Fox renewed O’Reilly contract despite knowing of allegations

[Ray From Cleveland]

NEW YORK (AP) — The Fox News Channel says the company knew a news analyst planned to file a sexual harassment lawsuit against Bill O’Reilly when it renewed the popular personality’s contract in February.

The New York Times reported Saturday the company renewed the TV host’s contract after he reached a $32 million settlement with the analyst.

In a statement, 21st Century Fox defended its decision because it said he had settled the matter personally. It also said O’Reilly and the woman had agreed the financial terms would be kept confidential.

The company says O’Reilly’s new contract had added protections that allowed Fox to dismiss him if other allegations surfaced.

O’Reilly was ousted months later when it was revealed Fox had paid five women a total of $13 million to keep quiet about harassment allegations.

Fox renewed O’Reilly contract despite knowing of allegations

So it looks like the Big O will be coming back to haunt liberals. Perfect timing nearing Halloween. And if you're like me who only watched FOX for the O'Reilly show, you can look forward to watching your favorite political commentary show.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I wouldn’t hold your breath. I suspect Harvey Weinstein will be producing movies before O’Reilly is hosting a show.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Is that the news analyst now in jail for filing false sexual harassment complaints?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I wouldn’t hold your breath. I suspect Harvey Weinstein will be producing movies before O’Reilly is hosting a show.

Why would he sign a contract if he wasn't getting his show back; why would Fox make such a contract?

His show was number one for many years in cable television news. It only makes sense for them to repair the damage.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Is that the news analyst now in jail for filing false sexual harassment complaints?

That I'm not sure of. The story didn't go into that detail.

But it's times like this when I believe we need a Loser Pays All law in this country. Sue anybody you like, but if you lose the case, you are legally responsible for the financial losses of the person you tried to sue. I get so sick of famous wealthy people always settling suits out of court to just make the situation go away. It's time we started to hold these people responsible for the damage they've done to others.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I wouldn’t hold your breath. I suspect Harvey Weinstein will be producing movies before O’Reilly is hosting a show.

Why would he sign a contract if he wasn't getting his show back; why would Fox make such a contract?

His show was number one for many years in cable television news. It only makes sense for them to repair the damage.

Reread the story, I think your timing is off. I believe they are referring to a contract he signed months ago, before he was kicked off the air.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I wouldn’t hold your breath. I suspect Harvey Weinstein will be producing movies before O’Reilly is hosting a show.

Why would he sign a contract if he wasn't getting his show back; why would Fox make such a contract?

His show was number one for many years in cable television news. It only makes sense for them to repair the damage.

Reread the story, I think your timing is off. I believe they are referring to a contract he signed months ago, before he was kicked off the air.

It is confusing; I had to read it several times myself. But I believe they are talking about both contracts. Here is what one paragraph said:

The New York Times reported Saturday the company renewed the TV host’s contract after he reached a $32 million settlement with the analyst.

So it seems (by this sentence) that this is something new. Saturday is today so I don't know what other Saturday they would be talking about.

 

[JoeMoma]

He settled a sexual harassment lawsuit again him.........for 32 million. Wow! The woman must of had the goods on him.

 

[JoeMoma]

I wouldn’t hold your breath. I suspect Harvey Weinstein will be producing movies before O’Reilly is hosting a show.

Why would he sign a contract if he wasn't getting his show back; why would Fox make such a contract?

His show was number one for many years in cable television news. It only makes sense for them to repair the damage.

Reread the story, I think your timing is off. I believe they are referring to a contract he signed months ago, before he was kicked off the air.

It is confusing; I had to read it several times myself. But I believe they are talking about both contracts. Here is what one paragraph said:

The New York Times reported Saturday the company renewed the TV host’s contract after he reached a $32 million settlement with the analyst.

So it seems (by this sentence) that this is something new. Saturday is today so I don't know what other Saturday they would be talking about.

No, that's the contract he signed shortly before he was fired because more allegations against him became public.

 

[Windparadox]

`
`
Fox has always been a T's & A's network.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I wouldn’t hold your breath. I suspect Harvey Weinstein will be producing movies before O’Reilly is hosting a show.

Why would he sign a contract if he wasn't getting his show back; why would Fox make such a contract?

His show was number one for many years in cable television news. It only makes sense for them to repair the damage.

Reread the story, I think your timing is off. I believe they are referring to a contract he signed months ago, before he was kicked off the air.

It is confusing; I had to read it several times myself. But I believe they are talking about both contracts. Here is what one paragraph said:

The New York Times reported Saturday the company renewed the TV host’s contract after he reached a $32 million settlement with the analyst.

So it seems (by this sentence) that this is something new. Saturday is today so I don't know what other Saturday they would be talking about.

I agree it is confusing, which means poorly written. I think they are saying- Fox said Saturday that the contract signed months ago came after they knew of the settlement.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I wouldn’t hold your breath. I suspect Harvey Weinstein will be producing movies before O’Reilly is hosting a show.

Why would he sign a contract if he wasn't getting his show back; why would Fox make such a contract?

His show was number one for many years in cable television news. It only makes sense for them to repair the damage.

Reread the story, I think your timing is off. I believe they are referring to a contract he signed months ago, before he was kicked off the air.

It is confusing; I had to read it several times myself. But I believe they are talking about both contracts. Here is what one paragraph said:

The New York Times reported Saturday the company renewed the TV host’s contract after he reached a $32 million settlement with the analyst.

So it seems (by this sentence) that this is something new. Saturday is today so I don't know what other Saturday they would be talking about.

I agree it is confusing, which means poorly written. I think they are saying- Fox said Saturday that the contract signed months ago came after they knew of the settlement.

Okay, but why would that be a story today???? Not that it's a big news day.

 

[JoeMoma]

Just think of how many hookers he could rent for 32 million...... no need to sexually harass anyone.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I wouldn’t hold your breath. I suspect Harvey Weinstein will be producing movies before O’Reilly is hosting a show.

Why would he sign a contract if he wasn't getting his show back; why would Fox make such a contract?

His show was number one for many years in cable television news. It only makes sense for them to repair the damage.

Reread the story, I think your timing is off. I believe they are referring to a contract he signed months ago, before he was kicked off the air.

It is confusing; I had to read it several times myself. But I believe they are talking about both contracts. Here is what one paragraph said:

The New York Times reported Saturday the company renewed the TV host’s contract after he reached a $32 million settlement with the analyst.

So it seems (by this sentence) that this is something new. Saturday is today so I don't know what other Saturday they would be talking about.

No, that's the contract he signed shortly before he was fired because more allegations against him became public.

Yes, but again, they said Saturday they signed another one. I am only assuming the last one was null and void because of the controversies. Buck Tooth is correct, very misleading and poorly written.

 

[ClosedCaption]

How wI'll Republicans thread this needle? How do they condemn Weinstein while defending O'Reilly?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Just think of how many hookers he could rent for 32 million...... no need to sexually harass anyone.

That's another confusing part of it. They said he settled for 32 million, and later in the article said that they worked out a confidential settlement between themselves. It can't be both, or am I missing something?

 

[ClosedCaption]

He settled a sexual harassment lawsuit again him.........for 32 million. Wow! The woman must of had the goods on him.

Did any of these retards use the old "just because he settled doesn't mean he did anything wrong" like they did with Trump University?

 

[JoeMoma]

I wouldn’t hold your breath. I suspect Harvey Weinstein will be producing movies before O’Reilly is hosting a show.

Why would he sign a contract if he wasn't getting his show back; why would Fox make such a contract?

His show was number one for many years in cable television news. It only makes sense for them to repair the damage.

Reread the story, I think your timing is off. I believe they are referring to a contract he signed months ago, before he was kicked off the air.

It is confusing; I had to read it several times myself. But I believe they are talking about both contracts. Here is what one paragraph said:

The New York Times reported Saturday the company renewed the TV host’s contract after he reached a $32 million settlement with the analyst.

So it seems (by this sentence) that this is something new. Saturday is today so I don't know what other Saturday they would be talking about.

No, that's the contract he signed shortly before he was fired because more allegations against him became public.

Yes, but again, they said Saturday they signed another one. I am only assuming the last one was null and void because of the controversies. Buck Tooth is correct, very misleading and poorly written.

No, Saturday is when The NY Times reported that fox renewed his contract (in February) after O'Reilly had settled the sexual harassment suite for 32 million.

 

[Windparadox]

`
So much for O’Reilly's altar boy Catholicism. Hypocrite.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why would he sign a contract if he wasn't getting his show back; why would Fox make such a contract?

His show was number one for many years in cable television news. It only makes sense for them to repair the damage.

Reread the story, I think your timing is off. I believe they are referring to a contract he signed months ago, before he was kicked off the air.

It is confusing; I had to read it several times myself. But I believe they are talking about both contracts. Here is what one paragraph said:

The New York Times reported Saturday the company renewed the TV host’s contract after he reached a $32 million settlement with the analyst.

So it seems (by this sentence) that this is something new. Saturday is today so I don't know what other Saturday they would be talking about.

No, that's the contract he signed shortly before he was fired because more allegations against him became public.

Yes, but again, they said Saturday they signed another one. I am only assuming the last one was null and void because of the controversies. Buck Tooth is correct, very misleading and poorly written.

No, Saturday is when The NY Times reported that fox renewed his contract (in February) after O'Reilly had settled the sexual harassment suite for 32 million.

That still doesn't make any sense. Why report on something several months ago as if it were breaking news today?