PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: acrogimp on April 19, 2017, 02:39:01 PM
-
So Fox has canned O'Reilly in the face of allegations of sexual harrasment, giving the loonies a much needed and very high profile scalp.
I am not saying anything about the merits or lack thereof of any accusations since I don't care for Ted's bloviating and obnoxious self-promotion, just interesting that the tac-nuke in the Left's tacklebox would appear to still have some legs.
Bye bye Ted, we hardly knew ye'.
'Gimp
-
So Fox has canned O'Reilly in the face of allegations of sexual harrasment, giving the loonies a much needed and very high profile scalp.
I am not saying anything about the merits or lack thereof of any accusations since I don't care for Ted's bloviating and obnoxious self-promotion, just interesting that the tac-nuke in the Left's tacklebox would appear to still have some legs.
So now you're saying Fox is in the pocket of the Left?
My, how the tides have turned.
-
So now you're saying Fox is in the pocket of the Left?
My, how the tides have turned.
Highly doubtful. O'Reilly was a ratings success for quite a long time. His ratings were unbeatable in that time slot for all those years which translates into money for Fox News. I doubt they'd sabotage their own guy.
-
So now you're saying Fox is in the pocket of the Left?
My, how the tides have turned.
Not at all saying that although I do think as a network they have shifted Left quite a biot over the past 18 months or so.
Speaking more to the forces that typically use these kinds of accusations to unseat men to the Right of Bernie Sanders - there are reports, unverified, that organized leftist folks may be behind at least some of the accusations - and as a business owner I understand why you choose to 'settle' vs fight on occasion even knowing it creates the impression of guilt where none may exist.
As I said, I have never been a fan of O'Reilly, could not stand his bloviating style and his shifting position on bedrock principles like 2nd Amendment, I hope the accusations are not true because I don't like to think of women being treated that way by anyone, regardless of their supposed power or station (e.g., Bill Clinton, Gary Hart, Teddy Kennedy, Anthony Wiener, etc.).
But I am also concerned that this is a predictable playbook move from the Left when they get desperate to take out an opponent - e.g., Herman Caine, Trump, etc.
If guilty O'reilly should pay like any other loser - but only if he is actually found guilty in a court of law - anything else is just trial in the court of public opinion and in our divided nation only serves to further alienate the two dominant ideologies.
'Gimp
-
Not at all saying that although I do think as a network they have shifted Left quite a biot over the past 18 months or so.
I noticed a dramatic shift that seemed to be precipitated by the Trump-v-Megyn Kelly feud. And it does seem to me to be continuing.
-
O'Reilly was hemorrhaging advertisers.
-
Speaking more to the forces that typically use these kinds of accusations to unseat men to the Right of Bernie Sanders - there are reports, unverified, that organized leftist folks may be behind at least some of the accusations - and as a business owner I understand why you choose to 'settle' vs fight on occasion even knowing it creates the impression of guilt where none may exist.
Don't think it works fighting one unverified accusation with another one.
Personally I think Fox hired him because he was a caricature, and now they've fired him because he behaves like a caricature.
I have no problem believing he behaved like a grunting pig, but really, if you work for him why would you not expect that? I think corporations should be allowed to inside their employment contract put a clause of:
"You're probably going to be sexually harassed by the buffoon up front - you have to be ok with that. Sign here".
Though that starts to walk the line to legalized and institutionalized prostitution and we all know how Republicans feels about women making decisions about their bodies for themselves.
-
Ah, the tried and true methods of the alt left liberals, when they want to take someone down use the sex smear. Works almost every time.
Media Matters has had a hard on for O'Reilly for a long time. In fact it was as of late that media matters was actively lobbying his advertisers to drop him. And if you actually do some research on the allegations against O'Reilly you will see there is no proof, no videos, no recorded calls, nothing but "he said-she said".
Now that O'Reilly is taken down, look for Hannity to be next. Then they need to get rid of Tucker Carlson and Fox will be just another MSM outlet. Then the alt left can begin their assault on talk radio.
And Fox? We'll, now that Murdoch's sons are more in control, and they are ultra liberal one can see why Fox has taken the hard left turn.
-
It is HILARIOUS to see lefties with their little panties in a wad over an allegation of sexual impropriety when they stand so rock solid behind their own, which means to me that the lesbians and wanna be lesbians are behind this, just like so many other fake attacks.
I guess cigar boy Bill committing perjury over sexual allegations was not their cup of tea because he was - and only because he was - pro abortion. When you see a bunch of queers upset about something sexual their will always be a republican that they are actually after. The fucking democrats can't even condemn forced genital mutilation of young girls because muslim trumps black, queer and leftist.
-
I guess cigar boy Bill committing perjury over sexual allegations was not their cup of tea because he was - and only because he was - pro abortion.
Look up the word "consensual" in a dictionary when you can find one.
I'd have no problems if O'Reilly slept with every single staff member and guest on his show. Heck, I wouldn't have a problem if he paid them to. Or even if that was a condition of employment before they got hired.
But it wasn't.
The fucking democrats can't even condemn forced genital mutilation of young girls because muslim trumps black, queer and leftist.
You're insane if you think Muslim values are consistent with liberalism. To paint all democrats with that brush is like saying that all conservatives are klan members.
-
Look up the word "consensual" in a dictionary when you can find one.
I'd have no problems if O'Reilly slept with every single staff member and guest on his show. Heck, I wouldn't have a problem if he paid them to. Or even if that was a condition of employment before they got hired.
But it wasn't.
You're insane if you think Muslim values are consistent with liberalism. To paint all democrats with that brush is like saying that all conservatives are klan members.
Bullshit. Sounds good to stupid liberals but it's all bullshit and you know it.
As for finding a dictionary, your devotion to changing the topic because the topic is uncomfortable for progressives is noted.
Bill Clinton perjured himself and making that all about consensual contact is as dishonest as just about every other liberal talking point.
IF liberals didn't approve of muslim atrocities committed against women, then why does the ENTIRE liberal world look the other way and try to force every one to do so, also. CNN and NYT didn't even mention the muslim murders in California when it happened this week to avoid offending muslims because political correctness trumps reality, truth and integrity to a democrat.
As for Bill, liberals HATE FOXNEWS because they refuse to tow the leftist line and that is all this is about. The threat of shit-for-brains liberals like the lesbians on MSNBC, either suing them for daring to speak freely, or organizing protests, shutting down locations and generally fucking up things, is more than many advertisers wish to take on, so liberal shit heads use that threat to shut down anything that disagrees with the approved talking points.
The new liberal lie that anyone who dares to speak outside the liberal plantation makes the snowflakes feel 'unsafe' is just another form of dishonesty and liberal hypocrisy. Now the mere existence of a Chick-fil-A restaurant makes liberals feel triggered... really??? What smokes your horn is knowing that there are people with the courage to refuse to pretend to agree with the fascist left, while you guys babble your talking points and pretend they have validity.
-
Bill Clinton perjured himself and making that all about consensual contact is as dishonest as just about every other liberal talking point.
I wasn't the one bringing up Bill Clinton in the context of sexual contact.
If this was about O'Reilly's being accused of perjury you would have a valid soapbox. He's not (AFAIK).
-
You are doing an excellent job at spinning the topic to avoid relevance within your own party.
Drudge has a headline story about your owner, George Soros, being behind the fake outrage and pathetic attacks on Bill O'Reilly. You don't have permission to know about that so it probably won't affect your talking points at all.
-
I have never been an O'Reilly fan, nor a hater either. When I did use to watch him, he would sometimes seem to have the right perspective on calling people out, both Democrats, and Republicans. Other times he would show his hand as a classic, inside the NYC bubble Progressive, especially with the 2A, and right to legally bear arms, calling AR-15's "weapons of war", etc. Also, I did not like him bullying guests, and talking over people all the time.
Although I no longer get Fox, I do like what I have seen of Tucker Carlson, Greg Gutfeld, and Jesse Waters.
-
I have never been an O'Reilly fan, nor a hater either. When I did use to watch him, he would sometimes seem to have the right perspective on calling people out, both Democrats, and Republicans. Other times he would show his hand as a classic, inside the NYC bubble Progressive, especially with the 2A, and right to legally bear arms, calling AR-15's "weapons of war", etc. Also, I did not like him bullying guests, and talking over people all the time.
Although I know longer get Fox, I do like what I have seen of Tucker Carlson, Greg Gutfeld, and Jesse Waters.
Look at the larger picture, and this is nothing to do whether one likes O'Reilly or not.
What has happened here is the Alt Left Liberal using Media matters has successfully removed someone from broadcasting. It was done with the liberal tried and proven sex smear technique, and assisted with Media Matters contacting advertisers and waging a campaign to get them to stop advertising.
O'Reilly won't be the last. Next up will be Hannity, then Carlson. You can see a few others as well. The Alt Left is empowered now by taking down the most successful cable news show. And to add to this, the Murdoch brothers are both liberal progressives, so the transformation of Fox is underway.
With George Soros backing them and now with a major score, look for it to intensify.
-
Are y'all aware that the lawyer representing the women against O'Reilly is Gloria Alred's daughter.
-
Has George Soros fingerprints all over it.
-
Look at the larger picture, and this is nothing to do whether one likes O'Reilly or not.
What has happened here is the Alt Left Liberal using Media matters has successfully removed someone from broadcasting. It was done with the liberal tried and proven sex smear technique, and assisted with Media Matters contacting advertisers and waging a campaign to get them to stop advertising.
O'Reilly won't be the last. Next up will be Hannity, then Carlson. You can see a few others as well. The Alt Left is empowered now by taking down the most successful cable news show. And to add to this, the Murdoch brothers are both liberal progressives, so the transformation of Fox is underway.
With George Soros backing them and now with a major score, look for it to intensify.
Remember, it was all done on the basis of an anonymous accusation. The abandonment was stunning.
-
Remember, it was all done on the basis of an anonymous accusation. The abandonment was stunning.
Due to legalities, we may never know what actually happened. Should we assume he was just a lecherous douche? I wouldn't put it past him considering his bombastic personality, but is it "fair" to convict him in the court of public opinion? Could he be a victim of opportunist females, or is he the megalomaniac master of the universe his personality portends?
Again, not an O'Reilly fan, nor hater.
-
Of course I can't know exactly what happened here. But I've been a female working in a male dominated environment and I know the general territory very well. The facts are, males and females will play the sexual game EVERYWHERE and part of that means males will pursue females before the female, if ever, develops any interest. Back when I was young, such male attention at the workplace was considered normal so long as the advances never were used to threaten your job, or of course, never became forcible against your will. If the attention was not wanted, a well placed verbal cut was usually sufficient to put a complete stop to it. If a woman accepted such attention, it then became her responsibility as much as the man's. You wouldn't dream of later accusing a man of "harassment" if you had failed to smack him away at the moment of the incident.
You could claim a "culture of sexual harassment" at any workplace, if by harassment you mean this biologically normal dance of the sexes. But in today's world, apparently you are expected to cut this off, completely muzzle it. That's never going to happen, it is against human nature. Therefore, it is a set up for women to exploit for money, or for political purposes, any male or company. We have seen it over and over, used by the Democrats to destroy men they see as threats. So far it seems only Trump has been able to withstand this method of attack.
And don't get me started on how this atmosphere is misguiding our young people. Males are being taught that their normal testosterone urges are organically criminal and legally dangerous, and females are being taught that the slightest suggestive move, even if only verbal, has violated their emotional equilibrium. The message is that females are weak, despite all the feminist hype about female strength and independence.
-
Of course I can't know exactly what happened here. But I've been a female working in a male dominated environment and I know the general territory very well. The facts are, males and females will play the sexual game EVERYWHERE and part of that means males will pursue females before the female, if ever, develops any interest. Back when I was young, such male attention at the workplace was considered normal so long as the advances never were used to threaten your job, or of course, never became forcible against your will. If the attention was not wanted, a well placed verbal cut was usually sufficient to put a complete stop to it. If a woman accepted such attention, it then became her responsibility as much as the man's. You wouldn't dream of later accusing a man of "harassment" if you had failed to smack him away at the moment of the incident.
You could claim a "culture of sexual harassment" at any workplace, if by harassment you mean this biologically normal dance of the sexes. But in today's world, apparently you are expected to cut this off, completely muzzle it. That's never going to happen, it is against human nature. Therefore, it is a set up for women to exploit for money, or for political purposes, any male or company. We have seen it over and over, used by the Democrats to destroy men they see as threats. So far it seems only Trump has been able to withstand this method of attack.
And don't get me started on how this atmosphere is misguiding our young people. Males are being taught that their normal testosterone urges are organically criminal and legally dangerous, and females are being taught that the slightest suggestive move, even if only verbal, has violated their emotional equilibrium. The message is that females are weak, despite all the feminist hype about female strength and independence.
Excellent points. Andrew Wilkow has a phase that he uses to describe this type of environment, which extends well beyond just sexual harassment. He calls it "weaponized outrage" and I think that's a very accurate statement. We've taken any little thing that we don't like and turned it into mass anger and then use that to destroy people.
O'Reilly isn't the only to suffer this but he is one of the bigger profile people to succumb to this most recently. Anyone remember what happened to Herman Cain in the 2012 primaries? Or what Harry Reid said about Mitt Romney?
-
Excellent points. Andrew Wilkow has a phase that he uses to describe this type of environment, which extends well beyond just sexual harassment. He calls it "weaponized outrage" and I think that's a very accurate statement. We've taken any little thing that we don't like and turned it into mass anger and then use that to destroy people.
O'Reilly isn't the only to suffer this but he is one of the bigger profile people to succumb to this most recently. Anyone remember what happened to Herman Cain in the 2012 primaries? Or what Harry Reid said about Mitt Romney?
I was thinking about Herman Cain. And also I was thinking about the more generalized "weaponized outrage" you describe but didn't have that term on the tip of my tongue.
-
It's all about how you react to the charges. Herman ended up bowing to the pressure and the rest is history. O'Reilly supposedly paid out big dollars which equated to "guilty". Look at the women that came out of the woodwork on Trump after the Billy Bush audio tape. He brushed it all off and got elected President.
-
It's all about how you react to the charges. Herman ended up bowing to the pressure and the rest is history. O'Reilly supposedly paid out big dollars which equated to "guilty". Look at the women that came out of the woodwork on Trump after the Billy Bush audio tape. He brushed it all off and got elected President.
Yes, Trump did a good job of treating it like the petty distraction it actually was, and putting the focus back on the issues. I think it was a bit of a miscalculation to try that with Trump anyway, when his opponent was Hillary, with her behavior after what Bill did. It was easy to turn the tables and make it hurt Hillary just as much.
I personally turned it around on Hillary with my young niece. This was her first presidential election and she was undecided. When the Trump charges came out she was aghast, naively buying the "outrage", and declaring she now wouldn't vote for Trump, but when I educated her on the Clintons' past, I think that was the nail in the coffin for Hillary as far as she was concerned. I'm pretty sure she went third party, but her vote didn't go to Hillary. I know I'm not the only person who brought up Bill's dallyings when they tried that shit on Trump. I think it backfired badly.
-
It's all about how you react to the charges. Herman ended up bowing to the pressure and the rest is history. O'Reilly supposedly paid out big dollars which equated to "guilty". Look at the women that came out of the woodwork on Trump after the Billy Bush audio tape. He brushed it all off and got elected President.
The "payouts" are often the result of lawyers and insurance companies. There is a point in which it's more cost effective to pay off the accuser rather than litigate. Unfortunately in our society that also equals a presumption of guilt.
The problem O'Reilly faced is the Murdoch brothers. Even though O'Reilly has the top rated cable news show (16 plus years) and has made Fox a fortune the brothers wanted him gone and wouldn't let him defend himself. And some will counter "but advertisers were fleeing from Fox", oddly enough the program still ran ads.
Media Matters (another Alt Left organization) is behind this smear and there is evidence of how they orchestrated it. Also, O'Reilly was running nightly segments on the Susan Rice Scandal and getting a lot of attention focused on that as well. Notice how that has died away?
Like I stated earlier, none of this is about O'Reilly, love him or hate him. It's about how the Alt Left is forcing conservative voices off the air and is a major score for them. There will be more.
Fox News is almost just another MSM outlet now. The Murdoch brothers will finish their "transformation" soon. Next will be Fox Business Channel. Then MM will start after Talk Radio and Sirius Patriot channel.
And the republican establishment will sit back and watch it happen.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/business/media/murdoch-family-21st-century-fox.html
-
The problem O'Reilly faced is the Murdoch brothers. Even though O'Reilly has the top rated cable news show (16 plus years) and has made Fox a fortune the brothers wanted him gone and wouldn't let him defend himself. And some will counter "but advertisers were fleeing from Fox", oddly enough the program still ran ads.
What evidence do you have of this? That makes zero business sense. He's been on the air for this long (along with Hannity and now Tucker Carlson) and Fox is rich because of it.
-
Hannity has said he will fight when the come for him. Time will tell as I assume he's next on the hit list, by both sides at this point based on his tirade monologues against the establishment Republicans concerning their inability to properly do replace and repeal after having had eight years to think it through.
-
What evidence do you have of this? That makes zero business sense. He's been on the air for this long (along with Hannity and now Tucker Carlson) and Fox is rich because of it.
You can start with this article : https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/business/media/murdoch-family-21st-century-fox.html
And with a little bit of Google, you can read a lot more on this.
-
Give it a while and the brothers will have neutered FOX and the libs will be plenty happy. One wonders what Rupert thinks about this.
-
Give it a while and the brothers will have neutered FOX and the libs will be plenty happy. One wonders what Rupert thinks about this.
Rupert placed money over ideology. The sons place ideology over money.
-
Give it a while and the brothers will have neutered FOX and the libs will be plenty happy. One wonders what Rupert thinks about this.
In today's world with the advancement of media technology, if Fox becomes another MSNBC/NBC/CNN/CBS/ABC/PBS then another venue will pop up to air the center/Right views as well as presenting the Left views in counterpoint as Fox does now. I don't know much about the Murdoch kids so can't comment on their political agenda.
-
https://apnews.com/22f37ef0513e4fe4824b7b79d0dee09d/Hannity-says-liberal-fascists-after-sponsors;-1-is-leaving
-
https://apnews.com/22f37ef0513e4fe4824b7b79d0dee09d/Hannity-says-liberal-fascists-after-sponsors;-1-is-leaving
One advertiser leaving isn't a big deal. Advertisers come and go on a regular basis. He's using this to stir up his audience.
-
One advertiser leaving isn't a big deal. Advertisers come and go on a regular basis. He's using this to stir up his audience.
Guess you missed the part about media matters.
-
Guess you missed the part about media matters.
No, I saw it. It doesn't mean anything.
-
No, I saw it. It doesn't mean anything.
LOL...........whatever...... ::)
-
LOL...........whatever...... ::)
What does it mean? What evidence do you have that a single advertiser who stopped their ad campaign was coerced by Media Matters? If multiple advertisers start pulling out over the next several weeks we can have a different conversation. Until then, one advertiser pulling out doesn't mean much. Advertisers come and go on a regular basis.
How long had the advertiser been advertising on that show? Were they seeing recent declines in revenue as a result of that show? Why is it not possible that a single advertiser pulling out is just that, a single advertiser pulling out? Is it possible they didn't like Hannity's peddling of a conspiracy theory that has no evidence? Again, if several advertisers start pulling out over the next several weeks we can have this conversation again. I just don't see the big deal over one advertiser.