I saw something recently about SCOTUS doing away with the Sullivan first amendment standard

and I started thinking "actually, yeah we might need to do that at this point"

I was wondering if it has something to do with the Jan 6th stuff because that's the only thing I've heard about Carlson lately, but that didn't seem to make a lot of sense either.

As for how he feels-- there are two theories. 1) Is that he's an useful idiot type who thinks he's doing good and 2) Is that he knows exactly what he's up to, and it's hard to say which one fits better with him. I'll guess the second one but idk.

Tucker plays an interesting role in the media landscape though, because he's basically where they send narratives to die. Like he'll have anti-war voices on, talked about the recent JFK/CIA stuff, and plays at being an anti-establishment figure-- even though he of course is not one.

I don't get the sense that any of that plays into your view of him though.

he pretends to be a muckraker, but he's really just a **** stirrer

Jones had some of the same role because he (believe it or not) would report a lot of true things that weren't being reported anywhere else, and then turn around and scream "they're making the frogs gay"-- which had the effect of discrediting all of the actually true stuff he talked about.

Again-- it's where they send narratives to die.

like what?

Stuff about Agenda 2030, or 21.

Roundup turning frogs gay

you mean this?

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015
70/1. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

I just did a quick scan, and I don't see anything particularly report-worthy...

It's just a set of goals and aspirations.

What truths were reported on it?

I don't have transcripts of everything that was said, but stuff like the 15 minute cities which is causing a big controversy now in the UK would have been discussed 10+ years ago. But please feel free to believe that him/Tucker or whoever else are nothing but lies-- arguing about the veracity of anything they said was not my intent.

when you say that Tucker is reporting "truths" that nobody else will, what are you using to assess the truthfulness of his reports other than the fact that he's reporting it?

I have my own internal truthometer that i use.

My Ukranian coworkers just trying to make a living while their cities get bombed are apparently Nazis. Interesting.

Feelings, over facts. Also interesting.

How do you guard against confirmation bias?

Is there a point to your line of inquiry here?

I've had Ukrainian co-workers too. None were Nazis

But a surprising amount of them are, fwiw. At first I was wondering wtf you were talking about then I realized it must have to do with that tweet I posted and so I watched the clip and shockingly you completely misrepresented it.

I didn't know that about his father but that obviously makes sense and is what I've been saying.

the only thing I want to know about him is if he practices looking really stupid in the mirror or if it comes naturally

Say what you want but Tucker sure knows how to draw an audience...

Which is probably 80-90% of why he says what he does.

He looks like he is perpetually confused by a joke he just heard. I'm sure he does it on purpose. Check out videos where he is confronted in person. He acts completely different, kinda like a dog with it's tail between the legs.

assuming you're not advocating for nihilism here, then yes. now, anyway.

when you post

did you do anything to verify the claim made in the tweet? or do you simply accept it because it "fits"?

that's the thing with Tucker's shtick - it only works because people don't bother doing the work of the former.

Yes. I googled about Tucker Carlson's father.

Google results confirmed the tweet.

Why don't you go ahead and tell me about a thing you think I'm wrong about-- questioning my methodology only gets us so far.

Compared to liberal leaning media consumers, conservatives by far tend to stick to only one source, Fox News. It's by design. They don't want people verifying what's said. The want them tuning in for the affect. This could explain why Fox News has had many top news programs, because it's what they all watch. It's hardly a good argument for anyone to say that Tucker is good news just because he has a leading show. This, of course, isn't to say that any other source is good/bad comparitvely.

I think your wrong that Tucker reports truths that nobody else will report. I don't think Tucker is particularly concerned with reporting truths.

Your theory is that Tucker is used to bury otherwise damaging information. He has a massive audience, so that's an odd place to do that. But regardless, he doesn't seem to be reporting truths at all, nevermind those that aren't reported elsewhere. He states opinions, propounds theories, and weaves narratives, but afaict he isn't breaking any actual news.


I'm four minutes into tonight's(?) episode on youtube - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMb2Hgztntw - and he's gleaning from other reports to piece together an episode of the Daily Show except instead of trying to make people laugh he's trying to make people mad.

eta - Actually, I take that back. The Daily Show would post "gotcha" clips. This guy just spins and moves on.