Fox Gives O'Reilly The Boot

[mistermack]

The usual arguments are usually true. Allegations don't mean guilt.

But in this case, ten million dollars means a lot of guilt.
But to his credit, nobody has said that he grabbed them by the pussy. He's obviously a bit shy.

[Scot Dutchy]

Yeah Fox paid out $13 million on lies. Pull the other one.

[Tyrannical]

I never liked O'niggerly. About time faux news let him go.

[mistermack]

I never liked O'niggerly. About time faux news let him go.

You don't like any of those commie liberals like him.

[Forty Two]

Yeah Fox paid out $13 million on lies. Pull the other one.

Once again, it's not a function of one person lying and the other telling the truth. For example, one can have a situation where there is a consensual affair between a superior and a subordinate, which is later cast as a harassment suit. The case can center around subjective intent, and proof thereof. So, a payout by a deep pocket relative to highly paid employees claiming harassment is not something that necessarily indicates "guilt." It may well be payment to end the matter without publicity and cut off exposure to further liability. I.e., if you have a relatively young person earning several hundred thousand dollars a year, who claims harassment against a multi-millionaire and his even wealthier employer, there is a huge risk.

That being said, the payout and agreement to settle is a valid indicator that at least something happened to create enough of a risk of bad publicity and a massively negative result at trial that folks were willing to part with a lot of cash. So, it's certainly relevant to the discussion.

[Forty Two]

A "repeated and ongoing pattern" doesn't exist here,

It may well. Certainly, there is a risk of that.

oh no certainly not.

If you read my response to your post, I was very clear that I was not at all certain, and I did not side with O'Reilly and I did not conclude that he "didndonuffin." I said exactly the opposite, although that opposite is not to conclude that because of multiple allegations he must have "done it."

Several women coming forward with complaints over a period of years (and some of them receiving substantial out of court settlements) can with minimal effort be dismissed because after all, none of us were there.

Well, "dismissed?" I didn't "dismiss" the allegations. Quite the opposite, actually. What I did not do, however, is to conclude he's "guilty" because of several women coming forward with complaints.

[Brian Peacock]

Yeah Fox paid out $13 million on lies. Pull the other one.

Once again, it's not a function of one person lying and the other telling the truth. For example, one can have a situation where there is a consensual affair between a superior and a subordinate, which is later cast as a harassment suit. The case can center around subjective intent, and proof thereof. So, a payout by a deep pocket relative to highly paid employees claiming harassment is not something that necessarily indicates "guilt." It may well be payment to end the matter without publicity and cut off exposure to further liability. I.e., if you have a relatively young person earning several hundred thousand dollars a year, who claims harassment against a multi-millionaire and his even wealthier employer, there is a huge risk.

That being said, the payout and agreement to settle is a valid indicator that at least something happened to create enough of a risk of bad publicity and a massively negative result at trial that folks were willing to part with a lot of cash. So, it's certainly relevant to the discussion.

Are you saying that it's just as likely that those bringing the harassment charge are opportunist gold diggers as to be the real victims of real workplace abuse? Do you think that corporate PR concerns mean gold diggers and victims of abuse are best silenced with a pay off, even if this avoids proceeding that may result in a public judgement and/or conviction/exoneration? Do you think that a number of women have made a number of malicious claims against O'Reilly over a period of time in order to extort money from his employer? Do you think he was sacked for PR reasons in which his actions played no part in, and therefore that he's also a victim here? Do you see how your comments might give the impression that you do think this, and that you are, in fact, passing a judgement on the matter even as you say you're avoiding passing a judgement on the matter?

[mistermack]

Part of the harassment problem has to be the huge number of dirty slappers who are more than willing to drop their knickers for some repulsive rich old fucker who can help them up the ladder.

Lucky bastards!

[Forty Two]

Yeah Fox paid out $13 million on lies. Pull the other one.

Once again, it's not a function of one person lying and the other telling the truth. For example, one can have a situation where there is a consensual affair between a superior and a subordinate, which is later cast as a harassment suit. The case can center around subjective intent, and proof thereof. So, a payout by a deep pocket relative to highly paid employees claiming harassment is not something that necessarily indicates "guilt." It may well be payment to end the matter without publicity and cut off exposure to further liability. I.e., if you have a relatively young person earning several hundred thousand dollars a year, who claims harassment against a multi-millionaire and his even wealthier employer, there is a huge risk.

That being said, the payout and agreement to settle is a valid indicator that at least something happened to create enough of a risk of bad publicity and a massively negative result at trial that folks were willing to part with a lot of cash. So, it's certainly relevant to the discussion.

Are you saying that it's just as likely that those bringing the harassment charge are opportunist gold diggers as to be the real victims of real workplace abuse?

No. I was fairly clear on this, I thought. These matters are not generally clear he's lying or she's lying situations. Often, nobody is lying about the major events, or both parties are lying to some extent. Often, the parties agree basically on what happened - like they may agree there was a meeting or a telephone call and the conversation turned sexual on X date, for example - but she alleges that she never welcomed the conversation, and felt as if she had to endure it because of her job. He may recall that she was an active participant, who even upped the heat a bit on the conversations at the time, and that she was very much an active participant who welcomed it.

That's the thing about sexual harassment -- inviting someone back to your hotel room is not sexual harassment in and of itself. It has to be part of an overall environment that is sexually hostile and operates to significantly alter the terms and conditions of employment, AND it has to be unwelcome.

I'm old enough to know that women are not asexual, and that sexual relationships arise from time to time in the workplace. Actual sex goes on in offices with the door shut -- in the restrooms - in the stairwells, from time to time between consenting adults. Some women like sexual banter, and others don't. Some women do like powerful men, and others don't. Some men like powerful women and others don't.

So, I am not calling them opportunist golddiggers, nor do I know how likely it is that they are. It's possible, for example that that they are opportunist golddiggers AND telling the truth throughout. It's possible O'Reilly is a sexual harasser and a liar, but also innocent in the particular cases we're talking about here. There are lots of possibilities. But, it is impossible for us to tell without hearing the evidence - the actual evidence and not news reports - which is more likely. Even then it might be tough.

Do you think that corporate PR concerns mean gold diggers and victims of abuse are best silenced with a pay off, even if this avoids proceeding that may result in a public judgement and/or conviction/exoneration?

No. I think sexual harassment cases are civil suits brought in court seeking the payment of money. Nobody can "silence" a plaintiff with a pay off, unless the plaintiff prefers a bird in the hand as opposed to the potential of two in the bush later.

Do you think that a number of women have made a number of malicious claims against O'Reilly over a period of time in order to extort money from his employer?

I don't know, do you?

Do you think he was sacked for PR reasons in which his actions played no part in, and therefore that he's also a victim here?

I don't know, do you?

Do you see how your comments might give the impression that you do think this, and that you are, in fact, passing a judgement on the matter even as you say you're avoiding passing a judgement on the matter?

Not in the least. In fact, in our exchange, you are the one who has passed judgment on the matter, not me. You seem to be implying what you know to be more likely or less likely. I haven't. Civil cases are judged on the preponderance of the evidence standard (more likely than not). So, for you to believe that it is more likely that the accusers are telling the truth, and more likely than not that O'Reilly committed sexual harassment, is judging the case. It is not judging the case for me to acknowledge that oftentimes sexual harassment cases are complex questions of fact, based in large part on subjective intent and motive, with lots of difference of opinion, and lots of difference of interpretation of events, and lots of different recollections of events, and therefore I conclude that without hearing the evidence I can't really come to a conclusion.

I noted before the Jian Ghomeshi trial in which he was accused, criminally, of sexual assault by multiple women over a period of years. In that case it was determined, ultimately, at a criminal trial, that the accusers all demonstrably lied - they were caught in perjury - and they had both lied to police and withheld information from police, and they had an agenda to destroy Jian Ghomeshi's career and life. Jian Ghomeshi was a popular CBC broadcaster in Canada. Now, if we prejudge cases by concluded that several women over a period of years making similar allegations against a prominent media figure means that it's likely they are telling the truth and he is guilty, what are we left with?

[Scot Dutchy]

It is a too high a risk strategy for a gold digger. A real gold digger is like the one living in a tower who is meant to be first lady of some country. She knew where and how to dig. If she is happy that is another question.

[Forty Two]

It is a too high a risk strategy for a gold digger. A real gold digger is like the one living in a tower who is meant to be first lady of some country. She knew where and how to dig. If she is happy that is another question.

It's not too high risk a strategy for a gold digger. In some cases, it's the smart move on their part. There have been cases where women were willing participants in sexual conversation and conduct in the workplace, and then later when their careers dry up a bit, the events are recast as unwelcome interactions.

This is not an indictment of all women or most women. It's treating women the same as I would treat men. I certainly don't put it past men to lie and golddig and/or be opportunists. It's understood that men will lie. The odd development in more recent years is the notion that women won't. Of course they will, and they will, and have, lied about sexual harassment.

That is not to say that the women in this case are lying or are gold-diggers. That just reason to withhold judgment pending seeing the evidence. Maybe there is some really damning evidence. However, the Juliet Huddy case, as reported in the news, leaves a lot of questions unanswered for me.

For example - the New York Times reported the incident as follows: "The letter includes allegations that Mr. O’Reilly had called Ms. Huddy repeatedly and that it sometimes sounded as if he was masturbating. He invited her to his house on Long Island, tried to kiss her, took her to dinner and the theater, and after asking her to return a key to his hotel room, appeared at the door in his boxer shorts, according to the letter."

Repeated calls where it sounds like he was masturbating? I would think that would need some clarification. Were these calls work related and she heard him sound like he's masturbating? Was he engaging in phone sex? Was she reciprocating? I mean, if one has engaged in phone sex, it kind of doesn't really work if the woman on the other end of the line isn't participating.

Also, he invited her to his house on long island and tried to kiss her - she went to his house, though, so she accepted his invitation. That alone doesn't sound like sexual harassment. Then she went with him to dinner and the theater - they're on a date. He gave her his hotel key to return - meaning, he wants her to go back to his hotel room and screw, obviously. In other blurbs about it, she relates that she called him from the hotel lobby asking him to come get the key, and he kept telling her to come up to return it, so she did.

The kicker is that she alleges that when she rebuffed his advances, he tried to torpedo her career. That's a bad thing, obviously, and so she appears to be alleging both quid-pro-quo harassment and hostile environment harassment. But, surely, there are questions that need answering before we believe that it was, in fact, harassment at all. Everything she said could be true, and he could very well have a defense. I mean, she could be a non-golddigger and a truth teller, but should simply be wrong that he tried to torpedo her career. We haven't heard his side of the story. And, does the conduct rise to the level of a "hostile work environment?" I mean, it might, but don't we have to know what happened with those phone conversations? Don't we need to know why she went on a date or dates with him? Why didn't she just leave the hotel key with the front desk? All this is is important information.

[Hermit]

OK, so now we've had the uncertainty and doubt argument and the golddigger charge. The fear and tu quoque lines are still skulking backstage.

No matter. If there was nothing to the accusations against that Dunning-Kruger archetype Fox would not have shelled out 13 million bucks to buy the accusers off.

Anyway, the tide is truly out for that ignorant loudmouth, though Fox assured him of a soft landing with a large golden parachute when they opened the hatch and kicked him out of the aeroplane. I bet Bill will write books now, describing how he was right about everything ever, and how he won every single argument he had with his opponents. He will even argue that he was right here:



Oh, wait. He's already done that one.

[Forty Two]

OK, so now we've had the uncertainty and doubt argument and the golddigger charge. The fear and tu quoque lines are still skulking backstage.

I'm sorry, where did I call anyone a gold-digger?

Uncertainty is not a charge. I mean, are you certain? About what, exactly?

No matter. If there was nothing to the accusations against that Dunning-Kruger archetype Fox would not have shelled out 13 million bucks to buy the accusers off.

I never wrote that there was "nothing to the accusations," but paying out money does not mean the accusations have merit. A settlement figure is a function of potential monetary exposure times the risk of it coming to pass, plus the added figure in this case of publicity alone causing significant damage and financial losses. So, $13 million is a lot of money, but if that put an end to it all, it would have been a bargain. We're talking about a guy who made $25 million a year, and a company that made hundreds of millions off of that guy.

Anyway, the tide is truly out for that ignorant loudmouth, though Fox assured him of a soft landing with a large golden parachute when they opened the hatch and kicked him out of the aeroplane.

Well, sure, and by your logic, the fact that they paid him a $25 million payoff, contingent on him waiving any recourse he might have against them for breach of contract or wrongful termination, there must be something meritorious they are making him waive? Of course not. They're buying finality.

I bet Bill will write books now, describing how he was right about everything ever, and how he won every single argument he had with his opponents.

Bill O'Reilly's show was terrible and he was a dope. I'm glad he's gone. Pompous ass.

I will say again, i would not put it past him to have sexually harassed these women.

[Hermit]

OK, so now we've had the uncertainty and doubt argument and the golddigger charge. The fear and tu quoque lines are still skulking backstage.

I'm sorry, where did I call anyone a gold-digger?

No matter. If there was nothing to the accusations against that Dunning-Kruger archetype Fox would not have shelled out 13 million bucks to buy the accusers off.

I never wrote that there was "nothing to the accusations,"

Check your assumption.

Hint: Not every post is about you.

[Forty Two]

Please clarify? What assumption? I guess I did assume you were talking to me when you said "if there was nothing to the accusations..." If that assumption was wrong, my apologies.

In any case, per my previous post, shelling out $13 million is not necessarily a sign that there is something meritorious about the accusations. These cases are almost never cut-and-dried, and there are almost always two sides to the story and defenses to be raised. it's the estimated percentage chance of plaintiff's success times the worst case scenario (for the defendant) that sets a baseline for settlement. A highly paid person suing for sexual harassment from a very deep pocket is automatically high exposure. Add to that additional losses due to public relations debacles and loss of goodwill, etc., advertising revenue, and that kind of thing, and Fox was at risk to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Even a 50-50 chance of success on exposure of $100,000,000 leaves a $50,000,000 expected value. Paying $13 million to avoid that risk sounds quite sensible.