The Strategy Liberal Activists Are Using to Attack Tucker Carlson’s Fox News Show

No, they are trying to get him kicked off TV. Again, Tucker has NO RIGHT to be on TV. That's a job opportunity that he earned and must keep. IF they get him booted off TV, he can still say whatever he wants. You are equating his TV show with his personal rights. The two are separate.

Your next statement is pure opinion and is yours to believe. I'm certain no words of mine would convince you otherwise.

 

It was an analogy. Another would be taking the ball home 'cause you can't make the team.

Why would they 'annoy the sponsors'? What is their motive? Why not just appear on his show and debate if they have a better argument?

They would be abandoning the program because the left will be using their traditional talking points of 'Sexism', 'Racism', 'Fascism', 'Islamophobia' etc. and it often works. It's much easier than having to think out the issues and respond with a rational and logical argument.

Viewers are abandoning CNN and MSNBC and moving to Fox only because they know have been lied to and have misled their viewers for at least three years, yet Leftists have no quarrel with that. Shouldn't you really be attacking the sponsors at MSNBC and CNN for telling you lies all this time? Aren't you at all embarrassed?
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/201...-on-cable-for-the-third-straight-year/387943/

 

Why are they trying to get him kicked off TV? No one is forcing anyone to watch Tucker Carlson.

 

Something happened with the reply/quotes so I did my best to reconstruct it.

No, that's not the analogy at all that fits. Tucker has a show that is supported by sponsors. They give Fox money to pay for this show. Tucker says something people don't like. They lobby those sponsors to no longer support him. The sponsors look at the money they spend on his show versus the return against the loss of people boycotting their goods/services. They decide to stay or go based on that. None of this fits with what you said. This is how free speech works in our country. You convince someone to support your cause or not. That's it.

Tucker wouldn't have them all on his show. And even if he did, he wouldn't concede to their point anyway. So it would be pointless and a waste of his critics time. Their motive is obvious, to have Tucker taken off the air.

So your argument is that all the left has to do is call someone sexist, racist, fascist, or Islamophobic and they win? And yet, no one is calling everyone on the right those things. I think you need to accept that Tucker has said sexist, racist, fascist, and Islamophobic things and his sponsors are now avoiding him for it because it's clear those things he said may hurt their business. Or in other words, Tucker did this to himself. Personal responsibility and whatnot.

I don't think viewers are abandoning CNN and MSNBC for Fox at all. There is no data for that, declining viewership for one network and rising for another doesn't mean viewers are going from one to the other. You would have to prove that with data.

No, they don't tell me lies all the time. Fox has the most least truths in hits pundit shows. Note that these are shows like Hannity or Rachel Maddow or Don Lemon's. This is not the regular news programming part of these networks.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jan/29/punditfact-checks-cable-news-channels/

I have nothing to be embarrassed about. You should be for flailing about and making arguments based on your own personal opinion instead of facts, but I suspect you won't be. That's what we call a character flaw.

 

Liberals are only be 'driven off the airwaves' because of their lies and misrepresentation. There is no conservative movement to ban MSNBC or CNN, that's just people recognizing that they've been lied to for several years and are finally switching channels.

 

Because they disagree with him. Why are you so worried about it? Fox will just find anther "Tucker." Remember that guy Bill before him? Don't panic, these people are a dime a dozen.

 

Oh right, you're the noble crusader and everyone else is the villain. Here's a newsflash for you, villains are just heroes on the other side. If you want to lie to yourself like this go for it, but let's not waste time debating your affirmations that you so desperately crave.

 

Your link is from 2015, long before the 'Russian Collusion' hoax began. This is more recent. https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/201...-on-cable-for-the-third-straight-year/387943/

 

My link is tracking data on factual statements. Yours is talking about ratings. Brittany Spears was super popular, does that make her music better? No. I never denied Fox has higher ratings. Ratings, however, are a measure of popularity, nothing more. What's popular isn't always right.

 

Yet more evidence you didn't read the report. And there isn't ANY evidence whatsoever that somebody downloaded emails and passed them to wikileaks. Its all detailed in the report and not even redacted.

Bullshit is not the best building material for constructing cogent effective arguments.

Infowars, Alex Jones, Sandy Hook. no idea, eh?

 

Like for like.

 

Now you're getting silly. The heroes in media are those who report the truth honestly and without fear or favor. That's not what's been happening at MSNBC od CNN but that has been happening at FOX. Fox has become a more reliable network than the competition, and viewers who want to be more broadly informed are recognizing that. https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/201...-on-cable-for-the-third-straight-year/387943/

 

One of the ways to eliminate poverty, or to cut it down substantially, is to prevent poor people from entering the country.

 

Then how do you explain the decline in ratings at MSNBC and CNN? Did you get your information on 'Russian collusion' from these two Networks? Creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti appeared on these networks scores of times, as though he was a legitimate commentator. Only Tucker Carlson called him out, which suggests Avenatti may be behind this effort to shut him down.

 

The FBI was not given access to the DNC server

So anything they say is mere speculation

Seth rich on the other hand was murdered by someone for some reason

 

Thats a dose of common sense that flies over the head of liberals

They want to bring millions of poor people to America and then complain that we have so much poverty

 

Well, I've been correct in my assessment of Trumpers so far.

 

Not so much a rant as an observation of the corporate media. I can't tell you what to watch or what to believe. I can only suggest that you watch something like TC critically and be willing to fact check opinions you find promoted there and understand that the editorial opinions are politically motivated and not necessarily the truth.

 

All rants are 'observations' and remain so unless there are some facts, some evidence attached. You have nothing but your baseless opinions and have included nothing on which to debate.

 

Really? Who told you that?

 

Well, lets start the debate with the ownership of Fox and how the editorial position radiates from that point of view.

So whose interests are Fox really supporting and why are they acting like Trump's personal messaging bullhorn?

If you'd read "Manufacturing Consent" or even Bernays as I'd suggested, it might be easier for you to understand how this works and the point I am trying to make.

Again, I am not ranting as much as trying to provide you with another perspective on shows such as TC or Hannity or whatever.

Surely you can see that these are not unbiased journalists with no agenda.....?

 

Ironically you have no clue that while your bumpersticker dismissal of american cyberwarrior forensic capabilities clearly demonstrates your profound technical ignorance.

Seth Rich got mugged, but i understand why your bullshit debunked conspiracy theory is so much more appealing to you.

 

I think the cyberwar weapons can be used for good or evil

And obama had 8 years to plant bad players in the ontel community

I doubt if anyone except you truely believe Rich was mugged

They didnt even lift his wallet

 

deep.

deeper

deepest.

 

Libs trying make things complicated when the truth is often pretty simple