NationStates Jolt Archive

Crooks and Liars has the video (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/03.html#a5214)

It was during a discussion over whether or not the judge who ordered the release of all the Abu Ghraib photos was, well, a dick or not. O'Reilley's defense was basically that atrocities happen in wartime, and we ought to get over it and that this judge is going to harm US soldiers by releasing those pictures because it's going to inflame the insurgents, as though our mere presence in Iraq isn't already doing that.

But whatever--O'Reilley's usually full of shit in his arguments and this is nothing different. General Wesley Clark rebutted with a statement that atrocities aren't a given, and that they've been rare in the past and that when they've happened, the offenders have been dealt with, and that this one seemed to be different because of this Captain from the 82nd Airborne who claims the chain of command is covering the atrocities up.

Bill O'Reilley said this to prove his point:
O'Reilly: General! You need to look at the Malmedy massacre in World War Two, and the 82nd Airborne who did it!

Problem is that the 82nd didn't commit the Malmedy massacre. The Germans did. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy_massacre)
On December 17, 1944, near the hamlet of Baugnez on the height half-way between the town of Malmédy and Ligneuville in Belgium, elements of Waffen-SS Kampfgruppe Peiper encountered the American 285th Field Artillery Observation Battalion. After a brief battle, the Americans surrendered. About 150 of the prisoners of war were disarmed and sent to stand in a field near the crossroads. Peiper and his leading armoured units then continued their advance.

A tank pulled up, and a truck shortly thereafter. A single SS officer pulled out a pistol and shot a medical officer standing in the front row, and then shot the man standing next to the medical officer. Other soldiers joined in with machine guns. It is not known why this happened; there is no record of an order by an SS officer. While the shooting of POWs was common on the Eastern front, such incidents were rare on the Western front.

Many prisoners escaped into the nearby woods. Some 72-84 of the prisoners were killed, their bodies left on the field where they fell. An American patrol discovered the massacre that night. News of it spread quickly among Allied troops. Afterwards, the order went out: SS and Fallschirmjäger were to be shot on sight.

American forces recaptured the site where the killings took place on January 13, 1945. The bodies were recovered on January 14 - January 15, 1945. The memorial at Baugnez bears the names of the murdered soldiers.
So did O'Reilley just call the 82nd Airborne a bunch of Nazis?

That is one of the lowest things I have ever heard. Absolutely, completely among the lowest things I have ever heard in my life.

Crooks and Liars has the video (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/03.html#a5214)

It was during a discussion over whether or not the judge who ordered the release of all the Abu Ghraib photos was, well, a dick or not. O'Reilley's defense was basically that atrocities happen in wartime, and we ought to get over it and that this judge is going to harm US soldiers by releasing those pictures because it's going to inflame the insurgents, as though our mere presence in Iraq isn't already doing that.

But whatever--O'Reilley's usually full of shit in his arguments and this is nothing different. General Wesley Clark rebutted with a statement that atrocities aren't a given, and that they've been rare in the past and that when they've happened, the offenders have been dealt with, and that this one seemed to be different because of this Captain from the 82nd Airborne who claims the chain of command is covering the atrocities up.

Bill O'Reilley said this to prove his point:


Problem is that the 82nd didn't commit the Malmedy massacre. The Germans did. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy_massacre)

So did O'Reilley just call the 82nd Airborne a bunch of Nazis?


Does not surprise me that that idiot got his facts wrong once again

Yeah. I continually have significant anger with him over the lies he produces about the internet, about video and computer games, about youth violence. But this is the absolute last straw.

(*to self* the crime rate has gone down since the creation of videogames, you moron!)

I don't know who's a bigger idiot - O'Reilly or Katie Couric.

It seems that to be a talk show host, you have to be an idiot and a complete ass.

I don't know who's a bigger idiot - O'Reilly or Katie Couric.

It seems that to be a talk show host, you have to be an idiot and a complete ass.

O'Reilly. Couric at least knows she's pointless fluff.

O'Reilly wins the ass category hands down.

O'Reilly. Couric at least knows she's pointless fluff.

She won't admit it. Ok, I give the Ass Award to O'Reilly, and the Idiot Fluffer Award to Couric.

She won't admit it. Ok, I give the Ass Award to O'Reilly, and the Idiot Fluffer Award to Couric.

Wheee! Everyone goes home happy! :D

Ah! But what about O'Lielly and Ann Coulter?

Ah! But what about O'Lielly and Ann Coulter?
We already gave O'Reilly the Ass Award, and Katie Couric gets the Idiot Fluffer Award.

To make you happy, we'll give Coulter the Bitch With A Gun Award.

So did O'Reilley just call the 82nd Airborne a bunch of Nazis?

No,it was the 82nd Airborne of the Luftwaffe,Die Zweiundachtziges Zerstreut, he was referring.

So planning on disagreeing with me or asking for a source or something like that?I wouldn't bother,as I made that thing up.Well congratulations comrade,you have discovered my lie through the magic of the quote button or the power of the highlight function.Good for you!






Obviously!

In fact gramatically speaking, it would be the "Zweiundachtziges Zerstreut" :D

In fact gramatically speaking, it would be the "Zweiundachtziges Zerstreut" :D
Language Nazi! ;)

Here's what's been bothering me, and here seems a good as place as any to put it out there.

Despite a certain poster's constant attempts to associate the protesters and the left with attacking or hating the troops-every time something like Abu Garib happens the bare lie of that is shown. Because the protesters in those instances blame the chain of command, the Secretary of Defence, the President-the people in charge and it's the warhawks who blame the troops. Makes ya want to scream.

Here's what's been bothering me, and here seems a good as place as any to put it out there.

Despite a certain poster's constant attempts to associate the protesters and the left with attacking or hating the troops-every time something like Abu Garib happens the bare lie of that is shown. Because the protesters in those instances blame the chain of command, the Secretary of Defence, the President-the people in charge and it's the warhawks who blame the troops. Makes ya want to scream.

Then you missed the protesters at Walter Reed. I saw them first hand, castigating the troops and accusing the wounded of committing crimes.

Then you missed the protesters at Walter Reed. I saw them first hand, castigating the troops and accusing the wounded of committing crimes.
You'll forgive me if I don't just take your word for it.

You'll forgive me if I don't just take your word for it.

Try this
http://sayanythingblog.com/2005/08/30/walter-reed-protesters-now-lying-about-signs/

Try this
http://sayanythingblog.com/2005/08/30/walter-reed-protesters-now-lying-about-signs/
I'm not going to a blog, and you should know better. The Walter Reed thing has been hashed out here before and I'm not going to do it again here in Nazz's thread. You guys had your chance in that thread to paint the protest one way and Cat-Tribe and others dissassembled it. Sorry, no sale. The overwhelming evidence supports what I say and it lies at start in the opening post. Your 'first hand account' or some blog--even if it is genuinely an acception--doesn't change the overall pattern.

Y'all want to hear the latest? Fox News's transcript for the show changes O'Reilley's statement. Here's the disclaimer:This is a partial transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," October 3, 2005, that has been edited for clarity. Bolding mine.

Here's the clarity: According to Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171190,00.html), O'Reilley said "General, you need to look at the Malmady (ph) massacre in World War II and the 82nd Airborne."

Watch the video that's linked in the first post on this thread and you'll hear and see O'Reilley say "General! You need to look at the Malmedy massacre in World War Two, and the 82nd Airborne who did it!"

That's not edited for clarity--that's edited for ass-covering. Fox News just proved beyond any shadow of doubt that they're untrustworthy as a news source. Period.

Hmm, given that over the past 7 years or so O'Reilly has gotten more and more erratic,I'm betting he's gone deep into senile old fool territory.

Hmm, given that over the past 7 years or so O'Reilly has gotten more and more erratic,I'm betting he's gone deep into senile old fool territory.

Not quite. He's just ventureing farther into lying idiot territory. Plus he's splotchy-faced. :rolleyes:

Hmm, given that over the past 7 years or so O'Reilly has gotten more and more erratic,I'm betting he's gone deep into senile old fool territory.
Or maybe Rush started slipping him the good shit. :D

You know, this would be no big deal if he'd just admit he made a mistake--even Wes Clark didn't pick up on it--but it's that massive ego of his that refuses to let him admit he fucked up that will eventually be his undoing.

Crooks and Liars has the video (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/03.html#a5214)

It was during a discussion over whether or not the judge who ordered the release of all the Abu Ghraib photos was, well, a dick or not. O'Reilley's defense was basically that atrocities happen in wartime, and we ought to get over it and that this judge is going to harm US soldiers by releasing those pictures because it's going to inflame the insurgents, as though our mere presence in Iraq isn't already doing that.

But whatever--O'Reilley's usually full of shit in his arguments and this is nothing different. General Wesley Clark rebutted with a statement that atrocities aren't a given, and that they've been rare in the past and that when they've happened, the offenders have been dealt with, and that this one seemed to be different because of this Captain from the 82nd Airborne who claims the chain of command is covering the atrocities up.

Bill O'Reilley said this to prove his point:


Problem is that the 82nd didn't commit the Malmedy massacre. The Germans did. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy_massacre)

So did O'Reilley just call the 82nd Airborne a bunch of Nazis?

O'Reilley is just an ignorant SOB. He likes to preach his viewpoint, regardless of the facts. That, alone, doesn't differentiate him from any of the other talk show hosts. His problem is that he isn't nearly as likable as even Randi Rhodes, let alone Rush or Boortz.

So did O'Reilley just call the 82nd Airborne a bunch of Nazis?
Just looking for reasons to hate rightists again, are we? Tsk.

If O'Reilley capped on the 82nd, it would be so totally out of line with everything he's said in the past that it would have to have been a mistake.

I'm not impressed. ( shrug )

Just looking for reasons to hate rightists again, are we? Tsk.

If O'Reilley capped on the 82nd, it would be so totally out of line with everything he's said in the past that it would have to have been a mistake.

I'm not impressed. ( shrug )

And here come the apologetics.

That's not edited for clarity--that's edited for ass-covering. Fox News just proved beyond any shadow of doubt that they're untrustworthy as a news source. Period.
Yep, they just joined the exclusive club that already has CNN, NBC, CBS, PBS, and ABC as members. I think every one of them has made some goofs over the years.

And here come the apologetics.
http://img318.imageshack.us/img318/2383/forgetitjake1te.jpg
Sometimes there are just 'sky is green' people. What can you do?

That guy is overtly opinionated, I've seen times wheres hes taken up for a subject/issue, then the next show he argues that the same subject/issue is wrong with someone from another political party, how the hell did he get that show anyway...wait...isn't it on Fox? :rolleyes:

Yep, they just joined the exclusive club that already has CNN, NBC, CBS, PBS, and ABC as members. I think every one of them has made some goofs over the years.
There's a difference between making a goof and trying to cover up for a mistake by one of your stars by editing a transcript. To err is human--this is not error. This is deliberate misinformation.

Just looking for reasons to hate rightists again, are we? Tsk.

If O'Reilley capped on the 82nd, it would be so totally out of line with everything he's said in the past that it would have to have been a mistake.

I'm not impressed. ( shrug )Not rightists, Eutrusca, not this time. Just O'Reilley. Why can't you see that? This thread is not about rightists or leftists or any -ists--it's about O'Reilley's dumbass comment.

I love how this forum completely hammers Fox News and Fox News only. Every single news organisation has made mistakes, outright lied, or just been stupid. But I keep forgetting, almost all the other news organisations are liberal so I MUST forgive them.

Did any of you think that maybe O'Reilly tends to get "excited" and mulls over, miss uses, or forgets certain words? I know when I am angry, excited, riled up, etc., I often screw up what I am trying to say. And since the Factor is live that means that mistakes cannot be rectified until AFTER it airs. But of course, if he does not rectify the mistake he is a lying bastard and if he does rectify it then he and the network are trying to cover up the lie.

You people need to grow the fuck up.

Is it really necessary to use potty mouth in posting here? I want to use this site in my classroom. It would be a good thing if we adults could communicate like adults.

I love how this forum completely hammers Fox News and Fox News only. Every single news organisation has made mistakes, outright lied, or just been stupid. But I keep forgetting, almost all the other news organisations are liberal so I MUST forgive them.

Did any of you think that maybe O'Reilly tends to get "excited" and mulls over, miss uses, or forgets certain words? I know when I am angry, excited, riled up, etc., I often screw up what I am trying to say. And since the Factor is live that means that mistakes cannot be rectified until AFTER it airs. But of course, if he does not rectify the mistake he is a lying bastard and if he does rectify it then he and the network are trying to cover up the lie.

You people need to grow the fuck up.Have much trouble reading? I noted on one post that this would be no big deal if O'Reilley just manned up and said he'd fucked it up--instead Fox News is trying to cover it up by editing the transcript of the show. Again--to err is human. To falsify a transcript is deceptive, and speaks to a general lack of credibility of the organization as a whole.

Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage and Paul Harvey all have one BIG point in common!
No I won't do a silly guessing game for you all, that only is fun face to face...
All of them regularly put me in the mood to commit ethnic cleanseing...
or at least to kill things and break people.
I am sick of them being on the air at all.

Is it really necessary to use potty mouth in posting here? I want to use this site in my classroom. It would be a good thing if we adults could communicate like adults.Yeah. Yeah, it is. Your kids won't be damaged by hearing an f-bomb now and again--my bet is that if they're old enough to use this site effectively, they're dropping some themselves pretty often.

For the post in ridiculous bold letters, I apologise to some extent for cursing and possibly ruining a minor's chance to "learn" or experience this forum but I do not apologise for expressing exactly what I felt. The world isn't a clean and pristine place.

For The Nazz, maybe editing the transcript is the only way in which they can rectify the mistake and I am sure if enough ire is directed at O'Reilly he will make some statement regarding the controversy. But at least Fox News has tried to clarify and rectify most mistakes, where all the other news organisations either maintain the statement's truth or blame it on someone else.

For The Nazz, maybe editing the transcript is the only way in which they can rectify the mistake and I am sure if enough ire is directed at O'Reilly he will make some statement regarding the controversy. But at least Fox News has tried to clarify and rectify most mistakes, where all the other news organisations either maintain the statement's truth or blame it on someone else.
Dude--there's no mistake. A transcript is supposed to be as close to a word for word record of what was said on the program. This is not. Watch the video and read the transcript. What's the matter? Scared your tiny little world will come crashing down if you discover Fox News is covering for a mistake by O'Reilley instead of just making him go on his show and admit he made a mistake? All the proof you need it right there--either go look at it, or shut the hell up. This is not defensible.

For The Nazz, maybe editing the transcript is the only way in which they can rectify the mistake and I am sure if enough ire is directed at O'Reilly he will make some statement regarding the controversy. But at least Fox News has tried to clarify and rectify most mistakes, where all the other news organisations either maintain the statement's truth or blame it on someone else.

Perhaps FoxNews should have released a statement of apology, or better yet O'Reilly should have. It sounds like he blatently said that they committed the massacre, but I wouldn't know, lacking a sound card, so you don't have to call me credible.

For The Nazz, maybe editing the transcript is the only way in which they can rectify the mistake and I am sure if enough ire is directed at O'Reilly he will make some statement regarding the controversy. But at least Fox News has tried to clarify and rectify most mistakes, where all the other news organisations either maintain the statement's truth or blame it on someone else.

If you mean Fox attempted to rectify by lying about something on record. You are correct.

If you mean Fox attempted to rectify by covering up something on record. You are correct.

If you mean Fox attempted to rectify by admitting that one of their mouthpieces said something wrong on record. You are incorrect.

Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage and Paul Harvey all have one BIG point in common!
No I won't do a silly guessing game for you all, that only is fun face to face...
All of them regularly put me in the mood to commit ethnic cleanseing...
or at least to kill things and break people.
I am sick of them being on the air at all.

ethnic cleansing?

what kind of monster are you?

I have looked at your so called "damning evidence" but all I can find is pathetic conjecture. I am not trying to defend what he said or did not say or what was done after he said it, I am also not trying to condemn it either. Unless you are O'Reilly or you are a Fox News executive you do not know the complete reasons or event.

At least this statement is nowhere near CBS' ridiculous "Memo-Gate" in which the lie was proven. Nothing in this current situation is anything but conjecture. And I am sorry if I can't condemn someone or something on conjecture alone...

There's a difference between making a goof and trying to cover up for a mistake by one of your stars by editing a transcript. To err is human--this is not error. This is deliberate misinformation.
Sure it is. The fact that everyone else does it doesn't make it any better, but everyone else does do it. CBS makes up news. So does the Times. PBS has Bill Moyers, who is the most slanted and opinionated man I've ever heard speak. In fact, I think PBS has 'clarified' his transcripts as well. But that's just a dim recollection. Fox has Geraldo. That should be reason enough to stay away from them. But all these networks are cast from the same mold. They want sponsors and sponsors want ratings. It's damned hard to see how one network stands out from the others.

I have looked at your so called "damning evidence" but all I can find is pathetic conjecture. I am not trying to defend what he said or did not say or what was done after he said it, I am also not trying to condemn it either. Unless you are O'Reilly or you are a Fox News executive you do not know the complete reasons or event.

At least this statement is nowhere near CBS' ridiculous "Memo-Gate" in which the lie was proven. Nothing in this current situation is anything but conjecture. And I am sorry if I can't condemn someone or something on conjecture alone...Maybe if I type this slowly you'll get it--I doubt it, but maybe.

The problem now is not with what O'Reilley originally said--he got a fact wrong (which he does all the time) and got caught later. Fine--apologize, be a man, say you got it wrong and it's no big deal.

But no--Fox News, instead of requiring their top ratings personality to go on and say he'd made a mistake, instead edits a transcript in a futile attempt to cover up the mistake O'Reilley made. That's dishonest, no matter how you slice it--and this isn't conjecture either. There's solid evidence--the video versus the transcript. If the transcript doesn't match the video, then it's dishonest. They don't match. Got it?

There's a simple way to handle this without doctoring a transcript--issue a correction. You don't even necessarily have to do it on the air, although that would be the proper place for it--just append it to the transcript. But don't doctor the transcript to have O'Reilley say something he didn't.

Sure it is. The fact that everyone else does it doesn't make it any better, but everyone else does do it. CBS makes up news. So does the Times. PBS has Bill Moyers, who is the most slanted and opinionated man I've ever heard speak. In fact, I think PBS has 'clarified' his transcripts as well. But that's just a dim recollection. Fox has Geraldo. That should be reason enough to stay away from them. But all these networks are cast from the same mold. They want sponsors and sponsors want ratings. It's damned hard to see how one network stands out from the others.
Show me proof. I'll blast them too. But until I see proof, I'm going to maintain that there's a significant difference here.

For thoes that have not caught the rant

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly

:D

Show me proof. I'll blast them too. But until I see proof, I'm going to maintain that there's a significant difference here.
It's tough to do that well after the fact. My point in that last post was that every media organization has flaws. Making up news is probably a more significant flaw than editing a transcript. Paying Geraldo to be a reporter is probably even a bigger flaw than making up news. But he does that too.

Bill O'Reilly is by and large an ignorant moron. This is hardly the first, nor will it be the last of his idiotic errors.

But did they edit the transcript to "cover up" the mistake? Are they willingly hiding the truth? You have not proved that.

And if you truly believe that Fox News is the only organisation that has done such things then you are naive. Pick up the New York Times, watch CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, BBC, the St. Petersburg Times... need I go on? All of these groups are continually printing or showing outright and known lies or have blatantly taken the story out of context only to push their agenda and they have continually been confronted about these very practices. Fox News is certainly not the only one commiting these "heinous" actions.

But did they edit the transcript to "cover up" the mistake? Are they willingly hiding the truth? You have not proved that.

Did the man with the smoking gun, an empty semi-automatic have anything to do with the bullet riddled corpse in front of him? It certainly looks like it.

A change like this means you either have a transcript writer who is so incompetent, you should fire him lest you get a libel lawsuit for "miswriting" things, or you are deliberately doing it.

Take your pick. You don't get any other choice.


And if you truly believe that Fox News is the only organisation that has done such things then you are naive. Pick up the New York Times, watch CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, BBC, the St. Petersburg Times... need I go on? All of these groups are continually printing or showing outright and known lies or have blatantly taken the story out of context only to push their agenda and they have continually been confronted about these very practices. Fox News is certainly not the only one commiting these "heinous" actions.

You seem to have some sort of block that prevents you from understanding. Allow me.

Erroneous stories are one thing. When confronted with conflicting evidence that disproves that, corrections are expected, or at least admittance of a mistake.

FOX did not admit to the mistake, nor did it issue a clarification. It merely editted it to make it seem like they never made the mistake, despite their actions.

And attempts to justify FOX's actions by pointing out others is both pathetic and cannot be used to justify any actions.

If a man is convicted for killing 10 people, can he get away by claiming that he at least didn't kill 11 like the guy before him?

And if you truly believe that Fox News is the only organisation that has done such things then you are naive. Pick up the New York Times, watch CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, BBC, the St. Petersburg Times... need I go on? All of these groups are continually printing or showing outright and known lies or have blatantly taken the story out of context only to push their agenda and they have continually been confronted about these very practices. Fox News is certainly not the only one commiting these "heinous" actions.
And yet you provide no proof for anyone else having done so. when you're ready to have a substantive conversation on the state of the media, complete with examples of malfeasance by the major players, then I'll be willing to listen. If you're just going to spout the "liberal media" line, then I won't bother.

And yet you provide no proof for anyone else having done so. when you're ready to have a substantive conversation on the state of the media, complete with examples of malfeasance by the major players, then I'll be willing to listen. If you're just going to spout the "liberal media" line, then I won't bother.
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2005/cyb20051004.asp#4

WPost Insider: Colleagues "Cheer Unabashedly
for the Democrats"

"Too often, we wear liberalism on our sleeve and are intolerant of other lifestyles and opinions," an editor working for the Washington Post's Sunday "Book World" section charged in a contribution to a daily internal critique of the newspaper quoted by Howard Kurtz on Monday. Marie Arana disclosed that "if you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive, a Democrat. I've been in communal gatherings in The Post, watching election returns, and have been flabbergasted to see my colleagues cheer unabashedly for the Democrats."

Kurtz quoted Arana in his October 3 "Media Notes" column on "daily in-house electronic critiques that have sparked an impassioned debate about The Post's future."

Kurtz recited Arana's observation: "On Thursday, Book World Editor Marie Arana, noting that she had been 'a Young Republican at 15, a marching SDSer at 20, and roundly disgusted by the blue-team, red-team political dialogue by the time I turned 30,' criticized an article on what was called a 'stealth evangelism' festival by saying: 'The elephant in the newsroom is our narrowness. Too often, we wear liberalism on our sleeve and are intolerant of other lifestyles and opinions....We're not very subtle about it at this paper: If you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive, a Democrat. I've been in communal gatherings in The Post, watching election returns, and have been flabbergasted to see my colleagues cheer unabashedly for the Democrats.'"

Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie, however, Kurtz relayed, saw Arana's comments as demonstrating the diversity of his staff as he "says he is concerned if some staffers are openly displaying political preferences but that Arana's comments were valuable and 'made clear that we do have a diverse staff when it comes to ideological backgrounds.'"

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2005/cyb20051004.asp#4
snip
Now explain how that's equivalent to changing a transcript from a broadcast in order to make it seem as though your loudmouth commentator didn't make a mistake. Don't bother to try--it isn't.

It's also not proof of a liberal media, unless you accept that a single unsubstantiated anecdote about a group of reporters who don't actually control what goes into a single newspaper is indicative of what happens in the news media world as a whole.

Now explain how that's equivalent to changing a transcript from a broadcast in order to make it seem as though your loudmouth commentator didn't make a mistake. Don't bother to try--it isn't.

It's also not proof of a liberal media, unless you accept that a single unsubstantiated anecdote about a group of reporters who don't actually control what goes into a single newspaper is indicative of what happens in the news media world as a whole.

There are hundreds of examples. Shall I just post all the archived links from an entire set of websites (there are three that I know that collect this kind of information).

Let's see - Dan Rather made a "mistake". And yet, after screwing up with his fake story about Bush's record, we have this reception of him by the "liberal media":

Dan Rather's national media colleagues rallied around him, and denigrated his critics, at the News and Documentary Emmy Awards presented by the National Television Academy at a September 19 ceremony which C-SPAN aired Saturday night, where Rather was honored with a lifetime achievement award. ABC's Ted Koppel praised Rather as "a man of honesty and integrity and decency." Referring to Rather's "memogate," Koppel sarcastically suggested: "I would simply urge your most vociferous critics to take a page from the White House's own playbook. When one of their own a makes a mistake, they stress the importance of looking to the future and of not playing the blame game." MSNBC President Rick Kaplan, a former executive at ABC and CNN, asserted that "Dan was meticulously careful to be fair and balanced and accurate" during his career. Kaplan then lashed out: "When did we allow those with questionable agendas to take the lead and convince people of something quite the opposite? It's shameful." Kaplan went so far to declare that Rather's "legacy" is "the gold standard journalists today have struggled to live up to."


Well, if pushing a fake story is honesty, integrity, and decency, and if it's fair, balanced, and accurate, and if it's the gold standard to which journalists struggle to live up to, then it would seem that they have no idea what any of those things mean. And it would appear that a lot of major news reporters and news organization presidents believe that the fake story was the epitome of honesty.

Bias enough for you? Covering the ass of an lying sack of excrement?

And what happened to Rather and everyone else on the story as a result? Are any of them still with CBS now? Didn't think so. Next?

And what happened to Rather and everyone else on the story as a result? Are any of them still with CBS now? Didn't think so. Next?

He retired. He wasn't fired. And the rest of the journalists and executives at that ceremony back his lie. Are those people still working in the industry? Yes. Next?

If you think Dan Rather's retirement wasn't partially if not completely because of that incident, then you are deluding yourself.

If you think Dan Rather's retirement wasn't partially if not completely because of that incident, then you are deluding yourself.

If you think that the journalists and network executives who are still running the major networks didn't back Rather's lie, then you're deluding yourself.

Aaah, Peiper and his drugged goons.

Yeah, that is quite a story. They were very capable soldiers apparently, breaking through the US lines and racing ahead, only to run out of fuel.
Then they went on a rampage. I heard there were certain mind-altering pills involved...

I would think this is just an unfortunate mix-up of the facts by this resident talking head. Happens all the time.
The US massacres of people who happened to be members of the Waffen-SS, or the Imperial Rail (who also wore black uniforms), or just normal POWs for which the Yankees didn't have time haven't been documented very well, so I don't think anyone could meaningfully use them in an argument. :D

I don't know who's a bigger idiot - O'Reilly or Katie Couric.

It seems that to be a talk show host, you have to be an idiot and a complete ass.

That's like comparing arsenic to Cocoa Puffs. If you think it's too close to call then you need to try another perspective.

That's like comparing arsenic to Cocoa Puffs. If you think it's too close to call then you need to try another perspective.

Katie doesn't have the rage, but she's just as stupid.