Bill O'Reilly lies.

Thanks, Con. I agree with the definitions and terms; however, whether or not O'Reilly's falsehoods are *intentional* or not is most likely what will be debated here, considering there's no shortage of things he's said that are completely untrue. Were at least a few of his comments deliberate (lies), or shall we assume that every misnomer was an innocent mistake? Considering O'Reilly's experience and background in journalism, it would be irresponsible to mistake every asinine thing he's said as purely accidental. Moreover, we cannot accept that he's so pugnacious to the point where he cannot be held accountable for frequent slip-ups on the basis of his aggressive personality. On the contrary, I posit that a show whose slogan is "The Spin Stops Here" implying that there is no manipulation of the facts has a responsibility to honest reporting and not just making things up to suit your agenda, as I will prove O'Reilly does. Also, I'd like the audience to consider how hypocrisy is very misleading and dishonest. Because of limited character space, I will present different examples in the first 2 rounds and my analysis in the final. *** 1. In hosting guest Heather Mallick on his show, O'Reilly promised an American boycott of Canadian goods citing similar American boycotts of French goods after O'Reilly's encouragement to do so. According to O'Reilly, "They lost billions of dollars in France according to the Paris Business Review." Of course, this was completely false considering (a) American trade with France had actually INCREASED and (b) There is no such publication as the Paris Business Review. In another interview, Mallick recalls of the incident, "He simply invented it. He also invented his statistics. They're not lies - they're BOLD faced lies. He didn't blink 'cause he lied; he just said it." Quite obviously he just makes this stuff up as he goes along - all the while delivering it as fact - in accordance to his own misguided interpretation of reality. (YouTube source: Bill O'Reilly caught lying) http://www.youtube.com... 2. Political writer and activist Sunsara Taylor was defending her group who protested against the war in Iraq on O'Reilly's show. He asked why she felt the need to protest instead of letting Congress do its job. She said that the people deserved to be heard and listed a bunch of facts regarding the death toll and so on. She said that these things were not being discussed, and O'Reilly said that this was her opinion. Now, at first glance I thought he was referring to her opinion that people were not being heard; however, upon further listening to their conversation you see he is rejecting the facts (statistics). More proof is that he proceeds to call her a lunatic, a loon, and say that this is because most Americans don't agree with her. Of course this is a lie about how we determine lunacy, but regardless, Taylor points out that actually most Americans do agree with her (anti Bush and anti war) - so yet another B.O. lie. O'Reilly says her group is small with about 50 people (there are thousands). He also manipulates her words and says she calls congress corrupt (she calls them complicit) etc. Is O'Reilly simply citing the facts, or is he deliberately lying about this woman, her beliefs, her group and its stance in order to demean them and their point of view? I think the answer is quite obvious. (YouTube source: Sunsara Taylor puts O'Reilly in the uncomfort zone @ 2:00) http://www.youtube.com... 3. In June 2009, Private William Long was fatally shot at an Army recruiting office in Arkansas by a Muslim. O'Reilly claimed that the media was only giving coverage to the guy who was shot a day earlier (the abortion doctor who was killed in church) insinuating, of course, liberal media bias and noting that other stations didn't want to address the Muslim killing but only the killing of the abortion doctor. Surely FOX is the REAL media outlet here making sure to cover both stories. O'Reilly rants, "CNN is supposed to be *the news* channel... Only Anderson Cooper at 10:00 covered this story! Nobody else! So all day long it wasn't news to cover an Army recruiter gunned down in Arkansas." The next day Rick Sanchez set him straight by saying "Let's see if it really was just Anderson Cooper" and proceeded to roll tape from the day earlier showing CNN's Kyra Phillips, Tony Harris, Rick Sanchez, Wolf Blitzer, Erika Hill, Lou Dobbs, Heidi Collins, David Mattingly and Kiran Chetry all doing segments to cover the Long case. In other words, Bill O'Reilly once again blatantly lied. The reason we shouldn't dismiss this as a "mistake" is because he is INTENTIONALLY stating something as fact OBVIOUSLY without even so much as a fact-check to discredit his competitors at CNN and make himself look like the reasonable guy. This is malicious and premeditated. (YouTube source: Rick Sanchez Rips Bill O'Reilly For Lying About CNN And Murdered Army Recruiter) http://www.youtube.com...#! 4. On 11/15/02, a viewer called in to O'Reilly and said that if he [B.O.] was so concerned about public figures being bad role models for children, he should stop interrupting guests and telling them to shut up. O'Reilly responded, "The 'shut up' line has happened only once in six years." Of course any person whose ever watched O'Reilly knows that "Shut up" is among his favorite phrases for those who disagree with him. There is a plethora of evidence he's told people to shut up DOZENS of times on his show. You can read the transcripts of him using this phrase over a dozen times as well as search BILL O'REILLY SHUT UP on YouTube and watch many examples first-hand. There are also other quotes of him emphasizing to other outlets (such as 60 Minutes) that he's only used the phrase "six times" (still another lie) -- but either way here we see him dodge the reality of him being a rude and unprofessional "journalist." http://www.slate.com... 5. After 11 year old Shawn Hornbeck was kidnapped and held hostage for 4 years, O'Reilly told guest attorney Greta Van Susteren that Hornbeck willingly chose to remain captive, that he LIKED it, and that it was because he didn't have a strong bond with his family that he decided not to go home. He also claimed that the boy chose to stay because his captor wasn't forcing him to go to school, not giving him a lot of rules, etc. He says, "This situation, to me, looks like it'd be A LOT MORE FUN than what he had with his old parents. He didn't have to go to school. He could run around and do whatever he wanted... There was an element here that this kid LIKED about his circumstances." Van Susteren obviously being the more reasonable of the two pointed out that the details of the case were not yet known so it would be irresponsible to draw hasty conclusions. Any rational political commentator (or hell, person) would see this. O'Reilly snidely responded "Yeah well if I'm wrong, we'll play this tape and you'll get your points." As details of the case surfaced, O'Reilly acknowledged that Shawn Hornbeck was MOLESTED, TORTURED and suffered from child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. So much for LIKING his circumstances, eh? Good call, Bill. The best part is that O'Reilly actually condemned other "pinheads" in the media for crying Stockholm Syndrome insinuating that their original idea was so ridiculous... meanwhile, the reality is far more pertinent to their spin on the story than O'Reilly's suggestion of the kid ENJOYING his time being held hostage so that he could avoid school. Of course Greta never got her props and O'Reilly never so much as acknowledged his ridiculous assertion nor did he apologize to the family he slandered. (YouTube source: B.O. lies and hypocrisy) http://www.youtube.com... Out of characters - more examples in the next round!