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

  1. Never mind Bob; you’re the displaying the issues.  You definitely need a hug.  Perhaps Tucker can call Mike Tyson for you.

  5. Butt hurt much?

    Offended by the vulgarity of it all?

    Incapable of recognizing the irony?

    Unable to break out of tweet mode speech patterns?

    Never saw any of this coming, did you?

    Unfortunate for you.

  6. […] Let’s start with the Tucker Carlson debacle: Bob Belvedere gives, um, ungentlemanly men a bad name. Da TechGuy on Dan Riehl’s reaction. Stacy McCain takes Carlson and the other apologists to task. […]

  7. You know what would have been a more appropriate headline? “Convicted rapist Mike Tyson makes vulgar, misogynistic comments about former Governor Sarah Palin.” People would then know that what follows was (a) not really newsworthy, considering the source and (b) they wouldn’t get the idea that a supposed news site was tacitly endorsing Tyson’s comments. I know, I know: no one at the Daily Caller actually said “ooh, that’s awesome”, but words and tone matter. The disclaimer was helpful, but you know what would have been more helpful? Putting that disclaimer in before the crap storm hit.

    I’ll admit to liking Palin. However, you don’t have to be a cultist to notice a slant to how news about her is presented; I used the word “news” advisedly because gutter talk from a convicted rapist about anonymously sourced allegations ranks somewhere below the National Enquirer’s standards. So you see the owner of a purported news site publicly calling someone the leader of Milfistan and then you see said website posting a sensationalistic headline about the awful comments a criminal made about a public figure, essentially treating those comments as news, while posting no disclaimer until AFTER people (some of whom work for the website) complain. And people noticing this are cultists?

    Words matter. How you present information matters.

    Wait, I guess that this doesn’t constitute valid criticism either. Bummer.

  10. Me, on my assertion Palin would win if she seeks the GOP nomination-

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

    Treacher’s response-

    I’ll tell you later

  11. Obviously, I’m never going to get anywhere with you, even when I give you the benefit of the doubt.

    I’m looking forward to reading many other Jeff Poor news stories in the future similar in journalistic approach to the one he wrote in re: Tyson.

    Maybe, when Hillary replaces Obama on the ’12 Democrat ticket, Poor can find an infamous person who will say stupid, hateful, misogynistic comments about Hillary. I’m sure that Poor/DC will construct & run the story in a very similar fashion as they did in this case.

    I’d say good luck to you, but you don’t need it, ’cause brick walls ain’t got nothin’ on you.     

  19. He’s written dozens of stories about people saying all sorts of things on radio and TV. That’s what he does. I realize that’s not the answer you want, but it happens to be the truth.

  24. Now you are calling Van Susteren a worm? 

    All for having the temerity to point out your boss has revealed himself to be a deeply dishonest sexist pig willing to get in the gutter in order to perform a cheap partisan hack job.

    You really, really need to take a step back from all this. 

    Tucker Carlson is not a hill for your career to die on.

  25. And what of the latest reports that the original station is claiming that the piece never got broadcast?

    How did your boss get his hands on it?   Is it still ‘news’ if it never got broadcast?  If so, why?

Comments are closed.