Bill O'Reilly: sexual harassment claims

[Belz...]

Good thing that isn't what happened this time, eh?

Employers routinely fire their employees for far less egregious behavior and offenses, even ones which have not been proven in a court of law. Even when there is little more than suspicion.

I'm not sure I'd call that a good thing, however.

 

[quadraginta]

Right to work indicates both are perfectly valid reasons to fire someone.

I think what you were looking for there is "at-will employment". "Right to work" relates to not being forced to join a union.

But you are right in your answer.

'No reason at all.' would also be a valid reason.

 

[quadraginta]

I'm not sure I'd call that a good thing, however.

What? That O'Reilly wasn't merely accused? That there was corroboration for those accusations?

 

[Belz...]

What? That O'Reilly wasn't merely accused? That there was corroboration for those accusations?

You know, I'm starting to ask myself some serious questions about responses like this. You said this:

Employers routinely fire their employees for far less egregious behavior and offenses, even ones which have not been proven in a court of law. Even when there is little more than suspicion.

And I respond that I don't think that this is a good thing, and then you reply as if I responded to a totally different post. This is one of several such answers I've gotten in the last couple of days. I'm quite baffled that you think that my answer isn't directly related to what I quoted.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Here both an accusation, and a judgement after an investigation, are grounds for dismissal but both can be appealed to the labour relations board or to the courts for wrongful dismissal.

Does that mean that if a person dislikes someone enough, all they have to do is accuse them of sexual harassment, and they can get them fired?

Sure, they can appeal that... but they're still out of a job for a while with their reputation damaged. Seems like a pretty risky way to do things.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't think settling out of court necessarily indicates guilt, but how much you pay is something of a barometer regarding:

1) how much your reputation is worth to you
and
2) how much evidence was stacked against you

I would guess that item 2 barely comes into consideration. It's almost certainly a combination of the financial risk of a damaged reputation (loss of advertising dollars) if the case goes to trial plus the cost of trial balanced against the amount of money required to get the other person to sign a non-disclosure agreement and drop the threat of lawsuit.

 

[Tony Stark]

Fox News co-president Bill Shine is fired.

Fox News announced on Monday the exit of one of its co-presidents, Bill Shine, removing a holdover from the Roger Ailes era and signaling that the network is prepared to shake up its executive ranks as it tries to move past a season of turmoil that has engulfed it since last summer.

Mr. Shine is a veteran newsman and a longtime lieutenant to Mr. Ailes, the former chairman who was forced out amid a sexual harassment scandal in July. Although Mr. Shine was seen as a source of stability in the news division at a turbulent time, his presence was viewed by some employees as a sign that Fox News’s parent, 21st Century Fox, was not serious about its stated commitment to overhaul the culture of the network.

Mr. Shine had been cited in several lawsuits as someone who enabled and concealed Mr. Ailes’s behavior and dismissed concerns from women who complained about it. He has denied all wrongdoing.

His departure is sure to roil some of Fox News’s most recognizable stars, with whom Mr. Shine had close relationships. Sean Hannity, the channel’s 10 p.m. mainstay, is particularly close with Mr. Shine, and he publicly defended his friend last week on Twitter, saying that removing Mr. Shine would be “the total end of the FNC as we know it. Done.

ETA:

Sean Hannity Eyes Fox News Exit, Insiders Say

Sean Hannity is looking to leave Fox News, according to sources, following the resignation of Fox News co-president Bill Shine officially on Monday.

Shine was Hannity’s his long-time ally whom he personally recommended the network hire two decades ago to produce Hannity & Colmes. In recent days, Hannity warned it would be the “total end” of Fox News should Shine leave, and he rallied conservative activists to back him up.

Initially, insiders said, Hannity’s army of lawyers had hoped to discuss with Fox ways of protecting his 8-year-old primetime show, amid fears that Lachlan and James Murdoch—fresh off the ousting of Bill O’Reilly—were looking to push the network away from hard-right politics.

However, with Shine’s departure on Monday, one source told The Daily Beast, there’s no reason for Hannity to stay.

 

[quadraginta]

I'm not sure I'd call that a good thing, however.

What? That O'Reilly wasn't merely accused? That there was corroboration for those accusations?

You know, I'm starting to ask myself some serious questions about responses like this. You said this:

Employers routinely fire their employees for far less egregious behavior and offenses, even ones which have not been proven in a court of law. Even when there is little more than suspicion.

Yes, I did.

Immediately prior to that, though, I also said this; (Which you must have accidentally snipped out of your quote without indicating its deletion.)

Good thing that isn't what happened this time, eh?

<snip>

Which was quite clearly a direct response to when you said this:

Which brings me right back to my earlier question: what principle? O'Reilly is ACCUSED of sexual misconduct. Should people accused of a crime be assumed to be guilty?

This doesn't mean that I don't find the accusation credible. But to expect employers to fire their staff because they're accused of something is a step in the wrong direction.

And I respond that I don't think that this is a good thing, and then you reply as if I responded to a totally different post. This is one of several such answers I've gotten in the last couple of days. I'm quite baffled that you think that my answer isn't directly related to what I quoted.

Clearly, however, you did respond to a "totally different" part of my post, one which was simply a follow-up observation about the fact that even though they didn't fire O'Reilly merely on accusations, they probably could have under the "at-will" concept of employment and dismissal.

You weren't responding to the part of my post which addressed your earlier comment. So yes, I can understand your bafflement, but I am not responsible for it.

I will assume that your failure to follow the exchange cogently was inadvertent on your part. Even though it wasn't a particularly difficult thread of conversation.

 

[Civet]

Fox News co-president Bill Shine is fired.



ETA:

Sean Hannity Eyes Fox News Exit, Insiders Say



However, with Shine’s departure on Monday, one source told The Daily Beast, there’s no reason for Hannity to stay.

Fascinating. I wonder where he'd go. I still wonder where Bill O'Reilly will go.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Typical liberal using someones own words against them to show that they sexually harass and assault people.

I'm good at that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... Sean Hannity Eyes Fox News Exit, Insiders Say....

But Sean baby has such a clean right wing Christian image.


Hmmm, just remembered O'Reilly's fixation with the war on Christmas.

*********** hypocrite.

 

[Resume]

At least he takes responsibility.
http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/bill-oreilly-glenn-beck-1202425378/

Former Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly suggested his ouster from the 21st Century Fox-owned cable-news outlet last month was “a hit job” in an interview with Glenn Beck on the pundit’s radio program Friday . . . He also said: “There’s going to be an exposition soon, but I can’t tell you when, about who exactly this crew is that terrorizes sponsors, threatens people behind the scenes, that pays people to say things. We’re going to name them, and it will be a big story. The left-wing media will downplay the story, but it’s coming. Unfortunately, I was target No. 1. It’s sad for me, for my family and it’s grossly dishonest. From now on when I’m attacked, I’ll take legal action.”

What a jackass.

 

[Civet]

So Beck is trying to get O'Reilly to join him at the Blaze. Makes sense if they can make the numbers work.

 

[Solitaire]

Bill O’Reilly Blames God For Sexual Harassment Allegations by Jessica Chia

Bill O’Reilly is pointing the finger at God for the allegations of sexual
harassment against him. “You know, am I mad at God? Yeah I’m mad
at him. I wish I had more protection. I wish this stuff didn’t happen,”
O’Reilly said on his web series, “No Spin News,” according to CNN.

The former Fox News anchor has adamantly denied wrongdoing after
a New York Times article revealed he paid a $32 million sexual harassment
settlement – the largest of at least six. ... Carlson, who filed the lawsuit
against Ailes that eventually led to his downfall, responded to O’Reilly’s
claims of innocence on Twitter, writing, “Nobody pays $32m for false
allegations - nobody.”

For a moment I felt the desire to buy a beer for God, but fortunately it passed.

 

[Babbylonian]

For a moment I felt the desire to buy a beer for God, but fortunately it passed.

I should hope fairly quickly since if there was a god taking a personal interest in Bill O'Reilly's life, it shouldn't have allowed a sexual predator to have so much money that he can afford to spend $32 million settling with one of his victims.

 

[Sideroxylon]

So how long has conservative American politics been hijacked by cynical money grubbers?

 

[quadraginta]

So how long has conservative American politics been hijacked by cynical money grubbers?

Always, of course. It's embedded in the DNA of "conservative".

In the past, though, they have at least made a token effort to be somewhat subtle about it.

They aren't bothering about that anymore.

 

[pgwenthold]

I don't know if anyone has posted it yet, but apparently, OReilly has posted the "proof" that the sexual harassment claims against him are nonsense. There are 4 things he posted on his website, apparently. I wouldn't know, I got it all from here

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2017/10/25/proof-oreillys-innocence/

The 4 are

1. A January 2017 affidavit that Wiehl signed in exchange for her $32 million settlement, stating that she had resolved any issues with him and would not pursue any claims against him,
2. A 2009 note from Megyn Kelly thanking O’Reilly for buying her a baby gift,
3. Another note from Megyn Kelly thanking O’Reilly for blurbing her husband’s book in 2012, and
4. Another thank you note from Gretchen Carlson.

I have to say, the first one is the funniest one. He uses it as "proof" that he is innocent, that he paid a $32mil settlement. In contrast, that he paid a $32 mil settlement is pretty much the basis of the argument made by his critics that he is guilty.

And gaslighting, of course, because, you know, if you can have three women who vouch that you didn't harass them, then that proves (remember, he was the one who claims it is proof) that you didn't harass anyone else.

 

[Belz...]

I should hope fairly quickly since if there was a god taking a personal interest in Bill O'Reilly's life, it shouldn't have allowed a sexual predator to have so much money that he can afford to spend $32 million settling with one of his victims.

Depends on the god, I guess.

 

[Spindrift]

I don't know if anyone has posted it yet, but apparently, OReilly has posted the "proof" that the sexual harassment claims against him are nonsense. There are 4 things he posted on his website, apparently. I wouldn't know, I got it all from here

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2017/10/25/proof-oreillys-innocence/

The 4 are


I have to say, the first one is the funniest one. He uses it as "proof" that he is innocent, that he paid a $32mil settlement. In contrast, that he paid a $32 mil settlement is pretty much the basis of the argument made by his critics that he is guilty.

And gaslighting, of course, because, you know, if you can have three women who vouch that you didn't harass them, then that proves (remember, he was the one who claims it is proof) that you didn't harass anyone else.

In his mind I'm sure it proves he didn't harass anyone. She can't be upset about sexual harassment if she sends a thank you note.