Off the Cuff: Discrimination at Oberlin?

In this week’s Off the Cuff audio commentary, I look at a lawsuit against Oberlin College in Ohio, where the plaintiff says she wasn’t hired because “she failed to meet the identity-based qualifications.”

You can listen to it by clicking on the play (arrow) button below.


Editor’s Note: If you enjoy these audio commentaries (along with the weekly columns and Q&A sessions), please use the Facebook and Twitter buttons to share this page with your friends and family. Thank you! 

In Post-George Floyd America Speaking Plain Truths Is Risky Business

Editor’s Note:  This column is a longer and more detailed version of a recent Off the Cuff.


In April of this year, a 7-year old Black girl was shot and killed while sitting in a car with her father at a McDonald’s drive-thru in Chicago.

A few weeks earlier, a 13-year old Latino boy was shot and killed by a Chicago police officer at 2-30 in the morning.  He had been running away from the police and was shot a split second after tossing a gun he had been carrying.

Murder in Chicago is hardly breaking news.  So far the city has recorded about 800 victims of homicide.   But this time a new element was added to the same sad story.  This time the CEO of a major American corporation weighed in. And what made his reaction to the deaths interesting is that he didn’t blame the usual suspects – systemic racism and rogue cops.

Chris Kempczinski, who heads up Chicago-based McDonald’s sent a text message to Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot that was recently made public in which he said that the shootings were “tragic.” Then he added:  “With both, the parents failed those kids.”

No parent wants to be accused of failing a child, but let’s take a look at whether Kempczinski was needlessly insensitive or if had reason to come to the conclusion that “both parents failed those kids.”

The father of the dead girl reportedly has a long criminal record and admitted on social media that he knew he was a target for gang retaliation. But that didn’t stop him from letting his 7-year old daughter sit in a car with him.

As for the 13-year old boy who was shot and killed by a police officer:  What was he doing with a gun? And what was he doing running around with a 21-year old repeat gun offender — at 2-30 in the morning no less?  The two had also been caught on video shooting at random moving cars when someone called the police. Gunpowder residue was found on the boy’s hand.

So based on the information we know, it looks like the McDonald’s CEO was onto something, that he did nothing more than tell an inconvenient truth.

But when his message to the mayor was revealed through a Freedom of Information Act request, there was a swift backlash. Activist groups called the text “ignorant, racist and unacceptable.”

“You relied on lazy, outdated and racist stereotypes in order to uphold the status quo and avoid accountability for those in power,” the groups wrote. “As the leader of one of the world’s largest private employers and most iconic brands, you have a responsibility to do so much better.”

Perhaps Kempczinski should have seen the backlash coming.  But for whatever reason he didn’t.  So did he hold firm and stand by his words?  Did he say anything about whether the dead children’s parents had a responsibility to do better?  Of course not.  Like so many CEOs these days, he apologized – over and over again.

In a letter to McDonald employees, he wrote: “I have not walked in the shoes of [those children’s families] and so many others who are facing a very different reality. Not taking the time to think about this from their viewpoint was wrong.”

In a video he sent to his employees this month he added, “I let you down, and I let myself down.”

Then he met with more than 100 pastors and community leaders from Chicago and across Illinois where he apologized again.  As Jason Riley noted in the Wall Street Journal: “Mr. Kempczinski was stating a plain truth, making an observation surely shared by an overwhelming majority of rational adults.”

But we now live in post-George Floyd America – and simply stating “a plain truth” has become a risky proposition. Uttering a reasonable opinion that is deemed “unacceptable” by the woke mob can get you smeared as a racist.  It can get you “cancelled,” especially if you’re talking about members of racial and ethnic minorities.

For quite a while now we’ve heard serious people say that we need to have an honest conversation about important matters like race.  I used to think that was a good idea.  Not anymore.

Now we live in a time when too many of us – including too many CEOs of major American corporations — have given in to the activists and have become afraid to tell plain truths. We’re afraid that the woke mob will come after us.

But what happens when we become a nation of people who are afraid to speak plain truths?  What happens when it’s easier to be a coward than to speak honestly about what we believe?

Not too long ago we Americans proudly believed the final words of our national anthem, that we were the “land of the free and the home of the brave.”  In many ways, of course, we’re still a great nation — but those words don’t seem as obvious anymore.  They don’t resonate the way they used to.

And sooner or later the American people – the rational ones, anyway – will (hopefully) say, “We’ve had enough of this woke nonsense.”

For many Americans, that day can’t come soon enough.

Bernie’s Q&A: O’Reilly, Carlson, Goldberg, Hayes, and more! (12/3) — Premium Interactive ($4 members)

Welcome to this week’s Premium Q&A session for Premium Interactive members. I appreciate you all signing up and joining me. Thank you.

Editor’s note: If you enjoy these sessions (along with the weekly columns and audio commentaries), please use the Facebook and Twitter buttons to share this page with your friends and family. Thank you! 

Now, let’s get to your questions (and my answers):

Bernie, I hope you had an excellent Thanksgiving! I know a lot of Republicans are predicting a red wave in 2022 but news of this new Covid variant should give everyone pause. Let’s not forget that in January of 2020, a lot of Republicans predicted a major Trump victory, but Covid happened and we know the rest of the blue story. What happens if a cure or highly effective treatment for Covid comes out next spring? Will Biden get credit? Is success against Covid a way for Biden to crush the red wave? — Joe M.

Success against Covid would not only be good for America and the rest of the world, yes, it would be good for President Biden too. I can live with that. Whatever happens with Covid, let’s remember that November 2022 is a very long way off — and all sorts of things can and will happen between now and then. And those things will affect the outcome of the midterms. Things look rosy for the GOP as the moment. But there’s no election at the moment. So Republicans can be optimistic, but there are no certainties in life or in politics.

Regarding President Biden you wrote he is a profile in cowardice. Hard to disagree but may I add he may be significantly delusional. His life’s dream was to be our president. His history is littered with verbal snafus, plagerism, extremely poor judgement, average intellect, plastic values, synthetic morals, pretentiousness and convenient recall. Even President Obama recognized Old Joe wasn’t fit for the challenges associated with being the leader of the free world. But for a confluence of unfortunate events I believe he would have lost the election. Covid and Trump’s abysmal debate performances saved him from his proper place in history. Cowardice, yes. Delusional, most certainly. — Bob S.

No argument here, Bob.

[Regarding Rittenhouse], you’d think “white supremacists” shooting each other would please the left. It’s even more interesting that they are racists for doing so. I can’t keep up. — Titaniumman

I know, it’s crazy. And you said it so well. I’d worry, my friend, if you COULD keep up with this nonsense.

[Regarding your Rittenhouse column,] spot on again. There’s no way you could watch the video of Rittenhouse being chased and in altercations with those he would later shoot and not assume some kind of “reasonable doubt” for self-defense. Also decrying the verdict is a kind of delegitimization of the legal system, which kind of matches, albeit at a smaller level, decrying the result of the 2020 Presidential election. I’m 62 years old and growing up in this country we’ve had political disagreements all through my youth, but never as direct, system challenging as now. Not a good sign for us. — John R.

Agreed, John. The polarization has gone way too far and, as you say, “not a good sign for us.” I don’t see what’s going to make things better anytime soon. Sorry for the pessimism, but I think that’s a realistic take on the sorry state of affairs.

I didn’t see Tucker Carlson’s special but I have listened to his TV opinions January 6. And he seems to be asking valid questions and bringing up valid points. He hasn’t seemed to condone the activities of that day. And he highlights the obvious fact that the Left has exploited and distorted the realities of the incident, and have exercised their corrupt control of institutions, including the media, to do so. He seems to be justifiably pushing back, so my question is are Hayes and Goldberg also questioning the Lefts behavior appropriately? I never liked Trump’s leadership of the conservative center-Right. But I fear the Left much more, and see the fight against them as top priority. And in that fight, Fox is indispensable. I have always liked and respected the opinions of Hayes and Goldberg, but I don’t know if they calculate the threats the same way. Sorry, but the Left and what they have done, are doing, and will do is far, far more of a threat than Tucker Carlson. Rachel Maddow and Tucker Carlson are NOT the same thing. One is honest, the other isn’t. If Hayes and Goldberg for some reason can’t see that, then I’m afraid I’ll simply have to bid them adieu. — James T.

I did not say Carlson and Maddow are the same thing. I said they’re in the same line of work. And that line of work is appealing to their niche audience. Neither says what the viewer doesn’t want to hear. As for Carlson … he’s nasty and attributes the worst motives to anyone he disagrees with. You’re free of course to think whatever you want about him. I hope you’re not concluding that I support the excesses of the Left. I don’t. And even a casual reading of my work would make that clear. Let’s end with the usual … reasonable people may disagree.

It’s clear that Fox News started going downhill the day they let Bill O’Reilly go. Regardless of what one thinks of Bill, and regardless of why the network let him go, the facts are that 1) He built the Fox News brand and, 2) in many ways, he was the one who gave the network credibility. Of course, Fox still has fine news anchors like Brett Baier, Bill Hemmer, Jon Scott, and Eric Shawn, as well as commentators like Chris Wallace and Brit Hume, but they have never defined the network for most people. Which is too bad because they are all high quality journalists.

O’Reilly always provide balance in Prime Time. He always gave voice to both sides. Every one of O’Reilly’s political segments featured the Liberal/Democrat perspective along with the Conservative/Republican side. If he couldn’t get a liberal guest, or if the guest backed out of their appearance, he always took the alternative point of view when discussing the issue at hand.

Not only were liberal voices like Austan Goolsbee, Marc Lamont Hill, Juan Williams and Kirsten Powers regular guests on Bill’s show over the years, but Democratic strategists like Mary Anne Marsh, Simon Rosenfeld and David Goodfriend also appeared regularly and were treated respectfully. O’Reilly never diminished their voices and would often end a segment with the phrase “Good debate!”

O’Reilly also regularly did something that the current prime time hosts NEVER do: bring on powerful voices that would disagree with him, in particular, the late Charles Krauthammer and Yours Truly. The segments where Krauthammer or you would smile and put Bill in his place were priceless, and said a lot about Bill being willing to let his audience see he wasn’t always right. But those days are gone, and so is Fox News. Do you agree with my perspective? — Joseph R.

I agree with all of your perspective, Joseph.

It seems as though the extremists on both sides are squeezing out the moderates on both ends. First you and O’Reilly, then several other moderate to liberal voices over a period of time. Now Mr. Hayes and Mr. Goldberg. I hope what happens is that more and more people just shut these slobbering fools off. I would think the news services would pay attention to these 18-30 demographics and see where there are getting their news. My two sons, both under 30, seem to be remarkably well, or so it seems, informed on broad issues, and yet neither one has cable hooked up in their homes. They have WiFi, and I know Obama’s campaign used that medium to encourage younger voters. But it seems that’s pretty much where it ended. I’ve for the most part have tuned out of broadcast and cable news for these forums from those I know have a moderate point of view and not some agenda other then the preservation of our democracy. Maybe you all, moderates on both sides, can get together and put together an outlet and get news journalism righted from its current perilous course towards oblivion. — Rodney A.

Cable news is in the business of extremes. They don’t want moderate voices. You know why, Rodney? Because the audience, by and large, doesn’t want moderate voices. The audience tunes in because cable news gives the viewer what the viewer wants — and doesn’t give him too much of what he doesn’t want. That said, there are more and more people who I’m hearing from who say what you’ve just told me: that you, for the most part, have tuned out. As for younger viewers: They never tuned in in the first place.

Bernie, [Hayes and Goldberg] agree with you so you understandably like it BUT there are many of us out there who are reasonable and quite pragmatic about Trump and the fact that he takes the Left on aggressively and gives as good as he gets. We are tired of the milquetoast Republicans of the past and want a fighter, warts and all. The tactics of the Left are reprehensible. We can’t keep sitting back and keep playing nice for the sheer decorum of it. I don’t watch Fox much anymore but Tucker Carlson is certainly not the reason. I find Fox a bit tiresome as well but without them the media landscape would be unbearably Leftist. While we fight among ourselves the Left comes together when it matters most. This has to stop or we will only have ourselves to blame. — Thomas C.

Here’s what I’m not sure you understand, Thomas. What you like about Donald Trump’s personality, most Americans don’t. In fact they detest his personality, which they see as toxic. You accept him as a “fighter, warts and all.” Most Americans see him as a liar, a bully and a narcissist — and they’re right; he’s all three. Joe Biden is president today not so much because voters saw him as a smart guy with great ideas. He’s president because they hated Donald Trump. And his “warts and all” personality also cost the GOP the House and it’s why two Democrats beat two Republicans — in historically red state Georgia! How any Republican can admire Donald Trump when he cost the party so much, is fascinating (and not in a good way).

One more thing, if I remember correctly, Thomas, you don’t believe that Trump really lost the election. Sorry to be the bearer of “bad” news, but he did lose. It’s time to move on. Donald Trump hasn’t but the majority of Americans have.

I heard that the contracts for Jonah Goldberg and Steve Hayes were ending soon anyway, and thus they really didn’t quit but simply took the opportunity to shine lights on themselves. Any truth to this? — Tony P.

First, as I understand it, their contracts were not ending soon anyway, as you put it. Hayes was signed until May of next year and Goldberg was signed until the end of next year. But that doesn’t mean people aren’t saying what you ask about. They are. And they’re mainly Trump loyalists, which explains a lot. And if Fox would rather have loudmouths on whose claim to fame is that they would kiss Donald Trump’s ass at high noon in Times Square …than have Goldberg and Hayes offering opinion … then that tells us a lot about Fox.

Chris Cuomo was finally – and indefinitely – suspended by CNN for actively using his media connections to dig up dirt and information useful to his brother the governor. This was after they repeatedly violated their own code of ethics over conflicts of interest concerning the Cuomos. I was frankly shocked they announced this suspension pending further investigation. In the past, CNN execs showed nothing but recklessness with any sense of journalistic integrity. In your opinion, what broke here? What finally gave way? — Steve R.

Sometimes people cross a line that can’t be ignored. This is one of those cases. But let’s wait and see how this plays out. I wouldn’t be shocked if CNN waits a while, hopes this episode fades away, and brings Cuomo back. If not, MSNBC would be a good fit.

Great article, Bernie! I feel this kind of thing was inevitable since Fox News launched Fox Nation (to which I don’t subscribe). The idea that a news organization has a paid streaming service that offers curated content aimed at the political ideology of the majority of their viewers is highly problematic. However, I am curious how impactful Carlson’s Patriot Purge special was given it was aired on the streaming service and not the main channel. I’d be curious to get your perspective of Fox Nation and it’s impact thus far. Thank You. — Hendrick G.

I don’t think it matters all that much that the “documentary” aired on a streaming channel. First, because the channel is part of Fox News and so what happens on the streaming service affects the reputation of Fox News in general. And second, streaming is big and getting bigger. Sure there are fewer people who watch Fox Nation than those who watch the Fox News channel, but still what appears on the streaming service is seen by more than a few people.

I have always considered myself a mainstream center-right conservative. I have always appreciated smart, insightful commentary. I currently subscribe to National Review and I did to Weekly Standard while it was still with us in print. I am also an original subscriber to The Dispatch, a place where I find my perspectives both challenged and largely shared. This is the reason that I also now subscribe to you Bernie and am happy at the opportunity to participate in intelligent discussion. My question is this: moving forward in time, is there a place for relevant conservative critique, analysis and discussion that might be able to swing the pendulum back into normal ranges? Will those of us who had to back out of the Fox orbit always be contained within a small remnant of movement conservatism? I consider myself more an optimist than a “Debbie Downer”. But my faith is strained at the seams nowadays. — Jesse B.

There are more than a few places, Jesse, that dish out relevant, reasonable, thoughtful commentary on the right. You named a few — and thanks for adding me to the list. But I don’t see a cable news channel on the horizon that would be to your liking — or mine. That’s because cable makes money appealing to the partisan right and the partisan left. The viewer doesn’t tune into cable news to get nuanced commentary that might get him to change his mind. The viewer tunes in to get his or her own views validated. When enough people turn away from the three main cable news operations, tired of the same old partisan crap, maybe then things will change. But I’m not holding my breath.

I have been watching excerpts of the Supreme Court case on Mississippi abortion law. I noticed that Justice Sotomayer was very rude to the attorney representing Mississippi when questioning him. She kept interrupting him. While Justice Thomas was very respectful. As I read Twitter feeds, I also noticed that the liberal tweets were very rude on this topic while the conservative tweets were not. I don’t think that you can generalize that liberals are rude and conservatives are respectful, but it seems that on this topic, that is true. What are your thoughts on this? — Jerry G.

The subject of abortion raises passions on both sides. The Wall Street Journal editorial page agrees with you, Jerry … that she was (if not rude) political. We know how she, Kagan, and Breyer will vote. Not sure about the others, though I think Thomas and Alito will uphold the Mississippi law. I’m with you Jerry, in that you can’t generalize about rudeness. There’s plenty to go around from both sides on many subjects.

The Supreme Court is now allowing live TV coverage of hearings and arguments. Before they were just allowing live audio coverage. I don’t think this is a good change, because as we’ve seen with DC politicians, being on camera makes everyone act more theatrical and less professional than they otherwise would. The SCOTUS seems to be one of our last respectable gov institutions (for the most part). I’d hate to see it slowly turn into Judge Judy or Jerry Springer. What are your thoughts? — Ben G.

I’m not sure that the Supreme Court is allowing TV coverage … not yet anyway.  But that aside, I think you’re on to something, Ben.  The camera does tend to affect conduct.  But I think the Justices have more class than Jerry Springer and less drama than Judge Judy. Still you make a legitimate point.  That said, I found the oral arguments this week captivating — and would definitely tune in for live TV coverage.

I might find [the topic of this week’s “Off the Cuff”] laughable if the folks who are redefining our syntax were not so serious and have so much power. And we all cower before the threat of racist for pointing out that the vast majority of looters are black. Kudos to you, Bernie, for not backing away from that fact. I can’t remember hearing it it from any of the “news” reporters out there. How do we solve the problems if we can’t just acknowledge what is true, not ideology? — John F.

Thanks, John. I think in most cases, the race of the criminal suspect is NOT relevant. But sometimes it is. If a bunch of white guys attack a black guy because of his race, then race is relevant in the news account  — and the other way around.I could actually make the case that in instances of looting we DON’T need to know the race of the looter. But when the woke crowd say we can’t call looters … looters … and when the “intellectuals” who make that case are black … then race, arguably, becomes relevant.

This week’s Off The Cuff makes me ask—-that liberal black professor at New Haven University wants us to stop using the word “looters” because he claims that it’s racist. You mentioned that In all likelihood that he is just upset because it makes black criminals look bad and he himself is black. (I recall a black politician doing the same thing years ago with the word “thug” which he likened to the infamous N-word, but I digress). I would think that a former police officer would see firsthand the bad choices and familial breakdowns that lead to such criminal behavior as looting. So I’m not a fan of left wing academics and I don’t claim to be a sociology expert, but I would think that if he really did want to help struggling black communities, that he would push self-sufficiency, better lifestyle choices, and hard work and studying to help people better themselves, rather than push to change the words to describe bad criminal behavior, which would accomplish ABSOLUTELY NOTHING —-even I, your humble benevolent Emperor, can see that. Why don’t liberal academics see it? For that matter—-I’m tired of hearing the term “White Supremacy” used indiscriminately—-from now on let’s say “Caucasian Conservatives Who Point Out How F—-ING STUPID & ASININE Liberal Woke Progressives & Their Enablers Are.” Whaddya think? Rolls off the tongue pretty easily, doesn’t it? –“Redefining Words WON’T IMPROVE the BAD CHOICES People Make” Regards from The Emperor

What do I think, you ask. I think you F’ing nailed it, that’s what I think.

Mark Meadows, former President Trump’s Chief of Staff, is releasing a new pro-Trump book. One of the book’s revelations (which was previously divulged by anonymous White House sources) is that Trump tested positive for COVID-19 three days BEFORE his infamous, wild and wacky presidential debate with Joe Biden. Though Meadows claims that a subsequent COVID test came back negative, he also added in the book that the campaign knew both candidates had “to test negative for the virus within seventy two hours of the start time,” and that “Nothing was going to stop [Trump] from going out there.” A couple days after the debate, it was made public that Trump was indeed infected (along with some of his family and staff). 

Trump has called the positive-test allegation “fake news”, but also endorsed Meadows’ book which is being marketed as “No fake stories. Just the truth.”

I have a theory as to what happened. Let me know what you think:

Trump indeed tested positive for COVID-19 before the debate, but recognized an opportunity from it. After faking the second test by having Jesse Watters submit his own saliva for it (Watters was always drooling around Trump anyway), Trump decided he was going to infect Biden on stage a few nights later (nailing Chris Wallace too, as an added bonus), and hopefully force him out of the race due to serious illness. That’s why Trump kept interrupting, shouting, and speaking out of turn that night: he was trying to hock a loogie all the way across the stage at Biden, while knowing all along that, as president, he had access to experiential anti-body treatment for himself that Biden didn’t have.

Do you think Trump would be president today if he were a better spitter? And if I were to present the above theory as fact rather than speculation, do you think I might be awarded my own cable news program? — John D.

Yes on the cable news program question: ON CNN OR MSNBC.

I think if you could add a few more words you could turn your theory into a book. Sounds fascinating. I’d buy it. And I haven’t heard the term “hock a loogie” for quite some time now. I sort of wish you left that out of your otherwise brilliant analysis. If writing books is not your thing, Mr. D (inside joke), then a column would work fine. Please contact John Daly if you’re interested. He handles that kind of thing for my website. And thank you for sending in a question Mr. D.


Thanks, everyone! You can send me questions for next week using the form below! You can also read previous Q&A sessions by clicking here.

Off the Cuff: Whitewashing “Looting” and Other Non-Woke Terms

In this week’s Off the Cuff audio commentary, I look at the movement to redefine socially damaging behavior.

You can listen to it by clicking on the play (arrow) button below.


Editor’s Note: If you enjoy these audio commentaries (along with the weekly columns and Q&A sessions), please use the Facebook and Twitter buttons to share this page with your friends and family. Thank you! 

They Quit Because They Had Enough of What Fox News Has Become

Two prominent Fox News contributors, who have offered intelligent, conservative but not mindlessly partisan commentary on the channel, have quit. They had enough of what Fox News has become, “the Trump administration in exile,” as Kevin Williamson put it in National Review.

Jonah Goldberg and Stephen Hayes – neither a fan of the former president – resigned and explained their reason in a message to their readers at the Dispatch, an online publication that they described as “a place that thoughtful readers can come for conservative, fact-based news and commentary.”

Here’s part of what they wrote: “As you may know, we’ve been Fox News contributors for a long time. For most of that time, we enjoyed ourselves and believed we were contributing to a good cause. Whether you call it liberal media bias or simply a form of groupthink around certain narratives, having a news network that brought different assumptions and asked different questions—while still providing real reporting and insightful conservative analysis and opinion—was good for the country and journalism.

“But over the past few years, that’s changed. And the tension has grown between what we are building at The Dispatch — a fact-driven, center-right media company — and what’s come to dominate the network, particularly in primetime.

“In late October, Tucker Carlson aired a promotion for a series he produced for Fox Nation, Fox’s subscription streaming service, called Patriot Purge. It’s a revisionist history of January 6, one in which those who participated in the rally and subsequent storming of the Capitol are victims. Among the main protagonists of the series are the organizer of the ‘Stop the Steal’ rallies and a racist fired from the Trump White House for his associations with white nationalists. The message of the series? The U.S. government is coming after patriots as part of a ‘War on Terror 2.0,’ using the same tools and tactics used to fight al-Qaeda.

“This isn’t true, and it’s dangerous to pretend it is. And for us, it was way too far. We resigned after watching the series in its entirety and asked Fox to release us from the rest of our contracts.”

This seems to be a good time to repeat what I’ve often said and written: Fox News – and the other cable news operations – are not so much in the news business as they are in the business business. Opinion hosts (and most paid contributors) are there to inflame the grievances and validate the biases of the audience. They’re supposed to feed viewers the kind of opinions that they want to hear. They are not expected to give “inconvenient” opinions that might offend the viewer or God forbid, make the viewer think. Make no mistake it’s not only Fox; it’s the same at all the cable channels. Tucker Carlson and Rachel Maddow are in the same line of work.

But in the case of Fox News, a sizeable portion of the audience wants to hear good news about Donald Trump (just as Maddow’s audience wants to hear bad news about him). Fox loyalists don’t want to hear that he egged on the mob that stormed the Capitol.

Tucker Carlson often appeals to the right-wing fringe. Who knows whether he believes what he says. What we know for certain is that it works. Carlson, more often than not, is the highest rated host on cable TV news.

Writing about the departure of Goldberg and Hayes, the New York Times said that, “The reality of Fox and similar institutions is that many of their leaders feel that the tight bond between Mr. Trump and their audiences or constituents leaves them little choice but to go along, whatever they believe. Fox employees often speak of this in terms of ‘respecting the audience.’ And in a polarized age, the greatest opportunities for ratings, money and attention, as politicians and media outlets left and right have demonstrated, are on the extreme edges of American politics.”

Liberal contributors have some leeway when it comes to criticizing Donald Trump. They’re tokens and are allowed contrary points of view – within reason. There are always three or four conservatives to spout the accepted party line – to make sure the audience knows what side Fox is on.

I heard from a wise conservative friend after Goldberg and Hayes quit. In an email he said: “What’s happened with FOX News makes me sick. Its coming into being was great for journalism and great for the country. And for a long time it remained so. And they still have some first-rate journalists. But they sold their souls to … Trump and they’re too damn stupid to realize the damage they’ve done to the conservative cause they claim to espouse.”

He’s right. And so are Jonah Goldberg and Stephen Hayes. They did the right thing. They didn’t have to agree with everything they heard on Fox, but certain things they couldn’t ignore. They no longer wanted to be part of an organization that not only tolerates, but encourages, Trump sycophancy. A tip of the hat to both of them.

Sean Coleman is back in John A. Daly’s upcoming thriller novel, “Restitution.” Click here to pre-order.