--1. I received the following complaint today regarding the Fall of the Foul Foxman, Bill O'Reilly:

"Mr. Benson;

"I have viewed you[r] illustrations for a long time. My question to you is, do you ever do or say something nice about anything or anyone?"


--My reply:

"Of course I do--but not about Pig O’Reilly.

"The role of an editorial cartoonist is to be a critic of the powerful, the corrupt and those who in the public square are to be held accountable.

"I don’t draw Hallmark cards.

"Thanks for writing."


--From the same Complainer:

"You are one sick person I don't think you have very many friends."


--My reply:

"Sickness is in the eye of the beholder.

"Please consider taking your complaint to 21st Century Fox. They’re the ones who canned him, not me.

"By the way, I have lots of friends, and they’re smart.

"O’Reilly’s friends at FOX were smart in showing him the door.

"Thanks for writing."


--2. From another Complainer:

"Dear Mr. Benson,

"I have long wondered who conferred upon you the role of critiquing the powerful? And, can you please tell me how you define powerful?

"And, who are you to hold anyone accountable?"


--My reply:

"The First Amendment 'conferred'” (your term) it on me, just like it 'conferred' upon you the right to criticize cartoonists.

"In this case, the definition of 'powerful' refers to a person who is a privileged white male making $25 million a year and who (until he was fired for sexual harassment in the workplace) was regarded in the industry as the most influential commentator in the opinion side of the cable news industry. Meaning O’Reilly.

"Thanks for writing."


--from the same Complainer:

" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"Doesn't seem to be anything in there about Steve Benson being given the the task of "holding the powerful accountable." Must have been something they taught you at journalism school."


--My reply:

"The right to express one’s individual views is protected by the First Amendment, as explained and codified n case law.

"I would suggest that, in this regard, you read the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimously-rendered decision in Falwell v. Flynt, (1988), authored by none other than Arizona’s own Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist,

"By the way, I did not learn this principle in journalism school, since I did not attend journalism school. I learned it in my major--political science—supplemented by constitutional law classes, from where I graduated cum laude.

"I would respectfully recommend that you bone up on your political science curricula.

"Thanks for writing."


--4. From another Complainer:

“Still waiting for you to link me to factual, unbiased sources stating O’Reilly is a predatory, disgusting, relentless sexual harasser. I’m not defending him. I’m waiting for the evidence.”


--My reply:

“If you can’t trust FOX News Channel’s parent company, 21st Century Fox, to confirm that O’Reilly had, in fact, been found, upon internal company investigation, to have engaged in unacceptable workplace acts of sexual harassment against female employees, who can you trust?:

“Conservative megastar talk show host Bill O'Reilly has been dropped from the Fox News Channel lineup following an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment, 21st Century Fox said Wednesday.

“’After a, thorough and careful review of the allegations, the Company and Bill O’Reilly have agreed that Bill O’Reilly will not be returning to the Fox News Channel,’ Fox's parent company said in a brief statement.

"In a message to employees, Rupert Murdoch and sons, James and Lachlan, who run 21st Century Fox, said the decision follows ‘an extensive review done in collaboration with outside counsel.’
'. . . [The note was] . . . confirming [of] O'Reilly's ouster, the note was also full of praise for his success. "By ratings standards, . . . '

“'. . . [W]e want to underscore our consistent commitment to fostering a work environment built on the values of trust and respect,' the 21st Century Fox email said Wednesday.

“[While the] results of the internal probe were not shared publicly. . . . it apparently influenced the Murdochs' decision. [Murdoch’s letter concluded with an apparent nod to morale problems within Fox News recently: ‘I understand how difficult this has been for many of you," Murdoch wrote. "Thank you for your hard work, patience, and for the great job you all do delivering news and opinion to millions of Americans whose trust you earn every day. I look forward to even more success in the coming years.’”

(“Bill O'Reilly Ousted at Fox after Sexual Harassment Investigation,” by Doug Standlin, “USA Today,” 19 April 2017; "Bill O'Reilly is Out at Fox News Amid Sexual Harassment Accusations,” by Katie Reilly, “Time” magazine, 19 April 2017; “Bill O'Reilly Out at Fox News,” by Alex Koppelman, Dylan Byers. Brian Stelter and Tom Kludt, “CNNMoney,” 19 April 2017

**********


The reason behind the complaining'?

Such terrible 'toons as these:

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/51df9303d20be77a266be4ef64e92fdaba33caa3/c=0-114-3599-2820&r=x513&c=680x510/local/-/media/2017/04/03/Phoenix/Phoenix/636268126985864330-Benson-Waters-O-Reilly-04-03-17.jpg

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/7f1c78cbfee4c47e33a6f2e6423bebd3daf334e9/c=66-0-3579-2641&r=x513&c=680x510/local/-/media/2017/04/20/Phoenix/Phoenix/636282770965035636-Benson-O-Reilly-Pig-FOX-04-20-17-.jpg



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2017 08:29PM by steve benson.

What "nice" comment could one make about O'Reilly at this point?

Innocent until proven guilty? In theory I guess...

That doesn't sound much like a plea of "not guilty" to me. :-)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2017 01:04AM by steve benson.

I thought they said it wasn't an admission of any wrongdoing. Is it right to just assume that is incorrect? I don't mean to sound naive. But is a payout considered proof? I'm not defending him. Speaking more in the abstract. Maybe this isn't the time for that. I was reaching, I guess, for something one of his defenders might say?

I saw a former Fox staff member being interviewed yesterday. I was thinking that her examples of the harassment she endured may not seem like any big deal to some listeners. It's hard to explain why unwelcome comments about one's appearance, etc, can be so sick-making and threatening even. Her discomfort in the recollections was obvious. As was her pain in the telling. She feared for her job. She was likely making minimum wage or not much over (she was a temp, I guess secretary or similar?). He was making millions.

I recognized her facial expression. And the distress.

I cringe when people say what's the big deal about someone saying you're looking good.

Depends on the circumstances. The person making the comments. The situation you're in. The power structure of your relationship. Your own intentions, expectations and wishes. And so much more.

Even the strongest-willed women there experienced a lack of power which says a lot about where and how and why the problems arose and flourished.

Someone causing another to feel afraid is despicable. Doing it with a smile - creepy as hell.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2017 02:30PM by Nightingale.

. . . who now, as a former-and-now-fired FOX employee, is operating his all-new "All Spin/No Sin Zone," where he claims that, as a put-upon public figure who is subject to all manner of false accusations, he was both wrongfully accused by his female victims and wrongfully terminated by his immediate-past employer.

However, a subsequent internal investigation conducted by the company has concluded that there was sufficient evidence of workplace sexual harassment committed by O'Reilly to justify his firing.

*To provide sourcing on that fact, I went back and folded into the OP examples of on-the-record statements from FOX's parent company, 21st Century Fox, stating as much.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1967530,1967530#msg-1967530



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2017 06:56PM by steve benson.

Thanks for the added info. I had missed that part.

I never saw O'Reilly in action, news-wise or whatever it was.

Why defame our porcine friends. POS O'Reilly.

Damn, Benson. So talented!

And, I agree, no redeeming qualities about O'Rilley

To show the truth, *nice* has to get outta the way.

Thanks for depicting that pig O'Reilly accurately!

I dunno...I kind of think being honest and open IS "nice."
It's the liars and those who want to whitewash the bad acts of powerful people who aren't being "nice."

:)

Conceited and "always right" O'Reilly.

If he had been able to interview himself like he did his guests, he wouldn't come across so good (even if given the last--very short--word).

("My, how the mighty doth fall" or something like that.)

is that all the defenders of O'Liely (and others who shall remain nameless, per board rules) seem to think that manners and "being nice" should only apply to how their side is treated. Conversely, they get to use any tone or words to describe their detractors. Hypocritical double standard much?

People who want to defend these serial sexual deviants and predators can go fuck themselves sideways with a rusty pipe.

Why is it still fashionable to minimize and defend these pieces of shit?

Itzpapalotl Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> Why is it still fashionable to minimize and defend
> these pieces of shit?

I heard some commentators yesterday making a good point - that "paying off" the complainants in these situations doesn't mean justice has been done, especially if the corporate mindset is that it's just the cost of doing business.

There will only be justice when these types of behaviours are firmly and widely and rightfully rejected and disallowed and quickly and adequately dealt with when they occur.

I get that many people (men and women both) don't see how unwanted words, touching and attention in the workplace (or any other location for that matter) are harmful and stressful and emotionally damaging to the unfortunate subjects of such occurrences. But those who don't understand need to be open to learning. They need to listen to the people who have suffered such wrongs. Figure it out. Understand that it's wrong. Even illegal, depending on the behaviour. At the very least, hopefully against company policy in most workplaces.

That's why it's good to have the conversations. And I so admire the women who are speaking out about experiences that can be embarrassing, distasteful to relive, emotionally distressing. Blaming them, dismissing their concerns, re-victimizes them. That's what O'Reilly does by refusing to acknowledge his sole fault in all this and especially by blaming others, including some of those he has harassed. And others who support him are also complicit at that point.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2017 07:38PM by Nightingale.

And it really is a culture of blame the victim for speaking out or making waves. It makes you feel so uncomfortable and disgusted that you feel you did something to warrant the attention by being nice or wanting to be the "cool girl."

O'Reilly was captured on tape many moons ago sexually harassing someone, confusing the word loofah with falafel and people still defend this piece of garbage. Then again, look how many people jumped to Cosby's defense and still minimize and defend his actions, so this is never any surprise to me.

When the hell are people going to learn the meaning of respect and consent for other people and lose the sexual entitlement attitude? Here's another fun story of a woman dealing with a dick pick and supposedly a dumb meme going around painting women who wear chokers as "easy' and "sluts":
https://www.buzzfeed.com/remysmidt/choker-logic

Lemme tell you right now guys, if a woman wants to see a pic of your dick, she will ask for it.

Wonder how "nice" Martin Dugard feels right now after letting o'really run with his books.