O'Reilly Spins The Jessica Lynch Hero Story
Here is what FOX news and the Washington Post first reported about the Jessica Lynch story in April of 2003. Notice that FOX just repeats what the Washington Post reported. This is bad/no journalism at it's best, they don't have their own reporters check the story out, they just repeat lies from other sources with no verification. Is this what they call journalism, is this some of that fair and balanced journalism at work.
One news outlet reports lies, and the other one swears to it, the Washington Post is not much better than FOX in this case. FOX news reported this story with no hard facts to prove what they reported. This is a perfect example of what's wrong with the media in America, especially FOX news.
FOX News headline from Thursday, April 03, 2003:
Report: Lynch Was Shot, Stabbed in Fierce Struggle With Iraqi Captors
Spirited but hungry, rescued prisoner of war Pfc. Jessica Lynch arrived in Germany for treatment of two broken legs and bullet wounds reportedly suffered in a fierce gun battle she waged against her Iraqi captors.
The Washington Post reported Thursday that the 19-year-old Army supply clerk shot several Iraqi soldiers during the March 23 ambush that resulted in her capture. She kept firing even after she had several gunshot wounds, finally running out of ammunition, the newspaper said, citing unidentified U.S. officials.
"She was fighting to the death," the Post quoted an official as saying. "She did not want to be taken alive."
Randy Coleman, a military spokesman in West Virginia, said Lynch had fractures in both legs, and her family said she also injured her arm. U.S. officials in Kuwait said earlier she had two broken legs, a broken arm and at least one gunshot wound.
According to the Post account, she was also stabbed when Iraqi forces closed in on her.
Full Story Here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82923,00.html
NOTE: Let's Recap: The Post and Fox have private Lynch is a furious gun battle where she shot several Iraqi soldiers, shot til her clip was empty, they have her shot at least 1 time, and they have her stabbed too. The Post has an excuse because they got their info from a U.S. official, but FOX has no excuse because they should not have reported this bogus story until they checked it out. What really happened, she was in a traffic accident after her convoy got lost.
Now let's get to O'Reilly, here is what he did on may 22, 2003. Six weeks after the bogus story broke O'Reilly has a Col. David Hunt on to talk about the Lynch story.
BTW, this is pretty good proof that O'Reilly does not do much actual journalism, he has people check things out, but he almost never does any actual journalism. Then after the BBC and the Toronto Star did some actual journalism and found out the truth, O'Reilly called them America haters and liars. When they did the actual journalism and found out the real truth. This is a prime example of how O'Reilly is not a real journalist, even after the real story comes out he just ignores the issue, or he tries to spin it even more.
The Dispute Over Jessica Lynch's Rescue
Thursday, May 22, 2003
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: Now for the lead story tonight, Fox News military analyst, Colonel David Hunt, has been on the Lynch story from the beginning. He joins us from Washington. What say you, Colonel?
COLONEL DAVID HUNT, FOX NEWS MILITARY ANALYST: It's outrageous. I'm on national television, I should calm down. To assail the finest operators in the world, the people who did this, the Joint Special Operation Command, let's get into it.
NOTE: Remember that Col Hunt was wrong, and the BBC was dead right. They got it right, and Col. Hunt got it wrong, yet he was outraged that the BBC would report lies like they did. When the BBC had it 100% right, and O'Reilly backed up Col. Hunts lies.
HUNT: The only thing truthful is that the guys did flex cuff, detain everyone they came in contact with, it's an assault, and they let them all go, until they can find out if you're good or bad. It's an assault, for their protection and Jessica's. One hundred percent, they got it 99 percent wrong except this one point about flex cuffs.
NOTE: Again Col. Hunt says the BBC got it 99% wrong, when in fact the BBC got it 99% right. But if you were watching O'Reilly/FOX news you would believe they are correct and the BBC and the Toronto Star are the liberal media who got it wrong. When in fat O'Reilly/Hunt/FOX all had it 99% wrong.
HUNT: They also said our guys trashed the hospital. Not true. There were shots fired. They kicked a door in, but they didn't trash the hospital. They were in and three minutes and out. They saved her life. "The Times" is quoting a bunch of liars. The BBC is so bad that their own ships won't have the BBC on.
O'REILLY: Right, we know that. Their credibility is suspect. Now, you did your own reporting here. You're not just taking the Pentagon's word for it, right.
HUNT: I haven't talked to anybody in the Pentagon. I talked to the guys who were on the raid. I talked to a guy who was number one guy in the door. I talked to guys I served with in Bosnia, who I -- we trust each other, and we saved each other's lives. I know these guys personally. I talked to the guys who were there. I did not talk to the Pentagon.
NOTE: Notice how O'Reilly gives him credibility by stating that he did his own reporting. Yet we know it was all lies, this is a perfect example of how O'Reilly spins his ass off and uses people that work for FOX, and who agree with his agenda, to back up his arguments.
O'REILLY: All right, so you trust these guys with...
HUNT: One hundred percent.
O'REILLY: They wouldn't lie to you, they wouldn't make it up. They wouldn't put your neck in the noose?
HUNT: For what purpose would they -- they're incensed by such ludicrousy as they used blanks, that it was a Hollywood deal. This is Task Force 160. This is the Joint Special Operations Command, these are the finest counterterrorism experts in the world.
O'REILLY: Yes, that makes sense because anything could happen on a road. You don't have blanks in your gun.
HUNT: So, everything about this, except for, give them credit, the BBC got one thing right, these guys had -- they did flex cuff, detain people they find in the hospital because they don't know if you're friend or foe. It's at night.
O'REILLY: Yes, all right, but that's that's insignificant. It doesn't matter what they did. All right, now, look, the BBC reported this, a Toronto newspaper reported this. Toronto newspaper, again, very anti-American, very anti-war. And then Scheer picks it up as the truth. I mean, Scheer doesn't say this might have happened, it could have happened. He says it flat out happened.
How should we as Americans react to this? Should we be angry at these people or what should we do, in your opinion?
NOTE: The BBC did report it, the Toronto Star reported it, and Robert Scheer reported it. And guess what, the BBC, the Toronto Star, and Robert Scheer were all correct. How should we Americans react to this? We should be angry with lying, spinning, media whores like O'Reilly who parrot the Bush propaganda and spew it out as fact. Then call anyone who disagrees with them un-american and anti-american. When they were right, O'Reilly is the one who got it wrong. And yes they were anti-war, and they had a good reason to be anti-war. Because they knew Iraq did not have any WMD's and they knew Iraq was not a threat to anyone. That is why they opposed the war, and they have been proven to be right.
HUNT: In my opinion it's an assault and affront to the finest men and women in our service. It's an assault on Jessica. It's an assault on these great guys, these Special Operations guys, their lives are at risk while they train, let alone when they are doing something like this.
As a minimum, you don't want to buy "The L.A. Times". You don't want to look at "The Toronto Free Press", and shut the BBC off. I think it's a government issue. "The L.A. Times", they have their own problems. But this is calling into question the veracity of the finest soldiers in the world.
O'REILLY: Yes, it certainly is.
HUNT: And it's uncalled for. It's absolutely unbelievable.
O'REILLY: It certainly is. You see, I'm trying to find out here -- I believe you, Colonel, I have to say. I mean, the colonel's been with us, those who watch THE FACTOR, he has been with us from the very start of the war. His reports have been 100 percent accurate. We didn't have to retract anything. When things go wrong, the colonel tells us. When things go right, the colonel tells us. He's they guy who gave us the e-mail when we blew "The New York Times" and "L.A. Times" out of the water in the initial days of the war when they said we were losing. The colonel produced an e-mail that said, you know, from a colonel who was in the lead infantry division who just laid it all for us.
NOTE: O'Reilly says the Col. has been 100 percent accurate. This is a lie, he was wrong on the WMD's, the chemical weapons, etc. And he was wrong on the number of troops needed to secure the country after the war. Yet O'Reilly claims the Col. has been 100 percent accurate. And to this day (11-16-03) O'Reilly claims all his reporting on the Iraq war has been 100 percent accurate, and he has never had to make a correction. I am pretty sure The NY Times and the LA Times did not say we were losing. I believe they said it was not going as they planned it would, that's a big difference from saying we were losing. I don't remember anyone say we would lose the war, in fact everyone agreed we would win the war, and we did. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, O'Reilly, etc. said the war would only take a week to 10 days, it lasted 4 to 5 weeks. The LA Times and the NY Times, only reported the war was not going as planned, they never said we were losing.
O'REILLY: So, you've been right 100 percent, and Scheer is an anti-American guy. He is, and he can deny it all day long, but he hates this country. His columns have proven that over the years. This is a guy who ran for Congress with Jerry Rubin, the 1960's radical as his campaign director, and the guy who wrote a book praising Fidel Castro, Robert Scheer.
NOTE: Robert Scheer is a great american who loves his country, all he did was report the truth, which is what a real journalist does. O'Reilly don't like him so he tries to smear his reputation, I chalenge anyone to fact-check Mr. Scheers reporting against O'Reilly's reporting and see who comes out ahead. In O'Reilly's far right Bush loving world anyone who disagrees with him or Bush in un-american. Talk about smearing people, O'Reilly is the king of smear. Then if you report on his lies he calls you a smear merchant. I wonder if O'Reilly knows how stupid he looks to everyone who really checks out what he says.
O"REILLY: But I just don't, you see, I'm so upset about this because we see what' happening at "The New York Times" and now at "The Los Angeles" -- these are the biggest newspapers representing the biggest cities in the country, and they have a stranglehold. All right, and nothing is going to happen to him. Nothing will happen to Scheer, if this turns out to be -- if you turn out to be right, nothing will happen to Scheer, he will just go along blithely printing his lies and living his life, you know, and getting paid for it.
NOTE: And Mr. Scheer was right, so what should happen to O'Reilly, after all he was wrong not Scheer. O'Reilly talks like Scheer should be fired if he was wrong, well he was right so should O'Reilly be fired? O'Reilly will just go along blithely spewing out his lies and living his life, you know, and getting paid for it.
HUNT: The BBC and The L.A.Times and Toronto didn't even talk to anybody in the Special Operations community, retired or active. Anyone, it's not that hard to find out what happened. We had Rangers involved, we have Navy SEALS, we had the U.S. Marine Corps that was cordoning off this area. We had intelligence operations going on. It wasn't a bit difficult to at least...
NOTE: How does he know who they talked to? They got the story right so they clearly talked to someone who had the truth. If you get the story right it does not matter who you talk to, what matters is getting the story right.
O'REILLY: That's a pretty tough cover-up. With all of those people, you know, involved, if you got one guy who would drop a dime and say...
HUNT: This isn't the Kennedy assassination. This is a rescue of a young soldier who was in very big trouble, who had -- who was hurt, who was one of our POWs, and if we could have got her for nothing, for free, of course. We don't put our men's life at risk for a stage. They're lying.
NOTE: Notice how O'Reilly ends his Bush propaganda segment with the statement, They're lying. Wrong, O'Reilly was lying. Did he ever retract this, or correct it, hell no. He never does any retractions, that's because he never admits he is wrong. If you never admit you are wrong, you never have to retract anything. Did O'Reilly ever tell Mr. Scheer he was sorry for calling him a liar and calling him un-american, hell no. On top of that he says Mr. Scheer hates his country, what?
All he did was report the actual truth, how is it hating your country for a journalist to report the truth. I guess in O'Reilly's warped far right world you hate America unless you report the lies and propaganda put out by the government. But if you report the actual truth, you are un-american and anti-american, according to O'Reilly. BTW, O'Reilly never admits he is wrong, and he never says he is sorry to anyone.
Now look at the Factor Talking Points from may 27, 2003.
O'REILLY: Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight.
Somebody's lying in a big way. That is the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo.
NOTE: Yeah you, Col. Hunt and FOX are lying in a big way.
O'REILLY: As we've been reporting, The Los Angeles Times has staked out a very controversial place for itself by employing radical columnist, Robert Scheer, who many perceive to be a hater of [the] USA. Now that allegation may be proven once and for all.
NOTE: This is outrageous, O'Reilly said Mr. Scheer hates America on his may 22nd show, now he says many people percieve him to be a hater of the USA. What? O'Reilly is the only person I have ever seen who claims Mr. Scheer hates America. It would be like me calling O'Reilly a Nazi Bush lover right now in this article. Then a week from now claim that many people percieve O'Reilly to be a Nazi Bush lover. Talk about ridiculous, that's ridiculous.
O'REILLY: Scheer despises President Bush and today wrote this, "Though the Bush administration shamelessly trumped claims about Iraq's alleged ties to Al Qaeda and 9-11 and its weapons of mass destruction take the cake for deceitful propaganda, grand strategic lies that allow the United States the seizure of Iraq's oil to appear to be an act of liberation, the sad case of Jessica Lynch's exploitation at the hands of military spinners illustrates that the truth, once again, was a casualty of war."
NOTE: And Mr. Scheer has been proven to be 100 percent correct. Bush even admitted there is no ties with Iraq to Al Qaeda and 9-11. He was also 100 percent correct on the Private Lynch story.
O'REILLY: Scheer is referring to reports by the BBC that the U. S. military faked the rescue of Private Lynch. The story said that she was in an unguarded Iraqi hospital, and no military action was necessary. The Pentagon flat out denies the allegation and provided this statement to The Factor, "Any suggestion that the events were staged or that we have been less than forthcoming about them is ludicrous."
So somebody's lying and predictably, Robert Scheer is siding with the BBC, which, you remember, was stridently against the war in Iraq and chastised by one of its own correspondents for slanting its reports.
Talking Points does not know the truth in this matter. We don't know, but we have no reason to doubt the mission's original report. However, if it turns out that the U.S. military is lying, it will be a terrible scandal.
But what if Scheer is wrong, and the BBC's report is fallacious? What happens then? What will The Los Angeles Times do?
Now, The New York Times, as you may know, is in the middle of a huge scandal because of this Jason Blair guy. He was allowed to fabricate stories because the editors were blinded by his skin color and refused to supervise him.
Now The L.A.Times could lose credibility as well if they're lead columnist turns out to be a provable propagandist. Nowhere in his column does Scheer do any original reporting. He just assumes the USA is lying, and the BBC is telling the truth. That's a dangerous game to play, and The Los Angeles Times should at least run a counter-column on the issue, but they never do that. The L.A. Times is extremely left wing in its editorial presentation.
Once again, we don't know the truth of the matter, but it is unfair to call the Bush administration liars unless you have proof. The L.A.Times op-ed page believes that a BBC report is all it needs to call the Private Lynch rescue bogus. We were skeptical of the source and of Scheer's anti-American motives, but we do hope the unassailable truth will emerge soon.
NOTE: And now we have even more proof that O'Reilly, FOX, and Col. Hunt were all dead wrong. For one thing, private Lynch has admitted the whole thing was made up and she would not lie about it. Second, we now have proof that O'Reilly will just go with a made up story and report it as fact. Then if you dare challenge his reporting, he calls you anti-american, un-american, and an america hater. When he was wrong, and the BBC, the Toronto Star, and Mr. Scheer were right. This goes to show the methods O'Reilly uses, if he will report these lies with no verification, what else does he report with no verification.
Check out the current article from the Toronto star, and remember they have been 100 percent correct on this story from the very beginning.
Published on Sunday, November 16, 2003 by the Toronto Star
From hero, to whistle-blower, to celebrity
Jessica Lynch's Story is Turning 'Into a Monster' for the Bush Administration
'A victim of circumstance, used by the Pentagon'
by Lynda Hurst
Pity the poor PR boys at the Pentagon. It may be hard, but try.
They thought they had it made:
A pretty, blonde soldier ambushed by the Iraqis, courageously firing until her ammo runs out, shot and stabbed and carried off by the enemy who, after taking time out to rape her, deposit her unconscious body in a hospital, where she is slapped around by evil medical staff, then, nine days later, is rescued in a daring, nighttime raid that is videotaped and can be shown repeatedly around the world and who, as soon as she recovers, will tell what it's like to be an all-American hero. It was a gift from the propaganda gods.
Just two problems: It didn't happen that way, and the designated hero, Private Jessica Lynch, refuses to say it did.
In fact, Lynch is telling anyone who asks that she is no hero: "That wasn't me. I'm not about to take credit for something I didn't do... I'm just a survivor."
Okay so far, modesty and all.
But Lynch is also a mite angry about the Pentagon's manipulation of events and can't seem to stop correcting the record.
She says she never got off a shot because her gun jammed. The Iraqi medical staff were kindness itself. She was out cold for three hours after her Humvee crashed in the grenade attack, so she doesn't remember any sexual assault. And shocked Iraqi doctors deny it.
As for the dramatic, Rambo-style hospital raid on April 1, she says there was no resistance, no Iraqi military in the hospital, and staff even offered the rescuers a key.
The Pentagon "used me to symbolize all this stuff," Lynch told a fawning Diane Sawyer on ABC last week. "It's wrong."
Yikes. Time for Plan B: It isn't our fault.
A senior military official tells Time magazine that, contrary to appearances, the Saving Private Lynch story was not, no way, a calculated PR ploy, but more a "comedy of errors," based on patchy battlefield intelligence. The media just ran with it.
What the Lynch story actually is, say critics, is a star-spangled metaphor for the confusion and deceit that's marked the Iraq foray from the start.
"This White House believes they can spin their way out of anything and they assume reality will surrender to their spin," says Mark Crispin Miller, a media analyst at New York University.
"In this case, they believed Jessica would play along. But she hasn't. She may not appear self-assertive, but she can clearly tell illusion from reality. Good for her."
What irks him and other analysts is how the American media went along with the fraud for so long.
The Toronto Star's Mitch Potter was one of the first to report the actual facts of the rescue on May 4. The BBC followed up on May 15. But those stories got no traction in the U.S., says Miller. "The media here should have exposed the lie long before they did."
Indeed, the Washington Post — which ran the first story, on April 3, of Lynch fighting until her last bullet, while 11 of her colleagues lay dead on the ground — took until mid-June to print an accurate version, whereupon its ombudsman dryly noted that the tale "didn't get knocked down until it didn't matter so much anymore."
But true or not, the air dates have been booked and The Jessica
Show must go on.
Full Story Here: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1116-02.htm
NOTE: Now after reading this web page, be honest and ask yourself who is the real journalist here, besides me of course. The BBC, the Toronto star, and Robert Scheer got it right, they did real journalism and they got the story right. O'Reilly and FOX just repeated lies with no journalism anywhere in sight. The BBC, the Toronto star, and Robert Scheer actually talked to people who had the truth, then they reported the truth. That is called journalism, they did what it takes to get it right.
On the other hand, FOX, O'Reilly, and Col. Hunt just reported what they wanted you to believe. To them the truth was secondary, they are propaganda artists for Bush and the white house. If The BBC, the Toronto star, and Robert Scheer had not reported the truth, we would all still believe the lies from the Washington Post, FOX, O'Reilly, and Col. Hunt. We should be thankful someone had the integrity to report the real story. And FOX is still using Col. Hunt as one of their military experts, how can we believe anything he says now, his credibility is zero.
Yet FOX did not fire him, and they still use him as an expert today. That shows you how much credibility O'Reilly has too, none. He is a liar, a spinner, a con man, a republican, and a fake journalist. He has a partisan agenda, that agenda is to smear all liberals and cover for Bush.
He is the king of spin, and the king of right-wing propaganda. If he spins the Iraq war, the Lynch story, and the WMD issue much more, his head will spin off.