6

What Fox News didn’t learn from Bill O’Reilly

Leah McLaren on how the network firing its star was not a watershed moment, it was just recent history repeating itself


 
Fox News Channel host Bill O'Reilly poses on the set of his show "The O'Reilly Factor" in New York March 17, 2015. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

Fox News Channel host Bill O’Reilly poses on the set of his show “The O’Reilly Factor” in New York March 17, 2015. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

Interesting isn’t it, the way toxic leadership almost invariably results in toxic culture?

This is true of nations and families, but it’s perhaps most painfully evident today in the arena of big business. Sick leaders make for sick companies and once a moral rot has set in, it’s almost impossible to stop it from spreading. Sick companies don’t tend to have much success at healing themselves.

Oh but they do like to try.

At Fox News last week, the symptoms that have been riddling the network for years now once again began to fester—this time in the very public firing of Bill O’Reilly, until recently the network’s “top asset” and the host of the nightly The O’Reilly Factor, amid allegations of sexual impropriety.

As a media organization best known for afflicting the afflicted and comforting the rich, Fox is predictably poor at policing its own leadership. As both the culture and the content of Fox suggests, the whole point of angry rich white guys like O’Reilly is that they ought to be able to do whatever they want whenever they want to whomever they want whilst getting handsomely remunerated for it.

By the end of this week, for O’Reilly, only one of those things is still true.

You might think this signals some sort of watershed moment for the organization, but let’s be honest here: Not a chance.

For Fox, the events of this week are not new. The generously paid-off O’Reilly vehemently denied the allegations. The network released a boilerplate statement. So far, so familiar.

In many ways, this most recent scandal is little more than recent history repeating itself—a company engaging in the same craven, arse-concealing behaviour and expecting a different result, which is, of course, the definition of institutional insanity.

Last year, Fox chairman Roger Ailes was finally bounced after years of rumours of sexual impropriety. One of the network’s top female anchors, Gretchen Carlson, won her sexual harassment case against the network and received a US$20 million settlement, which sounds pretty sweet until you find out that Ailes received $40 million for his own trouble.

O’Reilly’s reward for his alleged creepery was not quite so grand—reportedly just one measly year’s salary, upward of a paltry $25 million—but even that is a stunning testimony to Fox’s inability to learn from its most public (and expensive) mistakes.

After Ailes, of course, the network promised up and down it would clean up its act. No letting powerful men grab the ladies by the you-know-what’s. No more having to pay off said ladies when they kicked up a fuss about it afterward. A bunch of Ailes’s cronies were turfed. A new head of human resources was appointed. The sensitivity trainers came in and presumably subjected a bunch of cranky, deadline-driven TV producers to trust exercises involving falling backward into each other’s arms. But somehow, despite this valiant effort, nothing much appeared to change. Fox kept pumping out its river of factually questionable bile, Trump got elected, and earlier this year O’Reilly’s contract came up for renewal.

Unbeknownst to the public, the supposedly new and improved Fox Network had, by that time, become aware of several allegations of sexual harassment against O’Reilly. It had even settled out of court with two of the women. But did this strangely familiar mess make them stop and think, “Hey, maybe we should dump this guy?” No it did not.

Instead, Fox network executives tried to have their cake and eat it too. By which I mean they used the accusations against O’Reilly as leverage in contract negotiations so that when they signed him back on again they were more protected than they had been with Ailes. They could dump him for $25 million instead of double that when and if they needed to. Now that’s what I call cleaning up the culture. Sweep, sweep, sweep!

And before you point out that at least they did the right thing and cut him loose, let’s pause to consider the reason why. Was it because multiple women had accused him of sexual harassment and female employees don’t tend to make up allegations like that, especially in multiples, for no good reason? No, it was not. Fox dumped O’Reilly because once the allegations became public (thank you, New York Times), sponsors started pulling out of his show. And with the advertisers goes the revenue and with the revenue goes O’Reilly’s protected status as a “top asset.”

For all those Fox fans who believe fervently in the unfettered power of the great American free market, there is a kind of poetic justice at work here. It seems fitting that a guy like O’Reilly should be taken down by the same brand of predatory capitalism that created him.

Call it the trickle down economics of sick companies. If it weren’t so sad, it would be kind of sweet.


 

What Fox News didn’t learn from Bill O’Reilly

  1. Nothing changes, sleaze is in just look at trump. It still amazes me the citizens have not snowed under the elected government with complaints and threats of terminating them in the upcoming election. This behaviour is nothing new at the top or is it maybe the voters are into sleazy now?

  2. “… the whole point of angry rich white guys like O’Reilly is that they ought to be able to do whatever they want whenever they want…” This sounds like a perfect description of Jack Kennedy and Willy Clinton!!

  3. While I certainly don’t condone what he has been accused of, he was one of the very best news people on the air-hence his elevated status and salary. He was one of the main reasons that FOX has more viewership than CNN, MSNBC and NBC combined. I hope they find an equally capable guy who can keep his pants up.

  4. O”Reilly was the only reason we subscribed to Fox News. We looked forward to his program every night to get a viewpoint different from all the other media. His program was full of variety, not just talk. He also raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for veterans, and really had their backs. He also wrote a book called “Give Please a Chance”, and every cent (again hundreds of thousands of dollars) went to children’s issues. I do not believe the allegations against him. I think the left wing is doing their utmost to destroy and shout down any viewpoint which does not agree with their own. Look how they refuse to let any speaker who does not agree with them, have a chance to even speak. I understand he will be doing a
    podcast, and we will be listening.

  5. I can’t believe the money this guy generated – the Fox network is simply a political platform for the good old party.The stuff that come out of this guys mouth is unbelievable.
    Greta was one of the good ones I thought – she seemed like a good reporter and so did Megan they seemed at times to tell the truth.
    Glad she received some coin and I would be surprised if she isn’t picked up by another network.
    I do wish I had some of his money though – he will surface again but it will be on some sleaze show – good riddance to bad rubbish – from the Great White North

    • From your comments, I’d assume you eat up the left wing B.S. on CNN. That station is enough to gag a maggot!

Sign in to comment.