Twenty years ago, I edited a collection of speeches, songs, and statements that in my opinion defined the nation. It is called “The American Reader: Words That Shaped a Nation.” If I were revising it today, I would add the brilliant, unscripted speech that Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes delivered yesterday about the crude remarks that a Florida Republican made to her face.
What is so impressive about her remarks is that–as you will see– she does not have a written speech in front of her. She has a few notes. She speaks spontaneously from her heart. Those are the best speeches.
She is eloquent and brilliant.
Alexandra Petri wrote in the Washington Post about Rep. Yoho’s apologetic non-apology.
“I cannot apologize for my passion, or for loving my God, my family, and my country! I yield back!”
— Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.), apologizing(?) to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)
You may wonder, “Ted, how did you get so good at apologizing?” What can I say? It’s a gift. I’ve literally never done it before. Some (the recipient of my apology, technically) would say that I still haven’t! Welcome to my master class, where I’ll showcase just a few of the tricks that I employed in my apology on the House floor to my colleague from New York!
“Wait, I thought he called Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a ‘f—ing b—-’ under his breath in front of a reporter!” those who heard this apology said. “But I guess what happened was that he said, ‘I LOVE MY COUNTRY AND I LOVE MY GOD,’ in a very garbled mutter under his breath, and some member of the lamestream media badly misheard him!”
Most people say that a good apology accepts responsibility, acknowledges the harm done and seeks to make amends. This is not true. A good apology does none of these things! A good apology is like the Battle Hymn of the Republic: It is a patriotic song about America that never says it’s sorry, not even one bit.
To apologize or otherwise take responsibility for something you have said or done in the past is deeply un-American, and you must put your foot down and refuse in no uncertain terms, or an eagle will lose its wings.
Every good apology contains five parts:
1) What sounds like the beginning of a normal apology. Announce that you are going to apologize, because you are a bigger person. Do not be afraid to expatiate on all the ways you are a bigger person — there are probably lots! That is what the apology is about: to remind people how great you are, and how you have never done anything wrong, ever, in your life.
2) Denial that the event in question even happened. Try to obfuscate, because a good apology is full of suspense. Like “Memento”! And also, like “Memento,” your audience should spend the majority of it wondering (a) what even happened and (b) whether the guy in question did anything bad at all.
3) Apology for something that someone else did wrong. Now for the best part of any apology: the unexpected twist! “The offensive name-calling words attributed to me by the press were never spoken to my colleagues, and if they were construed that way, I apologize for their misunderstanding.” Wow! What even happened? It sounds like this man is magnanimously apologizing for somebody else’s misunderstanding — which he should not have to do! Whatever this guy has to say, I’m listening!
4) Panegyric about yourself. Be sure to indicate that whatever it was that happened, it was not your fault; you were too busy thinking Great Thoughts About the People’s Well-Being to do anything that could be unworthy of a patriot and statesman. Be sure to mention that you are a father of daughters, no matter what you are ostensibly apologizing for. Make it clear that you are only apologizing because you are such a bosom companion of Jesus Christ …
5) Refusal to apologize! … and that you will not apologize for any of these things! “I cannot apologize for my passion, or for loving my God, my family, and my country! I yield back!”
Now that’s an apology!
People should start your apology thinking they understand that you are asking forgiveness for calling your colleague a sexist obscenity under your breath and end it by being confused and thinking that maybe you are being asked to apologize for being too good a person, who loves America too much? By the time you are done speaking, your listener should be saying to himself, “Well, what could be more American than insulting a woman of color who is supposed to be your respected colleague!”
Sign up for this master class now for further tips and tricks! A few spots are still remaining, but they are going fast!
Coming soon: How to make the person you are apologizing to the villain in this situation if she tries pointing out that this wasn’t an apology at all.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“I have tossed men out of bars who’ve used language like Mr Yoho’s.” That says it perfectly.
I really think that AOC is the future of the democratic party. She has been joined by a growing number of new progressive democrats — including Jamaal Bowman who defeated a powerful mainstream Democrat in the primary. That doesn’t mean that progressive policy happens overnight but as long as we move in the right direction and not backward — as has happened the last 4 years — that will happen.
AOC brilliantly explains progressive ideas in a way that few people can. I know that Bill Clinton had many flaws, but his ability to clearly explain what raising taxes on the wealthy means — instead of letting the right mischaracterize it — was so important. I wish that Bernie Sanders had the skills that Bill Clinton had to explain progressive policy to Americans, which disempowered the right wing purveyors of scare tactics. Sanders might have won the primary had he been better at that.
But AOC does have those “explainer in chief” Bill Clinton skills. I love hearing her explain things. I hope I live long enough to vote for her for president!
I hope she is the future of the Democratic party. She has so much promise, and she has a talent like Clinton for explaining difficult subjects clearly and easily.
AOC is either the future of the Democratic Party or she will be one of the underground leaders in the Civil War fighting to save the U.S. Constitution from Dear Leader for Life Emperor Donald Trump and his Fascist Trumplican Party that was once known as Lincoln’s Republican Party, you know, President Lincoln that won a Civil War to end slavery in the United States and keep the country from breaking apart into two.
Now we have a Fascist President who wants a Civil War to bring back slavery, turn women into 2nd class citizens again and, possibly end up dividing the U.S. into more than one country if he cannot dominate all of the states as he wants too.
Imagine the future with a West Coast United States, the Republic of Hawaii, the Republican of Texas, the Republic of Alaska, the Northeast United States, and TrumpEekStan, all the hardcore, poverty-riddled, undereducated red states left over.
If that happens, there will be two hermit kingdoms on Earth. North Korea and TrumpEekStan.
What a sad place we’d already come to in the ’90’s, where “raising taxes on the wealthy”– when marginal tax rates had fallen a number of points at a time when the wealthy already held a vastly larger share of national income than in the ’50’s — had to be viewed as “progressive” policy requiring nuanced explanation by Prez Clinton. And things have only gone further south since then.
“Progressive” in my growing-up years meant heavy-handed govt dictating ham-handed, bureaucratically-standardized “solutions” applied willy-nilly to everybody, resulting in all kinds of anomalies and unintended consequences, squelching smallbiz & largebiz innovations, lowering productivity & GDP, meaning less wealth to spread via safety-nets. Centrist policy [Dem or Rep] was a balancing act: loose enough regs to ensure high productivity & GDP, which meant ample profits to share w/ labor & ensure robust public goods, & enough left over to stave off starvation among poor & elderly. It wasn’t perfect by any means, but the trajectory was improving.
Enter the twin challenge of digitalization [/automation] and the rise of E Asian competition. The US pie shrank, & govt response was trickle-up finance + free-for-all among $cloutiest to grab biggest pieces, triggering spiralling inequality/ winnowing of middle class.
Today, “progressive policy” has somehow morphed into the equivalent of sensible measures to stem & reverse that tide.
You must watch the delivery on You Tube. She is brilliant and also planned time for colleagues to speak. This is the start of something very big, and the more women who gain courage from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes, the better for all of us.
It was brilliant. I think she’s got a future!
And Katie Porter did her stuff too (I love that woman–politically speaking):
https://crooksandliars.com/2020/07/rep-katie-porter-cuts-lockheed-martin-exec
Greg-
If you haven’t seen it, Matt Shuhan at TPM posted about the FBI’s source for the Borges arrest. (7-24)
Instead of walking away like a wounded little girl that was hurt by a bully, AOC showed her spunk. She announced the uncivil behavior of Rep. Yoho by publicly embarrassing him. Yoho could not even muster up a real apology. She called him out again for his insincere faux apology. Women and little girls everywhere cheered!
AOC and her generation are the future of the progressive movement! Viva! She is so so courageous is speaking truth to power and good on her for speaking Yoho’s curse into the record.
Yoho is despicable slime. He thought he could bully and intimidate AOC with his crude verbal barrage. Wrong, he failed miserably like the coward and phony which he is, he underestimated the courage, perseverance and brilliance of AOC. We need more AOCs.
Very much appreciated getting to watch this.
OK. This Yahoo makes even Flor-uh-duh Man look bad.
Yoho should be invited into a Jewish household for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. Maybe he would learn something about his “sorry, not sorry” apology and about his actions towards others. His fake Christianity is on display for all to see and it’s pretty abhorrent.
Yoho forgot to add the fundamentalist contrivance, “we are all sinners”, which brings the victim into shared guilt.
Found this when I looked up TPM story on Borges–what a horrible man, remember he was dumped as state GOP chair because he didn’t love the Idiot enough. Seems even Christian groups are mad at Yoho:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/christian-organization-sought-yohos-resignation-from-board-following-non-apology
Yoho must be among the religious right who think God loves liars. Considering The Hill is right wing, I doubt one of its journalists would report falsely to help a progressive.
Great headline. I couldn’t agree more.
Very impressive she dissected him piece by piece.
“Yoho blow the man down” (ie, knock him down with your fist)
(19th century sea shanty)
Come all ye young tweeters that follow AOC
With a yo ho! Blow the man down,
Now just pay attention and listen to me,
Give her some time to blow the man down.
Aboard the Black Baller* I first served my time,
With a yo ho! Blow the man down,
But on the Black Baller I wasted my time,
Give me some time to blow the man down.
We’d tinkers and tailors and sailors and all
With a yo ho! Blow the man down,
That sailed for good seaman aboard the Black Ball.
Give her some time to blow the man down.
‘Tis larboard and starboard, on the deck you will crawl,
With a yo ho! Blow the man down,
For Kicking Jack Williams commands the Black Ball.
Give her some time to blow the man down.
Now when the Black Baller’s preparin’ for sea
With a yo ho! Blow the man down,
You’d bust your sides laughin’ at the sights that you see.
Give her some time to blow the man down.
But when the Black Baller is clear of the land,
With a yo ho! Blow the man down.
Old Kicking Jack Williams gives ev’ry command
Give her some time to blow the man down.
Sometimes life imitates art
The untold story here is that Yahoo knew just what he was doing. To get the people who voted for him to like him all the more he confronted a figure that the right has been trying desperately to demonize.
The right has a proven agenda of demonizing all who show promise in their opposition. AOC is articulate and very dangerous to the right wing. She represents what the right wants people to fear. Just as they went after Hillary Clinton, they are going after her.
But her people like a girl who fights back. could the right wing ploy backfire?
Republican women ignore the fact that GOP reps in the House include 186 men and 13 women. So, Yoho’s tirade certainly won’t dissuade them from voting Republican.
On the Democratic side, IIhan Omar has to face the well funded, Antone Melton-Meaux who appeals to the prosperity evangelicals, Catholics and Jews.
AOC is so smart and courageous. Her logic is razor sharp. She’s articulate. Go AOC! You go woman.
I wish this was the first time I personally had heard AOC called all those exact words. There must be a website for, uh, indoctrinating all the yo-yos, I mean Yohos.
I really like listening to her. I grew up during a time when most women “knew their place.” We were beginning to push against the status quo during the “make love not war” era, but if we went to college, the first job search always required typing. It’s taken me most of my seventy years to fully realize that there is no reason to defer to a man just because he is a man. Somehow my children have all internalized the idea that their sex has nothing to do with their superiority/inferiority to anyone else. Thank God!
LOVE this woman . . . I admit I have a crush. She’s brilliant all over! Now if we can only get about 400 more of her into the D.C. ranks.
YO!!
YOU-WHO, YOHO: YOU’RE A YELLOW-BELLIED YAHOO!!!!!
Oh, this is brilliant. She made it crystal clear why he was wrong, and why she had to respond. Our former Prime Minister Julia Gillard made almost exactly the same sort of speech on the floor of Parliament back in 2012, which you may recall went viral around the world at the time.
Reading through Gillard’s speech, I’m getting chills when I see that she also refers to her late father (like AOC): this is in reference to a revolting comment by a now-thankfully-retired radio announcer who said that Gillard’s father (who died after she became PM) had supposedly “died of shame” at his daughter’s behaviour while in office.
Julia Gillard, 2012:
“The Leader of the Opposition says do something; well he could do something himself if he wants to deal with sexism in this Parliament.
He could change his behaviour, he could apologise for all his past statements, he could apologise for standing next to signs describing me as a witch and a bitch, terminology that is now objected to by the frontbench of the Opposition.
He could change a standard himself if he sought to do so. But we will see none of that from the Leader of the Opposition because on these questions he is incapable of change. Capable of double standards, but incapable of change. His double standards should not rule this Parliament.
Good sense, common sense, proper process is what should rule this Parliament. That’s what I believe is the path forward for this Parliament, not the kind of double standards and political game-playing imposed by the Leader of the Opposition now looking at his watch because apparently a woman’s spoken too long.”
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 2020:
“This is not new, and that is the problem. Mr. Yoho was not alone. He was walking shoulder to shoulder with Representative Roger Williams, and that’s when we start to see that this issue is not about one incident.
It is cultural. It is a culture of lack of impunity, of accepting of violence and violent language against women, and an entire structure of power that supports that. Because not only have I been spoken to disrespectfully, particularly by members of the Republican Party and elected officials in the Republican Party, not just here, but the President of the United States last year told me to go home to another country, with the implication that I don’t even belong in America. The governor of Florida, Governor DeSantis, before I even was sworn in, called me a whatever that is.
Dehumanizing language is not new, and what we are seeing is that incidents like these are happening in a pattern. This is a pattern of an attitude towards women and dehumanization of others.”
Why did Rep. Yoho call Ocasio-Cortez a “F-ing B”? She also said he called her “dangerous.” He called her a “F-ing B” because he felt powerless. He couldn’t CONTROL her. He couldn’t control her thoughts. He couldn’t control her vote. That made her “dangerous” to him. He couldn’t dominate her because she showed herself to be her own person. My mother was a lawyer and if someone called her a “B” or some other sexist name, she would say, “I’m the biggest B- you’ll ever run into. And don’t forget it.” She was saying, “I’m my own person and I will stick up for myself. You can’t control me.” And, boy, is that frightening to a man.
I think it’s educational to see Yoho’s nonapology: it’s a written ramble about unrelated stuff about his past, family, God. He even appears choking up reading his own lowlife speech.
God made me do it!
God, She made me do it!
She’s the one to blame
Put me right up to it
Bitching is her game
AOC is 31 now, and she’ll be of eligible age for presidency the next time around, won’t she?
She will be 31 in mid October, so yeah, she would be eligible, just barely, in 2024.
Can she campaign before she is 35?
Can’t say that I understand the age 35 requirement, anyway.
Most politicians get dumber with age, not smarter.
And wisdom is something you either have or don’t have. And most politicians don’t and never will.
I agree. Think about the fact that Yoho is eligible to run for presidency but AOC isn’t.
Heavy reports that Mrs. Yoho is skeptical about corona virus (predictable). She campaigned for Trump in 2016, a man who had children with 3 different women (presumably, “grabbing women by the pussy”, is a conservative value). And, she posts anti-abortion messages.
The Federalist Society (linked to Koch) devoted a page to Ted Yoho at its site. Ted and Carolyn, his wife, instilled in their children the value of “treating people fairly.” Presumably, that includes calling your political opponent, a f___ing b___ch. In order to preserve the American Dream, Ted thinks the nation should get back to the Constitution.
Ted and his wife are colonialists.
Ted believes in treating women fairly — fairly disgustingly.
The grey lady’s reponse to AOC’s outstanding speech was, shall we say, less than optimal, though all ought to read it nonetheless.
“Then Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, who excels at using her detractors to amplify her own political brand, invited a group of Democratic women in the House to come forward to express solidarity with her. One by one, they shared their own stories of harassment and mistreatment by men, including in Congress. More even than the profanity uttered on the House floor, where language is carefully regulated, what unfolded over the next hour was a remarkable moment of cultural upheaval on Capitol Hill.”
A much better anaylsis is found at The Cut, by Rebecca Traister:
“But some of the coverage of the impact and resonance of Ocasio-Cortez’s speech perpetuated exactly the gendered power imbalances the speech was meant to challenge. The conflict started by Yoho, to which Ocasio-Cortez was responding, got retold, in the New York Times, as an instance of her aggressive political ambition, rather than as a response to the very forces that have long made political power elusive for women like Ocasio-Cortez, and an assumed norm for men like Ted Yoho…
“As Mark Harris pointed out on Twitter, the Times only printed the full epithet in a piece about Ocasio-Cortez reading it into the House record, after declining to print the words in an earlier story, when they would have been attributed to Yoho. This offered the faint impression that the only person who actually said the actual words ‘fucking bitch’ was AOC herself, and not the man who aimed them at her. What’s more, the paper described her as ‘punching each syllable in the vulgarity,’ reinforcing a view of Ocasio-Cortez’s utterances as pugilistic, without acknowledgment that while she enunciated clearly, she delivered her speech in the calmest and most genial tones imaginable. (An earlier Times story on Yoho’s non-apology and Ocasio-Cortez’s initial response to it described her as having ‘upbraided’ him, and opened with a description of how she ‘forcefully rejected’ his apology.)
https://www.thecut.com/2020/07/aoc-speech-ted-yoho-new-york-times.html
It’s weird the way prominent newspapers regularly inject their opinions into what should be simple reporting of the facts.
One expects this from tabloids but not from newspapers of record.
A contributing factor to why Bernie Sanders is not the Democratic candidate and Joe Biden is.
This is a worldwide phenomenon (journalists injecting opinion into reporting facts), and I wonder if it was the same at the time of Hemingway and Steinbeck.
In the next constitution, a clear distinction has to be made between the right to free speech and propaganda.
Every prominent Newspaper has an Op-Ed page where opinions are published. Learn how to recognize them and ignore. Stick to the pages that report the news.
And, remember that even news without opinions can be biased depending on the language used in news pieces.
It also helps to know that bias is not the same as lies. A news piece with subtle or obvious bias isn’t the same as lying.
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings
https://fair.org/take-action-now/media-activism-kit/how-to-detect-bias-in-news-media/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/
The next link leads to what that site calls an “Interactive Media Bias Chart”
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/
By stating ad nauseam who is electable , papers like the NY Times and Washington Post decide who is electable by deciding whom we can vote for.
Since I stopped reading the major newspapers after I earned my BA in journalism (1973) where I learned what the rushed process between assignment and deadline for most reporters that are also underpaid, I don’t read the recommended lists.
This statement is generalizable to every news. I want to know what a journalist’s own opinion is as much as I want to know what an actor’s opinion on political or environmental issues are while watching a movie.
To: Mate Wierdl and SomeDAMPoet:
SDP: “By stating ad nauseam who is electable , papers like the NY Times and Washington Post decide who is electable by deciding whom we can vote for.
MW: “This statement is generalizable to every news.”
“Every News”!?!? Really!?!?!
Are you saying that EVERY news piece on every page and every radio or TV news broadcast provides a list and/or the name or names of who we should vote for in every major media source?
Generalizations are as bad or worse than deliberate bias in the news.
Manipulators like Limbaugh, Jones, Hannity, et al, mix generalities in with their lies and conspiracy theories all the time.
“RealClearPolitics has a Center bias.
“An AllSides independent review in April 2020 found that RealClearPolitics prominently includes commentary from all sides of the political spectrum, linking to a variety of commentators on sites from the left and right, including The New Yorker, CNN Opinion, The Federalist, The Nation, and the Washington Times.
“RealClearPolitics also runs Fact Check Review, a site that fact checks popular fact checker sites.”
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/real-clear-politics
Media Bias Ratings
AllSides Media Bias Ratings help you identify different perspectives so you can know more, understand others, and think for yourself.
Click the next link and look at the big C in the middle of the chart at the top of the page.
What media sources are listed under that big “C”.
CENTER means these media sources work hard to balance out their news reporting to avoid bias: AP, BBC, Bloomberg, The Christian Science Monitor, NPR, Reuters, Real Clear Politics, The Hill, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal.
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings
Bias rating focus on the news and not OpEd pages where editorials and opinions are printed or reported.
“Avoiding Media Bias When Covering Political News”
https://www.thebalanceeveryday.com/how-to-avoid-media-bias-in-political-news-stories-2315159
Now, tell me if EVERY news piece (I am not talking about OpEds and Opinion pieces or recommended lists that are clearly labeled as recommendations) reported in the media recommends the name or names of politicians running for office or are those names found only in OpEds or editorial pages or are clearly listed as recommendations only.
I think generalizations are almost as dangerous as clear bias or obvious lies.
NPR, CNN and MSNBC do the same thing.
And Fox News decides for Republicans.
Isn’t it nice that we don’t have to decide for ourselves whom to vote for?
Personally, I love having nitwits decide for me, don’t you?
No one decides for me. I wait until the debates to start researching the candidates. I didn’t know all that much about Hillary or Trump before then. It didn’t take long before I learned that Trump makes the wicked witch look like a saint and Hillary is a lot better than the Alt-Rights made her out to be.
Effectively, they do decide for you when a candidate is eliminated from a primary by the endless din of “candidate X is not electable”.
Some of us don’t buy into the claim, but unfortunately , lots of people do.
And I don’t blame these people nearly as much as I blame the source of the (often bogus) claim
It’s hard to deny that lots of media organizations regularly make the claim of “unelectability” about various candidates, often in direct contradiction with what polling says.
And it’s not just the opinion pages they are doing it in. They do it in all manner of articles that are supposed to be simply reporting facts.
It is not the job of a legitimate news organizations and the journalists who work for them to decide who is and is not electable.
It should go without saying after the election of Trump, but predicting who is electable is fraught with significant uncertainty, even for people like Nate Silver who have expertise in polling based prediction.
And most journalists have no clue with regard to the latter. Many “news” articles on polling don’t even report the uncertainty attached to given results, which is a sure sign that the journalist has no clue (or is trying to slant the result, if they do have a clue).
And when journalists pretend to know who is electable (especially long before the election), they are certainly not acting as journalists.
“It is not the job of a legitimate news organizations and the journalists who work for them to decide who is and is not electable.”
It isn’t?????
Ah, except for NPR (I think they are nonprofit) most of the media is in business to make money, and I’d like to read the clause in the U.S. Constitution or other legislation at the state and/or federal level that says the media can’t say who they think is or is not electable.
I have never heard that before, that it isn’t the media’s job to recommend who to vote for.
If you were to go back to the sites that check bias in the media and see who the Right leaning media is recommending, I’ll be it won’t match the recommendations from the Left.
If you don’t like the media making recommendations, don’t read that crap. I don’t. When I get fliers with recommendations, I tear them up and dump them in the recycle bin. It is a sorry fact that there are people that have no confidence in their ability to decided who to vote for so they pick their favorite media recommendation list and vote for them. These people are no different than the fools that go to a betting event like a race track and buy the tip sheets from handicappers.
I wait until the forms for voting show up in the mail and start to do my homework. That often includes visiting Vote Smart and a few other sites that I think are trustworthy as I dig to find out the history of the candidates.
I have little or no respect for anyone that lets someone else think for them like the deplorable fools that support Donald Trump. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Trump’s supporters have been fooled more than 20,000 times. Their shame is so HUGE now, there is no way they are going to be forgiven for that when judgment day comes if judgement day ever comes, that is.
What kind of poem would you write to describe the ignorant fools that blindly vote for a list from a media sort without doing any homework to find out who the candidates really are?
The problem is not the recommended lists from media sources. The problem is the idiots that lazily vote from those lists.
As long as voters use those lists and suggestions, the media will keep printing them because most of the owners and/or CEOs belong to the GOP or the Democratic Party and they want to support their party.
And when “journalists” claim someone is unelectable in direct contradiction with the indications of polls, they are simply being dishonest.
Here’s a perfect example of what I referred to
“Liasson claimed that the main issue for the Democratic Party is “electability”—a fraught term often used to signal ideological orthodoxy rather than empirical chances of winning elections (FAIR.org, 10/25/19). She asserted that Democrats are “confused,” and “for good reason,” because Trump remains an “existential threat,” and not only are none of the candidates “a sure thing,” none even “seem likely to defeat” Trump. ”
“Such handwringing is, again, not founded in facts or data. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll published the day before this broadcast—one day ahead of the Iowa caucuses—found that Trump was trailing all the leading 2020 Democratic candidates, with the top four candidates ahead of Trump in theoretical head-to-head matchups. Looking more broadly at polling, the two candidates who were then leading the Democratic field, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, had beaten Trump in 69 of 73 and 63 of 68 matchups, respectively. ”
From FAIR
https://fair.org/home/factchecking-nprs-attempted-takedown-of-bernie-sanders/
Mara Liarson is Fox News/NPR liar.
And Mary Louise Kelly is little better.
Both are hacks.
I have never heard of FAIR.org before. Had to look it up @ AllSides
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/fair-media-bias
Does FAIR even count as a member of the traditional media?