Bill O'Reilly Gets $25 Million From Fox News As Final Payout

With Bill O’Reilly officially ousted by Fox News, there was speculation whether the former Fox anchorman would receive a lump sump payout as a parting settlement considering that O'Reilly signed a new 4 year contract just before being ousted. It has now been confirmed by FT and CNN that indeed, O'Reilly will get a payout of $25 million, equivalent to one year’s salary, as part of his exit settlement with 21st Century Fox.

“The amended contract provides for Bill to receive a maximum of one year’s salary,” said a person with knowledge of the terms quoted by the FT.

O'Reilly's payout, following the presenter’s dismissal from Fox News this week after a 22-year career with the network, is less than the $40m Roger Ailes, the network’s former chairman, received when he was fired in similar circumstances last year.

At an event in New York on Wednesday night, James Murdoch, the company's CEO, was asked by a New York Times reporter about the abrupt exit.

Murdoch said "we did a thorough investigation, a thorough review, and we reached a conclusion. Everything that we said in our statement is all you need to know."

O'Reilly issued a statement that reaffirmed his innocence, saying "it is tremendously disheartening that we part ways due to completely unfounded claims. But that is the unfortunate reality many of us in the public eye must live with today."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...ox-news-final-payout

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Bill O'Reilly Gets $25 Million From Fox News As Final Payout

Yeah, "the left" really stuck it to him, didn't they?

Yeah, sure Bill... It's a rough life...

quote:

O'Reilly issued a statement that reaffirmed his innocence...

I'd like to see President Trump replace Sean Spicer with Bill O'Reilly. Now that would be entertaining.

Yeah, I'm sure that arrogant sumbitch is pure as fresh fallen snow.

quote:

Originally posted by BMR:
I'd like to see President Trump replace Sean Spicer with Bill O'Reilly. Now that would be entertaining.

Here's my pick for "worst idea I've read today." It's only 2:30, though.

quote:

Originally posted by S600MBUSA:

quote:

Originally posted by BMR:
I'd like to see President Trump replace Sean Spicer with Bill O'Reilly. Now that would be entertaining.

Here's my pick for "worst idea I've read today." It's only 2:30, though.

He could nominate him to the Supreme Court next opening. O'Reilly would have to survive on his stash until then, but I imagine he could somehow.

Well the rumors of Soros and his minons being behind the advertising pull on The Factor are out in full force... Never let a crisis go to waste... Of cour it is The Blaze and Beck, maybe Beck just trying to be less irrelevant.


http://www.theblaze.com/news/2...y-advertiser-exodus/

Document suggests Media Matters is behind O’Reilly advertiser exodus
Tré Goins-Phillips Apr 19, 2017 12:23 pm

An email obtained by conservative radio host Glenn Beck suggests that progressive media watchdog group Media Matters orchestrated the advertiser exodus from embattled Fox News host Bill O’Reilly’s program.

View image on Twitter



“For years,” the email begins, “Bill O’Reilly has been one of the worst purveyors of misinformation on Fox News. A serial misinformer, pushing many of the most extreme, sexist, racist, homophobic, and xenophobic conservative theories on TV.”

The correspondence was written by Mary Pat Bonner, president of the Bonner Group. According to the New York Times, Bonner served as a “donor adviser” to former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Through her firm, Bonner connects big money donors to liberal groups seeking donations. Bonner’s contracts give her company a sizable commission — around 12.5 percent — on any money she brings in. In addition to Clinton, the Bonner Group has also advised Media Matters and the American Bridge super PAC.

“The Bonner Group gets us the best fundraising product for the lowest cost,” David Brock, founder of Media Matters and American Bridge, told the Times. “In my experience, the commission incentivizes the fundraiser to meet the ambitious goals we set.”

In the email, which was sent April 13, Bonner heralds the success of her firm and Media Matters’ “advertiser education campaign” against O’Reilly.

“We are currently at a critical juncture in this campaign,” she wrote, before inviting recipients to join a couple of “update calls” on Thursday and Friday.

Bonner’s email was revealed just hours after one of O’Reilly’s lawyers, Marc Kasowitz, claimed that the Fox anchor “has been subjected to a brutal campaign of character assassination that is unprecedented in post-McCarthyist America.”

“This law firm has uncovered evidence that the smear campaign is being orchestrated by far-left organizations bent on destroying O’Reilly for political and financial reasons,” he continued. “That evidence will be put forth shortly and it is irrefutable.”

Dozens of advertisers have pulled their commercials from O’Reilly’s 8 p.m. time slot in the weeks since the Times reported that O’Reilly and 21st Century Fox, Fox News’ parent company, have settled to the tune of $13 million with at least five women who have accused the network host of sexual harassment.

And according to Media Matters, the number of brands that have shifted ads away from “The O’Reilly Factor” has topped 80, “with dozens more quietly taking the action or keeping them off in the first place.”

Angelo Carusone, president of Media Matters, said “many expect more women will come forward” with allegations against O’Reilly. He also asserted Fox News Co-President Bill Shine “will go too.” Carusone offered no evidence to support either claim.

Follow
What’s happening now is a giant smear campaign, and they work,” Beck said on his radio program Wednesday morning, later adding that the left is “splitting the conservative movement and they’re taking the bear out of the door.”

The Wall Street Journal, which is owned by News Corp, a media conglomeration founded by Fox News CEO Rupert Murdoch, reported Tuesday night that the news network is preparing to sever ties with O’Reilly.

The Journal’s report comes the week after news broke that 21st Century Fox CEO James Murdoch was reportedly ready to cut O’Reilly, who is on vacation until April 24. However, at the time, Rupert Murdoch, James’ father, and 21st Century Fox Co-Chairman Lachlan Murdoch, James’ older brother, were “more inclined” to stand by the host.

But now it appears the Murdochs are nearing a unanimous decision. And in Beck’s mind, it’s all about money — not principles.

“They’re making the decision based on money, and money has nothing to do with principle,” he said, after earlier telling listeners he “would not be saying this if I had personal information” that the accusations against O’Reilly were true.

If the harassment claims end up being true, Beck said he would be “highly disappointed” with O’Reilly. “If there is evidence that something happened, that’s something different,” he said.

One man's truth-telling is another woman's sexual harassment. Not saying it is the case here, but it's the truth. Telling a woman she is ugly or has poor taste in clothes or a bad work ethic may be truthful, but in today's litigious world it's just asking for an accusation of sexual harassment.

flashguy

This has all the earmarks of the old McCarthy uber-Americanism, blacklists, economic reprisals, not much attention to facts.

It will spread, so that employees of Fox will be PNG at other media employers, pressure on advertisers to drop all ads or face boycotts.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
One man's truth-telling is another woman's sexual harassment. Not saying it is the case here, but it's the truth. Telling a woman she is ugly or has poor taste in clothes or a bad work ethic may be truthful, but in today's litigious world it's just asking for an accusation of sexual harassment.

It's my understanding that he was trying to get his dick wet.

The truth in these matters doesn't matter, in the high profile world that O'Reilly lives in the mere inference elicits a massive push to indict by media, trial by fire.

In no way am I defending this type of behavior but we no more know the truth today than we did when it came out. How many times have we seen this used as a revenge method, and in his case because he's on FOX the Alt-Left media (he he had to do that) attacks, no proof, nothing, if he was a business owner at Bills Muff and Dive shop we'd never hear a word.

The entertainment business is tough, lots of ad money to be sold, and social media is now a weapon to spread information or disinformation or censor.

We now have sub groups in the country who are funded and charged with disrupting the government, disrupting free speech, passing laws that infringe on constitutional rights, judges that legislate for one agenda.

Maybe with all the media sources today it's just put in our faces, faster, more often than in the past.


Either way, he agreed to leave, and like taking the 5th the "immediate guilty" image is applied, a shame really how we can denigrate those that take a constitutional right as a means of declaring guilt.

^^^ what HRK said ^^^

"Document suggests Media Matters is behind O’Reilly advertiser exodus"

This says a lot ~ we and almost everyone is a) jealous of him or b) plain don't like him/personality so it justifies all the negativity.
This leads him getting it at all ends ~ fair or not.
I think his $25M pay out is low ~ should be for his full contract.
We still do not know any of the facts.
In Bill Clinton's case he was accused and proved he did far worse and what did he get - just more Democrat love and the Republicans just shrugged it off.

Yes, this is all fabricated, just as all those accusations of sexual harassment against Bill Clinton are fabrications.

Where there's smoke, there's fire.

Mister Heavy Weapons shouldn't have given anyone any ammunition.

Townhall.com
Mark Davis Mark Davis |Posted: Apr 20, 2017 12:05 AM


The O'Reilly Factor 1996-2017


The death of the dominant TV show in the history of Fox News leaves an immediate void. It will be particularly tragic if its death was a suicide.

It is already popular to presume that where there is smoke, there’s fire, and thus Bill O’Reilly must be guilty of various claims of sexual harassment and therefore fully deserves his dismissal. I cannot conclude that.

But nor will I conclude that he is innocent, as he claims. It is human nature to wrestle controversies to a knowable bottom line, and if we are all honest, we have no idea who is telling the truth, O’Reilly or his accusers.

Both scenarios are plausible. History contains famous people who have famously misbehaved in the workplace. It also contains lying accusers who will say anything to destroy reputations.

All we have are the words and actions of all sides, and a vacuum of proven facts always invites speculation.

I always start from a baseline that accusers deserve some benefit of the doubt. It is not an easy thing to pin a serious charge on a public figure, and those who do it truthfully deserve our support. But those who do it falsely, as in the Duke lacrosse case, deserve condemnation. The moment charges are leveled, we know something bad has happened, but we don’t know what.

In the O’Reilly case, he is either a serial harasser or the victim of a snowballing campaign to drive him from his livelihood. That effort has now succeeded, but there is no objectively reachable conclusion that justice has been done.

His detractors are thrilled, of course, and began piling on with typically classless glee in the troll-rich waters of social media. His steadfast fans can only hope his continuing denials are true.

Some of those fans have grilled Fox News for denying him the presumption of innocence, but a job is not a court of law. Employers may take action whenever their business interests are at risk via appearance or reality. Fairly or not, accusers and activists lit a fire that resulted in a massive advertiser boycott that the network could not ignore.

Fox News did not have to fire O’Reilly. They could have withstood the storm and waited for it to pass. There are only two reasons for their decision: either they have reason to believe the charges are true, or they did not think the matter would blow over.

The millions of dollars in settlements paid to accusers do not help O’Reilly. Memories are fresh of Donald Trump standing up to a wave of pre-election accusations with bold denials and no peep of settling to silence them. It worked.

But settling is not an admission of guilt. There are times when a prominent public figure will write a massive check to just make a story go away, even if it is false. The logic: if a salacious charge goes to trial, the public will long remember the damning testimony even if the defendant ultimately prevails.


But among multiple settlements totaling millions of dollars, that argument takes a beating, especially as the list of accusers grows.

Is it possible that these accusers are adding their voices to a vindictive chorus of lies, designed to bring O’Reilly down? Sure. It is also possible that O’Reilly is completely guilty and thoroughly deserves this fate.

The statements from the star and his former employer contain windows to their motivations.

An internal Fox News memo announced that the network and O’Reilly “have agreed” on his departure. Translation: we are firing him, but are willing to afford him a last shred of dignity in the form of a claim that his exit is voluntary.

After a nod to his legacy of ratings domination, the memo touts “the strength of its talent bench.” This is a wink to viewers and advertisers that they have a strong Plan B ready to deploy. This apparently involves the awarding of the O’Reilly Factor time slot to the nomadic Tucker Carlson, whose success in the old Megyn Kelly hour is evidence that he is the real deal. His hour will be filled with one of the network’s best shows, The Five, whose edgy but convivial panel will move to prime time, minus center-seater Eric Bolling, who gets his own show at 5 Eastern. Factor favorite Jesse Watters will replace Bolling on The Five.


So okay, Fox News is ready to plow forward without missing a beat. But they want to make sure everybody knows they are aware of the image hit they have sustained, as O’Reilly follows Roger Ailes out the door on another wave of workplace misbehavior charges. “We want to underscore our consistent commitment to fostering a work environment built on the values of trust and respect,” the memo concludes.

Those are the words of a company that either: a) knows it has an internal culture problem, or b) admits nothing but wants to stop the reputational bleeding.

For O’Reilly’s part, he wants to make sure we all know he is not leaving happily. “It is tremendously disheartening that we part ways due to completely unfounded claims,” he writes, inviting the observation that the word “unfounded” (unproven, unsubstantiated) was chosen instead of the more definitive “false.”

So what now? Will O’Reilly ever reappear in the evening opinion-show arena? America is a place where memories are short, forgiveness common and profit motives strong. If some network calculates that the benefits of exhuming O’Reilly’s TV career are worth the heat, it could happen, but probably not soon.


I will miss him. He brought a rare attribute to his industry: occasional unpredictability. He also brought a lofty self-regard and scrapper’s spirit that delivered another plus: he was rarely dull. The whole “no-spin zone” concept was really fairly silly; When O’Reilly shared his own views, wasn’t that just his “spin?” And I always chucked at the “Talking Points” open, whenever he referred to his opening monologue as if it were a separate entity to be referenced in the third person— “Talking Points believes that Susan Rice intentionally misled the country.” I mean, come on.

But I watched. Often. And I was usually rewarded. The show had a certain fit. Placed alongside the Trumpian conservatism of Sean Hannity and the strong journalistic chops of Bret Baier’s Special Report, the Factor (dubbed The O’Reilly Report for its first two years) was a different breed, as was its host.

He wasn’t always conservative. He wasn’t always reasonable. But for my viewing habits, he was always worth at least a cursory look, and often more. Count me among those who hope he is telling the truth, and if so, those who hope he resurfaces.

But since all of us writing and talking about this do not know that, a specific rooting interest is not sustainable. I know his haters will not observe such restraint, so they are free to stew in their own juices. One thing is certain: the retooled Fox News lineup will continue to dominate its momentary gloating competitors.

Link

quote:

Fox News did not have to fire O’Reilly. They could have withstood the storm and waited for it to pass. There are only two reasons for their decision: either they have reason to believe the charges are true, or they did not think the matter would blow over.

Or a third reason, power....

As the artilce Jallen posted infers, perhaps it's fabricated, perhaps not. That doesn't deny that it hasn't been proven/disproven,

Sure his leaving gives the impression of admission of guilt by not fighting to the uneducated. However we are all aware that our legal system encourages people to resolve the complaint regardless of truth due to costs.

like the article below, it is doubtful that the powers that be at Century 21 give a shit about who's asking for a hand job, that industry is rampant with that stuff, the casting couch doesn't have it's reputation for no reason. So to find that the board of Century 21 suddenly found religion and became appalled with his purported actions are just as absurd.

Perhaps it's being used as part of a power play at Fox.

In this case though James Murdoch wanted this closed immediately, just as he didn't back Roger Ailes, he isn't backing O'Reilly because those two were the king pins of the old Fox news good ol boys under his father. Consipracy theory, perhaps, however it's certainly not inconceivable in the high powered high dollar entertainment industry, or in New York City.

Seems the Entertainment industry is pushing this theory, it's all about James, and remember he's an uber progressive....


Michael Wolff: It's James Murdoch's Fox News Now

With the ouster of Roger Ailes and now Bill O’Reilly, Rupert Murdoch's son has overthrown his own network as he moves to reinvent the family company's profit machine at great risk.
After The New York Times wrote about the sexual harassment claims leveled at Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly and the settlements made by the company and O’Reilly himself, James Murdoch, according to 21st Century Fox sources, kept repeating with horror to his friends and executives: "This is on the front page of The New York Times!"

These sources say James Murdoch’s longtime annoyance if not disgust with Fox News became cold fury after the Times' April 1 story — even though several of the O’Reilly settlements had happened when James was CEO of the parent company. This was a similar reaction to what had followed the harassment suit by former anchor Gretchen Carlson against Fox News chief Roger Ailes in July. Every time Fox controversies spilled over into the wider world, James took it personally. “It was somehow against him," says one person close to the Murdochs.

Fox News is a business he should not be in, he had told people before, despite its major contribution to 21st Century Fox's bottom line — 20 percent of its profits came from Fox News last year, the biggest-earning division in the company. Presumably, he meant the in-your-face world of conservative cable news with its mega personalities. Indeed, James regarded many of the people at Fox News as thuggish Neanderthals and said he was embarrassed to be in the same company with them.

But, likewise, it would be hard to imagine how James could have been regarded with more contempt by many of the people at Fox News. James was rather exhibit No. 1 of the liberal elite entitlement that Fox had so profitably programmed against. “Fox [News] is an important brand, but it needs to develop, and, to some extent, be reformed,” James said when I interviewed him 10 years ago in his office as the chief executive of the Murdoch-controlled Sky TV in Britain, whose significantly less-partisan news operation he extolled as a ratings and journalistic model.

He seized his first opportunity for reform in July when, over his father Rupert's protests and his brother and co-executive Lachlan’s ambivalence, he pushed for the ouster of Ailes, the network’s founder and almost all-powerful executive. When the O’Reilly story hit the Times, he overrode his father and brother again — and, by the same method he had used with Ailes, hiring a Democratic-associated law firm, Paul Weiss, to perform a rubber-stamp investigation. (In neither the Ailes nor O’Reilly investigations were the targets of the investigation interviewed.)

It was, he proudly told friends, a right decision rather than a business decision. The billionaire scion was aligning himself, profits be damned, with a new generation of corporate responsibility. That put him quite directly at odds with his father. It would be quite inconceivable to imagine Rupert sacrificing sure profits for greater good or a better image; indeed, his company had always been a pirate company.

But that really is the larger point — in which O’Reilly and Ailes were in the end just collateral damage — it isn't his father’s company anymore.

If the expulsion of Ailes, and, even more dramatically, O’Reilly, mean anything, it means most of all that James is in charge. And, most immediately, this means that Fox News, that constant irritant in James’ view of himself as a progressive and visionary television executive, will begin to change. Virtually overnight.

In some sense, with the ouster of Ailes and now O’Reilly, James has overthrown his own network. With them there, both men possessing vast industry, institutional, political and corporate powers, it would have been impossible for the owner’s jejune son to have forced change. Now with them gone, it’s nearly a clean slate. Fox News must become something else. The almost certain instant erosion of Fox’s primetime audience, built on the spillover of O’Reilly’s long-unbeaten 8:00 hour, means the existential moment begins, practically speaking, immediately.

Rupert, 86, is said to be watching this in some disbelief, but with some pride, too. He has long believed that what many others see as his son’s arrogance and superciliousness is actually brilliance. And while Rupert may disagree with much of James' instincts and actions — quite proved inadequate in the London phone-hacking scandal for which James received much of the blame — he yet seems pleased that he would be up to taking them.

James’ dream, wherein he hopes to match his father’s accomplishments, and which he has been spinning for all who might listen for many years now, is of combining Sky News and Fox News with the vast Murdoch reach and producing some ultimate global news brand. Where Fox News is parochial and America First, the new global brand is worldly and unlimited. It will give his family’s company, once the pirate company, new meaning and new stature — a force for stability instead of upheaval. Murdoch media, in an age of populist disruption, will stand for the established world order.

Risk, in Murdochland, is good. Risk is one of Rupert's top business virtues. But where his father took risks in defiance of the respectable world, James, with some kind of head-smacking irony, is now risking the profits and influence his father created (with no small help from Ailes and O’Reilly) in pursuit of some ultimate respectability.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
BTW, party at Shep's place!

I seem to recall, years ago, that some female associate of O'Reilly's received a phone call that she taped. He suggested to her that she masturbate with a "loofah" and he seemed to be masturbating. She taped the call because she had received others like it. This-- I believe-- was settled out of court for a reputedly large sum of moolah.

That is sexual harassment. No woman should have to put up with that kind of crap from someone who has power over her-- who can advance or end her career.

So, I'm not defending O'Reilly. I never liked anything about him.

But "sexual harassment" is a powerful weapon in the arsenal of political warfare. It has become-- as some "feminists" insist it should be-- a charge that is believed unless it can be proven otherwise. "Proving a negative" is an untenable logical position.

Also, the boundaries of what constitutes sexual harassment are flexible and vague, including such things as, "He made me feel uncomfortable when I talked with him," or, "He looked at me in a sexual way." Put that together with the predisposition to side with the accusing female, and you have a dangerous situation for men.

Remember, Hillary tried that against Trump in the last days of the campaign. A whole lineup of women were paraded before the cameras, all saying Trump had sexually harassed them.

It didn't work on Trump because nothing worked. His supporters knew that the chips were down, it was Hitlery or The Donald. But other men are not in that unassailable position.

So: I don't care about what has happened to O'Reilly per se. But the growing legitimacy and effectiveness of this kind of attack does bother me.