Laura Ingraham, turning the other cheek like Jesus

DAVID MILES HOGG, YOU GO TO YOUR ROOM RIGHT NOW AND THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU’VE DONE.

Most of us know the backstory: Talk show host/harpy Laura Ingraham mocked Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting survivor David Hogg. Hogg responded with a suggestion that people boycott Ingraham’s advertisers. Seven advertisers, sensing prevailing winds, immediately pulled ads from Ingraham’s show. Ingraham promptly apologized.

First the tweets, then the analysis.

SorryWatch line-by-line reading! A la Genius!

“Any student” — eh, he’s still not that special.

“in the spirit of Holy Week” — I am religious and noble and turning the other cheek like Jesus. My apology is about my holiness, not about him being deserving of an apology.

“I apologize for any hurt or upset” — note lack of specificity, open-endedness as to whether  “any” hurt or upset may or may not have occurred.

“my tweet caused” — not me, my tweet. I didn’t cause anything. Blame the Twitter bird.

“brave” — I sound good when I proffer this compliment, but it costs me nothing with my base. “Brave” refers only to surviving a shooting, not to the kids’ subsequent activism.

“For the record” — I am being unfairly targeted. (“For the record” almost always precedes a variant of “see how little history you know.”)

“I believe my show was the first” — I am a hero. I have the pulse of the nation. I knew how newsy Hogg was before anyone else did. (No idea if Ingraham really was the first to feature Hogg, by the way. Anyone not frantically typing this between bouts of Passover prep is welcome to research it.)

“poised” — I certainly didn’t say he was correct in his evil and anti-American quest to not have children murdered in their classrooms, just oddly self-possessed.

“As always, he’s welcome” — I’m not inviting him, you understand, but if he shows up at the door of my studio, an intern will let him in. (In other words: Not a gracious invitation. Not really an invitation at all.)

“Productive discussion” — this discussion is not productive! He’s being meeeeeeeeen to me! He’s being unfair! Using the Twitters to hurt me! Unlike what I just did to him by mocking his lack of college acceptances! My Twittering is TOTALLY productive! (Also, “productive discussion” is a phrase parents use with recalcitrant children who are tantruming rather than being rational: “Go to your room until you can have a productive discussion about this.”)

Hogg did not accept her crappy apology.

Also? SAVAGE apology-flipping slash mockery, young man. YA BURNT, as the youth probably do not say anymore.

And now, back into the Passover trenches for SorryWatch. In the spirit of Holy Week, may everyone who celebrates any spring holiday have the blessings of reflection and renewal.

SaveSaveSaveSave

SaveSave

This entry was posted in Bad Apologies, Celebrity Apologies, Media Apologies, Showpologies, Twitpologies and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Laura Ingraham, turning the other cheek like Jesus

  1. divinea says:

    THANK you. This non-apology deserved analysis!

    These kids are jedi masters, and the worst of the right wing outrage generators are still trying to fight with mudballs.

  2. jnfr says:

    On one cable news show today, the host pointed out how her ‘invitation’ to the show, such as it was, was because she knew an appearance by Hogg would be a ratings bonanza.

  3. EPH says:

    Dang. This was a work of art. I made a half-assed attempt at doing such an analysis before my mind drifted to the making of matzoh crack for the Passover/Easter/ThankGodTheSnowIsMelting feast. I appreciate your clearly far greater effort.

  4. profreedom says:

    David Hogg is a bully. He insults everybody he doesn’t like, that is anyone who defends freedom.

    Also he gave an interview where he says he ran to school, so apparently he wasn’t in the school.

    • snarly says:

      I (Snarly) debated approving this, and then decided “yes.” It’s valuable for the fact-based media and fact-appreciating public to read how the far right sees the world. (That said, SorryWatch won’t approve racist, religiously phobic, misogynistic and LGBT-hating comments.)

    • JDM says:

      Do you know you are spouting lies about David Hogg, or are you just willfully ignorant?

    • sumac says:

      I (Sumac) debated approving this and then decided “no.”

      If I thought “profreedom” were going to come back and read this, I’d ask “If Hogg is a bully for [allegedly] insulting people he doesn’t like, doesn’t that make you a bully for calling him one?”

  5. EagerReader says:

    I was eagerly awaiting this one, Snarly. Brava! Yet another I’m-sorry-if-you-were-hurt-because-you’re-too-sensitive-and-not-because-I-did-anything-wrong fake apology.

  6. JDM says:

    BTW, my comment was in reply to “profreedom”, in case that’s not obvious.

  7. Florence says:

    Its only the low life press that lets a punk speak vulgar on all TV shows, and let him think he knows it all, and praise him, discusting.

    • snarly says:

      Team SorryWatch debated whether to approve this. As Sumac noted, “lets a punk speak vulgar” has a certain poetry to it…but it’s pure insult, with no facts added. Does it add to the discourse?

      Snarly says yes. It’s kinda like the debate over who the NYT should hire as a conservative columnist — if they pick someone reasonable and erudite, as Times columnists usually are, that person won’t reflect the emotional thinking of actual Trumpians; if they pick an Alex Jones/Breitbart type, the person will spew hate and fake news, which would be unTimesian. I think that SorryWatch is not the NYT, and unless a given troglodyte says something racist, homophobic or “she was asking for it”-y, I think we should approve the comment and let “reasonable” people see what “unreasonable” people think. And I think telling a Gen Z activist he is a punk speaking vulgar would not only NOT be distressing to him if he were to read it, but would actually amuse him. (We don’t want to publish actual hurtful insults. A fake image of Hogg ripping up the Constitution would be beyond the pale, as would attacks on his looks. For Snarly to approve, anyway.)

    • bratschegirl says:

      I thought Russian bots could spell and punctuate better than this.

Leave a Reply

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

Spam Control *