The list of accusations leveled at Bill O’Reilly grows by the day.
What began as a probe into the veracity of the Fox News host’s war reporting experience has now snowballed into a slew of alleged lies, exaggerations and inaccuracies.
If you’re having trouble keeping all these shifting stories straight, we’ve got your back. Here are all the major developments so far in the The People vs. Bill O’Reilly:
Count 1: Bill O’Reilly Exaggerated His ‘War Reporting’ Chops
The Allegation: O’Reilly first came under attack last Thursday when Mother Jones’ David Corn and Daniel Schulman published a piece challenging the host’s claim that he had “reported on the ground in active war zones” and “survived a combat situation” while covering the Falklands War for CBS News in 1982. American reporters were not allowed in the Falklands during the conflict. So how could O’Reilly have been in the war zone?
The Defense: O’Reilly arrived in Buenos Aires shortly before Argentina surrendered to Britain. The Fox host contends that the riots he covered after the war — demonstrators, angry that the military government had given up, took to the streets in protest — constituted a “combat situation.” When CBS released its coverage of the riots, O’Reilly declared victory, saying the tape showed “horrific” violence. While Corn and others agreed the tape showed a “chaotic, violent protest,” they maintain that it was not a “combat situation.”
–
While left-leaning cable news network MSNBC has largely stayed silent on the story (perhaps because of “NBC Nightly News” anchor Brian Williams’ own credibility crisis), Rachel Maddow blasted O’Reilly Wednesday night for intimidating journalists, saying it is “untenable” for Fox News to continue to stand by its host.
The Defense: O’Reilly brushed off the idea that he had threatened Corn with actual violence, saying the term “kill zone” was “simply a slang expression.”
The Verdict: This one is pretty hard to deny, especially since O’Reilly made a point of telling the Times’ reporter “you can take it as a threat.” Whether O’Reilly lied about his reporting experience, threatening members of the press crosses a serious line and is unbefitting of a prime time news anchor on any network.
“Like everyone in media today, we are concerned about the safety of our staff,” Mother Jones Clara Jeffery and Monika Bauerlein wrote in a letter to Fox News. “We’d have hoped that statements with this kind of violent tone would not come from a fellow media professional.”
But after all the evidence has been compiled — from from Buenos Aires to El Salvador to Dallas, Texas, and back again — is Bill O’Reilly ultimately guilty in the court of public opinion? Did he lie to his audience, threatening journalists along the way? What should the consequence be? That’s for the public to decide.
