Here is part of a discussion with Paul Krugman on the topic of his appearance on O'Reilly:
http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/080804.htm#081204PK: What I learned is how hard it is to argue with a pathological liar.
Because the problem is in real time, as it's happening, you can't fact check everything.
We now know, a couple of people have checked it, in talking about the war, he talked at length about what Hans Blix told him on his program before the war, except Hans Blix never was on his program before the war.
So what do you do? Somebody just makes shit up, how do you deal with it?Well, Dr. Krugman, here's my suggestion:
First recognize that O'Reilly can only win with his lies because there is a lack of"institutional memory" among his guests. Each new victim comes on the show not knowing about the lie technique, and so it keeps working.
Suppose a Dem Strategist (HINT) or somebody like that were to prep our guests by giving them a lot of researched examples in which O'Reilly had lied in the past.
Now, during the show. O'Reilly springs something on the guest. The guest immediately challenges O'Reilly: "You're lying, Bill--just like when you falsely claimed you had interviewed Hans Blix. Remember that?" Note that the guest doesn't have to be right in the accusation.
You have to hit him fast with this, before he has time to shut off your mike. And even if you're wrong about the specific accusation, he won't be able to defend himself on the spot, and you will also have gotten in the point that he has told lies in the past.
A few experiences of this and I bet O'Reilly is going to think twice about pulling lies our of his rectal cavity.