It's all fake

[Guest]

1 minute ago, W. Niederhut said:

Frankly, Matt, I'm shocked that an Englishman would allow himself to get so emotional.

Chris needs to get a grip on himself, at once, and carry on like a civilized representative of the British Empire. 🤓

It went over my head. I completely missed the ‘emotional’ or ‘raging’ part of my speech. I’ll just have to go with the idea that it’s in your imaginations. We have all sorts here. 

[Matt Allison]

 

And now it appears the Fake Christian crowd have weighed in with a theory:

 

 

[Matt Allison]

 

LOL

 

 

[Matt Allison]

 

But back here on Earth 1, we have new reporting about reasons for the firing:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/26/business/media/tucker-carlson-dominion-fox-news.html

 

"The day before Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation trial against Fox News was set to begin in a Delaware courthouse, the Fox board of directors and top executives made a startling discovery that helped lead to the breaking point between the network and Tucker Carlson, one of its top stars.

Private messages sent by Mr. Carlson that had been redacted in legal filings showed him making highly offensive and crude remarks that went beyond the inflammatory, often racist comments of his prime-time show and anything disclosed in the lead-up to the trial.

Despite the fact that Fox’s trial lawyers had these messages for months, the board and some senior executives were now learning about their details for the first time, setting off a crisis at the highest level of the company, according to two people with knowledge of the discussions.

The discovery added pressure on the Fox leadership as it sought to find a way to avoid a trial where Mr. Carlson — not to mention so many others at the network — would be questioned about the contents of the private messages they exchanged in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election.

Two days after the board’s discovery, Fox settled that case for $787.5 million, believed to be the highest for a defamation trial.

Several people with knowledge of Fox’s discussions said the redacted messages were a catalyst for one of the most momentous decisions Fox and its leaders — the father-son team of Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch — had made in years: to sever ties with the host of their highest-rated and highly profitable prime-time program and a face of the network in the Trump era."

[Matthew Koch]

2 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

You’re correct.
 

You can’t reason with those who haven’t the faculties to do so. It’s just a waste of time. 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

Lest we forget.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Bob Ness]

4 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Bob,

     I think you are referring to Tucker's misogyny, as it relates to the Abby Grossberg case, right?

     His "unprofessionalism" in the Dominion case-- lying about Stop-the-Steal-- was identical to what numerous other Fox talking heads did-- Hannity, Bartiromo, Pirro, et.al.

    Yet, Hannity didn't get canned for lying about Dominion.

     Also, misogyny and sexual harassment of women has been an integral part of Fox culture for years.

    So, I wonder about the story circulating today claiming that Murdoch fired Tucker Carlson, in disgust, after he called for a prayer at a recent Heritage Foundation meeting.

Those heads will probably roll too, but yeah, just ask Roger Ailes. Carlson may not have stooped that low but the entire organization is being shown publicly what it is. BTW this isn't unusual in network television. The culture has always been sub-celebrity in my experience. Little people who feel very self-important. I don't have a lot of experience with national networks but even the local weather guy at the affiliate station can be unbearable. This example with Fox is outside the norm and over the top but it's not shocking to me. Especially people who have cameras pointed at them. Our entire society looks at that as being some sort of validator.

Interestingly, I've known several huge film stars who are super-cool and famous at the same time. Morgan Freeman for example. These TV clowns are often human garbage. Nobody needed discovery in a lawsuit to figure it out either. Except their viewers.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Bob Ness

[Leslie Sharp]

 

 

 

 

Can anyone imagine John F. Kennedy saying, "hey, just overlook Carlson's male white supremacist, anti-Semitic, racist, homophobic, misogynistic inflammatory lying as long as he airs interviews of researchers and attorneys trying to dislodge the final tranche of government records that just MIGHT reveal the truth behind my assassination"? I think not.

Thirteen Terrible Things Tucker Carlson Said That DIDN'T Get Him Fired
Fox News has been protecting Tucker Carlson for years, and his departure from prime-time cable is long overdue 

by Nikki McCann Ramirez, Rolling Stone Magazine

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/tucker-carlson-fired-worst-things-he-said-racism-immigrants-1234722751/

 

Edited April 27, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Lawrence Schnapf]

i had many conversations with Tucker's producers and they were both genuinely interested in the JFK assassination and were eagerly seeking new information. Many of the liberal posters here may be blinded by their animus towards Tucker but he was an ally on this issue.  

[Matt Allison]

10 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

i had many conversations with Tucker's producers and they were both genuinely interested in the JFK assassination and were eagerly seeking new information.

Well, good for them.

Unfortunately that doesn't qualify as a pass for intensely abhorrent behavior elsewhere, does it?

12 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Many of the liberal posters here may be blinded by their animus towards Tucker but he was an ally on this issue.  

So to be repulsed by thoroughly disgusting behavior is now a trait only possessed by "liberals"?

As I warned months ago, and as Bob Ness so eloquently phrased it the other day, "Hitching your horse to a septic truck isn't the best strategy."

[W. Niederhut]

25 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

i had many conversations with Tucker's producers and they were both genuinely interested in the JFK assassination and were eagerly seeking new information. Many of the liberal posters here may be blinded by their animus towards Tucker but he was an ally on this issue.  

On the contrary, blindness about Tucker Carlson's well-documented dishonesty seems, rather, to be an attribute of his conservative fans.

As for Carlson's interest in the JFK assassination, many liberals here have welcomed it, myself included.

So, your comment is wrong on both accounts.

In other words, he's a turkey, but we're all grateful for his surprising interest in the JFK assassination.

[Lawrence Schnapf]

i dont think it is blindness on the part of many of his viewers much less than they liked what he was saying. others seemed to have find him entertaining. You may be able to appreciate his interest in the JFK assassination which is refreshing. Others here have questioned his motives and could not get over their hatred of him.   

[Lawrence Schnapf]

@Matt Allison I certainly was not giving him a "pass" on the other stuff he said. It is possible to be strategic and work with people we dont like or even loathe where there they share a common goal.  

[Bob Ness]

13 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

@Matt Allison I certainly was not giving him a "pass" on the other stuff he said. It is possible to be strategic and work with people we dont like or even loathe where there they share a common goal.  

So ask Stalin how well that worked? I'm being facetious but I really want you and Jeff to succeed not only because of my interest in the JFKA but in fact I quite like both of you and appreciate your hard work and sharing of your extensive knowledge. Don't think that goes unappreciated and my bet is many others here would say that also. 

My skepticism regarding Tucker's interest in your efforts and the wisdom of associating the effort with him is entirely because of my concern with you (and other's) potential to be sucked into the morass. I doubt that's happened, but the recent events haven't helped. Many of Tucker's other causes have been trashed simply because of his insipid behavior brings all of his positions into question, fair or not.

[Leslie Sharp]

' . . . The LaRouchites frequently attempt to build coalitions in a sly manner. For instance activist Lanny Sinkin, a former attorney for the Christic Institute, appeared at a March, 1991 post-war panel sponsored by a Washington, D.C. group called The Time is Now. Also on the panel were two key LaRouche operatives and a leader of The Time is Now. According to a staff member of the Washington Peace Center, members of The Time is Now worked closely with the LaRouchians and thoroughly disrupted the political work of the Washington Area Coalition to Stop U.S. Intervention in the Middle East during January and February, 1991. When members of The Time is Now passed out LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review at a February meeting, they were asked to leave the coalition. When criticized by the Peace Center staffer, Sinkin defended his appearance at the conference as legitimate outreach, according to the staffer.

When criticized by the Peace Center staffer, Sinkin defended his appearance at the conference as legitimate outreach, according to the staffer.

Sinkin says he was unaware when invited that LaRouchites would also be on the panel, and he vigorously denies that he has ever had any ongoing relationship with the LaRouchians or that his actions were improper. Sinkin says that his appearance reflected his commitment to speaking to broad audiences. Organizers at the Washington Peace Center counter that Sinkin’s presence at the meeting lent credibility to two groups that were disrupting their work.

The issue here is not one of implying any type of ongoing relationship between Sinkin and the LaRouchians. No such relationship exists. But for the Washington Peace Center, Sinkin’s appearance on the same platform with the LaRouchians served as an implicit endorsement, suggesting by example that joint work with the LaRouchians was acceptable at the same time that the Peace Center was telling members of the local antiwar coalition that joint work with the LaRouchians was unacceptable.

A number of experienced antiwar activists warn that working with the LaRouchians and other far-right and bigoted forces will only discredit serious work towards peace in the Middle East. Jon Hillson is a seasoned political organizer and peace activist based in Ohio who already knew the history of the LaRouchians. Hillson reported LaRouche organizers at events sponsored by the Cleveland Committee Against War in the Persian Gulf. At one meeting, “Two people went through the crowd handing out LaRouche’s New Federalist,” says Hillson. “I was shocked, but then I realized most students had never heard of LaRouche,” says Hillson. “I would urge people to disavow any collaboration with them because of their past ties to government agencies…and their homophobic, racist, sexist, and anti-Semitic agenda.” Hillson notes that it will take patience to explain to new activists why a broad-based coalition should exclude anyone, but that the task of educating people that coalitions with fascists should be rejected is not one to be ignored. . . .' — Chip Berlet, Right Woos Left, February 1997

https://politicalresearch.org/1999/02/27/right-woos-left