Tucker Carlson, Who Wouldn’t Reply to Greta’s E-Mail, Gives a Quote to Politico

Posted on Comments

The passive-aggressive response:

“One of the most famous athletes in the world attacks one of the of most famous political figures in the world. That struck us as news. We din’t [sic] endorse what Tyson said, we in fact condemned it. I can’t imagine how any fair reader of our story could conclude that we were anything but disgusted by what Tyson said.”

You could report that Mike Tyson said vile things about Sarah Palin without repeating those vile things, especially in the headline. But this is the Internet, where the repetition of vile things has become a kind of spectator sport.

No “fair reader” would have objected to an article headlined, “Convicted Rapist Mike Tyson Makes Crude Sexual Comments About Sarah Palin.” And I think a bit of judicious editing — paraphrasing the more egregious of Tyson’s remarks, rather than including them in direct quotes — might have prevented the kind of reaction the story elicited from Greta Van Susteren, Tammy Bruce, Jedediah Bila and others.

 

126 comments

  2. Tucker Carlson was obviously trying to out do TMZ.   He managed to beclown himself with conservatives, but then again, maybe that was his goal all the time? 

  3. The passive aggressive approach would seem to be the Daily Caller party line, given ‘Treacher’s’ tack last night.

  9. Carlson sowed the seeds of contempt for the DC when he tweeted, “Palin’s popularity falling in Iowa, but maintains lead to become supreme commander of Milfistan,”

    The response to how Jeff Poor wrote about Tyson’s words proves the old adage, “You reap what you sow”.

  24. Hey, let’s not compare apples & oranges here. Barry never indulged in dogfighting or rape, or any other violent conduct not related to blunt force trauma against baseballs.

  25. Mr. Treacher, I’ve been unable to find another example at DC of an article which simply quotes one (in)famous person – who is not at all connected to politics – saying a whole series (or monologue) of “stupid, hateful” things about a political figure.

    Again, Jeff Poor frequently cites “politicos” making comments about politics. Some of these comments might be stupid, hateful – I don’t know – but they’re pol v. pol. Also, in all other cases, Poor attempted to place the comments in context and/or explain why a set of comments might be interesting or newsworthy.

    But, in the case of Tyson, Poor mostly just reguritates the comments from the radio interview.

    So, it seems that Poor’s post on Tyson was atypical for him. Or, do you disagree with that characterization? Maybe some other writers at DC have followed a similar approach as the Tyson article?   

  27. The Politico states that “Carlson responded to Van Susteren…”

    Only, he didn’t, he ‘responded’ to the Politico instead.

    How convenient of them to absolve him from actually addressing the person who was addressing him.   That certainly is a bit of a favor.  Surprising that such an obvious lefty site would do such a thing for an ostensibly conservative blogger.

    It’s almost as if they share interests, maybe they even share the same ‘enemies.’

  28. He’s famous for being a fool, and a convicted rapist.

    I wonder if “Tucks” will have a team headed out to get Charles Manson’s opinion of Sarah Palin’s ability to take a good, old-fashioned rapin’?

  29. I’d prefer not to pile on the Daily Caller and Tucker Carlson, but his explanation that the story -as written – was “news” just doesn’t cut it, for reasons explained in recent ToM threads.

    However, maybe the DC wanted to frame the Tyson comments in a way that would have made them more interesting and newsworthy, but they were concerned about a possible political correctness backlash in doing so – i.e., that teasing out the news significance of Tyson’s comments could lead them into a  different set of minefields. Thus, they felt they had a choice between simply aggregating the quotes, or not running the material at all, and they felt it was more important to expose the depravity of Tyson’s comments.

    That’s fine, but then don’t tell me that Jeff Poor wrote a news story.

  32. Limbaugh had Carlson pegged years ago, tagging him with an effete nickname I wish I could remember right this moment.

    I might remember it if I’d had any particular reason back then to know or care who this Tucker Carlson person was.

  33. This comment is typical from you, another copout one-liner.

    I don’t have any reason to believe that the guys at DC are misogynists, or even particularly anti-Palin. I don’t read your paper. I only care about this piece in relation to the wider phenomenon of Palin Derangement Syndrome. In this case, the DC would not even be a source of that derangement; however, it might be guilty of poor editorial judgment – for example, maybe by cynically tapping into the phenomenon in a hamhanded way? 

    Again, I don’t understand what are the elements that make Poor’s post a “news” article, but I’m ignorant of journalistic practices. Many of us would really like to give DC the benefit of doubt, but you’re not helping us to understand. You’re acting defensive, which is weird.   

  38. One does have to wonder.

    -A gentleman would have answered the lady directly and politely.

    -A true conservative would have done an interview with [at the very least] TWS…or TAS or NRO.

  43. It’s not like you can’t make up for it. For example, announce that you have it on good authority Jon Huntsman keeps a gerbil up his ass. Or maybe you can run a special series devoted to finding where Mitt is hiding his preteen brides. You know, just in the interest of fairness.

  44. Tucker Carlson is a joke in the eyes of most conservatives and is really considered a light-weight establishment rino type sort of a male Dana Perino. Tucker is a really almost as much of misogynist as Bill Maher.

  49. Which is completely irrelevant to the whole discussion. If he wanted to sacrifice his nuts so the Giants could win, doesn’t that make him the ultimate team player?

Comments are closed.