Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Bill O'Reilly Lost to the Feminists He Despises

No one is too big to fail in a properly functioning market

Bill O' ReillyDonkey Hoter via Foter.comDonald Trump got accused of sexual assault and he got elected president of the United States. Bill O' Reilly got accused of the same thing and got the boot.

O'Reilly's departure was triggered by a New York Times (yes, I know!) expose some week ago that revealed that Fox News' had renewed the king of cable's $18 million contract ahead of its expiration after paying $13 million to five women—two as recently as last year—to drop their sexual harassment charges against him. The outrage this generated caused dozens of big-name advertisers to pull out of his show in disgust.

All of this shows that markets, with their multiple pressure points, are much better at enforcing norms of civilized behavior than the political world. And, in a sense, this kind of market squeeze is good. But it's not all good, at least not the way it was applied in this case.

The Times story painted a textbook case of sexual harassment: O'Reilly would allegedly make lewd and explicit advances, promising to use his influence at Fox to help women if they acquiesced to his propositions. If they rebuffed him, he'd turn cold and vindictive, even threatening to "destroy" one when she started litigation.

O'Reilly, who's been off the air since April 11, denies all of this, declaring that he is being targeted because he is "prominent and controversial." That would have been more believable if his victims—who include co-workers and guests of his show—weren't all independently reporting the same pattern of behavior (and if two of them didn't have taped phone conversations as proof!).

None of this, however, perturbed O'Reilly's viewers, given that his ratings didn't drop one iota. To some extent, this is not surprising given that most of us don't launch inquires into the personal lives of people from whom we buy products and services unless it starts affecting their ability to deliver. As Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog group, noted, all of this was just "background noise" for Fox fans. On the other hand, given that O'Reilly was a champion of traditional moral values that his followers claim to hold dear, his personal life couldn't really be separated from his brand and service.

But O'Reilly's loyal viewership didn't mean much if he couldn't monetize it—which he had so far been spectacularly successful at doing given that show pulled in a whopping $178 million in ad revenue in 2015, the highest of any cable news show.

That's precisely why the decision by Fox's big advertisers like Mitsubishi, Lexus, BMW, Hyundai, Credit Karma, T. Rowe Price, Allstate, and Mercedes-Benz to either pull out completely or reassign their ads to other shows hit where it hurt. Allstate delivered a pointed statement when it withdrew, noting that "inclusivity and support for women" are paramount values for it. Likewise, UNTUCKit, a men's apparel company, declared that as an employer with a workforce that is two-thirds female, "we take sexual harassment claims very seriously."

In a free society, companies are at liberty to associate—or not—with whomever they choose, which makes ostracism a powerful way of enforcing basic norms.

However, such pressure tactics by advertisers in this case aren't entirely unproblematic either.

The big problem with many of the companies that turned against O'Reilly is that they didn't do so of their own accord, no matter how much they pretend to be paragons of virtue, but rather because they themselves were under pressure from advocacy groups such as the National Organization of Women. In this case, that's fine, given that O'Reilly's misconduct is egregious by any yardstick, and so most people will consider it a good thing that someone was able to step in and do something about it. However, NOW and its ilk are ideological opponents of O'Reilly and his brand of conservative politics. Unlike Fox's management and audience, they are motivated not by the internal health of the organization. They're not operating based on their purity of the market, either. They're manipulating market forces to enforce their own agenda.

Hence, there is a real risk that these fleeing advertisers will look like they've been captured by progressive interest groups trying to undermine Fox. To avoid that perception (and reality), these advertisers will have to be prepared to go after liberal media stars when they fall—as they surely will—with equal vigor. Furthermore, these advertisers must avoid the temptation of using their market clout to dictate editorial decisions, or the backlash against their backlash could be swift too.

O'Reilly got so drunk on his power that he came to feel invincible. He is playing the victim, and that's true if he means of his own success. His exit shows that when those in a position to hold him directly accountable fell on the job—namely the Fox management and his viewers—other forces arose to pick up the slack. But no one in America is too big to fail—and that includes those who brought O'Reilly to heel. (Or almost no one!)

A version of this column appeared in The Week

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Social Darwinist||

    There are some big misconceptions in this article:

    "In a free society, companies are at liberty to associate — or not — with whomever they choose..."
    Maybe in a free society but not in the United States. Maybe Shikha isn't aware of all the gay Nazi cake issues.

    "But no one in America is too big to fail..."
    This only applies if "no one" means an individual and not a corporation (see government bailout recipients).

  • Eric Bana||

    What is with so many people making these kinds of comments recently? They're tedious.

  • Eric Bana||

    What is with people constantly making these kinds of comments recently? They're tedious.

  • ThomasD||

    Tedious is as tedious recieves.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    SocDar, you are wasting your time. Dalmia is too fucking stupid to write correctly.

  • Tony||

    You know, normal people look at a case like this and think that it's a bad thing that only naked market forces could force a blowhard hypocrite off the air. That it's a bad thing that his viewers are apparently as piggish and hypocritical as he is. Of course here it simply serves to prove the thesis that must be proved over and over by every event in the universe: "Billionaires probably need lower taxes." Sorry, "the market is magical!"

  • NYC2AZ||

    "You know, normal people look at a case like this and think that it's a bad thing that only naked market forces could force a blowhard hypocrite off the air."

    I know! We should instead have a government body that regulates and monitors speech that Tony doesn't like! What could possibly go wrong?

  • Tony||

    Because I totally said that instead of referring specifically to social pressure and basic human decency.

    Does not compute, perhaps? Maybe you're a Bill fan.

  • Juice||

    social pressure and basic human decency

    Totally not market forces, I guess.

  • Tony||

    I am not a cog.

  • MarkLastname||

    Market = aggregate of individual choices and preferences. Not done boogeyman.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    No Tony, you're a soulless subhuman thing. Go drink Drano.

  • NYC2AZ||

    "Because I totally said that instead of referring specifically to social pressure and basic human decency.

    And how is that not market forces?

    "Does not compute, perhaps? Maybe you're a Bill fan."

    Your projection here is fantastic.

  • MarkLastname||

    You're such a moron.

    Those 'piggish viewers' are the naked market forces. O'Reilly got booted because Fox and its advertisers want to appease their *market.*

    The fact that you think it's a bad thing that the government couldn't swoop in and force him out is what's galling here. Totalitarianism is second nature to you it seems.

  • JH||

    Apparently, no one ever reported on why the case against Trump was dropped. With all of the motions, hearings, etc. in that case, the "victim"never appeared in court. The last judge told the attorney to produce her and she couldn't. The big difference is one of the women did record what O'Reilly said. She is the only one with evidence, all the rest have made allegations. The reason this is important is it is the same attorney representing these women who also created the case against Trump, I believe.

  • Nick W B||

    Not to nitpick, but Trump was accused of (and bragged about committing) sexual assault. O'Reilly was accused of sexual harassment. I'm not saying one of those is ok (I'm sure there are many others here who will do that instead), but they are quite different.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Trump never bragged about or made any admission of sexual assault. He said he could grab them by the lussy, and they let him. Consent means it's not rape. So stop it with that bullshit.

  • ejhickey||

    good point

  • Michael Price||

    He never even said that he did grab women by the pussy. For a start IT WAS A JOKE. The joke depended on comedic exaggeration. It's not funny if he actually can do that.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    He probably could in the context of the kind of setting they were discussing. Plenty of hot gold digging models and actresses would do almost anything to either be with Trump, or have him as a booster for their career.

    And I think you're right. It was just a joke.

  • Jay Dubya||

    What a hilarious & totally not creepy joke. Trump wasn't joking about the whole roaming through women's dressing rooms thing though. Which seems like fairly eggregious sexual harassment - like your boss deciding to "inspect" the bathroom whenever an attractive person goes to take a leak.

    Apropos of nothing, I found out that Trump = fart in older Cockney slang.

  • Priscilla King||

    He may have been joking about it, but as a metaphor it's no joke. Nobody's literally accused Trump of grabbing men by the b. or women by the p.; in a variety of business and legal senses, otoh...nobody's ever accused him of missing an opportunity.

  • Gabriel7789||

    "They're manipulating market forces to enforce their own agenda."

    Err what? "They" are not "manipulating" market forces because "they", like it or not, are parts of the market themselves.

    And what does this mean: "they're not operating based on their purity of the market, either" - but by definition they are! That's what the market is - people and associations of people using their resources to pursue whatever goals they choose.

    That being said, there is a valid issue here - we are in a situation were a piece of media can be brought down *despite* its viewers, simply by the will of advertisers. But that is a situation the public has willfully puts itself into, as media consumers, by not expecting their media diet to be free. Sorry folks, when you're not paying - you're not the customer.

  • redfish||

    Yes, but even if you argue the advertisers as the customers, a relevant analogy would be if some movie failed at the box office because of a campaign by feminists threatening to expose individuals who bought tickets so they could be branded as misogynist. I don't believe the advertisers really had interests in dropping their sponsorship other than the issue of political pressure.

    In fact, because of that, I consider this much more about politics than supply and demand, and so the authors statement here is puzzling,
    "All of this shows that markets, with their multiple pressure points, are much better at enforcing norms of civilized behavior than the political world."

    Unless you consider that politics == government, that kind of dichotomy doesn't make sense. However, the reality of whats happening does re-enforce the idea that politics is part of the market as well... that the markets aren't sitting somewhere outside of "the political world."

    Personally recognizing this is one of the reasons I never bought into the market purism of certain libertarians who would argue that the unfettered market always gives people what they want.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It wasn't about the boycott.

    It was about British regulators being due to approve Murdoch's acquisition of Sky on May 15th.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "On Friday, European officials gave their blessing to the deal, which is worth 11.2 billion pounds, or $13.9 billion. But the battle will come to a head when a British regulator rules next month on whether the proposed deal gives Mr. Murdoch, who already controls several national newspapers, too much clout over the British media landscape.

    British officials also must decide if 21st Century Fox and its executives pass a "fit and proper test," or judgment on whether the people who will run the merged company are fit to do so."

    ----New York Times from ten days ago

    https://tinyurl.com/jw5r7od

    You're an ignoramus.

    It's a pathetic interpretation of events from a libertarian perspective, too. No matter how much we despise Bill O'Reilly, this story isn't about the triumph of boycotts as a means to regulate speech through markets.

    This is about British regulators censoring the press in America. Rupert is effectively censoring an American broadcast in order to get a deal approved by British regulators.

  • Ken Shultz||

    CNN says you're a imbecile.

    http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/1.....och-ofcom/

  • Ken Shultz||

    The Financial Times says you're a buffoon.

    "The news of his departure came before a board meeting on Thursday that had been expected to discuss Mr O'Reilly's position. 21st Century Fox which is separately awaiting a UK ruling on its £11.7bn bid for full control of Sky and a federal investigation into alleged concealment of payments to former Fox News employees, had faced mounting pressure to part company with one of its longest-serving anchors."

    ----Financial Times

    https://tinyurl.com/k3dk4x3

  • Michael Hihn||

    Dumbass Shultz treats speculation as fact. As always.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The Daily Beast agrees with The Financial Times--that you're a buffoon.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a.....-deal.html

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Ken, lots of people agree Dan is a buffoon. I don't think that point is in contention.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The Daily Beast agrees with The Financial Times--that you're a buffoon.

    You lied about the Daily Beast and SHAMEFULLY cherry-picked the Financial Times. Try this one.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The Daily Beast agrees with The Financial Times--that you're a buffoon.

    https://tinyurl.com/l3ype6p

  • Ken Shultz||

    Variety says DanO. has no idea what he's talking about. He's an ignoramus, basically.

    https://tinyurl.com/lef57yw

  • Ken Shultz||

    The Telegraph says they stepped in some DanO. It stank of ignoramus so bad, they didn't bother trying to scrape the DanO. out of their shoes. They just threw the shoes away.

    https://tinyurl.com/l8bpfdz

  • Ken Shultz||

    "It wasn't about the boycott.

    It was about British regulators being due to approve Murdoch's acquisition of Sky on May 15th."

    That was my statement. Everyone can see it. They can see you laughing.

    And they know it's because you're an ignoramus. You comment on things you know nothing about, and mock other people who do--and that makes you a buffoon.

    You're an ignoramus and a buffoon. Everyone knows it. It's here on display.

    How's it feel to be such an ignoramus and buffoon?

  • Mr. Flanders||

    This was the most savage beat down of a troll I've ever seen. Wow, bravo Ken.

  • Mr. Flanders||

    This is the most savage beat down of a troll I've ever seen. Wow, good job Ken.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Sucker

  • Michael Hihn||

    "It wasn't about the boycott.
    It was about British regulators being due to approve Murdoch's acquisition of Sky on May 15th."That was my statement. Everyone can see it.

    YES!! We can ALL see you making an ass of yourself ... reporting speculation as fact. Typical of your hysteria

    All the REAL reports say it was the demands of Murdoch's two sons -- who also forced out Ailes, Not a good day for you conspiracy wackos.

    P.S. Might several criminal investigations, local, stateand federal have played a role here? Among other things, the harassment settlements were reported compensation to shareholders, which is FRAUD. ooops

  • Ken Shultz||

    "On Friday, European officials gave their blessing to the deal, which is worth 11.2 billion pounds, or $13.9 billion. But the battle will come to a head when a British regulator rules next month on whether the proposed deal gives Mr. Murdoch, who already controls several national newspapers, too much clout over the British media landscape.

    British officials also must decide if 21st Century Fox and its executives pass a "fit and proper test," or judgment on whether the people who will run the merged company are fit to do so."

    ----New York Times from ten days ago

    https://tinyurl.com/jw5r7od

    You're an ignoramus.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Were you an ignoramus to him, too? :Even John thought you were a buffoon?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Dan, are you the new PAlin's Butthole?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Dan, are you the new PAlin's Butthole?

    Do you have anything adult to say?
    I didn't think so.

  • timbo||

    Ba-bye you lap dancing douche.

    Any one who calls for the prosecution of capitalists is a piece of such worthy of poverty and ruin.

    He actually called for oil speculators to be prosecuted during the oil price spike in summer of 2008. On the air, a self-proclaimed conservative called for people who make money by making educated bets on a market to be thrown in jail.

    He's a god damn sensationalizing moron like the rest of the TV crowd.

  • Juice||

    O'Reilly was on Fox Business Network?

  • MarkLastname||

    Does the fact that Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post make it a libertarian magazine?

    Memo to DanO: parent companies dont determine ideological bent.

  • Juice||

    You said same network.

  • Juice||

    At least you admit it.

  • DenverJ||

    I haven't been hanging around much lately. Who's the new moron?

  • CardsFan4||

    O'Reilly routinely described himself as a "registered independent" and a "traditionalist." He never proclaimed himself a conservative, and routinely corrected those who suggested he was a conservative. He never called for oil speculators to be prosecuted. He recommended increased government regulation by charging a large fee for oil speculation, but he never went so far as to call for prosecution of any particular oil speculators. Calling them "villains" and "crooks" is not the same thing as advocating action by the Justice Department.

    You obviously never watched his show and rely on internet stories and blogs instead of facts for formulating your opinions.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Who gives a shit about such useless nonsense anyhow?

  • Crusty Juggler aka "Chad"||

    O'Reilly, like Donny T, doesn't drink or do drugs, which means that they fill that void in their lives by harassing women, therefore consuming alcohol and drugs will make you into a better person.

    Respect women - get stoned.

  • Ron||

    That doesn't explain Ted Kennedy's problems though

  • Zeb||

    I think you might be onto something.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I thought you were the bitch.

  • ||

    Remembering that O'Reilly first came to fame by being whollier than thou over Monica and a different Bill, this just proves that what goes around comes around.

    As for who replaces O'Reilly, the one thing we know from is that it will be a man because FOX viewers obviously prefer men. But whoever it is O'Reilly will not be hard to replace as loud stupid mean racist misogynist xenophobic gay bashing flag waiving bible thumpers are a dime a dozen. So until they find a man, the coming of Tucker Carlson with his higher ratings than Megan Kelly should temporarily satisfy FOX viewers.

  • Robert Arvanitis||

    Bill Reilly must be judged on the "Bill Clinton" standard of "rape rape" as defined by Whoopi Goldberg.
    There, even actual violence and rape is unprovable without one male or two female actual witnesses (Sharia standard).
    That way mere boorishness is dismissed and the accusers scorned, trashed and mocked for chasing James Carville's $100 bill.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    ... so most people will consider it a good thing that someone was able to step in and do something about it.

    The vindictive magnitude of NOW vastly overshadows their attempts at 'good things'.

  • MaleMatters||

    What, exactly, are the claims? The only sexual harassment I've heard about is that he called someone and sounded like he was masturbating.

    I urge readers to consider this:

    "How We Waded Into The Sexual Harassment Quagmire: Digging Out With True Equality" http://malemattersusa.wordpres.....-quagmire/

    This may be the most thorough analysis you can find of what I think has for many decades been the sexes' most alienating and destructive behavioral difference. I believe this difference results in much of what is called sexual assault of women.

  • Dan Bongard||

    If he paid out $14m to settle bogus claims, he's even dumber that I thought he was.

  • DenverJ||

    I read that whole article, thanks for the link. Much better than Johny Longstalking's derp

  • MaleMatters||

    Re: "UNTUCKit, a men's apparel company, declared that as an employer with a workforce that is two-thirds female, "we take sexual harassment claims very seriously."

    Apparently the company doesn't take its hiring discrimination against men very seriously.

  • Longtobefree||

    Exploiters of women! probably pay slave wages! Boycott! Real men tuck in their shirts.

  • Ron||

    "None of this, however, perturbed O'Reilly's viewers, given that his ratings didn't drop one iota" why would it perturb them until facts are shown which none have yet. Unlike Clinton who lost his law license when he lied in court about his actions towards women and yet the left still claims its okay and/or false.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    The left loves rape and abuse and the people who commit those acts. Until the individual is not part of their groupthink. Then they must be destroyed.

  • Peter Duncan||

    "......so it gives me great pleasure to introduce to you my new Press Secretary, Bill O'Riley."

    -The Comb-Over-in-Chief

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    O'Reilly lost sponsors willing to underwrite his show due to pressure from advocacy groups who hated him to begin with. His viewership remained the same throughout, but they dropped him anyway, presumably since the advertisers don't fear an organized backlash from them.

    Feminists didn't "win" by making a persuasive argument. They didn't pull his viewership away by convincing them that their side was right.

    I'm not so sure anyone should be celebrating his departure.

  • Juice||

    Why does it matter the manner in which he's ousted?

    Actually, I don't care one way or the other. I never watched his show so my life will be no different.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Are you trying hard to be this moronic or does it just come naturally.....I'm guessing the latter.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You don't need to be an asshole just because you're poor Dan.

  • MarkLastname||

    Um, are you just assuming everyone here loves the guy?

    That makes less sense than assuming everyone at Slate loves Norman Finkelstein.

  • DenverJ||

    Well, the unimaginative cannot convince of anybody not being either team red or team blue. So, if you think the Democrats are socialist shitbags, then by definition, you must be a Trump supporter. There is no other option. Because they are stupid.

  • ThomasD||

    Can't say I'll mourn the loss of an egotistical blowhard, but otherwise this.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    My point exactly. This whole thing is one degree of separation away from blocking unpopular speakers on campuses.

  • Dan Bongard||

    "We have decided to stop paying you to speak because it isn't in our financial interest to do so" is far removed from "I am physically preventing you from speaking".

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    "We are denying you a forum from speaking by attacking your funding source" is not that far removed. This article wasn't about the companies pulling their advertising, it was about why they did it.

  • Michael Hihn||

    And black is almost white!

  • A Thinking Mind||

    I'd much rather than people stopped watching him because he's a blowhard who invites guests on, in a show of hearing them out, only to talk over them. I'd much rather people stop watching him because he's a raving idiot who famously cited tides as something mysterious and unexplainable.

    I'd rather him not be forced off to air due to political pressure from people who hated him to begin with and never watched his show at all, on allegations which haven't been sufficiently proven (yet?).

  • ThomasD||

    What has been established is that his viewership never declined. Now, I'll be the first to admit that the cable game is changing, but ratings have historically been the gold standard of the industry. So if his ratings never dropped then it is beholden upon those who claim this was a business decision to substantiate their claims.

    Otherwise the political angle remains entirely plausible, and the most likely candidate, if not actually a proven fact.

  • Peter Duncan||

    "........so now it gives me great pleasure to introduce to you my new Press Secretary, Bill O'Riley."

    - the Comb-Over-in-Chief

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    HITLER!!1111!111!1!111!!!!

  • Hugo S. Cunningham||

    O'Reilly's fall reminds me a little bit of Lawrence Summers, forced out by feminists as President of Harvard University. Summers was never accused of sexual impropriety, but did not "suffer fools gladly." (His meeting with the Winklevi as shown on the film "Social Network" is considered typical.) He managed to offend just about every interest group, but it was the feminists who finally got his scalp.

  • David Nolan||

    None of this, however, perturbed O'Reilly's viewers, given that his ratings didn't drop one iota.

    Fox cultivates viewers with a total lack of moral standards -- except when trying to impose their own "moral values" by force. Just count how many authoritarians Fox has in prime time, as they bury their pitifully few news minutes. A "News" channel with virtually no news. Perfect for the extreme rightwing goobers who swallow it all!

  • MarkLastname||

    "Goobers"
    That you Hihn?

  • David Nolan||

    Are you serious? it's a very common term in this type of political context.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/goober

    Definition of goober. slang. : a naive, ignorant, or foolish person.

    It traces to Gomer Pyle and means the same type of doofus.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It really is pathetic when you think about it.

    British regulators censor an American news program right off the air, and Shikha Dalmia writes an article praising the efforts of Social Justice Warriors--and in the name of libertarianism?!

    Somebody get me a bucket so I can puke.

  • David Nolan||

    None of this, however, perturbed O'Reilly's viewers, given that his ratings didn't drop one iota.

    Fox cultivates viewers with a total lack of moral standards -- except when trying to impose their own "moral values" by force. Just count how many authoritarians Fox has in prime time, as they bury their pitifully few news minutes. A "News" channel with virtually no news. Perfect for the extreme rightwing goobers who swallow it all!

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Fox has no moral standards at all except when they're trying to impose moral standards on others, which they do all the time.

  • David Nolan||

    We agree!

  • Ken Shultz||

    Quiz question: Which is worse?

    1) Claiming that deporting illegal aliens is like enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850?

    2) Pointing to UK regulators shutting down an American news program as a triumph of free markets?

  • Michael Hihn||

    2) Pointing to UK regulators shutting down an American news program as a triumph of free markets?

    It's not a news program, Sluggo. (Except to the Fox retards)
    British censors? ---- explain THAT psychotic episode of yours.

    Then explain your FASCIST denial of the Murdocks' property rights.
    When you stop drooling.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    It is absolutely a news program. It may not be a hard news journalism program, but it IS a news analysis program. That's also how O'Reilly explains it. Just like all the other news opinion programs on Fox and every other news station.

  • Michael Hihn||

    It is absolutely a news program

    (laughing)

    It may not be a hard news journalism program

    Let us know when (or if) you make up your mind.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    My intent was clear to people of moderate intelligence or higher. I'm glad you found things to laugh about in between your gibbering. I like to bring joy to the feeble minded.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (lol) Have you made up your mind yet, whether it's news or analysis?
    ALL retards believe they speak for a majority. It's the retardation.
    But very few retards would defend a fuckup as massive as yours.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (laughing harder)

    Just like all the other news opinion programs on Fox and every other news station.

    Do you shitlords also confuse the news and opinion pages in newspapers and news magazines? How 'bout your ass from a hole in the ground?
    Obviously a Fox "News " junkie.

  • DenverJ||

    Oh, what's the matter? Are you "othered" by their "no morons allowed" policy?

  • Michael Hihn||

    It really is pathetic when you think about it.

    Do you even know how?

    British regulators censor an American news program right off the air

    If you weren't a total psycho, you wouldn't be the Ken Shullz that we all know and love.

    You would not have made such a total public ass of yourself (again), if you had LEARNED the definition of "censor."
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor

    The British part is too crazy, even for you.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Look everybody, it's the DanO/Michael Hihn brain trust!

    Can't even make it to fact one.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Can't even make it to fact one.

    One more time for the bullshitter

    British regulators censor an American news program right off the air
    If you weren't a total psycho, you wouldn't be the Ken Shullz that we all know and love.
    You would not have made such a total public ass of yourself (again), if you had LEARNED the definition of "censor."
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor

    The British part is too crazy, even for you.

    Since it sailed over your head, again ....
    1) What does the British have to do with it?
    2) Have you learned yet what "censor" means?
    3) When was O'Reilly ever a "news" show?

    Can't even make it to fact one.

    (lol) I count three facts.
    Four if we count you being a bullshitting wacko.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Mikey, it's cure how you try to act like you're some kind of reasonable adult, yet constantly make juvenile insults to everyone.

    You understand you have made yourself into some kind of bad punchline around here, right? I'm not trying to be a dick about it. If you actually learned to control yourself, you might be capable of a reasonable discussion. Although I doubt you have little interest in anything that productive.

    Might want to take a stab at it. Your choice.

  • Michael Hihn||

    So tell us, dumbass Shitlord,
    1) What does "British" have to do with this?
    2) Are YOU also too stupid to know what "censor" means?
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor

    Mikey, it's cure how you

    (snicker)

    The child is PISSED because I humiliated him here. Like all the other bullies here, he then runs and issues a childish insult elsewhere on the page.

    What kind of wackjob opens with "Mikey," thus PROVING himself a childish asshole. OMG!
    I am PROUD to be insulted by childish bullies, thugs and authoritarians,

  • ranrod||

    Oreilly is a guy who should be on CNN..

    He has mentioned more than once that he is NOT a conservative..

    He has called for federal gun registration more than once..

    His book on Jesus is worthless - he wrote the book about 'Jesus the MAN'
    but on early morning TV said the Holy Spirit told him to write it!!!!!!
    This blasphemer said that "Jesus died over taxes" (a lie from the pit of hell)

    DONT LET THE DOOR HIT YOU IN THE AZZ..........

  • Dadlobby||

    After years of watching Allstates biased commercial where a woman shoves a check into a mans face and tell him to shut up (just abuse excuse for the "ladies") I'm inclined to side with O'Reilly (even though i don't much like his show). The is just more Femi-Marxist clap trap which extorts the companies to remove their advertising, not the company itself. I'll make a mental note of them and not shop there. Idiots, how many Feminists do they think were watching O'Reilly in the first place.

  • XM||

    What's the difference between Bill O'Reilly and some random college male student accused of rape? Should be they given the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty? Yes, college rape tribunals care not for due process rights, but that's sometimes true in real courts.

    I'm guessing that "sexual harassment" in this case is mostly lewd comments or blowups, and not something more serious like rape. I haven't heard the recording, but there's a possible context to everything.

    Fox can obviously terminate whoever they want in a libertarian society, just like private colleges can expel students accused of rape in order to protect their "brand". I always felt libertarians were reliably non partisan, but in the age of Trump they seem to take pleasure in the fall of their ideological foes, even when their rights are violated. Yeah sure the mob was wrong to block Milo, but that Milo said some bad things about immigrants, you know?

  • Dan Bongard||

    What's the difference between Bill O'Reilly and some random college male student accused of rape?

    The random college male is denied a day in court.

    O'Reilly paid $13 million to AVOID a day in court.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The logistics are a little different when you have an employer like Fox, who is a target with deep pockets.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The logistics are a little different when you have an employer like Fox,

    In what way?

  • XM||

    They're still entitled to due process rights and presumed innocent until proven guilty?

    If a private college kicked out students for merely being accused of rape, Shikha would be singing a different tune. And she acknowledges the problems with private companies being pressure into doing something like this.

  • Michael Hihn||

    If a private college kicked out students for merely being accused of rape, Shikha would be singing a different tune.

    How many times will you repeat the same fuckup on this page?

  • chemjeff||

    In the case of O'Reilly, how were his rights violated? Was there a breach of contract?

  • DenverJ||

    And what libertarians were celebrating Milo being blocked from speaking? Names please.

  • Michael Hihn||

    And what libertarians were celebrating Milo being blocked from speaking? Names please.

    We call it liberty.

  • DenverJ||

    Huh? XM said "I always felt libertarians were reliably non partisan, but in the age of Trump they seem to take pleasure in the fall of their ideological foes, even when their rights are violated. Yeah sure the mob was wrong to block Milo, but that Milo said some bad things about immigrants, you know?"
    And i was asking him which libertarians were taking pleasure in Milo but being allowed to talk.
    I don't know what the fuck you're talking about, but I don't think you do either.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I don't know what the fuck you're talking about, but I don't think you do either.

    (smirk)
    You asked for names. I gave the name "liberty."
    Too deep for ya?
    I could have given my own name, but THAT would have fried whatever's left of your brain. MY liberty, chump. OR ANYONE ELSE'S.

    which libertarians were taking pleasure in Milo but being allowed to talk.

    (LOL) So who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about????

  • Michael Hihn||

    Should be they given the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty?

    PSSST, O'Reily has not been charged with a crime!!!.

    Fox can fire his sorry ass whenever they want to, for whatever reason .,.. or for no reason.
    We call it .... CAPITALISM!

  • Longtobefree||

    Right. Contracts be damned.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Um, Sparky ... was he paid? (lol)

  • Heartless Libertarian||

    I gave up on O'Reilly years ago. He never let any one with an opposing point of view finish a sentence. If you're going to have a guest on to talk, why not let him or her talk?

    He's got enough money to burn two wet dogs, so no one should be worrying about him.

  • ToCa81||

    "They're manipulating market forces to enforce their own agenda."

    I think that might be a stretch. Obviously NOW has an agenda, but it's hard to denounce their actions here. Papa Bear just got caught with his hand in the honey pot too many times, and he deservedly got shit-canned for it. Real, legitimate sexual harassment like what he is accused of is a crime and deserving of termination.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    sexual harassment ... is a crime

    nope

  • ToCa81||

    Huh you're right. My bad. I guess I just always assumed it was illegal like workplace discrimination. I actually find it strange that it's not treated as such. Regardless, it is still definitely a fireable offense at just about every company in America. If it was an isolated incident and O'Rielly wasn't such an asshole, his case might get more sympathy. But with multiple women coming forward, one of which has recorded evidence, and multiple sponsors dropping support, the choice was pretty easy for Fox News, even if they were the ones who paid to bury these transgressions in the first place. Especially after the Roger Ailes scandal

  • Michael Hihn||

    sexual harassment ... is a crime

    nope

    Doesn't have to be a crime, They can fire his sorry ass for whatever reason they choose ... or for no reason at all. Do you understand individual liberty? Capitalism? Property Rights?

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    What part of "employees can only be fired for proven crimes" did you not understand?

  • Michael Hihn||

    What part of "employees can only be fired for proven crimes" did you not understand?

    What part of "a fucking bullshitter" do you not understand?

  • Michael Hihn||

    What part of "employees can only be fired for proven crimes" did you not understand?

    What part of "it's crackers to slip a rozzer, the dropsy in snide" did you fail to grasp?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Do you understand individual liberty? Capitalism? Property Rights?

    Obviously not!

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    I provided extensive citations to the likes of Rothbard and Nozik. You just rant like a crazy person. I will not allow myself to be trolled any more.

  • Michael Hihn||

    What part of "a fucking bullshitter" do you not understand?

    I provided extensive citations to the likes of Rothbard and Nozik.

    A BIGGER FUCKING BULLSHITTER!!!!

    ON TOP OF his original crazy bullshit.

    What part of "employees can only be fired for proven crimes" did you not understand?

    Do you also suck O'Reilly's shlong?

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Refute the citations I provided or quit trolling me.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Refute the citations I provided or quit trolling me.

    AGAIN???
    YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT. GAVE NO CITATIONS. ALSO FULL OF SHIT ON THIS

    What part of "employees can only be fired for proven crimes" did you not understand?

    LINK TO YOUR CITATIONS OR SHUT THE FUCK UP
    AND WHAT DO NOZIK AND ROTHBARD HAVE TO SO WITH THIS ANYHOW??????

    howzat, chump?

    (My tone and boldface in defense of repeated aggression by an apparent psychopathic bully)

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    This is you (I can do crazy person bold too.)

    "Doesn't have to be a crime, They can fire his sorry ass for whatever reason they choose ... or for no reason at all."

    What are you responding to, if not my extensively cited claim that you can only be fired for a crime?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Shitlord = bullshitter exposed and proven

    What are you responding to, if not my extensively cited claim that you can only be fired for a crime?

    You can't read?

    LINK TO YOUR CITATIONS OR SHUT THE FUCK UP.
    AND WHAT DO NOZIK AND ROTHBARD HAVE TO SO WITH THIS ANYHOW?????

    The bullshitter can't you even hear me WHEN I YELL!!!
    (sneer)

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    I repeat: What did you respond to if not my extensively cited claim that you can only be fired for a crime?

    LINK TO YOUR CITATIONS OR SHUT THE FUCK UP.

    here

    AND WHAT DO NOZIK AND ROTHBARD HAVE TO SO WITH THIS ANYHOW?????

    They're kinda important to libertarian philosophy, dumbfuck.

  • Michael Hihn||

    PATHETIC LYING MISFUCK SHITLORD BULLY/THUG OUTED AGAIN (SMIRK)

    LINK TO YOUR CITATIONS OR SHUT THE FUCK UP.

    here

    (lol) REALLY link to your "citations" or shut the fuck up, pathetic bullshitter.

    AND WHAT DO NOZIK AND ROTHBARD HAVE TO SO WITH THIS ANYHOW?????

    They're kinda important to libertarian philosophy, dumbfuck.

    What do they have to with THIS, retarded bully?
    And how does your AGGRESSION apply to libertarian philosophy, thug?

    (my tone and boldface in defense of repeated aggression by an obvious psychopath)

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    (lol) REALLY link to your "citations" or shut the fuck up, pathetic bullshitter.

    Says the senile wack-job who consistently links back to his own posts as citation and thinks non-sourced wikianswers links are authoritative.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You're STILL a bully? And still PROUD of it?

    1) I only link my posts to show ....., wait for it, chump .... what **I** said!
    2) You're full of shit on wikianswers (whatever that is)
    3) You just defended a PROVEN liar ... but a fellow bully,

    My tone and boldface in defense of BLATANT aggression by a typical authoritarian mind ... who BRAGS abut being a THUG (baiting and inciting people) Typical of people with tiny .... hands. (smirk)

  • Longtobefree||

    Sorry, New York is not a right to work state.
    He has/had a contract.
    He was not fired, he agreed to have his contract bought out.

  • Michael Hihn||

    New York is not a right to work state.

    Relevance?

    He was not fired, he agreed to have his contract bought out.

    Thus humiliating all the conspiracy goobers here!

  • Michael Hihn||

    What the FUCK does NOW have to do with this?
    Does being a victim of sexual harassment make one a leftwing feminist?
    What if your own mother was a victim?

  • Redcard||

    Nothing so grand, he was kicked out because he sexually harassed one too many.

  • Redcard||

    Nothing so grand, he was kicked out because he sexually harassed one too many.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The big problem with many of the companies that turned against O'Reilly is that they didn't do so of their own accord, no matter how much they pretend to be paragons of virtue, but rather because they themselves were under pressure from advocacy groups such as the National Organization of Women

    HOW DARE YOU? Guessing somebody's motive is THE most shameful form of judgmentalism.
    Especially when you're just sucking up to the wacko rightwingers here.
    See?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You just speculated as to his motives. Are you engaging in some form of performance art?


    Nigel Powers: "There are two things I cannot abide. Intolerance of other cultures, and the Dutch."

  • Michael Hihn||

    You just speculated as to his motives.

    "His" is a female. And the sarcasm sailed over your head. "See?" Umm, that was an example of her fuckup.
    Anything else?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Mikey, you are a cold busted hypocrite, and now you're trying to wriggle out of it. Instead you just end up gibbering.

  • Michael Hihn||

    And the sarcasm sailed over your head. "See?" Umm, that was an example of her fuckup. Anything else?

    Dumbfuck Shitlord DEFENDS calling a female "his"!! Not as bad as his fuckups HERE and HERE

    Bullies gotta be bullies. Especially when they suffer Trump-like ego deficiencies (sigh)

    And stalkers gotta stalk ... all down the page (sneer)

  • No Yards Penalty||

    Good riddance to TV's No. 1 asshole.

  • Bowfish||

    "The outrage this generated caused dozens of big-name advertisers to pull out of his show in disgust."

    It wasn't because of "disgust" but in response to fear that one of the largest demographics would do to the advertisers what the intolerant gays already do.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Good point. Only intolerant feminists object to sexual harassment!
    Would your own mother object?

  • Bowfish||

    Why is Trump your comparison and not Bill Clinton or Carlos Danger? Or even Hillary Clinton who protected her means to success?

  • ||

    If O'Reilly during his propositions had repeatedly said "and if you get pregnant I'll pay for your abortion", you know the abortion prohibitionists would have been all over his case and bugging whatever advertisers they felt they could influence. Organizing and threatening boycotts are part of free speech and freedom of association. That's why Israel's most fanatical American supporters are trying to make boycotts of Israel illegal. They'd like to make all criticism of the state of Israel illegal too.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Are you THE Carol Moore? The moral clarity suggests so.

  • Bowfish||

    "we take sexual harassment claims very seriously."

    So do the college campus tribunals which also lack due process.

    Assuming that O'Reilly's audience is two-faced is intellectually lazy, and also what the Left always says about the Right. You ignored the more important universality of process. Otherwise, it's another Duke story.

  • Michael Hihn||

    So do the college campus tribunals which also lack due process.

    How does due process apply here? Or ANYWHERE outside of criminal law? I assume you get orgasms beating up on libruls, but it hurts your "cause" to spout such sheer nonsense ... like this.

    How does due process apply to where one chooses to advertise ... outside of your statist dictatorship?
    Do we need your permission to PLACE ads, or just to cancel them? Please let me know quickly as I have current ad placements to decide.

  • Longtobefree||

    Poor Bill. How can he possibly afford to live now that he has lost his job?
    Maybe he can follow the leader and form a giant foundation to take gobs of money for brief speeches.

  • colorblindkid||

    Bill Clinton got accused of sexual assault and he got elected president of the United States. Bill O' Reilly got accused of the same thing and got the boot.

    Fixed it for you.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Fixed it for you

    (snicker) Your timing's off -- so now we have TWO wackos.
    Partisan goobers to the left of me; partisan goobers to the right of me ....

  • Quintus Slide||

    "All of this shows that markets, with their multiple pressure points, are much better at enforcing norms of civilized behavior than the political world."

    So saith the catechism, and so it was bound to do in this rigidly orthodox and tediously predictable publication.

    But you can only accept this thesis if you ignore the process by which the aforementioned "norms of civilized behavior" came to be established to begin with. Let me walk you through it. Bill O'Reilly was ousted because sponsors dropped him. They dropped him because FOX was settling his sexual harassment lawsuits -- scandalous! Those lawsuits came into being because, some decades back, the Courts interpreted Title VII to state that sexual harassment is an actionable form of sex discrimination (the statute itself nowhere mentions sexual harassment). And the title under which these suits are brought exists because of ... market forces? Hell no. Title VII exists because of political agitation.

    The fact is that law, the product of political agitation, can shape public sensibility in a way that finally comes to bear on market behaviors -- sometimes, as here, in a very positive, corrective way. But that's way too subtle for this mag. The false choice between market forces and government action is likely one without which Reason would simply run out of oxygen.

  • Michael Hihn||

    They dropped him because FOX was settling his sexual harassment lawsuits -- scandalous!

    IT WAS THE HARASSMENT, NOT THE SETTLEMENTS.

    The Courts interpreted Title VII

    TITLE VII HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.

    Why do you defend sexual harassment .... as sexual harassment?
    What of he'd done it to your own mother?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online