The obligatory Bill O’Reilly scandal post
I don’t like Bill O’Reilly.
I don’t like his style and I don’t like his show, although I’ve watched it every now and then just to familiarize myself with it. I don’t watch most shows of that type (talk and opinion) anyway, except on occasion when there might be a particularly interesting segment or interviewee.
And yes, the accused is innocent till proven guilty—in a court of law, that is. But a TV station isn’t a court of law. Public opinion and/or advertisers aren’t a court of law.
So Fox executives can fire O’Reilly if they want—but it still disturbs me when a person is fired over allegations. With O’Reilly it’s a pattern of allegations, to be sure, and they probably are credible allegations, in my opinion. But the allegations are as yet unproven (unless there’s a lot of evidence we haven’t seen yet), and it makes me uneasy that any person’s career can end if a bunch of people allege sexual harassment. There is too much temptation to make false allegations.
I repeat: it makes me uneasy.
Also—didn’t we already know about similar allegations towards O’Reilly? I had a vague recollection of a recorded phone message where he was hitting on some woman—and yes, after looking it up, I discovered a case from 2004 featuring many lurid allegations against O’Reilly and even the existence of telephone recordings (although I couldn’t locate the recordings themselves, or whether the alleged conversations were ever authenticated).
Is this a case of where there’s enough smoke, there’s fire? Or do we have a bunch of allegations that may or may not be true but cannot possibly be proven? Can we expect or demand proof? And, once the story gets going and advertisers move away from the network because they get scared, isn’t it completely understandable that Fox wants to cut its losses by getting rid of the person against whom the accusations are lodged, whether proof exists or not?
I have absolutely no problem believing that O’Reilly is a smarmy, predatory scumbag who is guilty of all of this and more. Hey, I thought he gave off a smarmy scumbag vibe even before I heard the allegations. But still, this chain of events makes me very uneasy, because it demonstrates a perfect way to assassinate anyone’s character (in particular, any man’s character, because although women could also be accused of sexual harassment, the charges are less common against women and less likely to stick).
And according to this Vanity Fair article, there’s more trouble to come at Fox News. Does this merely reflect the depth of the rot there, or is it the result of a concerted effort by the left to undermine Fox? For example, see this comment at Legal Insurrection:
After a decade of trying, the left finally got [O’Reilly]. Like him or not, if you think this is the end game for those who are taking credit like Media Matters and the NYT, you miss what is going on. Succeeding with the most visible commentator that calls out the left only invigorates the donors. And there is an endless supply of recently graduated snowflakes who have been indoctrinated in stifling speech and would never question becoming a low paid foot soldier in smear campaigns, etc. Forget personal tastes, this is the most visible shot across the bow.
Tucker Carlson, O’Reilly’s replacement, is about a million times better as an interviewer and as a thinker than O’Reilly is, and I’m far more inclined to watch his show than O’Reilly’s. But that doesn’t matter in terms of what I”m saying here.
[NOTE: By the way, settling a claim out of court is not an admission of guilt, especially when large businesses do it. It’s much cheaper to settle than to defend a lawsuit, and there’s much less publicity and uncertainty, so it’s often done.]
I have the same perception of O’Reilly and suspect that the allegations have at least some validity. But the allegations are just a convenient excuse for Rupert Murdoch’s sons (now in charge @ FOX) to move FOX further to the Left.
Shepard Smith, not Tucker Carlson is the direction in which the sons wish FOX to go.
FOX will be on life support by 2020.
Exactly so. Smith’s pablum is much more admired by the Murdock lads. His gayness is also valuable to that generation. It won’t save them.
The NYT took him down. Who were the sources?
One woman filed a lawsuit in 2004 and she was paid $9m. The other women collected $4m but no lawsuits were filed. We have no idea about the claims or defenses. Important point.
Don Lemon and Anderson Cooper, both homosexuals, really went after O’Reilly last night. AC said he could never work at such a place.
Neo,
I appreciate the balanced view of and mostly agree.
The one thing I would add is to address the nature of an unknown sexual harassment charge. Sexual harassment has become so broadly defined in this day and age that what one woman might perceive as an innocent comment (e.g., “That dress looks good on you.”) might well be perceived by another as unwanted attention, ergo sexual harassment.
Therein lies the problem. Such allegations can be more dependent on the interpretation of the recipient than on any objective criterion. Paul Mirengoff, over at Powerlineblog calls one set of charges against O’Reilly the weakest he’s ever seen (see link below).
Granted absolute power corrupts absolutely, but conversely, when I see charges oozing out of the woodwork, whether they are against Bill O’Reilly, Bill Cosby, or Bill Clinton, my first reaction is to dismiss them, not because that can’t be true, but because they are too easy to make and too delightful for the liberal media to pass up. Compare the salivating media treatment of the the three Bills above to the heroic media treatment of Gerald Stubbs, QED.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/04/in-re-oreilly-part-two.php
Well, gosh neds. I guess that shows us! Let’s all convert to neo-paganism, kill everyone with an incandescent light bulb, and get mandatory re-education on all the 64, nay, 128 genders because of this. /sarc.
A job offer, phfft how lame is that ? What s happened to the days when women wanted, a mink, bling & a Lexus.! Guilty or innocent really poor judgement to get a babe that’s arm candy.
A job, what an insult, I can get one of those on my own. Bye, bye Bill dangerous to swim with sharks.
I do not care for O’Reilly either, but this business at FNC leaves a bad taste. The case of Roger Ailes is even more troubling.
These guy may, or may not, be scum bags. However, Ailes was brought down by women he had sponsored and helped to achieve star status. They seemingly waited until they were independently marketable before they felt the need to go public. There is a bit of that in the O’Reilly case. The most public accusation claims that he retaliated for being rebuffed–yet the woman appeared on his show multiple times to flog her book.
Relations between the sexes have become a mine field. Such mixed signals are sent by the culture in general, and sometimes by particular women, that I don’t know how any man can feel that he has sorted it out. I am almost glad to be 80+ years old; the joke would be on any woman who accused me of sordid intent.
How ironic that VP Pence is being pilloried by some of the same shills who are throwing stones at O’Reilly, because he said he would not meet one on one with any woman other than his wife. In this climate, Pence is very wise; and the people who attack him for his caution are very hypocritical.
Veering slightly; I don’t think Tucker Carlson will wear well over time. He is cute, I suppose, and he has perfected his look of skeptical surprise; but, there seems to be little substance. His guests, almost all left wing, pontificate at length, while he interjects a few questions. I tired quickly. Actually, I am with Neo on this. I can barely tolerate most of these yapping programs, and usually leave the room because my wife loves them.
Anita Hill made her obligatory appearance and comment on the situation.
$9m and $4m are awfully big sums to settle meritless lawsuits. I don’t think many employment litigators would suggest settling at such numbers unless the plaintiff had a very strong case.
Now we know why women were kept out of politics and business… they cant win by hard work and achievement, they win by lying about events years later after there is no proof and get it thrown out on the biological need for a society to protect its breeding class (Whether it does or not)…
pretty soon, outside of MGTOW, the only way to be a successful man is to either be gay (which would be a hoot if reilly came out and then what for the women), impotent (roger ailies?), HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM (MGTOW), or set up lapel cameras that feed to the cloud so you can recall every interaction you had with a woman.
remember, i nearly went to prison for a murder of a woman who 23 years later, is still not dead… all cause of that power above… not only did they have me kill her, but i bought a gun, they had several witnesses to other things, and like gone girl 20 years before that, she committed crimes while pregnant so as to build an abusive boyfriend who would not feed his preggers girlfriend..
yeah..
they destroyed my home, life, career, finances, made me homeless, and more..
for what? nothing…
two years later she thought she could take the kids with her and rob a bank
so dont tell me that such cant go that far
duke university crystal magnum (False)
duke university employee, pimping adopted black children to gay friends (true)
Tawana Brawely (false)
united states army as well as others estimate a false report rate OVER 40% as there are few repurcussions most of the time (sometimes there are and boy are they surprised)
Woody Allen – jew eat?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaPBhxXhprg
In family cases the Spanish Court accepts false accusations if presented by women. If so, the man is inmediately declared guilty and he has to prove his innocence. The police don’t ask any questions or undertake investigations. A woman does not need to show any evidence, only her word is sufficient. After that, the man goes directly to prison at least for 48 hours,…
Documentary: “False Accusations in Spain”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjgBfklmYj8
and when you read the literature, or training manuals and other things, it fits taht man hating FBI chasing rebireth of feminism as a terrorist communist organization!!!
better to put 100 innocent men in jail than let one go is the communist way… while the western way from the bible and sodom and gomorrah was if one innocent man is punished its one too much… shows you morality, even more so that in countries like spain, your now guilty until you prove innocence in domestic violence.
Nursing manuals claim that the only domestic violence that exists is male to others. women never do it, elderly never do it, women dont do it to the elderly, and even the nurse manuals make claims that they dont even abuse children unless its the mans fault. (im serious, i work in medical school)
they have all he answers.. all relative
ie. if you punsh one innocent woman for false accusation (innocent?) others who are victims might not report it
which begs the question of the other? if you punish one innocent man to let lose a man hating woman who lies, thats good, right?
http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf
Cosby, bork, Reilly, and many others are attacked
but people like the known guilty rapist director are ok
and islamic men who rape, they are ok too
its comming here too…
[being a founding member of the MGTOW mens movement, we already know what to do about it given the way society is!!]
the women here dont want to fight, the men cant, and thats that!
spain is expanding the law to race and LGBT!!!!!!!
t Overlawyered, Walter Olson discusses a disturbing new gay-rights law hailed by European LGBT activists that explicitly treats people as guilty until proven innocent:
LGBT Bias Law Treats People as Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Never mind that European human-rights provisions say that “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.” The activists praising this law are happy to violate human rights.
Feds Punish Princeton For Liking Due Process Too Much
http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/07/feds-punish-princeton-for-giving-too-man
its top down bottom up!!!!!!
the link to the article as tohow they are destroying education for young men, especially young white racist evil men who the women produce…
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-bader/lgbt-bias-law-treats-people-guilty-until-proven-innocent
whats happening to reilly is whats gotten out of academia, what i just listed, is whats comming for you and your kids and more and more
MGTOW is not so bad to just want to avoid it all
is it? let them go nuts and thats that…
who wants to be william wallace at the moment of truth?
The evolution of the NewsCorp/Fox empire reminds me of the evolution of nearly all old empires turned into charitable foundations. The Carnegie, Ford, Annenberg, Packard, and many other foundations. All fortunes created by conservatives and then converted/perverted into left-wing foundations. Usually by the hands of their children, though not always. The only exception I know of is the Olin foundation which had a planned expiration date within the lifetime of Mr. Olin’s hand picked managers.
After this, James and Lachlan, and more importantly their wives, might get invited to Julie Packard’s or David Geffen’s soirees.
Y81
Four million for the other four cases is essentially nuisance value for defense costs in NYC. The problem, however, was the leak as the settlements were supposed to be secret. The leaker will never be found.
Walmart is infamous for rarely settling cases. Why? It only encourages more lawsuits and demand letters.
We don’t know a tenth of what went on with O’Reilly. I’m only surprised this didn’t happen in September.
Cornhead: I repeat, those are very high numbers. What are your credentials? Are you a lawyer in full-time practice at an Amlaw 100 firm in NYC, as I am? I assure you, we can litigate a long time for a million dollars. So that’s a lot more than “nuisance value for defense costs.”
I think men should fight back, I do. I simply went to tell my employer that I refuse to stay in a room with a single woman by myself under any circumstances, if the woman files a complaint of me being sexist I will just let my boss know that I chose to do so because I don’t want to let someone utilizing false sexual assault accusation as weapon against me. settlement is not necessary an indication of any wrong doing, innocent people used to choose to payoff the accusers just as a way to close the case ASAP to save time and all the hassles, time is money for these celebrities, time saved not having to go to court outweigh the millions needed to paid. Do you honestly believe young and handsome fella like a young Kobe Bryant would have resorted to raping someone, give me a break.
It is companies like Fox News who choose the quickest and easiest way out by firing the accused immediately when there is an accusation that empowered all these fake accusers.
I rarely watch tv, so I am mostly out of the loop. The few times I have watched O’Reilly my that guy is a jerk radar was pinged. As to the allegations, none of us knows what went on between him and women who have accused him of harassment.
It is true that corporations and wealthy individuals will often settle out of court in order to avoid bad press and astronomic legal fees. Since I have no dog in the hunt, I will give O’Reilly the benefit of doubt unless proven otherwise.
“But that doesn’t matter in terms of what I”m saying here.” Odd line Neo. What you’re “saying here” is a paradox: first, on the nearly fact free gut feeling standard, O’Reilly’s a blowhard likely perv that needs to go. But conversely there’s something (perhaps a guilty conscience?) that craves confirming details to justify bypassing the due process any of us would want if we became accused. Clearly this second angle has undertstandably put Art into over-achieving commenter mode.
.
Maybe we can call this the “due process for me, but not necessarily for thee” conundrum that repeats itself time, after time, after time.
.
In the meantime, the factual headline is, employee and employer mutual agree to end relationship for undisclosed amount of severance pay. Happens all the time; and if it happened to us, we probably would not welcome the uninvited, fact deprived attention and judgmental sensationalism we are participating in here.
y81
How much was it worth it to O’Reilly and Fox to see that four more cases were never filed? Way more than $4m.
Can a ‘Killing O’Riley’ book be far behind?
At least let the guy make some money.
I happen to be an O’Reilly fan. He’s a bit of a knuckle dragger, as am I. He’s an assertive male. I spent my entire working life working with assertive males. Yes, he’s got a yuge ego, but no one makes it in TV or big business without a huge self esteem. The man has an incredible work ethic, and he has the highest rated show on cable TV and has had the top rating for 16 years.
Why would Fox decide to bid him adieu when he is their biggest star? One who has carried the Fox network on his back to big ratings and lots of ad money? The lefties have been after him for a long time. He sometimes made reference to that fact on his show. He was a target primarily because he “poisons” (in the opinion of the left) the minds of too many viewers. He was, IMO, instrumental in helping Trump (an old friend of his) get elected with favorable interviews during the campaign. That made him even more of a target for the left.
We don’t know who the force was behind influencing companies to take their advertising away from O’Reilly’s show on account of charges of sexual harassment, but I am guessing that Soros or another big bucks lefty like him was the main mover.
As to the charges against O’Reilly. Maybe he was a boor around women. Maybe he wasn’t aware of how easily men can be charged with sexual harassment. But with several instances of settling complaints for substantial sums, it looks like he was not very adept at maneuvering in that minefield.
There is much more to this story than we are seeing right now. Will we ever get the full story? I doubt it.
The O’Reilly Factor 1996 – 2017. RIP!
Problem with Pence is he won’t give the left a chance to Bork him. Unforgivable.
Hi Neo,
Kudos on your typically perceptive and balanced analysis of this important issue.
I, too, don’t particularly care much for Mr O’Reilly’s general presentation and personal televised demeanour although I am quite partial to his “history-lite” books.
But my own personal tastes are quite beside the point here – as is the fact, much observed upon in discussions I’ve seen on this same subject at other sites – that Mr O’Reilly is a millionaire and can afford to take his job loss on the chin – so he should just disappear to a tropical island and enjoy his money: no harm, no foul.
(Rupert Murdoch, himself, is considerably older and richer than Mr O’Reilly but hasn’t so far shown any inclination to retire – probably because,quite reasonably, he seems to be one of those people who enjoys work for its own sake. I can relate. Why should Mr O’Reilly’s professional career be seen as essentially expendable now simply because he has made his money?). No. Mr O’Reilly’s means are entirely beside the point.
What is very much in point is the vital principle
that it should never be seen as being sufficient to convict a man or woman, whether in a constituted court or in the court of public opinion, simply that someone has pointed the finger.
By all means, anyone who has truly been wronged in a way that offers a legal remedy ought to be encouraged to voice it, file their statement of claim and argue it in court where the accused may confront them and test their accusations publicly, but the accusation itself ought never to be presumed valid by any of us unless and until it has been tested in such a way.
As everyone’s favourite lawyer, Atticus Finch, submitted to the jury in “To Kill a Mockingbird”, on the presumption of innocence: “…that is no ideal to me, it is a living, working reality”.
This is no less true in cases touching on hot button issues such as sexual propriety or honesty or professional competence. Indeed, even where successfully defended, such accusations once made have the potential to permanently damage or even destroy personal and corporate brands. (In such circumstances, Cornhead and y81, even seemingly excessive financial settlements, going far beyond mere nuisance money, can be commercially justified).
Although I practiced as a commercial litigator for almost 30 years in my native Australia and encountered a lot of these and other sorts of accusations professionally, I do not need to have been a lawyer in order to appreciate very well the dynamic that is in play here.
Any observant and reflective person of any calling at all, as he or she makes their way through life, learns before long the nature of the beast that is humankind.
Unfortunately, there is nothing so common as those who point the finger without just cause. It is commonly done, it seems to me, because it is so very easily done.
It takes no work or sacrifice at all to unjustly point the finger. Indeed, in the west today where victim-hood confers status, there may be an incentive for many to cry “j’accuse”.
In my experience as a human being, some people accuse others of awful things because they have honestly been afflicted – but just as many point the finger because they are jealous competitors and covet their target’s job, or their corner office, or their partner. Some others do it because they have misinterpreted an innocent comment and bear a grudge. Others, Iago-like, do it simply out of spite because they can.
Only someone who has never themselves had the experience of being unjustly accused of something could contemplate denying to Mr O’Reilly the presumption of innocence despite his personal demeanour – and is there anyone of us who has never been unjustly accused? I know I have had the finger pointed at me unjustly more than once in the course of my life, (albeit the accusations were thankfully not of a sexual or career-ending nature).
Unfortunately for Mr O’Reilly, as for all the other targets of such accusations who will come after him, another line of Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird” applies:
“In the secret courts of mens’ hearts Atticus had no case. Tom was a dead man the moment Mayella Ewell opened her mouth and screamed”.
jj
It’s ALREADY been established that Media Matters orchestrated the advertising boycott with the intent of ejecting O’Reilly from cable.
Media Matters is a Sorosian beast, no doubt.
Stephen Ippolito:
Excellent comment.
Thanks blert. Media matters, of course.
Media matters was formed by David Brock and is supported by Move On .org and the new Democrat Network. Move On is heavily supported by George Soros.
I’m disappointed that Fox didn’t fight back. Maybe O’Reilly will. He’s got to be steamed at the cowardice of his bosses. They waited until he was on vacation to can him. Weasels!
Cornhead:
I’m surprised that two gay anchors like Lemon and Cooper would lambaste O’Reilly considering the fact that gays have suffered for years because of accusations and innuendo, often leading to job loss and much worse. I suppose neither of these light weights have read Advise and Consent let alone To Kill A Mockingbird, and if they did still wouldn’t have a clue.
Stephen Ippolito Says:
April 20th, 2017 at 9:24 pm
Excellent, as neo said, and it is a shame people have quit reading / watching “Mockingbird” — and a lot didn’t get the point you made anyway. There have been several good movies about the “rush to judgement” based on emotion over facts. Of course, to the NYT, everything is just “in your own view” anyway, so I guess this is a logical extension of that syndrome.
This points up another bedrock danger of Shari’a Law – that anyone can accuse someone of blasphemy or adultery (or any of a myriad of lesser crimes), and then — just on their own say-so — execute the “offender” — due process and “innocent until proven guilty” (so far as I have seen) have no place in the picture.
Thanks for the kind acknowledgement, Neo, (and you too, AesopFan).
It’s pleasing to see that so many of your readers, Neo, instinctively discern that what has happened to Bill O’Reilly resonates way beyond him personally.
On a personal note, your post and the subsequent discussion have set me to pondering my legal career in a way that I have not done in years. So I thank you for that.
As I look back on those 30 years I recall that I appeared in the criminal courts only as a very junior practitioner, only about a dozen times, and then only as a favour for the “black sheep” relations of my then employer’s wealthier clients. These men and women were not powerful. Nor, I must say, were they particularly palatable or presentable.
Nevertheless, it was a couple of those cases – and not the much more numerous, complex and “important” commercial cases I conducted later – that provided me with the most personally satisfying experiences of my career.
This is because, through those few cases, just a couple of times, I had the pleasure to experience a judicial officer actually extending to my client the presumption of innocence.
We speak a lot in the west, as we should, about this principle of “innocent until proven guilty” – so much so that it has become somewhat trite to refer to it – and like most cliches it loses it power in the reciting.
But as all of your many readers who happen to be lawyers will attest, to rise at the bar table in defense of an accused after the police prosecutor has droned on interminably and have the fatigued magistrate or judge make the effort to smile with interest and genuinely invite you to make your case and then appear to listen intently is a genuinely powerful experience.
So powerful that I can still recall each of those few occasions, and the emotions they called forth in me, decades later.
It is certainly a life-affirming experience to witness so powerful and so often distant an institution as a court extending the benefit of the doubt to an unprepossessing accused.
When I ponder Mr O’Reilly’s predicament, and urge that he receive the benefit of the doubt in relation to his accusers, despite his unappealing demeanour and my own subjective suspicions, I am reminded of the words put into the mouth of Sir Thomas Moore in Robert Bolt’s superb play, “A Man for All Seasons” when, after being urged by his family to take steps against a character they, (correctly), feel sure will one day betray him, Sir Thomas demurs from pre-judging, saying: “I would give the devil himself benefit of law – for my own safety’s sake”.
Having, personally, accused of rape … on the sole basis that I didn’t come on to her…
I can assure you that MANY babes are willing to destroy your reputation.
I got lucky.
After costing me a small fortune… she recanted… never filed a police report.
She had total cred… not I.
No-one would take my word for it… even though the situation was absurd.
The ease and most likely lack of any punishment for “false accusations” needs to be more publicized, and those who support the accusers need to be identified as folks who do NOT presume innocence.
I am still enraged about the Duke Lacrosse team’s coach being fired because of accusations which were false, and the many professors who wrote a letter in support of punishment before any investigation results.
It’s also important to note a bit about the actual claims, like (from powerline):
“Jehmu Greene claims that in late 2007, O’Reilly told her she should show more cleavage when she was in the makeup room.” <>… he “was more interested in breaking my back.” << I guess an oblique comment about interest in sex.
An expression of sexual interest does not rise to the level of sexual harassment — tho the Dems want to be able to claim it does, for any chosen Rep target. This is one increasing problem.
A second problem is the use of business, and business advertising, as politics. Reps, so far, have done little in the way of boycotts and being against any particular business (like Mozilla for firing their pro-life founder — I still use Firefox). The Dems are mobilizing consumers for pressuring businesses to achieve political ends, often anti-Christian ends.
Christians & Reps probably need to start mobilizing in response, like they partly did to support Chick-fil-A against a boycott. Unfortunately, this will increase the politicization, and polarization of the USA, which is against the conservative goal of a smaller role for gov't AND a smaller role for politics.
Also as mentioned above, any critics of Mike Pence not being alone with other women, who are glad about O'Reilly being fired based on women's otherwise unsupported accusations, are clear hypocrites, and supported Pres. Bill "Slick Willie" who provably perjured himself about his sexual cheating.
The hypocrisy of the Dems needs to talked about and especially joked about. Too bad there seem to be few good comedians willing and able to publicize good jokes about such lousy behavior (yet another problem).
And what is happening with those many women who accused Trump of so many various things? I'd guess the spotlight is about shift back to them, tho their claims may be so weak and lacking in evidence that even Trump-haters don't want to publicize any details.
Stephen Ippolito:
That segment from “A Man for All Seasons” is one of my favorites, and I think it’s very important. I’ve posted it several times. But here it is again:
I definitely understand the danger of false accusations. Innocent till proven guilty is really for criminal cases, of course, but that principle should have some traction in cases of firings, boycotts, etc. No one should be able to be drummed out of their job based on baseless accusations.
That being said, then I read this: “Christians & Reps probably need to start mobilizing in response, like they partly did to support Chick-fil-A against a boycott.”
Why should Christians mobilize a response?
I can see doing this if it becomes abundantly clear that O’Reilly is truly innocent. I don’t think most of the commenters on this thread would lay money on that. As a Christian, I don’t want to put support behind a man who may actually be guilty of treating women poorly.
If he has been unjustly fired, that’s wrong (although as a small-govt conservative I also support the right of businesses to hire and fire who they like). But Christians don’t need to jump up and publicly denounce the firing just because he’s a conservative. Maybe we should be jumping up and down about people not treating women the way they deserve.
There will be disagreement here, I’m sure, but I long for the day when the Christian church in the USA has unhooked itself from these creepy alliances with Republican party politics. I say that as someone who voted R in every election since 1984 (including this last one, except for the top spot where I voted 3rd party)
Clearly, the Billy Graham and Mike Pence defense practices are wise.
There is some leftist angle to O’Reilly, but if you watched him respond to past critics you saw he would dig himself a hole on this pretty fast. You cannot start hammering accusers after Roger Ailes fall. It takes a smarter guy with less attitude than O’Reilly. If you were Mercedes media buyer you don’t want to be associated with a sure to sink ship. Also there is a wide range of advertising choices today, often at a cheaper price. Note how fast Google had to respond when ads were placed alongside truly offensive videos. The new ad world is not necessarily leftist but a conservative cannot be a total graceless person.
FOX , whatever its manifold faults, has pretty much been the only relatively Conservative network out there, so I’ve watched it.
Can’t stand smarmy, arch Leftist Shep Smith, and a lot of the other FOX commenters are not particularly bright. The FIVE is not very good–a pretty mindless LCD rehash of the same things over and over again. Juan Williams is a not very convincing leftist sock puppet, and the returned Lefty Bob Beckel is a really arrogant and obnoxious windbag.
Hannity is just too strident and a very predictable Johnny one note.
FOX does have a few heavy hitter expert commentators like Amb. Bolton and their retired military commentators, but far too many of the rest are third stringers, with not much expertise or subject knowledge.
I’ve watched O’Reilly off and on and, as with the rest of FOX, I’ve certainly noticed a slide to the Left.
Nonetheless, O’Reilly is an adult, and a pretty savvy one at that, a good observer with lots of experience. I like the fact that he’s “old school,” and I suspect that a lot of his audience was old school too, and they won’t be happy at his dethronement.
Did O’Reilly do all the largely unnamed things he’s accused of?
I don’t know, but in today’s climate women can accuse men of doing anything and get a believing audience and a payday, and even the harmless casual comment or twitch of an eyebrow can be inflated into some sort of sexual attack.
My guess is that, behind this all, is the reported concerted attempt by many different forces on the Left to knock the influential O’Reilly off the air, using these charges as the excuse.
O’Reilly was the main attraction at FOX, and with him gone and the younger Murdochs taking a reportedly more active management role, I predict that FOX will pretty quickly morph into some type of imitation of MSNBC or CNN, hemorrhage viewers, and then rather quickly sink beneath the waves.
Snow on Pine: “O’Reilly was the main attraction at FOX, and with him gone and the younger Murdochs taking a reportedly more active management role, I predict that FOX will pretty quickly morph into some type of imitation of MSNBC or CNN, hemorrhage viewers, and then rather quickly sink beneath the waves.”
My thoughts exactly.
Here’s Rush Limbaugh’s take on this:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/limbaugh-advertisers-never-target-left-right/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=THENewVoiceEmail&utm_campaign=can&utm_content=2017-04-21
Why do advertisers never target non-conservative companies or people? Has anyone organized a boycott of the Clinton Global Initiative based on the sexual harassment of multiple women by President Clinton? Nope. Nada. No way.
What we have seen in the O’Reilly case is the politics of personal destruction on a grand scale.
I feel like many of the commentators here, like much of the manosphere, are living in a fantasy world, in which all a woman has to do is (i) get a job at a big company, (ii) fabricate a story about her boss sexually harassing her, and (iii) collect a million dollars. If it were that easy, there would be a lot more female millionaires than there are. Big companies litigate. They litigate long and hard. They keep thousands of biglaw litigators (my partners) in business and driving BMWs.
y81:
For your edification and enlightenment here is the latest Fox babe who either sees dollar signs or is a leftist stooge, or both.
Hannity is now in the cross hairs. (And please don’t impute any untoward meaning to my use of “cross hairs” in the context of an inappropriate sexual allegation. Not that a smarmy NY lawyer and ambulance chaser would stoop such a thing. Right?)
https://lanterns.buzz/page_blog_post.cfm?s=foxxx-sean-hannity-accused-of-sexual-harrasment
Snow on Pine, how prescient you are.
…I predict that FOX will pretty quickly morph into some type of imitation of MSNBC or CNN, hemorrhage viewers, and then rather quickly sink beneath the waves.
“What is very much in point is the vital principle that it should never be seen as being sufficient to convict a man or woman, whether in a constituted court or in the court of public opinion, simply that someone has pointed the finger.” – Stephen Ippolito
Indeed.
A good example is trump’s accusations of obama wire tapping him, a short while ago.
Many here jumped on the band wagon of declaring obama guilty, despite scant evidence.
.
“‘Christians & Reps probably need to start mobilizing in response’ – Tom G
Why should Christians mobilize a response?” – Bill
Right. For many here the knee jerk reaction is go on defensive for the team.
Too many view through the lens of their team / tribe.
“It has been disheartening to see supposedly good Christians defend so much bad behavior by so many bad people, arguing that everyone in the tribe must defend the behavior or let the other tribe win.” – Eric Erickson
https://patriotpost.us/opinion/48656
.
Or, as David French comments on the consequences of this reflexiveness to defense, draws from the many scandals conservative “leaders” have encountered…
“Make no mistake, there are conservative “fighters” who are men and women of integrity. Fox News still has a number of journalists and pundits whom I trust and admire. But when we ask for fighters first, and we elevate aggression over truth and competence, we ask for exactly the kind of scandals we’ve endured.
Moreover, the degradation to our culture far outweighs any short-term, tribal political benefit.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446913/bill-oreilly-roger-ailes-fox-news-mike-flynn-tomi-lahren-conservative-celebrity-culture-character
.
Or, more succinctly from Peggy Noonan…
“Being loyal isn’t being a lickspittle.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/republicans-learn-the-limits-of-loyalty-1492727591
.
Seen a few men who “flirted” at work (even married ones!). Always thought they were playing with fire.
Many on the left mocked Pence’s approach with women in business. Whereas, O’Reilly, at best, chose to skirt the edges of propriety (given what we see reported so far).
Money, fame, and power are attractive to the wrong kinds of people like moths to a flame.
These same qualities can affect the holder’s own ego. Can only imagine how much “latitude’ one thinks they then have. (We saw with trump where that can lead).
Takes some good character to avoid these errant forks in one’s path.
.
“The new ad world is not necessarily leftist but a conservative cannot be a total graceless person.” – DirtyJobsGuy
Right. Add to the mix that O’Reilly was/is a “spokesperson” for a political side that purports to hold higher standards does make him a target for the left media.
Some comments seem like they want to blame the msm and their bias.
Yet, it should be no surprise whatsoever that the msm would seek and publish what they find that hints at hypocrisy.
No different than how “conservative” media seeks and exposes such on its targets, which we cheer on.
This overall is not necessarily a bad thing.
.
“$9m and $4m are awfully big sums to settle meritless lawsuits. I don’t think many employment litigators would suggest settling at such numbers unless the plaintiff had a very strong case.” – y81
Yes, O’Reilly is a target, but notwithstanding, that IS serious money to be paying for someone who is innocent.
.
“If it were that easy, there would be a lot more female millionaires than there are. Big companies litigate. They litigate long and hard.” – y81
There is definitely a David vs Goliath dynamic with how this would proceed if brought to court. The financial resources are overwhelmingly on the side of Fox and O’Reilly.
Evidently, Fox and O’Reilly thought the court proceedings, in each case, would cost them more in business revenue and legal fees, than the payout.
That they kept paying seems troublesome, if the claims are as frivolous as he/they claim, because, at some point, the calculation has to consider that each successive payout creates the image / controversy that they were / are trying to avoid in the first place, if they are innocent. (to say nothing of the skew in payouts, and the perception that leaves)
Of course, if he is guilty, then there is no way he or Fox would want it aired in public.
Ultimately, advertisers look at this and the 3, 4, or 5 women involved (and the new accusations) and have to wonder if they can really “ride it out” like they have in the past.
Not saying O’Reilly is guilty, btw, but just looking at the factors involved and the perceptions they leave behind.
Big Mag:
Your responses to several of the comments are all beside the point. Even though you are making logical and coherent arguments you miss the broader picture, which is that none of the women who are bringing the charges were in any way physically assaulted, for if they had been a mere payment to keep quiet would have resulted in a criminal going free. That they may have felt uncomfortable, feared the loss of job advancement, and were otherwise emotionally denigrated and objectified, does not in any way give them cause to in effect blackmail Fox News.
What this shows is that they were simply after the money, like any whore. To quote Vivian in Pretty Woman:
I say when. I say how…I want my money and I want to get out of here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_etHqPGUJk
“What this shows is that they were simply after the money, like any whore.”
Well, for $9M, I’d have fought the claim if this was absolutely true and the limit of it, as you say, since, long term (as we now see) what the consequences of continually paying off such “weak” claims are.
But that is just me. Maybe if I was making $10s of millions maybe I’d look at it differently, as I might not miss that much, and what I’d continue to make would be a nice salve for the hurt reputation and integrity.
Similarly, I too thought Bill Cosby couldn’t have done what was claimed. Yet, here we are with several making claims. Maybe they are all spurious lies from a bunch of “whores”, I have no idea.
We don’t really know celebrities as people, we only know their persona / brand, which is cultivated.
I’d like to think Bill O’Reilly is not “one of those guys”, but I don’t know – not to validate the claims either.
But, if I was an advertiser, given what is known, and the pattern, it just doesn’t seem worth the fight, without personally knowing Bill O and the claimants, to have a more informed view.
Ya know, there was a reason the ancients had shaperones, escorts for women if they were alone at times or with non family members, and things like chastity.
But I guess humans forgot all about that.