To O'Reilly viewers,
Read the Drudge Report today. A lengthy story reveals the internal information of the changes that have been occurring at Fox News, the internal conflicts, and reveals that a group of wealthy conservatives are in talks to form a new Conservative Network.
Thank you for the Bill O'Reilly up-date. Articles that might be of interest to you as well as other Fox fans - if you read BreitHedge today you will find a list of of President Trump's accomplishments during his first 100 days. Additionally, the Drudge Report has an interesting article on a possible new conservative network being seriously discussed. Opinion among those in the know is that the "talent" at Fox is being gutted on purpose with Bill Shine (head of Fox New promoted to this position by Rupert Murdoch) targeted as part of this calculated purge. It seems the Murdoch boys & their wives do not like the News division.
Just interesting articles to consider.
Since Ms Walsh is responsible for the allegation that destroyed Bill O'Reillys Fox career, I think an inquiry into her political affiliation and a look into any activist activities is warranted. We all know the liberals are constantly engaged in the politics-of-personal-destruction, and we need to engage in a similar way to expose them for what they are.
A google of Wendy Walsh shows she holds dual citizenships - U.S. and Canada. It seems her attorney was/is Gloria Allred's daughter. Dr. Walsh holds a Ph.D., was a model, is an author who enjoyed an education both in Canada and U.S. that would possibility indicate liberal leanings.
Last line should be: and U.S. That would suggest liberal leanings.
Zeb not Zen
Spot on. This woman has a doctorate degree and didn't know she could file a harassment complaint when this incident allegedly occurred 4 years ago. Secondarily, she says she was not inclined to file this complaint until a reporter from the NY Times phoned her. I'm not a member of Mensa, but I'm not buying this story. Also, tis worth noting that this unsophisticated woman had to be instructed into making this allegation by a NY Times reporter. And, who do you think is her attorney? Why it's Lisa Bloom, the daughter of Gloria Allred, the highest profile man hating attorney in the country. Don't be taken in folks, this is really a hit job on a newsman they wanted to silence. The left organized the hit job and advertising boycott, Fox capitulated instead of supporting their employee, and we end up screwed. Says a lot about the Murdoch family doesn't it.
Wow! Well said, Zeb.
Yeah, what a genius, if not an outright tool.
The left organized the hit job and advertising boycott, Fox capitulated instead of supporting their employee, and we end up screwed. Says a lot about the Murdoch family doesn't it.
It also may say a lot about Fox. Many reports that some women did report sexual harassment but nothing was done. They were told "That's just Bill" ( O'Reilly). You can say there's no proof but there's also no proof that the allegations are untrue.
How about wishing that Fox would support ALL their employees, not just the head honchos who wield power?
As they say, even the flattest pancake has two sides. I'm willing to acknowledge the existence of the other side. Are you??
Michelle, agree that Fox should support all their people. Problem is that accusations need to be proven, and we have due process for doing that. The American system of justice is based on the idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty. This is not a novel concept, because it is based on hundreds of years of English common law. For example, I could allege that you robbed me of 1000 dollars 4 years ago. How can you prove that you did not do it. It's virtually impossible for you to defend yourself against an allegation of something that never happened. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with the accuser.
Michelle, agree that Fox should support all their people. Problem is that accusations need to be proven, and we have due process for doing that.
Hello again, Zeb,
I totally agree that there need to be strong elements of proof, rather than unfounded accusations, in any setting.
My concern is that since the "due process" often begins in the workplace, I feel it is essential for all employees to feel safe in reporting any allegations. Then these hopefully can be investigated in a way that is fair and just for all involved. It may in time proceed to the legal system. Not all companies appear to provide this. I think it is also important for anyone who has witnessed incidents to report their observations to HR. It often takes time and professional and competent handling of these situations to determine elements of proof.... or lack of and insufficient evidence.
Michelle, I understand your very important thoughts and agree completely. The problem occurs when an employer for political or financial reasons, turns their back on an employee based on an allegation of something that occurred 4 years prior. My belief is simply that before an employer terminates an employee, that results not only In loss of job, but also destroys a reputation, and further limits his extraordinary success as a top selling author, that company should take a less strident position. I truly understand that Fox was caught in a terrible position and could not find a good solution. The company's reputation was also at stake. They chose to take the easiest way out by firing Bill. I suggest that a better way to solve this problem would have been to suggest that since this alleged act occurred 4 years earlier, it should be handled by filing a police complaint. The fact that she hired a lawyer and went public is a sign to me that she wanted to destroy Bill and at the same time get a Big settlement. Let's face the facts, this person is a left wing acolyte, who ginned up this issue after being encouraged to do so by New York Times. I suffer with severe eyesight problems, but I can see through this smokescreen. Fox mishandled this, took the expedient way out, was completely disloyal to an employee who played a major part in building the Fox Network, and displayed their antipathy to doing the right thing. Really a sleezy bunch, these Murdoch's are.
The problem occurs when an employer for political or financial reasons, turns their back on an employee based on an allegation of something that occurred 4 years prior. My belief is simply that before an employer terminates an employee, that results not only In loss of job, but also destroys a reputation, and further limits his extraordinary success as a top selling author, that company should take a less strident position. I truly understand that Fox was caught in a terrible position and could not find a good solution.
Good points, Zeb and you and I are in agreement on many of these issues.
It is so difficult, and often unfair, for allegations to be based on events that occured years ago. Unfair to both parties and nothing is resolved, except as you said, to make a financial settlement as a last resort or terminate someone's employment.
Do you think that in addition to the allegation that supposedly took place 4 years ago, that there were others that haven't been revealed? I don't know but if O'Reilly's firing was based on just that one, it was unfair.
I guess I have a personal bent in all this. I worked for years with adult survivors of sexual abuse, male and female, most of whom never told anyone or if they did, were not believed. The abuse changed their lives forever although many were and are strong folks who have had good and loving relationships....others, not and that was so sad to me.
So, I totally support the rights of both those accusing and those they accuse. But I wish we had better systems for credible reporting in all venues, home and workplace. And I also always hope for justice for those unfairly accused.
Nice having conversations with you!
Michelle, Agree with you that many people in difficult family situations or in bad relationships or in the event of rape, or abuse, do not go public. The survivors of these events are embarrassed in some cases, to have these issues come to light. I know it can and often has taken a serious long term effect on their lives. I hope that victims in the future become more aware that these problems should be reported to authorities, and they should not be embarrassed to do so.
Where I do see a difference is that these harassment cases are frequently for money and not for justice. For this reason you don't read or hear about harassment cases where lawsuits are filed against ordinary people, they are filed against the employer because that's where the money is. The accusers claim they work in a hostile work environment so the employer is to blame. In a few cases such as O'Reilly there is lots of cash to be gained from both Bill and Fox, and plenty of lawyers looking for their 1/3 stake of the settlement. We have a scam of this type going on in the northeast police departments. We have had quite a few cases where female officers who were relatively recently hired, and under performance review, claimed they were harassed. Generally, these cases have been settled out of court, with large cash settlements, frequently amounting to hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars. Perhaps, this is why I believe that every one of these complaints should be settled in court, so that justice is done. These unlitigated settlements only encourage more to come. This is sometimes the latest scam for gold-diggers.
Perhaps, this is why I believe that every one of these complaints should be settled in court, so that justice is done. These unlitigated settlements only encourage more to come. This is sometimes the latest scam for gold-diggers.
Good morning, Zeb,
It is sad that it has come to this point. I so agree that those who file false claims only diminish those who have legitimate complaints. I have served on 3 juries over the years and have respect for the legal system.
I'm pretty out of touch with the corporate world and related litigation. I'm semi-retired and only experience I had with a large corporation was in the '70's when I lived on the west coast. Most other employment I've had has been with smaller agencies.
While with the major corporation, I was in charge of an account in the mid-west and I was the person who had the most contact with them, via phone/leasing contracts, etc. When the gentleman I worked with at that co. came to town to meet with us, my boss ( who was fairly young) did not invite me to lunch with them and in fact, stood in front of my desk and made an obnoxious, sexual comment about me .I was stunned. I will always be grateful to the visiting rep. He complimented me on the contacts I had with him and said that we all needed to meet immediately with one of the head bosses. We did so and he reiterated the inappropriate comments he had witnessed. My boss was not fired but placed on probation and watched very carefully. I will always be grateful for the support of that gentleman who respected me and my work!
Anyway, to repeat myself, hope there will be justice for all involved in this crazy world of ours. At least it feels crazy to me, but then I'm getting old!
Thank you for responding. Harassment in US law has it's foundation in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or EEOC as it is commonly referred to. It's purpose was to address the problem of mistreatment in the workplace. Employers with a workforce of greater than 15 employees were advised that the Fed Govt would be monitoring their progress in administering this new law. The EEOC established, at the same time, a contact phone number for employees to call if the employer was not responsive to the employees claim of harassment. Their was a 6 month time limit for filing the complaint with the EEOC.
What has happened in the 50+ years since the law was passed, is that people now don't even contact the EEOC. Now they often go to a lawyer who imitates a lawsuit against the employer, and they both wait for the out of court settlement. In the day, we heard of ambulance chasing lawyers! now we have to contend with harassment chasing lawyers. Gloria Allred and her daughter Lisa Bloom, have established a reputation in this kind of law practice, that intimidates businesses into settling a case to avoid prolonged negative publicity. I suggest this is exactly the opposite outcome of the 1964 Laws intended purpose.
amen to the tenth...a pox on all of them!
Be accountable for what you do!
Bill O Reilly knows better. Stop propping up an old Irish dry drunk that couldn't get laid at any price.
You do know he doesn't drink, don't you?
We are already a welfare state..for corporations. FACT: The majority of Fortune 500 companies pay no taxes, opting for overseas tax havens.
Look it up - Don't believe me.
You are seriously uninformed or perhaps a pervayer of your own imagined facts.
Drain the swamp motherfucker.
Why are all the below comments that do not have any profanity, disrespectful or offensive language or verbiage flagged for review? Why aren't the flags removed on comments which are, obviously, concurring, continuing or respectful dialogue?
Line Two Correction-- verbiage should be verbiage.
Verbage not verbiage