Heard that earlier this morning. Not sure what to make of it, honestly. I haven't paid much attention to him in years, and even when I did pay a bit of attention, that was only because he was then on the radio during the timeslot the coincided with my commute. What I do recall is that he sometimes made arguments that were flawed or based on info that was either likely or demonstrably false. There were other times when he made arguments that were incredibly cogent and based on info that was likely or demonstrably true. In any case, not much more I can say than that.
...well, other than the sexual harassment stuff. If there's anything to any of it, he deserves to not work again. But we'll never know whether there is anything there or not. The fact that there are five women and that Fox chose to settle, and for such a high amount, doesn't necessarily mean there is something there. I think it's unfair to draw any conclusions one way or the other based on those facts.
Good riddance if he is guilty of the accusations, which I am inclined to believe.
I think it's crazy how some big corporations will pay so much to keep people quiet to protect their star. It only allows the problems to get worse as the person committing the crimes becomes more comfortable doing so since they learn there is no punishment for their actions.
You may very well be right, Cram. But I know from my work experience that, more often than you might like to believe, it isn't a case of the corporation paying to just "keep people quiet to protect their star." Let me give you a set of hypothetical facts. Not saying this is true, and not defending either O'Reilly or Fox. Just saying, I have seen things play out very similar to this in a great number of cases. So let's assume the following completely hypothetical facts:
1. He didn't sexually harass anyone or act in a way that was in the slightest bit improper.
2. Each of these women decided to concoct a story that he did something behind closed doors where there were no witnesses to prove or disprove any of it. Knowing that there would be five of them, it just looks bad for the high-profile celeb working for the giant corporation, so there is likely a big payday at the end of the road if they collectively come up with a good story and stick to it, because nobody can prove otherwise. It is strictly a case of "he said/she said," and it's 5 against 1.
Even a mediocre plaintiffs' attorney can take that and make a big payday out of it. If even a couple of those cases make it all the way to trial after years of litigation, and even if they are kept as completely separate cases, all five women come in and testify as "witnesses," and it becomes 5 against 1, even if nobody else saw anything. And because they are in litigation, they can say anything else that may or may not be true because, in litigation, it isn't defamation (well, it could be, but the standard for proving it is defamation is a LOT higher, so you can pretty much say whatever you want without having to worry about it). So maybe they sling a lot of mud that makes the company look bad, even if they didn't do much that was wrong. In a lot of cases, if the supervisory employee is found to have committed sexual harassment, the big company is also liable. So now it is the big company that has to pay. And they may have to pay millions upon millions of punitive damages on top if it all. And the other side's few million in attorneys' fees and costs. Knowing that a jury is going to hear an intrinsically biased version of the facts, and that if they lose, they are going to have to pay a HUGE amount, settlement is often the most common sense approach in these scenarios. It just is. And it often has little to do with whether or not anything wrong actually happened. And settlements are almost always confidential. It isn't about "keeping people quiet." There are very good big picture reasons for the settlement process to be kept confidential under the law, and that is why they are almost always done that way.
Again, none of that is to say that there might not be something to this. There very well might be. I'm just saying, there are very good reasons NOT to make assumptions.