It turns out, however, that such suspicions were well grounded. Documents filed in federal court as part of his suit show that beyond Nolan’s mouthing off publicly against O’Reilly, there was another factor at work—the mutual business interests of two media giants, Comcast and the Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns the Fox News Channel.
On May 12, 2008—two days after the Emmys—O’Reilly went on the offensive against what he called Nolan’s “outrageous behavior” with a carefully worded, lawyerly letter to Brian Roberts, the chairman and CEO of Comcast, which distributes Fox News and entertainment programming, to its subscribers. The letter was written on Fox News stationery and was copied to Fox News CEO Roger Ailes.
Pointedly, O’Reilly began by noting their mutual business interests. “We at The O’Reilly Factor have always considered Comcast to be an excellent business partner and I believe the same holds true for the entire Fox News Channel. Therefore, it was puzzling to see a Comcast employee, Barry Nolan, use Comcast corporate assets to attack me and FNC.” Telling the Comcast CEO that Nolan had attended the Emmy Awards “in conjunction with Comcast,” O’Reilly apologized for bothering him but let him know he considered this “a disturbing situation.”
Consider for a moment the weights of the players in this episode. News Corp. ranks second in the latest Fortune 500 list of the world’s largest entertainment companies, right behind the top-rated Walt Disney Company. And if Murdoch is the visionary behind the News Corp. and Fox News CEO Roger Ailes is the driving force behind the Fox News Channel, Bill O’Reilly stands as the channel’s most visible face, which gives him significant clout. Indeed, this year, O’Reilly was voted one of the “10 Most Powerful in TV News” (tied with Glenn Beck for seventh place) by NewsPro, an industry trade publication—the sixth time O’Reilly has made the list. (Ailes was number one this year.)
By contrast, Barry Nolan is small potatoes. He had stints on two schlocky nationally syndicated TV shows, co-hosting Hard Copy in the 1990s and reporting for Extra in the early 2000s, and he continues to appear on Says You! , NPR’s witty word game. In Boston, he was best known as the co-host, with Sara Edwards, of TV’s Evening Magazine—but even that was more than twenty years ago.
Comcast Corp., Nolan’s former employer, meanwhile, is the country’s largest cable operator and residential Internet service provider. Last December, in a $30 billion deal, Comcast announced plans to take over NBC Universal, which includes everything from NBC Nightly News and Jay Leno, to cable channels such as such as MSNBC, Bravo, USA, and Telemundo, the Spanish-language broadcast network.
The joint venture, pending before the Federal Communications Commission, has already faced criticism from public interest groups like the Center for Digital Democracy, which calls the proposed merger “the equivalent of Godzilla swallowing Rockefeller Center.”
And indeed, when power meets power, the little guy had better look out, especially when the interests of media heavyweights intersect. Cable providers (like Comcast) pay fees to networks (like Fox) to distribute content (like The O’Reilly Factor) to their cable subscribers, with the cable companies negotiating multiyear contracts with the networks. With tens of millions of dollars at stake, negotiations can be bruising affairs. Thus, it’s in the two Goliaths’ interest to keep relations harmonious.
And in this case, though O’Reilly’s usual in-your-face rhetoric was absent from his May 12th letter, the message was clear: Hey, Comcast, don’t forget which side your bread is buttered on.

Wait a minute. I don't understand. Comcast pays Fox 'News' for programming. It seems to me that Fox needs Comcast at least as much as Comcast would need Fox. Isn't Comcast bigger than Fox? On the other hand, isn't Comcast's owner at least as right-wing as Fox?
#1 Posted by Alice de Tocqueville, CJR on Mon 16 Aug 2010 at 12:28 PM
I had a boss once, when I was young, who gave me some valuable advice I've never forgotten. (This was not in the news business.)
"Pick your battles," she said.
Mr. Nolan apparently never had a boss like that.
Oh, and when O'Reilly's critics say it's about his style, not his politics -- it's about his politics.
#2 Posted by Chuck Sweeny, CJR on Mon 16 Aug 2010 at 01:21 PM
Good piece on an almost-forgotten chapter in Boston media history. By the way, the Boston Phoenix gave Comcast one of its annual Muzzle Awards in 2008 for its disgraceful firing of Barry Nolan. See:
http://bit.ly/ztQiW
#3 Posted by Dan Kennedy, CJR on Mon 16 Aug 2010 at 01:32 PM
To help you see the ridiculousness of this arguement or position a little differently--let's take the issue out of journalism and put it into any other business.
Nolan is the Senior Vice President of JNJ and he does the same thing. What would happen? He would get fired. Doesn't matter if it's journalism or not.
The fact is that what he did was rude, incorrigible and disgusting. I don't care who won the award. Comcast did the right thing. The fact the Nolan doesn't respect or like O'Reilly doesn't matter.
Who cares? It's not for him to decide who should win the award.
His actions are representative of the firm he works for. I would have fired him too. And if he didn't like the winner--what they did or stand for--he shouldn't have gone to the dinner.
This is pretty simple. Kudos for Comcast for not bowing to such despicable and unprofessional behavior.
#4 Posted by Ann Marie, CJR on Mon 16 Aug 2010 at 01:34 PM
I can't believe anyone even watches any of the cable "news shows" - what a collective pathetic joke on the mass ignorant pawns
#5 Posted by the media are joke liar clowns - all scripted blowhard nonsense, CJR on Mon 16 Aug 2010 at 01:45 PM
Clowns reacting to asshats who report on montebanks. We don't live in interesting times after all.
#6 Posted by dpjbro, CJR on Mon 16 Aug 2010 at 01:58 PM
Bill O'Reilly doesn't deserve the job he has. He was one of the people calling for charging critics of the war in Iraq with sedition. A war we now know was started through lies.
#7 Posted by Frank Fredenburg, CJR on Mon 16 Aug 2010 at 02:24 PM
when O'Reilly's critics say it's about his style, not his politics -- it's about his politics
Best comment all day.
#8 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Mon 16 Aug 2010 at 02:32 PM
Let's see. Guy's making over $200k. He's 60. It's 2008. And he puts it all on the line over . . . Billo?
What did Nolan think was going to happen?
#9 Posted by Elizabeth, CJR on Mon 16 Aug 2010 at 02:35 PM
Hope Barry Nolan is awarded 1.5 million from Comcast. He is a hero for taking a principled stand ! Truth to Power should be recognized and rewarded !
#10 Posted by Charlie Hofheimer, CJR on Mon 16 Aug 2010 at 03:48 PM
Not only should Nolan be awarded the full amount plus court costs and lawyers' fees, but the Comcast and Fox merger must be suspended as a matter of First Amendment enforcement. Some posters on this blog don't understand that the U.S. Constitution treats freedom of speech as a special right (a particularly frightening observation given that this is the CJR). Nolan was neither disruptive nor inaccurate, no more than Edward R. Murrow when he and Fred Friendly took on Joe McCarthy with his own words. The fact that this story isn't getting wider coverage shows how co-opted all the media sources have become. (P.S.: It's great to see Terry Ann Knopf's byline)
#11 Posted by Nat Segaloff, CJR on Mon 16 Aug 2010 at 04:34 PM
No it is about his style, just like it is about rush's style and ann coulter's style and beck's style. See, it's like this, once upon a time conservatives, whether extreme, like Goldwater and Buckley or less so like Ike, acted in a repsectable manner. They did not act like overgrown, loudmouthed teenagers. They had substantial things to say, whether or not one agreed with them. Today CONservatives and libertariCONs are just loudmouthed, spoiled children. They shout over and cut microphones when the opposition has something significant to say. Their chief arguments are namecalling and abuse.
Now if that is the substance of their politics, then you are right it is about politics and not style. And you may be correct that the substance of politics from the CONservative so called right wing is shouting, name calling and abuse. That sound you hear is Buckley, Goldwater and most of all Ike turning over in their graves.
#12 Posted by Harry Canary, CJR on Mon 16 Aug 2010 at 04:37 PM
Yeah, because Olberman doesn't act like a spoiled teenager on his garbage MSNBC show when he whines about Limbaugh and O"Rielly. Stop pretending that one side is anymore civil than the other.
Do you really think you're on the good guys side and everybody on the other side is evil? That's just silliness.
#13 Posted by jared, CJR on Mon 16 Aug 2010 at 05:55 PM
"pick your battles"? hmmmmm. in this case, it seems that that can be translated as: shut up (a favored O'Reilly instruction to his guests), don't exercise your First Amendment right to free speech, stay silent, only say what you're allowed to say in a time and place approved by those with power and the willingness to use that power to control public debate.
"not up to him to decide who wins the award"? true, but as an American citizen and a journalist, he should have a right to express his opinion. since when did passing out a flyer (mostly simply quoting someone's own words) constitute a thought crime?
#14 Posted by mwh, CJR on Mon 16 Aug 2010 at 06:16 PM
Some screwy nut chooses to disrupt an award dinner (delberately) in order to score political points by trashing the honored guest, and in doing so flushes his cushy 6 figure salary down the toilet.
And the damning backstory is... What, exactly?
That the evil Fox/Comcast/Walmart/Halliburton/Blackwater cabal has stamped on this moron's rights somehow?
You have got to be kidding me.
Simple rule - Employers have no duty to employ people who make them look bad or who piss them off. Learn it, live it, love it.
And showing up at a black tie function looking like a hobo (on purpose) and proselytizing like a rabid street preacher by dishing Kinkos-rendered personal dirt on an honoree certainly doesn't reflect well on an employer.
NOTE to liberals: If you want to keep your $200,000 salary, leave your politics in the Marriott's coat check room, dress appropriately, and show some inkling of class.
#15 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 16 Aug 2010 at 09:07 PM
So Padikiller argues like most conservatives. He makes shit up. I read the same story. Nothing about scoring political points in it. O'Reilly is widely known to be someone who is a bully and who just gets shit wrong - demonstrably wrong.
Nothing in it about Walmart/Halliurton/Blackwater.
Not many hobos wear a sports coat and slacks.
nothing about proseltyzing or rabid preaching. Padikiller makes all that up. The way O'Reilly makes up his shit about a War on Christmas and being a culture warrior and being all about freedom.
Padikiller and O'Reilly have every right to just make shit up - and to said it loud and often. But they don't deserve awards of distinction for it. Not even in their Alice Thru the Looking Glass World. And that seems to be what was contained in this story. And it 's true.
#16 Posted by Waller, CJR on Mon 16 Aug 2010 at 09:28 PM
Apparently hyperbolic metaphors are lost upon some people...
#17 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 16 Aug 2010 at 10:06 PM
When you tell a story and make stuff up it's called fiction. When you make an argument and make stuff up it's called bullshit. You flatter yourself calling it metaphor
#18 Posted by Waller, CJR on Mon 16 Aug 2010 at 11:07 PM
Comcast had no business legally or ethically (not that I expect a lot of consideration of ethics from any company, especially Comcast) telling any employee what they can or can't say off the clock.
@ann marie: yes it was up to Nolan to speak up about who won the award... assuming he was a) a journalist concerned with how well we in the news media are serving the citizens of New England, b) a member of NATAS who pays (frankly excessive) dues, or even just c) a citizen of the region who thinks a strong press equals a strong democracy.
#19 Posted by aidian, CJR on Mon 16 Aug 2010 at 11:35 PM
Thanks for this piece, Terry. I'm sure this kind of pressure happens much more than we're aware of, but thanks for reminding us of it.
#20 Posted by Justin, CJR on Tue 17 Aug 2010 at 03:42 AM
Nobody who makes more than a member of Congress is ever "off the clock", especially when he is representing his employer at an award ceremony.
You can't go to a such an event representing your employer, behave like an adolescent jackass and expect to cash your paycheck the next week.
It ain't complicated, people.
If the dumbass had staged a PETA publicity stunt, a Greenpeace stunt, a Tea Party stunt, a Fair Tax stunt, or if he had otherwise taken the soapbox at an award dinner to denigrate an honored guest with whom he disagreed, he would have (and should have) been shitcanned too.
You screwy liberals just have your panties all up in a bunch because one of your own actually got what was coming to him (for once).
Stop your silly whining and start leaving your politics at home when you hit the time clock.
#21 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 17 Aug 2010 at 07:47 AM
The ignorance is in that Nolan judges O'Reilly by his perception of O'Reilly. TOF is an issues-oriented entertainment product. O is the personality that defines and animates the product. You don't like CheeriOs? Get Wheaties instead.
#22 Posted by MarcGA, CJR on Tue 17 Aug 2010 at 10:24 AM
Actually, it is more complicated than the under informed here might have you believe.
Nolan was not "on the clock" with his appearance at the Boston Emmy Awards the night in question. His only association with Comcast would be that he is publicly known as their employee, and a contracted one at that.
His appearance and actions would have to be proven to be in violation of his contract, because his first amendment rights are not subject to limitation by his employment.
Speaking as someone who witnessed the event, Nolan was not disruptive, and was not "dressed as a hobo". (His slightly dressed down look for the occasion didn't even rise to the level of fashion crime.). His handouts contained nothing that even identified him or his employer, and again the act of distributing them wouldn't have been considered disruptive to the proceedings.
O'Reilly was booed when introduced, and if memory serves he acknowledged it and played off of it. If he actually went back and complained about it or Nolan's public stand against his receiving the NATAS honor in a letter to Nolan's employer, it is fair game for discovery in Nolan's suit against Comcast for wrongful termination of his employment contract.
Bottom line is that a court will decide if Comcast violated Nolan's rights.
#23 Posted by kva, CJR on Tue 17 Aug 2010 at 10:30 AM
One aspect is missing from all this and that's Barry Nolan's role on Comcast as media and culture critic, a man paid to do rants on camera. So is Comcast saying by firing Barry that what they pay him to do on camera is not allowed off camera?
Former TV News Guy
#24 Posted by arnie reisman, CJR on Tue 17 Aug 2010 at 11:18 AM
Smoking gun:
"… Mr. Nolan’s protest at the NATAS Award Ceremony and of William O’Reilly as the recipient of the Governor’s Award jeopardized and harmed the business and economic interests of Comcast in connection with its contract with Fox News Channel, and its contract negotiations with Fox News that were ongoing at the time."
That, in itself, is enough for Nolan to win his lawsuit in any fair court in the nation.
Not to mention discredit Comcast as anything ever approaching a legitimate news outlet - and more than enough for the FCC to forbid Comcast's purchase of NBC as detrimental to the public good.
#25 Posted by Rod, CJR on Tue 17 Aug 2010 at 01:45 PM
kva wrote: Nolan was not "on the clock" with his appearance at the Boston Emmy Awards the night in question. His only association with Comcast would be that he is publicly known as their employee, and a contracted one at that.
padikiller responds: ?
What does this mean?
It's like saying the "only association" between Obama and the White House is the election.
He worked for Comcast. He pissed off Comcast. He got fired.
Where's the scandal? Comcast has the right to fire anyone who pisses it off.
Maybe Nolan has a contract claim (depending on the terms of his contract) and maybe he doesn't. But there is no constitutional or public policy issue here.
You daft lefties are just pissed off because he paid the Dumbass Fee for leftist activism.
#26 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 17 Aug 2010 at 02:58 PM
You left the "l" out of "public" in the 6th graph from the bottom of the story.
#27 Posted by JR, CJR on Tue 17 Aug 2010 at 04:52 PM
The only thing remarkable here is that Comcast was paying a washed up, D-Lister $207,000 for a show that nobody watched. No wonder why our cable rates are through the roof.
#28 Posted by O-FISH-L, CJR on Tue 17 Aug 2010 at 06:00 PM
Padikiller is wrong on the facts and wrong on the law. Corporations can indeed fire you for anything - but they can't fire you for everything. Like your sex, or your race. And in Mass. there is a Civil Rights law - that gives contract employees the right to sue if anyone - including an employer - uses intimidation to try to prevent anyone from exercising any of the rights that they are entitled to under the US or MA Constitution. Like freedom of religion. Or speech.
In Padikiller's ideal world - Corporations can spend unlimited money to run attack ads - truthful or not - to elect those that will do their bidding - and corporations would also have total power to tell all employees that they better stifle all expression of support for any opposing view. Nice Democracy you got in mind there Padikiller. Sounds like Chile under Pinochet.
#29 Posted by waller, CJR on Tue 17 Aug 2010 at 06:04 PM
Quit hogging the mike, padkiller, and get a life. Saying the same thing over and over again does not constitute "debate."
#30 Posted by David McKee, CJR on Tue 17 Aug 2010 at 06:49 PM
This story is not too illuminating. It does say that Nolan is covered by a contract, but it doesn't give readers an idea of what reasons his employers can use to terminate him. The story also lets Nolan get away with using the bogus claim that his First Amendment rights have been violated. That's silly.
The First Amendment protects Americans from having their free speech rights violated by the government. It doesn't prevent your employer from restricting you from saying and doing certain things while you are employed by them. If you don't like their rules, you can find a job with someone else. CJR could provide a public service by better explaining this stuff to readers.
#31 Posted by frank, CJR on Tue 17 Aug 2010 at 07:43 PM
Ms. Knopf:
If you're honestly going to make the claim that Barry Nolan was more worried about Bill O'Reilly's "style" than his "politics"...
You at least owe it to the readers to inform them that Barry Nolan's employment by the Joint Economic Committe came when he was hired by Dem. Rep. Carolyn Maloney.
#32 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 17 Aug 2010 at 08:21 PM
Padikillers favorite award winner - freaks out:
Just search youtube for Bill O'Reilly meltdown
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCY
#33 Posted by waller, CJR on Tue 17 Aug 2010 at 10:00 PM
Nolan will win this lawsuit if he has the funds to fight it. He had a contract and did not do anything that would reasonably void it. Comcast f*cked up and they owe him what they owed him on the contract plus damages.
#34 Posted by NeilSagan, CJR on Wed 18 Aug 2010 at 02:08 AM
Neil, how do you know that Nolan didn't do anything to void the terms of his contract? Do you have a copy of the contract? I'm amazed at people who declare things like this with such certainty, whey they obviously have no idea what is in the contract. I hope you are not a journalist. If you were/are one, and you were/are under contract, you'd deserved to be fired for leaping to conclusions without checking the facts.
#35 Posted by frank, CJR on Wed 18 Aug 2010 at 07:56 PM
Padikiller is STILL trolling this site? OMG. Somebody needs a hobby.
#36 Posted by circusboy, CJR on Wed 18 Aug 2010 at 08:15 PM
It should make a difference that it was journalism; and the point is that for Comcast (and Fox News, and O'Reilly), it didn't.
#37 Posted by Virginia O'Possum, CJR on Thu 19 Aug 2010 at 12:11 AM
No Virginia, while there is indeed a Santa Claus, distributing copies of a six-page homemade diatribe dishing personal dirt on the honored guest of an award ceremony isn't "journalism". It's "activism". Juvenile, petty activism.
Nice try, but no cigar.
Employers have no duty to employ activists... Or journalists, for that matter.
#38 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 19 Aug 2010 at 07:43 AM
This article was a complete waste of time to read, much less even write.
First, Journalism 101, what are both sides of the story? Where are the facts? There are NO facts... an excerpt is not the facts. Especially in today's day and age, when things are routinely taken out of context.
Look, I work in the local broadcast community in Wisconsin, and yes, I am a liberal like most in my newsroom. However, I also want and claim to be fair, and while it's hard to know what the truth is in this article, being fair would be presenting ALL the facts and both sides of the story.
Now I will be forced to watch Fox News to hear what Bill O'Reilley's response to this "news story" is.
It is stories like this that make people think journalists can't do their jobs.
#39 Posted by wis lib broadcaster, CJR on Thu 19 Aug 2010 at 05:36 PM
padkiller's rule for Americans: if you are employed in our fine land, check your First Amendment rights not just at the door of the employer, but anywhere you go. You say something that your employer frowns upon, back the wrong candidate, anger powerful people, you're out of a job.
#40 Posted by mwh, CJR on Thu 19 Aug 2010 at 07:47 PM
The First Amendment does NOT apply to employers...
Why can't you liberals squeeze this little slice of reality between your ears?
If Robert Gibbs were to badmouth Obama at a state dinner and pass out fliers demanding that Obama identify his coke dealer and release his academic records, do you honestly believe that the First Amendment would keep Gibbs employed?
Use your heads, people.
The First Amendment gives you the right to keep the G-O-V-E-R-N-M-E-N-T from squelching your speech. It does NOT keep you from being held accountable to employers for your opinions and conduct.
#41 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 19 Aug 2010 at 08:22 PM
Padi:
Would you comment on what Waller said about Massachusetts law?
It sounds to me like your general observation of the common law (which sounds right to me) might be trumped by a more specific Mass law on this point.
That happens: often, individual states grant rights in the employment or civil rights arena that exceed either Federal or state common law rights.
So you might be right in general but wrong on these particulars.
#42 Posted by garhighway, CJR on Fri 20 Aug 2010 at 11:46 AM
The Massachusetts Civil Rights Act:
The termination of an at-will employee does not violate any secured right. See, e.g., Gladstone v. Community Newsdealers, Inc., 3 Mass. L. Rptr., No. 22, 231 (Mar. 13, 1995) (Middlesex Superior Court, Jan. 12, 1995); Webster v. Motorola, Inc., 418 Mass. 425, 430 (1994); Flesner v. Technical Communications Corp., 410 Mass. 805, 818-19 (1991); Korb v. Raytheon Corp., 410 Mass. 581, 585 (1991). Similarly, at-will employees have no secured rights in renewal of their employment contracts. See Willitts v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston, 411 Mass. 202, 210 (1991).
#43 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 20 Aug 2010 at 02:47 PM
and to think Oreilly is the 'best of Fox's group among likes of Beck Hannity ..FOX is # 1 well that says a whole lot about how we got so many
years under GOP Reagan Bush wealth favoring policies- laws- wars -
that led to global disaster And the GOP folks miss all that fun .....-
#44 Posted by D Ribben, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 05:47 PM
“I don’t think they had the F-ing right to tell me what I’m allowed to say"
They could care less what you say, you just said it at the wrong time and place.
#45 Posted by Tim, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 05:51 PM
Bottom-line, O'Reilly is a bully.
"The folks"b wise up. This guy is not the same guy they tuned into 7 or 8 years ago.
He's looking out for no one but himself.
#46 Posted by Theodosa, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 05:52 PM
Lobbyists, Special Interest Groups and the big corporations they represent have run roughshod over our democracy for far too long. This year people from all across the country are joining together to force politicians to work on our behalf for a change.
Please help by signing the FIGHT WASHINGTON CORRUPTION pledge.
Over half a million people have already signed!
Can you ask someone you know to sign the pledge right now?
Send them to: http://www.fightwashingtoncorruption.com/
There is more information on the website.. CALL AND WRITE TO YOUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES. Urge your Senators and Representatives to sign the pledge now. HOLD YOUR LEGISLATORS ACCOUNTABLE. You can find your legislators’ contact information here: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
Please disseminate this widely! Thanks.
#47 Posted by Fight Corruption, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 06:02 PM
The use of rhetorical instruments to frame an idea or arguement has been in use for thousands of years. However Bill O uses it to frame lies to make more money, not to have a civil discusison. I would like to think that Mr Nolan will get his due but money does the talking and walking in the media, politics etc. As a bit of info try to read the Ancient but Timeless Rhetorica by Aristotle.
#48 Posted by slayer$ truth, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 06:11 PM
I am in the process of cancelling my Comcast cable. Than k you for this story.
Those punks have just gotten their last penny from me.
#49 Posted by Monk, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 06:20 PM
Bill O'Reilly is a lying piece of !@#$.He makes things up and then bullies people who call him on his LIES.If he can't bully them then he'll just spew more ridiculous BS.ANYONE who thinks this dildo has any merit WHATSOEVER is a *&^%$#@ MORON! I am amazed at the number of idiots there are who will believe something just" 'cause it's on TV".It's frustrating trying to expose the facts to some of my peers that eat this tripe.They are just not interested.They learn their "facts" from these corrupt users and truly believe everything that is fed to them.I feel sorry for their lack of insight and neglect on their intellect.I'm at a loss for what to do or think any more.
#50 Posted by keith, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 06:21 PM
padkiller, you apparently do not have an understanding of the term 'at-will employee'. An at-will employee is someone whose expectation of employment cannot be presumed to be more than temporary. If the employee has a contract, he is not an at-will employee, even though he may be considered a non-employee for tax purposes. If the employer distributes an employee handbook outlining rules and guidelines for the employees, those employees are not at-will employees.
Nearly all corporations with more than a couple of dozen employees have employees who are not 'at-will' with the exceptions being employees who have been informed of their 'probationary' status. In other words, if such an employer fires an employee for expressing his First Amendment right, and it can be shown that the firing was in retaliation for that expression, the MCRA has been violated by the employer.
#51 Posted by Martel, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 06:31 PM
Isn't it kind of odd that someone from another country and with close ties to Saudi Arabia owns so much of our media?
#52 Posted by Auntie, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 06:34 PM
Nolan is a grown man who was told by his employers repeatedly not to make a scene at an industry event. He chose to disregard those warnings because he disagrees with the politics of Bill O'Reilly.
He embarrassed the company at that event with obnoxious behavior. Nolan has been in the business how long? And he never considered that he might be jeopardizing his job by purposely ignoring a directive from management? Sorry, but getting fired isn't "bad luck". That's "dumb luck"
As for FNC, which I don't watch.... I find it curious how the Far Left, which basically has dozens of networks and newspapers delivering the news with a left leaning slant, gets so crazy over FNC. One channel that doesn't deliver commentary with a left wing slant is too much? So I guess the government should shut them down, right? Nolan has the right to free speech but O'Reilly and FNC need to be off the air? LOL.
#53 Posted by Johnny O., CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 06:34 PM
@Keith ... You and all the others that bad mouth people with absolutely no factual evidence to back up your claims are the poster children for the Libtard group.
#54 Posted by Ralph Cramden, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 06:39 PM
"a grown man who was told by his employers repeatedly not to make a scene at an industry event"
_____________________________________________
Apparently we should all remind ourselves that if something is done once, it has been done "repeatedly". We should also take note of the fact that passing out a flyer containing the words of an individual, when those words present him in an unflattering, unethical or immoral light, constitutes a 'scene' even if there was no verbal or physical conflict of any kind whatsoever. We should apparently understand that if someone is influential, even if such status is conferred for no rational reason, anything which might possibly be viewed as negative about that person is cause for a loss of employment and - if there is enough corporate muscle to back it up - a situation which has traditionally been characterized as 'blacklisting'.
But sit back and watch as this sort of thing becomes ever more prevalent. Virulently anti-American ideas and actions are being sold and advertised to the citizens of this country as 'patriotic', with the inference being that what were formerly considered 'rights' are now to be viewed as unpatriotic anti-American abominations. Such social turnabouts are historically common in declining empires, though, and work to prevent any reversal of decline.
#55 Posted by Martel, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 07:10 PM
Nolan's just lucky that all he got was fired. He could have been sent to the gas chambers with all the other enemies of the News Corp. state.
#56 Posted by Mark, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 07:15 PM
Padkiller and anne marie can go f#ck themselves.
#57 Posted by South Shore, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 07:24 PM
O'Reilly wished Katrina had washed out the UN was a reason for him not getting the award? Presumably the author was looking for an O'Reilly comment that showed how unworthy he was of the award, and that was the best he could do?
#58 Posted by Guy, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 07:28 PM
IMHO ~ I think "news" corps is a terrorist organization.
#59 Posted by Bamboo Harvester, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 07:37 PM
In other words, O'Reily pulled a "Joe the Plumber" on Nolan ?
Where was your outrage when Obama did the same to Joe?
#60 Posted by Cass, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 07:59 PM
Johnny O., The news departments may lean left but the owners (the few there are) are far right. Who do you think will win that fight?
#61 Posted by WizardOfZid, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 08:06 PM
Yo padkiller,
Not only do you NOT understand the term "at-will employee" you engage in extremely sloppy sophistry by citing irrelevant case snippets rather than the text of the actual Massachusetts Civil Rights Act:
"Chapter 12: Section 11I. Violations of constitutional rights; civil actions by aggrieved persons; costs and fees
Section 11I. Any person whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the constitution or laws of the United States, or of rights secured by the constitution or laws of the commonwealth, has been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with, ..., may institute and prosecute in his own name and on his own behalf a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief ..., including the award of compensatory money damages. Any aggrieved person or persons who prevail in an action authorized by this section shall be entitled to an award of the costs of the litigation and reasonable attorneys’ fees in an amount to be fixed by the court."
Yikes! Looks like Mr. Nolan has Comcast by the short hairs. Good for him.
#62 Posted by champlain, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 08:11 PM
Can we assume that a majority of the fired employee's supporters are also standing behind the right of Dr. Laura to use the language she employed on air recently?
#63 Posted by AndyG, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 08:14 PM
I worked in radio many years ago. At that time nobody could own the amount of TV stations and radio stations that they own today. This was controlled by government to stop any corporation or individual from having too much control over what is going out over the airwaves which actually belong to the governement. Everyday we are losing more and more of our indepedence to big business. If you agree with someone like Rupert Murdoch you may think so what, but someday it will belong to someone you disagree with.
#64 Posted by Patricia A. Schenk, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 08:15 PM
Whats all this talk about free speech? Mr. Nolan DID exercise his free speech. If the government did something to stop him I'd be up in arms. But his "speecH was deemed by his employer to be a liability to their business interests. In California its called at-will employment. Comcast is fully in their right to let him go if they believe (even incorrectly) he poses a liability to them. Doing so might make them callous and cowardly. But it isn't against the law to be callous or cowardly. I'm no conservative, but Mr. Nolan used very poor judgment and I would have been surprised at any other outcome. The earlier commenter had it right- pick your battles. If Mr. Nolan stood up and said "I felt strongly enough about this that I was willing to put my job on the line to make my voice heard" I would have a lot of respect for that. But for him to act surprised after the fact is very naive-- he's been around too long for that. You blew it dude!
#65 Posted by Goober, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 08:18 PM
A comment, and a question for O'Reilly's defenders on this forum:
Comment: Most of what Bill O'Reilly reports is either a) provably false (i.e., not consistent with what any other reporter would conclude given available facts) or b) naked demagoguery (e.g., inciting violence against Muslims, the UN, the ACLU, ACORN, liberals, homosexuals, Latinos, African-Americans etc.).
Given this situation - which can be easily proven by a review of O'Reilly's reporting over the years - where is the intersection between O'Reilly's day-to-day activities and the craft known as "journalism"? If there is no such intersection, why should he win a journalism award?
By awarding O'Reilly for his work, the journalism community seriously debases and undermines the legitimacy of its craft. If fact-free, rant-filled, demagogic on-air explosions qualify as reportage, then journalism is dead.
Nolan was a bit player in a much larger war for the soul of our profession, and, indeed, of our nation. As of now, the demagogues are winning.
The broader issue of corporate power is, quite frankly, secondary; the problem here is dozens of aspiring Goebbels preaching to tens of millions of Americans over government-licensed airwaves, through hundreds of thousands of miles of fiber cable laid in public ROW's and on private property via government powers of eminent domain, and via franchise agreements with most major American city governments.
CJR, and all legitimate journalist organizations, should be demanding that the government revoke the franchises and FCC licenses of corporations that use these public assets promote violence and hatred. We can skip this out of laziness or denial; but make no mistake as to where this road eventually leads.
#66 Posted by mateosf, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 08:26 PM
The answer is not watch Comcast or FOX news.
#67 Posted by geebee, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 08:26 PM
'billo the Bully' should have been SHlT canned after Dr Tiller was assassinated !
#68 Posted by Bamboo Harvester, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 08:29 PM
Just like Sherrod was fired by the Ag Dept for making unacceptable remarks in her NAACP speech, off the clock, and just like workers have been fired for caught saying 'ni...r' on their private time, fool Dolan was not exercising First Amendment protected rights, but merely being arrogant enough to think that leftist hate is a protected right that others are required to honor.
#69 Posted by DrPaul, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 08:33 PM
Why is this so surprising? TV infotainment has passed for news for nearly ten years. Corporate interests determine what is shown on every single 'news' cast - 24/7 - with every channel airing the same story, and every commercial shown at the same intervals. TVNewsLIES.org has been dedicated to exposing the distortions and distractions that pass for news. An uninformed voter is the best friend of corporate interests. They win. We lose.
#70 Posted by Reg, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 08:41 PM
Mateo, I do not know who voted for O'Reilly nor why. I do not know who else was in the running nor who has won in the past. He won the award, and Nolan being rude at the ceremony was not appropriate. He was instructed to behave himself at the ceremony by a superior, so he directly violated his employer's orders. This is a firing offense in all the labor codes I am familiar with (the Massachussettes law is not one of these).
#71 Posted by Guy, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 08:47 PM
Posted by mateosf on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 08:26 PM
Most of what Bill O'Reilly reports is either a) provably false
***O'Reilly does not report the news. His show is "commentary" and he offers opinion. Do you not know the difference?
b) naked demagoguery (e.g., inciting violence against Muslims, the UN, the ACLU, ACORN, liberals, homosexuals, Latinos, African-Americans etc.).
Please list 10 examples of when Bill O'Reilly "incited violence" against blacks, Hispanics, gays, or ACORN, etc.
#72 Posted by Johnny O., CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 08:48 PM
Nolan acted in a highly principled way and lost his job when the target of his criticisms acted in a highly unprincipled way and used raw power abusively. Some might say the one acting with integrity in that matchup is Nolan. Those who think integrity is old fashioned obviously don't see the innate attractiveness of storming the ramparts of hell to spit on the devil.
#73 Posted by wjw, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 09:02 PM
Nolan acted in a highly principled way and lost his job when the target of his criticisms acted in a highly unprincipled way and used raw power abusively. Some might say the one acting with integrity in that matchup is Nolan. Those who think integrity is old fashioned obviously don't see the innate attractiveness of storming the ramparts of hell to spit on the devil.
#74 Posted by wjw, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 09:03 PM
IMHO ~ I think "news" corps is a terrorist organization. Posted by Bamboo Harvester on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 07:37 PM
Might be the stupidest thing I have ever read on the internet, and that's saying something.
#75 Posted by USS Harry S. Truman, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 09:03 PM
Someday we will look back at this period as we look back at the McCarthy era, and these small deeds that got under the skin of these Bullies will be remembered. One of these deeds begets another and another until the groundswell begins to take these false-leaders down. And they will scury away like the cowards they are.
#76 Posted by macmanchgo, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 09:06 PM
A man who works for company A quietly places unmarked pamphlets with nothing more than quotes from the TV show of another man who works for company B on tables at an industry awards ceremony put on by company C. Am I getting that right so far? Not protesting, not disrupting, not testifying, not proselytizing, not causing a scene or a stink, correct? The first man was invited to the ceremony because he's been in the industry for 35 years, and not directly as a representative of company A, correct? And now we have corporations and corporatists upset that this second man's own on-air words are so outrageous that the dissemination of them could cause harm to the negotiations between company A and company B? The man from company B's own direct on-air words could hurt company A and B, and it's the first man's fault?
To quote Anthony Weiner, "You should be ASHAMED!! ASHAMED!!"
Reminds me of Coke spending hundreds of millions of dollars advertising VITAMIN Water, saying it will keep you "healthy as a horse," and will bring about a "healthy state of physical and mental well-being," but when sued by a non-profit public interest group for making unwarranted health claims, their defense is, "no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking VITAMINwater was a healthy beverage."
Is there no integrity left in corporate America anymore?
#77 Posted by ViaMantle Media Escapee, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 09:18 PM
Dittio to Johnny O.! That is exactly right! Thanks for your common sense!
#78 Posted by RBALOG, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 09:18 PM
I wonder why Comcast didn't fire the other employees at the event who booed O"Reilly. Maybe it's okay to boo, but not to hand out literature. Or maybe it's okay to boo, but not to wear a sport coat when other men are wearing tuxedoes. Personally, I think O'Reilly's such an evil guy that Comcast employees who applauded him should have been fired.
#79 Posted by Mutande, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 09:23 PM
"Sherrod was fired by the Ag Dept for making unacceptable remarks"
_____________________________________________________
Why is it that radical right-wingers have no discernible ability to actually comprehend what they read, see or hear? Is it a birth defect or just slavish adherence to knee-jerk propaganda techniques? (I'll go with the latter, but it's really an open question at this point.)
Ms. Sherrod wasn't fired for making 'unacceptable remarks'. She was fired entirely unfairly because it turns out the White House believes that something which comes from the radical right might possibly have some sort of validity, an utter absurdity on its face.
She said that, because of racism, she had felt she didn't need to do her best for a white farmer. She wasn't fired because she SAID something unacceptable. She was fired because the carefully edited video posted to the web by a propagandist appeared to provide damning evidence that she had DONE something both illegal and morally unacceptable - even though she ultimately did not act in that way, but only appeared to have done so in the edited video of her speech about what she actually did, in which she was expounding upon a teachable moment in opposition to racist attitudes, even though her father was killed by the KKK.
Of course, I suppose that a racist wouldn't really understand any of that episode without a great deal of very serious, careful and unbiased thought; but a racist wouldn't be capable of such a feat.
#80 Posted by Martel, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 09:24 PM
If you can get fired for expressing your views, isn't that a serious threat to freedom of speech? I would think so.
I realize in the real world stuff like this happens -- hence why many on the internet use pseudonyms.
#81 Posted by Joseph, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 09:31 PM
"Is there no integrity left in corporate America anymore?"
__________________________________________________
Surely you jest. Integrity in the corporate world is a marketing device sold to the public and used to trick competitors for power within the corporate management structure. It's most certainly not something which is given serious consideration in terms of either personal or corporate behavior. This has always been true to one degree or another in the corporate world, but at this point in time - in the United States of America - it is nearly universally true.
#82 Posted by Martel, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 09:37 PM
"If you can get fired for expressing your views, isn't that a serious threat to freedom of speech? I would think so."
___________________________________________________
In fact, among the commenters on this item are individuals who insist that no one has a right to free speech if a corporation decides to eliminate that right, but only when a government attempts to do so. In other words, they would prefer that the wealthy rule them as serfs or slaves so long as they don't have to tolerate a representative democracy based upon a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. And they have the gall to call themselves Americans.
#83 Posted by Martel, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 09:45 PM
"IMHO ~ I think "news" corps is a terrorist organization. Posted by Bamboo Harvester on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 07:37 PM
Might be the stupidest thing I have ever read on the internet, and that's saying something. "
__________________________________________________
I'm sure that saying something would be exciting for you, but it turns out you didn't.
Although the Propaganda Ministry isn't the terrorist organization itself, they are very clearly working hand-in-glove with them as the public face of those who are carrying out a withering, destructive attack on this country. The often repeated point of the war on America being waged by the radical wrong-wingers is to reduce the government to such a position of weakness that it can be drowned in a bathtub (Grover Norquist, et al). The apparent goal is the replacement of the government of the United States of America with a neo-confederate establishment based upon a new constitution which eliminates those parts of the current Constitution which the wrong-wingers believe grants unacceptable rights to people they don't like. They love the Constitution - but not the one we have now.
#84 Posted by Martel, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 10:07 PM
You people are off your damned rockers.
If a Boston Herald reporter decided to dress down and pass out flyers at a White House state dinner demanding that Obama identify his coke dealer, explain his relationship with Vera Baker, and release his academic records...
Do you loonies actually think the Boston Herald would have a duty to keep the moron on the payroll?
Of course you don't. You guys are just pissed that one of your own got what was coming to him.
Grow up.
You are NOT entitled to a job. Your employer is NOT required to put up with your liberal BS.
Nolan may or may not have a contract claim, depending on the terms of his contract, but there is no civil rights issue here.
PERIOD.
#85 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 10:11 PM
It seems the point of this article was lost on everyone. You have a TV personality who acts like a total jackass on a daily basis winning a prestigious award for journalism. And when someone in the professions speaks up against this atrocity, said TV personality jackass gets them fired. This speaks to everything wrong with journalism and the media in this country. The truth falls prey to profits every time. It is not even close. I hope this guy wins his lawsuit, the courts will sort that out. The real tragedy is that people like padikiller and his cohorts will make this an issue about Nolan being inappropriate or god-forbid pissing off his employer. I am sure Comcast will be ok padikiller, there is no doubt they appreciate you standing up to those scary lib-tards for them. If not for you they would be in real trouble. Poor defenseless multi-billion dollar corporations, everyone needs to stop being so mean to them.
The real issue is whether journalists can report the truth even it harms the bottom line of the multi-media conglomerates that sign their pay-checks. People like O'Reilly blindly do the bidding of their corporate masters for wads of money, in his case promoting a vehemently anti-democratic pro-corporate agenda. A reporter like Nolan pursue the truth regardless of the consequences to his employer. Nolan gets shit-canned and O'Reilly gets all the loofas money can buy. go figure.
#86 Posted by Big Bad Lib, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 10:11 PM
If you can get fired for expressing your views, isn't that a serious threat to freedom of speech? I would think so.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Depends. Would you have a problem with someone at your company leaving religious literature around the office? How about anti abortion stuff, or openly expressing their beliefs about race or sex? Or announcing each day in the lunch room that President Obama is a Muslim?
People get fired for that stuff all the time.
What I find funny about people out on the Far Left is that they're huge supporters of free speech, unless they disagree with the speech. In that case, they support censorship and label those they disagree with as racists or hatemongers. Can't have it both ways.
The writer of this article doesn't just report the facts. He clearly has an agenda and supports Mr. Nolan. I doubt very much we got the whole story here.
#87 Posted by misteredthetalkinghorse, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 10:31 PM
As a couple of conscious people have noted, the First Amendment only applies to GOVERNMENT restrictions of speech. Comcast is not part of the government. The employee had fore-warning (not that it may have been necessary) that he was not to create a scene. He (and apparently the author of this article) took that in a very literal sense (ie a loud ruckus). But the employee obviously did everything he could just short of causing a "scene." How many employers would allow unwanted behavior based on technicalities. The concern was not just a scuffle, but on behavior that could reflect badly on Comcast. And the author of this article says his firing was a business decision.
Everything depends on the term of his contract. The employee might not be a big deal in the media world, but he is being treated as a big deal as far as employees go. It is easy to get fired. That this guy didn't know that reveals something about him. Now maybe his contract protects him but there is NOTHING about that in this lengthy article.
#88 Posted by Crispian, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 10:45 PM
Fact 1: O'Reilly is not the bad guy in this case. (Please note that I said "in this case". He LIKELY is the bad guy in that Mackris case though.) All he did here was let Comcast know that he felt disrespected by one of their employees at an event that was supposed to honor him. I'd have done the same thing! And so would you.
Fact 2: Nolan dressed and acted in a way intended to dishonr a person that his employers wanted to honor. He admits to dressing down to the event becaue he didn't like O'Reilly. He admits to making nasty flyers about the man and distributing them NEAR and DURING the awards ceremony (same time, same venue). ***Side note: who doesn't know O'Reilly is a dick. Everyone knows who and what O'Reilly is. They don't need these 11th hour flyers.***
Fact 3: A low level employee at Comcast jeapordized a 10 million dollar deal. In what world could that employee claim immunity. Why shouldn't he be fired. THIS IS CRAZY.
#89 Posted by Marcus, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 10:46 PM
"Free Press" supports anything but and is just about as left-wing as it gets, seeking to regulate the Internet, wanting to censor talk radio and tv. No serious Washington politician or scholar considers them anything other than hacks paid for by Soros since he stands to benefit from any victory they might get. That the author uses them as a serious source shows what the intention was with this from the start. Sad to see from a once great publication. Nice try but a very weak effort. Why not just quote Media Matters as a "non-partisan" group. Shame on everyone involved in this. Nolan sounds angry the he didn't catch on like Bill did. Total hack job about a total joke hatched and written out of anger and hate. FAIL!
#90 Posted by Derek, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 11:20 PM
Oh please, Nolan did not jeopardize any deal between Fox and Comcast. The wusses at Comcast did not have to respond with anything other than "We are not responsible for our employees' actions off the clock" or "Nolan's opinion was his and not reflective of the opinions of Comcast." This Comcast - NBC deal is looking even worse than I thought with cowards at the helm. Funny how O'Reilly is always screaming about his right to bully people yet cannot handle someone else passing around nothing more than O'Reilly's actual words. What a crybaby to complain to Comcast.
#91 Posted by debbie gordon, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 11:30 PM
Fact 3: A low level employee at Comcast jeopardized a 10 million dollar deal. In what world could that employee claim immunity. Why shouldn't he be fired. THIS IS CRAZY.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bingo!
#92 Posted by USS Harry S. Truman, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 11:30 PM
Marcus, you're kidding right? Or maybe you don't understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. In your opinion BillO is not the bad guy.
FACT 1: He was embarassed by someone he considered a lesser person.
Fact 2: He is extremely thin skinned!
Fact 3: He used his considerable influence with Comcast and Roger Ailes to CRUSH the person who embarasesed him.
Fact 4: You were not in attendance so you have no clue as to Nolan's dress and how it affected the event.
Fact 5: As you did not see Nolan's fliers and have no clue if they were nasty or not. (Hint, the contained O'Reilly's own words. How could that be nasty?)
Fact 6:Refer back to Facts 1, 2 and three. If said contract was jepordized, again you have no clues as to the status of said contract, it was because of Facts 1, 2 and three,
Just the Facts!
#93 Posted by Henk, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 11:34 PM
Oh, I forgot the most important fact of all. Bill is a scared little girl (No offense to little girls.) and just can't take being criticized. The fact that he got his ass kick by other little girls on the play ground every day at recess has a lot to do with his current behaviour.
#94 Posted by HENK, CJR on Sat 21 Aug 2010 at 11:42 PM
Isn't it the right of Comcast to protect their interest? And isn't it the right of a company to fire someone in the company who actually could harm the company.
I know we are talking about a news agency, but you are not talking about news.
If i were to not like something one of my customers is doing, or if I do not personally like a customer due to whatever reason that does not give me the right to bad mouth the client.
I know it is easy to hate Bill O'reilly, but that does not give a person the right to ruin their companies banquet.
If Comcast was hiding a story due to some reason then I could see the problem.
The analogy about Tiger Woods and The Master is once again a non issue. Tiger may be a public figure but he is in a sporting match. The reason people would tune into the Masters would be to watch golf not listen to Tigers personal problems. They could save the for Entertainment Tonight.
Getting to the Tiger issue, where were all the Journalist about Clinton and his affair? Then is was just sex, no big deal. Tiger is a married man with Children.
#95 Posted by Doug R, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 12:08 AM
"I had a boss once, when I was young, who gave me some valuable advice I've never forgotten. (This was not in the news business.)
"Pick your battles," she said.
Mr. Nolan apparently never had a boss like that.
Oh, and when O'Reilly's critics say it's about his style, not his politics -- it's about his politics."
Picking your battles and staying silent when you know something is wrong is just moral cowardice and economic experiency. And it is about BO's bullyboy tactics as it is his politics. Can you imagine William F. Buckley going after a journalist like this?
#96 Posted by Donald Stephens, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 12:31 AM
It doesn't surprise me that O'Riley would go out of his way to squash anyone who dares to point out his lies and hypocricy. His overblown ego dictates it.
What DOES surprise me is that more people aren't alarmed and outraged at the takeover and monopolizing of our media! Does no one see all the horrific scenarios this leads to? Not "could" lead to. It is HAPPENING right now.
The only possible way to stop it, and reverse the damage already done, is to push for our Government to re-instate regulation against monopolies in any corporate arena.
Yep, I know some of you are cracking your knuckles now, preparing to call me every version of the word idiot, and talk about "class warfare" against the rich (tragic!) and freedome of speech (where "speech" is money, and "freedom" is code for "the freedom of the rich to acquire MORE" - so you can just save yourself the trouble. I'm not buying it, and I won't be responding to it.
My point is: Men like Rupert Murdock who seek to manipulate and control ALL of The American People for fun and proffit should NOT be allowed to do so. It is disgusting, reprehensible, bad for This Country and her Citizens, and should be recognized, acknowledged, and PROHIBITED.
#97 Posted by GlimmerQuest, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 12:38 AM
Nicely describes a sore loser and angry man. Perhaps a narcissist. Since he objected to Bill O'Reilly getting the award he should not have attended. That is why Bill O'Reilly is on TV every night, getting paid, etc. And the guy who got fired is...fired. I would never hire someone with such poor judgement.
#98 Posted by DavidJ, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 12:46 AM
It's unfortunate that the author uses the "Dustin Pedroia vs. NY Yankees lineup" analogy. Not only does it alienate a healthy percentage of his audience, but it also draws the reader's attention away from the point of the metaphor. Suddenly, I'm thinking Red Sox vs. Yankees rather than Nolan vs. Corporate America.
It's interesting, too, that the author never mentions just how unprofessional Nolan's actions were. Don't get me wrong, I fully believe that Bill O'Reilly is a terrible journalist who didn't deserve the award, but passing out embarrassing material at the awards show is a little much.
If anything, Comcast should be blamed for caving to Reilly. The unfortunately thing here is that the Huffington Post has made a major headline out of "O'Reilly uses corporate influence to crush detractor." It sounds like O'Reilly sent a letter--well within his rights--and Comcast overreacted.
B for style / B- for content
#99 Posted by Mike, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 01:34 AM
Wow I can't believe I'm still up (Madden 11 is amazing!)
Henk, what are you talking about? I'll grant you your first three points. O'Reilly was embarrassed, he is thin skinned, and he wanted Comcast to punish Nolan.
You're wrong on FACT 4. Nolan admitted dressing shabbily ( On the night of the awards, he deliberately dressed down. “I own a tuxedo, but I wanted to wear something that was socially appropriate, but minimal,” he recalls. “For me this was not a special evening.) to an event where "many of the men [were] in tuxedos, the women [were] in strapless gowns"
You're wrong on FACT 5. The flier had more than O'Reilly's quotes (ignorant as they are); it also contained allegations from a sexual assault case. I remember that loofa stuff being alleged, but I don't remember it being proven. (There's a 10-15 percent chance that O'Reilly never said any of it.
You're wrong on FACT 6. In Comcast response to Nolan's lawsuit they said that his actions " jeopardized and harmed the business and economic interests of Comcast in connection with its contract with Fox News Channel"
Listen he screwed up. He doesn't like O'Reilly.Fine I don't like him either. But I would have stayed at home. Nolan wanted to cause a scene. That's why he tried to contact Keith Olberman. That's why he didn't wear a tuxedo like 95% of the other men in attendance. That's why he passed out his handouts. And that's why he got fired.
I don't know why any of that is important at 2am (or any other time at night) but I'm fired up now
#100 Posted by Marcus, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 02:11 AM
Meh. Sounds like both guys were being douches, and the more powerful douche, directly or indirectly, won out.
#101 Posted by Matunos, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 03:05 AM
Bill O'Reilly, who, regardless of what you think of his work, is one of the most successful political broadcast journalists in the world, and has been for years, was getting an award. That's what happens to successful people. They get awards. When organizations want to honor somebody, they pick somebody famous. It draws people to the event. It raises money it gets attention. It's what everybody does and there is nothing wrong with it.
This particular award was being given by the Boston Chapter of Natas. Last time I checked, this award wasn't the Pulitzer or the Nobel. It wasn't going to bestow on O'Reilly any more power or reach than he already has and very little prestige.
Nolan didn't like it. He made his opinion known. Then he made his opinion public. He called O'Reilly a mental case, which sounds to me like he had made the thing personal.
Nolan's boss came to town to tell him specifically NOT to make a scene at the event. He made a scene. Not a big one, but a scene nontheless, and one designed to embarrass O'Reilly and the organization honoring him. And before we lyonize Nolan, let's understand that he was a journalist who was letting his opinion and personal feelings become the story here.
After being insulted, O'Reilly wrote a letter. Certainly he was within his rights to do so. On the same day, after doing what his boss asked him not to do, Nolan was fired. O'Reilly's letter may have contributed to firing or maybe he would have been fired anyway.
And now Nolan is suing because his "first amendment rights have been violated." Apprarently, he studiend constituional law with Sarah Palin and Dr. Laura. He has incurred $100K in legal fees because of a suit he is bringing.
Nolan chose to go after somebody far more powerful than he, chose to make it personal, chose to defy his employer. O'Reilly, whose work I happen to despise by the way, defended himself against an attack. Nolan got fired. What did he expect to happen?
#102 Posted by Seth Berkowitz, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 03:17 AM
Is it really an award if influence and money are what's required to get it ?
Is it prestigious ?........Can I buy one ? ....How much ? ......make me an offer !
#103 Posted by Depe, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 03:28 AM
Padkiller, is that you BillO?
#104 Posted by david, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 03:38 AM
seth berkowitz, Tokyo Rose and Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels were very successful too, perhaps we should honor them too ?
#105 Posted by Banboo Harvester, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 04:57 AM
@Seth Berkowitz. Kudos on the lucidity of your post. I'll only take exception with one point. Did Comcast have an expectation to which, their contracted employee was obligated to comply with a mandate given him by his superior, regarding an event in which, neither the employee, the event organizers, or the other participants were acting as representatives or associates of the employer?
@ misteredthetalkinghorse. Religious pamphlets in the workplace; is not analogous. The Award ceremony was not Nolan's workplace. It had no pertinent affiliation with Comcast.
@ Glimmerquset and Patricia A. Schenk. Concur, mostly.
What should be evident by the comments here and in current public discourse at large, is the polarization that has developed over the last couple decades. Any divergence of opinion is met with personal characterization as "Far Left/Right". As though, those are the only two possible alternatives and no one person can hold opinions on complex issue which, at times, may be in conflict.
Whether you believe yourselves to be Left, Right, or Centrist, you should be concerned about this continuing media consolidation (including "Net Neutrality"). Or do you you think that Corporate Media will, or allow others to, be critical of itself
#106 Posted by Daniel Beloat, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 05:18 AM
Man, I hope there aren't a lot of working journalists posting these ridiculous statements.
1. He most certainly was representing his employer. You can't attend one of these industry events -- even at your own expense, which I doubt he was doing -- without being a representative of your employer. One of the truths of life in the media is that, just as the chief of police is always "on the record" when talking to you, so, too, you are always representing your employer, who is paying you for being a public person associated with the company product.
It is interesting to discuss whether a well-known face can be private at, say, an anti-nuke rally. Generally, yes. But when you attend a media banquet, you are there because you are part of the media, and you represent your employer.
2. He acted with disrespect not just to O'Reilly (fair enough) but with disrespect to the people who gave the award and in direct disrespect to the boss who told him not to make a scene. This isn't middle school and we're not going to debate what "make a scene" means. Grow up.
3. If he didn't think he could lose his job over this, he's an idiot. An intelligent person would have considered the risk, considered the situation and made the decision. He could have resigned over the award and then picketed the banquet, but instead he decided to make a scene and hope for the best. Well, you stood up for your beliefs and you paid the price. Was it worth it? I hope so.
I can't stand O'Reilly. But, having made my feelings clear and having even caused the board to rethink their award (though not to rescind it), I'd have held on to that quarter-grand gig while I shopped my resume. But if I had decided I had to do more, I'd have done it like a mensch and not like a whining little baby. My respect for his principles is far overshadowed by my contempt for his lack of common sense.
#107 Posted by TJDestry, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 06:57 AM
If Ms. Knopf were interested in doing that "journalism" thing, instead of attacking O'Reilly and Comcast, she could perhaps have dug up the court papers before writing her screed, thus informing her readers of a couple of facts, instead of merely Mr. Nolan's side of the story as gospel truth,
Undoubtedly, the relevant terms of Mr. Nolan's contract have been filed in the case and are thus public records.
But why let the mere factual background get in the way of an O'Reilly hit piece?
Of course, the "watchdogs" here at CJR have no interest in mere facts, unless they can further the anti-corporate liberal agenda.
#108 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 07:21 AM
Nolan was instructed by his supervisor not to make a scene. Instead of complying with the spirit of his boss's instructions, he figured he'd be a wiseass and unleash some passive-aggression instead by dressing down and distributing the denigrating pamphlets.
Now he's getting what he deserves for defying his boss. Typically of the genre, he's now whining and blaming others for his predicament when there is no one to blame but himself.
Man up, Mr. Nolan. You've proven yourself not as smart as you thought you were. Lick your wounds and learn to pick your battles more realistically.
Roger Ebert had his own dustup with O'Reilly a few years back. His response to Bill's arrogance and inflated sense of self-importance was to send him an e-mail which contained the following little tale aboout "Squeaky the Famous Chicago Mouse". As Roger tells it, one day Squeaky was floating on his back down the Chicago River. Upon approaching the Michigan Avenue lift bridge, he shouted out "Raise the bridge! I have an erection".
#109 Posted by helios9, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 07:59 AM
Boycott Orally's advertisers.
#110 Posted by Spyder308, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 08:12 AM
Not about big corps. About a jealous man trying to get back at a succesful one through intimidation.
#111 Posted by ABetterPlace, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 08:24 AM
O'Reilly is merely a commonplace, schoolyard bully to whom a mega-corporation has given a megaphone and is selling ads so people can watch him be the bully and get off on it. His audience is like the schoolyard bystanders watching it all. Nothing new....but disgusting puerile behavior all the same.
#112 Posted by Stephen McArthur, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 08:25 AM
Mr. O'Reilly is a mean-spirited, angry old bully. Ratings mean not a thing, other than there are many mean-spirited , angry people out there listening to him. He spews unconfirmed, often totally erroneous information and editorials. It's the Republican mantra extraordinaire, tell a lie over and over until people start to believe it, and he and Glenn Beck are the masters.
#113 Posted by jaczar, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 08:59 AM
Someone said Mr. Nolan should have gotten the sage advice to "pick your battles." So, what does THAT mean. He should have protected his job by NOT showing what a two-faced, bullying liar Bill O'Reilly is? He should NOT have protested giving that blowhard a major NEWS award? He should have picked a battle that was SAFE? Really, what was that advice supposed to mean?
Mr. Nolan picked a battle that needs fighting for all of us. And I hope, as it goes foward, that he at least wins a victory in the public mind. I also hope he can prevail in court, if he deserves to, but in the public interest, he has done us a service. Sorry that not enough people realize what's happening to our press and what it means to our democracy that this sort of thing goes on.
#114 Posted by Pat Goudey OBrien, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 09:05 AM
So padikiller thinks Nolan should have hung up his free speech rights when he was on the "time clock," but Nolan was a high-paid employee who someone said is "always on the time clock." So, as a journalist always on the time clock, Nolan had no free speech rights.
I'm confused.
#115 Posted by Pat Goudey OBrien, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 09:12 AM
You people need to absorb the reality.
Your free speech rights DO NOT GUARANTEE YOU A JOB.
Sure you can exercise your right to speak, and the GOVERNMENT can't stop you, but there is NOTHING stopping private citizens from holding you accountable for your conduct!
If you piss off your employer by running your mouth, you get fired. It ain't complicated.
You guys are dodging and weaving around this slice of reality, so stop it, and answer this question (that I've posted for the third time):
If a reporter for the Boston Herald was invited to the White House for a State Dinner, and the reporter decided, in protest, to dress down and pass out flyers demanding that Obama name his coke dealer, explain his relationship with Vera Baker, and produce the academic records he's been hiding... Would the Boston Herald have the right to fire the reporter?
Of course it would!
Deal with the reality, people!
#116 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 09:53 AM
So Nolan believes that his opinion counts over the overwhelming majority of the committee that voted on giving this award to O'Reilly. In a snit, he unprofessionally seeds the audience with his protest. He deserved to be fired for his lack of professionalism. He had is own show and perhaps that is where he should have expressd his right to free speech.
#117 Posted by Whatjaexpect, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 09:55 AM
Thankfully the liberal agenda will come to a close soon. You people on the left are so concerned about pleasing the radicals that control you its disturbing. Yeah Bush was no picnic but this utter jackass in the White House is pure insanity. My hope is it hits you all in your pocketbook....... oh what you didn't think this crap would affect you..... ha ha ha ha typical lefty book smart but street stupid. Don't you guys have kids too or does your addenda trump all. The lefts addenda is a harmful and a looser, wake-up.
#118 Posted by Mike the average american, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 10:08 AM
Hey padkiller, you claim "there is no civil rights issue here" but you seem desperately ignorant of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Law:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/12/12-11i.htm
Waller at Tue 17 Aug 2010 at 06:04 PM said it better than I ever could:
"Corporations can indeed fire you for anything - but they can't fire you for everything. Like your sex, or your race. And in Mass. there is a Civil Rights law - that gives contract employees the right to sue if anyone - including an employer - uses intimidation to try to prevent anyone from exercising any of the rights that they are entitled to under the US or MA Constitution. Like freedom of religion. Or speech.
In Padikiller's ideal world - Corporations can spend unlimited money to run attack ads - truthful or not - to elect those that will do their bidding - and corporations would also have total power to tell all employees that they better stifle all expression of support for any opposing view. Nice Democracy you got in mind there Padikiller. Sounds like Chile under Pinochet."
Mr. Nolan has simply filed a legal claim to protect his civil rights and to enforce a contract. The Columbia Journalism Review wrote a story about the claim and the events leading up to it. Why does that make 'padkiller' so damned crazy?
After all, this is America.
Isn't it?
#119 Posted by champlain, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 10:30 AM
is there anyone who would present bill o'reilly as a standard of (any noun even distantly related to) excellence to their kids.
just hope that my kids'right to express themselves in a manner most would consider tame (it appears that the literature contained only facts; no fiction; nothing unsubstaintiated; just factual things o'reilly either said or did.) at an event sponsored by an organization of which they are paying members isn't gone by the time they become adults.
it's really quite difficult to understand the almost glee that some feel as money further integrates itself into what we honestly feel is right/wrong, fair/injust. i'm not nostradamus; i can't barely see beyond the paycheck in front of me. but, whether in finance or information, it's easy to see that when profit is the final arbiter, big & few are not catalysts to right and fair. what's harder to see is the rationale of those that cheer for the further consolidation of information distribution.
could someone explain why this action and the pending absorption of nbc are in anyway good/proud directions for our society/culture/the way of life we pass onto our kids. (yes i know "."'s aren't "?")
#120 Posted by bc, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 10:43 AM
The real story here is how O'Reilly was selected for the award in the first place. An award that purportedly recognizes talents that O'Reilly can only aspire to. My guess is that it was an inside job. The jury was tainted. But now O'Rielly can bolster his "credibility", and his ego, by laying claim to more faux accolades from "independent" sources. The "award" culture has become an integral part of our poser culture. Nolan's mistake was that he believed merit should still be considered in the selection process.
#121 Posted by mike the realist, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 10:45 AM
The right to employment is NOT a "secured right" under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act.
PERIOD. There is case law precisely on point that I've cited here.
Your employer can't fire you because of your race, your religion, or if you are a member of a host of other protected classes, but there is nothing stopping them from firing you for any ACTION you take.
For example, your employer can't fire you for being a radical Muslim.. BUT if you hand out "Death to America" fliers at in front of the office, your employer can shitcan you in a heartbeat.
Live with the reality, people!
#122 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 10:49 AM
what a silly reason to support the ability of corporations that, by definition, exist to consistently produce increased profit on a quarterly basis, to decide (by threat of loss of the ability to "make a living") if one can provide paying members of a private group with factual information about persons it supports/holds in admiration/presents as honorable/on which it spends its members' dues money or not.
as much as i try, i still cannot find a forward-leaning rationale/motivation for those who keep cheering for societal laws/edicts/mores that restrict the flow of facts
#123 Posted by bc, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 11:13 AM
actions can and do have consequenses. you can take a stand, and your employer may as well.
#124 Posted by frank, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 11:26 AM
I totally agree with Nolan's opinion of O'Reilly. What he should have done is read his contract with his employer before he did anything to express his displeasure. Most employers these days have rules that prohibit employees from expressing their opinions (especially negative ones) in public. Guys like O'Reilly have no qualms about attacking their enemies. In the long run, Noland suffers the most. The individual is powerless to act against major corporate interests.
#125 Posted by ibivi, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 11:29 AM
"when O'Reilly's critics say it's about his style, not his politics -- it's about his politics
Best comment all day."
I don't think it is about his politics or style. It is because he gets his facts wrong again and again; that is not an issue of style.
#126 Posted by dez3, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 11:44 AM
We have a First Amendment right to call out people on their wrongful conduct.
O'Reilly is a bully and should have addressed the issue, not retaliated.
But a man with integrity addresses things, a coward punches from the
shadows This stuff happens way too frequently and
... just isn't reported on. . O'Reilly got caught doing it so it becomes news.
#127 Posted by Joe Viglione, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 11:50 AM
OMG, if Mike truly IS an avg American, then I can see why we're all in trouble! Addenda? Looser! Padikiller looks lucid & articulate by comparison.
#128 Posted by Stiritup, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 11:56 AM
I guess Nolan isn't 'retreating', he's 'reloading'...right?
#129 Posted by Barn, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 11:59 AM
O'Reilly, just needs his lights knock out.
#130 Posted by tba, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 12:07 PM
Padkiller >No Virginia, while there is indeed a Santa Claus, distributing copies of a six-page homemade diatribe dishing personal dirt on the honored guest of an award ceremony isn't "journalism". It's "activism". Juvenile, petty activism.
Journalism is supposed to have some degree of integrity and objectivity. Giving a journalism award to Bill O reeks of the corrupting force of money into the system. It seems Nolan was far from the only one cognizant of this fact at that awards banquet, and his pamphleteering was merely a nudge to those who might need a reminder. Padkiller's gut-based argument holds no water when the job title is 'journalism', the victim has truth on his side, and the umbrella over it all is the first dang thing in the Constitutional amendments.
#131 Posted by CascadianPDX, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 12:08 PM
The ever growing consolidation of media power seems to be part of a plan by the nabobs. Is this just more evidence of GHWB's New World Order we are witnessing?
If one looks at the echo chamber of complaints about BHO's administration it seems like the loudest voices share a talking points memo and go on to repeat it at every opportunity and the highest decibel level possible.
Having the likes of brain dead corporate lackies like Mitch McConell and John Boehner in charge of the Senate and House respectively is more scary than another dose of Dick Cheney.
#132 Posted by Tracy in KC, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 12:14 PM
Nolan was warned not to be involved in any display of negative action or attitude, in person, by his immediate supervisor. He passed out negative literature about O'Reilly anyway, at the event and during the ceremony. Politics aside "what a fool." A clear case of insubordination. Would it be Ok to pass out negative literature about any award recipiant at the ceremony because of disagreements about what they thought about same sex mariage, the war in Afghanistan, religion, or a variety of other politically charged issues?
#133 Posted by Dave Lavelle, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 12:25 PM
It's unbelievable how people have come to the defense of corporations to stifle Free Speech. Corporations have done everything in their power to undermine the bargaining power of the American worker by lobbying to get "laws" that allow them to circumvent our Constitutional Rights.
There is a huge difference between allowing Free Speech that may incite violence or cause significant material disruption and allowing Free Speech that does neither. Did Mr. Nolan's actions constitute a situation that would have caused violence or significant material disruption to Comcast? More than likely, not. Comcast could have easily blown off the incident and it is highly unlikely that Fox would have removed its content from Comcast. Remember, Fox is the one getting paid for the content, not vice versa. How many businesses refuse to take a customer's money because they don't agree with their politics? Even if that DID happen, wouldn't right-wingers just tell the customer to GO SOMEWHERE ELSE? If Fox refused to sell their content to Comcast based on this event, Comcast can just get its faulty right-wing content from somewhere else. It isn't as if there is a shortage of right-wing demagogues who wouldn't sell out our freedoms to become rich ... Comcast could create its own show featuring one or more of these nutjobs for a lot less than paying for Fox's content. All seems real hypocritical to me.
The fact that your "boss' can impact your ability to provide for yourself based on reasons outside of your performance AT WORK is a MASSIVE problem and a direct threat to our basic rights. Right-wingers are quick to talk about their "freedoms"... the fact that they have no problem having them stripped by corporations through coercion rather than force is the height of hypocrisy. And stupidity.
#134 Posted by JK, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 12:42 PM
yes, it is unbelievable. i, currently live in nebraska. the people are nice; but, fox products and other similar purveyors of info (limbaugh, the laura's, humphrey et alia) including local hosts are the only perspectives available.
years of a single side of issues has its impact. locals, tho' nice, pretty much parrot superficial talking points and they do it with verve.
i'm unaware of thoughtful representitives of societal issues who feel that the decrease and now the concentration of information sources to just a few stock & profit based/supported entities is a good thing and a direction that will benefit our overall and continued prosperity.
when presenting facts is equated with "dishing dirt" it is clear that the presenter is not basing his argument on the real and meaningful issue of the free flow of info. the use of o'reily's own factual words and deeds seems a reasonable thing to include as a basis of one's rationale for displeasure with his receiving an award of excellence.
if some consider it "dishing dirt" it's because oreily's own actions/words/deeds are make them so.
#135 Posted by bc, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 01:19 PM
ChickaBOOMer: Goliath Slays Samson?
http://chickaboomer.blogspot.com/2010/08/goliath-slays-samson.html
#136 Posted by StewartIII, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 01:25 PM
Fox news corp gives $1 million to rep. gov.'s organization. 'nuff said
#137 Posted by Truth Wins Out, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 01:47 PM
The real travesty is that Barry Nolan made over 200 grand a year.
Listen he was told to not make a scene then he proceeded to hand out letters indicting O'reilly's integrity, honesty, and saying something "inflammatory" like he wished Katrina had hit the U.N. instead of New Orleans. We'll if that were to actually have happened then a lot less people would have been affected and you would have gotten rid of a lot of corrupt drug dealing bureaucrats, peace keeping rapists, and basically a bunch of ingrates who hate the U.S., doesn't sound that inflammatory to me.
He was fired for insubordination and probably someone actually saw what the cat was making and decided let's get rid of some dead weight that's costing us way too much cash.
#138 Posted by Carlos Aguilar, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 01:59 PM
Isn't it amazing that when someone criticizes the Bill O'Reillys and Rush Limbaughs of the world, they go on their show and proclaim that someone is trying to take away their 1st amendment rights. When they do it to somebody, it's just them asking for justice and they have to fake the legalize to get the job done. My bet is that an "agreement" in which no blame is acknowledged is on the way. I just hope Nolan holds out and gets his due.
The golden rule applies, those who have the gold, make the rules.
#139 Posted by Bopper, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 02:00 PM
when did telling people not to speak or provide factual information at/in private settings become so widely accepted as acceptable.
what is wrong with presenting facts as reasons/cautions/yes protestations against issuing a nominee for an excellence award from a private organization in which one is a paying member become something we should be against.
#140 Posted by bc, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 02:22 PM
Bill O'reilly is a journalist! Now that's a frigging scoop. I have a humble and unused journalism degree hanging on my wall but I must say I had to work hard for it because when I went to school in the '70s if I so much as spelled a name wrong I got a 0 for that work, whether it was day's work or a semester's work. Not an F, a zero. It was called a fact error, punishment for which is now a talk show on Fox news.
The destruction of the truth as the public knows it can be laid at the feet of the likes of Murdoch and Ailes, two people who started with a propaganda mission and have done nothing but perpetuate it ever since. These men, along with those FCC officials who have allowed the consolidation of the media in this country, pose the greatest internal threat to a free society since the Confederacy.
Several people have commented that O'Reilly was perfectly justified in writing to Nolan's employer. How so? His beef was with Nolan. Why didn't O'Reilly write Nolan and attempt to defend himself his position. Two reasons, on it's face O'Reilly cannot defend the lies and inaccuracies Nolan pointed out and secondly, to reiterate a point which is only too obvious, O'Reilly is , indeed, the cowardly bully he has time and again proven himself to be.
#141 Posted by VBeebee, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 02:24 PM
Fox news corp gives $1 million to rep. gov.'s organization. 'nuff said
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Time-Warner, Disney, GE, and other media companies have given a lot more money to Democrats and Democratic organizations than to GOP ones in recent years. 'Nuff said.
#142 Posted by frank, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 03:43 PM
I knew there was a reason that I didn't like O'Reilly.
#143 Posted by twilson117, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 03:48 PM
still waiting for mateosf to provide us with documented examples of when Bill O'Reilly "incited violence" against blacks, Hispanics, gays, ACORN, etc.
#144 Posted by Johnny O., CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 04:09 PM
For me, this story is less about Nolan's specific problems, his firing, etc., and much more about the growing concentration of media power and it's potential bias. It's been said many times, but continuing buyouts and consolidation in the "news" industry can only be harmful to a democracy that needs an informed public. Couple this with the new speech rights given to coporations, which will obviously use it to influence public thought (and the deep pockets these corporations have) and the desire by the Republicans to hide the identity of contributors, and we have a terrible, Orwellian situaiton arising, where powerful corporations will control the news and own the political process. Don't they call this "fascism"?
#145 Posted by Daniel R Cobb, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 04:52 PM
Vbeebee wrote: Several people have commented that O'Reilly was perfectly justified in writing to Nolan's employer. How so?
padikiller responds: Because he felt like it. It's his right to write to anybody he wants.
You liberal loons claim that Nolan's right to free speech was violated by getting canned, yet you don't think O'Reilly has the right to communicate.
Silly...
#146 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 04:53 PM
This article reads more like an editorial than a news piece, basically taking Mr. Nolan's side without any real examination of the facts of the case. Makes no attempt at examining or questioning Mr. Nolan's motives or his behavior because that doesn't fit the "Bill O'Reilly is a bully" narrative.
Nolan's supervisor actually traveled from Philly to Boston to tell him in person not to make a scene. So what did Nolan do? He chose to ignore her directive and showed up at an industry event and did, in fact, make a scene.
Don't feel sorry for him at all.
#147 Posted by Rick T., CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 04:58 PM
Why should a company continue to employ an insubordinate leftist fool at the rate of $200,000 a year-- to act against it's interests? You can hire them cheaper than that!
Posted by Bear
#148 Posted by Barry Freed, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 05:16 PM
Never, never, never forget whose name is on your paycheck, if you need it to sustain your life. Otherwise, act like an asshole and you'll be jumping jobs like the Easter Bunny!
#149 Posted by Ann Keller, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 06:55 PM
good to see true journalism. well written, fact checked and also to the point. o'reilly and fox news will never play on my tv, not because i'd further understand the weakness in their argument but rather because that's buying the meal for a lame mule. a job changes, integrity doesn't, well done Nolan.
#150 Posted by anonymous, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 07:09 PM
So, right-wingers, conservatives, tea baggers, traditional Americans, what have you, it will be all right if the political momentum goes to the left next time -- maybe after you remind people what you're like with power. Let's say events change the tide of opinion a little more, and you're on the outs. So some right-wing blogger criticizes a left-wing corporate guy getting an award. Will it be okay if your guy gets the axe for something he said that Keith Olbermann doesn't like? And so you won't squawk when you find out that it was a letter from George Soros, copy to Keith Olbermann?
More likely, when Comcast takes over NBC, we'll find out very quickly that it's a terrible idea.
#151 Posted by Jim H, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 07:35 PM
what most workers give to employers is very close to their soul; generally employers give employees compensation that isn't representitive of work done/time committed, along with reluctant or non-existant raises (middle class pay increase over last decade don't even coincide with cost of living).
if, as the last post promotes, we simply acquiesse and allow paychecks to eclipse expression, our souls will be part of the everyday employer/employee give-and-take.
what a life; spend more time at work than with family, give not only time and physical/mental work but one's spirit, too. and now, if we follow some of the ideas expressed above/here, we include the very human trait of self-expression in the compensation math.
sure, let's give everything that makes us, us for the priviledge of producing profits for c-level and higher executives. we get milk and bread and cars and air-conditioning and pay for homes not once but 4x's (compound interest is one of the most profitable financial inventions ever) and re-mortage to provide education to our kids and consume products incessantly promoted.
wow. we're so lucky to just have a job. i know i'm deeply indebted to the signature on my check. there's probably no way i can pay him back. guess i'll just shut-up and keep quiet. i'm so lucky.
#152 Posted by bc, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 07:56 PM
Let me boil this article down so no one needs to waste their time
We here at the Huffington post the public relations arm of the White house do not like Bill O'Relly because he works for Fox the public relations department of the GOP
The rest is a bunch of whining and crying, not worth the read
#153 Posted by Dan, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 08:15 PM
This is a classic example of bad judgment on our part. The most serious example of bad judgment is in letting Rupert Murdoch own such an important string of institutions, so critical to American's right to know. Mr. Murdoch has displayed a callousness beyond measure in his fomenting of hatred and bigotry in his endless pursuit of power and dollars.
#154 Posted by dher, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 08:21 PM
Many of the journalists who stood up against Hitler were eventually killed, but at least they tried.
I've started avoiding buying products from the main Fox sponsors. I consider myself a conservative, but it's impossible to have a reasoned debate of ideas with the likes of O'Reilly and Beck on the air.
#155 Posted by realpatriot2323, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 09:00 PM
So padikiller, are you okay with your boss firing you for comments made on this site? Is that why you use a pseudonym? To ensure your right to free speech, since you can get fired for anything??
#156 Posted by Heather, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 09:17 PM
I use a pseudonym for safety and I happen to own my own business.
However, until fairly recently I worked for others, and if my boss wanted to fire me for typing here, that would have been his right. He could also have fired me because he felt like it, because he was having a bad day, because the wind was blowing the wrong way, etc.. An employer doesn't owe you a damned job.
An at will employee can be fired for any reason or no reason (except that an employee can't be fired in cases of racial, age or gender discrimination)
You screwy liberals can huff and puff, but none of you can seem to answer the question I have posted here several times.
Say a Boston Herald reporter gets invited to the White House for a state dinner and decides to pass out leaflets demanding that Obama identify his coke dealer, explain his relationship with Vera Baker, and reveal the academic records he's been hiding from the public (thanks to the fact that the "watchdogs" of "professional journalism" that jumped over Bush's records have given Obama a free ride).
You're telling me that the Herald has no choice but to keep him on the payroll? For real?
Of course not.
You people are just pissed off because Nolan got what was coming to him and because it came at the hands of the dreaded Fox News commentator.
#157 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 10:44 PM
So according to the logic of a lot of you cons in here, Oliely should have been fired years ago.
He has lied nightly,been caught sponge in hand sexually harrassing another employee, and been generally a bad man.
So if Nolan was fired for bad judgement at the awards dinner then Oliely should have been drawn and quartered.
#158 Posted by neoconsarefinished, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 10:54 PM
padikiller I am guessing you are a libertarian.
Anyway you really dont know what you are talking about when it comes to be fired.
You cannot be fired for no reason unless of course you want to pay big money to the unjustly fired soul.
#159 Posted by fighting the American Taliban, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 10:59 PM
Padikiller, not surprisingly, missed my point. O'Reilly can write anyone he wants, but his beef wasn't with Comcast, it was with an individual, but he decided since he had no defense against his own words he would go after Nolan's livelihood. How you haters can follow the lead of such a crazen coward is beyond my comprehension and an embarassment to this country.
#160 Posted by VBeebee, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 11:00 PM
This has nothing to do with the first amendment. The first amendment does not guarentee you can say anything without consequence. He was fired because his actions were harmfull to his employer, and Comcast has every right to look out for their own best interest.
#161 Posted by Joel, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 11:07 PM
Earlier this year MSNBC suspended on air personality Donny Deutsch. Why? Because in a segment entitled "America The Angry", an examination of cable news hosts and their role in the rancorous state of political discourse, he used a clip of an angry Keith Olbermann rant.
After the segment aired, Olbermann went to his bosses and got Deutsch suspended. I assume the Colombia Journalism Review has a story coming up on that, right? How Keith Olbermann, MSNBC's biggest star, went after a guy who in comparison is small potatoes at the network?
#162 Posted by Kato, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 11:36 PM
i liked and quote, for the sake of it
Smoking gun:
"… Mr. Nolan’s protest at the NATAS Award Ceremony and of William O’Reilly as the recipient of the Governor’s Award jeopardized and harmed the business and economic interests of Comcast in connection with its contract with Fox News Channel, and its contract negotiations with Fox News that were ongoing at the time."
#163 Posted by Antonio, CJR on Sun 22 Aug 2010 at 11:50 PM
USS Harry Truman thinks the statement "Fox is a terrorist organization", is the stupidest thing he has ever seen on the internet.
Obviously he doesnt watch Faux nor pay attention to what the Quitten Kitten twitters, Nor what Agent Orange says, or what is said on the Faux forums daily.
Now Harry let me help you. A man who owns 7% of faux is a Muslim. He gives money to the people who want the community center to be built 2 blocks from where the WTC was. He is rumored to have given money to Wahabist groups. Ipso facto Faux is in bed with terrorists.
Kudos to me for doing it the Conservative way:)
#164 Posted by Fighting the American Taliban, CJR on Mon 23 Aug 2010 at 02:58 AM
The First Amendment guarantees you can say pretty much anything you want. It does not guarantee that your words and/or actions won't bring consequences.
Don Imus says he thinks the Rutgers women's basketball team looks like a bunch of thugs... hey, he's got a right to say it, many people probably agreed with him... but then his employer also had the right to suspend him for it.
Someone sticks a mike in Helen Thomas' face and she offers her opinion on Israel. She has a right to say, just as President Obama has the right to condemn her remarks as offensive. She basically lost her job over it. Again, you can say it, but there might be consequences.
Nolan defied his direct supervisor, so he was fired for insubordination and because his actions were harmful and embarrassing to his employer. End of story.
#165 Posted by Kato, CJR on Mon 23 Aug 2010 at 03:00 AM
AntonioJudgeJuryExecutioner posts "He was fired because his actions were harmfull to his employer, and Comcast has every right to look out for their own best interest."
LOL of course they said that. Did you read the part of the article that mentioned emails and timing?
Oh you probably just absorbed the parts that suited you.
How could what this man did hurt comcast or Faux? LOL
Oliely complained and people did his bidding. This man will get a huge settlement. Again Oliely will walk away from his the crap he spreads.
#166 Posted by ConsLie, CJR on Mon 23 Aug 2010 at 03:05 AM
Kato posted a lie about the Donnie D firing.
Yes Kato that is a lie you posted.
Please show any evidence of your lie.
#167 Posted by KatoLied, CJR on Mon 23 Aug 2010 at 03:08 AM
I can't believe how many of the commenters here are utterly degraded, ethically. Bravo to Nolan.
#168 Posted by EdC, CJR on Mon 23 Aug 2010 at 03:33 AM
Comcast should lose this battle. Freedom of Speech is not something for them to play fast and loose with, ESPECIALLY if they are going to keep reporters on their payroll. O'Reilly is SCUM and should be treated as such---not allowed to bully people. Although that's his big contribution to Fox---he's a bully and a liar, plain and simple. And here he is allowed to bully people that don't even work for Fox? It's a shame and I hope Comcast has to pay enough to remind them each and every day they need to allow people to say whatever they wish and to let people fight injustice, corruption and lies wherever and whenever they find them. Not worry that it may cost them a few dollars in higher syndication fees.
#169 Posted by Laura, CJR on Mon 23 Aug 2010 at 05:27 AM
It his Irish background-and the loofahs he eats
#170 Posted by Costive, CJR on Mon 23 Aug 2010 at 05:48 AM
Destroyed by Journalism?
How and Why They Can Do It ....
http://pastehtml.com/view/1anvnjs.html
the Presentation of Factual Information Ignored by the Media because it shows a Pattern of Corruption within Its Own Body the Public would not Stand For.
And that is Exactly How Insidious, Unrelenting and Pervase this Infection Dilutes the Meaning of Journalism, The Forth Estates Claim to be the Protector of the People, The Sanctity of Free Press and a Free Nation.
The Hypocrite Bastards of Journalism Can't Be Trust with Such Responsibility.
Take Care,
-Tracy Mapes
#171 Posted by Tracy Mapes, CJR on Tue 24 Aug 2010 at 01:51 PM
In silence the worst things happen. Bill is a propagandist. I applaud Mr. Nolan for speaking up. It was the legitimate journalists whom cowered to the hate, fear and smear campaigning of the Reich Wing Ministry of Lies that kept intelligent Americans from acting bravely after 9/11 and the President created a false intel to take us into Iraq. Fox labeled you as "unpatriotic" (Cindy Sheehan) while the President broke law after law after law, introducing Torture, wire-tapping, illegal invasion of a sovereign nation (on false intel), which would lead to the current Teabagging Reich Wing wanting to profile, et. al. Fox is dangerous. Just as Goebbels was dangerous. Lies must be illuminated. Do your job educated America. Separate yourself from the propaganda and lies of the hate and fear mongers at Fox "Entertainment" masquerading as "news" - when it is the furthest thing from the truth.
#172 Posted by JazzyJim, CJR on Tue 24 Aug 2010 at 08:35 PM
We can debate the rights of an employer but it seems we miss the fact that the train left the tracks in the vote for the award. All the reasons given seem to be about viewership and not quality. We should attack the method not the outcome of the decision and blowback. News should be judged by quality not popularity. If Fox resorts to less clad or naked female bimbos they'll win every such determined award.
#173 Posted by marc D, CJR on Wed 25 Aug 2010 at 01:58 PM
"America Needs To Know"! Where can we see the six pages of quotes of Mr O'Reilly's diatribes that he finds offensive? My thought is that if the words were so offensive, why did he say them?
#174 Posted by John Hedblom, CJR on Tue 31 Aug 2010 at 07:25 PM
How prophetic is this story? A day after the FCC approves the takeover of NBC, Comcast/MSNBC fires Keith Olbermann.
#175 Posted by Lori M, CJR on Fri 21 Jan 2011 at 10:51 PM