O'Reilly Caught Doctoring Florida Mans E-Mail
By: Steve - October 13, 2011 - 10:00am
And he did not just remove part of the e-mail for time reasons as they claim, they removed words to make it seem like Kopchak said something he never said. In other words, they cherry picked his e-mail to make it say something he never actually said or meant.
Proving that I am right when at the end of my Factor blog reviews I say the Factor mail is highly edited. Not to mention this, O'Reilly said nothing on his show is ever edited, but now we have proof he has his staff edit the e-mail to sometimes mean things the writer did not say or imply.
Here is the story: A St. Petersburg man says he sent an email to Bill O'Reilly, and it ended up being displayed on his show, the O'Reilly Factor. Well, that man says part of his email ended up on the show, along with new words and concepts that ended up in front of O'Reilly's television audience.
Jeremy Kopchak says he was watching Bill O'Reilly interview noted atheist Richard Dawkins last week when he became "frustrated by Bill's usual demeaning of Dawkins" and sent an email to the Factor.
What Kopchak sent to O'Reilly, he says, wasn't exactly what O'Reilly displayed to the nation.
Here's the text of the email Kopchak claims he sent to O'Reilly:
Bill, have you read Richard Dawkin's book 'The God Delusion'? You should have the guts to investigate both sides before being so pompous in your faith while completely discounting the critical thinking of atheists. The truth will stand up to any scrutiny.
Now here is what O'Reilly read on the show:
St. Petersburg, Florida
"Bill, You should have the guts to investigate both sides before being so pompous in your faith that you would attack Dawkins."
Notice what was left out of what O'Reilly read on the air: (while completely discounting the critical thinking of atheists. The truth will stand up to any scrutiny).
Then notice that the Factor edited it, they added this: (that you would attack Dawkins) when Kopchak never said that.
Somewhere between Kopchak's computer and the editors at the Factor, he says the phrase "while completely discounting the critical thinking of atheists" turned into "that you would attack Dawkins."
As evidenced, O'Reilly's talking point turned into Kopchak's claim that O'Reilly attacked Dawkins -- a claim Kopchak never actually made, according to the email.
That leads to the question -- if the aforementioned premises are true, could Kopchak make a case for libel?
It's possible, according to Joseph Russomanno, a PhD, author, and professor of media law at Arizona State University's Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication:
Jeremy would seem to have two possible claims -- libel if he feels his reputation was damaged, or false light if his reputation was not damaged. Some states don't recognize false light, so that would be important to know.
Then Amy Sohnen, executive producer of the O'Reilly Factor, told the Pulp that the length of the email was the only alteration made to the email. She said this: "We trimmed the letter for time but did not change the meaning," she says.
With libel, because O'Reilly is a public figure, Jeremy would have to prove O'Reilly made the false information public with actual malice -- knowing the information was false or showing reckless disregard for the truth.
Which is a 100% lie, because we have the original e-mail and we have what they read on the show, nd the two do not match up. They did change the meaning of the e-mail, they removed words he wrote, and they added words he did not write.
So even when they are busted red-handed for lying about editing an e-mail, they still deny it. And then they want respect as honest journalists, wow, give me a break. If you want respect as honest journalists quit doctoring e-mails, and then after getting caught admit it and say you will never do it again.
This is a prime example of how dishonest O'Reilly and his staff are, and yet they want you to believe what they report is accurate and true, when we know for a fact they are biased and dishonest right-wing hacks. In fact, I bet they read more doctored e-mails tonight, and every night. Noting will change, even after getting caught edited an e-mail.
And btw folks, this is not the first time this has happened, so do not think it was a one time deal. Because I have seen this 3 or 4 other times, people have e-mailed me copies of their e-mail to O'Reilly, then showed me what he read on the air, and they did not match up.
In every case O'Reilly (or his staff) removed words they wrote and added other words they did not write, or he changed the meaning of their e-mail by removing the negative comments about O'Reilly and only leaving the positive comments.
For example, a man wrote me and said he wrote this: Dear Bill, I like your show because it is not boring, but you are clearly a partisan conservative.
O'Reilly edited that to say this: Dear Bill, I like your show because it is not boring.
Then O'Reilly thanked him for his kind words, when they guy was slamming O'Reilly for lying about being a non-partisan Independent. Believe me folks, O'Reilly and his staff do this all the time, which is about as dishonest as you can get for a so-called journalist.
To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page: www.oreilly-sucks.com
Pass4sure 640-802 dumps - Cisco Certified Network Associate
actualtests VCAD510 exam - VMware Certified Associate - Data Center Virtualization (VCA-DCV) Exam
352-001 dumps - ADVDESIGN (CCDE)
70-410 dumps - Installing and Configuring Windows Server 2012