Well we aren't privy to what's being said behind closed doors, or the thought processes behind them, that was one of the points being made as well - I just thought it was an interesting point of view of 'what changed so suddenly' that this set of scandals was the tipping point. Maybe it is more sensitivity to the issue or perception of the issue like you suggested. But it could also mean that the latest allegations might have some inkling of truth or at least have the appearance of it.SQLGeek wrote:Roger Ailes isn't around anymore. After his sexual harassment scandal, I bet the current Fox News leadership is a bit more sensitive to this.Pariah3j wrote:One of the commentators I listen too had an interesting perspective on the matter - O'reilly had several of these suits/cases/allegations brought up previously, advertisers come and go - so why did Fox suddenly decide to drop him like a lead balloon ? Paying off the women were the cost of doing business, and they had been more then willing to pay the money to make it go away previously, so what changed ? Innocent until proven guilty, but you gotta wonder what the company knows that suddenly made them do a 180.
Think of it this way, Fox News is what it is today because of O'Reilly. He didn't alone grow the network, but his popularity and ratings were a solid bedrock for them to build off of - if I remember correctly, I heard he has for at least something like the last 15 years dominated his time slot for cable news. No one in the category comes close. And up until this latest round of allegations, Fox has been willing to pay off/stand by him - that being the cost of 'doing business' much like companies that hired Howard Stern back in the day, knew they'd be paying FCC violation fees.
So something changed, and we're talking very recently. Parabelum suggested, the 'leftist Murdoch boys' but they aren't that recent I didn't think.