First it was Brian Williams, now it is Bill O’Reilly. Recent reports by Mother Jones magazine assert that O’Reilly may have exaggerated in stories told about his covering of the Falklands War in 1982.
I’d go further into what Mother Jones claims and exactly what Bill O’Reilly said in response, but it doesn’t really matter does it? I have not and will not regard O’Reilly as a serious reporter.
This event can’t threaten his credibility because he doesn’t have any credibility.O’Reilly for years on Fox has managed to blur the lines between newsman and over-the-top beyond biased commentator.
Those who like O’Reilly’s point of view see him as some sort of heroic reporter, willing to say whatever those demons in “liberal media” are afraid to say.
Those who can see the wolf in sheep’s clothing see O’Reilly for what he is: a front for a conservative agenda.
He’s an errand boy, a courier for Rupert Murdoch’s extreme right wing messages.A good newsperson should encourage their sources to tell the story. It is common practice when conducting an interview to let the source speak. The more quotes from the source, the better the story.
Go on YouTube and look up clips of O’Reilly telling his guests to “Shut up!” when they say something that he doesn’t agree with. In some cases, he’s even cut his guests’ microphones when they refuse to head his two-word command to be silent.
In the face of opposition, a real journalist listens. A real journalist allows the speaker to answer the question and then, if the journalist is skeptical, they counter that response with a follow-up.
They don’t scream at their guest to be quiet.
I chastise Brian Williams because his credibility and career took a serious blow when it was revealed that he exaggerated his story about being shot down in a helicopter while reporting on the war in the Middle East.
If it is discovered that O’Reilly did in fact exaggerate about his time in Argentina during the Falkland conflicts, then I can’t say that I’d be surprised. Not that O’Reilly has a history of making up stories to make himself look better, but that it would just be another incident of a man who claims to report truth, but too often blurs the line with opinion.
You know, the more I look at the line above “blurs the line with opinion,” the funnier it looks to me. Bill O’Reilly doesn’t so much blur the line as he does jump on it, spit on it and kick it around.
Disagree with me? Look up his interview with Jeremy Glick.
Glick is the son of a port authority worker who was killed in the 9/11 attacks. He signed an anti-war petition and peaked the interest of Fox News.
Glick’s interview with O’Reilly is an absolute travesty.
A young man who raises many good points about the political legacy of the United States in relation to the Middle East. Now, O’Reilly doesn’t like that one bit and accuses Glick of spouting “far left” ideologies.
The interview gets worse when O’Reilly questions Glick’s allegiance to the memory of his slain father when he says, “I’m sure your beliefs are sincere, but I don’t think your father would be approving of this.”
Glick counters brilliantly by saying, “Well, actually my father thought Bush’s presidency was illegitimate.”O’Reilly then tries to take Glick to task for not supporting military action in Afghanistan because, as O’Reilly sees it, that’s who’s responsible for the death of Glick’s father.
Glick counters once again by saying that it was not the people of Afghanistan that murdered his father, but a terrorist organization.Watch the interview for yourself. If you’re blood isn’t boiling by the end of it, then you must be some sort of reptile.
Should Bill O’Reilly have some sort of fall from grace, I guarantee it won’t be as bad as Brian Williams’ fall, for two reasons. One, Fox viewers and the O’Reilly faithful won’t doubt O’Reilly’s side of the story because they’re too far-gone. Two, he doesn’t have that far to fall anyway.
Brian Laughran
Editor-in-Chief