Re: LIES, MORE LIES, AND DAMN LIES from DEMOCRATS >>>Fact: Rightists Must Be Disarmed Because They Are Violent America Haters

[BeamMeUpScotty]

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
> just ended is in fact seeing combat in a war zone (although I haven’t been
> watching Fox today, so maybe they have). But the farther they move from
> reality, the less able they are to make wise strategic decisions and find
> ways to persuade people who don’t already agree with them. And the more
> surprised they’ll be the next time they lose an election.
>



Armed Americans are America.... Disarmed Americans are an occupied
NATION OF SLAVES, slaves to the elite MARXIST-DEMOCRATS.