Was Bill O'Reilly set up? Or did he simply lie knowing many would believe?

Very true, but most don't take the time to publicly admit when they are wrong.

"O'Reilly, however, is one of the only hosts I know of that will readily admit when he's wrong." That's a big thing I give him credit for. The vast majority of reporters, including Sean Hannity of Fox News, NEVER admit when they make a mistake. O'Reilly regularly calls on newspapers like the NY Times to print retractions when their "journalists" write bold faced lies. Everytime he does he provides video clips proving their lies and yet there is never any retraction.

I believe if you had actually read what I said, you'd see that I didn't think O'Reilly would deliberately lie, regardless of whether or not I like him. But, I don't think you got that far. You read what you wanted to see and assumed the rest. I said it felt like a set up. I asked if others felt it was a set up or a blatant lie. I didn't say that I felt it was a blatant lie by him, even though the information was blatantly wrong.

Actually, I was speaking in generalities. Maybe the context of my post--or the fact that I never said your name--wasn't clear. I'll be sure to say "they'll" next time in the exact same context and screw the grammatical pooch. "It all depends on whether *you* respect O'Reilly or not." "You" sets the stage for my general point -- no specific mention of jerzgirl was illustrated. "If so, they'll {O'Reilly respecters} quickly realize that everyone misspeaks from time to time in the heat of debate/rant. If not, they'll {O'Reilly haters} contend that he perpetuated a damning lie..." Better?

I can't rightly say that any of that is untrue about someone giving him misinformation and that Fox thinks they're the only game in town (probably because they do so well), but it wasn't anywhere near as bad as what it seems when people put it to print. Having watched both episodes, the actual mistake and the immediate apology and explanation, the initial slip was in the middle of a rant about a pick-and-choose brand of coverage carried out by MSNBC and CNN. In itself, that's a bit hypocritical of him -- but isn't a lie. When O'Reilly compares his show to other shows, he's talking about primetime shows. He's been down that road before when proclaiming his love for all things him and his #1 rating. Although he doesn't always say it, he has spoken about it enough to where people who know his show understand the context: he means his direct competition, not news as a whole. I don't think he even cares about any of Fox, truthfully, outside of the Factor. He makes it a habit of drawing comparisons, and rarely does he speak in specifics once that context is established (it's kinda like jerzgirl misunderstanding my context up top). People who don't watch the entire show--just the clips--or want to catch him slipping will immediately point and scream, "LIAR!" He gave the "right" information, but aimed it at the whole instead of being specific and streamlining it -- this made the information wrong. It's no worse than what anyone else does in news and politics on a daily basis. I guess it's one of those "had to be there" things.

Okay, I checked and he's already admitted he misspoke and has instead stressed the amount of coverage comparitively. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/09/bill-oreilly-cnn-covered_n_213305.html

I didn't think you'd accept a Huffington link, but found the the link to a YouTube playing of his show has been removed for a TOS violation. My guess is that they didn't provide links because the information was readily available if searched. This story was in our local paper, so I just followed it. As I said, it felt like a set up to me because, even though I don't like O'Reilly, I don't see him deliberately offering completely unsubstantiated claims. People on both sides of the fence do sometimes dive headlong into something that supports their world view (as seen by the many "can you believe this" emails that go around about a variety of subjects and forwarded by people who believe what they see without verifying what's in them). I know that even O'Reilly has his unwavering beliefs that are hard to change, but I just couldn't see him coming out with something so blatantly wrong. If it was someone on his team/his staff who did this, I hope they investigate the intent of the person who provided the info. And, thank you for verifying what I posted.

Keith only rags on O'Reilly and other Fox anchors when they do or say something especially outrageous...which happens to be just about daily...lol! Annie

"he should spend less time worrying and talking about other networks and what news they put on their network" Then please kindly tell Olberman to do the same

Oh I am sorry, I did not know we were talking about MSNBC, I thought we were talking about O'Reilly and CNN..... I would go on but nevermind... you have obviously strayed from the original discussion.... and yes Keith points out the ignorant and sometimes entertaining things that come from the mouths of the far right reporting Fox News and their anchors.... but again.. CNN and O'Reilly...

It does feel like a set up to me, definitely. By whom would be anyone's guess. Anything is possible. People who want to believe the worst in the opposition will believe what's placed in front of them (referring again to the many forwarded emails that go around worldwide unchecked because the people forwarding buy into every word). I just didn't think that O'Reilly, after his length of time on the air, would present a story as fact that he hadn't verified. So, to me that meant he trusted the source implicitly. Regardless of the source.