Bill O'Reilly dismisses snopes.com
 

Follow his stupidity by catching re-runs of his show tonight :thumbsup

Seriously, snopes.com is sometimes very wrong. They have a very obvious slant to the left. To be considered legit they really need to be neutral.

Neutral you consider fox neutral you kidding right lol

Ok examples please with links. Im not buying this.

mardigras,, details?

lifes too short to follow politics

What exactly was he dismissing them for? I checked out their top 25 page and I'm guessing it was the Jane Fonda one?

http://snopes.com/politics/bush/bush.asp#homesell

Jesus they have a full section squashing rumors about bush.

Tell me how theyre left again?

What did O'Reilly say about snopes?

What does fox news have to do with snopes legitimacy?

... I watch for media hypocrisy and have been acccused of being liberal forever but consider myself moderate (anyone who truely knows me would tell you that:upsidedow)).
It's the end of the world as we know it so some of you younger whippersnappers should pick my brain for entertainment before it's over, and prove snopes wrong... nostalgia's fun.:winkwink:

Basically dismissed it as wack.

I watched the show and the person being interviewed by O'Reilly was discussing Fonda's new book and of course her activism during the Vietnam era was brought up and O'Reilly mentioned the POW passing notes to Fonda when she was in North Vietnam...and her turning the notes over to their captors...being something she has not apologized for.

The person being interviewed by O'Rielly said that the incident is not true according to Snopes...and it appeared that O'Reilly had never heard of Snopes and in addition said that he believed the vets over any website. Of course the point being that no vets have made a credible claim to this incident ever having happened...according to Snopes.

I've seen better investigative journalism from amateur bloggers than from the good people at snopes.. They might be accurate on some occasions.. on others.. you can clearly see that they are simply trying to justify their already made opinion... :2 cents:

Bill O'Reilly never heard of Snopes... am I an idiot... or or you?... or is he? :1orglaugh

nice cliffnotes :thumbsup

I like Snopes, but I wouldn't use it as a source of reference if I was on a TV debate.

Bill O'Reilly is a hypocritical tool and anybody who takes him seriously is a moron.

how so?....

Snopes is a fun site

Look at my sig!

He lectures morality on his show, then turns around to cheat on his wife by having phone sex with his producer.

And yes, it was settled, but this only happend after o'reilly paid out milions just so his reputation would be saved.

Have you ever even watched his show, or just regurgitating what you've been told to say?

He's said a million times that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes.. (or hotels for that matter) is nobodies business.

Uhhh gee, lets see.

Calls himself an 'independent' when its been proven he's a registered republican.

But the biggest thing is he was on the air every night bashing Clinton about Lewinsky, talking about how immoral he was, then it turns out he not only sexually harassed his assistant but he's a sick fuck on top of it.

He is also one of the biggest liars in the media. Media Matters awarded him as the 'MISINFORMER OF THE YEAR'. http://mediamatters.org/items/200412230006

so, when was snopes wrong?

Let's look at some examples of morality preaching...

Bob tells America that newsweek and the los angeles times are wrong for being against the war.

Bob says the ACLU is out of line in attacking a group who is spreading religious propighanda throughout schools. Not only that, he defames the ACLU by saying they are always going after what he claims are worthwhile organizations.

If she was consenting, then why were charges filed?

Money... attention... agenda.... take your pick.

How could she get money if she was consenting?

by lying about it?

1) She said she had tape recordings.
2_ Doesn't the law say that bill would be innocent until proven guilty?
3) Bill never publicly denied her claims

that site looks like a piece of crap. Why is the traffic so good to it?