O'Reilly vows to fight harassment allegations

[nickel]

Fox talk host says he is willing to lose career to defend his name
The Associated Press
Updated: 4:54 p.m. ET Oct. 14, 2004

NEW YORK - Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly made a TV talk show appearance on what he said was “the worst day of my life” Thursday, vowing to fight sexual harassment charges by one of his producers.

Accuser Andrea Mackris spoke publicly for the first time, saying she felt threatened by her former boss, who filed a lawsuit charging the woman and her lawyer with extortion.

Mackris, 33, said O’Reilly made a series of sexually explicit phone calls to her. Mackris, an associate producer on Fox News Channel’s top-rated “The O’Reilly Factor,” said he advised her to use a vibrator, told her about sexual fantasies involving her and engaged in unwanted phone sex.

During an appearance to promote his children’s book on “Live with Regis and Kelly,” O’Reilly said he’d been repeatedly threatened with lawsuits and bodily harm over the past few years. He said he knew that by filing his lawsuit, he could perhaps ruin his career.

“If I have to go down, I’m willing to do it,” he said. “I’m going to take a stand. I’m a big mouth on the air and I’m a big mouth off the air.”

They 'picked on the wrong guy'
On his own show Wednesday, O’Reilly called the case “the single most evil thing I have ever experienced, and I’ve seen a lot. But these people picked the wrong guy.”

Mackris, who worked for O’Reilly for four years, said on ABC’s “Good Morning America” that she took his actions and statements as a personal threat.

“I think my actions have been borne out in their actions toward me since I came out with it,” she said.

ABC’s Bob Woodruff asked Mackris if she knew what she was up against. O’Reilly “is no shrinking violet,” he said.

“Neither am I,” she responded.

O’Reilly had come out with his lawsuit first on Wednesday, accusing Mackris and lawyer Benedict Morelli of seeking “hush money” during negotiations over the past few weeks. Mackris then immediately filed her harassment claim.

O’Reilly faces a tough legal hurdle with his own case, since the law generally protects employees from retaliation if they come forward with an abuse allegation, said Debra Katz, an attorney who specializes in sexual harassment cases for Bernabei & Katz in Washington.

“I think this is a crazy legal strategy,” Katz said. “But I think they made the decision that the press strategy is more important here.”

Another expert in employment law, Kenneth Taber of the New York firm Pillsbury, Winthrop, said O’Reilly would have to go a lot further to prove extortion than just saying Mackris made monetary demands.

But Taber also said Mackris’ case could be undermined since she returned to work for O’Reilly after a brief stint at CNN — and after some of the alleged harassment took place.

link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6242870/)

[Bires]

Can *any* middle-aged man be famous without someone accusing him of sexual harassment these days?

[LegendKiller]

No, its a requirement that you have at least 1 sexual harassment lawsuit pending. I think there is actually some kind of organization of lawyers out there who rotate celebs, kind of an Illuminatti type org.


LK

[bachviet]

That's why you don't want to be a middle-aged famous man. :disa:

[ray]

This case is different than many others though. This one involves a co-worker and this is a case that Fox may step into before they are dragged into the litigations as well.

[DarkFury]

Can *any* middle-aged man be famous without someone accusing him of sexual harassment these days?
Pretty much this serves him right...

The hypocracy of folks like him and Limbaugh are astounding as they push their "moral agenda" on the masses...

"People who live in glass houses, should learn to keep the curtains closed...".


I'm sure Ludacris is having one hell of a laugh over this one. :hihi:

[LegendKiller]

I disagree DF.

First, you are applying guilty before proven innocent. Second, anybody can be targeted for this stuff, Kobe through O' Reilly.

[DarkFury]

I disagree DF.

First, you are applying guilty before proven innocent. Second, anybody can be targeted for this stuff, Kobe through O' Reilly.
You can disagree all you want... (that's your perogative)

I'm talkin' karma here... His agenda that takes food out of the mouths of others is now possibly gonna get paid back here....

Pretty much, he's earned an @ss whoopin' in my opinion.

[Roots SD]

Man, you've obviously never watched his show, and by watched i don't mean five minutes between commercials and channel flipping.

Did you even know that he's a registered Independant?

Bill may lean to whichever side he most agress with but that's also true with Robert Novak, Bill Cavuto, Chris Matthews, everyone.

I will give you this: In rare occasions during interviews you do get to see his arrogant "I'm better than you" attitude. Which gives me reason to believe he might be guilty. Since it's these type of people who think they can never get caught.

[ShawnLee]

Wow, I never thought Roots would be the one to defend O'Reilly. And I think you meant Neil Cavuto.

Yeah, innocent till proven is my plane of thought, though I'm open to it being true.

But the Kobe comment reminds me of a Dennis Miller joke.

"Apparently, a trend is going around students at the Mormon Brigham Young University, to wear t-shirts that say, 'I can't, I'm Mormon.'
These were quickly followed by t-shirts that say, 'You will, I'm Kobe.'"

[LPMiller]

That's not a dennis miller joke. It's a SNL news joke, by Tina Fey.

[cheapie]

Pretty much this serves him right...

The hypocracy of folks like him and Limbaugh are astounding as they push their "moral agenda" on the masses...

"People who live in glass houses, should learn to keep the curtains closed...".


I'm sure Ludacris is having one hell of a laugh over this one. :hihi:



wth are you talkin' about?

[Cantacuzene]

If he did it he will join the ranks of hypocritical blowhards with dishonest moral agendas. If he didn't do it, he will join the ranks of blowhards with dishonest moral agendas who get louder and even more self-righteous after their vindication.

[nickel]

i have not clue whether he did it or not. either/both of them could be liars.
i think what may come up in this is that if a female welcomes the lewd comments/gestures then it isn't sexual harassment. i think that is the platform his lawyers are trying to present.

[cheapie]

canta's rant

i don't think he he's the only agenda-having self-righteous blowhards. :rolleyes:

df has no problem iterating Kobe's or OJ's right to the presumption of innocence but claims that O'reilly deserves this.

and you....sigh....

[DarkFury]

wth are you talkin' about?
I'm talkin' about the incident in the past where O'Reilly made it his personal vendetta to have Ludicris removed as a Pepsi commercial spokesman stating that Ludicris' lyrics and songs were morally corrupt and not suitable for the general public.

Pepsi bowed to the pressure and ultimately released Ludicris as a spokesman...

O'Reilly also did the same thing to Lil' Kim in her Old Navy campaign... citing "morality" and what not as reasoning as to why she shouldn't be a featured on those products as well.

Yet, you never heard him say a thing about the Osbornes being on Pepsi... (not that I have anything against them...) but still... since he is the "morality Nazi" and now he is suspect of committing his own moral crime, hence the glass house that he lives in.

Does that clarify it enough for ya? :D



df has no problem iterating Kobe's or OJ's right to the presumption of innocence but claims that O'reilly deserves this.


Can you point to these posts of my presumptions...

Both of those people STILL had their reputations tarnished by the allegations and eventual findings. Kobe can still play basketball, but he no longer is selling Sprite is he? And O.J.... well O.J. just needs to "shut the f*@k up" and stay far far away from the media as possible. :D

I never said anyone was innocent... but it sure takes alot of money to not be found guilty.

[cheapie]

thanks for not flaming me. =)

i'm saying that you were insistant that they be presumed innocent until proven otherwise and i think o'reilly should be given the same lattitude.

and i'm not really an o'reilly fan. i don't know that i've ever watched his show. however, when i was travelling back from montana this summer, i caught some of it on the radio. having never watched or listened to him, and having read many of the stuff people said about him here, i was suprised at how reasonable he was and how he cautioned against running with the sandy berger document story.

[DarkFury]

thanks for not flaming me. =)

i'm saying that you were insistant that they be presumed innocent until proven otherwise and i think o'reilly should be given the same lattitude.

and i'm not really an o'reilly fan. i don't know that i've ever watched his show. however, when i was travelling back from montana this summer, i caught some of it on the radio. having never watched or listened to him, and having read many of the stuff people said about him here, i was suprised at how reasonable he was and how he cautioned against running with the sandy berger document story.
He can be presumed innocent... that's fine, but I'm still gonna laugh about him being on the OTHER side of the "right". :D

[Cantacuzene]

i don't think he he's the only agenda-having self-righteous blowhards. :rolleyes:

and you....sigh....

Did I say he was the only one? I guess "join the ranks" doesn't imply plurality of some sort in your language like it does with english.

Why are you so damn quick to attack me? I am correct, he is a self-righteous blowhard with a moralistic agenda. The only variable is whether he is a hypocrit or not, which remains to be seen. As you failed to notice in your zeal to attack me and DF: I haven't proclaimed his guilt or innocence.

And me? What do I have to do with this at all? So what if I am personally self-righteous or have an agenda of my own? What does that have to do with this? Again I ask, why are you so quick to attack me?

[ShawnLee]

That's not a dennis miller joke. It's a SNL news joke, by Tina Fey.Natch, you're right. Apologies.

[cheapie]

because you came off as a self-righteous blowhard as well. ;)

[Cantacuzene]

because you came off as a self-righteous blowhard as well. ;)

How is that relevant though? My blowhardism is not the topic. What I may or may not be has no import to a discussion of what he is or isn't, except to be rather rude towards me.

I know you feel obligated to take the opposing position to me on issues, but its OK, you don't have to like him just because I dislike him. Its acceptable for you to wait and make a real judgement until after you watch his show for a while.

[nickel]

blowhardism :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

word of the day

[cheapie]

your comments seemed to state that he was damned if he was guilty and even more damned if he was innocent. that's what i took exception to.

[Cantacuzene]

your comments seemed to state that he was damned if he was guilty and even more damned if he was innocent. that's what i took exception to.

Right, but reverse that. He is damned either way because he is a pompous ass who uses volume and ad hominems to defeat his debate opponents and his pulpit to push forth his agenda. He will just be more damned if he is guilty, since that would make him a hypocrit, in addition those other deficiencies.

[Airencracken]

Morlaism and guilt aside, Bill O'Reily is just a liar. Plain and simple. Even if it's true he probably won't lose his career, look at Rush.

[cheapie]

lol. right....

[Mike_N_Ike]

I'm talkin' about the incident in the past where O'Reilly made it his personal vendetta to have Ludicris removed as a Pepsi commercial spokesman stating that Ludicris' lyrics and songs were morally corrupt and not suitable for the general public.

Pepsi bowed to the pressure and ultimately released Ludicris as a spokesman...
Man, I never knew that. I've always considered Bill O'Reilly to be a decent guy - especially after seeing him on the Daily Show.

But now that I think about it, I wonder what lyrics from Luda he was objecting to. Most of the Ludacris lyrics I can think of that would be offensive, are just really sexually explicit. I don't think I've ever heard any ludacris lyrics as sexually explicit as the detailed complaint filed againt O'Reilly that I read on TSG. Kind of ironic :heh:

[DarkFury]

Man, I never knew that. I've always considered Bill O'Reilly to be a decent guy - especially after seeing him on the Daily Show.

But now that I think about it, I wonder what lyrics from Luda he was objecting to. Most of the Ludacris lyrics I can think of that would be offensive, are just really sexually explicit. I don't think I've ever heard any ludacris lyrics as sexually explicit as the detailed complaint filed againt O'Reilly that I read on TSG. Kind of ironic :heh:
Exactly...

There are WAY worse "graphical" rappers out there... and most folks love Luda... so everyone was like "WTF"???

After that, I'd say that anyone "of color" could be a target... which means Eminem pretty much got the field locked up since all his competiton would be eliminated. :hmm: :2far:

[bbrian]

Of course there is another side to this, but DAYUMMMMMMM:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris1.html

Some juicy stuff in there... From some news I heard today it sounds like she has recordings of it.

[cheapie]

Exactly...

There are WAY worse "graphical" rappers out there... and most folks love Luda... so everyone was like "WTF"???

After that, I'd say that anyone "of color" could be a target... which means Eminem pretty much got the field locked up since all his competiton would be eliminated. :hmm: :2far:


uh....i haven't seen eminem on pepsi commercials. don't be so quick to bust out the race card.

[Roots SD]

I'm talkin' about the incident in the past where O'Reilly made it his personal vendetta to have Ludicris removed as a Pepsi commercial spokesman stating that Ludicris' lyrics and songs were morally corrupt and not suitable for the general public.

Pepsi bowed to the pressure and ultimately released Ludicris as a spokesman...

O'Reilly also did the same thing to Lil' Kim in her Old Navy campaign... citing "morality" and what not as reasoning as to why she shouldn't be a featured on those products as well.

he is the "morality Nazi" and now he is suspect of committing his own moral crime, hence the glass house that he lives in.

C'mon man. I love Ludacris and Lil' Kim. But watching them for the first time on those commercials was like watching hardcore-porn at a pre-school, it just didn't feel right.

If O'Reilly hadn't said something I'm sure one of those Pepsi or Old Nacy Executives would have finally listened to an album of theirs and realized that these people aren't just "cash cows."

O'Reilly had a point, Name-Brand companies don't hire spokespeople that are "morally questionable." Like the way Koby lost his advertisers and no one will touch Michael Jackson with a 10-foot-pole.

I think O'Reilly was just pointing out the obvious to the companies who often rush through hiring celebrities to best take advantage of their popularity. Which was obvious with Ludacris and Lil' kim.

[nickel]

Exactly...

There are WAY worse "graphical" rappers out there... and most folks love Luda... so everyone was like "WTF"???

After that, I'd say that anyone "of color" could be a target... which means Eminem pretty much got the field locked up since all his competiton would be eliminated. :hmm: :2far:
hmmm :|
i don't think it was color, it was character, or LYRICS.

what commercials/adverts does Eminem have locked up? :shrug:

and btw, we are all "colored". i never understood that "person of color" thing.
my grandparents will say, "he's a colored guy" or something and i will pipe in, "yeh, we are colored, too".

[cheapie]

just colored w/a lighter pigment. ;)


just tell her that eventually we'll all be somewhere in the middle. that would piss my g'ma off. lol. she's from the south.

[nickel]

but to me - i look at a box of crayons, and they are ALL colors.

[DarkFury]

uh....i haven't seen eminem on pepsi commercials. don't be so quick to bust out the race card.
I didn't bust it... but the facts are as they are... Unless you are "Will Smith" or someone who is seen as squeaky clean, then your boy O'Reilly probably had them on his radar...

Eminem has his own set of issues (as he is dealing with allegations of his own racial missteps)... I just mentioned him in jest for the most part.


C'mon man. I love Ludacris and Lil' Kim. But watching them for the first time on those commercials was like watching hardcore-porn at a pre-school, it just didn't feel right.
What did Ludacris do that made his commercial feel ike "hardcore porn"? :shrug:

Did he do anything that Brittney Spears doesn't do? :shrug: Nobody has gone after her yet? :2far:


hmmm :|
i don't think it was color, it was character, or LYRICS.

what commercials/adverts does Eminem have locked up? :shrug:

and btw, we are all "colored". i never understood that "person of color" thing.
my grandparents will say, "he's a colored guy" or something and i will pipe in, "yeh, we are colored, too".
Like I said... the Eminem part was a joke. Just saying that the door would be wide open...

[Bires]

Pretty much this serves him right...

The hypocracy of folks like him and Limbaugh are astounding as they push their "moral agenda" on the masses...

So you have already decided he is at fault, then, even though you know absolutely no more than the media would tell you?




Hmm...

[Roots SD]

What did Ludacris do that made his commercial feel ike "hardcore porn"? :shrug:

C'mon man. Get out of the "Spin Zone." :rolleyes:

You know that's not what I meant. It's called a metaphor, look it up.

Let me put it this way, the concern with these Executives is.. "What else are teenagers (the target consumer) going to hear from Ludacris and Lil' Kim in all forms of media, not just commercials.

I don't think anti-drug campaigns would of hired Pablo Escobar to talk about the dangers of cocaine use during the 70's. It's just too contradictory.

The same reason with Ludacris. Why do you think they put "Morality Clauses" in their contracts? It's not just for show.

When a 15-year-old kid pops in a Lil' Kim CD he's going to get a XXX hardcore description of every sex act possible, if it's a good one. Therefore the companies had every right to not want to associate themselves with these artists.

I think all they cared about was milking these "cash cows" and then letting them go once they had done their job, or just not being aware of their lyrical content and doing a quick U-ee once they learned about them. It's not O'Reilly's fault. Don't blame the messenger.