From: NOT-SURE@ideocracy.gov   
      
   On 12/23/20 10:51 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:   
   > Fox News personality Bill O’Reilly, host of the highest-rated show in   
   > cable news, is under fire for reasons that are drawing comparisons to   
   > Brian Williams’ recent troubles. In case you haven’t had the time or   
   > inclination to sort through all the back-and-forth, here’s a simple guide   
   > to this affair.   
   >   
   > * The basic charge — that O’Reilly exaggerated his record covering war   
   —   
   > is true.   
   >   
   > It all started with this article by David Corn and Daniel Schulman   
   > published in Mother Jones on Thursday, in which they detailed how on many   
   > occasions over the years, O’Reilly has characterized himself as a veteran   
   > of war reporting. Among the quotes they cited are times when O’Reilly said   
   > things like “I’ve reported on the ground in active war zones from El   
   > Salvador to the Falklands,” and “having survived a combat situation in   
   > Argentina during the Falklands war, I know that life-and-death decisions   
   > are made in a flash,” and “I was in a situation one time, in a war zone   
   in   
   > Argentina, in the Falklands…” That O’Reilly said these things is not in   
   > question. But in fact, O’Reilly was never in the Falklands, and he never   
   > reported from any “combat situation.”   
   >   
   > * O’Reilly’s defense of his original false statements is itself built on   
   > one falsehood and a bunch of claims that are questionable at best.   
   >   
   > O’Reilly insists that everything he has said is true, because when he was   
   > working for CBS News he reported on a violent protest in Buenos Aires   
   > around the time of the Falklands war, and that constitutes a “combat   
   > situation” in a “war zone.” That part of the claim is absurd on its   
   face;   
   > if covering a protest over a thousand miles away from where a war is being   
   > fought constitutes being in a “combat zone,” then that would mean that   
   any   
   > reporter who covered an anti-war protest in Washington during the Iraq War   
   > was doing combat reporting.   
   >   
   > Then there’s the matter of the protest itself. O’Reilly asserts that   
   > Argentine soldiers were “gunning people down in the streets” as evidence   
   > of how combat-esque the scene was; he wrote in one of his books that “many   
   > were killed.” But neither the story that CBS ran that evening nor any   
   > contemporaneous reporting mentions anyone being killed. The Post’s Erik   
   > Wemple has tried to substantiate O’Reilly’s claim, and been unable to do   
   > so. Former CBS reporters who were O’Reilly’s colleagues at the time have   
   > also disputed his description of the protest, which was certainly violent,   
   > but as far as we know, not actually deadly. But even if everything   
   > O’Reilly said about that protest was true, it wouldn’t mean that he had   
   > seen combat.   
   >   
   > * O’Reilly can’t admit that he was wrong.   
   >   
   > To the surprise of no one who is familiar with his modus operandi,   
   > O’Reilly has responded to the evidence against him with a stream of   
   > invective against anyone who contradicts him. He called David Corn a   
   > “guttersnipe liar,” and called CNN’s Brian Stelter, a media reporter   
   whose   
   > sin was merely discussing this story, a “far-left zealot.” When a   
   reporter   
   > from the New York Times called to get his comments on the story, he told   
   > her that if the article she wrote didn’t meet with his approval, he would   
   > retaliate against her. “I am coming after you with everything I have,” he   
   > said. “You can take it as a threat.”   
   >   
   > So why not just say, “I may have mischaracterized things a few times” and   
   > move on? To understand why that’s impossible, you have to understand   
   > O’Reilly’s persona and the function he serves for his viewers. The   
   central   
   > theme of The O’Reilly Factor is that the true America, represented by the   
   > elderly whites who make up his audience (the median age of his viewers is   
   > 72) is in an unending war with the forces of liberalism, secularism, and   
   > any number of other isms. Bill O’Reilly is a four-star general in that   
   > war, and the only way to win is to fight.   
   >   
   > The allegedly liberal media are one of the key enemies in that war. You   
   > don’t negotiate with your enemies, you fight them. And so when O’Reilly   
   is   
   > being criticized by the media, to admit that they might have a point would   
   > be to betray everything he stands for and that he has told his viewers   
   > night after night for the better part of two decades.   
   >   
   > * The truth of the charges against him won’t matter.   
   >   
   > Brian Williams got suspended from NBC News because his bosses feared that   
   > his tall tales had cost him credibility with his audience, which could   
   > lead that audience to go elsewhere for their news. O’Reilly and his boss,   
   > Fox News chief Roger Ailes, are not worried about damage to Bill   
   > O’Reilly’s credibility, or about his viewers deserting him. Their loyalty   
   > to him isn’t based on a spotless record of factual accuracy; it’s based   
   on   
   > the fact that O’Reilly is a medium for their anger and resentments.   
   >   
   > Night after night, he yells about the “pinheads” and other liberals who   
   > are destroying this great country, saying the things his viewers wish they   
   > could say and sticking it to the people they hate. If anything, this   
   > episode proves that the media are out to get him, and he has to stay   
   > strong and keep standing up to them.   
   >   
   > * This is another demonstration of the inherent problem with the   
   > conservative media bubble.   
   > -   
   > Fox built its brand not just by convincing conservatives that it was a   
   > great place for them to get their news, but by telling them that the rest   
   > of the media can’t be trusted, so you almost have to get your news from   
   > Fox. In the last couple of years, however, what seemed like a great   
   > success of institution-building (including Fox and other media outlets)   
   > has begun to look less like a strength of the conservative movement and   
   > more like a liability. This was vividly illustrated in November 2012, when   
   > Republicans up to and including Mitt Romney convinced themselves that it   
   > was just impossible that the American electorate would grant Barack Obama   
   > a second term. Within that bubble, Obama was a failed president all right-   
   > thinking Americans rejected, and so he would of course lose badly on   
   > election day; they were genuinely shocked when the election turned out the   
   > way it did.   
   >   
   > I haven’t yet seen any conservatives arguing that Bill O’Reilly is right,   
   > and that covering a violent protest 1,200 miles from a place where a war   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)