For Laura Ingraham, there was no choice but to apologize to Parkland school shooting activist David Hogg for her foolish tweet regarding the 17-year-old being rejected by several colleges.

"On reflection, in the spirit of Holy Week, I apologize for any upset or hurt my tweet caused him or any of the brave victims of Parkland," Ingraham wrote on Twitter. "For the record, I believe my show was the first to feature David immediately after that horrific shooting and even noted how 'poised' he was given the tragedy. As always he's welcome to return to the show anytime for a productive discussion."

ADVERTISEMENT

Ingraham had obviously seen this story played out before, almost one year ago, via her friend and former co-worker Bill O'Reilly, a cable news icon who eventually saw too many advertisers flee his program, forcing the network to dispose of the popular prime-time figure who had been with it for decades as the industry's top-rated host.



You know the drill: Once one advertiser goes, it's certain another will follow, given recent history.

And another.

And another.

Because once that snowball gets going, there's no telling where or when it will stop, in the fear of a brand being permanently damaged.

We're now at seven on the Ingraham front as of Friday morning, despite her apology on Thursday afternoon.



Ingraham, and perhaps those above her on the Fox News food chain, saw the all-too-familiar scenario playing out again after Hogg's boycott call gained momentum in the media and especially on social media. And given all the changes at the network in the past 15 months — the ousters of O'Reilly and Eric Bolling amid sexual misconduct allegations, the departure of Megyn Kelly to NBC, the passing of Roger Ailes, the resignation of his successor in Bill Shine, and all the programming changes that have resulted — the last thing Fox wanted was to lose another host after stabilizing its lineup, maintaining its ratings dominance and putting new management in place at the top.



So how did we get here? A review of the past 48 hours shows Hogg tweeting out a note about him being rejected from four schools, including UCLA. Ingraham unwisely jumped on board from there to jab Hogg and included an original "Daily Wire" story on the topic. "David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA...totally predictable given acceptance rates.)," she wrote to her 2.17 million followers.

David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA...totally predictable given acceptance rates.) https://t.co/wflA4hWHXY — Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) March 28, 2018

Hogg responded by listing 12 prominent advertisers of "The Ingraham Angle" in calling on a boycott. He proceeded to expand the list to 100 by sharing a list by Media Matters, which has ample experience in this arena from targeting Fox News hosts before. Notably, Hogg chose to accelerate his boycott effort after Ingraham's apology.

Hogg expanded the reason for the Ingraham boycott beyond her tweet around his college rejections late Thursday by retweeting a Daily Kos story recounting the host's more provocative and controversial comments over her career.

‍♂️ this is just sad I'm so sorry to all those @IngrahamAngle has hurt we are here for you #BoycottIngramAdverts https://t.co/TG2YK8QTi1 — David Hogg (@davidhogg111) March 29, 2018

So what is this boycott about exactly? Ingraham immaturely mocking a public figure in the form of Hogg around some schools that rejected him? Or is it about Ingraham's career as a conservative talk radio and television opinion host overall?

Either way, we've entered some dangerous territory here, if boycotts like this one succeed. And not many are speaking out against said danger for two reasons:



1) Fear of reprisal for criticizing Hogg, who has the benefit of being protected from any criticism while being free to level it.



2) Fear of being seen as "the person attacking a mass school shooting survivor," regardless of whether there's a basis for such criticism or not.



When Hogg first appeared on television shortly after that horrific day at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Feb. 14, he couldn't look more impressive in terms of his composure, intelligence and ability to report in an articulate, measured way that some adults in this business have yet to master.

David Hogg is a high school journalist with a professionalism and lucidity that is beyond impressive based on his on-scene reports from #Parkland on Wednesday. The highest kudos to David amidst chaos and death and afterward in national interviews. Beyond impressive. — Joe Concha (@JoeConchaTV) February 14, 2018

Ludicrous claims of him being a child actor or being coached soon followed and have, thankfully, been dismissed by those not living in a world of conspiracy theories or blinded by pure partisanship.

Know this: He may be 17 but should be treated like an adult after entering the arena and becoming a prominent voice in what has become the biggest story of the year thus far.



But things have gone sideways since. Hogg has played loose with more than a few facts and has leveled the same kind of personal attacks on which he's basing this boycott. And, through it all, almost all anchors and reporters have allowed him to go unchallenged out of that same fear of being seen as monsters for going after "the kid with the just cause."

There are exceptions to those not willing to challenge Hogg, starting first and foremost with conservative writer/commentator and podcast/radio host Ben Shapiro. "I look forward to Hogg's apologies to Republicans ('sick f***ers'), Dana Loesch (she was 'hypocritical and disgusting' for criticizing Broward Sheriff Scott Israel), and [Sen.] Marco Rubio Marco Antonio RubioMurky TikTok deal raises questions about China's role Sunday shows preview: Justice Ginsburg dies, sparking partisan battle over vacancy before election Florida senators pushing to keep Daylight Savings Time during pandemic MORE [R-Fla.] (he said Rubio was bribed by the [National Rifle Association] to give away children's lives)," Shapiro wrote in the online publication he founded, The Daily Wire.



"You may not like what Ingraham said. You may disagree with it. I did. But it isn't remotely CLOSE to the level of viciousness with which Hogg has attacked people who disagree with him," Shapiro added.



And Shapiro is correct. As is Parkland student Kyle Kashuv.



"The media took interest in [Hogg] to push an agenda," Kushuv, a pro-Second Amendment student, wrote in a series of tweets aimed at Hogg. "They've propped people up and have turned them into shields. I am not doubting anyone's sincerity, but people have certainly been hiding behind my classmates to push an agenda."

The #March4OurLives had so much potential to be pure and grassroots but became very far from that. It was exactly what conservatives hate and what liberals love. At this point, with millions of dollars involved, every student, including myself, became a pawn in a game of chess. — Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) March 29, 2018

People that just experienced a horrific tragedy were now on the national stage propped up by millions of dollars. It is too late to back out. Armed with little facts and lots of feelings, my peers made their way on to major networks to spread their message. — Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) March 29, 2018

Hogg has rejected Ingraham's apology and says he will only accept such an overture if she denounces what he described as the network's attempt to "mudsling at children."

I 100% agree an apology in an effort just to save your advertisers is not enough. I will only accept your apology only if you denounce the way your network has treated my friends and I️ in this fight. It’s time to love thy neighbor, not mudsling at children. https://t.co/H0yWs4zMGk — David Hogg (@davidhogg111) March 29, 2018

And therein lies the rub: As stated, Hogg should be treated as an adult. It's the arena he chose to enter and had every right to do so, given his abilities and what he experienced. But if a boycott succeeds here, it sets the kind of precedent that will forever change what the First Amendment is supposed to stand for.

Ingraham wrote an ill-advised tweet that had zero upside. She's apologized since.

Hogg won't accept and will continue to push back, via social media and a Friday morning CNN interview, an effort that won't end until Ingraham vanishes from the airwaves.

If you want to help I would suggest contacting 3-4 of these companies. Lets do this — David Hogg (@davidhogg111) March 29, 2018

If someone is offended by her program or her as a person, don't watch or listen and allow the free market eventually to decide if she's worth keeping on.

But the effort to silence a voice, to essentially end a career, based on something like this sets not only a dangerous but completely un-American precedent.

Joe Concha (@JoeConchaTV) is a media reporter for The Hill.