CBS Ordered O'Reilly to Leave Argentina for Risking Life of Cameraman

Watch this:



Then read this:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/21/1365950/-CBS-Ordered-O-Reilly-to-Leave-Argentina-for-Risking-Life-of-Cameraman?detail=email

From Eric John Engberg, a fellow CBS correspondent stationed in Argentina at the same time Billo was there:

The CBS bureau chief in Buenos Aires, Larry Doyle, an ex-Marine LRRP, was something of a legend among CBSers because of his personal courage and his knowledge about how to do your job without exposing yourself to undue danger. Early that night in Buenos Aires he assembled the camera crews in our hotel newsroom and instructed them to refrain from using the lights on their cameras while around crowds. Television lights attracted potentially violent people and also made the camera-person an easier target for demonstrators throwing rocks. We all knew that the Argentine public was angry at the U.S. for supporting Britain in the war, so American journalists might become a target for mob violence. So, O'Reilly has been correct in describing the situation in Buenos Aires as somewhat dicey for reporters. If he was nervous, I can see why.
The riot around the presidential palace was actually short-lived. It consisted mostly of chanting, fist-shaking and throwing coins at the uniformed soldiers who were assembled outside the palace. I did not see any police attacks against demonstrators. According to Doyle, O'Reilly returned to the hotel in a rage over the fact that his cameraman wouldn't turn on the lights to photograph angry crowds. Doyle defended the cameraman and chewed out O'Reilly for violating his instructions on lights. When Doyle looked at the tape shot by O'Reilly's cameraman he saw that the video included stand-ups -- on camera description by the reporter -- which O'Reilly had ordered the cameraman to shoot -- with his light on. Doyle was further upset by this tape, which clearly showed that his orders on lights had been unilaterally violated by O'Reilly. The issue here was safety.

CBS was doing a late night re-cap of the Falkland's story. As always the Buenos Aires bureau had no combat video footage to offer, so our part of the special would be the demonstrations, which had been well covered by three or four camera crews, including the one working with O'Reilly. All that footage was blended into the main story, narrated by Schieffer, who had been in Buenos Aires for weeks as the anchor on the scene. When Doyle informed O'Reilly that Schieffer would be doing the report, which would not include any segment from O'Reilly, the reporter exploded. "I didn't come down here to have my footage used by that old man," he shouted. Doyle was stunned. First O'Reilly had defiantly ordered a cameraman to disregard his orders on using lights, and now he was claiming the right to do a story the producers had decided should be done by the senior correspondent on the scene, Schieffer. This confrontation led the next day to O'Reilly being ordered out of Argentina by the CBS bosses. Doyle had told them O'Reilly was a "disruptive force" who threatened his bureau's morale and cohesion.

This might explain why Bull O'Reilly likely invented the story of saving the life of a cameraman. To the contrary, he could have gotten one killed. As David Corn wrote in response to Engberg's post:

Case closed.

Your source lost all validity in the first line. LRRPs were Army units, not Marine.

Hilarious.

Wordslinger wrote:

gatorfan wrote:Your source lost all validity in the first line. LRRPs were Army units, not Marine.

Hilarious.

Perhaps. But not nearly as hilarious as statements made many years later by O'reilly claiming that he "knew" war having witnessed it in the Falkland Islands.

Considering he never got his lily white ass out of Buenos Aires and actually planted his feet on Falkland Island soil, O'Reilly's example of self-puffery ranks right up there with Bryan Williams.

The fact that Roger Ailes defends O'Reilly, while NBC let Williams go, makes it very clear which station has integrity, and which is "fair-skinned and unbalanced."

I do find all the hoopla about this O'Reiley dude amusing - I mean after all he is just a talking head entertainer not to be taken seriously.

I don't see the same interest from F/T about this guy, who is supposed to be the head of an enormous government agency dealing with Veterans. Of course FT's hypocrisy is well-known. Personally I think he just got carried away and didn't mean to embellish his career:

V.A. Secretary apologizes for lie 01:26
Washington (CNN)Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald is admitting he erred in claiming during a conversation with a homeless veteran that he served in the U.S. military's special forces.

McDonald's claim came in a January exchange with the veteran, who said he'd served in special forces, that was captured by CBS News cameras for a story on the VA's effort to find housing for homeless veterans.

"Special forces? What years? I was in special forces!" McDonald told the man."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/23/politics/va-secretary-special-forces-claim/index.html

Your source lost all validity in the first line. LRRPs were Army units, not Marine.

Hilarious.



The US Marine Corps also performed long-range reconnaissance missions typically assigned to Marine Recon, especially Force Recon at the corps-level (i.e., Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF)) level, as opposed to the Battalion Recon units answering to battalion commanders. Marine Recon teams typically were twice as large as Army LRRPs and were more heavily armed, however, sacrificing a degree of stealth.

Yep, Hilarious

2seaoat wrote:Your source lost all validity in the first line. LRRPs were Army units, not Marine.

Hilarious.



The US Marine Corps also performed long-range reconnaissance missions typically assigned to Marine Recon, especially Force Recon at the corps-level (i.e., Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF)) level, as opposed to the Battalion Recon units answering to battalion commanders. Marine Recon teams typically were twice as large as Army LRRPs and were more heavily armed, however, sacrificing a degree of stealth.

Yep, Hilarious

I know, the fact is Marines do not have "LRRPs" regardless of how you choose to spin it - Marine Force Recon has a different mission. You are hilarious since you've never been in the military but since I've operated with both the Marines and the Army I feel qualified in exposing the ignorance on terminology in this thread.

Bob Schieffer call him on his lies. Now another former CBS journalist has done so. And he's calling for David Corn, publisher of MOTHER JONES, to be "in the kill zone" for reporting his blatant lies.

Floridatexan wrote:Bob Schieffer call him on his lies.  Now another former CBS journalist has done so.  And he's calling for David Corn, publisher of MOTHER JONES, to be "in the kill zone" for reporting his blatant lies.

A talking head lied??? Wow - this is front page news. Any comment from you about the VA Secretary's lie? You know, someone directly involved in dealing with Veterans.......

He is one tough sumbitch ....

During a phone conversation, he told a reporter for The New York Times that there would be repercussions if he felt any of the reporter’s coverage was inappropriate. “I am coming after you with everything I have,” Mr. O’Reilly said. “You can take it as a threat.”

Here's the intrepid reporter he threatened with his manly manliness ....

1- I was a part of 3rd Force Recon from 1987-1989

2- A team is never referred to as a LRRP.

3- We had 4-6 guys max, which is a fire team in size unless we were at 6

4- My platoon was less than 18 guys total

I find it hilarious broomrider and Seabass want to comment on military aspects they have no clue about at all.

Word attacks Gatorfan with a red herring argument

We have a current VA official who blatantly lied about his military service and what is it with Dems having to embellish their military resumes? (See John Kerry et al)

You Dems are a joke.

gatorfan wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:Bob Schieffer call him on his lies.  Now another former CBS journalist has done so.  And he's calling for David Corn, publisher of MOTHER JONES, to be "in the kill zone" for reporting his blatant lies.

A talking head lied??? Wow - this is front page news. Any comment from you about the VA Secretary's lie? You know, someone directly involved in dealing with Veterans.......

Why don't you write a thread about it, dummy? This thread is about Bill O'Reilly.

Bill doesn't have multiple rows of decs thanks for playing and have a nice day

KarlRove wrote:1- I was a part of 3rd Force Recon from 1987-1989

2- A team is never referred to as a LRRP.

3- We had 4-6 guys max, which is a fire team in size unless we were at 6

4- My platoon was less than 18 guys total

I find it hilarious broomrider and Seabass want to comment on military aspects they have no clue about at all.

Word attacks Gatorfan with a red herring argument

We have a current VA official who blatantly lied about his military service and what is it with Dems having to embellish their military resumes? (See John Kerry et al)

You Dems are a joke.

"Word attacks gatorfan with a red herring."

This ain't your day War Hero. Read the following quote:

"1. Did O'Reilly report 'on the ground' or in a 'war zone'?

What he said:

O'Reilly certainly claimed to have reported on the war from the islands themselves in the past: "I've reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falkland Islands," O'Reilly wrote in his 2001 book, The No Spin Zone: Confrontations With the Powerful and Famous in America, according to CNNMoney, having repeated the notion that he was in "a combat situation" or "in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands" over the years.