April 20, 2017

"Did what Bill supposedly did really amount to a firing offense or were his accusers just looking for money or fame, as O'Reilly himself has implied?"

"Or was it just a political hatchet job by the seemingly endless legions who spend all their waking hours and seemingly most of their sleeping ones doing their best to oppose, discredit, and destroy all things Trump?"

Asks Roger L. Simon.

59 comments:

MisterBuddwing said...

Maybe all of the above?

roesch/voltaire said...

Only the brush and the taped recordings know for sure, when will Wiki release them?

Merny11 said...

Hatchet job. No doubt.

Tommy Duncan said...

Clearly, a poll is needed to clarify this situation. No need for facts, we must gather opinions.

nondescriptuser said...

Once the advertisers pulled out of his show, that's when Fox made the decision. Any media (or news) organization that is beholden to advertising is vulnerable to this sort of thing. Fox would have kept him on, I believe, if the advertisers had not turned their back on the show.

Oso Negro said...

Maybe the women just weren't that into his vanilla milk shake routine.

Hagar said...

And that worries me quite a bit.
Even if it turns out O'Reilly did do all these terrible things, the sudden mass exodus of advertisers on the mere rumor looks like an orchestrated campaign, and I think that is very disturbing.

David Begley said...

The $9m was paid in 2004. The woman had tapes. But were the two of them in affair? Was it consensual? I doubt it.

Given the ratings at the time in 2004, one bite of the apple is probably allowed. The NYT discovered four more women had been paid a total of $4m. As far as I know, no public details to those claims at all and no lawsuits. There is always another side to the story. The claims could be either false or frivolous and the money paid to avoid a lawsuit and PR problems: hush money. We have no idea.

When did this guy find the time? He has written books, had a radio show, had a TV show, was married, had kids and presumably went to a baseball game or football game when all of this was going on.

Major misjudgment and character flaw by O'Reilly. The Left takes the moral high ground; the same crew who loves Bill Clinton and defends him to this day. Was O'Reilly worse to his women compared to Clinton and his women? Monica was a very young woman at the time and Bill was the Commander-in-Chief. Juanita Broderick claims rape. Paula Jones testified under oath that the Governor of Arkansas exposed himself to her.

AJ Lynch said...

The advertsing pullout was orchestrated by a liberal group that hounds businesses in cases like these.

I don't favor political boycotts but I also don't want to do business with a company that gets involved in politics. So my Allstate insurance premiums may now go to another insurance company.

David said...

Who knows? I certainly do not know more than I did yesterday from reading this article. Certainly there was a tribe after his scalp. Not smart of him to hand them a hatchet. If he did hand them a hatchet.

AJ Lynch said...

O'Reilly is probably a huge asshole in his personal life though I know someone who stayed next door to O'Reilly and his wife and kids on a vacation about 7 years ago and he said he was a friendly, down to earth guy and his wife was hot.

David said...

"AJ Lynch said...
The advertsing pullout was orchestrated by a liberal group that hounds businesses in cases like these.'

Free speech. Tough world we live in.

rhhardin said...

Fox is an oiled-legs and camera on the floor network, which is more or less what the women are.

This is called professional.

But there's more than one way for women to make money at it.

rhhardin said...

and his wife was hot

Looks don't matter pretty quickly to guys. Personality takes over everything.

rhhardin said...

In the old days, if a boss came on to a woman, she'd take care of it herself.

Threaten to tell his wife, or his mother.

Oso Negro said...

Blogger rhhardin said...
and his wife was hot

Looks don't matter pretty quickly to guys. Personality takes over everything.

4/20/17, 8:00 AM


Many is the man who would later give up a few points on the hotness scale to gain a few points on the kindness scale.

Fandor said...

This is bigger than O'Reilly getting fired. or shaken down for money or fame. He is one casualty of the LEFT's war to suppress all speech that goes contrary to their beliefs.
The LEFT had advertisers leave Rush Limbaugh's radio program a couple of years back, if you remember.
The LEFT is out for heads, one at a time, no matter how long it takes.

When will "the folks", as O'Reilly calls them. wake up, rise up and declare war on these LEFT usurpers who have undermined our constitution and time tested traditions and values?

Donald Trump being elected president was the first indication that anyone was paying attention the United States was being raped and murdered by the LEFT.

Hope springs eternal that the "Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth."

Chris Breisch said...

O'Reilly is a misogynist pig. And he's always been so. Anyone surprised by this has not been paying attention. 20 years ago, that was not a firing offense. Even 10 years ago, it probably wasn't.

Today? Welllllllll...it appears so.

However, I'd note that Brian Williams and Dan Rather still have jobs. They are "straight news" people, or at least are supposed to be. And, at the risk of offending women, I would consider them deliberately presenting falsehoods to their audiences to be a far worse crime than being a misogynist pig.

Earnest Prole said...

A comment from yesterday appropriate for today: like Bill Clinton, Bill O'Reilly is spectacularly unlucky with unprincipled, opportunistic women.

Hagar said...

It is unavoidable that business pays attention to politics, but being driven by politics is another matter.
And that some billionaire, or group of billionaires, take it upon him/theirselves to use their business clout to attack their political opponents quite unrelated to "business" considerations is entirely unacceptable.

Jupiter said...

Chris Breisch said...
"O'Reilly is a misogynist pig."

O'Really? I heard he is accused of asking a woman to come to his hotel room with him. I suppose that if he was married at the time, that is evidence of intent to commit adultery. But it doesn't sound much like misogyny.

We seem to have gotten to the point where asking a woman if she is interested in sex is a tort, unless the answer is yes. As Ron Burgundy put it, "Well, that escalated quickly!"

dreams said...

"In the old days, if a boss came on to a woman, she'd take care of it herself."

We had a guy at GE who was an otherwise good guy but he liked to see himself as lady's man and one day as we were all in line to clock out, he started flirting with this woman who was actually not very attractive but she shamed and embarrassed him totally in front of all of us.

She had to have natural ability because I doubt that she had ever that much practice.

Fandor said...

Let me be clear and define the LEFT for everyone.

The LEFT...ALL DEMOCRATS alive and dead, as of today.

The LEFT...The MSM, NPR, Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, the Open Society foundations, most, if not all of academia throughout the land.

The LEFT, and I'm sure there are some I missed, but, they are the enemy within and they must be destroyed!

Have a nice day!

CStanley said...

Blogger rhhardin said...
In the old days, if a boss came on to a woman, she'd take care of it herself.

Threaten to tell his wife, or his mother.


If true, the allegations show O'Reilly to be a creepy SOB, but I'm disturbed by the haplessness of the women involved in all of these types of scandals. When did women stop knowing how to put jerks in their place? Unless of course the problem is that they really don't want to do that, and instead think they can play along with the game and then cash in with a harassment suit if it doesn't go their way.

Oso Negro said...

Blogger CStanley said...
I'm disturbed by the haplessness of the women involved in all of these types of scandals. When did women stop knowing how to put jerks in their place? Unless of course the problem is that they really don't want to do that, and instead think they can play along with the game and then cash in with a harassment suit if it doesn't go their way.


Yes. One wonders if the switch on Andrea Mackris' phone was malfunctioning, preventing her from hanging up on him.

William said...

O'Reilly never lost his audience, but he did lose advertisers. As a business decision, you can justify the dismissal. The way it was done, however, was crude and abrupt. He had a connection with his audience. He should have been allowed to say goodbye and in his own way. The Fox people did not show any loyalty to a man who had made billions for them. The harassment charges make O'Reilly look bad, but the way Fox handled it made them look worse........And CNN looks still worse. What a bunch of sanctimonious assholes. They talk about Fox like it was one of Saddam's rape rooms. A lot of these commentators have appeared on Fox in the past and, for a sufficiently renumerative salary, will appear again in the future. Also,in the way people who own private planes shouldn't lecture me on environmental issues, in that same way, people who party at the Playboy Mansion shouldn't lecture me about sexual harassment......O'Reilly and his firing is one of those events that makes everybody involved look bad, including the people who pass judgment on it. Except for me. I've got a properly nuanced and moral opinion on the issue.

dreams said...

I'm guessing that a lot of attractive women use their good looks to advance their careers. I've no doubt that Megyn Kelly encouraged the old and fat Roger Ailes by subtly flirting with him as I'm sure a lot of attractive women do.

wendybar said...

Can you imagine the inhumanity of getting called blonde?? Geez...Good thing he was fired, because how dare he??? (Kristin Powers interview with Anderson Cooper) But the same advertisers that were pulling their ads from O'Reilly give money to the Rapist Bill Clinton....Hypocrisy as usual...https://thefederalist.com/2017/04/06/7-companies-that-pulled-bill-oreilly-ads-gave-money-to-bill-clintons-tax-free-group/

Left Bank of the Charles said...

The timing is curious. The heiress presumptive is unable to get her contract extended on acceptable terms. New guy is given time to establish himself as the new heir. Then The New York Times is given the goods. Reputation tarnished so that can't take the audience down the street. Ailles fired so that O'Reilly could be fired. And orchestrated to look like they had to be fired. I give Sean Hannity six months to a year. The smart move would be to retire with reputataiin still intact.

holdfast said...

@dreams

How can you believe that a woman who reads the news in a cocktail dress would ever use her natural assets to advance her career? I'm outraged!!

Michael K said...

think they can play along with the game and then cash in with a harassment suit if it doesn't go their way.

That is what makes Hollywood, the source of all moral certitude these days, the magnet for young women who think they are hot.

I have never been a fan of O'Reilly and his books were annoying. The Murdoch sons appear to be thinking the law of gravity has been repealed.

We are in the end stages of a feminist hysteria that began about 1965 with the birth control pill. First women could now avoid pregnancy and that made them equal to men.

I have watched the progression from equality to anti-male bias to anti-male hysteria.

O'Reilly is probably too old to understand what happened to him. Young women sought him out as a way to further their careers.

The same thing happened to Roger Ailes.

They used to call it "The Casting Couch." It still goes on in Hollywood but Bill Cosby found out there is a corollary.

You must never voice anything conservative. Stay safely leftist and you will be left alone.

The left is now exulting over the fall of Ailes.

Since a series of sexual harassment accusations led to the ouster of Roger Ailes as chairman and CEO of Fox News Channel last summer, the managerial culture he created at the network has come under increased scrutiny. Ailes’ old-fashioned, male-dominated style has been characterized by many former employees as sexist, but another aspect of it has received little attention: the many ways that Fox News was run more like a political operation than a journalistic enterprise.

No doubt we will soon be treated to stories about O'Reilly. Dave Begley suggests Laura Ingraham as a substitute for O'Reilly.

It may soon be that no conservative personality can be male.

Conservatism is too sexist. A synonym for reality.

Matthew Sablan said...

Could be and. Embrace the healing power of and.

Michael K said...

The campaign to fire O'Reilly has existed for years and is run by the same people who attack Limbaugh.

O'Reilly just gave them a better target for reasons explained in the article.

The use of organized attacks on advertisers will continue, and will be used against conservative personalities who are not accused of anything near what O’Reilly was accused of. There’s blood in the water now.

Static Ping said...

This was a coordinated plan by a left-wing group to get rid of O'Reilly. Actually, they have admitted that they have had a plan in place for years in case of such a scenario. They probably have plans for every significant conservative target out there and generic plans for those they hadn't considered.

That said, assuming that the claims are true O'Reilly should have behaved himself. The advertisers were targeting the conservatives that watched his show, conservatives tend to react badly to immoral cads, advertisers can be skittish, and while popular he was hardly irreplaceable. It's not like this was one moment of weakness.

Chuck said...

So Roger Simon's position is that Bill O'Reilly -- the guy who slandered Ronald Reagan and then argued with George Will about it on-air (wherein Will demolished him, and wherein Will soon thereafter left FNC) -- is the Great White Hope of conservatism?

Factor word of the day: IMPOSTUROUS. Don't be imposturous when writing to the factor.

Birches said...

Maybe all of the above?

Yep. Which is why Mike Pence is a genius.

FullMoon said...

William said... [hush]​[hide comment]

O'Reilly never lost his audience, but he did lose advertisers. As a business decision, you can justify the dismissal. The way it was done, however, was crude and abrupt. He had a connection with his audience. He should have been allowed to say goodbye and in his own way. The Fox people did not show any loyalty to a man who had made billions for them.


They handled Grtea the same way. Apparently also about finances.

Dude1394 said...

I have not been following this stuff. But my general take on this is
1. Was it reported to the authorities?
2. Was evidence attempted to be collected?
3. Was there any evidence at all?

If not, then sorry, you should have taken it seriously enough to call the cops.

David Baker said...

"while popular he was hardly irreplaceable."

Disagree. Although Tucker Carson, O'Reilly's current replacement, has come into his own, he's hardly an institution. So, they're essentially trading a huge audience (O'Reilly's) for one much smaller (Carlson's). While leaving a vacuum at 9 o'clock. Taken together, a losing proposition.

And the impetus may be more generational than a stance against sexual misconduct (which at the moment resides in the eyes of the beholder). Yes, the young guns, the young Murdock's, with silver spoons and silver guns just rode into town with a hunger for power.

Chuck said...

Dude1394 said...
I have not been following this stuff. But my general take on this is
1. Was it reported to the authorities?
2. Was evidence attempted to be collected?
3. Was there any evidence at all?

If not, then sorry, you should have taken it seriously enough to call the cops.

Pro tip: you might want to follow what has been written about the story, in order to inform yourself, before taking a blame-the-victim stance.

So about the evidence; the settlements in the Carlson and Macris cases appear to have been eye-poppingly large, because after Ailes and O'Reilly denied the allegations, the claimants apparently produced audiotape proving that they were right, and the men were lying.

As for calling the cops, I'm not sure what crimes may have been committed by Ailes and O'Reilly. But civil wrongs, and especially workplace harassment, can be actionable even in the absence of criminal culpability.

But it doesn't even end there for you. Because part of what Paul, Weiss, Rifkin, Wharton and Garrison are investigating is an issue of whether FNC covered/hid/disguised payments to victims as something else, for purposes of tax reporting, or SEC reporting, or FCC reporting, or New York state civil rights reporting, or something else. I really hope we get to see that report someday. Broadcast on the New Fox network, featuring George Will, Bernard Goldberg, Megyn Kelly, Kirsten Powers, Bill Kristol and Stephen Hayes.

tim maguire said...

13 million in hush money tells me there was something to hush up. Advertisers didn't want to be associated with that so they took their advertising dollars elsewhere. No advertisers, no show.

buwaya said...

As noted by several above, this is part of a campaign to deprive conservatives of popular media platforms. This is not really about O'Reilly. Its not quite about Trump either, though the results of the election seems to have increased the urgency, hence the various concurrent shutdowns and harassment of online sources via advertisers, and the media meme of "fake news", etc.
This is organized partisan warfare.
Some seem to be unable to grasp the simple facts of the situation. There are no rights and wrongs, no justice or injustice, no reputations, no human flaws or virtues. These dont matter. Its all about firepower and all the above is simply ammunition. This is an amoral struggle for power, and anything else is just an illusion.

buwaya said...

And to counter Chuck, the struggle is desperate and every O'Reilly, be he ever so blasphemous re Reagan, is as precious to the"western allies" as a Soviet Guards Army in WWII.

Chuck said...

Left Bank of the Charles said...
The timing is curious. The heiress presumptive is unable to get her contract extended on acceptable terms. New guy is given time to establish himself as the new heir. Then The New York Times is given the goods. Reputation tarnished so that can't take the audience down the street. Ailles fired so that O'Reilly could be fired. And orchestrated to look like they had to be fired. I give Sean Hannity six months to a year. The smart move would be to retire with reputataiin still intact.

So you are suggesting that this is the culmination of a months-long plot to move O'Reilly out?

Then why negotiate a big new contract with him, a matter of just weeks ago? Why not, at that time, say, "BillO, we just don't think we can pay what you want this time. Thanks for fulfilling the last contract so well. It's been great."

Why do people work so hard, at their conspiracy theories? Is it really easier in the end, to manufacture conspiracy theories to conform reality to your world view, instead of modifying your views to conform to the facts?

FullMoon said...

Chuck said...

Dude1394 said...
I have not been following this stuff. But my general take on this is
1. Was it reported to the authorities?
2. Was evidence attempted to be collected?
3. Was there any evidence at all?

If not, then sorry, you should have taken it seriously enough to call the cops.

Pro tip: you might want to follow what has been written about the story, in order to inform yourself, before taking a blame-the-victim stance.

So about the evidence; the settlements in the Carlson and Macris cases appear to have been eye-poppingly large, because after Ailes and O'Reilly denied the allegations, the claimants apparently produced audiotape proving that they were right, and the men were lying.

As for calling the cops, I'm not sure what crimes may have been committed by Ailes and O'Reilly. But civil wrongs, and especially workplace harassment, can be actionable even in the absence of criminal culpability.

But it doesn't even end there for you. Because part of what Paul, Weiss, Rifkin, Wharton and Garrison are investigating is an issue of whether FNC covered/hid/disguised payments to victims as something else, for purposes of tax reporting, or SEC reporting, or FCC reporting, or New York state civil rights reporting, or something else. I really hope we get to see that report someday. Broadcast on the New Fox network, featuring George Will, Bernard Goldberg, Megyn Kelly, Kirsten Powers, Bill Kristol and Stephen Hayes.


Yep, but he never touched anyone, or threatened to harm a small woman, unlike some other asshole I could mention. Right, Chuck?

Chuck said...

buwaya said...
And to counter Chuck, the struggle is desperate and every O'Reilly, be he ever so blasphemous re Reagan, is as precious to the"western allies" as a Soviet Guards Army in WWII.


I have just got to say; I never read "Killing Reagan." I never read any of the "Killing ________" books. Or anything else, ever, by Bill O'Reilly. I would never have even known about the O'Reilly/Dugard screwup on the history of the later days of the Reagan Administration, but for George Will.

Even then, I didn't care all that much about the long-departed Ronald Reagan. What I cared about was that George Will was right, and Bill O'Reilly was wrong, and I like to see zero-sum fights where one guy is proven right and another guy is proven wrong.

It was O'Reilly's baseless slander of George Will, not Reagan, that infuriated me.

buwaya said...

The fact is that you on the right are fighting a guerilla war with very limited resources against an overwhelmingly powerful enemy coalition, dedicated to your utter extermination.

You snuck in a telling blow with Trump, a fluke, which is to be expected on occasion as a result of the usual human wildcards, extreme incompetence vs extreme talent of one sort or another. But the strategic balance remains the same.

Losing O'Reilly is a great defeat. The details simply dont matter. Intra-right arguments dont matter. This is all pathetic autism.

Chuck said...

FullMoon said...
...
Yep, but he never touched anyone, or threatened to harm a small woman, unlike some other asshole I could mention. Right, Chuck?


You have been called out on this libelous fabrication before, you worthless lying shit head.

Cacimbo Cacimbo said...

Clinton, Weiner, O'Reilly.... All subjected themselves and their families to public humiliation yet are unable to stop the behavior. Even if O'Reilly was only innocently asking guest/co-workers out, how many lawsuits does it take to say - gee, I should not do this. Come on a guy with that kind of money can find plenty of interested females outside the work place. The hypocrisy on both sides is absurd.

FullMoon said...

Chuck said...

FullMoon said...
...
Yep, but he never touched anyone, or threatened to harm a small woman, unlike some other asshole I could mention. Right, Chuck?


You have been called out on this libelous fabrication before, you worthless lying shit head.

After acknowledging your threat to "show her how it feels' numerous times, you now claim you did not say it? SAD!
Apologize and move on, Chuckie.

FullMoon said...

Chuck said...

Michael I am not the slightest bit concerned about Michelle Fields or her victimhood status. I am interested in showing what shameless fuckheads are inside the Trump campaign.

I am also quite interested (at 6' and 190 lbs.) in performing the exact same move on Greta Van Susteren, to see how harmless she thinks it is. She could never make a credible claim for prosecution.

4/14/16, 4:41 PM



Chuckie,you big bruiser, like I tell the kids, the internet is FOREVER. Oh, and I also tell them to watch their language, be creative and sparse with swearing, or it makes you look common,and stupid

FullMoon said...

Chuck said...

Fuck you, Full Moon. I am not going to "deny it." I say again; I propose to grab Greta exactly the way that Corey grabbed Michelle. I expect Greta to be surprised and offended, and maybe even a bit frightened. Good. That's how Michelle felt, no doubt. But Greta thinks it was frivolous in Michelle's case. Again, good for me when I do it to her.

Best of all, would be to do it to Corey Lewandowski.



Haha. Now you have a choice, take a drink, or attend a meeting. Go to the meeting Chuck.

n.n said...

The legal standard is informed by the state-established Pro-Choice Church: selective, opportunistic, and unprincipled.

The legal basis to deprive O'Reilly of representation, welfare, and dignity is preponderance of allegations, tried in the court of public opinion as directed by the Press (e.g. New York Times) and popular culture (PC).

To be fair, the establishment almost always claim their prize in a baby hunt. Nearly 100% casualty rate with significant collateral damage in liberally-conducted baby trials.

Chuck said...

Fuck you to hell, Full Moon.

You have repeatedly made up shit about how I "threatened" the media whore Greta van Susteren. I have never met her, never spoken to her, never corresponded with her.

You have made up fantastical things that I never wrote, about how I wanted to "titty-twist" her. I have repeatedly demanded that you quote me, and you never could.

And I have repeatedly re-stated my one, consistent comment about her. Which is back when Great was whoring for Fox News, and making apologies for the Trump campaign, she made the on-air statement that what Corey Lewandowski did to Michelle Fields (and then lied about it and denied it, and then was shown up to have done it on surveillance video) would never be actionable in a court of law as an assault. So I simply proposed to do the same thing (the exact same thing, no more and no less) to her, to see how she liked it. Knowing all along that her stated position was that such an act was not actionable.

Now, of course, I retract all such statements of intent. And I would never touch Greta. Not because I was wrong, but rather because now that Greta is whoring for the Trump-loathing MSNBC, she has reversed herself completely and gone on the record suggesting that the black woman protester at a Louisville Trump rally was obviously the victim of an assault, because Trump supporters touched her in an unwanted way, pushing her out of the arena. (With Trump's vocal support from the stage, shouting "Get 'em out of here" a couple of dozen times. This has all been turned into a series of state and federal court claims in Kentucky.)

And you keep making me do this detailed explanation. You hateful little troll.

FullMoon said...

Mercurial Chuck, call your sponsor, and calm down. Fairly obvious why your wife filed for divorce.

Repeatedly accusing Ms. van Sustern of being a whore seems a bit over the top.

As for twisting her titty, well, I don't recall saying that, although it does seem like a phrase I may have used in a jocular reference to your remarkably aggressive comments regarding Greta.

Your attempt at apologizing is weakened by your unimaginative insults. I am neither shocked, nor dismayed, but rather disappointed in you, again.

Kirk Parker said...

dreams,

"started flirting"

You must be using some new definition of "flirting" I'm not aware of. (Hint: the kind of come-ons popular in rap music do not come under the heading of "flirting".)

Jonathan Graehl said...

I would assume he's guilty of flirting.

jr565 said...

He wasn't actually found guilty of sexual harassment. So, why should he be fired for it?

jr565 said...

He was found guilty of nothing. So, why is he being fired as if the allegations were proven?