O'Reilly isn't a newsman, he's a blue-eyed cirrhotic cyst erupting acid onto the brass rail at the Now I'll Tell You What the REAL Problem Is Pub. He's the guy who sits next to you and brags about how he'd kick the hell out of any thugs daring to bring violence into his neighborhood, stumbles off his barstool, goes outside, reflexively crosses the street to avoid two black kids on the sidewalk two blocks up, then drives home drunk. He's the guy who picks a fight with you if you correct him, then refuses to throw down because he "was Gold Gloves in college and doesn't want to end you, man," then backs away toward his driveway while trying to make eye contact with anyone he thinks is a friend and saying, "I feel sorry for him! I have a pool in my backyard."
Pretty strong stuff. There are a couple of small issues with this article, however, and this is not coming from an O'Reilly supporter by any means.
First issue--Rolling Stone really shouldn't be calling anyone a pathological liar at this point in time, after that fraternity rape story had to be completely retracted.
Second issue--the writer of the article is supposedly lashing out because O'Reilly was so tough on Brian Williams for embellishing his stories too. (The whole "pot calling the kettle black" syndrome). The problem with that premise is that O'Reilly actually wasn't tough on Brian Williams at all. In fact, he showed sympathy, and went decidely easy on him.
If you don't have credibility, and your premise is flawed, even if you are completely correct about the man you're ripping, nobody will take it seriously.
