602 Comments

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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!

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Does it?

Someone defames me in free to deal with them, aren’t I?

Expand full comment

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?

Expand full comment

Why not all three?

Expand full comment

Probably not in practice. How would you "deal with" Rachel Maddow in my hypothetical example?

Expand full comment

I’m smart enough not to get on her radar in the first place.

Expand full comment

Then you have lost some freedom, willingly.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Freedom of speech isn’t free

Expand full comment

"Buck o five" IIRC.

Expand full comment

After all the money printing, inflation has quadrupled the cost of freedom. It now sits at $4.20.

Expand full comment

True dat! And despite the early hour, hope that’s a double entendre!

Expand full comment

Thank you for the Cummo giggles.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Sorry, “literally” is understood to mean extremely or exasperatingly by many people who don’t even know the traditional meaning.

Expand full comment

....you've really got to edit this to "who literally don't even know the traditional meaning."

Expand full comment

...the literal meaning... FTFY

Expand full comment

Those people are literally illiterate.

Expand full comment

Yes, I understand.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Also: Maddow LITERALLY IS HITLER.

My viewers know that I'm only dealing in hyperbole... so I'm safe.

Expand full comment

She should put her fake eyelashes under her nose.

Expand full comment

burn......................

Expand full comment

That is SO worth repeating.....and I can think of a few others who deserve it!

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Ask Alexander Hamilton how that goes.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Please tell me you've got a link.

Expand full comment

Here’s one...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESkR-1BNyI0

For more, search using DuckDuckGo

Rachel Maddow Panic Over Audits

Enjoy 😊

Expand full comment

Youtube tells me it's no longer available.

Expand full comment

Thanks! I couldn't really watch it though; she's intensely unlikeable.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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?

Expand full comment
author

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Underrated commment. MOAR likes plz.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Saved them scanning that piece of mail.

Expand full comment

DITTO that.

Expand full comment

Well said!

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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?

Expand full comment

Big issues like Russian collusion hoax.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Quite right. Tucker is in a different category than Hannity and Maddow.

Expand full comment

All this is is diversion,. distraction. Keeps us amused so we wont think.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

That’s a simple way to think about it : opinions versus pretend objectivity. CNN is pernicious.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Well articulated. I share your opinions.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

I agree. He is a kind and patient man.

Expand full comment

Anyone that says that Glen Greenwald is dishonest has completely misunderstood the man’s work. He is the real deal.

Expand full comment

He takes a lot of flak for it too

Expand full comment

I believe they don't like the story so they are attacking the messenger. No misunderstandings, completely intentional.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Orange Hitler… doesn’t that make him a person of color?

Expand full comment

lol and a minority.

Expand full comment

Minoritiest minority! There's only 1 orange man.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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!"

Expand full comment

O illiterate loiterer! (lol)

Expand full comment

C'mon. W was Nazi Cowboy. They beat that Cowboy moniker to death.

Expand full comment

Nope, imagination depleted, fresh out of ideas, but lots of superiority over anyone who could support Trump.

Expand full comment

I got a taste of that earlier today -- see my comment just above.

Expand full comment

They do tend to run down the list and up another, until it wears thin to the point of boorishness.

Expand full comment

LOL 😆 Don’t give them any ideas.

Expand full comment

TDS broke many a brain. Otherwise reasonable people start spewing all sort of nonsense. Not that I claim Nate is reasonable.

Expand full comment

It seems to me that the mesmerizing of the liberal mind began with Obama and tipped into crisis with Trump.

Expand full comment

Yes, Obama pulled a heck of a con job.

Expand full comment

Obama was the stealth race hustler that we didn't see coming. Probably should have, but missed.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Not a bad approach.

Expand full comment

The best part is that I’ll have imbibed a few prior to Tucker, so the indignant facial expressions are even more comical.

Expand full comment

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 .

Expand full comment

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 !;)

Expand full comment

Methinks Nate is a troll.

Expand full comment

You’re so brave Bert

Expand full comment

Stunning in fact

Expand full comment

I see what you did there.

Expand full comment

I guess anyone who expresses disagreement is a "troll." Sheesh

Expand full comment

It is all in how you express disagreement. Good people can disagree without being disagreeable.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

I’m a Troll, it’s fun, I particularly like using Trump as a sounding board.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

You should try to express yourself better and maybe examine yourself a little better if you really stand by what you said.

Expand full comment

The only difference is intent, sometimes it’s difficult to differentiate

Expand full comment

Me knowest.

Expand full comment

People attack our of emtional reactions of hysteria when there is no critical thinking or knowledge present. This is how we are destroying knowledge.

Expand full comment

Tribalism is a hella poor substitute for thinking.

Expand full comment

Ain't that the truth. An unfortunately tribalism seems to be growing more each year.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

I am a cat. Felis cattus.

Expand full comment

[Memo to Self: Don't fuck with Glenn]

Expand full comment

Yeah. Glenn really went after the tough guy didn’t he

Expand full comment

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.)

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

Not to mention, your life would be a lot easier if you parroted the MSM conventional wisdom.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

It’s simply a matter of being white while speaking. No further evidence is needed

Expand full comment

> "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.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

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'.

Expand full comment

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..."

Expand full comment

The hypocrisy is stunning.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

15 year ago.

Makes me wonder when we all collectively decided people could no longer be better than they are.

Expand full comment

You see "DNC leftists" are the purest human beings. They commit no crimes and therefore everyone else must be evil to them.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

"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.

Expand full comment

I hope Glenn isn’t anti racist. He lacks the malleability of mind to join a cult.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

wow - antiracist = cult. I should not even have made a comment here.

Expand full comment

Cult is too kind for an ideology that is divisive, toxic and fundamentally illiberal.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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?

Expand full comment

Joining the cult

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

You must think Patriot Act was about creating patriots too right? Wordsmithing is a skill "DNC left" has an expertise in.

Expand full comment

*Anti*racist. *Anti*fascist. You have to respect the audacity when you think about it.

Expand full comment

Indeed you shouldn't, you shit-spewing prolapsed anus.

Expand full comment

M. Nate, in case you hadn't noticed the current zeit geist, "anti-racist" does NOT mean "one who is opposed to racism."

Expand full comment

Nate it is a cult

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

I'll add antiracist/0 , which I'm all for.

Expand full comment

Outrageous? Whatever. Nothing racist though. You throw the word around as a weapon not as a way of seeking progress.

Expand full comment

"For example on the pandemic and other things." You can't be serious with this statement. A little clarification goes a long way Rachael.

Expand full comment

"many racist statements"? By whose definition?

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

This is why the concept of "intersectionality" was invented. Multiple vectors of oppression = higher placement in the progressive stack.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Don't believe the nonsense Nate is spouting. It's fake news.

Expand full comment

Now now you’re invoking Trump you’re going to make people crazy.

Expand full comment

Haha holy crap. Stop Glenn, he's already dead!

Expand full comment

"your petty vindictiveness"

Once again, you malign your readers with no reasonable basis OTHER than your BULLSHIT "logic".

Expand full comment

To all subscribers: Can you NOW see why this guy is a CLOWN???

Expand full comment

TDS victim.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson/tucker-carlsons-descent-white-supremacy-timeline Carlson is a racist white supremacist and right wing asshole.

Expand full comment

Posting a link to a Media Matters article does not strengthen your argument, it just exposes your pathological level of bias. Just sayin'.

Expand full comment

So those quotes from Carlson are not accurate?

Expand full comment

Whether or not the quote is from MediaMatters or someplace else, it doesn't matter if the quote is accurate. Or does it?

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

"racist screed"?? It cited quotes from Carlson about how racist he is. And I did no name calling.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

To Media Matters, any criticism of Barack Obama is proof of racism.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

"...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.

Expand full comment

Imagine thinking Media Matters is a persuasive source. Shocking ignorance, Nate.

Expand full comment

OK go ignore Carlson's quotes there.

Expand full comment

Find a new place to play gaslighter

Expand full comment

Media Matters, lol.

Expand full comment

Consider the course (Media Matters 🙄) - Tucker calls it as he sees it.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

You, otoh, can criticise Carlson to your heart's content. Don't let Glenn stop you.

Expand full comment

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????

Expand full comment

Stop letting your crazy relatives use your account to comment here, Nate.

Expand full comment

🤪 🤡 😜 💩🧻

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

sexist!

Expand full comment

Pretty much every cat I've ever known is sexist, judged by contemporary western human standards.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Errr…I’ve followed Greenwald since his Salon.com days. Right wingers are only following him now because he, rightly, is crapping on Democrats.

Expand full comment

The DNC media has been lying rampantly at least since about 2003.

When they started ramping for 2004 the entire media landscape changed.

Expand full comment

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?

Expand full comment

Disses Pete, not diddes! Democrats should be "diddes." No one deserves it more.

Expand full comment

…DISSES Democrats…

Expand full comment

Thanks for the clarification: I thought you meant dildos.

Expand full comment

I was leaning toward diddles.

Expand full comment

Well, we ARE discussing Maddow and Carlson, here…

Expand full comment

Jeez. Now I'VE GOT ONE OF THOSE LITTLE CIRCLES by my picture. Are these targets, or what?

Expand full comment

They denote that you are an author of another publication.

Now, depending on what exactly you author, they may make you a target...

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

You and Nate need to get a room, where you can swing your purses…

Expand full comment

CAT FIGHT!!!!

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Orez if all you want to do is curse me out then I have nothing to say to you.

Expand full comment