http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzsue14...iness-headlines

Like a great many large personalities Bill O Reilly generates an Either/Or environment.
People either love him or hate him.
He is loud obnoxious and definetely unafraid to get in people's faces and bait them.

If there is solid evidence he will of course pay for it if the allegations are true, yet there will definetely be calls from his detractors for his removal from the airways.

What does this accusation do to his credibility? Can he be taken at all seriously until this is settled one way or the other?

Can Fox seriously consider him a secure anchor for their line up with this over his head? or will he be detrimental to their credibility?

She wants 60 million dollars. Does this raise any flags to you?




edited to fix spelling

You have to admit, $60 million dollars is a lot of money for having to endure phone sex.

Reading the motions from both the plaintiff and defendant, you can be sure 80-90% of what both say is exaggerated. But what stands out to me the most, is O'Rielly never really denies anything although that motion not be the place to do that.

Now, that being said, I have a few questions.
1. What are the damages? She shows a clear path of advancement and salary raises.
2. Why did she quit and come back?
3. Why did she never make a complaint to Fox?
4. Why didn't she stop taking his phone calls?
5. Why didn't she stop going to his hotel rooms and out to dinner?
6. Why didn't she just hang up the phone?

Although nobody has to put up this crap if it's true, there are 60 million reasons why someone would make these claims without it being true. And since O'Rielly is the epitome of overbearing pinheads, he just becomes a bigger target.

I'd say that without being able to show physical damages (much like the Kobe Bryant case) or collaborative evidence, the burden is on her to prove his guilt. With that, he should be considered innocent and maybe as perverted as some of us that would never admit it in public (wait, did I just say that???).

Unfortunately, I had a hard enough time watching O'Rielly without having to think what he's sitting on.

It is my understanding that the woman already had a former boss fired for sexual harassment...so that does ring one bell. I am going to be straight and say that i respect bill o'reilly and watch him a lot. If the allegations are true...then it will be a serious blow. But if they are false, then it just goes to show you the lengths at which people will go to take down a powerful figure.



Good questions. Being that she was already involved in a sexual harassment suit, it really makes you wonder.

I think that if crimes were committed, than those responsible shoul;d be put on trial and be punished. But if this is just another frivolous lawsuit to take down a powerful figure than guess what...she already succeeded. I would have been more suspicious of O'Reilly if he did not come out and sue the woman for extortion before she could come out with the story. If he was responsible and he knew the woman had substantial proof...he probably wouldnt have gone public.

Like Rush and the drugs, this will blow over, he’ll remain at Fox and his show will probably stay near the top of the ratings. We can only hope the truth comes out and the right decisions are made, remember he’s innocent until proven guilty.

Something’s just not right here. In addition to some of the points DaytonRocker mentions, what stood out for me in the article was she went to CNN earlier in the year where her boss was fired for sexual harassment, returns to Fox and now this. Is she a sexual harassment hit woman?

Although the 60 million dollars appears ridiculously high, this is a typical tactic in these types of cases. Over state your amount so you can settle for much less which will still be a nice figure.

What does this accusation do to his credibility

I don't think O'Reilly has much credibility to start with. He badges and intimidates guests who disagree with him and has lied, at least about the two Peabody awards he didn't win.

Still having an inclination to let legal matters work their way through the courts, I am willing to suspend judgment on this alleged incident.

I've heard that her boss at CNN was let go after being accused of sexual harassment, but not that Mackris was the accuser or that she was involved in any way. Do you have more info on this?

What does this accusation do to his credibility? Can he be taken at all seriously until this is settled one way or the other?

I've never believed O'Reilly was credible to begin with. Had his 'family values' been all he claimed they were this never would have happened to him. He does not deny the conversations took place. His own comments lead me to the opposite conclusion:



So, to me, the issue isn't whether or not there is a legal case. It's simply that a holier-than-thou windbag has been exposed as a lying hypocrite who cheats (or attempts to cheat) on his pregnant wife.


Can Fox seriously consider him a secure anchor for their line up with this over his head? or will he be detrimental to their credibility?
Fox can keep him as an anchor and it will not change their credibility because they have very little to begin with. O'Reilly's fan base is probably made up of much of the same people as Rush Limbaugh's and they seem willing enough to turn a blind eye to hypocrisy so far. I think O'Reilly can survive if he plays his cards right.

She wants 60 million dollars. Does this raise any flags to you?

I think the $60M figure comes from annual revenues O'Reilly generates for Fox News. I think it was probably the starting point for negotiations...in the end I hope she doesn't get any money, or at least not a substantial sum. She could have hung up, she could have gone to his superiors, she could have done a lot of things differently. I'm having a hard time seeing her as a victim considering what's known so far although I suppose that could change once more details come out.

But I do think the conversations took place and that some were recorded. How much money she's asking for does more to enforce that belief than to diminish it.

I didn't know Bill O'Reilly has a pregnant wife and he has been doing this stuff. With that new knowledge in mind, I hereby promote him from lecher to dirtbag!

I think he can be taken with the same degree of seriousness *except* in the area of marital fidelity or being a nice guy.

I think it depends a whole lot on whether he wins or loses this case. He might well be dropped if he loses, not that FOX is some standbearer for the archaic SEAL OF GOOD PRACTICE that used to be displayed by networks back in the '60s.

Yeah--it tells me she's awfully angry about it, and she wants to punish him.
She's not a nun filing suit to make the world a better place. She wants to expose him for what he is and get compensation for it.

O'Reilly's "She liked it; she wanted it"--where have we heard this before?

She wants 60 million dollars. Does this raise any flags to you?

First, let me state for the record that I am not a Bill O'Reilly fan. I do find the "Talking Points" segment of his program interesting, but usually change the channel immediately after watching that segment.

Now, to answer this question. Yes, her request for $60 million dollars raises a HUGE flag. The things I've read on smokinggun.com appear to be transcripts of telephone conversations. In my opinion, the woman involved here could have put a stop to that so quick that Bill's head would have spun off, but she didn't. It is my belief that she allowed this to occur, perhaps even made Bill believe she was interested in his advances.

We are all human and it is easy to get caught up in things of this nature, especially if you believe the other party is open to these types of advances. For the conversations to get as saucy as these did, I personally believe both parties were contributing. What their motives were is the real question.

That statement "I'm a stupid guy, blah dee blah" leads you to believe that he cheats on his wife (or tried to)? It doesn't give me that impression at all. It gives me the impression that he has cracked some bawdy private jokes, and perhaps made some personal comments that he isn't proud of.

Obviously O'reilly had a very casual relationship with this woman who worked with him for years. He felt comfortable to make comments which are now being used against him. It's highly likely that this woman encouraged this banter, and it isn't hard to understand why with the potential for millions in compensation. Perhaps Robin should sue Howard Stern for multiple millions because he has talked about vibrators, and made similar "stupid comments".

I knew a man who was fired for "harassment" of a similar variety. A twenty year old secretary joined a group after work for 'happy hour' at a bar. They were joking around, she said she had to go to the "ladies room". He quipped, "Can I join you?" She filed a harassment charge the next day, he couldnt' defend his comment...it was simply made in jest, and he had no history of impropriety. He was fired immediately. I'm certain if O'Reilly made a similar comment it would be reported by the 60 million dollar compensation seeker (and by the media) as a proposition to have sex in the bathroom. There are a million and one ways to turn comments made in jest (especially over the course of years of casual conversation, if you're looking to record it), out of context.

My personal opinion on Bill O'Reilly is that I like him more then most Foxnews commentators. I also unlike the Kobe case think he did this. One thing I hate about O'Reilly is his tendency to ram his personal family values down people's throats like it should be legislation. I have often commented to friends that he is the exact type of person that they are one day going to catch with kiddie porn....I was close. My gut feeling is that she is telling the truth.

What does this do to his credibility?

If its true it kind of makes everything he has said over the past few years about values and family pretty much pointless. I am not sure he was all that credible though. He is a bit of a crock anyway although I like him. He has said some things and come to some bizarre conclusions that make me shake my head.

Can he be taken seriously?

Potentially saying lewd things over the phone doesnt detract from the seriousness of his political commentary. Much like Bill Clinton cheating on his wife didnt detract from his ability to be president. As far as these morality and family personal issues he pushs I would say those should be scrutinized until we know the outcome of the situation.

Can Fox consider him a secure anchor?

No. O'reilly does not have an off-season. This trial if it comes is going to mess with his ability to do the show.

Detrimental to Fox's credibility?

I would not call Fox credible to begin with.

Does the amount specified alarm me?

Yes it does seem like way to much for verbal harassment over the phone. Even if this is true she doesnt deserve 60 million dollars.

Another interesting point is how politics have been played a large role in the accuser's charges. For example, her lawyer said the following, "Guys like O'Reilly who like to espouse what right-wing Republicans espouse about family values shouldn't be doing stuff like this," And the actual text of their case includes the following jab, that Fox News and Bill O'Reilly, "preach the principles of so-called 'compassionate conservatism' espoused by George W. Bush and the Republican Party." So not only is Bill O'Reilly guilty, but so is President Bush and Republicans everywhere?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...004Oct15_2.html

I thought Bill's ratings would plummet because of the accusations, but I just saw this report today that says his ratings have shot up 34%. Perhaps the accuser's plans to bring down Fox and O'Reilly have failed.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nypost/7188329...T+SINCE+SCANDAL

Even if this whole thing was consensual, his career should take a significant hit. His whole schtick is blabbering about traditional America, high moral standards, and family values (and loss of all the above because of "European secularists" ). You should have seen him talking a while ago about Catherine Bosley (the local TV anchor from Youngstown, OH who danced naked on the stage in some Key West bar) - he could barely contain his righteous indignation. How could she, being a public figure, to fall so low? What about the children?! What example does she set for the young generation?
At the same time he is the only one interviewing the likes of Dick Morris.
Engaging in consensual phone sex doesn't exactly fit into the picture he painted himself. Consensual or not, cheating on pregnant wife is not something that fighter for traditional family values does. That's something from European secularist's arsenal.

Well, people always want to see the accused, especially while it's hot news - so it's only natural that his ratings shot up. The question is, how many people will be able to take the "O'Falafel Factor" seriously in the long term?
It was enjoyable to read that here we have the big, juicy scandal the FoxNews exists for - and yet Fox is unable to cover it.

Indeed, it does. If he was just some ordinary Joe she probably wouldn't
have engaged in such risque conversations, to begin with. Money and power
are great aphrodisiacs. Bill O'Reilly without the money and fame would look
like a very different guy.



Exactly. Women like that are playing both sides against the middle. She is
either a bloody fool, who cannot give a strong signal to a man that says, "I
don't want to be harassed!", or she is an opportunist, using her sexuality
as a means for sympathy and monetary gain. Either way, she's giving all
women a bad name!



That's the feeling I have too, but even if there was something more to it,
the accuser in this situation has some responisibility for the outcome. Women
who toy with men, then turn cheeks and claim sexual harassment should
be ashamed of themselves. As women, we have a lot of power over
what is said and done to us, by men.




Unfortunately, this is the politically correct environment we are living in.
There are surely women who have been harassed by men. But, too often
the women claiming such harassment are conniving, vindictive opportunists.
I feel for men, in this social climate that we now live in.

Again, I don't find the accuser to be much of a victim. I do not think she should win any money unless there are extenuating circumstances that have not come to light.

But why blame O'Reilly's sins on political correctness? He not only had a pregnant wife but a two year old daughter...he got himself into this mess by not practicing what he preaches and by gleefully condemning others for the same type of conduct. Oh how the mighty do fall. If he loses money or his reputation he has no one to blame but himself.

After checking out what's on the Net regarding this, including the court documents filed by the plaintiff, I've come up with only one conclusion:

This is a publicity stunt put on by Fox insiders to boost O'Reilly's ratings.

Fox stands to reap at least a year's worth of free advertising and increased viewership, increased ad revenues, and generally a boost in wealth. I think this is O'Reilly's retirement package.

Meanwhile, Andrea Mackris ends up wealthy beyond the imagination of a typical 30-something year old.

Nothing like a big, juicy sex scandle to boost those ratings, especially as the political season winds down.

I'm not blaming his sins on P.C. I'm merely pointing out that a man
cannot flirt with a woman without fear of being called a harasser. That is
the ultra-sensitive society we have become, and I think it's ridiculous.

There always seems to be a "blame the victim" mentality when money is involved. Has anyone considered that Ms. Mackris finally had had enough of Bill's sex talk and decided to tape every time thereafter so she'd have a solid case against him? Sexual harrassment suits are tough to win; after all, it's usually he said, she said. In most notorious cases (involving a famous defendant), the complainant tends to bear the brunt of the criticism. This is like blaming a rape victim. Unless a woman is virginal-pure, everyone seems to assume she did something to invite the attention.

I find it interesting with all Bill's bluster and "poor me", he has NOT ONCE claimed he didn't do/say what he was accused of. Fox News has remained strangely quiet on the matter also. Makes you wonder who really runs that station.

Personally, I find it easy to believe ol' Bill is a creep with an obsession about sex. His fantasies of sex toys and menage a trois don't surprise me in the least. It's usually the morally self-righteous who have the most to hide. And he can indulge in any disgusting harrassment he wants because he has the power of celebrity and can always whine "oh, poor me, I'm famous, they all want to get me, I'm such a victim." Gag me.


Have you read the transcripts on Smoking Gun? That goes way beyond "flirting".

Is Ms. Mackris asking for an outrageous amount of money? Sure. Does that automatically make her case false? No.

Actually, I've considered this. Is there taped evidence against him? If not, why didn't she record these conversations? If he had been harassing her for years, and she was accepting the phone calls/dinner invitations, that would be a good question.

The next question would be, what were the adverse career consequences? Did she make any complaints to Fox's management (as I understand it, she did not)? Why did she continue to work for Mr. O’Reilly for years, and return after months at a different job? What damages, exactly, did she incure?

She had ample time in her first year working for him to nip any harassment issues
in the bud. Is the associate producer of a high-profile show so weak, that she
does not know how to let a man know, in no uncertain terms, and with tact, that
she wants none of his shenanigans? Or is it just Bill O'Reilly that she's having
trouble with? For whatever reason, she has decided to take this guy
to the cleaners. It surely is not because he was talking about sex with her.




It doesn't matter how far they went. There had to have been an established
trust between the two for them to even be discussing such subject matter over
the phone, or anywhere else. He trusted her enough to tell her whatever things
he told her. He wouldn't have spoken in such a way if he didn't think such talk
would be well-received. She led him on - she had ulterior motives.

It would be very easy to believe this story if one does not care for Bill O'Reilly's
politics or persona.

I'm a man, so I write this as a man. It seems that Bill O'Reilly did not know what I have learned in 20 years of managing businesses. Never flirt with the staff. Never discuss sex. Never compliment anybody on their looks.

Sexual harrassment does happen, and many times it is perpetrated unwittingly. Sometimes not. People are not always strong enough to rebuff it and tell the manager or the influencial person to stop it. Some people are worried that it will affect their career. From my experience I think that it mostly happens unwittingly. A manager compliments a staff member on her hair or "Wow. you look pretty today". "Nice dress" etc. The manager may just be wanting the person to feel good, but these are also sayings used in the mating game and can be misunderstood. And what of the frumpy, unattractive person who never gets the compliment. The manager probably doesn't even realise that he's given 30 compliments to one employees looks, and none to another. What does she think when she is passed over for promotion and the "pretty one" gets it instead. The pretty one may have deserved the promotion, but it won't be seen that way.

Last year, I received an email from a female employee. It was a graphic sex cartoon. She had sent it to all the staff. She meant no harm, but I had correctly surmised that one of the staff members was unhappy about receiving it. She didn't say anything (and that's a huge problem that usually results in a lawsuit). She did not want to be seen as prudish and uncool.
I called a meeting and banned all such unsolicited emails. Had I not, the business was open for a lawsuit.

Right now, I am managing a small business with five female employees working for me, and no men. Last week, I left a meeting and checked my cell phone messages before getting to the office. There was one from one of the women in the office. She called me by a pet name that they have concocted for me. Please pick up a Starbucks and I'll give you a "big kiss". Of course, she never wanted to kiss me. She was joking around and knew that I would never take it seriously. But I can never say such things to the staff. I turned up with coffees for everybody, but never mentioned the kiss. They can say what they want to me, but they can't say it to other staff members. If anyone brings a complaint to me, I will fix it.

I am so smart on this, that no business that I manage will ever get sued for sexual harrassment. However, it wasn't always that way. In my 20s, I did it. I complimented and flirted. Experience and training taught me better. I am unfamiliar with the broadcast industry, but suspect that Bill O'Reilly is not a manager, probably has no people-management training, and lacks experience in that area. If the allegations are true, then somebody is at fault. O'reilly's show is a business and should have a manager. If Fox is responsible for the management, then they are at fault. If O'Reilly appointed the manager, then he is at fault. If the show has no manager, then they are both baffoons.

I feel sorry for the guy mentioned earlier in this thread, who mad a flippant "I'll join you" comment while drinking with the staff. If a complaint was made against him on that alone, then it seems very unfair. But, like any law, there will be false allegations made sometimes. That does not mean that most allegations are frivolous. Combat that with the the people who do get harrassed but suffer in silence.

Oh, $60 million. Ridiculous!

This woman is not a human being. A human being would have asked him to stop making sexual comments, hung up the phone, declined his dinner invitations, etc. instead of saying and doing nothing for four years and then filing a $60 million lawsuit after asking for her job back. That's assuming he even made these comments (which he very well might have). She's no victim.

I think the definition of sexual harassment is far too broad. An obvious sexual advance on a co-worker is sexual harassment. A harmless compliment or joke is not.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on television either, but if I were, I'd meet with the opposing counsel and ask one question, "How much is it going to cost to make this go away?"

If you read the transcripts on The Smoking Gun, it seems that Bill O' Reilly is a lechreous pig and Andrea Mackris is a complete idiot. Why squeeze a guy for $60 million? Oh, maybe because it gets his attention (and the media's) in a way that $6 million would only raise a yawn. 60 million smackers is a nice fat number that's bound to scare up a headline or two. It sure seems to have O'Reilly's attention now.

I can't understand why people are dissing Mackris for hitting Dollar Bill up for big bank. You play, you pay. Besides, what attorney ever sues a poor person? So what if O'Reilly likes to get his phreak on by talking dirty on the phone with female producers? Guess that beats paying $6 bucks a minute for some bored housewife to do the same on a phone sex line. Sure is more expensive though...

I work in a office populated primarily with single women. I chat with them and every now and then some of us go to a bar on Friday after work for a drink and that's it. I don't believe in playing where you work. All it does is create gossip and drama. O' Reilly should have been smart enough to figure that one out for himself.

If Rush Limbaugh can bounce back as an even bigger blowhard from his drug addiction and Bill Clinton from his tacky and tawdry affair with a chubby intern with weird dry-cleaning habits and Marion Barry from smoking crack with a prostitute, then why should a little thing like some dirty talk slow down a hard-charger like O'Reilly? America loves celebrities with kinky private lives.

What it does do is tarnish that "ordinary guy" act he's worked so hard to perfect. Though I wouldn't expect Big Bill to display any sudden bouts of humility.

But what's up with his fixation about Al Franken, anyway? Dude, let it GO, already.

Come on now harassment by definition is uninvited, unwanted, uninitiated, and most certainly non-mutual attention.
The trust factor you seem to think that needs to be specifically established between the two is established from day one..one is an employee the other is an employer..that is about all the trust these scumbags need..they trust you are in an inferior position of power.

How do you have any idea how he would or would not speak to her? How do you know this? How are you able to make this judgement? Some men are very very forward with women and ask you very private and lewd questions, some even take "action"and all the leading on they require is your presence on their workforce.

I was sexually harassed..once real bad at work by a manager..he made me loath my job..but I needed money. I lived hand to mouth and to quit a job with nothing to go to immediately would mean for me to be without food. And yeah some of us feel "so weak" as you say..that we don't feel comfortable going to another male boss and telling them the head manager grabs my crotch and regularly asks me questions about my performance in bed. Most of us weak girls go find a new job...

I salute you Andrea Mackris...I hope your suit for 60 million dollars is echoing through the heads of all the many others like Mr. Oreilly out there.

Okay. So, how do you know that she didn't invite the attention. How do you know
that she wasn't in love with Mr. O'Reilly. None of us know. But, one thing is for
sure, she worked for him for a number of years, left to work for another network,
then asked for her job back, at a later date. She must love harassment!



In this day and age women have more power than they ever had previously.
This woman is not some Kinko's employee, living from paycheck to paycheck.
She is undoubtedly a very bright and savvy individual. She surely had other
options if her work life was really that awful. She chose to stay, and be involved
with Bill O'Reilly. And now, she is doing what some women inevitably decide to
do - play the victim.



So, are you saying that women are just weak, pathetic victims, who are constantly
being exploited by big bad men. Often, it's the other way around. As a woman,
you cannot deny the lengths that your fellow-females will go to, to get what
they want. Women are much more savvy then men, more conniving and more vindictive - that's reality.



LMAO . I'll save my salutations for women who really deserve it - like Oprah Winfrey and Pamela Anderson .

This wasn't a harmless compliment or joke if these are the things he was saying. But you're right about sexual harassment being far too broad.

umm wasn't I the one asking this of you? Because I don't recall claiming to have any information of the intimate details of these two people's relationship. My point is exactly this...no one knows.
I just thought I needed to highlight that her claim is harassment..and by definition harassment is not something a person leads on, initiates or desires. If she was indeed sexually harassed she would not have "asked for it"
Besides I don't think it matters...Mr. O'Reilly is the one who is always telling us how important ethics are and I think it is a pretty standard business ethic to not be involved with staff, especially so those who work under you. Maybe perhaps he is now teaching us all lessons in life..looking out for us..by showing us exactly what NOT to do?


What does it matter the amount of time she worked for him? Is it documented she was being harassed through out the entirety of her employment? Could perhaps the harassment have occurred in a specific time frame...rather than a daily occurrence for the entire duration she worked with O'Reilly?


Oh I know how dare she have a job and think as a woman she would not be sexualized at work? How dare she not have an escape plan! Again who knows what her circumstances are? You do not. I know she has financial troubles...maybe she needed a job more than you believe she did. Maybe dumping a job like this would have been a critical blow to her career? Maybe she enjoyed her work and thought she could handle this creep? Maybe she was out to document his behavior....there are millions of possibilities.
And yeah women have so much power unfortunately validation is nonexistent in circumstances like these....why can't you validate what she says? Someone here even won't validate her as a human being for gawd sake.
Maybe she isn't lying? So she wants money..and? Does not make her story any less true.



I didn't say anything close to that...I quoted from you the" so weak" observation. Apparently there is some kind of standard practice in which a woman must respond to sexual harassment or else she is deemed weak or manipulative. I hadn't been aware of this..I think all people...being they are different ...react to things like this differently..and I don't think you or anyone can make observations of their character based on such few insights.

Also I don't subscribe to the view that we all have savvy, manipulative, conniving and vindictive genes that are exclusive to our genders.

It isn't the 1600s anymore. No need to burn women at the stake for their voodoo witchy poo powers over men. Mr. OReilly is an adult he was without question a participant in all this..and he deserves it..it is all sown from his own behavior.

You said, "I don't recall claiming to have any information of the intimate details of these two people's relationship. My point is exactly this...no one knows."

Why wouldn't this apply to Mr O'Reilly as well? How do you know he "deserves it"?

It applies to them both and I also do not recall claiming O'Reilly is guilty of sexual harassment...but yes he does deserve this..he is a married father of two who engaged in conversations such as these with another woman he works with..he is absolutely deserving of this media mess.

Since noone knows for sure what happened between Mr. O'Reilly and his associate
producer we can only go by the verifiable facts. Number 1: She worked for
Bill O'Reilly for a number of years, then took a job at another network. She later
asked for her job back and worked again for Bill O'Reilly. We know that he is a
millionaire who is married with children. That's what we know. So, either she is
truly the recipient of unwanted sexual harassment or she is not.



What other claim can she make? Harassment is the "go-to" claim in situations
with high-profile celebrities.



It matters if there is zero prior complaints over a period of years. When
two people know each other well and have worked together successfully for long
stretches of time it becomes even more incredible of a story.



Yes, the possibilities are endless. There is also the possibility that she, for some
unknown reason, had a axe to grind with Mr. O'Reilly. His once trusted assistant,
now his worst enemy.



Validate what she says? What do you mean by validate? Take her by the hand
and give her sympathy?



The fact that he is a rich and famous man does make one question her motives.

I admit that comment was a bit extreme. She is in fact a human being, ok?

I don't see why this problem could not have been solved outside of court. All she had to do was tell him to stop. If he continued, complain to his superiors. If they failed to act, then go to court. She just saw dollar signs is all.



Well the article provided at the beginning of this thread says...



"Over the years" pretty much implies that the alleged harassment did not just start recently, and had happened before she left and then asked to come back.

I think O'Reilly was the first to take this to court, after she and her lawyer attempted to extort him for 60 million in "hush" money. I cannot, for the life of me, understand anyone's defense of this woman. She was making almost 6 figures a year, and is single with no kids. She had money trouble? Maybe she has a 500 dollar a pair shoe habit.

This is exactly why sexual harassment laws exist. There are times when it just is not possible to quit and walk away from a sorely needed paycheck. Granted, with Mackris, we’re talking bigger salary, but as is the case with many (most?) people, she lived up to and just beyond her means ($100K in debt with a ~$90K/yr salary). Just because she made a decent salary doesn’t mean she could do without a job entirely.

Now that statement is just wrong on so many levels, I wouldn't know where to begin. Shame on you.

If some people here were to read the transcripts in their entirety, they would be able to see that the unwanted attention was why she left the station in the first place. As is often the case with many, she hated her new job (plus she wanted more money) and negotiated a return to Fox…part of which was that Mr. O’Reilly keep it businesslike and not continue the sex talk. OK, so she’s a greedy, career ladder climbing opportunist. That still does not justify the harassment.

And since O’Reilly is settling, it makes you wonder why he doesn’t want to pursue his suit. If he is so pure and innocent, why didn’t he fight it? He’s the kind of person I would think would be just dying to get all outraged and defend himself in public against “spurious attacks from [insert misogynistic description here]”


It must be awful to hate your own gender so much.

I have only defended the sexual harassment complaint, not her income or spending habits. Are we to cherry pick who is protected by law by income? Just because she is greedy and opportunistic, she does not have to accept being victimized in the workplace. I don’t give a damn if she makes a million a year – sexual harassment is WRONG. This kind of mentality is why rape victims do not speak up. “Oh, she wore slutty clothes; she must have been asking for it.” “He’s rich, she’s just after his money.” C’mon.

Have either of you ever been sexually harassed? I have, and luckily I’m pretty tough. BUT it still is damned uncomfortable. This was in the days before sexual harassment laws existed, but my first experience with sexual harassment was as a 16-year old virgin-when my 40-something boss at the snack bar I worked in repeatedly felt me up and made sexual comments to me. I felt constantly threatened, but I was very naive and scared spitless. I quit after one evening when I was waiting for my dad to pick me up and the manager was cruising the parking lot trying to convince me to let him take me home. Later, I went to work for a large aerospace company (translation: big ol' boys club). You try getting an engineer to quit putting his hand on your butt or talking to your boobs, or “accidentally” brushing them with a hand, or trying to get you to come to Amsterdam with him to sex clubs, or cornering you in an elevator, or get a manager not to plant a sloppy kiss on you on St. Patrick’s Day. All of these things happened to me and they weren’t all the same guy. And no, before you ask, I did not invite the attention. I was 23 or so and these guys were in their 50's and 60's. Ew. Sexual harassment laws were created so that women didn’t HAVE to put up with this kind of behavior. So the laws been perverted by some unscrupulous women (and men, too), as many laws are (complaining about jokes, etc.), so WHAT? That doesn’t make it a bad law, and it doesn't mean only people with certain incomes are covered by the law. These days if someone pulled the kind of stunts on me that I experienced in my teens and 20's, I'd be in the courts in a heartbeat, and that SOB would be the one looking for a job, not me.

Actually, the character of an individual is relevant in the determination of the veracity of his/her claim. A greedy, opportunistic individual is more likely to prevaricate, don't ya think?

Yes, I have been sexually harassed. I won't relay as much personal information as you did, but my handling of the situation as an eighteen year old gives me more reason to be suspicious of this woman's claims. Have you ever known a woman to file a false claim of harassment? I have, and the situation was very analygous to this one. The woman first attempted to extort hush money, then filed her claim.

I do not hate my gender. I set higher standards for my gender than what
the alleged victim is displaying.

Women who make false claims of sexual harassment do nothing to further
women's causes. They give all of us a bad name. On top of that, they make
it tougher for the real cases of harassment to be viewed as legitimate.

It could very well be that she said something along the lines "I'll take you for all your worth" and he translated it into 60 million... As for the salary: 92,000 is NOT a very large salary for New York City; an average policeman on street patrol makes about $70,000.00 after 5 years on the job. Having a salary of $92,000 will NOT allow you to buy an apartment in a decent part of Manhattan, not to mention condo; in short, $92,000 in Manhattan is nothing more than $31,000 in Indiana (see link).
I was actually surprised to see how little assistant producer on top-rated show on Fox makes...
As for "why didn't she complain to his superiors" comment.. you got to be kidding. Bill O'Reilly defines FNC as much as Jim Lehrer defines PBS; he is the face and the soul of the network. It's hard to believe that his "superiors" would listen to some low-level assistant...

I am sorry but I don't follow your logic on this at all. This is the same as saying a parent could not have abused their child at age 10 if prior to that..that the first ten years of their relationship was void of any abuse..because it just proves if they kept to their role as a parent then there is no way they could possibly deviate from that role and become an abuser. Or that you can not commit rape within the framework of a relationship in which sexual relations had previously occurred. Just makes no sense.

Relationships are always evolving...the conditions of them are certainly not static. I have had relationships in my life in which at one point in time it was a very friendly and successful relationship only to experience one event that completely changed the relationship. Some I made amends with..forgave...some I did not. Again there is not a set and approved procedure in which people interact with one another.
I have also left jobs due to certain circumstances and then later been assured that things were different and returned to the job. Is this really such bizarre behavior? I hardly think it is.


Does her salary somehow taint the validity of her claim? As if the extra money she is paid should be more than enough to cover any sexual harassment she may experience at work..just one of the added stresses and responsibilities when you get the bigger paycheck? How much was she making? She lived in NYC didn't she? I have lived there...rent ain't cheap in NYC....so wages do tend to appear much higher.
I also find it curious Mrs. P that you won't give any recognition that she may in fact have a valid claim..and yet Mr. OReilly's claim of extortion is just a fact to throw around.


"And guys, if you exploit a girl, it will come back to get you. That's called 'karma.'"
---Bill O'Reilly, "The O'Reilly Factor for Kids"

Yeah that's right Mr. Oreilly..it's karma

EDITED TO ADD

Hey I just read EH's post...and he is right 92K is nothing in NYC. I can not believe you guys are trying to portray her as some high society Imelda Marcos.


Well since you pointed it out.....
There is now all these quotes being collected from Mr. Oreilly over the yrs on subjects ohh like sexual harassment and the image one must portray as a public figure or even perhaps news anchor.
There is apparently a story he really got worked up about on a female news anchor who was taped participating in a wet tshirt contest. I'll just let Bill explain the rest...

I think that this will affect Bills credibility only if he is guilty. As far as her wanting $60 million, yeah, that throws suspicion that there is no basis for her claims.

I understand what you are saying, Bucket, but in the case we are
discussing on this thread her story doesn't jibe. If he indeed was harassing her all
along, then she made the choice to stay and do nothing about it. She may have
made that choice for any number of reasons, but the bottom line is she stayed of
her own free will, so she cannot expect monetary compensation for years of
treatment that she knowingly accepted (for whatever reason). If it was bad in the
beginning it was her duty (to herself) to either address the issue with Mr. O'Reilly
or report the harassment so it was on record. She did neither.

And, if the harassment just started, then she should have handled it through the
proper channels. He may be a powerful man at FOX network, but if she had a
valid case she should have at least reported what happened so it was known by
others. Her credibility is greatly diminished by her desire to seek only monetary
compensation. Women who have been truly wronged will look for justice first,
not a lump sum of .....

Well, her story jibes now. Bill was going to go to any length to crush his detractors, but has decided to settle in secrecy and never discuss any aspect of it.

Guilty.

Still, his career will not be affected.