Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Bill O’Reilly Out at Fox News

Bill O’Reilly Out at Fox News

Tucker Carlson to move to his time slot

A growing pile of sexual harassment allegations resulted in Bill O’Reilly’s departure from Fox News. Up through Tuesday night, O’Reilly’s spokesperson was assuring reporters he would return to the network April 24th.

In a very brief statement, 21st Century Fox said:

From the New York Times:

Mr. O’Reilly’s departure comes two and a half weeks after an investigation by The New York Times revealed how Fox News and 21st Century Fox had repeatedly stood by Mr. O’Reilly even as sexual harassment allegations piled up against him. The Times found that the company and Mr. O’Reilly reached settlements with five women who had complained about sexual harassment or other inappropriate behavior by him. The agreements totaled about $13 million.

Since then, more than 50 advertisers had abandoned his show, and women’s rights groups called for his ouster. Inside the company, women expressed outrage and questioned whether top executives were serious about maintaining a culture based on “trust and respect,” as they had promised last summer when another sexual harassment scandal forced the ouster of Fox News’s chairman, Roger Ailes.

That put pressure on 21st Century Fox and the Murdoch family that controlled it. After the dismissal of Mr. Ailes, the company struck two settlements involving sexual harassment complaints against Mr. O’Reilly and also extended his contract, even as it was aware of the complaints about his behavior.

Last week, the Murdochs enlisted the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison to conduct an investigation into Mr. O’Reilly’s behavior after one woman, who had detailed her allegations against Mr. O’Reilly to The Times, called the company’s hotline to report her complaints. Another complaint was reported on Tuesday, according to the lawyer who represents the woman making the allegations.

Mr. O’Reilly has denied the allegations against him.

O’Reilly’s departure leaves a gaping hole in Fox’s primetime coverage. Tucker Carlson, who took over when Megyn Kelly left the network will be moving to O’Reilly’s now vacant time slot. The Five will move to Tucker’s old spot at 9:00.:

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

Good. He’s a pig, blowhard, and shill.

    casualobserver in reply to Obie1. | April 19, 2017 at 7:12 pm

    After a decade of trying, the left finally got him. Like him or not, if you think this is the end game for those who are taking credit like Media Matters and the NYT, you miss what is going on. Succeeding with the most visible commentator that calls out the left only invigorates the donors. And there is an endless supply of recently graduated snowflakes who have been indoctrinated in stifling speech and would never question becoming a low paid foot soldier in smear campaigns, etc. Forget personal tastes, this is the most visible shot across the bow.

      Ragspierre in reply to casualobserver. | April 19, 2017 at 8:10 pm

      Ol’ Bill “got” ol’ Bill. Nobody else. He’s a pig.

        casualobserver in reply to Ragspierre. | April 19, 2017 at 8:27 pm

        Sure. O’Reilly made it easier in the end. What will you say when it’s someone you “like”? Perhaps that list is small.

        But my point is not so myopic that it hinges on the man. It’s the symbolism. The highest rated critic of the left on TV was finally felled by Soros money. And the progressive monster just had a record breaking meal. The appetite for subsequent meals will stay high. And the funds will grow because of this symbolic win.

          Ragspierre in reply to casualobserver. | April 19, 2017 at 9:00 pm

          Geeez….

          THINK!

          There are several idiots here comparing this to a campus kangaroo court.

          Would you pay out millions of dollars on baseless “allegations” AFTER you had an independent law firm investigate them?

          Would YOU cut one of your major “talents” out of your network lineup on baseless “allegations”?

          Ol’ Bill has a history. What does it tell you?

          Some of you people are beyond voluntarily stupid.

          casualobserver in reply to casualobserver. | April 19, 2017 at 9:37 pm

          Ragspierre, you are not as insightful as you pretend to be. You’ve got facts and dates scrambled. If there was really more to past 5 settlements than just agreements to end the nuisances, then why did the company renegotiate a $20+ million contract after the settlements? That is just one of the sequences you miss.

          Ragspierre in reply to casualobserver. | April 19, 2017 at 9:56 pm

          Again, GOBSMACKING STUPID…!!!

          WHY would YOU attempt to keep a “major talent” aboard with a new contract…EVEN after he and you had to pay out a multi-millon-dollar settlement ON MERIT…!?!?!?

          Really…???

          casualobserver in reply to casualobserver. | April 19, 2017 at 10:22 pm

          Ragspierre, you are starting to look more like a MMfA plant. All insults, no substance.

          Ragspierre in reply to casualobserver. | April 20, 2017 at 8:26 am

          Hah! I substantially disagree, and you don’t like it.

Too bad. O’Reilly is just another pseudo populist, taking positions, after sticking his finger in the wind. Paying millions in hush money while denying harassment doesn’t ring true. He will turn up somewhere and still make millions. Too bad for the rest of us.

    Tom Servo in reply to Romey. | April 19, 2017 at 3:21 pm

    That’s about my feeling. I quit watching him years ago because his blowhard act just got to old to keep up with anymore, but I hate to see this piling on by people who are doing it just so they can crow about taking him out.

I hope Carlson is his permanent replacement. I saw Dana Perino on the short list. Almost as bad if she then moves into Carlson’s old slot. Those Murdoch boys are going to turn Fox into MSNBC/CNN if it’s the last thing they do.

    I stopped watching O’Reilly in 2009. I never miss Tucker.

      I was never an O’Reilly fan. Too squishy. Seems more concerned with appearing to be “fair and balanced” than about consistency with his reasoning. Still, he was the big audience magnet.

      It was interesting to see how shallow Megan Kelly’s support proved to be even as the lead up to O’Reilly. Carlson blew away her numbers right out of the gate. Moving up to the big slot could work out in a big way if they fill the lead up slot well.

      I love Tucker’s new show! As for O’Reilly, his insistence that logical connections were unfair drove me up the wall. Sure, we can say that chemical weapons were used by Assad’s government on its own people, but can we really say that Assad is responsible? Sure, we can say that poverty rose during Obama’s presidency, but we can’t possibly say that his policies had anything to do with it until we get all the facts. Blah, blah, blah.

      I also HATED the condescending way he referred to normal Americans as “the folks.” Drove me straight up the wall.

      Not sorry to see him go.

    they are , where do you think Tucker came from, Greta also

All based on ALLEGATIONS by talentless, ambitious women.

I stopped watching Fox News when I threw the TV set out the window. I was saved by Fortune, no one was below.

Carlson is a fantastic choice.

I was seriously afraid those fools were going to get that idiot Kelly back.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to Olinser. | April 19, 2017 at 5:04 pm

    Wait for it. Carlson is the next target. Would not be surprised to see Kelly in the 8:00 slot and Shep Smith as head of News.

      Tom Servo in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | April 19, 2017 at 11:48 pm

      I think the left was so upset about Mike Pence’s personal standards of morality because they realized he wasn’t leaving them any openings to attack him personally. I suspect Tucker Carlson also has more standards in his private conduct than most. (he better)

      O’Reilly always played the part of a bombastic bully with an incredibly high impression of himself, and it isn’t much of a stretch to think that behavior spilled over into his personal life.

Lesson for American Business: Hiring women is very expensive, whether later accusations are true or false, whether anyone is guilty or not guilty. So budget accordingly.

The 5 at 9:00pm is a waste.

Why not give the slot back to Hannity who should never have been bumped in the first place. He regularly outdrew Kelly despite the worse time slot.

    Agreed. The Five is horrible. Everyone on there is vapid and talentless (except Greg Gutfeld; I like his ability to think outside the box). Now, if they revamped the Five to include those who most often appear on Bret Baier’s panels . . . I’d be all over a show with Charles Krauthammer, Steve Hayes, Jonah Goldberg, Nina Easton, and A. B. Stoddard.

      I officially give this comment 1,000 “likes”.

        Geez, Leslie, I probably agree with you about 999 times out of a thousand, however, I’m going with 1000 dislikes to neutralize you.

        “…Charles Krauthammer, Steve Hayes, Jonah Goldberg, Nina Easton, and A. B. Stoddard.”

        Good Lord. A dumber bunch of stuffy old *%$#&)[email protected] could not be assembled. Next, you’ll be pining for the good old days with George Bush 🙂

The five format does not seem the right fit for 9 PM.

The Murdoch brothers have seemed for a long time to be embarrassed of Fox News. They are liberals, the rest of their media empire is liberal, and FoxNews is the black sheep of the media world.

Rupert Murdoch wanted a cable news channel. It took promises to senators in the lobbying for the Telecommunications act of 1996, an antitrust decree against time Warner, and a Giuliani lead crackdown on cable companies in New York to get Fox News on the air.

All of that work to get “big media” to provide a different perspective, and Murdoch’s kids seem intent on destroying everything that made Fox unique.

I heard O’Reilly’s radio show. He was awful. He needs to be on TV doing his outrage porn thing. I hope he’ll follow Larry King’s lead and stick around on a smaller network, if only to keep the big boys honest.

The Friendly Grizzly | April 19, 2017 at 3:40 pm

His schtick seemed to be “don’t let the guest say more than three or four words before interrupting “. I couldn’t stand that.

Good or bad, the feminazis have another scalp to hand from their belts.

Maybe he can get his old gig back on Inside Edition. I never took him seriously. Even guests on the same side were subject to his interruptions and lack of manners. Fox stepped up their game when they traded Megyn for Tucker. Let’s see what this brings. It can only be an improvement. Now, if they could lose Hannity, it would be even better.

I hate seeing the left being given another scalp. This was clearly a coordinated attack to get Fox to buckle. Now, they have buckled twice and you can bet there will be more attacks. The left hates Fox News and wishes to destroy it. The Murdochs must be in on the conspiracy. They had nothing to lose if they kept O’Reilly. The advertisers will be back and Fox could soak them for their disloyalty.

    AmandaFitz in reply to RickCaird. | April 19, 2017 at 5:50 pm

    I agree. I’m not a big O’Reilly fan, BUT this is just another SCALP for the Left.

    Rupert Murdoch is an old fool if he cannot see what his sons are doing to the network. I believe the quote is “Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations.” Murdoch built his empire; the sons are in the process of changing it to fit their socio-economic status (since they grew up KNOWING they’d inherit the business), and they and then, their children will destroy what Rupert Murdoch built. It’s a shame.

    guyjones in reply to RickCaird. | April 19, 2017 at 6:42 pm

    What was the first instance of Fox “buckling?” Are you referring to Meghan Kelly’s departure? Thanks for the clarification.

A “preponderance of allegations” legal standard puts everyone’s life, welfare, and dignity at risk.

The liberals will see this as a win in their war against Trump.

Next!

Is someone starting a pool on who the next target for personal destruction will be?

Sam in Texas | April 19, 2017 at 4:53 pm

Headline: Bloviating Gasbag Cuts Own Throat.

I agree with the consensus that O’Reilly was a pompous blowhard and fake populist. His factually deficient defense of man-made global warming told me all I needed to know about him.

That being said, the Murdoch boys have fed the beast, and its appetite will only grow stronger. The payment of hush money to ambitious harpies is only subsidizing more bad behavior. The delicious irony in all of this is that the time slot appears to be Tucker Carlson’s for the taking, a much more educated, rational and entertaining conservative talker.

Be careful for what you wish for, snowflakes . . .

If the left wants to take credit, let them. The real story is that the Murdochs hired an independent law firm to investigate the allegations surrounding O’Reilly and Ailes and didn’t like what they found, so they made some changes, even if they were difficult and impacted the bottom line in the short term. Recognizing and solving problems is what liberals spend their lives talking about and conservatives actually do.

I don’t like O’Reilly; I never have. But any one of us could have been sunk under the same circumstances. I remember just after Tailhook when the SJWs got their foot in the door. I was supposed to document everything when a woman accused a man of sexual harassment.

Even if one individual case was meritless, if enough meritless cases piled up that was supposed to prove the accused guilt under some SJW “Where there’s smoke there’s fire” special snowflake legal theory.

It’s been around since at least 1992.

Six year old girls can figure this out. If enough of them get their stories straight they can get rid of a teacher who holds them to standards. I knew a Chief who was almost sh**canned by the Navy because he insisted on enforcing uniform standards. And the girls hated him for it.

I have no idea if O’Reilly is a s***bird or not. I strongly suspect he is; I must have cancelled my cable eight years or so because of the sheer pointlessness of it all, including O’Reilly’s “Just standing up for the salt-O-the-earth plain folks” schtick.

But I can’t convert the fact that five women were paid $13M into a guilty charge, no matter how much I can’t stand the guy. For all we know O’Reilly may have relied entirely on the Fox legal department who told him it was just cheaper and easier to pay to make the whole thing go away.

Basically we’re seeing played out the whole Title IX kangaroo court fiasco except on a larger scale. Should my judgement be effected because I don’t like the guy?

    Ragspierre in reply to Arminius. | April 19, 2017 at 9:12 pm

    Ergo, Bill Clinton is innocent of any sexual misconduct.

    He was never convicted in court on any such charge.

      Arminius in reply to Ragspierre. | April 19, 2017 at 10:31 pm

      Right. No wrongdoing to see here.

      http://www.foxnews.com/story/2001/10/01/clinton-disbarred-from-supreme-court.html

      I would ask what you’re smoking, Rags.

      But you’re clearly mainlining. Have a nice high.

        Bill Clinton was disbarred by the Arkansas bar. What equivalent authoritative body has concluded that Bill O’Reilly committed sexual misconduct? Asking of someone who doesn’t think much of O’Reilly, but who believes in due process.

        –Andrew

          Ragspierre in reply to Andrew Branca. | April 20, 2017 at 9:09 am

          Surprised at your question, Andrew.

          How many guilty defendants have you represented who cut due process off by reaching a “settlement” of their own? They never reached a trial on the original charge.

          I sure can’t speak for O’Reilly, but I’d never settle the first false charge against me, much less a series.

          As with Dollar Bill Clinton, O’Reilly has a character that’s consistent with these alleged instances. And he’s paid off. I can’t imagine the same conditions existing for Hannity, for instance. Can you?

        Ragspierre in reply to Arminius. | April 20, 2017 at 8:35 am

        What are you smoking, Arminius? Or did you just find the point too hard to deal with?

        What SEXUAL misconduct was Dollar Bill convicted of in court?

        (NONE)

        How many counts of murder was OJ Simpson convicted of? Ergo, he never hurt anybody.

        Bill wasn’t tossed because he was falsely accused, and he may very well STILL have to meet charges in the legal system.

    Regardless of how where you stand on O’Reilly, Fox had to make a choice. They either commit to defending their biggest star after he paid off at least one accuser to go away as this scandal continued to explode or they cut their losses and try to move on. Neither option painless.

    Either way, the lawyers are going to get wealthy off of Fox for a while. But at least with O’Reilly gone, the big damage has been done. It will eventually become a backburner issue and people will eventually get bored of it. I’m already bored to death.

Humphrey's Executor | April 19, 2017 at 9:57 pm

The old lion was brought down by the pack of Hyenas. As happens too often, he stayed too long. Say what you will of Walter Cronkite, he knew how to go out on top.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend