Somebody please tell me that Fox News eminence Brit Hume is joking.
On the day of Roger Ailes’s ouster over accusations of sexual harassment, some conservative podcaster fired off this snarky tweet:
So if Ailes let Gretchen keep her show he suddenly wouldn't have sexually harassed her and could have kept his job? That's how it works?— Neal Boortz (@Talkmaster) July 21, 2016
To which Hume tweeted back:
Good question. https://t.co/UgRmyYSGE0— Brit Hume (@brithume) July 21, 2016
Really, Brit? That’s what you consider a good question regarding this whole sordid mess? I get that you and Ailes are friends, having spent 20 years in the trenches together building the network. And it made perfect sense for you to be skeptical of Carlson in the early going. To wit, your super-helpful tweet the day after news of her lawsuit broke:
Here's another suggestion. Why didn't she quit & sue instead of suing only after she got fired? https://t.co/8GPKprxxsT— Brit Hume (@brithume) July 7, 2016
But now, after all the icky stories to surface about your pal’s alleged tendency toward sexual predation—hard to dismiss Megyn Kelly and all the rest as bitter, vindictive losers, too—are Carlson’s core motivations really what strike you as the pertinent line of inquiry here? Not: How the hell did Roger apparently get away with this for so long? Or: Why did I not have any inkling that my good friend may have been putting the entire enterprise at risk this way? Or: Should those of us who rushed to defend Roger by publicly trashing Carlson maybe give it a rest at this point?
To be fair, Hume is not alone in his musings. Lots of folks have been muttering (some more snidely than others) about why Carlson waited so long to come forward. Men in particular seem dismayed that a woman would not have immediately spoken up about this kind of mistreatment. And if the woman didn’t bother blowing the whistle at the time, then it must not have been that big of a deal, right?