Why hasn’t he been fired already? Why wasn’t he pulled off the air with a giant hook before he could complete what would laughingly be called his “thought”?
“Fox & Friends” co-anchor Brian Kilmeade, who has long been an embarrassment on Fox News’ routinely embarrassing news happy talk moring show “Fox and Friends,” said during a discussion with fellow (almost equally annoying) anchors Lawrence Jones and Ainsley Earhardt last week that homeless people (like the maniac who killed the young woman on the train in Charlotte) should be given “involuntary lethal injection(s).” Homeless problem solved!
Jones began the assault on due process, civil rights and decency by saying about the homeless, “A lot of them don’t want to take the programs. A lot of them don’t want to get the help that is necessary. You can’t give them a choice. Either you take the resources that we’re gonna give you, or you decide that you’re going to be locked up in jail. That’s the way it has to be now.” Kilmeade added. “Or, involuntary lethal injection — or something. Just kill them!”
Nice.
Today, surely under orders from Fox News brass, Kilmeade tried to retract and apologize, saying on the air, “We were discussing the murder of Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte and how to stop these kinds of attacks by homeless, mentally ill assailants, including institutionalizing or jailing such people so they cannot attack again,” he began “Now during that discussion, I wrongly said they should get lethal injections. I apologize for that extremely callous remark,” he continued.“I am obviously aware that not all mentally ill, homeless people act as the perpetrator did in North Carolina, and that so many homeless people deserve our empathy and compassion.”
Not accepted, asshole. That statement is signature significance: literally no human being whose opinion is worthy of attention or respect could advocate such a vicious and unconstitutional treatment of the mentally ill and homeless. Kilmeade’s “solution” is Hitlerian. You can’t apologize for saying something like that on national television..what, “I’m sorry I’m an unethical, inhuman moron”?
Yeah, I’m sorry too, now get lost.
Kilmeade’s comment was worst than Martin Bashir’s wish that Sarah Palin be forced to eat shit. It was far worse than what Matthew Dowd said about Charlie Kirk that made MSNBC can him last week.
Fox News can maintain neither respectability nor credibility (or what little it has of either) if it keeps Kilmeade on the air. He wants to kill sick people and poor people to solve social problems. That is an unacceptable position not merely on TV news but in the United States of America and in civilized society. Every day Fox news hesitates in firing this creep proves how putrescent the network and its culture is.
Ethics Alarms 
There is no reason to debate what Kilmeade said.
What about what Jones said?
Jack wrote:
Not accepted, asshole. That statement is signature significance: literally no human being whose opinion is worthy of attention or respect could advocate such a vicious and unconstitutional treatment of the mentally ill and homeless. Kilmeade’s “solution” is Hitlerian. You can’t apologize for saying something like that on national television..what, “I’m sorry I’m an unethical, inhuman moron”?
To quote a Led Zeppelin song: “Oooo, it really makes me wonder…” Wonder why on-air personalities feel free to casually talk about killing people as if it were as ordinary as taking out the trash.
If I’m being honest, we have a problem with this type of flip, cavalier nonsense on the right. Read through some X threads and you will see it all too often — conservatives calling for the quick execution of a killer with a hint of limited or no due process due to the presence of video or other overwhelming evidence. It is beginning to infect the political class, too, with governors and prosecutors saying they will demand the death penalty in this case or that.
We should never do that. The death penalty should only ever be meted out after the most sober consideration, careful examination of the evidence, and totality of the circumstances including the mental state of the alleged killer. What, does the right want to prove that they can be Bolsheviks and Jacobins too?
No, both parties are doing it, and speaking in smug legalease to prove it is a problem exclusively done on the other side.
True.
There is no defense to such a comment but after reviewing the post relating to the spreadsheet yesterday it seems that some people are allowed to keep their jobs while others are not. How is Kilmeade’s comment worthy of firing when a barber or politician is allowed to let the people choose? The same with Dowd.
I understand the concept of pulling people from the classroom so they don’t infect young minds with ideological dribble and hateful comments celebrating the death of another but adults are the ones watching these shows and pulling them off the cable channel that employs them is a form of censorship which is almost equally as fascist. If as Glenn points out ratings fall or complaints are made that is the “societal opprobrium” that can result in his termination.
People will make stupid off the cuff comments from time to time. I know I have. People offer all types of stupid ideas when discussing intractable problems. Homelessness and mental illness are two of many problems society has tried to solve without much success. We tried deinstitutionalization in the 80’s and we are now dealing with results of those policies. The difference between that stupid policy of deinstitutionalization and Kilmeade’s statement is that the former hides the potential outcome of dying an ignominious death in the gutter and the other stated it.
I have always found Kilmeade to be something of a sports aficionado who fancies himself as a deep thinker. I would bet others do as well. Comments like Kilmeade’s only get traction when they get repeated over and over again on social media. Maybe the problem we have is we are always trying to find fault with the other guy and are unwilling to forgive and forget.
What? He’s a pundit, talking head, news analyst (HA!) “influencer.” People actually pau attention to the idiot, Any company that employs him is presumed to find his contributions valid and benign? Are you kidding?
Someone half his age would recognize a statement like this as crazy.
Jack,
I disagree that he is a pundit. To me a Pundit is “an expert in a particular subject or field who is frequently called upon to give their opinions to the public.” He is not an analyst or anything other than a member of FOX morning coffee klatch.
Sure he is a talking head just like Glen Frey’s “bubble headed bleach blonde the comes on at 5” but if he is influencing anyone with such an idiotic statement or any of his other thought’s is questionable. I have never heard anyone state that Brian Kilmeade believes X. or Brian Kilmeade made a good point on Y. He is on that show because he is telegenic for a radio host and has a cherubic demeanor. He is no deep thinker.
Live TV is ripe for making a stupid comment that cannot be edited out. We all make stupid statements from time to time when we talk off the cuff. You have said so yourself. I am just willing to give people an opportunity to correct themselves. Firing Kilmeade or Whoppie, Joy, or Sonny for stupid stuff they say from time to time would lead to lower ratings overall. That is why they are given slack. They are there to make money for the network and not to educate let alone challenge the ideas of their faithful following. The problem is not with what they say it is with the viewership.
If we took everyone off the air that made idiotic or inflammatory statements no one would watch and no one would sell products on those programs. Fox and MSNOW give their audiences what they want not what they need so the issue is not what he said but what whets the appetites of Americans.
A better solution would have been one of the other talking heads say “are you nuts”. But because they are not pundits they both lack the mental acumen to deal with such idiocy quickly.
“How is Kilmeade’s comment worthy of firing when a barber or politician is allowed to let the people choose?”
First of all – worthy of firing? No, Kilmeade’s comment mandates firing, as Jack emphasized. A failure to fire Kilmeade (or if it had been Dowd) tells us all we need to know about that media outlet; tolerating a mind-set which can produce that kind of comment means they cannot be trusted, neither in their talk programs nor in their news programs.
With regard to that spreadsheet, I would disagree with who should and who should not be fired.
The same thing Kilmeade said, if spoken by a barber in the presence of customers, absolutely is grounds for firing (if I’m the owner of the barbershop). Sure, it’s different because barbershops can be a place for somewhat unfiltered talk, especially when it comes to politics, but some talk cannot be tolerated in a public accommodation. I disagree further with the comment that the 23 on the spreadsheet “should probably not be fired.” I say, “Maybe they should be fired.” But, first, I have to know what exactly they said, and what was the situation in which they said it, and what will be the impact on my clinic, business, restaurant, airline, or other facility.
With regard to politicians, there are limited ways to fire them, sometimes by recall, sometimes not until the next election, but, for that sort of comment, once it is known that they said it, they absolutely should be ‘fired’ at the earliest opportunity and by the voters.
Remember, these were social media comments. I agree 100% that an employee who said something like what Kilmeade said to a customer would have to be fired.
First off I find Kilmeade’s opinions across the board as more pedantic than didactic. Whether he stays or goes makes no real difference to me for the reason given because I do not rely on talking heads to form my own understanding of the world.
I know I am in the minority when I say that firing people who work in media for live, singular off the cuff thoughtless, callous, and even idiotic comment should not be fired. I believe that do so is merely a means to absolve the local -read network/audience – culture from taking any responsibility for not establishing clear lines of conduct. Dowd gets fired from MSNOW for going over the proverbial line that was often drawn with invisible ink. Some commentators get the pass while others get the boot. Either they all get the pass or they all get the boot for wrong think. If I were on board with firing him I would use the fact that he and most of the rest fail to use proper grammar 100% of the time.
Assuming he gets the boot. So Fox gets to virtue signal by immediately firing a talking head. How does that change anything. It only serves as a warning to others who will offer mere pabulum to avoid making an offensive remark on air. How exciting. In today’s world someone will be offended by just about anything. Who is next? I have already said that his co-hosts should have immediately called him on the carpet for that remark but they did not. That is the culture he works in. The same was true for Dowd.
Decorum would indicate that you don’t use foul language on the air but it occurs with such relative frequency and the channels use delays and bleeps to censor them. Nonetheless, the audience knows exactly what was bleeped and accepts it as reflective of their own behaviors so the language they use must be ok. If that is the influence they hold then alright fire them all and present nothing but C-Span. My perspective was shaped by the immortal words of Walt Kelly “We have met the enemy and it is us”. The first step in correcting behavior is to change the bad habits of ourselves; finding scapegoats just allows us to feel good that he got what he deserved just until it our turn to be pilloried.
Both you and Jack are missing my point. If what he said was so bad then the audience needs to turn it off and let the ratings drop. The audience is who should decide who they will tolerate. We have been going on and on about violent rhetoric that creates TDS and hate towards any supporters of Trump but no one is demanding that those “pundits” should be shown the door. A singular dumb ass comment is not signature significance to me. To get me there I have to see/hear a pattern of outrageous behavior.
Maybe when we are not looking to exert power over others by calling for their expulsion we might actually find ways to be civil. There are other ways to change behavioral mistakes short of termination.
How does that change anything.
It sets a standard that just as you can’t go on live TV and declare that women should be barefoot and pregnant and blacks don’t have the “necessities’ to hold management jobs, you can’t advocate killing those who are sick and poor becausee they are too much trouble. Seems pretty straightforward to me….
Oh you sweet summer child.
Those things get said by cabinet members every day.
it’s not mandatory to espouse those beliefs – yet. But the difference between the moderates and the conservatives is that the former wants opponents fired, the latter wants them shot.
Enjoy your new State of National Emergency.
Before you give up your day job to pursue a career in stand-up comedy, I would appreciate it if you proved that the mainstream American conservative position is to execute its opponents.
I take your point, Chris, and I sorta can see giving an audience what they want, but, I see that more as a business decision than an ethics decision. So far as I can tell, it took Kilmeade several days to get to an apology, but, if he meant it, then he knew he was wrong.
I might also take into account something I saw on this site not too long ago about granting some slack to contributors with a long history of insightful commentary. That consideration might well apply in the case of any valuable employee who makes an occasional mistake. I don’t know anything about Kilmeade except what I’ve read just recently, so, I’m not in the best position to decide, but I still think firing him is the right thing to do.
Yes, he should be fired. Everyone promoting violence should be fired. Society needs standards. Society needs a social contract. A nihilistic death cult has been allowed to run rampant for far too long through every corner of society in the west, and the social contract is gone.
You cannot say that it’s cool for the doctor operating on people, the politician leading or the retail worker making your change to promote violence. None of it is ok. None of what is going on is ok. It got this way by a 1000 cuts, until a large portion of the population no longer knows the difference between right and wrong anymore.
Unfortunately, unless a standard is set for everyone, then there is no standard. You cannot have one half of the political spectrum running around being allowed to do whatever they want and expect the other half not to follow suit. Should they ethically? Sure. Will they? No.
Just watch children. If you let one kid behave badly, what do the other kids do? They point at the kid behaving badly and say, well you let them do it! As long as the nihilistic death cult is allowed to run around being terrorists and destroying society, all of society is going to get destroyed. It won’t stop until it is stopped for everyone. That is why it is important to point at the problem and call it evil. The other kids aren’t going to play nice until the problem child is dealt with.
“Kilmeade’s comment was worst than Martin Bashir’s wish that Sarah Palin be forced to eat shit. It was far worse than what Matthew Dowd said about Charlie Kirk that made MSNBC can him last week.”
No.
Those statements were about actual people. Kilmeade’s statement appears to be about homeless people in general, not anyone specific (even though it arose in a conversation about a specific incident). His solution could easily be a topic in any basic ethics course when talking about the ethics of capital punishment or assisted suicide.
I will concede that his statement is stupid, astoundingly so. Even more stupid than “the mentally ill should be institutionalized like they used to be.
Or, pedophiles should be castrated.
We used to lock up the mentally ill. For their benefit, as well as ours, but maybe mostly ours. It is an offensive proposition, but it is a practice we have done recently.
There is a problem that societies have when there are people in the society that can’t function in it, for whatever reason. We have jails for them; in ancient times, they would be banished, but we can’t really do that anymore. For the mentally ill, they would be institutionalized, but we decided that was cruel (or just a violation of their right to freedom).
So, Jack, what is the solution for people that are so mentally ill that they would kill a stranger on a train? The criminal justice system is not fixing it.
What is the solution?
I repeat, what is the solution?
If you can offer one, I expect that I will be able to ridicule it as unrealistic or cruel.
I bet that no one has a good answer to the problem. At least, Kilmeade’s solution is as effective as it is stupid, so it has that going for it.
-Jut
That guy would have been in prison if the justice system prosecuted and locked up criminals, as it is supposed to. That should be easy.
easier said than done.
And, I am not sure that is even true. He has been in prison and has gotten out. It appears he “did his time” for the crimes he committed.
we have tried three strikes laws and those have their own abuses.
Are you proposing that he should have been locked up for life when his most serious offense appears to have been assault or armed robbery (which he appears to have served 5 years for the robbery)? That is probably an Eighth Amendment violation (but not as bad as Kilmeade’s solution).
It also appears that he was diagnosed with schizophrenia. That should have gotten an intervention, but we don’t do that anymore.
Trying to do the right thing (i.e. treating people the way they need to be treated in a holistic sense) gets complicated, particularly in a criminal justice system that tries to treat similar criminal defendants similarly.
-Jut
Habitual criminals who pass some reasonable set number of convictions and who show no signs of rehabilitation should be locked up for life. The fact the three-strike laws were botched doesn’t mean the principle isn’t sound or just.
At this point, he probably will be locked up for life.
So, the system works?
-Jut
I don’t have a perfect answer to this problem, but not letting people go when they have committed crimes, requiring cash bail (at a reasonable level, not requiring people to go into severe debt unless the crime truly is horrific -debatable what we call horrific), and if someone is a multiple time offender, perhaps locking them up for life, is a start.
In Colorado, we had this. https://www.9news.com/article/news/crime/colorado-man-charged-brighton-killing-pregnant-woman-criminal-record/73-43f92f41-b866-423b-baa8-0f68bfaa15a8
This man had more than three score previous encounters with the law. Why was he on the streets? People who offend a lot need to be held away from the rest of us. I’m not sure why asylums are necessarily the wrong option for some of these folks. I don’t believe that we should throw people in institutions without a decent reason, but multiple (61) arrests, 31 guilty pleas and nine (9!) felonies should have had this guy under wraps. I’m all for giving people a second chance after some correction. A tenth chance, however, is way past pushing it. This guy was probably crazy too. Why not, if his crimes don’t allow for prison time for life, lock him up in a mental institute, well before giving him a chance at a tenth felony (that turned in 24 counts).
Can you tell me why institutionalizing some of the mentally ill is such a bad solution?
Here’s your solution…
https://babylonbee.com/news/tough-on-crime-democrats-propose-100-strikes-and-youre-out-law
Brian Kilmeade and Matthew Dowd both exemplify the same problem, namely that televised news organizations like CNN, MSNBC and Fox thrive on outrage. Outrage attracts viewers, and more viewers mean more ad revenue, which is their business model. This means that these organizations hire presenters and invite guests who can generate that outrage on their shows. Facts, thorough analysis, and in depth interviews are too boring to attract many viewers and generate ad revenue.
The professional challenge for those organizations is that some presenters and guests cross a line that they were only suppose walk up to closely. Tucker Carlson went over the line.
I stopped watching the Fox morning shows years ago as the presenters Brian Kilmeade and Steve Doocy had a very high Beavis and Butthead level. These guys were overaged frat boys. They went over the line with Gretchen Carlson years ago, which is the reason why she left Fox News.
To use Jack’s term “Bingo”