The important part of this story (in my opinion) is that, if you're Carlson or Maddow at a legacy news outlet, YouTube lets you fling your "not to be taken seriously" opinion far and wide, and eagerly promotes it to anyone who ever clicked on an actual news segment.
But if you're a small or independent voice, YouTube reserves the right to "fact check" you (conveniently sourced from a legacy news outlet), block your content, and issue you a strike. Three strikes and you're permanently banned, while Maddow and Carlson gleefully continue to roll up millions of views from their not serious opinions, even though they are broadcast through a serious news banner, which actually makes it far harder for a reasonable person to discern news from opinion.
Simply put, one content standard if you have massive advertising money, another standard if you're a regular schlub.
YouTube and Facebook have taken down Tucker Carlson videos in the past. Covid related videos from Tucker were taken down. The russiagate nonsense from Maddow is still available though.
Also sexual content of a dude penetrating another dude with a Dildo and with a bedsheet in between is allowed and monetized!
Thank you for fighting for the truth and providing us with it.
While I believe in freedom of speech, conning people is not part of it.
Con artists such as Rachel Madow, Cummo, and the like who are cashing on the people ‘s trusts vested in them , are nothing but bunch of charlatans who are invading the news world.
We need true journalists like you now more than ever.
Keep up the good job.
With tremendous respects to you and all those like you.
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Speech can be truthful or it can be dishonest. It can be informative or it can be deceptive. The minute you say, "I support free speech as long as it's not being used to con people." you've lost the thread.
Free speech guarantees have to protect lies and deception otherwise they're worthless. The minute you take the position that lies shouldn't be protected, you have to empower somebody to decide which claims are true and which ones are false, and that's a power that *NOBODY* can ever be trusted with.
When Tucker Carlson and Rachel Maddow lie to their viewers, as both of them obviously did, the only legitimate recourse is to call them out for it so that people can assess their credibility.
That's one point of view, but it's certainly debatable. If I understand you, you oppose all defamation laws. For example, if Tucker Carlson or Rachel Maddow were to knowingly lie about you, saying for example that you had lynched a black person, raped someone, etc., resulting in the loss of your job, the loss of friends, etc., do you believe that you should have no legal recourse?
The whole point of having a democracy, courts, etc., is to try to find a just way to make such decisions, even knowing that no such system is perfect. The problem with freedom without constraints is that it leaves ruthless and malicious people unconstrained.
Freedom of speech constrains dishonest speech by giving people the freedom to call it out. If you lie, and I can show that you’re lying, I can destroy your credibility.
The solution to bad speech is more speech, not censorship.
Andy: "Censorship" is much broader than defamation laws, though one could argue that the use of defamation laws are a specific and narrowly defined form of censorship (through the threat of lawsuits).
In the hypothetical scenario I described (which in some instances really happens), you would be out of a job, and perhaps a home. You would indeed have the recourse of telling reporters that Ms. Maddow had lied about you. It's reasonable to argue that "with great power comes great responsibility" and that you should have a legal right to seek recourse for the harm she caused you, beyond simply saying that she lied. After all, her speech had serious material consequences to you, whereas your speech in self-defense has, by comparison, little or no effect on her (assuming you're just an ordinary citizen).
Similar questions about freedom apply in other contexts (weapons laws, private property, etc.). Which approach one prefers depends partly on one's overall ethical system. I don't think there's ever a perfect solution to such dilemmas.
Funny how many people miss your simple point. I am progressive and can confirm that both sides of the isle are very quick to ban speech that they disagree with, but scream that they protect freedom of speech. The guy you commented on has 33 likes VS 1 (mine) for your comment. The worst part is that Glenn's readerships are smarter then average Joe's but here we are :). Everyone want to ban anything they can't handle be it burning flag or lies.
I don't know if Carlson's hyperbole is the same as Maddow's. The court was noting that the words Carlson used, "blackmail" and "extortion" are overloaded terms. They have precise, technical meanings for criminal law; but they also have colloquial, non-technical meanings. Most of the time, when people use those terms, I don't take it as meaning that the speaker is accusing the subject of committing the the specific crimes (and even if he or she was, that elements of the crimes will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction)(yes, I am a former prosecutor). And lets be honest, a lot of blackmail-like and extortion-like behavior happens all the time. It is bad, but it is not criminal.
Maddow, on the other hand, was saying that people were "literally" paid Russian operatives. There are no overloaded terms here. I think her comments were worse than Carlson's.
That said, I agree with the judges in both cases. And I also agree with Greenwald's argument. The liberals misstate what the courts said (and what Fox said about Carlson); yet they are silent regarding Maddow's worse behavior.
GG is talking about a lawyer who works for Fox but is talking about Carlson. That's pretty far removed (similarly for Maddow). That lawyer is hardly a solid source when it comes to interpretations of what Carlson said. Do we actually know that McDougal didn't extort Trump in the criminal sense? People lie all the time about extra-marital affairs.
Right, so defamation and slander is now a thing of the past -because all anyone has to say is "My viewers KNOW I'm not being serious. I don't have to provide a disclaimer that I'm not being serious -it's ASSUMED my news show is fake by my own viewers."
No wonder the western world is falling apart at the seams. It's all scams and bullshittery perpetrated by grease wizards.
Maybe I’m too defeatist but it feels like the only logical conclusion of mass media and giving every single person a platform to (mostly anonymously) spout whatever the fuck they want — if talk was cheap before, what’s it valued at now? It feels like a race to the bottom for every attention-starved twat to be as dramatic as possible and not nearly enough people are ignoring the bait to disincentivize it.
It feels weird because it really wasn’t THAT long ago that it would come to blows if one man called another man a liar.
There is a difference. Both Carlson and Maddow are opinion journalists, they aren't part of the "news" lineup. Granted, I don't know what the news lineup is on MSNBC, as I never watch it, but at least Fox does have some dedicated journalists there, like Bret Baier.
I disagree. I, like GG, agree with the rulings. Overall, it is better to let free speech of all forms be unhindered, even by the truth (whatever that is), and let the individual viewer be the judges of what to believe.
Everything else is censorship. And worse: distrust of the individual himself, and subsequent thrashing of individual rights to decide for ourselves, instead of the State.
The judge is quite correct in saying that no *reasonable* viewer of Rachel Maddow's show would assume her statements have any relation to truth and facts. Note that she evades the question of whether the intersection of "reasonable" and "viewers of Rachel Maddow's show" is an empty set.
More seriously, it's clear to anyone who has spoken with a fan of Ms. Maddow that they tend to absorb whatever she says directly into their belief system (Trump's fans have a similar weakness). So one could argue that Maddow's statement was, in practice, defamatory.
It's the same thing with readers of KenDiAngelo. No reasonable reader would assume their declarations to have any validity to the real world. Unfortunately, government dikat seems to disagree.
Contrast this defense of Maddow with the treatment that obvious satire sites such as the Babylon Bee have received from major media outlets like the NYT and Facebook.
Embarrassing as it is to admit, I was once a Rachel Maddow fan. I knew she was including her own opinion in most of her segments, but I also thought that when she stated something as fact, it was actually a fact. Her statement, "in this case [OAN] really literally is paid Russian propaganda." would probably have made me believe she was stating a fact. About seven years ago I realized Maddow was a shameless liar and propagandist, and I stopped watching her show. I also stopped watching MSNBC entirely. My point is that I think the judge was mistaken when she ruled that Rachel Maddow's fans don't take what she says seriously. They shouldn't take her seriously, but many of them do.
I used to listen to Rachel Maddow's show when she was on Air America, and I took her seriously. For quite a while. I quit watching all Air America shows shortly before they went out of business, as I was catching on to their DNC propaganda. I did check out the first episode or two of Rachel Maddow's show on MSNBC, just to see if she'd changed. She had. For the worse.
Ok, both sides lie like it's their job -- which it is. But what's the basis for judges to claim their sycophantic viewers don't believe their lies? Because if they're relying on the good sense of the viewers, that's a huge mistake.
Both Carlson and Maddow are liars. Glenn, I wish you would also call out Carlson but then he wouldn't put you on his show. So how honest are you being with this?
But beyond all that, just think about the gross illogic of your claim. You're alleging that I care so much about 5-minute cable hits that I'm willing to change my views or refrain from saying what I think in order to maintain them. If that were really true -- if that's how my motivation scheme functioned -- why didn't I just hop on board the Russiagate train in 2016 and spend all my time writing about how Trump is Orange Hitler so that I continued to get invited on CNN and MSNBC? If your accusation is true -- I say things or refrain from saying them in order to get access to cable news hits -- then my conduct would have been much, much different for many years.
I am to the right of Attila the Hun, but I $upport Glenn Greenwald, not because of his politics (I know Greenwald is not a conservative), but because of his integrity and dedication to the truth.
I tried sending GG a mostly dead chipmunk last month, but the little bastard didn't want to stay in the envelope and the post office got all weird about the envelope moving around and stuff.
Censorship of 50% of the population, media doing literal propaganda, politicians exploiting racial and identity politics to destroy the country aren't big issues to you?
Amazing how so many on this site think every man has his price. Has it ever occurred to anyone that perhaps there may just be a few principled people left on this earth? Glenn in my view is 100% committed to the truth as uncomfortable as that is for so many to fathom.
I follow you because you're honest. I have heard Mr. Carlson repeatedly deny that he is a journalist; rather, he maintains that he is a commentator sharing his opinions. In that sense he is also honest. Ms. Maddow portrays herself as a purveyor of Revealed Truth. Her Fox counterpart is Sean Hannity, not Tucker Carlson.
I cannot tolerate more than a few minutes of either.
I can't stand Hannity and haven't watched FOX in a year but prior to that, I have heard him say on his show that he does commentary and not news. Pretty much anyone who has their own radio show/podcast is a opinion host to me.
Agreed. As much as I dislike Hannity, I don't mind him because he at least admits that he's an opinion/commentary host and not doing journalism. Same with Tucker. I would even give Rachel Maddow a pass because she's not claiming to be a "journalist". My problem is with people like Don Lemon, Chris Cuomo and crazy lunatics on CNN who actually claim to be doing "objective journalism". There's a clip of CNN's board meetings video where it says "the most trusted news". LMFAO.
I am okay with someone being biased. I am not okay with them telling me they are unbiased while being a complete partisan hack. Don't piss on me and then tell me it's raining.
I haven't watched FOX in a year (except a few Tucker segments about Assange with Jimmy Dore) because I don't want to support any corporate news media. I have started to pay for independent creators like Glenn Greenwald, Jimmy Dore, Viva Frei & Robert Barnes, Steven Crowder, Matt Taibbi, Michael Tracey, Aaron Mate etc. With that said, I did find (before a year when I did watch FOX) that Bret Bair, Bill Hemmer, John Roberts, Martha Maccallum on FOX were during pretty middle of the political spectrum journalism. I would even say that it would be hard for me to know which party those 4 people support.
Esp. in light of Glen's memories of him standing up to Fox, does anyone here recall any case in recent years, where a Wokester public figure was on any network, and where that figure was subjected to any tough questions other than from a Woke perspective?
Fox recently has had on Abrams and Clyburn, and threw all softball to them.
The only thing I could ever criticize Glenn for is trying to have a logical discussion with people whose brains have been colonized by deliberately illogical cult thinking.
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
Orange Hitler. Made me spit my coffee! The country is gonna be so outta its collective minds they're gonna have to put "mother's little helper" in the public water supply to calm everyone down.
The bloviating Trump monster: his entire stick was to mock woke/intersectionality/anti-racism for it’s silly excess and illogic. The Rabble were so ready for that line, they had been saying the same things at the dinner table for years and then along came an erstwhile politician saying what they always thought.
Yeah. The Trump-haters seem to try to top each other in bestowing on him the most outrageous metaphor.
It's hard to beat "Nazi", isn't it? So, the recipe becomes add a modifier: Orange Nazi, racist Nazi, Jew-hating Nazi, Nazi colluding with Russia, Nazi telling people to drink bleach...
A variant is to mix the adjectives with the best-known Nazi - Hitler, as in the example above.
One of their problems is, these are all re-runs. They've used 'em before. How many different kinds of Nazi was W?
Come on, y'all. Don't you progressives have more imagination than that?
You choose some words from columns A, B, and C, and add "Thou" in front, to come up with cool insults like "Thou pribbling, fen-sucked, canker blossom..."
They'd be better than those boring old Nazi insults.
Carlson doesn't seem the type to ban someone who criticizes him; in fact, I think just the opposite. He seems to enjoy debating those who disagree with him. Admittedly, I don't watch much TV, period. But have watched Carlson in the past. All this said, I often agree with Carlson's take, but sometimes he has engaged in what I perceive as conspiracy theory tripe.
I have the same impression of Tucker Carlson. There are times when it seems clear he's being disingenuous or intellectually sloppy and tendentious, and I stop listening. His criticisms of Democrats, though, are usually reasonable and well-supported by evidence.
As are most of his criticisms of Republicans. I watch little TV but try to watch both PBS News Hour and Tucker when at home, knowing the truth lies somewhere between them.
I agree with you if Tucker could stay away from some of the hyperbola he could get into the same bandwidth as Glenn. Maddow is just silly, a true believer .
Years ago, back around the time Glenn and Tucker became 'an item', I remember reading something from Glenn that really pissed me off. I wrote an excoriating post (possibly on the Intercept) and sent a copy to Tucker, suggesting he should re-consider 'sharing his air' with Glenn. I can't remember what the issue was. Over time, while I still listen to what Tucker has to say, I'm more interested in Glenn's work-product these days, primarily due to the hard-factual elements rigorously pursued, which are so widely lacking on-line in general. (Albeit, toss-offs like: 'Trump is Orange Hitler' are highly appreciated !;)
He's giving you a taste of your own medicine. You called Tucker "racist". "DNC left" calls everyone else Russian agents. Anyone who expresses disagreement is a racist in your book.
Human beings like most other mammals are tribal and will continue to be. That's how we are. Until couple decades ago, we knew how to put aside tribal mindset and think objectively for a bit. I think things like instant gratification from social media, porn, uber, quick delivery, tinder etc has lost us the objective thinking because we don't want to put the hard effort required to think objectively and just want quick answers to everything and prefer the answers which confirm our biases.
Good point, but GG is defending HIMSELF against accusations of personal corruption. Is that not proper? (I WOULD rather GG not waste his time here, but maybe he felt we were not refuting strongly enough.)
But Glenn has this. He can get articles in several publications. Even if he personally likes tucker what is he gaining by reaching out to tucker’s audience. I think anyone that goes on one of those shows is tarnishing themselves a bit. Tucker and Rachel are the extremes that leave the most tarnish. I could understand if someone like Richard jewell would go on “tucker tonight” (better name) because he has no other way to defend himself. I don’t think Richard should go on now. I was thinking back in the day. But he could go on now if the topic was stopping delusion terrorists
I respect your integrity on Russiagate and other issues. But Carlson has made many racist and other outrageous statements - for example on the pandemic and other things. Why are you silent on these, as I know you are an anti-racist? The article you cited was from 4 years ago when you still got on CNN sometimes.
I watched Carlson as an alternate news source during the last 4 years because I didn't want to be bombarded by Trump hate. I'm sure many turned to Carlson, during the Trump years for the same reason. Instead of making comments like Carlson has made many racists statements why don't you play journalist and back it up with actual quotes from Tucker Carlson which substantiate your claims.
You using that term alone lets me know you are a brainwashed "DNC lefty" who spouts MSNPC Kool-aid instead of thinking objectively.
Why don't you back up your statement about Tucker making "racist" statements? And no - if a statement he made wouldn't be considered racist if a person with more melanin than Tucker made it, then those statements don't qualify.
I regularly hear HodgeTwins joke about them barely qualifying as black because they are half white. So if blacks can joke about that, I don't see why Tucker can't.
The "homophobic language" is pointless considering the left has taken over words and destroyed them. And those words are used by the LGBT community too - so I don't see why someone non-LGBT saying it is wrong? Equality after all.
> He said that immigrants to the U.S. should be “hot” or “really smart”
People have to be lying if they don't agree with this either. The whole point of a merit based immigration system is to get the smart ones. The whole liberal mantra of "immigrants built America" is based on "smart" immigrants. I myself immigrated and got admission in Canadian university based on my high school grades. And both sexes regularly pick "hot" ones - that's just a joke.
> "Carlson reportedly referred to Iraqis"
Why are they using reportedly? Is this another one of those "anonymous sources"? And even if he said that, context matters. These things were regularly joked about and comedians still do. Never heard jokes about using chopsticks? Isn't claiming Chinese people eat bats also the same?
Also considering Tucker regularly calls out the military industrial complex for bombing brown people in Middle East, I will put him better than all democrats and war mongering republicans.
Also debating shit someone says from 2 decades ago is silly. Everyone of the woke crowd criticizing Tucker for this has skeletons in their own closets. Similar to all the late night hosts and Trudeau doing black face and now being woke. Howard Stern made his living with this and now he's gone woke. Bunch of hypocrites.
One of the reasons why Trump's "grab them by the pussy" comment didn't worry me at all was because I knew several people from my close circles who are liberals and were criticizing those locker room talk having said a lot worse about girls in the gym. And same goes for women too. Both sexes talk that way.
'Let Him Who Is Without Sin Cast the First Stone'.
'Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones'.
The Wuhan Wet Market theory is the most racist explanation for a global pandemic ever.
"Well, you see... Chinese people eat odd things, and they don't keep clean marketplaces... and... well... obviously, that's why a bat virus which causes significant respiratory distress was unleashed throughout the western world..."
This doesn't sound like the Carlson I listen to, nor have I heard him make racists comments. In fact these quotes don't sound like Carlson at all. How do you know this watchdog group you reference is dependable, considering the plethora of BS out there including the group Facebook uses to remove information that calls themselves Factcheck. Just wandering who checks the fact checkers to make sure they have their facts straight? Also statements made without providing a context in which they are said have little validity.
Interesting how the word malleability can be a positive or a negative. Either, you're easily manipulated by others, or you are capable of adapting to change. Just thought about that, but Glenn is not someone to fall into line, but unfortunately too many Americans are, including a whole lot on the left. Who would have thought that 4 years ago? You have them portraying the right as cultish, but the left seems even more so. . Ahhhh......, this whole thing is one big, long sigh.
I think there’s a difference between being easily manipulated and being objective enough to change ones mind based on evidence. Cults fall in the first category. And emotional manipulation is peak in the current climate.
That's an accurate characterization of what passes for liberalism these days, but too many people here seem to share those traits. They are the reflection of those they hate. The obscene reply below to Nate's comment is one of many examples.
Not really though — by any objective standard an unemployed, opioid-addicted heterosexual white man living in a double wide is vastly more oppressed than, say, Malia Obama, but for some reason leftists would rank the Obama kids ahead of any hetero white man on the oppression scale regardless of his actual circumstances.
Glenn's said many times he doesn't go on Carlson's show because they're friends or political allies, he goes because Carlson allows him to speak. Grow up.
So which of Carlson’s coverage do you equate with a devil’s pact? Is it what Joe Biden did to the border and what it’s doing to the country? Is it the corruption of the FBI or DOJ? Is it democrat inspired homelessness or crime? Is it the destruction of the nuclear family and societal consequences? I could go on but it’s your turn , be specific, don’t deflect.
So here's the thing with the Nate's of the world, better known as emotional, low information, woke, virtue signalers. Nate started out name calling. When I asked him to be specific about "tucker
Carlson making a pact with the devil" he cited a racist screed accusing tucker Carlson of being a nazi/white supremacist from media matters. Not exactly the specificity I was looking for. When you ask the left to defend the vile trash coming out of their mouth they can't. Instead they resort to more emotional name calling. It's worked in the past but those days are over.
Just about ANYTHING to a Progressive is 'proof of racism' which is more than fallacious not to mention tedious. Nothing like rendering a word meaningless.
Funny thing is that the stuff media matters (of all places) is talking about wouldn't be considered racist if anyone with more melanin than Tucker said them. Or if a Democrat said them because Democrats are immune to everything.
I will address just two of them from "media matters":
> Carlson defended Trump's racist “shithole” countries comment.
Most of what these claims of racism/white supremacy come from his statements that other countries often have "corrupt, filthy" systems. I am an immigrant from one of those countries. Over 50% of the population has first hand experience of giving bribes to cops, politicians, judicial system. Even getting a passport requires paying bribes (or at least used to few years ago when I was there). And one simply does not drink water or eat street/restuarant food and the pollution (not just air, even water) gets so bad that we directly compete with China on who's worse. We even have funny terms for what we call when someone gets sick from eating street food. Women and girls are advised to not leave alone when it's dark at night and news papers are filled with reports of rapes etc every morning and corrupt politicians getting away with it. The corruption got so bad that they had to literally declare entire certain currency values filled with fake bills worthless over night. Backwards minds in my home countries still beg for a boy baby and then call the mother all sorts of names if she gives birth to a girl instead. The population is exploding because these backwards minds continue having kids until they finally have a boy. So you have a situation where a poor family has 8 kids, first 7 were girls. And girls often aren't allowed to get educated beyond high school as it's time for them to get married and become a house wife forever. And issues like LGBT, women rights are a joke. Though I have to admit, they don't throw the gays off of buildings though. Kids often get their legs/hands chopped off or eyes taken out and thrown to the streets as part of organized "beggars". Oh and talking about racism, we play advertisements of skin whitening creams on live TV while also virtue signalling about racism from the white boogeyman. We still have a 1000 year old caste system. You only get to get a job based on what's your last name. You only get married within your own caste. Certain casts are "untouchables" and they are forever janitors or servants. We also throw journalists in prison (though Assange, Rebel News is getting similar treatment from US/UK/Australia/Canada too). Speaking out against the government? Bye Bye. We often get used as pawns by the liberal elites in the name of diversity with H1B visas while what's really happening is that we get exploited by the tech companies. We have made some progress though. At least we mostly don't burn the widow alive when her husband passes away. In fact, we had to pass a law to stop that from happening. But widows still to this day aren't treated any better. They aren't allowed to eat meat, garlic, onions, some lentils, wear coloured clothes, wear jewelry, wear anything attractive, socialize etc. We also did finally elect a President a decade ago who wasn't from a superior caste. He used to sell tea and newspapers growing up. So we have made some progress. But the point is that calling these countries shithole is allowed for me but not for someone who's white? That makes YOU and Media Matters the real racist.
> Carlson fearmongered that Democrats want “demographic replacement” with a “flood of illegals” to create “a flood of voters for them.” Carlson accused Democrats of having no interest in using immigration to better the country but wanting to build their own political base by bringing in a “flood of illegals.”
How is this even inaccurate? Democrats literally use immigrants as pawns. You have to have blinders on to not see this.
The immigrant folks who get brought in on H1B visas are basically exploited for work on lower wages. Liberals often think they are more virtuous for supporting H1B because companies like Apple and Google have lectured them about how H1B visas bring diversity. Anyone seriously thinks FAANG tech companies care about diversity? They care about low labour cost, employees who won't complain and won't report shady stuff going on in the company. H1B visas are perfect for that.
H1B visas is pretty much modern day slavery (bit hyperbole in a way) but it essentially gives full power over an immigrant to the employer because these employers have work rules that if you don't get promoted every 1-2 years, you get fired - which means H1B visa employees get deported back. So these immigrants end up working much harder for lower pay to not get deported. Meanwhile the companies get cheap labour while virtue signaling about diversity. This is also a reason why immigrants are hesitant to report work illegalities and thus the company prefer hiring them even more. This is also why all the tech companies were so against Trump - he cut their supply of H1B visas.
Here's another proof that this isn't about "diversity" or caring about immigrants but more about exploitation:
76% of the h1b go to Indians and 10% goes to China. Do you think this is about diversity? Does diversity only come from India and China? Source:
Also lectures about "diversity" are a fucking joke from "DNC leftists". The only diversity they care about is skin color. They don't care about diversity of opinion. That's why Clarence Thomas gets his documentary censored, Larry Elder, Candace Owens get called names and Biden goes around telling people they ain't black if they don't vote for him. So sick of this bullshit hypocrisy.
What the? Glenn gets an opportunity to -- uncensored-- provide his view and that means he made a pact with the devil. You need to look in the mirror it is you that have made a pact with the devil. You agreed to never look beyond your own bias. Your loss.
I don't know bro, according to the only place on the interwebs https://www.mediamatters.org/ That guy with the pillows made a pact with the devil and NOT Tucker Carlson. How do you explain this NATE????
There is no shortage of people willing to call out Fox News in general or Tucker Carlson in particular. We don't need GG for that. Tucker Carlson could ammounce that "teh sky is blue and water is teh wet!" and his every word would be scrutinized for accuracy and agenda by an army of amateur sleuths and MSM kremlinologists.
Maddow, on the other hand, is more of a sacred cow.
You are misunderstanding, Glenn calls out bullshit artists, regardless of party loyalty. He has done this since literally when he began writing. The issue is that currently the people lying the loudest and most blatantly are Democrats and their media allies. In previous times it was the RNC and their media allies.
At some point the American electorate has to stand up and demand their leaders enact legislation with teeth, that makes lying and/or libelous statements punishable in ways that this exact article proves they are not.
All that aside, conceptually, this is warfare. What we are seeing is warfare where you make the people unsure of who to trust or believe in power.
He's not the liar she is, and you could not make that statement if you have listened to both of them. Why don't you be more specific and validate what you just said.
How about you find any other journo that does Glenn;s level of work before you questions, you prick. I am just so tried of trash like you, that come here and question Glenn, when he is the best of his profession. Name another journo that does more then Glenn and if you can't, accept that you are ignorant and entitled cunt.
Tucker regularly puts people with opposing view points on his shows. He also often called out Trump's flaws including him getting duped by the CIA's false Syrian gas attack hoax causing him to bomb Syria. He also regularly called for pardon of Assange, Snowden etc - including one where he put Jimmy Dore several times and admitted on live TV that Jimmy Dore, an honest lefty was who changed Tucker's mind on Assange because of the strength of Jimmy's argument:
While I haven't watched FOX for a year, Tucker is one of the few I sometimes watch when Jimmy goes on the show. He calls out Mitch McConnell and RINOs as much as he calls out the Democrats.
Its so funny to watch DNC locksteppers attack Glenn for not reporting about the other team doing something wrong but completely ignoring the fact their own team is doing the wrong
If Tucker Carlson says some dumbass shit with no basis in reality and then is sued by someone, only to have a judge throw that lawsuit out and say "No one believes Tucker", I am 1000% certain Glenn would also report on that.
He isn't targeting the DNC and your heroes in Liberalville, they are targeting themselves with their behavior.
Now, did you want to discuss the lies Maddow said, or the fact that a DNC-appointed judge let her shout these lies without any repercussion, which is in no way consistent with US law?
Not only are the chattering heads on virtually all TV news shows liars, they are all conservative propagandists supporting The Blob. The National Security State is chock full of Democrats and Republicans happily working to advance the same hegemonic agenda, and it is all anti-socialist and very conservative. The Blob is conservative, despite the fact that it has internal struggles for power and position. The fake news shows just cater to different audiences, so they throw out different red meat to their hungry viewers. To bad the viewers don't understand they are just being played by the oligarchs.
Listen Nate, the internet is not for everyone. I have good news buddy, you can draw pictures or maybe play with an Etch A Sketch. I guarantee your worldview will never be challenged, and you can continue being the Head Booker on FOX News to ensure Glenn does not get invited on "Carlson" while simultaneously paying to see what he has to say. Did I miss anything NATE???
Seems like Glenn was even-handed with each of them, not siding with either side, saying pretty clearly he agrees with the rationale of both defamation cases, and that it would be dangerous to punish either for expressing their political views. You are the one who wants to call them liars, he doesn't, so don't put your words in his mouth. Maybe start your own blog?
Maddow is not a liar, biased yes, but her facts are solid. She’s not pulling facts bases on which ones the most gullible will believe without question like Cruze or any GOP.
"But whatever else is true, those who want to claim that this court ruling proves Carlson is a lying propagandist who cannot be trusted have no way out of applying the same claim to Maddow."
Haha. I wish that were true.
This implies that Rachel Maddow fans are credible, or interested in being consistent in some way. They aren't. The old saying about having 'no standards if not for double standards' comes to mind.
That's not to say that some of Tucker Carlson's fans also fit that bill. I'm not a big fan of him myself: Not because of his content but more because of his schtick in delivering it. But, folks on the right are used to being called "biased." My experience with those on the left is that they deny any bias at all. They simply can't see it.
So, those on the left who favor Rachel Maddow will distinguish this case. Remember, it was "Me Too" until it was Joe Biden and the Lieutenant Governor of Virgina. Blackface was bad until Justin Trudeau and Ralph Northam did it.
Tucker Carlson does his best to bring up the issues no one else in mainstream media is reporting, I have not heard of seen anything he's said lately that a reasonable person would classify as misinformation - but he is bound by the dictates of FOX Corp, who, if you have been following the Ivory Hecker/Project Veritas story, has no problem putting corporate interests above the viewer's interests.
On the other hand, Rachel Maddow, Keith Obermann, Trevor Noah, Stephen Colbert and similar ilk make their living off of lying to their viewers, and by extension, the world. Maddow has never once posited her batshit-crazy accusations as "opinion", and the ruling by Cynthia Bashant only underscores the fact that we have some very dangerous ideologues in high-ranking positions of power.
Glenn, why do you keep calling these people "liberals"? They're pushing a partisan political agenda that has nothing at all to do with liberalism. They aren't liberals, they're just flunkies for the Democratic party.
Liberalism is tolerant of dissenting opinions and promotes free inquiry. No self-respecting liberal would push censorship. Individual rights and civil liberties are fundamental liberal principles. Liberals stand for equality before the law, the consent of the governed, and the right of the people to question authority.
The people you refer to as "liberals" aren't liberals. They're power-mad political hacks who don't have any moral or ethical principle that they won't betray in the pursuit of power. They don't care about advancing any moral principle, they're only interested in amassing political power for their tribe. If they sometimes espouse rhetoric ostensibly resembles liberalism it's because they think there's some political advantage to be had by doing so (like promising health care, and then not delivering). They're shameless hypocrites, and they'll say anything.
Sadly, the word "liberal" like the word "conservative" have no universally agreed on definition, if they ever did. They are bastardized by all for the advancement of the author's agenda. I have my own concept of "liberal" that would correspond to yours but I cringe at how it's used by so many.
We’d all be better served by the media if it were required to have a counterpoint pundit at each and every news desk (with liberal and conservative pundits chosen from their respective sides as opposed to carefully chosen shills to give the appearance). After a proper debate of the facts, then let the people decide. It would destroy the current reign of propaganda from both sides and would relieve much angst being promulgated for one sided political effect and/or ratings. In fact, the last show of it’s kind was Tucker Carlson’s “Crossfire” on of all places, CNN (2000-2005)!
This would be a terrible requirement. We have already seen extreme strawmanning from the Left. Their "right-wing representatives" have been designed to make the Right look bad for a long time.
The fairness doctrine largely shut down partisan discourse because no one wanted to give equal time to the other side of an issue. In retrospect, this might have been a good thing.
The problem with the fairness doctrine is that, say MSNBC would simply have on pet "conservatives" like Ana Navarro or Jennifer Rubin who are, actually, just garden variety corporatist neo-dems. It would change nothing.
That doctrine was better than nothing but did not require equal time for both sides. I believe Plato and Aristotle would prefer equal time for a fair and proper debate. How far have we regressed?
Plato would have preferred time for a proper debate (for example, the part about Theuth in Plato's _Phaedrus_), except that he wouldn't have been willing to debate a slave. Not so sure about Aristotle being willing to allow equal time, though I'm not ruling it out.
Disinformation is not a problem when it is made by the Fake News Media - everybody knows what it is. The problem arises when individuals start making claims on the internet. Their credibility is presumably higher than the news media, and so there is an actual risk of people being gulled - with real world consequences. This is why Big Tech has a duty to suppress claims made by individuals, but not the claims made by the media.
Conformism is easy, but when you offload the ridicule onto other people on a previous site, it's easy to see through. Best to stay aware of what's satire and what's not.
It's important to use google search so that you can establish a high social credit rating (providing you use the correct search terms). Not having a google track record will make you a suspect. Although I'd also recommend changing your screen name.
I take care not to use my current one on google - there I expose myself openly. I have nothing to hide in any sense of the word so I welcome any and all inquiry. Also making sure I route all my communications through google - email, phone, messaging, voice etc. Even finding myself dictating pledge of allegiance into the search screen from time to time.
Here I do hide behind russian_bot to piss off a few creeps.
I would think it works the opposite way. Viewers think Fox and MSNBC and thus have a higher duty. If they claim a person is paid by Putin, and have no supporting evidence, they should be subject to slander claims
No. Big Tech aggressively censors individuals in favor of the narrative preferred by large institutions and organizations. That is a demonstrated fact. Either they are Fascists who automatically support authority, or they are doing it for our own good. I prefer to believe the latter.
The important part of this story (in my opinion) is that, if you're Carlson or Maddow at a legacy news outlet, YouTube lets you fling your "not to be taken seriously" opinion far and wide, and eagerly promotes it to anyone who ever clicked on an actual news segment.
But if you're a small or independent voice, YouTube reserves the right to "fact check" you (conveniently sourced from a legacy news outlet), block your content, and issue you a strike. Three strikes and you're permanently banned, while Maddow and Carlson gleefully continue to roll up millions of views from their not serious opinions, even though they are broadcast through a serious news banner, which actually makes it far harder for a reasonable person to discern news from opinion.
Simply put, one content standard if you have massive advertising money, another standard if you're a regular schlub.
Exactly, no fact checking for the spouter of lies Maddow. Lotta good a woke celebrity lesbian w a Ph.D. did for msnbc. But perhaps that was the point.
Excellent point and I think it is done by design, as in they both are establishment tools anyway so it's fine to spread their lies.
YouTube and Facebook have taken down Tucker Carlson videos in the past. Covid related videos from Tucker were taken down. The russiagate nonsense from Maddow is still available though.
Also sexual content of a dude penetrating another dude with a Dildo and with a bedsheet in between is allowed and monetized!
Dear Glenn
Thank you for fighting for the truth and providing us with it.
While I believe in freedom of speech, conning people is not part of it.
Con artists such as Rachel Madow, Cummo, and the like who are cashing on the people ‘s trusts vested in them , are nothing but bunch of charlatans who are invading the news world.
We need true journalists like you now more than ever.
Keep up the good job.
With tremendous respects to you and all those like you.
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Speech can be truthful or it can be dishonest. It can be informative or it can be deceptive. The minute you say, "I support free speech as long as it's not being used to con people." you've lost the thread.
Free speech guarantees have to protect lies and deception otherwise they're worthless. The minute you take the position that lies shouldn't be protected, you have to empower somebody to decide which claims are true and which ones are false, and that's a power that *NOBODY* can ever be trusted with.
When Tucker Carlson and Rachel Maddow lie to their viewers, as both of them obviously did, the only legitimate recourse is to call them out for it so that people can assess their credibility.
That's one point of view, but it's certainly debatable. If I understand you, you oppose all defamation laws. For example, if Tucker Carlson or Rachel Maddow were to knowingly lie about you, saying for example that you had lynched a black person, raped someone, etc., resulting in the loss of your job, the loss of friends, etc., do you believe that you should have no legal recourse?
The whole point of having a democracy, courts, etc., is to try to find a just way to make such decisions, even knowing that no such system is perfect. The problem with freedom without constraints is that it leaves ruthless and malicious people unconstrained.
Freedom of speech constrains dishonest speech by giving people the freedom to call it out. If you lie, and I can show that you’re lying, I can destroy your credibility.
The solution to bad speech is more speech, not censorship.
Andy: "Censorship" is much broader than defamation laws, though one could argue that the use of defamation laws are a specific and narrowly defined form of censorship (through the threat of lawsuits).
In the hypothetical scenario I described (which in some instances really happens), you would be out of a job, and perhaps a home. You would indeed have the recourse of telling reporters that Ms. Maddow had lied about you. It's reasonable to argue that "with great power comes great responsibility" and that you should have a legal right to seek recourse for the harm she caused you, beyond simply saying that she lied. After all, her speech had serious material consequences to you, whereas your speech in self-defense has, by comparison, little or no effect on her (assuming you're just an ordinary citizen).
Similar questions about freedom apply in other contexts (weapons laws, private property, etc.). Which approach one prefers depends partly on one's overall ethical system. I don't think there's ever a perfect solution to such dilemmas.
Does it?
Someone defames me in free to deal with them, aren’t I?
In court, in public, or in battle? To which do you refer? If all one has at his disposal is the latter, one really isn't free, is one?
Why not all three?
Probably not in practice. How would you "deal with" Rachel Maddow in my hypothetical example?
I’m smart enough not to get on her radar in the first place.
Then you have lost some freedom, willingly.
Funny how many people miss your simple point. I am progressive and can confirm that both sides of the isle are very quick to ban speech that they disagree with, but scream that they protect freedom of speech. The guy you commented on has 33 likes VS 1 (mine) for your comment. The worst part is that Glenn's readerships are smarter then average Joe's but here we are :). Everyone want to ban anything they can't handle be it burning flag or lies.
Freedom of speech isn’t free
"Buck o five" IIRC.
After all the money printing, inflation has quadrupled the cost of freedom. It now sits at $4.20.
True dat! And despite the early hour, hope that’s a double entendre!
Thank you for the Cummo giggles.
I don't know if Carlson's hyperbole is the same as Maddow's. The court was noting that the words Carlson used, "blackmail" and "extortion" are overloaded terms. They have precise, technical meanings for criminal law; but they also have colloquial, non-technical meanings. Most of the time, when people use those terms, I don't take it as meaning that the speaker is accusing the subject of committing the the specific crimes (and even if he or she was, that elements of the crimes will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction)(yes, I am a former prosecutor). And lets be honest, a lot of blackmail-like and extortion-like behavior happens all the time. It is bad, but it is not criminal.
Maddow, on the other hand, was saying that people were "literally" paid Russian operatives. There are no overloaded terms here. I think her comments were worse than Carlson's.
That said, I agree with the judges in both cases. And I also agree with Greenwald's argument. The liberals misstate what the courts said (and what Fox said about Carlson); yet they are silent regarding Maddow's worse behavior.
GG is talking about a lawyer who works for Fox but is talking about Carlson. That's pretty far removed (similarly for Maddow). That lawyer is hardly a solid source when it comes to interpretations of what Carlson said. Do we actually know that McDougal didn't extort Trump in the criminal sense? People lie all the time about extra-marital affairs.
Sorry, “literally” is understood to mean extremely or exasperatingly by many people who don’t even know the traditional meaning.
....you've really got to edit this to "who literally don't even know the traditional meaning."
...the literal meaning... FTFY
Those people are literally illiterate.
Yes, I understand.
Right, so defamation and slander is now a thing of the past -because all anyone has to say is "My viewers KNOW I'm not being serious. I don't have to provide a disclaimer that I'm not being serious -it's ASSUMED my news show is fake by my own viewers."
No wonder the western world is falling apart at the seams. It's all scams and bullshittery perpetrated by grease wizards.
Fuck it. Burn it all to the ground.
Also: Maddow LITERALLY IS HITLER.
My viewers know that I'm only dealing in hyperbole... so I'm safe.
She should put her fake eyelashes under her nose.
burn......................
That is SO worth repeating.....and I can think of a few others who deserve it!
Maybe I’m too defeatist but it feels like the only logical conclusion of mass media and giving every single person a platform to (mostly anonymously) spout whatever the fuck they want — if talk was cheap before, what’s it valued at now? It feels like a race to the bottom for every attention-starved twat to be as dramatic as possible and not nearly enough people are ignoring the bait to disincentivize it.
It feels weird because it really wasn’t THAT long ago that it would come to blows if one man called another man a liar.
Ask Alexander Hamilton how that goes.
There is a difference. Both Carlson and Maddow are opinion journalists, they aren't part of the "news" lineup. Granted, I don't know what the news lineup is on MSNBC, as I never watch it, but at least Fox does have some dedicated journalists there, like Bret Baier.
I disagree. I, like GG, agree with the rulings. Overall, it is better to let free speech of all forms be unhindered, even by the truth (whatever that is), and let the individual viewer be the judges of what to believe.
Everything else is censorship. And worse: distrust of the individual himself, and subsequent thrashing of individual rights to decide for ourselves, instead of the State.
The judge is quite correct in saying that no *reasonable* viewer of Rachel Maddow's show would assume her statements have any relation to truth and facts. Note that she evades the question of whether the intersection of "reasonable" and "viewers of Rachel Maddow's show" is an empty set.
More seriously, it's clear to anyone who has spoken with a fan of Ms. Maddow that they tend to absorb whatever she says directly into their belief system (Trump's fans have a similar weakness). So one could argue that Maddow's statement was, in practice, defamatory.
It's the same thing with readers of KenDiAngelo. No reasonable reader would assume their declarations to have any validity to the real world. Unfortunately, government dikat seems to disagree.
Contrast this defense of Maddow with the treatment that obvious satire sites such as the Babylon Bee have received from major media outlets like the NYT and Facebook.
Embarrassing as it is to admit, I was once a Rachel Maddow fan. I knew she was including her own opinion in most of her segments, but I also thought that when she stated something as fact, it was actually a fact. Her statement, "in this case [OAN] really literally is paid Russian propaganda." would probably have made me believe she was stating a fact. About seven years ago I realized Maddow was a shameless liar and propagandist, and I stopped watching her show. I also stopped watching MSNBC entirely. My point is that I think the judge was mistaken when she ruled that Rachel Maddow's fans don't take what she says seriously. They shouldn't take her seriously, but many of them do.
I used to listen to Rachel Maddow's show when she was on Air America, and I took her seriously. For quite a while. I quit watching all Air America shows shortly before they went out of business, as I was catching on to their DNC propaganda. I did check out the first episode or two of Rachel Maddow's show on MSNBC, just to see if she'd changed. She had. For the worse.
She’s a nut case following orders from her boss...the CIA. The clips of her in full panic mode over the audits are worth a look if you need a laugh.
Please tell me you've got a link.
Here’s one...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESkR-1BNyI0
For more, search using DuckDuckGo
Rachel Maddow Panic Over Audits
Enjoy 😊
Youtube tells me it's no longer available.
Thanks! I couldn't really watch it though; she's intensely unlikeable.
Ok, both sides lie like it's their job -- which it is. But what's the basis for judges to claim their sycophantic viewers don't believe their lies? Because if they're relying on the good sense of the viewers, that's a huge mistake.
Both Carlson and Maddow are liars. Glenn, I wish you would also call out Carlson but then he wouldn't put you on his show. So how honest are you being with this?
Not sure why you're just assuming that your views of Tucker are ones I share, and then making demands based on this assumption. You seem to have missed it but this article contains a discussion of Tucker's case. I've also expressed criticisms of Tucker to his face, including in 2017 when I interviewed him - https://medium.com/@ggreenwald/podcast-interview-with-tucker-carlson-5b812185be4a - and I was continually invited on, so maybe you shouldn't assume that your petty vindictiveness is shared by everyone. I've also criticized Fox while on Fox and it didn't prevent me from getting back on: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/glenn-greenwald-calls-out-the-disinformation-from-fox-news-on-fox-news/.
But beyond all that, just think about the gross illogic of your claim. You're alleging that I care so much about 5-minute cable hits that I'm willing to change my views or refrain from saying what I think in order to maintain them. If that were really true -- if that's how my motivation scheme functioned -- why didn't I just hop on board the Russiagate train in 2016 and spend all my time writing about how Trump is Orange Hitler so that I continued to get invited on CNN and MSNBC? If your accusation is true -- I say things or refrain from saying them in order to get access to cable news hits -- then my conduct would have been much, much different for many years.
I am to the right of Attila the Hun, but I $upport Glenn Greenwald, not because of his politics (I know Greenwald is not a conservative), but because of his integrity and dedication to the truth.
I'm a feral cat and I send GG dead rodents in the mail every month, even though he keeps dogs, because at least he is honest.
Underrated commment. MOAR likes plz.
I tried sending GG a mostly dead chipmunk last month, but the little bastard didn't want to stay in the envelope and the post office got all weird about the envelope moving around and stuff.
Saved them scanning that piece of mail.
DITTO that.
Well said!
Right. And he goes after the BIG issues. Not just the little BS issues where he can settle scores.
Dude you are like Glenn, a FUCKING CLOWN.
Censorship of 50% of the population, media doing literal propaganda, politicians exploiting racial and identity politics to destroy the country aren't big issues to you?
Big issues like Russian collusion hoax.
Amazing how so many on this site think every man has his price. Has it ever occurred to anyone that perhaps there may just be a few principled people left on this earth? Glenn in my view is 100% committed to the truth as uncomfortable as that is for so many to fathom.
I follow you because you're honest. I have heard Mr. Carlson repeatedly deny that he is a journalist; rather, he maintains that he is a commentator sharing his opinions. In that sense he is also honest. Ms. Maddow portrays herself as a purveyor of Revealed Truth. Her Fox counterpart is Sean Hannity, not Tucker Carlson.
I cannot tolerate more than a few minutes of either.
Quite right. Tucker is in a different category than Hannity and Maddow.
All this is is diversion,. distraction. Keeps us amused so we wont think.
I can't stand Hannity and haven't watched FOX in a year but prior to that, I have heard him say on his show that he does commentary and not news. Pretty much anyone who has their own radio show/podcast is a opinion host to me.
Agreed. As much as I dislike Hannity, I don't mind him because he at least admits that he's an opinion/commentary host and not doing journalism. Same with Tucker. I would even give Rachel Maddow a pass because she's not claiming to be a "journalist". My problem is with people like Don Lemon, Chris Cuomo and crazy lunatics on CNN who actually claim to be doing "objective journalism". There's a clip of CNN's board meetings video where it says "the most trusted news". LMFAO.
I am okay with someone being biased. I am not okay with them telling me they are unbiased while being a complete partisan hack. Don't piss on me and then tell me it's raining.
I haven't watched FOX in a year (except a few Tucker segments about Assange with Jimmy Dore) because I don't want to support any corporate news media. I have started to pay for independent creators like Glenn Greenwald, Jimmy Dore, Viva Frei & Robert Barnes, Steven Crowder, Matt Taibbi, Michael Tracey, Aaron Mate etc. With that said, I did find (before a year when I did watch FOX) that Bret Bair, Bill Hemmer, John Roberts, Martha Maccallum on FOX were during pretty middle of the political spectrum journalism. I would even say that it would be hard for me to know which party those 4 people support.
That’s a simple way to think about it : opinions versus pretend objectivity. CNN is pernicious.
Harris Faulkner probably hasn't called herself a Reporter, but she strikes me as being one of the fairer Commentators.
And, Hilton is one of the fairer/ honest Commentators, given his clearly-described conservatism.
Chris Matthews has had his fair moments, but has recently become mostly hard-Woke.
Esp. in light of Glen's memories of him standing up to Fox, does anyone here recall any case in recent years, where a Wokester public figure was on any network, and where that figure was subjected to any tough questions other than from a Woke perspective?
Fox recently has had on Abrams and Clyburn, and threw all softball to them.
Well articulated. I share your opinions.
Me either
The only thing I could ever criticize Glenn for is trying to have a logical discussion with people whose brains have been colonized by deliberately illogical cult thinking.
I agree. He is a kind and patient man.
Anyone that says that Glen Greenwald is dishonest has completely misunderstood the man’s work. He is the real deal.
He takes a lot of flak for it too
I believe they don't like the story so they are attacking the messenger. No misunderstandings, completely intentional.
Attack the messenger. Does this book quote help?
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
yes he is
Orange Hitler. Made me spit my coffee! The country is gonna be so outta its collective minds they're gonna have to put "mother's little helper" in the public water supply to calm everyone down.
Orange Hitler… doesn’t that make him a person of color?
lol and a minority.
Minoritiest minority! There's only 1 orange man.
The bloviating Trump monster: his entire stick was to mock woke/intersectionality/anti-racism for it’s silly excess and illogic. The Rabble were so ready for that line, they had been saying the same things at the dinner table for years and then along came an erstwhile politician saying what they always thought.
Yeah. The Trump-haters seem to try to top each other in bestowing on him the most outrageous metaphor.
It's hard to beat "Nazi", isn't it? So, the recipe becomes add a modifier: Orange Nazi, racist Nazi, Jew-hating Nazi, Nazi colluding with Russia, Nazi telling people to drink bleach...
A variant is to mix the adjectives with the best-known Nazi - Hitler, as in the example above.
One of their problems is, these are all re-runs. They've used 'em before. How many different kinds of Nazi was W?
Come on, y'all. Don't you progressives have more imagination than that?
Maybe not really.
They should try the Shakespeare Insult Kit.
You choose some words from columns A, B, and C, and add "Thou" in front, to come up with cool insults like "Thou pribbling, fen-sucked, canker blossom..."
They'd be better than those boring old Nazi insults.
http://www.pangloss.com/seidel/shake_rule.html
There's also an automated one that does the work for you at
http://www.pangloss.com/seidel/Shaker/index.html?
That's how I got "Thou venomed fool-born devil-mon!"
O illiterate loiterer! (lol)
C'mon. W was Nazi Cowboy. They beat that Cowboy moniker to death.
Nope, imagination depleted, fresh out of ideas, but lots of superiority over anyone who could support Trump.
I got a taste of that earlier today -- see my comment just above.
They do tend to run down the list and up another, until it wears thin to the point of boorishness.
LOL 😆 Don’t give them any ideas.
TDS broke many a brain. Otherwise reasonable people start spewing all sort of nonsense. Not that I claim Nate is reasonable.
It seems to me that the mesmerizing of the liberal mind began with Obama and tipped into crisis with Trump.
Yes, Obama pulled a heck of a con job.
Obama was the stealth race hustler that we didn't see coming. Probably should have, but missed.
Carlson doesn't seem the type to ban someone who criticizes him; in fact, I think just the opposite. He seems to enjoy debating those who disagree with him. Admittedly, I don't watch much TV, period. But have watched Carlson in the past. All this said, I often agree with Carlson's take, but sometimes he has engaged in what I perceive as conspiracy theory tripe.
I have the same impression of Tucker Carlson. There are times when it seems clear he's being disingenuous or intellectually sloppy and tendentious, and I stop listening. His criticisms of Democrats, though, are usually reasonable and well-supported by evidence.
As are most of his criticisms of Republicans. I watch little TV but try to watch both PBS News Hour and Tucker when at home, knowing the truth lies somewhere between them.
Not a bad approach.
The best part is that I’ll have imbibed a few prior to Tucker, so the indignant facial expressions are even more comical.
I agree with you if Tucker could stay away from some of the hyperbola he could get into the same bandwidth as Glenn. Maddow is just silly, a true believer .
Years ago, back around the time Glenn and Tucker became 'an item', I remember reading something from Glenn that really pissed me off. I wrote an excoriating post (possibly on the Intercept) and sent a copy to Tucker, suggesting he should re-consider 'sharing his air' with Glenn. I can't remember what the issue was. Over time, while I still listen to what Tucker has to say, I'm more interested in Glenn's work-product these days, primarily due to the hard-factual elements rigorously pursued, which are so widely lacking on-line in general. (Albeit, toss-offs like: 'Trump is Orange Hitler' are highly appreciated !;)
Methinks Nate is a troll.
You’re so brave Bert
Stunning in fact
I see what you did there.
I guess anyone who expresses disagreement is a "troll." Sheesh
It is all in how you express disagreement. Good people can disagree without being disagreeable.
Trolling is just trying to get a rise out of people. You may not believe what you’re saying. The content is the means to an end.
Being disagreeable isn’t the same thing. In all honesty, more readers need to grow up and stop insisting everyone play nice. It’s stupid.
I’m a Troll, it’s fun, I particularly like using Trump as a sounding board.
He's giving you a taste of your own medicine. You called Tucker "racist". "DNC left" calls everyone else Russian agents. Anyone who expresses disagreement is a racist in your book.
You should try to express yourself better and maybe examine yourself a little better if you really stand by what you said.
The only difference is intent, sometimes it’s difficult to differentiate
Me knowest.
People attack our of emtional reactions of hysteria when there is no critical thinking or knowledge present. This is how we are destroying knowledge.
Tribalism is a hella poor substitute for thinking.
Ain't that the truth. An unfortunately tribalism seems to be growing more each year.
Human beings like most other mammals are tribal and will continue to be. That's how we are. Until couple decades ago, we knew how to put aside tribal mindset and think objectively for a bit. I think things like instant gratification from social media, porn, uber, quick delivery, tinder etc has lost us the objective thinking because we don't want to put the hard effort required to think objectively and just want quick answers to everything and prefer the answers which confirm our biases.
I am a cat. Felis cattus.
Very well said.
[Memo to Self: Don't fuck with Glenn]
Yeah. Glenn really went after the tough guy didn’t he
Good point, but GG is defending HIMSELF against accusations of personal corruption. Is that not proper? (I WOULD rather GG not waste his time here, but maybe he felt we were not refuting strongly enough.)
But Glenn has this. He can get articles in several publications. Even if he personally likes tucker what is he gaining by reaching out to tucker’s audience. I think anyone that goes on one of those shows is tarnishing themselves a bit. Tucker and Rachel are the extremes that leave the most tarnish. I could understand if someone like Richard jewell would go on “tucker tonight” (better name) because he has no other way to defend himself. I don’t think Richard should go on now. I was thinking back in the day. But he could go on now if the topic was stopping delusion terrorists
Not to mention, your life would be a lot easier if you parroted the MSM conventional wisdom.
I respect your integrity on Russiagate and other issues. But Carlson has made many racist and other outrageous statements - for example on the pandemic and other things. Why are you silent on these, as I know you are an anti-racist? The article you cited was from 4 years ago when you still got on CNN sometimes.
I watched Carlson as an alternate news source during the last 4 years because I didn't want to be bombarded by Trump hate. I'm sure many turned to Carlson, during the Trump years for the same reason. Instead of making comments like Carlson has made many racists statements why don't you play journalist and back it up with actual quotes from Tucker Carlson which substantiate your claims.
It’s simply a matter of being white while speaking. No further evidence is needed
> "anti-racist"
You using that term alone lets me know you are a brainwashed "DNC lefty" who spouts MSNPC Kool-aid instead of thinking objectively.
Why don't you back up your statement about Tucker making "racist" statements? And no - if a statement he made wouldn't be considered racist if a person with more melanin than Tucker made it, then those statements don't qualify.
I regularly hear HodgeTwins joke about them barely qualifying as black because they are half white. So if blacks can joke about that, I don't see why Tucker can't.
The "homophobic language" is pointless considering the left has taken over words and destroyed them. And those words are used by the LGBT community too - so I don't see why someone non-LGBT saying it is wrong? Equality after all.
> He said that immigrants to the U.S. should be “hot” or “really smart”
People have to be lying if they don't agree with this either. The whole point of a merit based immigration system is to get the smart ones. The whole liberal mantra of "immigrants built America" is based on "smart" immigrants. I myself immigrated and got admission in Canadian university based on my high school grades. And both sexes regularly pick "hot" ones - that's just a joke.
> "Carlson reportedly referred to Iraqis"
Why are they using reportedly? Is this another one of those "anonymous sources"? And even if he said that, context matters. These things were regularly joked about and comedians still do. Never heard jokes about using chopsticks? Isn't claiming Chinese people eat bats also the same?
Also considering Tucker regularly calls out the military industrial complex for bombing brown people in Middle East, I will put him better than all democrats and war mongering republicans.
Also debating shit someone says from 2 decades ago is silly. Everyone of the woke crowd criticizing Tucker for this has skeletons in their own closets. Similar to all the late night hosts and Trudeau doing black face and now being woke. Howard Stern made his living with this and now he's gone woke. Bunch of hypocrites.
One of the reasons why Trump's "grab them by the pussy" comment didn't worry me at all was because I knew several people from my close circles who are liberals and were criticizing those locker room talk having said a lot worse about girls in the gym. And same goes for women too. Both sexes talk that way.
'Let Him Who Is Without Sin Cast the First Stone'.
'Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones'.
The Wuhan Wet Market theory is the most racist explanation for a global pandemic ever.
"Well, you see... Chinese people eat odd things, and they don't keep clean marketplaces... and... well... obviously, that's why a bat virus which causes significant respiratory distress was unleashed throughout the western world..."
The hypocrisy is stunning.
I was going to type a response to the Carlson is a racist claim, but you hit a solid 90% of what I had in mind to say. Nice work.
15 year ago.
Makes me wonder when we all collectively decided people could no longer be better than they are.
You see "DNC leftists" are the purest human beings. They commit no crimes and therefore everyone else must be evil to them.
This doesn't sound like the Carlson I listen to, nor have I heard him make racists comments. In fact these quotes don't sound like Carlson at all. How do you know this watchdog group you reference is dependable, considering the plethora of BS out there including the group Facebook uses to remove information that calls themselves Factcheck. Just wandering who checks the fact checkers to make sure they have their facts straight? Also statements made without providing a context in which they are said have little validity.
"Time" has become Wokester hackism, not to be trusted on anything involving interpretation.
> "Carlson reportedly referred to Iraqis"
Why are they using reportedly? Is this another one of those "anonymous sources"? And even if he said that, context matters. <
Context sure as hell does matter, esp. in an era where Straw Men are ever more often deployed, esp. by Wokesters.
I hope Glenn isn’t anti racist. He lacks the malleability of mind to join a cult.
Interesting how the word malleability can be a positive or a negative. Either, you're easily manipulated by others, or you are capable of adapting to change. Just thought about that, but Glenn is not someone to fall into line, but unfortunately too many Americans are, including a whole lot on the left. Who would have thought that 4 years ago? You have them portraying the right as cultish, but the left seems even more so. . Ahhhh......, this whole thing is one big, long sigh.
I think there’s a difference between being easily manipulated and being objective enough to change ones mind based on evidence. Cults fall in the first category. And emotional manipulation is peak in the current climate.
wow - antiracist = cult. I should not even have made a comment here.
Cult is too kind for an ideology that is divisive, toxic and fundamentally illiberal.
That's an accurate characterization of what passes for liberalism these days, but too many people here seem to share those traits. They are the reflection of those they hate. The obscene reply below to Nate's comment is one of many examples.
Last I knew, it was enough to not be racist.
Now one must declare they are anti-racist as well? What exactly does that entail?
Joining the cult
You must think Patriot Act was about creating patriots too right? Wordsmithing is a skill "DNC left" has an expertise in.
*Anti*racist. *Anti*fascist. You have to respect the audacity when you think about it.
Indeed you shouldn't, you shit-spewing prolapsed anus.
M. Nate, in case you hadn't noticed the current zeit geist, "anti-racist" does NOT mean "one who is opposed to racism."
Nate it is a cult
I'll add antiracist/0 , which I'm all for.
Outrageous? Whatever. Nothing racist though. You throw the word around as a weapon not as a way of seeking progress.
"For example on the pandemic and other things." You can't be serious with this statement. A little clarification goes a long way Rachael.
"many racist statements"? By whose definition?
This is why the concept of "intersectionality" was invented. Multiple vectors of oppression = higher placement in the progressive stack.
Not really though — by any objective standard an unemployed, opioid-addicted heterosexual white man living in a double wide is vastly more oppressed than, say, Malia Obama, but for some reason leftists would rank the Obama kids ahead of any hetero white man on the oppression scale regardless of his actual circumstances.
Don't believe the nonsense Nate is spouting. It's fake news.
Now now you’re invoking Trump you’re going to make people crazy.
Haha holy crap. Stop Glenn, he's already dead!
"your petty vindictiveness"
Once again, you malign your readers with no reasonable basis OTHER than your BULLSHIT "logic".
To all subscribers: Can you NOW see why this guy is a CLOWN???
TDS victim.
Glenn's said many times he doesn't go on Carlson's show because they're friends or political allies, he goes because Carlson allows him to speak. Grow up.
And that is why he can never criticize Carlson, who is despicable and deserves to be called out. He has made a pact with the devil.
So which of Carlson’s coverage do you equate with a devil’s pact? Is it what Joe Biden did to the border and what it’s doing to the country? Is it the corruption of the FBI or DOJ? Is it democrat inspired homelessness or crime? Is it the destruction of the nuclear family and societal consequences? I could go on but it’s your turn , be specific, don’t deflect.
https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson/tucker-carlsons-descent-white-supremacy-timeline Carlson is a racist white supremacist and right wing asshole.
Posting a link to a Media Matters article does not strengthen your argument, it just exposes your pathological level of bias. Just sayin'.
So those quotes from Carlson are not accurate?
Whether or not the quote is from MediaMatters or someplace else, it doesn't matter if the quote is accurate. Or does it?
So here's the thing with the Nate's of the world, better known as emotional, low information, woke, virtue signalers. Nate started out name calling. When I asked him to be specific about "tucker
Carlson making a pact with the devil" he cited a racist screed accusing tucker Carlson of being a nazi/white supremacist from media matters. Not exactly the specificity I was looking for. When you ask the left to defend the vile trash coming out of their mouth they can't. Instead they resort to more emotional name calling. It's worked in the past but those days are over.
"racist screed"?? It cited quotes from Carlson about how racist he is. And I did no name calling.
To Media Matters, any criticism of Barack Obama is proof of racism.
Just about ANYTHING to a Progressive is 'proof of racism' which is more than fallacious not to mention tedious. Nothing like rendering a word meaningless.
Funny thing is that the stuff media matters (of all places) is talking about wouldn't be considered racist if anyone with more melanin than Tucker said them. Or if a Democrat said them because Democrats are immune to everything.
I will address just two of them from "media matters":
> Carlson defended Trump's racist “shithole” countries comment.
Most of what these claims of racism/white supremacy come from his statements that other countries often have "corrupt, filthy" systems. I am an immigrant from one of those countries. Over 50% of the population has first hand experience of giving bribes to cops, politicians, judicial system. Even getting a passport requires paying bribes (or at least used to few years ago when I was there). And one simply does not drink water or eat street/restuarant food and the pollution (not just air, even water) gets so bad that we directly compete with China on who's worse. We even have funny terms for what we call when someone gets sick from eating street food. Women and girls are advised to not leave alone when it's dark at night and news papers are filled with reports of rapes etc every morning and corrupt politicians getting away with it. The corruption got so bad that they had to literally declare entire certain currency values filled with fake bills worthless over night. Backwards minds in my home countries still beg for a boy baby and then call the mother all sorts of names if she gives birth to a girl instead. The population is exploding because these backwards minds continue having kids until they finally have a boy. So you have a situation where a poor family has 8 kids, first 7 were girls. And girls often aren't allowed to get educated beyond high school as it's time for them to get married and become a house wife forever. And issues like LGBT, women rights are a joke. Though I have to admit, they don't throw the gays off of buildings though. Kids often get their legs/hands chopped off or eyes taken out and thrown to the streets as part of organized "beggars". Oh and talking about racism, we play advertisements of skin whitening creams on live TV while also virtue signalling about racism from the white boogeyman. We still have a 1000 year old caste system. You only get to get a job based on what's your last name. You only get married within your own caste. Certain casts are "untouchables" and they are forever janitors or servants. We also throw journalists in prison (though Assange, Rebel News is getting similar treatment from US/UK/Australia/Canada too). Speaking out against the government? Bye Bye. We often get used as pawns by the liberal elites in the name of diversity with H1B visas while what's really happening is that we get exploited by the tech companies. We have made some progress though. At least we mostly don't burn the widow alive when her husband passes away. In fact, we had to pass a law to stop that from happening. But widows still to this day aren't treated any better. They aren't allowed to eat meat, garlic, onions, some lentils, wear coloured clothes, wear jewelry, wear anything attractive, socialize etc. We also did finally elect a President a decade ago who wasn't from a superior caste. He used to sell tea and newspapers growing up. So we have made some progress. But the point is that calling these countries shithole is allowed for me but not for someone who's white? That makes YOU and Media Matters the real racist.
> Carlson fearmongered that Democrats want “demographic replacement” with a “flood of illegals” to create “a flood of voters for them.” Carlson accused Democrats of having no interest in using immigration to better the country but wanting to build their own political base by bringing in a “flood of illegals.”
How is this even inaccurate? Democrats literally use immigrants as pawns. You have to have blinders on to not see this.
The immigrant folks who get brought in on H1B visas are basically exploited for work on lower wages. Liberals often think they are more virtuous for supporting H1B because companies like Apple and Google have lectured them about how H1B visas bring diversity. Anyone seriously thinks FAANG tech companies care about diversity? They care about low labour cost, employees who won't complain and won't report shady stuff going on in the company. H1B visas are perfect for that.
H1B visas is pretty much modern day slavery (bit hyperbole in a way) but it essentially gives full power over an immigrant to the employer because these employers have work rules that if you don't get promoted every 1-2 years, you get fired - which means H1B visa employees get deported back. So these immigrants end up working much harder for lower pay to not get deported. Meanwhile the companies get cheap labour while virtue signaling about diversity. This is also a reason why immigrants are hesitant to report work illegalities and thus the company prefer hiring them even more. This is also why all the tech companies were so against Trump - he cut their supply of H1B visas.
Here's another proof that this isn't about "diversity" or caring about immigrants but more about exploitation:
76% of the h1b go to Indians and 10% goes to China. Do you think this is about diversity? Does diversity only come from India and China? Source:
https://www.gadgetsnow.com/slideshows/h1b-visa-these-countries-got-the-most-approvals/india/photolist/64098647.cms
Democrats use us as pawns and then abandon us when push comes to shove.
These 2 videos explain it well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFYj8Sg3x_c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-3FYea07pc
Also lectures about "diversity" are a fucking joke from "DNC leftists". The only diversity they care about is skin color. They don't care about diversity of opinion. That's why Clarence Thomas gets his documentary censored, Larry Elder, Candace Owens get called names and Biden goes around telling people they ain't black if they don't vote for him. So sick of this bullshit hypocrisy.
"...wouldn't be considered racist if anyone with more melanin than Tucker said them."
True, imo, which makes Media Matters, and many, many other outlets (not to mention cancel culture itself) opportunistically and selectively RACIST.
Imagine thinking Media Matters is a persuasive source. Shocking ignorance, Nate.
OK go ignore Carlson's quotes there.
Find a new place to play gaslighter
Media Matters, lol.
Consider the course (Media Matters 🙄) - Tucker calls it as he sees it.
What the? Glenn gets an opportunity to -- uncensored-- provide his view and that means he made a pact with the devil. You need to look in the mirror it is you that have made a pact with the devil. You agreed to never look beyond your own bias. Your loss.
You, otoh, can criticise Carlson to your heart's content. Don't let Glenn stop you.
I don't know bro, according to the only place on the interwebs https://www.mediamatters.org/ That guy with the pillows made a pact with the devil and NOT Tucker Carlson. How do you explain this NATE????
Stop letting your crazy relatives use your account to comment here, Nate.
🤪 🤡 😜 💩🧻
There is no shortage of people willing to call out Fox News in general or Tucker Carlson in particular. We don't need GG for that. Tucker Carlson could ammounce that "teh sky is blue and water is teh wet!" and his every word would be scrutinized for accuracy and agenda by an army of amateur sleuths and MSM kremlinologists.
Maddow, on the other hand, is more of a sacred cow.
sexist!
Pretty much every cat I've ever known is sexist, judged by contemporary western human standards.
Soo…encourage MSNBC/CNN to have Glenn on. Fox has him on because he diddes Democrats, and CNN/MSNBC blackball him for the same reason.
You are misunderstanding, Glenn calls out bullshit artists, regardless of party loyalty. He has done this since literally when he began writing. The issue is that currently the people lying the loudest and most blatantly are Democrats and their media allies. In previous times it was the RNC and their media allies.
At some point the American electorate has to stand up and demand their leaders enact legislation with teeth, that makes lying and/or libelous statements punishable in ways that this exact article proves they are not.
All that aside, conceptually, this is warfare. What we are seeing is warfare where you make the people unsure of who to trust or believe in power.
Errr…I’ve followed Greenwald since his Salon.com days. Right wingers are only following him now because he, rightly, is crapping on Democrats.
The DNC media has been lying rampantly at least since about 2003.
When they started ramping for 2004 the entire media landscape changed.
Well, I could refute the part about the "right wingers," I think, but instead I say:
So what, and what is the point NOW of dividing GG's followers?
Disses Pete, not diddes! Democrats should be "diddes." No one deserves it more.
…DISSES Democrats…
Thanks for the clarification: I thought you meant dildos.
I was leaning toward diddles.
Well, we ARE discussing Maddow and Carlson, here…
Jeez. Now I'VE GOT ONE OF THOSE LITTLE CIRCLES by my picture. Are these targets, or what?
They denote that you are an author of another publication.
Now, depending on what exactly you author, they may make you a target...
I don't see them, M. Charles and M. Pete. Do others not see them? I see "Writes Charles's Newsletter" next to your moniker.
He's not the liar she is, and you could not make that statement if you have listened to both of them. Why don't you be more specific and validate what you just said.
You and Nate need to get a room, where you can swing your purses…
CAT FIGHT!!!!
How about you find any other journo that does Glenn;s level of work before you questions, you prick. I am just so tried of trash like you, that come here and question Glenn, when he is the best of his profession. Name another journo that does more then Glenn and if you can't, accept that you are ignorant and entitled cunt.
Orez if all you want to do is curse me out then I have nothing to say to you.
You can also name another journo that does more then Glenn and put me onto my place?
If McDougal asked for and received money, that qualifies as “extortion” per the common vernacular. Did she? If so, Carlson didn’t lie.
And did the Kremlin actually pay OAN to run their stories? If not, then that’s defamation.
He is using Carlson you useful moron while Maddow is the vile spouter of lies.
Tucker regularly puts people with opposing view points on his shows. He also often called out Trump's flaws including him getting duped by the CIA's false Syrian gas attack hoax causing him to bomb Syria. He also regularly called for pardon of Assange, Snowden etc - including one where he put Jimmy Dore several times and admitted on live TV that Jimmy Dore, an honest lefty was who changed Tucker's mind on Assange because of the strength of Jimmy's argument:
https://youtu.be/je3tfciJtvY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnwC_1Pf9VQ
While I haven't watched FOX for a year, Tucker is one of the few I sometimes watch when Jimmy goes on the show. He calls out Mitch McConnell and RINOs as much as he calls out the Democrats.
Its so funny to watch DNC locksteppers attack Glenn for not reporting about the other team doing something wrong but completely ignoring the fact their own team is doing the wrong
If Tucker Carlson says some dumbass shit with no basis in reality and then is sued by someone, only to have a judge throw that lawsuit out and say "No one believes Tucker", I am 1000% certain Glenn would also report on that.
He isn't targeting the DNC and your heroes in Liberalville, they are targeting themselves with their behavior.
Now, did you want to discuss the lies Maddow said, or the fact that a DNC-appointed judge let her shout these lies without any repercussion, which is in no way consistent with US law?
He just did what you say he would do in this very article.
Nate, that’s a dumb point
Not only are the chattering heads on virtually all TV news shows liars, they are all conservative propagandists supporting The Blob. The National Security State is chock full of Democrats and Republicans happily working to advance the same hegemonic agenda, and it is all anti-socialist and very conservative. The Blob is conservative, despite the fact that it has internal struggles for power and position. The fake news shows just cater to different audiences, so they throw out different red meat to their hungry viewers. To bad the viewers don't understand they are just being played by the oligarchs.
BlueAnon has spoken.
Listen Nate, the internet is not for everyone. I have good news buddy, you can draw pictures or maybe play with an Etch A Sketch. I guarantee your worldview will never be challenged, and you can continue being the Head Booker on FOX News to ensure Glenn does not get invited on "Carlson" while simultaneously paying to see what he has to say. Did I miss anything NATE???
Seems like Glenn was even-handed with each of them, not siding with either side, saying pretty clearly he agrees with the rationale of both defamation cases, and that it would be dangerous to punish either for expressing their political views. You are the one who wants to call them liars, he doesn't, so don't put your words in his mouth. Maybe start your own blog?
Maddow is not a liar, biased yes, but her facts are solid. She’s not pulling facts bases on which ones the most gullible will believe without question like Cruze or any GOP.
If you feel that Glenn lacks journalistic integrity, which obviously disturbs and offends you, what are you doing here?
HE does, YOU don’t.
"But whatever else is true, those who want to claim that this court ruling proves Carlson is a lying propagandist who cannot be trusted have no way out of applying the same claim to Maddow."
Haha. I wish that were true.
This implies that Rachel Maddow fans are credible, or interested in being consistent in some way. They aren't. The old saying about having 'no standards if not for double standards' comes to mind.
That's not to say that some of Tucker Carlson's fans also fit that bill. I'm not a big fan of him myself: Not because of his content but more because of his schtick in delivering it. But, folks on the right are used to being called "biased." My experience with those on the left is that they deny any bias at all. They simply can't see it.
So, those on the left who favor Rachel Maddow will distinguish this case. Remember, it was "Me Too" until it was Joe Biden and the Lieutenant Governor of Virgina. Blackface was bad until Justin Trudeau and Ralph Northam did it.
So too, this.
What is really the Big Lie here is that Maddow's viewers do not believe every crackpot manufactured propaganda she spouts.
Tucker Carlson does his best to bring up the issues no one else in mainstream media is reporting, I have not heard of seen anything he's said lately that a reasonable person would classify as misinformation - but he is bound by the dictates of FOX Corp, who, if you have been following the Ivory Hecker/Project Veritas story, has no problem putting corporate interests above the viewer's interests.
On the other hand, Rachel Maddow, Keith Obermann, Trevor Noah, Stephen Colbert and similar ilk make their living off of lying to their viewers, and by extension, the world. Maddow has never once posited her batshit-crazy accusations as "opinion", and the ruling by Cynthia Bashant only underscores the fact that we have some very dangerous ideologues in high-ranking positions of power.
Glenn, why do you keep calling these people "liberals"? They're pushing a partisan political agenda that has nothing at all to do with liberalism. They aren't liberals, they're just flunkies for the Democratic party.
Liberalism is tolerant of dissenting opinions and promotes free inquiry. No self-respecting liberal would push censorship. Individual rights and civil liberties are fundamental liberal principles. Liberals stand for equality before the law, the consent of the governed, and the right of the people to question authority.
The people you refer to as "liberals" aren't liberals. They're power-mad political hacks who don't have any moral or ethical principle that they won't betray in the pursuit of power. They don't care about advancing any moral principle, they're only interested in amassing political power for their tribe. If they sometimes espouse rhetoric ostensibly resembles liberalism it's because they think there's some political advantage to be had by doing so (like promising health care, and then not delivering). They're shameless hypocrites, and they'll say anything.
Sadly, the word "liberal" like the word "conservative" have no universally agreed on definition, if they ever did. They are bastardized by all for the advancement of the author's agenda. I have my own concept of "liberal" that would correspond to yours but I cringe at how it's used by so many.
We’d all be better served by the media if it were required to have a counterpoint pundit at each and every news desk (with liberal and conservative pundits chosen from their respective sides as opposed to carefully chosen shills to give the appearance). After a proper debate of the facts, then let the people decide. It would destroy the current reign of propaganda from both sides and would relieve much angst being promulgated for one sided political effect and/or ratings. In fact, the last show of it’s kind was Tucker Carlson’s “Crossfire” on of all places, CNN (2000-2005)!
This would be a terrible requirement. We have already seen extreme strawmanning from the Left. Their "right-wing representatives" have been designed to make the Right look bad for a long time.
The counterpoint should work like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsiuJvdpLYk
nah - this is better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c91XUyg9iWM
Gotcha both beat… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBrZzrbgxys
WTF. That was like the "getting Medieval" scenes in Pulp Fiction.
Did you watch it all the way to the 7:50 mark?
Yes. Basically soft porn for kiddies.
Perfect.
The fairness doctrine largely shut down partisan discourse because no one wanted to give equal time to the other side of an issue. In retrospect, this might have been a good thing.
The problem with the fairness doctrine is that, say MSNBC would simply have on pet "conservatives" like Ana Navarro or Jennifer Rubin who are, actually, just garden variety corporatist neo-dems. It would change nothing.
That doctrine was better than nothing but did not require equal time for both sides. I believe Plato and Aristotle would prefer equal time for a fair and proper debate. How far have we regressed?
Plato and Aristotle were supremacists of some kind.
Plato would have preferred time for a proper debate (for example, the part about Theuth in Plato's _Phaedrus_), except that he wouldn't have been willing to debate a slave. Not so sure about Aristotle being willing to allow equal time, though I'm not ruling it out.
Disinformation is not a problem when it is made by the Fake News Media - everybody knows what it is. The problem arises when individuals start making claims on the internet. Their credibility is presumably higher than the news media, and so there is an actual risk of people being gulled - with real world consequences. This is why Big Tech has a duty to suppress claims made by individuals, but not the claims made by the media.
A very good example showing how it's some times hard to tell whether a person is serious or not.
I thought the point of satire was to punch up.
Isn't punching up potentially risky?
Part of the charm, cupcake.
It's "first person" satire, intended to ridicule the non-skeptical, but more intended to fool over-emotional responders.
Thanks for explaining something that didn’t need it.
Your satire reminds me of BenitoMussolini from the old days of The Intercept. Perhaps you're one and the same.
Benito was generally funnier, but the post above really is up to Benito's standards.
At The Intercept there were more things to ridicule.
Hmm... To verify your "identity", one apt test would be to check if you'd speak on this site the way Benito_Mussolini did about beating up Andy Ngo. Benito's comment is under this Intercept article: https://theintercept.com/2019/08/16/portland-far-right-rally/?commentId=6eb52bac-bfba-40b6-b015-583d0926a947
Conformism is easy, but when you offload the ridicule onto other people on a previous site, it's easy to see through. Best to stay aware of what's satire and what's not.
And that ain't satire, folks.
I'm switching back to google search.
It's important to use google search so that you can establish a high social credit rating (providing you use the correct search terms). Not having a google track record will make you a suspect. Although I'd also recommend changing your screen name.
I take care not to use my current one on google - there I expose myself openly. I have nothing to hide in any sense of the word so I welcome any and all inquiry. Also making sure I route all my communications through google - email, phone, messaging, voice etc. Even finding myself dictating pledge of allegiance into the search screen from time to time.
Here I do hide behind russian_bot to piss off a few creeps.
I like pissing off Russians, too. (Spoken in the spirit M. Maddow's "literally.")
So you admit you're the creep. That's a start, douchebag.
Just to remind everyone on the forum who this asshole is:
"Russia and Russians are the world's festering wart" - Timothy Andrew Staples/pop122, Unterscharführer SS.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/biden-reversing-trump-permits-a-key/comments#comment-2009756bra
Now fuck off, racist scum. Here's one for you, look it up: "пристал как банный лист к жопе".
It's funny how hard Tim triggers you.
I would think it works the opposite way. Viewers think Fox and MSNBC and thus have a higher duty. If they claim a person is paid by Putin, and have no supporting evidence, they should be subject to slander claims
You’re kidding — right?
No. Big Tech aggressively censors individuals in favor of the narrative preferred by large institutions and organizations. That is a demonstrated fact. Either they are Fascists who automatically support authority, or they are doing it for our own good. I prefer to believe the latter.
Yeah, he is. Good satire.
Telling... so telling.