What the %$@& kind of glue is Richard Cohen sniffing?!?

[drbtg1]

From today's column:

"I almost pity O'Reilly. Off camera, he must be a bit slow."

"I can appreciate that Mackris was in an awful bear hug. But she screamed for help a bit late in the game."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/244428p-209477c.html

Mr. Cohen would be better off remembering what Christiane Amanpour said about the influence of Fox News on the entire news industry in America during the Tina Brown interview and then realize that Ms. Mackris was dealing with the current king of the mountain.

BTW, doesn't O'Reilly look like the guy in the "He's Back!" Viagra ads? How prophetic.

[The Zanti Regent]

1. Dickieboy is your typical PRESSTITUTE

AND

Their days are numbered. When Kerry gets in, reinstates the Fairness Doctrine and repeals the 1996 deregulation act, assholes like Dickieboy will be toast

[demnan]

2. The link wasn't working

They are probably updating the site at the moment. Here's an alternate link but you have to register.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50050-2004Oct20.html

[demnan]

3. On reading this article

I have to agree with Cohen's premis. A woman is culpable for how she responds to sexual harrassment. If she continues to meet with the man as Cohen states in the article, there is some truth in what he says.

That being said, he can pity that creature O'LIEly if he wants. I find it rather funny, myself.

[Mike Daniels]

4. Why did she go back to the job?

That's the question that puzzles me. She leaves FOX where she had worked for O'Reilly, goes to CNN and quits two months later to go back to FOX and to work for O'Reilly?

Why would you go back to work for your harrasser? The CNN job was paying $98K so it's not like she was just scraping by.

[theboss]

6. That's the part his attorneys will go crazy with

According to her complaint, the harassment began before she left for CNN. Then she and O'Reilly continued to talk and have dinner - apparently quite a bit. Then she came back.

I suspect there is far far more to this than is contained in the complaint. I mean, if everything in the complaint is true, this is an easy case, but that is rarely what happens.

My suspicion is that she and O'Reilly had some sort of affair at some point, which he wanted to continue (which is still harassment but will make her less of an "innocent" in front of a civil jury). Of course, I doubt married, holier-than-thou O'Reilly wants that information out anymore than his phone calls.

I predict at least two more "twisits" in this case before all is said in done. In the end, I think O'Reilly will be ruined, but his accuser won't look as victimized as she does now.

[otohara]

14. Women Often Go Back To Their Abusers

who knows why she did it, maybe her job at CNN turned out to be a demotion. Her ego sent her back to Fox where she was more appreciated for her talents inspite of O'Really abusing her.

I worked it radio, it's a different beast than most jobs I worked in, I imagine TV is worse...

[Solomon]

5. Get real. Are you a man? The man was her boss for chrissakes.

Is she supposed to not return his calls? I too almost retched when I read Cohen's editorial.

I'm a man, and I must admit, this kind of stiff is embarassing. Men just don't get it when it comes to sex harassment. To commit sex harassment is bad enough, but then to defend it is even worse.

Jeeez. It's embarassing how men don't get it. If they were equals, you'd have a point. But the guy had all the power.

[drbtg1]

7. "But the guy had all the power."

Exactly. And not just all the power a person in his position could have, but also the power of all the people supporting him. Media and politics combined.

"...this kind of stiff is embarassing"

heh. Pretty funny typo ;)

[Mike Daniels]

8. Then explain why she continued to socialize with him after she left FOX

and why she went back to work for him?

I'm not defending him if he did harass her. I'm just saying her actions leave the entire story somewhat hazy as to how much truth exists on either side.

[drbtg1]

11. In the complaint

Prior to paragraph 54, there is extensive claims of inappropriate talk, but it remained talk.

From paragraph 54: "On or about April 13, 2004, during dinner at Milos, Plaintiff Andrea Mackris again told Defendant Bill O'Reilly that she would return to work on "The O'Reilly Factor" only if he no longer engaged in inappropriate conduct. Defendant agreed"

From paragraph 66: During the course of O'Reilly's telephone monologue on August 2, 2004...It became apparent that Defendant was masterbating as he spoke...Plaintiff felt as if the floor had fallen out from beneath her. She was shocked, fightened and upset. She felt trapped."

A similar episode of masterbation during a phone conversation is told in paragraph 81.

From the complaint, it appears that promises of respectable behavior upon her return were not only broken, but the behavior was, shall we say, kicked up a notch.

O'Reilly better be praying those masterbation phone calls weren't taped as well!


http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris1.html

[drbtg1]

10. "A woman is culpable for how she responds to sexual harrassment."

Fine, but then, where do you draw the line? Should it be a matter of zero tolerance? In that case, the suit involving sexual harassment because co-workers brought up a Seinfeld episode would be a slam dunk.

For me, it would be at the point where anything is said and/or done after the word "no". It would appear here that this point was reached.

However, there has to be an acknowledgement of real world circumstances. Fox News isn't just some sort of small time cable outfit. It is an omnipresent force in the media. The usual channels of complaint, which Mr. Cohen naively thinks would be effective, don't exist here for all intents and purposes. She had two realistic choices: she has to try to let it slide again and again or jump in with both feet and fight back. Cohen's middle ground doesn't exist and he failed to realize that.

[robcon]

9. Cohen's article was spot on.

Neither O'Reilly nor Mackris look good in this one. The process, which, as I understand it, was that Mackris was trying to settle without a lawsuit, and O'Reilly pre-empted her potential lawsuit, seems to show both of them in unfavorable light.

O'Reilly's a pig, and Mackris is stupid, IMO.

[drbtg1]

12. Ever have a motor vehicle accident?

I've known plenty of people who have made financial arrangements and signed a release of liability after a car accident without filing a lawsuit. The fact that a lawsuit may not have been filed at a given point before making efforts trying to head off said lawsuit is not proof of duplicity.

In fact, Mackris could have been doing O'Reilly a favor. O'Reilly knows if his behavior would constitute sexual harassment and Mackris could very well have tapes of it. If this is true and there is a possibility of settling this matter before a lawsuit was publically filed (thus, known), it would have been of great benefit to O'Reilly.

[chookie]

13. It's kinda okay because she is stupid?

Robco -- I have to disagree. Having been a victim of this myself, I have to say that it is not altogether clear what the best thing to do when it is happening to you. One of the things about it is that it is extremely confusing. The guys who do this are masters of the art of sexual harassment -- selecting the best targets, and continuously playing head and power games that keep their victim off guard.

It's simply an odious situation to find one's self in, and truly, whatever you do, you're "screwed." Having power over people is a very big part of this game, and people who are obsessive about having power over others have LOTS of ways to mess with you. It can be not only inappropriate and disturbing, but it can also become dangerous.

Facing the consequences of confronting your accuser can be as bad or worse than the sexual harassment itself. It's ain't fair, but up to now, it's life.

Mackris did what she needed to do -- fully document the case and accusations, and get a tough lawyer on her side. She's not "going after " O'Reilly in any kind of Paula Jones sense -- she's holding him to the law, and she has taken the measures necessary to protect herself. There's no clear cut way, in my opinion, of doing this, and it is very hard not to look "stupid", at least to somebody out there who thinks they know better or believe in ideal world of inherent legal and social fairness, when bringing a case like this to the attention of others.