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

Originally Posted by Guest

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

Well...I'd bet Bill didn't tie her down and rape her...so no, I have no idea why she'd get $32 million. Does Bill have some seriously weird fetishes? She threatened to reveal them?

We know you hate men mellin.

What do you think happened for her to get $32 million?

Originally Posted by Guest

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

This seems to be a favorite tactic of right wing fanatics. Attack the press. Nixon did it often as well.

Originally Posted by Guest

This seems to be a favorite tactic of right wing fanatics. Attack the press. Nixon did it often as well.

The press........gives opinions in lieu of facts like they used to...A LOT and way too many of them.

I don't know about Bill O'Reilly....and I don't know about his accusers either. Men can harass woman and woman can say they are harassed when they are not. A man who is any woman's superior in business needs to be very careful about flirting or kidding in anyway.

Because some unethical woman could wipe out your savings, and ruin your reputation.

Sex....is a very strong urge and thank God for it or people would not continue.......but oh the....repercussions. The angst, the heartache, the problems. But still...viva la difference.

Gretchen Carlson..........I wonder about, was she a victim?

Originally Posted by Guest

The press........gives opinions in lieu of facts like they used to...A LOT and way too many of them.

I don't know about Bill O'Reilly....and I don't know about his accusers either. Men can harass woman and woman can say they are harassed when they are not. A man who is any woman's superior in business needs to be very careful about flirting or kidding in anyway.

Because some unethical woman could wipe out your savings, and ruin your reputation.

Sex....is a very strong urge and thank God for it or people would not continue.......but oh the....repercussions. The angst, the heartache, the problems. But still...viva la difference.

THAT is WHY women shouldn't be working. They SHOULD be home raising their children! The MAN works to provide.

It IS too easy for a woman to "claim"...he touched me.

Originally Posted by Guest

The press........gives opinions in lieu of facts like they used to...A LOT and way too many of them.

I don't know about Bill O'Reilly....and I don't know about his accusers either. Men can harass woman and woman can say they are harassed when they are not. A man who is any woman's superior in business needs to be very careful about flirting or kidding in anyway.

Because some unethical woman could wipe out your savings, and ruin your reputation.

Sex....is a very strong urge and thank God for it or people would not continue.......but oh the....repercussions. The angst, the heartache, the problems. But still...viva la difference.

Unethical ?

What evidence do you have that the lawyers were unaware of about this woman's "unethical" behavior ?

If you can make that implication, amazing....they could have saved 32 million dollars with one call to you.

His team of lawyers agreed to pay all this money and you "dont know" ?

And by the way, despite your continuing war on the media, they do tell the truth and neither you or Bill OReilly has any evidence to prove otherwise. EVERY damning story about the alt right folks is met with the same thing...the media lied. YET NEVER EVER do they supply any information to support that, nor do we ever hear in the future anything, and most important, they...these extremists on here NEVER EVER WANT DO DISCUSS ANYTHING BUT HOW THEIR GUY WAS WRONGED....and it never ever has happened

Originally Posted by Guest

Unethical ?

What evidence do you have that the lawyers were unaware of about this woman's "unethical" behavior ?

If you can make that implication, amazing....they could have saved 32 million dollars with one call to you.

His team of lawyers agreed to pay all this money and you "dont know" ?

And by the way, despite your continuing war on the media, they do tell the truth and neither you or Bill OReilly has any evidence to prove otherwise. EVERY damning story about the alt right folks is met with the same thing...the media lied. YET NEVER EVER do they supply any information to support that, nor do we ever hear in the future anything, and most important, they...these extremists on here NEVER EVER WANT DO DISCUSS ANYTHING BUT HOW THEIR GUY WAS WRONGED....and it never ever has happened

They do...but you keep saying it's "fake". YOU won't accept ANY evidence contrary to YOUR beliefs.

Like you do with me...you keep telling me I'm wrong, that black people are "just like us" only they have black skin, and nappy hair, and different anatomy, different musculature, different features, different smell, different IQ, different reasoning skills, different ambition...sorry, got carried away...but you REFUSE to have your "theory" of equality broken...shattered...by going down to an inner city MLK Blvd...or by going into a 99% black "school". You REFUSE to go see the PROOF of just HOW different the 99% of blacks are.

Originally Posted by Guest

They do...but you keep saying it's "fake". YOU won't accept ANY evidence contrary to YOUR beliefs.

Like you do with me...you keep telling me I'm wrong, that black people are "just like us" only they have black skin, and nappy hair, and different anatomy, different musculature, different features, different smell, different IQ, different reasoning skills, different ambition...sorry, got carried away...but you REFUSE to have your "theory" of equality broken...shattered...by going down to an inner city MLK Blvd...or by going into a 99% black "school". You REFUSE to go see the PROOF of just HOW different the 99% of blacks are.

Horse poop.

Originally Posted by Guest

Horse poop.

Well said.

Originally Posted by Guest

Horse poop.

Originally Posted by Guest

Well said.

Lets go Tal and Gracie...next weekend, I'll drop you off on MLK Blvd in Orlando or Sanford...somewhere safe compared to MLK Blvd in E St Louis, Baltimore, or Chicago. Dress nice, mingle with your "peers"...we'll be watching betting on how long it takes for you to be robbed or assaulted.

Why are BOTH of you replying IF I'm on your ignore list?

Typical women...liars. Huh Gracie...you KNOW I'm right...women lie a LOT...especially to men...huh?

Originally Posted by Guest

They do...but you keep saying it's "fake". YOU won't accept ANY evidence contrary to YOUR beliefs.

Like you do with me...you keep telling me I'm wrong, that black people are "just like us" only they have black skin, and nappy hair, and different anatomy, different musculature, different features, different smell, different IQ, different reasoning skills, different ambition...sorry, got carried away...but you REFUSE to have your "theory" of equality broken...shattered...by going down to an inner city MLK Blvd...or by going into a 99% black "school". You REFUSE to go see the PROOF of just HOW different the 99% of blacks are.

I agree with Tal...this is horse poop.

Tell you what...you, or "they" supply a link to a news story that was manufactured as anti Trump, and I will start a thread and make a big apology.

News manufactured, not opinion piece,

You cannot do it so I will relax.

Originally Posted by Guest

I agree with Tal...this is horse poop.

Tell you what...you, or "they" supply a link to a news story that was manufactured as anti Trump, and I will start a thread and make a big apology.

News manufactured, not opinion piece,

You cannot do it so I will relax.

I don't give a sh!t about Trump...he's a talking head.

Little of what you read/see/hear as "news" is "truth", it's mostly propaganda with a little truth sprinkled in to make it "believable".

NOTHING related to the military or it's operations is to be believed...not a lick of it. Even when reporters are "embedded" with the troops. They're not really. All the trips you see as "live" are staged. The raising of the flag on Iwo Jima was STAGED days later. THE MILITARY DOES NOT RELEASE ITS PLANS OR MOTIVES...unless that release is part of the plan. Deception and misdirection. Ignore it.

MOST of the "NEWS" you get IS PROPAGANDA. We ARE 1930s Germany! We have been...for a while.

Originally Posted by Guest

Unethical ?

What evidence do you have that the lawyers were unaware of about this woman's "unethical" behavior ?

If you can make that implication, amazing....they could have saved 32 million dollars with one call to you.

His team of lawyers agreed to pay all this money and you "dont know" ?

And by the way, despite your continuing war on the media, they do tell the truth and neither you or Bill OReilly has any evidence to prove otherwise. EVERY damning story about the alt right folks is met with the same thing...the media lied. YET NEVER EVER do they supply any information to support that, nor do we ever hear in the future anything, and most important, they...these extremists on here NEVER EVER WANT DO DISCUSS ANYTHING BUT HOW THEIR GUY WAS WRONGED....and it never ever has happened

Well said. The knee jerk reaction to "fake news" is to "patriotically" support Trump without deeper consideration of what damage these allegations do to our Constitution. Trump isn't the first President to be raked over the coals by the press, but he IS the first President to try to destroy our First Amendment rights, and to be able to reach so many people via his personal outlet, Fox.