ELEGY: A Fox News host obeyed a key rule!

MONDAY, JULY 29, 2024

"[Adult behavior] must die:" A funny thing happened to Sandra Smith, age 43, during a recent broadcast.

At present, Smith serves as co-anchor of America Reports, a Fox News Channel program. Each weekday, the program is broadcast from 1-3 p.m. Eastern. John Roberts is Smith's co-host.

That said, the recent broadcast to which we refer occurred on a Sunday afternoon. It occurred on Sunday, July 21, during the 4 o'clock hour—and as Smith performed a tribal duty, one analyst thought she heard an elegy, a "poem or song for the dead."

The incident to which we refer occurred at 4:14 p.m. This is the way it went down:

The way the event went down:

A few hours earlier, President Joseph R. Biden had announced that he was withdrawing as a candidate for re-election. In the process, he'd endorsed Vice President Harris for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

Soon thereafter, Harris had released a written statement declaring her intention to seek her party's nomination.

As this major news unfolded, Smith and Roberts were sent on the air to co-anchor a BREAKING NEWS broadcast. Brought on by a simple twist of fate, Smith's moment of truth soon arrived.

Zounds! It arrived when Smith—as noted, she's 43 years old—was asked to read part of the text of Harris' written statement.

Dear God! Through some giant miscalculation, Smith's producers had posted one actual part of that actual statement right there on the TV screen! Below, you can see the passage in question—the actual text from Harris' statement which Fox News viewers were now being shown.

In a flash, an awkward fact became clear. In her written statement, Vice President Harris had referred to her political party by its actual name!

Part of her statement was clearly visible. It sat right there on the screen! 

Smith would now be forced to read it. Here you see the excerpt in question, just as you can see it at this link:

As posted by Smith's producers:
“I am honored to have the president’s endorsement and my intention is to earn and win this nomination... I will do everything in my power to unite the Democratic Party—and unite our nation—to defeat Donald Trump."
             VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS

Oof! That excerpt from Harris' longer statement appeared right there on the screen! Now it fell to Sandra Smith to read what Harris had written.

This produced an obvious problem. Before we report what Smith did, let's take a look at the record:

Now for the rest of the story:

Sandra Smith has been working for Fox ever since 2007. 

She started at the Fox Business Network, at the time of that channel's launch. She's been co-hosting programs on the Fox News Channel since at least 2014.

As such, she knows the basic rules of the road. One of those rules says this:

If you want to work for Fox, you must never refer to Vice President Harris' party by its official and actual name.

Like everyone else at this "cable news" outfit, Smith knows that basic rule! You must never refer to the Democratic Party by its official and actual name! At a certain "cable news" outlet, it simply isn't done!

Smith had been placed in a difficult spot, but she knew what had to be done. And so, even with the text of Harris' statement sitting right there on the TV screen, this is what Sandra Smith said as she read Harris' statement:

SMITH (7/21/24): We have a statement from Vice President Kamala Harris she just put out:

“I am honored to have the president’s endorsement and my intention is to earn and win this nomination... I will do everything in my power to unite the Democrat Party [sic]—and unite our nation—to defeat Donald Trump."

Yes, that's what she said—even as the text of Harris' actual statement sat right there on the screen. To watch this childish behavior being performed, you can just click here.

No, it doesn't exactly matter—but we want to make sure that you understand the phenomenon we're describing. The relevant facts would be these:

A review of the relevant facts:

The name of the party to which Harris belongs is "The Democratic Party." There's no real question about that fact. To fact-check that claim, click here.

When Harris released her written statement, she said she was going to do everything in her power to unite the Democratic Party. Yes, that was the name she used—and no, it doesn't end there! 

When producers at the Fox News Channel posted part of her statement right there on the screen, they accurately transcribed what Harris had actually written! 

In fairness, that was an obvious mistake on their part. It saddled the aforementioned Smith with an unfortunate moment of truth.

Those were the actual facts of the case—and right there on their TV screens, Fox News viewers could see it! They could see what Vice President Harris had said—what she'd released in written form. They could see it right there on the screen:

 I will do everything in my power to unite the Democratic Party...

That's what Vice President Harris had said—and that's what it said on the screen! But Smith is employed by a propaganda machine, and she understood the childish rule of her employer's game.

Hillbilly elegy, one analyst said, adopting a mournful tone. Yes, she spoke a bit ironically—but we felt we knew what she meant.

Sacred Troy must die! That's what Hector of the shining helmet said to Andromache, his generous wife, way back at the dawn of the west.

Sacred Troy must die, he accurately prophesied. With people like Sandra Smith kicking around—with our finer thought leaders averting their gaze—could it be that our own nation's sacred culture has already been lost?

In fairness, it doesn't exactly matter that Smith quickly decided to do what she did. In fairness, it doesn't exactly matter—except that, on balance, it does!

We almost thought we heard an elegy—a poem for the dead. That's what we almost thought we heard.

Could it possibly be that our hearing is world-class and good?

Tomorrow: She subs on Fox & Friends


92 comments:

  1. Is the childish refusal to pronounce the Democratic Party properly (or Kamala Harris's name), important enough for anyone to focus upon (as opposed to averting our eyes, which no one has actually done while ignoring Republican childishness)?

    Republicans are weird, goofy goons who take nothing seriously, not even their own religion. Why expect them to respect names? And why make a fuss when they don't observe courtesies when their entire schtick is to be rude and break all sorts of rules?

    This is Somerby's way of writing about nothing, expressing no meaningful opinions, while pretending to be liberal but actually chiding the left and not the right.

    Is anything said by Fox part of anyone's "sacred culture" as Somerby claims? Of course not. Vance's elegy for hillbillys rightly implies they are dead and gone, because even the people in the Kentucky hills do not call themselves hillbillies any more, and Vance hasn't lived there since he was a child visiting his grandparents. So it is an elegy for nonexistent people. Just as Somerby pretends to lament the passing of a dignity Fox News has never displayed and no one on the left cares what they say.

    None of us are ancient Troy, not the left and not the right. Not even Somerby, whatever else he may be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This blog is a waste of time.

      Delete
    2. It is a waste of time for you, but not for me. Why do you keep reading?

      Delete
    3. Somerby writes a whole post “chiding the right,” but 8:55 reads it as “chiding the left and not the right.” I’m at a loss to understand how the American educational system can produce people whose reading skills are this impoverished.

      Delete
    4. Somerby’s coyness is infamous; one of the reasons why Republicans/right wingers mispronounce words related to Dems, is to troll, bait, and trigger them into a petty defensive fight in order to make Dems appear weak.

      8:55 does a good job attending this circumstance.

      Delete
    5. I see. When Somberly says “X,” I read him as saying “X,” but you read him as coyly saying “not X.” So you criticize him for what you imagine he’s saying coyly.

      Delete
    6. When Bob says X, he means Y.

      Delete
    7. It’s foolhardy to just take someone at face value, particularly someone like Somerby who has a long history of backhandedness.

      If you fell for Somerby’s con, don’t get mad at others because they didn’t fall for it.

      Delete
    8. So, I read Somerby as meaning what he says; you read him as meaning something else. That is why when Somerby writes a post "chiding the right," you read him as "chiding the left."

      To me, it's weird to read Somerby as saying the opposite of what he says.

      Delete
    9. It’s weirder to chide someone who is reasonably skeptical as having “impoverished” reading skills, especially coming from someone that appears to struggle with considering context.

      As 1:06 notes, if you are gullible and fell for Somerby’s con, more power to you, but perhaps humbly consider not crucifying others for your own sin.

      Delete
    10. Somerby does not have a "long history of backhandedness". Incessant twisting, misinterpretation, and refusal to understand by the likes of various Anonymi, who post here, has a long history. This blog is about the media twisting and misinterpreting various factoids to fit their narrative is what this blog is about. I don't always agree with Bob, but I certainly know what he's talking about.
      Take this example at face value; it's quite simple.

      Delete
    11. To most readers here, Somerby indeed does have that history of coyness and backhandedness.

      Furthermore, Somerby is widely perceived as having turned his back on his original theme of calling out corporate media for being little more than stenographers for the Republican Party.

      If one wants to unwisely and naively read Somerby as playing it straight, so be it, but the defense of Somerby here is weak and not credible.

      Delete
    12. 2:24 agree.

      The smattering of TDH defenders here are not necessarily bad people, but they do appear to be suffering from the disease of being excessively literal. This is giving them the benefit of doubt, because it is also possible, perhaps probable, they are being willfully ignorant in a disingenuous defense of their “hero”.

      Delete
    13. 2:35,

      The sprinkling of TDH opponents here are not necessarily bad people, but they do appear to be insufficiently literal.

      It is also possible, perhaps probable, maybe even likely or presumptive or near certain, that they are being willfully moronic in a disingenuous attack on their 'villain'.

      Delete
    14. 2:01 - I'm not a gullible victim of Somerby's con. I read and evaluate what he says. I find it valuable, so I keep reading.

      You don't find it valuable; you believe Somerby is coyly deceiving gullible liberals; yet you continue to read him, because you enjoy insulting him in comments. That strikes me as odd behavior.

      Delete
    15. I’m in on the con.

      Delete
    16. The idea that Somerby is somehow a shill for the right-wingers is risible. It's not that we are too "literal"; it's more that we understand whence Bob is coming from. It isn't that complicated. Jumping on small meaningless factoids and twisting them to fit their narrative is the hallmark of our corporate media, which comes at the expense of accurately covering substantive policy stories.
      Ironically, it's the plethora of anonymous detractors here who suffer from linear thinking and tribal ideology, which dictates that only one tribe can make inaccurate, bizarre statements.

      Delete
    17. Longtime reader, going to have to agree.

      Somerby has been shredded for his right wing worldview and hiding behind his plausible deniability efforts for some time.

      Somerby’s defenders are perfectly fine with implication and context when it comes to their attacks on others, but suddenly with Somerby they want to accept everything at face value.

      They insist it’s everyone else but them that misunderstand Somerby; they are clowns.

      Delete
    18. "Somerby’s defenders are perfectly fine with implication and context when it comes to their attacks on others, but suddenly with Somerby they want to accept everything at face value."

      The general rule, with any writer, is to take them at face value unless there's a persuasive reason not to.

      What we get from the Somerby haters are a) sweeping statements of his guilt without specifics, b) the occasional kooky theory that he's being funded by a right-wing billionaire, c) evidence-free assertions that he's writing about subject A to detract attention from subject B, and d) the pseudo-psychologist's assertion that if we defend Bob it's because he's our 'hero'.

      A whole bunch of nothing is still nothing. That all you got?

      Delete
    19. That is not the general rule, you just made that up, but maybe you really did think that Trump was going to come out with an amazing healthcare plan in two weeks.

      Your low level of thinking has led you to laughably adopt the challenge to your nonsense as an identity, as if that ameliorates it in some way, and that is all you have got, other than “oh yeah, well that’s just your opinion, man”.

      Sorry but you are still a clown, if that is triggering, find a way to cope.

      Delete
    20. 9:29 I am a Nigerian Prince who recently inherited a sizable bridge in a large American city, the name escapes me at the moment. As I already own too many bridges, I would be happy to gift you this one, but first I’ll need access to all your bank accounts in order to process the transfer, then after I will return your accounts fully intact, honest.

      Delete
    21. Your Trump health care example fits quite nicely within the general rule I cited, since we have very persuasive reasons for not taking anything Trump says at face value.

      The rest of your post is the usual talentless insults. 'Low level of thinking'? Is that your A game?

      Delete
    22. Your general rule is made up and dumb; however, we do have persuasive reasons not to take Somerby at face value. If you remain conned, that’s on you. Why are you so mad bro?

      Delete
    23. 10:05 Somerby fanboys get angry when their misguided views are challenged because it causes them emotional discomfort that is only soothed by lashing out.

      Delete
    24. I don’t find these TDH defenders persuasive, but I do find their tone quite intimidating.

      Delete
    25. Ok snowflake, I’d guide to the feinting couch, but it and Vance are having a moment right now.

      Delete
    26. I thought everyone knew it is not anger a clown hides inside, but sadness.

      Delete
    27. Clowning leads to sadness, sadness leads to anger, anger leads to dumb comments from clowns that got conned by Somerby.

      Delete
    28. Why you so mad, bro?

      Delete
    29. Unfortunately, I haven’t found one of those secret decoder rings in my cereal box that tells us what Somerby really means when he writes what he writes. So I’m stuck thinking he writes what he means.

      Delete
    30. PP,
      I thought you were Somerby's secret decoder ring, explaining to us that Bob's Right-wing grievances aren't what we think they are.

      Delete
  2. The fair thing would be to refer to Donald Trump as Convicted Felon Trump.This is a fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump himself has noted that the race is now between a prosecutor and a convicted felon. Kamala even used Trump’s quote in an ad already.

      Delete
    2. Awaiting sentencing, out on bail in four jurisdictions, fined $2M for defrauding charites, fined $25M for defrauding vets at Trump U. Fined $ 100M for sexual assualt and adjudicated rape, fined $500M for defrauding NY State. He's our kind of guy, fighting for the average Joe. Weirdos.

      Delete
    3. some version of the above should be posted in every comments section every day until the election. this moment in u.s. history is simply surreal

      Delete
  3. There are important and interesting aspects of stories other than our election. Unfortunately Bob, and many others, prefer to discuss uninteresting aspects of the election.

    BYW, like Bob, I find the Republican practice of using the name “Democrat Party” stupid and childish.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DiC - I think it’s more than stupid and childish - it’s systematic and co-ordinated. It’s meant to display contempt. And from Trump on down, and backstopped by Fox, Republicans all over the country sneer this to insult their fellow citizens.

      Delete
    2. It’s saying, “You don’t even have the power to name yourself. We’ll give you whatever snotty name we want to call you.”

      Delete
    3. This is a media blog, David. This is what Bob writes about: various ways media personality want to put their thumb on the scale. This is a small, yet revealing example.

      Delete
    4. Bob today is engaging with a well known tactic of Republicans, thus giving it oxygen.

      David on Cal gets it right.

      Delete
    5. Screw Rebubs like DIC.

      Delete
    6. Bob "forgot" to mention the media's biggest sin in the past 5 years.
      The time when Clarence Thomas explained that "someone" told him he didn't have to report all the gifts (bribes) he receives for being on the Supreme Court, and not one member of the media asked Thomas the identity of that someone.
      No mention from Bob of the media blowing such an easy lay-up.

      Delete
    7. You put 'forfot' in quotes, implying he didn't really 'forget'. You must know something the rest of us don't. You must be so proud.

      Delete
    8. After all this time, you can't see that Bob puts his thumb on the scale?
      That's nothing to be proud of.

      Delete
  4. Trump, who took what increasingly seems like a piece of shrapnel to the tip of his ear (fully healed in under 2 weeks) for “democracy”, has pulled out of debating Kamala, similar to how Elon Musk has pulled out of the $45 million pledge, but Trump did not pull out of 13yo Katie Johnson while raping her and instead threw money at her and told her to get an abortion if he wound up impregnating her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Trump was struck by a piece of shrapnel, then what did the bullet hit first that created the shrapnel?

      Delete
    2. The same thing it hit when shrapnel also injured the four policemen that were near Trump at that moment.

      Delete
    3. At least Musk let’s you short sell his stock as it tanks.

      Delete
    4. Maybe it was a teleprompter.

      Delete
    5. This runs counter to the information that the shooter had a clear line of sight on Trump when he fired.

      And if something else was struck first, then where is it to confirm that shrapnel from it actually struck Trump?

      Delete
    6. Maybe he saw Trump through the teleprompter.

      Delete
    7. Don't you think we shouldn't have to be asking these questions more than two weeks after the event? I sure as shit do.

      Anybody know of a blog that claims to "muse" on the mainstream press?

      Any besides Seth Abramson wondering why the trump campaign immediately put out a Memo to all campaign staff threatening to terminate immediately anyone talking to the press about the event?

      Delete
    8. 12:48 the shooter, a White male Republican that had Trump signs in his lawn, was rushed by an approaching cop, and wound up killing a bystander. Among the others that were injured were four policemen in proximity to Trump that were hit by shrapnel - glass, metal, and plastic.

      Trump refuses to release his medical records, likely because they would point to his remarkably minor injury having the same cause as those policemen around him.

      Delete
    9. Teleprompters were intact according to the head of the FBI, who was appointed by Trump. The same FBI who were just partially defunded by white collar crime loving Republicans. Believe a bullet hit a metal post sending fragments. But this is from the Don's own deep state mouthpiece so who you gonna believe, weirdos?

      Delete
  5. Trump will cut funding to schools that mandate vaccines.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't know one straight male of any age that is voting for the Democrat nominee and I work in an industry where you'd expect a few.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m a straight white male. I intend to vote for Kamala.

      Delete
    2. To be fair, most humans likely fall on a spectrum of bisexuality.

      As a straight male American Republican that voted for Trump twice, I am excited to vote for a Democrat for the first time. Trump’s corruption had just gone too far.

      Delete
    3. 12:32 be honest, you would blow Trump in a heartbeat if you could find his tiny penis among the folds of fat, and withstand the Trump Stench emanating from his rotting body.

      Delete
    4. Pleased to meet you, Anon 12:32. I am just that person you have been unable to find.

      Delete
    5. "I don't know one straight male of any age that is voting for the Democrat nominee and I work in an industry where you'd expect a few."

      Sounds like someone's heading for the Capitol on J6, 2025!

      Delete
    6. In reality, the RNC convention crashed a gay dating app, due to sudden overuse by the Republican attendees.

      Sorry, but Republicans are no longer bothering with the wide stance excuse.

      Delete
    7. Obama and Buchanan are the only gay presidents. Lincoln was bisexual.

      Delete
    8. Where’s Waldo has been replaced by Where’s Trump’s Tiny Penis.

      And don’t ask Melania, she hasn’t a clue, and she doesn’t really care.

      Delete
    9. I wish I could think of something clever to add to this thread, but I can't.

      Delete
  7. We live in a time of massive inequality, rivaling the time preceding the Great Depression, yet according to a survey only 22% of Trump voters think wealth inequality is a very big problem compared with 77% of Dem voters.

    The fix for that earlier time of inequality was the New Deal which spurred one of the greatest expansions of rights, equality, and prosperity in human history.

    However, right wingers, retooling the Republican Party, got to work busily tearing down that expansion, and after Reagan, and Bush, and Trump we were nearly back to where we started. Although Biden has made significant inroads in reversing that trend, he is the first Dem in a while to make a full throated effort.

    Somerby nibbles away at trivialities, meant to distract from the core issues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @1:01 - inequality is less important than food, shelter, clothing, etc. Would you be happy if some people starve as long as everyone starves?

      Delete
    2. I would be happy if everyone prospers, so I’m voting for Kamala.

      Delete
    3. David in Cal,
      Women are being treated as 2nd class citizens by the Republican Party. Isn't that much more important than food, clothing, shelter, etc.
      Asking for 75 million reliable Republican voters.

      Delete
    4. DIC, humans are innately egalitarian, under that principle no one starves.

      Inequality refers to a few hoarding most of the material wealth so that the rest of us starve or have to resort to some type of slavery to keep from starving. Studies show that inequality matters more than absolute poverty.

      Republicans since 1981 have overseen an amazing transfer of wealth, $50 trillion dollars have been redistributed from the 99% to the 1%, a complete repudiation of the original principles of the Republican Party.

      They ruined the great society the New Deal gave birth to, but their time is going to come, they will get their comeuppance.

      Delete
    5. "Somerby nibbles away at trivialities, meant to distract from the core issues."

      Was that the stupidest thing you could think to type? Dig deeper!

      Delete
    6. 9:02 as you are the Pope of Stupid, your comment is as expected.

      Delete
    7. Nevermind, 9:02’s comment was deleted.

      Delete
  8. Cecelia and David will vote for Kamala.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Members of the party call themselves Democrats. But if you call the party “Democrat party” it’s an insult. I never understood why it is so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because it sounds hillbillyish.

      Delete
    2. Republicans call themselves small-government, but if you point out they want the government to make reproductive decisions for all women, they cry that Democrats are "totalitarian". I never understood why it is so.

      Delete
    3. Because you do not understand how the English language works is not on us.

      Delete
    4. Yes because we are the Democratics in the Democratic Party makes more sense than we are the Democrats in the Democratic Party.

      Delete
    5. I’m a Democratian.

      Delete
    6. 2:55 we are not insulted, it’s a misguided attempt at trolling by Repubs, who project their own snowflake sensitivities onto Dems.

      Delete
  10. It's so ironic that members of the now-deceased Republican Party refuse to use the correct name of the Democratic Party.

    The Democratic Party still exists. The Republican Party has been replaced with the Trump Party.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If most Republicans want Trump at the head of the ticket, despite the neocon old guard leadership and politicians, isn’t that the essence of a democratic party in the way that the DNC has not been?

      Delete
    2. Most Democrats want Harris.

      Delete
    3. Most Democrats wanted Biden, who they had elected.

      Delete
    4. Most Democrats, when they saw how much Biden had deteriorated, wanted him off the ticket. That's why he's not on, and that is democracy in action.

      Delete
    5. Anonymouse 8:22pm, that certainly wasn’t the case here, but anonymices are outliers.

      Delete
    6. Turnout was low at the Republican primaries, and Trump was getting only 80% at many, even though he was mostly unopposed.

      Trump’s party has been working to rig the electoral process, as their policies are unpopular, they have to resort to voter suppression, gerrymandering, kicking people off voter rolls, brainwashing through Nazi style rallies and bad faith advertising, etc.

      Trump’s party is the least democratic electoral organization in modern history.

      Delete
    7. Cecilia,

      I'm not going by my subjective impressions of anonymeece. I'm going by what the polls said.

      Delete
    8. Anonymouse 8:58pm, it’s interesting that before Biden was forced out, all we heard around here from anonymices was that fat cat pols, billionaire donors, and people on Putin’s payroll (Bob…) wanted him out.

      Delete
    9. Cecelia,
      The media's obsession with not mentioning the age of Presidential candidates since a week ago Sunday, is distracting us.

      Delete