Tucker Carlson
This letter appeared in the Virgin Islands Daily News:
I recently purchased and read the book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, by avowedly liberal humorist Al Franken. One anecdote related in the book is about Franken’s telephone conference with Conservative pundit Tucker Carlson after the memorial service for Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, who died in a plane crash in 2002. Franken attended the service. Though Franken relates that most of the speakers at the service made appropriate and tasteful speeches, one speaker made remarks that some in attendance considered overly partisan, and that the Conservative press subsequently reported as the functional equivalent of the composition of the “Horst Wessel Song,” a Nazi anthem celebrating the glorious death of a brown shirt in a street brawl.
According to Franken, the day after the service, he heard Conservative pundit Tucker Carlson report on CNN’s “Crossfire” that Republicans who had tried to eulogize Wellstone had been shouted down by the crowd. Franken then called Carlson, who had not attended the service, and informed him that this was false. According to Franken, Carlson acknowledged that it might have been incorrect, but said that he had not deliberately lied, because, “If you lie, you can get caught.” Franken concluded that Carlson had not only not attended the service, but had not even seen a videotape of the service before making his report.
Initially I regarded this story with a grain of salt, since I had only been exposed to Franken’s version. However, on Monday night I had the opportunity to watch Franken and Carlson discuss this very situation on CNBC. It was truly remarkable.
Carlson admitted that he had made an error when he reported that would-be Republican speakers had been shouted down, and professed that he “could not remember” what led him to report this. Carlson said that he thought he had done the “honorable” thing by admitting his error to Franken, though he was not sufficiently honorable to make an on-air retraction of the story. Instead, he admitted that he had subsequently gone on television again to express his disgust at the speakers at the Wellstone memorial service, despite not having attended the service and despite having already demonstrated that he had no more personal knowledge about the Wellstone memorial service than he did about the coronation of Ramses II as Pharaoh of Egypt in 1304 B.C. Carlson then suggested that Franken was somehow acting unreasonably because Franken kept calling Carlson to task for his false reporting of the nonexistent heckling of imaginary Republican speakers.
By his own admission, Carlson, a journalist of national repute, reported something that did not occur. His explanation for this was, amazingly enough, that he could not recall why he reported false information. This is an explanation which ought to make a person wonder about the credibility of Carlson as a journalist. Though I am not a professional journalist, my understanding is that the ethical principals governing journalists do not as a rule encourage them to report imaginary events as though they were true.
There is a principal of logic called Occam’s Razor, which stands for the proposition that the simplest explanation for an event is usually the best one. Though Carlson claims not to remember why he might have reported something which, by his own later admission, did not happen, perhaps we can assist him. Let us consider some of the reasons why he may have done so, then let us apply the Razor.
Some explanations for why Carlson reported an event which did not occur
1. Carlson may have had an LSD flashback;
2. Carlson may have had false memories implanted in him while a prisoner of space aliens;
3. Carlson may have been brainwashed by the North Koreans, as happened in the movie “The Manchurian Candidate”;
4. Carlson may have had transitory psychotic experience; or
5. Carlson may have simply been lying.
Applying the Razor, I suggest that choice 5 looks pretty good.
Whatever the reason, it is clear that there is no need for anyone to trust Carlson’s reporting ever again, since he is either insincere or prone to fantasy. I suggest, however, that a fine career awaits him as a writer for “The National Enquirer,” available now on your supermarket newsstand. And yes, Tucker, when you lie, sometimes people do catch you.
According to Franken, the day after the service, he heard Conservative pundit Tucker Carlson report on CNN’s “Crossfire” that Republicans who had tried to eulogize Wellstone had been shouted down by the crowd. Franken then called Carlson, who had not attended the service, and informed him that this was false. According to Franken, Carlson acknowledged that it might have been incorrect, but said that he had not deliberately lied, because, “If you lie, you can get caught.” Franken concluded that Carlson had not only not attended the service, but had not even seen a videotape of the service before making his report.
Initially I regarded this story with a grain of salt, since I had only been exposed to Franken’s version. However, on Monday night I had the opportunity to watch Franken and Carlson discuss this very situation on CNBC. It was truly remarkable.
Carlson admitted that he had made an error when he reported that would-be Republican speakers had been shouted down, and professed that he “could not remember” what led him to report this. Carlson said that he thought he had done the “honorable” thing by admitting his error to Franken, though he was not sufficiently honorable to make an on-air retraction of the story. Instead, he admitted that he had subsequently gone on television again to express his disgust at the speakers at the Wellstone memorial service, despite not having attended the service and despite having already demonstrated that he had no more personal knowledge about the Wellstone memorial service than he did about the coronation of Ramses II as Pharaoh of Egypt in 1304 B.C. Carlson then suggested that Franken was somehow acting unreasonably because Franken kept calling Carlson to task for his false reporting of the nonexistent heckling of imaginary Republican speakers.
By his own admission, Carlson, a journalist of national repute, reported something that did not occur. His explanation for this was, amazingly enough, that he could not recall why he reported false information. This is an explanation which ought to make a person wonder about the credibility of Carlson as a journalist. Though I am not a professional journalist, my understanding is that the ethical principals governing journalists do not as a rule encourage them to report imaginary events as though they were true.
There is a principal of logic called Occam’s Razor, which stands for the proposition that the simplest explanation for an event is usually the best one. Though Carlson claims not to remember why he might have reported something which, by his own later admission, did not happen, perhaps we can assist him. Let us consider some of the reasons why he may have done so, then let us apply the Razor.
Some explanations for why Carlson reported an event which did not occur
1. Carlson may have had an LSD flashback;
2. Carlson may have had false memories implanted in him while a prisoner of space aliens;
3. Carlson may have been brainwashed by the North Koreans, as happened in the movie “The Manchurian Candidate”;
4. Carlson may have had transitory psychotic experience; or
5. Carlson may have simply been lying.
Applying the Razor, I suggest that choice 5 looks pretty good.
Whatever the reason, it is clear that there is no need for anyone to trust Carlson’s reporting ever again, since he is either insincere or prone to fantasy. I suggest, however, that a fine career awaits him as a writer for “The National Enquirer,” available now on your supermarket newsstand. And yes, Tucker, when you lie, sometimes people do catch you.
posted by Francis D'Eramo at 7:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home