Did Bill O'Reilly sexually harass women, or was it foolish or inappropriate banter which is not illegal.
Sexual harassment must be defined. Workers make "sexual" comments incessantly, if the definition is broad, including "You look great!"
Yet, this is not likely something to result in millions of dollars of pay offs.
We have two statements issued by Bill O'Reilly.
Given his training, we expect him to say that he did not sexually harass anyone. Even without him defining sexual harassment, this is still our expectation.
We recently have seen an attorney accuse Sean Hannity. In listening to the audio, she is deceptive, but the next day, she recanted. There is a "witch hunt" that is well known and if Bill O'Reilly is a victim of witch hunt, we may allow his words to guide us.
First statement: April 1, 2017
Just like other prominent and controversial people, I'm vulnerable to lawsuits from individuals who want me to pay them to avoid negative publicity. In my more than 20 years at Fox News Channel, no one has ever filed a complaint about me with the Human Resources Department, even on the anonymous hotline.
First: he immediately puts himself in a crowd. Psychologically, we like to see someone stand alone and say, "I did not..."
guilt hates to be alone and will often associate with others. He does this from the start.
Secondly: This is similar to the language of PED users who boast of how many times they have passed a drug test rather than when they have been caught.
There is no denial but he specifically qualifies these complaints as to where they did not go: Human Resources.
We may consider that complaints went elsewhere.
I do not doubt that many today are opportunists who in the spirit of larceny, seek to obtain money their own hands have not earned, yet we expect him to deny sexually harassing anyone.
But most importantly, I'm a father who cares deeply for my children and who would do anything to avoid hurting them in any way. And so I have put to rest any controversies to spare my children.
Being a father does not preclude someone from adult sex, sexual contact, or sexual harassment.
This is a diversion and "sermonizing" (moralizing away the allegation without answering it).
He tells us why he had to "put to rest" controversies: for his children.
The worst part of my job is being a target for those who would harm me and my employer, the Fox News Channel. Those of us in the arena are constantly at risk, as are our families and children. My primary efforts will continue to be to put forth an honest TV program and to protect those close to me.
The language is similar to child molesters who use as a defense that they are "happily married" or "a father" rather than deny.
It is likely that he was trying to save his job on this date.
Note "families" and "children" enter his language. This is emotional manipulation akin to "who will save the children?" by a politician seeking to exploit.
He seeks pity rather than issue a denial.
Statement 24 April, 2017
“I am sad that I’m not on television anymore. I was very surprised how it all turned out. I can’t say a lot, because there’s much stuff going on right now. But I can tell you that I’m very confident the truth will come out, and when it does, I don’t know if you’re going to be surprised — but I think you’re going to be shaken, as I am. There’s a lot of stuff involved here.”
“Now, I can’t say any more because I just don’t want to influence the flow of the information. I don’t want the media to take what I say and misconstrue it. And you, as a loyal O’Reilly listener, have a right to know, I think, down the lane what exactly happened. And we are working in that direction, okay?”
The truth will come out.
This is a common thread in guilt, from OJ to Lance Armstrong to...with the only difference is that the subject gives us his reason for delay.
Those of de facto innocence state so. There is no legal nor civil repercussion for the de facto innocent to say "I did not..."
Here he avoids a denial and blames media. Media will follow its narrative but to say "I did not sexually harass anyone" would have been a place to start for a denial.
He avoids the denial and feels the need to explain why. This continues to heighten the sensitivity.
Bill O'Reilly does not deny sexual harassment, therefore, we cannot deny it for him. He is unwilling or unable to issue a reliable denial.
Even if the second statement's "wait for the truth" is simply exploitation due to build ratings for his program, it does not negate the rest of the analysis.
It is likely that if Fox did, in deed, pay out millions, it was not due to a witch hunt, but self protection of its brand.
Fox News sets up a sexualized environment with beautiful women in sexualized outfits.
A deliberately sexualized environment is going to produce such results.
Analysis Question: Was Bill O'Reilly a victim of a leftist witch hunt?
American Thinker had a thoughtful article stating hope that Bill O'Reilly will take time to reflect upon himself and be truthful.