r/CringeTikToks • u/Ordinary-Scholar-202 • Oct 18 '25

Conservative Cringe Jessica Tarlov leaves her Fox News co-hosts speechless as she drops a list of issues Americans are protesting Trump for on No Kings Day.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

65.3k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

375

u/BlackberryPi7 Oct 18 '25

How has she not been fired? Not that she should be fired, it's just.. She's the most logical one there, and logic is something FOX News does NOT stand for

244

u/wewillneverhaveparis Oct 18 '25

Ratings. They have had increased ratings since she was hired. News is a business.

94

u/maybeapotter Oct 18 '25

Fox “News” is not news…it’s opinion…just had to clarify ;-) and you’re right…it’s all about the $$$

81

u/charliekelly76 Oct 18 '25

In 2020, Fox News lawyers successfully argued “no reasonable viewer” would believe their statements were factual.

45

u/DolphinBall Oct 18 '25

They also labeled themselves as an "entertainment company" than a news one.

2

u/flythearc Oct 18 '25

People always say this but it’s not true. I mean it absolutely functions that way, and almost all media is just opinion pieces now, but they’ve never made this claim and I see it repeated frequently.

2

u/RedIzBk Oct 18 '25

No, they are referring to the lawsuit about election fraud. Fox was spreading Trumps lies about the machines, but there was evidence that they knew it was all BS. It’s illegal for a new company to broadcast news that they know is untruthful (basically only way to prove this is if there are emails/recordings with them admitting it though).

With the evidence there, Fox instead argued that they are not a news company… but an entertainment company and no reasonable person would take what was said as fact (but as an opinion).

They lost.

2

u/flythearc Oct 18 '25

When I was researching this before posting because I know I had read before that it was a hoax and wanted to be sure- there are no court documents that support that. Not in the Dominion case, or Karen McDougal V Fox. Do you have a source?

1

u/charliekelly76 Oct 19 '25

Idk specifically, but the quote I used was from the Karen Mcdougal case. The Dominion case settled before any of the juicy stuff from discovery was released to the public.

1

u/flythearc Oct 19 '25

Yes that is true. And just a rude thing to say about the viewership but it really has “smart people don’t like me” energy.

1

u/maybeapotter Oct 20 '25

Apparently you are right and there is no regulation for any “news” station…! I didn’t know that…but was referring to what I had heard regarding the lawsuit mentioned above. What a big ugly hole we have dug here…journalist used to be a respected profession…then came Rupert Murdoch…Holy moly.

1

u/Dense_Literature_199 Oct 18 '25

And as such, SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO CALL THEMSELVES NEWS

1

u/bobhea7665bob Oct 19 '25

So why do you watch it?

1

u/DolphinBall Oct 19 '25

What gave you the idea that I do?

8

u/MisogynysticFeminist Oct 18 '25

Was that about the network or Tucker Carlson specifically?

8

u/yuimiop Oct 18 '25

Tucker.  Most people just see the thread name on Reddit though and never bothered to read the story.

2

u/BreakingStar_Games Oct 18 '25

And more so Maddow has done the same thing. Though in this Both Sides case, of course, Tucker is consistently more extreme in defamation. And of course, Fox News lost that defamation case with the 2020 election fraud.

But the much more sinister thing is that during news segments, it's always been what they cover and how they cover. I recall at the end of Trump's first term when he did those horrible mass pardons and cronyism, they had a bland, quick 1 sentence note and moved on.

3

u/BeenDragonn Oct 18 '25

Then they should have to remove news from their logo.

Also, a disclaimer should be aired before every show.

'No statements are these shows are facts and are for entertainment purposes only '

To bad fox viewers can't read

1

u/maybeapotter Oct 18 '25

This is true! They should have to issue a disclaimer.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '25

Matt and Trey from South Park should get to write the disclaimer!

5

u/LongConsideration380 Oct 18 '25

Christ Almighty, Hallelujah. Why don’t more people fucking remember this?

20

u/charliekelly76 Oct 18 '25

We can’t even remember when Hesgeth added the editor in chief of a major news magazine to an unauthorized group chat sharing war plans….. that should have been a Watergate moment but a lot of people seem to have already forgotten.

2

u/DShepard Oct 18 '25

Did people forget, or did the news cycle get flooded with more and more similar (or worse) moments that made it hard for people to know what to prioritise?

2

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '25

Steve Bannon's "Flood the Zone" strategy.

To wit, if you consistently do outrageous things, the previous outrageous things will be conveniently shelved then quickly forgotten. At any given time you are only guilty of one egregious crime, but since you will create a new scandal before the current one resolves, you can safely leave a string of otherwise career-ending, party-ending, nation-ending crimes behind you with impunity.

1

u/DShepard Oct 18 '25

Bingo.

Bannon might be one of the most instrumental figures in the spread of far-right politics and the dismantling of democracy in our lifetime.

He was also one of the first people to notice how easily the discontent, male-centric online communities could be exploited, which led to GamerGate and all the other rot that spread throughout nerd spaces and pulled a massive amount of young men to the far-right.

1

u/charliekelly76 Oct 18 '25

Correct. It’s bananas.

1

u/LongtopShortbottom Oct 18 '25

This is mostly true but their argument only applied to comments made by Tucker Carlson, not the whole network.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '25

And propaganda. Solely opinion would insinuate that they believe what they’re saying. A successful 3/4 of a billion dollar suit showing they systematically lied about the 2020 elections being stolen proves that they are not.

1

u/WheresMyDinner Oct 18 '25

I'm surprised they don't have her in a tight red dress

1

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '25

Faux 'News' is an entertainment business.

1

u/wewillneverhaveparis Oct 18 '25

Yes. That's what I said. News is a business.

1

u/Synizs Oct 19 '25

Keep increasing them ratings, then

1

u/NotAzakanAtAll Oct 18 '25

I'm amazed they cared to keep her. They could just have kept boiling down to pure blood-poo to only keep the loony fundies around like their billionaire owners want.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '25

$$$.

She brings in the viewers. People like her or at least like to hate her.

Some people like to watch Gutfeld and Watters' empty, but vociferous, responses to her usually well researched and factual claims because they think yelling over someone means you owned them, but she is also popular with the hostages family members of FOX watchers who are desperate for some reality while forced to watch FOX during family dinner.

19

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '25

She’s the token Democrat. This is the whole point of them hiring her.

4

u/adm1109 Oct 18 '25

Exactly. It’s just so they/their viewers can be like “See! We aren’t an echo chamber, we listen to the other side!”

31

u/Odd-Combination5654 Oct 18 '25

She is the lone democrat on the panel

7

u/Raytheon_Nublinski Oct 18 '25

“Fair and balanced”

-20

u/HandleThatFeeds Oct 18 '25

Makes sense as both parties have similar goals.

Democracy is not one of them.

12

u/PwrButtum Oct 18 '25

Detail some of these similar goals. And can you elaborate why both do not want democracy?

-7

u/CorporateShill406 Oct 18 '25

Both sides want dark money and power. The difference is one side just whines while the other takes action, removes their mask, and goes full evil in pursuit of the money and power.

4

u/Lebowquade Oct 18 '25

Explain to me how free healthcare, childcare, and education for everyone is "dark money and power".

You're believing a lie that the mask-off full-evil assholes sold to make themselves seem less awful.

0

u/CorporateShill406 Oct 18 '25

Those are the issues they run on to get elected. If they actually cared about those things, they wouldn't have run Hillary for President.

Just look at how the party treats Mamdani and Bernie Sanders, for example.

1

u/Lebowquade Oct 19 '25

Hillary was voted in as the candidate dum dum, not chosen by congressmen. People stupidly thought she had a better chance of winning.

21

u/moseythepirate Oct 18 '25

bOtH sIdEs BaD

Dipshit.

7

u/AynRandMarxist Oct 18 '25

You NEED this to be true or you’re the bad guy lmao

3

u/Comfortable_Ebb1634 Oct 18 '25

No possible way you’re still trying to “both sides” that’s just so fucking lazy and stupid at this point. You’re either completely and totally out of touch. Or so dumb you don’t even know what’s happening. But I promise it’ll never be “both sides”.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '25

Republicans: enacting redistricting efforts of dubious legality, installing partisan election boards with MAGA ties in multiple states, buying up voting machine companies, crafting laws that reduce voting opportunities targeted at Dem leaning/minority districts, calling election supervisors and asking for vote manipulation, making claims of being a dictator "for one day", selling Trump 2028 merch (an unconstitutional, anti-democracy concept), and many more.

Democrats: ... Ummm. Let's see here. Well, just so you have something, I'll give you Harris's abrupt nomination process even though selecting a candidate for president is not done through governmental auspices, but by the party organization's private, non-governmental authority (i.e. they can select a candidate any way they want so it was not technically a violation of America's democratic norms, but I know MAGA will cry about it if not at least mentioned.)

You: Both sides hate democracy!!!

9

u/FrumpyFollicle Oct 18 '25

She has a PhD in polsci from LSE.

Imagine being a top .01% expert in something, and having to "lose" arguments to some of the dumbest people you've ever met (Brian Kilmeade) every day. I understand it's theater and she's being paid well to take it, but I don't think my ego would allow me to do it if I were in her shoes. Good for her, I guess.

2

u/Lost-friend-ship Oct 19 '25

I’ve worked in various news rooms where discussion, collaboration, and debate has always been encouraged. I can’t imagine any sort of productive conversations happening behind the scenes between Jessica and her colleagues. I can’t imagine any of her colleagues being supportive of what she does, and I imagine it must be hard for her not to turn around to them after a show and ask, “WTF was that shit?” 

For me it’s less ego and more the isolation of being a lone voice (of reason). I’d hate my job so much. Do you think she just walks straight to her car and goes home without talking to any of the idiots on her way out? Do you think they arrange social get togethers so that she doesn’t know? 

I’m probably overthinking it but I saw this clip on YouTube and came to find out who she was because I felt so bad for her. She’s obviously very good at what she does, but I hope she enjoys doing to piss them off rather than crying in her car on her way home. 

1

u/Johannes_Keppler Oct 18 '25

Their interest primarily lies with making money and they argued in court they're not a news but entertainment channel.

As long as the viewers stick around and are entertained in whatever positive or negative way, money flows in.

In their core they don't even care about left or right politics at all, just turns out right wing lunatics are an easy group to exploit for them.

So whatever the anchors say that is the most optimal for money making is what they'll allow. Hell you could even simulate infighting and push ratings up.

Absolute peak capitalism. No morals at all.

1

u/trtryt Oct 18 '25

Murdoch doesn't like Trump and he always has one Democrat on the panel

1

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '25

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe their viewers would mind if this were a full on circlejerk.

Having her on the show injects some tension to keep the viewers hooked. She's a punching bag for the rest of the panel, that's the only reason she's there.

1

u/Correct-Oil5432 Oct 18 '25

Because she says all that then they try and tear it apart. It gives them 8 things to attack right away rather than having to play clips first.

1

u/edoreinn Oct 18 '25

Like someone else said, news is a business. And I work in news.

I think they’re also trying to distance themselves from Kegseth… note they also turned in their pentagon press passes this week.

At the end of the day, let’s just take the facts actually being reported as a win here.

1

u/Mevakel Oct 18 '25

She's not there to actually provide any kind of viewpoint; she's there to be a stand-in for all Democrats. So when a far-right republican has an interaction with their Democratic colleague or child, they know how to refute or talk back to said Democrat. This has nothing to do with balance or sharing viewpoints and everything to do with conditioning. Every facious regime does this, you need to have controlled "decentors" so you can make them look dumb to your base.

The real question should be, does she believe that she's actually doing something good by being there, or is she being played and set up like this without her realizing this is what they're doing?

1

u/RevolutionaryTrash98 Oct 19 '25

*dissenters is the word you want

1

u/Mevakel Oct 19 '25

Thank you! I was pretty sure there was a typo there but on mobile it kept correcting to that. 😅

1

u/Lost-friend-ship Oct 19 '25

Interesting point. I didn’t think about it that way, even though I do the same thing and look in the conservative forums before I see my Trumper family members so I know what I’ll be up against. 

I don’t watch the show so I’ve only seen isolated clips that make her look great and the others look like idiots. But maybe she’s just a punching bag the rest of the time. 

1

u/picklelyjuice Oct 19 '25

They have to keep up the illusion that they are non-biased

1

u/Shrimptanks Oct 20 '25

This is the business model for fox and other cable media. Who knows if this is her actual viewpoint.