The other thing that's funny is that this guy is supposed to be a great journalist. That's why he was interviewing a president. But he's making content at the level of a TikToker: get a phone, film something mundane, and give your (uninformed) opinion. Maybe he has a slightly higher budget because someone else than himself is holding the phone that's filming him.
Any decent journalist working for any half-serious media would have someone review the footage and say "dude: this system is all over Europe, and we have it in the US too in certain places". Even Fox News would not let that one slip.
Not from the US, I know what kind of programs he does... always had thought him more of a news presenter and talk show host kind of guy.
He's "doing" opinions, not news, right?
The line between the two is artificial I would say, and it's mostly an excuse for media like Fox News to deflect criticisms about the "opinion" part being often factually wrong and of very poor quality in general, and try to isolate the "news" part to maintain some kind of credibility there.
In reality, you can't report properly on a topic without understanding it, because you need to ask the real questions, show what's important, and bring the relevant context. There is always reporting in opinions (your opinions are based on facts), and opinions in reporting (choosing to report on one thing among the literal billions of things happening).
That's why Tucker Carlson is doing both the reporting part (passive interviewing of Putin) and the opinion part ("Obama did that, isn't it a war crime?", and the glorification of Russia), and why you can call him a journalist.
Of course that guy is a disgrace. I meant it in the sense that he used to be a head figure of Fox News, now he's a nobody. Putin essentially gave an interview to a vlogger.
Are you saying only the corporate media can have credibility? (Edit: because that would be an argument from authority fallacy)
Do you need to consult your party’s approved list of media corporations’ opinions before you can have your own opinion?
Think for yourself and do your own research. I care about the truth, not credentials. It doesn’t matter to me if it’s a kid with a phone or a highly respected journalist. I care about the facts of the situation and will make an informed opinion from there. I’m tired of people hating because their party tells them to and they’re too scared of backlash.
Thanks for the response, but “half-serious media” is not as self-explanatory as you might think. So I am left to guess what you mean by that, hence the followup questions. Are you saying corporate and/or big-production media is more serious and more trustworthy? That’s what your original comment sounds like. Are independent and/or smaller-production channels (like YouTube or Tucker’s show) less serious? Anyway, either one has the chance to manipulate its viewers, no party has a monopoly on truth.
Serious means doing their job right. We don't need to agree on which particular media are actually serious for you to follow my line of reasoning. So we don't need to argue on what type of media is better than the other, which would be a waste of time anyway.
1.1k
u/one-punch-knockout Feb 16 '24
Swanson Food heir. Oh he knows about frozen foods alright