The media is kind of missing the point focusing on the Buenos Aires riot so much. Here's how they should be framing this:
Fact #1. Bill O'Reilly wrote in his 2001 book "I've reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falkland Islands..." In a 2013 interview he said "I was in a situation one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands..."
Fact #2. He was not in the Falklands, but in Buenos Aires, 1200 miles away. For all his blustering counterattacks, he does not offer any evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion: He told a 1200 mile lie. A lie he can't deny. He can't say, "Well I meant to say during the Falklands War". A journalist has to get his facts straight, period. If "in the Falklands" is O'Reilly-speak for "1200 miles from the Falklands", how can we trust anything he says?
Here's what someone should ask him: "You said both in your 2001 book and in a 2013 interview you were in the Falkland Islands during the war. But no journalists were allowed there. Do you have any proof that you were actually there?" Don't mention Argentina, don't mention Buenos Aires, don't mention the riot. Don't let him change the subject to those things. Keep bringing the discussion back to the two words "Falkland Islands". Pin him down on this FIRST, and get him to admit the lie.
THEN go after the OTHER lies, about the "bleeding photographer", the riot's fatalities, etc.
Yes, yes, I know no one will ever hold his feet to the fire on this. Maybe someone can use this line of attack when talking to an O'Reilly defender...