Bill O'Reilly desecrates and slanders memory of world war 2 vets.... twice

[Harvey]

Here's the transcript of Keith Olbermann's original report. What's really sick is, Faux rewrote the published transcript of O'Reilly's show to substitute Normandy for Malmady on their site.

OLBERMANN: Wrong answer. When you are that wrong, when you are defending Nazi war criminals and pinning their crimes on Americans and you get caught doing so twice, you?re supposed to say I?m sorry, I was wrong, and then you?re supposed to shut up for a long time. Instead, FOX washed its transcript of O?Reilly?s remarks Tuesday. Its Web site claims O?Reilly said in Normandy, when, as you heard, in fact, he said in Malmedy.

The rewriting of past reporting worthy of George Orwell has now carried over into such online transcription services as Burell?s and Factiva. Whatever did or did not happen later in supposed or actual retribution, the victims at Malmedy were Americans, gunned down while surrendering by Nazis in 1944 and again Tuesday night and Wednesday night by a false patriot who would rather be loud than right.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Re-writing the record sure does smack of "Ministry of Truth". Pretty discusting really. Maybe Walter Cronkite could send Fox a note on journalism.

 

[daveymark]

FYI, the supposed "coverup" was not done by fox, as the trasncript was done by the same company that does the transcripts for CNN and (gasp) MSNBC.

transcript
see the disclaimer at the bottom

Transcription Copyright 2006 Voxant, Inc. (www.voxant.com ), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: daveymark

FYI, the supposed "coverup" was not done by fox, as the trasncript was done by the same company that does the transcripts for CNN and (gasp) MSNBC.

transcript
see the disclaimer at the bottom

Transcription Copyright 2006 Voxant, Inc. (www.voxant.com ), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription.

Big whoop? so now FOX is aware of the "mistake" but doesn't make the change to the transcript to reflect what was actually said? Is this transcript group also responsible for what gets posted on Foxes website? or do they transcribe the show into hard copy only? either way...Fox is supposed to be a news source...and we generally want our news sources to report the news accurately and without bias.

Integrity, Foxnews has none.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: daveymark

FYI, the supposed "coverup" was not done by fox, as the trasncript was done by the same company that does the transcripts for CNN and (gasp) MSNBC.

transcript
see the disclaimer at the bottom

Transcription Copyright 2006 Voxant, Inc. (www.voxant.com ), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription.

Faux has plenty of their own Orwellian selective memory to explain. At the top of your link, it says:

This is a partial transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," May 30, 2006, that has been edited for clarity

All of O'Reilly's references to Malmady, or even Normandy, were completely and conveniently edited for clarity. Clearly, the only clarity they intended was a whitewash. :|

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Strk
It's hard to believe anyone can consider Fox News fair or balanced. It's hard to say who is full of it more on that show.

I like Sheppard Smith.

 

[robphelan]

you know, i consider myself a very fair person, if nothing else.

when i first read this, I chalked Bill's rhetoric up to a simple mistake - everyone makes them.

then, i thought about it for awhile. Being on TV, he has a responsibility to his viewers. They (unfortunately) trust him to tell them what and how to think. He has a responsibility to get it right.

He didn't and he wouldn't admit it and that reinforces my disgust with him.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: robphelan
you know, i consider myself a very fair person, if nothing else.

when i first read this, I chalked Bill's rhetoric up to a simple mistake - everyone makes them.

Read the transcript of Olbemann's report. O'Reilly first made this statement when Gen. Wesley Clark was on his show, last October. Last Tuesday, May 31, Gen. Clark was again on his show, and he said exactly the same thing in more specific detail.

That's not a mistake. That's either a willfully malicious slander, or O'Reilly is even more brain dead than I thought... or both! :roll:

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Harvey
All of O'Reilly's references to Malmady, or even Normandy, were completely and conveniently edited for clarity. Clearly, the only clarity they intended was a whitewash. :|

Voxant intended a whitewash? What does "edited for clarity" mean?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: daveymark
Voxant intended a whitewash? What does "edited for clarity" mean?

No, daveymark's link goes to Faux News' post of O'Reilly's segment with Gen. Clark. The "edited for clarity" statement is at the top of that text.

I just checked back, and though I didn't find the text regarding Malmedy, before, it's there, now. I don't know if I just missed it, or they restored it, but for complete clarity, here's O'Reilly's statement:

O'REILLY: And in Malmedy, as you know, U.S. forces captured S.S. forces, who had their hands in the air. And they were unarmed. And they shot them down. You know that. That's on the record. Been documented.

As for "clarity," Wikpedia says:

On December 17, 1944, near the hamlet of Baugnez on the height half-way between the town of Malmedy and Ligneuville in Belgium, elements of Waffen-SS Kampfgruppe Peiper, named after its leader SS-Standartenführer Joachim Peiper, encountered the American 285th Field Artillery Observation Battalion. After a brief battle, the Americans surrendered. About 150 of the prisoners of war were disarmed and sent to stand in a field near the crossroads. Peiper and his leading armoured units then continued their advance.

A tank pulled up, and a truck shortly thereafter. A single SS soldier pulled out a pistol and shot a medical officer standing in the front row, and then shot the man standing next to the medical officer. Other soldiers joined in with machine guns. It is not known why this happened; there is no record of an order by an SS officer.

However, some survivors testified that they had heard the order given to kill all the prisoners: "Macht alle kaputt."

Aftermath

Many prisoners escaped into the nearby woods. Some 72-84 of the prisoners were killed, their bodies left on the field where they fell. An American patrol discovered the massacre that night. News of it spread quickly among Allied troops. Afterwards, the order went out: SS and Fallschirmjäger were to be shot on sight.

 

[daveymark]

looks like fox just changed Normandy to Malmedy

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alchemize
O'Reily was definitely in the wrong and a blowhard - but I think I caught a piece of spittle at the end there.

I don't think I've seen Oberman that pissed off before. :Q

 

[Harvey]

I found the evidence. proving Faux changed the transcript! I searched google for "O'Reilly"+"Wesley Clark"+Normandy, and the top return says:

FOXNews.com - Ex-NATO Commander Gen. Wesley Clark on Afghanistan ...
Wesley Clark on Afghanistan and Iraq Troubles, A military man reacts to the two ... O'REILLY: And in Normandy, as you know, US forces captured SS forces, ...
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197635,00.html - 41k - Cached - Similar pages

Somehow, the actual cached link was missing, but that's enough to prove the point compared to the transcript on Faux NOW reads:

And in Malmedy, as you know, U.S. forces captured S.S. forces...

Not only do they lie; they lie about lying. Sort of sounds like the title of Al Franken's book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. :laugh:

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Harvey
I found the evidence. proving Faux changed the transcript! I searched google for "O'Reilly"+"Wesley Clark"+Normandy, and the top return says:

FOXNews.com - Ex-NATO Commander Gen. Wesley Clark on Afghanistan ...
Wesley Clark on Afghanistan and Iraq Troubles, A military man reacts to the two ... O'REILLY: And in Normandy, as you know, US forces captured SS forces, ...
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197635,00.html - 41k - Cached - Similar pages

Somehow, the actual cached link was missing, but that's enough to prove the point compared to the transcript on Faux NOW reads:

And in Malmedy, as you know, U.S. forces captured S.S. forces...

Whoops... :laugh:

much ado about nothing...they did what anyone would've done. They changed the transcript once they found out about the error that Voxent, Inc. made. what's the big deal? Would you rather they left the error on the site once they found out about it?

now that the allegations and slander about the fox coverup are out of the way, what about Billy? I wonder if this is going to affect his ratings or his career? Will fox move to oust the guy seated in their top rated show?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: daveymark
much ado about nothing...they did what anyone would've done. They changed the transcript once they found out about the error that Voxent, Inc. made. what's the big deal? Would you rather they left the error on the site once they found out about it?

The "much ado" is about something. O'Reilly made the same stupid assertion last October, and neither he, nor anyone on his staff, bothered to check their facts since then, let alone apologize for the first blunder, let alone apologize for the latest one.

Relying on Bill O'Reilly for facts is like cruising your local whore house for a bride you'd be proud to take home to mom.

 

[dmcowen674]

Mission Accomplished

Bill O'Reilly Whitehouse Patriot of the Year Award

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: daveymark
much ado about nothing...they did what anyone would've done. They changed the transcript once they found out about the error that Voxent, Inc. made. what's the big deal? Would you rather they left the error on the site once they found out about it?

The "much ado" is about something. O'Reilly made the same stupid assertion last October, and neither he, nor anyone on his staff, bothered to check their facts since then.

Relying on Bill O'Reilly for factual news is like cruising your local whore house for a bride you'd be proud to take home to mom.

make no mistake, what Billy boy did was wrong. However, trying to turn the whole thing into a scandalous coverup by fox is far fetched

I wonder if fox is going to put any heat on Oreilly about this

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: daveymark
make no mistake, what Billy boy did was wrong. However, trying to turn the whole thing into a scandalous coverup by fox is far fetched

Scandal? Perhaps not. It is, however, just another in a very long line of examples showing just how little regard FNC has for the truth.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: daveymark
make no mistake, what Billy boy did was wrong. However, trying to turn the whole thing into a scandalous coverup by fox is far fetched

Scandal? Perhaps not. It is, however, just another in a very long line of examples showing just how little regard FNC has for the truth.

Changing the transcript to accurately reflect what was actually stated is showing little regard for truth?

 

[GeNome]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Changing the transcript to accurately reflect what was actually stated is showing little regard for truth?

I think he meant the fact that they got the same thing wrong twice.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: daveymark
make no mistake, what Billy boy did was wrong. However, trying to turn the whole thing into a scandalous coverup by fox is far fetched

Scandal? Perhaps not. It is, however, just another in a very long line of examples showing just how little regard FNC has for the truth.

Changing the transcript to accurately reflect what was actually stated is showing little regard for truth?

Meh, I was still reading the posts about the inaccurate transcript and read forward too much causing a lame misunderstanding on my part as to who was responsible for the original error. I should follow the discussion more closely. My apologies.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: daveymark
Changing the transcript to accurately reflect what was actually stated is showing little regard for truth?

Considering how offensive what O'Reilly said is to real American heros, the fact that he repeated the same false allegation TWICE over a period of months, and the attention that's already been called to it, changing the transcript without noting the error in any way smells of coverup. An honest news source would at least acknowledge the change and the reason for it.

 

[Horus]

Originally posted by: alchemize
O'Reily was definitely in the wrong and a blowhard - but I think I caught a piece of spittle at the end there.

I don't know who that guy was, but he was AWESOME. I like when the media says things as they are. And O'Reilly is a douche. If he had done one iota of research, he would have known he was wrong.

 

[Jadow]

O'Reilly was dead wrong and should get smacked, but Keith Olberman's objection is so phoney. Do you think he's really offended and upset by this, no way. This is just an attack at his direct 8pm competitor.

 

[sothsegger]

There must be so much misinformation out there. But how can a full time employee, whose free time is frittered away taking care of life's little chores, find the time to separate the true from the false?