Former Sinclair news director speaks out.

Courtesy of CNN: 

A morning TV producer at a Sinclair-owned station in Nebraska has resigned in protest of what he calls the company's "obvious bias." 

Justin Simmons gave notice at KHGI TV on March 26. This was after Sinclair's corporate headquarters mandated that local anchors read the controversial promos warning of "fake" and biased news, but before the promos went viral and became a national topic of discussion. 

Simmons told CNNMoney that he had been concerned about Sinclair's corporate mandates for the past year and a half, and that the promos were just the final straw. 

"This is almost forcing local news anchors to lie to their viewers," he said. He said his feelings are shared by others at his station, but didn't want to say anything that would imperil his colleagues.

Huffington Post actually got their hands on the Sinclair Broadcasting Group employee handbook.

Here is just a portion:   

The handbook states that the company “may monitor, intercept, and review, without further notice, every employee’s activities using Company’s electronic resources and communications systems.”

Well that's chilling.

But if you think that all of this attention has changed Sinclair's practices, you would be sorely mistaken.

Courtesy of Think Progress:  

Sinclair-owned news stations promoted a pre-taped segment praising President Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on foreign nations this week, amid controversy over a leaked “must-run” script. 

The canned clip, a recurring “commentary” segment called “Bottom Line with Boris,” features former Trump campaign adviser Boris Epshteyn delivering administration-friendly talking points on the president’s proposed tariffs, which target countries like China. 

“The newly negotiated trade deal between the United States and South Korea shows the new tariffs on steel and aluminum, which went into effect last week, are already paying dividends,” Epshteyn said, citing a March 25 pact between the two countries that forces South Korea to slash its steel exports to the United States by 30 percent, while exempting it from a regular 25 percent tariff. 

“Here’s the bottom line,” he said. “This new deal with South Korea is a win for American businesses and our economy. Instead of causing trade wars, as critics have feared, the new tariffs…are pushing our trading partners to engage in fair trade with the United States.”

You would think that Boris Epshteyn might shed a few of those ugly pounds of fat by carrying all of this water for Donald Trump.

Or in this case instead of water I think he is more accurately carrying buckets filled with bullshit.

Fox News retracts bogus Seth Rich story, while Sean Hannity doubles down and declares he is "not Fox News.com."

You might remember this conspiracy theory put out by Info Wars, the Russians, Sarah Palin, and Fox News suggesting that a young DNC staffer was murdered after sending incriminating materials about Hillary Clinton and the DNC to Wikileaks.

The story had earlier been debunked by Snopes, but for some reason the Right Wing resurrected it to distract from the ongoing Trump/Russia investigation.

Well yesterday Fox came to their senses and deleted their story and made this comment: 

On May 16, a story was posted on the Fox News website on the investigation into the 2016 murder of DNC Staffer Seth Rich. The article was not initially subjected to the high degree of editorial scrutiny we require for all our reporting. 

Upon appropriate review, the article was found not to meet those standards and has since been removed. We will continue to investigate this story and will provide updates as warranted. 

Just a rare moment of journalistic integrity on their part, and Seth Rich's parents were quick to thank them for it:   

Rich’s family said it was grateful for the story’s removal. 

“The family would like to thank Fox News for their retraction on a story that has caused deep pain and anguish to the family and has done harm to Seth Rich’s legacy,” the family said through a spokesman. “We are hopeful that in the future that Fox News will work with the family to ensure the highest degree of professionalism and scrutiny is followed so that only accurate facts are reported surrounding this case.”

The Daily Caller also removed their story:

Daily Caller has taken down its Seth Rich story:https://t.co/ibsAHQ4wOh pic.twitter.com/3OJVMXB5Lm

— Carlos Maza (@gaywonk) May 23, 2017

However the story is still being spread on Right Wing news sites, and Sean Hannity has broken ranks with Fox to join with them in that endeavor.

Courtesy of The Hill: 

Fox News’s Sean Hannity ripped his critics and the mainstream media on his nationally syndicated radio program Tuesday, saying, “I am not Fox.com or FoxNews.com, I retracted nothing.”

"For those accusing me of pushing a conspiracy theory, you are the biggest phony hypocrites in the entire world," Hannity said Tuesday. 

“This issue, it’s so big now that the entire Russia collusion narrative is hanging by a thread,” he said, referencing media coverage of the investigations into the Trump campaign and possible ties to Russia's meddling in the presidential election last year. “If in fact, take Seth out of it, there was a whistleblower within the DNC — a truth-teller that was actually the source for WikiLeaks, not Russia — working with the Trump campaign. These are questions that I have a moral obligation to ask, and I will do the mainstream media’s job like I have most of my career.”

"I will do the mainstream media's job like I have most of my career?" WTF?

Hannity's bizarre fixation on this story has reportedly upset others working at Fox News: 

Staffers at the conservative Fox News Channel are blasting host Sean Hannity and others at the network for their "disappointing" choice to push conspiracy theories about the murder of Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich. 

"It hurts those of us who are legitimately focused on journalism," one employee told CNN. 

"We have a chance to turn the corner at Fox, and perpetuating this conspiracy theory damages our integrity," the employee continued.

This is odd, it is almost as if somebody is pushing Hannity to continue fanning this conspiracy theory who has more sway over him than his employers apparently do.

And as for his employment, I am beginning to think that Hannity's departure from Fox News is now imminent.

Rachel Maddow now dominates cable news.

Courtesy of Variety:

For the first three nights of this week, Maddow’s 9 p.m. broadcast on MSNBC was the most-watched on cable-news in primetime – a position that had long been enjoyed by the 8 p.m. hour in the Fox News schedule, where O’Reilly had a roost for more than two decades,and where Tucker Carlson now holds court. 

Maddow’s recent gains are part of a viewership surge at the NBCUniversal-owned network that comes as a chaotic White House has driven viewers to MSNBC in ways the executives really haven’t seen since the days of Keith Olbermann. Last week, MSNBC’s primetime schedule was tops in the demographic most coveted by advertisers – people between 25 and 54 – for the first time since the week of December 29, 2008. MSNBC’s “Maddow,” “The Last Word” and “11th Hour” are all leading in that viewership category for the month to date, according to data from Nielsen.

“MSNBC’s ratings surge is entirely due to the ongoing crisis of fake news – the more that news designed to deceive plays a role in politics and our lives, the more people hunger for news they can trust and which is demonstrably true,” said Paul Levinson, a professor of media studies at Fordham University.

Well as a long time fan, I am quite happy to see Rachel finally getting the attention she deserves.

She has been my go to news source for many years now, and I am never disappointed. 

Breitbart News denied congressional press passes.

Courtesy of CNN: 

Breitbart News was stymied once again on Tuesday in its efforts to secure press credentials on Capitol Hill. 

The standing committee of correspondents of the U.S. Senate Daily Press Gallery, a panel of journalists that determines which news organizations should receive congressional press passes, voted to table Breitbart's bid for permanent passes and to discontinue the right-wing outlet's temporary credentials without an extension. 

Breitbart's temporary credentials expire on May 31. 

Laura Lytle, the director of the Senate Press Gallery, said that Breitbart's application was tabled until the outlet "can sufficiently demonstrate that they meet the requirements of Rule 4 of the Congressional rules governing the Gallery." 

One part of that rule says, "Applicants' publications must be editorially independent of any institution, foundation or interest group that lobbies the federal government, or that is not principally a general news organization."

Well clearly Breitbart does not meet those criteria.

They are a propaganda outlet for Donald Trump.

However since Steve Bannon is still skulking around the White House somewhere there still exists the possibility that Breitbart will eventually get those credentials. 

And on that day it will signify yet another stake through the heart of American journalism.

I think my irony meter just committed suicide.

Megyn Kelly jumps ship and leaves Fox for NBC News.

Courtesy of USA Today: 

Megyn Kelly is signing off on Fox News to join rival NBC News. 

The popular cable network personality is joining the peacock network, where she will anchor a new, one-hour daytime program, Andrew Lack, chairman of the NBCUniversal News Group, said in a statement today. 

As part of a broad, multi-year deal, Kelly will also anchor a new Sunday evening news magazine show and contribute to NBC’s breaking news, political and special events coverage.

“Megyn is an exceptional journalist and news anchor, who has had an extraordinary career” Lack said. “She’s demonstrated tremendous skill and poise, and we’re lucky to have her.” 

NBC said details on Kelly's duties will be announced in the coming months.

I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that those details involve truckloads of money.

I have developed a little grudging respect for Kelly since she took on Donald Trump early in the campaign season but since it was she who once suggested that Sarah Palin sue me, I don't see myself ever becoming a huge fan.

Personally I will be interested to see how much of Kelly's partisanship depends on which news outlet employs her.

Remember she was all in on that war on Christmas, vociferously attacked Hillary Clinton, and spent the last eight years lobbing insults at the Democrats without any signs of remorse.

So is she suddenly going to embrace liberal politics, or is she going to remain apolitical and simply report the news dispassionately?

Like his fascist idol, Donald Trump also his own propaganda outlet. It's called the National Enquirer.

Courtesy of Think Progress: 

Since election day, the Enquirer has trumpeted the president-elect’s controversial decision to hire white nationalist figures like Steve Bannon, his economically untenable and largely falsified plan to save a few jobs from leaving Indiana, and his bold leadership in convincing Apple to move 4.5 million jobs to the United States (no such plan exists).

It remains to be seen if the National Enquirer’s current standing as a disreputable rag changes in a Trump administration. For years, the paper has tried to build its credibility as more than a peddler of gossip and fiction, most recently in 2008 when they were the first to break the story about John Edwards’ long history of affairs. Though their reporting lacked basic journalistic standards, subsequent reporting by actual journalists lent weight to the Enquirer’s story. 

But there is some evidence that the Enquirer will have a powerful ally and a captive audience working in the West Wing. It was the Enquirer that first pushed a fake story about Ted Cruz’s father being seen with Lee Harvey Oswald months before the assassination of JFK. Within hours, Donald Trump himself was sharing the story to his millions of followers on social media, citing the Enquirer – “They actually have a very good record of being right,” he said at the time – in the way most people cite the New York Times.

Well I guess it stands to reason that a fake president would have a tabloid famous for printing fake news promoting his version of reality.

You know I have had some dealings with the Enquirer in the past, and there were a few folks there that I thought were actually good reporters with ethics and everything. But overall the paper is a shit show which ONLY cares about printing lurid headlines that entice shoppers to buy them, only to discover later that often the headline does not match the content.

Clearly they are positioning themselves to gain access to Trump and therefore get the kinds of exclusives which might resurrect their reputation.

Which might work out well since neither Trump nor the Enquirer seem to have a terribly strong affinity for the truth.

The National Enquirer buys former Playboy model's story of her affair with Donald Trump, to keep it secret.

Trump with Karen McDougal.

Courtesy of the Daily Mail: 

The National Enquirer's publishing company paid a Playboy model $150,000 for her story about having an affair with Donald Trump - but never ran it, sources have said. 

Karen McDougal, the 1998 Playmate of the year, claimed she had a consensual relationship with Trump over several months beginning in 2006, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday. 

But the National Enquirer didn't publish anything about McDougal's allegations, despite paying six figures for the information, according to people familiar with the matter and documents reviewed by the Wall Street Journal. 

Trump married Melania, his third wife, in January 2005. 

And there goes the last of the journalistic integrity that the Enquirer earned by reporting on the John Edwards affair story.

This is completely indefensible.

Besides its not like most Americans do not already simply ASSUME that Trump cheats on his wife, virtually everything we know about him would lead to that conclusion.

Still seeing the Enquirer do this offers a peek into how Trump "manages" unflattering press and keeps his "useful idiots" from learning the truth about him.

Chuck Todd is not even pretending to be nonpartisan anymore.

If Clinton campaign was happy with last night's forum, they wouldn't be looking to do a presser this morning to provide new Clinton sound

— Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) September 8, 2016

I don't know what forum ole Chuckie was watching but on the one that I saw Hillary came off as smart and prepared, while Trump came off as evasive and incoherent.

By the way Todd is not alone, somebody else also agrees with his assessment.

Hillary just gave a disastrous news conference on the tarmac to make up for poor performance last night. She's being decimated by the media!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 8, 2016

Gee, that's awfully similar.

This is the "presser" Todd is referring to during which Clinton tears a huge chunk out of Donald Trump: 

Hillary Clinton unleashed a torrent of attacks against Donald Trump's preparedness to be commander in chief and questioned his patriotism Thursday morning, hours after an NBC forum exposed her opponent to criticism on multiple fronts. 

"It is a game to him. Everything is a game. It is like he is living in his own celebrity reality TV program," Clinton said at a campaign rally in Charlotte Thursday afternoon. "You know what Donald, this is real reality, this is real people, these are real decisions that have to be made for our country."

"Last night was yet another test and Donald Trump failed yet again. We saw more evidence that he is temperamentally unfit and totally unqualified to be commander in chief. He trash talked American generals," she said.

Yeah I can see why that might get Trump all riled up, but why would it agitate an actual journalist focused on the facts?

Fox News "terrorism expert" pleads guilty to lying about being a former CIA agent.

Courtesy AOL: 

A Fox News guest terrorism analyst pleaded guilty on Friday to U.S. charges that he fraudulently claimed to have been a CIA agent for decades, federal prosecutors said. 

Wayne Simmons, 62, of Annapolis, Maryland, entered the plea in U.S. district court in Alexandria, Virginia, a Washington suburb, the U.S. Attorney's Office said in a statement

The plea came in a hearing in which Simmons changed the not-guilty plea he had made in October. 

"His fraud cost the government money, could have put American lives at risk, and was an insult to the real men and women of the intelligence community who provide tireless service to this country," said Dana Boente, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. 

Simmons had appeared on Fox News, the top-ranked U.S. cable television news network, as an unpaid guest analyst on terrorism since 2002.

Well of course the "expert" that Fox News hires to support their Right Wing propaganda is a fraud.

Hell the whole network is a fraud.

Over the last few weeks I have made brief visits to Fox News just to get an idea as to how they are handling this whole election cycle, and it appears to me that they are no longer even pretending to be an actual news organization.

EVERY broadcast is about attacking Hillary Clinton, defending the Republicans, and arguing that the country is going to hell in a handbasket.

My current record is about seven or eight minutes before I have to change the channel while fighting my gag reflex.

So are Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski in the tank for Donald Trump? Listen to this leaked audio and you tell me.

Wow I had no idea that Joe and Mika had joined the Trump campaign.

I think my new favorite thing is watching Fox News bitch that Hillary Clinton will not talk to them.

Courtesy of Politicususa: 

This was not the first time that Wallace has whined on the air about being frozen out. In May of 2015, Wallace unleashed a pouty barrage on the air and admitted that President Obama won’t let people from the White House go on Fox News Sunday. 

President Obama and former Sec. of State Clinton have been subjected to relentless attacks by Fox News. There is no way that Clinton is going to give Fox or any of its shows the time of day unless it is on her terms. The message that the Clinton campaign is sending is that Fox News is going to pay for their years of lies about the former Sec. of State.

How unreasonable of Hillary Clinton not to grant an interview with the cable news outlet that has been attacking her, and her husband, non-stop since the day they first went on the air. 

I hope that after she wins the election she NEVER goes on Fox and they just shrivel up with jealousy that every other news outlet gets access except for them.

To his credit President Obama has agreed to interviews on Fox and they have been incredibly disrespectful hack jobs that in a REAL news agency would see the interviewers fired immediately.

So fuck Fox News.

Marco Rubio dismisses Breitbart news as "not a credible source." That's what I've been saying for years.

Courtesy of Raw Story: 

Asked by Fox host Neil Cavuto about a Breitbart exclusive on South Carolina primary eve that claimed Rubio had “betrayed” Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials during the 2013 Gang of Eight immigration fight, Rubio swatted away the mention of the report. 

“It’s not true, he’s not an ICE official and it’s being reported on a website that’s not credible source,” Rubio responded. “It’s the same website that reported that you guys gave me the questions to the debate.” 

After Cavuto noted that they were talking specifically about a Breitbart piece, he asked the Florida senator if he gave it “any credence.” 

“We don’t even credential them for our events,” Rubio replied, before adding, “I literally don’t even talk about the things they report because they’re conspiracy theories and often times manipulated.”

Gotta say that I really love this.

And it's even more satisfying because this is just about the ONLY place, besides Facebook of course, where Sarah Palin can get a ghostwritten article posted these days.

You know after a few more GOP politicians recognize the reality of what Rubio is saying, perhaps Breitbart will soon become the defunct website that they once accused us of being.

Fox News terrorism expert has been arrested by the Feds and charged with fraud. Isn't that a prerequisite for Fox News?

Courtesy of CNN:

Wayne Simmons, a recurring guest on Fox News who claimed to have 27 years of experience with the CIA, was arrested Thursday after being indicted by a federal grand jury on charges that he lied about his service. 

Simmons is accused of falsely claiming that he worked as an "outside paramilitary special operations officer" for the CIA from 1973 to 2000. On Fox, this was often shortened to "former CIA operative." 

He was also indicted for using that false claim to gain government security clearances and an assignment as a defense contractor, where he advised senior military personnel overseas. 

Simmons made his initial appearance in court on Thursday afternoon. If convicted, he could face up to 35 years in prison on charges of major fraud against the United States, wire fraud, and making false statements to the government. 

Simmons is a familiar face to Fox News viewers. After the arrest was announced on Thursday, Fox News spokesperson Irena Briganti told CNN that he "was never a contributor for Fox News," and that he appeared on the network only as a non-paid guest. She therefore declined to comment further.

Uh...well as it turns out Simmons has a website on which he claims that  "has been a Terrorism Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 2002."

Can you say "Awkward?"

But let's be fair. After all just about everybody on Fox News is fake.

There are fake terrorism analysts.

Fake psychiatrists.

Fake liberals.

Fake black people.

And of course tons of fake journalists.

So if you are surprised by this then you simply have no been paying attention.

So is Donald Trump paying for all of his positive media coverage? Maybe.

Wait, they're on to me? How much will it cost to get them off the story?

Courtesy of Buzzfeed: 

According to four sources with knowledge of the situation, editors and writers at the outlet have privately complained since at least last year that the company’s top management was allowing Trump to turn Breitbart into his own fan website — using it to hype his political prospects and attack his enemies. One current editor called the water-carrying “despicable” and “embarrassing,” and said he was told by an executive last year that the company had a financial arrangement with Trump. A second Breitbart staffer said he had heard a similar description of the site’s relationship with the billionaire but didn’t know the details; and a third source at the company said he knew of several instances when managers had overruled editors at Trump’s behest. Additionally, a conservative communications operative who works closely with Breitbart described conversations in which “multiple writers and editors” said Trump was paying for the ability to shape coverage, and added that one staffer claimed to have seen documentation of the “pay for play.” 

All four sources spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to jeopardize their jobs; and none knew exactly how Trump’s alleged arrangement with the privately held company worked.

Well it makes sense if you think about it.

After all this is the guy who hired actors to increase the size of the crowd during his announcement speech.

Of course the management at Breitbart denies this is true, but then what else would you expect them to say?

However since this is four different sources coming forward that makes their denial a little weak.

My question is how many other "news" outlets are on the take?

My favorite gif of the day.

And that is how a hero is born: 

This short clip has made Wiener a hero in his city. The response in San Francisco has been “overwhelmingly and enthusiastically positive. People are thrilled. There is such a deep seated frustration with Fox News and the fringe it represents,” Wiener said, saying he’d also received messages of support from around the country.

And do you know what? This country needs many more heroes just like Scott Wiener to call out Fox News for their bullshit every chance they get.  

Former policy adviser to Ronald Reagan releases study that finds that Fox News is hurting Republicans and making conservative voters dumber.

Courtesy of HuffPo: 

The study, authored by Bruce Bartlett, who worked in the Treasury Department under George H. W. Bush and was also a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan, found that Fox viewers tended to be less informed about current affairs than people who watch mainstream news -- and even people who don't watch the news at all. 

"Republican voters get so much of their news from Fox, which cheerleads whatever their candidates are doing or saying, that they suffer from wishful thinking and fail to see that they may not be doing as well as they imagine, or that their ideas are not connecting outside the narrow party base," Bartlett said. 

Citing a host of other studies, Bartlett found that Fox News viewers tended to have misguided beliefs about the Iraq War, the Affordable Care Act and other major issues. He also noted that Fox's audience tended to hold a bias against Muslims. 

"It appears that right-wing bias, including inaccurate reporting, became commonplace on Fox," Bartlett said.

The article goes on to say that this is especially concerning because "many conservatives now refuse to even listen to any news or opinion not vetted through Fox, and to believe whatever appears on it as the gospel truth." 

That means that any opinions which disagree with Fox or conservative talk radio are considered biased, and not worth their time.

Talking Points Memo had this to say about this study: 

Since Fox founder and chairman Roger Ailes opened shop in 1996, the effects of the powerhouse conservative channel on the media landscape have been widely noted. Bartlett, a onetime advisor to Rep. Ron Paul and President Ronald Reagan and official in the administration George H.W. Bush, cites several studies showing how Fox broke into an untapped market for a single conservative news source after years of FCC regulations which required equal time for political debate (the so-called "fairness doctrine" ended in 1987 under President Reagan.) 

But Barlett also surfaced studies which show that that the Fox Effect changed not only Americans' media diet, but their political behavior as well — boosting turnout for the GOP and pushing both Republicans and Democrats rightward in Congress.

Of course we have talked about this numerous times here at IM. 

Roger Ailes, who was an aide for Richard Nixon, was convinced that the media did not treat his President fairly and he believed it was due to a liberal bias. (It wasn't. The news back then simply reported the facts. And as we know, facts by their very nature have a liberal bias.)

So in 1996 Ailes, with the backing of Rupert Murdoch, decided to broadcast the news with a conservative bent and the rest is the stuff of journalist's nightmares.

Now our country is torn apart by ideological arguments, our politics are at a virtual standstill, and billionaires now openly purchase their own candidates and finance their campaigns.

Personally I think Roger Ailes is guilty of treason and should be tried for the crimes of selling the Iraq War to the American people, interfering with the Al Gore's election to the presidency in 2000, and undermining American journalism.

Here is how the Daily Show presenting 50 Fox News lies in 6 seconds.

Jon Stewart finally interviews the disgraced New York Times reporter Judith Miller the way she needs to be interviewed.

Click image to play extended interview.

I watched this last night standing on my feet.

That's how excited I was to see somebody finally, at long last, holding Miller's feet to the fire.

I had already watched several interviews which had me yelling at the screen in anger, and here was one that had me yelling at the screen in support.

Here is more from the Daily Beast:  

Stewart did not let Miller off easy, claiming that Miller partook in a “concerted effort” to lead us into a war with Iraq. 

“I think it was a concerted effort to take us into war in Iraq. You had to shift, with energy, the focus of America from Afghanistan and al Qaeda to Iraq. That took effort,” Stewart said. “Somebody pointed the light at Iraq, and that somebody is the White House, and the Defense Department, and Rumsfeld. He said right after 9/11, ‘Find me a pretext to go to war with Iraq.’ That’s from the 9/11 papers and the study.” 

Much of the focus of their on-air tussle was Miller’s front-page Times story from September 8, 2002, headlined, “U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts.” In it, Miller and her Times colleague Michael R. Gordon cited anonymous officials from the Bush administration who believed that Iraq had “stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb.” 

Here is part of their heated exchange:

MILLER: “Jon, were we not supposed to report what it was that had the intelligence community so nervous about Saddam?” 

STEWART: “No. You should have reported it, though, in the context of this administration was very clearly pushing a narrative, and by losing sight of that context, by not reporting—” 

MILLER: “I think we did.” 

STEWART: “I wholeheartedly disagree with you.” 

MILLER: “That’s what makes journalism.” 

STEWART: “It’s actually not what makes journalism...”

At one point in the interview Miller claims that a statement by David Albright, an expert she claims she trusted on nuclear weapons, which disagreed with the White House about Iraq's ability to build that type of weapon, was cut due to space. Which is one of the most bullshit answers I have ever heard in my life.

Usually at the end of an interview,  even with somebody that Stewart disagrees with wholeheartedly, he is always magnanimous and makes a joke and shakes their hand to signify no hard feelings.

But not this time.

At the end of this interview Stewart looks disgusted with the fact that Miller will not take responsibility for her biased reporting, and expresses how deeply sad that makes him.

David Letterman asks Bill O'Reilly what the difference is between his lies and those told by Brian Williams.

Courtesy of Mediaite:  

Comparing O’Reilly’s alleged mischaracterizations of past reporting to Brian Williams‘ exaggerations about his time spent in Iraq, Letterman asked, “Is there a difference?” 

“Only if I did something that wasn’t true,” O’Reilly replied, maintaining his innocence. “What I said was accurate,” he insisted, despite evidence to the contrary put forward by organizations like Mother Jones and Media Matters, among others. “It worked out OK for me,” he said, noting that he got “even more viewers” out of the whole thing, a 20% increase. 

“20% up when people thought you were making stuff up?” Letterman asked, incredulously.

O'Reilly goes on to say that people did not think he was making stuff up because he went on the attack. He also claimed that he never knowingly "fibbed" on the air, and went on to say that his ratings prove that his viewers trust him.

He never fibbed on the air?

I think a visit to Politifact quickly demonstrates the falsehood of that claim.

The fact is that Brain Williams was suspended because NBC News considers itself a legitimate news source, and Bill O'Reilly was not because Fox News knows it is not.

Newly revealed footage, of Bill O'Reilly's actual news report from Buenos Aires, proves that he fabricated his experiences during the anti-government protests after the fact.

Courtesy of Mother Jones:  

To justify his claim that he was in a "war zone" and a "combat situation" in Buenos Aires, O'Reilly has pointed to his coverage of a violent protest that erupted after the Argentines surrendered. He has said that a bloodbath occurred, with Argentine troops firing live ammunition into the crowd, mowing down demonstrators, and killing "many." He also has claimed that during the protest a soldier pointed an M-16 at him, and that he heroically rescued his cameraman as O'Reilly and his crew were being chased by soldiers. 

His own real-time coverage of the protest makes no mention of a massacre or threats to him and his crew. 

What's notable about O'Reilly's report is what's not in it. He does not refer to Argentine soldiers gunning down civilians or mention any deaths. He says nothing about soldiers chasing him and his crew. And there's no reference to a CBS cameraman being injured. (A reporter who witnesses soldiers shooting protesters and killing many civilians would presumably be compelled to report on those horrors.) His report depicts exactly what other journalists and eyewitnesses have said took place: a violent demonstration in which tear gas and rubber bullets were deployed. In this 1982 report, O'Reilly called the demonstration a "disturbance." But in later years—on his Fox News show, in his writings, and at speaking engagements—he has claimed that the event was a bloody melee that amounted to "combat" in a "war zone." 

Discussing his coverage of the protest for CBS on Fox News last week, O'Reilly declared, "In my reporting, I told it exactly the way it was." He appears to be correct regarding his real-time reporting of that event. And that's his problem. His own report from 1982 shows his later—much more intense—descriptions of the event were exaggerated. With this footage, O'Reilly the reporter proves O'Reilly the pundit wrong.

Hang on, I'm making a mental note to tune in to "The factor" later on today, because you just know Billo is going to be seething.

I have to admit that I have not had as much fun with a breaking news story since Sarah Palin's bizarre resignation speech.