Tuesday Links and Open Thread

  • The Five video: Greg rips on Halloween costumes.
  • Monday’s numbers: Sean Hannity-Tucker Carlson-Maddow 1-2-3.
  • Somerby: Anderson Cooper has become an ‘undisguised partisan‘.
  • Impartial CNN anchor breaks down reading ‘open letter’ to Trump.
  • Steinberg: Brian Williams discusses regaining trust after a scandal.
  • Audio Q&A: Jake Tapper talks cartoons.  Q&A: Katy Tur talks Phish.
  • The star power of Chris Cuomo is coming up short on Friday nights.
  • ‘Racism’ accusations leveled at…Joy Reid!   Today’s lawsuit update.
  • Tucker videos:  Russia, the Clintons, and uranium
  • Kathy Griffin zings Coop: ‘The spineless heiress‘.  Greta makes book.
  • Locals give thumbs down to galloping gourmet’s Pittsburgh exposé.
  • Sunday showdown: MediaBuzz tops CNN Reliable.  Weekend numbers.

64 thoughts on “Tuesday Links and Open Thread”

        • Big coincidence, though. Considering the lousy ratings that Unfiltered gets, maybe Andy doesn’t want to burn any bridges at FOX.

      • He has criticized Fox some on Unfiltered already. Nothing too harsh though.
        He probably is allowed to say what he wants.

        I wonder if S.E, would have pressed him about how much he knew while at Fox and why didn’t he speak out.
        He probably heard quite a bit. Bill Schulz definitely did.

        • I’m thinking that’s why he was not on today. If FOX is such a toxic environment for women, why didn’t Andy speak out or leave? Instead he stayed for 10 years (and got paid very well from what I hear). Would SE have embarrassed her good friend by pressing him about this? I doubt it.

          • I heard the other day from someone I know who worked at Fox News for years, in a prominent role with the talent, the producers, writers etc. He was stunned when the first news item popped, and completely taken aback with the Lis Wiehl news. He had never heard so much as a whisper among FNCers about Ailes, or Bolling, or O’Reilly and never saw an inkling of the ‘culture’ people refer to. Most tv producers are women and he never heard a thing from any of them along these lines. He adds that he’s just one of hundreds of people who worked at FNC and were shocked by the stories.

          • I think those at and around Red Eye seemed to hear more. Maybe it was from going out for drinks after the show so much.
            They seemed to have known about the Bolling photos and the Huddy accusations.

            I think the O’Reilly lawsuits, at least from the past decade, are from things that took place outside of the building.
            O’Reilly seems to have made the mistake of getting involved or trying to get involved romantically with co-workers.
            People point out the big numbers paid out to O’Reilly accusers, but before the Weihl lawsuit, there were three settlements in the previous decade and they had to be for at most four million total and they were for accusations of things that took place at 2011 at the latest. Over 90% of the $45 million that was supposedly paid out came from two lawsuits over a decade apart.

            It is not very believable that Fox was this horrible place to work. There would have been a lot more turnover in talent and there would have been a lot more stories leaking out.
            In fact, I haven’t even heard accusers say it was a bad place to work.

            Most of the public accusations about Ailes from his time at Fox are just about things he said. Some of which may have just been inappropriate jokes.
            Little evidence that anyone was actually punished for rejecting him. Megyn Kelly’s success at the network shows the opposite.

            I think it is an insult to a lot of the people who work there that they were turning a blind eye to rampant bad behavior. There are likely plenty of people who would have said something if they had known.

          • I was thinking about Red Eye in connection with all this. I wonder if the show could get away with a lot of the things it said and did back in the day if the show was in its infancy now. I watched from day one and a lot of the guests and regulars really pushed the envelope. The leg chair, for example. And SE Cupp, when she filled in as ombudsman for Andy, with her legs spread across the desk (wearing stilettos of course) and licking her pencil point suggestively while reading her notes. And all the talk about porn? Oy!

          • When it came to topics, the early days were the filthiest. They clearly were told to cut back on it (I recall Greg once telling Bill that they weren’t supposed to make jokes of a certain nature anymore), but they still did all sorts of things that they likely wouldn’t allow now.

            If the footage was easier to find, someone could make a montage of clips from Red Eye that would be hard for the network to have and excuse for. Even by claiming it was just jokes.
            Fox is lucky that there hasn’t been a past female guest who claimed that she didn’t realize what kind of show Red Eye was and that they went too far.

            A show with humor like Red Eye when Schulz was still there would never be on Fox News again, but there is still a lot of innuendo on The Five and Kennedy makes “edgy” jokes (other post-Ailes era shows like Gutfeld and the Shillue version of Red Eye also go/went pretty far depending on the guests). It has surprised me that they seem to have not been told to be more careful.

          • We can strongly suspect that people who sign pay checks had heard some stories.

            I think Tanteros said that Ailes told her that O’Reily liked to send vulgar pictures to attractive women and ask for their comment.

            Later we heard that this was a charge that Wiehl made against BOR.

            That’s not conclusive, I know.

            Writing big checks over the years does indicate that everyone who should have ridden herd on this stuff was in the know.

            What’s particularly frustrating to me is to hear O’Reilly say that he knew that he and FNC are a target, and apparently he was still asking women associated with his program to meet him in his hotel room for a drink, etc.

            Hubris will always be part and parcel of power.

      • Seems like she was attacking Fox to try to stick up for CNN against fake news charges. The same day their dumb apple ad came out.

        Plus, she took a tweet of Trump’s and pretty much said it was Fox’s view.
        She complained about generalizations about the media by generalizing about Fox News.

        Not sure she was very effective just by giving a couple of examples of the media doing good things that were years old and making claims against Fox that weren’t backed up by any specific examples.

        If she wanted to throw O’Reilly and Ailes back in the face of people on Fox that said they were “embarrassed” for those at CNN, she should have named names (only person at Fox she named was Chris Wallace and he was being critical of Fox) and shown their words.
        That way the viewer could know if they were people who even were at Fox when Ailes was or ever worked with O’Reilly.

        Also, don’t know if those she was talking about were mentioning specific people or CNN as a whole.

    • Joy Reid and Rep. Wilson are doing what they must do for the political power that comes from racial victim status, and the sense of moral authority playing such a card gives to the partisan politics of both MSNBC and the DNC.

  1. Golden boy Anthony Bourdain publicly chides Hillary Clinton over the timing and content of her comments about Harvey Weinstein, and suddenly there are several less than glowing pieces about him in the media and a spate of negative clickbait.

    Hope he got the message for his sake.

  2. I wouldn’t have thought Twitchy would be on the anti-O’Reilly bandwagon, but they are. In my failure to fall asleep right away last night, I checked various apps on my iPhone. One of those apps was Twitchy, which is the mobile version of the website. They had a post featuring Bill’s tweet with the two notes from Gretchen and Megyn. Gretchen flippantly replied: “So what. Still paid $32m.” Twitchy’s post concluded with laudatory replies to the reply. I took all of that personally and it kept me awake a bit longer.

    Furthermore, I have tremendous buyer’s remorse. Back when Gretchen and Megyn were with FNC, I bought the Audible versions of their memoirs. They were interesting to listen to and got me through many morning workouts. (I mainly listen to Audible when I work out.) In hindsight, I wasted time and money.

    Having said all this, I wasn’t there when either of them were harassed. I don’t know their pain. If either of them, or someone they know, is reading this, don’t take my words personally. I’m just some random guy.

  3. Calling Anderson Cooper a “spineless heiress”……..wouldn’t that qualify as a homophobic hate crime if it was uttered by a conservative????

  4. After my Twitter feed showed Guy Benson “liked” a tweet where anti-O’Reilly troll Jake Tapper trolled Mr. Bill, I blocked Jake. He might as well add -mann to his last name.

    I also was reminded I was following Juliet Huddy. No longer.

    As with my earlier comment, I don’t know your pain. Don’t take my comment personally. I’m nobody.

    • It’s clear that this is now a policy across all of CNN. Attacking Fox has always been an arrow in the CNN quiver that they would fire off from time to time, but now it’s suddenly more coordinated and synchronized than ever before. They think Fox is vulnerable so the marching orders have been issued. And–presto!–there’s S.E. Cupp slamming Fox News. Hers was supposed to be a show that would go off in different directions from the typical cable news hour, and yet there they are, playing echo chamber to the CNN theme du jour.

      Stelter brings on Gretchen Carlson, and falsely advertises it as an ‘exclusive’ (she had just appeared on MSNBC). It’s a big enough story as it stands, but they give that extra (dishonest) PR push because orders from headquarters. And it’s a trademark CNN blue-dress interview: no questions about why she kept asking to go on The Factor, or why she didn’t speak up until after she was fired (for having the lowest rated show on dayside). Don’t bring up anything that would distract from the goal.

      Just my opinion; I could be wrong.

  5. Someone is obviously advising Megyn to attack things FOX NEWS as an arrow in the quiver to regain popularity. Short term, maybe a little. Long term, who the hell respects a turncoat ingrate?

    • That’s what I was thinking. Being “kind of done with politics for now” wasn’t working. Attacking the competition is thus far an effective last resort.

    • Megyn Kelly would be nothing except for Fox News. For whatever dumb reason, Roger Ailes defended her tirelessly when she went on the warpath against Trump in the primary debates. He got no loyalty in return. It brings back memories of that poem Donald Trump used to read at his rallies, The Snake.

    • Just to put it in perspective, Fox rehired O’Reilly after he personally paid out 32 million dollars to a fellow Fox employee, who did segments on his show, and who claimed he harassed and had nonconsenual sex with her.

      That’s worth some exploration. That’s a story and a woman’s issue…whatever they want to call it.

      • Fox said that they didn’t know about the size of the settlement. That sounds believable because if they knew, things would likely have been different.
        They would have had to know that there was a good chance that the story would get out and they would have been worried about it.

        If there was a personal relationship between O’Reilly and Weihl, they likely would have known about it. So, if one indeed existed, they probably would have not been all that concerned about a lawsuit between the two that did not include the network.

        Also not sure how much Fox knew about what was being accused.

        • In my mind the fact that Wiehl was an employee should have caused them to be extremely interested in what went down between those two.

          I would think it would have been in their interests and an automatic assumption that a well-known and connected attorney may have their deep pockets in her sites too.

          I seriously doubt that they weren’t aware of it.

          Not to mention the fact that the reputation of their biggest star is certainly a matter of corporate concern.

          • That affidavit did say “Also, I have reached an accommodation with Fox News regarding the termination of my employment. I have no claims against Fox News.”
            So, Fox likely knew something was up, but also knew that they weren’t at risk of being sued. So, they probably weren’t too concerned.

            I would be pretty surprised if they knew about the “non-consensual sexual relationship” claim.

          • I’d be pretty surprised if the Fox honchos didn’t know everything that was going down in the contretemps with the man who was the public face of Fox News.

            They calculated the risk and made a choice.

            If they didn’t , then so much the worse.

  6. Been two weeks since I reprogrammed the DVR to watch Dana at 2 instead of Shep at 3. I now have afternoon recap of the day’s news without the histrionics (good and bad).

  7. Today’s most popular links:
    5 coming up short
    4 breaks down
    3 update
    2 spineless heiress
    And the most popular link in today’s links…
    1 ‘Racism’ accusations leveled at…Joy Reid!

Comments are closed.