• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Glenn Greenwald Explains why he resigned from the Intercept on Tucker Carlson Tonight show.

Grim17 said:
LMAO... That is a mischaracterization of what was said...
Click to expand...
It really isn't. The judge decided that Tucker wasn't defaming anyone because:

This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.”.... Fox persuasively argues, see Def Br. at 13-15, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer “arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism” about the statements he makes.

And keep in mind, during the segment in question, he explicitly said "Remember the facts."

This wasn't limited to the segment in question, either. The court basically cut Carlson slack on a defamation case because his own attorneys successfully argued that even when Carlson claims to be stating facts, he's engaging in such extreme hyperbole that he isn't really stating facts; instead, he is bloviating in order to influence public debate.

Pyrrhic victory. Look it up.
 
Threegoofs said:
So you agree that no reasonable viewer consider’s Carlson’s opinions as factual information.

I guess you think thats a big win.
Click to expand...

Just read the actual article instead of spouting the fake news headline... That is, if the truth holds any interest to you at all.

I just have to ask, is honesty really that foreign of a concept to you?
 
Visbek said:
Tucker Carlson... Isn't he the guy whose own attorneys told a court that no reasonable person takes him seriously? Yes, he is.
...
Click to expand...
That's interesting.
Was "no reasonable person takes him seriously" supposed to be a quote or just your corruption of the URL to a BI article?

The Court ruling made the point, as did even the BI article ... grudgingly ... ,that it was clear that "Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson’s statements as “exaggeration,” “non-literal commentary,” or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same—the statements are not actionable."
It goes on to say ...
"This interpretation of the segment is bolstered by the disclaimer Mr. Carlson made at the outset of his monologue. ... Specifically, he introduced the segment by stating: “We’re going to start by stipulating that everything Michael Cohen has told the feds is absolutely true. Now, assuming honesty isn’t usually a wise idea with Michael Cohen, but for the sake of argument, let’s do it in this case, everything he says is true[.]” ... Mr. Carlson, who is not a lawyer, ... then goes on to state his opinion: “Now that sounds like a classic case of extortion.” .... These disclaimers would put any reasonable viewer on notice that Carlson himself “doubt the veracity of the source of these statements” and that the listener should as well..... Mr. Carlson’s statements, instead, seek to frame the issue for a debate that follows on the show, and do not come as a sober factual report."

So by that deception of yours you might find no reasonable person will take you seriously.
Or can we conclude you were suckered by a headline from one of your own flawed sources?
 
Grim17 said:
Just read the actual article instead of spouting the fake news headline... That is, if the truth holds any interest to you at all.

I just have to ask, is honesty really that foreign of a concept to you?
Click to expand...
You’re the one saying Carlson’s opinion is not considered factual by reasonable people.
 
bubbabgone said:
That's one reason why I like Carlson's show.
He lets the other person say what they want without interruption.
But there is one reason why I don't like Carlson's show.
He doesn't have the other person on long enough.
But Carlson is terrific. The best out there. Can't think of anyone better anywhere.
Click to expand...

Feeds you what you want to hear
 
Visbek said:
It really isn't. The judge decided that Tucker wasn't defaming anyone because:

This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.”.... Fox persuasively argues, see Def Br. at 13-15, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer “arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism” about the statements he makes.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that the statement "Tucker Carlson's lawyer told a court that no reasonable person takes him seriously" is factual? Because that is what I was responding to.

Let me put it as plain and simple as possible... Carlson's show is a political opinion show and the comment he made that he was sued over, was not stated as a fact, but his opinion based on the facts.

The judge ruled that no reasonable person would not understand that what he said was his opinion. His lawyer did not say what the original stories headline claimed, in spite of those on the left who parrot that false headline because they lack the ability to think for themselves.

.
 
Threegoofs said:
You’re the one saying Carlson’s opinion is not considered factual by reasonable people.
Click to expand...

You're just digging the hole deeper and making yourself look even more foolish.

You've already established your inability to think for yourself by parroting that phony headline, so I can't understand why you would want keep pushing that lie? Show a little dignity and self respect.
 
rickc said:
Sorry I don't think that way. I don't need reinforcement for my reality.
Click to expand...
So you make it up on your own.
Not something to be proud of.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
First of all, I haven't smeared anyone on this thread.
Second, get off your high horse. We know damn well that you dismiss this journalist as just another Marxist leftist socialist America hater the moment he writes something you disagree with. Anyone who writes anything with which you disagree "has no integrity." This is just an opportunity for you to point your finger and say "See? See? The left even censors their own!" Of course, you won't bother to hear the editors' version of events. That doesn't fit the narrative.
Click to expand...
Do you have a link to the editors response. I would like to hear both sides of possible
 
trouble13 said:
Do you have a link to the editors response. I would like to hear both sides of possible
Click to expand...
You say you "would like to hear both sides [if] possible." Gee, how might you go about finding The Intercept's editor's response? My, what a challenge you face. Give me a while and I'll what I can find. Please be patient.

Well, what do you know? On a hunch, I first went to The Intercept website. And as luck would have it, the editor responded to Greenwald's claims he was being censored. I bet if you go there, you'll be able to find it as well. Go ahead. Give it a try.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
Condemn? I don't "condemn" anyone. I simply establish my relationship in light of what I consider conservative points of view.

Do you oppose same sex marriage? Do you oppose anti-discrimination for LGBTQ? Do you, like many conservatives, condemn homosexuality as "an abomination in the eyes of GOD"?

If you answer "no" to these questions, you are NOT a conservative in the eyes of your fellow conservatives.
Click to expand...

You offer a definition of what a "good Conservative" is. What about a Conservative that has become "uppity"? What if the Conservative attaches no importance to the ideas you attach to them?

What if ALL of the Conservatives that you hate and condemn are actually holding thoughts that are "uppity"?

What if every thought you hold dear and that you use to comfort yourself is actually a lie by which you have been deceived?

What if you are the victim of propaganda and are now hopelessly entrapped in bias and prejudice that prevents any actual, rational thought from entering your brain?

The view and resulting treatments of hated individuals they identify as being Conservatives by Democrats today
is no different than
the view and resulting treatments of hated individuals they identified in the past as being Black.

Democrat-Socialists are the party of hate. Their only evolution over time is who they include in the group(s) they define as targets of their hate to attack in their effort to cancel, silence and dominate.
 
Captain Adverse said:
<>

One of the many reasons I no longer trust when MSM "reports" cite "anonymous sources" for alleged "facts" about anything; much less what's going on inside the current Administration.
Click to expand...

This guy - the guy who said that photos and videos of police slashing tires are not "evidence" of police slashing tires - is citing something on Tucker Carlson, the show Fox itself said no reasonable person would mistake for news, to argue that it's "the MSM" you should ignore.
 
trouble13 said:
Do you have a link to the editors response. I would like to hear both sides of possible
Click to expand...

The idea that there are always two equally valid "sides" to any given issue is a lie, most often used to bootstrap the ugliest and/or most incorrect "side" into some semblance of credibility.
 
Grim17 said:
Glenn Greenwald is a classic example of how the left eat their own. Greenwald has always been a left leaning journalist who worked at mostly left leaning organizations such as Salon and until today, the Intercept. He has done a better job than most journalists in recent years of not letting his political bias stand in the way of a story. He has gone after the last 3 presidential administrations in one way or another, but what led him to be disowned by the left is when he expressed doubt about the veracity of the Trump/Russia collusion narrative... Which he ended up being correct about.
Click to expand...
He also took a lot of flak for his (extremely well-deserved) criticism of the OPCW handling of the Syrian gas attacks a few years ago.

That was around the same time CNN cut the mic of a Democratic congresswoman (I can't recall her name) who had been over in Syria conducting interviews when she began casting doubt on the official narrative.
 
Mr Person said:
The idea that there are always two equally valid "sides" to any given issue is a lie, most often used to bootstrap the ugliest and/or most incorrect "side" into some semblance of credibility.
Click to expand...
You can't determine that to be the case without listening to both sides
 
bubbabgone said:
That's one reason why I like Carlson's show.
He lets the other person say what they want without interruption.
But there is one reason why I don't like Carlson's show.
He doesn't have the other person on long enough.
But Carlson is terrific. The best out there. Can't think of anyone better anywhere.
Click to expand...
That’s why we laugh at you’re posts, honestly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom