As long-time readers should know, I'm not a fan of the conservative right, and this is especially the case of hyperbole-obsessed right-wing media personalities. Regular readers should also know I've long stood by our Constitutional right to freedom of speech, but even so, believe freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence.
This brings me to the recent such case involving Fox News personality Laura Ingraham, who has come under fire for posting this tweet about Parkland survivor and activist David Hogg:
"David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges Which He Applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA...totally predictable given acceptance rates.)
https://www.dailywire.com/news/28770/gun-rights-provocateur-david-hogg-rejected-four-joseph-curl"
Mr. Hogg responded by calling on Ingraham's advertisers to cut ties with her show. Many have done so, which has prompted Ms. Ingraham to apologize via Twitter and take what she has termed a "vacation." While it's all speculation at this point, there are some in the television industry who feel her show won't recover. So, assuming Ingraham's show doesn't last much longer due to this ordeal, the question will be was her ouster deserved? If taken in isolation, I'm not sure it is.
I've long been a proponent of stricter gun legislation. I even wrote a book following the Sandy Hook shooting which primarily focused on satirizing the ridiculousness of the National Rifle Association and its ardent followers. I'm also about as big of a fan of Laura Ingraham as Mike Pence is a fan of spending time alone with women he doesn't call "mother." I honestly can't stand the woman. Having said all this, though, for as childish and irritating as her tweet was, why does it justify her ouster? Granted, Ms. Ingraham has had a long history of making insensitive, controversial, ignorant remarks, so if this was simply the final straw, then I could fully understand letting her go. However, if she is removed for this sole remark, then I think we're treading dangerous waters.
Former Fox News host Bill O'Reilly deserved to be let go due to his sexual improprieties. The same was true for former Fox CEO Roger Ailes. Laura Ingraham posting a childish, insensitive tweet, for which she apologized, is not, if taken in isolation, worthy of a firing. Not only is this a potentially troubling path as far as a slippery slope is concerned, it's also potentially quite sexist. If Laura Ingraham is let go because of this one disparaging tweet, why in the world is Sean Hannity still with the network? Hannity has both spoken and written far more immature, insensitive, and egregious comments. While I can't stand either Fox News personality, it'd be quite the double-standard for the network to keep Hannity around while letting Ingraham go.
I'd be the very first to say, like with the Second Amendment, there are limitations to the First Amendment, and with that, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence. However, we can't try to strip First Amendment rights from those we simply don't agree with, nor attempt to depict a person as fully represented by a single comment. We also have to be consistent in how we treat these individuals, whom behave similarly but may be of different genders or political persuasions. Without all of this, we will fail when it comes to matters involving civil discourse; we will lose the ability to sway undecideds; and we will become that which we've long fought against.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2018/03/29/laura-ingraham-taunt-parkland-school-survivor-just-latest-attack/470121002/
This brings me to the recent such case involving Fox News personality Laura Ingraham, who has come under fire for posting this tweet about Parkland survivor and activist David Hogg:
"David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges Which He Applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA...totally predictable given acceptance rates.)
https://www.dailywire.com/news/28770/gun-rights-provocateur-david-hogg-rejected-four-joseph-curl"
Mr. Hogg responded by calling on Ingraham's advertisers to cut ties with her show. Many have done so, which has prompted Ms. Ingraham to apologize via Twitter and take what she has termed a "vacation." While it's all speculation at this point, there are some in the television industry who feel her show won't recover. So, assuming Ingraham's show doesn't last much longer due to this ordeal, the question will be was her ouster deserved? If taken in isolation, I'm not sure it is.
I've long been a proponent of stricter gun legislation. I even wrote a book following the Sandy Hook shooting which primarily focused on satirizing the ridiculousness of the National Rifle Association and its ardent followers. I'm also about as big of a fan of Laura Ingraham as Mike Pence is a fan of spending time alone with women he doesn't call "mother." I honestly can't stand the woman. Having said all this, though, for as childish and irritating as her tweet was, why does it justify her ouster? Granted, Ms. Ingraham has had a long history of making insensitive, controversial, ignorant remarks, so if this was simply the final straw, then I could fully understand letting her go. However, if she is removed for this sole remark, then I think we're treading dangerous waters.
Former Fox News host Bill O'Reilly deserved to be let go due to his sexual improprieties. The same was true for former Fox CEO Roger Ailes. Laura Ingraham posting a childish, insensitive tweet, for which she apologized, is not, if taken in isolation, worthy of a firing. Not only is this a potentially troubling path as far as a slippery slope is concerned, it's also potentially quite sexist. If Laura Ingraham is let go because of this one disparaging tweet, why in the world is Sean Hannity still with the network? Hannity has both spoken and written far more immature, insensitive, and egregious comments. While I can't stand either Fox News personality, it'd be quite the double-standard for the network to keep Hannity around while letting Ingraham go.
I'd be the very first to say, like with the Second Amendment, there are limitations to the First Amendment, and with that, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence. However, we can't try to strip First Amendment rights from those we simply don't agree with, nor attempt to depict a person as fully represented by a single comment. We also have to be consistent in how we treat these individuals, whom behave similarly but may be of different genders or political persuasions. Without all of this, we will fail when it comes to matters involving civil discourse; we will lose the ability to sway undecideds; and we will become that which we've long fought against.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2018/03/29/laura-ingraham-taunt-parkland-school-survivor-just-latest-attack/470121002/
Comments
Post a Comment