Main Edition
US
FR
April 26, 2023 - 7:30am
On Monday, the talking heads kept rolling. Fox News announced via a terse statement that it had parted ways with Tucker Carlson, the channel’s top-rated host, a matter of minutes before CNN fired longtime presenter Don Lemon, who had already been downgraded to a co-host role on CNN This Morning.
Perhaps Carlson’s allegedly toxic work environment or leaked texts about Donald Trump played a role in his departure. Yet the bigger question remains: where does he go now?
While Lemon is yesterday’s man, his angry pearl-clutching a relic of the first Trump administration, for Carlson the immediate future is likely bright. He has shown a gift for repackaging “based” or “dissident” Right-wing trends and talking points, from raw egg “slonking” to the mind-freeing power of nicotine. He will surely have access to an enormous alternative media audience drawn not just from this group but also a significant percentage of his own television audience. That’s not to mention post-Left followers of the likes of Glenn Greenwald and others who admire Carlson’s capacity to resist the establishment line on issues like Ukraine. If he were to start his own podcast, say, he could quickly rival Joe Rogan in the online charts.
Meanwhile, the management at Fox News has been marked by chaos and uncertainty due to a series of erratic decisions by 92-year-old billionaire Rupert Murdoch. These decisions include a proposed merger of his public companies News Corp and Fox Corp, which was later withdrawn; unexpected changes in key editorial positions; the sudden settlement with Dominion Voting Systems; and now the abrupt ousting of Carlson, the undisputed face of the network.
There is a chance that Carlson could link up with smaller but nevertheless established conservative networks like Newsmax or OANN, where he could benefit from their existing audience base and infrastructure, thus ensuring he remains in the public eye. These networks might also offer him greater resources and support compared to venturing out on his own. However, aligning with a specific network could limit his independence and expose him to potential editorial or ideological constraints, which he has already faced at the much larger Fox. Indeed, he might already be a bigger draw than either of those lesser Right-wing networks put together.
A deal with Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire might be even more lucrative, but it presents its own drawbacks: could a massive personality like Carlson coexist alongside Shapiro and other Daily Wire-associated figures like Matt Walsh, who aren’t as popular but certainly aren’t insignificant? He already had an opportunity like that with Fox, where he wasn’t the most popular guy in the room — his own staffers apparently rejoiced at the news of his departure. A platform like Rumble, Substack, or simply his own media operation would give him the total content and staff control he likely needs at this stage in his career, even if there’s more risk in the move.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeA Tucker Carlson podcast. Now that I would avidly subcribe to (especially if he followed the long form Rogan format).
TC is a journalist in the classical sense. Greatly underestimated IMHO. I wish him all the best wherever the future takes him.
A Tucker Carlson podcast. Now that I would avidly subcribe to (especially if he followed the long form Rogan format).
TC is a journalist in the classical sense. Greatly underestimated IMHO. I wish him all the best wherever the future takes him.
Not mentioned in this piece is something I stumbled across on Timcast on YouTube. It would appear that iro corporate media, the most popular host for a younger audience was Tucker – inasmuch as younger people watch any legacy media. This because he actually presented new information, rather than just just disagreeing with information presented by those with a differing opinion. Also mentioned was that the only ones who really watch corporate media much are boomers. That doesn’t include me because I’ve not watched it since 2020. Dipped in yesterday for the first time since to check my prejudices and it is just drivel with lots of advertisements.
Well put. “Drivel with advertisements” is being kind, though. I pulled our cable subscription in 2017. I read National Review ( and subscribe to NRO ), First Things, and, of course Unherd. These are trustworthy sources that keep me informed and sane. ( “If you can keep your head when all around you are losing theirs…” )
The mass media is ( “are” for you Latin purists ) toast. Social media is burnt toast. Read. Read history. The answers are there.
I’m a boomer, too, and I turned off corporate media in the early 2000s. There’s just no excuse for it, what with the many alternatives that provide real substance. Everything is opinion now; one has a choice of reasoned viewpoint backed up by facts, or frothing invective delivered by ugly racists on television.
Well put. “Drivel with advertisements” is being kind, though. I pulled our cable subscription in 2017. I read National Review ( and subscribe to NRO ), First Things, and, of course Unherd. These are trustworthy sources that keep me informed and sane. ( “If you can keep your head when all around you are losing theirs…” )
The mass media is ( “are” for you Latin purists ) toast. Social media is burnt toast. Read. Read history. The answers are there.
I’m a boomer, too, and I turned off corporate media in the early 2000s. There’s just no excuse for it, what with the many alternatives that provide real substance. Everything is opinion now; one has a choice of reasoned viewpoint backed up by facts, or frothing invective delivered by ugly racists on television.
Not mentioned in this piece is something I stumbled across on Timcast on YouTube. It would appear that iro corporate media, the most popular host for a younger audience was Tucker – inasmuch as younger people watch any legacy media. This because he actually presented new information, rather than just just disagreeing with information presented by those with a differing opinion. Also mentioned was that the only ones who really watch corporate media much are boomers. That doesn’t include me because I’ve not watched it since 2020. Dipped in yesterday for the first time since to check my prejudices and it is just drivel with lots of advertisements.
People should really read the story link about Fox staff rejoicing at Carlson’s departure. It’s absolutely garbage journalism. So bad, in fact, that it’s actually hilarious.
Describing TC inviting a guest to “spew more lies” was a stand out for me. They can’t realise how badly this comes across to people with standards.
Shame. Rolling Stone used to be a genuinely independent outlet. Now it’s every bit as establishment sycophantic as CNN.
After Rolling Stone’s fabricated University of Virginia frat house rape story, they have absolutely zero credibility in my book. I believe nothing they print. Should’ve gone OOB years ago.
Describing TC inviting a guest to “spew more lies” was a stand out for me. They can’t realise how badly this comes across to people with standards.
Shame. Rolling Stone used to be a genuinely independent outlet. Now it’s every bit as establishment sycophantic as CNN.
After Rolling Stone’s fabricated University of Virginia frat house rape story, they have absolutely zero credibility in my book. I believe nothing they print. Should’ve gone OOB years ago.
People should really read the story link about Fox staff rejoicing at Carlson’s departure. It’s absolutely garbage journalism. So bad, in fact, that it’s actually hilarious.
Tucker is a good man.
Let you in on a secret – he was summarily dismissed by Rupert Murdoch. Rup is no Lefty in case you’d not noticed. Just might be telling folks something about what Tuck really been saying and doing.
Or old Rupe might simply be a vindictive old man who decided Carlson crossed too many redlines.
I’m sure you are partly right, but he’s no lefty in his dotage.
I’m sure you are partly right, but he’s no lefty in his dotage.
He is not a lefty, but a hugely monied corporate man and is part of the swamp. Tucker stepped on his toes.
Like Trump then, only Tuck didn’t have the guts to say in public what he said/felt in private.
Thing is at least the snowflake Wokers had the gonads to call out Trump. Yet hero of Anti-Woke didn’t and it’s only emerged what he felt because of a legal case and additionally his sacking.
Like Trump then, only Tuck didn’t have the guts to say in public what he said/felt in private.
Thing is at least the snowflake Wokers had the gonads to call out Trump. Yet hero of Anti-Woke didn’t and it’s only emerged what he felt because of a legal case and additionally his sacking.
Hard to say if this is Murdoch’s decision or the inner workings of Fox. Nonetheless, Carlson will have a forum.
Or old Rupe might simply be a vindictive old man who decided Carlson crossed too many redlines.
He is not a lefty, but a hugely monied corporate man and is part of the swamp. Tucker stepped on his toes.
Hard to say if this is Murdoch’s decision or the inner workings of Fox. Nonetheless, Carlson will have a forum.
Let you in on a secret – he was summarily dismissed by Rupert Murdoch. Rup is no Lefty in case you’d not noticed. Just might be telling folks something about what Tuck really been saying and doing.
Tucker is a good man.
I checked the links on the supposedly toxic work environment (one disgruntled woke gal who wants a job at NBC) and his own staffers hating him (neo-con d**k Cheney-worshipping correspondents who didn’t report to him), absolute nonsense.
Fox is mostly unwatchable patronizing garbage outside of his show, all the hosts parrot establishment Republican talking points on abortion and assault rifles and other Evangelical red meat issues, and their staff worship at the alter of the Mitt Romney and are still nursing a grudge that Trump beat Jeb Bush.
I checked the links on the supposedly toxic work environment (one disgruntled woke gal who wants a job at NBC) and his own staffers hating him (neo-con d**k Cheney-worshipping correspondents who didn’t report to him), absolute nonsense.
Fox is mostly unwatchable patronizing garbage outside of his show, all the hosts parrot establishment Republican talking points on abortion and assault rifles and other Evangelical red meat issues, and their staff worship at the alter of the Mitt Romney and are still nursing a grudge that Trump beat Jeb Bush.
The best option for TC is to adopt the same independent business and political model as Megyn Kelly.
Kelly has one of the best podcasts ever – she’s a truth-speaking firecracker & as a lawyer she brings lots of insight into trials & lawsuits.
Best for his pocketbook and family, but not for the dissident white race realism he espoused — and therefore not for the country he loves.
Words never heard in the universe: “Hey, did you hear what Megyn Kelly said in her monologue yesterday?”
Same for Glenn Beck.
Please don’t put yourself in a comfortable silo, Mr. Carlson. The neoliberals and anti-whites are hoping you do just that.
Kelly has one of the best podcasts ever – she’s a truth-speaking firecracker & as a lawyer she brings lots of insight into trials & lawsuits.
Best for his pocketbook and family, but not for the dissident white race realism he espoused — and therefore not for the country he loves.
Words never heard in the universe: “Hey, did you hear what Megyn Kelly said in her monologue yesterday?”
Same for Glenn Beck.
Please don’t put yourself in a comfortable silo, Mr. Carlson. The neoliberals and anti-whites are hoping you do just that.
The best option for TC is to adopt the same independent business and political model as Megyn Kelly.
Tucker for President?
Tucker for President?
Tucker thrived on taking on many sacred cows. His audience, including me, enjoyed his tirades. He has been quite wrong IMHO about many things but I still enjoyed his take. He does not have the background skills of a Rogan, Kelly or Greenwald but we shall see if he prospers once removed from Fox. I suspect he became too big for his britches to suit management. Fox can replace him as they did O’Reilly. Sadly, Tucker was singular in presenting topics away from the constant same stuff of the evening opinion presenters.
But Tucker grew into the slot despite his annoying laugh. I suspect he was about to take on even more controversy. The J6 videos were hardly exploited.
Tucker thrived on taking on many sacred cows. His audience, including me, enjoyed his tirades. He has been quite wrong IMHO about many things but I still enjoyed his take. He does not have the background skills of a Rogan, Kelly or Greenwald but we shall see if he prospers once removed from Fox. I suspect he became too big for his britches to suit management. Fox can replace him as they did O’Reilly. Sadly, Tucker was singular in presenting topics away from the constant same stuff of the evening opinion presenters.
But Tucker grew into the slot despite his annoying laugh. I suspect he was about to take on even more controversy. The J6 videos were hardly exploited.
Just heading over to unsubscribe from Fox News YouTube channel right now. Looking forward to seeing you elsewhere Tucker.
Just heading over to unsubscribe from Fox News YouTube channel right now. Looking forward to seeing you elsewhere Tucker.
Carlson types either reassure or antagonise. Shapiro, Peterson, Hitchens types should be in Politics, not sniping from the sidelines. We’ve got GBNews, Hitchens, Piers Morgan, James o’Brien preaching to the converted in UK. Do they affect polling? Very little.
Into Space to check up on those Lasers?
Into Space to check up on those Lasers?
My own conspiracy theories are:
1) that Fox is wooing Megyn Kelly for Tucker’s slot.
2) that Murdoch and CNN met and agreed, for the health of Western Civilization, to tone down the extremes of their punditry by jointly firing the two most controversial. With Newsmax and OAnN, Fox should be aiming for a higher reputation.
There’s no way Megyn Kelly is going to leave her own business which gives her maximum flexibility with her time and ‘free speech’
There’s no way Megyn Kelly is going to leave her own business which gives her maximum flexibility with her time and ‘free speech’
My own conspiracy theories are:
1) that Fox is wooing Megyn Kelly for Tucker’s slot.
2) that Murdoch and CNN met and agreed, for the health of Western Civilization, to tone down the extremes of their punditry by jointly firing the two most controversial. With Newsmax and OAnN, Fox should be aiming for a higher reputation.
Who cares!
But it will be fun to see Trump and his MAGA supporters tear into him now they know what he really thought. The neurons move slow in that cohort though so it’ll still be working it’s way through the cerebral cortex.
When was the exact moment you knew you could no longer think for yourself and would simply regurgitate the ressentiment and Schadenfreude of the Progressive Hivemind?
Part of me yearns for the days when liberals were interesting…but the Hivemind is feeding moral clarity to the free thinking world.
I always found it amusing that Carlson was pretty much the only one on primetime television who would even bother to have on guests like Cornel West or advocate for the release of Assange.
He talks to anybody and everybody. All the progressive nonsense about “diversity” is comical. They only care about diversity if the diverse representative thinks exactly like they do and does exactly what they say.
Larry “The Black Face of White Supremacy” Elder is my favorite Progressive Insult!
One of Tuck’s best texts, now out in the open, about Trump ‘ I hate him passionately’.
Now some Progressives may feel the same (hopefully not many as ‘Hate’ is usually counterproductive emotion), but certainly of interest and some amusement that Tuck not only felt that but had the good sense to share it with a select few in a mode saved for posterity. Enjoy.
What’s your point? We all feel like that about Trump. He’s just better than anything the Democratic Party has to offer. The Democratic Party’s sole objective is to fail, find a scapegoat, ruin the scapegoat’s life and then reproduce more and more Bureacracy until it’s politically shielded from the consequences of it’s failures. It’s a giant ponzi scheme.
You think Portland, San Francisco, Chicago and New York are accidents? No they’re just reproducing failure at greater and greater scale until they need loans from Uncle Sam.
If you all felt it why’d Tuck only say it privately? You sure you weren’t being mugged off, manipulated or too weak to stand up to Trump?
If you all felt it why’d Tuck only say it privately? You sure you weren’t being mugged off, manipulated or too weak to stand up to Trump?
What’s your point? We all feel like that about Trump. He’s just better than anything the Democratic Party has to offer. The Democratic Party’s sole objective is to fail, find a scapegoat, ruin the scapegoat’s life and then reproduce more and more Bureacracy until it’s politically shielded from the consequences of it’s failures. It’s a giant ponzi scheme.
You think Portland, San Francisco, Chicago and New York are accidents? No they’re just reproducing failure at greater and greater scale until they need loans from Uncle Sam.
One of Tuck’s best texts, now out in the open, about Trump ‘ I hate him passionately’.
Now some Progressives may feel the same (hopefully not many as ‘Hate’ is usually counterproductive emotion), but certainly of interest and some amusement that Tuck not only felt that but had the good sense to share it with a select few in a mode saved for posterity. Enjoy.
He talks to anybody and everybody. All the progressive nonsense about “diversity” is comical. They only care about diversity if the diverse representative thinks exactly like they do and does exactly what they say.
Larry “The Black Face of White Supremacy” Elder is my favorite Progressive Insult!
“Progressive Hivemind”!?! Yet here you are posting in an Echo Chamber, with nearly everyone coming up with the same tired old Right Wing tropes again and again and again. I assume you appreciate the irony?
Yes it’s a Hivemind. All forms of Progressivism are a Hivemind informed by Orthodox Hermetic principles. By nature it has to crush opposition in the name of “Democracy.” There is no tolerance for other viewpoints.
There’s no “Trope” in what I’m saying. Unherd is hardly an “echo chamber.” It’s extraordinarily diverse in perspective. Why on earth would you subscribe to an Echo Chamber?
I don’t even know why I’m “debating” with a Progressive. It’s not like you care about the free exchange of ideas. All Progressives do is morally grandstand on some completely unsupported premise that they make the world better.
I think the last thing you want is a ‘free exchange of ideas’, hence the rather childish insults. But that’s fine with me.
Let me get this straight. You came on to this thread to Troll Conservatives from a perceived position of Moral and Intellectual Superiority and now you’re claiming the return serve which contained no personal insults was “childish.”
I guess the meaning of words and cliches mean nothing these days. So glad we’ve put our economic future in the hands of people that believe in the “radical reinterpretation of reality.”
I genuinely have no idea what you’re trying to say. You seem to put everyone in preconceived little boxes which accord with your worldview, so everyone has to have a label. You need to learn to think for yourself.
I was going to be a troll but I’ll attempt to reason. I want you to tell me a single person in the Western Mainstream Media with higher character and intellect than Tucker Carlson?
PS- The Answer of “Everyone” is a cop out. One person. Can be from anywhere in the Western World. Genuinely curious.
I’ll quote the judge in the slander trial Fox and Carlson won in 2020. “Fox persuasively argues, given Mr Carlson’s reputation, any viewer arrives with an appropriate skepticism about the statement he makes”.
Fox and Carlson had successfully argued that he used exaggeration and non-literal commentary, not facts or the truth.
He was an entertainer, in other words, it was just his act.
So, to answer your question, any investigative reporter who thinks the truth matters and does his or her best to find it and tell their viewers about it without fear or favour.
So you cannot name a name. Lol!
You had already posted that quote earlier. I have read that quote at least 100x. It would take ten posts for me to explain why that quote is not persuasive to me because its out of context.
So let’s assume for the sake of this question that you and I disagree on whether the quote matters.
You dodged the question as I predicted you would. Again, I ask you- Please name a SINGLE INDIVIDUAL in the Mainstream Media that I should trust more than Tucker Carlson?
Seriously? I answered your question, just not in a way you liked. But , OK, two names: John Harris, who writes for a variety of publications and did the Anywhere But Westminster podcasts where he travelled round the country visiting dozens of communities to find out why people actually voted for Brexit, or Chris Stirewalt, ex Fox News Editor who made the decision to call Arizona for Biden, which cost him his job.
I could name dozens more but I can’t see the point. You categorised me as a ‘Progressive’, whatever you think that is, but I’m not. I’m an individual, I don’t belong to any party or movement, I make my mind up based on facts and evidence, although I do read a variety of opinions from across the spectrum. I am also influenced by my Catholic upbringing so I believe in the Christian values of compassion and tolerance and refuse to hate other people because of their colour, race, sexuality or religion. That means I also make decisions on whether political decisions or people involved accord with those values.
I think Carlson is a worthless grifter because he lies, stirs up hatred and division and demonises others, just for his gratification and to make money. And because he offends my values. You can choose to disagree,.
Thank you. I genuinely appreciate your response. Now let me explain why I think we diverge.
You’re correct that Tucker is an entertainer but he’s also a True journalist. He operates somewhere between Hard News Reporting and Comedy like say John Oliver. He does this because sometimes the absurd is more effectively satirized to show the irony. However, I can see how that would be confusing for people relying on second hand sources.
You’re taking a literalist approach to a quote that needs to be satirically contextualized as if John Oliver or Jon Stewart said it.
I’ll give you an example from CNN’s “Hard News” anchor Jake Tapper. The other day he called Robert F Kennedy Jr (who announced a Presidential run against Biden) a “vaccine quack.” Clearly Tapper is stating a satirical opinion not simply reporting the news. He’s not literally saying RFK Jr is a duck. His comment isn’t meant to be taken literally and no one should.
What’s more concerning is that someone reporting “hard news” would take a political position in favor of entrenched power and treat his opinion as fact.
The difference between Tucker and Tapper is that Tucker’s audience knows when he crosses the barrier between satire and hard news.
So when you say Tucker is “divisive” I would ask when is it OK to ruthlessly critique dishonest narratives and how would someone do so without being divisive?
But Fox and Carlson pushed the dishonest narrative that Trump won the 2020 election, which led to the attack on January 6th, the deaths, the rise of dishonest election deniers and the resulting loss of faith in the US election system.
Fox and Carlson knew this, as the Dominion case proved, but went along with the lie on commercial grounds, not for any noble purpose (Carlson’s comment asking for a Fox colleague to be sacked because “look at the stock price”).
Anyone who propagates such a lie, without the irony you claim viewers can spot, is not remotely one of the good guys.
Again, this is not based on any political bias but the facts and evidence that Biden won the election. Anyone is entitled to dislike that outcome but not to incite violence by pretending it didn’t happen.
I suspect we won’t convince each other to change our opinions so we should leave it there?
Oh I absolutely think I could convince you that Tucker is legit. Whether you have the intestinal fortitude to challenge your own convictions is up to you but I promise your mental cognition will dramatically increase if you interrogate your own narratives.
You’re conflating two issues and it’s scrambling your own narrative. Tucker did not blame Dominion. In fact, he lost viewers because he couldn’t confirm Sidney Powell’s allegations of electronic ballot manipulation. Tucker, like many believe that the less secure, difficult to verify mail voting process combined with the Mainstream Media’s control of information which included censorship of negative stories made the election impossible to trust. (There are actually about 50 additional reasons that I don’t have space for).
President Trump’s four years were highlighted by years of rigged election claims and investigations. Speech on the 2016 election was not only encouraged it was considered patriotic. After the 2020 election, speech on the topic was immediately censored as misinformation and disinformation. It is now “Anti-government” to question election results. This change in speech allowance is extremely evident to open minded people that humbly challenge their own bias.
You’re far from dumb. You’re just relying on second hand sources and its creating a confirmation bias that’s preventing you from questioning if you actually have the facts right.
We all rely on second hand sources unless we were personally at an event. Tucker Carlson is a second hand source. You also talk about the Mainstream Media but Fox is the epitome of mainstream media, it’s part of Rupert Murdoch’s multi billion dollar world wide media operation. Newsmax and OAN are mainstream media, well funded by rich investors. They are all in the business of making money.
There was no concerted effort to overturn the 2016 election, that’s simply not true. But in 2020, Trump did attempt to overturn a free and fair election. Why was it free and fair? Because all the relevant authorities , both in Red and Blue states said so. The Justice Department, under William Barr said so, the Department for Homeland Security said so. And despite all the noise, not one shred of evidence has been produced to show otherwise.
The integrity of voting machines was one element and the claims of malpractice in the use of the machines was pushed hard by Fox. And because it was totally untrue they had to pay Dominion $787m, and will probably pay out more to Smartmatic.
Trump is being investigated for his attempt to pressure Raffensberger in Georgia and his role in the attack on the Capital. Again these things happened, they’re not some conspiracy, we got to hear the phone call and see the attack.
This was a fundamental attempt to interfere with a cornerstone of any functioning democracy, the transfer of power after a free and fair election and, sorry, there’s no way you can spin it or sugar coat it to change that.
I genuinely don’t have any confirmation bias, but as I said before I look at the facts and the evidence. They show that Trump and his enablers in his party and the mainstream media tried to turn the USA into a banana republic, to their eternal shame. Because, as you kindly said, I’m not dumb.
You’re exactly right that we all rely on second hand sources. If Tucker Carlson, Fox News, New York Post, Washington Times and Sky News were my only sources, I would be living in an Echo Chamber. But they’re not. I try to study every mainstream and independent media source and make an informed opinion based of a Buffet of News Reports and Alternative viewpoints from the Left and Right. If someone is reporting a Fact, I will listen. It doesn’t matter if I agree with them politically. Your understanding of the Facts is both rational and understandable given the way you prioritize sources. The Social Engineers want you relying on “The Experts” and the “Experts” then tell you who to trust because they know you probably don’t have enough time to wade through a variety of sources.
What the Internet has done is overwhelm the masses with information. So Politicians and Corporate interests (rightfully) understand that if Information is centralized into a “Narrative Consensus” with an Algorithm where the population is spoonfed a simple Narrative about Good and Evil, Fact and Fiction, Love and Hate it is much easier for the population to digest it.
Centralization of information is how Authoritarians have operated throughout History. The World didn’t know about the Holodomor (Ukrainian Famine) until Kruschev decided to blame Stalin twenty plus years later.
You’ve constructed a Narrative created by the left wing of the Establishment Media (which currently controls the overwhelming majority of the media). There was absolutely a massive effort to discredit the 2016 election. Trump was deemed an illegitimate President from Day One. The Mueller Investigation was initiated based on the Idea that Russia colluded with Trump to change the outcome of the 2016 election. The overwhelming majority of the left did not accept that Trump won the 2016 election in a fair manner. If you like, I can easily point you to over a thousand sources.
But through a process of information overload and narrative control, History has been re-written just as is always done by Centralizers that understand Narrative Control is the key to Institutional Control.
Believe me or don’t believe me. You’re free to choose. But you appear to be a person of good faith and I hope you realize I am too. I don’t always get things right but I try to understand diverse perspectives and I think doing that gives me a far better chance of processing reality than if I simply relied on a Politically controlled reproduction of information.
Excellent response. We are all trying to navigate our way through the mass of conflicting propaganda we are fed online and through the MSM.
What distinguishes Carlson from other ‘journalists’ in this space is that he is prepared to ask the awkward questions of power that no-one else dares to. He doesn’t always have the right answers, but he asks the right questions.
Excellent response. We are all trying to navigate our way through the mass of conflicting propaganda we are fed online and through the MSM.
What distinguishes Carlson from other ‘journalists’ in this space is that he is prepared to ask the awkward questions of power that no-one else dares to. He doesn’t always have the right answers, but he asks the right questions.
You’re exactly right that we all rely on second hand sources. If Tucker Carlson, Fox News, New York Post, Washington Times and Sky News were my only sources, I would be living in an Echo Chamber. But they’re not. I try to study every mainstream and independent media source and make an informed opinion based of a Buffet of News Reports and Alternative viewpoints from the Left and Right. If someone is reporting a Fact, I will listen. It doesn’t matter if I agree with them politically. Your understanding of the Facts is both rational and understandable given the way you prioritize sources. The Social Engineers want you relying on “The Experts” and the “Experts” then tell you who to trust because they know you probably don’t have enough time to wade through a variety of sources.
What the Internet has done is overwhelm the masses with information. So Politicians and Corporate interests (rightfully) understand that if Information is centralized into a “Narrative Consensus” with an Algorithm where the population is spoonfed a simple Narrative about Good and Evil, Fact and Fiction, Love and Hate it is much easier for the population to digest it.
Centralization of information is how Authoritarians have operated throughout History. The World didn’t know about the Holodomor (Ukrainian Famine) until Kruschev decided to blame Stalin twenty plus years later.
You’ve constructed a Narrative created by the left wing of the Establishment Media (which currently controls the overwhelming majority of the media). There was absolutely a massive effort to discredit the 2016 election. Trump was deemed an illegitimate President from Day One. The Mueller Investigation was initiated based on the Idea that Russia colluded with Trump to change the outcome of the 2016 election. The overwhelming majority of the left did not accept that Trump won the 2016 election in a fair manner. If you like, I can easily point you to over a thousand sources.
But through a process of information overload and narrative control, History has been re-written just as is always done by Centralizers that understand Narrative Control is the key to Institutional Control.
Believe me or don’t believe me. You’re free to choose. But you appear to be a person of good faith and I hope you realize I am too. I don’t always get things right but I try to understand diverse perspectives and I think doing that gives me a far better chance of processing reality than if I simply relied on a Politically controlled reproduction of information.
We all rely on second hand sources unless we were personally at an event. Tucker Carlson is a second hand source. You also talk about the Mainstream Media but Fox is the epitome of mainstream media, it’s part of Rupert Murdoch’s multi billion dollar world wide media operation. Newsmax and OAN are mainstream media, well funded by rich investors. They are all in the business of making money.
There was no concerted effort to overturn the 2016 election, that’s simply not true. But in 2020, Trump did attempt to overturn a free and fair election. Why was it free and fair? Because all the relevant authorities , both in Red and Blue states said so. The Justice Department, under William Barr said so, the Department for Homeland Security said so. And despite all the noise, not one shred of evidence has been produced to show otherwise.
The integrity of voting machines was one element and the claims of malpractice in the use of the machines was pushed hard by Fox. And because it was totally untrue they had to pay Dominion $787m, and will probably pay out more to Smartmatic.
Trump is being investigated for his attempt to pressure Raffensberger in Georgia and his role in the attack on the Capital. Again these things happened, they’re not some conspiracy, we got to hear the phone call and see the attack.
This was a fundamental attempt to interfere with a cornerstone of any functioning democracy, the transfer of power after a free and fair election and, sorry, there’s no way you can spin it or sugar coat it to change that.
I genuinely don’t have any confirmation bias, but as I said before I look at the facts and the evidence. They show that Trump and his enablers in his party and the mainstream media tried to turn the USA into a banana republic, to their eternal shame. Because, as you kindly said, I’m not dumb.
Oh I absolutely think I could convince you that Tucker is legit. Whether you have the intestinal fortitude to challenge your own convictions is up to you but I promise your mental cognition will dramatically increase if you interrogate your own narratives.
You’re conflating two issues and it’s scrambling your own narrative. Tucker did not blame Dominion. In fact, he lost viewers because he couldn’t confirm Sidney Powell’s allegations of electronic ballot manipulation. Tucker, like many believe that the less secure, difficult to verify mail voting process combined with the Mainstream Media’s control of information which included censorship of negative stories made the election impossible to trust. (There are actually about 50 additional reasons that I don’t have space for).
President Trump’s four years were highlighted by years of rigged election claims and investigations. Speech on the 2016 election was not only encouraged it was considered patriotic. After the 2020 election, speech on the topic was immediately censored as misinformation and disinformation. It is now “Anti-government” to question election results. This change in speech allowance is extremely evident to open minded people that humbly challenge their own bias.
You’re far from dumb. You’re just relying on second hand sources and its creating a confirmation bias that’s preventing you from questioning if you actually have the facts right.
But Fox and Carlson pushed the dishonest narrative that Trump won the 2020 election, which led to the attack on January 6th, the deaths, the rise of dishonest election deniers and the resulting loss of faith in the US election system.
Fox and Carlson knew this, as the Dominion case proved, but went along with the lie on commercial grounds, not for any noble purpose (Carlson’s comment asking for a Fox colleague to be sacked because “look at the stock price”).
Anyone who propagates such a lie, without the irony you claim viewers can spot, is not remotely one of the good guys.
Again, this is not based on any political bias but the facts and evidence that Biden won the election. Anyone is entitled to dislike that outcome but not to incite violence by pretending it didn’t happen.
I suspect we won’t convince each other to change our opinions so we should leave it there?
Thank you. I genuinely appreciate your response. Now let me explain why I think we diverge.
You’re correct that Tucker is an entertainer but he’s also a True journalist. He operates somewhere between Hard News Reporting and Comedy like say John Oliver. He does this because sometimes the absurd is more effectively satirized to show the irony. However, I can see how that would be confusing for people relying on second hand sources.
You’re taking a literalist approach to a quote that needs to be satirically contextualized as if John Oliver or Jon Stewart said it.
I’ll give you an example from CNN’s “Hard News” anchor Jake Tapper. The other day he called Robert F Kennedy Jr (who announced a Presidential run against Biden) a “vaccine quack.” Clearly Tapper is stating a satirical opinion not simply reporting the news. He’s not literally saying RFK Jr is a duck. His comment isn’t meant to be taken literally and no one should.
What’s more concerning is that someone reporting “hard news” would take a political position in favor of entrenched power and treat his opinion as fact.
The difference between Tucker and Tapper is that Tucker’s audience knows when he crosses the barrier between satire and hard news.
So when you say Tucker is “divisive” I would ask when is it OK to ruthlessly critique dishonest narratives and how would someone do so without being divisive?
Seriously? I answered your question, just not in a way you liked. But , OK, two names: John Harris, who writes for a variety of publications and did the Anywhere But Westminster podcasts where he travelled round the country visiting dozens of communities to find out why people actually voted for Brexit, or Chris Stirewalt, ex Fox News Editor who made the decision to call Arizona for Biden, which cost him his job.
I could name dozens more but I can’t see the point. You categorised me as a ‘Progressive’, whatever you think that is, but I’m not. I’m an individual, I don’t belong to any party or movement, I make my mind up based on facts and evidence, although I do read a variety of opinions from across the spectrum. I am also influenced by my Catholic upbringing so I believe in the Christian values of compassion and tolerance and refuse to hate other people because of their colour, race, sexuality or religion. That means I also make decisions on whether political decisions or people involved accord with those values.
I think Carlson is a worthless grifter because he lies, stirs up hatred and division and demonises others, just for his gratification and to make money. And because he offends my values. You can choose to disagree,.
So you cannot name a name. Lol!
You had already posted that quote earlier. I have read that quote at least 100x. It would take ten posts for me to explain why that quote is not persuasive to me because its out of context.
So let’s assume for the sake of this question that you and I disagree on whether the quote matters.
You dodged the question as I predicted you would. Again, I ask you- Please name a SINGLE INDIVIDUAL in the Mainstream Media that I should trust more than Tucker Carlson?
I’ll quote the judge in the slander trial Fox and Carlson won in 2020. “Fox persuasively argues, given Mr Carlson’s reputation, any viewer arrives with an appropriate skepticism about the statement he makes”.
Fox and Carlson had successfully argued that he used exaggeration and non-literal commentary, not facts or the truth.
He was an entertainer, in other words, it was just his act.
So, to answer your question, any investigative reporter who thinks the truth matters and does his or her best to find it and tell their viewers about it without fear or favour.
I was going to be a troll but I’ll attempt to reason. I want you to tell me a single person in the Western Mainstream Media with higher character and intellect than Tucker Carlson?
PS- The Answer of “Everyone” is a cop out. One person. Can be from anywhere in the Western World. Genuinely curious.
I genuinely have no idea what you’re trying to say. You seem to put everyone in preconceived little boxes which accord with your worldview, so everyone has to have a label. You need to learn to think for yourself.
Let me get this straight. You came on to this thread to Troll Conservatives from a perceived position of Moral and Intellectual Superiority and now you’re claiming the return serve which contained no personal insults was “childish.”
I guess the meaning of words and cliches mean nothing these days. So glad we’ve put our economic future in the hands of people that believe in the “radical reinterpretation of reality.”
I think the last thing you want is a ‘free exchange of ideas’, hence the rather childish insults. But that’s fine with me.
Yes it’s a Hivemind. All forms of Progressivism are a Hivemind informed by Orthodox Hermetic principles. By nature it has to crush opposition in the name of “Democracy.” There is no tolerance for other viewpoints.
There’s no “Trope” in what I’m saying. Unherd is hardly an “echo chamber.” It’s extraordinarily diverse in perspective. Why on earth would you subscribe to an Echo Chamber?
I don’t even know why I’m “debating” with a Progressive. It’s not like you care about the free exchange of ideas. All Progressives do is morally grandstand on some completely unsupported premise that they make the world better.
I always found it amusing that Carlson was pretty much the only one on primetime television who would even bother to have on guests like Cornel West or advocate for the release of Assange.
“Progressive Hivemind”!?! Yet here you are posting in an Echo Chamber, with nearly everyone coming up with the same tired old Right Wing tropes again and again and again. I assume you appreciate the irony?
When was the exact moment you knew you could no longer think for yourself and would simply regurgitate the ressentiment and Schadenfreude of the Progressive Hivemind?
Part of me yearns for the days when liberals were interesting…but the Hivemind is feeding moral clarity to the free thinking world.
Who cares!
But it will be fun to see Trump and his MAGA supporters tear into him now they know what he really thought. The neurons move slow in that cohort though so it’ll still be working it’s way through the cerebral cortex.
Genuinely, who cares? Alex Jones with a better tailor, a posh boy pretending to be down home with the folks because it makes him a lot of money. As authentic as a third rate tribute band. I’m sure he’ll make a living, grifting more division and hatred somewhere, though.
Ah yes. An articulate opponent is something to be despised. Better to have a toothless, banjo-playing, narrow-eyed, redneck wearing overalls?
I despise Carlson because he’s a grifter who lies to his audience (who, to be fair, largely want to be lied to) and stokes up fear, hatred, division and violence not because he believes in anything he says but because it gives him a very nice lifestyle. It’s very easy to be ‘articulate’ if you are just peddling his brand of propaganda.
You are so wrong about him! Still, that is your opinion. I just wonder if you’ve actually spent much time watching his interviews? Left wing commentators like Jimmy Dore (whilst not agreeing with him on certain issues) have praised him for being a fearless truth teller (eg explaining to the US public how corrupt the mainstream media is because it is mainly funded by Big Pharma – who else says that? And it’s true!) I really respect TC x
The opinion that mattered was Rupert Murdoch and he sacked him without notice. Rup no liberal lefty for sure.
Interesting that isn’t it. Suggests something pretty dire, beyond what we already knew, about our Tuck that may emerge.
It suggests nothing of the kind. The so-called elite left and right all feed from the same trough.
It suggests nothing of the kind. The so-called elite left and right all feed from the same trough.
I can only quote the judge in the slander trial Fox and Carlson won in 2020; “Fox persuasively argues, given Mr Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer arrives with an appropriate skepticism about the statement he makes”. His lawyers had successfully argued that he dealt in exaggeration and non-literal commentary, not facts.
And Fox, and therefore the people on it, are part of a multi-billion $ corporation and are as much a part of the ‘mainstream media’ as anyone. The discovery material in the Dominion case showed that (see Carlson’s ‘look what it’s doing to the stock price’).
The opinion that mattered was Rupert Murdoch and he sacked him without notice. Rup no liberal lefty for sure.
Interesting that isn’t it. Suggests something pretty dire, beyond what we already knew, about our Tuck that may emerge.
I can only quote the judge in the slander trial Fox and Carlson won in 2020; “Fox persuasively argues, given Mr Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer arrives with an appropriate skepticism about the statement he makes”. His lawyers had successfully argued that he dealt in exaggeration and non-literal commentary, not facts.
And Fox, and therefore the people on it, are part of a multi-billion $ corporation and are as much a part of the ‘mainstream media’ as anyone. The discovery material in the Dominion case showed that (see Carlson’s ‘look what it’s doing to the stock price’).
You are so wrong about him! Still, that is your opinion. I just wonder if you’ve actually spent much time watching his interviews? Left wing commentators like Jimmy Dore (whilst not agreeing with him on certain issues) have praised him for being a fearless truth teller (eg explaining to the US public how corrupt the mainstream media is because it is mainly funded by Big Pharma – who else says that? And it’s true!) I really respect TC x
I despise Carlson because he’s a grifter who lies to his audience (who, to be fair, largely want to be lied to) and stokes up fear, hatred, division and violence not because he believes in anything he says but because it gives him a very nice lifestyle. It’s very easy to be ‘articulate’ if you are just peddling his brand of propaganda.
Ah yes. An articulate opponent is something to be despised. Better to have a toothless, banjo-playing, narrow-eyed, redneck wearing overalls?
Genuinely, who cares? Alex Jones with a better tailor, a posh boy pretending to be down home with the folks because it makes him a lot of money. As authentic as a third rate tribute band. I’m sure he’ll make a living, grifting more division and hatred somewhere, though.