Letterman defends O’Reilly

“Millionaire entertainers who help one another promote their shows look out for each other,” notes Erik Wemple, Washington Post media critic.

7 comments

  1. Ramon F Herrera says:

    “O’Reilly corrected Letterman: Those punks had to go back 38 years. ”

    =================

    The lie was born with the book, in October 2012 and it is very much alive and well, Mr. O’Reilly.

    http://www.amazon.com/KILLING-KENNEDY-CAMELOT-OReilly-Hardcover/dp/B00EEQ7R5C/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1427405014&sr=1-4&keywords=Killing+Kennedy

    If I had started lying about the discovery of America 1 hour ago, my lie is not 523 years old.

    • Frank says:

      Nobody but O’Reilly said they stood on the doorstep and heard the shot. Unless he’s writing a poem, it’s a lie (since the book was nonfiction). Had I lied like that 38 years ago (actually much less, as pointed out), I would still be hearing about it today I’m sure.

      These two sit up there using the enormous power of the media to protect their horses assets. How clever.

      • leslie sharp says:

        And why oh why didn’t Letterman pursue the claim? ‘so, Bill, tell us what happened at Tilton, how long did you have to wait for the authorities to arrive? did you see anything strange to suggest it was anything other than suicide? did you talk to the staff at the mansion while you all waited for the police? what did you think of Alexandra and her friend, were they distraught, in fact, did you see them arrive? and by the way, why don’t you just produce the written record of your presence as surely you were asked to sign a statement?’

        Either there is more to this story, something that is impeding O’Reilly from being very specific in his own defense, his insistence that he was in fact on the doorstep, or he is out right lying and yet again the main stream media is abusing the credential of the Fourth Estate, and personalities like Letterman are ‘entertaining’ us with lies.

  2. Ronnie Wayne says:

    I think I’ll read this again in the morning. You know, a cup of coffee, a spring morning, a couple of Mockingbird’s singing to each other. All is right in the world.

  3. Mariano says:

    Not surprising that Bill would answer such charges on a “tonight show” albeit generalized, hardly specific enough, to the non probing questioning style of Letterman.
    Bill denies ever “fibbing”; defends another liar Brian Williams; and then equates ratings success with attributes of integrity and trustworthiness. What more gems of wisdom do you have to offer Bill?
    I would like to see Bill answer the very serious and specific accusations made about his lies over a score of decades.
    Bill, you can balk and twist and evade scrutiny as you may, but you cannot hide.
    There is a growing understanding of the lies Bill has perpetrated in the name of journalistic integrity. Bill O’Reilly refuses to address or answer any of the claims against him.
    The likes of Bill O’Reilly must be exposed for the sake of truthful reporting. It is characters like this who perpetuate lies, and do so with a mass exploitative influence.

  4. Mariano says:

    On Faux News Bill O’Reilly never addresses the “lie” accusations made against him. He churns out the usual diatribe that: his accusers are left wing, Liberal types, and rival news networks desperately in need of cash flow, jealous of his exploits and ratings success who are out to target him. He gloats about his ratings success and directly equates this with his trustworthiness.
    It is sad that so many Americans consider Faux News a credible source of news and comment (if this is their primary source of news and events goodness help us). People need to view any Rupert Murdoch news organisation with some suspicion. These organisations have a long known reputation the world over for being generally conservative, sensationalist, not by any stretch of the imagination of broadsheet standard, and lacking independence of editorial rigor.
    What we will not see, is Bill O’Reilly agreeing to be interviewed about the specifics of his tally of lies. To do so would collapse the empire that shields him from accountability.

  5. Nathaniel Heidenheimer says:

    Yes they do look out for each other. Compare this to Jon Stwart’s interview with Tom Brokaw on 11-20-13. Brokaw is slightly out of Stewart’s marketing demographic. Yet his demographic is an important one, because of the risk of curiosity.

    Hence it was important to have a lane merger with Mr. Corporate I mean conventional wisdom in order to put out the fire of curiosity.

    See especially Stewart’s comments re the Tippit widow. How is it possible that Stewart can narrate the Tippit Widow Essoterica, without knowing the other perforations amid the Tippit witnesses.

    Strange sifting, and curious lane-changes for the 50th!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more