JoeMoma
Platinum Member
- Nov 22, 2014
- 22,867
- 10,569
- 950
The New York Times probably just learned of the details (the 32 million settlement) and they hate O'Reilly.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.No, that's the contract he signed shortly before he was fired because more allegations against him became public.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.
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.
That still doesn't make any sense. Why report on something several months ago as if it were breaking news today?