Rachel Maddow Says It's 'Untenable' For Fox News To Continue To Stand By O'Reilly As the controversy surrounding Bill O'Reilly and his war reporting experiences continues to heat up, with more allegations coming out each day, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow wonders how much longer Fox News can stand by the host. On Wednesday evening, Maddow spoke with Mother Jones author David Corn, one of the journalists who wrote the original report revealing the inaccuracies in O'Reilly's story. O'Reilly subsequently called Corn "a liar" and said that he deserves to be put in "the kill zone." On Tuesday, the Fox News host threatened a New York Times reporter covering the scandal: "I am coming after you with everything I have," O'Reilly said. "Apparently, they [Fox News] think it's proper for one journalist to call another one names," Corn told Maddow. "Not that it scares me off the story, but I have family and I have friends who are concerned about me now." Corn called the threats "highly inappropriate" and noted that O'Reilly still has not disproven "a single fact" from his piece. Maddow said that after his threats to Corn and the Times' reporter, it is "untenable" for Fox News to stand by him. "They employ a lot of journalists, including those who work in risky situations," she said. "Fox is a good place to work for journalists." Maddow made a similar point on her show one night earlier, questioning what O'Reilly's behavior will do to Fox News' "work environment" and to the "real reporters" that work there. Fox News issued the same statement to MSNBC and The Huffington Post: Bill O’Reilly has already addressed several claims leveled against him. This is nothing more than an orchestrated campaign by far left advocates Mother Jones and Media Matters. Responding to the unproven accusation du jour has become an exercise in futility. Fox News maintains its staunch support of O’Reilly, who is no stranger to calculated onslaughts.
Using O'Reilly standards I've seen dinosaurs because I watched Jurassic Park. Walked on the moon because I did watch the moon landing. There is a bit of a difference between O'Reillys tall stories and those told by Williams. Although the left keeps calling O'Reilly a journalist and a news anchor, he's nothing more than a political commentator and everyone knows that. Williams is actually supposed to be a journalist. He too is a politcal commentator, but he's posing as a journalist and everyone knows that too. Journalism died many years ago. Nothing but talking heads out there now, all with a political agenda.
'The O'Reilly Factor' Ratings Soar. LOS ANGELES (Variety.com) - "The O'Reilly Factor" has long been the most popular program in cable news, and the controversy surrounding host Bill O'Reilly's war-reporting experiences has only helped elevate the show's ratings. Wednesday night's "Factor" delivered easily the program's largest audience of 2015 in the key news demo of adults 25-54 (705,000) -- up 24% week-to-week, up 62% year-over-year and more than four times the audience of cable news runner-up "Anderson Cooper" on CNN (162,000). It also dominated in total viewers, moving back past the 3 million mark (3.084 million) while its MSNBC (907,000) and CNN (535,000) competition drew about half as much combined. MSNBC was above average in total viewers with its exclusive town hall meeting with President Obama, but it wasn't even close. O'Reilly didn't address the Mother Jones story on his Falkland War reporting from 1982 during Wednesday's show, but it's likely that he's getting a bump from the controversy's aftermath. Since last week, reports have emerged challenging O'Reilly's past assertions about his experiences in El Salvador, whether or not he witnessed the suicide of a man tied to Lee Harvey Oswald and most recently, whether he came under attack while covering the 1992 Los Angeles riots for the syndicated newsmagazine series "Inside Edition." Fox News execs have staunchly backed their star host, slamming on Thursday what the network called "the unproven accusation du jour." As media observers have noted, the deluge of reports questioning O'Reilly's past reportage is likely to only rally his core audience to the show. Monday's episode of "O'Reilly Factor," in which O'Reilly defended himself by broadcasting excerpts of CBS News coverage of the protests he was covering in 1982, drew the largest overall "Factor" audience (3.34 million) since November. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...46.html?cps=gravity_2425_-7951545752751034393
You're not going to convince Spike of anything that involves logic. Might as well let him continue pasting articles and obsessing. No one really reads his stuff anyway.
It isn't his political commentary thats called into question, anyone can be a political commentator. it's his blatant lies and self propping when he was a reporter. Below are words from the liar's own mouth. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “If you can’t trust a news anchor or commentator then you’re not going to watch that person,” O’Reilly opined about Williams before his own untrustworthiness was exposed. But as we know, it’s not the first time someone on Fox News has peddled an untruth.
here it is alleged he also lied(his ass off) abouth the LA Riots.:eek:. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Six Former Colleagues Say Bill O'Reilly Also Lied About Being 'Attacked By Protesters' During LA Riots Several former colleagues now claim that Bill O'Reilly also lied about his experience covering the Los Angeles riots in 1992. O'Reilly has on occasion referenced an incident when he and his crew had to take cover during his time as a host for "Inside Edition." "They were throwing bricks and stones at us," O'Reilly claimed in a 2006 interview. “Concrete was raining down on us. ... The cops saved our butts that time." But six people who worked alongside the Fox News host in California at the time told the Guardian that they have no recollection of being attacked by protesters. “It didn’t happen,” said Rick Kirkham, the lead reporter on the riots for "Inside Edition." “If it did, how come none of the rest of us remember it?” In addition to Kirkham, crew members Bonnie Strauss, Tony Cox, Theresa McKeown, Bob McCall and Neil Antin also told the Guardian that O'Reilly had exaggerated an altercation that took place with a single person. On Tuesday, a former colleague claimed that O'Reilly also lied about being present at a Florida suicide. The very next day, more allegations emerged regarding inaccuracies in a story O'Reilly had told about witnessing the murder of four churchwomen during the civil war in El Salvador.
LOL, the update at the bottom is just classic, we have confirmed what oreilly said is true, but we wrote the article anyways. What a joke the far left is. Former O’Reilly Inside EditionColleagues Dispute His Recollection of L.A. Riots by Josh Feldman | 7:58 pm, February 26th, 2015VIDEO1077 Bill O’Reilly‘s recollections of various big eventshe’s covered continue to be questioned, as a new report out today featured several of his formerInside Edition colleagues disputing how O’Reilly has talked about covering the L.A. riots. According to The Guardian, O’Reilly has talked on multiple occasions about being in direct danger during those 1992 riots while he was at Inside Edition, saying as recently as this week, “We were attacked by protesters, where bricks were thrown at us.” However, other people who worked for Inside Edition while O’Reilly did and also covered the riots are not saying the same thing. One of them flatly states, “It didn’t happen.” Another says, “I honestly don’t recall watching or hearing about that. I believe I probably would have remembered something like that.” There was, however, an incident some of them recall differently: “It was one person with one rock,” said McCall, the sound man. “Nobody was hit.” “A man came out of his home,” said Antin, who was operating the camera that was struck. “He picked up a chunk of concrete, and threw it at the camera.” Told of O’Reilly’s description of a bombardment, Antin said: “I don’t think that’s really … No, I mean no, not where we were.” “There was no concrete,” said McKeown. “There was a single brick”. One of these individuals, Robert Kirkham, also said that O’Reilly was “being very insensitive to the situation” and got very confrontational with one resident who was trying to clear the wreckage. UPDATE — 10:45 p.m. ET: We should note, in the report Inside Edition filed on the riots, reporterBonnie Strauss said rocks and bottles were thrown at the journalists covering the riots.
Paul Krugman Is the Brian Williams of Economics Bloggers Sunday, March 1st, 2015 by Robert P. Murphy posted in Economics. Paul Krugman knows a lot of economic theory and is a very clever writer, but you should never ever trust him to recount tales of battles between Keynesians and other schools of thought. His misrememberings in this realm are so astounding that they would impress Brian Williams. For example, back in December Krugman informed his readers that “[r]ight-wing economists like Stephen Moore and John Cochrane…have some curious beliefs about history,” including their belief that “the experience of disinflation in the 1980s was a huge shock to Keynesians.” In contrast to this right-wing myth, Krugman explained, what actually happened is that “Keynesians came into the Volcker disinflation…with a standard, indeed textbook, model of what should happen. And events matched their expectations almost precisely.” Now what was so astonishing about Krugman’s version of history–as I detailed here at Mises Canada–is that he conveniently ignored the fact that he himself had written a memo wondering if the U.S. were sitting on an “Inflation Time Bomb” in 1982. So if indeed the Keynesian textbooks of the day predicted the Volcker disinflation, Krugman must not have been reading them. We’ve got yet another example of Krugman’s conveniently selective memory, this time concerning the earlier stagflation of the 1970s (rather than the disinflation of the early 1980s). On February 28, Krugman wrote a post in which he argued that the cohort of economists coming out of MIT in the late 1970s and early 1980s ended up wielding far more influence than their peers at Chicago. Krugman then went on to explain this dominance by the intellectual openness of the MIT group: What I remember, then, was that the spirit of MIT economics in the 1970s was very much not one of intellectual imperialism. At Chicago they believed that they had The Truth, and all other views were nonsense to be consigned to the dustbin of history. At MIT, which had played such a large role in bringing Keynes to America, there was a lot of searching and self-doubt — my classmates would sometimes say things like “The rational expectations guys were right about stagflation, so might they be right about the rest?” There was almost a hint of an inferiority complex. But not too much of one. Everyone was doing rational expectations in some version — Olivier and I worked out the geometry of anticipated shocks…But there was a generally shared view that perfect flexibility of prices was a bridge too far… The result was that MIT macroeconomics was teched up — everyone learned how to write down and solve rational expectations models, everyone learned how to emulate Lucas disciples — but didn’t unlearn Keynesian insights. I know plenty of economists who were bothered by this post from Krugman. (For example, David R. Henderson points out the bait-and-switch involved.) But what struck me in the above excerpt is Krugman’s offhand admission that the Chicago School crowd had been right about the stagflation of the 1970s, and that this indeed posed a serious challenge to the Keynesian school–it even caused soul-searching and self-doubt among Krugman’s classmates, with the solution that they had to amend the Keynesian apparatus they had inherited from the 1960s to incorporate the innovations of Lucas et al. The reason this struck me as so odd, is that in other posts Krugman seemed to be saying that this type of intellectual history was a conservative myth. For example, back in 2009 Krugman wrote the following: One argument you often hear from anti-Keynesians — it pops up in comments here — is that the experience of stagflation in the 1970s proved Keynesian[ism] wrong. It didn’t; what it did disprove was the naive Phillips curve, which said that there’s a stable tradeoff between unemployment and inflation. By the end of the 70s most macroeconomists had accepted some version of the Friedman/Phelps natural rate hypothesis, which says that sustained inflation gets built into price-setting, so that inflation can persist for a while even in the face of high unemployment. But that’s very far from rejecting the basic Keynesian insight that demand matters. Still, many people continue to use the 70s to denounce all things liberal or activist. What’s odd, though, is how little talk there is about the way the 70s ended — which I viewed at the time, and still do, as a huge vindication of Keynesianism. Here’s what happened: the Fed decided to squeeze inflation out of the system through a monetary contraction. If you believed in Lucas-type rational expectations, this should have caused a rise in unemployment only to the extent that people didn’t realize what the Fed was doing; once the policy shift was clear, inflation should have subsided and the economy should have returned to the natural rate. If you believed in real business cycle theory, the Fed’s policies should have had no real effect at all. What actually happened was a terrible, three-year slump, which eased only when the Fed relented. It was 79-82 that made me a convinced saltwater economist. And nothing that has happened since — certainly not the current crisis — has dented that conviction. Now as with all things Krugman, I haven’t here shown an outright contradiction. But when Krugman in 2009 wrote “One argument you often hear from anti-Keynesians — it pops up in comments here — is that the experience of stagflation in the 1970s proved Keynesian[ism] wrong,” did he give the impression that he heard this argument from his Keynesian classmates at MIT in real-time during the stagflation itself? Of course not. In that 2009 post, Krugman made it sound like this was ex post myth invented by bitter supply-siders who were distorting history. Indeed, he has a whole series of posts (example here) talking about the myths of stagflation in the 1970s, and how those events didn’t really impact Keynesianism the way critics suggest. There are two Krugmans the Historian, depending on the situation. When he wants to explain why Keynesianism is a better model of the economy, it’s nothing but tales of successful predictions, especially regarding (price) inflation, without mentioning the spectacular failures of actual Keynesians (including Krugman himself) in this regard. Yet when he wants to explain why Keynesians are better scientists, Krugman is quite open about the weaknesses of the approach, and recounts episodes where the Keynesians were indeed bested by their Chicago School (or other) rivals. None of this would be too problematic, except for the fact that the first Krugman will often denounce his critics for recounting history along the very same lines that the second Krugman does. Robert P. Murphy is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, and has written for Mises.org, LewRockwell.com, and EconLib. He has taught at Hillsdale College and is currently a Senior Economist for the Institute for Energy Research. He lives in Nashville.