“For Fox executives only, take Jessica Tarlov off the air. She is, from her voice, to her lies, and everything else about her, one of the worst ‘personalities’ on television, a real loser! People cannot stand watching her.”
….quoth the President in a Truth Social post two days ago. Tarlov is one of the rotating progressive Democrat co-hosts on Fox News’ talk show “The Five” and routinely does what she was hired to do, which is to be the house contrarian on a biased news channel, like Scott Jennings on CNN.
It’s a lonely and crummy job, but somebody’s got to do it. Jennings does it much better, but 1) he’s smart, articulate, and usually has the right side to defend, 2) the wokies and Axis agents on the panels with him are hardly the best and the brightest, and 3) Tarlov isn’t the worst of Fox’s hired Lefties, and I’d rank her as better than Juan Williams, the thankfully departed long-time holder of that role on Fox. Faint praise, I know.
But Ethics Alarms correctly slammed the Biden White House when it dishonestly attacked Greg Gutfield of “The Five” in 2023, so I shouldn’t use The Julie Principle to give President Trump a pass now. Presidents should only carefully criticize journalists and pundits by name if at all, and Trump doesn’t do anything carefully. It is punching down by definition; it looks petty, it makes him look thin-skinned and weak, and worst of all, it hands his principle-free and shameless critics an opportunity to say he’s pro-censorship.
This has been true for years, and yet Trump has a flat learning curve. It’s like a man who keeps smashing his head against a wall without figuring out that it’s not a good idea.
The Tarlov nonsense is even worse that that, in fact. After Trump has “demanded” (he can’t demand, because its none of his business) that Fox fire someone like Tarlov, he’s given that individual immunity from getting dismissed no matter what she does. Fox News has to keep Tarlov or look like Trump is running the network. Fox News is too much of a Trump and MAGA lackey already.
Ethics Alarms 
The PRESIDENT of the United States HAS EVERY RIGHT to threaten journalists and media outlets since they have PROVEN themselves to be an ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE! Any thoughts to the contrary are just moronic TDS. We have to FIGHT and SUBDUE our enemies.
They are enemies of the people, a functioning democracy, and civic literacy. And the President has a right to insult, criticize and denigrate them up to the point where he chills free speech. It’s still unethical to do so with individually named “journalists.” I hope that clarifies things for you.
Ay Dio Santo i Alovado …
(That was pure Ladino BTW. A direct attack against Ashkenazic hegemony in popular American speech. Oy veh ist mir just will no longer cut it…)
Ten years ago this month, you noted that Trump was a threat to democracy (and thus an enemy of the people). Subsequent rationalizations led to the conclusions, which I did not share, that his ultimate opponents in the presidential contest would be worse. Perhaps so; we cannot know. What we do know is that 10 years later Trump has not changed, he still is an enemy of democracy.
To reiterate what was said back then, ‘God help us’.
This comment ticks me off, and if you were a recent addition to the commentariate, I’d suspend you for it:
1. Using a past quote taken out of context to challenge me is cheap shot EA practice. I spent over an hour trying to find what post you were taking about and failed, undoubtedly because I misread you to say ONE year ago, giving you too much credit, I guess, since pulling a quote from 2016 is dishonest, dumb, and useless.
2. When I reference a prior post, I almost always link to it so everyone can read the context. Using an alleged past post to suggest that I am hypocritical and not referencing it by title and date at least is unethical, and in fact meets the legal definition of defamation: stating as a fact that someone has behaved wrongly without letting readers or listeners know what the authority for that statement is.
3. I have frequently referred to my posts in 2015 -2016 rejecting Trump as a qualified candidate for President. He was not a qualified President at that time. Since his election in 2016, he has not only exceeded my expectations, but is, as I find that I wrote a YEAR ago last April, arguably the sole bulwark we have against the single-party, totalitarian, socialist, oppressive rot the modern left would inflict on us. I have never referred to Trump as an “enemy of the people” or anything similar since he became President, and those ten years of experience are obviously relevant and substantial. My analysis in 2016 and before regarding Trump was fair and justified based on what we knew then. Citing that to discredit me (or Trump) in 2026 is desperate, unethical and stupid. The number of Presidents who many esteemed observers dismissed as hopelessly unfit for the job BEFORE THEY BECAME PRESIDENT includes Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan.
4. I know it’s hard being proved so consistently wrong of late, HJ, but most of us here have learned to accept those streaks without throwing tantrums or misrepresenting the positions of others. You can do it. I have faith in you.
5. Bite me.
Notice: “Jude” is banned.
Lesson to me: I let his first post out of moderation despite being infantile “it is pretty embarrassing what the Times did.” Then two snarky, non-subtantive posts followed I’ll have to be more exacting in the future.
Remember: Don’t respond to the inevitable garbage almost all banned commenters resort to post banning. I’ll spam it as soon as it pops up.
1: The context I was addressing was “enemy of the people”. Some members of the press fit that expression, and the label may appropriately be applied to those individuals, but, not to the press in general.
2. I apologize that using the month, year, and content of a reference wasn’t sufficient. I apologize further that I have not mastered the technique of inserting a link into a comment here.
3. A president who orders, or at least tolerates, weaponization of the Justice Department, abuses the pardon authority, ignores or slow-walks court orders, threatens to jail reporters, uses ICE selectively and brutally to stand up to political foes, dispenses with due process and uses racial profiling in order to boost alien detentions (shades of those Vietnam body counts) as a measure of success while proclaiming to be focused on criminal aliens, and more, is an enemy of democracy. For me, at least, in the United States, an enemy of democracy is the same as an enemy of the people. Trump has some positive accomplishments in both of his administrations, but, for me, they do not outweigh the harm he has done and is doing. My assessment from 2015 as to his fitness to be president has not changed.
4. I may have misstatated the situation by using the term “rationalizations”; “reasonings” may have been more apt. Tantrum? I’ll have to think more about that one.
5. Really? My initial thought was that a concluding remark like that makes foregoing parts of the comment worthless. I acted against my instincts this time.
1. You have it exactly backward. The Founders assumed that journalism was essential for democracy to function. That meant accurate, honest, objective journalism so the public could know enough to vote intelligently, among other civic duties. The entire journalism “profession” now does not do this, and is not trustworthy, not honest, nor objective, nor competent, despite its duty to democracy. Moreover, it has deliberately evolved in that direction. An exception here and there is irrelevant. Now journalism is actively undermining a functional democracy, and in the case of the Axis, that is intentional as well….See: efforts since 2016 to obstruct the Presidency of an elected President. In short, you’re dead wrong on this point. The best I can grant you is denial.
2. Snarky response, and you know it. I average about 3.5 posts a day in a given month. Do the math. “Content,” if it is not reduced to a key word, is not much more help. Would the post title be too much to ask? That is helpful.
3. A president who orders, or at least tolerates, weaponization of the Justice Department: Most Presidents since at least 1973 have used the Justice Dept as a political tool when they felt like it with Biden and Obama being particular offenders. Pretending that Trump is unique in this respect is selective blindness. abuses the pardon authority Read the texts. The President can’t abuse it unless he takes bribes, (like Clinton) or gives prosepctive bribes (like Biden). Ignores or slow-walks court orders, Political and partisan judicial rulings should be
“slow walked” until they can be over-turned. Again, you are endorsing a unique anti-democratic strategy by the Left.. threatens to jail reporters, He has never threatened to jail any reports in words that would qualify as a “true threat.” He can’t and reporters who aren’t ignorant know he can’t. uses ICE selectively and brutally to stand up to political foes, I don’t even know what this means. I.C.E. is authorized to arrest and deport illegal aliens. Following the law is “standing up” to those who want to defy our laws. Good. dispenses with due process Yup. And in extreme situations, as with entrenched Federal bloat, that’s a necessary move…that many, many Presidents have adopted. and uses racial profiling in order to boost alien detentionsThe Supreme Court disagrees. So do I. (shades of those Vietnam body counts) as a measure of success while proclaiming to be focused on criminal aliens, So what? Are you really arguing that illegal immigrants get to stay forever if they aren’t caught breaking the law? I bet you are. Well, it’s an untenable, foolish position.
4 My assessment from 2015 as to his fitness to be president has not changed. Which means an abundance of substantive evidence that your assessment, while fair at the time, no longer makes sense and that you are insisting that your mind is made up in defiance of new information. Too bad.
5. Yes, really. Yours was an obnoxious and unfair comment disrespectfully delivered. EA uses that expression as a nicer variation of “Go fuck yourself. You’re being a jerk.” I, on the other hand, have the privilege of being a jerk here, since I’m the one doing the work.
Understood. Especially your final comment.
From your host! LET ME REITERATE: Jude is banned. He, she or it has kept sending in comments like I was kidding the first time. I wasn’t, and his post-banning comments have been only slightly better than the one that got him kicked out.
Again, don’t reply to any new Jude comments. Your work will disappear with his, and it just encourages these people…
Peak Poe’s Law here. I read this as a sarcastic parody of how the President would respond to Jack’s post. All it was missing was “THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.”
Yeah I saw it as a parody of a Trump post as well and had a good laugh. If I misread it, well . . . I misread it.
–Dwayne
I read it as more typical HJ sarcasm, but it doesn’t matter, though if one is going to indulge in satire, you’d should be better at it.
[I]f the lone progressive voice on “The Five” starts agreeing with the conservatives, what use is she?
What a curious question. So, television conservatives and liberals aren’t really thinking, analytical people? They’re just playing a part in a scripted show. Jesus H. Christ. No wonder television news has devolved into a shit show. It’s just like professional wrestling!
I disagree here. The only reason why conservatives still pay attention to CNN is to listen to how Scott Jennings sets a liberal straight. It is a good business decision of any TV show with panel discussions to have people on it with different views, the back and forth between the panelist is what makes the panel interesting to the public. Being exposed to opposing views in a panel also has a civic value. One function of the debate is to bring us closer to the truth. Having a TV network with panelist who all agree with each other, and were the panelists are trying to exceed each other in either leftism or conservatism creates echo chambers.
Jessica Tarlov at Fox News fulfills a similar function as Scott Jennings at CNN. The problem is that she is too cerebral and lacks wit, and gets often overshadowed by Greg Gutfield and Jesse Watters. That makes her the liberal foil or punching bag at Fox News panels.
i thought this was going to be a post about his other where he threatened to wipe out an entire civilization…or said FUCKIN
I guess those didn’t raise any ethics alarms for you?
Warning #1: That is not how you ask a question here. Shape up or ship out.
Also, I wrote a post earlier this week about the referenced comment. Do your homework before you start throwing around implied accusations.
ALSO: I have addressed the use of vulgarity by the President and his political adversaries many times, as well as the use of fuck and its variations. Try to keep up.
Do better, or keep quiet. And read the comment policies, since you obviously haven’t.
Journalism is supposed to be an objective process. Today, most seem to have graduated from the William Randolph Hearst school of yellow journalism. If they want to be writing editorials there is a page for that.
Tarlov and others on the five are not journalists so Trump should understand her role. I do agree her voice grates on my ears so from that perspective I turn her off but Fox execs probably know her voice is irritating so it help reinforce the viewers negative of her opinions.
I think the problem is that “journalists” have been able to have their cake and eat it too.
Their profession has a history of thinking that they’re special, but not acting like it. They look down the bridges of their noses at people with cell phones and a YouTube channels, pretending that something they’ve done or learned makes them a higher class of professional, when in reality, despite almost unthinkable amounts of resources, they still manage to constantly shit the bed.
The problem is that “journalists” don’t have professional associations like other professions do. If a lawyer fucks up, or a doctor, or an accountant, their managing organizations have recourse…. If a journalist fucks up, they show up to work the next day. This lack of accountability coupled with perverse economic incentive structures and equally perverse political structures naturally leads to the point where we are: It’s not the cream that rises.
Well-stated Humble. Exactly right. Teachers, the other ethically corrupted profession, also do not have a policing or regulating organization except to serve as a bar to entry.
It’s all down to accountability.
Do you have a governing body, or do you have a union? Do you have something that holds you to a standard, or do you have something that enables you to break them?
(He is) arguably the sole bulwark we have against the single-party, totalitarian, socialist, oppressive rot the modern left would inflict on us.
My view of Trump’s policies:
Summation: to all appearances what has recently been put in motion will not succeed. It will backfire. Saying that is not a wish that this happens. It is simply a statement of likelihood. Things could have and should have been conducted differently right from the start. Core defect? Belligerency.
Synonyms: belligerent, bellicose, pugnacious, combative
Lessons to modern Machiavellians: Do not broadcast that you are acting through Machiavellian principles. Be bellicose, but be ultra-crafty. The “goal” must be defined, and then both the tactical and the strategic route to get to it.
”I can add colors to the chameleon,
Change shapes with Proteus for advantages
And set the murderous Machiavel to school.
Can I do this, and cannot get a crown?
Tut! were it further off, I’ll pluck it down.”