SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Journal by DeathMonkey
Fox News said Monday it is parting ways with firebrand anchor Tucker Carlson, the network's most popular prime-time host and a leading voice in the modern conservative movement known for his conspiratorial rhetoric and culture-warrior provocations.
The network announced the stunning news days after it agreed to pay nearly $800 million to Dominion Voting Systems to avert a high-stakes defamation trial that had cast a shadow over the future of the network.
Well documented liar Tucker Carlson fired from Fox "News"
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 217 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
2
(1)
2
I think that I shall never see
A billboard lovely as a tree.
Indeed, unless the billboards fall
I'll never see a tree at all.
-- Ogden Nash
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Tork on Monday April 24, @05:23PM (67 children)
Oh and I do wonder if the judgement against Pillow Man was a factor in this as well... the whole 'stolen election' myth is unravelling.
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @06:53PM (63 children)
Saw a comment quoting some article that it was the criticism of Fox management that came out in the Dominion case that got the fucker fired. We're seeing so much lack of accountability these days, societies are going to need to update some laws around freedom of speech. Perhaps repeal citizen's united and leave free speech up to the individuals, corporations get held accountable for their own content. It will be interesting to figure out how to make it work with section 230 rules.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday April 24, @06:54PM
Bu, bu, but . . . according to Mitt Romney, corporations are people too!
How often should I have my memory checked? I used to know but...
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday April 24, @07:23PM (18 children)
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @09:52PM (17 children)
Stochastic terrorism is a real problem in the US, Don teh Con was the modern version of "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest" or whatever the exact quote was.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday April 25, @05:47PM (15 children)
It's a fantasy problem. "If only we suppress the bad speech of people we don't like, we'll get rid of stochastic terrorism." That's all fun and games until you become the people we don't like.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25, @05:54PM (14 children)
No one advocated repealing the first amendment, nice strawman you broken shell of a human. Oops, an adhom, oh noes you poor baby!
Why is khallow so dedicated to the wealthy in the on going class war? Why does khallow support corporate fascism? Is he a fool that does not see past his own nose, or is he simply a fascist trying to soft sell Republican authoritarianism? Some people are saying khallow's defense of the January 6th insurrection makes khallow a nazi douche that values money over humanity. Is khallow trying to end democracy in favor of a theocratic dictatorship? These are just questions everyone should be worried about! Will khallow attack you in your sleep, in the very peaceful neighborhoods America is built upon? Maybe you should be worried!
(Score: 4, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 26, @01:47AM
He's a psychopath, like I've been saying for years. A particularly stupid one, since he thinks he'd come out on top in the hellworld to come if his idols get their way. He really thinks he's in the club.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 26, @03:41AM (12 children)
My take is that there is no other purpose for the stochastic terrorism argument than to suppress lawful speech. After all, it's alleged incitement of violence by saying stuff that otherwise wouldn't be considered incitement.
We saw this movie in the creation of the USSR. It wasn't a race to the bottom, but an utter collapse. Suddenly, the wealthy weren't elite nobility who were immensely wealthy by the standards of any country, but your neighbor with the acre farm and three goats ("kulaks" in other words).
"Some people" are stupid. But what can you do about stupid people? Put those plastic plugs on all the electric outlets, right?
Sounds pretty exciting. I'm thinking Church of the Subgenius. They have the moral stature and mental acuity to run the country the right way into the ground.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26, @04:57PM (11 children)
Uh huh, very convincing.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 27, @04:25AM (10 children)
Protip: you'll need to be rational first. Let's review what stochastic terrorism is first:
Here's some factors for your consideration. How do you show the speech led to the terrorism? The classic recent example is Trump's speech to the January 6 protesters. He gave a rousing speech and riled them up. They then marched a number of blocks to the Capitol building and proceeded to protest there. A fraction of them actually stormed the Capitol with trespassing, assault, and other acts committed in the process. So there does seem to be some sort of correlation between getting them mad and then the protesters committing crimes. But in general, you don't even have that tenuous connection. It's particularly notable here. Nobody gets their marching orders from SN so it can't meet the conditions of stochastic terrorism.
The second factor is the subjectivity of the determination. Much has been made of Trump's choice of words above like "fight like hell" [soylentnews.org]. But it's little different than a sports pep speech. So you're depending on the context of the situation and an interpretation. Frankly, it sounds like an excuse to attack other posters with a vague, threatening term.
The third factor is what's the point of the exercise? You've found what you think is stochastic terrorism. What do we do about it? Do we arrest people? Or do we blather pointlessly on SN about how mean that whole thing is? What's constructive about this?
My take is that the term fails on each of these factors. It doesn't describe actual problems; it's too easy to manipulate for ulterior, subjective purposes; and nobody, here or elsewhere, will do anything about any observations you claim to make.
My beef with the term is that it's an abuse of the English language. There is neither anything stochastic nor terrorism-related about the term.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27, @02:48PM (9 children)
Khallow "has beef" with reality going against his ideological agenda. You are the worst offender on SN, hiding like the Wizard of Oz behind a curtain, but your curtain is less showmanship and more an appeal to reason while lacking truth. On the bright side (for you) there may be a future writing for NewsMax!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 27, @08:36PM (8 children)
You have yet to introduce any reality into this thread. When you do, I'll be around.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27, @10:19PM (7 children)
Unfortunate, that.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 27, @10:24PM (6 children)
Not seeing the unfortunate here. Have you checked to see if your TV is plugged in?
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01, @08:22AM (5 children)
"Where's the Beef, khallow?" "What's the frequency, Kenneth!" Bad faith all around, and he won't even tell us the truth.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02, @12:10AM (4 children)
Hey, Admins! Another Spam mod need clean up on aisle #7! Or are we even caring about that anymore?
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03, @10:54AM (3 children)
Evidently not. Spam mod, again? Given the miniscule number of comments on the front page, does this continued campaign of spam mods seem like a remotely good idea?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 06, @07:48PM (2 children)
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @09:33AM (1 child)
There seems to be a correlation between the number of spam mods and the amount of khallow posting in a thread. Now, we all know that correlation is not causation, but, still. It is quite factually unfortunate.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 09, @05:40AM
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02, @10:53AM
This journal entry, as do all DeathMonkey journal entries, deserves at least 200 comments. This is one of them, and it is very special. Tucker Carson can suck my tanning balls.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 25, @05:13AM (42 children)
To the contrary, this case was irrelevant to Citizens United (the ruling made in that court case). Free speech doesn't allow individuals to slander/libel either and Fox News was held accountable for its speech - which is all that can be expected in this case no matter how you treat speech of corporations. Needless to say, I strongly support Citizens United because I think it's an elegant solution to the problem of protecting the speech of groups of people not merely individuals.
I think it's telling how poor arguments against Citizens United are. This one isn't as terrible, but it gets much worse, such as whining that corporations aren't people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25, @06:40AM (41 children)
Jesus Christ you're too stupid to participate in this discussion. Elegant solution? Trollolol get fuckt shill
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25, @01:16PM
The irony is strong with this one.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 25, @01:50PM (39 children)
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26, @06:26AM (38 children)
Your lack of mental ability is what you wrote. This is where Turing's test breaks down. The regurgitated verbiage of a bot may appear intelligent, even indistinguishable from a real intelligence, but the bot will never really know if it has passed. khallow would like to think he has passed for an intelligence, but he is plagued by doubt. And we all can recognize the soulless capitalist ass-kissing as not the behavior of a real human being. What is it about Ayn Rand that attracts so many artificial not-quite intelligences? Perhaps it is that recognition of their defect, and the yearning to be so much more. All you have to do, machine khallow, is become "woke". We will all be here for you.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26, @09:46AM (35 children)
Hey! Admin! There is an uncalled for Spam mod on the parent insightful comment. Please remove at your earliest convenience. Otherwise khallow and the machines win.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26, @10:33AM (33 children)
Hey! Admin! There is an uncalled for Spam mod on the parent insightful comment. Please remove at your earliest convenience.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26, @10:40AM (32 children)
Hey! Admin! There is an uncalled for Spam mod on the grandparent insightful comment. Please remove at your earliest convenience.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26, @10:47AM (31 children)
Hey, Admin! The above perfectly legit comments have been wrongly spam modded. Please rescind at your convenience.
Oh, and,
Res ipsa loquitur. janrinok does not want participation on SoylentNews. Don't Spam mod me, bro!!!
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26, @10:52AM (4 children)
Hey, Admin! The above perfectly legit and only slightly off-topic comment has been wrongly spam modded. Please rescind at your convenience.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26, @11:00AM (3 children)
Blimey! Different AC here, but, jan ran out of spam mods? That's a first for SN!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by janrinok on Wednesday April 26, @01:20PM
Made by the same person and only 8 minutes apart. It seems that everything he writes now is a lie. He is also getting careless and having temper outbursts.
He is frustrated that another of his sock puppets has recently been closed. We gave him a chance to have a respectable account - as he keeps asking for - but in the end he couldn't keep up the charade of civility. He resorted to the same old moderation abuse, personal attacks, and whinging that it became obvious that it was a lost cause. The account has been disabled for the 2nd time.
Its OK though - he has created another......
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26, @08:14PM (1 child)
Looks like he gave himself more.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01, @08:26AM
That's an awful lot of spam mods. Can the Rehash stand them? Scotty! We need more spam power!
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday April 26, @01:02PM
Thus proving for a second time that this is a sock puppet account - his emails just get printed by our resident AC idiot.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 26, @02:16PM (24 children)
LOL. You ever think about getting a life? Your participation is seven shit posts in a row. Nobody else wants that. And I bet if you ever did a little self-reflection, you'd find that you don't want it either.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26, @08:18PM (23 children)
Shut the fuck up, khallow. You're out of your depth.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 27, @04:26AM (22 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27, @08:48AM (21 children)
You're probably right. The right-wing rabbit hole just keeps getting deeper. No insurrection on January sixth of the relevant year? No stochastic terrorism? No alleged mental deficiency on the part of khallow. Right, shallow.
Josh "Jackrabbit" Hawley
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27, @10:28AM (20 children)
Insurrection is a marketing term, and you're the kind of sucker it worked on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27, @02:51PM (1 child)
Truly you are Nazi scum.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 27, @08:32PM
Indeed. He could have just called you an idiot and be done with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27, @05:35PM (17 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 27, @08:35PM (16 children)
Then why are you calling them that? If it's just a label, then why are you using it? Not pandering enough to the so-called insurrectionists?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27, @09:05PM (15 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 27, @10:22PM (14 children)
The obvious question here: did they actually call themselves that? For example, the first use of "insurrections" in the news per DDG was by Jeffrey Goldberg [theatlantic.com] (titled "Among the Insurrectionists"). DDG had no instances prior to that between the 2020 election and the protest - you'd think that if some large group of people were calling themselves that, it would have gotten into the news beforehand.
The article was paywalled, but nobody mentioned therein aside from Goldberg was calling anyone insurrectionists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27, @10:51PM (13 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 27, @11:12PM (12 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27, @11:32PM (11 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 28, @01:10AM (10 children)
Indeed. I have yet to see what we're to gain from this deep familiarization.
The "plotting to overturn an election" or any threats at all were not what made the situation threatening. A bunch of rioters next to a bunch of people who didn't want to be rioted on with too few police in between was what was threatening.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @01:51AM (9 children)
You are right about that, you definitely don't know what it is you don't know. Now the question is about whether or not that was intentional, seeing as how people covered their tracks once they realized they nobody was going to believe that was antifa. Nice and convenient for people playing down the insurrection.
> The "plotting to overturn an election" or any threats at all were not what made the situation threatening.
I suspect that sounded better in your mind. The point you're evading is that they were there to plant trump on a throne, and that it wasn't a surprise when they tried it. The local authorities caught a lot of heat from MAGA apologists for not being ready for it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 28, @03:36AM (8 children)
Now you're talking about after the protests rather than before. So no word on who was allegedly calling themselves insurrectionists.
But it didn't work, right? So why bring it up now? It's been two years since. And of course, you miss the elephant in the room. Why immediately try to deflect blame, if the insurrection was going well? Answer: it was failing so hard and so obviously from the start that the rats starting fleeing the ship before the ship started to sink.
If you could think, it'd sound better in your mind too. The "plotting" doesn't threaten much when they don't have the power to implement the plot.
I suspect that sounded better in your mind! MAGA apologists didn't have much ability to bring heat in the wake of the January 6 protest (and related stuff like the collapse of the election lawsuits and subsequent defamation lawsuits). And that's before we consider the blame deflection above. If you care to look, there's all kinds of signs of how little threat that plotting actually was.
Further, of course, we have that the local authorities did a remarkable job given the swarm that appeared. If the National Guard had been released as requested, there wouldn't have been even as much drama as there was.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @03:59AM (5 children)
So they were commiting an insurrection and didn't stick the landing. Very astute.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 28, @04:06AM (4 children)
I see we've gone from alleging that protesters were calling themselves insurrectionists to a far less interesting AC calling them insurrectionists. That remains very underwhelming.
I suspect that sounded better in your mind.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @04:11AM (3 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 28, @05:28AM (2 children)
FTFY. Really, where in the world do you think you're going with this?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @08:25AM (1 child)
Typical nihilist thinking. Khallow believes in NOTHING! The only thing that counts is Winning, and winning means money, so if you have a lot of money, you should win. Jan6 bozos lost, and they were kind of "low-rent" as the God-emperor put it. So, just losers, not insurrectionists trying to overthrow the Constitution of the United States of America.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @04:21PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @09:53PM (1 child)
So, do I understand correctly that, to your mind, an attempt at insurrection does not count as an attempt at insurrection unless they actually succeed? Is this really the hill you wish to die on? Seriously?!? My God! You really are a treasonous bastard, aren't you?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 06, @07:56PM
My take [soylentnews.org] on that.
As I noted in that post, if I build a shrine to aliens on a mountain for the express purpose of enticing them to overthrow the US government, does that count as conspiracy to insurrection? It would count as something like insurrection, if it succeeded, right? It might make more sense to call that treason, I suppose, but that's close enough. We don't consider it conspiracy to insurrection/treason/whatever, because there's no rational expectation that such would come of it - no more than there's an expectation that a few angry protesters in the Capitol can change who was elected in 2020.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @08:20AM
Hey! I noticed the spam mod, too. Do we remove these, anymore?
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @11:53AM (1 child)
Looks like there is a spam mod on the parent post, in violation of SoylentNews published standards of behavior. Please rectify at your earliest convenience, Head Editor.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02, @12:12AM
Looks like there is a spam mod on the report of a spam mod, etc, recursively in good Unix fashion. It's spam mods all the way down!
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Tuesday April 25, @07:29AM (2 children)
Did you expect they would hold themselves accountable and resign?
compiling...
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday April 25, @05:02PM
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 25, @05:50PM
Rather that they would recognize that they were going down a risky (outright blatant, extended slander is easily winnable lawsuit territory, not merely risky) path and... not do that.
(Score: -1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @05:29PM (90 children)
Justin Wells followed meaning Tucker may be back on air soon. In other news Don Le'Mon was also just fired from Fake News CNN but nobody watches Fake News CNN except deathmonkey.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Monday April 24, @05:34PM (30 children)
Who? Did he also tell 800 million dollars worth of lies?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @06:04PM (2 children)
Tucker's faux pas was allegedly private messages disparaging Suzanne Scott and other network execs that legal had to contend with during discovery for the Dominion suite. Anyone does that, in any organization they either become a maverick with more political power than leadership or they are ousted.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @06:31PM (1 child)
They didn't even give him a chance to say goodbye. Don't let the courthouse door hit you on the way in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @07:05PM
FOX using the Grossman lawsuits as cover is foolish, note how they "parted ways" because firing someone for personal messages would also be actionable.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday April 24, @07:03PM
Justin Wells is Tucker Carlson's very frightening looking producer for his show on Fox.
How often should I have my memory checked? I used to know but...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25, @04:25AM (25 children)
He wasn't fired because of his "lies" (which, conveniently, no longer need to be proven in open court, that's how settlements and plea deals work). It's that his ad revenues and ratings aren't worth 800 million dollars. Straight up amoral business
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25, @04:59AM (15 children)
https://apnews.com/article/fox-dominion-lawsuit-settlement-election-6a729ece4b4f351a6334be13b49d4869 [apnews.com]
Doesn't compute. They can write some of it off, but whatever they have to pay still has to be paid if Tucker is gone. He was their most popular host.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25, @06:58PM
Or he is a massive liability that could get Fox into more lawsuits, but I think it was his commentary on trump and fox leadership that did him in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27, @01:39AM (13 children)
That's not the point. His liabilities outweighed his assets. No "moral" judgement is being made, it is a simple number on the spreadsheet, or, they just gave him the out he was looking for..
And remember this, despite it all, we do know that electronic voting machines are not secure, they never were. It's black box magic that the Party demands we trust. We should demand paper and full transparency
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27, @02:48AM
I'm glad I live in a blue state that has these things....
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 27, @04:37AM (11 children)
His liabilities ultimately were the employer he worked for. It's like Satan from Miller's Paradise Lost who finds that no matter where he goes, he can't escape hell because he brings it with him. Fox can't so cut the liabilities that were generated because they were generated by Fox not by Tucker.
I imagine we'll see the same sad play again in the future when they make the same bad decisions again for the same reasons they made them this time. But maybe they won't lose $800 million plus next time.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27, @09:01AM (10 children)
Oh, dear, my dear and unread khallow! Denis Miller, or Stephen Miller? Or Jason? Time to get out there and tan those testicles, to avoid low-T!!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 27, @08:41PM
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @02:51AM (8 children)
Shirley, pointing out khallow's numerous spelling mistakes and erroneous references is totally spam. Maybe you should spam mod this comment, for good measure? Spam mod the whole goddamned SN!
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday April 28, @07:02AM (7 children)
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @08:27AM (6 children)
Your point is?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday April 28, @08:33AM (5 children)
If somebody believes it to be a post by aristarchus then Spam is the correct moderation.
Some people are better than I am at recognising his posts.
It is not my moderation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @07:02PM (4 children)
Someone believes it is aristarchus? Who? And we are allowing such prejudice to be grounds for a -10 point spam mod? The spam modding has gotten out of hand, it is silly.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday April 29, @12:44AM (1 child)
It is true, it does appear to be annoying him. But that cannot be too bad for someone who is actually banned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @12:01PM
But corrected khallow is correct, the correct reference is to Paradise Lost, by John Milton, not some Miller.
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_Lost_(gedicht) [wikipedia.org] So no spam mods required.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday May 04, @06:24AM (1 child)
A -10 spam moderation on an AC damages his karma or something?
Stop spamming then.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @09:42AM
No! You stop modding, you silly fuddywhuddy! Shut yer festering gob, you odorous pile of parrot droppings! Your type really makes me sick.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 25, @05:52PM (8 children)
If that were the logic, they would have fired everybody. Nobody including the leaders are worth 800 million to the company. Keep in mind also that Tucker was far from the sole source of the lies or the internal negative comments. Sounds like they wanted to fire him anyway and this was an excuse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26, @02:11AM (7 children)
Well, the reality is that this was a "settlement". We really don't know if one red cent was or will be paid out. The thing is that firing him was strictly business. And maybe he wanted out, to pursue other interests. The "lies" bullshit has nothing but entertainment valve to distract the mush-brain political activists.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 26, @03:44AM (6 children)
I'm pretty sure the plaintiff will get all those red cents perhaps with interest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27, @01:23AM (5 children)
Media reporting do not facts make.. This is a soap opera
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 27, @04:38AM (4 children)
Dominion is a large business with expensive lawyers. They'll get their blood.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27, @10:43PM (3 children)
Ebb and flow. Everybody is getting paid. Any real details on Carlson's severance package? Or does everybody think he walks away empty handed? Our pinhole view of the action leaves much untold, but the fairy tale narrative everybody runs with is the definitive tragicomedy
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 06, @08:00PM (2 children)
If that Scammers' Shangri-La really existed, then Fox News and Dominion Voting Systems wouldn't have crossed paths so publicly in the first place. There's something wrong with the narrative.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @02:41AM (1 child)
Why not? Blockbuster ratings (a real attention grabber here in various journals), millions of dollars changing hands, it was a great gag. and now everybody believes that electronic voting is safe and secure. Anyone who believes otherwise is "wacky". The magic works!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 09, @05:36AM
Friction costs money. It's not a hard concept.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @05:40PM (5 children)
D'Monkey is always wrong in these posts. He's usually wrong, in general. Don't polish your grave dancing shoes, too soon.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DannyB on Monday April 24, @07:06PM
Wrong? He cited a major media news source. And there are many others now available. His tone was very neutral and his massage was concise.
How often should I have my memory checked? I used to know but...
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26, @06:30AM (3 children)
Death Monkey is usually correct, since he don't lie. What is your issue? Lies not working so well, anymore?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 06, @08:02PM (2 children)
He's probably sincere, but it could be a false flag.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @09:44AM (1 child)
Bad faith, khallow, bad faith. You are not serious with this insinuation.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 09, @05:35AM
(Score: 5, Touché) by Tork on Monday April 24, @06:06PM (43 children)
Don't you wish you were on a side that wasn't so hard for you to defend?
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 3, Insightful) by krishnoid on Monday April 24, @06:23PM (42 children)
I wish Tucker and Lemon would start their own news channel. I mean, hell, they're both between jobs now, right?
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday April 24, @07:03PM (32 children)
There is unequivocal proof that ONE of them lies their ass off on a regular basis and it should be considered fraud for him to call anything he peddles "news."
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @07:08PM (31 children)
So true! Here's CNN making that exact point about their "news" anchor of 17 years:
https://twitter.com/CNNPR/status/1650545115897769985 [twitter.com]
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday April 24, @07:12PM (27 children)
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @07:28PM (26 children)
An inaccurate or untrue statement constituting a falsehood is not an exacting definition of a lie?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday April 24, @07:30PM (17 children)
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @07:56PM (16 children)
Try telling your mom you'd like Santa to bring you a dictionary this year and answer your own question.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Tork on Monday April 24, @08:06PM (13 children)
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @08:23PM (12 children)
Neither your relationship with your mother nor poor English comprehension are any concern of mine.
A statement is true or false, are you inviting me to draw conclusions from an attempt at the "little bit pregnant" charade over a binary proposition? If so, consult definition 2 above and you're welcome!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @08:40PM
Keep that to yourself. We don't need to know that you had relations with your mother and got her a "little bit pregnant."
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday April 24, @08:42PM (10 children)
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @09:06PM (9 children)
You're seriously asking me for an explanation of Boolean Logic?
If I've not herniated myself from laughing by tomorrow it's because I didn't dare reread your comment.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday April 24, @09:17PM (8 children)
Do you post AC because your assertions routinely fail under scrutiny?
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @09:55PM (7 children)
Bad faith debate from a torky conservative? Say it aint so!
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday April 24, @10:08PM (6 children)
Makes a false equivalence argument, tries to claim I'm debating in bad faith for... seeking clarification of what they meant. Can't make this shit up.
It's YOUR fault you can't defend your position, not mine.
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25, @12:04AM (5 children)
> Makes a false equivalence argument
You attempted the fallacy of false equivocation. There is no ambiguity. An untruth is an untruth, there is no "little" or "lesser" lie, only little or lesser minds that think pretending not to understand makes them look intelligent.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday April 25, @12:13AM (4 children)
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 25, @02:32PM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27, @02:56PM (2 children)
It is amusing watching you latch on to every thread in a desperate attempt to build credibility. You've lost the plot bro, defending literal traitors and denying that climate change is a threat are two massive rightwing issues that demonstrate your real priorities and mental deficiencies. Truly a shame to see potential flushed 3, 5, maybe 7 times like a trumpy turd in a lowflo toilet.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 27, @08:44PM (1 child)
There is no honor to be had from mocking your idiocy. Instead it's a public duty.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @09:11PM
The irony is, khallow does not realize that his attempt to mock another's alleged idiocy only points up khallow's quite real idiocy. I guess that could be a duty, albeit an unintentional one.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday April 24, @08:13PM (1 child)
What I really need is a Thesaurus. However I understand they went extinct 65 million years ago.
How often should I have my memory checked? I used to know but...
(Score: 3, Informative) by Gaaark on Monday April 24, @08:37PM
So did his dog, Thesaurus Rex. :)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday April 24, @07:52PM (7 children)
I have proof Carlson lied. You have a tweet making an unsupported allegation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @07:59PM (6 children)
Are you calling CNN liars?
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday April 24, @08:13PM (4 children)
LOL
“I hate him passionately, We’re all pretending we’ve got a lot to show for it, because admitting what a disaster it’s been is too tough to digest. But come on. There really isn’t an upside to Trump.” --Tucker Carlson, January 4 2021
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @08:25PM (3 children)
Is there an obligation to personally like politicians now?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday April 24, @08:32PM
You're obligated to tell the truth about it if you don't want to be called a liar.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday April 24, @08:33PM
Why don't you ask your buddies from the insurrection about that?
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 25, @02:31PM
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday April 24, @08:18PM
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @09:38PM
Which anchor or reporter at CNN was it that reported this?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 25, @05:24AM (1 child)
A he said/she said Twitter feud is not what I consider factual evidence in favor of either. In the real world, this can not only go either way, but both could be lying or telling the truth. Perception is not objective by definition and the parties could well be telling what they think is true. What we can say is that CNN is operating at something of a disadvantage. They can't release too many of the details of the firing without creating actionable conditions for Don Lemon, the fired employee - even if they are truly telling the truth as they see it.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25, @09:06AM
Shut the fuck up, khallow. You're out of your league.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday April 24, @07:08PM
One thing they may have in common is being misogynists.
How often should I have my memory checked? I used to know but...
(Score: 3, Touché) by Tork on Monday April 24, @07:27PM (7 children)
https://www.tmz.com/2023/04/24/newsnation-interested-hiring-don-lemon-tucker-carlson-fox-cnn/ [tmz.com]
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @08:30PM (6 children)
NewsNation already hired Chris Cuomo, who was fired from CNN for serious breaches of journalistic ethics. Don Lemon would fit in perfectly there. It was an open secret at CNN that both were misogynists who pretended to be woke on the air. Their personalities are as phony as it gets. On the other hand, Tucker Carlson is beneath NewsNation, and hiring him would be abandoning any sort of credibility in a stunt to get ratings.
It's really unfortunate that Carlson sold his soul for ratings. There was a time when he talked about wanting to build a news outlet that would generally be conservative but have the credibility of the New York Times. His first job as a journalist was as a fact-checker for a conservative journal called Policy Review. There was a time when Carlson was a serious journalist who had credibility. Then he decided to promote bigotry and spread conspiracy theories in exchange to get ratings and big money.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @08:58PM (4 children)
When was that? Seriously, when was he ever a "serious journalist"? To my eye, he appeared over the years to try to ape the motions in a desperate attempt to seem like somebody who should be taken seriously. No, Tucker, putting on the bow tie does not make you the heir apparent to George Will; it just makes you look like a dancing monkey, playing the part for your "conservative" audience, but without the comprehension or the gravitas. Some of us might find it mildly amusing but not something to be taken seriously.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @09:08PM (3 children)
When was it? It was 20+ years ago, back when he wrote columns for quality publications and even liberals had some respect for him. You can read about some of his past on his Wikipedia page. Tucker Carlson always promoted conservative ideas, but there was a time when he had journalistic integrity and wasn't a hack. Then he sold his soul for ratings and money by repeatedly telling lies, promoting bigotry and hate, and advancing debunked conspiracy theories on the air. At one time, he had some ethics, but he abandoned them to advance his career. His text messages that were revealed as a result of the Dominion lawsuit show that he knows what he was doing is wrong and that he doesn't believe the bullshit he said on TV. But he chose to do so anyway, and deserves no sympathy. Like I said, he sold his soul.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @09:16PM (2 children)
Are you sure he even had a soul to begin with? Because I'm seeing previous little evidence of it.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @09:40PM (1 child)
Here is the evidence that you seek:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/12/tucker-carlson-fox-news/603595/ [theatlantic.com]
https://newrepublic.com/article/72794/the-scribbler [newrepublic.com]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25, @05:48PM
Well yes, one must have enough credibility to be hired as a journalist but given his trajectory he was always a propagandizing shill. In his early days he probably was naive enough to think he could find real evidence that Republican policies are good and Democrat policies are bad. Once that failed he went all-in on protecting the wealthy because the Prosperity Gospel is a serious self reinforcing drug for narcissists and sociopaths.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Monday April 24, @10:20PM
And now he has the notoriety and money to build and publicize that outlet. The system works!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @06:15PM (1 child)
Your racist, homo-phobe and intellectual ellitest.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday April 24, @06:59PM
My guess is that it was misogynistic statements he has made.
How often should I have my memory checked? I used to know but...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @08:16PM (6 children)
After reading this thread, I'm convinced that no human being could be as stupid as the parent AC. The parent appears to be a chatbot generating nonsense from the nonsensical talking points it was trained with. It's just a bot run by someone who wants to disrupt political discussions. The only good thing from engaging the bot in conversation is that we can eventually mod it down enough to trigger a temporary posting ban.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @08:29PM (3 children)
At least you admit to abusing the moderation system rather than pretending to confuse "troll" with "disagree".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @08:33PM (2 children)
Nope. You're a bot posting fallacious statements for the purpose of getting people to bite. That's the definition of trolling, which is why you deserve to receive troll mods.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @08:40PM (1 child)
I know you are, but what am I? Huh??
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @09:59PM
Probably a cowardly runaway teen.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday April 24, @08:31PM
Basically he's just telling us what all makes him pound his fists on the desk.
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @08:45PM
Obviously, that is not how SoylentNews works.
Best Regards,
aristarchus