bill O'Reilly isn't going to see any repercussions because FNC simply doesn't care, but I don't hold them to a lower standard. I think they both should be fired, while also noting that FNC will absolutely not meet that evenly applied standard. I think that journalists have special privileges - they get access that the general public doesn't have, they have a platform and respect - snicker - stick with me here - that joe schmoe doesn't have, and they have legal protections that are far above what a nonjournalist has in their profession. With those rights come some responsibilities, I think, and while most major news outlets at least make some effort to be ethical, I think at the very barest a journalist who makes up lies to make themselves look good should no longer be a journalist.

I also disagree with the idea that arguing that two journalists who did reasonably similar things can't be criticized and held to the same level of accountability because first some totally unrelated analogy that that honestly I feel stupid even trying to rebut so I'm going to stop typing now. At this point the difference between the Williams / O'Reilly incidents and what you're bringing up has veered dangerously into pigeon chess, frankly.

**whembly**

And I know you're smart enough to realize that the Falklands war, was exactly that, a war. And that most of the reporters "worked" in Buenos Aires during this event. Furthermore, war zones do not cease being war zones the second one side capitulates. The so called rioting that ensued in the aftermath of Argentina’s surrender is a clear example of that reality.

Heck, it doesn't even compare to Ferguson, in that Ferguson was blown way out of proportion.

So, if you want to ding BO for equating riots to a warzone... sure, go ahead.

But, forgive me when I roll my eyes if you believe this is a "Brian Williams" moment.

To me, Corn is going after his pound of retributive flesh.

And really guys... I don't watch BO, what really got under my skin about this event is:
a) Corn was the guy that published that Romney "47%" comment that was secretly videotaped from a private venue. So as a Romney voter, feth that guy.

b) The whole warzone criticism is ridiculous... (me being 10 minutes away from Ferguson)
c) I ate corn for dinner... and you know how that comes out.

**MrDwhitey**

Both are scum and should lose their jobs.

That's about it really. /shrug

Will either? Doubt it.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
It's about the one side of the spectrum (leftist/liberal/anti-FauxNews) are attempting to claim that FauxNews commentators are held to a lower standard... if you going to ding BO over that... then you must also

Must we, though? Must we? See, I don't know who made the assertion you're pushing. I did mention, or at least agree with, the idea that Bill O'Reilly isn't going to see any repercussions because FNC simply doesn't care, but I don't hold them to a lower standard. I think they both should be fired, while also noting that FNC will absolutely not meet that evenly applied standard. I think that journalists have special privileges - they get access that the general public doesn't have, they have a platform and respect - snicker - stick with me here - that joe schmoe doesn't have, and they have legal protections that are far above what a nonjournalist has in their profession. With those rights come some responsibilities, I think, and while most major news outlets at least make some effort to be ethical, I think at the very barest a journalist who makes up lies to make themselves look good should no longer be a journalist.

I also disagree with the idea that arguing that two journalists who did reasonably similar things can't be criticized and held to the same level of accountability because first some totally unrelated analogy that that honestly I feel stupid even trying to rebut so I'm going to stop typing now. At this point the difference between the Williams / O'Reilly incidents and what you're bringing up has veered dangerously into pigeon chess, frankly.

Pigeon chess?

O.o

M'kay dude.

I did find this article on NYT intriguing...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/business/media/bill-oreilly-and-fox-news-redouble-defense-of-his-falklands-reporting.html

The difference here Ouze is that I don't think "two journalists who did reasonably similar things". So... agree to disagree.

**Ouze**

My guess is Brian Williams is on 6 month suspension while they build a case for firing him. But I may be wrong, it's just my supposition.

**MrDwhitey**

I certainly hope that's the case, but like, I wont be surprised if it's not.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
My guess is Brian Williams is on 6 month suspension while they build a case for firing him. But I may be wrong, it's just my supposition.

Honestly... he may only lose his Anchor job.

I can see he get promoted/demoted to some important behind-the-scene job.

He's not a horrible man... and to me, he finally owned up to it with a public apology.

*shrug*

Would we (viewers) care at the end of the 6 mo suspension?