the case has been settled and all parties agreed to keep the details confidential ..Don't know how I feel about all of this really. I Like O' Reilly and I know it was settled and the charges were dropped by both parties and it's history now but who knows we'll never know the details and perhaps that's for the best but honestly can't help feeling disappointment in O' Reilly for ending it this way I always thought he was an all or nothing kind of guy to see it through to right or wrong and never thought he'd leave it in the grey area..I really couldn't say what I think of Mackris now because hey she may have had some reason to offended we'll never know now and she is an attractive young lady so you never know what really happened..Anyway disappointed with this it works for them I suppose but leaves me with doubt about character I thought was intact fully..oh well today i guess it's not a big surprise..I stand corrected..
Jeff
O' Reilly sued......?
Moderator: Available
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Jeff
I have lost respect for both of them
* Makris states she wasn't harassed.
* O'Reilly states he wasn't extorted.
* Makris gets an undisclosed sum of money.
What???
Sure, sure, sure... Fox News wants it to go away. O'Reilly's wife wants it to go away. Makris won't be able to find a job in a zero-unemployment-rate economy, so she damned well better have enough money to live on from this point on.
But...where is the principle? Where is the conviction?
If Makris was harassed, she had no business taking money and saying she wasn't. Gold digger... Stand by your convictions, woman, or go home. Don't bother to call it anything but what it was - a shake-down for some cash and an attempt to trash someone's reputation.
If O'Reilly says he didn't harass, then he should defend himself. If he was talking nasty with the young lady when he had kids and a wife...well... WE ALREADY KNOW!!!! If it was me, I'd want my kids to know I stood for something, however imperfect I was. Let them see the man I really am, warts and all. There's something to be learned from it.
Maybe I can give Fox News a pass. I don't know...
The only people who won here are the lawyers. Again. What a surprise. Scumbags...
Question: What's the difference between a hooker and a lawyer?
Answer: A hooker stops screwing you when you are dead.
- Bill
I have lost respect for both of them
* Makris states she wasn't harassed.
* O'Reilly states he wasn't extorted.
* Makris gets an undisclosed sum of money.
What???
Sure, sure, sure... Fox News wants it to go away. O'Reilly's wife wants it to go away. Makris won't be able to find a job in a zero-unemployment-rate economy, so she damned well better have enough money to live on from this point on.
But...where is the principle? Where is the conviction?
If Makris was harassed, she had no business taking money and saying she wasn't. Gold digger... Stand by your convictions, woman, or go home. Don't bother to call it anything but what it was - a shake-down for some cash and an attempt to trash someone's reputation.
Not in my book. When I see someone like that, I see the face of ugly. Give me an obsese woman with a heart of gold any day of the year.she is an attractive young lady...
If O'Reilly says he didn't harass, then he should defend himself. If he was talking nasty with the young lady when he had kids and a wife...well... WE ALREADY KNOW!!!! If it was me, I'd want my kids to know I stood for something, however imperfect I was. Let them see the man I really am, warts and all. There's something to be learned from it.
Maybe I can give Fox News a pass. I don't know...
The only people who won here are the lawyers. Again. What a surprise. Scumbags...
Question: What's the difference between a hooker and a lawyer?
Answer: A hooker stops screwing you when you are dead.
- Bill
There's a short on www.ifilm.com entitled the "O'Sexxxy factor," which compiles all of BO's references to sex on his show. Fairly entertaining. Not as good as the summary of the republican convention though, which is in the same vein.
--Ian
Here's the thing, Bill. She could be absolutely in the right (I have no idea) and still lose the case because she can't afford a skilled enough legal team. Do you really think it's fair to say that every woman who has been harassed must submit herself to public embarassment and possible financial ruin? If she made it up, sure, she's scum, but if not, I don't think it's unreasonable to take a settlement.
To be honest, it almost doesn't matter that she retracted it, if it is true. If O'Reilly were to harass a different woman, the fact that he's already been accused of harassment in the past would help to embolden her to confront him about it. Further that suspicion will hang around him. Once made, it's not really possible to erase an accusation just by saying "Haha, just kidding"
On the flip side, I wouldn't neccesarily blame O'Reilly for offering a settlement either, even if he's innocent. Even if he won, as I said, an accusation sticks. I'm not sure which would be better, a jury vindication or a retraction from his accuser, but honestly the difference isn't that great when it comes to public opinion. Once an impression is created in the public's mind it's hard to get rid of, and if he wins the jury case he doesn't get the accuser's retraction, and vice versa.
So by offering a settlement he may have saved himself money and gotten her to take it back, which she almost certainly not have done if he had won the case.
If he'd taken the case, and lost unfairly, he could have his career ruined anyway. Is he morally obligated to take that risk just to make the point of his innocence? Further, there's probably aspects of his personal life he doesn't want paraded around in the press, why should he have to go through that?
People need to stand by their principles, but you have to pick your battles, and not every assault on your principles is worth risking everything for. Sometimes you have to just face a problem head on and hash it out, but that's not always the best solution. I don't know every fact of this case, but it's certainly conceivable to me that they both made a reasonable choice given their circumstances.
To be honest, it almost doesn't matter that she retracted it, if it is true. If O'Reilly were to harass a different woman, the fact that he's already been accused of harassment in the past would help to embolden her to confront him about it. Further that suspicion will hang around him. Once made, it's not really possible to erase an accusation just by saying "Haha, just kidding"
On the flip side, I wouldn't neccesarily blame O'Reilly for offering a settlement either, even if he's innocent. Even if he won, as I said, an accusation sticks. I'm not sure which would be better, a jury vindication or a retraction from his accuser, but honestly the difference isn't that great when it comes to public opinion. Once an impression is created in the public's mind it's hard to get rid of, and if he wins the jury case he doesn't get the accuser's retraction, and vice versa.
So by offering a settlement he may have saved himself money and gotten her to take it back, which she almost certainly not have done if he had won the case.
If he'd taken the case, and lost unfairly, he could have his career ruined anyway. Is he morally obligated to take that risk just to make the point of his innocence? Further, there's probably aspects of his personal life he doesn't want paraded around in the press, why should he have to go through that?
People need to stand by their principles, but you have to pick your battles, and not every assault on your principles is worth risking everything for. Sometimes you have to just face a problem head on and hash it out, but that's not always the best solution. I don't know every fact of this case, but it's certainly conceivable to me that they both made a reasonable choice given their circumstances.
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
- Good Will HuntingSean : There's honor, ya know, in taking that 40-minutes so those college kids could come in the morning and their floors are clean and their wastebaskets are empty. That's real work.
Will : That's right.
Sean : Right, and that's honorable. Sure that's why you took that job. I mean for the 'honor' of it.
I just have a little question here. You could be a janitor anywhere. Why did you work at the most prestigious technical college in the whole f***in' world? And why did you sneak around at night and finish other people's formulas that only one or two people in the world could do and then lie about it? 'Cause I don't see a lot of honor in that, Will.
There are a lot of things this woman could have done with her life. She had options. She had choices. Why did she leave CNN, work with/for O'Reilly, tell others she was having the time of her life, and then sue O'Reilly for harassment - after he wouldn't quietly "settle" behind closed doors? And all this without first going to Human Resources?
All I see here are wasted time, energy, and reputations. And bank accounts, of course...
Bill O'Reilly presents himself as a principled man. Now what?
- Bill
-
Dana Sheets
- Posts: 2715
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am
Documenting a pattern of verbal sexual harassment in a workplace could be difficult to accomplish and a barrier to someone speaking out against what was going on. Image is a big deal in my industry. If there's a perception that you can't handle the heat then love turns to no-confidence faster than they switch topics on Entertainment Tonight.
We love everything until we hate it. We hate everything until we love it.
That's Hollywood baby.
Since nobody knows what happened between these two - second guessing them from this distance is really...well...unlikely to produce anything fruitful. Sexual harassment in the workplace a real and often misunderstood aspect of american professional life.
Being the ever helpful person I am...Two of the myths below have already been mentioned on this thread.
We love everything until we hate it. We hate everything until we love it.
That's Hollywood baby.
Since nobody knows what happened between these two - second guessing them from this distance is really...well...unlikely to produce anything fruitful. Sexual harassment in the workplace a real and often misunderstood aspect of american professional life.
Being the ever helpful person I am...Two of the myths below have already been mentioned on this thread.
http://www.sa.ucsb.edu/women'scenter/se ... sexual.asp
Myths about Sexual Harassment
Fundamental to an understanding of sexual harassment is recognition of the myths associated with it. We need to work hard to dispel these myths.
Myth: If females would just say "No" it would stop.
Fact: Although saying "No" does work occasionally, many men and boys still believe that women and girls who say "No" really mean "Yes," and that they like the behavior at hand. Thus males may justify continued harassment as they ignore any protests from females.
Myth: Harassment will stop if a person just ignores it.
Fact: Harassers often believe that when people ignore harassing behavior they like it. The lack of response is seen as approval or encouragement. Studies show that in most cases when harassment is ignored it continues and often gets worse.
Myth: If females watched the way they dressed, there would not be problems with sexual harassment.
Fact: Sexual harassment can happen to anyone, no matter how they dress. It typically has far more to do with power than with sexual attractiveness or appearance. A particular way of dressing is not permission to touch or otherwise harass.
Myth: Sexual harassment is no big deal-it's the natural way males and females express affection and friendship with each other.
Fact: Unwanted sexual innuendoes, grabbing, and lewd comments are not expressions of affection or friendship but rather expressions of power, a need to control and in some instances, hostility toward women. Truly friendly behavior is not hurtful.
Myth: Most people enjoy sexual attention at work and school. Teasing and flirting make work and school fun.
Fact: Not necessarily. One person's teasing may be another's sexual harassment. Some people may be angry and embarrassed because their sexuality takes precedence over individuality.
Myth: Sexual harassment is harmless. Persons who object have no sense of humor or don't know how to accept a compliment.
Fact: Harassment is humiliating and often frightening. It can undermine careers and economic livelihoods, and affect the learning climate for students. No one should have to endure humiliation with a smile.
Myth: Sexual harassment policies will negatively affect friendly relationships between students and teachers, or those between male and female students.
Fact: Sexual harassment is not the type of social relationship that teachers should be having with students or that students should be having with each other. Friendship and sexual harassment are two very different relationships.
Myth: Nice people could not possibly be harassers.
Fact: Harassers typically are not perverts and generally do not fit any particular mold. They come in all forms, including well-liked, talented, respected professionals, as well as popular, active students.
Adapted from Educator's Guide to Controlling Sexual Harassment
Did you show compassion today?
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Dana
Thanks for the important information. This is helpful.
Can we do some hypotheticals? Have you ever worked for reasonably large businesses? If so, what would *you* do in a situation where you were being harassed? What would you not do?
I'm not suggesting that either of us have a corner on the truth here. I just want to dig into something like this deeper. I've been a boss in large organizations, and have seen a lot of stuff. This thing just smells way too funny to me, and I don't see either women or men benefitting. I see too many "confounding" issues that pollute what has been presented as a legitimate grievance.
Perhaps some hypotheticals would make us all feel more enlightened, and we can let that nasty situation RIP.
- Bill
Thanks for the important information. This is helpful.
Can we do some hypotheticals? Have you ever worked for reasonably large businesses? If so, what would *you* do in a situation where you were being harassed? What would you not do?
I'm not suggesting that either of us have a corner on the truth here. I just want to dig into something like this deeper. I've been a boss in large organizations, and have seen a lot of stuff. This thing just smells way too funny to me, and I don't see either women or men benefitting. I see too many "confounding" issues that pollute what has been presented as a legitimate grievance.
Perhaps some hypotheticals would make us all feel more enlightened, and we can let that nasty situation RIP.
- Bill
Dana
I don't know, the University I work has noticably "chilled" in terms of behavior between teachers and students.
Profs that used to have good friendships with their students are noticably unwilling to "risk it" as it were.
At least one guy that was very accessible to students now refuses to meet with any female undergrad without the presence of another teacher--and he never, never, ever closes his door with a female student in his office.
Let me clear that this guy is NOT concerned about his actions-he is worried about being in ANY situation which could be spun into something.
Heck, one female teacher I know had a student use her totally platonic, and very casual friendship with another student as evidence of why the "other" student got a better grade.
Not a word of truth in it--but it was enough to get a formal review of her gradeing policy.
Not trying to downplay the seriousness of harrasment in ANY form--just getting a little concerned at some of the side effects of creeping paranoia.
Even in the private sector I notice some folks are careful to the point of overreaction.
One accusation is all it takes to ruin you.
I don't know, the University I work has noticably "chilled" in terms of behavior between teachers and students.
Profs that used to have good friendships with their students are noticably unwilling to "risk it" as it were.
At least one guy that was very accessible to students now refuses to meet with any female undergrad without the presence of another teacher--and he never, never, ever closes his door with a female student in his office.
Let me clear that this guy is NOT concerned about his actions-he is worried about being in ANY situation which could be spun into something.
Heck, one female teacher I know had a student use her totally platonic, and very casual friendship with another student as evidence of why the "other" student got a better grade.
Not a word of truth in it--but it was enough to get a formal review of her gradeing policy.
Not trying to downplay the seriousness of harrasment in ANY form--just getting a little concerned at some of the side effects of creeping paranoia.
Even in the private sector I notice some folks are careful to the point of overreaction.
One accusation is all it takes to ruin you.
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
sorry about this......
my reply is at the thread that says HEY GUYS in bill's forum
because i mistakenly hit new thread instead of posting it in a reply here where it is suppose to be in O'Reilly sued..
Jeff
because i mistakenly hit new thread instead of posting it in a reply here where it is suppose to be in O'Reilly sued..
Jeff
