Tucker Carlson in Buenos Aires

[sergio]

What about this sitting arrangement, by the way? Milei seemed very uncomfortable in that chair, like a schoolboy in the principal's office.

I didn't notice this. I thought Milei was very articulate. Readers may not agree with his opinions but he expressed himself with clarity and eloquence. I doubt that many members of Congress could do the same.

 

[Quilombo]

This is hard to believe as the youtubbe video has only one million views . There seems to be a dark hand behind this candidates rise to power in Argentina and the reasons are clear if you understand Argentinas geographical position and natural resources °

If people believe Twitter views are accurate (not just for Tucker's vids, but for anything posted there) I have a bridge to sell them. People have done some experiments such as creating new accounts, making them private with 0 followers, and then making a single post and it showing multiple views. Also, apparently the analytics is driven not by interactions (i.e. clicking on content or pausing scrolling to watch/read) but rather pure views, i.e. by this logic I read every article on La Nación because I scrolled down to the bottom. It's meant to juice numbers for advertisers since so many have left following Musk's bungling of running Twitter.

All that being said, I do believe millions of people have watched Tucker's interviews, just nowhere near the numbers shown.

Man, so I'm like a weirdo attorney and wild man business person. But, I really do appreciate your super thoughtful leftist takes that you contribute here. I don't really agree with you usually, but I genuinely appreciate your perspectives.

That said, Milei is a megastar in Miami and with people I know in Argentina. And I'm pretty sure he'll win. Like, the governing class has just discredited itself with the young people in a totally fundamental way - as Milei himself said, to paraphrase: 'you know, 100 years of pure failure, yeah, you're going to get me.'

Quel choc! The city filled with the rich and right wingers of LatAm likes Milei. Who'da thunk it?

 

[Big Swifty]

I must admit, I am not familiar with the details of the lawsuit.

So, the lawyers who represented Fox News in their defense strategy argued that Carson has no credibility. Based on the fact that they decided to settle anyway, it seems that this argument was not very successful.

Big story. It was all over the US and international news at the time. I'd imagine for obvious reasons FOX themselves barely mentioned it, if at all, given the entire basis of their defense in which they admitted Carlson has a lousy reputation, no credibility, and that no reasonable person should take him seriously. Google "fox news tucker carlson no reasonable viewer" and you'll get over half a million hits referring to the story about the legal case.

"Based on the fact that they decided to settle," is not actually a fact. The actual facts of the case are that FOX didn't settle with the plaintiff. The judge agreed with FOX lawyers and dismissed the case outright. So their argument that due to his reputation Carlson has no credibility was actually 100% successful. The facts of the case (not subjective opinions) are available from many different sources, but this is from the article I referenced in my previous post:

• A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit against Fox News after lawyers for the network argued that no "reasonable viewer" would take the network's primetime star Tucker Carlson seriously.
• The network asked a judge to dismiss the case, arguing that "Carlson's statements were not statements of fact and that she failed adequately to allege actual malice."

 

[Big Swifty]

• The judge agreed with Fox's premise, adding that the network "persuasively argues" that "given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statements he makes."
• "This 'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary,'" the ruling said.

It's obvious what FOX thinks of their viewers and why they wouldn't want to point any of this out by reporting on the results of their defamation lawsuit - even though they won. But as successful as his business model has been, it looks like it's coming back to bit Murdoch in the rear in that FOX (along with other "news" organizations, "pillow guy," and several others) will wind up paying Billions of $ in settlements and/or judgements for defaming Dominion and Smartmatic - which is also a huge, international story with plenty of details available to anyone with Google access.

I think "on air talent" as opposed to "journalist" is the more accurate descriptor for Carlson since journalists deal in "actual facts," and other FOX talent such as Sean Hannity have stated they don't consider themselves to be journalists. Tucker Carlson is the Professional Wrestling version of journalism. Everyone (at least those who FOX considers "reasonable") knows it's fake, but the fans don't care and cheer Carlson on regardless. If FOX itself successfully argued in federal court that a reasonable viewer shouldn't take Carlson seriously, why would anyone who considers themselves to be reasonable take anything Carlson says as anything but "exaggeration" and "non-literal commentary," both of which puts him more in the realm of Professional Wrestling Entertainment and not Journalism?

What this has to do with Milei is that instead of being asked tough, or even serious questions about his policies and the issues by an actual journalist, he's tossed softballs by an entertainer whose intent isn't to inform, but is to push an agenda and shape US opinion with a propagandist puff piece without any concern for facts at all.

 

[carride]

Carlson wrote critical comments about Trump in emails to Fox personnel. He also questioned US involvement in the Ukraine war. The latter was in contradiction to Fox positions and got him in trouble. Facts, readers, not fake news.

Exactly. The facts are all those messages from Tucker Carlson that are public record. Including the ones you mention. The non-facts are saying he was fired for any known reason, since there has been no public statement about why he was fired. So it is not possible to say if he was fired from his job because he said nasty things about his employer and co-workers, or if he went against Fox positions on Ukraine, or if he was fired because his messages were the reason they had to pay $787 million to avoid a defamation lawsuit.

 

[Big Swifty]

How is that modus operandi any different to how virtually all media and social media commentators operate?

I'd say the difference is that legitimate journalists and news organizations don't deal in conspiracy theories and spreading half-truths, whereas the ones under question seem to (lacking actual facts to support their arguments) exclusively rely on them. Not to say they always get it right, which is why you see the legitimate ones issue retractions and apologies when necessary instead of doubling down on the lies.

 

[Big Swifty]

and in emails to Fox personnel he was sharply critical of Trump.

Further evidence it's all an act and he doesn't genuinely believe what he's pushing on air. Like Trump, he has zero credibility.

 

[sergio]

Further evidence it's all an act and he doesn't genuinely believe what he's pushing on air. Like Trump, he has zero credibility.

It seems to me that he was always independent of Fox editorial positions. Because he was such an iconoclast he was fired. I also read that he opposed Fox's reporting on Trump, believing it to be misleading.

 

[sergio]

Further evidence it's all an act and he doesn't genuinely believe what he's pushing on air. Like Trump, he has zero credibility.

As for the interview with Milei, what matters is not how much 'credibility' Carlson has, rather how much credibility Milei has. I watched the interview to see what Milei had to say. Carlson just asked the questions. Why dwell on Carson rather than debate Milei's POSITIONS?

 

[Macanudo]

• The judge agreed with Fox's premise, adding that the network "persuasively argues" that "given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statements he makes."
• "This 'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary,'" the ruling said.

It's obvious what FOX thinks of their viewers and why they wouldn't want to point any of this out by reporting on the results of their defamation lawsuit - even though they won. But as successful as his business model has been, it looks like it's coming back to bit Murdoch in the rear in that FOX (along with other "news" organizations, "pillow guy," and several others) will wind up paying Billions of $ in settlements and/or judgements for defaming Dominion and Smartmatic - which is also a huge, international story with plenty of details available to anyone with Google access.

I think "on air talent" as opposed to "journalist" is the more accurate descriptor for Carlson since journalists deal in "actual facts," and other FOX talent such as Sean Hannity have stated they don't consider themselves to be journalists. Tucker Carlson is the Professional Wrestling version of journalism. Everyone (at least those who FOX considers "reasonable") knows it's fake, but the fans don't care and cheer Carlson on regardless. If FOX itself successfully argued in federal court that a reasonable viewer shouldn't take Carlson seriously, why would anyone who considers themselves to be reasonable take anything Carlson says as anything but "exaggeration" and "non-literal commentary," both of which puts him more in the realm of Professional Wrestling Entertainment and not Journalism?

What this has to do with Milei is that instead of being asked tough, or even serious questions about his policies and the issues by an actual journalist, he's tossed softballs by an entertainer whose intent isn't to inform, but is to push an agenda and shape US opinion with a propagandist puff piece without any concern for facts at all.

You consider these softball questions?
(0:00) Intro(3:32) Inflation(6:00) Gender ideology(9:57) Abortion(11:45) Pope Francis' affinity for dictators(14:45) Architecture(17:52) Advice to Americans and Donald Trump(22:23) Climate change(27:55) China(29:18) Prayer(30:39) Violent political protests

Who is on your list of actual journalists that don't do propaganda puff pieces?

John Pilger: Silencing The Lambs (How Propaganda Works) – OpEd

In the 1970s, I met one of Hitler’s leading propagandists, Leni Riefenstahl, whose epic films glorified the Nazis. We happened to be staying at the same lodge in Kenya, where she was on a photography assignment, having escaped the fate of other friends of the Führer. She told me that the...

www.eurasiareview.com