Bill O'Reilly lies.

How does one prove that a statement is a lie? One way is that the person admits it later on, as Bill Clinton did. Another is that solid physical evidence is produced that proves deliberate falsehoods, like the Nixon Watergate tapes. Yet another way is with testimony from a confident who discloses the stated intent. Pro offers none of these. Making a mistake, misunderstanding the data, or offering a wrong opinion or an illogical conclusion, are errors, not lies. 1. Pro's claims that O'Reilly knew that Paris Business Review did not exist but said it did, and that the boycott of France did not work and O'Reilly knew that when claiming that it did. O'Reilly made a mistake in citing the "Paris Business Review." It was clearly a mistake rather than a lie because O'Reilly, and everyone else, knows that there are hoards of opponents going through his programs with a fine tooth comb looking for material to use against him. Rather than cite a non-existent source, he could just say "our data shows" or make some other non-attribution. He might also have referenced a USA Today article, cited below. We don't know how the mistake was made. However, no evidence is offered that it was a lie rather than a mistake. O'Reilly has been on nightly for 14 years, and had a two-hour radio talk show for six years. That's more than 6000 hours of air time. It would be inconceivable that mistakes not occur. It is plausible that the boycott would have an effect, given the magnitude of concern over French duplicity at the time. The boycott was started after revelations that the French had promised Secretary of State Colin Powell support in UN actions against Saddam, but had lied to Powell and supported Saddam. We subsequently learned France had grossly violated the UN embargo on Iraq by secretly providing arms in return for Iraqi oil. The boycott was ended after six months, when Sarkozy was elected President of France. Did O'Reilly believe that the boycott of France was ineffective while claiming it was? An independent Stanford University study of imports of French wine found, "Conservative estimates indicate that the boycott resulted in 26% lower weekly sales at its peak, and 13% lower sales over the six month period that we estimate the boycott lasted." http://www.unc.edu... USA Today reported, "Nearly one in five Americans who regularly buy French products say they have stopped because of France's outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup survey. ... The French Government Tourist Office which figures France will lose about $500 million in American tourist business this year for a variety of reasons is taking the situation so seriously that it is about to begin a multicity campaign promoting travel bargains to France." http://www.usatoday.com... The boycott only targeted consumer goods, and since it only lasted six months it's likely that consumers resumed travel and other purchases of French goods, making up for lost time. Note that major French imports into the US included products and services from Schlumberger, the Halliburton-sized oil services company, unaffected by the temporary boycott. Reporting in 2004, "Schlumberger Chairman and CEO Andrew Gould commented, "First quarter activity was particularly strong in Canada, India, Indonesia, West Africa, and on land in the United States." http://investorcenter.slb.com...= All of French wine sales were about $6.9 billion that year http://money.cnn.com..., while Schlumberger sales were about $11 billion. An uptick in oil services could easily offset a part-year wine boycott. The evidence that trade as a whole did not decrease over the period does not mean the boycott was ineffective. The USA Today article shows the French were reacting to it. It would suffice that consumer product sales were down and that travel was threatened with losses of $500 million. Pro must show that O'Reilly believed the boycott was ineffective, whether or not it actually was. Articles like one in USA Today would reasonably convince a boycott supporter like O'Reilly that there was a major effect. O'Reilly believed what he said was true. O'Reilly was probably wrong that a boycott of Canada would work. However, the boycott never occurred and he was just giving an opinion. Maybe he was too abrupt, but that has nothing to do with lying. 2. Pro claims that O'Reilly knew that activist Taylor's claims about the war were were correct, but lied by claiming they were merely her opinion. Her principle claims were that the was illegal and the majority of Americans wanted immediate withdrawal. Pro offers no evidence that O'Reilly believed Taylor was correct on these issues. The legal basis for the Iraq war is given in a report by the Congressional Research Service, p. 38 http://www.fas.org... A 2008 Gallup poll showed "Only 18% of Americans favor an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops." http://www.gallup.com... Congress could have chosen to stop the war at any time, but chose not to do so, so clearly a majority of the elected representatives thought it was legal. Pro seems to think that it was impossible for O'Reilly to not know Taylor's claims were true. However, poll data and a Congressional study support a strong contrary viewpoint. It is appropriate to say, as O'Reilly did, that the Taylor offered her opinions of the facts. The main point of the interview was to find Taylor's justification for shouting down Rahm Emmanuel. Her justification was lame, so it was appropriate to press her on that question. O'Reilly classified her as a "loon" based not only upon her war opinions, but on her concept that shouting down Emmanuel was justified. O'Reilly's reference to 50 or 60 supporters was apparently an accurate reference to the number shouting down Emmanuel. 3. Pro claims that O'Reilly knew the extent of CNN's coverage, but she offers no proof that he did know. Is it reasonable to suppose that O'Reilly had spent the entire day watching CNN himself, so he would know? There is no chance of that. Someone told him, and he relied on false information. O'Reilly was correct that the Army killing was given minor coverage in comparison to that of the abortion doctor. I suspect that O'Reilly made the error of confirmation bias. He was too eager to use data that fit his theory. That's the same error that anti-war activists make in believing statistics that fit their theory. It's wrong in both cases, but not lying. 4. Reading the Slate article with the examples, O'Reilly is distinguishing two uses of the phrase "shut up." (a) Use with al Qaeda apologist Glick was in the sense, "Stop. I'm not going to listen to you, you creep. The interview is over." (b) Use with Morris, for example, was in the sense, "Give me a minute to say something." O'Reilly's count seems accurate for use in the (a) sense. It seems that around 2004, O'Reilly became aware that he was causing himself a lot of trouble by distinguishing serious use from casual use, so he stopped saying it casually. 5. O'Reilly wrongly opined that the kidnap victim liked his situation. Nothing in that mistake is a lie. I don't see even an allegation of a lie. O'Reilly was just wrong. If the Stockholm Syndrome opinion was ultimately proved wrong, all the people who held it would not have lied. Both O'Reilly and those who speculated on a Stockholm Syndrome diagnosis spoke knowing that the facts of the case had not been revealed, so they were speculating. Pro has not made a case. Mistakes and wrong opinions are not lies. Given the enormous volume of O'Reilly commentary being microscopically examined, the incidents are trivial and rare.