Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
O’Reilly on His Way Out at Fox News?
The rumor mill keeps spinning faster. From New York magazine:
The Murdochs have decided Bill O’Reilly’s 21-year run at Fox News will come to an end. According to sources briefed on the discussions, network executives are preparing to announce O’Reilly’s departure before he returns from an Italian vacation on April 24. Now the big questions are how the exit will look and who will replace him.
Wednesday morning, according to sources, executives are holding emergency meetings to discuss how they can sever the relationship with the country’s highest-rated cable-news host without causing collateral damage to the network. The board of Fox News’ parent company, 21st Century Fox, is scheduled to meet on Thursday to discuss the matter.
Sources briefed on the discussions say O’Reilly’s exit negotiations are moving quickly. Right now, a key issue on the table is whether he would be allowed to say good-bye to his audience, perhaps the most loyal in all of cable (O’Reilly’s ratings have ticked up during the sexual-harassment allegations). Fox executives are leaning against allowing him to have a sign-off, sources say. The other main issue on the table is money. O’Reilly recently signed a new multiyear contract worth more than $20 million per year. When Roger Ailes left Fox News last summer, the Murdochs paid out $40 million, the remainder of his contract.
According to sources, Fox News wants the transition to be seamless. Executives are currently debating possible replacement hosts. Names that have been discussed include Eric Bolling, Dana Perino, and Tucker Carlson, who would move from his successful 9 p.m. slot and create a need for a new host at that time. One source said Sean Hannity is happy at 10 p.m. and would not want to move.
If O’Reilly is on his way out, who would you like to replace him?
Published in Entertainment
I listen to Rush quite a bit when I’m in my car, and there is no comparison. Rush is smart, funny, and respectful of his audience (unless you live in Rio Linda).
I just made a class of students in college read Hillbilly Elegy, and they discussed it today. People say college students are always far to the left, but I gotta tell you. The majority of the class within a very progressive campus culture at a private (and expensive) liberal arts college talked about how J.D. is right. “Learned helplessness” is a problem in the United States, not just in hillbillies. They wrote responses to the book that seconded that it’s time for people to take more responsibility for their individual fates, even while they recognized some of the issues that plague various groups in this country are really quite complicated.
I mean… wow, right? Book discussions in my class are completely student directed, but I sure did like listening to what those kids were saying.
As for replacing Bill… I just couldn’t stand watching him. His whole “folks” schtick was very annoying. Why can’t some come up with a new version of Firing Line? I vote for Bill Buckley’s ghost to be host, not some empty suit.
Rush Limbaugh has done more to advance conservatism than anyone else in my lifetime. Bar none.
@mikelaroche Rush Limbaugh has done more to advance conservatism than anyone else in my lifetime. Bar none.
I’d give the edge to Reagan, but after Dutch, yup.
Agreed. Many people have formed their opinion of him based on what they have read on the Internet. This calls for a story:
My older sister never seemed to be involved in much besides herself. One day several family members were sitting around and talking, and I mentioned something Rush said in agreement with something my brother said. Suddenly my sister replied, “Oh, how can you listen to him? Rush says so many hateful and racist things, I am so disappointed!” (Or something similar to that.)
I was stunned! I said, “You listen to Rush Limbaugh? Really????
To which she replied, “Well no, of course not! But I’ve heard…”
And that is the truth about just about everyone (not all) who hates Rush Limbaugh.
Carlson is a conservative and I can prove it:
No self-respecting populist would be caught dead in public wearing a bow tie…
There has been exhaustive reporting on the specifics regarding O’Reilly. For a start, see my comment #5.
I would love Mollie too. I don’t know if she’s got a dynamic enough personality to be an anchor. Good thought though.
Would you care to elaborate? Who are “the usual suspects”?
Women who have alleged harassment by Roger Ailes or Bill O’Reilly include on-air personalities Megyn Kelly, Gretchen Carlson, Andrea Tantaros, Juliet Huddy, Laurie Dhue, and Wendy Walsh. Are they “the usual suspects”?
Indeed, Fox did “get behind its people” by, for example, paying settlements in exchange for silence, threatening accusers with lawsuits, employing investigators to dig up dirt on them, and disseminating the dirt in the tabloids. What more would you want them to do?
Ladies and gentlemen, in the Coffee-Snorted-Through-the-Nose Contest, we have a winner.
Either Curly Howard, Jack Palance, or my longtime attorney, E. Hobart Calhoun.
The link–albeit from NYT–is helpful. I’m just not inclined to indict someone based on unrebutted allegations.
Whoever takes over needs to hire Ben Shapiro to do nightly investigative reporting segments.
Replacing O’Reilly with Carlson was smart. Tucker Carlson is the most similar to O’Reilly in style and content, so it should be a smooth transition. And O’Reilly is old enough that he probably would have retired soon anyway.
The only significant threat this poses to FNC is the temptation to endorse a top-to-bottom review due to continued stories about sexism and whatnot. If they limit the shake-up to this one instance, it will be back to business as usual.
The allegations have been rebutted. Ailes and O’Reilly have denied wrongdoing. But at least a couple of the accusers have telephone recordings of conversations that are allegedly damning. There are also corroborations by third parties. And there is the sheer number of accusers. So it’s not exactly “he said, she said.”
A denial is not a rebuttal. Until everything is out there in an adversarial context (which apparently it won’t be), “he said, she said” is what it is. In fact, it’s mostly “she said, she said,” which is worse. If one is inclined to think, as a general matter, that accusers don’t embellish, take things out of context, and even lie in these situations, the “where there’s smoke there’s fire” basis for guilt may work. It doesn’t for me.
That’s meaningless in an era when busloads of hateful fanatics can be mobilized at the drop of a hat and millions of fools think a blonde joke or a come-on qualifies as tort-worthy discrimination.
Accusations of this sort would be easier to believe if lawyers and politicians didn’t make it inadvisable to see lawsuits through to the truth. It’s cheaper to pay a settlement.
I’d argue he’s done a great job of preaching to the choir. He was brilliant in exploiting a market and a point of view that was ignored by the MSM. I don’t know if he brought more people into the conservative movement or was a representation of conservatism that was all that appealing to non-conservatives.
Just to be clear: Megyn Kelly, Gretchen Carlson, Andrea Tantaros, Juliet Huddy, Laurie Dhue, Wendy Walsh (admittedly, a less than exhaustive list of the accusers) – are they “hateful fanatics” or “fools” – or both?
And a “come-on” absolutely can qualify as tort-worthy! Come on!
So, by your lights, it would never make sense for anyone to rebut allegations. If they remain unrebutted, then not everything is “out there,” and there is no basis to fire the person. Interesting.
You seemed to be equating a denial (“That’s not true.” “I didn’t do it”) with a rebuttal. I disagree. That was really my only point. Context, as well as basic truth, is everything in sexual harassment claims, as you probably know. One sided allegations don’t really serve either.
But many charges of wrongdoing, criminal or otherwise, are one-sided, with the accused professing innocence. The question is, in this case, is there a preponderance of evidence* showing guilt? I maintain that there is. I also reject the notion – put forth by another commenter – that multiple accusers carry no more weight than a single accuser. As accusers grow in number, with their accounts corroborated by third parties, recordings, etc., the likelihood of the allegations being unjust decreases.
What is your position on the Bill Cosby case?
(*Actually, not even that standard was required for O’Reilly’s firing.)
I’ll go with “uninformed” on Cosby, but that’s criminal case, where a “pattern of conduct” is probably relevant (?).
I’m admittedly looking at O’Reilly from the perspective of proving sexual harassment legally, which is why I’m reluctant to draw inferences without hearing much from the other side. I’m also really unsympathetic to claims that aren’t raised internally close to the time of the events, but I don’t know how many of these qualify. I do know that the Walsh claim–the most recent one–is pretty weak, since there’s a fair amount of info on that.
Watters lands on his feet.
https://www.yahoo.com/tv/happens-jesse-watters-post-bill-o-reilly-fox-131854044.html
That’s a shame.