Bill O'Reilly settled a $32 Million lawsuit, then got paid by Fox News

MacNut

macrumors Core
Original poster
Jan 4, 2002
21,544
7,802
CT
So the network that is currently up and arms over Harvey Weinstein was complicit in covering up one of their own. Your response Mr Hannity.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/business/media/bill-oreilly-sexual-harassment.html?partner=IFTTT&_r=0
Last January, six months after Fox News ousted its chairman amid a sexual harassment scandal, the network’s top-rated host at the time, Bill O’Reilly, struck a $32 million agreement with a longtime network analyst to settle new sexual harassment allegations, according to two people briefed on the matter — an extraordinarily large amount for such cases.

Although the deal has not been previously made public, the network’s parent company, 21st Century Fox, acknowledges that it was aware of the woman’s complaints about Mr. O’Reilly. They included allegations of repeated harassment, a nonconsensual sexual relationship and the sending of gay pornography and other sexually explicit material to her, according to the people briefed on the matter.

It was at least the sixth agreement — and by far the largest — made by either Mr. O’Reilly or the company to settle harassment allegations against him. Despite that record, 21st Century Fox began contract negotiations with Mr. O’Reilly, and in February granted him a four-year extension that paid $25 million a year.

Interviews with people familiar with the settlement, and documents obtained by The New York Times, show how the company tried and ultimately failed to contain the second wave of a sexual harassment crisis that initially burst into public view the previous summer and cost the Fox News chairman, Roger Ailes, and eventually Mr. O’Reilly, their jobs.

In January, the reporting shows, Rupert Murdoch and his sons, Lachlan and James, the top executives at 21st Century Fox, made a business calculation to stand by Mr. O’Reilly despite his most recent, and potentially most explosive, harassment dispute.

Their decision came as the company was trying to convince its employees, its board and the public that it had cleaned up the network’s workplace culture. At the same time, they were determined to hold on to Mr. O’Reilly, whose value to the network increased after the departure of another prominent host, Megyn Kelly.
 

Rogifan

macrumors Core
Nov 14, 2011
20,661
22,373
Let me guess: everyone in the Pro-Trump or anti-anti-Trump media who were getting their jollies over the Harvey Weinstein story will ignore this or claim it’s fake news. Wasn’t O’Reilly just on Hannity’s show recently?
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,838
Midlife, Midwest
Responsibility for this goes all the way to the top. Rupert Murdoch and his sons were very well aware of the problem with O'Reilly and sexual harassment. But they decided in January to renew O'Reilly's contract. They made the business decision to keep a known sexual predator on the air because it was profitable for them.

These are the people that OfCom (the UK telecom regulator) deemed "fit and proper" to take total control over Sky - by far the biggest UK satellite TV provider.

That aside: What the heck did O'Reilly do that was so bad that he would agree to a $32 million settlement?

Sending someone unsolicited porn is pretty gross. But still....

My guess is that O'Reilly's history of making similar settlements with prior victims caught up to him. Once the complainant's lawyers could corner him with a proven history, it became much harder for him to have any sort of argument. You could argue that no Jury, even one very hostile to him, would have awarded that much in damages. But the publicity surrounding a public trial would have been very harmful to O'Reilly - but more importantly to Fox News.

I think that played into Fox decision to re-up his contract. Four years at $25 million a year would be enough for him to cover a $32 million payout, but without the money coming direct from Fox.

Filthy. Filthy. Filthy.

And these are the jokers that go on the air every night and whinge about Bill Clinton. For shame.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
Harassment should be a fireable offense, but it isn't on the same level as sexual assault and rape. He sounds like a creep, but I'd be more interested in figuring out what this part is about: a nonconsensual sexual relationship. He should be going to jail if this is the case I don't believe NY has a statute of limitations for rape, so the city should get a prosecutor for this. You shouldn't be able to pay your way out of a rape allegation.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,838
Midlife, Midwest
I don't believe NY has a statute of limitations for rape, so the city should get a prosecutor for this. You shouldn't be able to pay your way out of a rape allegation.
I think O'Reilly is an obnoxious creep, but I don't think rape is what happened here.

I think the situation was a long-term pattern of harassment with a co-worker, using his (obvious) position of power within the organization to coerce the victim into tolerating what must have been a deeply unpleasant situation.

As I alluded to earlier - I think Fox News is deeply guilty of permitting and indeed enabling this sort of behavior to take place within the newsroom. O'Reilly's settlement with his accuser may have come from his own personal funds, but I have to believe that he was getting guidance and counsel from Fox' higher-ups and their legal team. I suspect there was a quid-pro-quo from Fox: Make this claim go away and we'll make you whole in your next contract.

I'm obviously from a different generation than Bill O'Reilly (and Harvey Weinstein), but I simply don't understand what get's into men's heads where they think they can behave like that. I'd like to think that men of my age and younger wouldn't behave like that. But I'm afraid we have our own set of villains.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hulugu

fitshaced

macrumors 68000
Jul 2, 2011
1,729
3,036
A these business men didn’t have the decency to sack O’Reilly when it was appropriate to do so, I’d normally say that the people should act and not allow this business to be profitable from this guy. However, this is Fox News and their audience are already brainwashed by them. If only there was a responsible government that would deal with this corruption and attack on not only the safety and freedom for women but the informed state of its people.

The only thing that can happen now is for the women who were abused, harassed or whatever else to not take his money and bring him to court. This can only stop when the rich don’t have an easy way out.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,384
UK
Harassment should be a fireable offense, but it isn't on the same level as sexual assault and rape. He sounds like a creep, but I'd be more interested in figuring out what this part is about: a nonconsensual sexual relationship. He should be going to jail if this is the case I don't believe NY has a statute of limitations for rape, so the city should get a prosecutor for this. You shouldn't be able to pay your way out of a rape allegation.
And all the liberals have distanced themselves from Weinstein so...
 

GermanSuplex

macrumors 6502a
Aug 26, 2009
963
9,945
A lot of people are coming out and saying Weinstein did this stuff to them decades ago, so I'm not buying your excuse.
Yeah, but many are now just coming out, that’s the thing. There were probably a few protectors who somehow kept the lid on. This has happened before in Hollywood. The question is what happens when the story full comes out. I don’t see anyone protecting him now. However, O’Reilly has been public knowledge since 2004 at least.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eraserhead

obeygiant

macrumors 601
Jan 14, 2002
4,003
3,776
totally cool
Yeah Bill O'Reilly is a creep! We knew that right? So much so that he had to pay $32 million to someone lol. That's more money than I'll ever see in my lifetime.

Now we can all play the Equivalency Game! Where we try to portray Trump and O'Reilly as the same as Weinstein-- a man who harassed 40+ women over twenty years and more come out with stories on a weekly basis.

Whatever gets you to sleep at night!
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,838
Midlife, Midwest
Now we can all play the Equivalency Game! Where we try to portray Trump and O'Reilly as the same as Weinstein-- a man who harassed 40+ women over twenty years and more come out with stories on a weekly basis.
Well, I don't know for a fact that Donald Trump has actually had to pay millions of dollars to settle sexual harassment claims against him.

But how - exactly - are the cases of Harvey Weinstein and Bill O'Reilly significantly different? They were both powerful and wealthy individuals in the entertainment industry who systematically sexually harassed and victimized women that they worked with. Each of them had a history that included numerous high-dollar settlements with women who claimed to have been victimized.

The only difference I see is that Bill O'Reilly made his career appearing on a nightly Fox News program in which he castigated all sorts of other people (gays and lesbians, African-American teenagers, Planned Parenthood; Muslims, Democrats, etc.) for their moral failings. And Harvey Weinstein made movies.
 

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,029
PDX
Well, I find myself in an odd spot. Defending Fox News. Whatever piece-of-crap O' Reilly was/is, FOX is in the business of making money - and O'Reilly was a cash-cow. To ask why this behavior was/is allowed comes down to a P/L sheet and Legal advice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: duffman9000

bopajuice

Suspended
Mar 22, 2016
1,571
4,310
Dark side of the moon
In m opinion, Bill O’Reilly, Roger Ailes, Harvey Weinstein, and Donald Trump are all in the same boat.
[doublepost=1508649529][/doublepost]
Well, I find myself in an odd spot. Defending Fox News. Whatever piece-of-crap O' Reilly was/is, FOX is in the business of making money - and O'Reilly was a cash-cow. To ask why this behavior was/is allowed comes down to a P/L sheet and Legal advice.
Unable to admit fault? Blame it on legal counsel? Give me a break. How far will you guys go to twist an issue?
 

GermanSuplex

macrumors 6502a
Aug 26, 2009
963
9,945
I remember when O’Reilly was covering the Michael Jackson issues in 2003. His view was “come on, he’s guilty. He already settled, now he’s accused again.”

When Jackson died, and after he (Bill) had settled claims, his argument was “he was acquitted, I’ll go with the judge”. Such a hypocrite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MadeTheSwitch

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,029
PDX
In m opinion, Bill O’Reilly, Roger Ailes, Harvey Weinstein, and Donald Trump are all in the same boat.
[doublepost=1508649529][/doublepost]

Unable to admit fault? Blame it on legal counsel? Give me a break. How far will you guys go to twist an issue?
oh, I wasn't advocating - just saying how it often is. It's money first, ethics second (or fifth or ninth)...
 
  • Like
Reactions: duffman9000

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
And all the liberals have distanced themselves from Weinstein so...
O'Reilly isn't on the air w/ fox news anymore, at least to my knowledge. I don't think most Republicans believe he'd be taken off air unless his actions warranted it. I often switch between CNN and fox to see the entertaining divergence in coverage and I believe Tucker Carlson is in his spot now.

Tucker Carlson seems pretty normal, although I don't like how he laughs over his guests sometimes. I think Hannity will be the next guy that goes down, he comes off as a bit weird to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bopajuice

HEK

macrumors 68040
Sep 24, 2013
3,353
5,794
US Eastern time zone
I'm confused on this story....why would O'Reilly send gay porn to a woman? :confused:
Well....you don’t actually think O’Reilly actually believes the nonsense he was spouting on Fox. Wouldn’t be first time staunch anti gay advocate turned out to harbor gay feelings themselves. Remember the more righteous they portray themselves, the bigger the hypocrit they turn out to be,