(04-27-2023, 08:56 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(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.

You didn't listen to him talk, and you claim you don't listen to anyone who talks about him. Then you also say that what you've read about him is bad, without it clicking for you that even that information is going through a filter. 

Help me understand how he is such a liar to you. From what we have so far, we know he thought Sidney Powell was a liar. He exposed her on his show. He was the first Fox News analyst to speak against her. He never said anything in support of her after his interview with her. All he said is we don't know the status of the machines. Unless you have something else that came out later, that doesn't seem like lying. His text also show he was mad at Fox brass for calling AZ too early. How is that lying? What else is there?

I think all pundits are corrupt at some level. It's too hard to avoid the money factor. I just don't see anything special about Tucker compared to anyone else. Where is the clamoring to get them fired? The biggest difference about Tucker is that advertisers started withholding, but he isn't more controversial than Dylan Mulvaney or Colin Kaepernick, right? He's not more controversial than Jeanine Pirro, right? So why do they want him off the air? If you actually listened to him speak, you might understand why advertisers don't like him. I don't believe it's because he's any more or less controversial than anyone else. He's just willing to attack his sponsors. That's not a bad thing.

---