Hasta La Gadget!

As Fox News host Bill O’Reilly became embroiled in a sexual harassment scandal, the host of CNN’s “Reliable Sources” posed a question: “Could this potentially sink Bill O’Reilly’s career?”

That was over a dozen years ago.

In October 2004, Howard Kurtz, who hosted “Reliable Sources” at the time, was discussing an explosive lawsuit against O’Reilly filed by former Fox News producer Andrea Mackris. The allegations in Mackris’ lawsuit ― among them, that O’Reilly urged her to “use your vibrator to blow off steam” and that he’d at one point mistakenly called a loofah a “falafel” ― made for easy tabloid headlines. They also raised serious questions about O’Reilly’s future in the news business. 

But O’Reilly settled with Mackris just days before the 2004 presidential election, and the assumption among many media watchers was that he’d survive. Katie Couric, then co-host of the “Today” show, asked legal analyst Dan Abrams if he expected “any ramifications professionally” for O’Reilly in light of the settlement. “It doesn’t look that way,” Abrams replied. 

Indeed, O’Reilly remained the top-rated cable news host, and his 8 p.m. show reportedly generates more than $100 million annually. For a long time, it seemed that O’Reilly, who has consistently beat a string of rival hosts on CNN and MSNBC, would be at Fox News as long as he cared to.

But a New York Times investigation splashed across Sunday’s front page revealed that O’Reilly and 21st Century Fox had paid a combined $13 million in settlements to five women who’d accused O’Reilly of harassment. And the resulting sexual harassment scandal looks less likely to quickly recede from the headlines.

O’Reilly faces a growing advertiser boycott this time around, and the settlements and continued allegations are part of a broader, ongoing story. The O’Reilly mess is inextricably linked to continued revelations about the toxic culture created and reinforced by former Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes and the response by parent company 21st Century Fox.

Since the Times article appeared, yet another Fox News personality has filed a sexual harassment suit against Ailes, who resigned in July following allegations from dozens of women; the same woman also sued Fox News and network Co-president Bill Shine for allegedly retaliating against her; a sixth O’Reilly accuser spoke out against him at a press conference amid calls for state and local officials to investigate the network; and a black Fox News employee sued over racial discrimination, becoming the third in two weeks to do so.

This flurry of negative stories is also playing out against the backdrop of a federal investigation into how 21st Century Fox disclosed settlements to various women alleging sexual harassment. The Times reported that settlements to two of O’Reilly’s accusers took place after Ailes’ ouster ― and the company still extended the host’s contract. 

As of Wednesday afternoon, nearly three dozen companies had decided to pull advertisements from O’Reilly’s show, and the companies continuing to run ads are facing pressure on social media to follow suit.

Advertiser boycotts are not unknown at Fox News. Former host Glenn Beck, who called then-President Barack Obama a “racist” with a “deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture,” began losing advertisers following a 2009 campaign led by the racial justice organization Color of Change.

Yet Beck still hung on at Fox News for two years, even as hundreds of advertisers fled and spots once occupied by top-tier companies seemed to be increasingly taken up by gold-hawking businesses.

The O’Reilly boycott seems to have accelerated more quickly, both in terms of advertisers taking the initiative ― some announcing their decisions on social media ― and in terms of sustained coverage online, which wasn’t as much of a factor in 2009, much less 2004. Journalists have been calling up companies and tweeting their responses in real time, and news outlets are constantly updating their articles about where various advertisers stand. Rival network CNN has given the O’Reilly story considerable coverage online and on the air, and ABC, CBS, and NBC all covered the story on Tuesday’s evening newscasts. 

At the time of the Beck boycott, “we weren’t in the same type of social media climate that we are in now,” Rashad Robinson, the executive director of Color of Change, told The Huffington Post. “The speed and pace of people’s interest is different because of the participation age.” 

These days, Robinson said, “companies are hearing from their consumers directly through Twitter,” along with phone calls and questions from employees.

O’Reilly, he said, “is both the representation and the symbol of everything that is wrong with Fox News.” And the questions for advertisers, he suggests, are simple: “Do they stand behind Bill O’Reilly? Do they give money because they believe his voice is necessary? Or do they not?”

Thus far, Rupert Murdoch, executive chairman of 21st Century Fox, doesn’t appear inclined to pull the plug. For one thing, ads already purchased by companies can be shifted from O’Reilly’s show to other time slots on the network. And as news analyst Andrew Tyndall pointed out Wednesday, Fox News generates more revenue from cable and satellite companies paying to carry the channel ― and O’Reilly’s presence is still a big draw. 

But the negative publicity generated by the O’Reilly scandal could become a larger drag on a network that, despite recently posting record-setting ratings, continues to be dogged by controversies. And beyond advertisers, politicians and journalists could become wary of flocking to the “The O’Reilly Factor.” Many of O’Reilly’s guests each night are Fox News reporters or paid contributors who can be expected to remain loyal. It remains to be seen whether prominent journalists like The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, who appeared twice last month, will still come. 

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) was among the politicians who appeared on Tuesday night’s show, in a sign that some elected officials aren’t ready to jump ship. O’Reilly also got an endorsement Wednesday from the highest-ranking official in the land: President Donald Trump. 

Trump, who was famously caught on tape boasting about groping women, and who has faced sexual assault and harassment allegations from numerous women over the years, told the Times on Wednesday that O’Reilly “is a good person.”

“I think he shouldn’t have settled; personally I think he shouldn’t have settled,” Trump said. “Because you should have taken it all the way. I don’t think Bill did anything wrong.”

But the president’s endorsement may not be enough to convince non-O’Reilly fans that he’s innocent. On July 14, then-candidate Trump dismissed claims made by women against Ailes as “totally unfounded.” Ailes was seemingly untouchable at the time, having built Fox News over two decades into a media and political powerhouse. He resigned a week later. 

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

When President Donald Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court, I said that he deserved a fair hearing and a vote. I said this even though Senate Republicans filibustered dozens of President Obama’s judicial nominees and then stopped President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland. That decision to deny Judge Garland a hearing and a vote had never happened in the history of the U.S. Senate.

Prior to the hearing I laid out the standards I would use to evaluate Judge Gorsuch. I said he needed to demonstrate that he would uphold and defend the Constitution for all Americans, not just for the advantage of corporations and elites. I said he needed to show that he would be an independent check on President Trump and that he would be prepared to disappoint the right-wing special interest groups who handpicked him if the law required it. And I said he needed to answer questions in a forthright manner.

[Judge Garland] has distorted precedent and cherry-picked text to favor corporations, employers and special interests…

Judge Gorsuch did none of those things at his hearing. He said he wanted to be evaluated solely based on his past record. So I did. I found that while Judge Gorsuch claims to neutrally follow the text of laws and the original intent of the Constitution, he has distorted precedent and cherry-picked text to favor corporations, employers and special interests over workers, consumers, people with disabilities, and victims of discrimination. Nothing about Judge Gorsuch’s record nor anything he said at his hearing eased my concerns that he has, as White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said, “the vision of Donald Trump.” Based on a thorough review of his record, I voted no in Committee and will oppose his nomination on the Senate floor.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is claiming that if Senate Democrats don’t approve this Supreme Court nominee in near-record time, we will be responsible for McConnell’s decision to abolish the right for the minority party to filibuster Supreme Court nominees. This is hard to fathom in light of Senator McConnell and his Republican colleagues repeatedly abusing the filibuster for eight years in a non-stop effort to block President Obama from carrying out his agenda.

Senate rules require that a Supreme Court nominee earn 60 votes to end debate on his or her nomination. This rule helps ensure that justices on the high court are not extremists. Every Supreme Court nominee in the past quarter-century showed they could exceed this threshold. Senator McConnell is prepared to abolish this longstanding Senate rule to achieve his partisan goal. He will wear the mantle of responsibility for this unprecedented abuse of power.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

It can happen during the most mundane of conversations: You and your spouse are discussing the laundry or your kids’ upcoming school projects, and suddenly they say something that suggests you’re not doing your fair share. 

Bring on the righteous indignation and defensiveness! You feel like they’re pointing fingers and perceive it as an attack. Unfortunately, that knee-jerk reaction is a bigger problem than you might expect. According to renowned researcher John Gottman, defensiveness is one of the greatest predictors of divorce there is. 

1. Don’t raise your voice. 

“When you feel defensive, you have an instinctual urge to raise your voice. This comes from thousands of years of evolution. When you raise your voice it makes the other person feel more fearful and puts you in a dominant position. But you don’t want to make your partner feel ill at ease so instead of raising your voice, try to deliberately lower it. This will make you less defensive and make your partner less defensive, too. And you’ll be surprised how much better your conversations will go.” ― Aaron Anderson, a marriage and family therapist in Denver, Colorado

2. Ask yourself: Why am I getting defensive?

“Oftentimes when we’re defensive, we’re reacting to a wound we have received previously in life. It’s not uncommon for things we are defensive about as adults to relate to dynamics from family of origin. The paradox of intimate adult relationships is that we tend to choose partners who will evoke some of those very same frustrations and pains. It’s the work of an individual to understand where the need to become defensive originates from and address those underlying hurts and needs. It might not actually be your partner who is such a threat. Tuning into your own internal vulnerabilities is the first step to addressing, and preventing, the need for defensiveness.” ― Liz Higgins, a marriage and family therapist in Dallas, Texas

3. Instead of planning your next counterargument, actively listen to what your partner is saying.

“When someone is ranting and raving, it’s easy to plan your mental counter attack, but when you do that you are no longer listening to them and the message they’re trying to get across might get lost. Try to postpone your agenda and listen for points that make sense to you. Then let them know what makes sense. “ ― Danielle Kepler, a couples counselor in Chicago, Illinois 

4. Stay on topic. Don’t bring up other things you’re annoyed about in your marriage. 

“Remember what you’re arguing about. When people become defensive they have a tendency to lose sight of the problem at hand and bring up all kinds of other problems in an attempt to put the other person down and win the argument. When you do this to your partner you’ll find yourselves arguing in circles. Stay focused on the problem at hand and resist the urge to bring up other things, no matter how related you may think they are.” ― Anderson

5. Take responsibility for your part in the argument.

“I find that couples in my practice who are defensive really want their good intentions to be understood. As a result, when their partner expresses a need, they are quick to explain the reason they fell short, denying any responsibility and minimizing the problem. Sometimes they even feel like a victim and express that no matter what they do, it will never be good enough. This makes their partner feel unimportant and dismissed, causing resentment to build up. Instead, I ask couples to repeat their partner’s concern, acknowledge how they could feel this way, take responsibility for any part and respond to their request. ― Kari Carroll, a marriage and family therapist in Portland, Oregon  

6. Hold the “but.”

“Using the word ‘but’ in an important conversation is one of the biggest communication no-nos. Every day I hear clients say something like ‘what you’re saying makes sense but…’ followed by reasons why their partner is wrong or doesn’t make sense. When you do this to your partner, you’re completely negating any validation you gave. You’re also demonstrating that your concern is more about what you want to say and less about what your partner is saying. If you are about to say ‘but’ just stop. Say ‘what you’re saying makes sense’’ and end the sentence.” ― Elizabeth Earnshaw, a marriage and family therapist in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

7. Don’t intellectualize.

“I often find that people get stuck talking logic. They’ll say ‘I disagree with that one part of what you said’ or ‘You didn’t use that word correctly.’ Intellectualizing like that is a mistake. The happiest couples look for ways to honor and respect some part of their partner’s request and get to yes.” ― Carroll

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Stories + articlesList=5877f15de4b09281d0e9f217,57755052e4b0bd4b0b13de16,58013752e4b0162c043c001d,57db09dde4b08cb1409491ad

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Astronaut and four-term US senator from Ohio, John Glenn, will be buried at Arlington Cemetery tomorrow, April 6th at 9 AM ET. The ceremony will air live on NASA TV to honor the first American to orbit the earth. The US Marine Corps will also webcast…

The National Football League just announced that it’s moving its Thursday Night Football streaming coverage from Twitter to Amazon, but there’s more news to share this week. Through its on-going partnership with Intel, the NFL plans to install the co…