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. He’s setting a fiiiine example of the mentality of the DC clowns. They don’t want to argue a point with you, they just know they’re right and you are wrong. Bob is right they are acting like the left acts.

  3. THIS is the reply I got directly from Jeff Poor as he and I have had back and forth for almost a year over his anti-Palin articles:
     
    “If Tyson had said it about a liberal female, or better yet – a LGBT individual, it would have been everywhere.  Someone has to expose this stuff, whether you like hearing it or not…”
     
    Jeff believes that Palin supporters should be grateful to him for exposing this kind of thing.  The article Jeff wrote does nothing to take on Tyson’s comments.  He doesn’t bring ANY opposing arguments to Tyson’s words.  His article actually makes it look like the Daily Caller agrees with Tyson’s comments versus finding them disgusting and wrong.  Nowhere in the article does it say that Tyson is a convicted rapist or wife-beater.  THAT is what I object to and the fact that Carlson by putting his “editor’s note” on there…is giving his permission to keep the article as is…an anti-Palin smut piece.

  4. I’d rather hear why you are defending shoddy and lazy reporting.  I’m glad it was reported.  We need to know who these people are, shine a bright light on them and refuse to purchase or support what they do. 

    Having said that, the headline was terrible.  DC descended into TMZ/Nat Enquirer territory.    For what is supposed to be a “serious” website, DC failed miserably. 

    I read the article and was amazed that it wasn’t published initially without a disclaimer.  I don’t disagree with it being presented verbatim, but people should have been warned (which was finally done).  

    It’s hard to stand behind the “we disagree with it” when the tone of reporting is one of frat boys. 

    That may be why women (Bila, Van Susteren, Bruce to name a few off the top of my head) are complaining.  The tone of the “story” was not serious.  Instead, you turned it into a bit of a lurid sideshow with that terrible headline and that’s (imho) why people are complaining and are disappointed. 

    Now if DC wants to become the TMZ of Washington, that’s fine, but when it presents itself as a “serious” website and then behaves unseriously, don’t be surprised when people get upset.  

  6. These comments could have been paraphrased more tastefully.  You can talk about a pig without rolling in the stinking mire of the pigpen.

  12. I just went over there and listened to it. I wasn’t offended by Tyson being Tyson nearly as much as I was by the ESPN guys for bringing it up to begin with. And even more egregious is the DC. How in the hell is this news? Was that disclaimer at the beginning a late addition to the article? If so, what a lame attempt by Tucker to try to cover his ass. This was nothing but piling on Palin, an attempt to make her look bad and, let’s face it, slutty. They know exactly what they’re doing, and that goes for Mr. Treacher’s fishy chips. Valiant effort at damage control, Treacher, but a little obvious. The next time Tucker asks you to take one for the team, just drop your pants and bend over. He can’t hurt you that much.

  13. Thanks, Bob.  Treacher and a few others spent the weekend on twitter painting anyone who took issue as being heretics wanting to  suppress The Truth or Palin cultists.  That may be so in some cases, but not all. 

    Unfortunately, 140 characters is not adequate to say why DC dropped the ball horribly. 

    We *need* to know what’s being said and by who, but it can be presented in a way that is serious and respectful and IMHO neither was done in this case and  Treacher and his friends are willfully ignoring that. 

  22. Thank you for being more specific than “Nobody cares what Mike Tyson says. NOW APOLOGIZE FOR QUOTING IT!!!”

    Would a warning and/or a different headline have been a good idea? Okay, yeah, I can see that. I don’t see how it changes the content of the story, which was a straightforward recitation of the facts, but that’s a valid criticism.

    Oh, I forgot, I’m a “troll.” Never mind.

  25. So what is the DC’s editorial policy? Have they put out an endorsement of anybody? If not, hey, why not just come out and say “we endorse Mitt”, or Huntsman, etc. Just because you know Palin would clean everybody’s clock if she run is not a valid reason to try to trash her. For one thing, it won’t work, but more importantly, it just looks slimy.

    For what its worth, the race is between Romney and Perry, but if Palin declares it will quickly become Romney versus Palin, and the quicker everybody else drops out the quicker Palin turns Romney into a two-time loser.

    I know it. You know it. Tucker knows it. Otherwise, why bother with these slimy tactics?

  33. The classiness of this joint dropped significantly when you dropped in and started defending your employer, Treacher.  The Pagan Temple is just providing suitable context.

  34.  Maybe if you had said something like this BEFORE you spent all tha ttime trashing your own reputation, it might have done some good. As is… no sympathy, and good luck with your future.

  37. Considering I never used the word “troll” in any of my posts, it’s rather disingenuous to put it in a response to me. 

    A warning would have been respectful of your readers.  I’m not a delicate flower and was disgusted after reading it.  It’s hard to imagine what your more “genteel” readership must have felt.  And no, people should have to “suck it up buttercup” when reading violent sexual imagery on a political website.  

    The title and tone were juvenile, way beneath what the subject warranted.  It doesn’t change the content of the story, but rather the seriousness of it.   DC failed spectacularly on reporting it as a serious subject.  By mishandling it, I (and probably many others gathering from the outrage) feel DC assaulted Palin a second time with DC treating it with TMZ quality writing and headlines. 

    You painted complainers as free speech stiflers where they were probably upset, like I was, with the tone presented.   Words matter.  I’m not sure if you understand what DC did and don’t care or find it unimportant or whether you do understand, but feel compelled due to loyalty or stubbornness to keep on with this. 

    I hope for the latter. 

  38. Considering I never used the word “troll” in any of my posts, it’s rather disingenuous to put it in a response to me. 

    A
    warning would have been respectful of your readers.  I’m not a delicate
    flower and was disgusted after reading it.  It’s hard to imagine what
    your more “genteel” readership must have felt.  And no, people should
    have to “suck it up buttercup” when reading violent sexual imagery on a
    political website.  

    The title and tone were juvenile, way
    beneath what the subject warranted.  It doesn’t change the content of
    the story, but rather the seriousness of it.   DC failed spectacularly
    on reporting it as a serious subject.  By mishandling it, I (and
    probably many others gathering from the outrage) feel DC assaulted Palin
    a second time with DC treating it with TMZ quality writing and
    headlines. 

    You painted complainers as free speech stiflers
    where they were probably upset, like I was, with the tone presented.  
    Words matter.  I’m not sure if you understand what DC did and don’t care
    or find it unimportant or whether you do understand, but feel compelled
    due to loyalty or stubbornness to keep on with this. 

    I hope for the latter.

  41. Maybe if somebody had calmed down enough to make an actual point instead of lashing out, I might’ve. But your concern is a great comfort.

  46. It’s curious that Greta calls Tucker a pig for reporting what Tyson said, yet she had no problem featuring Tyson on her show for a celebrity interview. If she is such a feminist, why have a convicted rapist on her show?

  50. Troll: One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

Comments are closed.