Tag Archives: Bill O’Reilly

legal news, media news

Is a ‘culture change’ in store at cable network?

21st-Century Fox made it official today: Bill O’Reilly, the company’s No. 1 blowhard and ratings juggernaut is gone.

He won’t be returning from his “long-planned vacation,” which commenced suddenly in the middle of this past week.

The reason for O’Reilly’s departure? A steady stream of negative publicity relating to sexual harassment complaints leveled against the veteran TV talk-show host.

O’Reilly paid out millions of bucks to women who had filed the complaints, all the while maintaining his innocence. Interesting, yes? Well, I think so. Fox News Channel coughed up a lot of cash, too, to women who had griped about O’Reilly’s treatment of them.

These media stories usually become the stuff of inter-network gossip. Competing networks — chiefly CNN and MSNBC — have had a field day covering this story for their audiences; Fox, meanwhile, hasn’t done much reporting at all on the difficulties that O’Reilly has brought to the network.

He’s gone now.

For me, it’s no great loss. I quit listening to O’Reilly a couple of Christmas seasons ago when he would allege that some phony “war on Christmas” was being waged by the “mainstream media” and assorted “left-wing pinheads.”

O’Reilly will get a big chunk of cash for, essentially, being fired for cause by Fox. That’s another part of these celebrity stories that baffles me. A big-ticket media talking head screws up, makes a big mistake — in this case, allegedly, several big mistakes — and he’s still able to walk away with a hefty severance package.

Whatever …

See ya in the funny papers, Bill.

As for the network, it lost its news boss — Roger Ailes — over similar accusations. Women have suggested there exists a “culture” of sexual harassment at Fox.

Perhaps we are witnessing a fundamental change in that culture and that female journalists and other “contributors” will feel more welcome and accepted for the talent they bring.

media news

CNN vs. Fox over this O’Reilly matter

There’s little doubt I will tire of this story quickly, but for now I’m kind of chuckling at a media war that’s flaring up over the controversy surrounding a cable news star.

You’ve heard of Bill O’Reilly, the Fox News Channel’s main man who’s been accused by several women of behaving a boorishly, of committing acts of sexual harassment.

Meanwhile, CNN talking heads and commentators have been blazing away rhetorically over the troubles at Fox.

Fox is firing back, accusing CNN of ignoring a story regarding whether former national security adviser Susan Rice outed some Trump campaign officials who might have been monitored by, oh, someone. CNN denies ignoring the story. Fox, meanwhile, is sticking with O’Reilly.

The two main-event combatants appear to be O’Reilly and CNN’s Don Lemon.

I plan to watch this tempest play itself out from the peanut gallery.

Fox is ignoring the O’Reilly matter

CNN has been covering the Rice story. It’s pretty clear, though, that Fox is giving short shrift to the O’Reilly story. I get that the stories aren’t parallel; Rice is a former government official while O’Reilly is employed by one of the feuding cable news networks.

Fight on, cable news guys.

media news

Cool the jail talk, Rep. Waters

2 Comments

Maxine Waters must still be angry over that tasteless joke about the “James Brown wig.”

The California Democratic U.S. representatives then popped off on her own, saying that Bill O’Reilly “needs to go to jail” over allegations that he sexually harassed several women.

Whoa! Let’s hold on here.

O’Reilly made a stupidly insensitive “joke” about Waters’ appearance, making some reference to her hairstyle as resembling the late singer James Brown’s hair.

He later apologized for the crass remark. OK. Fine.

Then came a flood of accusations from women contending that O’Reilly sexually harassed them. We’ve heard of settlements from O’Reilly and from Fox News to the women. From where I sit, a “settlement” implies a bit of fire under all that smoke.

Should the bombastic blowhard — O’Reilly — go to “jail” because of what he might have done? I don’t think so.

Do not misconstrue this as anything approaching an endorsement of O’Reilly. It isn’t. I cannot stand the sound of his voice, let alone the content that pours out of his mouth. He very well may deserve to be banished from TV airwaves. Fox execs aren’t likely to do a thing about it as long as O’Reilly’s loyal viewers keep watching him.

Rep. Waters, though, ought to show a bit of discretion when talking about this matter. Mentioning a jail term, instead, reveals a good bit of hysteria.

media news, national news

Should ‘Bill O’ accept Trump endorsement?

This is not an original thought from yours truly … it comes from a friend of mine.

My longtime pal Gary wonders whether Bill O’Reilly is smart enough to reject an endorsement from Donald J. Trump, who calls him a “good person.”

You see, O’Reilly — the loudmouth Fox News talk show host — is fending off accusations of sexual harassment from several women. O’Reilly has settled many of the complaints already; so has Fox News. The women have gotten a lot of money. The accusations have triggered many advertisers to pull their ads off of O’Reilly’s nightly program.

Trump weighed in recently with a defense of O’Reilly, who he has known for many years.

My friend’s question, though, concerns Trump’s own history with women. After all, the president actually admitted to grabbing women by their private area. If you think about it, the president of the United States has admitted to committing sexual assault.

This is an endorsement that Bill O’Reilly should welcome?

I’m waiting for O’Reilly to reject the president’s overture. I figure it’ll be a long wait.

legal news, national news

Sexual Assailant in Chief weighs in on O’Reilly

Donald Trump has declared to the world that Bill O’Reilly is a “good person.”

O’Reilly and Fox News Channel are fighting off allegations that the media star and his employer have engaged in sexual harassment against several women who have filed complaints.

So, what does the president of the United States think? He says O’Reilly is getting a bum rap, that he shouldn’t have settled those complaints for millions of bucks, that he should have taken the accusers to court to make them prove what they have alleged.

All this comes from someone who in 2005 was heard to say how he groped women, how he grabbed them by their private parts, how his star status enabled him to start kissing women.

To be fair, O’Reilly’s settlements with the women, along with what Fox News has shelled out, does suggest there’s fire under all this smoke.

The president of the United States, though, has a lot more important matters to ponder than whether his buddy O’Reilly is guilty of doing things to which Donald Trump has already admitted doing himself.

Stick to matters of state, Mr. Sexual Assailant in Chief.

media news

Why is it only you, Mr. O’Reilly?

I keep circling back to a single question as I ponder the growing controversy surrounding Fox News talking head Bill O’Reilly.

The commentator has been accused of sexual harassment by a number of women. O’Reilly has settled many of the complaints, shelling out several million dollars; Fox News Channel has kicked in several more millions to these women.

O’Reilly says he is a target because he is rich, famous and controversial.

Really? Why, then, haven’t other rich, famous and controversial news commentators been hit with the kinds of allegations have been leveled against O’Reilly?

O’Reilly says the women are looking for money. I heard at least one of them say this week she doesn’t want a dime; she wants to hold O’Reilly accountable for the harassment he has leveled at her.

If he’s a target, then why haven’t scores of women targeted other men who also occupy high-profile public figure jobs in the national media?

From my vantage point, the only thing these complaints have in common is one man: Bill O’Reilly.

media news

O’Reilly costs his employers a lot of dough

Hmmm. Let’s see how this goes.

Bill O’Reilly, the controversial and garrulous Fox News Channel talk show host, has been accused by several women of sexual harassment. None of the cases has gone to court; no one has proven anything against Bill O.

But he has settled many of the cases for a total estimated at $13 million. Some of those millions have been paid by the network where he has worked for the past two decades.

These types of “settlements” always trouble me where they regard the person against whom complaints are made.

If he’s truly innocent of sexual harassment, why doesn’t take the accusers to court and force them to prove what they have alleged? O’Reilly isn’t doing that. He and his bosses at Fox are shelling out a sizable chunk of cash to bring these episodes to an end.

How come?

I get that O’Reilly is employed by a private, for-profit news organization. Thus, he’s not a public official. He is, however, a public figure, given his status as a cable TV news star — someone who, I should add, is unafraid to remind us of his exalted status.

I guess that’s what makes these sexual harassment matters the public’s business in the first place. Indeed, O’Reilly contends he’s being targeted because he is rich and famous. Really? So are, say, George Stephanopoulos, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Jake Tapper, Chris Wallace, Wolf Blitzer … and any number of other high-profile broadcast journalists. Have any of them faced this kind of accusation?

I just am left to wonder about two related matters: Why settle these cases when you’re innocent of any wrongdoing? And why is Fox still keeping this guy on its payroll?

media news, national news, political news

At least O’Reilly apologized

Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly made a crass joke about U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters’ appearance, referring to her hair style and comparing it to a “James Brown wig.”

He thought he was being funny. He wasn’t.

The blowback was immediate and harsh, as it should have been.

O’Reilly then apologized.

His apology sounds sincere. Indeed, I’ll give him credit for refraining from one of those lame “If I offended anyone … ” non-apologies one hears from people in public life.

The incident reminds me a bit of the way a former colleague of mine used to refer to Rep. Waters. He was prone at times to ridicule her appearance as well.

To my knowledge, he’s never said he was sorry for being so crude and crass.

Hmmm. I’m tempted to write him and demand an apology. Then again, maybe he’ll see this blog and take the initiative.

As for O’Reilly, how about showing some manners?

International news

GOP wonders: Is the president really one of us?

Donald J. Trump’s doubling down over whether Russian strongman Vladimir Putin deserves his “respect” has drawn criticism from expected and — in the eyes of some — unexpected sources.

The surprise seems to be coming from congressional Republicans who are none too happy with the president’s equating U.S. and Russian behavior.

Some have called Trump’s seeming defense of Putin’s history of murder and mayhem an indefensible position.

According to Politico: “He’s a thug,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said of Putin on Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “The Russians annexed Crimea, invaded Ukraine and messed around in our elections. No, I don’t think there’s any equivalency between the way the Russians conduct themselves and the way the United States does.”

There’s also that issue of alleged murder of journalists and dissidents in Russia.

Trump’s interview with Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly has been broadcast tonight and it appears to illustrate quite graphically the president’s misplaced priorities in our geopolitical relationships. Putin is a bad guy, but the president wants the United States to “get along with Russia.”

Politico reported further: “I’m not going to critique the president’s every utterance,” the Senate leader said. “But I do think America is exceptional, America is different. We don’t operate in any way the way the Russians do. I think there’s a clear distinction here that all Americans understand, and I would not have characterized it that way.”

Trump doesn’t get it. He isn’t going to acknowledge the United States’ continued status as the greatest nation on Earth. He has vowed to “make America great again.” I would submit that giving the Russian thugs who run things in the Kremlin a pass on their behavior is no way to restore a level of greatness that’s not been lost.

Are the Republicans in Congress finally going to start asking themselves: Is this what we really want in a commander in chief?

International news

Now it’s O’Reilly who’s sounding rational

Have you ever noticed how hell occasionally freezes over? It happens at the most unexpected times.

For an example: Fox News’s Bill “Blowhard” O’Reilly now sounds like the rational, reasonable one while talking to Donald J. Trump about Russian strongman/president Vladimir Putin.

O’Reilly interviewed the president and it will be broadcast tonight before the Super Bowl. In the interview, O’Reilly asks Trump if he respects Putin. Trump says he does; he adds that respect doesn’t mean necessarily that he likes him. O’Reilly then calls Putin a “killer,” to which the president responds that the world is “full of killers” and then asks, rhetorically I presume, “Well, you think our country is so innocent?”

Holy crap, Mr. President!

It’s one thing to say it while you’re running for president, sir. It’s quite another when you actually are the president, representing — despite what you might have said to the contrary — the “greatest nation on Earth.”

The president actually seems to equate the allegations that Russian government goons have killed journalists and political dissenters with activity that occurs on our side. Have our forces killed innocent people by mistake? No one denies that. Putin’s thugs, though, reportedly have engaged in some quite different behavior for many years. I cannot find a lick of symmetry here.

I hope to watch the entire interview tonight. But from what I’ve been able to glean from reporting on it, the president — yet again — has crossed another line that separates decorum from demagoguery.