world

Bill O'Reilly and ex-Fox chief hit with more sexual harassment allegations

46 Comments
By DAVID BAUDER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.


46 Comments
Login to comment

And what's Rupert Murdoch going to do about it? Most likely nothing. FOX has captured the media-silofied rightists, got them to believe FOX news spins and disbelieve any outlet (with the possible exception of other alt right and Russian outlets) providing perspectives different from theirs.

Murdoch will get his loyal rightists to see anything critical of sleazebags like O'Reilly as fake news. Murdoch's not going to risk losing his audience and the advertisers sponsoring O'Reilly's sensationalized sliming of truths. Murdoch's global media empire has huge numbers of blind sheep buying his distorted news. He along with Tsar Vlad (aka Professor Woland), another global media empire plutocrat, are so powerful they can sway presidential elections. Look at the White House.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

FAKE NEWS FAUX NEWS FAKE NEWS NOT REAL NOT REAL NEWS!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And what's Rupert Murdoch going to do about it? Most likely nothing.

I hope you understand what allegations mean. So if the allegations prove to be false and Murdoch were to fire him, Bill could make a lawsuit of his own where he would be awarded millions for falsely terminating him and for the woman counter lawsuit and slamming her for defamation of character, so of course Murdoch can't and as a smart man do nothing until he has all the facts, but you can't go on an allegation. Not a good idea.

FOX has captured the media-silofied rightists, got them to believe FOX news spins and disbelieve any outlet (with the possible exception of other alt right and Russian outlets) providing perspectives different from theirs.

Yeah, right. LOL

Murdoch will get his loyal rightists to see anything critical of sleazebags like O'Reilly as fake news.

Prove it.

Murdoch's not going to risk losing his audience and the advertisers sponsoring O'Reilly's sensationalized sliming of truths.

Just as insulting as Hillary's deplorable comment. So you are saying over 120 million people can't think for themselves. Also, FOX has a lot of liberals working there, a lot, so it's not a Rightest all conservative network, yes, it leans more conservative, but people like Shep Smith, Geraldo, Juan Williams, Beckel and many more aren't even remotely close to being conservative. The Blaze is a more conservative network than FOX.

Murdoch's global media empire has huge numbers of blind sheep buying his distorted news.

LOL

He along with Tsar Vlad (aka Professor Woland), another global media empire plutocrat, are so powerful they can sway presidential elections. Look at the White House.

You are on a role today, huh?

-15 ( +2 / -17 )

FAKE NEWS FAUX NEWS FAKE NEWS NOT REAL NOT REAL NEWS!

I'm with you, we need to stop this fake news epidemic, and call out fake news whenever we see it. It MUST be stopped.

The problem is, I've read the article, and I'm not clear on which part(s) of it were reporting things that never actually happened. Can you please help me and quote some of the things that were reported on that never actually happened?

Because, I know you most definitely wouldn't be saying it's fake news simply because you don't like it, right? You'd only be calling it fake news because it's actually fake, right?

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Because, I know you most definitely wouldn't be saying it's fake news simply because you don't like it, right? You'd only be calling it fake news because it's actually fake, right?

Ran out of butter this morning? If it's fake, it's fake, if not, then it's not. But going back to Bill, if the allegations are true, then of course it's very bad, but at the same time, there are opportunists out there that will do anything or try to lure powerful men to get paid or take them down, happens all the time. So I'm not jumping on the lynch wagon just because the left all of a sudden think they smell blood.

-13 ( +2 / -15 )

Ran out of butter this morning? If it's fake, it's fake, if not, then it's not.

I agree. The problem being that nothing in the article appears to be fake. But I know they wouldn't just say 'fake news' if it wasn't actually fake, which is why I asked for them to point out what is fake, so that I can join them in condemning this fake news epidemic. Because I know this poster wouldn't just be calling news they don't like 'fake', they'd only call news that is actually fake 'fake'. Right?

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Fox News is fake news.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Because I know this poster wouldn't just be calling news they don't like 'fake', they'd only call news that is actually fake 'fake'. Right?

I don't prejudge, especially when it comes to sexual assault cases. I'm careful about that. Fake would be to take a rope and a pitchfork and go to town and take action. I don't do that nor do I believe in that.

-14 ( +2 / -16 )

I don't prejudge

Me neither. If I did, I would said this poster had no idea what fake news is, and was in fact calling news they didn't like 'fake news', showing that they actually had no idea what fake news actually is. But since I don't pre-judge, I asked them to clarify which part was fake news, because I know they wouldn't call real news fake, simply because they didn't like it.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

There's no TV personality I despise more than o'reilly.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

I'm just waiting for Trump to jump in and create another diversion by supporting O'Reily.

In any other business, O'Reily would be at least suspended just on the allegations, and the company would be investigating the allegations.

Ailes and now this makes you wonder about the culture at Fox. If proven that Fox allowed that culture of abuse, then it could become very costly for them.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

I hope you understand what allegations mean.

There were many about Obama being born in Kenya.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@bass The Blaze is a more conservative network than FOX.

Here's what The Blaze is reporting.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/04/03/top-advertiser-drops-bill-oreilly-over-sexual-harassment-lawsuits/

But it could be that all outlets competing for the highly lucrative alt right market know that to keep their audiences they need to create more sensational stories, even if they're fake. No doubt Glenn Beck and his employees at The Blaze know that sordid sells and some of Beck's readers will believe just about anything he reports. Given O'Reilly's problem filled history dealing with women, punching people and outright lying about his 'frontline' experiences it's a pretty easy sell to anyone who hasn't been right wing cult-ified and media-silofied.

@bass So if the allegations prove to be false

I doubt if any of this goes to court. O'Reilly and Murdoch both have histories of buying people off. They're both part of the rich, elite establishment, not peasants, and like @serrano says, the rules for the elite are different from those for the peasants.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

I suppose the proper way to settle the issue is in a court of law. Oh. It was. Multiple times. Not outside the court. Otherwise the people involved would...oh. But there's Bill publicly denying it. You'd think the gag order would go for both sides. I hope the doubters out there think deep about what big shot itis is really like. Most of us don't encounter it on a personal level. But we have seen it at colleges and businesses. You gotta appreciate this gal's approach. She's not taking the pay off. Too bad the Russians didn't wiretap these moments. Any of you wonder why Putin got divorced? Or Trump?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

This article tells us everything we need to know about the quality of the organisation in question.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Nice timing of this. Right when Fox News reports that the unmaskings we were told didnt happen actually did and that the surveillance that wasnt going on actually was. So this is the time to bring up things that have been known since 2013 at least. Deflect, deflect.

As far as this topic, if people keep taking the payoffs no way for the real truth to come out. Why did Ms. Walsh wait until now to bring this up when the statute of limitations is one year? Maybe she just found out everyone else got paid and she didnt? I dont see the 'crime' in asking a woman to sleep with you (especially in entertainment biz)- is this a new thing?

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Fox News, a staunch defender of good old conservative Christian values.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

the surveillance that wasnt going on actually was.

No it wasn't. There has literally been no one who has found any evidence that Trump Tower was being tapped, and it's been shown that Trump got it from fake news.

So why do you keep on persisting on spreading this fake news?

2 ( +7 / -5 )

@Blacklabel

"I dont see the 'crime' in asking a woman to sleep with you (especially in entertainment biz)- is this a new thing?"

Dear me. Is that the best you can come up with? At least you are describing Fox as in the entertainment business rather than in the serious news business.

Fitting that the current President seems to like this trashy and sleazy organization above all others in the MSM.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Because there are now sources that say Trump, his associates, and even his FAMILY have been surveilled for at least one year. Where would they have been surveilled? How about Trump Tower, where they lived/worked. I have said before I dont care about the word 'wiretapping' if the only thing that is proven wrong is that word, people still going to prison.

This surveillance had nothing to do with a criminal investigation or Russia. Susan Rice who last week knew nothing of surveillance or unmasking when interviewed has now been confirmed as the one who requested the unmasking.So Fox News is the only MSM telling this story, so I find it convenient that sexual harassment pops up and is reported on CNN website. Same CNN website that has NO mention of Susan Rice or of Russian collusion now.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

O'Reilly is a lout and sexual predator with a history of wife-abuse and this sexual assault and others is no surprise. Those saying he didn't do it... or rather, the ONE of you, why then did he pay the women off? He's screamed at, threatened people, and lied CONSTANTLY on air and then twisted it later, even with the racist comments he made recently ("James Brown wig"!), so I can only imagine he's a million times worse OFF air. Hope he ends up behind bars.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Same CNN website that has NO mention of Susan Rice or of Russian collusion now.

The story isn't what the alt-right is selling, i.e., that Obama wiretapped Trump for political purposes. The least likely conclusion to that story is that Rice (and hence Obama) was engaged in political espionage. But, the alt-right is peddling that version of the story.

These were still incidental intercepts. Either Trump officials talking to foreigners who were tapped, or foreigners who were tapped talking to foreigners about Trump officials.

Even Bloomberg has not taken a position one way or another about why rice unmasked the names. Because, they don't know why.

Simply stated, Rice's job was to assess the intent of foreign actors, and she would likely have been the primary person responsible for investigating Russia's interference with the election and assessing whether the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia. It was her job. She should know who was in the intercepts, even if they were Americans and especially if they were Trump officials.

Until CNN knows what it is talking about, it is better that they confirm the story and understand the implications before running around carelessly screaming political espionage. If you want careless news and political slanted innuendo, just watch Fox or Breitbart.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Specifically about O'Reilly: If 'sexual harassment' is now asking a woman to sleep with you and then not inviting her to yourshow anymore when she refuses, then yeah he did it. Thats pretty much a Hollywood standard action. Other than that who knows as everyone else's disgust with their supposed harassment had a price tag that made it ok.

No one knows yet why Rice unmasked the names, yes. But sources who have seen the documents have said they had nothing to do with Russia, which has been the go to excuse for doing EVERYthing. So lets ask Rice why she did it. But she already said last week she knows nothing about the whole topic and is conveniently not talking now.

But CNN TV people and the New York Times are already covering up on her behalf, speculating as to why she must have done it and assuming it was legal and honest and good. But how can it be legal now when last week she denied even doing it? Only Fox has dared to question it, so we get 4 year old sexual harassment news put out about them over the weekend in return.

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

there are opportunists out there that will do anything or try to lure powerful men to get paid

The Trump defence: beneath contempt.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

But she already said last week she knows nothing about the whole topic and is conveniently not talking now.

Incorrect, she gave a response to CNN that everything done was proper.

Asking to unmask names is important if you are looking at intercepts of Russia talking to or about "mystery person 1" or Flynn/Manafort/Page/etc..

By the way, she can only ask to unmask the names. She doesn't have the power to unmask the names.

It is the intelligence community that must approve the unmasking, and only if it is important to understand the intercept.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Me neither

Good, then we agree on something.

O'Reilly is a lout and sexual predator

Can your prove it as fact? If you can I will give you a direct apology.

with a history of wife-abuse and this sexual assault and others is no surprise.

But you must also know that for years allegedly his wife was having numerous affairs on him, that's the other side.

I'm just saying you just hurl flame balls and you don't have the entire story. This is how rumors start.

Those saying he didn't do it... or rather, the ONE of you, why then did he pay the women off?

So because Michael Jackson paid people off, it means he engaged in lewd acts with a child, it's a slam dunk?

He's screamed at, threatened people, and lied CONSTANTLY on air and then twisted it later,

A lot of people scream, I'm sure if a bunch of us were in a room together there would be a lot of screaming and screaming doesn't make you a bad guy or a villain, keep digging.

even with the racist comments he made recently ("James Brown wig"!), so I can only imagine he's a million times worse OFF air. Hope he ends up behind bars.

I keep forgetting, liberals will anything racist if they feel insulted, so If I say to a white person that drinks, "my your turning pink", can one construe that remark as racist? Or you can't because Whites are immune to racist comments? Why is race everything for you guys? Don't you guys ever get tired of pulling that card?

I doubt if any of this goes to court. O'Reilly and Murdoch both have histories of buying people off.

Doesn't mean you're guilty. You could be right and you could be wrong.

They're both part of the rich, elite establishment, not peasants, and like @serrano says, the rules for the elite are different from those for the peasants.

Oh, here we go with the rich demonization gebabble! Flog the rich, they are the devils for being successful, how dare they, shame on them! Personally for me, I would never apologize for having a lot of money, I worked my butt off and if people don't like it, they know what they can do. As if being wealthy is a crime, I usually don't get annoyed, but people making bogus accusations and then if they don't stick blame because of a lack of financial means or because they feel society owes them is not dealing with a full deck.

-13 ( +0 / -13 )

bass4funk: "But you must also know that for years allegedly his wife was having numerous affairs on him, that's the other side."

Ah, so the wife-beating is okay, then. You probably still use the expression "rule of thumb", don't you?

"I keep forgetting, liberals will anything racist if they feel insulted"

Everyone agrees it was racist, even O'Reilly, who apologized. Only you would feign indignity (or worse, actually FEEL it!) at Clinton's "deplorables" comment while in practically the same breath dismiss Trump's literal bragging about sexual assault as "locker room banter".

"Can your prove it as fact? If you can I will give you a direct apology."

No, you'd deny it or just deflect, as you do most other facts you don't agree with.

"Why is race everything for you guys? Don't you guys ever get tired of pulling that card?"

It's truly sad that you have no justification for racism other than asking people if they are tired of not just shutting up and putting up with it. It's the kind of attitude that has Ailes and O'Reilly in this pickle to begin with -- "Why can't you guys just let it go? (white, rich) Boys will be boys, after all!"

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Ah, so the wife-beating is okay, then. You probably still use the expression "rule of thumb", don't you?

Please focus on what "I" said and NOT what "YOU THINK" I said.

"I keep forgetting, liberals will anything racist if they feel insulted"

Everyone agrees it was racist, even O'Reilly, who apologized.

It's the proper thing to do, he apologized, now we move on or should we keep stabbing the man for the sheer sadistic pleasure of it?

Only you would feign indignity (or worse, actually FEEL it!) at Clinton's "deplorables" comment while in practically the same breath dismiss Trump's literal bragging about sexual assault as "locker room banter".

I never said that and Clinton insulting millions of people because they don't have a certain viewpoint, pretty bad, but we don't have to worry, thank God she's not in power, dodged that bullet.

No, you'd deny it or just deflect, as you do most other facts you don't agree with.

I did not, I said, you don't know, I know I don't, so I'm not going to cast aspersions without knowing both sides. I'll stay in the middle.

It's truly sad that you have no justification for racism other than asking people if they are tired of not just shutting up and putting up with it.

What racism, you guys cry racism so much everything becomes muddled, it's an easy argument for the left, I know that, shuts everything down.

It's the kind of attitude that has Ailes and O'Reilly in this pickle to begin with

What attitude?

-- "Why can't you guys just let it go? (white, rich) Boys will be boys, after all!"

Hmmm....that was pretty much a racist comment.

-13 ( +0 / -13 )

Oh, here we go with the rich demonization

Not demonization. Everyone knows that one's legal budget determines the outcome.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@Bass

You worked at Fox News. What feeling did you get about the organization? A serious news channel, just entertainment or basically just a knocking shop?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

O’Reilly said over the weekend that he is vulnerable to lawsuits from people who threaten to cause him bad publicity unless they get paid. He said he had “put to rest any controversies” to spare his children.

Men and especially famous men are susceptible to being falsely accused.

However, I don't buy the payout excuse though. I may be "easier" to pay millions to stop accusations, but you encourage more accusations. In addition and not to downplay a serious situation, sexual harassment can be difficult to prove, so why pay if it can't be proven.

I see Fox news as a very 50's organization. Kind of like Mad Men, but a news organization that I have issues with, mainly with their distortion of the truth to achieve a political objective. Not all of the reporters there, but the vast majority of them. So, I have some bias that the guy is guilty. Still, a trial should prove to be another interesting sideshow. If he is guilty, then Fox should fire him. He can retire to the talk show circuits where he belongs.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

O’Reilly was due to return to the air on Monday following a weekend report in The New York Times that he and his employer had paid five women a total of $13 million to settle allegations of sexual harassment or other inappropriate conduct by Fox’s ratings king.

Dang, Bill is doing a lot of harassing. And dang, conservative women are pretty quickly thrown under the bus by conservative men.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

bass4funk: "What racism, you guys cry racism so much everything becomes muddled, it's an easy argument for the left, I know that, shuts everything down."

The racism you dismissed in your last post. How soon we selectively forget, eh, bass?

"Hmmm....that was pretty much a racist comment."

Like the man O'Reilly himself; turning bigoted remarks and "oh, just let it go!" into victimisation of privileged white men.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Nice timing of this. Right when Fox News reports that the unmaskings we were told didnt happen actually did and that the surveillance that wasnt going on actually was. So this is the time to bring up things that have been known since 2013 at least. Deflect, deflect.

Sorry, Blacklabel, but I can't keep up with you here. Are you saying that the subject of some $13,000,000 in payments over the last few years to women sexually harassed at Fox News over a period of decades is somehow related to a pseudo-scandal Trump tweeted two months ago? It appears you're suggesting collusion between news networks and some unknown left-wing entity.

If you could provide a scintilla of proof, the Pulitzer Prize is yours.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

You worked at Fox News.

I did my internship there.

What feeling did you get about the organization?

Great, well organized, met a lot of liberals, conservatives and people in between, nice enveronment.

A serious news channel, just entertainment or basically just a knocking shop?

Serious.

However, I don't buy the payout excuse though. I may be "easier" to pay millions to stop accusations, but you encourage more accusations.

This is also very true, but no smoking gun.

In addition and not to downplay a serious situation, sexual harassment can be difficult to prove, so why pay if it can't be proven.

Agreed.

I see Fox news as a very 50's organization. Kind of like Mad Men, but a news organization that I have issues with, mainly with their distortion of the truth to achieve a political objective. Not all of the reporters there, but the vast majority of them.

50's organization, that's a new one....

So, I have some bias that the guy is guilty.

At least your honest and I really can respect that.

Still, a trial should prove to be another interesting sideshow. If he is guilty, then Fox should fire him. He can retire to the talk show circuits where he belongs.

That is, IF he is guilty.

The racism you dismissed in your last post. How soon we selectively forget, eh, bass?

It's the truth, sorry, it hurts.

Like the man O'Reilly himself; turning bigoted remarks and "oh, just let it go!" into victimisation of privileged white men.

How do you know I'm White? Can you prove it? You are making another gross accusation again.

-13 ( +0 / -13 )

Are you saying that the subject of some $13,000,000 in payments over the last few years to women sexually harassed at Fox News over a period of decades is somehow related to a pseudo-scandal Trump tweeted two months ago?>

No relation whatsoever. Yet the New York Times decided to cover this and CNN decided to put it on the main page of their website right at the exact weekend that Susan Rice got busted and Fox News reported it. Yet no mention of said Susan Rice at NYT or CNN, which is current news but they can put 4 years old news out to make Fox look bad.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

bass4funk: "It's the truth, sorry, it hurts."

Oh, absolutely it's the the truth that you dismiss it when you don't like it and when it's rich white guys like Trump and O'Reilly doing it! Glad you can point out the hypocrisy of your question. Doesn't hurt me, though -- hurts any credibility you have on making statements about racism. But let me start your retort for you, "I know you are but what am I?"

"How do you know I'm White?"

I didn't say you were -- I said O'Reilly is, and those are his comments.

"You are making another gross accusation again."

No, you're misreading and jumping the gun. It is telling, though. Well done, again.

In any case, the argument that he is just paying people off because he wants it to go away is ridiculous, and he's now getting more accusations and the media attention piling up far more than before. So, he's either guilty, or a complete failure. Personally I think he's both, especially the latter in terms of being a human being. Disgusting man. And I notice you didn't deny the wife beating thing or say it's wrong!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"Great, well organized, met a lot of liberals, conservatives and people in between, nice environment"

Nice environment. From what the women who worked there have said, it sounds more like a strip club or the office of a sleazy B movie director. Perhaps the morals went down the toilet after you left. If you don't mind me asking, when did you leave?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Susan Rice was the National Security Adviser - she had a job to do. Whether "unmasking" Trump transition members caught in contact with foreign officials under surveillance overstepped that line is doubtful - even most right-wing publications admit this, instead simply milking Rice as a Republican bête noir (just as Trump and others still harp on Hillary. Those days are gone, my friends - you're on your own now). As such, it is really a non-story.

Poppa Bear O'reilly's story is fresh, him being newly sued and revelations regarding the multi-millions paid out coming to light. Blacklabel, which would you run with: a National Security Adviser doing her job, or an influential anchorman caught repeatedly harassing female subordinates? This is not 4-year old news, and that is exactly why FOX is panicking.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Oh, absolutely it's the the truth that you dismiss it when you don't like it and when it's rich white guys like Trump and O'Reilly doing it! Glad you can point out the hypocrisy of your question.

You're off the rails, how is it the truth, because you claim it to be? Who's being racist now? But itsto be expected of liberals.You don't know what I am and you make accusations as if you met me last week at some bar and seen my face. But actually if you did, like most people, they kinda get quiet. Lol

Doesn't hurt me, though -- hurts any credibility you have on making statements about racism.

Actually, it doesn't, you love that race card, keep it close to the chest, it might work eventually....

But let me start your retort for you, "I know you are but what am I?"

Translation-Backed.

I didn't say you were.

But you're insinuating it as usual, but it's ok. I get it.

No, you're misreading and jumping the gun. It is telling, though. Well done, again.

Me, not at all, you were jumping on O'Reilly as if you seen the affidavit?? What's that all about?

In any case, the argument that he is just paying people off because he wants it to go away is ridiculous, and he's now getting more accusations and the media attention piling up far more than before.

Let the people believe what they want, as you guys said, some conservatives believe Obama is a Muslim, doesn't make it true, right?

So, he's either guilty, or a complete failure.

Or completely innocent.

Personally I think he's both, especially the latter in terms of being a human being.

I think not.

Disgusting man.

We all have our own opinions.

And I notice you didn't deny the wife beating thing or say it's wrong!

So because I didn't comment on that, you are now once again insinuating I think it's ok? Dear lord, you guys....

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Let the people believe what they want, as you guys said, some conservatives believe Obama is a Muslim, doesn't make it true, right?

Right. But Obama didn't pay money to shut those people up.

There are lots and lots of rich celebrities, conservatives included, who don't get accused of sexual harrassment (by so-called 'gold-diggers'). O'Reilly has built his career on being an arrogant jerk on-camera. It's not a far stretch to assume he's a arrogant jerk off-camera as well. There's lots of evidence for that anyway.

Some of these women recorded their encounters with O'Reilly.

Part and parcel of Fox News and the new conservatism in America: subjectivisation and, ultimately, degradation of those who are not you. Just have a look at the skirts and heels of the Fox News women. That's not journalism, it's soft porn.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

bass4funk: "how is it the truth, because you claim it to be?"

It is fact that you dismiss an argument it when you don't like what it's about, just look at your comments. "Oh come, on! It's just bathroom banter!" if it's Trump saying he can sexually assault women, but during the past election you were STILL going on about Bill Clinton and calling him a sexual predator, saying it was unforgivable, etc. That's just one example. It's not 'because I claim it to be', it's because it's FACT.

"But you're insinuating it as usual, but it's ok. I get it."

Obviously you don't. But as with people in FOX -- and this time I am saying YOU are doing it -- you're creating your own alternative facts and narrative to try and suit previous remarks that were incorrect.

"Or completely innocent."

And a complete failure at paying off people to keep things quiet and make the issue go away, a point you once again selectively chose to ignore. Or do you think paying people off to try and keep the issue quiet and make it go away is a success when it's made his racist remarks of last week, which he apologized for making, seem like a dream by comparison to the current scandal? That's your definition of successful?

"We all have our own opinions."

Yes, and in this case it also happens to be fact. He IS a disgusting man, with his Christian-of-convenience belief system, lies about journalistic history, and inviting people on his shows and screaming over them so that they can't express themselves, and needless to say the wife abuse.

"So because I didn't comment on that, you are now once again insinuating I think it's ok?"

Well, then, answer the initial question, because your attempt to justify his domestic abuse by pointing out his wife cheated on him sure answers it if you insist on avoiding it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It is just that the US is now a country in which a guy can say "Grab them by the pxxyy" and get elected president.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Re: Fox News viewership: ". . . you are saying over 120 million people can't think for themselves."

In absolutely, positively NO permutation of reality has Fox News or any other cable news network, for that matter, enjoyed 120 million discrete American viewers. Ever.

The "alternative facts" soup of stupidity that Trump sycophants like to lap up would certainly stretch further if you didn't further lies about news organizations that have in fact provided a far more accurate account of the truth than you.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/01/31/fox-news-channel-marks-ratings-milestone.html

O'Reilly has about 2.3 million discrete viewers on a good day. That's fewer than 2% of the silliness you floated.

How do you know I'm White? Can you prove it?

The care with which you made certain "white" was capitalized in your reply is a pretty good indicator, champ. Please have the integrity to not pretend to be something you aren't. Coy doesn't become you. Not even a little bit.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Right. But Obama didn't pay money to shut those people up.

Doesn't matter. So when Michael Jackson paid off those people, it means he was automatically guilty of those alleged crimes then? We can establish that as fact?

There are lots and lots of rich celebrities, conservatives included, who don't get accused of sexual harrassment (by so-called 'gold-diggers'). O'Reilly has built his career on being an arrogant jerk on-camera.

Some might say that and some don't think so, some like that direct in your face, but judging by his ratings, I guess it's safe to say, people love it.

It's not a far stretch to assume he's a arrogant jerk off-camera as well. There's lots of evidence for that anyway.

There's also a lot of evidence of people saying he's not.

Some of these women recorded their encounters with O'Reilly.

Nothing public, so we have to take their word because some lawyer said they did? Where is the proof?

Part and parcel of Fox News and the new conservatism in America: subjectivisation and, ultimately, degradation of those who are not you. Just have a look at the skirts and heels of the Fox News women. That's not journalism, it's soft porn.

Oh, you think so? I think what you said could be construed as being a sexist remark.

It is fact that you dismiss an argument it when you don't like what it's about, just look at your comments.

I'm not dismissing anything, but unlike you, I'm not rushing to judgment waiting to make a noose.

"Oh come, on! It's just bathroom banter!" if it's Trump saying he can sexually assault women, but during the past election you were STILL going on about Bill Clinton and calling him a sexual predator,

With Bill that was a different story, I took the same attitude, that is, until the infamous Blue dress came on the scene, then everything changed, because you can't fake...well his DNA. Also, stop putting words in my mouth and saying I'm ok with men sexually harassing women, making accusations that you can't back up.

saying it was unforgivable, etc. That's just one example. It's not 'because I claim it to be', it's because it's FACT.

Can you fake DNA????

"But you're insinuating it as usual, but it's ok. I get it."

No, not at all, but with Bill it was a fact, at least in Lewinsky's case.

Obviously you don't.

Actually, I really do.

But as with people in FOX -- and this time I am saying YOU are doing it -- you're creating your own alternative facts and narrative to try and suit previous remarks that were incorrect.

No, I'm just saying, you or I don't know for a fact, what is truth or what is not, these are allegations and as outsiders, especially when it involves a lawsuit, do you think everything that is in the suit will be revealed? Again, there are a lot of people as in with Trump would do anything to make up or fabricate any story to get them or can you prove to me unequivocally they aren't? Do you have something tangible either way?

And a complete failure at paying off people to keep things quiet and make the issue go away, a point you once again selectively chose to ignore.

No, just saying, you don't know for a fact.

Or do you think paying people off to try and keep the issue quiet and make it go away is a success when it's made his racist remarks of last week,

So if you make a racist mark, that makes you a racist, really? I'm sorry, but any remark can be taken as racist, if you personally feel hurt by it, but that doesn't mean the comment in itself was racist or maliciously meant to be a racist remark.

which he apologized for making, seem like a dream by comparison to the current scandal? That's your definition of successful?

No, I wasn't talking about that, but the man is successful and one of the most powerful journalists around, that's a fact, so yes, successful.

Yes, and in this case it also happens to be fact.

That you don't like him, that's a fact, whether he did these accusations that he's allegedly accused of doing, we as outsiders don't know.

He IS a disgusting man, with his Christian-of-convenience belief system, lies about journalistic history, and inviting people on his shows and screaming over them so that they can't express themselves, and needless to say the wife abuse.

I don't think he's disgusting, but we differ and it's his show, why on Earth would he let others bloviate, it's his show, that's why it's called the "No Spin Zone" if you don't like it, don't watch and people that come on his show know this, he asks a question, you answer it and don't dodge, those are the rules and you don't abide by the rules and try to dodge, you might get yelled at. Love it.

Well, then, answer the initial question, because your attempt to justify his domestic abuse by pointing out his wife cheated on him sure answers it if you insist on avoiding it.

Of course it's wrong and I don't like when any man verbally abuses a woman or touching them inappropriately now having said, I still stand by the position that everyone is innocent until proven guilty and paying someone off doesn't necessarily imply guilt. He could be very well be guilty of these allegations, if so, then it's extremely bad, but at the same time, someone could be extorting him, happens all the time and some women will do that, especially if they can get close to a powerful person with a lot of $$$. Either way, as outsiders, we will never find out the full details, it's going to be a he said, she said thing.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

This article is about more sexual misconduct allegations against Bill O'Reilly and an ex-Fox chief

Yes, allegations as of now, that's what they are. Thanks for pointing that out.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites