Fox's Ingraham taking vacation as advertisers flee amid controversy

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...vertisers-flee-amid-controversy-idUSKBN1H705A

(Reuters) - Fox News show host Laura Ingraham announced on her show late Friday that she is taking next week off, after almost a dozen advertisers dropped her show after the conservative pundit mocked a teenage survivor of the Florida school massacre on Twitter.
======================================================
I think she will be next to go at Fox. Murdoch won't put up with her petty antics.

JacksinPA said:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...vertisers-flee-amid-controversy-idUSKBN1H705A

(Reuters) - Fox News show host Laura Ingraham announced on her show late Friday that she is taking next week off, after almost a dozen advertisers dropped her show after the conservative pundit mocked a teenage survivor of the Florida school massacre on Twitter.
======================================================
I think she will be next to go at Fox. Murdoch won't put up with her petty antics.

Click to expand...

Which in a way is too bad.

I would liked to have seen a national debate on appropriate behavior of "news hosts".

I don't watch, I see clips. Until the 1990's, Television pretty much stayed away from commentary choosing not to take sides. Since that began to change, the role of hosts has become murkier and murkier. Sometimes a host is an unbiased 'pretty machine', others they are offering comment, and more and more the story itself like here.
That, I believe leads to the American phenomenon of "low information voter" and the abandoning of the very first ever in the universe reason for the existence of news: Newspapers were invented through the daily coverage of the British Parliament. Certain men, "hansardists" would attend the debate, then transcribe the debate word for word. There was huge competition and in order to stay in business you needed to have a reputation for being accurate.
Then a guy got an idea, for 1 cent he would put an ad in his "Hansard" and began making money. Eventually it became a government job and the reason the word for word transcript of parliament is called "Hansard."
"Hansard" became "Gazette", "Tribune", Bugle", "Caller", and a lot of names.....but there is ONE strange aspect to this tale. Despite the fact the very business is recording words for posterity, no one is certain about how or when the word News was created.
But the point is the irony, that through technological development, from pen and ink to computer imaging we have gone from seeking accuracy to obscuring it.

JacksinPA said:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...vertisers-flee-amid-controversy-idUSKBN1H705A

(Reuters) - Fox News show host Laura Ingraham announced on her show late Friday that she is taking next week off, after almost a dozen advertisers dropped her show after the conservative pundit mocked a teenage survivor of the Florida school massacre on Twitter.
======================================================
I think she will be next to go at Fox. Murdoch won't put up with her petty antics.

Click to expand...

Nah, she's not going anywhere.
Remember when some said the same about Hannity?
Last I heard, he's still blabbering right wing talking points.

Laura Ingraham is not a journalist nor does she pretend to be one.
She's a right wing political pundit, and she is just what her gads of legions want to hear.
And when we get down to brass tacks, cable propagandized political TV shows are all about bringing in the ratings.
She will not stop bringing in the ratings. Mark my words.

trixare4kids said:

Nah, she's not going anywhere.
Remember when some said the same about Hannity?
Last I heard, he's still blabbering right wing talking points.

Laura Ingraham is not a journalist nor does she pretend to be one.
She's a right wing political pundit, and she is just what her gads of legions want to hear.
And when we get down to brass tacks, cable propagandized political TV shows are all about bringing in the ratings.
She will not stop bringing in the ratings. Mark my words.

Click to expand...

I'll be surprised if she's fired from Fox.

CYA Laura. Don't let the door hit your nasty ass on the way out.

trixare4kids said:

Nah, she's not going anywhere.
Remember when some said the same about Hannity?
Last I heard, he's still blabbering right wing talking points.

Laura Ingraham is not a journalist nor does she pretend to be one.
She's a right wing political pundit, and she is just what her gads of legions want to hear.
And when we get down to brass tacks, cable propagandized political TV shows are all about bringing in the ratings.
She will not stop bringing in the ratings. Mark my words.

Click to expand...

I don't know. Even Bill O'Reilly wasn't safe from being tossed out on his butt for poor behavior.

Fox has lost sponsorship due to Ingraham's behavior. The money and future PR dictates that she probably needs to be tossed too in order to get that sponsorship back. Ratings versus stockholder money? Money wins. Ingraham, who is obviously caught up in the right-wing extremist propaganda machine while praising Jesus and the Easter rabbit, is a liability to Fox's struggle to present itself as "fair and balanced" and not...ignorantly extremist.

Rogue Valley said:

CYA Laura. Don't let the door hit your nasty ass on the way out.

Click to expand...

So nasty.

Hey, what is your Corps time? Or is it Core time? Trump's Twattage has me confused.

MSgt said:

I don't know. Even Bill O'Reilly wasn't safe from being tossed out on his butt for poor behavior.

Fox has lost sponsorship due to Ingraham's behavior. The money and future PR dictates that she probably needs to be tossed too in order to get that sponsorship back. Ratings versus stockholder money? Money wins.

Click to expand...

apples to oranges.
Bill O'Reilly was rightfully fired for his womanizing and sexual harassment while on his employer's dime. Nobody in their right mind thinks O'Reilly's firing was unjustified.
Laura Ingraham criticized the media's newest darling, and she is purposely being punished because it's political.
Big difference, as I see it.

This will all blow over... Again, much ado over nothing. She'll come back from vacation and the snowflakes will be on to their next kill.

trixare4kids said:

apples to oranges.
Bill O'Reilly was rightfully fired for his womanizing and sexual harassment while on his employer's dime. Nobody in their right mind thinks O'Reilly's firing was unjustified.
Laura Ingraham criticized the media's newest darling, and she is purposely being punished because it's political.
Big difference, as I see it.

This will all blow over... Again, much ado over nothing. She'll come back from vacation and the snowflakes will be on to their next kill.

Click to expand...

Seriously, conflating calling Hogg a "whiner" and serially sexually harassing women takes a whole lot of trying. Not even in the same ballpark.

Yup, Ingraham is the flavor of the week. It'll be someone else who dares not not kiss this kid's rear end. My bet is that it's going to be one or more of the companies who refuse to capitulate to his highness's demands.

trixare4kids said:

apples to oranges.
Bill O'Reilly was rightfully fired for his womanizing and sexual harassment while on his employer's dime. Nobody in their right mind thinks O'Reilly's firing was unjustified.
Laura Ingraham criticized the media's newest darling, and she is purposely being punished because it's political.
Big difference, as I see it.

This will all blow over... Again, much ado over nothing. She'll come back from vacation and the snowflakes will be on to their next kill.

Click to expand...

But O'Reilly wasn't fired for his misbehavior. Fox News/O'Reilly paying off a dozen women attests to that. He was fired for his developed image made public, which threatened sponsorship. It came down to money.

Ingraham's issue is also coming down to money and network image.

Apples and oranges....but...network money.

MSgt said:

But O'Reilly wasn't fired for his misbehavior. Fox News/O'Reilly paying off a dozen women attests to that. He was fired for his developed image made public, which threatened sponsorship. It came down to money.

Ingraham's issue is also coming down to money and network image.

Apples and oranges....but...network money.

Click to expand...

In the final analysis most things in life come down to money.

JacksinPA said:

In the final analysis most things in life come down to money.

Click to expand...

Yup. Strip ideologies away, and that's where we usually wind up.

JacksinPA said:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...vertisers-flee-amid-controversy-idUSKBN1H705A

(Reuters) - Fox News show host Laura Ingraham announced on her show late Friday that she is taking next week off, after almost a dozen advertisers dropped her show after the conservative pundit mocked a teenage survivor of the Florida school massacre on Twitter.
======================================================
I think she will be next to go at Fox. Murdoch won't put up with her petty antics.

Click to expand...

Not likely. I think FOX would face a greater backlash from its viewers if they fire her over this insignificant nonsense. They need to worry about what those who watch them think, not what those who hate them think.

MSgt said:

But O'Reilly wasn't fired for his misbehavior. Fox News/O'Reilly paying off a dozen women attests to that. He was fired for his developed image made public, which threatened sponsorship. It came down to money.

Ingraham's issue is also coming down to money and network image.

Apples and oranges....but...network money.

Click to expand...

You could very well be correct here but I've recently seen how these leftist witch hunts have played out. Hannity? As a result of Hannity's loss of sponsors, I am betting Ingrahm isn't going anywhere either.

trixare4kids said:

You could very well be correct here but I've recently seen how these leftist witch hunts have played out. Hannity? As a result of Hannity's loss of sponsors, I am betting Ingrahm isn't going anywhere either.

Click to expand...

Yup, this ain't their first rodeo. Rush put a fine point on how these schemes work.

trixare4kids said:

You could very well be correct here but I've recently seen how these leftist witch hunts have played out. Hannity? As a result of Hannity's loss of sponsors, I am betting Ingrahm isn't going anywhere either.

Click to expand...

Leftist witch hunts? Now the corporations are leftists too? This isn't a witch hunt. She consciously blasted her immaturity out on Twitter for all to see and the country has reacted. She is not an innocent woman being accused of witchcraft. She is an idiot, who made an idiotic and immature statement, who then used an imagined deity as an excuse to offer a superficial apology in order to recover from that immature, yet defining, statement.

Ultimately, sponsors like making money, but not if it makes them look stupid, especially when they can easily make their money somewhere else. And you think Fox News is no aware of this? In the end, even with Fox News, ideology takes a back seat to revenue.

Fearandloathing said:

I would liked to have seen a national debate on appropriate behavior of "news hosts".

I don't watch, I see clips. Until the 1990's, Television pretty much stayed away from commentary choosing not to take sides. Since that began to change, the role of hosts has become murkier and murkier. Sometimes a host is an unbiased 'pretty machine', others they are offering comment, and more and more the story itself like here.
That, I believe leads to the American phenomenon of "low information voter" and the abandoning of the very first ever in the universe reason for the existence of news: Newspapers were invented through the daily coverage of the British Parliament. Certain men, "hansardists" would attend the debate, then transcribe the debate word for word. There was huge competition and in order to stay in business you needed to have a reputation for being accurate.
Then a guy got an idea, for 1 cent he would put an ad in his "Hansard" and began making money. Eventually it became a government job and the reason the word for word transcript of parliament is called "Hansard."
"Hansard" became "Gazette", "Tribune", Bugle", "Caller", and a lot of names.....but there is ONE strange aspect to this tale. Despite the fact the very business is recording words for posterity, no one is certain about how or when the word News was created.
But the point is the irony, that through technological development, from pen and ink to computer imaging we have gone from seeking accuracy to obscuring it.

Click to expand...

I've always liked the saying that while history does not repeat itself it sure as hell does rhyme a lot. While journalism is not poetry it does in the present times resemble a page of E.E. Cummings scatterings. If the present might be presenting a redux of the Period of the Partisan Press in American history then so be it. In 1856 voter turnout hit 80% nationally. The civil war that followed the next election destroyed the nascent and nefarious Confederacy. Evil beast that the Confederacy was. Led by civilian traitors and commanded by American Cossacks.


“Editors,” wrote one historian, “unabashedly shaped the news and their editorial comment to partisan purposes. They sought to convert the doubters, recover the wavering, and hold the committed. ‘The power of the press,’ one journalist candidly explained, ‘consists not in its logic or eloquence, but in its ability to manufacture facts, or to give coloring to facts that have occurred.’”

Party newspapers gave one-sided versions of the news. Stories that might flatter the opposition went unreported — or under-reported. As one historian observed, “The truth was not suppressed. It was simply hard to get in any one place.”[iii] When Democrat Grover Cleveland won the presidency in 1884, the Republican Los Angeles Times simply failed to report this unhappy result for several days.[iv]

Has partisan journalism returned? Yes, but only in part. We need to remember that most Americans don’t watch Fox News or MSNBC. Limbaugh claims to have the largest audience of any radio host. But most Americans on a given day do not listen to his program or view Glenn Beck. Most Americans are not fierce partisans. Independents are the largest block of voters.

Although the audiences for the new party press should not be exaggerated, we should acknowledge that its fans are more likely to be politically engaged. Or, as Louis Menand wrote in 2009, “people who need an ideological fix.”[xvi] The new partisan media can inspire or simply reassure those resting on the ideological fringes. If you belong to the Tea Party, you have Glenn Beck. If you think the Koch Brothers are trying to purchase the State of Wisconsin, you have Ed Schultz.

You have a safe harbor.

So have we gone full circle? Is it 1850 all over again? I think not. Perhaps not even half way.

In contrast to the factious newspaper culture of the mid-19th century, today’s media culture is in fact divided between the new partisan media of the radio, internet and cable, and those news outlets that still endeavor to report the news seriously. Serious news services won’t, for example, provide platforms for those who insist the President was born in Kenya, or that the Bush administration was behind the destruction of the World Trade Center.

As I noted, the serious or adult journalists still have the larger audience. But can they keep at it? And, more to the point, does that larger audience really pay the freight?

https://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/2011/04/20/the-fall-and-rise-of-partisan-journalism/


As we see once again in the instance of Laura Ingram it's the serious capitalists and the marketplace of the serious citizen who pay the freight. Ingram is getting shipped out to the media and journalism equivalent of North Dakota. Ingram is getting fracked.

MSgt said:

I don't know. Even Bill O'Reilly wasn't safe from being tossed out on his butt for poor behavior.

Fox has lost sponsorship due to Ingraham's behavior. The money and future PR dictates that she probably needs to be tossed too in order to get that sponsorship back. Ratings versus stockholder money? Money wins. Ingraham, who is obviously caught up in the right-wing extremist propaganda machine while praising Jesus and the Easter rabbit, is a liability to Fox's struggle to present itself as "fair and balanced" and not...ignorantly extremist.

Click to expand...

Blue Moon up over the Midwest—XM Sirius MLB while traveling—great listening to stories from announcers on Rusty Staub—Montreal lit up their City Hall and Olympic Dome—ORANGE.

The murmurs and body language at Church should be interesting on Easter. The Priest out here is very learned, like do many with which I’ve been Blessed. Sooner or later, everyone’s going to have their ‘Coming to Jesus’ moment this year, though I’d prefer ‘Coming to Legacy’.

What are your objections to a ‘President Pence’, words comforing for me to type ...

Smart, calculated move by Ingraham and the network. Let the manufactured firestorm settled down.

Am guessing she will come out fine.

A Fox News mandated vacation?........Sure...Time to fire this loud mouth

Saladin4 said:

A Fox News mandated vacation?........Sure...Time to fire this loud mouth

Click to expand...

One "bad" act and the death penalty has been earned....Yes Sir America is so sadistic now, most are to ignorant to notice and most of the rest like it this way.

Hawkeye10 said:

One "bad" act and the death penalty has been earned....Yes Sir America is so sadistic now, most are to ignorant to notice and most of the rest like it this way.

Click to expand...

Nah Ingram has been a loud mouth bitch for a while now...She needs to go

Hawkeye10 said:

One "bad" act and the death penalty has been earned....Yes Sir America is so sadistic now, most are to ignorant to notice and most of the rest like it this way.

Click to expand...

Being fired is a death penalty? Unwarranted, sure, but a death penalty? Your snowflakery is showing, sweetcakes.

Man, you people's obsession with Fox News is disturbing. Other than that dyke with the short haircut I couldn't name one person on MSNBC, and even if they did something out of bounds I wouldn't spend all this time demanding they be fired. What is it you're trying to prove at the end of the day? That the opposition should be silenced? It's ridiculous.