it s another one from jack shaffer. i thought he wrote effectively on this. the o reilly boycott is a bad idea. even if you hate the guy, it may end up energizing calls for advertising bow koits against the on-air talent you mike inspiring timidity among ad buyers who are already too timid. do you worry that there could be similar reactions to those on the left who politically you welcome their statements and remarks? if an on-air personality engages in serial sexual harassment, the network should take care of it and if they don t, it means it s bad business and that s reflected here right now. i don t think this is about ideology and i think trying to collapse it down there is insufficient and doesn t grasp the whole thing. i m not out there persuading people to suddenly care about this but i think that the role we re playing, an important role, is giving the context to show it s not a few isolated
accountable, but i think jack is missing the point. should we really let bill o reilly engage in sexual harassment and say that fox news says it s okay? for the news had a decision, and they continued to sweep it under the rug, but now that we all know about it and business associates know about it, should we say it s okay and bill o reilly should continue this, that fox news should continue to be treating employees and its women like this? is that what we should be saying, because i personally don t like what bill o reilly says. i just want to make clear and i think jack was making clear that you do have a political perspective and it is a perspective at odds with o reilly s. along comes this story, a serious and significant story, and you have immediately, you know, rushed to try and use it as a wedge to take him down. one last observation and you can respond to this. it s another one from jack shaffer. i thought he wrote effectively on this. the o reilly boycott is a bad idea. eve
limbaugh supporters. there are not bill o reilly supporters screaming in the streets, you know, saying, hey, you should not be doing this to bill o reilly. fine, they might be still buying his books but he doesn t have anyone actually defending what he s saying or did except for the co-presidents of fox news, but his people are not defending what he did. right, but they re still, as you point out, buying books and tuning into the program. true. let me put something on the screen from jack shaffer who writes about media matters, not your media matters but for politico. he said media matters president, angelo carusone, that would be you, has called for the organization to be fired but would bill o reilly be sacked if he were as chaste and pure as mother superior? isn t that a fair point? you ve been waiting for your opportunity to take him down. fine, i ve been looking for an opportunity to hold him
i don t think it s about trying to persuade people. i don t see his audience out there defending him. i saw blowback and pushback from glenn beck s supporters and rush limbaugh supporters. there are not bill o reilly supporters screaming in the streets, you know, saying, hey, you should not be doing this to bill o reilly. fine, they might be still buying his books but he doesn t have anyone actually defending what he s saying or did except for the co-presidents of fox news, but his people are not defending what he did. right, but they re still, as you point out, buying books and tuning into the program. true. let me put something on the screen from jack shaffer who writes about media matters, not your media matters but for politico. he said media matters president, you, has called for the organization to be fired but would bill o reilly be sakd if
mines where other administrations would like to hand hold. the executive order is a great example. the obama administration, whether the substance was right or not would have had an on-the-record briefing, they would have tried to communicate what they thought the legal case was for it. they wouldn t have dropped it and let people run with it and that does induce higher errors, but i think they want people to screw up. you re creating a conspiracy theory which i m not saying is wrong. conspiracy theories are often right but i just think they don t want remove the intention and it s easier to mess up while covering trump because the administration is so much less careful. that is absolutely true. that s my point, yes. which is another reason why more sobriety is called for. jack shaffer had a great peace where he said these journalists saying we re going to gird our li loins, time to fight the trump administration, how about buckling down a little more? you know the seriou