The column loses all coherence in the final paragraph:
Sherman, somewhat disingenuously, keeps saying that Ailes is a larger-than-life figure on the level of William Randolph Hearst. But Hearst's story, as told in Citizen Kane by Orson Welles, whom Hearst disdained and refused to speak to, has the key distinction of actually being fiction.What the flying fuck does this mean? That Wm. Randolph Hearst is a fictional character in a story? That Orson Wells' Citizen Kane -- which Sherman wasn't comparing Ailes to -- is fiction? That Sherman shouldn't write an Ailes bio because Citizen Kane is fiction? That authors should only write fictional biographies of people they can't speak to?
And why is it somewhat disingenuous to keep saying that Ailes is a larger-than-life figure on the level of Hearst -- because Hearst is on a higher level of largeness? Because no one's made a fictional movie about an Ailes-like network president?