Tucker Carlson's Past Comments vs Modern Journalism

[dgiharris]

I came across a slew of stories about Tucker Carlson making inflammatory, racist, sexist, comments in the past...

Will Fox News Do Anything About Tucker Carlson? – Rolling Stone

After Tucker Carlson says he won't 'bow to the mob,' Media Matters surfaces more radio remarks

and I feel the recent spat of media articles etc are symptomatic of the problems we are having in the media today.

#1) I do not like articles that "summarize" what someone said especially when they pull quotes out of context
#2) I disagree with some of what he says, but he does make a few valid points
#3) I disagree with demands asking him to apologize
What is the point of asking a racist and sexist to apologize? What possible good does that do? What are we in the 5th grade? Does sorry make everything okay?

I feel that we as a country constantly forget what Freedom and Liberty mean.
It is important that people like Tucker Carlson have a voice and the freedom to express themselves and their arguments. If Fox wishes to employ someone like that, then that is their choice.

Similarly, I feel we are beset by what I call LAZY Journalism. For the love of all that is holy, please stop summarizing and pulling quotes out of context and making strawmen arguments out of them. Why do so many newspaper and online media fail to link to sources? Why don't they link to full transcripts? Why do you have to hunt for basic facts that should comprise these sorts of stories (like dates, time, location, venue, complete information of all the people mentioned or involved in these sorts of stories, sources, etc)

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Yes, all Tucker Carlson has to do is apologize and all of his critics will say "OK, Tucker, we forgive. you. Just try to be more careful about what you say in future." Really.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I prefer not to hear a fake apology. I really don't know, or care to know this man. All I 've learned from him. Is rape is okay. Or not that big a deal. As long as victims are brain washed.And calling people bad things are okay. Also I'm not sure The Fox News Channel cares about his views. As long as they are Consevatve.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I feel that we as a country constantly forget what Freedom and Liberty mean.

Exactly, freedom of speech does not mean that everyone (or anyone) is entitled to a nationally broadcast show.

If Fox wishes to employ someone like that, then that is their choice.

Since you seem to be stipulating that he is a racist and a sexist, that would seem to be a strange choice for Fox (and its sponsors) to hand a microphone to him.

 

[dgiharris]

Since you seem to be stipulating that he is a racist and a sexist, that would seem to be a strange choice for Fox (and its sponsors) to hand a microphone to him.

We are a capitalistic society and his views represent a nontrivial percentage of Americans.

I wouldn't hire him on my network (if I had one of course) however, I can see him doing okay at Fox News. They cater to a different audience.

TO be fair, I feel that certain socio-political movements go too far. The MeToo movement is a prime example of something with good intentions and valid complaints going too far into the realm of Salem style witch hunts. When things go off the deep end into the extreme, it often takes an extreme counterweight to pull us to the center.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I came across a slew of stories about Tucker Carlson making inflammatory, racist, sexist, comments in the past...

Will Fox News Do Anything About Tucker Carlson? – Rolling Stone

After Tucker Carlson says he won't 'bow to the mob,' Media Matters surfaces more radio remarks

and I feel the recent spat of media articles etc are symptomatic of the problems we are having in the media today.

It's a problem with the population. Shaming people has become a means of virtue signaling for some...and a means of removing certain opinions from open discourse.

#1) I do not like articles that "summarize" what someone said especially when they pull quotes out of context
#2) I disagree with some of what he says, but he does make a few valid points
#3) I disagree with demands asking him to apologize
What is the point of asking a racist and sexist to apologize? What possible good does that do? What are we in the 5th grade? Does sorry make everything okay?

You're absolutely right about this....they are quote mining. If the things he said 10 years ago were racist or sexist, and it offended someone....they should've asked for an apology then. Dragging them up now as if he said them yesterday is childish. I don't think he really needs to explain them, apologize for them, or otherwise address them at all.

I feel that we as a country constantly forget what Freedom and Liberty mean.
It is important that people like Tucker Carlson have a voice and the freedom to express themselves and their arguments. If Fox wishes to employ someone like that, then that is their choice.

Agreed...same as if they wish to fire him.

I happen to think this all began with the mobs that wanted to prevent neo-nazis from exercising their freedom of speech. A lot of people were behind the idea when it was just neo-nazis....then it started to include people who weren't neo-nazis. Then it started to include anyone who held any opinion that anyone might find offensive.

Personally, I prefer the good old days when you could just say whatever was on your mind and if someone was offended....you could apologize or tell them to kick rocks. Nobody really cared which...but we all sort of understood that everyone has some beliefs that someone will find offensive.

Similarly, I feel we are beset by what I call LAZY Journalism. For the love of all that is holy, please stop summarizing and pulling quotes out of context and making strawmen arguments out of them. Why do so many newspaper and online media fail to link to sources? Why don't they link to full transcripts? Why do you have to hunt for basic facts that should comprise these sorts of stories (like dates, time, location, venue, complete information of all the people mentioned or involved in these sorts of stories, sources, etc)

The goal is to create outrage....because outrage gets clicks....and clicks sell ads. If giving people facts did the same thing, ww wouldn't be in this mess. It's not just these personal hit pieces either....

Stories about the government and politicians in general are written to induce outrage. Stories about crimes and foreign nations are the same.

I think it all started with Trayvon and Brown. Two stories that used to generate little attention in the past....suddenly were drawing huge audiences because of outrage. The media sites must've realized that they didn't need any facts....just some accusations of racism, corruption, and some crying parents wailing about justice and they would get the clicks.

 

[bhsmte]

Tucker is not my "go to person" in regards to intelligent, well thought out commentary.

 

[jardiniere]

It's a problem with the population. Shaming people has become a means of virtue signaling for some...and a means of removing certain opinions from open discourse.(snip)

You keep using that phrase "virtue signalling". That's ...odd? The phrase "virtue signaling" serves two purposes: to make your opponent's point look shallow or vain, while at the same time signaling your virtue to not engage in such shallow conversation. In other words: all conversations consisting of value judgments are a form of virtue signaling.

Just letting you know some people do notice your "virtue signalling" here. It's probably not doing the heavy lifting you think it does.

 

[DaisyDay]

What is the point of asking a racist and sexist to apologize?

No argument.

 

[DaisyDay]

The Fox News Channel cares about his views. As long as they are Consevatve.

And revenue-generating - that's the part they really care about.

 

[essentialsaltes]

And revenue-generating - that's the part they really care about.

Yep, the invisible hand of capitalism is starting to adjust the market. Yay capitalism!

 

[bhsmte]

And revenue-generating - that's the part they really care about.

True, but i think that applies to all news outlets that are for profit.

 

[dgiharris]

True, but i think that applies to all news outlets that are for profit.

It is my belief that news for profit is one of the worst things about our Capitalistic model. Instead of us getting valuable news that impacts our lives and country... we get sensationalistic dribble that has all of the intellectual nutritional value as a bag of Cheetos.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It is my belief that news for profit is one of the worst things about our Capitalistic model. Instead of us getting valuable news that impacts our lives and country... we get sensationalistic dribble that has all of the intellectual nutritional value as a bag of Cheetos.

While they are not totally immune to the need for funding, that's one reason the PBS NewsHour is my TV news of choice.

 

[grasping the after wind]

It is my belief that news for profit is one of the worst things about our Capitalistic model. Instead of us getting valuable news that impacts our lives and country... we get sensationalistic dribble that has all of the intellectual nutritional value as a bag of Cheetos.

It is the consumer that drives capitalism. If the consumer prefers propaganda to fact rporting that is not the fault of the system. That consumer will not become virtuous and certainly not be better off if he/she is allowed only to hear the government approved version of the news. At least in a capitalist system one has choices.

 

[grasping the after wind]

While they are not totally immune to the need for funding, that's one reason the PBS NewsHour is my TV news of choice.

Many people prefer their propaganda to the propaganda of the competitive press. Government funded news IMO is always something to be suspicious of. Of course the PBS is not completely government funded their private backers must be pandered to as much as the federal and local governments that fund them.

 

[bhsmte]

It is my belief that news for profit is one of the worst things about our Capitalistic model. Instead of us getting valuable news that impacts our lives and country... we get sensationalistic dribble that has all of the intellectual nutritional value as a bag of Cheetos.

I understand and even though i have been an executive in for profit healthcare for 20 plus years, i feel the same way for certain parts of healthcare and mainly the massive profits made by; pharma, medical device and insurance companies.

The other reality is this, the news networks have become more profitable, since trump announced he was running. Everyone wants to tune into the clown show.

 

[dgiharris]

It is the consumer that drives capitalism. If the consumer prefers propaganda to fact rporting that is not the fault of the system. That consumer will not become virtuous and certainly not be better off if he/she is allowed only to hear the government approved version of the news. At least in a capitalist system one has choices.

The problem to be quite frank is that we are a nation of idiots. Imagine if you let a 5 year old make all of his eating choices. If that was the case, his diet would consist of nothing but ice cream, potato chips, pizza, cookies, and soda...

Same with the American public. The public is enthralled with celebrity scandals, car chases, and the occasional courtroom drama blown up to be like a real life Law and Order episode...

Real journalism detailing real stories that have real impact to our lives are so few and far between that when I see one it's like seeing the sun after spending a year trapped in a dark place that time forgot...

Now, I don't want the State to decide the news, that would be equally bad. But it would be nice if we had some non-biased intellectuals pick news stories to be shown based on the value/impact on society. Of course, you could still have your Capitalistic driven media. Just sayin, it would be nice to have legitimate news sources with deep pockets reporting the news without being beholden to some billionaire with an agenda...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Tucker is not my "go to person" in regards to intelligent, well thought out commentary.

He is mine. He make more sense than most. However I don't like it when he deliberately invites liberals on his show so he can argue with them (shades of Bill O'Reilly). When he does that I switch channels.

 

[bhsmte]

He is mine. He make more sense than most. However I don't like it when he deliberately invites liberals on his show so he can argue with them (shades of Bill O'Reilly). When he does that I switch channels.

Whatever floats your boat.