Laura Ingraham unfairly targeted David Hogg on Twitter, showing the kind of immaturity media influencers have.
Nichole Shaw
Laura Ingraham posted a disgusting and disappointing tweet on March 28 in regards to David Hogg’s rejection from UCLA. “David Hogg rejected by four colleges to which he applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA … totally predictable given acceptance rates.),” she wrote.
The post was childish and completely unnecessary. As an adult, regardless of her political views, she should have never gone to social media to express her distaste over a teenager’s post.
That’s just petty. UCLA is an extremely hard college to get into, and many students across the nation “whine,” as she puts it, about a college they get rejected from on social media. Why take to Twitter to put down a teenager after he has been rejected by a prestigious educational institution? It doesn’t make sense, and it undermines her credibility as a media influence.
Hogg responded to her post, saying that her “bullying” shouldn’t be tolerated, and he spurred action from corporate America by proposing a boycott of her. He was effective. Seven companies, one-third of her advertisers, eliminated their partnerships with her show, including Hulu and Nestle. Ingraham responded by publicly apologizing to Hogg in yet another tweet and took a leave from her show, which she claims had been planned weeks prior. While the apology was definitely necessary, it should have been more genuine. Her apology appeared to be fake and only an attempt to cover her tracks after the destabilizing blow Hogg’s response had to her show and her credibility.
RELATED: Laursen: UK responds to gun violence while US legislators bicker
There has been some claims that advertisers pulling out of Ingraham’s show is an infringement on the right of free speech and unconstitutional. One of these claims came from Fox News Co-President Jack Abernethy, who said, “We cannot and will not allow voices to be censored by agenda-driven intimidation efforts.”
However, the advertisers’ pulling out is, in fact, patriotic because free speech is the right of individuals or entities to express themselves without oppression or repression from the state. This is corporate America, using its free-speech right in being able to act out and support someone’s voice in the fight against people aiming to distract from important issues that need to be addressed now, such as gun violence.
While Ingraham is a conservative talk-show host, she is still a news-media personality with influence on an audience. Therefore, there is a certain responsibility she must uphold, that responsibility being one of maturity and well-founded opinions rather than immature and unnecessary social-media posts that reflect one of a Twitter troll. Instead of putting down a kid who survived the ninth-deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, media influencers such as Ingraham should talk about what really matters — gun violence — and how to approach solving such an issue.
RELATED: Helton: Yes and: how improv comedy can help fix public discourse
Both sides have the right to be heard, but attacking a student because of his rejection from a renowned university is plain wrong and unjustified, no matter your political view or stance on gun control.
Yes, Ingraham is a conservative talk-show host. No, this shouldn’t excuse her from letting both sides of a story be heard. She holds a particular position of power in the media, and she comments on political issues. Therefore, she should at least show her commentary is well-founded and researched before negatively targeting a young social activist. I think it is imperative for the American people to consider those they listen to and the kind of agenda and media personality they have.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want someone who unfairly targets a teenager’s rejected admission to a top-tier college to influence my opinion on any politics. They’re obviously not mature enough to handle the severity and seriousness of issues that dominate politics today.