The Fox Fix
By: By KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Welcome to the Tuesday, a weekly newsletter about that which has come to pass and that which may yet be, along with politics, language, and culture.
If you’ll forgive a little inside-baseball media stuff . . .
My friend Jonah Goldberg has just quit Fox News in response to Tucker Carlson’s Patriot Purge pseudo-documentary — not the event in isolation, but more of a straw-and-camel situation. I have some other friends who still work at Fox News and who are going to keep right on working there.
What to think about these situations?
In one sense, these questions are obvious: If a gig isn’t giving you what you need, then you quit. We’re all adults, and most of us have quit a job before — some of us have even been fired once or twice. I have a great deal more respect for Jonah Goldberg and his colleague Steve Hayes, who also resigned from Fox News, than I do for the cancel-culture types who spend their time trying to get other people fired. People who are willing to pay some personal price for their choices rather than trying to impose costs on others (often to their own personal benefit) are the people who have something to say that is worth listening to.
But there isn’t any particular obligation to quit, either. Journalism (and I suppose that we must consider cable-news punditry a mutant species of journalism) isn’t a preschool sandbox, and you don’t get cooties from playing with the wrong people. If you want to persuade people, then you will just have to grow up and suffer the indignity of being around people who see the world in a way that is at odds with your own views. Horrors.
Sometimes, the other side even does . . . good work. During my recent visit to the United Kingdom, I read a couple of issues of the New Statesman , which you might think of as a British socialist version of National Review . There was a good deal of interesting and entertaining work therein — better, I think, than any left-wing magazine in the United States, and better than most of the right-wing magazines, too. I don’t think you have to be a socialist to understand that. But I wonder how many on the right would be scandalized if I subscribed? Some people would see this as supporting socialism, rather than what it is, i.e., paying for a magazine I want to read. Socialist cooties — beware!
In reality, the politics of cooties has hurt both our journalism and our politics, and hurt them in precisely the same way. Instead of initiating conversations with people who disagree with us with an eye toward persuading them, we spend most of our time talking to like-minded people. As a practical matter, politicians in our time get more juice out of rallying their partisans, inflaming their grievances and valorizing every prejudice, no matter how petty, than they do out of giving speeches to skeptical or disagreeing audiences; in precisely the same way, much of our contemporary journalism is oriented toward flattering readers and listeners rather than challenging them, reassuring them that they hate the right people for the right reasons, and that their hatred is not only justified but sanctified. And if Fox News is a gigantic corporate grievance farm, MSNBC is no less so, and neither is National Public Radio or, angels and ministers of grace defend us, Teen Vogue . There is a reason no beat reporter in this country doing real journalism earns a tenth of what a marquee cable-news mouth-hole does.
(Never mind, for now, the absolute phoniness of these champagne populists presenting themselves as the tribunes of the working classes of the “Real American” heartland against the predation of “coastal elites” or “oligarchs.” Almost every one of them lives in Manhattan, the D.C. metro, or that New York City suburb known as Palm Beach, Fla. None of them chose to make a living or a life in Oklahoma, a Spanish-speaking border enclave, or some economically dead mill town in Ohio. Rush Limbaugh could have landed his Gulfstream G550 back home in Cape Girardeau any time he liked, and Rachel Maddow spent years opining about the plight of the poor while going home to a West Village loft she bought from a rock star. The tribunes of the plebs don’t so much as get downwind from actual poor people or poor communities, unlike, say, your favorite evil elitist correspondent.)
I’ve written for the New York Times and the Washington Post , among others. I did a piece for Playboy back when that was a magazine that sometimes published interesting political writing, and I even had an article in the Atlantic once. That doesn’t mean I love everything on the Times op-ed pages or the Post ’s, or everything that Playboy or the Atlantic ever did. It doesn’t even mean that I think those pages are particularly good. (The Times is a hell of a lot better at covering real news than it is at curating opinion columns.) I write for them because sometimes I have something that I want to say for a readership that isn’t National Review ’s. That’s the same reason you have seen me on MSNBC or CNN or heard me on left-wing podcasts and whatnot. I don’t want to sound cynical, but journalism is a product that gets moved like any other product, and I’m interested in shelf space. I don’t shop at Walmart very often, but, if I were in the business of selling peanut butter or flipflops, I’d want to be on those shelves, irrespective of what I think about Walmart’s corporate politics, its management, or the other products for sale there. Fox News is still pretty good shelf space for people in the television business, and I don’t blame people for continuing to work there, even if it is something that I myself would not choose to be closely associated with.
I have worked for a number of very different journalistic institutions in my life, and all of them at some point or another made editorial decisions with which I disagreed. That includes — definitely — the ones where I was in charge. Everybody makes mistakes, everybody has blind spots, and — one hopes — everybody learns. You never step into the same river twice, and the news is one of those rivers. If I refused to work for any outlet that had ever made an editorial decision with which I disagreed, I would have nowhere to work. I’d have had to quit (or, I suppose, fire myself) in protest a hundred times.
It is a superstition — and a very stupid one — that to work at a newspaper, magazine, news channel, or book publisher is to endorse everything that it puts out. This is absolute nonsense. The populist, middle-American pretensions of its hosts notwithstanding, Fox News is part of a vast, sprawling multinational media conglomerate. Fox News and its corporate sibling, News Corp, have an interest in everything from book publishing (HarperCollins) to the Wall Street Journal to British tabloids to the New York Post . Sean Hannity and Bart Simpson are fruit of the same orchard (the family resemblance is impossible to miss, even if Disney now owns the smarter show) as are books by Quentin Tarantino, Dave Grohl, and Lebron James, among others. I very much doubt that any one person, Rupert Murdoch included, even knows what the editorial output of that machine looks like in toto . Nobody has enough time to keep up with the antics of both Tucker Carlson and Nigella Lawson.
(Disclosure stuff: I’ve appeared on Fox News from time to time, along with many other cable-news channels, but have never been a paid contributor. In the wider Murdoch orbit: I write regularly for the New York Post , have written for the Wall Street Journal , and published a book with HarperCollins a few years ago. There may be other connections that I’m not remembering. I fill out a lot of W-9s.)
In some contexts, publishing work you disagree with — even work to which you object — is a positive good. That’s what book publishers and magazines are there for. And, at some level, they still know this: Ronan Farrow made a show out of walking away from Hachette over the publisher’s professional relationship with Woody Allen, but — for Pete’s sake! — Hachette publishes Adolf Hitler, having brought out a new edition of Mein Kampf in 2017. And that is a worthwhile project — somebody should keep Mein Kampf in print. Ignorance is not bliss. Simon & Schuster publishes Albert Speer, among other distasteful figures, and Penguin keeps the Marquis de Sade in print. We have a First Amendment to ensure freedom of speech and of the press precisely in order to protect the publication of material to which people object, that they find wicked, unpatriotic, dangerous, or obscene. Everybody who celebrates the work of Galileo should bless the memory of Lodewijk Elzevir, the Amsterdam publisher who brought out his books after smuggling the manuscripts out of Italy at considerable risk. Margaret Caroline Anderson and Jane Heap went to jail for publishing James Joyce in the Little Review , work that was judged obscene by American censors high on Comstockery.
None of this is to say that Fox News and Tucker Carlson are the House of Elzevir and Galileo or the Little Review and Ulysses . Far from it. Fox News’s problem isn’t ground-breaking literature — it is irresponsible horsesh**. I know Tucker a little, and I couldn’t tell you why he does what he does. I don’t think it’s the money, which he doesn’t need, and it isn’t because he is stupid, which he is anything but. He is, among other things, a very fine writer. Tucker Carlson has genuine gifts, but so did Elmer Gantry.
From my point of view, the case against Fox News isn’t that it is dangerous or that Tucker Carlson’s work is likely to incite anybody to violence. (Maybe it will, but I doubt it. This country may generate a few school-shooters every year, but I don’t think it has the energy for a sustained intifada .) The case against Fox News is that it is tedious, repetitive, and lurid. Aesthetically and emotionally, it more often resembles pornography than it does, say, the commentary of Paul Harvey. One Fox insider says that some had stuck it out until the end of the Trump administration, confident that the network would make a return to something more like normal. That hasn’t happened. But for shareholders and on-air talent alike, the money is hard to walk away from.
Here’s a case for comparison. My friend and National Review colleague Andrew C. McCarthy spent a considerable part of the post-9/11 years articulating a view of presidential power that is, in my view, bananas . Not only bananas, but positively dangerous if extended to its logical conclusion. This isn’t from malice — this is McCarthy’s good-faith reading of the law. Would the world have been better off if National Review hadn’t published this work? I don’t think so. I disagree with McCarthy on many issues, but he publishes interesting work on important subjects. And he isn’t the only one who believes what he believes — it is not as though these ideas would simply go away if National Review hadn’t published them. (This is broadly the same reason I am happy to see National Review publish work I disagree with from figures I don’t particularly admire, such as Senator Josh Hawley.) We are better off when ideas are contested among intelligent and responsible parties rather than left to irresponsible demagogues. (If you doubt that, consider the likelihood that Donald Trump would be a retired game-show host, and not an ex-president, if Republicans had bothered to take immigration issues halfway seriously.) And I have always hesitated to set myself up as a censor because there exists the possibility that, in any given case, I might be wrong. I have been wrong before, and I expect to be wrong again.
I don’t imagine that in 100 years, anybody will be saying, “ Thank goodness Fox News put out that Tucker Carlson video !” I don’t think that people will have opinions about Tucker Carlson at all in 100 years.
(As Jay Nordlinger points out, journalism is a thing for a day, not a thing for eternity — daily is right there in the name: journalism , from the Latin diurnalis , “daily,” cf. diurnal , Old French jornel , Italian giornalismo , Portuguese jornalismo , etc.)
These controversies focus on figures such as Tucker Carlson because they are famous. It is easy to get people to pay attention to celebrities and, as a business proposition, attention pays. But Fox News demagogues are more a symptom than a disease — as with the case of our vast and popular pornography industry, the social problem is not that the providers exist but that there exists such a large, slavering, rapacious market for the goods they are selling. I suppose I was a little ahead of Jonah Goldberg in this: I started turning down Fox News invitations when Sean Hannity began willfully misrepresenting National Review . I still have some funny emails to Fox News producers in my “ Sent ” box ( “ I’d set myself on fire in Times Square before appearing on anything associated with Laura Ingraham”) but there never was a dramatic public break. There was never really a call for one, and I don’t think very many people would have cared if there had been. I’m a print dinosaur, an Eisenhower man, and an anti-populist — not exactly the stuff of which modern cable-news punditry is made. I don’t want to be associated with Hannity et al. for the same reason I wouldn’t market my work on PornHub. Donald Trump, it is worth remembering, appeared in a handful of porn films: He knows his audience, and he always has. I know mine, too.
Understandably, people care a great deal more about Jonah Goldberg’s exit from Fox News. You can tell that Tucker Carlson and others care about it by how much, how loudly, and how bitterly they are talking about how much they don’t care. That’s familiar stuff, too: Every sub-Fox News nobody over at AR15RedStateJesus.com has written 500 blog posts and tweets about how “irrelevant” National Review is, and they’ll write 500 more this year. As the philosopher said, “Ob-la-di, ob-la-da.”
“This is war,” they tell us. It isn’t, of course, not by a damned sight, and thank God for it. But if you want to think of our recent national convulsions as war , then you should think of the cable-news gang as war profiteers . They have convinced millions of Americans that they are part of a great crusade, without quite disclosing that they are part of a great crusade to make sure that Sean Hannity never has to fly commercial and that Rachel Maddow can afford sustainably grown cedar planks for her weekend retreat in Massachusetts. And don’t think for a second that Hannity and Maddow aren’t in the same business and on the same team — if you believe otherwise, you are a sucker and a mark.
I don’t blame people for wanting to make money — I do my best to make some, too — but there are times when I think I might respect these entrepreneurs a little more if they just sold heroin.
Milton Friedman’s left-wing critics denounced him for having advised the government of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. Friedman’s response was, in my view, persuasive: He said he gave the Chilean government good advice, and that the Chilean people would have been better off if the Pinochet regime had followed Friedman’s advice more closely. I have friends who worked for the Trump administration, and they gave the administration good advice, making it less destructive than it might otherwise have been. (Do I need to explain to anybody that these cases are not exactly equivalent or precisely parallel? I hope not.) Fox News in its current configuration is best understood as the Trump administration in exile. Part of me wants to take my own advice, elaborated above, on the understanding that there are no perfect institutions, that we have to work with what we have, that we are better off with decent and intelligent voices being heard in those rooms and around those tables. Another part of me questions whether it is possible for an honorable man to continue to be associated with something like Fox News — or, more consequentially, with the Republican Party. Of course, they need good advice. Of course, the American people will be better off if they listen to that good advice. Are they inclined to listen? Are they even able to act on good advice? About that, I have my doubts.
Jonah Goldberg has raised a question. It is a question worth asking, and it will be worth remembering who answers it and how.
Tags
Who is online
73 visitors
We are open to all comments, but I'm mainly interested in what Conservatives think?
Was Fox News right to allow Carlson to question if there was government involvement in the Jan 6th riot?
"I know Tucker a little, and I couldn’t tell you why he does what he does. I don’t think it’s the money, which he doesn’t need, and it isn’t because he is stupid, which he is anything but. He is, among other things, a very fine writer. Tucker Carlson has genuine gifts, but so did Elmer Gantry."
So, does Carlson have an agenda?
Don't we all? Apart from that, congrats for seeding a nonpartisan article. You would do well to continue in that vein.
My guess is that Tucker is simply playing to his audience (like a tabloid rag) for ratings. He clearly is not attempting to be 'fair and balanced'.
I wouldnt be surprised at all if Carlson runs for president. 2028 sounds about right.
He doesn’t have to do that. He’s opinion host and pundit not a hard news reporter or news anchor. His purpose is to go at issues from a point of view. He, like Sean and Laura are Fox News opinion and editorial pages during east coast prime time on tv. None of the three make the claim to be objective news reporters and say that they are not up front unlike their CNN and MSNBC competitors who wear both hats at the same time.
Opinion = analysis of facts; not lies and conspiracy theories.
Do you NOT see that Carlson engages in conspiracy theories and basically is no better than a tabloid?
That is, do you actually believe the crap he is selling?
It’s clear that you do not agree with Tucker and his stated viewpoints on the issues. Your disagreement with him does not make his opinions lies or conspiracy theories. It is the CNN and MSNBC hosts that are like tabloids. I definitely believe much of what he’s getting at on the 1-6 issue. There was no conspiracy to create an insurrection on that date.
What was your first clue?
Well of course not. What makes his lies are what make all lies — stating as true that which is false. And his conspiracy theories are — like all conspiracy theories — extrapolations that are predominantly NOT based on facts but rather emotions and biases.
Pee Wee Herman retort.
I do not think there was a conspiracy to create an insurrection either. The insurrection was extemporaneous. What prompted the insurrection, however, was the lies from the president of the United States (and his minions like Giuliani) working his sycophants up into a frenzy and getting them to believe that the election was rigged and that they are the only people who can fix this.
Then why were there so many meetings the day before? And the tours given by Boebert and MTG to criminals present at 1/6 attack on the capitol? Even Bannon said, the day before.."All hell is going to break loose!!"..
But, no conspiracy? Why were most of trumps staff using burner phones in the week prior to 1/6? No conspiracy? Really??!! LMAO!
" ... and Penguin keeps the Marquis de Sade in print."
As would I, the man had a degree of Libertarian brilliance despite his penchant for pain.
"God strung up his own son like a side of veal. I shudder to think what he would do to me."
It was voluntary on their part and it was done for our benefit, should we choose to accept it.
You missed de Sade's humor. No surprise there.
I see no humor on that particular subject…the events between Good Friday and Easter Sunday are no laughing matter.
Of course he does, but then so does the writer...
I put little stock in people who have to quote their bona fides before getting to their point which is questioning the motives of another....
All of them have an agenda, it's why Walter Cronkite retired... He wasn't going to subject himself to anyone's agenda....
What Walter lamented was when news becomes subject to ratings, the truth generally gets left behind...
Todays media is the culmination of that belief coming to fruition....
Tucker Carlson has an agenda, the current system of delivering the news, subject to entertainment values, forces the agenda...
The thing is that Tucker, Sean, and Laura aren’t news shows and don’t claim to be. They openly state that they are opinion hosts on opinion shows that are basically Fox News opinion pages. Others such as MSNBC and CNN openly mix news and opinion and even have opinion hosts moderate debates, something Fox News never does.
Opinion does not give license to lie or to engage in wild conspiracy theories. Opinion is not supposed to be fantasy; it is supposed to be an analysis of the facts.
The problem Jeff is that opinion becomes more important than fact... a steady diet of opinion and people become reliant on it as real... That's how Pulitzer became the first media mogul...
Eventually, the opinion creator becomes the driver of opinion... And the listener, accepting such as the last word, become sycophant's of the opinion driver....
The best, most recognized example of this phenomenon is Joseph Goebbels and what he did with the technique... Unfortunately, ALL media today uses the technique cause they make money from it, MASSIVE amounts of money.... The money makers are willing to pay it cause it works.... The politicians for the same reason...
They become the sheep herders and expect everyone to become the sheep...
So they hate those that think for themselves... I'm not going to be a sheep.... Which to the opinion drivers I become the bear in the woods...
The one question you must ask yourself, are you a bear or a sheep? Bears don't eat sheep, they eat drivers...
And that’s your opinion with which I disagree regarding both the election and Jan 6.
You believe that Trump did NOT lie about the election being rigged??
You mean like conspiracy theories like Trump colluding with Russia? Or that he is the driving force behind the January 6 protest? Those are conspiracy theories that the likes of MSNBC and CNN ran with and the left believed for years.
Perhaps someone should tell Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Lois Lerner, Susan Rice, Jim Comey, John Brennan, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, Jen Psaki, Merrill Garland, et al.
I mean any conspiracy theory where people are making shit up. You will be unable to find a single comment from me endorsing the Trump collusion, peeing, etc. stories so why do you presume that this example has any bearing on what I wrote? I follow verifiable facts, not theatrics and bullshit.
Why are you deflecting from my point?
Do you buy the crap that Carlson peddles? If not, why are you 'trying' to defend his actions?
Jasper, anyone who pushes conspiracy theories is doing a disservice to their audience.
You can list everyone on the planet who has engaged in conspiracy theories and that will not change the point.
Do you buy the crap that Carlson pushes? If not, then why are you trying to deflect?
I'm not deflecting from your point. I'm giving examples. I'm reinforcing your point.
You did not acknowledge my point and instead posed examples in an implied argument of 'but they do it too'.
Then you hold the position that Carlson engages in conspiracy theories and that opinion does not give license to lie or to engage in wild conspiracy theories
Do you buy the crap that Carlson peddles?
I agree. Anyone who pushes conspiracy theories does, indeed, do a disservice to his/her audience. You can also include the conspiracy theories of Hunter Biden, Eric Swalwell, Pelosi, Schiff, and Waters.
However --- Why do you forcefully accuse anyone who questions your comments as "trying to deflect"? I've seen this numerous times in your comments ---
I rarely reply to comments that you direct to me, because I find the tones of your comments to be haughty, supercilious, hostile, accusatory, and/or unfriendly. If these comments' tones change in future, perhaps I shall be more amenable to granting further replies. Until then, good-bye.
TiG, why do you need his capitulation? Why does he HAVE to respond in the way you want for you to accept his position?
You didn't used to be this way my friend...
I did not ask for and certainly did not demand capitulation. Jeremy claimed that he was supporting my point. Well when someone does not acknowledge my point but instead gives examples of 'the other side' doing it that is not support ... that is deflection. It is textbook.
And that is what I stated. Supporting my point would have some indication of agreement. Bottom line, if you want to support someone's point, you give at least some indication that you agree and the support should actually shore up the point and not deflect into 'they do it too' kind of language.
This is not about having to respond as I want, it is noting that a 'they do it too' rebuttal is deflection.
Yes, Jasper, the party / ideology does not matter.
I do not, that is a lie. I note deflection when it occurs, not simply because of a challenge. I directly respond to challenges. For example, note that I am directly responding to your current comment and am not claiming deflection.
Fine with me; don't respond. I will still reply to your comments when I see fit (which is rare).
Note also:
@4.1 the established context is Tucker Carlson and my comment is critical of Carlson.
You quote my comment and then list off a bunch of Ds (and one ex-R) and note that these people should also be informed of that. You did not list off any notable Rs. That is classical deflection: criticism of one group (or a member of one group) deflected by redirecting the criticism to the opposing group.
Deflection! Nothing to do with disagreement but everything to do with calling out the tactic.
That's hilarious someone flagged this comment.
How woke does someone need to be?
Youre right. Comment 4.1.6 is idiotic, but its not a coc violation.
How is it idiotic John...and be specific with each triggered answer.
Donald Trump himself has believed and promoted more conspiracies than all the Democrats mentioned in that comment put together.
Is that "specific" enough for you?
That's funny Jeremy because Republicans are desperately trying to insert a HUGE chasm between the Jan. 6 'protest' and the Jan. 6 riot. Trump funded, sent out invitations and was the key note speaker at the Jan. 6 'protest' so there is NO doubt, Trump WAS a driving force behind it, full stop.
Your slip is showing when you forget the talking points and say the quiet part out loud.
He said the same thing you did, just pointing at a different person/political slant....
First time I've seen you argue semantics.... In the past with me you refused to argue semantics.... We had deep solid discussions without the petty absolutes...
Things have changed a lot around here in the last year haven't they.... Your not the only one I've seen this change with it's happened with several other friends, they take a much harder slant nowadays... One particular person I used to enjoy discussions with I guess took a look at my communications with others and have decided that since I'm friends with a certain person that I'm of the same persuasion so they I guess have decided that I'm trash, I saw her saying it directly to another person with like prejudices...
I've been gone a year and coming back, this board shows the division we see in the media even more powerful than the media does...
The hate is strong here...
First of all, the statement he quoted has zero political / ideological slant — it applies universally: (my entire comment)
Second, I cannot remember a situation where he has replied in support of a comment I have made. Pretty much every time it is an attempt to rebut (in this case it is a deflection 'rebuttal').
Here is the form of deflection that was used.
That is textbook deflection. Being super specific:
The tactic was obvious.
Because I called out an obvious deflection? When intellectually dishonest tactics are used (especially if in a REPLY to me) I have routinely called same out. Have done so for as long as I have been on social media forums and saw these tactics applied routinely in lieu of a thoughtful argument / rebuttal.
I call out a textbook deflection and look at your reaction. And at the end you make this ⇡ statement to me. A common theme lately is to play games in lieu of a cogent rebuttal. Don't encourage such behavior.
Thank you for the answer....
It may or may not have been as rigged as he believes it to have been but there is zero doubt that there was some foul play going on in several states.
ditto!
May? Really? After all this time you still cannot see that there was nothing out of the ordinary in the election that, if corrected, would have caused Trump to win. Nothing even close. Trump was and is totally full of shit about the election being rigged. How can you have any doubt at this point? His 'Big Lie' makes him a laughing stock. A national clown.
Unfortunately, his 'Big Lie' makes him and his cronies a mortal danger to our democracy.
Your point was about conspiracy theories. I' gave two examples. Just because you don't like the examples given isn't my problem.
Everybody engages in conspiracy theories and opinion. That's generally how most conversations start. Well, maybe not conversations with the left (especially here on NT). It's hard to have a conversation with somebody who rabidly believes a conspiracy theory or opinion to be fact.
Not as presented. I do this thing called research. Regardless of who the statement comes from, I look it up using several different sources (Right, left, doesn't matter) and form my own opinion. There are many here on NT that should do the same. It would cut down on all the bullshit we see on our frontpages.
There is no "chasm". It was a protest. Not in the sense that you claim the riots in Ferguson, Baltimore, Kenosha or Minneapolis are Protests.
And yet, just like the "Russia Collusion" conspiracy theory, nobody's been able to provide any proof of what you claim. All we have are Democrats and the left crying (as ususal).
So there is no chasm, the 1/6 protest and riot were one in the same.
That is a strawman. I have made no such claim Jeremy.
Your comment illustrates a deep state of denial and/or the extent of which you are uninformed Jeremy.
Trump tweets promoted the 1/6 'Stop the Steal' protest for WEEKS before it happened.
The organizer coordinated with the WH. There are text messages and emails PROVING that fact.
Trump, Don Jr., Eric, Eric's wife, Don Jr's 'girlfriend, Guiliani [Trump campaign], Eastman [Trump campaign's lawyer] ALL spoke at the 'protest'.
Don Jr. and his GF, Eric, Giuliani, Flynn, Lewandowski, Navarro, Bossie, 'my pillow' Lindell and former RAGA director Piper met with Sen. Tuberville in Trump's personal residence at Trump's DC hotel. There are facebook posts by attendees and pics to PROVE that fact.
The Trump campaign paid for the Willard Hotel 'war room' used before the 'protest' where Bannon, Giuliani, Eastman and others used as a command center and they were there on Jan. 5th, brainstorming on 'plan B' after Pence told Trump to pound sand.
The organizers of the 'protest' were in the 'Presidential suite' in that same hotel on Jan. 5th and during the Jan. 6 riot.
ALL of these FACTS have been reported starting all the way back in 2020. One would have to be willfully obtuse not to have heard about at least SOME of those facts.
Well if they are "facts" as you say, you should be able to provide a link or twelve backing up your "facts".
Why Jim?
You wouldn't actually READ any of it anyway.
It's all over the internet. Do some adulting and educate yourself. Go READ something other than what the RW posts here.
Google has over 160,000 hits for a search of 'Trump Willard Hotel war room'.
Here's just one such link:
Woodward and Costa report Trump called Willard hotel 'war room' on eve of Capitol riot | Washington Examiner
Here's just one for the Trump hotel meeting:
Photos put Tuberville in Trump's hotel on Jan. 5 despite denying meeting (alreporter.com)
The organizer's texts are in an expose from Rolling Stone and has been reported all over the place. I'm DONE holding your hand. Go look it up.
Thanks for your condescending usual reply bullshit. Yes I will read them unlike a few members here at NT. I am not afraid of being educated evewhen it may not actually be to my liking..
Thanks for the links.
Have no fear, Jim or Jeremy or both will be back, making the false claim that I NEVER provide facts for anything, at their next convenience.
Your scare quote for "facts" was my motivation to give what you gave Jim.
NONE of my comment is bullshit.
Well after reading your links, there IS a chasm between the protest and the riot. From what I see and will paste, it was a meeting to discuss illegal votes. Per your alreporter.com source..........
Nothing about a protest let alone a riot plan.
From the Examiner........
Still, nothing about a protest let alone riot was being discussed. Sorry. This time you are wrong.
Is condescending bullshit. As said, I read what I am offered unlike some on this site.
As compared to the mortal danger to our democracy caused by spying on a political opponent after using FISA warrants obtained by using a political hit hit job propaganda piece paid for by the Clinton campaign? That sparked an FBI investigation staffed entirely by Clinton and Obama sycophants into all things Trump; but could never prove collusion- so turned to obstruction of their illegal investigation instead.
So the Democrats are a mortal danger to our democracy.
Don't see anyone on the left holding them accountable for their lies; but we get an overwhelming dose of "But Trruuummmmpppppp!!!!!!!" Until every last Democrat involved in the Russian collusion hoax is forced out of office and brought to justice the left can just sit and spin. Why should anyone listen to their dog whistle Trump BS anymore?
Two examples of 'the other side does it too'. My point was not about conspiracy theories, it was about Tucker Carlson (his conspiracy theories are simply an example of why he receives criticism). You offering conspiracy theories of Ds and 'the left' is textbook 'they do it too' deflection.
I do not buy that everyone engages in conspiracy theories.
Good practice; follow the fact to where they lead regardless of political / ideological / religious bias.
Regardless of how you look at it, I gave two examples of conspiracy theories. You didn't like them and, as I said before, That's. Not. My. Problem.
That's funny. I didn't know it was joke day.
Jeremy just cut the bullshit. You know damn well that you took my criticism of Carlson and deflected to the Ds and 'the left'.
'They do it too' is deflection. Buy a vowel.
Nope...It's just a generalized response we have come to expect from the TDS riddled.
Now, how about some SPECIFICS...
Don't expect it. Wasn't that long ago that she claimed 12 bills of some sort or other and only provided 4. After much request to show the rest, she never did.
Strawman. I didn't say there was.
Right because the players at BOTH hotel meetings speaking at the 'protest' is just a coincidence.
It isn't a stretch to presume that after Pence told Trump to pound sand late on Jan. 5th, there was some frenzied writing and or editing going on in that 'war room' for the speeches that Trump's minions were going to give the next morning.
Late on Jan. 5th, when the NYT reported that Pence told Trump that he wouldn't violate the Constitution, Trump claimed that it was 'fake news' and insisted that he and Pence were in agreement about Pence having the power to carry out his orders.
The next morning, Pence sent Trump a letter documenting what had been reported truthfully by the NYT.
It's been reported that late on Jan. 5th, Trump called in and talked to his minions about how 'plan B' was progressing.
ANY thinking person who listened to the speeches that day has to admit that it was pretty fucking clear what Trump and his minions wanted to happen. During Trump's speech, they chanted 'Take the Capitol!, Storm the Capitol!, Invade the Capitol building!' Not once did Trump say NO!
10 minutes after Pence was taken off the floor to a secure location, Trump tweeted this:
The rioters chanted "Hang Mike Pence".
But ya, Trump had NOTHING to do with it.../s
Yet 1000xs stronger than any argument you've made.
You hold on to that REEEEEEEAl tight now and have a good Thanksgiving
Underhanded.
Exactly and saying the huge protest at the ellipse where Trump spoke and the smaller group at the capitol a mile and a half away with the latter starting before the first ended with a 45 minute transit time between them is a lie.
I never see a flag function on my own comments. Do you see a flag on yours?
Nobody will see a flag on their own comments.
That is a lie bugsy. I gave you and yours the link to the bills, y'all were just too fucking lazy to go READ them. That's on YOU.
Oh I should have included you in my 4.1.35 comment.
Why aren't we allowed to see if our own comments have been flagged?
You will have to ask Perrie, but the reason a flag does not appear on our comments is that it is illogical for us to flag ourselves.
I suspect that providing information about flagging would simply generate more meta. The purpose of the flagging system is to enable mods to take action so that members can avoid doing so. I suspect Perrie does not want that function (or any function) to encourage more meta. (As we engage in meta.)
Exactly and I find it counterproductive.
and TiG 4.1.60 --
Thank you for your replies. I merely found it odd that the only member who cannot see the flag option on his/her comments is the member who posted the comment. Meta was the last thing on my mind when I posted comment 4.1.59 .
As far as meta, I understand. It seems that some of our members inappropriately air personal grievances on members' seeds/articles instead of in our Metafied group.
I hope that you enjoyed a Happy Thanksgiving with your families and friends.
Sinde the news was subject to ratings from the first day Walter Cronkite showed his face on TV, where did you come up with that posit?
Hence why I don’t watch any cable news. The news and truth are very low on the priority list, rating and advertiser $s are what are really important, and nothing brings both like pissing people off. It’s gotten so bad that “news” stations employ people in their prime time slots that just blatantly make shit up to piss off their viewers, and then try to hide behind the “oh we never said these were news broadcasts” bullshit defense.
They know damn well their audience is stupid and can’t tell the difference, that if the network has news in its name then everything on it must be news and this factual. The dishonesty is too much.
And it makes normally reasonable people into insane people... It's something that's GOT to stop....
Geez…sounds like nothing but a jealous rant.
That is exactly why the second one of the opinion hosts even remotely suggests they are some sort of champion for the average person I stop listening to them. You cannot tell me you are looking out for the little guy while living a lifestyle that the little guy can barely fathom.
And those are the only people on cable “news” channels anymore, a bunch of self-righteous d bags who are looking to suck every dollar they can out of the people they claim to represent. Not that the right has a monopoly on these pricks, but they do have the most well-known and seem to be the most proud of them.
Viewing it from our side, we see exactly the same thing on the democrat side.... The news media is hopelessly biased from any angle you look at it.... (and truth is something to avoid like the plague unless it absolutely destroys an enemy and incites anger)
Indeed. And the left has far more choices to turn to to get their news and opinion info than we do. And theirs aren’t screwed over by so called gate keepers and fact checkers like ours are.