Tucker Carlson finally admits what we all knew....that he's a liar

[asaratis]

Well, at least sane people know Tucker is a liar......

Tucker Carlson says he lies when ‘I’m really cornered or something’

Fox News’s Tucker Carlson admitted he sometimes lies when he is “really cornered or something” in a new interview with “The Rubin Report” published Sunday.“I lie. If I’m…

thehill.com

"Fox News’s Tucker Carlson admitted he sometimes lies when he is "really cornered or something" in a new interview with “The Rubin Report” published Sunday.

“I lie. If I'm really cornered or something, I lie. I really try not to. I try never to lie on TV. I just don't, you know, I don't like lying. I certainly do it, you know, out of weakness or whatever,” Carlson said.

The revelation came after host Dave Rubin asked the prime-time Fox News anchor how CNN anchors Brian Stelter, Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo “live with themselves at this point when they just lie again and again and we have the internet to expose the lies.”

Carlson’s comments come months after a U.S. district judge tossed a defamation lawsuit brought against Fox News by former Playboy model Karen McDougal — who received a $150,000 payoff to suppress her claim that she had an affair with then-candidate Donald Trump before his presidency — claiming that Carlson slandered her when he referred to her situation as a “classic case of extortion.”

In her decision, Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil cited arguments from Fox News’s lawyers contending that the "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary,'" according to NPR."

Everybody lies now and then. It's the inveterate liars that can't refrain from it.

By the way, the fact that he has the moral ethics to admit the same thing that everybody on earth should admit does not mean that other statements attributed to him in the article were lies.

I learned to lie to my wife after the first time she asked me if she looked fat and I didn't lie.

 

[asaratis]

Fox News admitted in open court that only fools and dolts believe what Tucker Carlson has to say. No one, I mean no one, with a functioning brain should take that guy seriously.

 

[JLW]

Why not show us the context in which they said that, J?

Fox News won a defamation suit brought against Tucker Carlson by arguing that no "reasonable viewer" would believe him. So, if a "reasonable viewer" is a person of average intelligence, then what does that make an "unreasonable viewer?"

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

You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers

Fox News viewers don't expect facts from Tucker Carlson, according to network lawyers who defended their star in a slander lawsuit filed by a woman who said she had an affair with President Trump.

www.npr.org

*This case was also referenced in the OP's original link.

 

[asaratis]

Carlson’s comments come months after a U.S. district judge tossed a defamation lawsuit brought against Fox News by former Playboy model Karen McDougal — who received a $150,000 payoff to suppress her claim that she had an affair with then-candidate Donald Trump before his presidency — claiming that Carlson slandered her when he referred to her situation as a “classic case of extortion.”

In her decision, Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil cited arguments from Fox News’s lawyers contending that the "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary,'" according to NPR."

The judge acknowledges the fact the TCT is not a news show, but an opinion platform.

Opinions do not equal facts. I think you are a shithead. That does not make it so...but I am not lying.

 

[asaratis]

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

It actually happened.

TCT is an opinion show. Hannity is an opinion show. Ingraham Angle is an opinion show.

All three are often interrupted for News Alerts so defined.

 

[asaratis]

Faux News host admits lies. In other news, fire confesses to being hot, water still claims to be wet, and Franco is reportedly still dead.

Fox News opinion show host...


Tucker is not a news anchor.

 

[DrLove]

Maddow did.

Dr Maddow admits it when she makes a mistake.
An admitted liar? NO

 

[DrLove]

Fox News won a defamation suit brought against Tucker Carlson by arguing that no "reasonable viewer" would believe him. So, if a "reasonable viewer" is a person of average intelligence, then what does that make an "unreasonable viewer?"

*This case was also referenced in the OP's original link.

Remember Sidney Powell's defense - Deja Vu eh?

Sidney Powell’s legal defense: ‘Reasonable people’ wouldn’t believe her election fraud claims

Lawyers for the Trump ally claim she was just sharing an opinion when she said the election was stolen using machines built to rig races for Hugo Chavez.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[asaratis]

Edward R Murrow lied
Cronkite lied
Huntley lied
Brinkley lied.
Cuomo lies
Lemon lies
Wolf lies
Maddow lies


Somehow, I can't get overly excited about Carlson lying.

You left out:

Brian Williams lied
Dan Rather lied

 

[elektra]

If Tucker Carlson was a worm he would be a higher life form than his Democrat counter parts

 

[asaratis]

The OP did.

Stop being so lazy.

Click the bloody link.

I swear the OP spoon-feeds you the information but you ignore it.

Everything you want to know is in that link the conversation and the context of what he was saying.

 

[Dana7360]

Actually, I was responding to Johnlaw's post.

Yes as I said the answer to your questions are in that article in the OP.

The article addresses your question farther down on the page.

It goes into the history of cases where Fox News admits they lie on the air.

If you weren't so lazy and had read the information that was spoon fed to you, you would know this.

Read the article.

You are perfect example that no matter how many honest and credible links a person posts, you trump people will never read it.

It's a waste of time to provide any proof to people like you.

 

[Dana7360]

Fox News won a defamation suit brought against Tucker Carlson by arguing that no "reasonable viewer" would believe him. So, if a "reasonable viewer" is a person of average intelligence, then what does that make an "unreasonable viewer?"

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

You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers

Fox News viewers don't expect facts from Tucker Carlson, according to network lawyers who defended their star in a slander lawsuit filed by a woman who said she had an affair with President Trump.

www.npr.org

*This case was also referenced in the OP's original link.

Yes it was in the original article.

As I posted to that person the first time yet that person continues to lie.

It's just ridiculous how stupid and lazy these trump people are.

I mean, really. It's just embarrassing.

 

[asaratis]

Dr Maddow admits it when she makes a mistake.
An admitted liar? NO

Thanks for the lead. A case against Maddow was dismissed on the same grounds as was the one against Carlson.

The audience should know better than to take opinion as literally factual.

A Court Ruled Rachel Maddow's Viewers Know She Offers Exaggeration and Opinion, Not Facts

"Maddow’s show is different than a typical news segment where anchors inform viewers about the daily news," an Obama-appointed judge ruled.

greenwald.substack.com

In concluding that Maddow's statement would be understood even by her own viewers as non-factual, the judge emphasized that what Maddow does in general is not present news but rather hyperbole and exploitation of actual news to serve her liberal activism:

On one hand, a viewer who watches news channels tunes in for facts and the goings-on of the world. MSNBC indeed produces news, but this point must be juxtaposed with the fact that Maddow made the allegedly defamatory statement on her own talk show news segment where she is invited and encouraged to share her opinions with her viewers. Maddow does not keep her political views a secret, and therefore, audiences could expect her to use subjective language that comports with her political opinions.
Thus, Maddow’s show is different than a typical news segment where anchors inform viewers about the daily news. The point of Maddow’s show is for her to provide the news but also to offer her opinions as to that news. Therefore, the Court finds that the medium of the alleged defamatory statement makes it more likely that a reasonable viewer would not conclude that the contested statement implies an assertion of objective fact.

Maddow, unlike Carlson, does not have the guts to admit that she lies.

BUSTED! Rachel Maddow & MSNBC Caught In Embarrassing Lie - Refuse To Correct | The Gateway Pundit | by Nan and Byron McKeeby

Rachel Maddow busted lying about the Koch brothers!

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Maddow doesn’t support laws mandating drug testing for welfare recipients and she recently ran a segment attacking the Koch brothers for supporting such laws in Florida.


Only problem for Maddow and her progressive followers is that the Kochs are not involved with this law in Florida. They don’t support the group Maddow insists they support. Her entire vicious report is based on a demonstratively false premise.


Predictably instead of being a responsible woman of integrity, Rachel Maddow is refusing to correct her story.


Unfortunately for Rachel Maddow, her claims against the Kochs are so blatantly false even the Washington Post is calling Rachel Maddow out:

The Kochs’ extensive reach notwithstanding, they cannot be connected to everything.Tarren Bragdon, the chief executive officer of the FGA, tells the Erik Wemple Blog that his organization “did not work with the Kochs on the Florida drug-testing issue. To the best of my knowledge, they were not involved at all.” The Kochs’ general counsel, Holden, is a bit more definitive: “Right hand to God, we were not involved.”
A Nexis search seeking coverage of Koch involvement in the 2011 welfare-drug-testing debate in the months prior to the law’s passage comes up limp. http://www.nanrich2014.com/
Advertisement - story continues below

Representatives of the Florida Justice Institute and the state’s chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union each told the Erik Wemple Blog that they encountered no evidence of the Koch brothers among the law’s champions. “This is the first I’ve ever heard of the Koch brothers being involved. You got me,” says Randall Berg, executive director of the Florida Justice Institute, a group that, along with the ACLU, successfully challenged the law in federal court.

The Koch’s are rightfully upset and they’re demanding Maddow read the following on air:

“During last night’s show, I was wrong when I stated that Koch Industries, Charles Koch, and David Koch were involved in the Florida law concerning drug testing for welfare recipients. That was not a true statement. Contrary to what I said last night, Koch was not involved with these issues and did not work with the Florida Foundation for Government Accountability on these issues. I apologize for this misstatement of fact and regret it.”

Maddow refused to read that statement, or to correct the record in any way (see video above).

“I will not read scripts provided to me by anyone else. I do not play requests.”

 

[john doe 101]

Thanks for the lead. A case against Maddow was dismissed on the same grounds as was the one against Carlson.

The audience should know better than to take opinion as literally factual.

A Court Ruled Rachel Maddow's Viewers Know She Offers Exaggeration and Opinion, Not Facts

"Maddow’s show is different than a typical news segment where anchors inform viewers about the daily news," an Obama-appointed judge ruled.

greenwald.substack.com

Maddow, unlike Carlson, does not have the guts to admit that she lies.

BUSTED! Rachel Maddow & MSNBC Caught In Embarrassing Lie - Refuse To Correct | The Gateway Pundit | by Nan and Byron McKeeby

Rachel Maddow busted lying about the Koch brothers!

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Maddow doesn’t support laws mandating drug testing for welfare recipients and she recently ran a segment attacking the Koch brothers for supporting such laws in Florida.


Only problem for Maddow and her progressive followers is that the Kochs are not involved with this law in Florida. They don’t support the group Maddow insists they support. Her entire vicious report is based on a demonstratively false premise.


Predictably instead of being a responsible woman of integrity, Rachel Maddow is refusing to correct her story.


Unfortunately for Rachel Maddow, her claims against the Kochs are so blatantly false even the Washington Post is calling Rachel Maddow out:



The Koch’s are rightfully upset and they’re demanding Maddow read the following on air:




Maddow refused to read that statement, or to correct the record in any way (see video above).

This thread isnt about Maddow, dipshit. It's about Tucker Carlson.

And before you even start, I cant stand Maddow.

 

[asaratis]

Fox News won a defamation suit brought against Tucker Carlson by arguing that no "reasonable viewer" would believe him. So, if a "reasonable viewer" is a person of average intelligence, then what does that make an "unreasonable viewer?"

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

You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers

Fox News viewers don't expect facts from Tucker Carlson, according to network lawyers who defended their star in a slander lawsuit filed by a woman who said she had an affair with President Trump.

www.npr.org

*This case was also referenced in the OP's original link.

But here is what you said that Fox News admitted:

Fox News admitted in open court that only fools and dolts believe what Tucker Carlson has to say. No one, I mean no one, with a functioning brain should take that guy seriously.

They did not say that and you cannot produce a link to a credible article that backs you asinine claim.

A judge in a court case dismissed against Rachel Maddow made similar remarks, but likewise did not denigrate the viewers as you did.

 

[asaratis]

This thread isnt about Maddow, dipshit. It's about Tucker Carlson.

And before you even start, I cant stand Maddow.

Talk to DrLove , dipshit!

 

[asaratis]

Yes as I said the answer to your questions are in that article in the OP.

The article addresses your question farther down on the page.

It goes into the history of cases where Fox News admits they lie on the air.

If you weren't so lazy and had read the information that was spoon fed to you, you would know this.

Read the article.

You are perfect example that no matter how many honest and credible links a person posts, you trump people will never read it.

It's a waste of time to provide any proof to people like you.

The OP says nothing like what Johnlaw claimed.

 

[basquebromance]

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Why not show us the context in which they said that, J?

Are you implying that a leftist would ..... LIE?