It is disappointing as Tucker Carlson is an agenda-driven journalist, and like all journalists in that group you have to play into their narrative. I have no doubt that your appearance on his program was to state a point that you felt needed to be articulated by yourself in person, but the reliable media measure is that you had a point o…
It is disappointing as Tucker Carlson is an agenda-driven journalist, and like all journalists in that group you have to play into their narrative. I have no doubt that your appearance on his program was to state a point that you felt needed to be articulated by yourself in person, but the reliable media measure is that you had a point of view that Mr. Carlson wanted to amplify for his audience. If that doesn't trouble you, then it is a win-win for you both.
This proves too much, though, as per Bryan's original point "agenda-driven journalist" applies to effectively almost all major journalists with a similar platform, unless you're distinguishing them based more on how much you agree with their agenda already, as opposed to the existence of the agenda.
> It is disappointing as Tucker Carlson is an agenda-driven journalist, and like all journalists in that group you have to play into their narrative.
Did using "religion" as a negative thing play into Carlson's narratives? At least not completely, I assume. And other things, like anti-doomerism.
I watched the entire interview, and Carlson wasn't terrible at all. He might be "agenda-driven" in general, but it's not particularly present in this interview specifically.
As a besieged intellectual showing up to the citadel of Tucker, Rachael, Hannity, or Lemon/Cooper, it must feel a bit like getting really drunk, hammered, and later blissfully praised. He’ll feel this one for the next several days.
It is disappointing as Tucker Carlson is an agenda-driven journalist, and like all journalists in that group you have to play into their narrative. I have no doubt that your appearance on his program was to state a point that you felt needed to be articulated by yourself in person, but the reliable media measure is that you had a point of view that Mr. Carlson wanted to amplify for his audience. If that doesn't trouble you, then it is a win-win for you both.
This proves too much, though, as per Bryan's original point "agenda-driven journalist" applies to effectively almost all major journalists with a similar platform, unless you're distinguishing them based more on how much you agree with their agenda already, as opposed to the existence of the agenda.
> It is disappointing as Tucker Carlson is an agenda-driven journalist, and like all journalists in that group you have to play into their narrative.
Did using "religion" as a negative thing play into Carlson's narratives? At least not completely, I assume. And other things, like anti-doomerism.
I watched the entire interview, and Carlson wasn't terrible at all. He might be "agenda-driven" in general, but it's not particularly present in this interview specifically.
As a besieged intellectual showing up to the citadel of Tucker, Rachael, Hannity, or Lemon/Cooper, it must feel a bit like getting really drunk, hammered, and later blissfully praised. He’ll feel this one for the next several days.