The Fraying Edge of Discourse: A Call for Violence Over Technical Glitches

In a television segment that has ignited a firestorm of controversy and disbelief, Fox News host Jesse Watters made a series of shocking and violent remarks on air, calling for the United States to “bomb” or “gas” the United Nations headquarters in New York City. The catalyst for this extreme rhetoric? A malfunctioning escalator and a faulty teleprompter during President Donald Trump’s recent visit to the UN General Assembly. This incident serves as a stark and troubling illustration of how political commentary, once meant to inform and entertain, has reached a perilous new frontier where hyperbole and aggression have become the default mode of expression.

The bizarre sequence of events began with President Trump’s visit to the UN, where his address was momentarily disrupted by a teleprompter cutting out. The president himself addressed the issue, quipping, “Whoever’s operating this teleprompter is in big trouble.” A separate incident involved an escalator that reportedly stalled as Trump and First Lady Melania Trump stepped onto it, forcing them to walk the rest of the way up. Trump later complained about these issues during his speech, linking the technical failures to the broader shortcomings of the international organization.

From Annoyance to “Insurrection”

On Tuesday’s episode of “The Five,” Watters characterized these technical malfunctions as a deliberate act of “sabotage” by UN staffers, escalating them to the level of an “insurrection.” It was this leap in logic that paved the way for his chillingly violent suggestions. “What we need to do is either leave the UN or we need to bomb it,” Watters declared, his co-hosts heard audibly chuckling off-camera. He continued, “It’s in New York, though, right? Could be some fallout there. Maybe gas it?” The flippant tone and laughter accompanying such a serious remark created a surreal and disturbing television moment.

While co-host Dana Perino offered a meek “Let’s not do that,” Watters doubled down on his destructive proposals. “Don’t gas it. Okay, but we need to destroy it. Maybe can we demolish the building? Have everybody leave and then we’ll demolish the building.” The segment concluded with Watters joking about turning the UN building into “affordable housing” before ominously stating, “this is absolutely unacceptable, and I hope they get to the bottom of it, and I hope they really injure, emotionally, the people that did it.” The comment immediately drew widespread condemnation on social media, with many calling for Watters’ dismissal.

The Reality Behind the Rhetoric

The irony of Watters’ incendiary claims is that the “insurrection” he decried was, according to official reports, the result of a simple accident. A UN spokesperson, Stéphane Dujarric, explained that a videographer from the U.S. delegation had inadvertently triggered the escalator’s safety mechanism, causing it to stop. The teleprompter, another source confirmed to ABC News, was also being operated by a member of the White House staff, not a UN employee. Despite these clarifications, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt went on Fox News to echo the claims of sabotage, stating that the White House would investigate whether the malfunctions were intentional and threatening “accountability” for anyone involved.

This incident is not merely about a talk show host making a crude joke. It reflects a deeper trend in media, particularly within a highly polarized political environment, where minor inconveniences are magnified into existential threats. It is a world where a broken escalator becomes a symbol of an anti-American conspiracy and a teleprompter glitch is proof of a coordinated attack. This kind of rhetoric, though often framed as humor or provocative commentary, has real-world consequences, fostering a climate of hostility and distrust that can, and has, led to violence.

The Cost of Escalation

The line between satire and incitement is becoming dangerously thin. Watters’ comments, even if intended as hyperbole, contribute to a political culture that is increasingly unmoored from reality. The use of terms like “insurrection” and calls for “bombing” or “gassing” in a lighthearted manner normalizes a vocabulary of violence that has already been linked to real-world threats and attacks. When public figures treat such concepts with a cavalier attitude, it sends a dangerous signal that extreme measures and aggressive fantasies are acceptable responses to perceived slights.

While Watters’ co-hosts’ nervous laughter may suggest an awareness of the outrageousness of his statements, the absence of a firm, unequivocal pushback only serves to reinforce the message. It creates an environment where such dangerous rhetoric is not only tolerated but potentially encouraged for its ability to generate clicks, headlines, and engagement. As the media landscape continues to prioritize sensationalism over substance, the risk of crossing the line from heated debate into outright incitement grows ever larger. The incident at the UN, while seemingly trivial at its core, has exposed a troubling undercurrent in American media—one where a broken machine can justify a call for war.