Bill O'Reilly shitcanned from Fox

[Gandalf]

Bill O'Reilly's 21-year career at Fox News has come to a sudden and ignoble end.

"The O'Reilly Factor" has been canceled amid a cloud of harassment allegations against the conservative broadcaster.

Rupert Murdoch and his sons James and Lachlan, who run 21st Century Fox, made the announcement Wednesday afternoon.

"After a thorough and careful review of the allegations, the Company and Bill O'Reilly have agreed that Bill O'Reilly will not be returning to the Fox News Channel," Fox said.

In a statement of his own released later Wednesday afternoon, O'Reilly said, "It is tremendously disheartening that we part ways due to completely unfounded claims. But that is the unfortunate reality many of us in the public eye must live with today."

It is unclear if Fox News is paying O'Reilly. The host is presumably owed tens of millions of dollars under the terms of his multi-year contract, though the contract may have contained clauses allowing Fox News to get out of the deal.

It is also unknown if O'Reilly is subject to a so-called "non-compete" clause limiting his ability to appear on other networks.

O'Reilly's ouster shocked the television news industry, including Fox's own employees. While the broadcaster was not well-liked inside the network, he was viewed as invincible.

Wednesday's outcome "is stunning because Bill O'Reilly WAS Fox News," former Fox contributor Kirsten Powers said on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360."

Powers, who moved to CNN last summer, said "it was sort of unthinkable that he would ever leave there, except on his own terms."

What changed? An investigation by The New York Times. After founding Fox News CEO Roger Ailes resigned under a cloud of sexual harassment allegations last summer, the Times looked into allegations in O'Reilly's past.

It found that O'Reilly and Fox had reached settlements totaling $13 million with five women who had accused O'Reilly of sexual harassment or verbal abuse, only some of which had previously been reported publicly.

The Times published its reporting on April 1. Within days, there was an advertiser exodus -- dozens of sponsors told Fox to remove their ads from "The O'Reilly Factor."

There was also a crucial phone call from an O'Reilly accuser to Fox. On April 5, Wendy Walsh called Fox's hotline and described what she said was harassment and retaliatory behavior by O'Reilly back in 2013.

This was significant because O'Reilly and Fox had said that none of the women accusing O'Reilly of improprieties had ever contacted human resources or called the hotline.

Walsh and her attorney Lisa Bloom publicized the phone call. The Murdochs responded to the call by asking the law firm Paul, Weiss to conduct an investigation.

The results of the internal probe were not shared publicly. But it apparently influenced the Murdochs' decision.

In a letter to employees on Wednesday, Rupert Murdoch said O'Reilly's exit followed "an extensive review done in collaboration with outside counsel."
The involvement of Paul, Weiss was instrumental in Ailes' eventual resignation.

In the letter, Murdoch praised O'Reilly as "one of the most accomplished TV personalities in the history of cable news" before saying "we want to underscore our consistent commitment to fostering a work environment built on the values of trust and respect."

The letter concluded with an apparent nod to morale problems within Fox News recently.

"I understand how difficult this has been for many of you," Murdoch wrote. "Thank you for your hard work, patience, and for the great job you all do delivering news and opinion to millions of Americans whose trust you earn every day. I look forward to even more success in the coming years."

Minutes after O'Reilly's departure was confirmed, Fox tried to turn the page by announcing a new, O'Reilly-less lineup, which will take effect on Monday, the day O'Reilly had been scheduled to return from vacation.

Tucker Carlson will move from 9 p.m. to take over O'Reilly's 8 p.m. slot, while the five-person talk show "The Five" will move to 9 p.m. with new co-host Jesse Watters.

Eric Bolling, who had been a co-host of "The Five," is taking over the 5 p.m. hour, though his new show will not debut until May 1.

On Wednesday night Dana Perino hosted the 8 p.m. hour on Fox, which was stripped of all O'Reilly branding. The show was simply titled "The Factor." Perino addressed O'Reilly's departure at the start and end of the show, but did not mention the reasons behind it.

In contrast to Fox News, Henry Holt, an imprint of Macmillan that has published O'Reilly's litany of best-selling books, said it was standing by him on Wednesday.

"Our plans have not changed," a spokeswoman said.

Liberal groups which had long opposed O'Reilly, and had been pushing advertisers to join the boycott, celebrated the news Wednesday.

"Advertisers fled because they immediately recognized what Fox News has ignored for over a decade: that serial sexual harassment is not only wrong, but bad for business. Without advertisers, Bill O'Reilly's show was no longer commercially viable. Fox News had no choice but to fire O'Reilly. Accountability came from the outside, not from within," Media Matters for America president Angelo Carusone said in a statement.

Hurrah!

[The Romulan Republic]

Honestly, I can't be too happy about this. O'Reilly is far from the worst deplorable in that basket (politics-wise, at least, and we know he's not the only person their to be accused of harassment, either).

[Flagg]

One more sexual predator down, untold millions to go.

[Tribble]

Although I strongly disagree with O-Reilly on many things, I don't think its really appropriate to effectively fire someone before allegations have been proven in court.

[Jub]

Although I strongly disagree with O-Reilly on many things, I don't think its really appropriate to effectively fire someone before allegations have been proven in court.

When you're a company that lives and dies on public opinion you have to act fast. They also probably have a morality clause in their contracts which allows for such a firing.

[Tribble]

Although I strongly disagree with O-Reilly on many things, I don't think its really appropriate to effectively fire someone before allegations have been proven in court.

When you're a company that lives and dies on public opinion you have to act fast. They also probably have a morality clause in their contracts which allows for such a firing.

Which doesn't make it right. While it certainly has many flaws I prefer the concept of 'Rule of Law" and I have an intense dislike for people being punished before allegations have been tested and proven in court. Even people whom I strongly disagree with and personally detest.

[Lord Revan]

What I've gathered from that article O'Reilly wasn't exactly liked to begin with, so I suspect that those allegations where the "straw that broke the camel's back" rather then the sole reason for firing him. Basically the allegations gave Fox a reason to get rid of him without a backlash or at least I think that was the plan.

[Flagg]

Although I strongly disagree with O-Reilly on many things, I don't think its really appropriate to effectively fire someone before allegations have been proven in court.

You realize he's settled cases concerning this issue in the past, right? And frankly, when 80 advertisers feel there is enough shit stink to pull all advertising from the show of a host plagued by settled accusations concerning his being a sexual predator, then you don't spray more febreze, you flush the fucking toilet and pour a gallon of bleach in the bowl.

[Flagg]

What I've gathered from that article O'Reilly wasn't exactly liked to begin with, so I suspect that those allegations where the "straw that broke the camel's back" rather then the sole reason for firing him. Basically the allegations gave Fox a reason to get rid of him without a backlash or at least I think that was the plan.

Roger Ailes (who ran the network) got shitcanned from his job last year for essentially being a sexual predator who spent 20 years sexually harassing female hosts, guests, women auditioning or interviewing for jobs, and generally allowing if not furthering a culture of sexual harassment at the network. O'Reilly was pretty much one of, if not (hopefully) the last of the old guard. And he's been getting matched and regularly beaten in the ratings by his competition. So middling ratings, sexual predator, and zero advertisers, why the fuck keep him?

[Flagg]

Although I strongly disagree with O-Reilly on many things, I don't think its really appropriate to effectively fire someone before allegations have been proven in court.

When you're a company that lives and dies on public opinion you have to act fast. They also probably have a morality clause in their contracts which allows for such a firing.

Which doesn't make it right. While it certainly has many flaws I prefer the concept of 'Rule of Law" and I have an intense dislike for people being punished before allegations have been tested and proven in court. Even people whom I strongly disagree with and personally detest.

Boohoo? It's not like all of the sudden he's been accused of this shit. Hell, a woman he settled a suit with (for $9 million, IIRC) give or take a decade ago had audio recordings of him making obscene calls to her house. Google "O'Reilly falafel".

[Gandalf]

Roger Ailes (who ran the network) got shitcanned from his job last year for essentially being a sexual predator who spent 20 years sexually harassing female hosts, guests, women auditioning or interviewing for jobs, and generally allowing if not furthering a culture of sexual harassment at the network. O'Reilly was pretty much one of, if not (hopefully) the last of the old guard. And he's been getting matched and regularly beaten in the ratings by his competition. So middling ratings, sexual predator, and zero advertisers, why the fuck keep him?

I think the only other "old guard" around is Hannity, and he's still somewhat successful.

[Flagg]

Roger Ailes (who ran the network) got shitcanned from his job last year for essentially being a sexual predator who spent 20 years sexually harassing female hosts, guests, women auditioning or interviewing for jobs, and generally allowing if not furthering a culture of sexual harassment at the network. O'Reilly was pretty much one of, if not (hopefully) the last of the old guard. And he's been getting matched and regularly beaten in the ratings by his competition. So middling ratings, sexual predator, and zero advertisers, why the fuck keep him?

I think the only other "old guard" around is Hannity, and he's still somewhat successful.

Yeah, but I don't recall him being accused of sexual harassment. I mean he's a fucking stupid knuckledragging lying shitheel who said he'd undergo waterboarding to "prove it isn't torture" if someone gave a certain amount to a charity (I think, kinda fuzzy on what conditions had to be met, but they were) and then when it happened pretended he never made the bet and never answers or acknowledges questions about it. IIRC for a long time my all time favorite (sorry Rachel Maddow) cable news host Keith Olbermann would do an "It's been <insert number> Of days since Sean Hannity Welched On His Bet to be Waterboarded For Charity".

[mr friendly guy]

O'Reilly comes in, O'Reilly comes out. You can't explain that.

[TheFeniX]

When you're a company that lives and dies on public opinion you have to act fast. They also probably have a morality clause in their contracts which allows for such a firing.

Which doesn't make it right. While it certainly has many flaws I prefer the concept of 'Rule of Law" and I have an intense dislike for people being punished before allegations have been tested and proven in court. Even people whom I strongly disagree with and personally detest.

Boohoo? It's not like all of the sudden he's been accused of this shit. Hell, a woman he settled a suit with (for $9 million, IIRC) give or take a decade ago had audio recordings of him making obscene calls to her house. Google "O'Reilly falafel".

Yea, I know it was for more than a few million. So.... either take that or push charges instead which would equate to what? The U.S. doesn't take sexual harassment seriously even these days, much less in the past. So, you nail Bill with some probation (if you're extremely lucky) and you have what for your efforts? Being blacklisted?

Better to take the dirty money and run. And it's not like Fox doesn't have a vested interest in protecting guys like Bill for the botttom line. If even THEY decide to cut the guy lose due to the threat of blowback, who knows what he's actually gotten away with.

[Flagg]

Which doesn't make it right. While it certainly has many flaws I prefer the concept of 'Rule of Law" and I have an intense dislike for people being punished before allegations have been tested and proven in court. Even people whom I strongly disagree with and personally detest.

Boohoo? It's not like all of the sudden he's been accused of this shit. Hell, a woman he settled a suit with (for $9 million, IIRC) give or take a decade ago had audio recordings of him making obscene calls to her house. Google "O'Reilly falafel".

Yea, I know it was for more than a few million. So.... either take that or push charges instead which would equate to what? The U.S. doesn't take sexual harassment seriously even these days, much less in the past. So, you nail Bill with some probation (if you're extremely lucky) and you have what for your efforts? Being blacklisted?

Better to take the dirty money and run. And it's not like Fox doesn't have a vested interest in protecting guys like Bill for the botttom line. If even THEY decide to cut the guy lose due to the threat of blowback, who knows what he's actually gotten away with.

They did get rid of him for the bottom line. Did you miss the part about more women coming forward causing 80 advertisers to wholesale pull all ads for his show which was getting middling ratings anyway?

[TheFeniX]

They did get rid of him for the bottom line. Did you miss the part about more women coming forward causing 80 advertisers to wholesale pull all ads for his show which was getting middling ratings anyway?

Hmmm, guess I left that part out. But yes: protecting him as part of the bottom-line was their position up until he was no longer profitable and in fact massively detrimental. Up until that point, they'd side with him because money > ethics.

[Flagg]

They did get rid of him for the bottom line. Did you miss the part about more women coming forward causing 80 advertisers to wholesale pull all ads for his show which was getting middling ratings anyway?

Hmmm, guess I left that part out. But yes: protecting him as part of the bottom-line was their position up until he was no longer profitable and in fact massively detrimental. Up until that point, they'd side with him because money > ethics.

Well, yeah. But apparently he needs to be charged with a crime and convicted in court before Fox should fire him according to some.

[Flagg]

O'Reilly comes in, O'Reilly comes out. You can't explain that.

Truly, Bill O'Reilly is proof that there is a God. And the Old Testament dickhead one, not the nailed to a board peacenik hippy one. That or gravity.

[TheFeniX]

Well, yeah. But apparently he needs to be charged with a crime and convicted in court before Fox should fire him according to some.

That was the point I fucked up: Fox had every incentive to protect Billy Boy and did so for years. In fact, them deciding to pay out millions rather than deal with what little legal consequences there would be is (IMHO) more damning because it shows how much more important public perception and accompanying loss of advertisers would be by letting this get out. Face it: the U.S. doesn't take harassment seriously at all.

As said, the evidence here isn't exactly circumstantial "he said/she said" stuff. Guy got Nixoned here with audio tape. They were paying hush money but other investigators aren't required to abide by the hush money terms. Honestly, I assume fans of his don't give a shit about his harassment, but those guys don't buy adds.

[Tribble]

They did get rid of him for the bottom line. Did you miss the part about more women coming forward causing 80 advertisers to wholesale pull all ads for his show which was getting middling ratings anyway?

Hmmm, guess I left that part out. But yes: protecting him as part of the bottom-line was their position up until he was no longer profitable and in fact massively detrimental. Up until that point, they'd side with him because money > ethics.

Well, yeah. But apparently he needs to be charged with a crime and convicted in court before Fox should fire him according to some.

Where did you get that from my above statements? I feel that someone generally should not be fired until there has been a ruling in court, not criminal court specifically. In cases like these a civil court ruling is usually sufficient grounds for dismissal IIRC.

Just for those who are not aware, in most jurisditions standard of proof in criminal law is "beyond reasonable doubt" (a high standard) whereas in civil law it is "balance of probabilities" (aka 50% +1).

All of these allegations appear to have gone through the civil court system. Do we know far into the proceedings things went? Did it reach the trial stage where evidence was presented and tested? Were things settled in court or outside of court? Were there judgements made? Court orders? Were reasons given? Were there any admissions of guilt? What information was Fox privy to? All important things to consider when determining whether or not to fire someone, I would think.

Now to be fair, O'Reilly apparently signed a contract where he could be fired if more allegations were made, so I suppose it's his stupidity for agreeing to those terms. Generally though, I don't like rulings via the Court of Public Opinion, and would rather wait and see what actually comes out in a real court (whether criminal or civil) and/or tribunal.

As said, the evidence here isn't exactly circumstantial "he said/she said" stuff. Guy got Nixoned here with audio tape. They were paying hush money but other investigators aren't required to abide by the hush money terms. Honestly, I assume fans of his don't give a shit about his harassment, but those guys don't buy adds.

Was that every case, or one in particular?

[Broomstick]

All of these allegations appear to have gone through the civil court system. Do we know far into the proceedings things went? Did it reach the trial stage where evidence was presented and tested? Were things settled in court or outside of court? Were there judgements made? Court orders? Were reasons given? Were there any admissions of guilt? What information was Fox privy to? All important things to consider when determining whether or not to fire someone, I would think.

American business likes a situation where they can fire anyone for anything they are not explicitly prohibited from using as an excuse. That's the environment we workers exist in. Personally, if I have to labor under those conditions I'm not inclined to give a talking-head celebrity any more slack than I myself would get.

So far as I know, all the prior allegations were settled out of court. Something like $13 million in settlements over the years. After a certain point, no company is going to continue to fork over double-digit millions of dollars to silence accusers. They're either going to insist on it going to trial, or fire the person who seems to be generating the problem.

Now to be fair, O'Reilly apparently signed a contract where he could be fired if more allegations were made, so I suppose it's his stupidity for agreeing to those terms. Generally though, I don't like rulings via the Court of Public Opinion, and would rather wait and see what actually comes out in a real court (whether criminal or civil) and/or tribunal.

The settlements with former accusers wasn't "public opinion". They were actual legal settlements.

[Flagg]

Well, yeah. But apparently he needs to be charged with a crime and convicted in court before Fox should fire him according to some.

That was the point I fucked up: Fox had every incentive to protect Billy Boy and did so for years. In fact, them deciding to pay out millions rather than deal with what little legal consequences there would be is (IMHO) more damning because it shows how much more important public perception and accompanying loss of advertisers would be by letting this get out. Face it: the U.S. doesn't take harassment seriously at all.

As said, the evidence here isn't exactly circumstantial "he said/she said" stuff. Guy got Nixoned here with audio tape. They were paying hush money but other investigators aren't required to abide by the hush money terms. Honestly, I assume fans of his don't give a shit about his harassment, but those guys don't buy adds.

Yeah, Fox has started to "drain the Roger Ailes swamp" because society is finally just starting to come around to the fact that women are individual human beings as opposed to objects for men to use as they please. Hopefully there will be harsher laws in place to cement that fact into code.

[Jub]

Although I strongly disagree with O-Reilly on many things, I don't think its really appropriate to effectively fire someone before allegations have been proven in court.

When you're a company that lives and dies on public opinion you have to act fast. They also probably have a morality clause in their contracts which allows for such a firing.

Which doesn't make it right. While it certainly has many flaws I prefer the concept of 'Rule of Law" and I have an intense dislike for people being punished before allegations have been tested and proven in court. Even people whom I strongly disagree with and personally detest.

So what should Fox have done to appease their advertisers?

Also, when should the employer be able to fire him in this case? Given the number of lawyers that would have been involved anything reaching the courts would have either ended in a settlement (which is how things have gone before for Bill'O) or drag out for years. Should an employer be forced to keep an employee engaged in legal battles even if it means keeping them employed through every possible appeal? Can they suspend them without pay for the duration of the trial/appeals? How do you successfully reinstate a TV personality if you do suspend him for the years that such a battle could take to resolve?

How about for things like theft, harassment, or any other fireable offense? Should every firing have a legal battle attached to it?

[Flagg]

Hmmm, guess I left that part out. But yes: protecting him as part of the bottom-line was their position up until he was no longer profitable and in fact massively detrimental. Up until that point, they'd side with him because money > ethics.

Well, yeah. But apparently he needs to be charged with a crime and convicted in court before Fox should fire him according to some.

Where did you get that from my above statements? I feel that someone generally should not be fired until there has been a ruling in court, not criminal court specifically. In cases like these a civil court ruling is usually sufficient grounds for dismissal IIRC.

Just for those who are not aware, in most jurisditions standard of proof in criminal law is "beyond reasonable doubt" (a high standard) whereas in civil law it is "balance of probabilities" (aka 50% +1).

All of these allegations appear to have gone through the civil court system. Do we know far into the proceedings things went? Did it reach the trial stage where evidence was presented and tested? Were things settled in court or outside of court? Were there judgements made? Court orders? Were reasons given? Were there any admissions of guilt? What information was Fox privy to? All important things to consider when determining whether or not to fire someone, I would think.

Now to be fair, O'Reilly apparently signed a contract where he could be fired if more allegations were made, so I suppose it's his stupidity for agreeing to those terms. Generally though, I don't like rulings via the Court of Public Opinion, and would rather wait and see what actually comes out in a real court (whether criminal or civil) and/or tribunal.

As said, the evidence here isn't exactly circumstantial "he said/she said" stuff. Guy got Nixoned here with audio tape. They were paying hush money but other investigators aren't required to abide by the hush money terms. Honestly, I assume fans of his don't give a shit about his harassment, but those guys don't buy adds.

Was that every case, or one in particular?

Hi, this is the planet Earth where you don't get to keep your job if your interactions with colleagues violates their rights as human beings and ends up causing problems for your employer. Especially when your job is to bring in advertiser dollars and your conduct becomes so reprehensible that advertisers won't even chuck pennies at you from cars. Sorry you don't like this planet, feel free to get back on your space vessel and fly to a planet more to your liking!

[Tribble]

So what should Fox have done to appease their advertisers? Also, when should the employer be able to fire him in this case? Given the number of lawyers that would have been involved anything reaching the courts would have either ended in a settlement (which is how things have gone before for Bill'O) or drag out for years.

As has already been stated he had already signed a contract where they could fire him solely based on allegations, and/or underperformance. So I stand corrected in that he had already agreed to those conditions when signing the contract, which certainly gives weight to them dismissing him.

Should an employer be forced to keep an employee engaged in legal battles even if it means keeping them employed through every possible appeal?

Depending on the circumstances, sure. In situations where the legal battle does not concern the employees conduct with the company (not in O'Reilly's case, obviously), then employers shouldn't be allowed to fire their employees.

Can they suspend them without pay for the duration of the trial/appeals?

Perhaps that is one way to go about it, provided the employee receives compensation should it come to a judgement and the employee is found innocent.

How do you successfully reinstate a TV personality if you do suspend him for the years that such a battle could take to resolve?

We've seen celebrities survive far worse (such as being convicted of a crime and serving actual jail time) so it's certainly not impossible.

How about for things like theft, harassment, or any other fireable offense? Should every firing have a legal battle attached to it?

An employee should have the right to challenge the reasons for being fired in a court / tribunal if they so wish. People should have the right to be heard and defend themselves. Perhaps your idea of suspension without pay (provided they get compensation by the employer should be be found innocent) may be a good way to go about it in the meantime.

Hi, this is the planet Earth where you don't get to keep your job if your interactions with colleagues violates their rights as human beings and ends up causing problems for your employer. Especially when your job is to bring in advertiser dollars and your conduct becomes so reprehensible that advertisers won't even chuck pennies at you from cars. Sorry you don't like this planet, feel free to get back on your space vessel and fly to a planet more to your liking!

Hi, welcome to western civilization, where people have decided to at least try and setup a legal system that allows for a defendant to defend themselves from accusations before being punished, and the assumption that people should be assumed innocent until proven guilty in a formal process like a court or tribunal. Novel concept for you, I know! If you enjoy just getting to the stone throwing part of the process, there are plenty of places around which I think would suit your needs nicely.