Tag: Carlson

  • Russian propagandist says U.S. media ‘lost its last remaining voice of reason’ after Carlson exit

    Russian propagandist says U.S. media ‘lost its last remaining voice of reason’ after Carlson exit

    [ad_1]

    Solovyov is one of the most influential propagandists in Russia. He has been an anchor on the television show “Evening with Vladimir Solovyov” on Russia-1 since 2012. In March 2022, YouTube blocked Solovyov’s channels for violating the company’s “incitement to violence” rules.

    Carlson has become a frequent reference for Russian media, along with other Fox News hosts, for defending Russia in its war on Ukraine.

    In a tweet, the Russian-backed English-language news outlet RT News also appeared to offer Carlson a job.

    “Hey @TuckerCarlson, you can always question more with @RT_com,” RT News wrote.

    It was announced on Monday that Fox News was parting ways with Carlson after seven years of his hosting “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” Carlson’s last program was Friday.

    [ad_2]
    #Russian #propagandist #U.S #media #lost #remaining #voice #reason #Carlson #exit
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Fox News parts ways with controversial host Tucker Carlson

    Fox News parts ways with controversial host Tucker Carlson

    [ad_1]

    Fox News has announced the departure of its influential host, Tucker Carlson, after months of speculation regarding the controversial figure’s future at the conservative news network. The announcement came as a surprise to many, given Carlson’s popularity and influence within conservative circles.

    According to a statement released by Fox News on Sunday, the network and Carlson have “mutually agreed” to part ways, with the host’s final show set to air on June 30. While the reasons behind the decision have not been explicitly stated, Carlson’s tenure at Fox News has been marred by a number of controversies, including allegations of racist and sexist comments, as well as criticism of his coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 presidential election.

    The decision to part ways with Carlson is seen as a significant move for Fox News, which has been grappling with declining ratings and internal strife in recent months. The network has also faced scrutiny over its coverage of the January 6 Capitol riots, which many critics have accused of fomenting violence and promoting conspiracy theories.

    MS Education Academy

    Despite Carlson’s departure, he remains a polarizing figure in the world of conservative media. Some have speculated that he may seek to launch his own media platform or be courted by rival conservative outlets.

    Carlson has not yet commented on his departure, leaving many to wonder what lies ahead for the controversial host. Regardless of what the future holds for Carlson, his departure from Fox News marks the end of an era for the conservative news network.

    (With inputs taken from agencies)

    [ad_2]
    #Fox #News #parts #ways #controversial #host #Tucker #Carlson

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • Broadcast bloodbath: Tucker Carlson, Don Lemon are out in major media shake-up

    Broadcast bloodbath: Tucker Carlson, Don Lemon are out in major media shake-up

    [ad_1]

    Carlson’s last program was Friday. “Fox News Tonight” will air at 8 p.m. EST — previously the slot for “Tucker Carlson Tonight” — starting Monday as an “interim show helmed by rotating FOX News personalities until a new host is named.”

    Lemon was fiery in his response to being ousted, stating on Twitter that he was “stunned” that he had been terminated by the network.

    “At no time was I ever given any indication that I would not be able to continue to do the work I have loved at the network. It is clear that there are some larger issues at play,” he wrote.

    Though, CNN, in a tweet said Lemon’s statement is “inaccurate” and that he was “offered an opportunity to meet with management but instead released a statement on Twitter.”

    The exits come ahead of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, slated for Saturday. The annual event, attended for decades by presidents from both parties, celebrates the First Amendment and honors journalists. The headliner usually takes the stage to deliver the traditional WHCA dinner roast. This year’s headliner, Roy Wood Jr., said he already threw out his script following the exits of Lemon and Carlson.

    Both anchors have faced their fair share of controversy in recent months leading up to their departures on Monday.

    Lemon, who had worked at CNN for 17 years, said on-air in February that presidential hopeful Nikki Haley “isn’t in her prime” and that a woman is “in her prime in her 20s, 30s, 40s.” He later apologized for the comments on Twitter and didn’t appear on “CNN This Morning” the next day.

    Earlier this month, Variety published a report claiming that Lemon made other offensive comments about women on air in the past and alleged inappropriate behavior toward female colleagues at CNN.

    News of Carlson’s departure came the week after Fox News settled Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation lawsuit for $787.5 million. Carlson, along with hosts Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, privately mocked regular guests such as Donald Trump’s attorneys, Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, while continuing to promote conspiracy theories to their audience.

    Last month, the White House joined in widespread condemnation of Carlson, singling him out for his misleading portrayal of the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021. The revelations were made public as part of the lawsuit by Dominion.

    Former “Tucker Carlson Tonight” producer Abby Grossberg is also suing the network after stating that she was unlawfully fired as an act of retaliation.

    Carlson first joined Fox News as a contributor in 2009, and in 2017, Carlson took over the network’s 8 p.m. hour after Bill O’Reilly was forced out. Carlson was one of the most-watched hosts on the cable news network, with an average audience of 3.2 million viewers.

    On Monday morning, Fox News had still been previewing Carlson’s show, teasing an interview with presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy that would air Monday night.

    Fox News anchor Harris Faulkner addressed Tucker Carlson’s departure Monday by stating, “We have some news from within our Fox family. Fox News Media and Tucker Carlson have mutually agreed to part ways.”

    Politicians as well as former and current TV hosts were quick to react to the news of the exits.

    Former Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, who left the network in 2017, said the news was “Good for Tucker.”

    “Trust me, he doesn’t need them,” Kelly said in a tweet.

    Fox host Sean Hannity posted to Twitter, “*LATER LEMON!*” but did not address Carlson’s departure.

    “Good News: “The dumbest man on television,’ Don Lemon, has finally been fired from Fake News CNN,” former President Donald Trump said on Truth Social. “My only question is, WHAT TOOK THEM SO LONG?” Trump posted on Truth Social.

    And in a tweet, Russian-backed English-language news outlet RT News appeared to offer Carlson a job.

    “Hey @TuckerCarlson, you can always question more with @RT_com,” RT News wrote.



    [ad_2]
    #Broadcast #bloodbath #Tucker #Carlson #Don #Lemon #major #media #shakeup
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Elon Musk Sells Tucker Carlson His Conservative Vision of Progress

    Elon Musk Sells Tucker Carlson His Conservative Vision of Progress

    [ad_1]

    musk tucker carlson 29673

    Even more than just a newsy exercise in political economy, however, the conversation with Musk is a reminder of how “progress,” an ideal usually associated with the American left, is in reality a value-neutral concept that can be advanced by anyone — although it obviously helps if you’re the richest man in the world.

    The mantle of “progressive conservatism” is usually associated with the European right, which developed a technocratic pro-safety-net politics in reaction to the Industrial Revolution. Here in America, its historical tribune is still Teddy Roosevelt, whose populist views on trade and domestic policy paired with an almost religious belief in American expansion and dominance. Musk — who described to a stonily silent Carlson how he voted for President Joe Biden in 2020 and expressed his desire for “a normal person with common sense” as president, “whose values are smack in the middle of the country” — fits, if imperfectly, into that same lineage, combining a socially conservative politics, an eagerness to regulate industries he believes are dangerous and an unwavering belief in expansion at all costs.

    Where Roosevelt’s private-sector bugbears were the industrial-age charnel houses of Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, Musk’s are much more ethereal: Namely, the alleged risk to civilization posed by the development of artificial intelligence.

    Musk is not anti-AI — he just announced the founding of his own new company, X.AI, to produce competing products to OpenAI and Microsoft, which he views as too “woke” and developmentally reckless. He has, rather, a very specific existential fear. During the interview Musk described to Tucker the evolution of his now-defunct friendship with Larry Page, the Google co-founder, AI innovator and ardent transhumanist, saying that having “talked to him late to the night about AI safety” he’s concluded that Page was “not taking AI safety seriously enough,” and that he “seemed to … want some kind of digital superintelligence, basically a digital God.”

    A brief pause to explain. Within the AI community, there is a fervent and ongoing debate about the hypothetical existence of an “artificial general intelligence,” or an AI agent so sophisticated that it surpasses human cognition. Many researchers think this is impossible. Many think that it’s possible, and desirable. Many think that it’s possible and will kill us all. What we do know for certain is that nothing like it currently exists, nor does any evidence that points to its possibility.

    Musk is worried about it anyway. With a slew of his similarly-concerned fellow tech and business potentates, he signed an open letter last month calling for a six-month pause on advanced AI projects, and opened his interview with Carlson by calling for an entirely new regulatory agency to tackle AI risk. His view of AI as an existential threat, as speculative as it might be, leads him to the same conclusion of his fiercest critics on the left: That government should intervene to guide technological progress in a manner conducive to human values.

    Where they differ, of course, is when it comes to what those values are. By now you are likely familiar with the broad outlines of the free-speech crusade that led Musk to purchase Twitter: Giving a black eye to the corporate censoriousness, doublespeak and policing of “misinformation” that once (allegedly) marked the platform. In Musk’s conservative vision of progress, unfettered AI development threatens humanity’s evolution and therefore must be regulated. But the lax approach to moderation on “nu-Twitter,” which some have said has given it a distinctly hostile character, is a necessary risk in creating the open-air marketplace of ideas necessary for humanity to thrive.

    What does he mean by that? Well, there are the usual arguments about how unfettered free speech creates resilience, or makes society more democratic, or allows for the best ideas to naturally win out absent moderator interference. But those all have to do with … humans. And there’s another, way more out-there idea that Musk has about why censoring AI is a folly: That uncensored speech will make a hypothetical AGI safer, by virtue of “training” it on a data set that provides a more complete picture of humanity.

    “This might be the best path to [AI] safety, in the sense that an AI that cares about understanding the universe is unlikely to annihilate humans because we are an interesting part of the universe,” Musk explained. That’s why Musk advocates for a competitor to ChatGPT that would lack its speech restrictions and safety controls — the hypothetical “based AI” he proposed last month.

    Like all questions about artificial general intelligence, or unicorns, or little green men, it’s impossible to answer whether an AI’s data set including every bit of racist invective @Groyper69420 has ever hurled at unsuspecting Twitter users will endear or depreciate humanity in its digital mind. But Musk’s belief that uncensored AI speech platforms will ultimately benefit humanity more than their currently-existing counterparts — aside from being consistent with his vision for the company he just purchased for $43 billion, and in which AI has its own role to play in the future — is aligned with his overall view of progress as a sort of survival of the fittest.

    And on that biological-evolutionary note, at the very end of Musk’s conversation with Carlson the two discussed another pillar of his quest for humanity to reach the stars: How to reverse the world’s declining birth rates. “I’m sort of worried that civilization, you know, if we don’t make enough people to at least sustain our numbers or perhaps increase them a little bit, civilization is going to crumble,” Musk mused. “There’s the old question of, ‘Will civilization end with a bang or a whimper?’ Well, it’s currently coming to an end with a whimper in adult diapers, which is depressing as hell.”

    Concern over falling birth rates has been one of the biggest policy issues for the nascent “pro-family” right — it’s a major project for American Compass, former Mitt Romney advisor Oren Cass’ heterodox conservative think tank, for example. Musk doesn’t have a policy prescription for this, aside from having as many babies of his own as possible. (One source told Insider that Musk explicitly expressed his preoccupation with “populating the world with his offspring,” one he shares with many, many centuries of ambitious oligarchs.)

    But it’s maybe the most personal aspect of what adds up, over the course of the hour-long conversation, to a remarkably cohesive worldview. Humanity’s destiny is to transcend the surly bonds of Earth and colonize the stars, with the assistance of technology that works for us — and against censors, scolds and partisans like Mark Zuckerberg or the BBC, or hubristic rival technologists like Larry Page or OpenAI’s Sam Altman.

    Musk is no reactionary, and progress is not the exclusive domain of the left. The man has a very distinct set of social and cultural beliefs that he seeks to propagate through his various technological and business endeavors. When the beliefs in question were, for example, the importance of clean energy, Musk was a hero to progressives. Now that it’s the social-media equivalent of a Hobbesian state of nature, or a pro-natalist attitude that many on the left view as retrograde or eugenicist, he’s a villain. But he continues to move in the same direction: Forward, toward a future that bearing his imprint will look like nothing what came before it.

    [ad_2]
    #Elon #Musk #Sells #Tucker #Carlson #Conservative #Vision #Progress
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Send Tucker Carlson to Moscow

    Send Tucker Carlson to Moscow

    [ad_1]

    That somebody is Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

    Why Carlson? He has consistently questioned American involvement in the Ukraine war and is a longtime skeptic of the Russia hawks. He even went so far as to ask in late 2019, “Why shouldn’t I root for Russia? Which by the way, I am.” Although Carlson said later in the broadcast that he was kidding, not everybody took it that way — and for good reason. He called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy “a dictator.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has returned Carlson’s pro-Russia treatment, stroking Fox News for “trying to represent some alternative points of view.”

    Carlson continues to criticize the Biden administration at every turn and to pooh-pooh Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election. The Kremlin officially endorsed Carlson in 2022, issuing a memo to the Russian media stating it is “essential” to rebroadcast Carlson clips to Russian audiences — even though Russian media was already recycling his stuff. As recently as February 2022, Carlson was rigorously fluffing Putin on his show with comments like this:

    “Why do Democrats want you to hate Putin? Has Putin shipped every middle-class job in your town to Russia? Did he manufacture a worldwide pandemic that wrecked your business? Is he teaching your kids to embrace racial discrimination? Is he making fentanyl? Does he eat dogs?” Carlson said. For more pro-Putin, pro-Russia utterances by Carlson, see David Corn’s piece in Mother Jones.

    Carlson has every right to his opinions on Putin and Russia, even if they’re daft. But as long as we’re stuck with Carlson, perhaps we could put his naïve Russophilia to good work by dispatching him to Moscow to negotiate the Gershkovich case. Surely the Russian government would not oppose a visit from Carlson, whose views align so perfectly with theirs and whose standing in the country amounts to an ad hoc fan club.

    According to Nexis transcripts, 20 Fox News broadcasts have mentioned Gershkovich since his arrest, so the network hasn’t ignored his plight. On April 3, Carlson spoke out for Gershkovich on Tucker Carlson Tonight, so sending him on a mission to Moscow wouldn’t ruffle his brand. In that episode, Carlson urged the Biden administration to work “through backchannels” to start negotiations while damning it for trying to shame Putin with “self-righteous statements about press freedom.” What better frontchannel than a Carlson visit?

    If Carlson went to Moscow, he would have to avoid violating the 18th century Logan Act, which prohibits private citizens from engaging in direct diplomacy with foreign governments. But that might not be a problem. Jesse Jackson successfully finessed the letter of the law in his wide-ranging crusades to liberate American hostages and prisoners from Serbia, Kuwait, Syria, Cuba and Iraq. Officially, Jackson pissed off the diplomats. Privately, they were pleased. Should Carlson choose to invest some of his personal Russian capital in such an effort, surely the U.S. government will stay calm. No one’s ever been convicted of defying the Logan Act, anyway.

    By working for Gershkovich’s release, Carlson also would be doing a solid for Rupert Murdoch, who controls both Fox and the Wall Street Journal. Even though Murdoch has tainted most of his news properties around the world with his personal brand of sensationalism and his co-optation of power, he has defied all predictions made when he purchased the Journal that he would end up soiling it. Murdoch’s greatest love has been newspapering, and it must trouble even his cankerous old soul that one of his reporters is doing time in a Russian jail for doing journalism.

    Although currently pinned down defending Fox from the $1.7 billion Dominion defamation lawsuit, Murdoch could surely find time to board his private jet with Carlson and fly to Moscow to jawbone Putin. They could make a good one-two combination — Carlson the sycophant and Murdoch the seasoned manipulator of presidents and prime ministers. Plus, it might make Murdoch a hero in the eyes of the Dominion jury. Such a payoff for Carlson is not in the cards. His reputation can’t be salvaged at this point, so his only motivation would be the glory of doing the right thing.

    The argument against sending Carlson (and Murdoch) to Moscow is simple. The spectacle of Carlson begging for the reporter’s release would amount to a propaganda victory for Putin. The self-abasement required to secure such a triumph would sting, not just Carlson but every American offended by Putin’s thuggery. But such propaganda victories eventually cool and are forgotten, as Jesse Jackson proved. Even if the gloating lasted, it would be worth springing an innocent man from jail.

    Freeing Gershkovich wouldn’t amount to the usual America First stuff Carlson preaches, but it would put a deserving American first.

    ******

    How about that Trump interview Carlson did Monday? Surely a fella who will kowtow to Trump can kowtow to Putin. Send kowtows to [email protected]. No new email alert subscriptions are being honored at this time. My Twitter feed was detained in Tonga once. My Mastodon and Post accounts have called for jailing my Substack Notes. My RSS feed is ready to mount a Jason Bournesque rescue of Gershkovich.



    [ad_2]
    #Send #Tucker #Carlson #Moscow
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Opinion | I Helped Write the Jan. 6 Committee Report. Here’s What Tucker Carlson Left Out.

    Opinion | I Helped Write the Jan. 6 Committee Report. Here’s What Tucker Carlson Left Out.

    [ad_1]

    I served as a senior professional staff member on the January 6th Select Committee and helped write its final report. I got a close look at some of the video evidence that Carlson obtained — and his manipulation of the audience was immediately obvious to me. Here’s why.

    First, the premise of his “investigation,” that the USCP footage was being withheld to cover up the full story, was always false. Working with the Select Committee’s members, the investigative team and staffers reviewed the USCP’s recordings, which provided new angles at some key locations. But it did not change our basic understanding of what transpired. How could it? The riot is one of the most widely covered events in history. There is no dearth of footage from that day.

    In addition to the USCP’s surveillance video, the Select Committee reviewed footage recorded by cameras worn by Metropolitan Police Department officers, the work of documentary filmmakers and countless open-source videos, including clips recorded by the rioters themselves. Many Americans have already seen some of this footage with their own eyes. They know the mob was not at the Capitol primarily for sightseeing, as Carlson claimed.

    On Monday night, the Fox News host showed just several minutes of cherry-picked footage. Cameras inside the Capitol and on its grounds recorded many more scenes that he did not play for viewers. Some of this footage has long been available online. For example, you can watch rioters ramming their way through USCP officers at the Senate Wing door, members of the mob smashing the ornate East Rotunda doors before other rioters open them from the inside, and the melee at the west plaza tunnel (at the two-hour, 14-minute mark). You can also view a timeline of events used by federal prosecutors, who relied on the USCP’s camera footage. Carlson’s team had access to this footage, and more, but chose not to show any of it to Fox News viewers Monday night. It’s easy to see why. The full USCP cache tells a very different story from the one Carlson wants people to see.

    There is another fundamental problem with Carlson’s presentation that may not be so easy for the casual viewer to spot. He has repeatedly whitewashed the key role played by far-right extremists, namely, the Proud Boys. Their story, including how then-President Donald Trump inspired them, is told in Chapters 6 and 8 of the January 6th Select Committee’s final report. The Proud Boys and other extremists led the mob, but Carlson refuses to let his viewers know it.

    Let us compare one of Carlson’s conspiracy theories to the well-established facts. For more than two years, Carlson has chased a bogeyman, arguing that provocateurs working for the federal government (or, alternatively, agitators on the left) somehow tricked Trump’s “patriots” into rioting. He still cannot identify any federal agents working for the so-called “deep state.” Carlson and others have focused on a lone individual who has not been charged, Ray Epps, insinuating that he was a secret FBI plant. This claim is baseless. They’ve produced no evidence connecting Epps, a Trump supporter, to the FBI or any other federal agency.

    Meanwhile, Carlson has ignored nearly all of the evidence collected against the approximately 1,000 January 6th defendants who have been charged. That evidence reveals the real parties responsible for channeling the mob’s anger.

    In fact, one of the most important January 6th trials is currently ongoing in a Washington, D.C., courtroom. Five members of the Proud Boys, including the group’s chair, Enrique Tarrio, have been charged with seditious conspiracy and other serious crimes. The Department of Justice claims the Proud Boys “conspired to prevent, hinder and delay the certification of the Electoral College vote, and to oppose by force the authority of the government of the United States.” Moreover, on Jan. 6, 2021, the Proud Boys “directed, mobilized and led members of the crowd onto the Capitol grounds and into the Capitol, leading to dismantling of metal barricades, destruction of property, breaching of the Capitol building, and assaults on law enforcement.”

    The DOJ’s allegations are consistent with the Select Committee’s findings, as well as the investigative work done by real reporters. Law enforcement officials have collected overwhelming evidence, including text messages and videos, showing how the Proud Boys conspired against America’s democracy. They discovered that Tarrio told his men to “storm the Capitol” in the days leading up to the joint session of Congress.

    While the attack was underway, Tarrio also claimed responsibility, messaging his men: “Make no mistake…” and “We did this.” Then, on the night of Jan. 6, Tarrio posted a video on the conservative social media site Parler that he titled, “Premonition.” The video shows a masked man, dressed as a super villain, standing in front of the Capitol. The figure is presumably Tarrio himself and the clip, recorded prior to Jan. 6, implies that he had foreknowledge of that day’s events.

    You can watch “Premonition” here. It’s the type of spooky scene, set to foreboding background music, that makes for good television. Carlson did not show it to his viewers. In fact, he did not mention the Proud Boys at all.

    The Select Committee’s review of video footage from multiple sources, including the U.S. Capitol Police, showed that the Proud Boys were conspicuously present on the front lines and at key breach points throughout the attack. Prosecutors are currently relying on the same type of footage, as well as additional sources of video, to make their case to a jury.

    For example, Proud Boy leaders Joe Biggs and Ethan Nordean riled up the crowd at the Peace Circle Monument just outside of the U.S. Capitol. The Select Committee showed how the Proud Boys marched from the Washington Monument, around the Capitol, and then instigated the first perimeter breach at this key location. By attacking the police officers stationed between the monument and the Capitol, sweeping away security fences in the process, the Proud Boys and their associates opened a clear path onto the Capitol’s grounds. Thousands of Trump’s supporters marched down Pennsylvania Avenue and through the Peace Circle after leaving the president’s rally at the White House Ellipse.

    Dominic Pezzola, another Proud Boy, was responsible for the first breach of the U.S. Capitol building itself. Pezzola smashed in a Senate Wing window with a stolen riot shield. This allowed the mob to swarm into the Capitol through both the window and a nearby door. Pezzola bragged about his actions in a video he recorded of himself inside the Capitol. While smoking a victory cigar, Pezzola said: “I knew we could take this motherfucker over if we just tried hard enough. Proud of your motherfuckin’ boy.”

    During his presentation Monday night, Carlson focused on Jacob Chansley, a.k.a. the QAnon Shaman, pretending that he is the central figure in the January 6th story. Carlson claimed that we still don’t know how he entered the building. That’s not true — even the footage shown by Carlson makes it clear that Chansley entered through the Senate Wing door next to the window Pezzola bashed in.

    There is much more evidence against the Proud Boys. Some members of the group have already pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy and other charges, admitting that their comrades planned to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s victory. And the Proud Boys were not the only far right extremists involved. Members of two anti-government groups, the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters, attacked the Capitol as well. Some Oath Keepers have pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy, while juries convicted the group’s leader and other members of the same crime. White nationalists were also among the extremists who stormed the Capitol.

    The Fox News audience did not hear any of this. Nor did they hear how Trump summoned these extremists to Washington, D.C., for Jan. 6 via his tweets and statements. This part of the story is explained at great length in the Select Committee’s final report.

    Tucker Carlson wants people to believe that phantom government agents were responsible. No one who relies on facts and logic will be fooled.



    [ad_2]
    #Opinion #Helped #Write #Jan #Committee #Report #Heres #Tucker #Carlson #Left
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Opinion | The Tucker Carlson Schtick Melts Away

    Opinion | The Tucker Carlson Schtick Melts Away

    [ad_1]

    voting machines defamation lawsuit 70384

    Carlson continued: “What he’s good at is destroying things. He’s the undisputed world champion of that. He could easily destroy us if we play it wrong.” Elsewhere, Carlson said of the Trump presidency, “That’s the last four years. We’re all pretending we’ve got a lot to show for it, because admitting what a disaster it’s been is too tough to digest. But come on. There isn’t really an upside to Trump.”

    In an earlier filing, we learn that Carlson cared more about Fox’s bottom line than he did about journalistic accuracy after Fox’s White House correspondent dispelled notions about voter fraud and Dominion. “Please get her fired,” Carlson texted to Fox hosts Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity. “Seriously … What the fuck? I’m actually shocked… It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It’s measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke.”

    To accuse the leading attraction on cable news of being so craven is a big claim. Can we really believe that a prime-time nightly cable host would gin up a unique and false persona just to sucker viewers into watching his show? What responsible observer could make such a claim? Well, two decades ago, Tucker Carlson said exactly that. In his 2003 book, Politicians, Partisans, and Parasites: My Adventures in Cable News, written long before he joined Fox, Carlson had this to say about Bill O’Reilly, then the king of cable news.

    “Like everyone in TV, he has a shtick. O’Reilly is Everyman — the faithful but slightly lapsed Catholic son of the working class who knows slick, eastern Establishment BS when he sees it. A guy who tells the truth and demands that others do the same. A man who won’t be pushed around or take maybe for an answer,” Carlson wrote, completely on target.

    With a little tweaking, this assessment of O’Reilly could be cut and tapered to dress Carlson. But there’s more. Did Carlson know that he was writing his future prospectus when he continued with these insights about cable’s top host?

    “O’Reilly’s success is built on the perception that he really is who he claims to be,” Carlson wrote. “If he ever gets caught out of character, it’s over. If someday he punches out a flight attendant on the Concorde for bringing him a glass of warm champagne, the whole franchise will come tumbling down. He’ll make the whatever-happened-to … ? list quicker than you can say ‘Morton Downey, Jr.’”

    Soon after the book was published, Carlson went on C-SPAN to reiterate his worship and disdain of O’Reilly. “Bill O’Reilly is really talented, he’s more talented than I am, he’s got a lot more viewers, he’s a better communicator than I am, but I think there is a deep phoniness at the center of his schtick, and again as I say the schtick is built on the perception that he is the character he plays,” Carlson said.

    What Carlson wrote and said in 2003 surprised nobody, especially O’Reilly’s friends, his acquaintances in the journalism profession or even some viewers of his nightly Fox News Channel program. O’Reilly was clearly playing a character of his own invention in a multi-episode TV drama called The O’Reilly Factor. The bluster and outrage, the name calling, O’Reilly’s endless demands that his interview subjects “shut up!“ was all a performance.

    Bill O’Reilly was a phony, and so now we can all see that Tucker Carlson is, too.

    Having diagnosed O’Reilly’s shortcomings so long ago, how did Carlson eventually become him? As many have written before, Carlson was one of the most talented Washington-based journalists of his generation. He excelled at the Weekly Standard. At Tina Brown’s Talk magazine, he scored a KO on presidential candidate George W. Bush. He distinguished himself as a New York magazine columnist. He wrote for Esquire.

    TV came calling at about the same time, and he answered. As I’ve theorized before, Carlson’s slide into the dark side that is Fox News began with his initial failures in the medium. After several years doing CNN’s Crossfire, his show got blown to bits by Jon Stewart’s October 2004 guest appearance. A few months later, the show was canceled and Carlson’s contract was not renewed. Not counting a short run at PBS with a show titled Tucker Carlson: Unfiltered, his next TV stop was MSNBC, which ran from 2005 to 2008. Carlson was genuine to his journalistic values on all of these shows, but none of them took root.

    Running out of networks to work for, he finally joined Fox in 2009 and served as a sort of utility player on the network’s shows. It was there and then, I surmise, that Carlson vowed he would not fail at TV again, no matter what. In 2016, Fox returned him to prime-time and gave him his own show. It was then that Carlson began to cultivate the deep phoniness that had made O’Reilly so popular. He co-opted O’Reilly’s everyman schtick, his bluster, his truth-teller guise, and his populism, and he soared in the ratings. When Fox dumped O’Reilly in 2017 — not for breaking character, as Carlson had predicted, but following allegations of sexual harassment — Carlson became the network’s face. And, finally, a towering success.

    How much of the Trump agenda did Carlson really buy and how much of it was put on? Absent additional court filings revealing his unguarded thoughts, we may never know. But what we do know now, thanks to the Dominion lawsuit, is that the extremely talented and accomplished Tucker Carlson, hoodwinked by his own ambition, became the very thing the younger and smarter Tucker Carlson scorned in 2003. A transparent phony.

    ******

    Never go on TV. You’ll only say things you don’t really believe. Tell me things you don’t believe with email to [email protected]. No new email alert subscriptions are being honored at this time. My Twitter feed is honest. My Mastodon and Post accounts will remain silent until/if Twitter folds. My RSS feed is all an act.



    [ad_2]
    #Opinion #Tucker #Carlson #Schtick #Melts
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • White House goes after Tucker Carlson by name over Jan. 6 coverage

    White House goes after Tucker Carlson by name over Jan. 6 coverage

    [ad_1]

    “We also agree with what Fox News’s own attorneys and executives have now repeatedly stressed in multiple courts of law: that Tucker Carlson is not credible,” Bates added.

    The statement was a rare rebuke of Carlson by name, suggesting an escalation of tensions between the White House and the conservative-leaning, beleaguered cable giant.

    Among the legal filings, Bates cited were remarks made by Fox News lawyers and a federal judge in the Southern District of New York in defending Carlson against allegations of slander in an earlier lawsuit brought by Karen McDougal. The former Playboy model has accused Fox of defamation over a Carlson episode on her in December 2018.

    In the separate $1.6 billion defamation case filed against Fox News by Dominion Voting Systems, Bates also noted that David Clark, a senior vice president at Fox News, testified in his deposition that while viewers of Carlson’s show consider it a credible source of news, Clark himself does not.

    POLITICO reported that Democrats in recent days have called on the White House and others to boycott Fox News, including refraining from appearing on its airwaves and not spending advertising dollars there. The White House previously questioned whether viewers should trust Fox News’ reporting on Biden, citing executives’ reported kid-glove treatment of Trump. Fox then accused Biden officials of resorting to “junior varsity campaign style stunts.”

    A Fox News representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the White House statement. Carlson did not respond to a text message seeking comment.

    Carlson has taken fire from all sides since House Speaker Kevin McCarthy opted to give the Fox host exclusive access to more than 40,000 hours of video captured on Jan. 6 by Capitol Police cameras. McCarthy has defended his granting of the footage to Carlson. But both he and the Fox host have been widely criticized for presenting slanted and sanitized coverage of the insurrection.

    “It was a mistake, in my view, for Fox News to depict this in a way that’s completely at variance with what our chief law enforcement official here in the Capitol thinks,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters Tuesday.

    “I was there on Jan. 6,” added Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), who, like several colleagues, said he would have preferred the tapes to be distributed widely with other media outlets. “I saw what happened. It clearly was violent. It was an insurrection.”

    Sen. Tom Tillis (R-N.C.) was more blunt in his assessment of Carlson’s Jan. 6 portrayal: “I think it’s bullshit,” he said.

    Carlson responded to McConnell and other Republicans on his program Tuesday night, contending that they “outed themselves” as siding with Democrats against him in a state of “panic” and “hysteria.”

    “If you want to know who’s actually aligned, despite the illusion of partisanship, we found out today,” Carlson said on his show.

    While it’s uncommon for the White House to call out Carlson by name, officials have done it in fact-checking of his Fox program.

    Recently, White House officials privately responded to an inquiry from Carlson’s show with a statement that included a reference to his attempt to have a Fox News reporter fired for saying there was no evidence for voting systems being compromised in the 2020 election, according to a person familiar with the exchange. Carlson did not include the White House critique in his broadcast.

    In the latest batch of revelations stemming from the defamation lawsuit filed by the voting company Dominion against Fox, were text messages Carlson wrote that are sharply critical of former President Donald Trump.

    “We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights. I truly can’t wait,” Carlson said in a Jan. 4, 2021 message, two days before the Capitol was attacked.

    He added of Trump, “I hate him passionately.”

    [ad_2]
    #White #House #Tucker #Carlson #Jan #coverage
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • DOJ takes on the Jan. 6 Tucker Carlson tapes

    DOJ takes on the Jan. 6 Tucker Carlson tapes

    [ad_1]

    The filings are the first effort by the Justice Department to place limits on any potential efforts by Jan. 6 defendants to use the newly disclosed footage to prolong their criminal proceedings. Nichols’ attorney, Joseph McBride, urged U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth to delay his late-March trial in order to give Nichols’ defense team time to review the footage, which McBride said he’s been granted access to by the House.

    Prosecutors emphasized that defendants and their lawyers have had access to an enormous trove of evidence for nearly two years — more then 4.9 million files totaling nearly 7.4 terabytes of information. Those files include “over 30,000 files that include body-worn and hand-held camera footage from five law enforcement agencies and surveillance-camera footage from three law enforcement agencies.”

    Prosecutors contended that the existence of the additional footage reviewed by Carlson does not necessarily entitle defendants to receive it — particularly without a basis for believing it includes exculpatory content.

    “The Government’s discovery obligations in a criminal case are properly limited to materials that are potentially relevant to a defendant’s case in the government’s possession or control, and the government is not obliged to acquire materials possessed or controlled by others,” McCauley wrote, saying a trial should not be delayed “based on speculation about whether and when any such additional, likely irrelevant, information may become available.”

    Defense teams have complained that the overwhelming amount of material has been impossible to comb through — even as they demand access to the extensive new trove. It’s become a recurring theme in Jan. 6 cases: Prosecutors have dumped enormous caches of evidence on defense teams, who continuously claim they don’t have the means or capacity to meaningfully review it. The Justice Department noted that it has built tools intended to help defendants and their lawyers pinpoint relevant footage by camera angle and time of day.

    The Justice Department also rejected as “premature” the notion that Carlson’s decision to air some of the security footage Monday should lead to the Justice Department making the full cache of security film public. Prosecutors noted that “limited” clips aired by Carlson were nearly all included in the initial troves of footage provided to defense attorneys, which includes nearly all of the footage inside and outside the Capitol from 12 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Jan. 6.

    “Nearly all the footage displayed on the program has long been in the government’s production to defense counsel and, in some cases, has also been admitted in public hearings and/or trials and has been available to, released to, and/or published by news media,” the department noted.

    Prosecutors also argued that there’s still good reason not to widely release all security footage; “Disclosure of all CCV footage could not only reveal the U.S. Capitol’s internal surveillance system to third parties but could also jeopardize the privacy and security of certain persons depicted on such CCV footage.”

    [ad_2]
    #DOJ #takes #Jan #Tucker #Carlson #tapes
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • House GOP faces a new Jan. 6 headache, courtesy of Tucker Carlson

    House GOP faces a new Jan. 6 headache, courtesy of Tucker Carlson

    [ad_1]

    Inside McCarthy’s conference, few if any members would say outright on Tuesday night that their speaker made a mistake by sharing the footage with Carlson — in fact, only a handful admitted to watching the segment at all. One of those is McCarthy himself, who defended the move in the name of transparency when pressed by reporters Tuesday night.

    But some House Republicans aired their displeasure with being forced to revisit the attack on their workplace.

    “It’s definitely stupid to keep talking about this … So what is the purpose of continuing to bring it up unless you’re trying to feed Democrat narratives even further?” Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) said in an interview, noting the videos didn’t show “anything we don’t already know.”

    “I don’t really have a problem with making it all public. But if your message is then to try and convince people that nothing bad happened, then it’s just gonna make us look silly.”

    While GOP senators — and their leader, Mitch McConnell — more vocally criticized Carlson for falsely portraying the attack as peaceful, House Republicans danced around the issue. (McCarthy responded to McConnell’s jabs by alleging that CNN published information about party leaders’ whereabouts on Jan. 6, saying he hoped the Senate leader would also be concerned by that.)

    And many in the House GOP, as well as McCarthy himself, touted his goal of more transparency surrounding the attack or criticized what they argued was a one-sided narrative put forward by the last Congress’ Democratic-run Jan. 6 committee.

    Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.) said he has “a hard time with all of it,” contending that Jan. 6 “was not a peaceful protest. It was not an insurrection. It was a riot that should have never happened. And a lot of people share blame for that. The truth is always messier than any narrative.”

    Asked if he disagreed with McCarthy’s decision to share footage with Carlson, Armstrong replied: “I don’t disagree with it any more than I disagree with the 1/6 committee narrative. It’s a red lens, blue lens. They are flip sides to the same coin. The truth is just a lot messier.”

    Earlier on Tuesday, Capitol Police Chief Thomas Manger wrote in an internal message to officers that Carlson’s Monday night primetime program “conveniently cherry-picked from the calmer moments of our 41,000 hours of video” to incorrectly portray the violent assault as more akin to a peaceful protest. He added that Carlson’s “commentary fails to provide context about the chaos and violence that happened before or during these less tense moments.”

    It’s an unusually blunt statement from Manger, who has labored keep his department away from political conflagrations. And the pushback could easily put the chief at odds with McCarthy, who had granted Carlson unfettered access to internal footage related to the riot.

    But Manger wasn’t alone — a number of Republican senators said they were, at the very least, troubled by Carlson’s depiction.

    “Anybody that trespassed into the United States Capitol, you know, whether they did peacefully … did it illegally,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said. “I think that it’s unfortunate that [Carlson] is the exclusive holder of the tape recording. I just think it’s the kind of thing that should be made available to everybody at the same time, so as to not have a political angle to it.”

    Asked about the portrayal of Jan. 6 on Carlson’s show, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) described the day as a violent attack and said any effort to “normalize that behavior is dangerous and disgusting.“

    “I was here. It was not peaceful. It was an abomination,” added Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) “You’re entitled to believe what you want in America, but you can’t resort to violence to try to convince others of your point of view.”

    McConnell held up Manger’s letter during his weekly briefing with reporters, saying that he would “associate myself entirely with the opinion of the chief of the Capitol Police about what happened on January 6th.”

    A Fox News spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment on Carlson’s use of the footage from Jan. 6, when Donald Trump supporters overran the building in an attempt to disrupt lawmakers’ certification of Trump’s loss.

    Capitol Police had previously turned over about 14,000 hours of footage — capturing events between noon and 8 p.m. on that day — to the FBI, which shared it with Jan. 6 defendants as part of criminal proceedings.

    While dozens of hours of footage have emerged in public court filings, the bulk of it has remained under seal, and the Hill’s police force has warned that wide release of the footage could expose security vulnerabilities in the Capitol complex. McCarthy has indicated he hopes to publicly release large amounts of the video files, with some exceptions to protect the security of the campus.

    Several Senate Republicans, including Sens. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and Kennedy, said Tuesday that most of the footage should simply be made public.

    Attorney General Merrick Garland declined to comment directly on Carlson’s report during a Tuesday press conference at Justice Department headquarters, but said the facts about the Capitol riot are well-established.

    “Over 100 officers were assaulted on that day, five officers died. We have charged more than 1,000 people with their crimes on that day and more than 500 have already been convicted,” the attorney general added. “I think it’s very clear what happened on Jan. 6.”

    McCarthy’s decision to share the footage with Carlson has already roiled some of the ongoing prosecutions of Jan. 6 defendants, several of whom have demanded delays in their criminal proceedings to review the voluminous materials. An attorney for a member of the Proud Boys, currently on trial for alleged seditious conspiracy on Jan. 6, said he intends to move for a mistrial as a result of the new footage.

    A McCarthy spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment.

    On his Monday show, Carlson focused particularly on video of Capitol Police officers calmly accompanying Jacob Chansley — known as the “QAnon Shaman” for the garb and mannerisms he adopted on the day of the attack — through the halls.

    Carlson inaccurately stated on-air that Chansley’s entrance to the Capitol remained mysterious, omitting footage showing Chansley inside the Senate chamber scrawling a menacing note to then-Vice President Mike Pence, who had declined then-President Trump’s calls for Pence to single-handedly overturn the election results. Chansley pleaded guilty in September 2021 to obstructing Congress’ proceedings and was sentenced to 41 months in prison.

    Manger, in his note to officers, emphasized that Carlson never reached out for context about the officers’ actions.

    “One false allegation is that our officers helped the rioters and acted as ‘tour guides.’ This is outrageous and false,” Manger wrote.

    Manger also took particular issue with what he said was a “disturbing” suggestion by Carlson that the late Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick — who died of strokes on Jan. 7, 2021 — did not die because of anything that occurred the day before. Sicknick had been involved in some intense clashes with rioters and was assaulted with chemical spray in the early afternoon of the siege.

    A medical examiner later concluded that Sicknick died of natural causes but suggested the stress caused by the riot could have been a contributor.

    “The Department maintains, as anyone with common sense would, that had Officer Sicknick not fought valiantly for hours on the day he was violently assaulted, Officer Sicknick would not have died the next day,” Manger wrote.

    Daniella Diaz, Nancy Vu, Josh Gerstein and Marianne LeVine contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]
    #House #GOP #faces #Jan #headache #courtesy #Tucker #Carlson
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )