ADDED: The NYT takes — and probably deserves — credit:
Mr. O’Reilly’s departure comes two and a half weeks after an investigation by The New York Times revealed how Fox News and 21st Century Fox had repeatedly stood by Mr. O’Reilly even as sexual harassment allegations piled up against him. The Times found that the company and Mr. O’Reilly reached settlements with five women who had complained about sexual harassment or other inappropriate behavior by him. The agreements totaled about $13 million.
Posts
241 comments:
1 – 200 of 241 Newer› Newest»Bill Clinton to take his place?
The Murdoch sons' quest to destroy their inheritance goes on well. I'm sure the cocktail party invitations are worth it.
Meanwhile, the search for Juanita Broderick's rapist continues. And for the man who assaulted Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers, etc., etc., etc.
I guess this just means people need to never settle; we'll never know if he was actually guilty or not (it looks suspicious, and that's a lot of accusations, but you can't prove it.) Unless, of course, there is hard evidence I've missed. But then, if there was, it probably wouldn't be a hard decision.
So, from now on, people need to stop agreeing to plea bargains/settlements because, let's face it, whether they should or not, they get used against you as proof you were in the wrong.
So, fight it out, I suppose.
I like Instapundit's comment: "No word if O'Reilly is to become a Kennedy or Clinton."
I guess Fox got fed up with having to pay settlements because of O'Reilly's stupid behavior.
1. Ailes
2. O'Reilly
3. Trump
And yet they laughed at VP Pence, when he said he would not meet with women other than his wife alone. O'Reilly sure could have used that advice. Others need to take note, also.
Man, if only he had been a Democrat President, then the NYT would have protected him from those sorts of allegations.
Not personally a fan of O'Reilly's shtick - which has usually been more populist than conservative - but I am with Michael K here - the Murdoch boys are on track to kill the goose that laid their golden nesteggs.
Time for a new conservative-leaning network to provide some competition on the right. It's pretty clear that Fox's essential monopoly on the right has led them to become fat and complacent.
Part of the ongoing media platform war.
The system is using institutional power to suppress alternate media.
This is all of a piece with other efforts -
- The banning of Youtube advertising for right-wing channels, and other right-ish ones like gun and military channels.
- Twitter bans.
- Facebook bans, and filters
This all wasn't about O'Reilly, and it can't be seen in isolation.
O'Reilly is a goon both on camera and off camera.
Also, Clinton was President a generation ago and the Kennedys are long gone. So, what's your point?
So, fight it out, I suppose.
Really, it's best to have numerous surrogates deride your accusers as "nuts and sluts".
He's a jerk. Now he can be a jerk somewhere else.
Suppose Megan regrets leaving now?
Pence will only have private dinners with young male staffers because he is a well known closet case.
We'll always have falafils...
Bill O'Reilly interrupts his guests too much.
So does Sean Hannity.
The Murdochs should do something about that.
"Clinton was President a generation ago and the Kennedys are long gone. So, what's your point?"
The point is mostly about Clinton, who skated free of consequence with the collaboration of so called feminists, lefty journalists, the leadership of the Democratic Party and Al Gore. The Press rules of criticism and consequence are different for lefties.
Kennedy loved in a different era (though I suspect Ben Bradlee would not have covered up sexual escapades for Nixon.)
Shame on me, and my cultural isolation, in misspelling "falafel."
The Smoking Gun got it right:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/oreilly/bill-oreilly-falafel-lawsuit-turns-ten-897562
This bothers me, not out of concern for O'Riley or Fox News, but out of concern for how this will affect future litigants. O'Riley settled the cases to put this behind him. Part of the settlement was that the terms of the settlements and the allegations were to be kept confidential. That confidence was broken within minutes of the settlement being reached. Given this history, why would someone like O'Riley agree to settle such a case in the future when a primary purpose of settling was to keep the allegations out of the press? Ruining O'Riley's reputation was the worst that bringing these charges could do to him. If settling doesn't take the worst thing off the table, why settle?
Also, Clinton was President a generation ago and the Kennedys are long gone. So, what's your point?
Yeah..move on already....
Besides standards are for Conservatives, not Progressives.
"So, what's your point?"
That those who presume to press morality are themselves morally compromised. It is beyond mere hypocrisy.
That this all is really a power struggle, and that any consideration of ethics is beside the point. Ethics is not ethics, it is simply a weapon in an amoral, existential conflict, war to the knife.
Personally I've never liked O'Reilly and I'm glad to see him gone. I have no idea about the validity of the allegations of course, it certainly seems that there's a lot of them, but he could be totally innocent and be unfairly targeted. I just don't know.
As to whether this is all part of some grand George Soros/Media Matters scheme to destroy all conservative media? Sure, why not. Those jerks will always try to target any and all prominent conservative figures. It's what they do. That doesn't mean that they'll be successful and it doesn't mean you should rush to Bill O'Reilly's defense without evidence or damn the Murdoch family for not sticking by their guy no matter what.
buwaya said...
Part of the ongoing media platform war.
The system is using institutional power to suppress alternate media.
This is all of a piece with other efforts -
- The banning of Youtube advertising for right-wing channels, and other right-ish ones like gun and military channels.
- Twitter bans.
- Facebook bans, and filters
This all wasn't about O'Reilly, and it can't be seen in isolation. "
Precisely. I don't like O'Reilly and seldom watched his show, but it's easy to see the pattern.
Once written, twice... said...
Something idiotic. But that's par for the course.
I've never been a fan, he's a big blow.
DKWalser said...
This bothers me, not out of concern for O'Riley or Fox News, but out of concern for how this will affect future litigants. O'Riley settled the cases to put this behind him. Part of the settlement was that the terms of the settlements and the allegations were to be kept confidential. That confidence was broken within minutes of the settlement being reached. Given this history, why would someone like O'Riley agree to settle such a case in the future when a primary purpose of settling was to keep the allegations out of the press? Ruining O'Riley's reputation was the worst that bringing these charges could do to him. If settling doesn't take the worst thing off the table, why settle?
Having negotiated a lot of NDA's, I am exquisitely sensitive to this argument. But it is not at all clear to me (and I confess to not having read all of the Times' series on the O'Reilly settlements) that any of the O'Reilly plaintiffs violated their NDA's. The high-profile complainant Dr. Wendy Walsh did not settle with FNC or O'Reilly. So she was not bound. The other angle pursued by the Times was whether FNC had properly reported settlements for IRS/SEC/other reporting purposes. And it appeared that they hadn't.
I'm not going to argue with you, but instead just ask; were there in fact any violations of NDA's that you are aware of? By whom?
I wouldn't be surprised if the allegations are true, but let's not pretend this is just a Fox News problem. When Ailes was found out, I wondered how so many women had kept silent for so long. I suspect it's because it happens everywhere in the industry. TV news is no different from Hollywood. Let's go after the casting couch next.
"Those jerks will always try to target any and all prominent conservative figures. It's what they do."
No, this is not business as usual, it is an explicit campaign now.
"Personally I've never liked O'Reilly and I'm glad to see him gone."
-- I flipped back and forth. His written stuff always was better than his show, but I'd rather have gotten rid of him without not knowing if what he was accused of is true or because Fox just decided they could do better. Cloak and dagger stuff is always a bit off putting.
One word: Falafel.
“So anyway I'd be rubbing your big boobs and getting your nipples hard, kinda' kissing your neck from behind . . . and then I would take the other hand with the falafel thing and I'd put it on your pussy but you'd have to do it really light, just kind of a tease business . . . ”
O'Reilly Falafel Suit Turns Five (2009)
More 2004 sexual harassment deliciousness here.
ARM is correct. Trump is the next target.
We have no idea what the $13m was paid for but $9m to one woman is big money even for NYC. What did O'Reilly do? Worse than Clinton?
Turns out only $80m in ad revenue on The Factor and advertisers usually don't buy just one show. Boycott was a show by liberal advertisers.
We now know the Murdoch sons are solid establishment liberals.
The Five to replace the Factor. It will bomb. Only Laura Ingraham or Ann Althouse could save the day for Fox. "Cruel Neutrality with Althouse."
O'Reilly was accused of being a normal man raised in the 1950 and 1960s. Once more than one opinion on news was permitted because it was a Cable show, he used his aggressiveness to become King of Cable News Talkers.
But the Globalists want their Cable News Network back where one opinion is preferred.
The strange idea that TV Babes hated his daring to hit on them is Very Fake. That's the way they get their jobs.
David Begley said...
ARM is correct. Trump is the next target.
I was really hoping that Sean Hannity would be the next target, and that we'd save Trump for the 2020 Republican primaries.
Big egos with big libidos along with charisma and all is well but having only two out of three is maybe sexual harassment.
Women need to grow a pair.
Fuck it, we're doing it live.
Man, if only he had been a Democrat President, then the NYT would have protected him from those sorts of allegations.
True but Drudge or another conservative host at Fox would have gone after him. That's that's the role of the opposition.
That this all is really a power struggle, and that any consideration of ethics is beside the point. Ethics is not ethics, it is simply a weapon in an amoral, existential conflict, war to the knife.
Yep. War to the knife indeed. The Degüello has sounded, conduct yourselves accordingly.
I'm not going to argue with you, but instead just ask; were there in fact any violations of NDA's that you are aware of? By whom?
No, I'm not aware of any violations of the NDA's. Like you, I'm operating with a limited access to the facts. Still, unless it can be proven that the NDA's weren't violated, there's apt to be a strong suspicion on the part of many that they were violated. This suspicion would be buttressed by the many high profile examples where things that were to be kept confidential were disclosed to the public. Some of these disclosures were legal (although, in my view, unethical), such as the unsealing of Jack Ryan's divorce records after he'd won the 2004 Republican primary for US Senate in Illinois. (Many believe the Democrat candidate, Barack Obama, had a hand in persuading the court to unseal the records.) Some of these disclosures are violations of the NDA's that were part of the settlement.
The point is, all of these disclosures increase the perception that an NDA is likely to be violated -- which greatly diminishes their value.
The agreements totaled about $13 million.
That is really one excellent scam.
Given this history, why would someone like O'Riley agree to settle such a case in the future when a primary purpose of settling was to keep the allegations out of the press?
Someone like O'Riley shouldn't settle if he didn't do anything wrong. If he did something wrong, he should have owned up to and moved on. Letterman handled his indiscretion well by going public. I suspect that O'Riley couldn't do the same because he's too much of a blowhard hypocrite.
In any event, NDAs are morally suspect. A decent person should not be subjected to blackmail and an indecent person person should not be able to hide behind a NDA and continue to commit offenses against individuals that are unaware of what they have done in the past.
You have to admit it must awful to be a sexually attractive woman, they should realize that this too will pass.
No one pays $9m to one person for a bad case. The other four may have had nuisance value or marginal exposure. But again, we have no facts.
Bigger question: Who leaked this info? NYT will never tell.
...the unsealing of Jack Ryan's divorce records after he'd won the 2004 Republican primary for US Senate in Illinois. (Many believe the Democrat candidate, Barack Obama, had a hand in persuading the court to unseal the records.)
For the record, my own belief based on the stuff I have read is that it is nearly beyond doubt, that it was done by operatives working at the direction of Axelrod or people working with Axelrod. Not Obama, but working for Obama.
Also, Clinton was President a generation ago and the Kennedys are long gone."
Right, nothing to see there. Move along.
"Clinton was President a generation ago" But is celebrated today, as Dem convention speaker no less.
"The Kennedys are long gone" But are celebrated today, and of course their misdeeds were systematically covered up, even in a period when they clearly were misdeeds. Camelot lives.
The left wants scalps, and they'll get them by any means necessary. Cons need to 1. take the Pence option to protect themselves, and 2. fight back when necessary and appropriate.
Said it before and I'll say it again...
Two kinds of kids in the world, those that build things with blocks and those that knock down the block towers others have built.
Two kinds of adults in the world, those that build things and those that knock down what others have built.
This whole media mob frenzy sharks smelling blood in the water thing was just another leftist and MSM (but I repeat myself) attempt to "knock down" O'Reilly, and they won.
I don't care if you like O'Reilly or hate him or you're one of the millions in between, this kind of stuff is infuriating to me. Its so old testament. Allegations of wrongdoing, Boycott! Fire him!! Banish him! Kill the infidel!!!
Can't we all just get along?
Or all we all just crabs in a bucket?
Here is a little more perspective on the last charge via Paul Mirengoff of PowerLine.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/04/in-re-bill-oreilly.php
"O'Reilly was accused of being a normal man raised in the 1950 and 1960s."
Most "normal men" I know in that age aren't serial sexual harassers. If the accusations are true, then no. He wasn't "normal" in that sense.
Sean Hannity, next please.
"Can't we all just get along?
Or all we all just crabs in a bucket?"
No, its not that. This is all about tremendous amounts of money. There is a great deal at stake, and at this point nothing can be left to chance.
The "left" - really the government-corporatist system - now desperately needs to remove their opposition's media tools as these have become too powerful. Trump has cost them, and this can't continue. Hence a coordinated campaign to deprive all of the "right" media of funding, driving away advertisers, shutting down popular figures, and closing down free speech on internet platforms.
Did Matthew just call me abnormal?
that we'd save Trump for the 2020 Republican primaries.
4/19/17, 2:30 PM
In other words, Chuck is hoping for a Democrat in the WH in 2020, because that is the certain outcome of that scenario.
But then that's what Chuck hoped for in 2016.
Personally, I've always considered O'Reilly a pompous ass. I'd just as soon be waterboarded or tied to a chair and forced to listen to Obama speeches as listen to O'Reilly. I won't go so far as to say I'd rather be forced to listen to Hillary speeches, though. Other than being on fire, I can't think of many things worse than having to listen to Hillary.
The accusations aren't that he said some indelicate things or flirted inappropriately. They're serious accusations.
Like Bill Clinton, Bill O'Reilly is spectacularly unlucky with unprincipled, opportunistic women.
exiledonmainstreet said...
...
In other words, Chuck is hoping for a Democrat in the WH in 2020, because that is the certain outcome of that scenario.
But then that's what Chuck hoped for in 2016.
Voting for Trump was sure a funny way to hope for a Democrat win.
Are you saying that if Trump is primaried, and another Republican wins the nomination, that lots of people who voted for Trump in 2016 would not vote for another Republican in 2020?
If so, I'd say that I was a lot better and a lot more loyal Republican than they are.
"Are you saying that if Trump is primaried, and another Republican wins the nomination, that lots of people who voted for Trump in 2016 would not vote for another Republican in 2020?"
-- That's the fear in both parties if the sitting president gets primaried.
What Buyawa said at 2:04PM.
The well paid liberal agitators have taken another scalp.
And, honestly: A lot of Trump voters very well might sit out if he gets primaried. Many of them might "come home" when looking at a Warren or the like Presidency vs. a Whoever Primaried Trump Presidency, but I wouldn't want to try and figure that one out.
This is why women should always wear burkas.
Inga said... [hush][hide comment]
Sean Hannity, next please.
Whoops. You weren't supposed to admit this was just partisanship.
Serious accusations of propositioning women in the NYC Media Circus is shameful, I tell you, shameful. It's like finding gambling is going on at Rick's Bar in Casablanca.
But it's not actually a crime, if he took no for an answer. Unless she was too young or he was too old. There are boundaries.
I don't think Letterman is a fair comparison; wasn't Letterman just admitting to a consensual affair, not harassment, or am I wrong?
Ailes and O'Reilly were personally pigs. They harmed the conservative brand once they were found out. Bill Clinton was way worse and his brand remains solid with the same people who took down Ailes and O'Reilly.
What impresses me is the way these impossible-to-refute allegations of sexual harassment are deployed. If the employer refuses to hire a woman, it is accused of sexism. If it hires a woman, and she makes up s**t about O'Reilly, he is utterly screwed. Not even with actual vconvictions but with legal costs and innuendo.
These accusers should be seen as kamikaze warriors.
Letterman fessed up only after he had to call the FBI to report the attempted blackmail.
If he were married to Hillary he wouldn't be in this trouble.
Matthew - sex with an underling is almost the classic definition of sexual harassment even when it is consentual. I bet Letterman paid through the nose to that girl.
If Sean Hannity didn't engage in sexual harassment then he's safe, he has nothing to worry about.
That's a detail I didn't know about Letterman.
Pence will only have private dinners with young male staffers because he is a well known closet case.
4/19/17, 2:07 PM
Is this supposed to be some sort of political discussion ?
Or are you just vile ?
Owen said...
What impresses me is the way these impossible-to-refute allegations of sexual harassment are deployed. If the employer refuses to hire a woman, it is accused of sexism. If it hires a woman, and she makes up s**t about O'Reilly, he is utterly screwed. Not even with actual vconvictions but with legal costs and innuendo.
Can I tell you what impresses me? I really want to tell you what impresses me. You impress me. Your undying loyalty to Bill O'Reilly impresses me; that you could stand by any notion that Bill O'Reilly's denials should be believed after the Andrea Macris lawsuit. That's the "falafel" case mentioned earlier up on this comments page. Where she allegedly had O'Reilly on numerous audio/phone recordings, talking about showering with her, rubbing her boobs, pinching her nipples and rubbing her genitalia with a "falafel." All apparently while he, on one or more occasions, masturbated.
So maybe, you think that was an isolated case. Except that Roger Ailes, Bill O's mentor and protector at FNC, was similarly accused, and he also denied the allegations, and it turned out that he too had been caught on a voice recording making sexually suggestive and aggressive comments toward Gretchen Carlson, who obtained a settlement that was reported to have been for the sort of settlement money reserved for reeeeeaaalllly good cases. Like where there is a recording, that proves the cause of action.
Left unsaid is whether Ailes and O'Reilly can now compete against Fox.
"Bill Clinton was way worse and his brand remains solid with the same people who took down Ailes and O'Reilly."
As I said above, it doesn't matter. All of this is simply enemy fire. What ammunition they use, truth, lies, half-and-half, whatever, it is just meant for a purpose. This is not a human discussion. Consider the other side to be evil alien jellyfish pretending to be human, and you will have a more realistic concept of the situation.
I suspect the real driver for this is advertisers dropping out as part of the controversy. That is the underlying pressure in the deplatforming strategy. Its long been used against Fox, which has always underperformed its audience share and audience quality in ad revenue. And of course they have several times tried this vs Limbaugh, who has also always underperformed vis ad revenue.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Voting for Trump was sure a funny way to hope for a Democrat win."
There is no evidence that you voted for Trump.
It will be interesting to see who replaces him at 8:00 p.m. I saw the comment above about The Five replacing the show, but that seems like a terrible plan to me.
It has been over a decade since I last saw the Bill O'Reilly Show, but even then I didn't really understand the draw.
I will assume the allegations are true- you don't spend 13 million dollars paying off liars.
Buwaya: "Its long been used against Fox, which has always underperformed its audience share and audience quality in ad revenue."
Fox wins in it's subscription charges to carriers so is not as negatively effected by lower ad revenues than other broadcasters.
"Left unsaid is whether Ailes and O'Reilly can now compete against Fox."
Not if they can't get on cable TV services.
Fox is grandfathered in to all the big ones as it was born before the system had hardened in place.
Noted Rachel Maddow Fan Chuck: "I was really hoping that Sean Hannity would be the next target, and that we'd save Trump for the 2020 Republican primaries."
"Lifelong Republican".
Lol
Preponderance of allegations... and principles with a selective application
I'm surprised there aren't more liberals in a politico economy. Go along to get along.
Buwaya
Maybe they can go over the top like Glen Beck and Mark Levin.
His advertisers had bailed. He is 67 years old. Don't talk show hosts retire by then?
Sounds like he will get his newly extended contract--$20 million. He should go and enjoy his money and ghost write some more books.
I will be interested to see what leaks from the Paul Weiss investigation over the coming weeks.
Blogger AJ Lynch said...
Matthew - sex with an underling is almost the classic definition of sexual harassment even when it is consentual. I bet Letterman paid through the nose to that girl.
So if Monica had been on top of Ex-President Clinton instead of under her it would not have been sexual harassment?
In all seriousness, I have seen very few people talk about how Willy shoving his willie down Monica's throat was a textbook example of workplace sexual harassment.
That it was consensual has no bearing on it given disparity of power.
It is also a classic example of what President Trump was alluding to. If you are a celebrity they let you grab their pussy. If you are a big enough celebrity they let you shove a cigar (Hay, at least it was not cocaine!) up their pussy.
John Henry
Blogger Inga said...
If Sean Hannity didn't engage in sexual harassment then he's safe, he has nothing to worry about.
Just so, Inga.
And in any event, he won't have to worry about any women coming forward. IYKWIMAITYDNTTATWWT
John Henry
That confidence was broken within minutes of the settlement being reached. Given this history, why would someone like O'Riley agree to settle such a case in the future when a primary purpose of settling was to keep the allegations out of the press? Ruining O'Riley's reputation was the worst that bringing these charges could do to him. If settling doesn't take the worst thing off the table, why settle?
Yes, that is why I think settling is poor strategy these days. Trump and the left's Trump Derangement Syndrome has made all previous calculations obsolete.
Jack Ryan was in a child custody case where ex-wives often lie or exaggerate. But children should not hear that stuff.
In the present media world, discussion openly is better than trying to settle and stay quiet.
Think Duke LaCrosse case. Or Rolling Stone. The world of the west is crazy right now.
Yancey:
"... you don't spend 13 million dollars paying off liars."
Yes, sometimes you do, especially when the brand you created is worth a hell of a lot more than that. Sadly, the mobster allegation hounds know this. Like sharks to blood in the water.
A big allegation can get played up in the news (especially if you're not in the liberal club) and cost a ton of money. Besides, insurance will pay for many of these things. Just look at United Airlines. Bad press cost them a Billion dollars in market value. It'll come back some, but still.
I'm not saying O'Reilly's innocent. I have no idea. I just know a piling on when I see it, and this is a piling on.
"That it was consensual has no bearing on it given disparity of power. "
-- I hadn't known it was with a staffer for Letterman, but you're right there.
Sounds like he will get his newly extended contract--$20 million. He should go and enjoy his money and ghost write some more books.
I think O'Reilly will be fine. Fox News, not so much. I winder when Ailes will decide it's time.
Napoleon said, "Never interrupt an enemy who is making a mistake."
"I have no idea."
-- And that's a problem when we're destroying someone's reputation, whether we like them or not.
Inga said... [hush][hide comment]
If Sean Hannity didn't engage in sexual harassment then he's safe, he has nothing to worry about.
Which proves your interest in getting rid of him is partisan since you're obviously not motivated by non-existent sexual harassment allegations.
"I wonder when Ailes will decide it's time."
On what platform? Who will carry his cable channel? What revenue stream?
Even an Internet platform will be difficult.
No doubt whatever he does would, or could, draw plenty of viewers, but its not going to be easy to connect with them.
Meeting the pope right now maybe ain't the best optics.
Though it's better than holying up with Jesse Jackson.
Think about how much money Bill O'Reilly made at Fox between when the first settlement was paid and when he was fired - it's hard to say he didn't get his money's worth.
Then there was this on on Jezebel: "O’Reilly sued his ex-wife for $10 million in April 2016, on the grounds that McPhilmy had fraudulently induced him into agreeing to a consensual divorce."
Will we have to wait for Killing Bill O'Reilly to get the whole story?
Of course Democrats and liberals have Schadenfreude over this latest Fox scandal, Rick. I'm not at all ashamed to say so.
With this fun new Bill O'Reilly comments page, I just wanted to re-post an earlier comment from another blog post, about the Bill O'Reilly-George Will feud:
In commemoration of Bill O's departure, here is my favorite clip from the show in which O'Reilly goes off on George Will for having had the temerity to correct O'Reilly on some stupid shit that was included in the O'Reilly book (that Martin Dugard wrote, no doubt) "Killing Reagan."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YGzXYSzzxE
And here's the George Will "review" that set O'Reilly off in the first place:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426866/killing-reagan-bill-oreilly-history
I am SO looking forward, to the return of George Will, to FNC!!!!!
Make Fox News Great Again!
Add, to the links list, this one in which Victor Davis Hanson takes Will's side in the debate, and then goes further to wonder if O'Reilly had gone past his expiration date:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427275/bill-oreilly-george-will-killing-reagan
And lastly this curious one that I like a lot, for the current times; it is Trump-Defender Extraordinaire, Jeffrey Lord (a minor player at the Reagan White House in its later days), suggesting that indeed O'Reilly never talked to the right people to write a book about Reagan:
https://spectator.org/64722_killing-reagan-what-oreilly-didnt-say/
So, he never touched any woman, but he talked dirty on the phone. Dangerous MdFo, fer certain. Real scary, def worth millions in settlements.
I did see a funny one on Twitter that O'Reilly's next book would be titled "Killing Myself"
"Even an Internet platform will be difficult. "
I wonder how that new conservative internet thing is doing. When they dropped Mark Steyn I decided not to join.
Thinking about the European Aristocrats Murdoch Empire's taking away O'Reilly's microphone for engaging in this type of adult behavior does not compute.
I seriously believe it is his books on American History. He sells them by promoting them on Fox. And those books are 100% American Nationalist in depth History...exactly the most wanted targets for One Worlders to put down the memory hole. That is the true History that has been eradicated in American Common Core education and in 95% of college History taught today.
O'Reilly was teaching the youth, and he got what Socrates got for that trouble caused for the Rulers.
Chuck: I am flattered and humbled to learn that I impress you, but I humbly beg leave to correct your claim that I am defending --that in any way I give a tiny pinch of dried whatever for-- Bill O'Reilly. I don't know much about him. I don't watch him. I don't know or care for his opinions.
I am interested only in the evidentiary and cultural problem here. Of one group using he-said/she-said standards of proof to extract stupid money from another group over the old drama of tab A and slot B.
But thanks for playing.
Limbaugh is doing the same thing for smaller children. I read the "Killing Lincoln" book and didn't like it because I have read a lot of Lincoln biography.
It's the same problem I have with TV and movie medicine. Even "Doc Martin" uses the ophthalmoscope incorrectly. It doesn't happen often and I love that show. Still, small matters bug me.
Of course, Limbaugh will be target #1 with the media now if he wasn't already.
Inga said... [hush][hide comment]
Of course Democrats and liberals have Schadenfreude over this latest Fox scandal, Rick. I'm not at all ashamed to say so.
Schadenfreude is over something that already happened. You're supporting a witchhunt targeting Hannity.
I'd move Neil Cavuto to 8pm.
But what about O'Reilly? If I'm ABC, we'd be talking.
Owen;
What happens, when you've got he said/she said situation, and "he" not only denies "her" allegations, but also makes a claim that "she" is engaged in extortion... And then, there is a video or audio recording that proves "she" was right all along?
Never a big Bill O'Reilly fan. Limbaugh nicknamed him "Ted O'Baxter", which is about right.
Anyway, 21 years on TV is enough for anyone. Time for some new talent at FOX.
I doubt O'Reilly will get any offers from major media at all.
He is not with the program. These organizations exist only for political reasons, audiences/ratings are secondary. They would certainly like higher viewership, but not if their propaganda functions are subverted.
The reason you settle, beyond go-away money, is to avoid discovery, somebody explained recently.
Discovery is fishing season.
"Me Again" Kelly was the only other one with the ego and the smarts to match O'Reilly, and they have lost her too.
I supose the $9m is taxable income, like prostitution income.
Assuming the Murdoch kids don't want to kill the brand entirely, Fox should go with Mark Steyn.
I supose the $9m is taxable income, like prostitution income.
Au contraire, lawsuit settlements are not taxed, which means this one is like winning a $20 million jackpot.
Tucker is moving to 8pm and the five is moving to 9pm.
Sebastian said... [hush][hide comment]
Assuming the Murdoch kids don't want to kill the brand entirely, Fox should go with Mark Steyn.
I've only seen him a couple of times but he's not nearly as funny on air as he is writing. It's a tough skill. I think the only news person I ever found funny on air was John Stossel.
Maybe Ann will put up a poll, a list of potential O'Reilly replacements. A few suggestions:
1. Neil Cavuto
2. Tucker Carlson
3. Mark Steyn
4. other
Au contraire, lawsuit settlements are not taxed, which means this one is like winning a $20 million jackpot.
Well I don't know, but Fox surely writes it off as a business expense, which means it has to be income to the counterparty.
Also it doesn't differ from prostitution significantly in terms of services performed.
David Baker:
Laura Ingraham is the best choice to replace Bill.
&&&&&&
Consider this. Would Trump have won if O'Reilly would have been forced out two years ago? Tough call. Hannity is a Trump cheerleader but not all that effective.
Mark Steyn would wear you out with old material. He needs more time than a day to come up with new stuff.
"Tucker is moving to 8pm and the five is moving to 9pm."
I don't think The Five is ready for prime time (although they did dress up the lefty in a suit today).
rhhardin said...Mark Steyn would wear you out with old material. He needs more time than a day to come up with new stuff.
--
Hmmm...hardly.
Laura Ingraham is the best choice to replace Bill.
Too much a partisan, I think.
Au contraire, lawsuit settlements are not taxed, which means this one is like winning a $20 million jackpot.
Where did you study tax law? You should ask for a refund. Lawsuit settlements are almost always taxable income to the recipient. Worse, the amount included in income is the full amount of the settlement with any contingency fee paid to the attorneys deducted as a misc. itemized deduction (which means no deduction at all for alternative minimum tax purposes).
Blogger Chuck said..."Shame on me, and my cultural isolation, in misspelling "falafel.""
Since you are so close to Dearborn, I expected better.
So... I guess VP Pence's agreement to never be alone with another woman sounds like a smart move after all... Can't be any false accusations of sexual harassment if there's never a chance it could happen in the first place...
Allen S... Beat me to it
I was always amazed at O'Reilly's popularity. He's just a self-promoting blowhard, "looking out for the folks." He always oozed phoniness and pretentiousness to me.
I don't know enough about the sexual harassment charges to have formed a clear opinion, but I share the sense of other posters that when Democrats behave badly, they are lionized. When Democrats get caught, word leaks out on Republicans (Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston and others) who lose their jobs for sexual indiscretions.
If I recall correctly, Jack Ryan's divorce papers were unsealed by a crooked Cook County judge, just as were Obama's primary opponent, Blair Hull. The Tribune was very happy with the results. The American people got 8 years of Barack Obama and the chickens have yet to fully come home to roost.
he would not meet with women other than his wife alone
Children, transgendered, and the kitchen sink.
"Bill O’Reilly has been forced out of his position as a prime-time host on Fox News..."
"
I love this: "...(((a))) prime-time host." You know, one of many.
If he wasn't pissed off before, he is now.
" And then, there is a video or audio recording that proves "she" was right all along?"
Which you seen ? If not, why the bullshit ?
Mark Steyn does well filling in for Rush. How he would do in a regualr slot I don;t know. First, he likes his place in New Hampshire.
Plus he is still entangled with "hockey stick Mann" in court after a crooked Obama judge would not dismiss the case.
Hit Job
I can readily believe that Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly were guilty of sexual harassment. What I find hard to believe is that they (and Trump) are the only two people in the news or entertainment field who ever tried to leverage their position for sex......There's a lot of temptation and a lot of opportunity. My guess is that neither Ailes or O'Reilly are the most egregious or conspicuous offenders in this crowded field. Look what Cosby got away with. There were a couple of women who came forward, but they were mostly ignored. It wasn't until he started criticizing the fashion choices of young black men that it became acceptable to inquire about his activities. Clinton claimed he had bedded "thousands". There's not much chance any of them will come forward with a juicy story. Look what happened to their predecessors.
I still think Cosby was a hit job. Read "You'll Never Eat Lunch in This Town Again" for what really goes on.
He "got away with" what every Hollywood lefty does when he is not hitting at Trump.
I've been thinking a lot about the after life. I hope God gives me some input as to how Heaven should be ordered. I wouldn't want seventy two virgins. Here's my preference: I would like to be a big shot at a Hollywood studio or the news division of a major network. I think the Hollywood starlets are probably better looking, but the newswomen are a bit brighter and easier to carry on a conversation with. But those girls with Actors Studio training really know how to fake an orgasm. Maybe be the best bet would be to alternate between the two jobs..... Both places are magnets for attractive, ambitious women. You wouldn't have to harass them very much. Just put out feelers so to speak. I bet that for every woman that turned down Ailes, a significant number said yes.......It's would make for a great afterlife, but here, on this sublunar world, I would recommend the bigshots to be outspokenly liberal. That gives you a lot of protective cover when quail hunting.
I'm sure I'm not the only one saying this tonight... GOODBYE and AMEN...a pox on all the Murdock enterprises...Fox News, WSJ and all the others...they have PROGRESSIVELY gone down hill in recent years. All of the MSM and cable platforms will soon go the way of the dinosaurs.
Cling to your bible and guns.
We're going to need them.
We watch Fox Business and occasionally dvr Tucker to watch a few clips of his show the next day. Cavuto, Varney, Charles Payne, Kennedy. All very good. Dobbs has gone off the deep end and become combative with his guests. That gets old pretty fast.
So what'd he do to these women? Actual sexual activity or just talking dirty? For $13 million it'd better be the former.
It seems to me that Fox and O'Reilly would be parting ways soon anyway -- the guy is a geezer. One more Baby Boomer who didn't know how to retire.
As I don't watch TV, this has very little impact on my life.
Once written, twice... said...
Also, Clinton was President a generation ago and the Kennedys are long gone. So, what's your point?
Pence will only have private dinners with young male staffers because he is a well known closet case.
Inga said...
Sean Hannity, next please.
The left have no morals or decency or intellectual honesty. Hillary Clinton was their nominee. Bill Clinton is a rapist and they still support and honor him. They support antifa. They support sharia law and trash vets. It is long past time to stop treating them like decent people.
And Fox is going to die off now. The Murdoch brothers are purposely or cowardly trying to kill it. They think they can ameliorate the savages like Inga or the NYT. They don't realize what kind of a fight they are in.
They think they can ameliorate the savages like Inga or the NYT. They don't realize what kind of a fight they are in.
I don't know if they really think they can create MSNBC lite or if the Manhattan cocktail parties are worth it . Maybe we are just seeing regression to the mean.
The old Chinese proverb occurs to me.
First generation coolie,
second generation merchant,
third generation rich man,
fourth generation coolie.
The times they are a changin'. Back in 2006, Rush Limbaugh was detained in customs returning from a stag party in the Dominican Republic with the creators and producers of Fox's hit show "24." It seems that he had a bottle of blue pills - 100mg Viagra - not prescribed to the talk show host.
After getting embarrassed by the media, he had has pills returned. It seems that Rush's doctor was helping to keep Rush from inadvertently becoming embarrassed.
So Rush was forgiven and his show went on - but Rush works for Rush (when it is all said and done). The same is true for O'Reilly. If he wants to continue working he has the name and numbers to do radio radio and TV.
MSMBC doing massive touchdown dances tonight.
The latest allegation against O’Reilly came Tuesday from the attorney of a Fox News clerical worker – a black woman – who claimed the host called her “hot chocolate.”
According to the woman’s attorney, O’Reilly “would never talk to her, not even hello, except to grunt at her like a wild boar.”
“He would leer at her. He would always do this when no one else was around and she was scared.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/04/1-too-many-accusations-against-bill-oreilly/#c8gYUQxJiP3bRDkW.99
--
As much of a "pinhead" as he can be..this is a bit hard to believe.
Couldn't-a happened to a nicer guy.
That's the thing..it could..and likely does.
I think the charges are baseless.
After all, how did the moon get there?
You "pinheads" just like attacking him.
And that amoeba? You think it just crawled around like that?
Did that felafel-loofah just massage itself?
That's the thing..it could..and likely does.
Yep. There are manipulative women everywhere who look at sex as they would politics and view workplace dynamics as bloodsport.
But still, let's get one thing straight:
The guy's a creep.
"The guy's a creep."
Somebody is a creep but its time to leave the thread to the loonies.
"The guy's a creep."
Somebody is a creep but its time to leave the thread to the loonies.
Oh! So you've paid $13 million to avoid paying larger sexual harassment damages, too?
I never knew how much you had in common with the guy. But now it all makes sense.
Is your head as unattractively misshapen as his, too?
I guess no one wants to fuck Bill O'Reilly. Or Michael Kennedy.
I have just one question.
How does one use a felafel patty as a sex toy, exactly - without getting crumbs everywhere you don't want them to go?
This is the sort of question I expect Mr. O'Reilly to work hard on answering during his upcoming and no doubt very fruitful retirement.
Hey, Grandma Moses awakened in her 90s to painting.
I expect O'Reilly to do the decent thing and help us commoners figure out the felafel-sex toy conundrum.
It's really the least he could do.
Clueless = babble much! Thread wrecked. Check. Report back to Soros.
It seems to me that Fox and O'Reilly would be parting ways soon anyway -- the guy is a geezer.
As Jon Stewart said, "Crank up the Grumpelodeon!"
Trumpist slave/clone/cuck Danno said...
Clueless = babble much! Thread wrecked. Check. Report back to Soros.
Your right-wing propaganda channel is wrecked. We're just partying and dancing on its burning embers.
But it's nice to see you're not able to notice that simple fact without getting all cunty.
We've had to deal for decades with this bellowing liar beaming bullshit into your brains. Now he gets what was coming to him.
Fuck off and enjoy the downfall with the rest of us, Party of Irresponsibility Member.
FUCK IT, Michael! Do it live!
Why I left leftist blogs. Ann seems to be willing to put up with this.
I'm pretty conservative, but I never could watch O'Reilly for more than ten minutes or do. Nevertheless I can't help but notice the difference between David Letterman being allowed to make a simple on-air apology to his wife versus O'Reilly being forced out. As far as I'm concerned Letterman was the greater transgressor.
Why I left leftist blogs. Ann seems to be willing to put up with this.
Puts up with not being a blatantly partisan-ideological shit? Because she values speech. And probably values not letting powerful blowhards get away with sexually harassing subordinates.
You've just revealed that you're a right-wing nincompoop. If you can't tolerate views other than your own, then go take out billboards. Or go have one-way masturbation sessions on the phone with potential employees at right-wing "news" organizations.
Look at how itchy you get - all just because of this douche O'Reilly finally getting his comeuppance. You are probably just as insufferable as he is.
I wish you an ignominious downfall as humiliating as his. Now get lost.
As far as I'm concerned Letterman was the greater transgressor.
You weren't the one being (or not being) harassed. It's not your call.
Right-wing people have real difficulties with object relations and understanding how personal interactions work.
13 million is an awful lot to make nuisance suits go away. Many wrongful death suits net less.
First off - nobody really knows what happened between O'Reilly and his "subordinates". He paid some off, and that really smells, but we still do not know.
His being forced out is because those payments reek.
He's one guy, who probably let his dick get the better of him. Wow - that's never happened before.
Balls - you sound bitter. Sadly, the left continue their pitchfork anti-free speech dance to commie Sharia land. Free stuff!
He's one guy, who probably let his dick get the better of him. Wow - that's never happened before.
There was nothing "better" of him for it to get a hold of. The guy forces a potential employee to listen to him jerking himself off to orgasm over the phone. At what age? FIFTY?!!! There's no excuse for that. Total scumbag.
Balls - you sound bitter.
I've had my eye on this whackjob for years. Today is a happy day.
@Big Mike:
As far as I'm concerned Letterman was the greater transgressor.
Not sure how you make that call since the exact details of O'Reilly's transgressions are not known. Letterman's sexual affairs with insubordinates were consensual by all accounts. O'Reilly is excused of repeatedly coming onto women after having his advances rebuffed and supposedly withdrawing a job offer from a woman after she turned down a sexual offer. But again, it's all allegations at this point. At least one of the women appeared to have recorded phone conversations of O'Reilly (e.g. the infamous "falafel" call).
There was nothing "better" of him for it to get a hold of. The guy forces a potential employee to listen to him jerking himself off to orgasm over the phone.
Where did you find that info?
Letterman's sexual affairs with insubordinates were consensual by all accounts.
Mike, like many conservatives, takes a dim view of consent, though. I remember he used to defend the act of "fragging," or military servicemembers assassinating one another. You can't have someone who does that having a normal understanding of consent as any decent American should have.
This is like an assassination...
Where did you find that info?
Oh Dear.
It's a big internet, April. But I'm sure you'll find it. It's all on the record.
It's now simply "The Factor."
So, tonight Dana Perino, sitting in, started off the program by acknowledging - for the first time on FNC - that they actually had an on-air personality named Bill O'Reilly. And that there would more about O'Reilly later in the show.
And she was kinda right, because at 8:59 she issued a boilerplate comment, wished Mr. O'Reilly well, and signed off.
Shabby. Disrespectful. Insulting.
Oh Dear.
It's a big internet, April. But I'm sure you'll find it. It's all on the record.
That's a cop out and a dodge. Lame. You gotta link? Just one? LeftwingFakeNewz.com does not count.
And she was kinda right, because at 8:59 she issued a boilerplate comment, wished Mr. O'Reilly well, and signed off.
Shabby. Disrespectful. Insulting.
He made his money. He got his millions. He spread his lies.
It's time for you to stop worshiping him now, though - as he's done. And he is no better than any other pervert.
That's how it works in America.
I'm not defending him at all, mind you. Since the left love witch hunts, I just want the truth.
Try Snopes. Try the court records. They had transcripts. Bill settled - they knew the phone tapes were real. You asking me to find it is like asking me to prove gravity exists. I can't remember where I first saw/read it, but it was such common knowledge that there wasn't reason to remember.
Again, prove that right-wingers aren't averse to facts -- or fact-finding. If you want to disbelieve Loofah Boy's comments, go take it up with Andrea Mackris.
Why Hank Greenberg from AIG wouldn't settle with NY. He knew he was right and he was willing to prove it court. Makes me suspicious of O'Reilly, who what few times I have seen him seemed like a smarmy bastard.
Court document included here. Look at your own risk.
Don't make me type out the transcript. It's pretty famous, actually.
lame.
Just look what April went and made me do. See? Right-wing ignorance is damaging!
"Well if I took you down there I'd want to take a shower with you right away, that would be the first think [six] I'd do ... yeah, we'd check into the room, and we would order up some room service and uh and you'd definitely get two wines into you as quickly as I could get into you I wouldn't get 'em into you ... maybe intravenously, get those glasses of wine into you...,' began O'Reilly according to the complaint.
'You would basically be in the shower and then I would come in and I'd join you and you would gave your back to me and I would take the little loofa thing and kinda’ soap your back and rub it all over you, get you to relax, hot water ... and um ... You know, you’d feel the tension drain out of you and um you still would be with your back to me then I would kinda’ put my arms – it’s one of those mitts, those loofa mitts you know, so I got my hands in it ... and I would put it around front, kinda’ rub your tummy a little bit with it, and then with my other hand I would start to massage your boobs, get your nipples really hard ... ‘cuz I like that and you have really spectacular boobs.
'So anyway I’d be rubbing your big boobs and getting your nipples really hard, kinda' kissing your neck from behind ... and then I would take the other hand with the falafel thing and I’d put it on your p***y, but you’d have to do it really light, just kind of a tease business. ..'
lame.
Which part? The part where he confuses "felafel" for "loofah?"
Well, that's what makes it funny.
I mean, other than the part where he ejaculates afterward. Over the phone. Non-consensually.
So that would be your response to a boss who did that to you? "Lame?"
I guess that's why you lack the millions that Mackris has. Oh, that and you never worked for Bill O'Reilly.
But don't let me judge the sort of scuzzy stuff you'd agree to subjecting yourself to. Be my guest.
O'Reilly and Fox settled that falafel claim years and years ago. It is old news and probably comprised 75% of the $13MM total claims reported in the NY Times.
Was that the recorded phone conversation? If so - OK -- I admit that's a bombshell.
Is it real?
If he's that reckless - wow. He could make Bill Clinton blush. Though, I doubt Bill O'reilly ever raped a woman.
Was that the recorded phone conversation? If so - OK -- I admit that's a bombshell.
Is it real?
Real enough for his lawyer to have never raised an objection to it.
And for them to then proceed to settlement.
That's about as real as it gets in that type of a scenario.
If you want to listen to it though, I doubt that would happen. The terms of the settlement probably mean that it's relegated to a closet somewhere in Mackris' domicile - under lock and key. Or a safe deposit box.
Poor Bill.
Lame to you and your constant argumentum ad absurdum, balls.
april - that is old old news - Hoaward Stern had that recording long ago and O'Reilly paid the lady almost $10MM - and I think that is part of the total of $13MM. So the NYT story included really old news.
"began O'Reilly according to the complaint."
In other words, fiction. Amazing, titillating detail, though.
I don't know what "argumentum ad absurdum" means.
Reductio ad absurdum?
I don't see where the argument is. O'Reilly couldn't get a lawyer - with all his millions - to object to this transcript. And then settled. Meaning its about as unlikely that it happened as it is that a snowball stays frozen in hell.
I conclude that, esp. given his age at the time - he's a bit of a scumbag. And that he's had this coming. (Esp. since he's not learned his lesson).
That's all. If that's lame, that's fine. It's just a reality that a lot of people have absolutely no disagreement or objection to.
april - that is old old news - Hoaward Stern had that recording long ago and O'Reilly paid the lady almost $10MM - and I think that is part of the total of $13MM. So the NYT story included really old news.
Not too old for it to be news to a conservative, though.
April - that claim goes back to 2004 and was reported on the Smoking Gun website in 2009. Ancient History.
In other words, fiction. Amazing, titillating detail, though.
Hahahhaha. How many millions more do you pay your lawyer to point that out than O'Reilly was apparently not able to pay his lawyer to do so.
The tape is real. The lawyer probably heard it.
You are a fool. This is where right-wing arrogance finally takes a big Icarus-level nosedive. Finally.
13 million for promises of a hot soapy shower with falafal? hmmmm Maybe...
*just kidding*
As soon as your job is on the line over unwanted sexual advances (or even asking a subordinate out on a date, for that matter) - that's crap and I agree that Bill O'Reilly is probably a scum bag.
I suspect many hear had heard of it but it was sol long ago they had forgotten about it. Sorta like Dems forget Teddy Kennedy left a woman to drown in his car while he slept off a hangover and concocted a BS story.
April - that claim goes back to 2004
It's not a "CLAIM". It's a court document that one of the priciest Manhattan attorneys couldn't get expunged from the record. Because there was a tape.
Being tricky with the language is what got O'Reilly in trouble in the first place. Starting with his beef against Al Franken for "misspeaking" by labelling a Polk award a Peabody.
Time to be careful.
Tho - it's hard to tell 100%, because leftists are such craven anti-free speech head-hunting a-holes.
I have just one question.
How old is too old to vocally describe what's got you to playing with your penis over the phone to an unwilling co-worker?
I'd say that the age O'Reilly was at... maybe he'd have known better?
Oh well. This was the guy who did A Current Affair. You know. Tabloid stuff. About how much skin is too much skin for a woman to show. That kind of stuff.
What a mess Ritmo makes of threads. Good night.
Tho - it's hard to tell 100%, because leftists are such craven anti-free speech head-hunting a-holes.
Oh no! I fully endorse O'Reilly's right to his shower-wine-loofah-felafel-breasts talk. And its consequences.
Especially it's consequences.
It was free for him to say. Just not to her.
AJ - I suspect many hear had heard of it but it was sol long ago they had forgotten about it. Sorta like Dems forget Teddy Kennedy left a woman to drown in his car while he slept off a hangover and concocted a BS story.
Good point.
Teddy let a girl drown - after he committed vehicular manslaughter. Teddy Kennedy was rewarded with a senate seat for life. Leftists have high moral standards.
Claim is a lawsuit is an accusation. I am not being tricky with language you nitwit. "Claim" is the word that was written on the Smoking Gun website.
Yeah. Fuck you too, Michael.
Can't handle the truth about your masturbating hero, can you?
Go away. Get lost.
Go call someone up and talk to them about loofahs and felafels.
Entitled Dumbshit. With a nursemaid.
Post a Comment