Thankyou, Tucker Carlson!!

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Larry S--

Unfortunately, even the threat of expensive if specious lawsuits can have a chilling effect of journalism. 

Some may chortle now as Fox is the target, but this axe can swing both ways. 

Is there a way for Fox to recover legal costs plus punitive damages? 

The point is that what Tucker practices is "journalism" not journalism. 

I once went to dinner with David Lifton after a movie screening of John Barbour's movie. The idea was that we could have a respectful conversation. In no time at all, a number of fanboys surrounded Lifton and demanded all his attention, which he was more than happy to provide. This left me and my friend at the other end of the table, chatting with a "journalist" who'd attended the screening. It turned out he was the guy who "broke" the "story" about Ted Cruz's dad's (actually non-existent) connections to Oswald. When I confronted him on this he agreed that there wasn't much there there, but defended his "scoop" on the grounds it got picked up by those pushing a certain political candidate, and could be used against another candidate. The "truth" of the story was immaterial--it could be used to help someone who's had nothing but help his whole freakin' life so therefore it was valuable. 

This kind of "journalism" should not be protected, and those victimized by such "journalism" should have recourse in the courts. And no, it isn't chilling. Far more chilling is when powerful interests use the courts to stifle dissent and truth through the use of NDA's, and the threat of counter-suit. I spent an evening once with a journalist who was nearly killed in a terrorist explosion she thought was sponsored by the CIA. She sued the government. The government in turn ruined her by running up unnecessary and excessive legal bills, and then convincing a judge she should cover the costs.

This imbalance of power--and Murdoch has a lot more of it than anyone suing him--makes "justice" in this country a pipe dream. No tears for Rupert.

 

 

Edited March 16, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Benjamin Cole]

4 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The point is that what Tucker practices is "journalism" not journalism. 

I once went to dinner with David Lifton after a movie screening of John Barbour's movie. The idea was that we could have a respectful conversation. In no time at all, a number of fanboys surrounded Lifton and demanded all his attention, which he was more than happy to provide. This left me and my friend at the other end of the table, chatting with a "journalist" who'd attended the screening. It turned out he was the guy who "broke" the "story" about Ted Cruz's dad's (actually non-existent) connections to Oswald. When I confronted him on this he agreed that there wasn't much there there, but defended his "scoop" on the grounds it got picked up by those pushing a certain political candidate, and could be used against another candidate. The "truth" of the story was immaterial--it could be used to help someone who's had nothing but help his whole freakin' life so therefore it was valuable. 

This kind of "journalism" should not be protected, and those victimized by such "journalism" should have recourse in the courts. And no, it isn't chilling. Far more chilling is when powerful interests use the courts to stifle dissent and truth through the use of NDA's, and the threat of counter-suit. I spent an evening once with a journalist who was nearly killed in a terrorist explosion she thought was sponsored by the CIA. She sued the government. The government in turn ruined her by running up unnecessary and excessive legal bills, and then convincing a job she should cover the costs.

This imbalance of power--and Murdoch has a lot more of it than anyone suing him--makes "justice" in this country a pipe dream. No tears for Rupert.

 

 

PS-

Egads, by that standard, most of M$M would have to pay huge legal bills for the last six years. 

Obviously, the networks and cable shows have aligned themselves with political parties. Truth is not on the agenda. This reminds me of old-fashioned machine politics and city "newspapers" of day gone by. 

There was no M$M intention of getting to the truth of Wuhan lab leak---only to see that C19 fit a narrative, and that alternative narratives were censored. A rather important topic, with serious consequences. No matter. 

The same applies to many, many events, which I will not mention, as those events will trigger evidently uncontrollable emotions. 

But maybe this can be discussed: We have seen the Ohio rail catastrophe, and then the SVB bank collapse. 

You know Trump was personally responsible for those events (blue kool-aid), but no! It was Biden (red kool-aid).

Can Norfolk Southern and SVB fire up the lawsuits? Surely, news organizations must know they are regurgitating kool-aid inspired narratives, not the "truth." 

Let us hope Dominion does not prevail, in what looks similar to a SLAPP suit. 

I wonder if this NYT magazine cover-story article is what Dominion is so touchy on the topic? 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/magazine/election-security-crisis-midterms.html

Voting machines are very vulnerable to hacking, is the thrust of the story.

Now, no longer a story. 

Stay open minded, stay independent.  

Much of Fox reporting is dreadful, btw. But then, CNN and MSNBC? The NYT? WaPo? 

 

 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Pat Speer- your last post about your dinner with Lifton and the "journalist" reminds me of the time I received a call from a reported from the National Enquirer. He said his editor wanted a story that the Soviets were behind the assassination and wanted some quotes from me. I explained to him why I did not believe that was the case. He said he understood but that his editor wanted the story. I told him I would not lend my name (or quotes) to the article. 

This form of fake news ("Yellow Journalism" as it was called in the late 19th century) has been around since the beginning of newspapers. When we were kids, checkout counters were populated with these tabloids. The First Amendment protected those tabloids in the same way that it protected Vietnam War protestors when they burned  draft cards and american flags.  It also allowed a rally of National Socialists in Madison Square Garden in 1939 or  invalidated an injunction that would have prevented National Socialists to march in Skokie, Ill.  in 1977 where many Holocaust survivors lived. 

The First Amendment is the most important right we have and how the right is respected is a measure of the strength of our democracy...even when the speech is reprehensible.             

[Leslie Sharp]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Yes. I respect your views. I may have different views in some areas.  

I encourage your civil participation in this forum, and that of others who have alternative views. 

 

I'm sorry Ben, and maybe others are satisfied with responses of this nature from you, but when faced with facts, you persistently deflect with "well that's your view". And then you implore everyone to be civil and "express their views".  

 

As I understand it, Simkin - a serious historian -  launched this forum decades ago for the purpose of presenting facts and allowing for debate.  You seem to  think the purpose of the forum is to express "views".  

FACT, as presented in the Time magazine piece, Trump sued the government for defamotion for a huge sum of money having been charged with willful violation of the Fair Housing Act.  If you won't acknowledge those FACTS, then it would seem you're not engaging in good faith.  

[Leslie Sharp]

4 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

How about we move on from Tucker Carlson altogether?

His credibility factor has been diminished to Trump defending propaganda hack level and he is one of the most divisive figures in American media.

I say to those of the JFKA research community who are looking for a well known media figure to champion as their crusader and to promote their agenda... how about someone less controversial and more trusted in the objective truth news reporting department?

Bill Maher? Chris Hayes? Chris Como? Liz Chaney is available.

I nominate Ari Melber who seems well-read on Tucker's professional trajectory all the way to Murcoch's media conglomerate. The contradictions along the way are spelled out in this segment.  

Let them go mano-a-mano re. the JFK Records Act publicly. 

Who is Melber's producer, and who might have a 2-3 degree access? https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari/watch/see-tucker-carlson-hackery-exposed-over-decades-

Seems like a natural fit.

 

Edited March 16, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Matt Allison]

There seems to be some bizarre beliefs among right-wingers about MSNBC, simply because MSNBC reports facts and news that makes MAGAs and the GOP look bad. 

If that bums out the GOP, then they should maybe chill out on making bad decisions that end up making the news, hmm?

With regard to Ari Melber and Chris Hayes, they would have no problem at all wanting the gov to release the rest of the JFK files. Absolutely none. MSNBC reports on every piece of new JFK news without fail.

However I don't think they would want to be associated in any way with Tucker Carlson or any crusade he is on, because Tucker Carlson is incredibly unpopular with everyone but the 3-4 million people that watch him, and is known for lying to his viewers- not something real journalists like Ari Melber and Chris Hayes want to be connected to.

Remember- journalists reporting bad behavior by the GOP or MAGA doesn't make them "liberal media", it means they are reporting reality, and if reality makes the GOP or MAGA look bad, that's not the fault of the messenger.

 

[Pat Speer]

49 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Pat Speer- your last post about your dinner with Lifton and the "journalist" reminds me of the time I received a call from a reported from the National Enquirer. He said his editor wanted a story that the Soviets were behind the assassination and wanted some quotes from me. I explained to him why I did not believe that was the case. He said he understood but that his editor wanted the story. I told him I would not lend my name (or quotes) to the article. 

This form of fake news ("Yellow Journalism" as it was called in the late 19th century) has been around since the beginning of newspapers. When we were kids, checkout counters were populated with these tabloids. The First Amendment protected those tabloids in the same way that it protected Vietnam War protestors when they burned  draft cards and american flags.  It also allowed a rally of National Socialists in Madison Square Garden in 1939 or  invalidated an injunction that would have prevented National Socialists to march in Skokie, Ill.  in 1977 where many Holocaust survivors lived. 

The First Amendment is the most important right we have and how the right is respected is a measure of the strength of our democracy...even when the speech is reprehensible.             

Freedom of speech is one thing. Freedom to lie with the specific intent of injuring others with your lies is another. In this case, there was also an explicitly expressed profit motive. Fox is in deep doo-doo, and if they are not, then we're all in the crapper. 

[Leslie Sharp]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

IMHO, we should listen to Larry S., and heed his words regarding the JFKA and the Dominion case. 

Base base makes for bad law: If the Dominion case succeeds, expect less press freedom in the US. As it is, one could also review the Dominion suit as a SLAPP suit. Are they just trying to shut Fox up? 

If Tucker Carlson is pushing for full release of the JFKA records, then he is an ally. 

As it is, the EF might have a readership in the dozens, if that. If we drive away half the potential readership through endless blue-red pissing wars...well, then you are left with a half-dozen aging very opinionated Donks sharing anti-Trump tropes (repeatedly). 

A zero influence echo chamber, gaseous, and no windows. 

The JFKA should be a big tent community. When new members post, they should be treated civilly. 

As it is, the EF might have a readership in the dozens. . .

Ben, you've repeated that a couple of times just since I joined the forum last week, so I assume you've said it in the past as well.  I admonished you recently that you have no idea who is following the JFK EF deliberations. Within a day or so , the complete now infamous EF thread had been disseminated on two websites with respectable readership numbers. The ripple effect would be difficult to calculate, but I do think you underestimate the moccasin telegraph.

[Lawrence Schnapf]

MSNBC and NBC reported in the morning after the record dump but they have not followed up despite efforts by the MFF team. And I dont remember any in-depth segments during the evening broadcast and I searched for them. a 30 second segment is not covering the issue. 

When I interviewed Alec Baldwin in 2017, I asked him why Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews and others on progressive channels supported the Oswald as lone gunman narrative. He then told of his experience when he had a show on NBC and they cancelled a program he was going to air for the 50th anniversary. He said he was told by a senior producer that it was the policy of the network to support the official conclusion.

and this is the network that refused to turn over assassination records to the ARRB and declines to allow the Darnall film to be studies using modern forensic techniques.

Hence, my comments about NBC and MSNBC are based on their own actions or obstructions, and not some ring wing paranoia (P.S  I do not consider myself right wing in case you were grouping me into that category).    

[Leslie Sharp]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

PS-

Egads, by that standard, most of M$M would have to pay huge legal bills for the last six years. 

Obviously, the networks and cable shows have aligned themselves with political parties. Truth is not on the agenda. This reminds me of old-fashioned machine politics and city "newspapers" of day gone by. 

There was no M$M intention of getting to the truth of Wuhan lab leak---only to see that C19 fit a narrative, and that alternative narratives were censored. A rather important topic, with serious consequences. No matter. 

The same applies to many, many events, which I will not mention, as those events will trigger evidently uncontrollable emotions. 

But maybe this can be discussed: We have seen the Ohio rail catastrophe, and then the SVB bank collapse. 

You know Trump was personally responsible for those events (blue kool-aid), but no! It was Biden (red kool-aid).

Can Norfolk Southern and SVB fire up the lawsuits? Surely, news organizations must know they are regurgitating kool-aid inspired narratives, not the "truth." 

Let us hope Dominion does not prevail, in what looks similar to a SLAPP suit. 

I wonder if this NYT magazine cover-story article is what Dominion is so touchy on the topic? 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/magazine/election-security-crisis-midterms.html

Voting machines are very vulnerable to hacking, is the thrust of the story.

Now, no longer a story. 

Stay open minded, stay independent.  

Much of Fox reporting is dreadful, btw. But then, CNN and MSNBC? The NYT? WaPo? 

 

 

https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari/watch/see-tucker-carlson-hackery-exposed-over-decades-165357637632
I challenge you to watch this, Ben.

 

[Leslie Sharp]

1 hour ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Joe Bauer- I agree 100% Joe. Bill Maher would be great. how about some of you contact his producers? Likewise with Chris Hayes. One thing I've learned from my recent media experience is that the producers control the shows. The hosts are simply the faces of the shows.  

Ari Melber seems the obvious candidate. https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari/watch/see-tucker-carlson-hackery-exposed-over-decades-165357637632

[Leslie Sharp]

4 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

How about we move on from Tucker Carlson altogether?

His credibility factor has been diminished to Trump defending propaganda hack level and he is one of the most divisive figures in American media.

I say to those of the JFKA research community who are looking for a well known media figure to champion as their crusader and to promote their agenda... how about someone less controversial and more trusted in the objective truth news reporting department?

Bill Maher? Chris Hayes? Chris Como? Liz Chaney is available.

https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari/watch/see-tucker-carlson-hackery-exposed-over-decades-165357637632

[Leslie Sharp]

49 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

There seems to be some bizarre beliefs among right-wingers about MSNBC, simply because MSNBC reports facts and news that makes MAGAs and the GOP look bad. 

If that bums out the GOP, then they should maybe chill out on making bad decisions that end up making the news, hmm?

With regard to Ari Melber and Chris Hayes, they would have no problem at all wanting the gov to release the rest of the JFK files. Absolutely none. MSNBC reports on every piece of new JFK news without fail.

However I don't think they would want to be associated in any way with Tucker Carlson or any crusade he is on, because Tucker Carlson is incredibly unpopular with everyone but the 3-4 million people that watch him, and is known for lying to his viewers- not something real journalists like Ari Melber and Chris Hayes want to be connected to.

Remember- journalists reporting bad behavior by the GOP or MAGA doesn't make them "liberal media", it means they are reporting reality, and if reality makes the GOP or MAGA look bad, that's not the fault of the messenger.

 

However I don't think they would want to be associated in any way with Tucker Carlson or any crusade he is on . . .
 I agree Matt, and that's the blowback, or backlash of doing business with Carlson.  Legitimate broadcast media will likely weigh the risks and decide that aligning with Carlson on the Records Act while navigating these treacherous waters is simply untenable.

If I were a producer at MSNBC, I would ask, why the hell wasn't this dealt with in 2017? Did Tucker jump on board the bandwagon when Trump failed to release?

From a strictly PR perspective, the optics are terrible. Those questions are the elephant in the room with this push by JFKA attorneys and should be addressed head on, including with Carlson directly, and followed by a press release laying out his answers. Attempts to sweep this issue under the rug will backfire.

Edited March 16, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

5 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Leslie - even though I share your fears regarding Carlson, other more moderate on air anchors aren’t yet willing to step up to the plate. Larry and co would have taken any opening they got I’m sure. If by taking up the story Carlson made it more difficult to make the lobbying bi-partisan, I doubt that was why he did so. Other nefarious reasons may exist of course. But whatever the case, it’s still necessary to build some kind of coalition. There is no going back. 
You asked the right question - how can we break the logjam on the Democratic side? 

Thanks, Paul.  As I lobbied with several other comments on this thread, I nominate Ari Melber at MSNBC (and not simply because he's a music afficionado!). It would be timely considering his recent pieces on both Carlson, and Trump's attorney in the Stormy Daniels case, Joe Tacopina.

Melber is measured, as likable a personality as Carlson is to many including moderates, and well-read. And a licensed attorney which Carlson is not. I don't think Melber carries the baggage Maddow has with the JFKA community, and certainly he's less controversial than Bill Mahr who imv would be the frying pan into the fire. 

https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari/watch/see-tucker-carlson-hackery-exposed-over-decades-165357637632

https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari/watch/charges-see-trump-defense-lawyer-grilled-by-ari-melber-full-msnbc-interview-165343813639. (watch Tacopina try to grab a paper from Melber. I've never seen that during an interview. I couldn't help but think of the phrase, "desperate moves by desperate men.")

 

Edited March 16, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

3 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Joe Bauer- I agree 100% Joe. Bill Maher would be great. how about some of you contact his producers? Likewise with Chris Hayes. One thing I've learned from my recent media experience is that the producers control the shows. The hosts are simply the faces of the shows.  

Am I the only one that sees Maher as controversial and hardly a credible journalist? I don't think he even purports to be.  If Maher, why not Jon Stewart then?  

Currently, Carlson is being taken seriously by millions regardless of journalistic standards, so the antidote must be a serious journalist.   Hayes works, but Melber is a better fit.

As I lobbied with several other comments on this thread, I nominate Ari Melber at MSNBC (and not simply because he's a music afficionado!). It would be timely considering his recent pieces on both Carlson, and Trump's attorney in the Stormy Daniels case, Joe Tacopina.

Melber is measured, as likable a personality as Carlson is to many including moderates, and well-read. And a licensed attorney which Carlson is not. I don't think Melber carries the baggage Maddow has with the JFKA community, and certainly he's less controversial than Bill Maher who imv would be the frying pan into the fire. 

https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari/watch/see-tucker-carlson-hackery-exposed-over-decades-165357637632

https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari/watch/charges-see-trump-defense-lawyer-grilled-by-ari-melber-full-msnbc-interview-165343813639. 

Edited March 16, 2023 by Leslie Sharp