FRIDAY: A grim situation seems to obtain!

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2025

Commander shouts and fumes: Is it possible that Vladimir Putin is getting tired of all the winning?

We start with the pair of headlines which have just appeared atop the front page of the online New York Times:

Trump-Zelensky Meeting Turns Into a Shouting Match

'You Either Make a Deal or We Are Out,' Trump Tells Ukrainian Leader

Those are not good headlines. 

The dual headline shown below also doesn't seem good. Online, it sits atop a report which appeared in this morning's print editions:

Trump Says Canada and Mexico Tariffs Will Go Into Effect Next Week
The president also said he would impose an additional 10 percent tariff on China as he tries to force other countries to take more action on drug shipments.

Question! Should we all apologize and tell the commander that it actually is the Gulf of America? That it has been all along?

At this point, we turn to a second question: Is it possible that something is "wrong" with President Trump? 

We know! Mainstream journalists have persistently agreed that they must never wonder or ask. 

Still, as that question floats in the air, we return to some of the unusual things Trump said at Wednesday's cabinet meeting. In this morning's report, we posted one part of this chunk:

REPORTER (2/27/28: Mr. President, have you just made a decision on what level you'll seek on tariffs in the European Union?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: We have made a decision. We'll be announcing it very soon, and it'll be 25%, generally speaking, and that'll be on cars and all of the things. And European Union is a different case than Canada, different kind of case. They've really taken advantage of us in a different way...

Now, I love the countries of Europe. I guess I'm from there at some point a long time ago, right? But indirectly—pretty directly too, I guess. But I love the countries of Europe. I love all countries, frankly, all different. 

But the European Union's been—it was formed in order to screw the United States. I mean, look, let's be honest. The European Union was formed in order to screw the United States. That's the purpose of it. And they've done a good job of it. But now I'm president.

REPORTER: What will happen if these countries or the EU retaliate?

TRUMP: They can't. I mean, they can try...They can try, but the numbers can never equal what ours, because we could go off. We are the pot of gold, we're the one that everybody wants. And they can retaliate, but it cannot be a successful retaliation because we just go cold turkey, we don't buy anymore. And if that happens, we win.

If the Euros try that, we get the win! For now, could it be Putin who's winning?

"The European Union was formed to screw the United States?" As far as we know, you shouldn't assume that any of the statistical claims in that full presentation are accurate. But that assessment of the EU's foundational purpose doesn't sound like a very good sign.

The cabinet meeting crawled with factual claims by President Trump which have been debunked a million times. That doesn't seem like a very good sign—and journalists are still failing to treat this relentless trafficking of widely discounted factual claims as a stand-along point of concern which ought to rate stand-alone coverage on a daily basis.

Then too, there's what we saw Tim Miller say on yesterday's Deadline: White House. 

We've never seen anyone refer to the possibility that Musk may be exhibiting some sort of problem with drugs, but that's a possibility to which Miller alluded.

We have no idea if that speculation is accurate. On the other hand, we have no way of knowing it isn't.

Long ago, Dr. Bandy X. Lee, the Yale psychiatrist, said this was going to happen. In an assortment of ways, she was eventually shown the door.

She wasn't allowed to raise such concerns. As for ourselves, we continue to recommend pity and concern for people who may somehow be afflicted. That said, is it possible that Dr. Lee possibly got it right way back when this spiral began?


CHARADES: Variety calls Gutfeld! "an alternate universe!"

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2025

Top org (almost) gets it right: As we've noted, Gutfeld! isn't a late night show. It also isn't a comedy show.

Technically, Gutfeld! is a (mainly) primetime show. It actually airs before prime time all up and down the west coast. 

Gutfeld! is also a show which appears on the nation's most-watched "cable news" channel. But no, it isn't a news show. At its fairly obvious heart, Gutfeld! is a corporate propaganda show. 

It's an astoundingly stupid propaganda show which hides behind comedy elements.

In fairness, who know? Variety's Tatiana Siegel may not be hugely familiar with the Gutfeld! program. That may explain how she (or her editor) could have come up with this ludicrous thumbnail account of what the program does

How Greg Gutfeld Became the Bill Maher of Fox News—And Toppled Fallon and Colbert in the Ratings

[...]

Gutfeld differs significantly from the [late night network comedy] field in tone...“Gutfeld!” is a closer match to Bill Maher’s old ABC show “Politically Incorrect,” with co-hosts Kat Timpf and Tyrus helping to anchor conversations that frequently rib the obese, the easily triggered and the hosts of “The View.”

Belated full disclosure! We ourselves made six award-winning appearances on Maher's original show. We have our collection of (free-of-charge) Politically Incorrect caps to establish our role as a founding commentator.

That said, Siegel's account of what occurs on Gutfeld! comes straight outta Fantasyland. 

Timpf and Tyrus have indeed been regular co-hosts on the program. That said, do the program's (pseudo) conversations "rib the obese, the easily triggered and the hosts of The View?"

That statement was crafted in LaLa Land. Consider the first "conversation" which occurred on last night's Gutfeld! 

As always, the evening's charade began with the selection of panelists. Timpf has been away on maternity leave. Tyrus, the former professional "wrestler," has merely been away, apparently on his current comedy tour.

Normally, Timpf and Tyrus fill two of the four panelist chairs. Last night, believe it or not, this was the panelist lineup:

Gutfeld! panelists, 2/27/25
Andrew Gruel: American chef and television personality
Charly Arnolt: Sports broadcaster and television personality for OutKick
Kennedy: Libertarian political commentator [and] radio personality
George Santos:  Former politician and convicted felon

We're offering the thumbnail descriptions penned by the leading authority. And yes, it was actually that George Santos who sat on the panel last night.

The program had assembled three "personalities" and one felon—one expelled former member of Congress. They'd be asked to offer their "takes" on the evening's selection of topics. 

Needless to say, all four would agree with every word the program's host tossed out.

It didn't take long to get to the nightly "ribbing!" At 10:04 p.m., to cite one example, one early bit of "ribbing" was directed at "the skin stretched across Nancy Pelosi's face." 

That came at the very start of the host's nightly issue-based monologue. In his opening two or three minutes, he had already offered a string of jokes about the way women suffer from cramps. They also take too long to get ready to leave the house and they travel with too much luggage.

From there, the host proceeded to a joke about another standard topic—about the way Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who's way too fat, completely stinks up adjoining rooms when he uses the bathroom. 

As the host continued, he ribbed Bill Clinton for having "ruined Monica Lewinsky's best interview dress."  He ribbed Kris Jenner because of the fact that her former husband now goes by the first name of Kaitlan. 

Mercifully, at 10:03 Eastern, his brief string of opening jokes ended with this:

GUTFELD (2/27/25): According to the Daily Mail, JFK had a secret gay lover.

Big deal! So did Michelle Obama! 

[PHOTO OF MICHELLE OBAMA]

AUDIENCE: APPLAUSE

GUTFELD: If one of those doesn't get me fired, I'm safe!

Was that final joke supposed to imply that Barack Obama is gay?

On its face, the meaning of the joke wasn't clear. More often, Gutfeld likes to offer jokes based on the premise that Michelle Obama is actually a man.

This happens on a nightly basis as the Fox News Channel opens the can at 10 p.m. (That's 7 p.m. on the coast.) According to Siegel (or perhaps according to her editor), Greg Gutfeld is simply "ribbing the obese and the easily triggered" when he cranks out this nightly fare.

Last night, it was what happened during his subsequent 'issue monologue" which defined the evening's disorder. President Trump had made some strange remarks during Wednesday's cabinet meeting. We refer to such unusual statements as these:

PRESIDENT TRUMP (2/26/26): Now, I love the countries of Europe. I guess I'm from there at some point a long time ago, right? But indirectly, pretty directly too, I guess. 

But I love the countries of Europe. I love all countries, frankly, all different. But the European Union's been—it was formed in order to screw the United States. 

I mean, look, let's be honest, the European Union was formed in order to screw the United States. That's the purpose of it. And they've done a good job of it, but now I'm president.

Really? The European Union was formed in order to screw the United States? 

Stating the obvious, nether Gutfeld himself, nor any of the TV / radio personalities who sat in last night's panelist chairs, are qualified, in any imaginable way, to evaluate such an unusual remark.

Having said that, so what! This is the way this very strange person reacted after playing the videotape of those surprising remarks:

GUTFELD: Ha ha ha ha ha! 

[ShoutingYeah, in your face, European Union! You guys suck!

[Chanting] USA! USA! USA!

AUDIENCE: USA! USA! 

[SUSTAINED APPLAUSE]

It was now 10:04 p.m. This is the sort of peculiar behavior this "news channel" broadcasts in the ten o'clock hour each night. In fairness, to fully appreciate the sheer insanity of last night's program, you have to listen to the crazy remarks authored by the program's guests.

It's always possible that Tatania Siegel didn't understand such facts when she composed her lengthy profile of Variety's current cover boy. In fairness to Siegel, we do agree with one part of her lengthy profile of "the cable news star who has zero fucks to give." 

We agree with the highlighted assessment at the end of this passage. This is the way her profile begins:

How Greg Gutfeld Became the Bill Maher of Fox News—And Toppled Fallon and Colbert in the Ratings

On a Tuesday in February, Hollywood is in the throes of a “Bonfire of the Vanities” moment. Karla Sofía Gascón’s old social media posts, with shocking takes on George Floyd (“a drug addict swindler”) and Islam (“an infection for humanity that urgently needs to be cured”), are roiling awards season and have turned the actress into a pariah. But the “Emilia Pérez” star, the first openly trans person nominated for an acting Oscar, is also a tricky subject to satirize.

Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert have ignored the conflagration that has engulfed this year’s standard-bearing #Resistance film. The task is left to Greg Gutfeld, whose eponymous Fox News show has made him the most-watched man in late night.

During a taping of his top-rated “Gutfeld!,” he scrolls through the offending tweets and booms dramatically, “The more I read of these, the more I’m starting to like this broad.” The actress may have caught a stray here, but the real target of his monologue is Hollywood.

...Hollywood may be ripe for parody, but this is the kind of humor that, were it taking place anywhere on TV other than Fox News, would be a national scandal. The crowd—which skews slightly more female than male—roars with laughter. And I realize that I’ve crossed into an alternate universe.

In that opening passage, Siegel stresses the fact that the targets of Gutfeld's ribbing tend to differ from those of Fallon, Kimmel and Colbert. When she sees the audience roar with laughter as Gutfeld says he's "starting to like this broad," she says she realizes that has crossed "into an alternate universe."

(As part of his throwback gender politics, Gutfeld routinely refers to women as "broads." In the case of liberal women, he also routinely says they're way too fat; routinely compares them to horses, cows, elephants and whales; routinely complains that they aren't sexually attractive; and routinely says that the skin across their unattractive faces doesn't seem quite right.) 

On balance, we think the journalist protested too little about this alternate universe. To our own eye and ear, this is a vastly alternate universe—one in which an assortment of obvious flyweights join a weirdly angry "Little Scamp" in pushing a remarkably throwback gender politics, while aggressively pushing the mandated political messaging of the Little Scamp's corporate owners—of the Fox News Channel.

We agree—this truly is "an alternate universe." To this day, we don't think that Blue America has been able to see what's actually "happening here" as this fellow's angry messaging is churned very night. 

This Sunday, Bob Dylan may suddenly be very hot all over again. Observing Blue America's possible incomprehension, we think of what the prophet said in the summer of 65:

Ballad of a Thin Man
You walk into the room
With your pencil in your hand
You see somebody naked
And you say, “Who is that man?”
You try so hard but you don’t understand
Just what you’ll say when you get home
Because something is happening here
And you don’t know what it is

Do you, Mister Jones?

Back then, Dylan may have been discussing himself and the entertainment press. Today, we're talking about an ongoing "night assault" coming at us from many directions—the type of assault which occasioned the death of Hector's "sacred Troy."

When something very unusual happens, it can be hard for us humans to see it for what it is. So it went, we'd be inclined to say, when Siegel profiled, or possibly pretended to profile, the very strange star of the Gutfeld! show—a man who seems to hide a remarkable rage behind a pose as a type of imp.

For the record, the gent wasn't always like this! In this passage, Siegel skims across the surface of the change:

Though Gutfeld says he didn’t vote for Trump in 2016, he did so reluctantly in 2020 and enthusiastically in 2024. “This time I went in person, like the day the freaking place opened,” he says. “I was there at 9 a.m. down in the Village, and I couldn’t wait.” Still, he will (occasionally) skewer the reality TV star-turned-politician. After the presidential debate in September, Gutfeld mocked the orange-hued candidate as the “pumpkin painted pet protector” over Trump’s “They’re eating the dogs” claim. 

During the 2016 election cycle, Trump sat down with Fallon and Colbert. He even hosted “Saturday Night Live.” This time around, he skipped those shows—likely a mutual decision—but dropped by “Gutfeld!” two months after the Butler, Pennsylvania, assassination attempt. The ratings soared, with 4.9 million tuning in to hear Trump boast that even the brother of Harris running mate Tim Walz was voting for him. Gutfeld’s sidekick Tyrus, a former professional wrestler who is Black, retorted: “Well, to be fair, a lot of brothers are supporting President Trump.”

For the record, Gutfeld never "skewers" Trump, except in a friendly way. 

Meanwhile, strange! The fellow was anti-Trump at the start. Today, no one fawns over Trump more obsessively. (In our view, Tyrus completely embarrassed himself with his fawning when Trump showed up on the show.)

At any rate, ever so fully he turned! In this profile from July 2023, the New York Times almost seems to describe a meeting in which Suzanne Scott, Gutfeld's corporate owner at Fox, almost seemed to give him the word—when it came to his stance on Trump, he needed to get in line. 

Today, Gutfeld is paid $9 million for telling Europe that it sucks—for dumbly leading Red America's cheers for everything Trump ever says. Climate change is still a "hoax," the fellow occasionally says.

Along the way, he lives the good life with his Russkie wife. Siegel says the $9 million qualifies as a bargain.

There's much, much more that remains to be said about Siegel's remarkably clueless profile of this astonishing "cable news" show and its angry and furious host. Next week, we may be able to visit such realms as we (likely) extend our account of the ongoing "night assault"—the assault we (defeated?) Blue Americans still can't quite seem to see for what it actually is.

In The Plague, Camus described the way we regular human beings can fail to see such disasters—such plagues—even after they're plainly underway. 

If you watched last night's Gutfeld! show—s program which went on the air in prime time—you might have been able to see the madness of the current assault as the modern equivalent of the Achaeans start to breach the safety of Blue America's crumbling walls.

After ten years of dying, the Achaeans who breached Troy's towering walls were filled with an overpowering rage—with a rage which bordered on madness.

They threw Hector's baby son to his death from Troy's towering walls. After that, they performed the rapes, they lit the fires, and they took Hector's wife as a slave. 

They proceeded to murder the kindly King Priam, right there at the altar. According to Greek tradition, the fury was general that night.

Last night, we watched the nightly "ribbing" which takes place on the Gutfeld! show. As this remarkable conduct unfolds, the New York Times and the gang at Mediaite agree to avert their gaze. 

Siegel went those orgs one better, offering an absurd account of what takes place on this show. 

"Who are those guys?" That's what Paul Newman once famously asked in a famous Hollywood film. Watching people like Kennedy—watching the very strange Gutfeld himself—we find ourselves asking that question pretty much every night.

As we Blues insist on averting our gaze, the same question might well arise about us. Overall, our best guess would go like this:

A night assault is underway, and we'll guess that it can't be turned back.


THURSDAY: Fox & Friends follies, but also The Five!

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2025

The demise of American discourse: Late yesterday afternoon, we didn't know who "Lawrence" was. 

During yesterday's cabinet meeting, the commander had repeated his gloomy tale about the way American kids were now the dumbest kids in the world.  As he'd done on a recent Hannity program, he referred to a devastating international testing program which doesn't quite seem to exist. 

Needless to say, no one asked him what he was talking about. Instead, as you can see at the CNN transcript, the next question went like this:

PRESIDENT TRUMP (2/26/25): They [test] the 40 certain nations that they have done for a long time. It seems to be 40, for whatever reason. And we were ranked number 40. A year ago, we were 38. Then we were 39. We hit 40. And so we're last in that. 

And we're first in cost per pupil. So I would say that's unacceptable.

Lawrence, you have something? Go ahead.

QUESTION: So, Mr. President, I know you like competition. And I know it's early. So which department are you most impressed with?

(LAUGHTER)

Sad! For the record, a silly softball question like that helps explain why the White House is currently changing the list of players who get to be in the press pool.

When we post yesterday's report, we didn't know who the questioner was. This morning, watching Fox & Friends, we were allowed to find out. 

In fact, the questioner was Lawrence Jones, fourth among equals in the Fox & Friends friendship circle! Yesterday, he wanted to know which department President Trump thought was best so far.

The commander gave a long, rambling answer. To peruse it, you can click to the CNN transcript.

Meanwhile, how bad does it get on the Fox News Channel? Yesterday afternoon, the first segment on The Five was about as bad as modern pseudo-journalism gets.

For starters, let's start by saying their names. These were the five co-hosts:

Co-hosts, The Five: Wednesday, 2/26/25
Judge Jeanine
Harold Ford
Jesse Watters
Dana Perino
Greg Gutfeld

Those were the regular four Red American co-hosts, with the wholly defeated Ford strapped in the Blue American chair. 

Inevitably, the subject of the day's first segment was the moral and intellectual greatness of the morally and intellectually great American president, President Donald J. Trump. 

Judge Jeanine was moderating the segment. The segment started like this:

JUDGE JEANINE (2/26/25): President Trump holding a blockbuster first cabinet meeting of his second term as he once again proves that he is the most transparent president in history.

A new analysis shows "47" is absolutely smoking his predecessors when it comes to talking to the media. In just his first month, Trump took a staggering one thousand questions compared to Sleepy Joe's sad, measly one hundred and forty. And that number was before today's hour-long juggernaut session, where he answered more than thirty additional questions.

As Judge Jeanine spoke, the chyron beneath her said this:

TRUMP HOLDS BLOCKBUSTER FIRST CABINET MEETING

The chyron agreed with the jurist! Needless to say, so would each of the other co-hosts as the segment proceeded. 

The most transparent president has been smoking Sleepy Joe! With that, Judge Jeanine had stated the premise for the segment, and the Stepfords would take it from there. 

At 5:05, Perino updated the question count. She said the president has now "answered 1,039 questions, which by the time I say these words might be 1,050." 

It didn't seem to have occurred to Perino that just because you've taken a question, that doesn't mean that you've answered it. And it certainly doesn't mean that you've answered the question in an accurate manner. 

As an example of what we mean, consider what Judge Jeanine said at 5:06 when she threw to the hapless Watters:

JUDGE JEANINE: You know, Jesse, I thought it was fascinating when the president started talking about Zelensky and the mineral deal. And when he talked about the fact that $300 billion that we gave to Ukraine and Zelensky, whereas Europe only gave $100 billion--but the money that Europe gave to Ukraine they gave as a loan! Which meant Ukraine had to pay them back!

The money, the $300 billion that Biden gave, was not a loan! He just gave them the money, like a fool! And now what we've got is a president who says we're gonna get our money back. And from now on, we're not gonna be footing the bill for a country that is paying other people back but not us.

We were struck by the judge's example. Just two days earlier, French President Emmanuel Macron had contradicted President Trump, on live TV, concerning those very points. 

The claims which Judge Jeanine found fascinating had been fact-checked about a million times as of yesterday afternoon at 5. For example, here's the beginning and the end of Tuesday's report by ABC News:

Macron warns Trump to 'be careful' on Ukraine, fact-checks him at the White House

French President Emmanuel Macron used his visit to the U.S. to publicly push back on President Donald Trump's repeated attacks on Ukraine, fact-checking his American counterpart in real-time and urging caution in talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

During their joint Oval Office appearance on Monday, Macron interrupted Trump when the latter said that Europe was being paid back 60% of the aid it contributed to Kyiv over the last three years of war.

Touching Trump's arm to interject, Macron said, "No, in fact, to be frank, we paid. We paid 60% of the total effort: it was through, like the U.S., loans, guarantees, grants," Macron said. "And we provided real money, to be clear."

After Macron's comments, Trump smiled and replied, "If you believe that, it's okay with me."

[...]

The president continued to focus on what he considers Ukraine's unfair approach to U.S. and American aid during Russia's war.

Trump again falsely claimed the U.S. has given Ukraine $350 billion during this period—a figure publicly disputed by Zelenskyy. The Kiel Institute for the World Economy estimates that the U.S. has committed about $119 billion. The majority—$67 billion—was in the form of military equipment.

The institute says that European nations—meaning the European Union, the U.K., Iceland, Norway and Switzerland—have collectively contributed around $138 billion to Ukraine, $65 billion of which was military equipment.

The commander's claims about these matters have been unfavorably fact-checked about a million times. Yesterday, on The Five, no one seemed to have heard about any of these contradictions. Instead, the stooges took turns swooning over the greatness of the commander's vast transparency regarding this set of claims.

The fact-checks of these claims have been general over the wider free world. Here at home, at the Fox News Channel, the five co-hosts of our most-watched "cable news" show didn't quite seem to have heard.

At 5:14, Judge Jeanine teased the program's second segment. This is the way she played it:

JUDGE JEANINE: I think he is doing a great job so far. Up next, Greasy goes the Joe Rogan route. Gavin Newsom is launching a podcast.

Among this collection of broken toys. President Biden is known as "Sleepy Joe." Governor Newsom is known as "Greasy." 

This type of behavior seems to make sense to these corporate play toys. Can a nation expect to survive such a childish assault? 

In our view, the night assault is underway; it isn't clear that this "revolt from below" hasn't already been lost. We Blues may have managed to earn our way out in a way which can't quite be repaired. 


CHARADES: He "sees no topic as off-limits?"

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2025

That's part of the current charade: Certs was widely known to be a breath mint. But Certs was also a candy mint.

As the leading authority on the subject explains, everyone knew that at one time. That said, it doesn't work that way with the Gutfeld! program.

The host of the show is the cover boy of the current edition of Variety. Inside the authoritative publication, he's also the subject of a lengthy profile by Tatania Siegel. 

That said:

No, Tatania! Gutfeld's program isn't a late night show. It also isn't a comedy show. 

In fact, Gutfeld! is a primetime show. It's also a primetime show on a "cable news" channel. But what Gutfeld! is, more than anything else, is a corporate propaganda show—a program devoted to advancing the political messaging of its host's owner, the Fox News Channel.

According to Siegel, the host of that show—the 60-year-old Greg Gutfeld—is currently paid $9 million per year by that powerhouse "cable news" channel. Even in these latter days, a "cable news" outfit can get a lot of value for that expenditure, which Siegel describes as a bargain.

At various points in her lengthy puff piece, Siegel describes this extremely peculiar TV figure as "the king of late night." By definition, Gutfeld can't be that. 

Along the way, she also describes Gutfeld as "the nasal-voiced shit-stirrer who sees no topic as off-limits," but also as "the cable news star who has zero fucks to give (or a carefully curated rebel persona)."

That first description is absurdly inaccurate. In fact, a wide assortment of basic topics will never be discussed on this imitation of a human TV program.

Simply put, the Gutfeld! program operates in much the way other Fox News Channel programs do. Unfortunately, programs on MSNBC frequently operated in a similar way during the Biden years.

As we noted yesterday, the Gutfeld! program is highly selective about which topics its rotating cast of guests will discuss. The program also selects its guests in such a way that no one will ever disagree with the views of its furious host.

Thanks to this twin process of sifting, none of this program's guests will ever challenge, question or contradict the basic tenets of Fox News Channel political messaging. That said, hold on—there's more!

Gutfeld's eponymous weeknight program is telecast at 10 p.m. Eastern (at 7 p.m. on the coast). Five hours earlier, he also serves, on a daily basis, as co-host of The Five, the top-rated program in the wilderness known as American "cable news."

The Five features five co-hosts, or possibly there are just four. Along the way, Siegel describes Gutfeld's role on that powerhouse program:  

How Greg Gutfeld Became the Bill Maher of Fox News—And Toppled Fallon and Colbert in the Ratings

[...]

Gutfeld may be a novel phenomenon to some. But to a sizable and growing portion of the Fox News audience, he’s the man of the moment...His sardonic, blunt takedowns have carried him so far that it’s easy to forget that Fox News, historically, has thrived when playing the role of loyal opposition to those in power. Now, though, Gutfeld flits from late night to daytime (as co-host of current events show “The Five”) with gravity-defying ease.

[...]

“The Five,” which plays like the upside-down version of “The View,” is a ratings powerhouse. The show became the first non-primetime cable program to rank No. 1 for four consecutive years. Its viewership is nearly triple the cable news competition combined in the 5 p.m. slot. Back in 2011, the late Fox News chief Roger Ailes felt that “The Five” needed comic relief and designated Gutfeld to deliver the laughs.

According to Siegel, Ailes added Gutfeld to the mix at The Five to provide "needed comic relief."  Today, Gutfeld routinely engages in towel-snapping, bromantic banter with resident sillybill Jesse Watters, one of the program's other co-hosts. But he mainly serves as the purported intellectual heavyweight on the powehouse program.

Long ago and far away—way back in May 1987—Michael Kinsley famously described the 39-year-old Senator Al Gore as "an old person's idea of a young person." He did so in this opinion column in the Washington Post.

It's a bit like that with Gutfeld. In his role on The Five, he seems to serve as an unintelligent person's idea of a person who's very smart.

Routinely, the other three (or four) co-hosts throw to Gutfeld during one of the program's gong-show pseudo-discussions. He then launches one of lengthy, baffling disquisitions on whatever topic has been judged to be suitable for pseudo-discussion that day. 

The other co-hosts enter a somnambulistic state as Gutfeld drones on and on with his baffling theoretics. When his oration finally ends, Gutfeld tends to revert to some towel-snapping with the aforementioned Watters while the other co-hosts permissively chuckle and smile.

That said, are there four other co-hosts, or is the number really three?  It's pretty much as you count it! 

At one time, the program may have gained some "comic relief" with the insertion of Gutfeld. Today, the program acquires a bit of frisson from the alleged inclusion of one co-host who will supposedly state the views of a remarkably uniform group routinely described as "The Left."

On most days, that thankless task falls to one of two players—to Harold Ford or to Jessica Tarlov. In the aftermath of President Trump's election, Ford has almost wholly walked away from that putative task. Essentially, Ford now serves as a fifth pro-Trump co-host, one who sometimes seems to be even more pro-Trump than the official pro-Trump co-hosts are.

When Tarlov sits in the Blue America chair, that air of frisson may survive. Tarlov has also slowed her roll since last November's election, but she sometimes pipes up with an awkwardly convincing point which contradicts the pre-approved view which the other four hosts have agreed on.

When she does, the other co-hosts rise as one to overtalk her. This is the way pseudo-discussion is now fashioned on the most-watched propaganda program in this failing nation's round-the-clock universe of so-called "cable news."

Five hours later, the remarkably coarse tone of the Gutfeld! program suddenly arrives on the air. The host's apparent misogyny is undisguised, as is the furious, frequently ugly pushback against what once would have seemed to be widely accepted rules of public decorum.

Judged by pre-existing norms, the pushback is frequently remarkably ugly but also remarkably stupid and strange. ugly. Liberal women are routinely denounced for allegedly being too fat—for resembling horses, cows, elephants, pigs, very large dogs and the occasionally whale. Such women are also routinely denounced for allegedly having used way too much Botox, or for allegedly having had too many facelifts.

The astonishing women of the Fox News Channel lounge permissively about as these remarkable insults are delivered. This is the realm of the "night assault," but also of vast and furious cultural pushback with respect to gender norms.

Siegel somehow managed to miss this aspect of this remarkably aggressive (prime time) propaganda program. As we noted yesterday, she only allowed herself to offer such pseudo-observations as these:

When Gutfeld surveys the broader comedy field, he’s unimpressed. He struggles to name a host he finds funny outside of [Bill] Maher and Joe Rogan. 

[...]

The election proved that some of those “other guys” no longer are influential. Democratic nominee Kamala Harris opted to sit down with Howard Stern on SiriusXM, thinking his audience of white men could help tip the election in her favor. But for better or for worse, Stern was more relevant when he was a shameless misogynist who fixated on porn stars.

Stern was once "a shameless misogynist"—but somehow, Gutfeld isn't! This is all she allowed herself to tell Variety's readers about the people he chooses to rib:

Gutfeld differs significantly from the [late night comedy] field in tone. After Fallon expressed regret over having Donald Trump on as a guest in 2016 and tousling his hair, he now mostly avoids the polarizing president in his monologues, while Colbert and Meyers have gone all-in on #Resistance humor. Most stick to the Carson format of a celebrity guest promoting a new project. “Gutfeld!” is a closer match to Bill Maher’s old ABC show “Politically Incorrect,” with co-hosts Kat Timpf and Tyrus helping to anchor conversations that frequently rib the obese, the easily triggered and the hosts of “The View.”

Gutfeld frequently "ribs the obese," Siegel's readers are told. He also ribs "the easily triggered." 

That may include people who found it amazingly strange when he asked, on at least three separate occasions last year, if Hunter Biden had started "banging" or even "f*cking" first lady Jill Biden yet. And yes, this nutcase actually did that, as we reported three separate times right here at this site, providing links to the tape on each occasion.

In short, a "night assault" is under way—an assault on certain conventional norms and values. As with some other publications, Variety is averting its gaze.

Gutfeld's program isn't a breath mint, and it isn't a candy mint. Also, it isn't a comedy show, and it isn't a creature of "late night." 

You can call it "Jackson," or you can call it "Johnson." But this is what it is:

Technically, Gutfeld! is a primetime show on a "news" channel. In reality, it's a propaganda program—a program which exists to advance the political messaging of its corporate owner. 

According to Siegel, Gutfeld is paid $9 million per year to perform that task.

You'll only see certain topics discussed on the Gutfeld! program. The various guests have all been selected to eliminate the possibility that anyone will ever question or challenge the views of the weirdly angry host.

Also, the program's rotating panel of guests is routinely made up of obvious policy flyweights. On this primetime "news" program, D-list comedians are invited to state their views on various issues, with everyone knowing that their views must always match those of the host.

In fairness, some of this angry nutball's views are built on perfectly reasonable foundations. Some of this furious nutball's views strike us as flatly correct.

It's the fury of his "night assault" which makes this program an act of war. Siegel wasn't willing or able to say that. Tomorrow, we'll strive for a bit more detail.

We close with further information about a certain famous mint. Eventually, the leading authority on the dual-purpose near-lozenge gives us the dope on cows:

Advertising

In the 1960s and 1970s, Certs was heavily advertised on American television with a famous campaign featuring two attractive young people earnestly arguing over the proper classification of the mints. The one participant would assert, "It’s a breath mint!" The other would assay a rebuttal by stating, "It’s a candy mint!" This taxonomic dilemma would finally be resolved by the unseen announcer, who would achieve synthesis by explaining that Certs was "Two, two, two mints in one!" 

Saturday Night Live lampooned the ads with a fictitious product called "Shimmer," with Gilda Radner's argument "It's a floor wax!" vs. Dan Aykroyd's "It's a dessert topping, you cow!" being resolved by announcer Chevy Chase's declaration that "New Shimmer's a floor wax and a dessert topping!"

Full disclosure! When Aykroyd assailed Radner as "a cow," it was understood to be a type of parody. 

The Gutfeld! program isn't like that. Today, such insults are a staple of this extremely strange program, though these astonishing insults are only aimed at women from "The Left."

That said, the complexification was general with respect to Certs. As you'll see below, a taxonomic dilemma eventually had to be played out in federal court.

Today, we Americans long for simple stories, thanks to the ubiquity of such complexities as this:

In 1999, the United States Customs Service classified Certs as a candy mint for tariff purposes, since candy was taxed differently from oral hygiene products. In the ensuing suit before the United States Court of International Trade, Cadbury introduced expert testimony that Certs stimulate the flow of saliva, thus flushing bad odors from the mouth, and that its flavors and oils mask bad breath. But the court ruled that, since Certs did not contain anti-bacterial ingredients, they were, indeed, simply a candy mint. This ruling was, however, overturned at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, making Certs legally a breath mint.

Today, we Americans long for simple stories. "The star who has zero fucks to give" provides that service to Red America, with plenty of insults thrown in.

Tomorrow: "Silence [has] invaded the suburbs" concerning the Gutfeld! show


WEDNESDAY: Commander discusses the schools once again!

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2025

Storyline All the Way Down: For decades, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has published a large volume of education data from four major testing programs—the Naep, the Timss, the Pisa and the Pirls.

For decades, we've been asking this question:

Why do they even bother?

As a case in point, consider the commander's remarks at today's lengthy "cabinet meeting." The event started with an oration by Elon Musk.

Musk was decked out in his Dark MAGA outfit, looking like someone you might cross the street to avoid walking past on the sidewalk. Eventually, the commander repeated last week's oration about our pathetic public schools, especially because of Joe Biden.

He delivered the oration last week as he spoke to Sean Hannity. Today, he delivered it again. Using CNN's reasonably accurate transcript, we join the oration in progress:

PRESIDENT TRUMP (2/26/25): ...You go around Washington, you see all these buildings with Department of Education. We want to move education back to the states, where it belongs. Iowa should have education. Indiana should run their own education.

You're going to see education go way up. Right now, we're—we're ranked at the very bottom of the list. But we're at the top of the list in one thing, the cost per pupil. We spend more money per pupil than any other country of the world. And yet it's Denmark and Norway, Sweden—

And I hate to say this. And we're going to get along very well with China, but it's a competitor. They're at the top of the list. They're among the top ten usually. And they're a very big country. 

So we can't use that as an excuse, right, because we're a very big country too, but we're—we were ranked last time—under Biden, we were ranked 40 out of 40.

They do the 40 certain nations that they have done for a long time. It seems to be 40, for whatever reason. And we were ranked number 40. A year ago, we were 38. Then we were 39. We hit 40. And so we're last in that. And we're first in cost per pupil. So I would say that's unacceptable.

Lawrence, you have something? Go ahead.

So went the commander's review. Stupendously, "Lawrence," whoever that is, removed a softball from a bag and asked the commander this:

LAWRENCE (continuing directly): So, Mr. President, I know you like competition. And I know it's early. So which department are you most impressed with?

(LAUGHTER)

Sad! Once again, we found ourselves asking this: 

Why does the NCES even bother? Why do they bother publishing all those education data, when life in these United States is now, almost wholly, Storyline All the Way Down?

The commander was taking questions today; he took a boatload of questions. No one asked him what testing program is supposed to be the source of his gloomy assessment about the pitiful U.S. kids who supposedly ended up Worst in the World Thanks to Sleepy Joe Biden. 

His extremely gloomy factual claims don't even seem to make sense. But as has been true for decades now, no one present in the room actually seemed to notice or care. 

Nor have we seen anyone offer a review of his peculiar comments to Hannity regarding our pitiful schoolkids. The NCES may keep publishing data, but nobody seems to care.

Today, we offer one addition to the slapdash critique we offered last week. It involves this part of the commander's statement:

Right now, we're ranked at the very bottom of the list. But we're at the top of the list in one thing, the cost per pupil.  We spend more money per pupil than any other country of the world. And yet it's Denmark and Norway, Sweden

He seemed to be saying what he said last week. When it comes to public schools, those nations are ruling the world.

In fact, here are the data from the most recent administration of the PISA Reading Literacy test. As you can see, American students outperformed their counterparts from Denmark, Sweden and Norway on that particular test. 

Nor do the three countries the president named rank at or near the top of the world on the PISA, the TIMSS or the PIRLS. Also, Iowa and Indiana aren't particularly high performers on the domestic NAEP. 

Beyond that, we know of no international test on which American students rank fortieth out of forty nationsproduce the worst scores in the world. What is this guy talking about? Nobody asked or cared.

Why does the NCES bother? The commander has an idea in his head. He will continue to vocalize his idea, and major elites from Blue America will continue to stare into air.

Information no longer exists. As our nation is overrun, it's Storyline All the Way Down, and it has been for dozens of years.


CHARADES: Is Gutfeld! really a comedy show?

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2025

Only within a charade: The final score was 217-215—and it wasn't even an NBA all-star game!

In the midst of this conflagration, "the most authoritative and trusted source of entertainment business news" decided it was time to profile the Fox News Channel's Greg Gutfeld, the 60-year-old host of the Fox News Channel's weeknight Gutfeld! program.

Briefly, we'll revisit our dead horese. Variety's lengthy cover story started exactly like this:

How Greg Gutfeld Became the Bill Maher of Fox News—And Toppled Fallon and Colbert in the Ratings

On a Tuesday in February, Hollywood is in the throes of a “Bonfire of the Vanities” moment. Karla Sofía Gascón’s old social media posts, with shocking takes on George Floyd (“a drug addict swindler”) and Islam (“an infection for humanity that urgently needs to be cured”), are roiling awards season and have turned the actress into a pariah. But the “Emilia Pérez” star, the first openly trans person nominated for an acting Oscar, is also a tricky subject to satirize.

Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert have ignored the conflagration that has engulfed this year’s standard-bearing #Resistance film. The task is left to Greg Gutfeld, whose eponymous Fox News show has made him the most-watched man in late night.

Throughout the profile, Tatania Siegel fashions Gutfeld as the hoist of a "late night" comedy show. At one point, she even calls him "the king of late night.")

There are two parts to that designation. In our view, each part is inaccurate—part of a sprawling charade.

Is Greg Gutfeld really the host of a late night comedy show? In fact, his program doesn't appear in the "late night" hours anywhere in the country. 

Way out there in Tinseltown, the program airs at 7 p.m. That isn't even part of primetime, as that realm has traditionally been defined, for example by the leading authority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_time

True believers will probably say that one out of two ain't half bad. Gutfeld! may not be a late night show, they'll say, but surely it must be a "comedy" show. 

So a reader might assume after reading Variety's profile.

We're sorry, Virginia, but no! Without any question, the program incorporates comedy elements into its nightly proceeding. But like almost all shows on the Fox News Channel, Gutfeld! is primarily a propaganda show—a program designed to spread the preapproved messaging of its corporate owner.

To be even more precise, Gutfeld! appears on a "cable news" channel. But it would also be a major stretch to think of it as a "news" program. 

Like almost all shows on the Fox News Channel, Gutfeld! is primarily a propaganda program. It's a primetime program devoted to advancing the pre-approved messaging of its corporate owner.

Sometimes that pre-approved messaging may be built on a plausible base. Sometimes, the premise behind the preapproved messaging may even, on balance, be "right."     

On balance, though, this is a hard-core propaganda show which uses comedy elements to drive its messaging—messaging which is frequently remarkably ugly and stunningly atavistic.

Whatare the comedy elements to which we refer? Let's take a look at the structure!

Aas far as we know, the 60-year-old host of the show never earned his living as a comedian. That said, he typically starts each program with two or three minutes of jokes. 

It's rarely hard to spot the onset of the night assault—of the corporate propaganda. Last night, to cite one recent example, this was the host's second joke:

GUTFELD (2/25/25): Rachel Maddow slammed her own network over its decision to replace a number of on-air talent. True, it does look bad that MSNBC fired a black woman and yet kept on two white women.

[PHOTO OF MADDOW AND CHRIS HAYES]

AUDIENCE: LAUGHTER, APPLAUSE

We were still in the program's first minute. After an initial joke comparing Joy Reid to a cannibalistic (black) murderer, Gutfeld drew a big laugh from his studio audience by describing Hayes as a woman.

We were still in the program's first minute. The lid had already been removed from the can.

The tone of the sequence continued. In a tagline to his third joke, the host referred to Governor Tony Evers (D-Wisc.) as Wisconsin's "lesbian governor." The fourth joke was based on the premise that Governor Pritzker (D-Ill.) is just too freaking fat. 

At 10:02—7:02 out on the coast—the merriment ended with this:

GUTFELD: Finally, in England, a horse was rescued after falling halfway through a wooden bridge. Welcome to my world, said one woman.

[PHOTO OF JOY BEHAR]

AUDIENCE: LAUGHTER, APPLAUSE

Behar is 83 years old. On a nightly basis, Gutfeld compares her to elephants, horses, walruses, cows, jokingly saying that she's too fat, but also that she's sexually unattractive.

It was now 10:03—7:03 on the coast. Whatever you might think of a string of jokes of this remarkable type, the string of jokes was now over. 

With respect to that nightly string of jokes, trust us—it can get worse. At this point, a problem appears:

In her profile of Gutfeld, Siegel never comes to terms with the content of this program's comedy elements. In fairness, she does come close at one point, when she reports this one lone criticism of Gutfeld:

“I think he uses this label of ‘comedian’ as armor to be able to get away with things that Bret Baier or Sean Hannity wouldn’t say,” says Andrew Lawrence, deputy research director of advocacy organization Media Matters for America. “I know humor is subjective. I know people do find him funny, but I don’t really see where the humor is in there. He just really strikes me as mean.” 

That’s precisely the point. 

The meanness is precisely the point, Siegel says, in her own voice. That said, she doesn't offer any examples of what she's talking about. Readers are given no examples of the gentleman's meanness—or of the obsession with insults based on sex and gender which anchors his comedy pallet. 

These insults, based on sex and gender, routinely seem to carry a certain familiar odor. As noted, Behar and the other women of The View are routinely compared to very large animals.

Other jokes are routinely built on the theme that Nancy Pelosi—she's 84 years old—has had too many facelifts or has perhaps used too much Botox. In the last month or so, a photo of Governor Hochul's face has often been thrown up on the screen, where it's subjected to ridicule.

This pallet forms the basis for this 60-year-old person's nightly array of jokes. In a clownishly comical bit of evasion, Siegel never mentions this, but she does offer this at one point:

When Gutfeld surveys the broader comedy field, he’s unimpressed. He struggles to name a host he finds funny outside of [Bill] Maher and Joe Rogan. 

[...]

The election proved that some of those “other guys” no longer are influential. Democratic nominee Kamala Harris opted to sit down with Howard Stern on SiriusXM, thinking his audience of white men could help tip the election in her favor. But for better or for worse, Stern was more relevant when he was a shameless misogynist who fixated on porn stars.

Sad! Correctly or otherwise, for better or worse, Siegel is willing to say that Howard Stern was once "a shameless misogynist." At the same time, she never reports a blindingly obvious fact:

She never says that Gutfeld's comedy pallet is littered with material which seems to come from a much earlier cultural era—with material which would strike almost anyone as being overtly misogyny=adjacent as judged by present-day standards and norms.

Stern was a shameless misogynist; Gutfeld is said to be "mean," in a way which goes described.  This is the way a profile goes when it's really a journalistic charade—an imitation of life. 

Back to last night's program! It was now 10:03 p.m. —7:03 out on the coast—but the opening jokes were done. That said, the program's comedy elements were still in the saddle. On a nightly basis, the program works like this:

The program's 60-year-old host starts with some jokes in which he assails women in their mid-80s for being too fat, for failing to meet his standards of sexual attractiveness, and for using too much Botox.

After several minutes of this, he offers the evening's "monologue"—a lengthy statement of his view on some matter of public policy.

Insulting, "humorous" side remarks are likely to continue during this presentation. But he is now engaged in a type of presentation which is much more like an opinion column and much less like a "comedy" set. 

After presenting his view, he tuirns to a four-member panel of guests, asking them to offer their views on the topic in question. As the show continues through the hour, this same panel will be asked to state their views on three or four other topics.

Is this program a comedy show? On a regular basis, this four-member panel will include several lesser-known comedians. Last Friday night, all four members of the panel were lesser-known touring comedians.

That said, these people won't be asked to offer stand-up performances. Instead, they'll be asked to offer their views on the topics at hand. One instant problem obtains:

However one may regard these panelists as comedians, there is rarely any sign that they bring anything resembling expertise or specialized knowledge, to the discussion at hand. 

This program doesn't offer commentary from expert guests. As a general matters, it offers commentary from a panel of fairly obvious flyweights—each of whom is guaranteed to agree with every single word the program's host has just said.

All in all, this stage-managed format produces one of the stupidest "cable news" programs ever put on the air. 

For better or worse, mainstream journalism lacks an established language for describing a program like this as simply being stupid. In fairness, that lack of a journalistic tradition isn't Siegel's doing or fault.

That said, her refusal to describe what actually happens on this show frequently takes us past the comically awful to the realm we would describe as an imitation of life. This, for example, is the way Siegel describes the Gutfeld comedy pallet:

Gutfeld differs significantly from the field in tone. After Fallon expressed regret over having Donald Trump on as a guest in 2016 and tousling his hair, he now mostly avoids the polarizing president in his monologues, while Colbert and Meyers have gone all-in on #Resistance humor. Most stick to the Carson format of a celebrity guest promoting a new project. “Gutfeld!” is a closer match to Bill Maher’s old ABC show “Politically Incorrect,” with co-hosts Kat Timpf and Tyrus helping to anchor conversations that frequently rib the obese, the easily triggered and the hosts of “The View.” (Writer Gene Nelson leans into the we’ll-go-there sensibility, telling the crowd ahead of the taping I attend: “I can make fun of fat people because my best friend is”—his voice drops to a conspiratorial whisper—“gay. And Jewish.”) His elaborate, stagy pauses turn the statement into a joke and briefly conceal that what he says makes no sense.

Truly, that's a journalistic charade—an imitation of human life. 

According to Siegel, Howard Stern used to be shamelessly misogynistic. Gutfeld merely engages in humor which "frequently ribs the obese." That's all he's doing when he compares the women of The View to a succession of barnyard creatures! 

He and his co-hosts and guests also "rib the easily triggered," Siegel murkily says, making no attempt to explain that fuzzy statement. Along the way, she spends more time quoting incoherent remarks by one of the program's writers than she devotes to describing the actual content of what Gutfeld says on the air. 

Clownishly, Siegel also quotes Gutfeld saying this, as we noted in yesterday's report:

Gutfeld is an unlikely king of late night. With a panel format instead of the one-on-one setup of his peers, “Gutfeld!” features a hodgepodge of regulars who were once ubiquitous until they tilted rightward, such as comedian Rob Schneider and Vincent Gallo. His rivals, he says, are losing audience share because they adhere to “a very narrow, agreed-upon groupthink” and, therefore, can “never be funny.” ... In fact, “Gutfeld!” is beating “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert,” “Jimmy Kimmel Live!,” “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon,” “Late Night With Seth Meyers,” “Real Time With Bill Maher” and “The Daily Show” by every measure and is uniquely poised to ride the Trump 2.0 wave.

As we noted yesterday, Schneider and Gallo simply aren't regular guests on the Gutfeld! program. Other people actually are. 

Also, the idea that his guests were once "ubiquitous" (gifted with mainstream popularity?) until they shifted rightward is a ridiculous fantasy. Most of his comedian guests are drawn from the touring D-list—are people who have massively gained in exposure, income and popularity from appearing as regulars on Gutfeld's program.

That said, nothing could possibly be more absurd than Gutfeld's complaint that network hosts like Colbert, Kimmel and Fallon adhere to “a very narrow, agreed-upon groupthink” and therefore can “never be funny.” 

However one might assess the work of those network hosts, no one on the face of the earth adheres to “a very narrow, agreed-upon groupthink” to a greater extent than the host of the Gutfeld! program. Gutfeld! is one of the dumbest "news" shows ever aired, but it's also one of the most predictable and most aggressively scripted.

Starting with co-hosts Tyrus and Timpf, the program's scripting is largely accomplished through its selection of stooges as guests. You will simply never see a panelist question or challenge the host's fundamental point of view or anything the host has said. 

The guests are paid to sing along, and sing along they do. Aside from the program's unending coarse tone, this produces one of the stupidest TV "news" programs in the history of the medium.

This is one of the dumbest "news" programs ever aired. It's actually a propaganda program—and yes, it's on the air in prime time. Siegel wasn't even willing to make that simple point clear.

In closing, let's be fair! Some of the viewpoints Gutfeld advances are built on a reasonable base. That said, his program comes from the emotional realm of the ancient "night assault," from the realms of plunder and arson.

At the world's most authoritative site, Siegel was willing to see and report none of this. Instead, she offers a journalistic charade, but she's hardly alone in her refusal to walk and talk like an actual human with respect to this very strange, aging host.

Tomorrow: Let's take a look at the panelists


TUESDAY: What kinds of ratings did Joy Reid get?

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2025

Let's take a look at the record: We almost never watched Joy Reid's MSNBC program, which has now been canceled. There's a bit of a backstory there.

When we started this site in 1998, an individual could actually watch every cable news / PBS program of consequence.  There simply weren't that many such shows on the air.

It's very different now. Today, we Americans suffer under an around-the-clock assault from a three-way "cable news" Babel, and from mountains of messaging from other types of platforms.

The madness is everywhere—and it's very big business. You have to pick which programs to monitor. It isn't obvious to us that this three-way, round-the-clock Babel ius a madness which can be survived.

That's part of the reason why we rarely watched The ReidOut. As to why the program has been canceled, a key set of numbers looked like this as of last Thursday night:

Viewers aged 25-54, 7 p.m. Eastern, 2/20/25
The Ingraham Angle (Fox News Channel): 389,000
Erin Burnett OutFront (CNN): 104,000
The ReidOut with Joy Reid (MSNBC): 59,000

59,000 viewers? Most amazingly, barely half the number of Erin Burnett? Less than one-sixth the number of Ingraham?

That 59,000 strikes us as an astonishing number. Meanwhile, silly and amazing as it may seem, everyone seems to agree that this relatively narrow slice of the viewership pie is actually "the coved 25-54 demographic"—the demographic everyone cares about.

In this corporate material world, access to that demographic is routinely said to be coveted by advertisers. It's therefore said to be crucial to a channel's financial success.

At any rate, those were the numbers for "the coveted 25-54 demographic" Last Thursday night, the overall viewership numbers looked like this:

Total viewers, 7 p.m. Eastern, 2/20/25
The Ingraham Angle (Fox News Channel): 3.44 million
Erin Burnett OutFront (CNN): 550,000
The ReidOut with Joy Reid (MSNBC): 778,000

That too was a terrible number. The number from the "coveted" slice of the viewership was much worse.

We'd assume this is part of the reason for MSNBC's decision. Beyond that, we'd be inclined to assume that there were points of concern within the network concerning Reid's content.

Her content was routinely mocked on programs like Gutfeld! It wasn't always especially hard to do.

Rachel Maddow is irate today, and she's filled with praise for Reid's moral and intellectual greatness. That said, Maddow herself never adopts the kinds of racial stances which often came from Reid's program. We find ourselves wondering if the major star of Blue America's channel is protesting a bit too much, or simply in a slightly puzzling fashion.

Why did MSNBC make the decision in question? We have no way of knowing.

That said, the channel's numbers are extremely poor. Last Thursday night, lowly CNN outperformed MSNBC in the coveted demographic for four consecutive hours, starting at 5 p.m.  

Reid had been in her time slot for almost five years, and her numbers were very poor.

Tomorrow, we may report on the matter of MSNBC and "The Uterus Collector." NPR has already reported the news. As of this morning, few other major orgs had.

For today, we the people are in fact living in a material world. The cable news channel we Blues tend to favor is a corporate business venture. If a channel like that can't attract viewers, in theory it can't survive.

Also, it can't produce change! A cable news channel can't change the world if it turns out that nobody's watching its programs—or at least, so the experts have said.

CHARADES: What kinds of ratings does Gutfeld! achieve?

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2025

Let's take a look at the record: We mentioned this point several times in yesterday morning's report.

We want to stress it again. Within the context of "cable news," Greg Gutfeld's eponymous program on the Fox News Channel does boast a very strong viewership.

Last week, Gutfeld the person became Variety's scowling cover boy. His photograph graces the cover of the entertainment publication's latest edition, as you can see at this link

Midway through her lengthy profile of Gutfeld, Tatiana Siegel offered this assessment of the Fox News Channel host: 

"What is indisputable is his ratings prowess." 

We wouldn't necessarily go that far. But Gutfeld! does boast very good ratings within the "cable news" context.

As Ed McMahon might have said, how "very good" are they? According to Deadline, these were the five top-rated "cable news" programs for calendar year 2024:

Average viewers, cable news programs, 2024
The Five (Fox News Channel): 3.4 million viewers
Jesse Watters Primetime (Fox News Channel):  3.1 million, 
Hannity (Fox News Channel):  2.8 million 
Gutfeld! (Fox News Channel):  2.54 million 
The Ingraham Angle (Fox News Channel):  2.51 million

They were the year's top five. And yes! Like it or not, all five of the most-watched cable news programs aired on the Fox News Channel. Gutfeld! was one of the top five, but a nitpicker can find problems. 

At 10 p.m. Eastern (7 p.m. on the west coast), Gutfeld! attracted fewer viewers than Hannity, the program which preceded it at 9 p.m. (6 p.m. out west). Also, Gutfeld! did substantially less well than Jesse Watters Primetime, which airs at 8 p.m. Eastern (you can figure the rest).

Among those five Fox News Channel shows, Gutfeld! exceeded only The Ingraham Angle (7 p.m.), and in that case just by a hair. Its numbers didn't stand out among these Fox News Channel shows. In fairness, let's also say this:

As with other Fox shows, Gutfeld!'s current numbers dwarf those of the competing programs on CNN and MSNBC. According to Adweek, these were the total viewership numbers for last Thursday's 10 p.m. "cable news" shows:

Total viewers, 10 p.m. Eastern, 2/20/25
Gutfeld! (Fox News Channel):  3.02 million 
The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell (MSNBC):  1.23 million
News Night with Abby Phillip (CNN): 0.50 million

Oof! Like it or not, Gutfeld! is currently crushing its direct competition—within the cable news context. 

Does that mean that Gutfeld, the person, possesses an indisputable ratings prowess? It's pretty much as you like it! 

On the downside, consider last Thursday night. On that evening, Gutfeld's program attracted fewer viewers than all but one of the Fox News Channel shows, starting at 5 p.m. Eastern:

Total viewers, Fox News Channel, 2/20/25
The Five: 4.68 million
Special Report with Bret Baier: 3.48 million
The Ingraham Angle: 3.44 million
Jesse Watters Primetime: 3.74 million
Hannity: 3.016 million
Gutfeld!:  3.022 million 

Those shows all crush the direct competition on CNN and MSNBC. But while Gutfeld! crushed the competition, it lagged behind the other shows on the dominant Fox News Channel. 

(In fairness, it should also be said that Gutfeld himself serves as one of four Red American co-hosts on the powerhouse program, The Five. One co-host from Blue America is added to the mix. This introduces a bit of frisson as the one allegedly liberal co-host is overtalked by the four.)

Roughly speaking, that's the way Greg Gutfeld stacks up within the "cable news" context. For whatever reason, the Variety profile followed Gutfeld down a winding road of remarkably high self-regard. 

As we noted yesterday, Siegel pretended that Gutfeld is the host of a "late night" program.  Working from that inaccurate premise, she was soon comparing his viewership numbers to those which are achieved by the Big Three network late night comedy hosts:

What is indisputable is [Gutfeld's] ratings prowess. The former print journalist...helms the only late-night program that averages more than 3 million viewers, according to the most recent Nielsen Media Research data....His critics say his numbers should come with an asterisk because he benefits from the earlier start time of 10 p.m., and that it airs even earlier on the West Coast. But in August 2022, he became the first late-night host to overtake Colbert in the ratings since 2017, and he accomplished that feat when “Gutfeld!” aired at 11 p.m. Like it or not, the nasal-voiced shit-stirrer who sees no topic as off-limits is leading the pack—and expanding his audience.

[...]

Gutfeld is an unlikely king of late night. With a panel format instead of the one-on-one setup of his peers, “Gutfeld!” features a hodgepodge of regulars who were once ubiquitous until they tilted rightward, such as comedian Rob Schneider and Vincent Gallo. His rivals, he says, are losing audience share because they adhere to “a very narrow, agreed-upon groupthink” and, therefore, can “never be funny.” Despite being 60 years old and a Trump stan, he is attracting a younger and more politically diverse audience than his counterparts. In fact, “Gutfeld!” is beating “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert,” “Jimmy Kimmel Live!,” “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon,” “Late Night With Seth Meyers,” “Real Time With Bill Maher” and “The Daily Show” by every measure and is uniquely poised to ride the Trump 2.0 wave.

For the record, Schneider and Gallo aren't regulars on the Gutfeld! program in any normal sense of the term. Beyond that, Siegel's suggestion that Gutfeld's "regulars" were big stars until they moved to the right is a fantasy of major proportions, once you examine the actual status of Gutfeld's regular guests.

Having said that, also this:

Following the lead of her subject, Siegel calls Gutfeld "the king of late night" in that passage. For the most part, she does this by comparing him to late night network comedy shows—to actual "late night" programs, programs which air much later in the evening than the primetime Gutfeld!  does.

As we noted yesterday, Gutfeld! airs at 7 p.m. right there in Siegel's own Tinseltown. By way of contrast, the Big Three late night comedy shows air at 11:35—more than four hours later. 

Siegel reports this fact in an absurdly fuzzy fashion, attributing it to "Gutfeld's critics." In this respect, her profile is an essentially silly industry puff piece—an imitation of journalism, a journalistic charade.

Like all other Fox News Channel shows, the primetime Gutfeld! program is crushing the world when compared to other "cable news" shows. The attempt to compare it to late night comedy shows breaks down in a wide assortment of ways.

That said, Siegel's profile suffers from an even larger framework fail. That would be her persistent suggestion and claim that Gutfeld! is a comedy show—an entertainment enterprise.

Greg Gutfeld gets very strong ratings within the "cable news" context. But is he really "the king of late night?" More to the point, is Gutfeld! a comedy show?

Plainly, the program isn't a "late night" show in any meaningful sense of the term. The claim that it's a  comedy show is more slippery and much more pernicious, given the ways of the times.

Too funny! In the passage posted above, Siegl quotes Gutfeld slamming his rivals—that is to say, people like Colbert, Kimmel and Fallon—for the following reason:

His rivals, he says, are losing audience share because they adhere to “a very narrow, agreed-upon groupthink” and, therefore, can “never be funny.” 

Too funny! However one may assess the work of the late night Big Three, is there anyone on the face of the earth who insists on “a very narrow, agreed-upon groupthink" to a greater extent than the aforementioned Gutfeld does?

Tatiana Siegel, please! In his (routinely braindead) topic selection and in his nightly selection of guests, Gutfeld imposes an inviolable groupthink on his (cable news) program. That groupthink, mixed with a stunning coarseness of tone, makes Gutfeld! a charade in itself—an imitation of life.

No, Fantasia! Gutfeld! isn't a late night program—but it also isn't a comedy program! It's a primetime "cable news" program—and it's a program whose host insists on an utter uniformity of viewpoint.

For better or worse, the Gutfeld! show is devoted to groupthink. And though Siegel doesn't seem to have noticed, things go downhill from there.

Tomorrow: Groupthink in the raw


MONDAY: Baker's piece was "unusually blunt!"

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2025

Or then again, maybe it wasn't: Could something be "wrong" with President Trump? Here's the reason we ask:

Late last night, with midnight approaching, the commander was at it again, posting the furious message shown below at his Truth Social site. He was reacting to the news that Joy Reid's weeknight program will be replaced at MSNBC: 

PRESIDENT TRUMP (2/23/25): Lowlife Chairman of “Concast,” Brian Roberts, the owner of Ratings Challenged NBC and MSDNC, has finally gotten the nerve up to fire one of the least talented people in television, the mentally obnoxious racist, Joy Reid. Based on her ratings, which were virtually non-existent, she should have been “canned” long ago, along with everyone else who works there. Also thrown out was Alex Wagner, the sub on the seriously failing Rachel Maddow show. Rachel rarely shows up because she knows there’s nobody watching, and she also knows that she’s got less television persona than virtually anyone on television except, perhaps, Joy Reid. Then there’s, of course, the LOW IQ Con Man, Al Sharpton, who has, perhaps, the lowest TV ratings in the history of television. What is he doing to Brian Roberts to stay on the air? This whole corrupt operation is nothing more than an illegal arm of the Democrat Party. They should be forced to pay vast sums of money for the damage they’ve done to our Country. Fake News is an UNPARDONABLE SIN!

Fake News is an UNPARDONABLE SIN! So said the man whose wildly inaccurate statements go on and on and on.

For the record, Reid's program did, in fact, have very poor viewership ratings. That isn't true of Maddow's show, though her numbers don't come close to matching those of Hannity, the Fox News Channel's corresponding 9 p.m. program.

At any rate:

According to the commander in chief, MSNBC "should be forced to pay vast sums of money" to someone, though he didn't say to whom. 

He said that MSNBC was "an illegal arm of the Democrat [sic] Party," though he didn't offer an explanation of that serious charge. With respect to the insults he sprinkled through his post, you'll have to judge them yourself.

According to traditional norms, last evening's post should be scored as highly unusual conduct from an American president. Is it possible that something is actually wrong with this unusual person? 

As we noted all last week, our mainstream press corps has agreed that questions of that type must never be asked or discussed. This brings us to Peter Baker's front-page "News Analysis" piece in Sunday's New York Times. 

Over at Raw Story, Brad Reed said that Baker's piece advanced an "unusually blunt assessment" of Trump's ongoing behavior. We don't disagree with that. In print editions, headline included, Baker's piece started like this:

NEWS ANALYSIS
In Trump’s Alternate Reality, Lies and Distortions Drive Change

The United States sent $50 million in condoms to Hamas. Diversity programs caused a plane crash. China controls the Panama Canal. Ukraine started the war with Russia.

Except, no. None of that is true. Not that it stops President Trump. In the first month since he returned to power, he has demonstrated once again a brazen willingness to advance distortions, conspiracy theories and outright lies to justify major policy decisions.

Mr. Trump has long been unfettered by truth when it comes to boasting about his record and tearing down his enemies. But what were dubbed “alternative facts” in his first term have quickly become a whole alternative reality in his second to lay the groundwork for radical change as he moves to aggressively reshape America and the world.

The piece continues from there. Online, the dual headline says this:

NEWS ANALYSIS
In Trump’s Alternate Reality, Lies and Distortions Drive Change
Condoms for Gaza? Ukraine started the war with Russia? The president’s manipulations of the truth lay the groundwork for radical change.

We wouldn't necessarily agree with every one of Baker's representations. But we do agree with Reed. Yesterday, when we read Baker's piece, it struck us as "unusually blunt."

We thought the piece was unusually blunt. For what it's worth, we also thought it toed the line in a mandated way. 

Why exactly does President Trump behave in these unusual ways? Why does he make so many wild misstatements? Why does he persistently make highly unusual claims of the type he offered last night?

One possible explanation for this behavior went completely unexplored in Baker's lengthy analysis piece. For better or worse, the mainstream press corps has agreed that certain possibilities lie beyond the acceptable pale—that certain questions can't be asked, that certain types of experts and specialists must never be consulted about puzzlements of this type.

Was the president actually angry last night, or was he simply performing? Also, is it possible that something is actually "wrong" with this unusual person?

We can't answer that last question. For better or worse, even when they're being "unusually blunt," our journalists have agreed that they must never wonder or ask.

Last evening's post was highly unusual. Is it possible—could it be—that something is actually wrong?

"Unfit" is about as far as they'll go. We're asking if something is wrong.


CHARADES: The program airs at 7 p.m.!

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2025

At Variety, that's now called "late night:" In fairness, Variety's Tatiana Sigel isn't a political journalist.

That isn't what she is! For the record, Variety describes itself as "the most authoritative and trusted source of entertainment business news, recognized and respected throughout the world." 

According to Variety, Variety's journalism seems to be stunningly good. As for Siegel herself, this is the way Variety describes her role at the org:

Tatiana Siegel

Tatiana Siegel is Executive Editor Film & Media at Variety, where she covers the business of the entertainment industry, ranging from deeply reported investigative pieces to incisive cover profiles...

In 2019, she was named print journalist of the year at the National Arts & Entertainment Journalism Awards for work that included an abuse-of-power bombshell that led to Warner Bros. chief Kevin Tsujihara resigning. She has written nearly 100 cover stories for Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and Billboard that span both people (Mick Jagger, Drake and Scarlett Johansson) and scandals (the Sony hack and the career implosion of NBCUniversal CEO Jeff Shell). 

The profile continues from there. To peruse the full profile, click here.

Tatiana Siegel isn't a political writer. That said, she's a ranking, highly experienced journalist at a well-known publication.

In the current edition of Variety, Siegel offers a profile of someone she may believe to be part of "the entertainment industry." It's the type of profile which would normally be described as a puff piece. 

Her profile concerns the Fox News Channel's Greg Gutfeld and his rather peculiar Gutfeld! program. Headline included, Siegel's lengthy puff piece starts as shown, with no paywall to hold you at bay:

How Greg Gutfeld Became the Bill Maher of Fox News—And Toppled Fallon and Colbert in the Ratings

On a Tuesday in February, Hollywood is in the throes of a “Bonfire of the Vanities” moment. Karla Sofía Gascón’s old social media posts, with shocking takes on George Floyd (“a drug addict swindler”) and Islam (“an infection for humanity that urgently needs to be cured”), are roiling awards season and have turned the actress into a pariah. But the “Emilia Pérez” star, the first openly trans person nominated for an acting Oscar, is also a tricky subject to satirize.

Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert have ignored the conflagration that has engulfed this year’s standard-bearing #Resistance film. The task is left to Greg Gutfeld, whose eponymous Fox News show has made him the most-watched man in late night.

That's the way the profile begins at this "most authoritative and trusted source of entertainment business news." 

The profile starts by comparing Gutfeld to three men who are generally thought of as "late night comedians." It then declares that Gutfeld—in this case, the person, not the program—is "the most-watched man in late night."

It's a very familiar claim—a claim which is endlessly pushed by Gutfeld himself. 

At his own official site, Gutfeld describes himself as "the king of late night." Indeed, that was the title of the collection of essays he published in 2023.

According to Siegel, Gutfeld is "the most-watched man" in late night. It's a familiar type of claim, especially at the start of a major puff piece. But coming right at the start of her profile, is the claim actually true?

For ourselves, we'd be inclined to say that it pretty much isn't. As a basic point of logic, to be "the most-watched man in late night," a person would pretty much have to be the host of a TV show which actually airs in late night.

Gutfeld's program doesn't. Much later in her profile, the former print journalist of the year offers a sad and journalistically silly bit of instruction:

What is indisputable is [Gutfeld's] ratings prowess. The former print journalist...helms the only late-night program that averages more than 3 million viewers, according to the most recent Nielsen Media Research data....His critics say his numbers should come with an asterisk because he benefits from the earlier start time of 10 p.m., and that it airs even earlier on the West Coast. But in August 2022, he became the first late-night host to overtake Colbert in the ratings since 2017, and he accomplished that feat when “Gutfeld!” aired at 11 p.m. Like it or not, the nasal-voiced shit-stirrer who sees no topic as off-limits is leading the pack—and expanding his audience.

Interesting! According to that, Gutfeld is "leading the pack" when compared to other "late-night hosts."

For the record, there is no doubt that the Gutfeld! program boasts strong viewership numbers, as does every primetime program on the Fox News Channel. But is the fellow who was willing to give the program his name really a "late-night host?" 

Is Gutfeld really a late-night host? Sadly, the journalist leaves it to "Gutfeld's critics" to raise this obvious point:

His critics say his numbers should come with an asterisk because he benefits from the earlier start time of 10 p.m., and that it airs even earlier on the West Coast. 

Gutfeld's critics tell us that? Why wouldn't an experienced journalist at an "authoritative source of news" be stating that blindingly obvious point in her own journalistic voice, then moving on from there? 

In truth, Siegel's puffery is nowhere dumber than in that fuzzy passage. Consider what readers are (and aren't) told in that mumble-mouthed presentation:

The Gutfeld! program starts at 10 p.m., Siegel says. (She's referring to Eastern time, without specifically stating that point.) That said, the program "airs even earlier on the West Coast," the scribe then murkily says.

In fact, the program airs three hours earlier than 10 p.m. out there in Tinseltown, the village Siegel calls home. Because Gutfeld! airs simultaneously all across the fruited plain, it actually airs at 7 p.m. all through the Pacific Time Zone!

Also, the program airs at 9 p.m. in Chicago and at 8 p.m. in Denver. Whatever its merits and its ratings successes may be, Gutfeld! isn't a "late night" program, if we're all still speaking the English language, Sam Ervin's native tongue.

Citizens, please! By tradition, a program airing at 7 p.m. isn't a "late night" program. Indeed, a program airing at 7 p.m. isn't even a prime time program, though the boundaries of prime time have been changing in recent years within the realm of "cable news."

Gutfeld! airs at 7 p.m. all up and down the west coast! Does this mean that it "benefits from an earlier start time" as compared to the nation's traditional "late night" comedy shows, which air at 11:35 p.m. Eastern? 

Few claims could seem more obvious. Indeed, if we're all still speaking English, Gutfeld! isn't a "late night" show at all. 

While we're at it, is Gutfeld! really a "comedy show," as Siegel suggests all through her authoritative profile? For ourselves, we'd also say "no" to that implied claim. It's a very important point—an important point which we'll discuss as the week proceeds.

Briefly, let's be fair. Compared with other prime time shows on other "cable news" channels, Gutfeld! does have a very large viewership—of that there can be no doubt. 

To execute the most obvious comparison, Gutfeld! blows away the viewership numbers on the 10 p.m. Eastern programs on CNN and MSNBC, its most obvious competitors. 

Meanwhile, consider the way the numbers work for the shows with which Siegel, puffing hard, agree to perform a comparison:

Average viewers, final quarter, 2024:
Gutfeld! (Fox News Channel): 3.18 million
Jimmy Kimmel Live (ABC): 1.96 million
The Late Show with Stephen Colbert (CBS): 2.59 million
The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon (NBC): 1.32 million

Those numbers come from this report by Jed Rosenzweig at LateNighter

With respect to Gutfeld's show, Rosenzweig was sufficiently straightforward to note this obvious point:

Here Are Final Late Night Ratings for Q4 2024

[...]

Moving over to the cable side of the dial, Gutfeld! scored its highest ratings in the program’s history, up nearly +9% in total viewers vs an already record-breaking Q3. Greg Gutfeld‘s average audience now exceeds the top-rated network late-night shows by half a million viewers, although he benefits from an earlier airtime when more people are watching TV across the board (10pm ET/7pm PT).

It's an obvious point, and Rosenzweig was willing to state it in his own voice. He didn't pretend it was some sort of debatable claim muttered by "Gutfeld's critics."

Once again, let's be clear:

Gutfeld!, which isn't a late night show, does in fact attract more viewers than any of the traditional late night comedy shows aired by the three major networks. But please note:

Those other programs start at 11:35 Eastern—and they air in late time slots all across the nation. Even so, the Big Three programs, as a group, attract roughly twice as many total viewers as Gutfeld's earlier program does. 

Gutfeld! does, in fact, do very well in the "cable news" rating wars. But its viewership is roughly doubled by the trio of actual "late night" comedy shows which go on the air much later—which go on the air more than four hours later out there on the coast.

Does any of this foolishness matter? Only if life on this planet actually matters—and it isn't clear that human life really does matter within the wide array of journalistic charades currently being performed by our failing nation's wide assortment of authoritative journalists.

All in all, Tatiana Siegel was puffing hard as she profiled the Fox News Channel's ascendant "shit-stirrer." In an assortment of ways, her work was what we'd call an "imitation of life"—a parody of competent journalism, a dangerous type of charade.

No, Virginia! If we're still speaking conventional English, Gutfeld! isn't a late night show. That leads us toward our second question:

Is Gutfeld! a comedy dhow?

Plainly, that's the impression a reader might take from Siegel's pastiche of puffery. But if we were asked to shorthand Gutfeld's show, we would offer a different assortment of descriptions:

We'd call it a propaganda show—a propaganda show which airs on an imitation of a "cable news" channel. We'd be inclined to call the Gutfeld! program a destructive imitation of life—a charade in and of itself.

Siegel is silent about the matters we have in mind. That said, a wide array of journalistic silences surround the ongoing operations of the Fox News Channel. 

That's true at an "entertainment" publication like Variety, but also at weightier sites such as the New York Times. (To read the Times' mush-mouthed profile of Gutfeld from 2023, you can just click here.)

As our nation slides toward the sea, can anyone here play this game? Is anyone willing to try? 

We'll be exploring those questions all week with respect to the Gutfeld! program. For ourselves, we regard the (nightly, prime time) Gutfeld! show as an exercise in moral and intellectual squalor. 

We regard it as an imitation of life—as an imitation of adult human behavior. We regard it as a charade, like a great deal of our flailing nation's modern high-end journalism.

Alas! Our journalists lack a pre-existing, established language for describing programs like Gutfeld! Deprived of that linguistic road map, Siegel resorted to familiar puffery in the poverty of the time.

Tomorrow: Siegel is able to spot "misogyny"—but only from Howard Stern!