Joe Cooper
2017-04-21 13:35:57 UTC
Fox News took Bill O'Reilly off the air after a heavy campaign to fire
him led by CNN's media unit and The New York Times. If all the charges of
sexual harassment are true, his case is indefensible. That said, it's
time for his media critics to stand down. They are guilty of rank
hypocrisy.
These same media outlets despised the idea that Donald Trump would drag
Bill Clinton's sexual harassment lawsuits into the presidential campaign.
On Jan. 8, 2016, the Times editorial staff sneered: "It is also a tired
subject that few Americans want to hear more about. If Mr. Trump has not
read enough, he can curl up with a copy of the Starr report."
Bizarrely, the editorial noted that Hillary Clinton had told a New
Hampshire town hall questioner a month earlier that Juanita Broaddrick's
tale of rape was not to be believed. Yet it was Trump who was denounced
as sexist and beyond the pale. The Times said: "His aim is to dredge up
an ancient scandal and tar Mrs. Clinton with it in a clearly sexist
fashion. There should be no place for that kind of politics in this
country." That is, unless it's the top draw at Fox News, in which case
it's suddenly America's greatest concern.
On April 2, 2017, the Times published a 3,148-word front-page article
lamenting "O'Reilly Thrives as Settlements Add Up." Reporters Emily Steel
and Michael Schmidt declared that their investigation found five women
who received payouts from either O'Reilly or Fox "in exchange for
agreeing to not pursue litigation or speak about their accusations
against him. The agreements totaled about $13 million."
As they noted, the lion's share of that total came in a $9 million
settlement from 2004. That was 13 years ago, but it didn't qualify as a
"tired subject" or some "ancient scandal."
CNN relentlessly pushed for O'Reilly's dismissal, calling up advertisers
and pressuring them to take commercials off their competition. Bashing
O'Reilly dominated their Sunday show "Reliable Sources" for weeks and
their "news" programming after their victory.
But two days after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke in 1998, CNN aired a
town hall meeting titled "Investigating the President: Media Madness?"
Host Jeff Greenfield insisted that millions of Americans were "asking the
press one question fraught with significance: What the hell are you
people doing trying to find out what kind of sex the President of the
United States might or might not be having?"
Back then, it was "media madness" to investigate whether then-President
Bill Clinton might be assaulting women in the workplace -- the Oval
Office. There was zero concern about a "culture of abuse" inside the
White House. For good measure, CNN moved on to specials attacking special
prosecutor Ken Starr for prudishly investigating where CNN and the rest
of the press never wanted to go.
It's not only CNN and the Times that are displaying a different moral
standard. Does no one find it just a wee bit ironic that disgraced Brian
Williams is still doing a weeknight show on MSNBC, where he can lecture
that O'Reilly was dispatched by "the power of the female consumer"?
Women deserve a workplace where men don't harass them for sex. But that's
what these sanctimonious liberal journalists care about. It just doesn't
matter how brutal the alleged rape of Juanita Broaddrick was. What
matters is that Bill O'Reilly had to go.
Bill Clinton is laughing.
Source: http://bit.ly/2pYUOhe
him led by CNN's media unit and The New York Times. If all the charges of
sexual harassment are true, his case is indefensible. That said, it's
time for his media critics to stand down. They are guilty of rank
hypocrisy.
These same media outlets despised the idea that Donald Trump would drag
Bill Clinton's sexual harassment lawsuits into the presidential campaign.
On Jan. 8, 2016, the Times editorial staff sneered: "It is also a tired
subject that few Americans want to hear more about. If Mr. Trump has not
read enough, he can curl up with a copy of the Starr report."
Bizarrely, the editorial noted that Hillary Clinton had told a New
Hampshire town hall questioner a month earlier that Juanita Broaddrick's
tale of rape was not to be believed. Yet it was Trump who was denounced
as sexist and beyond the pale. The Times said: "His aim is to dredge up
an ancient scandal and tar Mrs. Clinton with it in a clearly sexist
fashion. There should be no place for that kind of politics in this
country." That is, unless it's the top draw at Fox News, in which case
it's suddenly America's greatest concern.
On April 2, 2017, the Times published a 3,148-word front-page article
lamenting "O'Reilly Thrives as Settlements Add Up." Reporters Emily Steel
and Michael Schmidt declared that their investigation found five women
who received payouts from either O'Reilly or Fox "in exchange for
agreeing to not pursue litigation or speak about their accusations
against him. The agreements totaled about $13 million."
As they noted, the lion's share of that total came in a $9 million
settlement from 2004. That was 13 years ago, but it didn't qualify as a
"tired subject" or some "ancient scandal."
CNN relentlessly pushed for O'Reilly's dismissal, calling up advertisers
and pressuring them to take commercials off their competition. Bashing
O'Reilly dominated their Sunday show "Reliable Sources" for weeks and
their "news" programming after their victory.
But two days after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke in 1998, CNN aired a
town hall meeting titled "Investigating the President: Media Madness?"
Host Jeff Greenfield insisted that millions of Americans were "asking the
press one question fraught with significance: What the hell are you
people doing trying to find out what kind of sex the President of the
United States might or might not be having?"
Back then, it was "media madness" to investigate whether then-President
Bill Clinton might be assaulting women in the workplace -- the Oval
Office. There was zero concern about a "culture of abuse" inside the
White House. For good measure, CNN moved on to specials attacking special
prosecutor Ken Starr for prudishly investigating where CNN and the rest
of the press never wanted to go.
It's not only CNN and the Times that are displaying a different moral
standard. Does no one find it just a wee bit ironic that disgraced Brian
Williams is still doing a weeknight show on MSNBC, where he can lecture
that O'Reilly was dispatched by "the power of the female consumer"?
Women deserve a workplace where men don't harass them for sex. But that's
what these sanctimonious liberal journalists care about. It just doesn't
matter how brutal the alleged rape of Juanita Broaddrick was. What
matters is that Bill O'Reilly had to go.
Bill Clinton is laughing.
Source: http://bit.ly/2pYUOhe
--
"Trump signs executive order making California and New York national
monuments; residents have two days to vacate."
(http://thepeoplescube.com/)
"Trump signs executive order making California and New York national
monuments; residents have two days to vacate."
(http://thepeoplescube.com/)