Monday, October 25, 2004

OINK OINK OINK: O'Reilly on Sexual Harassment

In His Own Words
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."

[Is O'Lielly trying to imply that Bill Clinton engaged in a consensual affair? Why does he hate America?]

When Ohio TV anchor Catherine Bosley resigned after photos of her participating in a wet t-shirt contest were posted on the internet, O'Reilly thought she should be let go (1/23/04):
"Let's be realistic. Politicians, news people, clergy all have images, and all depend on the trust of the public to succeed. So we have a young woman here who -- anchoring the news, and her pictures are all over the Internet..... So it intrudes on her ability to communicate the news, does it not?"

"The station has an obligation to put on people who are going to bolster their news image. This woman, in a community like that particularly, but in -- I think in any city in the USA, becomes a joke, and, therefore, the station becomes a joke, and you can't be a joke if you want to compete in the news area."

"Are you aware that in every newscaster's contract, there's a moral clause that says, if you embarrass the station publicly in any way, they can let you go.... Once you go public and do something like that, although it's not illegal, it embarrasses your employer because your employer operates on credibility."


[On this point of not being a joke if one wants to "compete in the news area," where is this "news area"? Is it anywhere in the vicinity of FauX News? Can Ailes & Co. walk around this "news area"? Do they even have a passing familiarity with its borders and terrain? Would they recognize a "news area" if they stepped inside one? Also, just wild conjecture here, but I'm guessing that since O'Lielly's employer does not operate on credibility, FauX will not have much to say about O'Lielly's having "embarassed" them with his pigaciously piggish piggery. (Apologies to pigs.)]

On October 21, 2003, O'Reilly said the following:
"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."

["Talking Points believes"? Talking Points believes?? Now this idiot is speaking in the third person and not even about himself but about a segment on his TV show? Oh, jeeezus merry and josuff, the guy is astonishingly bereft of any non-egomaniacal higher faculties. Narcissus was less enamored of himself.]

Oh, and he's an idiot. All of a sudden it occurs to him that someone who "makes enemies" is vulnerable to false accusations? Reeeaaallly? This bloviating blowhard needs a bona fide ass-whoopin', and my pacifist self is just dying to perform the honor. Where does one start? I've got one teeny question that comes to mind: who the hell walks around "making enemies"? Could it be harassing blowhard bloviators with falafel fetishes? I'm just askin'.