SHARE
Wait, when was she on ABC? Oh, 2014 — in The Before Times

Laura Ingraham announced Friday she’d be taking a week off for Easter break, and no, heavens no, she isn’t stepping away from her Fox News set just because advertisers have been dropping her show as if it were a barrel of toxic stew. Heck, it was always a barrel of toxic stew, and they had no trouble supporting it previously. The timing is surprisingly similar to that time last year when Bill O’Reilly took a “week off” for “Easter vacation” and promised he’d have a “full report” when he got back. Which he never did, too bad so sad.

Ingraham, too, promised she’d be back after a little break with her kids, and boy oh boy, what a lineup of guest hosts — anyone at Fox who hasn’t had to resign for sexual harassment, yet.


The parallels are probably limited, however, since Ingraham doesn’t have a history of very expensive harassment settlements like O’Reilly did; Forbes predicted Friday that Ingraham would probably weather the foofaraw and advertiser boycott after she slagged David Hogg for “whining” about not getting into his first-choice colleges, although he hadn’t actually whined at all. By way of comparison, Sean Hannity lost a lot of advertisers for his support of Roy Goddamn Moore, and he’s still on Fox, so the argument is that while she may not get her top advertisers back, others will still buy time during her show, albeit at a lower price.

Hard to say, though: David Hogg, we should note, is still not in any mood to make nice, because he’s either gone MAD WITH POWER or sees the chance to remind everyone exactly how terrible Laura Ingraham is to everyone, like that time all the way back in February (3.6 years ago in Trump Time) when she told LeBron James to leave politics alone and just “shut up and dribble”:


Still, Ingraham does retain a vocal core of supporters, like the folks who think David Hogg is literally a Nazi, and The Hill’s whiny gnasher Joe Concha wrote an op-ed fretting that the advertiser boycott sets a “dangerous precedent,” although we aren’t sure how it sets a precedent at all, seeing as how advertisers have also been persuaded to withdraw support from jobless street beggars Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity. In any case, the Hill’s social media folks really went all out on the Tweet to accompany that one:

Happily for Ms. Ingraham — who may have nothing to fall back on except her net worth of $45 million — she’s also gaining a whole lot of support from one of the most important segments of social media: Russian bots, which boosted the hashtag “#IstandwithLaura” by over 2800 percent this weekend. The truly important question for Ingraham’s continued presence on Fox is how many Russian bots buy prescription boner pills.

Yr Wonkette is supported by reader donations. Please click here to send us money — we don’t have any advertisers at all!

[Vox / WaPo]

$
Donate with CCDonate with CC
Previous articleTrump’s Executive Time Twitter Was Extra Loony This Morning!
Next articleOklahoma Teachers Wa-Wa-Wa-WALKOUT (And Wonkette Is There!)