Laura Ingraham Takes Week Off Air As Advertisers Flee Amid David Hogg Feud

Fox News host Laura Ingraham is talking a week off the air after 18 advertisers dumped her for calling Parkland shooting survivor David Hogg a whiner. The ordeal began after 17-year-old Hogg publicly complained several times about having been rejected from four UC colleges (UCLA, UCSD, UCSB and UC Irvine) despite his 4.2 GPA. 

Ingraham tweeted a Daily Wire article detailing Hogg’s dismay, in which she called him a whiner – but said it was “totally predictable given acceptance rates.”

Hogg then took aim at Ingraham’s advertisers.

Despite an apology from Ingraham, which Hogg did not accept, he then instead encouraged his followers to tweet at brands which advertise on her show – resulting in a groundswell of advertisers pulling their support of the Fox host’s show.

Hogg said he does not accept her apology. “She’s only apologizing after a third of her advertisers pulled out, and I think it’s really disgusting that she basically tried promoting her show after ‘apologizing’ to me. I think it’s wrong and if she really wants to do something, she can cover things like inner city violence and the real issues that we have in America. I know she’s a talk show host, but she also has a responsibility to show both sides of a story,” he said during an interview on CNN’s New Day. –Yahoo

While Hogg’s supporters have cheered young David wielding his newfound power in the wake of his 17 dead classmates and teachers, others such as The Hill’s Joe Concha say it’s setting a dangerous precedent. 

So what is this boycott about exactly? Ingraham immaturely mocking a public figure in the form of Hogg around some schools that rejected him? Or is it about Ingraham’s career as a conservative talk radio and television opinion host overall?  

Either way, we’ve entered some dangerous territory here, if boycotts like this one succeed. And not many are speaking out against said danger for two reasons: 

1) Fear of reprisal for criticizing Hogg, who has the benefit of being protected from any criticism while being free to level it. 

2) Fear of being seen as “the person attacking a mass-school-shooting survivor,” regardless of whether there’s a basis for such criticism or not. –The Hill

Concha even commended Hogg on his “professionalism and lucidity” after the Parkland shooting.

He may be 17 but should be treated like an adult after entering the arena and becoming a prominent voice in what has become the biggest story of the year thus far…

…Hogg has played loose with more than a few facts and has leveled the same kind of personal attacks on which he’s basing this boycott. And, through it all, almost all anchors and reporters have allowed him to go unchallenged out of that same fear of being seen as monsters for going after “the kid with the just cause.”

There are exceptions to those not willing to challenge Hogg, starting first and foremost with conservative writer/commentator and podcast/radio host Ben Shapiro. “I look forward to Hogg’s apologies to Republicans (‘sick f***ers’), Dana Loesch (she was ‘hypocritical and disgusting’ for criticizing Broward Sheriff Scott Israel), and Marco Rubio (he said Rubio was bribed by the NRA to give away children’s lives),” Shapiro wrote in the online publication he founded, The Daily Wire.

“You may not like what Ingraham said. You may disagree with it. I did. But it isn’t remotely CLOSE to the level of viciousness with which Hogg has attacked people who disagree with him,” Shapiro added. 

Conservative Parkland survivor Kyle Kashuv echoed Shapiro’s sentiment:

“The media took interest in [Hogg] to push an agenda… They’ve propped people up and have turned them into shields. I am not doubting anyone’s sincerity, but people have certainly been hiding behind my classmates to push an agenda.”

“And therein lies the rub,” Concha writes. “As stated, Hogg should be treated as an adult. It’s the arena he chose to enter and had every right to do so, given his abilities and what he experienced. But if a boycott succeeds here, it sets the kind of precedent that will forever change what the First Amendment is supposed to stand for.”

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Ea7UyP Tyler Durden

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *