I Cogitate
| Recent Posts | My Best Blogs | Archives | Favorite Quotes | Links | Contact |
In the court of public opinion, is Bill O'Reilly a sex offender?
A sex offender is defined as a person who has been criminally charged and convicted of, or has pled guilty to, a sex crime. The seemingly more harsher term, sexual predator, is used to describe a person seen as obtaining or trying to obtain sexual contact with another person in a metaphorically predatory manner.
Now I'm not a lawyer and thankfully don't even portray one on television but it seems apparent that Bill O'Reilly does not legally qualify as a sexual offender or sexual predator under either of these two definitions--this despite his involvement in a sexual harassment lawsuit with Andrea Mackris, a female FOX producer.
But this question remains: should O'Reilly be affixed such labels in the 'court of public opinion'?
How about in his personal and televised 'court of public opinion'? C'mon Bill, put the good 'ol spotlight on yourself.
That this fraud of a moralist has plunged both of the words in the term 'bully pulpit' to new depths is so typical--his ilk adamantly believes such that the behavioral dicates he issues do not apply to him. No, he is above them and hypocritically answerable to no mere mortal. No one is allowed to frame O'Reilly's failings within any guidelines--such is his and only his bailiwick--to do to others. But imposters such as O'Reilly are not new. Sinclair Lewis so perfectly captured this type in "Elmer Gantry."
Now, outsiders will never know if Mackris' assertions of phone calls from O'Reilly, assertions of tape recordings of these phone calls and assertions of sexual content, unwanted sexual content, are valid. But, if not, why did O'Reilly settle the case? To put it even stronger, why did he cave? The argument that doing so simply made the mess go away and such was the easiest and quickest route to do so is so, well, so anti-O'Reilly.
Here he is on this very subject:
"Put yourself in this position. You make an enemy. That person accuses you of some sex crime, maybe harassment. You're totally innocent, but the accusation is made public. Your life will never, ever be the same. Talking Points believes society must rethink how this sex stuff is handled and that those who do bogus charges should be punished. Raping a person's character is a crime, too. And evil people who do that should be held accountable."So O'Reilly had his chance to hold someone accountable and he went limp--his choice of impotence in lieu of defending his character seems quite telling.
What psychological malady is present in such national stage hypocrites as this?
Here's the entire Mackris-O'Reilly blast from the past, something that should be recycled every so often to remind us of the perversion O'Reilly spews on and off the air:
CELEBRATE: On October 13, 2004, the greatest lawsuit ever was filed. Today, on the occasion of its second anniversary, we reprise Mackris v. O'ReillyGo here for the lurid rest but be forewarned you will never again enjoy a falafel without a certain vision appearing before your eyes
O'Reilly Hit With Sex Harass Suit
Female Fox coworker details lewd behavior of cable TV star
The Smoking Gun
October 13, 2004
OCTOBER 13 -- Hours after Bill O'Reilly accused her of a multimillion dollar shakedown attempt, a female Fox News producer fired back at the TV star today, filing a lawsuit claiming that he subjected her to repeated instances of sexual harassment and spoke often, and explicitly, to her about phone sex, vibrators, threesomes, masturbation, the loss of his virginity, and sexual fantasies. Below you'll find a copy of Andrea Mackris's complaint, an incredible page-turner that quotes O'Reilly, 55, on all sorts of lewd matters. Based on the extensive quotations cited in the complaint, it appears a safe bet that Mackris, 33, recorded some of O'Reilly's more steamy soliloquies. For example, we direct you to his Caribbean shower fantasies. While we suggest reading the entire document, TSG will point you to interesting sections on a Thailand sex show, Al Franken, and the climax of one August 2004 phone conversation.
O'Reilly's lawyer in this matter, Ronald Green, was quoted as saying:
“Mr. O’Reilly denies that he has done anything that rises to the level of unlawful sexual harassment.”Hey, that's quite Bush-esque--never thought O'Reilly would resort to being such a champion parser. Guess he wasn't in the No-Spin-Zone when he issued his denial.
Then, reality set in and it all boiled down to how much O'Reilly was willing to pay to settle the matter. Of course, he couched the drama in terms of himself being the widdle 'ol victim.
Bill O'Reilly, Producer Settle Harassment SuitOf course, you have to search far and wide for subject matter O'Reilly has yet to issue his official O'Reilly decree about and sexual harassment is a subject he has weighed in on time and time again. And, yep, what 'guidelines' he dictates for others, as is usual for vainglorius blowhards, simply do not apply to him.
Fox Host Agrees to Drop Extortion Claim
Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 29, 2004; Page C01
Bill O'Reilly settled a sexual harassment lawsuit by his former producer last night, ending what he called a "brutal ordeal" without an apology.
The Fox News talk show host also agreed to drop his extortion suit against Andrea Mackris and her attorney, Benedict Morelli, according to a statement by O'Reilly's lawyer. The deal likely involves payment of millions of dollars to Mackris, since the two sides were discussing an offer of well over $2 million when negotiations broke down, say sources close to O'Reilly. Both parties agreed to keep the details confidential, according to the statement.
O'Reilly on Sexual Harassment: In His Own WordsSo, what's your take?
FAIR - Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
October 25, 2004
Andrea Mackris, an associate producer for Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor, filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against host Bill O'Reilly on October 13. O'Reilly has countersued Mackris and her attorney for extortion, claiming that they demanded $60 million to settle the case out of court-- a claim Mackris's attorney rejects. As some news accounts have pointed out, O'Reilly's lawyers are not denying that the sexually explicit phone calls and conversations O'Reilly is alleged to have initiated actually happened; instead, they are arguing that such behavior does not constitute harassment (New York Times, 10/14/04).
According to some news reports, an out-of-court settlement is still a possibility; if that does not happen, O'Reilly is of course entitled to his day in court. But over the years, O'Reilly has expressed some very strong opinions about sexual harassment and the moral responsibilities of public officials. These comments should be taken into consideration as viewers and reporters consider the case, no matter what the outcome.
On public officials, their private lives and moral judgment (7/16/01):
"There is a strong movement in America to remove any kind of value-based argument. We see this all the time.... Public officials have the right to lie about sex because it is no one's business what they do in private, even if sexual harassment suits are lodged against them, i.e., President Clinton, or even if a young girl disappears shortly after talking with a congressman she was intimate with. Hello, Gary Condit. Many Americans simply cannot or will not make judgments about behavior. And this is a tremendous change in our society. The danger here is that the absence of value-based judgments breaks down justice and discipline."
On Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky (8/7/01):
"I was screaming this, nobody else really drove the nail. But under the federal guidelines, as you know, if you have more power than a subordinate and you both work in the federal system, it's sexual harassment for you to have even a consensual affair with that person."
top
RSS feed
| Recent Posts | My Best Blogs | Archives | Favorite Quotes | Links | Contact |