On April 2, page one of the New York Times online and print editions featured an article entitled "O'Reilly Thrives as Settlements Add Up."  The Times assigned at least five reporters and conducted over 60 interviews with former Fox News employees to reopen and investigate harassment complaints filed by women against O'Reilly across the last two decades.  Ostensibly, their findings were published at this time because a psychologist, who had appeared as a guest on his program recently, came forward to report he had become "hostile" to her four years ago after she declined to go to his hotel room.

Every profession has its favored labels.  Psychologists typically use the term "hostile" to summarize negative mood as suggested by facial affect and body language in nonviolent people.  In the patois of a psychologist's empathy, she was quoted: "I feel bad that some of these old guys are using mating strategies that were acceptable in the 1950s and are not acceptable now."  She also observed that romantic relationships at the workplace "should never happen when there is an imbalance of power."

This recommendation is still a recipe for attorney full employment, because there is almost always a power imbalance between two employees in a workplace.  Bill O'Reilly was ten years old when the '50s ended.  Old guys still ask out younger, beautiful women at work even to this day.  Sometimes their advances are not appreciated.  In summary, O'Reilly or Fox is reported to have paid large sums to five lawyered up women who claimed they were mistreated by O'Reilly.  He denies wrongdoing and says he paid out to protect his children.

The psychologist must not have watched The Factor very often if she thinks it's remarkable for Mr. O'Reilly to appear hostile.  Almost every night he cuts someone off or calls people pinheads, loons, or dopey.  He unabashedly patronized Donald Trump during the campaign, offering his friend numerous points for self-improvement.  He tends to be peremptory and dismissive about negative feedback.

Whatever the truth about Mr. O'Reilly's behavior towards women, and that particular category of truth is often elusive, here's the real reason the New York Times is dismayed by the fact Mr. O'Reilly continues to "thrive."  As a white heterosexual Catholic, O'Reilly is the New York Times' most despised demographic.  As the most prominent reporter who first took the Trump candidacy seriously and gave the current president unlimited air time to kick-start his campaign, O'Reilly did more than anyone in the media to get Trump elected.  That cannot stand.  O'Reilly is a news source for millions of forgotten Americans discounted by the Times, deplored by their candidate.  And he must pay for that.

More than any other anti-moral legacy media, the most pervasive theme of New York Times for many years has been to advance the "gay" revolution.  That movement has established an extreme double standard of conduct for heterosexual and homosexual men.  The Times would never lead an investigation into Anderson Cooper, Don Lemon, Rachel Maddow, or any other homosexual media figure, no matter what the accusation.  On the flip-side, their ilk salivate at exposing sexual misbehavior in heterosexual men of traditional values.

The anti-moral mind has normalized severely reduced tolerance for expression of even healthy anger in heterosexual men.  Men who were once appreciated for being bold and frank are now punished for making people feel "unsafe."  The all-important distinction between words and actions by heterosexual white men has been demolished.

President Obama complained against Fox News repeatedly during his presidency.  Dethroned coastal elites will seek revenge against people like Bill O'Reilly forever because of the election of Trump.  If the New York Times can effect a career assassination against Bill O'Reilly, and damage Fox news in the process, it will be a trophy like no other to hang on their mahogany-paneled walls.  On a deeper level, the Times is jealous of O'Reilly's enormous relevance to the American political conversation compared with their own insular staleness.  O'Reilly shames the Times every day with his message of looking out for the same folks the cosmopolitan upper crust fly over every day.