What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Is Tucker Carlson a journalist or a mouthpiece? (1 Viewer)

Ilov80s said:
Insane and contradicting the FBI. He notes that the total number of registered white supremacists/nationalists could fit into a college football stadium. First, I don’t think they are all official members of some group. Second, Michigan Stadium could probably hold 300,000 people if you actually filled it up. That’s not insignificant and no way Tucker would ever be like “Islamic terrorism is not a real threat to the US- there’s only 300,000 Americans belonging to ISIS sympathizing radical Islamic groups”. 
Click to expand...
WTF is a "registered" white supremacist?  We talking law enforcement registries or is there some sign-up sheet floating around on stormfront? Or is this just some manufactured Tucker BS that doesn't really mean anything?

Also, how many "unregistered" white supremacists are there? I'm confused.  

 
Herb said:
WTF is a "registered" white supremacist?  We talking law enforcement registries or is there some sign-up sheet floating around on stormfront? Or is this just some manufactured Tucker BS that doesn't really mean anything?

Also, how many "unregistered" white supremacists are there? I'm confused.  
Click to expand...
Registered isn't a diret quote, he said "membership". I just kind of made the connection if one is a member than they have registered. I don't know where those estimated figures come from. 

 
Ilov80s said:
Registered isn't a diret quote, he said "membership". I just kind of made the connection if one is a member than they have registered. I don't know where those estimated figures come from. 
Click to expand...
Ok thanks. I'm going to slowly back away from this now, as diving deeper would adversely affect my already tenuous sanity.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
by the way, if white supremacy is a complete hoax then does that mean that illegal immigrants are more American citizens then they are?  Remember that argument from his friends years ago

Tucker is using the strategy that since he has never actually seen the KKK or a skinhead rally before then white supremacy is fake.  You know like how white people say that aren't racists because they don't use the N word but use other offensive terms and stereotypes

 
Mr. Ham said:
Tucker Carlson’s only purpose is to attempt to normalize at times morally repugnant white, GOP-centered agenda. No matter how vile it gets, his job is to “what about” people into thinking it’s perfectly okay to turn their backs on those who don’t fall into their category. 
Click to expand...
Really realy dangerous. This is not rhetoric. This is an active disinformation effort.  

 
Carlson also said something about David Axelrod running a secret smear campaign against Joe Biden in order to clear the decks for Michelle Obama to run for President next year. 

 
Slapdash said:
Again tonight
Click to expand...
My view is a bit different from Carlson’s. I think we should take the side of countries defending their own borders rather than taking the side of aggressors. I think we should take the side of western-style democracies rather than taking the side of authoritarian dictatorships. I think we should take the side of our NATO allies rather than taking the side of a hostile adversary who attacked us less than four years ago and, by all accounts, plans to do it again.

These principles were widely agreed on in the late 1930s and early 1940s when we sided with the UK and France over Germany and Italy. Are they no longer obvious?

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
My view is a bit different from Carlson’s. I think we should take the side of countries defending their own borders rather than taking the side of aggressors. I think we should take the side of western-style democracies rather than taking the side of authoritarian dictatorships. I think we should take the side of our NATO allies rather than taking the side of a hostile adversary who attacked us less than four years ago and, by all accounts, plans to do it again.

These principles were widely agreed on in the late 1930s and early 1940s when we sided with the UK and France over Germany and Italy. Are they no longer obvious?
Click to expand...
Generally, I agree with all of those too

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Why do people think Vladimir Putin is bad? So random! Makes no sense!.

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1201670971779739650
Click to expand...
I saw that segment. To be fair the jist of it is how insignificant Russia is today when compared to the threat from China. Historically those sides haven’t had a cozy relationship and he was advocating for trying to find some workable way to cooperate where our interests align against China. I actually agree with that point. 

 
Shula-holic said:
I saw that segment. To be fair the jist of it is how insignificant Russia is today when compared to the threat from China. Historically those sides haven’t had a cozy relationship and he was advocating for trying to find some workable way to cooperate where our interests align against China. I actually agree with that point. 
Click to expand...
Yeah.  Let’s cooperate with Putin.  What could go wrong?

 
Alex P Keaton said:
Yeah.  Let’s cooperate with Putin.  What could go wrong?
Click to expand...
I dunno.  Stalin was a pretty horrible guy but he made for a useful tool against Germany and at the very end of WWII against Japan.  I didn't say we could trust him, or even know if it's possible, but it would be foolish to not at least consider the benefits we could get using Russia as a wedge against China.

 
He wasnt saying "cooperate". He is rooting for Russia against our ally.

You used Stalin and he is saying he isnt so bad.

Pretty massive stretches.

 
Shula-holic said:
I dunno.  Stalin was a pretty horrible guy but he made for a useful tool against Germany and at the very end of WWII against Japan.  I didn't say we could trust him, or even know if it's possible, but it would be foolish to not at least consider the benefits we could get using Russia as a wedge against China.
Click to expand...
How would you use Russia as a wedge against China? Wedging what? What price are you willing to pay for this cooperation? Ukraine as a part of Russia? The Baltics?

What do you understand as Putin's goals and how do you see them dovetailing with those of the US (and it's existing allies)?

 
Karen McDougal files defamation lawsuit against Tucker Carlson and Fox News

"Carlson, however, said on his show that it was an "undisputed" fact that two women "approached Donald Trump and threatened to ruin his career and humiliate his family" if he didn't provide them money. Carlson said it sounded "like a classic case of extortion," and later referred to them as "extortion payments."


Carlson did not name McDougal, but an image of her was later shown on the screen."

 
Tucker breaking from Fox Talking points about Iran.  

https://www.foxnews.com/media/tucker-carlson-war-iran-deep-state

"It's hard to remember now but as recently as last week most people didn't consider Iran an imminent threat," Carlson said on "Tucker Carlson Tonight." "Iranian saboteurs weren't committing acts of terror in our cities. Oh, but our leaders tell us they were about to at any second. That's why we struck first. What's so striking is how many people appear to accept this uncritically.
Click to expand...

 
i heard he is really good at badmitton but only fair to middling at lawn jarts take that to the bank bromigos 

 
Disney, Papa John's and T-Mobile pulled their advertising from his show this week. 

There also seems to be a tiny movement afoot asking cable viewers to urge their cable company to pull Fox from their basic packages.

 
roadkill1292 said:
Disney, Papa John's and T-Mobile pulled their advertising from his show this week. 

There also seems to be a tiny movement afoot asking cable viewers to urge their cable company to pull Fox from their basic packages.
Click to expand...


What did he say?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fox News Argues Viewers Don't Assume Tucker Carlson Reports Facts
JUNE 17, 2020 12:58pm PT
by Ashley Cullins

Tucker Carlson doesn't have an obligation to investigate the truth of statements before making them on his show, and his audience doesn't expect him to report facts, a lawyer for Fox News told a New York federal judge on Wednesday. 

The network is facing a slander lawsuit from Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model who made headlines over a $150,000 payment she received from the National Enquirer in connection with her alleged affair with Donald Trump.

McDougal claims Carlson defamed her and accused her of a crime in a segment that also discussed Stormy Daniels. Here's what Carlson said that she takes issue with: "Two women approached Donald Trump and threatened to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn't give them money. Now that sounds like a classic case of extortion."

To complicate matters, he also earlier in the broadcast said that he was recapping the "gist" of a New York Times story and assuming "for the sake of argument" that things ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen had said were true while noting it wasn't wise to make such an assumption, but he also stated, "Remember the facts of the story; these are undisputed."

Fox News wants U.S. District Court Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil to toss the complaint, arguing both that nothing Carlson said is defamatory because it can't be interpreted as stating actual facts and that McDougal can't prove he acted with actual malice, which she must to succeed on her claims because she's a public figure.

Fox News' attorney Erin Murphy argued that Carlson repeatedly couched his statements as hypotheticals to promote conversation and that a reasonable viewer would know his show offers "provocative things that will help me think harder," as opposed to straight news.

"What we’re talking about here, it’s not the front page of The New York Times," said Murphy. “It’s Tucker Carlson Tonight, which is a commentary show.”

While discussing what constitutes reckless disregard for the truth in regard to the actual malice standard, Judge Vyskocil asked Murphy, "Does somebody in Mr. Carlson’s position have the duty of inquiry?"

Murphy replied, "Not as to an actual malice standard. The Supreme Court could not be clearer." She argued malice isn't a negligence standard, and "failure to investigate" the truth of a statement doesn't suffice. 

The Fox News lawyer also argued that even if Carlson were aligned with Trump, that's not enough, and you can't reach the actual malice standard "just by saying someone has motive for lying."

McDougal's lawyer Eric Bernstein emphasized the phrase "remember the facts" and claims that moment in his segment signaled a shift from commentary to reporting news. "It’s a beat change, if you’re an actor," he argued. "You can even see it on his face. He gets serious. He’s not being dramatic."

Bernstein's arguments supporting actual malice rely on Fox News' previous coverage of McDougal and a tweet from Trump praising Carlson's book. Vyskocil seemed dubious, asking "Are you sure the president doesn’t tweet about anyone with whom he doesn’t have a personal relationship?"

She ultimately took the matter under submission.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Joe Bryant
  • Poll Poll
Montana Man Confronts Tucker Carlson - Thoughts?
2 3 4
Replies
186
Views
7K
The General
The General
Nugget
Misogyny - Thoughts on it and has is become widespread?
2 3 4
Replies
152
Views
4K
KarmaPolice
KarmaPolice
timschochet
People who deliberately lie and spread hate
6 7 8
Replies
372
Views
8K
Stealthycat
Stealthycat

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top