Interesting and educational article below from NPR (September
29, 2020) it’s not if logical rational thinking people didn’t already know or
at least should know after listening to FOX’s Tucker Carlson(#1 on that network) for 5-minutes to see how
true the story is.
That NPR article is here with this headline: (Key parts highlighted follow)
“You Literally Can't Believe the
Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers”
Tucker Carlson appears to be made of Teflon. Fox News'
top-rated host has been repeatedly accused of anti-immigrant and racist comments, which have cost his political
opinion show many of its major advertisers. Yet Carlson endures in his
prime-time slot. Carlson even attacked his own network's chief news anchor on
the air, with no real consequences. That anchor, Shepard Smith, quit mid-contract shortly after Carlson went after him.
Now comes the claim that you can't expect to literally believe the words that come out of Carlson's mouth. That assertion is not coming from Carlson's critics.
It's being made by
a Federal Judge in the Southern District of New York and by FOX News own lawyers
while they defended Carlson against accusations of slander. It worked, by the
way.
This argument made by
FOX lawyers that the Judge cited: “The general tenor of the show should
then inform a viewer that Carlson is not ‘stating actual facts about the topics
he discusses’ but is instead engaging in ‘exaggeration and non-literal’ commentary.”
Here is Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's key opinion part: “FOX persuasively argues, that
given Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer arrives with an appropriate
amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes. Whether the Court frames the
statements as exaggeration, non-literal commentary, or simply bloviating, the
conclusion remains the same; they are not actionable.”
My 2 Cents: I mostly agree with the final conclusion that the judge
makes about “Any reasonable viewer being skeptical about what Carlson says on
the airwaves is basically arrives at the same conclusion that the FOX lawyers reached
regarding Carlson’s on air public statements and that is: He is not stating
actual facts about the topics he discusses but is instead engaging in exaggeration
and non-literal commentary.”
If that applies and is true then surely this is Carlson and other FOX News
hosts leading their FOX loyal viewers don't you think - all you reasonable viewers?
Reasonable viewer hogwash – FOX does not have reasonable viewers because after they watch or listen to their broadcasts from Carlson, Hannity, Ingraham, Watters, and a most others they take off parroting the same garbage and that to me is harmful by any measurement and especially if that “reasonable viewer picks up his or her AR-15 and goes to a super market, church, school, or other public place and kills dozens of people and in some cases mostly children.”
How to prove that is the issue, isn’t
it – but if proven after the fact of so many deaths, then what more “hopes and
prayers?” and advocating for arming more people to protect themselves with
crazy gun laws like “open carry” in this new Wild, Wild West craziness?
Related to this basic
issue is this fine article here with links therein of the historical case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S.
254 (1964) regarding free speech and freedom of the press and just how far
they can take their nuttiness for “reasonable people to follow.” Yeah, reasonable
people to follow, right?
And this recent coverage of FOX lies now major law suit a very good article, and also my recent post here.
Simple Test: Just try to engage a rabid FOX conservative diehard listener or tune into any conservative radio talk show and see how far that logic takes you.
Thanks for stopping by.
No comments:
Post a Comment