(04-27-2023, 08:02 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Or... maybe... if you would stop just digesting everything put in front of you and use your brain, you would consider that "blue-chip" advertisers pull their funding until he is removed because he reports on things they don't like, and controlling the narrative is ultimately more profitable. In an Ayn Rand capitalism, I have no problem with the idea that greed is good. This goes out the window when you have multiple subsidiaries, control of political regulation, and a disproportionate influence on the narrative via the media. If you don't think that's where we are with our corporate structure, you don't know anything about the world, man. Our corporations are out of control. They have virtually no accountability and unlimited wealth, for all intents and purposes.

How much Tucker do you actually watch. The dude has a seriously punchable face, and he's obnoxious. Conceded. But when you get to the root of what he's saying, how much of it is untrue or bad?

I don't watch any pundit-shows at all.  I don't listen to political talk radio or TV.  I don't need someone telling me what to think, and I don't get off on people reinforcing my opinions, especially when I have to watch commercials in between them telling everyone what to think.  

So I can't comment on how much of what Tucker Carlson says is true or untrue.  What I don't like about him is what has been revealed in the Dominion case, and that is, that he doesn't believe what he says he believes.  He's a phony.  That is a proven fact.  He's just telling people what they want to hear, and doing it for the money.  He's like Al Sharpton.  Same deal.

---