Bill O' Reilly at it again...

[larrymcg421]

So right after the Abu-Grahib incident O'Reilly was talking to Wesley Clark and brought up the "Malmedy" incident. Except he said US troops executed SS officers at Malmedy. Well, it actually happened the other way around. 84 Americans of the 82nd Airborne were massacred after surrendering.

So maybe he just misspoke? Well a couple days ago, he had Clark on again, talking about the Haditha massacre. And once again, he accused US troops of massacring SS officers at Malmedy. I can understand O'Reilly slipping once, but twice? I'm sure he's got a research team that can check up on his stuff.

However, even if we give him the benefit of the doubt for doing this twice, you still have to deal with the fact that he tried to hide it. In the transcript for this interview, it was changed from "Malmedy" to "Normandy". Of course, this isn't the first time O'Reilly has tried to hide his mistakes. For someone that tries to present himself as this tough crusader for the truth, he is too much of a coward to stand by his comments or apologize for them when he's wrong.

Here's a clip from Olbermann's show discussing it...

hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2KU02lsfH8&search=bill%20o%20reilly

[Joe]

falafel?

[timmynausea]

It's a wonder they ever gave this guy a Peabody award.

[Glengoyne]

How the hell has Olbermann slipped to the point that he is off nitpicking what other TV personalities are saying?

Not defending O'Reilly...'cause if he is modifying transcripts without declaring so, he is certainly departing from his "no-spin" declarations, not that it would be a first or anything.

It's just that Olbermann was at the top of his game, the game he chose to play. He was at the pinnacle of his profession....Now he is nitpicking on others in his business on the air.

FWIW I think it is sort of nitpicky. It isn't any secret that US troops killed would be prisoners in a number of incidents, that he confuses it with the most infamous incident of prisoner abuse, isn't all that big of a deal in my mind. Certainly not worth calling him on it on another tv show.

[larrymcg421]

I don't know. Someone has to call O'Reilly out for his bullshit. It's not like Keith did a whole show on this. It wasn't even his #1 story.

I think this is more than nitpicky. Bill uses the Malmedy incident because it's a horrific crime. 84 people killed. He just forgot which country those 84 came from. He's using this for effect, because some other random incident wouldn't have packed quite the same punch.

He did try to spin on his following show, by saying that what he meant was "an incident after Malmedy", which is of course bullshit because Bill didn't even offer to describe the specific incident he meant to talk about and it doesn't really make sense in light of the transcript changing.

If I had relatives that died at Malmedy, I'd be pretty fucking furious right now. And if some Democrat or (god forbid!) The New York Times said something like this, you know Bill would be foaming at the mouth trying to get people to resign.

[Flasch186]

i think its the repeat offense that is in question.

[sabotai]

I'm sure he's got a research team that can check up on his stuff.

His research team is almost as bad as Ann Coulter's.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Having read a separate O'Reilly (print) column that mentions Malmedy as well (leading into a comment attributed to Patton about how we can't line POW's up against the wall & shoot them ... so shoot the sons of bitches before we get to the wall) I strongly suspect he's trying to refer to one or more incidents that took place after Malmedy, where US troops allegedly/apparently executed German POW's.

That said, I can sort of understand stumbling over the reference once.
However, having bungled it the first time, I would think that he damned sure ought to have been able to get it right if he chose to go back to that well a second time. I still figure that the problem is coming more from not saying what's he's trying to say rather than a complete misunderstanding of Malmedy, but he still gets a thump upside the head for managing to bungle the reference so completely a second time.

[Dutch]

That son of a bitch. He should be silenced. If you can't get a job on NPR, you really shouldn't even be in the business. This is madness.

[st.cronin]

c'mon, he's a twit and everybody knows it

[NoMyths]

That son of a bitch. He should be silenced. If you can't get a job on NPR, you really shouldn't even be in the business. This is madness.
*wide eyes*

[AlexB]

I take it this is the guy with the 'O'Reilly Factor' show? If it is, I thought it was supposed to be a parody news hour, never realised it was actually a serious attempt at current affairs!

[JW]

So many people get worked up by O'Reilly. He is just a tv and radio commentator, one step removed from a shock jock. There really aren't very many sensible, smart commentators on tv right now to begin with. What is the big deal? Personally I don't like any of the shows where people just yell at each other in unending five-minute segments. And that is pretty much what most of them are.

[Cringer]

How the hell has Olbermann slipped to the point that he is off nitpicking what other TV personalities are saying?

Not defending O'Reilly...'cause if he is modifying transcripts without declaring so, he is certainly departing from his "no-spin" declarations, not that it would be a first or anything.

It's just that Olbermann was at the top of his game, the game he chose to play. He was at the pinnacle of his profession....Now he is nitpicking on others in his business on the air.

FWIW I think it is sort of nitpicky. It isn't any secret that US troops killed would be prisoners in a number of incidents, that he confuses it with the most infamous incident of prisoner abuse, isn't all that big of a deal in my mind. Certainly not worth calling him on it on another tv show.

Olbermna and O'Reilly have some kind of hate-hate relationship going on. There is a clip from O'Reilly's radio show in which some guy calls in and starts to say something about Olberman, and O'Reilly cuts the line. He then proceeds to act like the guy was saying something profane and starts to tell the guy he would be having FOX security contact him because you can't just be saying whatever you wanted. O'Reilly is a retard.

[st.cronin]

So many people get worked up by O'Reilly. He is just a tv and radio commentator, one step removed from a shock jock. There really aren't very many sensible, smart commentators on tv right now to begin with. What is the big deal? Personally I don't like any of the shows where people just yell at each other in unending five-minute segments. And that is pretty much what most of them are.

I do like Cramer's Mad Money. Not sure if that counts.

[JW]

I do like Cramer's Mad Money. Not sure if that counts.

That's different because he's the guy who just yells at the audience all the time, isn't he? The money/stock guy?

[st.cronin]

That's different because he's the guy who just yells at the audience all the time, isn't he? The money/stock guy?

Yep. My girlfriend loathes the show, but I eat it up.

[Bubba Wheels]

O'Reilly is successful because, like him or not, he is an original. While all the other news 'commentators' pretty much followed the tired, old "Larry King' script and New York Times talking points O'Reilly burst on the scene pointing out all the stuff in the news you didn't hear about (the TV version of Rush Limbaugh in some respects.)

While O'Reilly clearly has his faults (the infamous 'Lufa' episode stands out) he is a clear trail-blazer and brings alot of needed attention to otherwise ignored or stone-walled issues. His efforts in pushing Jessica's Law into being in some pretty reluctant states and over the objections of some key politicians in those states should be applauded unless maybe you are a pedophile yourself.

Much of his criticsm tends to come from non-thinking talentless hacks like Olbermann (who never met a liberal talking-point that he could not parrot fast enough, maybe he thinks he is in line for Jon Stewart's job some day). Pretty much just jealousy over his (O'Reilly's) success. More power to him!

[timmynausea]

O'Reilly is successful because, like him or not, he is an original. While all the other news 'commentators' pretty much followed the tired, old "Larry King' script and New York Times talking points O'Reilly burst on the scene pointing out all the stuff in the news you didn't hear about (the TV version of Rush Limbaugh in some respects.)

While O'Reilly clearly has his faults (the infamous 'Lufa' episode stands out) he is a clear trail-blazer and brings alot of needed attention to otherwise ignored or stone-walled issues. His efforts in pushing Jessica's Law into being in some pretty reluctant states and over the objections of some key politicians in those states should be applauded unless maybe you are a pedophile yourself.

Much of his criticsm tends to come from non-thinking talentless hacks like Olbermann (who never met a liberal talking-point that he could not parrot fast enough, maybe he thinks he is in line for Jon Stewart's job some day). Pretty much just jealousy over his (O'Reilly's) success. More power to him!


Bubba gets it.

[Cringer]

More power to him!

So making shit up is ok then? Nice.

Entertaining site...

hxxp://www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com/

[Bubba Wheels]

The Malmedy thing is pretty well documented, so O'Reilly will probably correct himself pretty quick. Unlike others, he usually does. But I, being a history buff, have myself seen references to American retaliation during WW2 for the Malmedy massacre. So while the example given may be wrong there is truth the point as a whole.

You might want to read some history on Dresden or the fire bombings of Tokyo, as examples of 'retaliation' on civilians in general. Difference would be that these were sanctioned by the government.

BTW Cringer, your site contains all the usual suspects that hate anything conservative to begin with. What a surprise.

[IMetTrentGreen]

Much of his criticsm tends to come from non-thinking talentless hacks like Olbermann (who never met a liberal talking-point

and with that, bubba's motivations become clear. the only thing he 'gets' is the national review

[Bubba Wheels]

and with that, bubba's motivations become clear. the only thing he 'gets' is the national review

And a fine publication it is, too!:D

[panerd]

While O'Reilly clearly has his faults (the infamous 'Lufa' episode stands out) he is a clear trail-blazer and brings alot of needed attention to otherwise ignored or stone-walled issues. His efforts in pushing Jessica's Law into being in some pretty reluctant states and over the objections of some key politicians in those states should be applauded unless maybe you are a pedophile yourself.
!

Ah, Jessica's law. You are either with us or with the child molesters. No other side to have on this one. :rolleyes:

Mason Profit
"The marshall's name was "Uncle Sam", he said he'd right this wrong
He'd make the hangman shut his mouth if it took him all year long
He finally arrested Freak and then he sent for me
To hang a fellow hangman from a fellow hangman's tree

It didn't take them long to try him in their court of law
He was guilty then of thinkin', a crime much worse than all
They sentenced him to die, so his seed of thought can't spread
And infect the little children, that's what the law had said

So the hangin' day came round, and he walked up to the noose
I pulled the lever but before he fell, I cut him loose
They called it all conspiracy, and then I had to die
So to close our mouths and kill our minds, they hung us side by side"

[timmynausea]

and with that, bubba's motivations become clear. the only thing he 'gets' is the national review

In case anyone is confused, I meant the "gets it" thing as a joke. It's a Stephen Colbert reference.

[Bubba Wheels]

Ah, Jessica's law. You are either with us or with the child molesters. No other side to have on this one. :rolleyes:

Mason Profit
"The marshall's name was "Uncle Sam", he said he'd right this wrong
He'd make the hangman shut his mouth if it took him all year long
He finally arrested Freak and then he sent for me
To hang a fellow hangman from a fellow hangman's tree

It didn't take them long to try him in their court of law
He was guilty then of thinkin', a crime much worse than all
They sentenced him to die, so his seed of thought can't spread
And infect the little children, that's what the law had said

So the hangin' day came round, and he walked up to the noose
I pulled the lever but before he fell, I cut him loose
They called it all conspiracy, and then I had to die
So to close our mouths and kill our minds, they hung us side by side"

Jessica's Law is a blueprint that protects kids. So yes, far as I'm concerned anyone against it should be 'under suspicion." Too little was being done before this law was proposed in the first place.

Maybe in the near future O'Reilly can start highlighting these abuses in the Foster care system. Low-lifes (some, not all...but seperating the two would be the good coming out of the investigation) collecting money to warehouse kids.

"Extremism in the defense of virtue is no vice." Believe Cato said that, Goldwater quoted it. Need to find the whole quote...even better.

[Bubba Wheels]

In case anyone is confused, I meant the "gets it" thing as a joke. It's a Stephen Colbert reference.

One last thing about O'Reilly. The fact that he is the highest-rated cable show should show how many here are really out of step with main-stream America.

And the usual suspects attacking him because he's not a disciple of the NY Times school depravity and future socialism? Quote comes to mind (need to find it) about those that confuse sarcasm and irony for intelligence.

[timmynausea]

One last thing about O'Reilly. The fact that he is the highest-rated cable show should show how many here are really out of step with main-stream America.

Highest rated cable show? He's not even in the top 20. Maybe the highest rated cable news show, but more than 2 and half times as many people watch the Sopranos, for example. More people watch Spongebob than watch O'Reilly.

[panerd]

Jessica's Law is a blueprint that protects kids. So yes, far as I'm concerned anyone against it should be 'under suspicion." Too little was being done before this law was proposed in the first place.


I have usually steered clear of the political threads but have seen your name tossed around as one of the main participants. I guess it's moronic statements like the one above that must win everybody over. Before this law all kinds of child rapists and murderers were getting slaps on the wrist. Or wait, no they weren't, they were getting sentenced to life in prison. But let's make sure to put those scarlet letters on every person involved in any sort of sex related offense. Ruining their lives and basically forcing them to the underworld of society should cut down on any crimes they might commit. (There is no way this law would create more of the crimes it is hoping to combat is there?) I wouldn't know though, I must be "one of them". Double :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Warhammer]

In WWII there were plenty of incidents on both sides of the fence regarding execution of US prisoners. Yes, O' Reilly is incorrect about Malmedy, but he is not wrong about this stuff happening before.

[Cringer]

Olberman actually broke down O'Reilly's ratings a month ago after O'Reilly claimed great success.

This is from a FOXNews watch/hate site, and it has the clip from Olberman's show.
hxxp://www.newshounds.us/2006/05/10/oreilly_lying_about_his_ratings.php


And yes Bubba, because people choose to point out the wrongs of the 'right wing' they are all to be ignored as the 'usual suspects' and not be believed. :rolleyes:

[sabotai]

I do like Cramer's Mad Money. Not sure if that counts.

Bulls make money! Bears make money! PIGS GETS SLAUGHTERED!!

[sabotai]

dola,

while The O'Rielly Factor is the highest rating show for cable news channels, there are two things to remember. 1) His ratings have been declining. In fact, April 06 was the first time in quite awhile that the Factor averaged less than a 2.0 for a month (it averaged 1.8).

2) And again, while that may still be the highest of cable news shows, the fact that the highest rating show pulls a 1.8 should clue you into the fact that cable news has a very niche audience and hardly speaks for mainstream america.

[timmynausea]

2) And again, while that may still be the highest of cable news shows, the fact that the highest rating show pulls a 1.8 should clue you into the fact that cable news has a very niche audience and hardly speaks for mainstream america.

Exactly. We're talking about around 2 million viewers. I could just as easily say "People that don't watch Veronica Mars are out of step with mainstream America," since it does about as well in the ratings.

[Cringer]

Exactly. We're talking about around 2 million viewers. I could just as easily say "People that don't watch Veronica Mars are out of step with mainstream America," since it does about as well in the ratings.

Hell, there are a show or two on satellite radio that could claim 2 million listeners every day. Must mean everyone listens I guess.....

[digamma]

Bubba gets it.
LO Frickin' L

[Flasch186]

The Malmedy thing is pretty well documented, so O'Reilly will probably correct himself pretty quick.

doesnt the fact that he repeated the error and edited the transcript scream otherwise?

[JonInMiddleGA]

doesnt the fact that he repeated the error and edited the transcript scream otherwise?

Umm ... transcripts are usually generated by third party companies and errors in them aren't all that uncommon. I don't know that you can really blame that on O'Reilly (or Franken or Hannity or Colmes or any other talking head on any end of the political spectrum).

[Flasch186]

Umm ... transcripts are usually generated by third party companies and errors in them aren't all that uncommon. I don't know that you can really blame that on O'Reilly (or Franken or Hannity or Colmes or any other talking head on any end of the political spectrum).

I guess Malmedy could be heard by some as "Normandy" and transcribed wrong...repeating the error when his producers, Im sure, were made aware of the inaccuracy, deserves your smack in the head.

[st.cronin]

I think O'Reilly's a twit, but I don't understand what's being alleged here. Isn't this like somebody saying "when Bill Clinton was being fellated in the White House by Linda Tripp?" Isn't it clear what he's referring to, and the point he's trying to make?

[Bubba Wheels]

I have usually steered clear of the political threads but have seen your name tossed around as one of the main participants. I guess it's moronic statements like the one above that must win everybody over. Before this law all kinds of child rapists and murderers were getting slaps on the wrist. Or wait, no they weren't, they were getting sentenced to life in prison. But let's make sure to put those scarlet letters on every person involved in any sort of sex related offense. Ruining their lives and basically forcing them to the underworld of society should cut down on any crimes they might commit. (There is no way this law would create more of the crimes it is hoping to combat is there?) I wouldn't know though, I must be "one of them". Double :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Jessica's Law targets convicted child abusers. So yes, if you have a problem with that you are suspect...live with it.

[sabotai]

I think O'Reilly's a twit, but I don't understand what's being alleged here.

That O'Reilly is a twit.

Isn't this like somebody saying "when Bill Clinton was being fellated in the White House by Linda Tripp?" Isn't it clear what he's referring to, and the point he's trying to make?

No, it isn't. "Malmedy" is a very specific event. It's like saying "My Lai" or something similar. It's high profile and very specific. While any actions by US forces after that as retaliation ovbiously haven't even come close to that sort of awareness. There isn't a corresponding high profile event that occured at or near Malmedy where US troops massacred German POWs.

So I would disagree that it would be clear that he would be refering to some generic retaliation massacre by US troops when he specifcally says "Malmedy" (twice).

[JonInMiddleGA]

So I would disagree that it would be clear that he would be refering to some generic retaliation massacre by US troops when he specifcally says "Malmedy" (twice).

Except that he made pretty much that same reference nearly a year ago.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/oreilly062705.asp

After German SS troops massacred 86 American soldiers at Malmedy in Belgium on Dec. 17, 1944, some units like the U.S. 11th Armored Division took revenge on captured German soldiers.

[st.cronin]

That O'Reilly is a twit.



No, it isn't. "Malmedy" is a very specific event. It's like saying "My Lai" or something similar. It's high profile and very specific. While any actions by US forces after that as retaliation ovbiously haven't even come close to that sort of awareness. There isn't a corresponding high profile event that occured at or near Malmedy where US troops massacred German POWs.

So I would disagree that it would be clear that he would be refering to some generic retaliation massacre by US troops when he specifcally says "Malmedy" (twice).

I guess my point is that he is not referring to something that didn't happen; it's not like he's making stuff up. I mean, holy shit, I really don't care either way. I think his show is crap. I just think this is a very silly thing to get outraged about.

[clintl]

Jessica's Law, at least in some of its forms, isn't that great a thing. The version being proposed in California, for example, has a provision that bars registered sex offenders from living within 2000 feet of a school or public park. That one provision would drive all paroled sex offenders into small towns and rural areas. The Sacramento Bee had a map of Sacramento a couple of months ago where they shaded out all the places where sex offenders would be prohibited from living. The entire city limits and most of the suburbs were shaded out. There is no place within the Sacramento city limits that isn't within 2000 feet of a school or park. And it's the same for San Francisco and the other big cities.

I'm not going to support a law that puts that shifts that much of the burden for housing these people to small towns, which typically have pretty sparse resources for dealing with these kinds of problems.

[sabotai]

Except that he made pretty much that same reference nearly a year ago.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/oreilly062705.asp

After German SS troops massacred 86 American soldiers at Malmedy in Belgium on Dec. 17, 1944, some units like the U.S. 11th Armored Division took revenge on captured German soldiers.
And how many of his viewers do you think regularly read the Jewish World Review?

(I'm addressing if his point was clear or not, in case you got lost right after I made the statement "So I would disagree that it would be clear that he would be refering to some generic retaliation massacre by US troops when he specifcally says "Malmedy" (twice).")

EDIT: I'd be surprised if even a tenth of his audience even knows what a website is. :D

[sabotai]

I guess my point is that he is not referring to something that didn't happen
I thought your point was that it was obvious what he was refering too.

(EDIT: I'm being intentially difficult cronin. Nothing personal. Just a bit of fun. Want to clarify in case someone makes the mistake that I'm being extremely serious in this thread :D )

[st.cronin]

This is strictly an academic debate for me, but how is this different than if somebody said "when Truman dropped the bomb at Pearl Harbor?" I really don't understand how it's any different.

[panerd]

Jessica's Law, at least in some of its forms, isn't that great a thing. The version being proposed in California, for example, has a provision that bars registered sex offenders from living within 2000 feet of a school or public park. That one provision would drive all paroled sex offenders into small towns and rural areas. The Sacramento Bee had a map of Sacramento a couple of months ago where they shaded out all the places where sex offenders would be prohibited from living. The entire city limits and most of the suburbs were shaded out. There is no place within the Sacramento city limits that isn't within 2000 feet of a school or park. And it's the same for San Francisco and the other big cities.

I'm not going to support a law that puts that shifts that much of the burden for housing these people to small towns, which typically have pretty sparse resources for dealing with these kinds of problems.

Be careful someone might accuse you of critically thinking about an issue here. You mean it is possible that not everyone opposed to Jessica's law is a child molester? That is some relief, because I was just told I was one a few posts ago by one of the most open-minded, proactive thinkers this board has!

EDIT: It isn't even that I am opposed to most of the intent of the law, but I am getting so fucking sick of the black and white mindset of everything that happens in this country. The system fucked up with the man who murdered Jessica, plain and simple. Creating a blanket law (along the same lines of 3 strikes or any of the drug laws) can make people feel good, but it is really just throwing a shitload of tax money to make people better about themselves and dare I say it win political points for the next election.

[st.cronin]

(EDIT: I'm being intentially difficult cronin. Nothing personal. Just a bit of fun. Want to clarify in case someone makes the mistake that I'm being extremely serious in this thread :D )

I can respect and even admire that, dickhead. ;)

[sabotai]

This is strictly an academic debate for me, but how is this different than if somebody said "when Truman dropped the bomb at Pearl Harbor?" I really don't understand how it's any different.

Are we talking about the first time a person says this or the second?

And, after they said this, have they rambled on about how well documented it was and how everyone knows it to be true?

[JonInMiddleGA]

EDIT: I'd be surprised if even a tenth of his audience even knows what a website is. :D

Kind of like it's doubtful less than a hundreth of his detractors had ever heard of Malmedy (prior to this mini-tempest)?

[sabotai]

Kind of like it's doubtful less than a hundreth of his detractors had ever heard of Malmedy (prior to this mini-tempest)?

Probably, which is exactly why it wouldn't be clear what it was he was refering to when he says "In Malmedy, US troops massacred German POWs". Twice.

[st.cronin]

Are we talking about the first time a person says this or the second?

And, after they said this, have they rambled on about how well documented it was and how everyone knows it to be true?

If you're suggesting that it reveals an ignorance of history, I think that's debatable - it may reveal a shaky grasp of details, but it doesn't show that he lacks understanding. I don't think anybody is suggesting that he is intentionally misleading people. So, what this boils down to is that he is not a detail oriented guy.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't think anybody is suggesting that he is intentionally misleading people.

No, he does that with other parts of his show :D

[st.cronin]

No, he does that with other parts of his show :D

Which is what makes this particular outrage so pointless.

[larrymcg421]

BTW, the transcript was not just edited this 2nd time. It was edited after the first "Malmedy" mention, too. So if O'Reilly has nothing to do with that, then someone in the transcript service really seems to like him.

[sabotai]

So, what this boils down to is that he is not a detail oriented guy.

I thought it boiled down to O'Rielly being a twit. :)

[Dutch]

O'Reilly brings on opponents that can debate for and against his opinion. He brings on just about anybody. Just because he says he won the debate doesn't mean he did. ;) He's a pretty entertaining guy to watch.

[st.cronin]

O'Reilly brings on opponents that can debate for and against his opinion. He brings on just about anybody. Just because he says he won the debate doesn't mean he did. ;) He's a pretty entertaining guy to watch.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

[Dutch]

I couldn't disagree with you more.

Slow down. Keep it in perspective of political hackery. :)

[kcchief19]

Which is what makes this particular outrage so pointless.
Normally I would agree, but not in this case. To a large degree, Olbermann and O'Reilly are two sides of the same coin -- they articulate the same type of argument and thinking from opposites of the political spectrum. Both have an agenda.

I just watched Olbermann's latest update on this episode, and he's doing to O'Reilly just what O'Reilly does to people who disagree with him. Olbermann is portraying O'Reilly as an anti-American revisionist who paints U.S. solidiers as murderers and disgraces the memories of dead soliders and harms their families with his lies.

Sound familiar? Isn't that O'Reilly's usually MO? I think it's somewhat encouraging to see. To borrow from a scene in The West Wing a few years ago, liberals let conservatives call them soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on terrorism and instead of fighting back crawled into a corner and said, "Please stop hurting me."

Personally, I think television and America in general would both be better if Olbermann and O'Reilly were both working at a KFC serving up the new potato/corn/chicken/gravy bowl. But if there is going to be an O'Reilly spewing his crap on the right, I'm fine with Olbermann spewing right back at him.

[stevew]

O'Reilly should just stick to describing what he would do with a loofah. Seems to be an area where he actually has some expertise.