Eric Bolling says Tucker Carlson is BS-ing us (my term) on the Ukraine situation RE alleged religious persecution there

[notmyfault2020]

https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/volodymyr-zelenskyy-tucker-carlson-religious-persecution/2022/12/09/id/1099848/

This was very interesting. For starters, I always liked Bolling. He was once on Fox, now at Newsmax.

And then there is this: I watch Tucker but something has always bugged me about him and I couldn't put my finger on it.

Bolling is saying that Tucker is (was it lying? distorting?) on how Zelensky (spelling?) is having his thugs enter Churches and harass priests and others for no reason. Come to find out, one of the so called churches was in Russia control somehow..

 

[Rambunctious]

https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/volodymyr-zelenskyy-tucker-carlson-religious-persecution/2022/12/09/id/1099848/

This was very interesting. For starters, I always liked Bolling. He was once on Fox, now at Newsmax.

And then there is this: I watch Tucker but something has always bugged me about him and I couldn't put my finger on it.

Bolling is saying that Tucker is (was it lying? distorting?) on how Zelensky (spelling?) is having his thugs enter Churches and harass priests and others for no reason. Come to find out, one of the so called churches was in Russia control somehow..

The church was under Russian control because Russia invaded and took the town away from Ukraine.... there are too many of "your words" in this post for me to take this thread seriously...

 

[g5000]

And then there is this: I watch Tucker but something has always bugged me about him and I couldn't put my finger on it.

Maybe it's because Carlson's monologues are a study in logical fallacies. He's the worst of the propagandists out there.

Maybe it's because he is a self-admitted liar.



As Defendant notes, Mr. Carlson himself aims to “challenge[] political correctness and media bias.” This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.” Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer “arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism” about the statements he makes. 600 W. 115th Corp. v. Von Gutfeld, 80 N.Y.2d 130, 141, 603 N.E.2d 930, 936 (1992). Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson’s statements as “exaggeration,” “non-literal commentary,” or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same—the statements are not actionable.

McDougal v. Fox News Network, LLC, No. 1:2019cv11161 - Document 39 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)​

McDougal v. Fox News Network, LLC, No. 1:2019cv11161 - Document 39 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) case opinion from the Southern District of New York US Federal District Court


Tucker Carlson is not stating actual facts. Any reasonable viewer should arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism.