Fox renewed O’Reilly contract despite knowing of allegations

[JoeMoma]

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?

The New York Times probably just learned of the details (the 32 million settlement) and they hate O'Reilly.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

The New York Times probably just learned of the details (the 32 million settlement) and they hate O'Reilly.

Could be, but I searched Google News and there are several agencies reporting on it. From what I gather (and I still don't know if I'm correct) is that they just learned of the settlement amount. Must be a really slow news day.

 

[SYTFE]

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

It's called being a hypocrite. Conservatives are born that way.

 

[skye]

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

It's called being a hypocrite. Conservatives are born that way.

No.

Commiecrats are born that way.

Commiecrats like you.

 

[Snouter]

Tucker and Hannity are a great one, two punch to the establishment. Big mistake to reintroduce neocon O'Reilly (who liked Barry Hussaine Obama apparently) back unless he does the afternoon show with Shep Smith or something similarly irrelevant.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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?

The rumor mill is ripe with O'Rielly is about to return... and from the deck chair reshuffling on FOX it may be true.. There is one time slot wide open for his potential return.

The article you cited in the OP is very poorly written and confusing as hell..

I guess time will tell.. BUT watching liberal heads explode would be awesome..

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

And so morality is flexible. Weinstein= had, O'Reilly = good. Why? Politics.

How hypocritical can the rabid partisan be.

 

[SYTFE]

Tucker and Hannity are a great one, two punch to the establishment. Big mistake to reintroduce neocon O'Reilly (who liked Barry Hussaine Obama apparently) back unless he does the afternoon show with Shep Smith or something similarly irrelevant.

Those 2 couldn't be more establishment if O'Reilly was sitting behind both of them giving them a reach around. Y are u always trollin' Snout?

 

[ScienceRocks]

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.

And so morality is flexible. Weinstein= had, O'Reilly = good. Why? Politics.

How hypocritical can the rabid partisan be.

Include trump. The guy was accused by dozens of woman.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

Don't hold your breath on it.. Weinstein now has problems in four countries that want to extradite for rape.. O'Reilly has settled his suits and several have been put in jail for lieing...

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

And so morality is flexible. Weinstein= had, O'Reilly = good. Why? Politics.

How hypocritical can the rabid partisan be.

I see you have that liberal aversion to facts... they just don't seem to be on your side.. Talk about partisan hack... By the way..ALL OF THE TRUMP ACCUSERS were found to be liars.. Paid from DNC operatives to present the stories... SO, good luck with trying to revive that lie.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

And so morality is flexible. Weinstein= had, O'Reilly = good. Why? Politics.

How hypocritical can the rabid partisan be.

I see you have that liberal aversion to facts... they just don't seem to be on your side.. Talk about partisan hack... By the way..ALL OF THE TRUMP ACCUSERS were found to be liars.. Paid from DNC operatives to present the stories... SO, good luck with trying to revive that lie.

I don't know what you're aiming at, but you missed. I never mentioned The Donald. I'm talking about the flexible morality that allows folks to embrace O'Rielly while demonizing Weinstein for the same actions.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

And so morality is flexible. Weinstein= had, O'Reilly = good. Why? Politics.

How hypocritical can the rabid partisan be.

I see you have that liberal aversion to facts... they just don't seem to be on your side.. Talk about partisan hack... By the way..ALL OF THE TRUMP ACCUSERS were found to be liars.. Paid from DNC operatives to present the stories... SO, good luck with trying to revive that lie.

I don't know what you're aiming at, but you missed. I never mentioned The Donald. I'm talking about the flexible morality that allows folks to embrace O'Rielly while demonizing Weinstein for the same actions.

There is a big gap from simple harassment to rape... two very different animals.. While neither is acceptable one is much worse. The systemic problem of staff covering up and setting up Weinstien's rapes makes it a conspiracy to commit crime.. The fact that upper echelon were in the know makes it Organized Crime.. An on going criminal enterprise..

Two very different things.. Conflating them as the same is a huge error on your part.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

And so morality is flexible. Weinstein= had, O'Reilly = good. Why? Politics.

How hypocritical can the rabid partisan be.

I see you have that liberal aversion to facts... they just don't seem to be on your side.. Talk about partisan hack... By the way..ALL OF THE TRUMP ACCUSERS were found to be liars.. Paid from DNC operatives to present the stories... SO, good luck with trying to revive that lie.

I don't know what you're aiming at, but you missed. I never mentioned The Donald. I'm talking about the flexible morality that allows folks to embrace O'Rielly while demonizing Weinstein for the same actions.

There is a big gap from simple harassment to rape... two very different animals.. While neither is acceptable one is much worse. The systemic problem of staff covering up and setting up Weinstien's rapes makes it a conspiracy to commit crime.. The fact that upper echelon were in the know makes it Organized Crime.. An on going criminal enterprise..

Two very different things.. Conflating them as the same is a huge error on your part.

So O'Reilly was bad, but not that bad. And the corporate culture art Fox News under Roger Ailes was bad, but not organized enough to make it crime.

And with every dilution to rationalize an embrace of O'Reilly betrays a greater flexibility in morality.

 

[Snouter]

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

And so morality is flexible. Weinstein= had, O'Reilly = good. Why? Politics.

How hypocritical can the rabid partisan be.

I see you have that liberal aversion to facts... they just don't seem to be on your side.. Talk about partisan hack... By the way..ALL OF THE TRUMP ACCUSERS were found to be liars.. Paid from DNC operatives to present the stories... SO, good luck with trying to revive that lie.

I don't know what you're aiming at, but you missed. I never mentioned The Donald. I'm talking about the flexible morality that allows folks to embrace O'Rielly while demonizing Weinstein for the same actions.

There is a big gap from simple harassment to rape... two very different animals.. While neither is acceptable one is much worse. The systemic problem of staff covering up and setting up Weinstien's rapes makes it a conspiracy to commit crime.. The fact that upper echelon were in the know makes it Organized Crime.. An on going criminal enterprise..

Two very different things.. Conflating them as the same is a huge error on your part.

So O'Reilly was bad, but not that bad. And the corporate culture art Fox News under Roger Ailes was bad, but not organized enough to make it crime.

And with every dilution to rationalize an embrace of O'Reilly betrays a greater flexibility in morality.

How about you give us the facts of those cases. Lets see your evidence of collusion. Weinstien's evidence is massive and he is going to prison, possibly not in the US...

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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

Perfectly fine by me. Nothing wrong with gorgeous women in dresses.

 

[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.

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

It was revealed revealed today that the contract was signed after the settlement.

 

[Snouter]

In this one I am actually impressed. O'Reilly took on homosexual, lisping, slurring zionist jew Barney Frank who was a pedophile in Congress according to reports and is partly responsible for the economic crash in the housing market and kicked his ass.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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?

The rumor mill is ripe with O'Rielly is about to return... and from the deck chair reshuffling on FOX it may be true.. There is one time slot wide open for his potential return.

The article you cited in the OP is very poorly written and confusing as hell..

I guess time will tell.. BUT watching liberal heads explode would be awesome..

What time slot would that be?

Laura Ingraham and Dana Perrino both have new shows.