Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is an attack on Fox News as much as it is an attack on O'Reilly. Who will be the Lefts next victim? Hannity?
But this will never happen on any of the left-wing networks. I'm sure none of them are without sleaze balls. But, they are Leftists. Their political leanings protect them. It's only conservatives that are targeted.
Not exactly.
It was indeed an attack on Bill-O, but through Fox, not directed AT Fox.
The Fox owners could have jerked O'Reilly's chain at any time they decided much earlier and totally on their own, but they let him slide until the revelations on his pay-offs became damaging to them.
The thing is- if O'Reilly had been on another network, the uproar over him would have been just the same.
If O'Reilly had just come clean, stopped his harassment and made an abject apology after the first time he was dragged into court and paid off the lady, he would still be working.
Once is bad enough, but it can be forgiven. Serial abuse is much worse and much harder to forgive.
What happened to Fox could happen to any one of the cable news networks. The owners failed to control the damage, so the fault lies on them and no one else.
Take it as a fact of life that women aren't going to put up with being groped, leered at or harassed on the job anymore. Those days are over for good.
What's the matter? All of a sudden you don't like free market capitalism?
LOL, nice try, but what happened wasn't free market capitalism. Free market would have been to convince people to quit watching his show and sink him in the ratings.
They couldn't do that, plenty of people were buying what O'Reilly was selling, so they went after the advertisers. Easier to manipulate.
Are you suggesting that EACH AND EVERY advertiser that pulled out are run by a liberal CEO?
Get real.
No, I'm suggesting that most of those CEO's didn't want their companies and brands to be targeted and harassed by liberal groups looking to take O'Reilly's scalp for purely political reasons.
LOL, nice try, but what happened wasn't free market capitalism. Free market would have been to convince people that O'Reilly was wrong and to quit watching his show.
They couldn't do that, plenty of people were buying what O'Reilly was selling, so they went after the advertisers. Easier to manipulate.
Advertisers don't participate in the free market? Who knew!
Advertisers that like Bill O can still sponsor him. If his fans still want to see him, they can pay, after all there are plenty of media sites that are supported by fans and not by corporate advertisers.
No, I'm suggesting that most of those CEO's didn't want their companies and brands to be targeted and harassed by liberal groups looking to take O'Reilly's scalp for purely political reasons.
So just call for Bill O's supporters to boycott those advertisers. I really don't see the issue here, this is a game that anyone can play. All it requires is a little bit of gumption.
If Bill O's fans don't care enough to do their own boycott, well...
Advertisers don't participate in the free market? Who knew!
Is it really free market when you hold a gun to an advertisers head and threaten to ruin them and their brands if they don't quit sponsoring a certain show? The Liberal Outrage Industry is very effective, I'll give them that.
Quote:
Advertisers that like Bill O can still sponsor him.
Advertisers don't sponsor a show because they "like" the host, they sponsor a show because we the viewers like the host, and his ratings never dipped once. In fact, they spiked.
]
I'm sure women ask political preference before reporting sexual harassment
You missed the point completely. But, I'm not surprised. Most of this is fake harassment (not all, but much of it is) and it is claimed by Leftist, so-called "feminist" women, against 'conservative' (or at least Republican) men. They don't have to "ask political preference;" they know the target well. They have planned the 'take down.' Just like Anita Hill and the allegations against Clarence Thomas. They dug her up and used her in an attempted "high tech lynching" (Thomas Sowell).
Why aren't they going after anyone who is part of the Left-wing media? You're not going to tell me that there are no sexual predators on the Left, are you? O'Reilly came to Fox from ABC. No, this is an attack on Fox News and conservative media. And they have no proof. All they have is hearsay. That's good enough. Proof isn't required in the court of public opinion or advertising. The goal was to get him fired. It worked.
Who's next?
There have been many reports that Bob Beckel isn't exactly a perfect gentleman. But he's a Leftist. He's safe. Look at how many years Ted Kennedy was protected by Leftists? We know what he was. There's your answer.
Is it really free market when you hold a gun to an advertisers head and threaten to ruin them and their brands if they don't quit sponsoring a certain show? The Liberal Outrage Industry is very effective, I'll give them that.
Advertisers don't sponsor a show because they "like" the host, they sponsor a show because we the viewers like the host, and his ratings never dipped once. In fact, they spiked.
]
Boycotts don't always work, so they aren't exactly a gun to the head.
What you fail to understand is this is not about O'Reilly's popularity. At all.
It's all about money and women. Women are now buying goods like cars, houses, insurance, and other items on their own, and women buy more goods than men. They are also more brand-loyal than men, and purchase more services than men.
They also outnumber men in the United States 1 1/2 to 1. More women graduate from college now than men, so more young women are now making higher wages than men in more higher paying jobs.
In addition, more women are going on and getting advanced degrees, and they are increasingly becoming the corporate CEOs, replacing men, especially in the corporations that serve women the most.
More women are choosing to live independent lives as well, without depending on a man to provide for them.
All this adds up to one, very big, very powerful, very diverse group of humans with their own special set of issues that are all shared among themselves alone.
And the one single issue that they all confront to some degree, no matter what race, age, or politics may be, is sexual harassment in the work place. Conservative women get just as angry as liberal women over this issue.
You are a fool if you think otherwise. Just ask any lady you know if they have ever been groped on the job, or leered at, or caught some unwanted dirty talk at work. Or had something nasty left on their dest, or had to ignore something or face being fired. It's happened to almost every girl and every women at some point in her life. Some deal with it every day, day after day.
A woman is a woman first, last, and always, and women hang together more tightly than men in issues that affect them the most.
All the manufacturers know this, as do their advertising agencies. So does Fox now.
You missed the intensity of the female outrage entirely.
O'Reilly's serial abuse finally reached the point to where it was more than women would put up with any longer when the revelation that he kept paying hush money to his victims was finally revealed.
They had given him a pass once, but when they learned he had gone on 5 more times and kept it all hushed up, they let Fox know enough was enough with the way they do it the best- hitting them in the wallet.
Fox may not have seen it coming, but they should have. It was the same reason they fired Ailes.
It wasn't liberal outrage, chump, and there is no liberal outrage industry.
Your wife, sister, daughter, girlfriend, mother, aunt, or grandma could have signed those boycott petitions.
That it happened so fast and hit so hard only goes to show just how mad so many women were over O'Reilly and his nasty habits. O'Reilly wasn't ever going to quit, so the ladies made Fox fire him.
Expect to see more of this in the future, but quit deluding yourself. It ain't always political.
Is it really free market when you hold a gun to an advertisers head and threaten to ruin them and their brands if they don't quit sponsoring a certain show? The Liberal Outrage Industry is very effective, I'll give them that.
Advertisers don't sponsor a show because they "like" the host, they sponsor a show because we the viewers like the host, and his ratings never dipped once. In fact, they spiked.
]
Well, it's all a numbers game, isn't it?
Fox made a decision about the numbers they care about (which most assuredly does not include liberals.)
Advertisers made a decision about the numbers they care about.
And O'Reilly made a decision about the numbers he cares about.
When Bill Maher got canned from ABC?, he got himself a better deal at HBO, where he says any damn thing he pleases, including occasional misogynistic forays. He says getting canned was one of the best things that ever happened to him.
I pay approximately $10/month to see him and John Oliver, and I could watch many more movies and other TV shows if I had the time or inclination. No advertisers involved. I'm sure Bill O can find another public platform too, if he chooses.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
