Monday Links and Open Thread

76 thoughts on “Monday Links and Open Thread”

  1. If recent history is an indicator, then I suspect Mr. Bill will survive the Lisa Bloom–Wendy Walsh Monday morning press conference (re: harassment claims) virtually unscathed. The adoring fans will still adore and the haters will still hate.

    The O’Reilly Factor (I just learned) has generated almost $3M per week in advertising revenue over the last three years. That is an amazing amount for a cable news show — and that alone suggests little will change IMO.

    Fox News’s parent company, 21st Century Fox will find a way to lessen the impact.

    • Wow, 3 million per week is a lot.

      Nevertheless, I don’t think this boils down to adoring fans and haters. You don’t need to be a hater to recognize that O’Reilly has displayed a pattern of behavior that should have ended a long time ago.

      Nobody is irreplaceable – seems like Tucker Carlson is doing quite well with the 9pm slot that media analysts thought would tank after Megyn Kelly left. Who would take over for O’Reilly? I don’t know – they may have to hire from outside the network. However it’s difficult to flip on Bill these days and watch him wag his finger about something when he has racked up multiple harassment claims and the payouts are over 10 million dollars.

  2. Putting aside Wemple and whatever biases he may have, $9 million dollars sure is a lot of money to pay to settle an alleged frivilous lawsuit regarding O’Reilly behavior.

  3. Interesting Eric Wemple whines about O’Reilly being an awful awful, person, so I guess Bill Clinton would fall into the same category. Bill Clinton paid off several women and liberals defended Clinton as innocent and said the payoffs didn’t admit guilt and were just made so the story would go away.

    Eric Wemple must also be awful due to the following:

    In 2012, a freelance writer named Cathy Alter alleged that an article she wrote for the City Paper, and edited by Wemple, was altered by Wemple against her will to incorrectly portray the facts. The City Paper had what it called its “freak of the week,” a person who served as a piñata for the editors and readers. Alter recalled that Wemple was insistent on portraying Ringley, the “freak of the week”, as fat. “He kept saying ‘I was a fat kid and got teased, she’ll get over it,’ Alter said. Wemple edited the piece to say Ringley as “a chunky lover of Pooh” — as in Winnie-the-Pooh.

    On August 8, 2000, Wemple, while a columnist for the Washington City Paper, wrote a column criticizing Peggy Cooper Cafritz, then a candidate for president of the DC Public Schools, opining that a white woman should not run for such a position in a city that was predominantly African-American. Problem for Wemple, Cafritz is African-American.

    In 2003, Wemple’s wife, Stephanie Mencimer, who works at the ultra-liberal Mother Jones, was arrested and charged with throwing dog excrement at a local businesswoman.

    All of the above used to be in Wikipedia and sourced (you can see in the pages version history), but Wemple and/or friends have since deleted them.

    By the way I am not defending O’Reilly, in fact, I don’t even watch his program. I am just exposing the hypocrisy of the Wemple who’s obsessed with O’Reilly and Fox News with his routine whining.

    • Who are the women that Bill Clinton paid-off? I know he settled a law suit from Paula Jones. Is that what you’re calling a pay-off?

      • I consider Paula Jones a pay off. Fox News channels are basically a pre-court settlements. Another is Debra Schiff, a stewardess Bill was caught on tape groping and then amazingly she became a receptionist at the White House, I consider a job a pay off. Unknown, but many speculate on how many that signed non disclosure agreements.

  4. For all the noise, Housley’s information boils down to this: “The main issue in this case, is not only the unmasking of these names of private citizens, but the spreading of these names for political purposes that have nothing to do with national security or an investigation into Russia’s interference in the U.S. election,” a congressional source close to the investigation told Fox News.

        • Shep tried to sweep it under the rug with help from that bald headed WSJ daily guest who i’ve never heard disagree with a Shepard utterance.

        • How many times was that name mentioned today on the NBC NIGHTLY NEWS and the PBS NEWS HOUR?… tick… tick… tick… ZERO!

  5. Reading over the Roginsky pleadings it seems like a much more credible case than Tantaros’s. Up to a point. The soup gets a little thinner when it pivots to Meghan McCain getting a permanent spot on Out# that Julie wanted. There are a lot of reasons that could have happened rather than payback for refusing to play with Rog, who by this time was long-gone anyhow. Julie was not the most popular Out# player on social media and though I liked her spunk other viewers did not. So this has a bit of the Gretchen thing going: stay silent until you don’t get rehired/promoted then decide to go public. Doesn’t disprove the claims but does weaken them a bit. She’ll get something out of this, but I suspect we’ll not be seeing much of her on air from here out.

    • That’s the thing about Carlson’s lawsuit that always gave me pause – she didn’t call foul until after her contract wasn’t going to be renewed.

      Personally I would have gone with Kennedy to replace Tantaros on the Five but that’s just me. I also thought Roginsky did a good job when she was on and added a Liberal voice to the discussion.

      I like Megan McCain but she has the ongoing conflict of interest of having a prominent US Senator as her father. You have to wonder how many stories that involved McCain were passed on because of it.

    • Wonder what Julie’s future is there — or is she already done?

      I found video of recent appearances on both FNC and FBN as a contributor just last week,

    • She was looking for a spot on The Five. I always thought she was a more appealing liberal than either Juan Williams or Geraldo Rivera.

    • Getting hooked on pain killers is apparently very very very hard to get over. When I came home from the hospital after surgery I was given a large perscription for Oxycontin and encouraged to take them. Never took a one. Even fought off taking while I was still in the ICU. I was terrified of addiction. I sympathize with Beckel and Rush.

    • Question: do lawsuits like this make you that much harder to hire in the future? Maybe your millions will hold you for a good while but living in NYC is very expensive, especially if you don’t have a regular gig.

      • Well would you hire someone who sued their last employer? In any business?

        Maybe if they had a hit show and a large following…… far as I know NONE of the women have that.

        Will they get jobs……..some will I would guess…..but they will never get as much time as they did…..which is why if what they say is true…..they waited so long to tell what they said.

        • Your point may have some relevance for Gretchen. There were all kinds of rumors floating that she was about to sign with NBC or perhaps MSNBC.

          Then — like overnight — the speculation came to an abrupt halt. Hmmm.

      • It definitely wasn’t as funny after Greg left. That’s why I blame him for leaving and I blame him for firing Bill.

        • Tom not having Bill was definitely the thing that hurt him the most when taking over the show.
          A Tom, Bill and Andy show would have likely worked really well.

          If Tom had taken over the June 2013 version of Red Eye instead of the June 2015 version of Red Eye, he would have been in a much better position to succeed.

          • I love “Red Eye” & was surprised to see this news after getting off work. Having said that, Tom’s more conventional comedy style was in contrast to the crazy, offbeat humor of Greg, Bill and Andy. If true that Tom and Andy staying with the network, I think a comedy-talk show on FBN after Kennedy would be great. Maybe move “Strange Inheritance” to the 10pm EST slot.

      • Time has shown that Greg had much more help than people realized. When Bill was gone and some of the better staffers were gone and the show was no longer having the same quality of guests, the show really suffered. Also, Greg wasn’t putting nearly as much effort into the show once The Five became his main job. Red Eye had become such a well-run machine though for his first couple of years on The Five that it probably came really easy.

        When it came to quality, the show wasn’t able to overcome how far it had fallen. The show became too complacent even though it did not have the guests or talent to afford than luxury anymore. Tom looked like he was going to give the show some new blood, but while he seemed to try more at first, the show again just kind of fell in a rut and was hurt by poor guest booking, a lot of bad writing and a lack of creativity.

    • This seems like the cancellation probably would have come as a surprise to the show. They had guests booked for the future and they were not doing the show in a way that made it seem like they were ending soon or at risk of being canceled.

      I didn’t think it would have lasted this long after Greg left. Greg left that show in horrible shape and it never again became what it still could have been. With Tom hosting, he seemed to care about the show more than Greg did for his last year or two hosting, but he didn’t have much help or seem to really understand where the show needed to make improvements.

      It’s surprising that this happened now though because they have been having some of their most viewed months in the history of the show, but most of that is probably because of how well the network as a whole has been doing.
      Fox probably could no longer overlook the fact that a rerun of one of their other shows would do as well in that slot.

      Hopefully they cancel most of their guests for this week and try to get as many of the fan favorites they can. Would also be great if they finally got a Bill Schulz return.

      I think Tom and Andy might only be sticking around for as long as their contracts are still for. Andy has been given very little opportunities on Fox outside of Red Eye and I imagine they would give him a large pay cut to stay on just as a commentator. Tom has more value as a fill-in host and commentator, but he also likely would be better off financially just appearing occasionally and going back to a career in entertainment.

      For the first year of The Greg Gutfeld Show, Greg could have really used guys like Tom and Andy, but now he doesn’t really have much use for them besides appearing as guests.

      • I think Andy is super-smart and funny. I’ve always been surprised that FOX hasn’t used him more. I hope he doesn’t move to another network.

        • The odds that Andy goes to another news network is extremely small.
          I don’t know what would be next for him, but I think it is more likely than not that he will no longer be doing a job that requires him to appear on camera.

          Even if he leaves Fox, he probably would be at a job that would allow him to still appear as a guest.

          • I think that he could do quite well in radio. He is just off-the-wall enough to be a success, if not nationally, then locally.

          • The old Red Eye podcast and the few times that Greg, Bill and Andy did radio together showed that they would have made for a great radio show.

            Andy seems like he could be good co-hosting a podcast with someone. Not really the main host though.

      • Sad they didn’t atleast get a proper ending especially for show been on the air for 10 years cable news shows don’t always last that long …

        • At least they have the rest of the week, but considering how the show has gone the past few years, I have low expectations for how they are going to wrap it up. They did almost nothing for the 10th anniversary. Plus, they don’t have much of a relationship with many people that viewers would like to see. I would hope that Gavin McInnes and Sherrod Small would be willing to return for this and that they would invite Bill back. Bill actually should be invited back for the whole week.

          I have little hope that Red Eye has the guts to cancel their guests for the week with the possible exception of Friday. The show has seemed to have little regard for its history for a while now.

          Hopefully the show gets Greg and former Red Eye (current Gutfeld) producer Tom O’Connor to help out.

      • The show obviously declined in quality a lot over the past three or four years, but I think that didn’t have much to do with it being canceled.

        I think the show lost its value to Fox as a whole. It didn’t have an employee that Fox saw as having greater potential. It wasn’t really being used as much as a show that allowed newer on-air talent to get extra exposure and experience. It wasn’t introducing that many good new guests. Fox also now has other shows that use a lot of humor. Even The Five has been funnier than Red Eye. Red Eye lost what made it unique long ago.

        Also, the show wasn’t giving FNC bragging rights anymore. Even with the ratings up, it was no longer beating CNN and MSNBC shows the way it used to.

        The name “Red Eye” seems like it could have still had some value to Fox in other ways. Maybe a daily podcast or a Fox Business show. Cut back on staff and production and just have a loose discussion of the news. Maybe Tom and Andy with a couple of guests.

        • Here is an example of how the show had actually been doing worse even though ratings were going up:

          In 2016, the show was 55th in total viewers and 52nd in the 25-54 demo among all cable news shows.
          In 2015, the show was 44th and 37th.
          In 2014, the show was 35th and 24th. [Total viewers were actually higher in 2016 that in 2014, but the show dropped 20 spots in the rankings.]
          In most of the years where ratings were reported, the show was top 40 in total and top 30 in demo.
          So, the show had been declining in success when compared to cable news as a whole and for the first quarter of 2017, it was 51st total and 48th in demo. So, it wasn’t really improving much.

          [Note: There are more reruns included in 2016 and 2017 than there were in previous years, but not enough to make a huge difference in rankings.]

  6. I wish Fox, Fox News or even Fox Business would try another shot at a conservative parody show (alternative to the liberal SNL). I may be one of the few who liked “The 1/2 Hour News Hour” on Fox News on Sunday Nights for 17 episodes in 2007, which was a conservative version of SNL Weekend Update.

  7. Special Report with James Rosen! He is one super talented guy. He keeps the show moving, has a quick quip when needed and tonight was quick to question AB Stoddard when she made a “statement of fact”. Her “proof” was an article by Eli Lake. Now, he’s a very good reporter and I enjoy reading his work, but something doesn’t become a fact just because a reporter says it’s true (even a good reporter).

  8. Today’s most popular links:
    5 scoop
    4 resurfaces
    3 Julie Roginsky lawsuit
    2 cancels Red Eye
    And the most popular link in today’s links…
    1 Fox & Friends video: How MSNBCNN spiked Adam Housley’s (scoop).

  9. While I stopped watching The O’Reilly Factor last summer after a fair number of years — when he became too pro Trump for my tastes, I still never stopped believing he’s a smart cookie.

    Smart enough to realize that there was nothing he could say to make the Julie Roginsky or the Wendy Walsh accusations better at this point.

    Of course, there’s still the “Tip Of The Day” to come. 🙂

  10. Man do I feel old today….I remember when you were crazy if you thought the Obama admin has listened to any of Trumps people.

    • Since what Susan Rice did was not illegal, do you think some in the media are overplaying their hand?

      Or, do you think those with the harshest criticism are justified given how inappropriate it appears to those not willing to concede “it had a national defense component”?

      Personally, I haven’t followed it closely enough to come down strongly on either side.

      • Exactly who are you relying on to say what she did was not illegal? Are you saying only the unmasking was legal? Do you know that she ISN’T the person who LEAKED the information? How exactly do you know what you said?
        Just because a reporter or two tells me something isn’t illegal I don’t go with making such definitive statements.

        • `Both the report by Bloomberg and Bit Hume’s comment to Bill O’Reilly — to name a couple — state that it is too soon to establish illegality.

          So let me turn the tables a bit and ask you, “Who are you relying on to say what she did was illegal?” Isn’t that only fair?

Comments are closed.