Posted on 04/20/2017 8:48:14 AM PDT by servo1969
Bill O'Reilly's Fox News career now swims with the fishes.
The conventional wisdom is that after the NY Times exposed a history of sexual harassment settlements, and two new accusers came forward, advertisers "fled" the show, forcing the hand of News Corp and the Murdochs.
That conventional wisdom is only partially correct -- advertisers didn't flee, they were chased away by the same organized effort as was used against Glenn Beck once upon a time, and Rush Limbaugh in 2012.
Longtime readers will recall my extensive and groundbreaking research into the StopRush operation just after Limbaugh's comments about Sandra Fluke in 2012, for which he apologized.
I proved then that the operation -- at least initially -- was a Media Matters astroturfed assault on Limbaugh's advertiser base, based on a pre-existing plan by Angelo Carusone, then Director of Online Strategy for Media Matters (and now President). Supposedly independent groups coordinated their efforts with Media Matters, and then tried to cover it up.
My research led Limbaugh to activate his personal Twitter account to spread the results of my research. It also earned me threats to interfere in my employment, although those threats never materialized as far as I know. I continued to follow the main group, as it targeted advertisers and eventually imploded from infighting and infiltration. The efforts largely failed at causing any meaningful damage to Limbaugh.
Nonetheless, a small cadre of operatives, who often used multiple proxy accounts to multiply their effect, continued to plug away at harassing Limbaugh advertisers over a variety of issues. That eventually led Limbaugh, through a spokesman, to push back against the operatives, Limbaugh outs #StopRush Twitter operatives.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liEAJRfrb0I
The pre-existing plan to be used against Limbaugh also existed for O'Reilly, as Carusone admitted in an interview shortly after the Times report on O'Reilly, Here's Why The Bill O'Reilly Ad Boycott Just Might Work This Time:
The boycott exploded within days. A cadre of Twitter activists, battle-hardened from ongoing campaigns against the Trumps and Breitbart News, swarmed the initial New York Times story about the sexual harassment allegations and put pressure on advertisers to take a stand. They did--quickly and vocally. Within about 24 hours, over 20 companies-- including major players like Allstate, BMW, and T. Rowe Price--pulled their advertising from the O'Reilly Factor and denounced his alleged behaviour.
"So many advertisers are not just removing their ads, but giving comments that they typically avoid, or would avoid. I mean, they're making value judgments," says Angelo Carusone, president of liberal watchdog organization Media Matters for America. That Carusone was caught off guard shows how unexpected the reaction was, as he's long been planning for such a day. "I had the @StopOReilly [Twitter] account for seven years, and I just sat on it," he says.
The justification for these tactics against O'Reilly was that it was conduct at issue, not politics:
[Carusone] points out that O'Reilly's issue is not one of free speech but rather of behavior. The charges against him, other Fox colleagues, and Fox itself are serious and mounting. "Sexual harassment is a really big fucking problem in this country," says Carusone. "I do think it matters if you have corporate leaders standing up and saying, hey, this is an issue that we think is a super-big third rail, and so even if you give a whiff of this, we're not going to go anywhere near it."
But of course, for Carusone and Media Matters, it was all about politics, and part of a plan hatched years ago, as we wrote about in 2011, Media Matters Plans "Guerrilla Warfare and Sabotage" on Fox News And Conservative Websites.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4HV4c5jr48
Despite O'Reilly being gone, Carusone plans on continuing the effort against Fox News, Statement Of Angelo Carusone As Bill O'Reilly Exits Fox News:
Fox News was forced to act. They had years to address serial sexual harassment at Fox News. They didn't; they actually enabled it. So, individuals and groups took action to educate advertisers. Advertisers fled because they immediately recognized what Fox News has ignored for over a decade: that serial sexual harassment is not only wrong, but bad for business.
Without advertisers, Bill O'Reilly's show was no longer commercially viable. Fox News had no choice but to fire O'Reilly. Accountability came from the outside, not from within. Fox News deserves no accolades, only scorn for the industrial scale harassment they have forced their employees to endure.
The open question is what Fox News will do about the epidemic of sexual harassment at Fox News that extends well beyond O'Reilly as it seems to be in-part facilitated by its current co-president Bill Shine. Shine reportedly retaliated against women that came forward with reports against former Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes as well as those that came forward against Bill O'Reilly. Aside from mistreating staff, Shine put shareholders and advertisers at risk by resigning a contract with O'Reilly just a few weeks ago despite knowing all the allegations.
If Fox News wants to signal that they're serious about addressing sexual harassment, they'll fire Bill Shine too. If not, then staff, advertisers and shareholders should beware.
So why did the pressuring of advertisers work with O'Reilly, but fail with Limbaugh?
Here's my take:
Conduct was at issue with O'Reilly. Multiple alleged instances over a long period of time involving demands for sexual favors in return for career advancement (or threats to damage careers) simply is more abhorrent than saying mean things to someone who testified on Capitol Hill about a political issue. Though O'Reilly never was proven to have engaged in the conduct, the notion of multiple high figure settlements worked against any presumption of innocence, even though lawsuits are settled all the time even if the accusations are not true. That O'Reilly never publicly and forcefully defended himself created the impression that there was a there there.
When interviewed by AP early after the Times article about O'Reilly, I noted that O'Reilly was not bigger than the corporate interest:
"At some point, even the most popular TV personalities are expendable," said Cornell's Jacobson.
And so it was. O'Reilly was a big cog in the Fox News wheel, but he wasn't the company. He was replaceable if what was at stake were greater corporate interests. Limbaugh, by contrast, was the company. There were no replacements for Limbaugh, he was the franchise. While Limbaugh wasn't the radio network, few people focused on the radio network. They might have known the local radio station, but not the entity syndicating the show.
There was a relatively small stable of advertisers on O'Reilly, since it was just a one hour show on a single network. The advertiser base presented a relatively well defined target. With Limbaugh, by contrast, he was on hundreds of local radio stations, and a high percentage of the advertising was local. So the anti-Limbaugh forces had thousands of advertisers to deal with, from national brands to the local tire store. While Limbaugh's national advertisers were targeted, they were less of a factor than the attacks on O'Reilly advertisers.
O'Reilly was a television personality, Limbaugh was (and is) an ideological leader. That many of those national advertisers had ideological motivations with Limbaugh, but not O'Reilly, also helped. Corporate advertisers abhor controversy, particularly controversy involving hot button social issues. That worked more on O'Reilly's national advertisers, who were non-ideological name brands. Users of Limbaugh's advertisers also had ideological motivations, as was witnessed by the damage to Carbonite after it very publicly parted ways with Limbaugh.
Limbaugh quickly apologized for the Fluke remarks. That matters. People make mistakes. It provided cover for advertisers. O'Reilly, by contrast, never publicly apologized, and indeed, his lawyers were tone deaf as the controversy escalated by claiming that left-wing groups were smearing O'Reilly.
Early on after the Times article I recognized that O'Reilly likely would not survive. The allegations were too serious, and the pressure tactics on advertisers were designed to work in just such a situation.
The use of organized attacks on advertisers will continue, and will be used against conservative personalities who are not accused of anything near what O'Reilly was accused of. There's blood in the water now.
William A. Jacobson is Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Securities Law Clinic at Cornell Law School. Prof. Jacobson is a 1981 graduate of Hamilton College and a 1984 graduate of Harvard Law School. At Harvard he was Senior Editor of the Harvard International Law Journal and Director of Litigation for the Harvard Prison Legal Assistance Project.
Prior to joining the Cornell law faculty in 2007, Prof. Jacobson had a highly successful civil litigation and arbitration practice in Providence, Rhode Island, concentrating in investment, employment, and business disputes in the securities industry, including many high profile cases reported in leading newspapers and magazines.
Professor Jacobson has a national reputation as a leading practitioner in securities arbitration, and is a member of the Board of Directors of the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association, an organization of over 450 attorneys dedicated to protecting public investors. Professor Jacobson frequently is quoted in national media on issues related to investment fraud and investor protection, and in the past has served as one of a small number of private practice attorneys who trained new arbitrators for the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Professor Jacobson has argued cases in numerous federal and state courts, including the Courts of Appeal for the First, Fifth and Sixth Circuits, and the Rhode Island Supreme Court.
A more complete listing of Professor Jacobson's professional background is available at the Cornell Law School website. The views expressed here are his own and not those of any employer or organization,
The best way to reach Prof. Jacobson is by e-mail is here.
Rush is likeable while Bill O’Really is a boorish lying arsehat who hates conservatives.
(Proof of that is in his smear of Freerepublic, repeatedly.)
O’Reilly’s audience was 3.5 million.
Rush’s audience is 20 million.
O’Reilly answers to 21st Century Fox.
Rush answers to nobody. He owns himself.
Typical lawyer, takes a thousand words to say what we all know already: actions vs. words, and a completely different business model.
Go back to blathering to your Haavahd students now, counsellor.
Today Rush will either totally ignore this, or talk about it for 3 hours.
Any bets?
Hey! I went to grade school with that guy!
We called him Billy Butt Boots.
He wore these tall rubber boots that went all the way up to his behind.
Old Billy Butt Boots.
I always wondered what happened to him.
Not from what I hear re: BOR..
He’s already talking about it.
LOL
It should be pointed out that Rush adopted his 1950s style spoken word adverts during the crisis as a hedge against the loss of traditional commercial advertisers.
Unfortunately, the spoken word spots endure despite their agonizingly cliched copy and reliance on Fear Uncertainty & Doubt (FUD) ie the very thing Rush rails against when it’s employed by politicians. Now the third ‘hour’ of his show contains 15-20 minutes of content when all the dross is removed.
There is truth in that. When your whole reputation is based on being an arsehole, it’s hard to find anybody to defend you when the chips are down.
Can you provide me a certified audience estimate of that amount of people?
Rush answers to nobody. He owns himself.Rush does have a syndicator he needs to answer to. Although the relationship is contractual vs employer/employee, there is a certain amount of ownership that the syndicator has over Rush. Also, a huge amount of Rush's stations are stations owned by the syndicator.
Superb analysis.
“Lovable little fuzz ball” was a regular reference that Rush often made of himself. How many times I doubled over laughing with him.
O’Really was a hard man, humor so dry his face would crack when he heard a laugh escape from his throat. (I’ve never seen anything like him, personally.)
I said the same thing (but in one or two sentences) to disbelief. Now I can quote a professor with tons of logic and evidence! Take that, disbelievers!
So is unfiltered profanity (yours) mental insufficiency (yours) and lying a deceit (yours), Carusone. Unfiltered profanity usually indicates intellectual weakness, coming from people who cannot express themselves because they are intellectually and morally bankrupt. You are a case in point.
Seems like he too was adopting a persona from the 1950s. He was a school teacher. Always kind of came across as one.
Rush’s listeners rallied around him.
Many people knew that O’Reilly’s nickname inside Fox HQ had been The Lecherous Leprechaun for over a decade. Few were willing to defend him.
True conservatives won’t support someone who’s a boor at work.
I thought O'Reilly had more in common with the fall of Arthur Godfrey myself.
Also the biggest cost in the Rush Limbaugh show is Rush himself, so if he is willing g to take less in advertising revenue he can survive. I did notice the “quwlity” of the advertisers went down. There were fewer big name companies and more low end spots like Dinovite.
FOX needs me to show them how to get rid of bullies. You’d think they would be smart enough to know how but some people lack common sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.