Hi Nellie,
Very nice TGIF this week. Thank you. I would ask that you define the word "provocateur" that you deployed against Candace Owens to describe and subtly discredit her. In today's sorry state of journalism, I find that term is mostly used by less-than-deep-thinkers to discredit somebody whom they disagree with but haven't deve…
Very nice TGIF this week. Thank you. I would ask that you define the word "provocateur" that you deployed against Candace Owens to describe and subtly discredit her. In today's sorry state of journalism, I find that term is mostly used by less-than-deep-thinkers to discredit somebody whom they disagree with but haven't developed a cogent argument to debate with, and I'm confident that you (and Common Sense) don't fit into that category. Attempting to kill a perspective by using such terms is kind of a "dick punch" and well below your ambition to find truth, isn't it? "It is better to debate questions and not settle them than to settle questions without debating them." Merry Christmas
Candace Owens speaks the truth about what is going on and without regard for backlash. I find that to be refreshing.
You should see her new documentary on Daily Wire "The Greatest Lie Ever Told, George Floyd and the Rise of BLM"
Her book "Blackout" was pretty good too.
Her series on vaccines called "A Shot in the Dark" free on Parlor is educating an entire generation of women/men on the truth about the vaccine schedule, one shot at a time. It's interesting and alarming to see how "we" have gone along being Pharma's guinea pigs for so long.
Here is an interesting 6 min video of a pilot study conducted comparing Vaccinated to Unvaccinated (not CV19 vaccine, but all vaccines to date) You can make up your own mind about what you see here.
In Sales we would call this "filling your pipeline".
Take a perfect infant that would otherwise likely never need a doctor or medicine and introduce foreign, man-made matter on a regular schedule and you have now created a potential life-long patient for both the physicians and the drug companies.
It's a wise profit strategy, but not very humane.
Once you learn this information you can't unlearn it.
It's an accurate term. Owens is a provocateur. So is Hannity and the gang at Fox Intotainment, and so are Rachel Maddow and her left-wing equivalents. They make millions from provoking people, and so they are provocateurs.
We know this intimately because of how Hannity, Ingraham, and others reacted on January 6: each of them emailed Mark Meadow during the insurrection/riot to urge Trump to speak out publicly to halt the destruction because the MAGA rioters were "ruining things." Yet, later that night, they all went on the air and blamed not Trump and not MAGA rioters, but "Antifa, BLM, and Deep State Actors" for the destruction. That was a complete and utter lie, and they knew it. But the spewed it anyway for clicks, likes, and ad revenue.
It's all show biz. Candace Owens is in show business. QED.
I'm not so much interested in any of those other names you named, and I'm happy to respectfully disagree that urging somebody, anybody, to do something to quell violence on Jan 6 is provocative. To me, that's simply doing the right thing. But you didn't provide any color or specificity about Candace Owens that makes her a provocateur in your opinion for me to further the conversation. Maybe give me an example or two that proves the "accuracy" of her being a provocateur rather than somebody who might only have a different perspective than yours. We'd get nowhere if we all resorted to calling each other names, right?
It was not provocative to urge Trump to take to the airwaves to end January 6. I agree it was the right thing to do. It was outrageous to know to a certainty who was responsible for the insurrection riot and then go on your own airwaves four hours later to blame everyone who wasn't part of it. The hypocrisy was staggering, even for the Fox den.
I didn't call her a provocateur as a slur. It's a job description. Rachel Maddow is one on the left. Their job is to stir the pot for drama, and they do it well. "Accuracy" is a goal, but not a requirement.
You act as if the provocateurs are Fox on the right and MSNBC on the left, with the great "middle" being simply fair actors, calling balls and strikes. Hardly. The MSM is reviled because they all sing from the same hymnal. MSNBC is simply the most virulent of the bunch, with the laughable CNN not far behind. And while I'm not a fan of either Hannity or Ingraham (a shrill phony), I do believe Tucker Carlson speaks for most people who are utterly fed up with the lies and self dealing of the political class and so-called "elites." His is a populist conservatism that is growing faster than you imagine.
I don't consider the MSM to be neutral umpires. Their pure news reporting divisions might be, but their columnists and opinion makers are as much provocateurs as Ingraham. They need the "infotainment" side in order to avoid going bankrupt--pure, honest, neutral news reporting is boring to most readers and viewers, will not generate likes, clicks, and viral videos, and thus will not raise the Benjamins necessary to keep the network or newspaper alive.
The problem is that most readers and viewers cannot tell one from the other, and think that "all the media are slanted." The opinion side is slanted as hell, because that's its job. The hard news side of MSM is still pretty evenhanded, though I see much more editorializing creeping into news coverage than I like or want.
I think we're all fed up with the double- and self-dealing of the self-proclaimed elites and politicians. I don't like Tucker Carlson and I wish he weren't leading the charge against it. But someone's got to do it.
That's the problem. Nobody else is. If journalists were serious, he'd be one of many. But he isn't. That's why I like and respect him. Not without flaws, but he asks serious questions. Big ones.
Agreed: no one else is. The MSM is not speaking truth to power, in large part because so many of the MSM are in the same elite cultural and financial classes. When I was in the big-city newspaper business, reporters were primarily intelligent and well-read blue-collar folks who were suspicious of the Swells and enjoyed asking them tough, embarrassing questions. That hasn't been the case for years ... a "tough" exchange now consists of, "Mr. President, some say you're too old for the job." "I'm not, Sherry." "Oh, okay, thank you, Mr. President."
There are some good reporters out there of all stripes. Berenson, Greenwald, O'Keefe, Taibbi. I noticed a street in NYC last night called "Jimmy Breslin Way." Brought to mind your comment. Also loved Pete Hamill. Guys who loved to torture the rich and powerful.
The problem isn’t really calling Candace a provocateur, because she is. The problem is when you fail to ALSO call Chris Hayes a provocateur, because he’s worse. Or Katy Tur who is similarly a provoca……Tur.
It’s only a small point though because unbalanced coverage of political commentators like Candace usually is non-consequential.
On the other hand, if you are viciously roasting Donald Trump for lying about Dominion Voting Machines, which did unintentionally cause a riot……but then you’re giving a pass to every single Democrat who is currently *intentionally* laying the groundwork for nationwide violence in 2022 based on the Biggest Lie that black people are being denied the vote by Jim Crow 2.0…….now we have a problem. That matters. A lot.
Not that you’re doing that at all, just giving an example. Merry Christmas!!
I love how people supported Trump because they were sick of Republicans repeatedly failing to restrain the federal government……and then this exposed the fact that 40% of the people working at the top levels of Republican politics were literally MSNBC contributors in disguise……..which totally explains the ‘failing to restrain’ part.
Hi Nellie,
Very nice TGIF this week. Thank you. I would ask that you define the word "provocateur" that you deployed against Candace Owens to describe and subtly discredit her. In today's sorry state of journalism, I find that term is mostly used by less-than-deep-thinkers to discredit somebody whom they disagree with but haven't developed a cogent argument to debate with, and I'm confident that you (and Common Sense) don't fit into that category. Attempting to kill a perspective by using such terms is kind of a "dick punch" and well below your ambition to find truth, isn't it? "It is better to debate questions and not settle them than to settle questions without debating them." Merry Christmas
Candace Owens speaks the truth about what is going on and without regard for backlash. I find that to be refreshing.
You should see her new documentary on Daily Wire "The Greatest Lie Ever Told, George Floyd and the Rise of BLM"
Her book "Blackout" was pretty good too.
Her series on vaccines called "A Shot in the Dark" free on Parlor is educating an entire generation of women/men on the truth about the vaccine schedule, one shot at a time. It's interesting and alarming to see how "we" have gone along being Pharma's guinea pigs for so long.
Here is an interesting 6 min video of a pilot study conducted comparing Vaccinated to Unvaccinated (not CV19 vaccine, but all vaccines to date) You can make up your own mind about what you see here.
In Sales we would call this "filling your pipeline".
Take a perfect infant that would otherwise likely never need a doctor or medicine and introduce foreign, man-made matter on a regular schedule and you have now created a potential life-long patient for both the physicians and the drug companies.
It's a wise profit strategy, but not very humane.
Once you learn this information you can't unlearn it.
https://yummy.doctor/video-list/lets-compare-the-vaccinated-to-the-unvaccinated
It's an accurate term. Owens is a provocateur. So is Hannity and the gang at Fox Intotainment, and so are Rachel Maddow and her left-wing equivalents. They make millions from provoking people, and so they are provocateurs.
We know this intimately because of how Hannity, Ingraham, and others reacted on January 6: each of them emailed Mark Meadow during the insurrection/riot to urge Trump to speak out publicly to halt the destruction because the MAGA rioters were "ruining things." Yet, later that night, they all went on the air and blamed not Trump and not MAGA rioters, but "Antifa, BLM, and Deep State Actors" for the destruction. That was a complete and utter lie, and they knew it. But the spewed it anyway for clicks, likes, and ad revenue.
It's all show biz. Candace Owens is in show business. QED.
I'm not so much interested in any of those other names you named, and I'm happy to respectfully disagree that urging somebody, anybody, to do something to quell violence on Jan 6 is provocative. To me, that's simply doing the right thing. But you didn't provide any color or specificity about Candace Owens that makes her a provocateur in your opinion for me to further the conversation. Maybe give me an example or two that proves the "accuracy" of her being a provocateur rather than somebody who might only have a different perspective than yours. We'd get nowhere if we all resorted to calling each other names, right?
It was not provocative to urge Trump to take to the airwaves to end January 6. I agree it was the right thing to do. It was outrageous to know to a certainty who was responsible for the insurrection riot and then go on your own airwaves four hours later to blame everyone who wasn't part of it. The hypocrisy was staggering, even for the Fox den.
I didn't call her a provocateur as a slur. It's a job description. Rachel Maddow is one on the left. Their job is to stir the pot for drama, and they do it well. "Accuracy" is a goal, but not a requirement.
You act as if the provocateurs are Fox on the right and MSNBC on the left, with the great "middle" being simply fair actors, calling balls and strikes. Hardly. The MSM is reviled because they all sing from the same hymnal. MSNBC is simply the most virulent of the bunch, with the laughable CNN not far behind. And while I'm not a fan of either Hannity or Ingraham (a shrill phony), I do believe Tucker Carlson speaks for most people who are utterly fed up with the lies and self dealing of the political class and so-called "elites." His is a populist conservatism that is growing faster than you imagine.
I don't consider the MSM to be neutral umpires. Their pure news reporting divisions might be, but their columnists and opinion makers are as much provocateurs as Ingraham. They need the "infotainment" side in order to avoid going bankrupt--pure, honest, neutral news reporting is boring to most readers and viewers, will not generate likes, clicks, and viral videos, and thus will not raise the Benjamins necessary to keep the network or newspaper alive.
The problem is that most readers and viewers cannot tell one from the other, and think that "all the media are slanted." The opinion side is slanted as hell, because that's its job. The hard news side of MSM is still pretty evenhanded, though I see much more editorializing creeping into news coverage than I like or want.
I think we're all fed up with the double- and self-dealing of the self-proclaimed elites and politicians. I don't like Tucker Carlson and I wish he weren't leading the charge against it. But someone's got to do it.
Everything I’ve ever heard said about Tucker Carlson is false. His program is fine.
One time during the BLM riots he replayed a video of a black guy in Portland kicking a white guy in the head enough times that I thought
“Okay this is demagoguery.”
That was one time though. CNN does that literally all day. How many times have they played that video of George Floyd with the implication that
“This is what whites do to blacks.”
Anyways, Tucker is basically fine and CNN is a terrorist organization.
CNN lost its airport gig, apparently. It was their biggest viewership 😂
That's the problem. Nobody else is. If journalists were serious, he'd be one of many. But he isn't. That's why I like and respect him. Not without flaws, but he asks serious questions. Big ones.
Agreed: no one else is. The MSM is not speaking truth to power, in large part because so many of the MSM are in the same elite cultural and financial classes. When I was in the big-city newspaper business, reporters were primarily intelligent and well-read blue-collar folks who were suspicious of the Swells and enjoyed asking them tough, embarrassing questions. That hasn't been the case for years ... a "tough" exchange now consists of, "Mr. President, some say you're too old for the job." "I'm not, Sherry." "Oh, okay, thank you, Mr. President."
There are some good reporters out there of all stripes. Berenson, Greenwald, O'Keefe, Taibbi. I noticed a street in NYC last night called "Jimmy Breslin Way." Brought to mind your comment. Also loved Pete Hamill. Guys who loved to torture the rich and powerful.
The problem isn’t really calling Candace a provocateur, because she is. The problem is when you fail to ALSO call Chris Hayes a provocateur, because he’s worse. Or Katy Tur who is similarly a provoca……Tur.
Interesting. Good point.
It’s only a small point though because unbalanced coverage of political commentators like Candace usually is non-consequential.
On the other hand, if you are viciously roasting Donald Trump for lying about Dominion Voting Machines, which did unintentionally cause a riot……but then you’re giving a pass to every single Democrat who is currently *intentionally* laying the groundwork for nationwide violence in 2022 based on the Biggest Lie that black people are being denied the vote by Jim Crow 2.0…….now we have a problem. That matters. A lot.
Not that you’re doing that at all, just giving an example. Merry Christmas!!
😃😃
Tur is simply too dumb to be a provocateur. Or much of anything else. And Hayes? The ultimate beta male.
Why are you picking on Chris Hayes, Maddow’s little sister?
She has a better body tho.
😂😂
Actually I have her pegged as being sharper than he is because I’ve seen her have flashes of
“Oh wait….are we engaged in pure evil here??”
Neither of them appears to be consciously in the Nicole Wallace/Medhi Hassan ‘we are going to build camps’ camp.
Wallace is doubly deplorable because she's both a servile shill and a turncoat.
I love how people supported Trump because they were sick of Republicans repeatedly failing to restrain the federal government……and then this exposed the fact that 40% of the people working at the top levels of Republican politics were literally MSNBC contributors in disguise……..which totally explains the ‘failing to restrain’ part.
Yup!!
Great point. I missed that subtle dig.