If you thought retribution would bring sense to Bill O’Reilly, you thought wrong, because the former Fox News host is adamant that his hands are clean. Though Matt Lauer asked hard-hitting questions about O’Reilly’s alleged history of sexual harassment and the legal settlements associated with the cases, O’Reilly insisted it was more about a media take-down or left wing conspiracy than justice. Why would Fox axe their biggest asset if there’s no fire with that smoke? Watch below to see what’s become of the boisterous blowhard whose spin zone tactics are still at play.
There’s nothing like mansplaining sexual harassment, especially when said mansplainer is a bloated white guy whose self-driven agenda protects his network before his fellow colleague. When Megyn Kelly revealed that she was sexually harassed by Roger Ailes,founder and former Chairman and CEO of Fox News and the Fox Television Stations Group, people believed her, especially since many others (including Gretchen Carlson) have come forward with the same story. Kelly revealed disturbing anecdotes about his alleged behavior, including the fact that “He tried to kiss [her] three times [in his office],” and when she “rejected that,” he asked [her] when [her] contract was up.” When she brought the matter up to a supervisor at Fox News, he assured her of Ailes good character and suggested she avoid him.
When Bill O’Reilly, a television host at Fox News, was asked about Kelly’s revelation, he wasn’t pleased, saying, he’s “not interested in basically litigating something that is finished that makes my network look bad.” He then suggested she go through HR instead or leave the company.
First, Bill O’Reilly’s entire career is founded on questioning the political process and using the media as a pulpit to push his personal agenda regardless of what party is in the white house. Should he leave it to the political process instead, much like his own suggestion to Kelly? After all, that’s the normal route, and if he’s unhappy with the regime in office, he should just sit down and shut up, right? Second, Kelly tried to make her complaints known, and Ailes was far too powerful to oust from the inside. Third, the media is often used to expose injustice, and allowing sexual harassment is an injustice. O’Reilly doesn’t like it because it’s now at his own network. Lastly, O’Reilly is a coward. He should stand up and make some noise when it’s not in his own self-interest for once. Maybe he should also be a woman for a day and learn empathy. And since that’s not going to happen, then he should be a man for a day and learn to protect people.
— CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) November 16, 2016
Celebrities are constantly signing up for gigs, and waiving their fee as a “charitable” gesture. But does it really count as charity when you waive your payment? Why not give your money out of your personal bank account instead — or perhaps match the fee? Darren Criss, the new Gleek I often pick-on, performed at The Roxy over the weekend and donated the proceeds from the gig to charity. He also signed autographs in exchange for audience members bringing toys-for-tots gifts. And let’s not forget Idol Gives Back, which is perhaps the best example of all time. American Idol hosts a charity show, and the huge ratings allow FOX to pocket a tremendous amount of money from the ad revenue. But FOX doesn’t donate their ad revenue, and they instead air an entire show about how every American, except the FOX executives, should “give back.” Americans wouldn’t need to “give back” if FOX, donated half their profit. So am I a heartless prick that doesn’t appreciate a decent gesture, or am I correct? As an aside, I didn’t think of this brilliant theory on my own. The great Howard Stern said it during his famous Bill O’Reilly interview. I’ve posted the very funny video below, and he begins to talk about Bill’s “chachkies” on minute 3:10. And if you’re wondering why I chose Katy Perry as the picture for this post, I figured nothing says “charitable giving” like Katy Perry in a skimpy American flag outfit.
Keith Olbermann was suspended for making political donations to the democratic party, and many consider it laughable that anyone doubted Olbermann’s democratic standing. I have mixed feelings about this. First, it would be nice to assume that talking heads form their opinions on an issue-by-issue basis, instead of blindly supporting their party. But as Jon Stewart pointed out in his infamous Crossfire interview, that assumption is incorrect. The truth is that talking heads support their party, and they will champion any issue based on their party line. Apparently, MSNBC would like to present Mr. Olbermann as non-partisan, as a way to uphold their brand. I obviously think Olbermann does a better job of hiding any bias than someone like Bill O’Reilly or the certifiable Glenn Beck. But with or without the donation — it’s clear where he stands. That being said, there were still people out there that doubted Clay Aiken’s sexual orientation up until the day he came out of the closet. Translation? — Without Olbermann’s donation, perhaps some people still thought he was “straight” — or Republican. Forgive me — I’m terrible with analogies.
NPR commentator Juan Williams was fired for telling Bill O’Reilly that he gets nervous when Muslims get on an airplane in “full garb.” Many are outraged over his firing, accusing NPR of being “too politically correct.” Here’s my feeling on this issue. It’s not okay for people to group all Muslims in the same category as terrorists. That being said, people do. Many people would have the same reaction as Juan Williams, but just don’t want to say it out loud. I don’t think he’s a bigot for having those feelings, but I do think that we need to find a way to have an open discussion without firing people. When you squash those conversations, you move this from being an overt issue to being a covert issue, and that certainly doesn’t help us find a solution. Furthermore, as Barbara Walters (also known as the Queen of my world) pointed out on The View, Williams is a commentator and not a journalist, which means he’s paid to express his opinion, liked or not.
Bill O’Reilly appeared on The View, and when the subject of the mosque came up, O’Reilly insulted President Obama for not publicly denouncing it. When Behar and Goldberg insisted that the mosque was okay because “this is America,” O’Reilly said that 70% of Americans don’t approve of the mosque, especially because “Muslims killed us in 9/11.” His statement outraged Goldberg and Behar, who insisted that it was Muslim extremists and not Muslims who are responsible for 9/11, and O’Reilly said, “aren’t Muslim extremists considered Muslim?” His response caused Behar and Goldberg to walk off the set, which seriously pissed off Barbara Walters (who I often call “the Queen”). Walters said that they should be able to discuss issues without her co-hosts screaming and exiting the set. I agree. For goodness sakes, isn’t it Walters that interviewed Fidel Castro? Should she have bludgeoned him with a stick during the interview? I imagine that Behar and Goldberg will get a serious tongue lashing from Walters, who previously scolded Hasselbeck for the same thing during a discussion on abortion, which angered Hasselbeck so much that she ripped up her flashcards during the interview. Watch the heated exchange below.