Tucker Carlson, Russia, and Hanlon’s Razor
Tucker Carlson in 2013. Photo by https://ordinary-times.com/2022/03/11/electric-vehicles-democrats-green-evs-tesla-electric/
The last time I discussed Hanlon’s Razor, the world was in a different place, wasn’t it? Something I did notice is I never explicitly pointed out one of the worst violators of Hanlon’s Razor in American life: Tucker Carlson. The current 8 PM primetime host on Fox News Channel, Tucker is a jerk. Most right-wing media television personalities these days are. What I previously called PABs in my Boomers by Proxy article. The only one I find in any way palatable is Greg Gutfeld. Largely because he is both funny and nihilistic, in that fun libertarian way. Tucker is probably the worst right-wing media figure, largely due to the size of his audience and overall influence. The worst person that is considered “on the right” (however nebulous of a term that is) in media is either Alex Jones or Mike Cernovich, but one is an internet meme and the other almost no one knows about. But the size of their audience and what they do with it goes into making someone the worst right-wing media figure. And that’s Tucker Carlson.
He’s been using his large platform (as far as a cable news host goes) to blatantly peddle Russian propaganda, far worse since Putin decided to declare war on Ukraine. He was doing it before, often anti-Ukraine stuff. Some of this is due to Trump’s first impeachment involving Ukrainian President Zelensky not doing Trump’s bidding in digging up dirt on Trump’s political enemies. Whatever your opinion of that scandal, I won’t judge hard; the obvious innocent person in the story was Zelensky. When this was going on, Tucker carried Trump’s water, as most hosts on FNC were doing at the time, but it was how he did it. He decided to paint Ukraine as corrupt as sin. Most hosts from Hannity on down didn’t go that far. As a former Soviet bloc country, I’m sure Ukraine has more corruption than, say, Sweden. But Zelensky won a landslide victory to clean up the pro-Russian corruption that was near a point of no return with that government. The Ukrainian people were sick of it. Belarus is all but in name a puppet state of Putin. The people of Ukraine did not want that to happen to them.
This banging of the drum at how bad Ukraine’s government, with little to no substantive evidence that Zelensky was personally corrupt, had to make Putin happy. Putin was very unhappy that this Jewish man (Putin likes to portray himself as an extreme Christian and rabid anti-Semite,) a former actor and comedian no less, was now a thorn in his side. After the annexation of Crimea in 2014, Putin was just chomping at the bit for the next opportunity to invade Ukraine and start reassembling the Soviet bloc Infinity Stones. He didn’t do it under Trump (for some reason,) but that didn’t stop nationalist isolationist figures on the right (distinct from Libertarian isolationists only in reasoning,) from parroting pro-Russian arguments that wouldn’t be out of place in a Cold War-era Noam Chomsky book. Tucker was the most blatant in that regard as Hannity largely didn’t touch it and most on FNC didn’t want to even discuss the Ukraine problem, as it was, for Trump himself. Most hosts, if they brought it up, usually shifted to talking about how corrupt Biden and his son Hunter are and/or were.
And then Putin invaded Ukraine. The things Tucker (and various smaller grifters in the right-wing media echo chamber like Candace Owens) has claimed in the last few weeks that are about as far removed from fact as the latest Alex Jones diatribe; they’re just awful. I expect Democracy NOW! to parrot pro-commie nonsense. That’s what they do! Tucker has been bringing on Glenn Greenwald for over a year now, but he’s been spotlighting him heavily since the war began. That should have been a clue.
Let’s go through the lowlights, shall we? Before the invasion when it was getting pretty obvious Putin was gonna invade, Tucker argued that since Putin has never done anything to Tucker personally, he can’t be made to care about what Putin does in any way. Putin isn’t calling me racist! That can be used to excuse virtually anything, it should be noted. The gall there being that because Putin has “never” (that’s in quotes for a reason) been a political enemy of the American right; he isn’t really an enemy to anyone in America. That’s a breathtakingly bad argument. I don’t even know where to begin on that. Most Republicans pre-Trump, especially during the Obama administration, were anti-Putin. After 2016, most Democrats started criticizing Putin again. After that crap show, Tucker would then claim Ukraine isn’t really a democracy, somehow, even though Ukraine has free and fair elections and had elected an anti-Russian reformer in Zelensky. Inevitably, as isolationists of every stripe are wont to do, Tucker then moved on to blaming America for this problem somehow. These arguments rarely make sense, especially coming out of the mouth of a nationalist like Tucker, so I’ll ignore it. Essentially, Tucker has spent all his time talking about the situation to justify Putin’s actions. No, Tucker Carlson didn’t go so far as to call the country currently led by a Jewish man whose family survived the Holocaust and Soviet pogroms as rife with Nazis (as Putin has been claiming with a straight face due to being a murderous psychopath,) but I honestly wonder why not. If you’re gonna be a Putin stooge, you might as well go whole hog with it. Tucker Carlson’s monologues are being used as propaganda in Russia. There’s no way on God’s green Earth he isn’t aware of that. Maybe he’s proud.
Which brings us back to Hanlon’s Razor. Tucker Carlson is at least smart enough to realize what he’s doing here. He has to know what he’s spouting is either blatant falsehoods or “just asking questions” propaganda that helps Putin. Yes, Americans and most citizens of first world countries are tired of war and have been for many decades. But that doesn’t mean you morally, economically, or logically justify a blatant war of aggression at the hands of a murderous psychopath currently committing war crimes against innocent civilians. Putin is about the dictionary definition of a bad actor on the world stage, likely only topped by Xi the Pooh in China, Maduro the Butcher in Venezuela, and the crazy bastards in Iran, maybe…
Tucker Carlson is not this stupid. The age of hyper negative partisanship is a helluva drug, but it does not explain why he was anti-Ukraine before Biden was elected President nor does it explain why he decided he must make a moral argument against Ukraine that expressly used pro-Russia arguments that originated from Russian propaganda outlets (and were summarily debunked before he even aired them.) The biolabs conspiracy being only the latest one. (He neglected to mention these were Soviet-era biolabs that the Ukrainian government had been trying to dispose of, with US help, since Ukraine gained its independence after the fall of the USSR.)
Malice is the only word for what Tucker Carlson is doing. And it has entered the realm of blatant evil. Just because he randomly says Putin is bad doesn’t make up for bringing on Glenn Greenwald immediately afterwards. He’s not just violated Hanlon’s Razor; the scale has exploded, and the ashes have been salted. And I thought that bowtie would be his worst crime against humanity…
I was not expecting this after your last polemic. Well written, well sourced. Well done.
Two questions:
1) While Hannity, Brett Baer, and the rest are not so openly carrying Putin’s Water For Trump this time, are they really free of Hanlon’s Razor violations?
2) Whither Joe Rogan – with his massive audience and his Jaybird like “Just asking questions” stchick?Report
I have a great deal of faith in Hannity, at least, actually being that stupid.Report
Why Russia is Invading Ukraine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE&t=1s&ab_channel=RealLifeLore
What we really should be talking about is the actions the US made that contributed to Russia’s invasion.
And OP, what’s the deal with Greenwald?Report
This is almost comically funny . . . . sad, ignorant, but funny. Russia had no justification to invade Ukraine. Not when it annexed Crimea, not when it went into the separatists provinces, and not now. Sovereign nations are just that. And Ukraine was sovereign when the tanks rolled. This is not negotiable in the modern world, especially where we want to foster democracy (or even the veneer of it).Report
“sad, ignorant, but funny. USA had no justification to invade Afghanistan. Not when it bombed Yemen, not when it went into the separatists provinces in Yugoslavia. Sovereign nations are just that. This is not negotiable in the modern world”
I made some changes to your post. I think it’s better.Report
I agree with some of that. We had no justification to fully invade Afghanistan or Iraq after 9/11. We did need to get the terrorists, but the twenty years and $1 Trillion we then wasted were useless. I’ve never understood attacking Yemen – again if we need to go after specific terrorists we have many ways to do that.
Yugoslavia was different – the entire UN interceded there, and given that its now separate nations I think the outcome might be better.
Nice try though.Report
The NATO bombing campaign was not approved by the UN Security Council and would have been vetoed by Russia (and probably China). Not saying it’s remotely an equivalence but it wasn’t without international controversy either.Report
Also at a certain point this is just sterile whataboutism.
Did the US invasion of Iraq undermine the rule-based international order that stands against the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Yes, sure, and that was one reason of many that I opposed it at the time.
Does this justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
No.
In practice, did the damage the US did to the rule-based international order by invading Iraq do a hell of a lot to ease Russia’s path to invading Ukraine?
Doesn’t really seem to be the case.Report
I think the fact that we’ve gotten virtually no help from the ME or Latin America in the sanctions regime/economic management of cutting Russia off tells a slightly different story.Report
Yes, the fact that we haven’t gotten assistance from the regime that dismembers a journalist in an embassy is quite telling.
Actually, no. No it isn’t.Report
Sure, but they’re also the regime we equip with a semi-modern airforce, that hosts multiple US military installations, and whose royal family gets invited to all the coolest parties… if that doesn’t buy some cooperation between friends, the occasional murder or war in Yemen notwithstanding, what does?Report
Fair point.Report
SA should be thrilled with the idea of the world getting rid of Russian oil and replacing it with SA oil and/or increasing their profits.
If one of your chief business rivals feels the need to set himself on fire, staying quiet is a fine option.
Watch him burn, don’t do anything to put the attention of your own heinous actions.Report
That would be nice but keep in mind Russia is also in OPEC. So far they are treating the cartel as more important.Report
And to put a finer point on it, the Saudis are not exactly being harmed by skyrocketing oil prices. Quite the opposite.Report
Reportedly the Saudis are working an exchange with CCP for Yuan (which will be converted to $$).
Seems we’re all Kanye now.Report
We should send commandos to blow up their F-15s.Report
Heh, Stingers & Javelines to the spunky Yemeni freedom fighters.
Win/Win… every plane/tank shot down is another sale for AMERICA.
For every $10/barrel oil drops, we reduce the support to Yemen.Report
Houthi self-determination has never been more morally urgent than it is now.Report
Anything not to agree with Democrats, eh Damon?Report
If there were more posts here taking the Republican side, you’d most likely see posts from me not agreeing with those too.Report
When I was a kid, one of the arguments regularly held in the Babtist church was whether Presbyterians were also Christians or whether they were heretical enough to qualify as “not Christians but deceived”.
Presbyterians drank, you see.
When the only people who are Christians are you and people like you, it can be exceptionally frustrating to see people who get 80% there but still do stuff like baptize babies.Report
There’s the old joke about two ministers talking doctrine.
P1: “Do you believe in infant baptism?”
P2: “Believe in it? Hell, I’ve seen it done.”Report
Or the thing with Jaybird is that he is pathologically primed to defend anything that goes against the libs in any way, shape, or form.Report
“Anti-Christian”, the old term was.Report
Every murdering dictator comes up with a reason why their own personal desires for conquest are good and noble. Do they expect people to believe them? No i don’t think so, but it is so sweet for people to swallow obvious bs anyway.Report
Every murdering republic comes up with a reason why their own desires for conquest are good and noble. Do they expect people to believe them? Well, sometimes it depends upon the quality of propaganda and / or who’s dying.
No one seems in the US to care about folks in Yemen getting blown up.
No one seems in the US to care that it’s likely Obama committed illegal acts by killing US citizens
No one seems to care in the US about the US invading sovereign countries.
No one seems to care in the US about ACTUAL torture committed by US administrations.Report
A great many people cared and still care about all these things. Many of these things have been the subject of Congressional oversight hearings. Some of these things were the subject of military criminal prosecutions. Others are millstones hung around the necks of former politicians.Report
Those things no one cares about are things people have been caring about and complaining about. If those things are wrong then the frickin invasion of Ukraine is wrong. Pure whataboutism as deflection. If it’s wrong it’s wrong.Report
I’m not arguing that those things were right, I’m arguing that the pot is calling the kettle black. I’m pointing out that, and I’m going to type this is bold, THAT WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN OUR OWN HOUSE IN ORDER FIRST. Cause saying what Russia did is wrong but when there has been no real significant 1) change in OUR policy, 2) had any REAL consequences to people who authorized it, means that it’s all hypocrisy.Report
Hypocritical appeals to the rule-based international order are Good, Actually, in much the way that hypocritical appeals to separation of powers in US politics are Good, Actually.Report
If it’s wrong then why switch the subject to what abouting about the US.
We have made changes. Obama radically changed course on Iran which the R’s scuttled. BIden ( and trump sort of) got us out of Afghanistan.
Whining about hypocrisy is nice and all but it always seems to involve largely or completely ignoring some giant problem that you would expect the speaker to care about.Report
Trump put us on a one-way path out of Afghanistan, leaving the messy part until after the election.Report
Yeah but his cabinet types all said he wasn’t going to leave regardless of the treaty. So 6 of one , half of dozen of the other. In this case both choices were poopie but at least you can 6 of one.Report
Yeah, but they’re lying. Once the Taliban takes over the whole country outside Kabul, it’s either leave or start a huge, costly escalation.Report
Yeah, but they’re lying. Once the Taliban takes over the whole country outside Kabul, and would start attacking there of the US went back on its agreement to go, it’s either leave or start a huge, costly escalation.Report
I’m shocked that we didn’t default to “huge costly escalation”, and repeatedly argued that we could do it a lot cheaper than that.
50 years of staying and blowing up people with drones was roughly equal in price to a 911. That seemed like a fine use of our money and their time.Report
So a cop needs to be morally perfect before he can stop a rape or murder? Any blemish means the murderer should be ignored?Report
Without having seen the video in the link, these kind of arguments tend to be red herrings for me. Nobody really does a good job of arguing the counterfactual: we wouldn’t be having significant problems with Russia, but for expansion of NATO, other grievances, blah blah.
Speaking just for myself, I was, pre-invasion, interested to find an accommodation for Russia’s interests and perceptions, but that was then. I am completely uninterested in them now. Even if Russia’s motivations are or were at some level legitimate, they still don’t remotely justify what they have done, so what’s the point?Report
OK…so you object to what Russia did. What are you prepared to support the US do?Report
Basically what the Biden Administration has done so far. Ie, we can pile up arbitrarily large sanctions against Russia or weapons and munitions to Ukraine. But we’re going to avoid direct US/Russia or NATO/Russia military conflict.Report
Sweet agnostic Jesus! Koz! Did you just imply you approve of what Biden has done so far vis a vis Russia’s Ukrainian invasion!?Report
Basically. There have been some Right or conservative complaints to say that things Biden or Demos have done are what’s created to aggravated the problem in the first place. Those complaints are legit, for the most part.
But as far as what the President and the Administration has done since the crisis became imminent or since the invasion itself, I really can’t find any fault at all.Report
Thanks for clarifying, it’s a calendar day.Report
Who are you and what have you done with Koz?Report
Not sure what they hang their legitimacy on. Ukraine has been abiding by its 1996 and subsequent treaties, and the Dems (both before Biden and now) have insisted they do so. The derision of this being a result of the Afghanistan exit is, best I can tell, intellectually dishonest misdirection, as Trump claimed to want out of there, signed an agreement to get out of there, and would have had the same Army, same planes, same plans etc as Biden. Just because he’d be a braggadocio about it doesn’t make the strategic outcome any different.Report
Afghanistan is part of the mix, but just a small part.
The biggest complaint specifically against American Demos is energy policy. But, there’s more complaints against Germany, and specifically Merkel, who isn’t an American Demo of course but the nature of the complaints means she’s a useful proxy for American Dems. And of course the idea that we shouldn’t have indicated the intention to add Ukraine to NATO, etc. which tbh was W’s thing more than anybody. But for the populist part of the GOP, that shoe fits well enough too.Report
Putin didn’t invade because of US energy policy.Report
No he didn’t, but the US (and European, primarily but not only German) energy policy has increased the price of natural gas and other forms of energy and left Europe vulnerable to energy blackmail.
This creates a favorable environment for Putin to try aggressive foreign policy gambits, eg, invading Ukraine.Report
Ukraine has more energy deposits than Russia. If given a chance to develop them Russia loses it’s position as top local dog.
That probably has a lot more to do with what’s going on than anything else.Report
I haven’t specifically heard anything to the contrary of that, still I have a hard time believing that’s actually true.Report
https://hir.harvard.edu/ukraine-energy-reserves/Report
…still I have a hard time believing that’s actually true.
For good reason. Ukraine doesn’t even play in the same league with Russia in any of gas, oil, coal, or wind and hydro potential.Report
I think it’s a gut check about what Ukraine actually has been for the last 30 years, that being a highly corrupt, poor, and poorly run former Soviet republic. It’s a weak state with significant problems with the rule of law.
The resources it has available are appropriated by the well connected and no one has wanted to take a risk on investing in finding or creating more.Report
None of which justifies Russia invading.Report
Agree, never said it did.Report
Greenwald is a Noam Chomsky acolyte. I have little use for such people.Report
Do you have a citation for any of this?Report
No, which is why I reported him.Report
Are weird unsourced conspiracy-mongering posts reportable now?
(Not that I’m complaining if they are.)Report
Depends on who makes them.Report
I like to think I still have conspiracy-mongering privileges.Report
We’re counting on some Vatican dirt soon!Report
You have no idea.
Saving my best stuff for the Synod of Synods.Report
We here at OT like to comment on world affairs with the assumption that we are detached and neutral observers.
But in such a hyper connected world, we are all active participants.
The bullets and bombs are thousands of miles away but the information war is right here.
I don’t envy the moderators here because they are going to be making difficult decisions about what to tolerate and what to ban. To decide the difference between an opinion and state propaganda.
If Russia pursues the same strategy it did in Syria or the Donbas, things around here are going to get worse before they get better.Report
Covid is a mutant virus from Chernobyl.Report
I don’t really watch Fox News very much so I don’t know all the particulars of this. But, it is pretty clear that Tucker has lost a lot of reputational capital behind this Russia business.
I was with him for a while. I remember he had Max Boot on as a guest early in the Trump Administration, and by the standard of the conventional wisdom at the time, he was a relatively pro-Russia pundit. it was a very contentious segment, and I thought Tucker clearly got the better of the argument.
But we’re not in those times now. It wasn’t clear then than Russia was our enemy, it was even less clear that Russia was necessarily our enemy. But since then, of course, Russia has done things that dramatically changes their stature in the world, and includes our bilateral relationship and many other things besides.
Basically, Tucker got sandbagged by Putin like everybody else. He would be better off eating some crow (and I think he may have eaten a tiny bit of it), but doubling down on his prior positions seems to be throwing good money after bad.Report
So far he’s being very well paid to throw shade for Putin. And highly rated too.Report
Yeah, I find explanations like this to not differentiate very much. Tucker didn’t build his reputation or his audience on Russia, and those things were worth piles of money from Fox.
I suspect said the things he said probably because he believed them. And to repeat from the prior comment, the Tucker line on Russia was credible in 2017. It’s not credible now.Report
I just don’t know. Dude was always a little off, though.Report
Ty for this. This led me to yr boomers by proxy one, which is the funniest concept I have heard in a while….My parents are Carlsonians, religiously. They have been I believe lifelong reactionary/conservative populists, but are also legit religious, so I don’t quite get it (I’m not religious, but I see how it can be a good influence). They were huge on Perot, so Trump and Carlson have shades of Perot, but I don’t believe Perot had that evil edge. It is what I always thought about Carlson-there is something surely evil about him. There is something evil about a lot of things, in small doses, including in each of us etc etc, so I don’t mean to be dramatic. But his and Trump etc-they are all so clearly pathetic as well as evil. I do not get itReport
You’re welcome.Report
“Malice is the only word for what Tucker Carlson is doing. And it has entered the realm of blatant evil”
Are we doing the “evil” thing again to try an explain/understand people and events?
The most chilling thing I’ve seen in this country since the invasion of Ukraine is how hawks and political adversaries are getting away with (if not cheered) for calling anyone who questions the U.S. role in all of this “treasonous.”
Tucker isn’t evil. He’s an American first protectionist and a provocateur.
Tulsi isn’t committing treason, she is asking legitimate questions about the labs in Ukraine.. AND she is ACTUALLY serving in the US military RIGHT NOW !
Greenwald has been exposing the horrible things our government has committed over the past 20 years and his voice is an important one as the drum beat for war in Washington grows louder.
Given our government’s track record with the truth, I want more people questioning what we are doing – not fewer.Report
Tucker Carlson is not America first if he’s cheerleading for Putin’s invasion – which he appears to be. He is not America First if he thinks we had any role in “provoking” Putin – as if Putin needed provocation to do the things he’s already been doing on a smaller scale for the last 7 or 8 years.
Tulsi’s lab “questions” have been repeatedly answered by the Ukrainian government and by our own. That she continues asking is more about her, and far less about national security.
Greenwald is Greenwald – I have read and endorse much of his work, but even he has veered into conspiracism, comfortably ensconced in Brazil as he is.
Questioning is not bad – continuing to insist you know better, you have the answers in the face of overwhelming and consistent responses is not questioning. It may not be evil, and it may not be treasonous. But it’s not good either.Report
Re: Tucker: If you can provide evidence of his “cheerleading for Putin’s invasion” I’d love to see it. Pointing out corruption in Ukraine and the US role is setting up the current government there – is not what I consider an endorsement of Putin’s invasion. I think he can certainly be justly accused of apathy, but most of this recent criticism is completely over the top.
Re Tulsi: If you want to take the State Department’s word on everything as Gospel, that’s your choice. I’ve lived through enough of their lying to remain highly skeptical of anything they say.
I’m getting a strong “you’re either with us, or with the terrorists” vibe these days, and I don’t like it.Report
Zelenski ran on and was overwhelmingly elected for an anti-corruption platform that he seems to have been making headway on until the invasion. He even rebuffed Trump’s ill advised phone request for dirt on Hunter Biden (which doesn’t exist since all that was and is out in the open), even though it cost him aid promised by Congress. And even if Ukraine is still “Corrupt” that’s not something you deal with by invading the country.
As to Tucker cheerleading Putin, start here:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/02/tucker-carlson-vladimir-putin-praise
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2022-02-24/ukraine-russia-vladimir-putin-tucker-carlson-laura-ingraham-fox-newsReport
Yeah, I’ve seen all of that. And I went back and watched full clips to understand the context of those supercuts. I don’t think he is cheerleading Russia – and certainly not now in light of the full extent of the invasion (which is far more expansive and barbarous than anyone anticipated).
As for Zelenskyy, He’s a real time profile in courage and inspirational leadership. I respect the hell out of him and the Ukrainian people. And while nothing justifies what Putin has unleashed, I can also acknowledge the shenanigans the US has conducted that played a role in this tragedy.
Wanting to know the full extent of those things and/or wanting people to pump the breaks on actions that will escalate our involvement does not make a person a stooge for Putin.Report
The US has few if any brakes left to pump. And don’t forget – Ukraine in its latest iteration as an independent nation is what – 25 years old? It wasn’t going to go full corruption free democracy in all that time.
And right up until the troops actually rolled Carlson wasn’t asking questions – he was accusing Biden of using Ukraine as a puppet. While saying Putin’s threats didn’t matter. At best – and I’m being very charitable here – he was cheerleading US isolationism . . . but that’s really reading his direct quotes very loosely.Report
I think the entire Fox News, Tucker Carlson, universe just brings too much baggage to be taken seriously on these issues. Maybe some of them have gotten religion but we’re barely a historical blink of an eye from the Bush II years when the entire apparatus had a polar opposite outlook.
And I say that as someone who thinks the core Greenwaldian criticisms of the NatSec state and the media are on point. We need to be able to discuss these things as adults. The recent clamor for a ‘no fly zone’ AKA a direct declaration of war on Russia, not to mention the last decade of barely remarked upon (other than the super narrow partisan focus on Trump) US shenanigans in Ukraine, is a great indicator of how much remains broken. But these guys who see something to like in the post-Soviet reactionaries of Eastern Europe are getting caught with their pants down too. Their own ignorance of what these movements are and just how deeply different they are even from traditional American conservatism is on full display. They should be embarrassed.Report
Many of the actual news types at Fox have been pushing back – on air – against the commentariat there. Unfortunately, the commentariat gets way better ratings and way more viewership, which means a large and larger swath of the right is listening to them and not to the actual reporting. That is something to take seriously, as it portends pushing for things that are not actually in our strategic interest.Report
I don’t watch any Fox News at all since the departure of Chris Wallace from Sundays but I will take your word for it. All of that sounds consistent with what Fox is, which is entertainment first, and news as a byproduct. The pathology exists with all cable news, Fox just pioneered treating it as an asset as opposed to an embarrassment. Wouldn’t it be nice if this episode snapped its elderly audience out of some of its more pernicious delusions about the world? It probably won’t but nothing wrong with some wishful thinking.Report
Indeed wishful:
https://letter.ly/cable-news-viewership-statistics/Report
In fairness if I had to pick anything for Fox News fans to watch it would be the election night coverage. Remember, they called AZ by miles, much to the Donald’s dismay. I guess we will see if there is a ‘correction’ in the approach next time.Report
I made the same AZ call at about the same time, based on the history of “blue shift” in votes counted later. I did not realize at the time that AZ had changed their vote processing rules, nor just how much the AZ blue shift was an artifact of the old rules. I admit that I got away with a mistake. I have sometimes wondered if the Fox team made the same mistake.
AZ’s blue shift is/was mild. CA’s is so pronounced that Republican candidates have been known to concede while they were ahead in the count.Report
I doubt we will ever know the specifics due to confidentiality agreements but my understanding is those involved have defended the call on the merits, not as an error or miscalculation based on process changes.
Edit to add I believe they’ve all been fired since because of course.Report
I wonder if the Olds’ devotion to TV commentators like Tucker is just a version of the parasocial attachment that teens form for Shane Dawson or whoever.Report
It’s habitual. Generation Alpha will mock us for sharing news and hot takes on MetaTwitter while they download them directly to their brains via wifi implants.Report
There are no other cable news channels, unless you watch Sky or another foreign one.Report
There’s CNN and MSNBC. But broadcast news consistently tops cable news in ratings.Report
I think CNN and FNC have 5-6 hours of real news per day. I’m not sure if MSNBC has any. But CNN’s “real” news is more slanted than FNC’s. The news people pushing back against the commentators just wouldn’t happen.Report
Precisely.Report
Tucker’s not “America first” in the sense of the literal meaning of the words, he’s “America First” in that he thinks Nick Fuentes is a cool guy.Report
Also true. And disgusting.Report
Fuentes and Carlson? I mean, it’s possible, but really?Report
I think there’s sufficiently strong evidence that Carlson is recycling slightly sanitized white nationalist talking points.
Based on past conversations, I doubt you will be convinced. This isn’t a slam: I just believe you and I have different standards of proof for this sort of thing.
EDIT to add: I’m willing to go through the argument and provide the cites, but I expect it will be time consuming and unsatisfying for the both of us.Report
I remember some left-wing sites panicking when Carlson used the word “replace”. I’d hope you’re using a higher standard of evidence than that if you’re accusing an actual human being of something. That’s what I don’t feel like some of the more liberal commenters understand. There are actual people that you’re publicly accusing of ugly stuff. If I said that Paul Krugman admires the Waukesha parade killer, you’d get it, right?Report
He didn’t use “replace,” he used “Great Replacement,” and he’s spelled out what it means, all of which is explicitly white nationalist stuff.Report
Oh no, that can’t be possible. I’m going to continue to believe he was just canceled (from his TV show that airs nightly) for using the word “replace”. Those darn liberals! They can’t handle reality so they just make things up!
/sReport
Hey, did anyone say he was cancelled? I mean, the terms has two meanings these days, so some people may have tried to cancel him in both ways, but no one here said he was.Report
You’re right that he used the term. I remember the months of false accusations from CNN, the ADL, and others, but didn’t realize he used it afterwards.Report
David Duke being in support of your comments generally opens you up to accusations:
https://www.insider.com/tucker-carlson-replacement-theory-david-duke-kkk-trump-2021-10
Rolling story also has a great story on this where it takes Carlson’s quotes on this and puts them in line with other white nationalists. His words are almost indistinguishable from theirs
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/tucker-carlson-great-replacement-white-supremacy-1231248/Report
With regards to the last, complaining that Democrats are specifically trying to change the racial makeup of the country to destroy their political enemies isn’t a whitewashed version of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory, which he fucking calls out by name in the same fucking clip.Report
Another one from the Rolling Stone article, this time from his book, Ship of Fools, originally quoted by a piece in The Guardian:
Above I said that Tucker recycles sanitized white nationalist messages. I regret the error.Report
According to Pew, the US is 71% Christian (almost all Protestant and Catholic) 1.9% Jewish, and less than 1% each of Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu. Immense religious pluralism indeed!
(The rest are “unaffiliated” in various ways.)Report
If I said that Paul Krugman admires the Waukesha parade killer, you’d get it, right?
No. I wouldn’t have the foggiest clue what you’re talking about, and would ask for an explanation.Report
Paul Krugman is against SUVs. He wants to close the loophole that exempts them from mileage standards.Report
OK but why would someone infer that he admires a guy who ran over a bunch of people based on that?
Not in a, “That doesn’t seem to be supported by adequate evidence,” way, but in a, “What in the world does the one have to do with the other?” way.Report
pillsy, I know you’ve been away, but you’ve been here long enough to know better.Report
Back in the day I had some good conversations with JB, and besides I’m actually kinda fascinated to see where this is going.Report
Oh, I was making an oblique joke about all of the headlines that said “SUV drives through parade”.
That’s all.Report
Got it.Report
“oblique” is one word for it.Report
Krugman is the least serious economist in America who is paid to write for a living.Report
Is Jim Cramer still employed? If yes that krug’s cannot be the least serious economist. Kudlow? Welp, Krug’s may be third then.Report
Not while Arthur Laffer is still around.Report
Speaking of Art Laffer:
Last year, the deficit dropped for the first time since 2015 — it fell by $360 billion.
And this year, it’s on track to drop by more than $1 trillion.
After four years in a row of increasing deficits, we’re on track to see the largest-ever decline in history.
https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1503837469434855431Report
This is another way of saying the pandemic is coming to an end. The graph (to avoid cherry picking) isn’t something to be proud of.
https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/Brian-Charts-2020-COVID-v5-01.pngReport
Sorry. Implied: If I said that Paul Krugman admires the Waukesha parade killer, you’d get it [that random accusations about people sharing ideologies or think of each other as cool guys are malicious], right?
As for Jaybird actually connecting them, heroic effort on his part.Report
If the accusation is truly random, then yes.
You may disagree with the accusation against Tucker, but it isn’t random, and it’s not just the use of a single word.Report
I don’t know if Tucker necessarily believes what he says about Putin, but I do believe that it’s consistent with a lot of the rest of what post-Trump Tucker espouses.[1] He’s probably the most recognizable and popular figure who holds to a particularly apocalyptic view of Culture War issues and immigration, alongside some weirdo trads like Adrian Vermeule, some weirdo white nationalists like Nick Fuentes, and some weirdo trad white nationalists like Steve Bannon and Pat Buchanan.
These extreme Culture Warriors have glommed onto the idea that Putin is the true defender of Christianity and/or the white race, and thus argue that he’s Good, or at least Not So Bad, Actually. In their defense, Putin really does portray himself as the protector of Christianity, and his ethno-nationalism is close enough to US white nationalism that I get why Fuentes et al. dig him.[2]
[1] C.f. Tucker’s simultaneously gross and hilarious caginess about whether he’s been vaccinated.
[2] This means the Putin fans on the Far Right are at least less delusional than the Putin Fans on the Far Left, who think Russia is still communist, just like Tommy Tuberville.Report
Alabama should have elected Nick Saban instead, and I say that without knowing his politics.Report
Saban wouldn’t take the pay cut. Tuberville was not coaching at the time.Report
Tuberville used to say, presumably tongue in cheek, that he was responsible for Alabama hiring Saban because Auburn had had Alabama’s number.Report
I would love for anyone to have Alabama’s number these days . . . .Report
In another extremely shocking swerve, it turns out that Tucker’s “invasion expert” is, in addition to being a Putin fan, is also a gross racist.
“Say what you will about Josef Stalin, but he had a point about the Jews!” is a helluva flex even for one of Tucker’s regulars.
As for Putin, he’s evidently decided to play to Tucker and his viewers by complaining that the West is, uh, trying to “cancel” Russia. I doubt even Tucker is debased enough to run with that one.Report
‘The country is controlled by ‘rootless cosmopolitans’, and in case anyone thinks I am using that term accidentally and don’t know it’s an antisemetic term that Russians used for Jews in the 1940s-50s, I will literally tell people I am using it the same way they did way!’
Good grief.
The man is blowing a dogwhistle while loudly shouting ‘You cannot hear my dogwhistle! This term secretly means something else but you don’t know what it is! HAHAHA!’Report