The media world is still abuzz about this past weekend's NYT story revealing that O'Reilly paid $32 million to stop Lis Wiehl from suing him. Megyn Kelly asked the biggest remaining question on her show Monday morning: "What on Earth would justify that amount? What awfulness went on?" Only O'Reilly and Wiehl know for sure.

The Times "obviously hates me," O'Reilly said when he called into Glenn Beck's radio show on Monday. He called reporter Michael Schmidt a "weasel." The NYT's "end game is, 'Let's link Bill O'Reilly with Harvey Weinstein'" and "take him out of the marketplace forever," O'Reilly said, speaking in the third person.

The truth is that Schmidt and Emily Steel worked on this story for months. They knew about the Lis Wiehl rumors last winter. They weren't able to confirm the settlement info in time for their first story about O'Reilly's secret settlements, back in April, but they kept pursuing it, and eventually got the goods. No, they didn't conjure it up because O'Reilly's book was a bestseller...

Tom Kludt emails his analysis: At every turn throughout this rolling scandal, O'Reilly has cast himself as a victim, a powerful man who was wrongly accused but fell on his sword (and shelled out millions) all to protect his children.

But I think O’Reilly would rather keep this storyline vague. It’s helped him mostly avoid talking about the specific allegations levied against him, and it's allowed him to describe the matter in terms that will resonate with his most ardent fans: "It's a politically motivated hit job, driven by a corrupt and biased press." See, by keeping the story in reductive territory, O'Reilly is attempting to turn a scandal into yet another source for his victimhood, the lifeblood of his career...

- Brian Stelter