3 ms·
I think the first response has it right: "I don’t think the NSA should be spying on any journalist but forgive me if I don’t take the claims seriously from a g
by BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
I think the first response has it right:
"I don’t think the NSA should be spying on any journalist but forgive me if I don’t take the claims seriously from a guy whose defense in court was literally, “no reasonable person would believe me.” If he has hard proof, let’s see it. Until then, I’m extremely skeptical." - https://twitter.com/mikey__football/status/1412806904368275458 https://twitter.com/mikey__football/status/14128069043682754...
- drost 5y agoWhy should we skeptical that the NSA is doing the same thing that it's been doing for the last decade or longer? We already KNOW that the NSA spys on everyone.
- amscanne 5y agoAt the end of the thread, Greenwald made the comparison specifically to Rachael Maddow. This seems appropriate, because I think she occupies the same space on the other side of the political spectrum, and I think there would be more outrage generally. Ironically, Greenwald wrote an article recently about Maddow relying on this same legal argument successfully prior to Carlson using it [1]. [1] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddows-viewers https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddow...
- DoctorOW 5y agoI do think there's a slight difference between MSNBC and Fox News. MSNBC is marketed as a progressive political talk network, Fox News calls itself a "Fair and Balanced" news network. The main thing people critique about Tucker Carlson and others on Fox News is their inability to separate talking points from journalism.
- amscanne 5y agoCarlson and Maddow are both polemics that tend to spew nonsense, they are both main personalities for their respective networks (and political spheres) and both lead in ratings. Maddow also shows a well-developed ability to mash up opinion and fact, and I don’t accept that her distortions are somehow less bad. Whether the rest of MSNBC is slightly less awful than the rest of FOX is irrelevant to that point.
- DoctorOW 5y agoThis doesn't address my point at all.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- amscanne 5y agoPerhaps I misunderstood: what is the point you were making? I don't think broader criticisms of Fox News and MSNBC are relevant. Rachel Maddow obviously also demonstrates an "inability to separate talking points from journalism".
- DoctorOW 5y agoSimple. Both Carlson and Maddow are claiming they aren't journalists reporting for news programs as a legal defense for failing journalistic standards. My point was on air, Tucker Carlson is represented as a journalist on a supposedly non-partisan news network. Rachel Maddow has made no such claims.
- amscanne 5y agoHave you seen these shows? To me, Tucker Carlson comes off more as a talk show, and Rachel Maddow’s show is styled as news and analysis. Heck, Wikipedia agrees with this perception: the description and genre of Maddow’s show both begin with news, which is not true of Carslon’s show. Now I don’t think either of them count as news, although I don’t doubt that a lot of both of their audiences treat them as news anyways. (However, even the most clueless don’t think they are “non-partisan” news networks… they just believe their side is the “fair and balanced” one.) So I simply don’t understand the claims you’re making. The opposite seems true to me, but I figure it’s just a wash.
- whb07 5y agoLook at the Flynn fiasco, same thing in the name of fighting the evils of orange man. This is just the equivalent of being in fear of the KGB.