media matters

[old salt]

I'd love to see the internal emails from MSNBC & CNN about their audience reaction & ratings driven by their reporting decisions.

You're going to comment on the Fox lawsuit at some point, right? Outright lies....knowing they were lying.....and deliberately lying to their audience?

Comment?

I did :

Here is Dominion's Memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment on liability:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ ... f/full.pdf

The fact section on Newsmax capitalizing on the Fox call on Arizona, Fox's effort to fight back for viewers through support of the Big Lie and defamation of Dominion, even when they knew is was false and crazy.

But here's what they did, even when they knew the information they were getting was false:

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1626387262274428928

This is really bad for Fox. I recall on election night, when Fox called AZ for Biden, I knew it was over & went to bed. I respected Fox for being the first to make a call that would disappoint their audience.

I don't know if Fox can win the defamation case, but I'm surprised they didn't try to settle the suit to keep all this evidence from coming out.
I note that some straight shooters are still there at Fox -- Baier, Cavuto, Hume, Heinrich, Griffin, MacCallum, Bream, Faulkner, Tomlison, Yingst & others. I hope this prompts some changes.

"I hope this prompts some changes". That's it?

I guess I just have accept that this is how you are. Scream bloody murder when you think the media isn't running a story the way you want.....and then "i hope this prompts some changes" when the media deliberately lies to the their viewers, leading to many of them getting jail time for what they did on Jan 6th, having taken FoxNews at their word.

I'll learn to let it go.

You're not learning very fast. First you accuse me of not commenting then don't find my comment sufficient.
Do you expect me to set myself on fire ?
I've learned to expect this from both sides of the media, which is why I scan multiple sources.

[a fan]

I'd love to see the internal emails from MSNBC & CNN about their audience reaction & ratings driven by their reporting decisions.

You're going to comment on the Fox lawsuit at some point, right? Outright lies....knowing they were lying.....and deliberately lying to their audience?

Comment?

I did :

Here is Dominion's Memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment on liability:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ ... f/full.pdf

The fact section on Newsmax capitalizing on the Fox call on Arizona, Fox's effort to fight back for viewers through support of the Big Lie and defamation of Dominion, even when they knew is was false and crazy.

But here's what they did, even when they knew the information they were getting was false:

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1626387262274428928

This is really bad for Fox. I recall on election night, when Fox called AZ for Biden, I knew it was over & went to bed. I respected Fox for being the first to make a call that would disappoint their audience.

I don't know if Fox can win the defamation case, but I'm surprised they didn't try to settle the suit to keep all this evidence from coming out.
I note that some straight shooters are still there at Fox -- Baier, Cavuto, Hume, Heinrich, Griffin, MacCallum, Bream, Faulkner, Tomlison, Yingst & others. I hope this prompts some changes.

"I hope this prompts some changes". That's it?

I guess I just have accept that this is how you are. Scream bloody murder when you think the media isn't running a story the way you want.....and then "i hope this prompts some changes" when the media deliberately lies to the their viewers, leading to many of them getting jail time for what they did on Jan 6th, having taken FoxNews at their word.

I'll learn to let it go.

You're not learning very fast. First you accuse me of not commenting then don't find my comment sufficient.
Do you expect me to set myself on fire ?
I've learned to expect this from both sides of the mediaWho from "the other side" of media has been caught knowingly lying to their viewers for not days, or even weeks...but for years, OS? And to top it off, kept their jobs after getting caught. Got a cite for that?

Because if you don't, this is a singular event, and you should act accordingly., which is why I scan multiple sources.

[old salt]

Who from "the other side" of media has been caught knowingly lying to their viewers for not days, or even weeks...but for years, OS? And to top it off, kept their jobs after getting caught. Got a cite for that?

All the purveyors of the Russia collusion hoax. Even the NYT had a soul searching town hall with their staff, admitting they overplayed the story.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... cript.html

Dean Baquet: If we’re really going to be a transparent newsroom that debates these issues among ourselves and not on Twitter, I figured I should talk to the whole newsroom, and hear from the whole newsroom. We had a couple of significant missteps, and I know you’re concerned about them, and I am, too. But there’s something larger at play here. This is a really hard story, newsrooms haven’t confronted one like this since the 1960s. It got trickier after [inaudible] … went from being a story about whether the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia and obstruction of justice to being a more head-on story about the president’s character. We built our newsroom to cover one story... In the coming weeks, we’ll be assigning some new people to politics who can offer different ways of looking at the world. We’ll also ask reporters to write more deeply about the country, race, and other divisions. I really want your help in navigating this story.

obtw -- the above was leaked.

[a fan]

Who from "the other side" of media has been caught knowingly lying to their viewers for not days, or even weeks...but for years, OS? And to top it off, kept their jobs after getting caught. Got a cite for that?

All the purveyors of the Russia collusion hoax. Even the NYT had a soul searching town hall with their staff, admitting they overplayed the story.

Fox does that every day. "overplay the story". That's not the same thing as knowingly printing a lie.

What lie did the NYTimes print?

[old salt]

Who from "the other side" of media has been caught knowingly lying to their viewers for not days, or even weeks...but for years, OS? And to top it off, kept their jobs after getting caught. Got a cite for that?

All the purveyors of the Russia collusion hoax. Even the NYT had a soul searching town hall with their staff, admitting they overplayed the story.

Fox does that every day. "overplay the story". That's not the same thing as knowingly printing a lie.

What lie did the NYTimes print?

Stay tuned on this too. Wait & see what comes out on the Jan 6 video & see how that aligns with MSNBC's coverage of the Jan 6 committee.

[a fan]

Who from "the other side" of media has been caught knowingly lying to their viewers for not days, or even weeks...but for years, OS? And to top it off, kept their jobs after getting caught. Got a cite for that?

All the purveyors of the Russia collusion hoax. Even the NYT had a soul searching town hall with their staff, admitting they overplayed the story.

Fox does that every day. "overplay the story". That's not the same thing as knowingly printing a lie.

What lie did the NYTimes print?

Stay tuned on this too. Wait & see what comes out on the Jan 6 video & see how that aligns with MSNBC's coverage of the Jan 6 committee.

You didn't answer my question. What lie----a lie that the NYTimes KNEW was a lie-----did they print.

If you can't answer that question? You have to admit that what Fox did was unprecedented, and Old Salt should act accordingly.

[old salt]

Who from "the other side" of media has been caught knowingly lying to their viewers for not days, or even weeks...but for years, OS? And to top it off, kept their jobs after getting caught. Got a cite for that?

All the purveyors of the Russia collusion hoax. Even the NYT had a soul searching town hall with their staff, admitting they overplayed the story.

Fox does that every day. "overplay the story". That's not the same thing as knowingly printing a lie.

What lie did the NYTimes print?

Stay tuned on this too. Wait & see what comes out on the Jan 6 video & see how that aligns with MSNBC's coverage of the Jan 6 committee.

You didn't answer my question. What lie----a lie that the NYTimes KNEW was a lie-----did they print.

If you can't answer that question? You have to admit that what Fox did was unprecedented, and Old Salt should act accordingly.

What was the Fox lie ? I thought the story was about their internal, after the fact, debate, about calling AZ for Biden on election night.

[a fan]

Who from "the other side" of media has been caught knowingly lying to their viewers for not days, or even weeks...but for years, OS? And to top it off, kept their jobs after getting caught. Got a cite for that?

All the purveyors of the Russia collusion hoax. Even the NYT had a soul searching town hall with their staff, admitting they overplayed the story.

Fox does that every day. "overplay the story". That's not the same thing as knowingly printing a lie.

What lie did the NYTimes print?

Stay tuned on this too. Wait & see what comes out on the Jan 6 video & see how that aligns with MSNBC's coverage of the Jan 6 committee.

You didn't answer my question. What lie----a lie that the NYTimes KNEW was a lie-----did they print.

If you can't answer that question? You have to admit that what Fox did was unprecedented, and Old Salt should act accordingly.

What was the Fox lie ? I thought the story was about their internal, after the fact, debate, about calling AZ for Biden on election night.

You literally commented on this lie already----from the Fox lawsuit. It's what prompted your blithe response "I hope they make some changes".

[old salt]

Who from "the other side" of media has been caught knowingly lying to their viewers for not days, or even weeks...but for years, OS? And to top it off, kept their jobs after getting caught. Got a cite for that?

All the purveyors of the Russia collusion hoax. Even the NYT had a soul searching town hall with their staff, admitting they overplayed the story.

Fox does that every day. "overplay the story". That's not the same thing as knowingly printing a lie.

What lie did the NYTimes print?

Stay tuned on this too. Wait & see what comes out on the Jan 6 video & see how that aligns with MSNBC's coverage of the Jan 6 committee.

You didn't answer my question. What lie----a lie that the NYTimes KNEW was a lie-----did they print.

If you can't answer that question? You have to admit that what Fox did was unprecedented, and Old Salt should act accordingly.

What was the Fox lie ? I thought the story was about their internal, after the fact, debate, about calling AZ for Biden on election night.

You literally commented on this lie already----from the Fox lawsuit. It's what prompted your blithe response "I hope they make some changes".

I was commenting on the internal debate where they wanted to fire the guys from the decision desk for calling AZ first, thus angering much of their audience. Check my posts, that's what I discussed. I said I didn't know about the lawsuit & I wondered why Fox didn't settle to limit the bad publicity.

[a fan]

I was commenting on the internal debate where they wanted to fire the guys from the decision desk for calling AZ first, thus angering much of their audience. Check my posts, that's what I discussed. I said I didn't know about the lawsuit & I wondered why Fox didn't settle to limit the bad publicity.

So then why would you call for changes at Fox? They didn't do anything wrong in this specific context.

Immaterial I guess.

So you're telling me you are 100% unaware that Tucker Carlson was found, as a part of this lawsuit, to know full well that Trump's claims of election fraud was nonsense....yet he still ran years (years) of segments claiming fraud in the 2020 election.

Ok. Care to comment now?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/20 ... -analysis/

[old salt]

I was commenting on the internal debate where they wanted to fire the guys from the decision desk for calling AZ first, thus angering much of their audience. Check my posts, that's what I discussed. I said I didn't know about the lawsuit & I wondered why Fox didn't settle to limit the bad publicity.

So then why would you call for changes at Fox? They didn't do anything wrong in this specific context.

Immaterial I guess.

So you're telling me you are 100% unaware that Tucker Carlson was found, as a part of this lawsuit, to know full well that Trump's claims of election fraud was nonsense....yet he still ran years (years) of segments claiming fraud in the 2020 election.

Ok. Care to comment now?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/20 ... -analysis/

After election night, I accepted that Trump had lost. After that, all the stories about the election were white noise to me.
I figured if there was anything to them, they'd prove out, or not. It was not worth my time to follow the details.
By that point, I was so sick of Trump, & the way he lost GA for the GOP, I just wanted him to go away.
I wasn't interested in the details or merits of his claims. I accepted Bill Barr's BS call on them & tuned out.

I wondered about changes at Fox because of the way they went after the decision desk guys for getting it right.

[Kismet]

I wondered about changes at Fox because of the way they went after the decision desk guys for getting it right.

Well, maybe now you know and you don't need to wonder any longer.

Apparently, you also don't have any issues with having the audience decide what's news.

I'm thrilled that the Faux News folks are going balls to the wall - "We're not even a little bit sorry and we intend to continue defaming the plaintiff no matter what damages the court assesses" litigation strategy.

Can't wait to see what the punitive damages come in at.

[old salt]

I wondered about changes at Fox because of the way they went after the decision desk guys for getting it right.

Well, maybe now you know and you don't need to wonder any longer.
Apparently, you also don't have any issues with having the audience decide what's news.

That's why I scan multiple news sources. I even subscribe to the NYT (so long as I can get it for $1/wk)
...of course the NYT editor told us how they let their audience decide what's all the news fit to print.
They respond to mean tweets.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... cript.html

The New York Times Unites vs. Twitter

In a transcript of the newspaper’s crisis town-hall meeting, executive editor Dean Baquet grapples with a restive staff and outside scrutiny.

“What I’m saying is that our readers and some of our staff cheer us when we take on Donald Trump, but they jeer at us when we take on Joe Biden,” New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet told his staff in a town hall on Monday.

In the 75 minutes of the meeting—which Slate obtained a recording of, and of which a lightly condensed and edited transcript appears below—Baquet and the paper’s other leadership tried to resolve a tumultuous week for the paper, one marked by a reader revolt against a front-page headline and a separate Twitter meltdown by Jonathan Weisman, a top editor in the Washington bureau. On Tuesday, the Times announced it was demoting Weisman from deputy editor because of his “serious lapses in judgment.”

Baquet, in his remarks, seemed to fault the complaining readers, and the world, for their failure to understand the Times and its duties in the era of Trump. “They sometimes want us to pretend that he was not elected president, but he was elected president,” Baquet said. “And our job is to figure out why, and how, and to hold the administration to account. If you’re independent, that’s what you do.”

Yet the problem for the Times is not whether it can navigate social-media controversies or satisfy an appetite for #resistance-based outrage, both of which it can tell itself are not a newspaper’s job to do. It’s whether it has the tools to make sense of the world. On this point, Baquet was not reassuring or convincing.

Staffers repeatedly asked Baquet about the paper’s reluctance to use the word racist, in part because his explanations seemed inconsistent. Calling it a “bizarre litmus test,” Baquet argued it was “more powerful” to avoid directly using the label. “The best way to capture a remark, like the kinds of remarks the president makes, is to use them, to lay it out in perspective,” he said. “That is much more powerful than the use of a word.”

When asked a few minutes later about the paper’s historic use of racist to describe segregationist demonstrators in Arkansas in 1957, however, he said, “I don’t think anybody would avoid using the racist in a scene like that.” By the first account, racist wasn’t powerful enough language to describe Trump; by the second, Trump wasn’t bad enough to call racist.

The remarks showed Baquet and the other speakers conceding some technical and procedural failings but rejecting, or avoiding, deeper criticisms of the paper’s performance. A staffer, submitting a question anonymously, suggested that the headline that had caused all the trouble—“TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM”—“amplifies without critique the desired narrative of the most powerful figure in the country.”

Baquet and other editors addressed the headline as an operational problem, the result of a “system breakdown,” where a front-page layout had left too little space for nuance. “We set it up for a bad headline,” Baquet said, “and the people who were in a position to judge it quickly and change it, like me, did not look at it until too late.”

The closest Baquet came to identifying a moment when the paper had misjudged current events was when he described it as being “a little tiny bit flat-footed” after the Mueller investigation ended. “Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, ‘Holy turd, Bob Mueller is not going to do it,’” Baquet said. “And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons. And I think that the story changed. A lot of the stuff we’re talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago.”

By this account, the question of how to address presidential racism was a newly emerged one, something the paper would need to pivot into. “How do we cover America, that’s become so divided by Donald Trump?” he said. “How do we grapple with all the stuff you all are talking about? How do we write about race in a thoughtful way, something we haven’t done in a large way in a long time?”

This difficult transition from one big story to the next was not a failure, but an unfortunate turn of events, which caused readers to unfairly take out their frustration on the messenger. The Times, like everyone, has to live through a period of heightened hostility. “There were tweets that people at the New York Times retweeted or liked last week that were really painful for this newsroom and for me personally,” Baquet said.

And Twitter is not reality, as publisher A.G. Sulzberger told the staff earlier in the session. “You know, someone did a study of Twitter shares that showed that 70 percent of all stories shared on Twitter were never opened,” Sulzberger said. “And to me, that’s just a reminder that so much of the world is judging before they’re actually engaging.”

The meeting transcript has been edited for grammar and continuity. And if you’re a current or former New York Times employee, please feel free to get in touch.

[Farfromgeneva]

The amount of hiding behind researched and curating stories, opera and links is so hilarious. All to try and win.

[Kismet]

The msm reports I've seen cast doubt on Hersh & the story.

Every. Single. MSM. Outlet. did the same for the Steele Dossier. NO ONE reported it as true and verified. And the WaPo and others MOCKED the dossier.

I just gave you the proof! The real time reaction from the WaPo to the Buzzfeed leak. What do you need to see before you get that they did their jobs, no bias?

If you prefer, just stick to the WaPo to keep the conversation simple. They handled Steele PERFECTLY. Hit it out of the park. They MADE FUN of what was in the dossier. What else do you want them to do?

As for the Hersh Story, it's everywhere today, as Russia is not claiming the US did it. Reuters, WaPo, Politico, etc.

As I said, we need to refute the Hersh story with credible evidence, before it spins out of control, because it's plausible & because of Nuland's & Biden's previous bellicose threats.

With regard to Hersh, please make use of your NYT subscription who are reporting that intelligence sources are suggesting that maybe the Ukrainians sabotaged the Nordstream pipeline
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/us/p ... &smtyp=cur

Of course, maybe it doesn't fit with your view that the Deep State/US military did it as Seymour Hersh reported (with no credible sources).

[a fan]

I was commenting on the internal debate where they wanted to fire the guys from the decision desk for calling AZ first, thus angering much of their audience. Check my posts, that's what I discussed. I said I didn't know about the lawsuit & I wondered why Fox didn't settle to limit the bad publicity.

So then why would you call for changes at Fox? They didn't do anything wrong in this specific context.

Immaterial I guess.

So you're telling me you are 100% unaware that Tucker Carlson was found, as a part of this lawsuit, to know full well that Trump's claims of election fraud was nonsense....yet he still ran years (years) of segments claiming fraud in the 2020 election.

Ok. Care to comment now?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/20 ... -analysis/

After election night, I accepted that Trump had lost. After that, all the stories about the election were white noise to me.
I figured if there was anything to them, they'd prove out, or not. It was not worth my time to follow the details.
By that point, I was so sick of Trump, & the way he lost GA for the GOP, I just wanted him to go away.
I wasn't interested in the details or merits of his claims. I accepted Bill Barr's BS call on them & tuned out.

I wondered about changes at Fox because of the way they went after the decision desk guys for getting it right.

That's all great. You're still dodging the question. And it's clear you're doing this intentionally. This is what you do: you only care about this stuff when your ox is gored. And then turn around and hold everyone else to a higher standard. And you know you do this....but play the "who me?" game when you're caught.

It's really hard to deal with someone that does this, because it's not an honest conversation.

I'll figure it out.

[SCLaxAttack]

I was commenting on the internal debate where they wanted to fire the guys from the decision desk for calling AZ first, thus angering much of their audience. Check my posts, that's what I discussed. I said I didn't know about the lawsuit & I wondered why Fox didn't settle to limit the bad publicity.

So then why would you call for changes at Fox? They didn't do anything wrong in this specific context.

Immaterial I guess.

So you're telling me you are 100% unaware that Tucker Carlson was found, as a part of this lawsuit, to know full well that Trump's claims of election fraud was nonsense....yet he still ran years (years) of segments claiming fraud in the 2020 election.

Ok. Care to comment now?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/20 ... -analysis/

After election night, I accepted that Trump had lost. After that, all the stories about the election were white noise to me.
I figured if there was anything to them, they'd prove out, or not. It was not worth my time to follow the details.
By that point, I was so sick of Trump, & the way he lost GA for the GOP, I just wanted him to go away.
I wasn't interested in the details or merits of his claims. I accepted Bill Barr's BS call on them & tuned out.

I wondered about changes at Fox because of the way they went after the decision desk guys for getting it right.

That's all great. You're still dodging the question. And it's clear you're doing this intentionally. This is what you do: you only care about this stuff when your ox is gored. And then turn around and hold everyone else to a higher standard. And you know you do this....but play the "who me?" game when you're caught.

It's really hard to deal with someone that does this, because it's not an honest conversation.

I'll figure it out.

Gaslighting. Somebody wants to make you feel like you're the one who can't follow along.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I was commenting on the internal debate where they wanted to fire the guys from the decision desk for calling AZ first, thus angering much of their audience. Check my posts, that's what I discussed. I said I didn't know about the lawsuit & I wondered why Fox didn't settle to limit the bad publicity.

So then why would you call for changes at Fox? They didn't do anything wrong in this specific context.

Immaterial I guess.

So you're telling me you are 100% unaware that Tucker Carlson was found, as a part of this lawsuit, to know full well that Trump's claims of election fraud was nonsense....yet he still ran years (years) of segments claiming fraud in the 2020 election.

Ok. Care to comment now?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/20 ... -analysis/

After election night, I accepted that Trump had lost. After that, all the stories about the election were white noise to me.
I figured if there was anything to them, they'd prove out, or not. It was not worth my time to follow the details.
By that point, I was so sick of Trump, & the way he lost GA for the GOP, I just wanted him to go away.
I wasn't interested in the details or merits of his claims. I accepted Bill Barr's BS call on them & tuned out.

I wondered about changes at Fox because of the way they went after the decision desk guys for getting it right.

That's all great. You're still dodging the question. And it's clear you're doing this intentionally. This is what you do: you only care about this stuff when your ox is gored. And then turn around and hold everyone else to a higher standard. And you know you do this....but play the "who me?" game when you're caught.

It's really hard to deal with someone that does this, because it's not an honest conversation.

I'll figure it out.

Sums it up.

[a fan]

I was commenting on the internal debate where they wanted to fire the guys from the decision desk for calling AZ first, thus angering much of their audience. Check my posts, that's what I discussed. I said I didn't know about the lawsuit & I wondered why Fox didn't settle to limit the bad publicity.

So then why would you call for changes at Fox? They didn't do anything wrong in this specific context.

Immaterial I guess.

So you're telling me you are 100% unaware that Tucker Carlson was found, as a part of this lawsuit, to know full well that Trump's claims of election fraud was nonsense....yet he still ran years (years) of segments claiming fraud in the 2020 election.

Ok. Care to comment now?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/20 ... -analysis/

After election night, I accepted that Trump had lost. After that, all the stories about the election were white noise to me.
I figured if there was anything to them, they'd prove out, or not. It was not worth my time to follow the details.
By that point, I was so sick of Trump, & the way he lost GA for the GOP, I just wanted him to go away.
I wasn't interested in the details or merits of his claims. I accepted Bill Barr's BS call on them & tuned out.

I wondered about changes at Fox because of the way they went after the decision desk guys for getting it right.

That's all great. You're still dodging the question. And it's clear you're doing this intentionally. This is what you do: you only care about this stuff when your ox is gored. And then turn around and hold everyone else to a higher standard. And you know you do this....but play the "who me?" game when you're caught.

It's really hard to deal with someone that does this, because it's not an honest conversation.

I'll figure it out.

Gaslighting. Somebody wants to make you feel like you're the one who can't follow along.

Plainly the case here. Because as he usually does...he leaves the conversation when he thinks he's being forced into saying something bad about his team. If I was asking this about CNN or MSNBC...he would have given his anger over this lie the very day that it was exposed.

it's really tiring, because he keeps claiming to want to have level headed discussions, and swears it's not about R's and D's. And yet when I put the T-ball on top of the ol' Tee? He walks....instead of simply saying "yeah, what Tucker and Fox have been doing doesn't have a parallel. This hasn't happened in modern big media history. Tucker should be removed immediately".

[old salt]

I was commenting on the internal debate where they wanted to fire the guys from the decision desk for calling AZ first, thus angering much of their audience. Check my posts, that's what I discussed. I said I didn't know about the lawsuit & I wondered why Fox didn't settle to limit the bad publicity.

So then why would you call for changes at Fox? They didn't do anything wrong in this specific context.

Immaterial I guess.

So you're telling me you are 100% unaware that Tucker Carlson was found, as a part of this lawsuit, to know full well that Trump's claims of election fraud was nonsense....yet he still ran years (years) of segments claiming fraud in the 2020 election.

Ok. Care to comment now?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/20 ... -analysis/

After election night, I accepted that Trump had lost. After that, all the stories about the election were white noise to me.
I figured if there was anything to them, they'd prove out, or not. It was not worth my time to follow the details.
By that point, I was so sick of Trump, & the way he lost GA for the GOP, I just wanted him to go away.
I wasn't interested in the details or merits of his claims. I accepted Bill Barr's BS call on them & tuned out.

I wondered about changes at Fox because of the way they went after the decision desk guys for getting it right.

That's all great. You're still dodging the question. And it's clear you're doing this intentionally. This is what you do: you only care about this stuff when your ox is gored. And then turn around and hold everyone else to a higher standard. And you know you do this....but play the "who me?" game when you're caught.

It's really hard to deal with someone that does this, because it's not an honest conversation.

I'll figure it out.

Gaslighting. Somebody wants to make you feel like you're the one who can't follow along.

Plainly the case here. Because as he usually does...he leaves the conversation when he thinks he's being forced into saying something bad about his team. If I was asking this about CNN or MSNBC...he would have given his anger over this lie the very day that it was exposed.

it's really tiring, because he keeps claiming to want to have level headed discussions, and swears it's not about R's and D's. And yet when I put the T-ball on top of the ol' Tee? He walks....instead of simply saying "yeah, what Tucker and Fox have been doing doesn't have a parallel. This hasn't happened in modern big media history. Tucker should be removed immediately".

...you clowns would do well to search back in my post-election posts, say Nov '20 -- Jan '21, & see what I had to say about Trump's post election conduct & my interest in his "stop the steal" claims.