Fox News host Laura Ingraham criticized CNN for referencing Donald Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, by his scatological nickname for the former president during a recent broadcast. Cohen had called Trump “Von ShitzInPants” on social media, possibly in reference to rumors of Trump passing gas in court. Ingraham complained that CNN’s coverage should prompt James Earl Jones to revoke his iconic voiceover for the network.
During a contempt of court hearing, Trump’s lawyer, Todd Blanche, read Cohen’s social media post aloud while arguing that it was unfair for a gag order to prevent Trump from discussing witnesses when they can freely talk about him. Cohen recently announced that he would stop mentioning Trump until after testifying in the trial, where prosecutors allege that Trump and Cohen violated state and federal campaign finance laws by arranging and concealing hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels.
Ingraham’s response to CNN’s coverage was met with a pause, as she mockingly referred to the network as “This is CNN”, a nod to its well-known tagline. She questioned where James Earl Jones would go to reclaim his voiceover work, which has long been associated with CNN. Despite the gag order prohibiting Trump from discussing witnesses, he has violated it nine times as of Thursday, resulting in $9,000 in fines.
The contentious relationship between Fox News and CNN was on display during Ingraham’s criticism of her rival network’s coverage choices. The mention of Cohen’s nickname for Trump sparked laughter among CNN anchors and panelists, leading Ingraham to question the appropriateness of the reference during a legal proceeding. The ongoing legal battle surrounding Trump, Cohen, and the hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels has been a focal point of media coverage and public attention.
The clash between Fox News and CNN over coverage decisions reflects the broader political and media landscape in the United States. In this instance, Ingraham’s reaction to CNN’s mention of Cohen’s nickname for Trump highlights the deep divide between the two networks and their respective audiences. As the legal proceedings continue and Trump faces potential repercussions for his actions, the coverage and commentary from both networks are likely to remain contentious and polarizing.
Ingraham’s criticism of CNN’s coverage of Trump and Cohen’s legal troubles underscores the ongoing debate over media bias and journalistic standards. The use of Cohen’s scatological nickname for Trump, whether in jest or as a serious legal argument, raises questions about the boundaries of appropriate coverage and commentary in high-profile legal cases involving public figures. As the case unfolds and more details emerge, the media’s role in shaping public perception and understanding of the events will continue to be a subject of scrutiny and debate.
