An unimaginable, or rather highly unlikely, situation transpired last week with the firing of Bill O’Reilly, host of the popular FOX News program The O’Reilly Factor, for numerous allegations of sexual harassment and other forms of misconduct. Only a few years ago, it would have been unthinkable that a cable personality as popular (at least in many conservative circles) and financially profitable as O’Reilly would have been dismissed from a network like FOX News.
From the time The Factor hit the airwaves in 1996 until the present day, the show has been the No. 1 primetime-rated program on cable news.
Advertisers paid megabucks to have their products promoted during his time slot. Many politicians and even some celebrities would eagerly go on his program to discuss and, in some cases, gleefully spar with O’Reilly on whatever issues were hot now. Executives at FOX saw him as both their golden boy and cash cow. He was, no doubt, a major reason that FOX was able to enjoy the level of success that it has had for more than two decades. All that came to an abrupt halt on April 19 when Rupert Murdoch, his sons, James and Lachan, and according to reports, Lachan’s wife, Sarah, urged the billionaire patriarch to let O’Reilly go.
Most reasonable and ethical people would concur that the Murdoch family made the proper decision in terminating O’Reilly. Nonetheless, the reality is that morality only emerged as an important point in the decision-making process once advertisers such as Mercedes-Benz and others begin to drop their support like dominos. It was economics, not morality, which emerged as the deciding factor in this sad and sordid saga.
Quite frankly, at least for me, it is hard to see why any conscientious person would have any sympathy for O’Reilly. He targeted women across racial and economic lines. The man was and is the classic personification of hypocrisy. Even now, he has refused to apologize for his deplorable behavior. Rather, he has decided to shift the blame to “supposed enemies, greedy attorneys, jealous rivals, feminists, etc.” As O’Reilly sees it, he is the victim of a larger conspiracy that was cultivated by sinister forces in an effort to destroy his reputation. Everyone is at fault for his transgressions but him. Please!
There are many people on the political and cultural right who agree with O’Reilly’s assessment that he is, indeed, the victim of a liberal conspiracy. That makes the level of denial and hypocrisy among large segments of the far right even more surreal, irrational and, in some cases, perversely amusing. Are these people for real or the products of a delusional, alternative universe? To put it bluntly, it is theater of the absurd.
This tactic of defending the indefensible is what damaged the credibility of a number of people on the political left during the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal of the 1990s. Indeed, it was sad to see so many otherwise intelligent, politically progressive people resort to espousing such borderline-stupefying rhetoric in an effort to defend Clinton, who clearly engaged in behavior that was morally repugnant and deficient. It was indefensible when the left did so. It is just as unacceptable when it is now emanating from the right.
