Wolcott Weighs in on O'Reilly and the Plaintiff

From James Wolcott's blog:

Watching the case unfold in the media, it's impressive how much supposedly informed people get wrong. On Howie Kurtz's Reliable Sources, Laura Ingraham, who received her law degree at Virginia Law School and clerked for Clarence Thomas, said that it was illegal for Mackris to tape O'Reilly without his consent; not so. And "expert" after "expert" hurls the $60-million figure Mackris was supposedly demanding as evidence of how ridiculous the case is. On Anderson Cooper's CNN show, Mackris' lawyer Benedict Corelli explained where the number came from. They were working out ballpark numbers as a basis for the settlement, and Corelli mentioned that a recent Business Week article put the yearly take from O'Reilly's various enterprises at $60 million a year; this was the basis for them to work from. He was not demanding every dollar O'Reilly makes in a given year. I think O'Reilly slapped that number on the screen during his Talking Points memo because he knew it was a sum everyone would find outrageous--highway robbery!--and make Mackris and her lawyer look like fortune hunters. As a public relations gambit, it's worked.

But the legal system is a whole 'nother labyrinth, and as Steve Gilliard says, once Corelli is able to depose O'Reilly's present and past coworkers and subordinates, dig into his past at other stations, who knows what'll seep to the surface.? Most of the supersavvy legal experts and media watchers didn't think Martha Stewart was going to be convicted. Those who blithely declare Bill O'Reilly will tough this out and emerge bigger than ever may be equally surprised.

Over the weekend, I saw some of the most egregious bits of misinformation placed out there - like Laura Ingraham whom James Wolcott mentions - and read a couple of articles that contend, as Wolcott writes, that the $60 million figure was not what is being sought by the woman suing O'Reilly and was placed out there just to spin the story against the woman.

It spun me, too, I must admit. My extreme sentiments against this very bad and very recognizable harassment were immediately mitigated by what sounded like such an outrageous sum. If I'm wrong - and I now believe I am - I apologize to Ms. Mackris.
Nor is she responsible herself for the inequity in how some women manage to recoup big settlements for harassment alone while others end up paying all their own bills from a vicious rape.