"Now comes the claim that you can’t expect to literally believe the words that come out of Carlson’s mouth. And that assertion is not coming from Carlson’s critics. It’s being made by a federal judge in the Southern District of New York and by Fox News’s own lawyers in defending Carlson against accusations of slander. It worked, by the way.
Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil’s opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox’s lawyers: The "‘general tenor’ of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not ‘stating actual facts’ about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘non-literal commentary.’ "
She wrote: “Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statement he makes.”"
I just searched the link you provided and couldn’t find the word liar anywhere. Considering the source, I even searched for lyar, lier, and leyer, with no results.
Yes, this is why the entire right wing has focused obsessively on Hunter. Once the evidence is so clear it can get through a right wing head, the cult pivots to “we never cared about Hunter anyway”. An allegory so old it’s one of Aesop’s fables.
I even put the quote in the my post. He’s not telling the truth, so much that you should be skeptical of what he says.The article links to the ruling itself.
"The "‘general tenor’ of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not ‘stating actual facts’ about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘non-literal commentary.’ “”
Of course people watching his show think he is reporting facts, which is entirely the purpose.
Yeah, no. No they didnt. They argued that Carlson’s show presents his conclusions based on the available information from all sources. They’re his opinions.
I know you guys have problems comprehending how opinions are not facts. But we’ll try again - when you express an opinion, you are saying what you think is true, based on the information you have. You are not claiming that what you think is inherently true.
I know it’s hard to grasp, when your typical attitiude is “I believe it, therefore it must be the truth any anyone who doesnt agree is stupid”, but that attitude is what causes most of the problems.
The evidence is centered on Hunter. I know you’d prefer everyone to focus obsessively on pickles instead, but pickles arent really part of the evidence of potential corruption.
“Remember the facts of the story; these are undisputed,” Fox News personality Tucker Carlson told his 2.8 million viewers in 2018, before labeling former Playboy model Karen McDougal as a presidential extortionist.
On Wednesday, an attorney for the network asserted that no reasonable viewer would believe that what followed this preamble was factual reporting.
“It’s a commentary show,” Fox’s lawyer Erin Murphy, of the firm Kirkland & Ellis, insisted during arguments trying to swat away McDougal’s defamation lawsuit. “It’s a show that markets itself … as opinion and spirited debate. That context matters.”
Playing both sides, Fox has argued that Tucker and Hannity et al are news when it’s convenient, opinion when that’s convenient.
Of course since this is “commentary” and not news, why the heck does the right wing treat it as gospel? Remember that they keep referring to the “Hunter Biden’s laptop” thing as news since it was posted in the New York Post. The New York Post, which is owned by the same guy that owns Fox News.It’s an ouroboros to manipulate the right.
tldr: the right is being manipulated by the media they blindingly consume.
So, if he had said, certified, indisputable, unobjected, guaranteed, without a doubt, certain, positive, unquestionable, fact-checked, double-secret fact-checked, undeniable, then it should have been considered a fact?
Kinda like the collusion between the Clinton campaign and Russian President Putin?
Yeah, we’re still waiting on charges for that indisputable collusion between Clinton and Putin. Trump and Bill Barr must be the worst ever at their jobs if they haven’t filed charges over that.
Yeah, like the left need any help in the shooting department. Granted, their aim isn’t great unless it’s into a police car, but that’s because all of their practice is on the street instead of the range.
Because … isn’t it obvious … they’ve got too much class to put that poor woman through any more than the Democrats already have, and what they’re going to do to her next.
Apropos not of the particulars here, but merely my gut feel for the generalities:
What really frosts my grits about Biden’s criminality is the international aspect, and especially China. I’m far less bothered by claims he sought illicit financial gains on the domestic front. If those claims are true he almost surely is not alone among our elected officials.
And, OK, internationally we know of his self-admitted wrongdoing regarding Ukraine. But even that, to me, is far less serious than China. Ukraine is not an adversary of my country and neither is it a potential enemy.
It is when Biden went rogue with China that he crossed a bright line, at least he crossed my personal line. I cannot forgive him for doing so while serving as my Vice-President. Our high elected officials should be tough with China. Think of Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan, India, the South China Sea. Biden erred in a multi-faceted way when he used China as a personal piggy bank. It is a far more severe infraction than mere domestic shenanigans.
I am unable to forgive Biden for this. He does not deserve forgiveness. And he certainly does not, with this as predicate, deserve to be elected President of the United States of America.
The problem is how you’re framing the question. What really happens is that people watch the show because they agree with the conclusions he’s drawn. If you agree with someone’s take on an issue, why wouldnt you support their take? It’s inherently supporting your own take.
When people say “I watched Carlson last night, and he said…”, they’re agreeing with how he’s perceived [whatever], they’re using it as support for their own conclusions. “This is what I think, and hey look at that, there’s a population TV personality that thinks the same as me!”
