How we react to our enemies political opponents tells us a lot about ourselves. A lot of people do not like Tucker Carlson, despite (or because?) of the fact that a lot of Fox viewers really do like him a lot — he is a star, now.
So it may be instructive to consider one much-ballyhooed negative evaluation of The Tucker Phenomenon. Click on over to Townhall for today’s rumination.* Then click back here to consider the source(s).
- “The Mystery of Tucker Carlson,” by Lyz Lenz (Columbia Journalism Review)
- “What happened to Tucker Carlson? This journalist set out to find the answer.,” Reliable Sources Podcast (CNN Money)
- “Tucker Carlson” (Wikipedia)
- “Tucker Carlson versus Kurt Eichenwald: Heated Interview” (Fox News; YouTube)
* Note that the good folks at Townhall were not exactly onboard with Paul’s sarcastic title, so they changed it. Paul is in Europe, but this column will appear on this site on Tuesday.
1 reply on “Townhall: Let’s String Up Tucker Carlson!”
Treat others the way you want to be treated. As a person THINKS, leads to the WORDS used in expressing oneself, and these words ultimately leas to the ACTIONS a person takes. That includes, expressing yourself about others, whether that is an oral and/or a written, OUTPUT. Further, WORDS are sacred. WORDS are the only vessels the human has with which to convey TRUTH — and truth is an absolute, and not a ‘relative’ matter, as the secular humanist, assumes. IF WE THEN, knowing that WORDS are sacred, wittingly use them to mislead and/or deceive ‘others’ we lose our ABILITY to communicate meaningfully with those ‘others’, AND we lose our CREDIBILITY as a communicator. For you see, the ‘guardrails’ most heartland folks employ are ‘you LIE to me ONCE, and I’ll never hear/read another WORD you produce. I’ll relegate your expressive OUTPUT to the fiction aisles. So, how does this apply to Tucker Carlson you ask?
IMO Carlson is articulating what millions of Americans literally are thinking about. He names the ‘beast’ he’s addressing, and then describes the actions the beast he’s talking about, which are dishonest and remarkable in terms of the hypocrisy surrounding that ‘beast’ irregardless of age, gender, race, espoused ideology, nationality, or any other common variable one might think of. There are few reporters/journalists who can ‘think’ about so many measures simultaneously whilst still getting out the appropriated ‘objective’ of that one interview segment of his 1 hour show.
So any evaluation of Carlson depends upon the ‘lenzes’ [a play on a name] through which one is using when evaluating what is seen, heard and read by an author such as Lenz. THE MORAL OF THE STORY IS wise persons ‘mind’ their WORDS when critiquing ‘others’ expressive OUTPUTS. .