RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events ABC News:Press is Liberal

Tucker Carlson is not a journalist, he is an opinion host. While he presents facts, his program is at its base commentary. he's not in the same category as, say, Sharyl Attkisson or Scott Pelli, or Brett Baier or Lester Holt.

What SPECIFICALLY is it that is such a bug up your ass that NPR alleges about Tucker Carlson and Fox's legal defense of him?
You vaguely express outrage without ever citing something specific you judge outrageous.

I frankly find aspects of Tucker Carlson distateful. While as G-man cites, Carson is actually more conservative than Bill O'Reilly he replaced, Carlson has a prissy smart-alecky elitist New England prep school demeanor that I find offputting, he tends to elevate his voice and get overly emotional and hysterical at times (you may or may not know that he's an heir to the Swanson frozen foods family fortune, so he was born into great wealth, just as Anderson Cooper was born into the Vanderbilt hotels family fortune).
Carlson also has this boyish way of elevating his voice that makes it sound like he's on the defensive, and he also giggles a lot at sometimes inappropriate moments in the conversation, or when he wants to shut people up or go to a commercial. He also has an ass-kissy way of hyperbolically praising his guests way too often ("Oh great point, GREAT point, Ohh that's so smart , so smart !", ad nauseum.) Generally the best part of Tucker Carlson's show is his opening commentary, although he often gets lost in the weeds of trying to show off his own cleverness, talking super fast and bouncing from point to point to show off how much he knows, and getting into snarkiness and parody to the point that I think for some the point might be lost. At points Carlson parodies Democrat/leftist arguments to the point that one could mistake his mocking parody of that POV to be him expressing that point of view himself, rather than making fun of it. I don't watch Carlson every day, I max out on him and sometimes don't watch him for weeks. And then conversely, I find some of his points well made enough that I post Youtube videos of it here.

But all that said, I still have no idea what the bug is up your ass regarding Tucker Carlson. You've failed to give any specifics.

I'm pretty much the same with Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Jesse Waters and Judge Jeanine Pirro. There are times when each makes points well, and other times I find them offputting and annoying.
And where the cockiness of Newsmax hosts mirrors that on FOX, I find them offputting as well (Greg Kelly and Stinchfield. And Chis Salcedo recently has had the best commentary on Newsmax).

And in the recent past, I find One America News to be the most consistently informative and to have the least editorial opinion injected into its stories. I especially like how OAN in its reports quote CNN, The New York Times and other liberal sources in news stories, to show that a year ago or in 2016 or 2012 these liberal media sources were reporting exactly what OAN is reporting, what the liberal networks now portray as baseless "conspiracy theory" by OAN, but that CNN and N Y Times were reporting the exact same sources and facts, till their puppetmasters told them to bury the facts and start reporting a false narrative.
Previously, the mainstream media reported the facts on Dominion machines' vulnerability to election fraud and remote access, or the origins of Covid-19 being deliberately given "enhanced function" virulence to humans in a Wuhan lab (contract research in Wuhan funded by Fauci and the N I H, no less, updated on weekly on Fox's "The Next Revolution" show, 9PM on Sundays), or Hydroxychloroquine being the choice of doctors to treat Covid-19 in over 30 nations worldwide, including by the director of France's CDC who has personally prescribed it to hundreds of patients, a medication FDA approved since 1955, prescribed to millions of Americans for decades, that many nations hand out free to citizens in their countries to protect them from Covid-19.


I just re-watched Sharyl Attkisson's video in my above post. At 41:00 into the video, she talks about the venom of those reporting on Trump, and says "It's a test of our journalistic integrity that we can even report on those we don't like, and still fairly and accurately report on what they're saying." That doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement for Trump on her part, just reporting on him in a fair and balanced way. She is never overtly praising Trump, she is just critical for 42 minutes of bad and opinionated/propagandized reporting, and cites specific examples of objectively provable innaccuracies reported.
And emphasizes that in her question and answer section as well, where as I said, she self-identifies (at 46:00 in the video, comparing herself to Glenn Greenwald) as a "left-leaning reporter". Greenwald, though to the left of my own views, is still a reporter of integrity, who created a news site called The Intercept, and he resigned from the website HE CO-CREATED when editors of that site censored his coverage of the Hunter Biden story.

I frankly don't know how you go from her consistent thesis of powerful "political and corporate interests" spending enormous sums of money to corrupt and shape the narrative, and how you distill out of that Sharyl Attkisson is evil and "right wing". For an entire hour she lays out clear examples of news stories where the mainstream media have a clear agenda to deliberately got the facts wrong, and all she is doing is exposing those innacuracies, and making a stand for "old school" news integrity and accurately reporting the news. Even if you're a left-leaning reporter who doesn't like the guy you're reporting on, you still have a journalistic standard to report accurately what he says and does, not cave in to pressure and conform your facts to a lying narrative. Or editorialize your unbridled hatred of that person into your "news" story.