another view - re above:
https://x.com/MichaelARothman/status...063966530?s=20
M.A. Rothman
@MichaelARothman
·
Mar 21
𝗧𝗨𝗖𝗞𝗘𝗥 𝗖𝗔𝗥𝗟𝗦𝗢𝗡 𝗛𝗔𝗦 𝗔 𝗣𝗔𝗧𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗡 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗕𝗟𝗘𝗠. 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗜𝗧'𝗦 𝗚𝗘𝗧𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗛𝗔𝗥𝗗𝗘𝗥 𝗧𝗢 𝗜𝗚𝗡𝗢𝗥𝗘.
Tucker Carlson has built his post-Fox career on asking the questions nobody else will ask and platforming the voices nobody else will platform. That's a legitimate media model. The problem is the pattern of which voices he platforms — and when.
When Trump was working to resolve Ukraine, Tucker promoted Russia and gave air time to Dugin. When Trump was negotiating Gaza hostages, Tucker platformed Qatar — which hosts H-m-s. When Trump moved against Iran, Tucker had the Iranian president on his show and did not push back on regime propaganda. When Trump captured Maduro, Tucker opposed it and accused the administration of spreading "globohomo." When Trump ordered strikes on I-S-I-S in Nigeria, Tucker hosted a guest who claimed Christian persecution there was a hoax — without disclosing that guest was a Nigerian lobbyist.
Now, as Trump prepares to travel to China for talks with Xi Jinping, Tucker is interviewing a professor from a Beijing school operating under CCP national education guidelines — who told his audience that China doesn't interfere in foreign affairs and that America needs to learn to share power with China.
𝗧𝘂𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗿 𝗻𝗼𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴.
No pushback. No challenge. No "wait — China doesn't interfere in foreign affairs?" — the country currently sharing intelligence on U.S. military operations with Iran, flooding American communities with fentanyl, running influence operations on American social media, and operating police stations on U.S. soil.
Tucker's stated brand is skepticism. He challenges every assumption — unless the assumption flatters an adversary of the United States or undermines a Trump foreign policy initiative. Then the questions stop.
This is not about whether Tucker is right or wrong on any individual foreign policy question. Reasonable people can disagree about Iran, Ukraine, China policy, and more. The issue is the selective application of his skepticism — always pointed inward at American institutions and American allies, rarely outward at the regimes he platforms.
A journalist who gives Iran's president an uncontested platform, nods along with CCP talking points, and consistently times his most adversary-friendly content to coincide with moments of maximum diplomatic sensitivity for the American president he claims to support is not practicing journalism. He is practicing something else.
𝗧𝘂𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝘄𝗲𝘀 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝗸𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗺𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆 𝘂𝘀.






Reply With Quote