Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
I was listening on Sirius sat radio. I couldn't stand it. Must have been worse on TV.But does the "Trump in mental hospital in the 90s" allegation get any traction?
Eichenwald destroyed himself. There's something wrong with him.
Eichenwald is not annoying, but unhinged, with his ranting about obtaining Trump's medical records (what doctor just handed Trump's medical records to a reporter? Isn't that illegal?) and his CIA source who has told him, well, what, exactly? And what is he babbling about with his talk of "171 patriots" who gave their lives for this country? Is he channeling the dead or getting messages from them through his fillings? For all his disjointed rambling, he couldn't answer Carlson's straight yes or no question: was Trump hospitalized for mental illness in the 1990's or not? Eichenwald sounds like the one badly in need of a visit to the psych ward. I have no doubt, though, that he is sure he DESTROYED Tucker Carlson.I do not find Carlson annoying. I find Hannity annoying. For a long time, Carlson struck me as a younger, blander George Will, complete with bow tie. I was won over, not by his new show, but by watching him participate in a non-political talk at the American Enterprise Institute on "The Dadly Virtues." He shared the stage with Jonah Goldberg, P.J. O'Rourke, and James Lileks, who were all pretty amusing, but Carlson completely stole the show ( beginning about 51:12). I didn't realize how funny the guy could be:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8SMOk2T5DI&t=3079s
I would have considered going with two men annoying eachother, but Eichenwald went on a pretty nutty twitter rant after and then had to delete the tweets... something like 45-50 tweets.
Eichenwald wouldn't answer a simple yes/no question and went into long-winded descriptions that never got to the point, but expected Tucker to answer yes/no questions on demand. Eichenwald looked and sounded like a guy who wanted to cast aspersions and innuendo but never offer the truth.
Eichenfuck himself realized he was outed as a lying asshole by Tucker and tried to delete his idiotic tweets. Eichenfuck is now tweeting as his own wife and – as his wife – is tweeting that he has suffered a “seizure.”This is his wife, you caused a seizure. I have your information and have called the police to report the assault.http://tinyurl.com/z3xsxd9
This was pretty transparently an attempt by Eichenwald to get the meme out there, but doing so in such a way that neither he nor his sources could be held to any sort of accountability, journalistic or otherwise, for doing so. Obviously, the discussion was annoying, but I'm not sure how one lays the blame for that on Carlson, who just asked for a yes/no answer as to whether Eichenwald meant what he said in a tweet.
Carlson's show started so well, but has gotten formulaic. Last night's show hit rock bottom, the worst so far. I don't find Carlson annoying in general, just uninteresting. He did hit annoying last night, but anywhere close to Eichenwald. He is one of those people who couldn't hold a real job outside the liberal media bubble.
Eichenwald demonstrated why becoming a self-appointed "fact checker" is the best place to be if you don't like to have your facts checked.
It was THE BATTLE OF THE NEWSROOM ASSHOLES! Both are assholes, but Tucker Carlson was the bigger asshole here.
What "amphetamine derivative"? Dexadrine? Methampetamine? Benzadrine? Adderal? The "journalist" keeps saying this but what does it mean?Paging Dr K. Any thoughts on what this means?Yes, two guys annoying each other plus me. John Henry
If I was Kurt Eichenwald's wife, I'd immediately remove all the knives from house.Wait. No, I would put them all out on the counter, and then leave town.
How long before liberals refuse to come on his show? But it will be alternatingly amusing and annoying until then.
It was a filibuster on Eichenwald's part. I do wish Tucker had let him talk uninterrupted for 2-3 minutes, because Eichenwald would have made an even bigger fool of himself. Or maybe Eichenwald would have actually read something out of his empty binder.
I don't know what Carlson did wrong. He asked a major media person to justify his reporting with a simple question, and the guy went nuts proving he should not have the job or influence he does. Carlson giving him more rope the whole time, seems to me to be excellent interviewing. We learned a very important thing about an important person in a clear, definitive, unbiased way, and Tucker did it by simply asking straight questions. Perfection in my mind.
It was painful to watch though I did make it to the end. I think Eichenwald lost because of his subsequent Twitter meltdown. His behavior did not seem sane
"I don't know what Carlson did wrong."I don't either. He was dealing with a very disturbed man.Eichenwald did not sound any crazier than Unknown/Inga however.
Eichenwald just couldn't bring himself to say, "the evidence that Trump spent time in a mental institution is based on innuendo and hearsay."He spent time extolling the unsung virtues of CIA agents and analysts and ended up filibustering the discussion.
Carlson was using a technique that is effective in unnerving the other person. He meant to break Eichenwald down and he did.
I can't get over the medical records thing. Eichenwald claims to have obtained Trump's medical records from his doctor. I work in healthcare and they constantly pound into us that this is a big deal. Doctors--and anybody else in healthcare, for that matter--don't just go around handing out patients' medical records, unless they like having long conversations with people from the Office of Civil Rights, facing disciplinary action by their employers, losing their jobs, paying large fines, and facing prison time.
It's easy to look up what the rumored drug was: "The supposed drug Trump took back then was Tenuate Dospan, a drug with speed-like effects that’s not unlike dexedrine."http://gawker.com/rumor-doctor-prescribes-donald-trump-cheap-speed-1782901680
For the past week, each morning I've watch on my phone the previous evening's Carlson interview where he provides his subject enough rope to hang themselves and look silly. Or in internet terms, DESTROYS Them.(Incidentally, he didn't in this one and both he and the professor seem delightful and I was beaming from it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azmNXyWM9qM).I was ready for Eichenwald to be the best one yet, but the whole thing fizzled until Eichenwald's secret message from the CIA. Only One DESTROYS out of five from this reviewer.The Carlson interviews show the flaccidity of the DESTROYS clips from the Daily Show and John Oliver. Nobody but a predisposed fan could possible care.
"My CIA informant tells me that at this time the evidence that Trump suffered a nevervous breakdown precipitated by excessive drug use is not yet conclusive. The informant was also unable to substantiate reports that Trump raped his daughter during a meth binge. The CIA has many brave agents, some of whom have died in their country's service, and I myself am an award winnng journalist. So this is an important story that needs further investigation by honest reporters such as myself."
Eichenwald is a heart attack just waiting to happen.
"This was pretty transparently an attempt by Eichenwald to get the meme out there, but doing so in such a way that neither he nor his sources could be held to any sort of accountability, journalistic or otherwise, for doing so."-- Yeah. Funny how left-leaning journalists have no problem publishing innuendo about people on the right. I've only read reports of it, but it sounds like Carlson started out perfectly reasonable until Eichenwald accused him of asking loaded questions and began trying to needle him, at which point Carlson proceeded to systematically ... ask him to defend his outrageous assertions.
I voted for option #1 but I really don't think he "destroyed" Eichenwald. He did best him if by nothing else than his control and politeness. Eichenwald was using a ten year old strategy that I don't believe is effective any longer--to ram his message through which made him come across as insufferable. If that is what his lefty guests are going to do now, then the show is in trouble. There is only so much of that kind of melt-down that is enjoyable to watch.
The best part was his 46-tweet storm after the fact, in which Eichenwald melted down further, trying to "transmit" the secret message from the CIA to Tucker and the world. Crazy! Then he claimed to be his wife tweeting because some guy had sent him a GIF that caused a seizure -- and "she" was calling the cops on Twitter! Freaking comedy gold. The interview itself was hysterical, we thought. Tucker asked a simple question, "Do you have proof Trump was in a mental hospital or not? Yes or no?" and they guy would filibuster and bluster and asked repeatedly, "do you want me to answer the question!" It was absurd, but par for the media since the election. Nutty people who are democrat operatives with bylines.
Tucker interrupted way too much. I stopped listening to Hannity and O'Reilly a long time ago -- even though I usually agree with them -- because they too interrupt too much.
"Carlson was using a technique that is effective in unnerving the other person. He meant to break Eichenwald down and he did."Then he is the super ninja of that shit, becuase his poor hapless victim went off the rails instantly. We are talking about a very experienced public "intellectual" here, not some rube who never did an interview before. The secret five finger death strike was Carlson simply reading the guy's own tweet and asking him if it was true. Would you or anyone you respect as intelligent and sane react like Eichenwald did?He broke him down alright. Like a you break a guy down by asking why he's not wearing any pants, and he starts talking about the illuminati.
Ann said:Tenuate DospanLooking it up, the only use seems to be as an appetite suppresant. Why would Trump have been prescribed that for a mental condition?Dexedrine used to be prescribed as a diet pill/appetite suppressant. Not it seems to be an ADHD drug. It was also a fun recreational drug back in the 60s. I thought it fun, anyway. Those little green triangular tablets.This is making less sense as we go along. John Henry
And of COURSE Cook sides with the progressive reporter peddling the purloined medical records and refusing to cite proof. Was it because Tucker couldn't help laughing at him? Is that why you call him an asshole is there some preexisting enmity between you and Tucker?
Mike Sylwester: Tucker interrupted way too much.TV runs on tight schedules and Eichenwald deliberately kept launching into a hairy dog story instead of addressing the question, which was, "Do you have proof?" Do you think, given say another seven minutes he would have EVER got to the point? Because I don't. If Tucker didn't step in the guy was just going to keep swerving. The big tell to me was that he was obviously prepared to deploy the rhetorical jujitsu of "Are you going to let me answer?" which wasn't the question it seemed but a subtle hint that maybe he had an answer. The truth is he could NOT answer that simple opening question because he has no confirmation of his one source. He should be banned from journolism but he won't be.
@John If I read the Gawker article correctly-- I only skimmed-- the rumor is that he sought help for weight loss but it's a drug that could cause mental problems.
Meh.The Carlson videos have become popular on the right, but they usually leave me disappointed. He books easy targets but expends too much energy trying to cut them down. I like a cool, precise evisceration, not a blog comment section read aloud.
Eichenwald refused to answer the question. Instead, he wanted to explain - with utmost verbosity and misdirection - why his answer was "No."Advantage Carlson
Both were being obtuse, Carslon was being more deliberately obtuse. This "Eichenwald is having a breakdown" stuff is BS.
I don't expect a journalist ON TWITTER to have everything they say be to the highest standards of JOURNALISTIC excellence.
Mike Sylwester: Tucker interrupted way too much.Tucker HAD to interrupt,or else this guy would have just gone on and on, filibustering and refusing to answer a simple question.It is TUCKER'S show and not a forum for his guest to pontificate without taking a breath, to lie, to obfuscate, to make up crazy stories and not be held accountable for his statements. If that is what the guests want....get their own shows. Answer the damned question! This is a typical liberal technique. Talk OVER anyone. Don't answer the questions. Avoid the point. Make speeches that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. AND TALK OVER EVERYONE! I find Tucker's show very entertaining. I especially love the pinched "I can't believe I'm listening to this shit" expression while the guests are insanely rambling on, displaying their total lack of self awareness and thin grasp on reality.
Cook - Sometimes you're a complete hack. Don't be a hack.
"Both were being obtuse, Carslon was being more deliberately obtuse."-- How? From everything I've read/looked at transcripts, it sounds like he asked simple, pointed questions about tweets/assertions and demanded answers. I haven't had time to watch the segment, so does the transcript not capture Carlson's attitude properly?
Jesus has Trump gotten into the Left's OODA loop. The more stuff they fling, the dumber, crazier and sleazier they appear. I always thought Trump was bright, he did graduate from Wharton and amassed a fortune but the more this kind of insanity from the Left continues I'm starting to think Trump's carnival barker schtick is just a cover for a very, very smart and Machiavellian man. It's as if the Democrats and the Left are Willie E. Coyote and Trump is the Road Runner.
Carlson was supposed to let the leftist hack walk all over him. right?
"Carlson was supposed to let the leftist hack walk all over him. "-- That's why I've liked the transcripts. In them, it is clear that Carlson lets them talk, but puts his foot down after a point. But, maybe he's a lot more aggressive/angry if I watched it than reading it.
AA, I would have voted for "Eichenwaldy destroyed his own credibility." Tucker didn't, Eichenwald did it all by himself.
If the only thing I knew about 2 presidential candidates was that one was distraught over a divorce and the other was unshaken over a divorce, I would vote for the former.
Matthew - You did the smart thing by reading the transcript. The interview is painful to watch. Eichenwald has no business in journalism. He starts out obnoxious and descends from there. Sad state of American journalism that his guy is at the top at "Newsweek." What a joke.
This was fake news at its worst. Political partisan pornography. It should have been aired during the noon hour. Carlson needs to find a new shtick. This show is formulaic and strives for reality show hysterics.Carlson's "debates" are not edifying and are nothing more than amateur attempts at Perry Mason courtroom gotchas.Dumb content for the dumb viewer.Who writes these phony scripts? What drug are they on?
One way to avoid such a Sisyphean struggle is for the deployers of the Socratic method to themselves be subjected to Socratic method to test the stability of the points they are trying to encourage. In theory, this should work. But suppose that deployers of Socratic method themselves avoid or dodge Socratic encounters?
"Who writes these phony scripts? What drug are they on? "-- They aren't scripted. Carlson finds people who think they are very, very smart, and then asks them questions and forces them to justify their answers. There are probably many people who could have a cogent discussion with Carlson. The people he gets though are meant to demonstrate the shallowness of the theatrical positions the left takes, which this guy was a prime example of.
"I don't expect a journalist ON TWITTER to have everything they say be to the highest standards of JOURNALISTIC excellence."So pdug thinks Carlson won but does not want to admit it. OK
Maybe the Left needs more articulate journ-O-listers so that they don't collapse like pup-tents at the first hard question.When I watch Tucker I see someone who let's the guest talk plenty, the problem is most can't defend their stupid positions and start resorting to obfuscation. Same as the guy who wanted California to secede the night before, who follwed the Enviro Defense Fund guy who also wouldn't answer for the things he wrote:Tucker: So you wrote these things about Rex Tillerson. Do you really think he's been hired to work on behalf of fossil fuels as SoS?Doofus: Well with Rick Perry and Pruitt...Tucker: No you wrote about Tillerson here. Do you really believe...Doofus: Well the big picture...Tucker: Guests always try to look at the big picture when they don't want to answer the question. You wrote THESE things...Doofus: Well the science is settled...Tucker: OK if it's settled you should be able to tell me what per cent of warming is attributable to natural cycles...Let's just say the EDF didn't fare a whole lot better than Newsweek in did, and this guy is the CEO!
I believe "Fake But Accurate" is perhaps the most damning belief for journalists to have accepted and embraced in the last 20-30 years.
Embarrassing. Eichenwald destroyed himself.Presumably someone told him so, given that his next step was to delete dozens of his tweets afterwards.
Althouse wrote: "Carlson was using a technique that is effective in unnerving the other person. He meant to break Eichenwald down and he did."This puzzles me. Technique? Let me demonstrate the technique and perhaps you can explain what I got wrong.-- begin transcript ----Me: Ann, you wrote "Trump has 6 fingers on his left hand." I am quoting your tweet. Is that true, does he have 6 fingers on his left hand?Ann: *omitted for brevity*Me : But I am just quoting your tweet. Is that true, does he have 6 fingers on his left hand?Ann: Will you let me answer? Can we talk about your lies? Do you want an answer? You fool no-one. Why ask questions? You're a liar. Let me answer. Can I answer?Me: I am not stopping you answering but you are not answering a siomple question, that should have a simple yes or no answer.Is that true, does he have 6 fingers on his left hand?Ann: Will you let me answer? Can we talk about your lies? Do you want an answer? You fool no-one. Why ask questions? You're a liar. Let me answer. Can I answer?---end transcript --------That's some advanced technique!
Newsweek - the rag that suppressed the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal after fully verifying it because, well, Democrat president, has people like this on their staff even today? I am shocked, shocked I tell you to learn that such a magazine has fallen to such a low stanadard of employees, a low status as a news source, and a low circulation as a magazine.
Binder full of Tucker lies. CIA Spooks have "a message for you and Trump" which can never be revealed. A twitter meltdown down the memory hole. Pair this with Olbermann's GQ rant, and I'm back in the early 60s, with Democrat Liberals cast in the role of the John Birchers.
I would vote that Eichenwald destroyed his own credibility. One would expect that someone with his experience would not become immediately unhinged and would not be so transparent as to his desire to push innuendo and smears. By the way, isn't the CIA supposed to work offshore? This recent kerfuffle seems like a distraction from their demonstrated incompetence. They, who forecast a banner year for the Soviet economy right before the USSR collapsed and failed to have a whiff of the 9/11 plotters, aren't particularly good at what they do. I have thought that they should gather every CIA operative and agent from around the world into that building in Langley, then bomb it and start over. In any case, Eichenwald needs some help before he hurts himself.
Gawker has some real problems as a source for anything except mockery of Gawker.
Presumably someone told him so, given that his next step was to delete dozens of his tweets afterwards.His attorney told him to delete the tweets. They compounded the libel.
The people he gets though are meant to demonstrate the shallowness of the theatrical positions the left takes, which this guy was a prime example of.I understand what Carlson is doing, but I can't watch it. After 4-5 minutes I am just too annoyed. The scary part is that the right has been losing when this has been the opposition all along. The only reason they were winning is because they got to choose who occupied the positions of power. And as alternate paths for information and the exercise of power open up, it becomes abundantly clear that those decisions were made on the basis of ideological reliability. Thus, the left in the US starts to collapse, much like the USSR. So now all that is left is to delegitimize Trump's presidency and double down on the identity politics in an attempt to keep there coalition together. Because they really don't understand that most of what they do is simply repeating things they learned in college that identify themselves to others as belonging to "educated" class.
Unwatchable. I stopped watching these sorts of shows back when Alan Colmes was still with Hannity.
Somehow I had never heard the rumor about Trump before watching this clip. Don't understand why Carlson would promote the rumor by picking that particular tweet if he had a hundred. The tweet itself did sound like it was based on investigative journalism (and Eichenwald did say he saw medical records). I guess it works as theater but not a play I want to watch.
cubanbob said...I always thought Trump was bright, he did graduate from Wharton and amassed a fortune but the more this kind of insanity from the Left continues I'm starting to think Trump's carnival barker schtick is just a cover for a very, very smart and Machiavellian man.I think he's just had decades of experience playing the NYC elites and media. His family wasn't mega wealthy or socially prominent, so how did he get to where he is? He learned early how to rope-a-dope the press and the bluebloods, and draw all the attention to him. This isn't anything new for him, he's just never done it on this scale before.
"And of COURSE Cook sides with the progressive reporter peddling the purloined medical records and refusing to cite proof. Was it because Tucker couldn't help laughing at him? Is that why you call him an asshole is there some preexisting enmity between you and Tucker?"I'm not "siding" with either of them. They're both assholes. Tucker has always been a weenie and an asshole. He should have let Eichenwald answer the question and then take apart the answer for whatever inadequacies or failings it might have had. Simply talking over and demanding "yes" or "no" answers from guests is an old trick of nitwits and bullies, both of which Carlson always has been. It suggests the interlocutor does not want the answer to be heard. This gives possibly unwarranted credence to the person trying and being prevented from answering. Better to hear the answer and then impeach its credibility, (and that of the person who gave the answer).
BTW, is Eichenwald a "progressive reporter?" Where's the proof of that?
The scary thing is that Trump belongs in a mental institution NOW.That interview was a waste of 9 minutes of my life. It was mishandled by Tucker, but that Newsweek guy (hack) was purely obnoxious (showing a binder of Tucker's supposed falsehoods). If you don't get an answer to a yes or no question after two tries, then the answer is clearly no. Time to move on to the next question. Tucker's show is new, and he is finding himself. He has to take someone's advise to be less abusive towards his guests, but in this case Tucker was less abusive than the idiotic guest. Tucker does often belittle and interrupt. Disclaimer: Most of Fox News stinks except for Megyn Kelly, who is hot, smart and interesting. Don't underestimate hot.
I think a good illustration of how the left has started to buy into its own bullshit (never buy into your own bullshit) is when Jennifer Palmieri told Kellyanne Conway that "she would rather lose than win the way you did."If I was Conway I would have replied, "really, did you tell Hillary that before she hired you?"
"Cook - Sometimes you're a complete hack. Don't be a hack."I try at least to be a high toned hack.
The amusing thing is that the people that go on Carlson's show are all positive that they are sooper-dooper smart and will DESTROY Carlson with their superior wit and erudition.Their idea of a debate between a themselves and someone on the right is derived from "debates" scripted for The West Wing and Law and Order. They know they can't lose because their beliefs are the "correct" and "moral" ones.
This is a good take-down of Eichenwald. None of Carlson's juvenile shit.
If I was Conway I would have replied, "really, did you tell Hillary that before she hired you?"Because back-handedly stating that as a "communications director" you stink on ice is way better than being defensive about being called racist.
@Robert CookThat was an interesting post, thanks. It further demonstrates that Eichenwald is a putz.However, I don't think you understand Carlson's shtick. Or perhaps you do. It isn't to bring enlightenment. He is doing a right-wing version of the Daily Show, only without the comedy. Bring on a leftist and make them look like an idiot. The fact that so many leftist in power seem to be idiots just makes his job that much easier.
"Because back-handedly stating that as a "communications director" you stink on ice is way better than being defensive about being called racist."-- What's the point? There's no evidence anywhere Conway is racist. Racist is just the juvenile insult of the left for those that annoy them on the right. No matter how she defends it, the left won't care. The right knows they have no proof of her alleged racism.There is nothing gained from defending against unfounded accusations of racism, sexism, etc., etc. from the left. Just like I don't bother when people call me a retard, stupid, etc., etc. They are just substituting bad things to stand in for "person I don't like."
Robert Cook said...BTW, is Eichenwald a "progressive reporter?" Where's the proof of that?In addition to be a transparent defense of the left The No True Scotsman act is boring as hell.
Althouse: "Carlson was using a technique that is effective in unnerving the other person.I have always found being asked to answer honestly pretty easy. Mayhaps we run in different circles, Althouse.If asked a dishonest question, it is better to say precisely what is dishonest about the question.
I like Tucker's show so far. Not an every night kind of like, but once or twice a week can be entertaining.
Tucker's show is off to a bit of a rocky start on FNC. He's got big shoes to fill, from Brit Hume.But he is of course a big improvement over Greta van Susteren. What was good about her show, however, was the production value. She was a bit of a dolt, running a great program team in an enviable time slot (between Bret Baier's "Special Report" which is the best hour on television, and Bill O'Reilly which is the most-watched hour on cable television. Tucker will need to find his own space in that spot; I am hopeful he's up to it.
As some of the commentators above point out, Eichenwald destroyed himself- Carlson for the most part just sat back and let Eichenwald demonstrate his own mental derangement. I think it was pretty obvious that Carlson knew it was going to happen this way, and that was why Eichenwald was invited on the show.
So Trump is a meth head like JFK, only without the traveling blow job queen intern.
Last night Eichenwald may have partially substantiated the rumor of rampant crack abuse at Newsweek.
Tucker Carlson is one of the least annoying people on FOX News.
I couldn't finish: No Humans Involved.
I think Eichenwald knew that he could play against the Fox News Channel's rigid, short-form time frames. Eichenwald made his points, I think, better than Carlson did. And, I don't think Eichenwald will be back on Fox for a very long time.I actually think that Eichenwald's appearance could be a template for other left-wing journalists, on how to play against FNC prime-time hosts. I don't think Eichenwald would have had this same success with Chris Wallace. And maybe not, with Megyn Kelly.It really IS a game, and with the story now being a huge kerfuffle in which Eichenwald's name gets elevated up to Tucker Carlson's, and in which the iconic image is the split-screen still with Eichenwald holding up a "Tucker Carlson Falsehoods" card, I think Eichenwald is effectively the winner.
"However, I don't think you understand Carlson's shtick. Or perhaps you do. It isn't to bring enlightenment. He is doing a right-wing version of the Daily Show, only without the comedy."It goes without saying it is without the comedy.I think any self-purporting "journalist" should ask his or her question and allow the person being interviewed to answer. If the respondent hangs himself with his answer, or provides the opportunity for the interviewer to probe further, eliciting more responses, perhaps catching the interviewee in discrepancies, falsehoods, contradictions, etc., actual information can be gained. It may serve to confirm or undo the claims of the person being interviewed. Any interviewer who talks over his guest is, by definition, not any kind of a journalist, but simply a putz putting on a freak show. It doesn't serve the public in any way, so it's worthless.
Tucker refused to budge and thus allowed the babbling, unhinged Eichenwald to bury himself. Advantage: Carlson.
"Carlson for the most part just sat back...."No, Carlson didn't sit back...he refused to let Eichenwald speak, continually hectoring him. Carlson is a hack. Eichenwald is a hack, too. Thus, THE BATTLE OF THE NEWSROOM ASSHOLES, as I termed it above.
"Robert Cook said..."Carlson for the most part just sat back...."No, Carlson didn't sit back...he refused to let Eichenwald speak, continually hectoring him. Carlson is a hack. Eichenwald is a hack, too. Thus, THE BATTLE OF THE NEWSROOM ASSHOLES, as I termed it above."Do you really think Eichenwald was answering his question? Really?
Wow...Chuckles defending a Lefty and attacking a Righty......who would have thunk?
Sad state of American journalism that his guy is at the top at "Newsweek." "Newsweek" was a good magazine when I was growing up, but now I think of it as "Weekly Reader" for teenagers.
Gahrie said...Wow...Chuckles defending a Lefty and attacking a Righty......who would have thunk?Except that only in Foxbyte world, would anyone think that my view was as simple as "defending a Lefty and attacking a Righty."You are living proof of what I was talking about. Fox appeals to you with a certain model. The model being O'Reilly/Hannity bullies demanding answers to stilted questions in 20 second clips.There are, I'd have to admit, a lot of you. Enough to push O'Reilly to the top of cable ratings, and enough to swing Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin for Trump.
Carlson, O'reilly and hannity couldn't win a debate with a hamburger.. they are awful..
You are living proof of what I was talking about. Fox appeals to you with a certain modelI don't watch Fox, or any other television news. The only thing I watch on TV is sports and Game of Thrones.Except that only in Foxbyte world, would anyone think that my view was as simple as "defending a Lefty and attacking a Righty."Unless of course "anyone" was familiar with your pretty consistent pattern of behavior........
There are, I'd have to admit, a lot of you. Enough to push O'Reilly to the top of cable ratings, and enough to swing Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin for Trump.C'mon..just say it...you know you are dying to...we're deplorables, aren't we? Or have you gone back to bitter clingers?
Proving a negative is hard, Cookie, I saw it live and it was very funny. You just can't perceive it because it ridiculed your side. How unfair, asking a man to own or disown a statement he made as a professional journalist!
If someone starts bloviating instead of giving a direct answer, I am of the opinion that interruption is warranted. In cases where a direct answer is given, the follow-up is usually a "How did you know that/Why did you reach that conclusion/What makes you think that?" kind of deal. If the "How/Why/What?" of the answer is important, this is the chance to give it, before moving on.To some extent this sort of setup is probably deliberate, and by setup I mean this farce of an interview. They pick guests who are fond of bloviating and talking in circles, and subject them to this question/answer/followup/moveon format. In and of itself, the format is excellent for getting information across and answering honest questions with honest answers. That requires good faith on the part of both the questioner and questionee, which is sadly in short supply among all our mass-media types these days.
Kyzernick said...If someone starts bloviating instead of giving a direct answer, I am of the opinion that interruption is warranted. But if you say that I have to give my answer in 30 seconds or less, I am going to protest. And you can kick me out, if it is your microphone. And as you cut off my mic, I will be talking just like Eichenwald was.I don't think Eichenwald was bloviating. And at the same time, I don't agree with anything that Eichenwald has written. I would have loved to have seen Carlson run him down.But not by interrupting him.
SayAahh said... Dumb content for the dumb viewer. Who writes these phony scripts? What drug are they on?Tucker responds:"You claim publicly that the shows writers are taking drugs. What is your specific proof of that?"
It's almost like Democrats aren't serious about rooting out fake news! Calling out a liberal is just mean!
Fake news, fake news Watcha gonna do? Watcha gonna do When they come for you?
Chuck said, "..... I think Eichenwald is effectively the winner.....?" Maybe I'm sleepy, or maybe this video was boring? But, when you made this statement, I said to myself, OMG, does this guy have comprehension problems? Chuck, Tucker destroyed this idiot from Newsweek!
@Althouse, to be perfectly honest I couldn't get past the one minute mark. Tucker asks a simple question: "Do you believe that you're practicing journalism?" What's wrong with a simple "yes" for an answer? The guy laughs like a hyena and asks Carlson when he stopped beating his wife. What's up with that? If you're a journalist you answer in the affirmative and if you aren't then why do you take a salary from Newsweek. Seems simple to me. What the guy Eichenwald finds funny about it is a headscratcher.The first hard-left liberal I ever saw using a giggly response to uncomfortable questions that she didn't want to have to answer was Ellie Clift back on the "McLaughlin Group," and then on "Inside Washington" and similar panel shows Nina Totenberg raised it to an art form, complete to sneer and looking down the nose as in "Who could possibly believe that?" As a trope it's sort of played out and Eichenwald does it poorly to begin with.
I enjoyed the contretemps. It was like watching two fighters spar. Neither one was trying for a knockout punch. Just quick hands doing jabbing and blocking moves for practice. You could dress one in black and one in white and that would keep a WWF audience fascinated.Tucker wins on a split decision and keeps his Belt.
Action on Twitter after the appearance suggests that the title of the video is correct. It wasn't Carlson who started frantically deleting tweets.
A battle of "No True Scotsmen" .From the Left, Chuck makes the argument about the middle Left.From the further Left, Robert Cook makes it about the far Left.
Chuck, who supported Hillary Clinton: "I would have loved to have seen Carlson run him down.But not by interrupting him."HA HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAIn which Chuck wishes a thing and wishes it impossible to do that thing, simultaneously.
Birkel said...Chuck, who supported Hillary Clinton: Fuck you. You lying, fabricating, dumbass.I voted for Trump. Despite Trump's own lying, stupid, ugly, mendacious behavior. That's how little I supported Hillary Clinton.And to emphasize all of this, I want you to picture me standing directly in front of you and jabbing my knuckles into your sternum with every syllable.
While I watch Fox, some of the worst parts of the enterprise are the O'Reilly and Hannity hours.Where guests with opposing views (if they agree to come on and endure the abuse at all; and that is a self-limiting feature) have to comply with the hosts' rules, where loaded questions get asked and one- or two-line answers are required. It is entertainment for the fans of those hosts.Tucker Carlson demanded to know whether Eichenberg is a "journalist." For what it's worth, I don't imagine Eichenberg as much of a journalist at all. He's a columnist. By the same token, neither O'Reilly or Hannity are journalists. O'Reilly goes back and forth on that all the time. He purports to do interviews, but then at the same time declares himself to be a "commentator," unbound by normal journalistic rules. I'd happily be interviewed by O'Reilly, and say that I was doing it for the fun of it and my own entertainment. Because I would never expect a fair interview. O'Reilly himself always declaims that his program is commentary, not news.It is the worst thing about Fox in prime time; but it obviously works, ratings-wise. Short, choppy 6- or 8-minute interviews in which the host talks as much as the guest, and the entire purpose seems to be to get across a point that the host insists on, without regard to any insight that the guest might have.It's great, for people with short attention spans who need to be told what to think.
Trump has adopted the Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals. And he's better at it than the entire left. I doubt Saul saw that coming. The upside is that Saul does have effective techniques for waging an asymmetrical culture/policy war. Did Trump even utter a fact in the entire election?! According to Saul, he doesn't have to and he didn't. The downside is that this further dumbs down the American political discussion, which is already really really dumb. I can't watch the news on any channel. They're all echo chambers with innuendo and baseless attacks. The days of Wm. F. Buckley are gone. Go back and watch tapes of Reagan in the 60s and 70s and compare it to the discussions today. I doubt this little chat will change it. So how do we make the best out of this situation?
Eichenwald. Sorry. He's not high on my list of anything.
@Big Mike 2:43Good points. What Eichenwald is laughing at is the idea that anyone from Fox, or anyone at all possibly, has the temerity to doubt or question him. It really is that simple.
Chuck, the Hillary Clinton supporter, has violent daydreams.When my preferred candidate loses, I just get with the getting on. I do not engage in violent fantasies. Democrats react differently.
Tucker seems to be taking his "shot" very seriously and works hard to dig up the evidence to back his assertions. He seems very interested in exposing the supposedly hard news journo's who also make it obvious that they are advocates through formats like twitter. I welcome this.Weeks ago I had posted a link to his interview with NYT ed Liz Spayd where he also came prepared with specific examples of the same sort of dishonesty at the paper.Tucker is heads above both Greta and Hume.
It's great, for people with short attention spans who need to be told what to think.I must be mistaken, but it sure looks like our very own lifelong-Republican Chuck is casting aspersions upon Republican voters. (again)C'mon Chuckles...let yourself go..we're all a bunch of deplorables who cling bitterly to our guns and religion...right?By the way...isn't the reason that Trump exists precisely the fact that The Republican voters refused to be told what to think?
Chuck is just being Chuck. He's a contrarian and would probably argue with you about the time of day. My late husband was a bit like that.
mockturtle:I was like that in my teens and early 20s. Then I decided I preferred happy over 'right' and STFU every so often.At best, Chuck is a status quo GOPe who was pleased to purloin his share of the slop from the status quo trough. At best.
320Busdriver said......Tucker is heads above both Greta and Hume.Brit Hume would never have engaged in this meaningless food fight with a largely unknown writer from Newsweek. Brit Hume has been a major figure in television news for forty years, and has been among the handful of leading correspondents at Fox pretty much since the channel's inception.Brit Hume would not have put Eichenwald on, simply to try to score some points against Newsweek (why? it's dead!) and a left-winger's most dubious Tweets. Brit Hume would have had some major political players on, and would have asked them good questions.Maybe it is Carlson's recent history in online news and social media. I really don't understand the motivation in his putting on Eichenwald at all.
Considering that Eichenwald was threatening people on Twitter afterwards, I don't think he won.
Gahrie said......By the way...isn't the reason that Trump exists precisely the fact that The Republican voters refused to be told what to think? The only reason that Trump isn't a national joke right now, is because enough old-line Republicans like me voted for him. We all loathed Trump; we still think he is an embarrassment; but we voted for him because the alternative (and a Supreme Court of 5 or 6 Kagans) was unthinkiable. So we swallowed our pride and our better judgment and voted for Trump.You should be on your knees, thanking us for our votes. The votes of the Trumpkins alone would not have been enough to win.
Chuck, the Hillary Clinton supporter: "I really don't understand..."We have reached an accord, you lying, sanctimonious blowhard.
The only reason that Trump isn't a national joke right now, is because enough old-line Republicans like me voted for him. We all loathed Trump; we still think he is an embarrassment; but we voted for him because the alternative (and a Supreme Court of 5 or 6 Kagans) was unthinkiable. So we swallowed our pride and our better judgment and voted for Trump.Then shut the fuck up about him and give him a chance.
At best, Chuck is a status quo GOPe who was pleased to purloin his share of the slop from the status quo trough. At best.Ok..but he can't be Squealor......that's Comrade Cookie's alter ego.Perhaps the cat? If we stick with pigs he has to be Minimus.
Althouse: "Carlson was using a technique that is effective in unnerving the other person."I have always found being asked to answer honestly pretty easy. Mayhaps we run in different circles, Althouse.Same. And what an odd remark from Althouse. Is it meant to be a complaint that he is cheating or being dishonest? Makes me wonder if the law professor has ever seen the inside of a courtroom. I hear they are filled with people who use similar techniques all the time, to the point that its not remarkable. I think they are called lawyers or attorneys or something like that.
The only reason that Trump isn't a national joke right now, is because - Is because the Democrats and their MSM sidekicks are stealing the spotlight with their insane hysterical meltdowns. There's a new one every day now. Have to say, best political entertainment in my entire life. For example, did you know the Flip The Electors group that is up in arms about "foreign influence" this election has a website registered in a foreign nation? LOLBears repeating, we're going to need new words for "irony". The Freemen had 32 for "sand".
"Do you have proof that Donald Trump was in a mental hospital?""Tucker, back in the year 1203, there was a Danish shoemaker who noticed that the Pope was wearing a different hat than the one he usually...""I'm sure that's very interesting, but can you answer the question?""WHY WON'T YOU LET ME ANSWER THE QUESTION?!?!? You're not fooling anyone, Tucker! Look at my big fake book of Tucker Carlson stuff!""This is the craziest interview I've ever done. Can you answer the question or not?""You won't let me answer! Look at all the time you've wasted! Besides, I have a message from the CIA.""Ok, what is the message?""Tucker, this is from the men and women who walk past the stars in the lobby representing those who have died in the service of their country. I've been in their homes, sat in their chairs, eaten their food, tried on their clothes and had sex with their dogs.""Uh, ok...is this story going anywhere?""Tucker, you callous beast! You are just blowing off those brave Americans who don't get paid much and work really hard who have to walk, yes WALK past those stars EVERYDAY! Don't make me hold up that big fake book again!""OK...well, we're out of time.""You asked for it, buster...look at my big fake book of Tucker Carlson stuff! LOOK AT IT!!""Thanks for being with us today, Kurt.""I can smell the color of your tie!"
Brit Hume would have had some major political players on, and would have asked them good questions.Brit Hume is my favorite analyst. The day he left FOX was the day I left FOX. They've devolved into Beavis and Butthead trying to outsnark each other for lols, with a dash of news sprinkled in as backgroud. Red Eye was the worst example of this. I miss Brit Hume.All that said, I think you identified as a old-guard Republican? Because as much as I admire Hume, he is part of the tired philosophy that Republicans need to be seen as "respectable" and "civil". Decorum matters to them as much as Liberty. They've got the Graceful Loser shtick down pat. And already, they are exploring new ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Reminds me of women with Daddy issues - they grew up being abused or ignored, so they continue to seek out men that abuse or ignore them because that is what their brain has been taught to pattern as "love". That's why I'm becoming happier with Trump as each day passes. I like winning. Winning is fun. So is playing on offense instead of reacting all the time with Groveling Apology Tours so the Mean Girls will "like" us.Tucker Carlson is defending principles like Liberty from what has been a constant Leftist onslaught. I no longer care if his methods are seen as "base" or "crude". My people are out here fighting for their lives. And sometimes that means jumping in the mud and wrestling the pigs and making a "spectacle" of yourself. People that aren't willing to go there, out of some concern that their pals at the Country Club would frown at such behavior, do not deserve to be free. And the Establishment Wing of the GOP has demonstrated quite well that taking the High Road is for Losers. Graceful losers all too ready to cave the first time Chris Mathews calls them mean names. I prefer Winning. I haven't felt this way since Reagan.
Althouse: "Carlson was using a technique that is effective in unnerving the other person."I don't watch the show, but I think you're off base here. Carlson repeatedly asks whether Donald Trump was institutionalized in a mental hospital in 1990, as Eichenwald reported. Color me old fashioned, but if someone asks you whether an explosive story from a professional reporter is true, the correct answer is "YES! YES IT'S TRUE AND I'D REPORT IT AGAIN!"Notice that my answer easily defeats the "technique that is effective in unnerving the other person." You have now made the conversation revolve around a question of fact which you, the professional reporter, naturally have command of and your questioner does not. You can easily segue into "According to records from Mt. Sinai hospital, which I have seen, Mr. Trump was admitted to Room 217 from March 23 to March 29, 1990 for extreme exhaustion..."The "technique" is only effective in unnerving Eichenwald because he is unable or unwilling to give the yes or no answer.Hauling out a three ring binder of "Tucker Carlson falsehoods" is just bizarre. I do not for a moment believe that Eichenwald compiled any such binder. I actually don't know what's nuttier -- preparing a several hundred page binder of opposition research in preparation for an interview or making up an *empty* binder to look like several hundred pages of opposition research. Either way, that's a lot of preparation for an interview that he mostly spends bloviating about low paid analysts who walk every day in front of a wall with 151 stars for patriots who've given their lives...
What Rob said. Both the interview and his post interview conduct on Twitter were just plain crazy.
Carlson didn't win so much as eichenwald exploded into insanity. Tucker didn't make any points he simply asked a question. Which eichenwald couldn't or wouldn't address. So, it's not as if Tucker wowed us with his intellectual vigor. But he definitely won the exchange simply becaise eichenwald so thoroughly demolished himself.
"AA, I would have voted for "Eichenwaldy destroyed his own credibility." Tucker didn't, Eichenwald did it all by himself."I voted Tucker destroyed Eich. But this is the vote I'd take if it were available. Between the binder, the attempts to filibuster and the wild tangents, he made himself look pretty bad. As to Tucker interrupting him, he gave him multiple chances to get to his point. Within the confines of a TV interview Carlson gave him tremendous leeway.And then came those tweets!
The option missing in your poll is:Eichenwald destroyed himselfAt the beginning he had a point, because Carlson was very rude without making any concrete case. From then on, Eichenwald's been only comical.
Tucker Carlson is, without a doubt, the second most annoying person on TV today. (Rachel Ray and Sean Hannity are tied for first)Why, oh why did Fox give him his own show? He is nasty, argumentative and interrupts anyone and i mean anyone, who has an opinion that is even minimally out of the range of what he believes in. I have been listening to him on Sirius and I am appalled at how really vile he is to people, even people he agrees with. What is wrong with you, Tucker? Are you still mad that CNN fired you, you overblown excuse for a human being. Fire the jerk.Vicki from PasadenaNo blah blah blah about how i am a liberal and i am biased. I am a financial conservative and a social liberal. So what.
Tucker Carlson doesn't make the Top 5 most annoying people on TV if you only consider him and the hosts of The View.As for socially liberal and financially conservative, that is an easy claim to make that cannot be squared in reality. Just stop lying to yourself.
Birkel,The annoying women on "the view" are not nearly as annoying as Tucker Carlson is. As for being socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Wake up, dude. Millions of Americans feel that way. It is not inconceivable to want to balance the budget and support a woman's right to choose. Only in your narrow view of America does that take place. Vicki from Pasadena
Always abortion with you idiots. What about welfare? Health care? Social security? Medicare? Medicaid?And thus ends your lie about fiscal conservatism. Those things cannot be maintained in their current trajectory. That is why, again, "that is an easy claim to make that cannot be squared in reality."
"As for socially liberal and financially conservative, that is an easy claim to make that cannot be squared in reality."That's what I am so I guess my reality is squared,
Tucker Carlson interviewed Martin Shkreli - most hated man in America for a while. Completely different story from the lefty narrative emerges:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEbmfv4VZb4
Post a Comment