Comments on: FNC’s O’Reilly Calls LAT’s Robert Hilburn a Liar and Dishonorable

By: mediabistro.com: FishBowlLA

mediabistro.com: FishBowlLA — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 00:40:30 +0000

[...] d not reflect that agreement or the critic’s views.

For a little back-story on this, go here. On his show Friday night O’Reilly called [...]

By: Low Earth Orbit: July 2005 Archives

Low Earth Orbit: July 2005 Archives — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 09:27:00 +0000

[...] to have my own copy editor to insert biased language in to my posts and make me look like an idiot and a liar. Posted by orbital at [...]

By: ploof

ploof — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 07:33:52 +0000

O’Reilly is hardly “ultra-conservative” by any measure other than a moonbat yardstick.

Birchers are “ultra-conservative”

Attila the Hun was “ultra-conservative”

Wahhabi muslims are “ultra-conservative”

The problem is the moonbats are so far to the left, the middle ground looks far to the right from their POV. This lack reference frame is of course is why they keep losing elections..

By: Insider

Insider — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 20:04:18 +0000

The story is that we have a host of a very high profile television news show calling Robert Hilburn, a respected fixture at one of the largest media organizations in the world, a liar. The specific adjectives used are irrelevant though I understand you believe them to be accurate.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:41:51 +0000

Yeah, right! If you were “simply relaying what we saw”, why didn’t you state that Mr. O’Reilly DID NOT DISSAGREE WITH THE ADJECTIVES!

Oh, right… I forgot… you didn’t see that because Mr. O’Reilly was more upset about the inclusion of these adjectives than how he was described, the discription must be agreable to him.

Jeezzz… why bother…

By: Insider

Insider — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:14:59 +0000

Independent Sources was neither sticking up for Mr. O’Reilly nor attacking him. We were simply relaying what we saw–something that we thought was worthing of reporting. Based on the coverage our story is getting, I’d say we were correct in that assessment.

By: dzzrtRatt

dzzrtRatt — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:46:08 +0000

Wha? Are you trying to make O’Reilly look even more foolish than he is? That he would devote precious airtime to a minor slight like this makes him look like a pompous windbag out of Gilbert & Sullivan. If you’re trying to help O’Reilly, the last thing you should do is call attention to his incredible vanity.

I am no fan of the mind-numblingly repetitive Robert Hilburn (every music act he likes has “inviting textures.” Like a nice sofa, perhaps?) But O’Reilly is a crybaby. Don’t stick up for him if you want to be credible.

By: Brett Guthrie

Brett Guthrie — Sat, 09 Jul 2005 23:42:02 +0000

Back in 1978 Hilburn gave a glowing review to Gerry Rafferty’s “City to City” album. He called Rafferty “McCartneyesque” and since I was way into McCartney, I bought the album. What a downer that piece of vinyl was. Maybe Hilburn called him McCartneyesque because he had an ugly wife, I don’t know, but the dreary music had no similarities to what Paul was churning out back then. Hilburn’s been a poseur in my eyes for the last 30 years. He’s one of those phonies who pretend to like Springsteen’s acoustic shows because “the lyrics are so poetic”. Poetic shmoetic. I’ll give you poetry. Here’s a haiku:

Bob Hilburn sucks eggs
He owes me for Rafferty
And a Sting album