Upworthy's book GOOD PEOPLE, now available - take a look!

Shop
 Explore 

laura ingraham

Videos

Fox News host Laura Ingraham's confusion over 'You' interview is unintentional comedy gold

Parker Molloy/Twitter

Laura Ingraham and Raymond Arroyo did a real-life "Who's on first?" bit.

Laura Ingraham isn't generally known for her comedy, but a viral clip from the November 15 episode of "The Ingraham Angle" has people rolling.

Ingraham was chatting with author Raymond Arroyo, a regular guest on her show, about the supposed popularity of "un-woke" television programming. Arroyo asserted, "There is a reason people are in love with 'Yellowstone,' Laura. It is an antidote to the politics and all those woke storylines in so many shows today."

Then he added, "I was watching an episode of 'You,' where measles came up…"

Ingraham interrupted him: "When did I mention measles?"

Arroyo was referring to the Netflix show 'You,' and he kept repeating the name of the show to clear up the confusion. But Ingraham kept thinking he was talking about her show.

"We have never done a measles and vaccine episode," she said. "Is this a joke? I don't know what you are talking about."

"It was on You," Arroyo repeated. "It was on You."

"Raymond, I have never had measles, what are you talking about?" she said. "This is stupid."

And it just kept going:

"It was an episode of a show, Laura."

"What's it called?"

"You! You! It's called You."

"I've never done a show on measles!"

"It is a show called 'You' on Netflix."

"There's a show called Laura Ingraham on Netflix … what are you talking about?"

Just watch:

Seriously, it's an SNL sketch.

Some people thought for sure that the whole thing was scripted, which is entirely possible.

The funniest thing about it, though, is that it's fairly emblematic of how conversations go on "The Ingraham Angle." A guest says something, Ingraham reacts, vapid debate ensues and Ingraham repeatedly doubles down on whatever she's wrong about. That part is hilarious.

Now people are torn between thinking it's real and thinking it's scripted and both options seem to make sense. If you weren't familiar with the show "You," you could easily believe that Ingraham was legitimately confused. Then again, the likelihood that someone in media would be unfamiliar with one of Netflix's top five shows seems low, but you never know.

Penn Badgley, the star of "You," even weighed in on the debate on Twitter, writing, "Definitely a bit. His delivery is great tho."

Either way, the clip was entertaining. If nothing else, it was a successful publicity stunt, as it got people of all stripes talking.

(However, if we're going to talk about Laura Ingraham's show and the Fox News Channel in general, let's remember to mention their significant contributions to the dismantling of America and destruction of civil society. No amount of comedy should distract us from that reality.)

Thanks for the laugh, though.

From Your Site Articles

Donald Trump Jr. used real CDC data to draw an absolutely ridiculous conclusion

In the misinformation age, it's important to understand that not all misinformation is fake. Some of it fabricated out of thin air, but more often than not, it includes legitimate data that is either misread, misunderstood, or misrepresented.

Such is the case with Donald Trump Jr.'s ridiculous claim on Fox News that COVID-19 deaths are

"These people are truly morons," Trump Jr. said without a hint of irony, before explaining to Ingraham how we "went through the CDC data" and came to the conclusion that the COVID-19 death number "is almost nothing." He said, "We've gotten control of this thing, we understand how it works, they have the therapeutics to be able to death with this."

"Look at my Instagram," he added. "It's gone to almost nothing."

Anyone who pays any attention at all to daily death tolls from the virus knows that the idea that deaths are "almost nothing" is simply false on its face. We have regularly had between 500 and 1000 deaths per day for months, and those numbers have begun to climb again in recent weeks. In fact we had over 1000 deaths yesterday, the day he tried to make this claim. So what the hell is Jr. talking about?

We could just brush him off as an idiot and move along, but the problem is there are millions of people who will watch, listen, and believe him. He says his numbers are from the CDC, after all. So let's take a look at what he shared on his Instagram.

Looking at the first chart he shared of weekly death numbers, we see that deaths spiked, dropped, went back up in the summer, then have tapered off since—but with a huge drop in the past few weeks.

The second chart puts those weekly death numbers up against the weekly case counts. Judging by this chart, it appears that while cases have gone up (because of more testing, according to Jr., which is only very partially true) deaths have plummeted.

So what's going on here?

The data Jr. is using is the CDC's weekly provisional death count, not the current recorded death count. And that distinction makes his conclusion 100% wrong.

The CDC provisional death count only counts a death once death certificate paperwork is fully processed. That process can take anywhere from one to eight weeks, which is clearly explained on the CDC website that Jr. got the data from. So the most recent weeks in his chart aren't up-to-date at all.

There's even a big blue box at the top of the page that says, "Note: Provisional death counts are based on death certificate data received and coded by the National Center for Health Statistics as of October 30, 2020. Death counts are delayed and may differ from other published sources (see Technical Notes). Counts will be updated periodically."

In fact, if you look at the numbers posted today for the last two months compared to the numbers in his chart, they've all gone up, because more death certificates for those weeks have been processed. That's how this chart works. The data is incomplete, especially in recent weeks.

So yeah, Jr. is using real CDC data, but he's drawing completely the wrong conclusion from it.

Now, perhaps that's a result of not understanding it (which is a problem if you are going on national television as a mouthpiece for the White House during a pandemic). Perhaps it's a result of neglecting to read the whole web page and just pulling numbers from the chart (which is also a problem if you're trying to speak authoritatively while calling other people morons). Or perhaps it's an intentional misrepresentation (which is a problem for obvious reasons, not the least of which is that it could lead to more dead Americans).

While it's tempting to lean toward Don Jr.'s incompetence, there's one detail that makes me wonder if it was purposeful. Donald Trump Jr. shared this information on his Instagram, but not on Facebook (at least not that I could find). The reason that's suspect is that people can't click on links on Instagram. In fact, if they're using the mobile app, which is how the vast majority of people use Instagram, you can't even copy and paste the links, so it's very difficult to get to the website he cites. On Facebook, the CDC links in his share text would have shown up as clickable links, and maybe—just maybe—some of his readers would bother checking his accuracy for themselves.

People using the provisional death count erroneously isn't new. I wrote about it several months ago, when a claim kept going around that the CDC had lowered its death count. It hadn't. People were just confusing the provisional death count numbers with the real-time death count and running with their conspiracy theories.

So when Trump Jr. shares his charts and asks on Instagram, "Why isn't the ACTUAL data from the CDC being discussed?" he needs to know that it is. This data just isn't what he thinks it is.

And when he says, "I guess they can't rule you with fear if they tell you the truth," I just want to bang my head on my desk and then burn down the entire internet so that we don't have to be subjected to the Trump family's misinformation and absurd gaslighting any longer.

Happy voting, everyone.

From Your Site Articles

coronavirus

The best vacations leave you feeling renewed and invigorated, ready to take on the world.

You spend a week on the shore somewhere or at Disneyland or at home binging Netflix and return to work feeling newly energized and inspired.

You know what I'm talking about? Laura Ingraham sure does.

After taking a "pre-planned" Easter vacation (which just so happened to coincide with advertisers dropping her show after she mocked Parkland survivor David Hogg), Ingraham returned to Fox News on April 9 to deliver a searing rant about how conservatives are being persecuted and shut down in America.

Ingraham's return to the air included a vow to "protect" the First Amendment.

Upon her return, Ingraham revealed that her show would feature a new segment. It's called "Defending the First," and according to ABC News, Ingraham has promised that she'll "expose the enemies of the First Amendment, of free expression, and every thought while showcasing those brave voices making a difference."

Ingraham followed this up with an impassioned plea for anyone who's been the subject of First Amendment violations to call on her for aid: "If you have been subjected to threats or intimidation because of your speech, I want to know about it," she said. "Tweet me, because without free speech and a free conscience, we are not truly a free people."

Is a boycott really a violation of the First Amendment though?

In her speech, Ingraham referred to herself as a "victim" of a boycott. The reality, though, is a little different. Ingraham's speech was not curtailed by the government, which is what the First Amendment is about.

Whenever this subject is brought up, I think of this XKCD comic, which is a nice reminder of which rights the First Amendment protects. (Hint: It's not the right to a TV show.)

[rebelmouse-image 19533212 dam="1" original_size="750x765" caption="Comic by XKCD, used with permission." expand=1]Comic by XKCD, used with permission.

Let's break it down further:

Had Ingraham been arrested, thrown in jail, or otherwise detained by agents of the government, then yes, she would absolutely have a point.

As the comic perfectly explains, however, as much as Ingraham may like to think of herself as a victim, freedom of speech doesn't protect you from the consequences of the things you say. Nor can it force anyone to listen to you if what you've said isn't to their liking.

So if you malign the survivor of a mass shooting for not getting into a college and advertisers decide that's not where they want to put their money, their refusal isn't curtailing any civil liberties.

Boycotting is a legal and time-honored tradition of voting with one's money.

While Ingraham paints boycotting as something only "liberals" do, we must remember that conservatives are not new to cutting off businesses they do not agree with.

In 2017, conservatives boycotted Keurig (in the strangest way) when it stopped advertising on Sean Hannity's show. They also boycotted Nordstrom after it dropped Ivanka Trump's line. When Target announced a move to be more inclusive of the trans community in 2016, a boycott reportedly led the chain to lose millions of dollars.

President Donald Trump is no stranger to calling for boycotts either. While campaigning in 2015, he suggested Starbucks should be boycotted for not putting "Merry Christmas" on their cups. And in 2017, he called for NFL fans to walk out of games if players kneeled during the national anthem and said that protesting players should be fired.

Will Ingraham be championing those that have been hurt by these boycotts as well?

Let's not forget that Ingraham was making these points on her nationally broadcast talk show.

The idea that she's a victim feels a little hollow when you realize Ingraham's speaking from a national pulpit and earning millions of dollars while demanding compassion and righteous indignation from her legions of supporters — supporters she is allowed to speak at on a regular basis without fear of repercussions even as she refers to those who oppose her as "Stalinist." (FYI: Stalin would have never stood for this kind of free-wheeling invective on public media.)

You may remember the time Ingraham was accused of doing the Nazi salute, accused Hillary Clinton of doing the same thing in retaliation, and then still ended up with her own show instead of being prosecuted? Sounds a lot like free speech to me.

The First Amendment affords us all the right to speak out.

Defending the First Amendment makes perfect sense, but as XKCD so brilliantly points out, we owe it to ourselves and one another to understand what we're defending first.

Ingraham's talking points will surely rile up her fanbase. But her rhetoric — that any criticism of conservatives is tantamount to First Amendment violation — is disingenuous and divisive.

The First Amendment protects Ingraham's right to say what she wants. It doesn't mean anyone has to listen.

To help protect free speech and the right to protest, find out how to become a member of the ACLU.

From Your Site Articles

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:

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:

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:

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:

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.

From Your Site Articles

laura ingraham

Fox News host Laura Ingraham's confusion over 'You' interview is unintentional comedy gold

Donald Trump Jr. used real CDC data to draw an absolutely ridiculous conclusion

This comic perfectly explains why Laura Ingraham's 'free speech' fight is nonsense.

The best vacations leave you feeling renewed and invigorated, ready to take on the world.

Ingraham's return to the air included a vow to "protect" the First Amendment.

Is a boycott really a violation of the First Amendment though?

Boycotting is a legal and time-honored tradition of voting with one's money.

Let's not forget that Ingraham was making these points on her nationally broadcast talk show.

The First Amendment affords us all the right to speak out.

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

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

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

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

Woman who was pressured to quit her job to raise stepdaughter's baby makes a bold decision

Comedian's viral video perfectly nails how each generation arrives at someone's house

Emily Ratajkowski explains why women are 'obsessed' with Pete Davidson

5 things that made us smile this week