Where does Tucker Carlson go next? – UnHerd (2024)

You had already posted that quote earlier. I have read that quote at least 100x. It would take ten posts for me to explain why that quote is not persuasive to me because its out of context.

So let’s assume for the sake of this question that you and I disagree on whether the quote matters.

You dodged the question as I predicted you would. Again, I ask you- Please name a SINGLE INDIVIDUAL in the Mainstream Media that I should trust more than Tucker Carlson?

Seriously? I answered your question, just not in a way you liked. But , OK, two names: John Harris, who writes for a variety of publications and did the Anywhere But Westminster podcasts where he travelled round the country visiting dozens of communities to find out why people actually voted for Brexit, or Chris Stirewalt, ex Fox News Editor who made the decision to call Arizona for Biden, which cost him his job.

I could name dozens more but I can’t see the point. You categorised me as a ‘Progressive’, whatever you think that is, but I’m not. I’m an individual, I don’t belong to any party or movement, I make my mind up based on facts and evidence, although I do read a variety of opinions from across the spectrum. I am also influenced by my Catholic upbringing so I believe in the Christian values of compassion and tolerance and refuse to hate other people because of their colour, race, sexuality or religion. That means I also make decisions on whether political decisions or people involved accord with those values.

I think Carlson is a worthless grifter because he lies, stirs up hatred and division and demonises others, just for his gratification and to make money. And because he offends my values. You can choose to disagree,.

Thank you. I genuinely appreciate your response. Now let me explain why I think we diverge.

You’re correct that Tucker is an entertainer but he’s also a True journalist. He operates somewhere between Hard News Reporting and Comedy like say John Oliver. He does this because sometimes the absurd is more effectively satirized to show the irony. However, I can see how that would be confusing for people relying on second hand sources.

You’re taking a literalist approach to a quote that needs to be satirically contextualized as if John Oliver or Jon Stewart said it.

I’ll give you an example from CNN’s “Hard News” anchor Jake Tapper. The other day he called Robert F Kennedy Jr (who announced a Presidential run against Biden) a “vaccine quack.” Clearly Tapper is stating a satirical opinion not simply reporting the news. He’s not literally saying RFK Jr is a duck. His comment isn’t meant to be taken literally and no one should.

What’s more concerning is that someone reporting “hard news” would take a political position in favor of entrenched power and treat his opinion as fact.

The difference between Tucker and Tapper is that Tucker’s audience knows when he crosses the barrier between satire and hard news.

So when you say Tucker is “divisive” I would ask when is it OK to ruthlessly critique dishonest narratives and how would someone do so without being divisive?

But Fox and Carlson pushed the dishonest narrative that Trump won the 2020 election, which led to the attack on January 6th, the deaths, the rise of dishonest election deniers and the resulting loss of faith in the US election system.

Fox and Carlson knew this, as the Dominion case proved, but went along with the lie on commercial grounds, not for any noble purpose (Carlson’s comment asking for a Fox colleague to be sacked because “look at the stock price”).

Anyone who propagates such a lie, without the irony you claim viewers can spot, is not remotely one of the good guys.

Again, this is not based on any political bias but the facts and evidence that Biden won the election. Anyone is entitled to dislike that outcome but not to incite violence by pretending it didn’t happen.

I suspect we won’t convince each other to change our opinions so we should leave it there?

Oh I absolutely think I could convince you that Tucker is legit. Whether you have the intestinal fortitude to challenge your own convictions is up to you but I promise your mental cognition will dramatically increase if you interrogate your own narratives.

You’re conflating two issues and it’s scrambling your own narrative. Tucker did not blame Dominion. In fact, he lost viewers because he couldn’t confirm Sidney Powell’s allegations of electronic ballot manipulation. Tucker, like many believe that the less secure, difficult to verify mail voting process combined with the Mainstream Media’s control of information which included censorship of negative stories made the election impossible to trust. (There are actually about 50 additional reasons that I don’t have space for).
President Trump’s four years were highlighted by years of rigged election claims and investigations. Speech on the 2016 election was not only encouraged it was considered patriotic. After the 2020 election, speech on the topic was immediately censored as misinformation and disinformation. It is now “Anti-government” to question election results. This change in speech allowance is extremely evident to open minded people that humbly challenge their own bias.

You’re far from dumb. You’re just relying on second hand sources and its creating a confirmation bias that’s preventing you from questioning if you actually have the facts right.

We all rely on second hand sources unless we were personally at an event. Tucker Carlson is a second hand source. You also talk about the Mainstream Media but Fox is the epitome of mainstream media, it’s part of Rupert Murdoch’s multi billion dollar world wide media operation. Newsmax and OAN are mainstream media, well funded by rich investors. They are all in the business of making money.

There was no concerted effort to overturn the 2016 election, that’s simply not true. But in 2020, Trump did attempt to overturn a free and fair election. Why was it free and fair? Because all the relevant authorities , both in Red and Blue states said so. The Justice Department, under William Barr said so, the Department for Homeland Security said so. And despite all the noise, not one shred of evidence has been produced to show otherwise.

The integrity of voting machines was one element and the claims of malpractice in the use of the machines was pushed hard by Fox. And because it was totally untrue they had to pay Dominion $787m, and will probably pay out more to Smartmatic.

Trump is being investigated for his attempt to pressure Raffensberger in Georgia and his role in the attack on the Capital. Again these things happened, they’re not some conspiracy, we got to hear the phone call and see the attack.

This was a fundamental attempt to interfere with a cornerstone of any functioning democracy, the transfer of power after a free and fair election and, sorry, there’s no way you can spin it or sugar coat it to change that.

I genuinely don’t have any confirmation bias, but as I said before I look at the facts and the evidence. They show that Trump and his enablers in his party and the mainstream media tried to turn the USA into a banana republic, to their eternal shame. Because, as you kindly said, I’m not dumb.

You’re exactly right that we all rely on second hand sources. If Tucker Carlson, Fox News, New York Post, Washington Times and Sky News were my only sources, I would be living in an Echo Chamber. But they’re not. I try to study every mainstream and independent media source and make an informed opinion based of a Buffet of News Reports and Alternative viewpoints from the Left and Right. If someone is reporting a Fact, I will listen. It doesn’t matter if I agree with them politically. Your understanding of the Facts is both rational and understandable given the way you prioritize sources. The Social Engineers want you relying on “The Experts” and the “Experts” then tell you who to trust because they know you probably don’t have enough time to wade through a variety of sources.

What the Internet has done is overwhelm the masses with information. So Politicians and Corporate interests (rightfully) understand that if Information is centralized into a “Narrative Consensus” with an Algorithm where the population is spoonfed a simple Narrative about Good and Evil, Fact and Fiction, Love and Hate it is much easier for the population to digest it.

Centralization of information is how Authoritarians have operated throughout History. The World didn’t know about the Holodomor (Ukrainian Famine) until Kruschev decided to blame Stalin twenty plus years later.

You’ve constructed a Narrative created by the left wing of the Establishment Media (which currently controls the overwhelming majority of the media). There was absolutely a massive effort to discredit the 2016 election. Trump was deemed an illegitimate President from Day One. The Mueller Investigation was initiated based on the Idea that Russia colluded with Trump to change the outcome of the 2016 election. The overwhelming majority of the left did not accept that Trump won the 2016 election in a fair manner. If you like, I can easily point you to over a thousand sources.

But through a process of information overload and narrative control, History has been re-written just as is always done by Centralizers that understand Narrative Control is the key to Institutional Control.

Believe me or don’t believe me. You’re free to choose. But you appear to be a person of good faith and I hope you realize I am too. I don’t always get things right but I try to understand diverse perspectives and I think doing that gives me a far better chance of processing reality than if I simply relied on a Politically controlled reproduction of information.