Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Breezy H2O

Tucker Carlson Has Highest-Rated Program In Cable News History

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Boston said:

He is absolutely not part of the leadership...please stop with that...he has a TV show that a good amount of Amercan’s watch and is calling out our leaders for allowing violence, standing down to violence or using terms like “mostly peaceful”...what is going on is an embarrassment and has been for months....yet here we are going over the nuances of what Tucker Carlson should be allowed to say...it is literally Rome with Nero these days.

So you're saying he doesn't have a following of people that listen, agree with and follow his opinion?  Interesting take for a thread that has a title talking about the highest rated program

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

So you're saying he doesn't have a following of people that listen, agree with and follow his opinion?  Interesting take for a thread that has a title talking about the highest rated program

Of course he does but he did not run for office and was elected...last time I checked ratings is a goal for all these shows on a Fox, CNN and MSNBC, especially since one of the metrics for their success is ratings and I will go out on a limb and say the majority of viewers of all these shows have a common line of thinking with the host...are you saying he is some type of Wizard who is practicing mind control at 8:00 on weekdays?  If that is the case that really isn’t fair to Rachel Maddow.

Edited by Boston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Boston said:

Of course he does but he did not run for office and was elected...last time I checked ratings is a goal for all these shows on a Fox, CNN and MSNBC, especially since one of the metrics for their success is ratings and I will go out on a limb and say the majority of viewers of all these shows have a common line of thinking with the host...are you saying he is some type of Wizard who is practicing mind control at 8:00 on weekdays?  If that is the case that really isn’t fair to Rachel Maddow.

No, I'm saying he's a leader, elected or not, and thus has a responsibility.  As does Maddow.  And as a leader your words matter, especially now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Boston said:

Of course he does but he did not run for office and was elected...last time I checked ratings is a goal for all these shows on a Fox, CNN and MSNBC, especially since one of the metrics for their success is ratings and I will go out on a limb and say the majority of viewers of all these shows have a common line of thinking with the host...are you saying he is some type of Wizard who is practicing mind control at 8:00 on weekdays?  If that is the case that really isn’t fair to Rachel Maddow.

The idea that he would say that just to boost ratings is even worse IMO.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, Skoo said:

Didn't I just watch a video last night of the killer talking to the cops beforehand, even getting some water and a "thank you" from the police as well?

There were people there to keep order. They just declined to do so.

I believe there is even another video of police telling the armed militia that they will drive the protesters towards them and let them handle it. Not sure though, saw the video with a caption earlier but couldn't find it now.

Edited by Ilov80s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, trader jake said:

There are reasons why this is a common misconception.  See: thread title.

 

Right, he's just on air to stir up anger. He's not actually trying to solve any problem or be productive or generate honest discussion. He's not the only on air like that and the left has plenty of that too. Tucker just seems to be leaning extra hard into the authoritarian/fascist element of it all. Interesting since during the Obama years I thought he was a libertarian. 

Edited by Ilov80s
  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, [scooter] said:

Using the phrase "maintain order" when he means "violence" is not a good look, don't you think?

You don't think his viewers, especially the impressionable younger types, say, for example, a 17-year-old with an obsession with police and access to guns, might take him literally when he describes murder as "had to maintain order"?

Sure but you are attributing that line of thinking to Tucker.  He said 17 year olds, in the face of rioting and arson going unchecked by anyone in authority decided they need to maintain order.  He's talking about what those people think.  He's not advocating violence as a means of "maintaining order".  I get that its a fine line, but accuracy is important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

 

Sure but you are attributing that line of thinking to Tucker.  He said 17 year olds, in the face of rioting and arson going unchecked by anyone in authority decided they need to maintain order.  He's talking about what those people think.  He's not advocating violence as a means of "maintaining order".  I get that its a fine line, but accuracy is important.

Isn’t the counterpoint that those that continue to see unarmed black men killed by police are deciding they need to force change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

Isn’t the counterpoint that those that continue to see unarmed black men killed by police are deciding they need to force change?

I don't see how that's a counterpoint to what I said.  What you state is probably true, at least at the inception of the protests.  I don't honestly believe the people looting and burning down buildings or pulling people from their cars to beat seven shades of #### out of them are doing so to force change.  And certainly, you wouldn't give the violent mayhem a pass regardless of the cause, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

 

Sure but you are attributing that line of thinking to Tucker.  He said 17 year olds, in the face of rioting and arson going unchecked by anyone in authority decided they need to maintain order.  He's talking about what those people think.  He's not advocating violence as a means of "maintaining order".  I get that its a fine line, but accuracy is important.

Add to my point earlier it’s a very nuanced argument he’s making that clearly didn’t land as many didn’t pick up on the nuances.  That’s irresponsible in this environment.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ilov80s said:

Right, he's just on air to stir up anger. He's not actually trying to solve any problem or be productive or generate honest discussion. He's not the only on air like that and the left has plenty of that too. Tucker just seems to be leaning extra hard into the authoritarian/fascist element of it all. Interesting since during the Obama years I thought he was a libertarian. 

No he's not.  He is there to give a viewpoint.  A viewpoint that is not heard on other news outlets.  He's wrong sometimes, like everyone else.  I can't think of a fascist element to any of his viewpoints-quite the contrary.  He's spoken out against right and left alike.  On this specific point, he is stating what should be an obvious truth; that people living thru these riots are seeing their businesses burn and people being beaten.  The void of any control of this anarchy OF COURSE will drive some to take matter into their own hands.  That is not advocating for the use of violence.  Its not defending it, nor is it justifying it.  Its simply stating that this is an obvious result of the lack of any push to quash this situation.  That this is a controversial statement or that people in here and elsewhere think he should fired for stating the seemingly obvious, is really weird.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dkp993 said:

Add to my point earlier it’s a very nuanced argument he’s making that clearly didn’t land as many didn’t pick up on the nuances.  That’s irresponsible in this environment.  

Fair, although I think many people simply don't want to pick it up.  And honestly, its not THAT nuanced.  Like RA said, its pretty straightforward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:
3 hours ago, [scooter] said:

Using the phrase "maintain order" when he means "violence" is not a good look, don't you think?

You don't think his viewers, especially the impressionable younger types, say, for example, a 17-year-old with an obsession with police and access to guns, might take him literally when he describes murder as "had to maintain order"?

Sure but you are attributing that line of thinking to Tucker.  He said 17 year olds, in the face of rioting and arson going unchecked by anyone in authority decided they need to maintain order.  He's talking about what those people think.  He's not advocating violence as a means of "maintaining order".  I get that its a fine line, but accuracy is important.

I'm attributing the line to Tucker because he is the one who assumed what the 17-year-old was thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, unckeyherb said:

Fair, although I think many people simply don't want to pick it up.  And honestly, its not THAT nuanced.  Like RA said, its pretty straightforward.

It’s not that nuanced if you’re parsing it out and having a debate. But if you’re just listening/watching casually like 95% of his audience is it’s easy to see how many can interpret it differently.  

And that’s actually the heart of my argument. He and others like him, no matter where they fall on the political scale, have a responsibility to be extraordinarily careful with their words when speaking about topics that are highly flammable and potentially toxic especially in times of extreme tensions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

I'm attributing the line to Tucker because he is the one who assumed what the 17-year-old was thinking.

Right.  And that's the wrong thing to do.  You are making the leap from Tucker suggesting that this was a foreseeable outcome to Tucker defending the outcome.  That's not what he's doing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

I don't see how that's a counterpoint to what I said.  What you state is probably true, at least at the inception of the protests.  I don't honestly believe the people looting and burning down buildings or pulling people from their cars to beat seven shades of #### out of them are doing so to force change.  And certainly, you wouldn't give the violent mayhem a pass regardless of the cause, right?

I absolutely would not give any violence a pass and have said so over and over.

But yes...I think there are those who think the only way to make change is acting out...that often their voices are not heard.  (again, this is not justifying their actions...but to explain that when emotions run high and they feel ignored and marginalized some wonder what it is they have to do to be heard...and they turn to more extreme behavior).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dkp993 said:

It’s not that nuanced if you’re parsing it out and having a debate. But if you’re just listening/watching casually like 95% of his audience is it’s easy to see how many can interpret it differently.  

And that’s actually the heart of my argument. He and others like him, no matter where they fall on the political scale, have a responsibility to be extraordinarily careful with their words when speaking about topics that are highly flammable and potentially toxic especially in times of extreme tensions.

I don't disagree with your second point.  I just think his statement was simply an observation that if it came from someone on CNN would have gotten head nods by the other 9 people on the panel.  The need to dive headlong into moral outrage about this is the problem with us these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

I absolutely would not give any violence a pass and have said so over and over.

But yes...I think there are those who think the only way to make change is acting out...that often their voices are not heard.  (again, this is not justifying their actions...but to explain that when emotions run high and they feel ignored and marginalized some wonder what it is they have to do to be heard...and they turn to more extreme behavior).

 

So, basically what Tucker said.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Isn’t the counterpoint that those that continue to see unarmed black men killed by police are deciding they need to force change?

That's not a counterpoint as much as it's just a variant of the exact same argument.  "I've identified what I view as a serious social problem, and my solution is to take to the streets and engage in violence."  

I hope it goes without saying that we should tend to reject that argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

So, basically what Tucker said.  

Sure...but what Im saying is he ignores that is why were are where we are in the first place...and then he is "explaining" or "justifying" it from one side but villifying it from the other.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

That's not a counterpoint as much as it's just a variant of the exact same argument.  "I've identified what I view as a serious social problem, and my solution is to take to the streets and engage in violence."  

I hope it goes without saying that we should tend to reject that argument.

exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

That's not a counterpoint as much as it's just a variant of the exact same argument.  "I've identified what I view as a serious social problem, and my solution is to take to the streets and engage in violence."  

I hope it goes without saying that we should tend to reject that argument.

I agree..I reject it from the looters as well as militia.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sho nuff said:

Sure...but what Im saying is he ignores that is why were are where we are in the first place...and then he is "explaining" or "justifying" it from one side but villifying it from the other.

 

He hasn't ignored that is why we are here.  He's said so many times.  He isn't justifying it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:
11 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

I'm attributing the line to Tucker because he is the one who assumed what the 17-year-old was thinking.

Right.  And that's the wrong thing to do.  You are making the leap from Tucker suggesting that this was a foreseeable outcome to Tucker defending the outcome.  That's not what he's doing.

What? I never said Tucker was defending this shooting. Come on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

I don't disagree with your second point.  I just think his statement was simply an observation that if it came from someone on CNN would have gotten head nods by the other 9 people on the panel.  The need to dive headlong into moral outrage about this is the problem with us these days.

Sure, the general level of outrage culture is out of control, I certainly agree there.  But in this specific incident the outrage level should be high, it’s a 17yr old kid driving to the next state to walk down the street with a semi-automatic rifle who ends up killing 2 people.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

What? I never said Tucker was defending this shooting. Come on.

I took this: "You don't think his viewers, especially the impressionable younger types, say, for example, a 17-year-old with an obsession with police and access to guns, might take him literally when he describes murder as "had to maintain order"?" to mean that he is defending this murder under the guise of maintaining order.  

If that was not your point, than apologies, I misunderstood.  But a simple google search will show 25 headlines that all say "Tucker Carlson Defends shooter", so again, apologies if I misinterpreted your point, but that sentiment is definitely prevalent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Sure, the general level of outrage culture is out of control, I certainly agree there.  But in this specific incident the outrage level should be high, it’s a 17yr old kid driving to the next state to walk down the street with a semi-automatic rifle who ends up killing 2 people.  

yeah, there should be, and is, a high level of outrage at this shooting.  I'm not suggesting there shouldn't be.  I'm suggesting there should not be the insane outrage at what Tucker said.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:
12 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

What? I never said Tucker was defending this shooting. Come on.

I took this: "You don't think his viewers, especially the impressionable younger types, say, for example, a 17-year-old with an obsession with police and access to guns, might take him literally when he describes murder as "had to maintain order"?" to mean that he is defending this murder under the guise of maintaining order.  

If that was not your point, than apologies, I misunderstood.  But a simple google search will show 25 headlines that all say "Tucker Carlson Defends shooter", so again, apologies if I misinterpreted your point, but that sentiment is definitely prevalent.  

It's more about stoking racial division and white grievance than a literal defense of murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

It's more about stoking racial division and white grievance than a literal defense of murder.

No, its not.  That's what you want it to be about.  It's about pointing out the obvious horrible consequences of continued feckless leadership regarding these riots.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:
17 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

It's more about stoking racial division and white grievance than a literal defense of murder.

No, its not.  That's what you want it to be about.  It's about pointing out the obvious horrible consequences of continued feckless leadership regarding these riots.  

...except that not once, not ever, has Carlson used similar phrasing to describe vigilante crimes committed by blacks, let alone murder.

If Tucker Carlson had a history of crying "maintain order!" in race-neutral setting, then I would be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt here.

But he doesn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

...except that not once, not ever, has Carlson used similar phrasing to describe vigilante crimes committed by blacks, let alone murder.

 

so what?  I mean, are there many vigilante crimes that have been committed by blacks which have garnered national attention that I am unaware of?  You're ascribing racism to his statement based on him previously not using similar phrasing regarding supposed crimes that I'm not sure even exist.  Good grief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unckeyherb said:

No he's not.  He is there to give a viewpoint.  A viewpoint that is not heard on other news outlets.  He's wrong sometimes, like everyone else.  I can't think of a fascist element to any of his viewpoints-quite the contrary.  He's spoken out against right and left alike.  On this specific point, he is stating what should be an obvious truth; that people living thru these riots are seeing their businesses burn and people being beaten.  The void of any control of this anarchy OF COURSE will drive some to take matter into their own hands.  That is not advocating for the use of violence.  Its not defending it, nor is it justifying it.  Its simply stating that this is an obvious result of the lack of any push to quash this situation.  That this is a controversial statement or that people in here and elsewhere think he should fired for stating the seemingly obvious, is really weird.

I will admit I do not watch all his shows and certainly could be wrong in my interpretations. Has Tucker been critical of the police for their use of violence? Has he provided the same explanation for the rioting? When you say he has criticized the right and left, is he calling out the right for being too far right or right enough? There is a difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

so what?  I mean, are there many vigilante crimes that have been committed by blacks which have garnered national attention that I am unaware of?  You're ascribing racism to his statement based on him previously not using similar phrasing regarding supposed crimes that I'm not sure even exist.  Good grief.

Not to bag on [scooter], but how can you control for similar circumstances? How many white riots are there, really?

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Not to bag on [scooter], but how can you control for similar circumstances? How many white riots are there, really?

The similar circumstance is police kill people in excess and people lash out violently. I doubt Tucker has ever used that logic with rioters. I do think I overreacted to what Tucker said and people here helped me better understand it. However, when I look at the logic behind Tucker's take, I can't help but see how it exposes his bias. I do not believe he is a good voice for the current state of the country. We need more positive people who are more curious and less certain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

The similar circumstance is police kill people in excess and people lash out violently. I doubt Tucker has ever used that logic with rioters. I do think I overreacted to what Tucker said and people here helped me better understand it. However, when I look at the logic behind Tucker's take, I can't help but see how it exposes his bias. I do not believe he is a good voice for the current state of the country. We need more positive people who are more curious and less certain. 

Tucker has changed a lot over the years. He was indeed more of a classical liberal/libertarian like you thought he was when it was the nineties. But those days are long gone, and Trump pays the bills, apparently, so Trump it is.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

We need more positive people who are more curious and less certain. 

This x1000.  Do you have any people you view this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, djmich said:

This x1000.  Do you have any people you view this way.

Not on the boob tube.

matt taibbi, Kyle kulinski, Krystal Ball and Saager Enjeti on the rising. 

Edited by unckeyherb
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, djmich said:

This x1000.  Do you have any people you view this way.

Krystal & Saagar for me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I think allegations of dog whistles are dumb. It's dumb when QAnon people think "cheese pizza" means "child pornography" and it's just as dumb on the other side when everything is secret hidden code for overt racism.

This doesn't seem like a fair comparison. QAnon is not on the "other side" of anything except reality.

Edited by Joe Summer
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, djmich said:

This x1000.  Do you have any people you view this way.

Not really. I don’t think it sells. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

This doesn't seem like a fair comparison. QAnon is not on the "other side" of anything except reality.

I want to disagree with this because it's Maurile for God's sake, but I think you're right.

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, unckeyherb said:

Not on the boob tube.

matt taibbi, Kyle kulinski, Krystal Ball and Saager Enjeti on the rising. 

Thx will check them all out.  I've recently come across Coleman Hughes, really like his style, hosts some podcasts on youtube that have been good listens...people actually talking to each other, listening and not shouting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, djmich said:

Thx will check them all out.  I've recently come across Coleman Hughes, really like his style, hosts some podcasts on youtube that have been good listens...people actually talking to each other, listening and not shouting

Yeah he’s great.  Sam Harris is a guy that I could listen to for days.  Immensely intelligent and inquisitive.  I’d recommend him more than anyone although he covers many topics outside of politics.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be honest, I've never seen a single episode of this tv series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fox News lawyers successfully convince a court that Carlson's show should be viewed "with an appropriate amount of skepticism" since Tucker is not "stating actual facts" about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in "exaggeration" and "non-literal commentary." 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2020/09/24/judge-tosses-playboy-model-karen-mcdougals-defamation-lawsuit-against-fox-news/#6cf7dd9b32e7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/27/2020 at 4:04 PM, dkp993 said:

Sure, the general level of outrage culture is out of control, I certainly agree there.  But in this specific incident the outrage level should be high, it’s a 17yr old kid driving to the next state to walk down the street with a semi-automatic rifle who ends up killing 2 people.  

He lives on the border.  He drives across the state line frequently to go to work.  He showed great restraint and accuracy in discharging his weapon.  He had just put out a dumpster fire which was on route to a gas station which enraged the first victim to the point of wanting to chase him down and do serious harm to him.  All outrage should be directed at the out of control DA who rushed to push a bunch of politically-motivated bogus charges that have zero chance of success.  

Edited by jon_mx
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Workhorse said:

Fox News lawyers successfully convince a court that Carlson's show should be viewed "with an appropriate amount of skepticism" since Tucker is not "stating actual facts" about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in "exaggeration" and "non-literal commentary." 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2020/09/24/judge-tosses-playboy-model-karen-mcdougals-defamation-lawsuit-against-fox-news/#6cf7dd9b32e7

It's a terrible decision because, while embarrassing to Carlson - his own lawyers argued he's a fraud no one believes - that doesn't really mean that is known or understood by millions of viewers.

Alex Jones' lawyers have repeatedly tried to the same strategy to try to squirrel out of the Sandy Hook cases to no avail.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Workhorse said:

Carlson's show should be viewed "with an appropriate amount of skepticism" since Tucker is not "stating actual facts"

I’m convinced.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe Tucker's documents were stolen. What are the odds? I was sure they were going to break this whole thing wide open.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, whoknew said:

I can't believe Tucker's documents were stolen. What are the odds? I was sure they were going to break this whole thing wide open.

Surejan.gif

I guess ol Tucker has never heard of a copier, camera, scanner, email, fax...am I missing anything?

Edited by Greedo
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this