Tucker - Tony Bobulinski interview FULL

[Dutch Oven]

You are acting as if all journalists are one block and all have the same views, expertise and credibility.
That alone is symptomatic of your confirmation bias and is very lazy thinking.

You are writing as if you have no idea of the training and background of journalists, and have no awareness of your own ability and responsiblity to independently evaluate the assessments and evidence they choose to present to you. But that's what GoodThink is all about, isn't it? It relies on the doubt harboured by many (and many, I suppose, with some cause) of their ability to successfully analyze facts, preferring to accept the views of another as authoritative. Do you realize that makes you an authoritarian? I'll bet you don't think of yourself in that way.

When you have enough authoritarians, the next thing you get is totalitarianism. Maybe you always wanted a (another) brother? Maybe you'll get a Big one!

 

[Fun For All]

Let's follow that train of thinking for a minute. Do journalists have the last word on questions of truth in our society? If so, how does the public resolve disagreements between journalists? Are journalists sometimes right in their analysis? Who decides when they are?

Frank, you would have made an excellent minor official in the Ministry of Truth. Thank you for inspiring George Orwell's greatest work! Since no one reads 1984 anymore, thankfully we have you to remind us of the perils of GoodThink.

You're not calling Tucker Carlson, Hannity, Laura Ingram, Jesse Watters, Greg Gutfield and Lou Dobbs journalists are you?

None of them graduated with any journalism education, in fact Laura Ingram is the only one who went to graduate school, she has a law degree, but the rest have BAs in various subjects while Hannity didn't even graduate...I'd have to look it up but I bet the CNN crew are more educated than that, with the exception of Ingram I'm more educated than them...wish I had their money thou.

 

[Frankfooter]

You are writing as if you have no idea of the training and background of journalists, and have no awareness of your own ability and responsiblity to independently evaluate the assessments and evidence they choose to present to you. But that's what GoodThink is all about, isn't it? It relies on the doubt harboured by many (and many, I suppose, with some cause) of their ability to successfully analyze facts, preferring to accept the views of another as authoritative. Do you realize that makes you an authoritarian? I'll bet you don't think of yourself in that way.

When you have enough authoritarians, the next thing you get is totalitarianism. Maybe you always wanted a (another) brother? Maybe you'll get a Big one!

I have friends and family who are journalists, bud.

I know exactly what they go through, the pressures to file and the issues around liability for stories that are wrong.
While you are free to say that you know more than they do, despite all of your opinions coming from 'research' and 'journalists' who publish where there are no liability repercussions the single biggest fail in your argument is your refusal to acknowledge that journalists at the NYT, CBC, CNN or FOX even, are under serious legal repercussions if they publish shit they can't back up.

While the people you think are the free thinkers can post total bullshit and not worry about getting their asses sued, fired from their jobs and their careers ended.
That's the reason nobody would touch Rudy's Ukranian bullshit, they'd lose their careers if it turns out to be Kompromat.

Confirmation bias, bud.

 

[Dutch Oven]

You're not calling Tucker Carlson, Hannity, Laura Ingram, Jesse Watters, Greg Gutfield and Lou Dobbs journalists are you?

None of them graduated with any journalism education, in fact Laura Ingram is the only one who went to graduate school, she has a law degree, but the rest have BAs in various subjects while Hannity didn't even graduate...I'd have to look it up but I bet the CNN crew are more educated than that, with the exception of Ingram I'm more educated than them...wish I had their money thou.

Nevermind the jounalists without any formal training, my comments extend to those with credentials!

Here's a description of the core courses taught at the Carleton University Bachelor of Journalism program:

BJ Courses & Descriptions | School of Journalism and Communication

%%excerpt%%

carleton.ca

Notice that that there's no course in formal logic, critical thinking or even the judicial standards of proof? That's because journalism is taught as a task or process where the objective is communication, not truth. I'm not saying that's wrong. What I'm saying is the public should understand that it is the function of the press to inform, not decide. They are like canaries in the coal mine of our political system. They bring potential issues to our attention, but it is up to others to decide whether the threats are real, and what should be done about them.

 

[Dutch Oven]

I have friends and family who are journalists, bud.

I know exactly what they go through, the pressures to file and the issues around liability for stories that are wrong.
While you are free to say that you know more than they do, despite all of your opinions coming from 'research' and 'journalists' who publish where there are no liability repercussions the single biggest fail in your argument is your refusal to acknowledge that journalists at the NYT, CBC, CNN or FOX even, are under serious legal repercussions if they publish shit they can't back up.

While the people you think are the free thinkers can post total bullshit and not worry about getting their asses sued, fired from their jobs and their careers ended.
That's the reason nobody would touch Rudy's Ukranian bullshit, they'd lose their careers if it turns out to be Kompromat.

Confirmation bias, bud.

First of all, Frank, I believe absolutely nothing you claim about any friends or family you have, or about what real world knowledge or experience you claim. The proof of what you know or don't know is in the pudding of your posts.

The legal standards of liability which apply to journalists relate to the facts they publish, not their opinions (as you should know from the recent decision concerning Tucker Carlson which you have commented on), and the standard they must meet is not truth, but rather due diligence. If you really knew journalists who really talked to you about their work, you'd know that. Btw, if you are publishing purported facts, there is no different standard applicable whether the presenter has a degree in journalism or not.

At the end of the day, journalism is a business. A media outlet won't touch a story if it's bad for business. Sometimes a story is bad for business because the advertisers won't like it. Sometimes it's bad because it can be used by your competitors to challenge the usefulness of what you publish. Some media outlets passed on Rudy's stories. Others carried it. You'd have to ask each what their business reasoning was, but I can deduce that any story unfavourable to Biden would be bad for the businesses of CNN, MSNBC, etc. because their sponsors wouldn't like it.

 

[Fun For All]

Nevermind the jounalists without any formal training, my comments extend to those with credentials!

Here's a description of the core courses taught at the Carleton University Bachelor of Journalism program:

BJ Courses & Descriptions | School of Journalism and Communication

%%excerpt%%

carleton.ca

Notice that that there's no course in formal logic, critical thinking or even the judicial standards of proof? That's because journalism is taught as a task or process where the objective is communication, not truth. I'm not saying that's wrong. What I'm saying is the public should understand that it is the function of the press to inform, not decide. They are like canaries in the coal mine of our political system. They bring potential issues to our attention, but it is up to others to decide whether the threats are real, and what should be done about them.

You're getting away from my point.

FOX news and especially the ones I named are not serious journalists and the network itself is extremely biased. They don't tell a fair story and don't present news in a fair way...

 

[Fun For All]

You're getting away from my point.

FOX news and especially the ones I named are not serious journalists and the network itself is extremely biased. They don't tell a fair story and don't present news in a fair way...

 

[Frankfooter]

BJ Courses & Descriptions | School of Journalism and Communication

%%excerpt%%

carleton.ca

Notice that that there's no course in formal logic, critical thinking or even the judicial standards of proof? That's because journalism is taught as a task or process where the objective is communication, not truth. I'm not saying that's wrong. What I'm saying is the public should understand that it is the function of the press to inform, not decide. They are like canaries in the coal mine of our political system. They bring potential issues to our attention, but it is up to others to decide whether the threats are real, and what should be done about them.

If you were a journalist you would have lost your job and career with that single post for shoddy research and false conclusions.
From the Carleton website and course descriptions.

This pair of introductory courses (one in fall, one in winter) introduces you to the context, concepts, issues and challenges in the contemporary Canadian media world that will shape your professional role as a practicing journalist. You’ll examine the state of the media, advocacy, social media and ethics.

We’ll explore the Canadian legal system and the responsibilities of media practitioners and will look specifically at defamation, privacy, and contempt of court.

Those courses cover ethics, legal repercussions and yes, logic.

 

[Fun For All]

If you were a journalist you would have lost your job and career with that single post for shoddy research and false conclusions.
From the Carleton website and course descriptions.



Those courses cover ethics, legal repercussions and yes, logic.

Carleton's School of Journalism has a great reputation...no shame of graduating there.

 

[Frankfooter]

First of all, Frank, I believe absolutely nothing you claim about any friends or family you have, or about what real world knowledge or experience you claim. The proof of what you know or don't know is in the pudding or your posts.

The legal standards of liability which apply to journalists relate to the facts they publish, not their opinions (as you should know from the recent decision concerning Tucker Carlson which you have commented on), and the standard they must meet is not truth, but rather due diligence. If you really knew journalists who really talked to you about their work, you'd know that. Btw, if you are publishing purported facts, there is no different standard applicable whether the presenter has a degree in journalism or not.

At the end of the day, journalism is a business. A media outlet won't touch a story if it's bad for business. Sometimes a story is bad for business because the advertisers won't like it. Sometimes it's bad because it can be used by your competitors to challenge the usefulness of what you publish. Some media outlets passed on Rudy's stories. Others carried it. You'd have to ask each what their business reasoning was, but I can deduce that any story unfavourable to Biden would be bad for the businesses of CNN, MSNBC, etc. because their sponsors wouldn't like it.

You don't differentiate between journalists and commentary, do you bud?

Carlson is a commentator, as Fox argues, he spouts opinions that they say should not be taken seriously and most definitely are not news. His job description requires no qualifications, just loud mouthed opinions that the owner of the station approves.

Fox news reporters are different, they are under legal liability if their stories are false, and stories with any questions are regularly run through in house lawyers first.
But not commentators work like Carlson.

 

[Fun For All]

You don't differentiate between journalists and commentary, do you bud?

Carlson is a commentator, as Fox argues, he spouts opinions that they say should not be taken seriously and most definitely are not news. His job description requires no qualifications, just loud mouthed opinions that the owner of the station approves.

Fox news reporters are different, they are under legal liability if their stories are false, and stories with any questions are regularly run through in house lawyers first.
But not commentators work like Carlson.

Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously

Tucker Carlson has a long history of making racist and controversial statements as a primetime host on Fox News.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Dutch Oven]

You're getting away from my point.

FOX news and especially the ones I named are not serious journalists and the network itself is extremely biased. They don't tell a fair story and don't present news in a fair way...

Fox News has 2 components. They have straight news presenters (most of the day). They also have opinion presenters (Carlson, Hannity, Ingram) as well as news entertainers (Gutfeld, Watters). They do have some liberal voices on their air, but not in remotely equal proportion to conservatives. As a result, all of their converage, whether staight news or entertainment, is through the lens of conservative values. Is that a bias? Yes. Does it mean all of their takes are unfair? No, not necessarily. You have to evaluate each news item or opinion on its own merit. You need not be persuaded by their take on every story, but neither would you be justified in rejecting all of their takes.

The same basic principle is true for all of the other major news networks, although I don't think CNN recognizes any distinction between opinion presentation and straight news (meaning it's all opinion presentation, all the time).

Whatever "serious journalism" might now actually entail, it seems to me to be a red herring, unless you need someone else to do your thinking for you. If you want to fully examine an issue, it's best to listen to both sides and proceed to your own conclusion from there. Of course, that leaves little to compare when one side is pretending a certain story doesn't even exist!

I'll offer this last thought. People often say "the truth always lies somewhere in the middle". While I think that is true often enough to be reliable, what many people overlook is that "somewhere in the middle" can often be closely adjacent to one side or the other!

Short version - let others bring you information, but save the thinking part for yourself.

 

[Dutch Oven]

You don't differentiate between journalists and commentary, do you bud?

Carlson is a commentator, as Fox argues, he spouts opinions that they say should not be taken seriously and most definitely are not news. His job description requires no qualifications, just loud mouthed opinions that the owner of the station approves.

Fox news reporters are different, they are under legal liability if their stories are false, and stories with any questions are regularly run through in house lawyers first.
But not commentators work like Carlson.

Frank, you are so confused. You are another lifetime away from sorting this all out. Here you are Franksplaining something to me that I've much more clearly already explained to you and to others. The distinction in standards of legal liability don't change because of the style of the presenter. They change when something is presented as a fact, rather than as an opinion, regardless of which presenter makes the statement.

Carlson gives opinions, so don't take something as gospel just because he gives you his opinion. However, that doesn't mean his guests are only giving opinions. Bobulinski was not offering his "opinion" about what the Bidens have been up to. Bobulinski isn't a member of the press. His liability standard isn't just due diligence. The Bidens could sue him for defamation if he isn't telling the truth. Any word of such a suit?

Got it yet?

 

[Fun For All]

Fox News has 2 components. They have straight news presenters (most of the day). They also have opinion presenters (Carlson, Hannity, Ingram) as well as news entertainers (Gutfeld, Watters). They do have some liberal voices on their air, but not in remotely equal proportion to conservatives. As a result, all of their converage, whether staight news or entertainment, is through the lens of conservative values. Is that a bias? Yes. Does it mean all of their takes are unfair? No, not necessarily. You have to evaluate each news item or opinion on its own merit. You need not be persuaded by their take on every story, but neither would you be justified in rejecting all of their takes.

The same basic principle is true for all of the other major news networks, although I don't think CNN recognizes any distinction between opinion presentation and straight news (meaning it's all opinion presentation, all the time).

Whatever "serious journalism" might now actually entail, it seems to me to be a red herring, unless you need someone else to do your thinking for you. If you want to fully examine an issue, it's best to listen to both sides and proceed to your own conclusion from there. Of course, that leaves little to compare when one side is pretending a certain story doesn't even exist!

I'll offer this last thought. People often say "the truth always lies somewhere in the middle". While I think that is true often enough to be reliable, what many people overlook is that "somewhere in the middle" can often be closely adjacent to one side or the other!

Short version - let others bring you information, but save the thinking part for yourself.

I do evaluate every news item on it's own merit...when the 'opinion presenters or news entertainers' present it, it's very unfair...they don't try to be fair, they don't even say they are fair, they defend lawsuits saying 'reasonable people should know we're not fair'.

 

[Frankfooter]

Fox News has 2 components. They have straight news presenters (most of the day). They also have opinion presenters (Carlson, Hannity, Ingram) as well as news entertainers (Gutfeld, Watters). They do have some liberal voices on their air, but not in remotely equal proportion to conservatives. As a result, all of their converage, whether staight news or entertainment, is through the lens of conservative values. Is that a bias? Yes. Does it mean all of their takes are unfair? No, not necessarily. You have to evaluate each news item or opinion on its own merit. You need not be persuaded by their take on every story, but neither would you be justified in rejecting all of their takes.

The same basic principle is true for all of the other major news networks, although I don't think CNN recognizes any distinction between opinion presentation and straight news (meaning it's all opinion presentation, all the time).

Whatever "serious journalism" might now actually entail, it seems to me to be a red herring, unless you need someone else to do your thinking for you. If you want to fully examine an issue, it's best to listen to both sides and proceed to your own conclusion from there. Of course, that leaves little to compare when one side is pretending a certain story doesn't even exist!

I'll offer this last thought. People often say "the truth always lies somewhere in the middle". While I think that is true often enough to be reliable, what many people overlook is that "somewhere in the middle" can often be closely adjacent to one side or the other!

Short version - let others bring you information, but save the thinking part for yourself.

Ok, so now you're just repeating what I said without acknowledging that your previous arguments were based on you claiming that Carlson is news, not commentary.
Your critical thinking is very flawed, bud, which is likely why you've stopped responding directly to my posts and instead pretending that you knew what I made you point out all along.

You're back to now admitting that your entire argument for this thread is based on giving Carlson the credibility of a journalist while finally admitting he's just commentary and not subject to the standards of journalism.
Which is why Carlson can interview this Tony character and not worry about facts and why you can then spout out how true it is and how only you free thinkers are the ones to identify it. You took Carlson's 'opinions' and Tony B's 'opinions' as if they were facts.
All why you just admitted that you've been pushing commentary as if its journalism.
Whoops, you may have to put me on ignore in order to lower your shame levels on this board.

 

[Frankfooter]

Frank, you are so confused. You are another lifetime away from sorting this all out. Here you are Franksplaining something to me that I've much more clearly already explained to you and to others. The distinction in standards of legal liability don't change because of the style of the presenter. They change when something is presented as a fact, rather than as an opinion, regardless of which presenter makes the statement.

Carlson gives opinions, so don't take something as gospel just because he gives you his opinion. However, that doesn't mean his guests are only giving opinions. Bobulinski was not offering his "opinion" about what the Bidens have been up to. Bobulinski isn't a member of the press. His liability standard isn't just due diligence. The Bidens could sue him for defamation if he isn't telling the truth. Any word of such a suit?

Got it yet?

Bobulinski is presenting his opinions on a show that Fox has argued in court shouldn't be taken seriously.
Yet you think that is more trustworthy than Vidman's testimony in court, under oath and penalty of contempt and perjury.

Confirmation bias, bud.

 

[Dutch Oven]

If you were a journalist you would have lost your job and career with that single post for shoddy research and false conclusions.
From the Carleton website and course descriptions.



Those courses cover ethics, legal repercussions and yes, logic.

My response? Journalistic ethics are not what you think they are, legal repercussions are CYA training, not training in logic, and no, they don't cover logic anywhere in the program.

Journalistic ethics are not about the conventions of formal logic or the application of legal standards of proof. Don't believe me? You'll have to get hold of a full syllabus for yourself.

Legal repercussions teaches about due diligence - the applicable legal standard - not formal logic. They are not one and the same. Due diligence allows journalists to print something that is ultimately proven not to be true, as long as it was diligently sourced. The standard does not require a journalist to affirmatively satisfy himself of the truth of what he is printing. "Fit to print" is just that - sourced well enough to put out to the public. The public can then decide if they believe it, and if the sources are revealed, individuals can decide whether to sue each other for defamation.

It's truly shocking to me to learn how many people don't understand this.

 

[Dutch Oven]

Bobulinski is presenting his opinions on a show that Fox has argued in court shouldn't be taken seriously.
Yet you think that is more trustworthy than Vidman's testimony in court, under oath and penalty of contempt and perjury.

Confirmation bias, bud.

Hopeless. I'll just leave the exchange as it is for the amusement of others.

 

[Dutch Oven]

I do evaluate every news item on it's own merit...when the 'opinion presenters or news entertainers' present it, it's very unfair...they don't try to be fair, they don't even say they are fair, they defend lawsuits saying 'reasonable people should know we're not fair'.

Well, I'm not sure what news that leaves you to watch. I could say the same about all the major media sources. As a matter of opinion, I disagree with you. I've seen Carlson take pains on a number of occasions to present an opinion in a much more fair way than it could be framed.

I think your last comment was just being playful, but in case it wasn't, you have mistated the defense that Fox advanced on behalf of Tucker Carlson. The accurate way of describing the defence is that Fox programming makes it clear that Tucker Carlson's statements on air represent his opinions, and that reasonable people can distinguish between assertions of opinion and fact. I agree with that analysis. Tucker Carlson doesn't pretend (unlike many CNN hosts and personalities) to have inside knowledge that informs his view of the truth. He gives opinions based upon the material presented by others on his show and elsewhere.

 

[Fun For All]

Well, I'm not sure what news that leaves you to watch. I could say the same about all the major media sources. As a matter of opinion, I disagree with you. I've seen Carlson take pains on a number of occasions to present an opinion in a much more fair way than it could be framed.

I think your last comment was just being playful, but in case it wasn't, you have mistated the defense that Fox advanced on behalf of Tucker Carlson. The accurate way of describing the defence is that Fox programming makes it clear that Tucker Carlson's statements on air represent his opinions, and that reasonable people can distinguish between assertions of opinion and fact. I agree with that analysis. Tucker Carlson doesn't pretend (unlike many CNN hosts and personalities) to have inside knowledge that informs his view of the truth. He gives opinions based upon the material presented by others on his show and elsewhere.

Actually No...they said "No reasonable viewer takes Tucker Carlson Seriously"...I'll post it again.

Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously

Tucker Carlson has a long history of making racist and controversial statements as a primetime host on Fox News.

www.businessinsider.com