According to Wikipedia, Leonard Pitts, Jr. is an American commentator, journalist and novelist. He is a nationally-syndicated columnist and winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary. Pitts wrote a column recently on the Bill O’Reilly controversy (and cover-up) about his exaggerations.
Pitts:
“Last month, when NBC News anchor Brian Williams’ career imploded as he was caught in a high-profile, self-aggrandizing lie, I suggested in this space that there would be much less angst or fallout if someone from Fox News were caught lying.”
Since then, Mother Jones ran a story questioning Bill O’Reilly’s claim to have been in the combat zone in the Falkland Islands while covering that war for CBS. Other news organizations have reported other questionable assertions by O’Reilly, including the claim that O’Reilly was outside of the home of an associate of Lee Harvey Oswald when the associate shot himself.
O’Reilly dismissed Mother Jones as the “bottom rung of journalism in America,” and called the reporter David Corn a “liar,” an “irresponsible guttersnipe,” a “far-left zealot” and “dumb.”
Other instances of questionable claims include O’Reilly saying that he witnessed the execution of a group of American nuns in El Salvador that happened in 1980, even though O’Reilly apparently did not reach El Salvador until 1981, and he “saw photos” of the incident.
In his book, “Keep it Pithy,” O’Reilly states that he saw “Irish terrorists kill and maim their fellow citizens in Belfast with bombs.” Fox News itself denied that comment, according to the Chicago Tribune.
O’Reilly has claimed he was “attacked by protesters” while covering the 1992 Los Angeles riots for “Inside Edition,” but former colleagues say he is exaggerating an incident where an angry man took a piece of rubble to a camera.
“For one falsehood, Williams received a six-month suspension without pay. For a handful of apparent falsehoods, O’Reilly has received unstinting support from his bosses at Fox,” says Pitts.
Pitts claims that Fox “is not a real news-gathering organization but, rather, the propaganda arm of a right wing that grows ever more cult-like and detached from reality as time goes by,” and proof is that “O’Reilly is not fighting for his professional life.”
“(P)undits are entitled to their opinions. But that does not release them from the obligation to be factual,” writes Pitts.
It is telling that Fox recently responded to sharp questions about all this from MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow by sending her a statement noting that O’Reilly’s ratings are up despite the controversy.
“To act as if ratings answer, or even address, questions of credibility is to express contempt for the very notion of credibility. It suggests Fox’s full-body embrace of the old saying, often attributed to Barnum, about the birthrate of suckers,” he writes.
Pitts calls Fox “an alternate reality wherein birthers make sensible arguments,” and “death panels are real…,” and it tells viewers “what they want to hear.”
“Yes, he is apparently a serial fabulist. And yes, that would disqualify you from most newsrooms,” writes Pitts.
More:
http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/contributors/2015/03/12/fox-news-bill-oreilly/70207198/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-bill-oreilly-scandal-20150228-story.html
OK, Fine. 