Laura Ingraham mocked this Parkland survivor. His response was dignified and swift.

Making fun of Parkland survivors is in bad taste. Turns out, it's also bad for business.

Conservative media commentators are getting a crash course in decency from the Parkland shooting survivors. The latest example is Fox News host Laura Ingraham, who mocked survivor David Hogg on her Twitter account for not getting into the colleges of his choice, writing:

"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.)"

People quickly took notice and many of them weren't happy.


Hogg responded by asking people to contact the advertisers who pay for Ingraham's show, another example of how much better the Parkland teens understand social media than their critics.

The Parkland students are showing adults there's a new level of accountability in 2018.

No doubt Hogg and his supporters were angry. But instead of lowering themselves to Ingraham's level, he went for direct action. Ironically, he also used a guiding principle of conservative thought against Ingraham by "letting the market speak."

And speak it did.

This isn't new ground for the Parkland teens. As Hogg's own pinned tweet from March 11 explains:

Can we please not debate this as Democrats and Republicans but discuss this as Americans? In the comments if you see someone you dissagree with do not attack each other  talk to one another, this applies to me too. WE MUST WORK TOGETHER TO SAVE OUR FUTURE.

Advertisers quickly began announcing they were pulling their dollars from her show. As the story went viral, Ingraham finally published an apology to her over 2 million Twitter followers, writing:

"Any student should be proud of a 4.2 GPA —incl. @DavidHogg111.  On reflection, in the spirit of Holy Week, I apologize for any upset or hurt my tweet caused him or any of the brave victims of Parkland. For the record, I believe my show was the first to feature David immediately after that horrific shooting and even noted how "poised" he was given the tragedy. As always, he’s welcome to return to the show anytime for a productive discussion."

Ingraham's apology didn't sound sincere. But she had to do it anyway.

It's hard to take Ingraham's apology at face value. Like so many other half-baked apologies from celebrities and politicians, she expressed remorse not on principle but "for any upset or hurt." She then quickly pivoted to taking credit for having previously interviewed him, and offered to have him back on her show — something that would undoubtably be good for her ratings and advertisers.

Hogg himself doesn't buy it, writing:

I 100% agree an apology in an effort just to save your advertisers is not enough. I will only accept your apology only if you denounce the way your network has treated my friends and I in this fight. It’s time to love thy neighbor, not mudsling at children.

Holding Ingraham and others accountable is the right thing to do and shows a better way forward.

It's totally fine to disagree with Parkland survivors and their ideas. It's not fine to make personal attacks that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

It should be the standard for anyone in any debate.

That Hogg and his fellow students are leading the way here is yet another way they're showing all of us that there's a different way to do things.

More

If you're a woman and you want to be a CEO, you should probably think about changing your name to "Jeffrey" or "Michael." Or possibly even "Michael Jeffreys" or "Jeffrey Michaels."

According to Fortune, last year, more men named Jeffrey and Michael became CEOs of America's top companies than women. A whopping total of one woman became a CEO, while two men named Jeffrey took the title, and two men named Michael moved into the C-suite as well.

The "New CEO Report" for 2018, which looks at new CEOS for the 250 largest S&P 500 companies, found that 23 people were appointed to the position of CEO. Only one of those 23 people was a woman. Michelle Gass, the new CEO of Kohl's, was the lone female on the list.

Keep Reading Show less
Business

How much of what we do is influenced by what we see on TV? When it comes to risky behavior, Netflix isn't taking any chances.

After receiving a lot of heat, the streaming platform is finally removing a controversial scenedepicting teen suicide in season one of "13 Reasons Why. The decision comes two years after the show's release after statistics reveal an uptick in teen suicide.

"As we prepare to launch season three later this summer, we've been mindful about the ongoing debate around the show. So on the advice of medical experts, including Dr. Christine Moutier, Chief Medical Officer at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, we've decided with creator Brian Yorkey and the producers to edit the scene in which Hannah takes her own life from season one," Netflix said in a statement, per The Hollywood Reporter.

Keep Reading Show less
Culture

At Trump's 'Social Media Summit' on Thursday, he bizarrely claimed Arnold Schwarzenegger had 'died' and he had witnessed said death. Wait, what?!


He didn't mean it literally - thank God. You can't be too sure! After all, he seemed to think that Frederick Douglass was still alive in February. More recently, he described a world in which the 1770s included airports. His laissez-faire approach to chronology is confusing, to say the least.

Keep Reading Show less
Democracy

Words matter. And they especially matter when we are talking about the safety and well-being of children.

While the #MeToo movement has shed light on sexual assault allegations that have long been swept under the rug, it has also brought to the forefront the language we use when discussing such cases. As a writer, I appreciate the importance of using varied wording, but it's vital we try to remain as accurate as possible in how we describe things.

There can be gray area in some topics, but some phrases being published by the media regarding sexual predation are not gray and need to be nixed completely—not only because they dilute the severity of the crime, but because they are simply inaccurate by definition.

One such phrase is "non-consensual sex with a minor." First of all, non-consensual sex is "rape" no matter who is involved. Second of all, most minors legally cannot consent to sex (the age of consent in the U.S. ranges by state from 16 to 18), so sex with a minor is almost always non-consensual by definition. Call it what it is—child rape or statutory rape, depending on circumstances—not "non-consensual sex."

Keep Reading Show less
Culture