Totally off-topic, here, but can Bari interview Tucker Carlson a bout his release of the 1/6/21 Capitol tapes? No, really - he’s saying that he’s just providing information that has been withheld, but congressional leaders say he’s cherry picking information (that’s rich…). TFP is quickly becoming my go-to source for thoughtful discussio…
Totally off-topic, here, but can Bari interview Tucker Carlson a bout his release of the 1/6/21 Capitol tapes?
No, really - he’s saying that he’s just providing information that has been withheld, but congressional leaders say he’s cherry picking information (that’s rich…).
TFP is quickly becoming my go-to source for thoughtful discussion of information and asking me to make up my own mind - PLEASE HELP!
It is 40,000 hours worth of tape. Even if Carlson is "cherry-picking" the 1/6 Congressional clown show was not just cherry picked but highly orchestrated, as in professionally produced.
Assume for the sake of argument that the J6 Committee was acting out of completely partisan intentions, and that Cheney and Kinzinger were either willing or unwilling participants in precipitating a complete fraud on the American public about J6. What possible reason would McCarthy have to provide exclusive access to the video to Carlson under those circumstances? If J6 is a complete and utter hoax, and he has the power to reveal that through overwhelming video evidence to the American public, why undermine that earth-shattering reversal by throttling it through yet another single partisan lens? Surely even those who think Carlson is the only remaining neutral journalist alive have some awareness that is not a universally accepted view? Even if one thinks the MSM is hopelessly captured by Marxist insurgents, why not let the WSJ, the Economist, Forbes, CSM and other center right news outfits have at it?
That makes absolutely no sense. Lots of verbiage but no sense. If vast segment of the public believes that "Marxist insurgents [rampant hyperbole] " have captured MSM, why on earth would McCarthy give the members thereof you designate the material? But to answer your question I think it was a poke in the eye to see MSM and its proponents squirm. Which is working and lovely to watch.
No, I think it follows logically. The purpose of my hyperbole was to establish what the reasoning would be even in the most extreme right wing position, which I posit to be that the American media landscape is divided up into truth-tellers whose unbiased reporting supports the right wing political narrative, i.e. the truth on all political issues accords with the corresponding right wing political position, versus any news organization that reports otherwise, and therefore is a dishonest shill for the political left. Assume that for sake of discussion! Why would McCarthy restrict access to only Carlson given the unprecedented scale of the purported deception? Let the entire Murdoch empire have access. If J6 was a hoax and the WSJ ran that as its above-the-fold banner headline it would be the biggest global headline since Armstrong stepped onto the Moon. If J6 was a hoax and the WSJ, the Economist, Forbes, CSM and so forth had extended video segments to prove it, the usual right wing targets like NYT, WaPo and CNN would be forced to confront that evidence. Instead, a handful of Carlson's production staff are extracting 15 second TikTok segments? The lab leak hypothesis is gaining traction everywhere, despite knee jerk left wing denialism, because people are continuing to make arguments with extensive evidence.
I understand the psychology of "owning the libs". I don't see how that serves the political interests of the GOP in this specific case except as personal signaling of McCarthy's partisan loyalty ("lovely to watch"?), much less the national interest in his sworn duty as the Speaker of the US House of Representatives.
What is the argument you think McCarthy and Carlson are making by doing this, and to whom? A poke in the eye is not an argument, it's just a provocation.
Well I have suspicions about McCarthy' conservative bona fides. IDK the why, but I'll play (speculate). 1) Because he could (and you have to admit the fall-out is funny). 2) Because he views all of the legacy media, including those you listed, as compromised. 3) Because he thinks that all journalists have failed in their duties over the last several years and thought Carlson was the least egregious choice. 4) Because he thought that by doing so it might force some journalists to see the error of their ways. 5) Because he thought it did not matter who and giving it to one journalist would not matter because modern journalism consists almost exclusively of re-tweets (ugh! it pains me to write that). 6) Because he thought that there would be a ground swell of calls to release all of the tape to the public (which I would like to see for myself). These are just off the top of my head. Whatever the reason, I find it highly entertaining.
Thank you for indulging me, but I wasn't asking for pure speculation. We can all do that: MTG may have threatened to remove him as Speaker unless he only gave it Carlson! The curious thing is why a smart politician in McCarthy's position would do it. We can't read minds, and McCarthy won't say, which is interesting by itself. Maybe you're saying McCarthy isn't that smart. That's certainly been bandied about since he was one of the Young Guns, and now he's the last surviving one in office.
Totally off-topic, here, but can Bari interview Tucker Carlson a bout his release of the 1/6/21 Capitol tapes?
No, really - he’s saying that he’s just providing information that has been withheld, but congressional leaders say he’s cherry picking information (that’s rich…).
TFP is quickly becoming my go-to source for thoughtful discussion of information and asking me to make up my own mind - PLEASE HELP!
It is 40,000 hours worth of tape. Even if Carlson is "cherry-picking" the 1/6 Congressional clown show was not just cherry picked but highly orchestrated, as in professionally produced.
Assume for the sake of argument that the J6 Committee was acting out of completely partisan intentions, and that Cheney and Kinzinger were either willing or unwilling participants in precipitating a complete fraud on the American public about J6. What possible reason would McCarthy have to provide exclusive access to the video to Carlson under those circumstances? If J6 is a complete and utter hoax, and he has the power to reveal that through overwhelming video evidence to the American public, why undermine that earth-shattering reversal by throttling it through yet another single partisan lens? Surely even those who think Carlson is the only remaining neutral journalist alive have some awareness that is not a universally accepted view? Even if one thinks the MSM is hopelessly captured by Marxist insurgents, why not let the WSJ, the Economist, Forbes, CSM and other center right news outfits have at it?
Um, because Tucker Carlson Tonight is the most highly rated show on TV, watched by millions (especially conservatives who are McCarthy’s target)?
Per my preceding reply to Lynne, you're saying that this is purely partisan signaling by McCarthy?
That makes absolutely no sense. Lots of verbiage but no sense. If vast segment of the public believes that "Marxist insurgents [rampant hyperbole] " have captured MSM, why on earth would McCarthy give the members thereof you designate the material? But to answer your question I think it was a poke in the eye to see MSM and its proponents squirm. Which is working and lovely to watch.
No, I think it follows logically. The purpose of my hyperbole was to establish what the reasoning would be even in the most extreme right wing position, which I posit to be that the American media landscape is divided up into truth-tellers whose unbiased reporting supports the right wing political narrative, i.e. the truth on all political issues accords with the corresponding right wing political position, versus any news organization that reports otherwise, and therefore is a dishonest shill for the political left. Assume that for sake of discussion! Why would McCarthy restrict access to only Carlson given the unprecedented scale of the purported deception? Let the entire Murdoch empire have access. If J6 was a hoax and the WSJ ran that as its above-the-fold banner headline it would be the biggest global headline since Armstrong stepped onto the Moon. If J6 was a hoax and the WSJ, the Economist, Forbes, CSM and so forth had extended video segments to prove it, the usual right wing targets like NYT, WaPo and CNN would be forced to confront that evidence. Instead, a handful of Carlson's production staff are extracting 15 second TikTok segments? The lab leak hypothesis is gaining traction everywhere, despite knee jerk left wing denialism, because people are continuing to make arguments with extensive evidence.
I understand the psychology of "owning the libs". I don't see how that serves the political interests of the GOP in this specific case except as personal signaling of McCarthy's partisan loyalty ("lovely to watch"?), much less the national interest in his sworn duty as the Speaker of the US House of Representatives.
What is the argument you think McCarthy and Carlson are making by doing this, and to whom? A poke in the eye is not an argument, it's just a provocation.
Well I have suspicions about McCarthy' conservative bona fides. IDK the why, but I'll play (speculate). 1) Because he could (and you have to admit the fall-out is funny). 2) Because he views all of the legacy media, including those you listed, as compromised. 3) Because he thinks that all journalists have failed in their duties over the last several years and thought Carlson was the least egregious choice. 4) Because he thought that by doing so it might force some journalists to see the error of their ways. 5) Because he thought it did not matter who and giving it to one journalist would not matter because modern journalism consists almost exclusively of re-tweets (ugh! it pains me to write that). 6) Because he thought that there would be a ground swell of calls to release all of the tape to the public (which I would like to see for myself). These are just off the top of my head. Whatever the reason, I find it highly entertaining.
Thank you for indulging me, but I wasn't asking for pure speculation. We can all do that: MTG may have threatened to remove him as Speaker unless he only gave it Carlson! The curious thing is why a smart politician in McCarthy's position would do it. We can't read minds, and McCarthy won't say, which is interesting by itself. Maybe you're saying McCarthy isn't that smart. That's certainly been bandied about since he was one of the Young Guns, and now he's the last surviving one in office.
Absolutely. Well said!
Yup!!!