Here’s a sentence we never thought we’d write: Former FOX News anchor Bill O’Reilly is at the center of a gay porn scandal.
To make a long story short: Over the weekend, The New York Times dropped a bombshell report that, way back in January, O’Reilly agreed to pay $32 million to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him by FOX News legal analyst, Lis Wiehl. Wiehl had appeared on O’Reilly’s show for more than 15 years. She accused the 68-year-old cable news host of doing all sorts of inappropriate things.
Related: Here’s Bill O’Reilly throwing an actual tantrum, for old times’ sake
The Times reports:
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Although the deal has not been previously made public, the network’s parent company, 21st Century Fox, acknowledges that it was aware of the woman’s complaints about Mr. O’Reilly. They included allegations of repeated harassment, a nonconsensual sexual relationship and the sending of gay pornography and other sexually explicit material to her, according to the people briefed on the matter.
OK, let’s pause right there and take a closer look at that last sentence, the part about “the sending of gay pornography and other sexually explicit material.”
Can someone please explain to us why Bill O’Reilly was looking at gay porn?
This is a man who once said gay marriage would result in increases in “chaos,” polygamy, and incest, and called discrimination protections for LGBTQ students “madness” and “anarchy.”
Related: Bill O’Reilly’s replacement Tucker Carlson once beat up a gay guy who “bothered” him
We’re not the only ones who took notice of this minor detail in The Times’ report. Folks on Twitter are also curious about O’Reilly’s surprising taste in adult entertainment:
I'm really dying to know what kind of gay porn Bill O'Reilly grooves to.
— Milton Berle's Cock (@MBCock) October 21, 2017
Bill O'Reilly sent gay porn?! He gets down like that?!
— EXCLUSIVE CONTENT (@RaymondWPS) October 23, 2017
With this whole Bill O'Reilly story going ham, can we focus on the part about him sending gay porn to her? Bill, what's going on brah??
— Sammeh ?????? (@SamuwellTillman) October 21, 2017
WHY did Bill O'Reilly send gay porn to Lis Wiehl? That's the most peculiar aspect of this. But it sure does open up a new can of worms.
— WillG (@iamwillgnyc) October 21, 2017
So conservative good ol’ boy, Bill O’Reilly, has been caught with gay porn. It’s ok Bill, the gay porn section of hell isn’t that hot.
— Jake Sims (@Simbad_Reb) October 23, 2017
The Times also reported that the $32 million settlement was reached in January and that in February, 21st Century Fox offered O’Reilly a four-year, $100 million ($25 million per year) contract extension.
When confronted about this, the company said it considered the situation between O’Reilly and Wiehl “a personal matter between both parties.” Never mind that both parties were co-workers and that much of the alleged harassment happened at work.
So, yeah. Execs totally planned to keep O’Reilly on at the network. That is until last April, when it was revealed he was involved in not just one sexual harassment lawsuit, but five, all involving women with whom he worked. An outcry ensued, leading advertisers to flee, and, ultimately, O’Reilly’s firing.
That’s all fine and dandy. But we’re still really, really confused about why O’Reilly was looking at gay porn.
Related: People are so heartbroken Bill O’Reilly got fired, they’re celebrating like it’s New Year’s
Jaxton
Maybe it was gay as in lesbian porn. Straight guys think lesbian is straight snd not gay. The twisted world of porn with its fake definitions, you know….
mhoffman953
According to the affidavit it says the woman who made the claims served as his legal counsel and he would forward to her, explicit emails that were sent to him: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DMtBoBAXkAEll0Y.jpg
I’m more curious as to what he exactly did because $32 million sounds very excessive. I seen one case where a guy raped a child and had to pay $10 million. This wasn’t even rape and he settled to pay $32 million, seems like something else is happening here
Bob LaBlah
My guess is Fox had the choice of paying her off or having her reveal much more that would have more or more or less dwarfed this scandal. Its clear that the network that has an anchor for every type of frustrated white and female anchor (from the frustrated-white-male-audience-taget Lou Dobbs, The Five and the sluts who anchor the morning show Outnumbered) now thinks its better to buy silence than clean up their act and go back to reporting news in an unbiased way (or should I say do a better job of pretending to).
mhoffman953
@BobLaBlah
But it wasn’t Fox who paid her, it was Bill O’Reilly
And why call a bunch of women sluts?
DCguy
Is trolling so ingrained that you would try to forward the suggestion that the porn he sent her was forwarded to her in her capacity as a legal advisor? Any court would have laughed out a suggestion of harassment if she said that.
No, $32 million sounds not only like Rape, but rape or assault, that went on for a while AND she has proof. That is $7 million more than his entire year salary, NOBODY settles a claim for that much unless he was going to end up in Jail or worse.
Hopefully it leaks.
redcarpet30
This reminds me of Al Pachino’s monologue to his doctor in Angels in America (I haven’t been able to see the stage version).
Kangol
I think we’re only seeing the tip of this O’Reilly harassment iceberg, but “gay” could easily be “women-women” or “bi” porn. There’s quite a lot of that out there. In terms of the lawsuit, $32 million does sound pretty high, so I wonder what else this right-wing hypocrite did to this woman that we’re not learning about?
Bob LaBlah
Now that you brought up the subject of right-winged hypocrite I am reminded of ol’ Rush Limbaugh’s “alleged” drug overdose that too this day it has never been explained why the ENTIRE floor had to be cordoned off to get him out of the room and to a hospital. Right after this incident Limbaugh was accused (but no proof was ever presented) of being a frequent visitor to the Dominican Republic where NUMEROUS teenaged boys went up to his room. That, along with his oxycodone scandal was more or less swept under the rug but the good thing about it was it took some of the fire out of his ass, oops, I meant to say it cut down on the frequency of his criticism of just about everything that wasn’t white and right-winged.
Juanjo
Rush Limbaugh has been the subject of numerous stories including a little stop by the cops for soliciting in 1973 in Pittsburgh in his younger years when he was just another radio DJ. He was called Jeff Christie back then.
Kangol
Wait, what? I knew the story @BobLaBlah mentions, and he’s so right that Limbaugh’s drug issues and that bust for the prescription down in DR, but I had not heard about the 1973 bust. How has this never made it into the wider public discussion about Limbaugh?
Brody
Nope.
Even Lis Weihl confirmed that the amount of $32M was absurd.
More fake news to appease those who feed on hate.
And why would he send her pornography of two men engaging in sex? He obviously would not, meaning that, if it happened at all, it was likely between two women.
DCguy
Wow, so this is the SECOND of Mo Bros screenames to try to come in here and muddy the waters.
Fine, if she confirmed that feel free to post the link.
BigWill
Mo, you’re an idiot.
dwes09
“More fake news to appease those who feed on hate.
And why would he send her pornography of two men engaging in sex? He obviously would not, meaning that, if it happened at all, it was likely between two women.”
In typical regressive move, “Brody” decries “fake news”, and then proceeds to present what are the undeniable products of his imagination as fact.
Typically, the press uses ‘gay’ to refer to male homosexuals, and ‘lesbian’ to refer to female homosexuals, as well as to things pertaining to either. So, IN FACT we have no idea of the nature of the porn, but there is no doubt that some sort of porn was sent as a come on (and not for legal consideration) or it never would have been discussed in court.