that in itself was a sign that the punch landed; normally o<u+2019>reilly doesn<u+2019>t descend from his perch in the <u+201c>no-spin zone<u+201d> to debate mere mortals on platforms besides fox. the mother jones story is embarrassing, but it<u+2019>s probably not fatal. most of the <u+201c>reporting<u+201d> on fox has roughly the same relationship with the truth as o<u+2019>reilly<u+2019>s claim to combat zone action. i can<u+2019>t see him facing censure for this, but i hope i<u+2019>m wrong.









if you missed the action, corn and daniel schulman reported that despite o<u+2019>reilly<u+2019>s claims of having <u+201c>survived a combat operation<u+201d> during the falklands war, the fox host, then with cbs, only got as close as buenos aires, roughly 1,400 miles away from the fighting. <u+201c>nobody from cbs got to the falklands,<u+201d> cbs<u+2019>s bob schieffer told mother jones. <u+201c>i came close. we<u+2019>d been trying to get somebody down there. it was impossible.<u+201d>









there was, of course, no combat in the argentinian capital, but there was a raucous protest, and that<u+2019>s apparently what o<u+2019>reilly refers to as a <u+201c>combat operation.<u+201d> he also claimed he was the only cbs reporter covering the demonstration, which schieffer likewise denies. <u+201c>we were all out with our camera crews that day to cover the protest,<u+201d> schieffer says. <u+201c>i<u+2019>d been out there with a crew too.<u+201d>









likewise, his claim of having seen combat danger in el salvador is undermined by reporting <u+2013> the reporting of bill o<u+2019>reilly himself, on the ground, in real time. in his book <u+201c>the no-spin zone<u+201d> o<u+2019>reilly tells of visiting a dangerous, <u+201c>guerrilla controlled area<u+201d> with a camera crew, where <u+201c>i quickly did a stand-up amid the rubble and we got the hell out of there.<u+201d>









his real-time dispatch for cbs was different. he described touring a scene by helicopters with the salvadoran military, and reported <u+201c>these days salvadoran soldiers appear to be doing more singing than fighting,<u+201d> having succeeded in <u+201c>scattering the rebel forces, leaving government troops in control of most of the country.<u+201d> there was no mention of having to <u+201c>get the hell out of there.<u+201d> the problem for people who care about the truth is that o<u+2019>reilly is not likely to be punished for shading it. he<u+2019>s a serial exaggerator <u+2013> remember his claim to be the product of middle-class levittown, when he grew up in tonier westbury? much of the <u+201c>reporting<u+201d> on fox is similarly distorted; the ratio of truth to fiction is often worse than in o<u+2019>reilly<u+2019>s combat zone mythology. the made-up fox bogeymen of the new black panther party were actually less dangerous to democracy than buenos aires was to o<u+2019>reilly. more recently, the network<u+2019>s claim of muslim-only <u+201c>no-go<u+201d> zones in london was based on even skimpier evidence. i personally got a big story wrong last year: i predicted fox<u+2019>s sean hannity would pay a price for hyping the cause of racist grifter cliven bundy, especially after stephen colbert flayed him<u+00a0>for it. but he didn<u+2019>t. so while i hope to be wrong this time <u+2014> by underestimating roger ailes<u+2019>s conscience, rather than exaggerating it <u+2013> i don<u+2019>t expect to be. the good news is, i<u+2019>ve covered a lot of unruly protests in my time. i<u+2019>m glad to know i can now claim to have <u+201c>survived a combat operation.<u+201d> thanks, bill!
bill o<u+2019>reilly<u+2019>s humiliating bust: does fox news have guts to suspend its own serial exaggerator?
noauthor