The New York Times launches a lopsided three-day attack on the Fox cable star whom it says is 'at the forefront of the nationalist forces reshaping American conservatism.' But Carlson laughs.
Not that his many enemies in the liberal media care, but The New York Times’ three-part hatchet job on Fox’s Tucker Carlson doesn’t even bother to pretend to be a work of honest journalism.
Hilariously and brazenly lopsided, Times staffer Nick Confessore’s article says Carlson’s opinion program ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’ owes his high ratings not to his conservative attacks on America’s wretched politicians or their failed immigration policies, mismanaged war on covid or dangerous meddling in Ukraine.
Confessore says Carlson owes his popularity to what he says is his hateful brand of ‘Trumpism without Trump’ and his dog-whistling to far-right extremists and white nationalists. Plus, Carlson is made out to be a really mean and nasty person.
Anyone who actually watches Carlson’s highly opinionated and provocative and unique show with any regularity will quickly see how unfair Confessores’ hit piece is.
Tucker Carlson is far from perfect, but to get a hint of how stupid and biased the New York Times is, check the caption under one of their photos:
"Mr. Carlson and other hosts repeatedly called a migrant caravan approaching the southern border in 2018 an “invasion.” They continued even after a man who applauded such language on social media fatally shot 11 people at a Pittsburgh synagogue."
So, fellow ex-journalists and woke euphemism-watchers, x-thousands of people who are not American citizens flowing toward our border in a gigantic stream is, in the eye of the journalists at the Times, just an innocent 'migrant caravan.'
And because the moronic monster who killed 11 people at a synagogue also used the term 'invasion' in his online blatherings, Carlson was supposed to not use the term? Nice logic, there. And talk about guilt by association -- linking Carlson to the serial killer is what's called a cheap shot.
Here, for some perspective from the mid-2000s, is a link to four interviews I did with a younger version of what today’s liberal media have decided is the most dangerous man in America since Rush Limbaugh.
Libtards lmao