Fox News Channel dismisses O'Reilly, its biggest star

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    April 21, 2017 10:49 a.m.

    Hey top of the world -

    RE: " . . .the liberal left will not accept defeat. They will do anything that is necessary to regain the power that is quickly eroding, right before their eyes. Guess what. This power will continue to erode. Love that thought."

    You "love that thought," huh?

    In other words, you're enjoying another "Conservative" fantasy. All you have to do is close your eyes and imagine. It's better than VR.

    You're right that "the liberal left will not accept defeat." We Moderates will not accept defeat either. And neither will any decent and patriotic American on the side of America. We will stand and fight our nation's enemies.

    Last election, a Russian-Republican coalition successfully put Donald Trump and other Republicans into positions of power.

    The Russians attacked this nation. It may have been the most devastating attack against this nation ever . . . Worse than 911 . . . Worse than Pearl Harbor. Our enemies succeeded in harming America by putting Republicans in power. And Republicans rejoice.

    It's interesting how America's enemies are the GOP's allies, isn't it?

    Why do you suppose that is?

    Any guesses?

  • worf McAllen, TX
    April 20, 2017 4:12 p.m.

    Shame on you Bill!

    Unless you're a politician, you shouldn't have abused those Fox news interns.

  • top of the world ,
    April 20, 2017 3:28 p.m.

    Ummmm. Let's see, where were these pundits of all that is holy when President Clinton...?
    Oh, well. Not much different in the party of the donkey when the target is not one of their own. Did he, or did he not? I certainly don't know. But I do know this, without question, the liberal left will not accept defeat. They will do anything that is necessary to regain the power that is quickly eroding, right before their eyes. Guess what. This power will continue to erode. Love that thought.

  • Vermonter Plymouth, MI
    April 20, 2017 2:17 p.m.

    Appreciate the comments here. They are thought-provoking.

    One additional point. Harassment allegations against O'Reilly have been known publically since 2004. Yet the focus on the allegations against O'Reilly has only been extremely intense since April 1 of this year. At least one left-wing group is claiming a "successful campaign" to get O'Reilly.

    Not saying that O'Reilly did or did not harass.

    But, it makes one wonder why the media and others decided to wait 13 years to stir a firestorm of publicity against O'Reilly.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    April 20, 2017 12:26 p.m.

    Hey PHJN25–

    RE: “I'll give O'Reilly credit, however, for the level of intelligence he possessed on most of the topics he lectured us on.”

    Ha! "Level of intelligence??!" The man merely recited popular lies that are bandied about in "Conservative" circles. He only had to be smart enough to do that.

    From the standpoint of FOX "NEWS," we should blame "Leftists" for the fact that their top personalities tend to be sexual predators.

    O’Reilly’s lawyer said it was a "brutal campaign of character assassination."

    Bill O’Reilly's victim mentality is what endears him to “Conservatives.” It’s a shared world view, isn’t it? . . . A shared sense of victimhood . . . Poor, poor victims.

    It's funny the way FOX "NEWS" caved in to that "brutal campaign of character assassination" put forth by "the Left." FOX “NEWS” did NOT defend their star at all from those brutal Leftists.

    FOX folded like a house of cards without putting up ANY kind of fight at all.

    If O'Reilly's story is true, "the Left" knocked FOX "NEWS" down and kicked sand in their faces right in front of all the girls.

    It must be embarrassing to be a FOX "NEWS" fan.

    . . . Victimized yet again.

  • JMHO Kanab, UT
    April 20, 2017 12:10 p.m.

    Almost anyone who has worked for big pockets has been sued.
    I am a lowly educator and the district settled a dispute over grades because it was financially expedient. Does that mean I was wrong?

  • Vermonter Plymouth, MI
    April 20, 2017 11:44 a.m.

    @Misty Mountain. @Karen R.
    I don't condone sexual harassment in any form.

    I am just asking if perhaps some of us might be willing to reserve judgment in cases like these.

    In 1998, a lot of Americans, and the Democratic Party didn't ask, but demanded that we not pass judgment on the President of United States who had similar, and in fact, more serious allegations against him. On top of that, Bill Clinton was impeached, not for the allegations, but for the fact that he lied under oath. Even though we had Al Gore waiting in the wings, America was lectured by Democratic senators that we had no right to pass even a partial judgment on Mr. Clinton and overturn an election.

    Given all of that, would it behoove us to be a little less judgmental toward Mr. O'Reilly, who is now simply an ordinary citizen?

    Sidenote. O'Reilly was not a 100% shill for Trump. Trump's cheerleaders at Fox will likely gain more power, not less because of O'Reilly's fall from grace.

    Sidenote 2: if O'Reilly wants to do it, do not be surprised to see him on talk radio shortly as the Number 3 or Number 2 most popular radio talk show host.

  • Drano USA, 00
    April 20, 2017 11:04 a.m.

    1) I don't condone O'Reilly's treatment of women at all.

    2) This tactic by progressive democrats of going after advertisers, companies or states (i.e. HB2 bill in NC) is complete garbage. So the ends justify the means if conservatives don't agree with your agenda? Destroy, excoriate, vilify, demonized any and all opposing thoughts, views or opinions of those who aren't on board with progressive democrats? History has proven what transpires with this line of thinking.

    3) Both sides need to dial down the rhetoric and stop calling each other insulting, emotional provoking names. Calling someone a racist, bigot, looney, alt right, alt left doesn't do any good for either side.

    4) Conservatives need to rise up and start boycotting businesses with their wallet to demonstrate the power they have and to get companies to understand we are an influential important group as well. Or throw overwhelming support to companies who do support a conservative agenda (i.e. Chick-Fil-A)

    Since ultimately the left and companies have made it about money by utilizing this tactic and it is what companies are about ($$$), time to show our strength via the wallet as well.

  • Misty Mountain Kent, WA
    April 20, 2017 9:37 a.m.

    @ Vermonter asks,

    "Why wait for facts when we can convict O'Reilly in the court of public opinion?"

    It sounds like you think that Fox (and the advertisers) should have done nothing until some criminal convictions were obtained.

    Financial settlements involving sex always include nondisclosure agreements. In these cases, about the only "facts" you can get are court filings made prior to settlement (assuming that there wasn't an agreement to get these sealed) and statements from the victims' friends as to what she told them happened.

    What you do know is that over ten million dollars was paid out to multiple women who said they were assaulted by O'Reilly. It's stretching credulity to think that this kind of money would be paid if nothing had actually happened.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 20, 2017 9:04 a.m.

    @ Vermonter

    "Why wait for facts when we can convict O'Reilly in the court of public opinion?"

    Convenient argument when one knows there will likely never be a formal finding of guilty/not guilty.

    We do agree that money was likely a primary factor in this move. But I do get the impression that this next generation of Murdochs believes more genuinely in equality and isn't really keen on the older generation's view of (white) males as primary and females as one of the perqs of success.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    April 20, 2017 8:24 a.m.

    @Vermonter wrote,

    "O'Reilly would likely have more success running for political office on the Democratic side".

    Nothing is going to make O'Reilly appeal to Democratic voters. The man has spent his entire career picking at the poor, at women, and at the rights of the common man. Jorge Ramos criticized O'Reilly for his refusal to acknowledge Trump's bigotry. Instead of responding, O'Reilly tore into Ramos, claiming that Univision was unfit to report on Trump because they were biased. Of course, he, O'Reilly, wasn't biased. His proof? He says he told Trump that Mexico wouldn't pay for the wall. And he says that telling Trump this somehow proves that he (O'Reilly) isn't blindly pro-Trump.

    Right.

    Backpedaling and claims of conversion do not go over well with Democrat voters. He'd have far more success with the R's.

  • Misty Mountain Kent, WA
    April 20, 2017 8:02 a.m.

    Utah Blue Devil writes, "Again, any many who would put his family relationship at risk over such matters, is a man who I would question their judgement and commitment to truth and honesty, at any level."

    I would respectfully question the commitment to truth and honesty by anyone who applies for a job at Fox News.

    A certain number of people run for public office because they truly want to make a difference. A larger number seem to be attracted to power, and for many, this morphs into a desire for money, power--and sex. I'm not sure that it's any different at Fox News.

  • Vermonter Plymouth, MI
    April 20, 2017 7:45 a.m.

    @Pam Flinders.
    Your statement is incorrect. Most people are not fired for sexual harassment. All well-managed companies only terminate an employee if the harassment is pervasive or severe.

    @Karen R.
    Why wait for facts when we can convict O'Reilly in the court of public opinion?

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    April 20, 2017 7:42 a.m.

    @Ginger Marshall wrote, "He should run for president. The highly moral, family values, decency demanding Christian branch of the GOP would vote for him in droves."

    Sarcasm aside, you are correct. People who feel insecure flock to men who project an image of toughness and competence. They may be uncomfortable about the abuse allegations that these "leaders" carry, but these guys assure their followers that they have "their" interests at heart.

    And their followers want so desperately to believe that this is true. Anybody remember "I am your voice"? So they brush aside the moral "lapses" as irrelevant ("We're electing a president, not a pastor"). Or they simply deny the allegations ("locker room talk"). Or demonize the accusers ( "The women are just out for the money").

    Even when it becomes obvious that the guy doesn't care a whit about them, some of the followers will hang in there.

    Seventy two years after the end of the war, there are still Germans who view Hitler with fondness.

    It will be the same with Trump. And with O'Reilly.

  • Vermonter Plymouth, MI
    April 20, 2017 7:31 a.m.

    @Harrison Bergeron.
    Even if the allegations are untrue, firing O'Reilly was probably the right thing to do. This was purely a business decision by the Murdochs.

    @Ginger Marshall.
    O'Reilly would likely have more success running for political office on the Democratic side. But, he would need to do a public mea culpa to the harassment allegations on The View after at least a few weeks of soul-searching, have a dramatic conversion to liberalism, and produce some kind of evidence to take down either Donald Trump or Rush Limbaugh--preferably Limbaugh.

    Fox has actually shown that even though their decision was based purely on the bottom line, their standards are actually higher than the Democratic Party (at least the Democratic Party of 1998). The only differences between O'Reilly and Bill Clinton are the seriousness of the allegation, and the ideology of the person involved. Other than these things, their cases are remarkably similar.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    April 20, 2017 7:19 a.m.

    I find it interesting that the main accuser, on whom most of the charges are based, kept coming back to O'Reilly's show again and again after the supposed harassment. Kind of like what's her face kept coming back to Clarence Thomas after he supposedly harassed her.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 20, 2017 6:18 a.m.

    "'It is tremendously disheartening that we part ways due to completely unfounded claims,' [O'Reilly] said. 'But that is the unfortunate reality that many of us in the public eye must live with today."

    I can think of plenty in the public eye who aren't dealing with such allegations. I wonder why that is? Poor Bill. Another one of those extraordinarily good men...

  • PamFlinders Sandy, UT
    April 19, 2017 11:53 p.m.

    Most people would be fired for sexual harassment at work. Being famous shouldn't shield you from that.

  • worf McAllen, TX
    April 19, 2017 11:48 p.m.

    Things are seldom what they appear.

  • Harrison Bergeron Holladay , UT
    April 19, 2017 10:05 p.m.

    If the accusations are true, it was the right thing to do.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 19, 2017 9:55 p.m.

    I am not going to delve into the obvious contradictions in optics and politics here. Politics aside, I hope this represents a true turning point in the old world order of the good ol boys club that thought fame could by them a free pass - that this kind of behavior will no longer be accepted.

    As someone who is so intelligent - I don't agree with his opinions often - but he is far from being stupid, for a man like him to not understand the dangers of putting himself into a position where these allegation could be made shows that intelligence doesn't equate to good judgement.

    Again, any many who would put his family relationship at risk over such matters, is a man who I would question their judgement and commitment to truth and honesty, at any level.

  • GingerMarshall Brooklyn, OH
    April 19, 2017 9:39 p.m.

    He should run for president. The highly moral, family values, decency demanding Christian branch of the GOP would vote for him in droves.

  • Utah Girl Chronicles Eagle Mountain, UT
    April 19, 2017 5:38 p.m.

    What delicious irony that a couple of reporters from the New York Times finally brought O'Reilly down. He must be apoplectic about that!

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    April 19, 2017 2:36 p.m.

    Why? It was only 5 women, that we know of, and only $13M.
    Seems like our president could do that in less than a week.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    April 19, 2017 2:01 p.m.

    Rogers Ailes & Bill O'Reilly
    OUT at Fox News --

    For doing the exact same thing that got Donald Trump elected!

  • PHJN25 Springville, UT
    April 19, 2017 1:51 p.m.

    As a political conservative and frequent viewer of Fox News, I often found O'Reilly to be an arrogant, egotistical jerk. I'll give O'Reilly credit, however, for the level of intelligence he possessed on most of the topics he lectured us on. This is more than I can say for Glenn Beck.

    I expect conservatives to have high moral values. The allegations against O'Reilly, if true, do not reflect the conservative values that most political conservatives admire and respect.

    Let's give Tucker Carlson a chance. Both my wife and I have been quite impressed by Tucker Carlson.

    Andy McKane, Springville, Utah