Home | About | Donate

A Dozen Advertisers Drop Laura Ingraham as Parkland Shooting Survivor She Mocked Rejects Her Apology


#1

A Dozen Advertisers Drop Laura Ingraham as Parkland Shooting Survivor She Mocked Rejects Her Apology

Jake Johnson, staff writer

Backlash against Fox News host Laura Ingraham over her tweet earlier this week mocking Parkland school shooting survivor David Hogg continued to intensify on Friday, as advertisers announced in droves that they are withdrawing support from Ingraham's show.

"She's only apologizing after a third of her advertisers pulled out."
—David Hogg


#2

Which are the next 12 largest advertisers?
And when do we boycott all - I mean ALL - FOX advertisers?
Can someone post a list of all FOX enablers - er, advertisers. I’ll be the list is all corps that support trump, pruitt and the congressional Repugnant party.

It’s time to take back our nation and the future for our children. These people are mass murderers and need to be called out for their crimes agains humanity and all life.


#3

These corps’ actions are as insincere as Ingraham’s apology, as they had previously sought to profit off her vitriol vented toward other targets

So let’s not “applaud” them for doing nothing more than being cognizant of their bottom lines.


#4

She is quintessential “FOX” and appealing to a fairly large audience of the Trump base.


#5

Laura better start freshening up her resume.


#6

Bingo. Apparently they believe the lad’s viral following has more potential purchasing power than does Ingraham’s viewership.


#7

No pol or plutocrat should be fêted for figuring which way the wind blows


#8

The Parkland Shooting Gun Control Debate
There is something about the Parkland shooting gun control debate that I find fascinating. I think every American is horrified by what happened, but they react very differently. Half the country wants to buy a gun to protect themselves from gun violence. Political debates in America are highly polarized, so that group then opposes anything having to do with gun control. The other half wants all guns outlawed, but they tone down their position to just supporting “common sense gun control.” And then they oppose anything that doesn’t involve some level of increased gun regulation.
In my opinion, the pro-gun position is flawed because it is highly unlikely any gun owner would ever actually be able to her weapon to protect herself. It’s not a war where you go into it knowing the other side is trying to kill you; it happens out of nowhere. Unless you are walking around with a rifle in your hands like soldiers do, then you aren’t likely to be able to defend yourself or anyone else. Yes, you could carry concealed but the vast majority of people don’t for the simple reason that it is uncomfortable to walk around all day with a firearm strapped to your waist. And that explains why it is so very rare a “good guy with a gun” ever stops a bad guy intent on killing people.
As for the anti-gun position, it is equally flawed, I think. More government and more regulation are not the solutions to every problem that exists in the world. Murder is already illegal and the punishment is death in some states, but that obviously doesn’t stop mass murders from killing people. Even if we outlawed guns completely, we all know that would as ineffective as outlawing drugs. We would put even more people in prison. But guns would still be widely available, just like drugs, and criminals would still have no problem getting access to them. I know the anti-gun people say they aren’t trying to take away anyone’s guns; they just want to regulate gun ownership more. But anyone from Massachusetts, like me, knows you can effectively outlaw guns by restricting the heck out of them. The anti-gun crowd isn’t fooling anyone.
There is something productive both sides should be able to agree on, and that is the issue of bullying. The school shootings we all want to stop are often the end result of a long history of bullying. Children who are victims of bullying often react by either killing themselves or their classmates. So you would think if anyone were really interested in doing something about school shootings, they would start with the issue of bullying. But that’s not how we do it in America. We oversimplify the problem, pick sides and square off. And when we fight it out, pretty much anything goes. Ostracizing the people who disagree with us is part of the norm, even trying to have them fired from their jobs and boycotting any business that supports their point of view. To put it another way, we try to bully each other into submission.
So that is what I find fascinating about the Parkland shooting gun control debate. After all the speeches are over and all the protestors have gone home, we may have more gun control or we may not. But one’s thing is virtually certain, it will probably happen again.


#9

Aaah,Never.
That is for dodos like you and me.
She is going to contact the next pseudo fascist propaganda machine that needs a mindless abuser to indoctrinate those without a lick a of critical thinking.

Smaller market, fewer ad providers like klipsch or such, but you know, it keeps going.


#10

Hmmm… Does the word “psychopath” come to mind?

I’m just asking.


#11

Bullshit. You don’t get Mulligans on exercising sound morals and judgement!


#12

I believe you grossly over simplify the gun debate. Fascinates you, does it? Are you a cretin devoid of consideration for your fellow citizen? Your presentation Accurately captures the pro gun side which is any gun any time any place by any idiot, and overlooks several good solutions.
There are many levels of potential response from the anti gun side yet the only one you present from the opposition is: No guns, by anyone at any time. This is ultimately more sensible than the alternative of anything goes, and ignores myriad potential areas that could be common ground for pro gun and anti gun people.

Here’s one: That is the simple concept of insurance. Why do I have to have insurance on a 2 ton potential killing machine, that was not designed to kill, but to take people and cargo from point a to b. To be sure guns were invented and exist primarily to kill people. Why can any idiot go buy any kind of gun whose sole purpose is to kill people and not have to carry insurance against its use for that purpose. Or would you argue that shooting someone constitutes misuse of a gun? There shouldn’t even be a debate about insuring guns against their eventual use. Where is the demand for insurance for things designed to kill people, that are allowed to be owned by any random idiot and brought into the public domain? Where’s the gun owner’s test, that drivers of vehicles have to pass in order to be allowed the privilege of driving a vehicle on our roads?

Do you have data on your bullying hypothesis? How often are bullying perpetrators killed in these mass school shootings?


#13

Maybe we should just generally boycott any corporation that advertises on “GOP TV”, what Faux News really is.