Tucker Carlson: The Media ‘Are Your Enemies’ — ‘They Are Misleading You So That You Will Obey’

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I too have other races in my family so am also sensitive to this topic.

I don’t down play that some people can choose to judge based on stereo types - some of which may be race based …I do take exception to the idea that it is pervasive. There is far too much stoking of that fire IMHO
 
twf . . .
I’m obviously employing hyperbole.
Click to expand...
That’s very reasonable.

That was exactly what FoxNews attorney argued regarding the “extortion” comment from Tucker Carlson that ended up in court.

Hyperbole that has been falsely re-defined as lack of trustworthiness at times in the media.

Then it gets picked up by others.

I’m good with hyperbole.
 
Last edited:
The media are not helping against the divisiveness in the country. They are helping it. The liberal/progressive bias is everywhere. Very disheartening. It is misleading and something should be done, but it seems the liberal/progressives hold the power in the big tech companies now.
 

NOTICE THAT THE ERRORS ALWAYS OCCUR AGAINST TRUMP AND HIS SUPPORTERS. The errors are never in Trump’s favor.

The list is up to 146. Here are a few:
  1. March 1, 2019
    The Washington Post wrongly stated, without attribution, that the activist had fought in the Vietnam War. The activist also falsely stated that a high school student had blocked him and “wouldn’t allow him to retreat.” These events were later called into question, and the Washington Post had to settle with Nicholas Sandman for $-millions.
  2. Various dates: Other faked attacks reported by the news as if confirmed
    A week before Trump was elected, Hopewell Missionary Baptist Church in Mississippi was torched and the words “Vote Trump” found painted on the outside. The mayor condemned the incident as a hate crime and stated it was “an attack on the black church and the black community.” However, police later arrested a black church member for the arson. They say the man staged the fire to look like an attack by Trump supporters. Even today, some of the corrected news reports retain headlines seeming to blame Trump.
    The day after Trump was elected, an incident at Elon University in North Carolina made national news. Hispanic students found a “hateful note” written on a classroom whiteboard reading, “Bye Bye Latinos.” After the story made news, it was learned that the message was written by “a Latino student who was upset about the results of the election.”
The week after Trump’s election, a Muslim student at the University of Louisiana, Lafayette, claimed Trump supporters pulled off her head covering, and assaulted and robbed her. She later admitted fabricatingthe story.
A month after Trump’s election, a Muslim-American woman claimed Trump supporters tried to steal her headwear and harassed her on the New York City subway. She ultimately was arrested after confessing she made up the whole story.
  1. May 28, 2018
    The New York Times’ Magazine editor-in-chief Jake Silverstein and CNN’s Hadas Gold shared a story with photos of immigrant children in cages as if they were new photos taken under the Trump administration. The article and photos were actually taken in 2014 under the Obama administration.
  2. Feb. 18, 2019
    Some unskeptically furthered the narrative that Jussie Smollett, who is black, was attacked by Trump-supporting racists who put a noose around Smollett’s neck, shouted racial slurs, told him it’s “MAGA” (Make America Great Again) country, and poured bleach on him. Chicago police have stated that Smollett is no longer considered a victim of the crimes he alleged. The New York Times receives special mention here for adding a biased non sequitur in its early reporting that treated skepticism of Smollett’s story as if it were unfounded, and fit in a dig at President Trump’s son.
 
That’s an excellent link @1cthlctrth.

Great compilation.

It ought to be a “sticky” on all news sites. They can begin with CNN.

Sharyl Attkisson does a great job of investigstive journalism.

I need to use read her insights more.
 
Last edited:
Thbolt said:
Anonkun:
Lol, and you’re really going to trust a lawyer? I guess some people would rather listen to their fake news; personally I like getting Tucked into bed every weeknight.
Click to expand...
LOL, yes, I am going to trust Tucker Carlson’s lawyer when he says Tucker isn’t to be trusted.
Click to expand...
Ah, but should we trust you when you say to trust Tucker Carlson’s lawyer when he says Tucker isn’t to be trusted?

Seriously though…
“Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statement he makes.” - Judge Vyskocil
Click to expand...

Shouldn’t viewers arrive with an “appropriate amount of skepticism” about the statements that anyone on any channel makes? Sounds trivially true to me.

In fact, it would be more true about any supposedly reputable host who delivers boatloads of important information — as opposed to satire sites like Babylon Bee or CNN that are there just to garner laughs. 😁

Good advice from a lawyer telling you to be skeptical when listening to what anyone has to say. That doesn’t translate into “we can’t take his words seriously” in any language that I know of in this universe.

And how did one lawyer become “lawyerS” in your retelling?

Shrödinger’s lawyer?

 
Last edited:
I agree that we can’t trust the media…any media…including Tuckers media.

To me, it’s a crying shame that I can’t list one media company that I trust…on either side. Yet, so many people pick their favorites and only believe those media when their distrust should begin with their own choices.
 
twf said:
The same guy everyone claims is not at all racist…despite having to fire his own head writer for posting blatantly racist comments on the inter-webs… a non-story to conservatives because of the “no conservative has ever been racist or could ever be racist” mantra we hear on CAF.
Regarding the OP…Tucker…you ARE the media…
Click to expand...
Repeat again what happened to the head writer BECAUSE he posted a racist comment.

Oh, he got fired.

What happened when Ralph Northam was found to have either dressed in blackface or a KKK outfit? Still waiting.

What happened when Megyn Kelly merely broached the topic of blackface? She was shown the door at NBC.

What happened when Justin Trudeau was discovered to have worn black face at least 3 times?
Still waiting.

What happened when Joy Behar, Jimmy Kimmel, Sarah Silverman, and many others on the left wore blackface?
Still waiting.

The left is never racist or bigoted and never held to account for it, but the right is scrutinized and de-platformed merely for disagreeing with the left.

Merely having a trump flag or hat could get you removed from a class or worse.



Tell me again how only the right is bigoted or racist?
 
Pattylt said:
I agree that we can’t trust the media…any media…including Tuckers media.

To me, it’s a crying shame that I can’t list one media company that I trust…on either side. Yet, so many people pick their favorites and only believe those media when their distrust should begin with their own choices.
Click to expand...
I trust…





and a number of others.

BUT…

… I NEVER arrive without an “appropriate amount of skepticism” to any site or channel.

I even disagree with some of what these people say.

And I don’t think it a “crying shame” that people sometimes make mistakes or express a judgement I don’t happen to share. That is life.

I do think it a crying shame that reputable news channels deliberately misinform their audience. That is an entirely different matter.

Tucker Carlson is NOT a news anchor. His is an opinion show, so why are we expecting NO contentious opinions on it?
 
Thbolt said:
Ah, the fellow his own lawyers claim we can’t take his words seriously

“Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statement he makes.” - Judge Vyskocil
Click to expand...

As I read those words again it dawns on me that what Vyskocil is saying is that Tucker has a reputation which draws reasonable viewers and, as such, any reasonable viewer arrives with a skeptical mind about the opinion statements that are made.

Far from being critical of Tucker, it is actually a backhanded slight on the mainstream media where the typical viewer arrives with no attitude of skepticism but merely absorbs and regurgitates the “information” without any skepticism at all.

Ergo, his lawyers (no s) isn’t saying we can’t take his words seriously, he is saying his audience is of the kind that takes his words sufficiently seriously that every word is measured by skepticism, as opposed to the MSM audience that take every word as Gospel merely BECAUSE it is reported there. See what happens when we read between the lines and don’t accept someone’s rendition of someone else’s statement without skepticism.

Never assume that a lawyer is telling you what you want to hear. He might be telling you what you don’t.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
Thbolt:
Ah, the fellow his own lawyers claim we can’t take his words seriously

“Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statement he makes.” - Judge Vyskocil
Click to expand...

As I read those words again it dawns on me that what Vyskocil is saying is that Tucker has a reputation which draws reasonable viewers and, as such, any reasonable viewer arrives with a skeptical mind about the opinion statements that are made.

Far from being critical of Tucker, it is actually a backhanded slight on the mainstream media where the typical viewer arrives with no attitude of skepticism but merely absorbs and regurgitates the “information” without any skepticism at all.

Ergo, his lawyers (no s) isn’t saying we can’t take his words seriously, he is saying his audience is of the kind that takes his words sufficiently seriously that every word is measured by skepticism, as opposed to the MSM audience that take every word as Gospel merely BECAUSE it is reported there. See what happens when we read between the lines and don’t accept someone’s rendition of someone else’s statement without skepticism.

Never assume that a lawyer is telling you what you want to hear. He might be telling you what you don’t.
Click to expand...

So, are you implying that all Tucker watchers are skeptical but all MSM watchers aren’t?
 
Pattylt said:
So, are you implying that all Tucker watchers are skeptical but all MSM watchers aren’t?
Click to expand...
My experience with MSM viewers is that they don’t want to discuss the reasons underpinning what they think because the talking points serve as their reasons. They get a little nervous and sweaty when anyone doesn’t accept that logic. The experts in the media have spoken and therefore there is no debate. Consensus has settled the debate and the MSM has detailed the consensus view from which dissent is not allowed.

Take the Hunter Biden laptop, as just one example. MSM viewers still think it is Russian disinformation because the media has declared it to be. If it were real, the media would be assessing and reporting it. They aren’t, so case closed.

Real skeptical that.

All viewers would be an overstatement. 99.94% would be more accurate. Just kidding. I don’t have actual numbers to give you - more often than not would be about as accurate as I care to be.

Besides, those were Tucker’s lawyer’s words. I interpreted the propensity as “typical viewer” but that was merely to explicate what might have been his idea. You really ought to take it up with him.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
My experience with MSM viewers is that they *don’t want to discuss the reasons underpinning what they think because the talking points serve as their reasons. They get a little nervous and sweaty when anyone doesn’t accept that logic. The experts in the media have spoken and therefore there is no debate. Consensus has settled the debate and the MSM has detailed the consensus view from which dissent is not allowed.
Click to expand...
No debate; dissent no allowed; talking points serve as reason.

Welcome to the “new normal”.

I congratulate the Biden voters on their “victory”.
 
Last edited:
PaulinVA said:
40.png
Adamek:
I congratulate the Biden voters on their “victory”.
Click to expand...
It will be a victory without the quotes, if the trends continue.

Sheesh.
Click to expand...
I noticed the Covid mask on your avatar has disappeared. Things looking up in your neck of the woods?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top