I’m not looking to debate or pit what he said. I don’t think that many on this board are going to endorse his opinion.
I am curious as to what kind of reputation Tucker Carlson has. Is he a respected broadcaster? Does his opinion have any influence on anyone? Is this his standard MO? If so, why is there a market for this?
It seems to me that an organization like NBC would want to distance themselves immediately from this kind of statement, however that does not seem to happen.
Is this entertainment or journalism? Maybe I’m being whooshed?
Judging from the number of replies to the OP’s question (0 at this point out of 23 reads) I’d say the answer is “No.”
But to verbalize my own opinion on Mr. Carlson, I’ll say “No.”
He lacks way more than credibility. He also has no taste in clothing.
I will admit he almost made sense on one of the Bill Maher shows, but it only lasted about a minute. Then, back to nonsense and drivel in equal doses. I’d love to see the listings late some night that the Infomercials were being replaced by a heated exchange between All Coulter and Tucker Carlson. I wouldn’t watch that either.
Going back to his day’s on CNN’s Crossfire (which is when I first saw him) he has always been paid to state opinions. Most major U.S. newspapers have an editorial page, a page where the writer’s make opinionated arguments, hopefully with some factual basis. There is more to a media publication than unbiased journalism. The perfectly proper paper will attempt ardently to be unbiased in its reporting of the news. But it is expected more or less to take a stance in the opinion/editorial sections.
Newer forms of media outlets like 24 hour news channels follow a similar idea. In place of editorial pages they have talk shows, debate shots etc, where opion-based broadcasters argue with one another or just spout off their views on things.
What makes these broadcasters opinions any more valuable than a man on the street? Typically not a whole lot. Sometimes the broadcaster in question might have a history as a political writer or commentator so he at least isn’t seen to be a complete blowhard.
Aside from that, these people are mostly paid to entertain. There’s a reason they are colorful, colorful makes money. Tucker Carlson has always been an over-the-top facetious type. He once stated that if Hillary Clinton’s book sold over a million copies he would eat his own shoe. When it broke the million copy barrier Clinton appeared on the show with a cake made to look like a shoe.
As to the matter at hand, I think Tucker didn’t exactly speak correctly, in that he spoke in a way that guarantees he won’t be taken seriously.
But, how seriously are we supposed to take Canada? In the grand scheme of things it’s just a small country (population-wise) with relatively no real power.
Tucker Carlson is a sweet man. He is like your retarded cousin you see at Thanksgiving and sort of pat him on the head. You know, he’s nice, but you don’t take him seriously. That’s Tucker Carlson.
Does anyone take him seriously? Sure, just as many people take Garry Trudeau seriously.
But has Carlson or Trudeau ever had the slightest influence on public opinion? None whatsoever. People who agree with Carlson or Trudeau may find him interesting and/or entertaining. People who disagree with them may find them shallow and annoying.
But ultimately, neither man is anything more than an entertainer. NOBODY looks to either of them for anything more than an occasional laugh. NOBODY who admires Canada will change his mind because of anything Carlson says, just as nobody who admires Ronald Reagan will give a hoot what Trudeau says about him.
Now, from my right-wing perspective… Carlson was a bit too flippant, but his point is uncontroversial: Canadians are free to say whatever they like about the U.S. and its policies, as are Belgians, Irishmen, Swedes, Finns, etc. But we needn’t take them seriously or grant them any kind of moral “veto power” over us.
Tucker’s an entertainer. Just like Jon Stewart. And his show is climbing in the ratings, because it’s actually quite good. As pundit shows go, it’s quite entertaining. And he’s quite fair - Rachel Maddow of Air America is on every night, and unlike shout mongers like O’Reilly, he actually lets her speak and they have very insightful conversations.
Tucker’s having fun tweaking Canada right now, and anyone who doesn’t get that doesn’t have a sense of humor.
Anyway, if you haven’t seen his show on MSNBC, check it out. It’s pretty good. Max Kellerman is very good, and the end segment with Willie Geist is fun. He’s beating Anderson Cooper on CNN in the 18-54 demographic, so he must be doing something right.
I don’t love him, but I don’t regard him with the contempt and loathing that I feel for, say, Bill O’Reilly. His opinions are generally different from mine, but that’s not a sin; shoving one’s opinions down other people’s throats in a manipulative, aggressive and dishonest way is. He doesn’t do that, so he’s more or less an okay guy in my book.
I hate the bow ties, though. And his hair. Someone get the man a stylist or something.
While I disagree with his political ideas, he’s actually about the only conservative commentator I’d actually sleep with, given willingness on his part. All the other right-wing talking heads are really NOT anything like my type…
Max Kellerman? The Max Kellerman that’s done nothing worthwhile or good since leaving Friday Night Fights? The guy who had one show tank completely (I, Max) and one show whose ratings increased after he left (Around the Horn)? Kellerman’s a waste of airspace unless he’s doing boxing analysis.
I’ll agree with the retarded part, but not the sweet.
While not quite as much of a rabid a shill as Coulter or Limbaugh (he has taken the Democratic side against Bush on some occasions, for example), Carlson is like them a media geek biting the heads off of chickens to boost ratings. Stewart called him on it when he made the retort “You need to go to [a journalism school]”; Carlson is not a journalist or an experienced political analyst or really anything else (college dropout turned freelance writer for conservative mags turned editor). He’s a little rich snot (his family owns Swanson Frozen Foods) with moderately cute looks and a moderately good wit who knows how to present himself and started taking himself seriously when people started applauding. As much as he must hate the fact that Stewart pulled his pants down on nationwide TV, he probably also gave it to the Mrs. plenty the next two weeks out of excitement for the number of times the incident, and thus his name, was in print.
He’s not a contender or an influential fellow by any means. He’s basically this generation’s William Buckley- a snide rich jerk with some wit when criticizing but nothing to be proud of by way of personal accomplishments.
William F. Buckley didn’t have anything to be proud of by way of personal accomplishments? You mean except for founding one of the most influential political magazines in the country and being one of the most important people in revitalizing the conservative movement and bringing it renewed legitimacy? He may have been arrogant and thin-skinned, but his life was certainly not devoid of personal accomplishments - certainly far more than a sniveling punk like Carlson could dream of.
What’s with all the hostility towards Carlson? My guess is that most of you barely knew he existed until he had that altercation with Jon Stewart, and since you worship at the feet of Stewart, Carlson automatically became one of the enemy. Lighten up. So he doesn’t have ‘journalistic credentials’? Besides you know, working as a journalist for 15 years? Give me a break. Just what are the credentials of Rachel Maddow? Or Al Franken? Or Jon Stewart?
These people are all entertainers. They have their political viewpoints, and they try to wrap them in a package that entertains people while making them think. There’s nothing wrong with that. Carlson is no shill for Bush or the Republicans. He opposed the war in Iraq, and he opposes the wiretap stuff. He’s more of a libertarian sprinkled with gadfly. And as commentators go, he’s a lot more fair to his opposition than most. His discussions with Rachel Maddow are unfailingly polite and he gives her plenty of time to say what she has to say.
As for Max Kellerman, I know nothing about him other than his appearances on Tucker’s show. They do a segment together called ‘the outsider’, in which Kellerman’s job is to take the ‘devil’s advocate’ position on a topic, whether he agrees with it or not. Or sometimes Tucker will take that position, and they debate it. It’s almost always smart and interesting, and often funny.
There’s a reason he’s beating Anderson Cooper on CNN, despite Cooper getting far more publicity and being on a much more popular network.
Before I clicked on the link and saw his picture, I thought Tucker Carlson was the annoying British guy who gives travel advice on CNN. (What’s his name??)
So, no; I don’t take him seriously. And even when I saw his picture and remembered who he was…nope.
I sacrificed my baby in the bathtub to Jon Stewart and I am not ashamed to admit it. I just impregnated three lesbians with twins so that in each set there’ll be one for the lesbian and one for the Stewart tub.
Otherwise, you lose your bet. There are Carlson threads with posts by most of us Stewart worshiping pinkoes dating back years. Hit the search button and you’ll see.
Journalist in the broadest sense but not the professional. He’s an editorialist, not an investigator. He’s usually described, even in his own words, as a “pundit”, making him basically an “opinionist”.
Maddow and Franken are writers, talk-radio personalities and (in the case of Franken) comedians. Carlson is on a NEWS channel and presents himself as the voice of the right on said NEWS channel, or to quote Jon Stewart (blessings on his name)
Where did anybody claim that he was? It certainly wasn’t when I said “While not quite as much of a rabid a shill as Coulter or Limbaugh (he has taken the Democratic side against Bush on some occasions, for example)”. For that matter the OP wasn’t “Gee, Tucker Carlson is such a shill for Bush or the Republicans, and I’ll fight anybody who says he’s not!” (or at least if was a Mod changed it before I clicked on it).
There’s a reason that Arrested Development got cancelled while it seems that King of Queens will run forever. I don’t attribute it to clear superiority of writing and insight on King’s part, however.
