The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

Tag: laura ingraham

Tucker Carlson Gaslighting His Sudden ‘Pivot’ On Ukraine

Tucker Carlson is utterly baffled that people would think he is rooting for Vladimir Putin and Russia in its war on Ukraine. “You know, it’s such an awful thing to say,” he said on his Fox News show Monday, after playing a clip of Congressman Eric Swalwell saying he and other Republicans were on Putin’s side. “We hesitated to play that, even—it’s very common, you hear it every day. The question is: Why are they saying that? It doesn’t make any sense.”

Gaslighting, of course, has become Carlson’s specialty. In reality, Carlson spent most of the month prior to the invasion praising Putin and echoing Russian propaganda: running down Ukraine, deriding it as a “State Department client state”—not a democracy, but “a tyranny”—and claiming that Russia just wants to keep its borders secure, everything the fault of Joe Biden. So much so that he became the hero of Russian state television, where his rants were translated and replayed, and he was praised as an astute American.

Now that the horror is hitting home, Carlson suddenly has realized that he backed the wrong horse and is scurrying hard to dig his way out. The first step in that, of course, is gaslighting his audience about what he had been saying just the week before, and blaming the war on Putin now—yet somehow it’s still all Joe Biden’s fault. Those clips have yet to appear on Russian TV.

The major tone shift occurred Friday, a day after the invasion: “It’s a tragedy, because war always is a tragedy, and the closer you get to it, the more horrifying it seems,” he said. He also squarely put the onus on Russia and Putin: “He is to blame for what we’re seeing tonight in Ukraine.”

“Vladimir Putin started this war, so whatever the context of the decision that he made, he did it,” he said. “He fired the first shots.”

It’s a sharp and complete reversal of his previous arguments. On Feb. 17, he spouted Russian propaganda in claiming that Ukraine is not a legitimate nation. He also attacked U.S. officials who provided military aid to Ukraine.

“These people are so ghoulish,” Carlson said. “Of course they’re promoting war, not to maintain the democracy that is Ukraine. Ukraine is not a democracy. It has never been a democracy in its history, and it’s not now. It’s a client state of the Biden administration.”

This narrative became a staple of Carlson’s defense of Russia’s war. On his Feb. 22 show, he again spouted Putin’s propaganda: “The point here is to defend democracy. Not that Ukraine is a democracy. It’s not a democracy. Ukraine’s president has arrested his main political opponent, he has shut down newspapers and television stations that have dared to criticize him. So in American terms, you would call Ukraine a tyranny. But Joe Biden likes Ukraine, so Putin bad, war good.”

The next day, he again dismissed Ukraine as “a State Department client state,” claiming that Democrats wanted Americans to “wholeheartedly support jumping with both feet into a highly complicated conflict in a part of Eastern Europe where we have no national interests.”

The most noteworthy part of that Feb. 22 episode, however, was how Carlson defended Putin against his “haters” by comparing him to American liberals, who he clearly saw as far more nefarious:

It might be worth asking yourself, since it is getting pretty serious, ‘What is this really about? Why do I hate Putin so much? Has Putin ever called me a racist? Has he threatened to get me fired for disagreeing with him? Has he shipped every middle class job in my town to Russia? Did he manufacture a worldwide pandemic that wrecked my business and kept me indoors for two years? Is he teaching my kids to embrace racial discrimination? Is he making fentanyl? Is he trying to snuff out Christianity? Does he eat dogs?’ These are fair questions, and the answer to all of them is no. Vladimir Putin didn’t do any of that. So do why does permanent Washington hate him so much?

The day after the invasion began, on Feb. 24, it was more of the same. The invasion, he claimed, demonstrated that Biden was a foreign-policy failure who had promised he would keep it from happening, making Putin’s war a “humiliating defeat for Joe Biden.”

Russian state media promptly began re-airing Carlson’s rants with translated subtitles, particularly the Putin-didn’t-call-me-a-racist episode. His attacks on Ukraine’s legitimacy also received heavy play. They also replayed Carlson’s Feb. 24 interview with ex-Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who told him: "Sanctions don't work. This is the whole problem with the Biden administration: They are so focused on how do we punish Putin."

The clips became the topic of Russian TV news talk shows, where Carlson was uniformly praised. “Excellent performance,” the editor of a Russian national defense journal commented. “We can only have solidarity with this view.”

Of course, Carlson is hardly alone in spreading pro-Russian propaganda on Fox News. On Feb. 24, just before bombs began falling on Ukraine, host Laura Ingraham interviewed ex-president Donald Trump by phone, who praised Putin—“I do know him very well. We’ve had many, uh, times together. I got along with him fantastically”—and ranted at length that the invasion was Biden’s fault, and the war never would have happened if the election hadn’t been stolen from him.


Near the end of the interview, Ingraham asked Trump about the speech given earlier that day by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, describing it as “a kind of really pathetic display” and described Ukraine’s United Nations ambassador as “looking like a defeated man.”

And despite the seeming change in tone, Carlson’s “pivot” still found him ardently defending Russian propaganda, and serving as its useful tool. Angry that authorities and platform owners in the U.S., Canada, and in Europe are taking action against the Kremlin-owned American news outlet Russia Today and other agitprop producers like Sputnik—both of whom also heavily replayed his pro-Russia rants—Carlson fumed that it all constituted “moral blackmail,” gaslighting away his previous remarks: “No one in America takes pride at the sight, feels anything but revulsion at the sight, of Russian troops within Ukraine.”

Sure enough, RT promptly retweeted Carlson’s clip: “Tucker Carlson defends media freedom as Senators use their power to shut down free speech on social media—especially so-called ‘Russian propaganda.’”

As Lis Wahl, a former anchor at Russia Today, explained to The Daily Beast, the distinction between a propaganda operation like RT and what’s aired on Fox News has essentially vanished:

While the American voices Russian media uses to influence Western audiences hail from the far-left and the far-right, the poison of disinformation asymmetrically originates on the ideological right. Research has demonstrated that followers of the former president stick to hyper-partisan and conspiracy-laden sources such as Breitbart, Info Wars, and Fox News. During Trump’s election and throughout his presidency, the rightwing ecosystem grew more conspiratorial, extreme, and anti-democratic. It is during this time that Russian media and right-wing media became indistinguishable.
Today, the chief purveyors of pro-Russian disinformation in the U.S. are now on Fox News. I have warned that quite often the pro-Putin claims on Fox and RT essentially mimic each other. But much of the American public, and even many in the mainstream media, fail to realize the extent to which this disinformation has become part of the fabric of the new media landscape, and therefore, American political discourse.


Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Why Journalists Must Disclose Conflicts Of Interest -- Before They're Exposed

News Literacy Week 2022, an annual awareness event started by the News Literacy Project, a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to making everyone “smart, active consumers of news and information and equal and engaged participants in a democracy” has closed out. From January 24 to 28, classes, webinars, and Twitter chats taught students and adults how to root out misinformation when consuming news media.
There’s no downplaying the importance of understanding what is accurate in the media. These days, news literacy is a survival tactic. One study estimated that at least 800 people died because they embraced a COVID falsehood — and that inquiry was conducted in the earliest months of the pandemic. About 67 percent of the unvaccinated believe at least one COVID-19 myth, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
It’s not that accurate information isn’t available; people are rejecting reports of vaccine efficacy and safety because they distrust the news media. A third of Americans polled by Gallup said they have no trust at all in mass media; another 27 percent don’t have much at all.
Getting people to believe information presented to them depends more on trust than it does on the actual data being shared. That is, improving trust isn’t an issue of improving reporting. It’s an issue of improving relationships with one’s audience.
And that’s the real news problem right now; some celebrity anchors at cable news outlets are doing little to strengthen their relationships with their audiences and a lot to strengthen their relationships with government officials.
The most obvious example is how CNN terminated Prime Time anchor Chris Cuomo last month for his failure to disclose the entirety of his role in advising his brother, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, on the sexual harassment accusation that unfolded in Albany, a scandal that eventually led to Andrew Cuomo’s resignation.
But there are others. Just this month, the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol revealed that another anchor on another cable news network, Laura Ingraham of Fox News’ The Ingraham Angle, texted then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows last January, advising Meadows how Trump should react to reports of possible armed protests at state capitols around the country. This revelation followed the story that Sean Hannity, host of the eponymous news hour at Fox News, also texted Meadows with advice last year.
And while he didn't advise a government official, CNN anchor Don Lemon revealed information not available to the public when he texted embattled Empire actor Jussie Smollett to tip him off about the Chicago Police Department’s wavering faith in his story about an assault. That’s from Smollett’s own sworn testimony.
When English philosopher Edmund Burke joked about the press being the Fourth Estate — in addition to the First, Second and Third (the clergy, nobility and commoners, respectively) — his point was that, despite their influence on each other, these “estates” — bastions of power — are supposed to be separate.
The Fourth Estate will always be an essential counterweight to government. But, since Donald Trump was elected in 2016, we’ve been so focused on stopping an executive branch from pressing the press to support an administration's agenda — either by belittling journalists or threatening to arrest them for doing their jobs — that we’ve ignored the ways that it affects and influences other Estates, and not necessarily through its reporting.
That is, we have news personalities-cum-reporters who are influencing government policy — and not telling us about it until it’s too late.
The United States has fostered an incredible closeness between the Second Estate — which in 2021 and 2022 would be political leaders — and the Fourth Estate. About a year ago, an Axios reporter had to be reassigned because she was dating one of President Biden’s press secretaries. Last year, James Bennet, the former editorial page editor of the New York Times and brother of Colorado Senator and 2020 Presidential candidate Michael Bennet, had to recuse himself publicly from the Gray Lady’s endorsement process. In 2013, the Washington Post reported at least eight marriages between Obama officials and established journalists.
To be clear, there aren’t any accusations that anyone just mentioned engaged in anything other than ethical behavior. But I, for one, don’t believe that James and Michael Bennet didn’t discuss Michael’s campaign. I don’t think the Axios reporter and her West Wing-employed boyfriend — or any journalists and their federally employed spouses, for that matter — didn’t share facts that the public will never know. Such is the nature of family and intimacy.
And as long as those conversations don’t affect the coverage of any news events, there’s nothing specifically, technically wrong with them. But that doesn’t mean that they aren’t damaging.
As these stories show, when we don’t know about these advisor roles, at least not until someone other than the journalist in question exposes them, it causes a further erosion of trust in news media.
What’s foolish about the Cuomo, Ingraham, Hannity, and Lemon improprieties is that they don't necessarily need to be the problem they’ve become. Cuomo’s show contained opinion content like 46 percent of CNN’s programming. An active debate rages on as to whether Fox News is all opinion and whether or not it can rightly even be called opinion journalism since its shows are so studded with inaccuracies and lies.
What that means is that Cuomo, Ingraham, Hannity, and Lemon are allowed to take a stand as opinion journalists; Cuomo and Lemon never really worked under a mandate of objectivity and Ingraham and Hannity likely wouldn’t honor it if they did. Indeed, a certain subjectivity — and explaining how it developed for the journalist — is part of an opinion journalist’s craft. To me, little of these consulting roles would be problematic if any of these anchors had just disclosed them and the ways they advised the people they cover.
But they didn’t. Instead, the advice they dispensed to government employees and celebrities was disclosed by a third party and news of it contributes to the public’s distrust in the media. While personal PR advisory connections between journalists and politicians haven’t been pinpointed as a source of distrust, they may have an effect. Almost two-thirds of respondents in a Pew Research poll said they attributed what they deemed unfair coverage to a political agenda on the part of the news organization. No one has rigorously examined the ways in which individual journalists can swing institutional opinion so it may be part of the reason why consumers are suspicious of news.
Cleaning up ex post facto is both a violation of journalistic ethics and ineffective. Apologies and corrections after the fact don't always improve media trust. In other credibility contests, like courtroom battles, statements against one’s interests enhance a person’s believability. But that’s not necessarily true of news; a 2015 study found that corrections don’t automatically enhance a news outlet’s credibility.
It’s a new adage for the 21st century: It’s not the consulting; it’s the cover-up. Journalists need to disclose their connections to government officials — up front — to help maintain trust in news media. Lives depend on it.

Chandra Bozelko did time in a maximum-security facility in Connecticut. While inside she became the first incarcerated person with a regular byline in a publication outside of the facility. Her “Prison Diaries" column ran in The New Haven Independent, and she later established a blog under the same name that earned several professional awards. Her columns now appear regularly in The National Memo.

Watch Laura Ingraham Rejoice In Gen. Mark Milley Getting Covid (VIDEO)

We're nearly three years into one of the worst pandemics to hit the country--and the world--in the last hundred years. Even though vaccines and booster shots are readily available, we're still forced to endure a never-ending flood of ignorance and sickening misinformation from far-right psychopaths. Among those far-right psychopaths is Laura Ingraham of Fox News. Much like her equally awful co-worker Tucker Carlson, Ingraham has devoted airtime to constantly spreading lies and misinformation about the vaccine, which is pretty odd when considering that her chief demographic is the vulnerable elderly population.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley tested positive for COVID-19 on Sunday, and CNN reports that Gen. David Berger, commandant of the Marine Corps, also tested positive. While most sane and decent human beings would want to wish the American generals well, Ingraham chose to delight in Milley getting Covid.

Here was Ingraham as she shared the news with her viewers last night during a recurring segment, "Positively Boosted." Yes, she actually has a segment called "Positively Boosted."

INGRAHAM: All right, the triple-vaxxed Joint Chief[s] chairman Mark Milley – our favorite, Mark Milley! – tested positive for Covid yesterday. And who else? General David Berger, the Marine Corps commandant, also positively boosted.

Worse yet, she still seems to blatantly disregard the fact that vaccines offer people far greater protection against the virus, which allows them to avoid hospitalization or death. Ingraham isn’t a fan of Milley, however. In fact, she considers him a "woke Marxist,” but her "Positively Boosted" segment isn’t just about cheering the misfortune of incredibly moderate conservatives like Milley. Sadly, it's a huge part of an ongoing right-wing disinformation campaign against the efficacy of vaccines. Milley and Berger are both working from home, and Milley has reported only “minor symptoms.” Marine Col. Kelly Frushour said Berger’s duties should remain “unaffected.”

But leave it to one of the biggest hacks and Trump humpers to behave callously while serving nothing but disinformation to millions.

Watch the segment below:

Why The January 6 Committee Keeps Dragging Fox News

For the second time in three weeks, Fox News has been shoved into the insurrection spotlight by the House select panel investigating Trump’s coup attempt. It probably won’t be the last time the Congressional body sets its sights on Rupert Murdoch’s propaganda network. The unprecedented glare is highlighting just how duplicitous its hosts are, as we learn they were beseeching the White House 52 weeks ago to call off the insurrection hounds on the eve of January 6.

Today, Fox News dismisses the Trump riot — the same way it dismisses Covid — and attacks Democrats over their fact-finding mission. But the latest Sean Hannity insurrection texts released by the committee don’t lie. And they were flying fast and furious one year ago. More importantly, it’s clear that the media-savvy committee is going to keep up the pressure on Fox News in a way no government body has since the network debuted more than two decades ago.

The January 6 panel announced yesterday it wants to call Hannity as a “fact witness.” It’s not trying to subpoena Hannity because he can hide behind laws that are designed protect journalists, even though he isn’t one. (Hannity a journalist the same way Alex Jones is a journalist.) So this isn’t going to be a long drawn-out legal battle. It’s a public relation showdown, and so far the committee is scoring wins. (Murdoch hates playing defense.) Especially as the panel releases the damning texts in batches, instead of all at once, which generate rolling headlines.

The revelations pull back the opaque curtain Fox News tries to hide behind in terms of claiming to be a legitimate operation. The communications show Hannity to be a plugged-in operative for an administration he was supposed to be covering.

There has been a long media tradition inside the Beltway of opinion journalists getting the ear of a president and acting as something of an ad hoc advisor. The New York Times’ Arthur Krock did it with FDR and JFK. But Hannity was doing something entirely different. He became entangled in a criminal enterprise to obstruct justice by trying to stop Congress from certifying legal election results.

The texts highlight just how unglued Hannity thought Trump was in late 2020 and early 2021. The host angrily referred to the president as basically being unreachable on the topic of the election. These aren’t Democrats making the claim that Trump had lost his bearings, it was his closest media ally.

“Guys, we have a clear path to land the plane in 9 days,” Hannity frantically texted to Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows on January 10. “He can’t mention the election again. Ever. I did not have a good call with him today. And worse, I’m not sure what is left to do or say, and I don’t like not knowing if it’s truly understood. Ideas?”

Days before the actual siege, Hannity was deeply anxious about the looming, Trump-made storm. On Jan. 5 he sent Meadows a note saying he was “very worried about the next 48 hours.”

Hannity’s texts are telling because Fox News had worked feverishly for weeks to build up hysteria around the claims of a stolen election. “They laid the groundwork in the months leading up to the election for Trump to cry fraud, and once he did, they cheered on his cynical effort to subvert the vote and usher in the end of American democracy,” Media Matters’ Matt Gertz wrote one year ago.

The latest Hannity text headlines come three weeks after it was revealed a laundry list of Fox News hosts anxiously texted Meadows on January 6, begging Trump to stop the deadly mob that was laying siege to the U.S. Capitol.

“Please get him on TV,” the network’s Brian Kilmeade messaged. “Destroying everything you have accomplished." Pleaded Laura Ingraham: “Mark, the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home. This is hurting all of us. He is destroying his legacy.” And from Sean Hannity, “Can he make a statement? Ask people to leave the Capitol?”

All three have since moved aggressively to dismiss the violence that day at the US Capitol. Just last month, Kilmeade mocked news outlets for focusing too much on the insurrection inquiry. “It's 45 minutes an hour on January 6, that's all they got. ‘Mark Meadows, what’s going to happen?’ January 6, that's all they got,” he complained. “So they don't even want to report any other things, so it's non-reporting by omission.”

This, while “Fox News host Tucker Carlson produced a documentary, “Patriot Purge,” for the Fox Nation streaming platform that included the baseless claim that the deadly attack was a “false flag” operation intended to demonize conservatives,” Huff Post reported.

Thanks to the January 6 committee, we now know Fox hosts were frantic about the unfolding coup attempt, and demanded Trump stop making claims about the ‘stolen’ election. What will be the next Fox shoe to drop?

Reprinted with permission from PressRun

'There Could Be Peril': Graham Advised Trump To Ditch January 6 Press Event

Former President Donald Trump planned to hold a press conference in Florida, his adopted state, on the one-year anniversary of the January 6, 2021 insurrection. But Trump, according to Associated Press reporter Jill Colvin, canceled that event and will instead “be discussing his grievances” at a rally in Arizona in mid-January.

“Trump continues to falsely insist the election was ‘stolen’ and that the ‘real’ insurrection was on Election Day, November 3, 2020, the day Democrat Joe Biden won the votes that led to his 306-232 Electoral College victory,” Colvin notes. “Federal and state election officials, Trump’s own attorney general and numerous judges — including some he appointed — have all said repeatedly that the election was fair and that there is no credible evidence of serious fraud.”

In an official statement released on Tuesday night, January 4, Trump wrote, “In light of the total bias and dishonesty of the January 6th Unselect Committee of Democrats, two failed Republicans, and the Fake News Media, I am canceling the January 6th Press Conference at Mar-a-Lago on Thursday, and instead will discuss many of those important topics at my rally on Saturday, January 15th, in Arizona.”

One Republican ally who urged Trump to cancel the press conference he had in mind for January 6 was Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. The conservative senator told Axios he advised Trump that “there could be peril in doing a news conference” and that it was “best to focus on election reform instead.”

Axios’ Jonathan Swan notes that Fox News’ Laura Ingraham also advised Trump against going forward with a January 6 event.

Swan reports, “House and Senate leaders had no involvement in planning Trump's event — which they viewed as a political headache. They were quietly relieved when they saw his statement Tuesday evening announcing he was canceling the press conference. The withdrawal leaves Steve Bannon and Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) as perhaps the only high-profile Trump allies willing to go on the offense through media appearances Thursday.”

Reprinted with permission from AlterNet

Fox News Gets Owned Over Its Dumb Anti-Biden Christmas Hysteria

Reprinted with permission from AlterNet

For months now, Fox News has circulated fear-mongering reports about the possibility of President Joe Biden ruining Christmas. But now the conservative network's talking heads appear to still be grasping at straws as the predictions of doom failed to materialize — and they refuse to give the president credit.

The Recount shared a supercut of Fox News clips predicting Christmas delivery nightmares and blaming Biden:


But reports have shown that deliveries are actually moving swiftly to their destinations this year, leading the administration to take a victory lap.

The Fox News panel discussion that aired on Thursday, December 23 struggled to cope with these facts and the network's past coverage. Jesse Watters suggested that the president doesn't deserve credit but acknowledged how the recent reports signal improvement.

"If people are getting gifts under the tree in time, that’s a good thing," Watters said. "If Biden deserves credit, I’ll give him credit. I don’t know if he deserves credit… but according to reports, things are a lot better than they were in November."

Despite saying he'd give Biden credit if he deserved it, Watters then speculated that other actors, such as consumers and ports, were responsible for fixing the problem.

Another panelist said, "It’s always interesting when a politician wants credit for doing their job."

One might plausibly argue that Biden himself and the White House didn't have much of a role in fixing the supply chain problems that people feared would thwart Christmas plans. But if that's correct, then it was arguably wrong to pre-emptively blame for potential issues that the president may indeed have little control over.

As the Fox News clip circulated on Twitter, users began weighing in and mocking the network for the apparent hypocrisies in their discussion.


Article reprinted with permission from Alternet

The Impeccable Timing Of Chris Wallace's Departure

Reprinted with permission from PressRun

Forget about the homeless man who burned down Fox News’ metal Christmas tree last week. The network’s real troubles began December 13, when longtime host Chris Wallace announced his resignation on live TV, in order to jump to rival CNN. The network’s woes then exploded into full view Monday night when it was revealed a laundry list of Fox News hosts anxiously texted Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, on January 6, begging Trump to stop the deadly mob that was laying siege to the U.S. Capitol.

“Please get him on TV,” the network’s Brian Kilmeade messaged. “Destroying everything you have accomplished.” Pleaded Laura Ingraham: “Mark, the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home. This is hurting all of us. He is destroying his legacy.” And from Sean Hannity, “Can he make a statement? Ask people to leave the Capitol?”

For hours, Trump did nothing to stop the insurrection, before eventually issuing a bland, irrelevant statement on that very dark day.

The Sunday news flash about Wallace was a punch in the gut for Fox, mostly because it robs the network of its ability to point to the morning host as supposedly a ‘serious journalist’ when trying to knock down the obvious claim that the network is nothing more than a bigoted propaganda outlet.

“The abrupt departure of Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace stripped the network of its foremost fig leaf, and gave reality-based journalists clear license to stop the lame euphemisms and call Fox what it is: a propaganda and disinformation operation,” wrote media critic Dan Froomkin.

The second, more serious newsflash about the text messages ripped away the Fox veneer that’s been constructed since January 6, that the insurrection was no big deal (i.e. a bunch of grandparents marching around with placards), and that any investigation today represents a partisan witch hunt. Just last week, Kilmeade, who was privately beseeching for action on January 6, mocked news outlets for spending too much time reporting on the revelations that keep tumbling out about Trump’s coup attempt last winter, and about the widespread obstruction of justice on display.

Since everyone at Fox News operates without a moral compass, none of the millionaire hosts will have trouble sleeping despite their insurrection hypocrisy making headlines this week. Still, the network privately hates episodes like this, because it puts them on the defensive and it chips away at the preferred fantasy they push on Madison Avenue and within the Beltway that Fox is merely a conservative media outlet and that it actually employs a “news” division.

It was an awful 36 hours for Fox, and Wallace definitely picked a prime time to leave. I wonder if he knew the release of the Insurrection Day texts from his colleagues was imminent, and if that sped up what appeared to be his hasty exit from his TV home for 18 years. Either way, his move was a stinger for the network, for lots of reasons.

The exit, and how it was choreographed, came with an unmistakable scent of F.U. directed to Wallace’s former bosses. According to reports, virtually nobody inside Fox’s Washington D.C. bureau knew about the departure before Wallace announced it live on television. Worse, he’s jumping straight to Fox News’ most hated rival — CNN. That’s a poke in the eye for the right-wing network, which hates the fact that CNN doggedly details Fox’s dishonest ways. It’s unheard of for a high-profile Fox player like Wallace to pack their bags and head directly to CNN.

When Rupert Morduch’s network on Sunday released a perfunctory statement about Wallace, it was clear the two did not leave on good terms, which is rather stunning considering he’s been among their most recognizable faces for nearly two decades.

That personnel headache was soon superseded by the insurrection controversy, when Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), the vice chair of the House select committee investigating January 6, read the Fox News texts aloud Monday night during a primetime hearing. Of course Fox News stonewalled the insurrection text news for 24 hours, refusing to acknowledge that its horrified hosts desperately communicated with Trump’s top aide in real time on January 6, trying to get the president to stop the deranged coup attempt.

They ignored the blockbuster news because Fox employees today are paid to whitewash the insurrection. Last summer, Ingraham openly mocked Capitol Police officers who testified before Congress about the chaos and trauma of Insurrection Day, when law enforcement was attacked and many thought they would die.

And just last month, “Fox News host Tucker Carlson produced a documentary, “Patriot Purge,” for the Fox Nation streaming platform that included the baseless claim that the deadly attack was a “false flag” operation intended to demonize conservatives,” Huff Post notes. Carlson infamously told viewers in September that the Capitol rioters “don’t look like terrorists. They look like tourists.”

The lingering, pungent stench from episodes like this might be why Wallace walked away this week. His timing was impeccable