It’s always fun to watch “journalists” expose themselves as juvenile know-nothings. Such is the case with today’s foolishness over Dana Loesch’s use of the word “fisking.”

.@DLoesch has a message for the @nytimes: “We're coming for you.” One
non-#fakenews story is not enough. #NRA #ClenchedFistofTruth pic.twitter.com/Hm1QkJi5Tp

— NRATV (@NRATV) August 3, 2017

Apparently many professional reporters know more about kinky sex than they do about words that actually pertain to their chosen profession. They jumped to the conclusion that Dana and the NRA intended to “fist” the New York Times (because that makes perfect sense, right?). It couldn’t possibly be the similar sounding word that means something about journalism, right?

fisk
verb, transitive
fisked, fisk-ing, fisks

To criticize and refute (a published article or argument), especially in point-by-point or line-by-line fashion on a blog.

Twitchy documented much of the idiocy before the embarrassed reporters started deleting their tweets.

Journalists who pretend to be knowledgeable about all manner of things were presented with a word they should already be familiar with or at least be able to discern from context, but they reacted like 10 year old boys watching an ornithology documentary about boobies and tits.

The NRA is the one with the problem because a NYT reporter doesn’t know what “fisk” means and substitutes “fisting?” Suuuuure.

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) August 4, 2017

Keep this in mind the next time some millennial Democrat activist 2 years out of journalism school tries to act authoritative on something more complicated than basic phonics.