Tag: fox news lies
Tucker Carlson

Tucker Carlson's Somebody Days Are Nearing The End (Or Should Be)

Tucker Carlson's problem, it would seem, is that what he says doesn't matter, because he has a long history of not saying what he thinks. True, he once starred at Fox News, and even now his followers on social media number in the millions. But he's shifted into crackpot conspiracies and turning on Donald Trump. Anything for an audience.

Carlson long hated Trump in his heart while praise poured from his mouth. The war in Iran polls poorly as does Trump, and so Carlson uses the opportunity to inflate his diminished importance by blaming himself for making Trump possible.

"We're implicated in this, for sure," he said. "You know, we'll be tormented by it for a long time. I will be, and I want to say I'm sorry for misleading people."

On trying to mislead people, Carlson is expert.

In 1999, he wrote that Trump was "the single most repulsive person on the planet." But when Trump was elected president in 2016, Carlson wrote a Politico piece headlined "Donald Trump is Shocking, Vulgar and Right." In it he gave Trump the lightest of spankings. Trump was "imperfect."

After 2020, Carlson expressed contempt for Trump but only privately. He had a job to keep as political pundit on pro-Trump Fox News. There he was paid more than $15 million a year to air fake opinions.

When Trump tried to overthrow the results of the 2020 election, Carlson sent private messages doubting the Trump camp's claims of election fraud. "I hate him passionately," he also texted.

On air, though, Carlson tiptoed around Trump's phony assertion that Dominion Voting Systems software helped steal millions of votes. Instead, he vaguely stated that "something was wrong with the election."

After Fox dropped Carlson as a legal liability as well as pain in the butt, he rebranded himself on social media. He was now a persecuted truth-teller focused on corporate power, demographic changes and other sprawling issues.

But when Trump ran for reelection in 2024, Carlson jumped right back in line and heartily supported him in public. After the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, Carlson said the shooting "changed everything." That's when Trump "became the leader of this nation," he said.

Thus, a "commentator" who wrote in an email that Trump's first term was "a disaster with no upside" started campaigning for him. As a warm-up act at a Trump rally, Carlson did his icky "Dad comes home" routine.

In Carlson's recent telling, Trump has been manipulated by Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu into entering the war in Iran. If true, where was the strong patriarch Carlson had been heralding for a decade?

It is Netanyahu's job to look after Israel's interests. It is the American president's job to look after America's interests. Often those interests align, but sometimes they don't.

Netanyahu had urged other presidents to strike Iran, but the other presidents declined. There may be an argument for stopping the exporter of terrorism from developing nuclear weapons. Too bad Trump's big mouth couldn't stop itself from hurting the cause with bloodthirsty threats against Iran's civilization.

I share Carlson's displeasure at Trump's many character flaws, but I didn't cover them up when Trump was more popular. Nor did I buy into the president's vows to save Obamacare or "drain the swamp" of Washington corruption. Only suckers would believe a man who stiffed his workers, oversaw six bankruptcies and transparently lied about Barack Obama not being American born.

Carlson wasn't a sucker. He knew, like Trump, how to play the chumps by selling himself as an honest man speaking his mind. Nonetheless, The New York Times just ran a long interview credulously titled "What Does Tucker Carlson Really Believe?"

Unbelievable.

Froma Harrop is an award winning journalist who covers politics, economics and culture. She has worked on the Reuters business desk, edited economics reports for The New York Times News Service and served on the Providence Journal editorial board.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

How Fox News Is Hiding Trump's $200 Billion Iran War Funding Request

How Fox News Is Hiding Trump's $200 Billion Iran War Funding Request

Fox News isn’t bothering to sell the staggering cost of the ill-conceived war President Donald Trump launched against Iran.

The Trumpist propaganda network provided roughly 11 minutes of coverage through Thursday to the administration’s request for an eye-popping $200 billion in supplementary spending from Congress — and less than 1 minute of discussion on its prime-time block, according to a Media Matters review.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday night that the Pentagon “has asked the White House to approve a more than $200 billion request to Congress to fund the war in Iran,” a figure subsequently confirmed by other news outlets. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth did not dispute the number at a Thursday morning press conference, though he indicated it “could move.”

The request “is expected to face a rocky path in Congress,” according to The Wall Street Journal, as lawmakers say “they want to see more details of the proposal amid concerns that the U.S. could become embroiled in another costly long-term war,” and even Republicans are expressing skepticism about its odds of passage.

But so far, Trump’s Fox propaganda wing isn’t engaged in trying to make the case for the funds.

The $200 billion figure has not been mentioned on the programs of Fox stars Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, or Greg Gutfeld, or on the panel show The Five.

On Jesse Watters Primetime, guest host Charlie Hurt spent 44 seconds of Thursday’s show accusing Democrats who refuse to support the spending of siding with Iran and against the troops.

“The Pentagon is asking for more money to eliminate the bad guys, and it's not just for Iran,” Hurt claimed. “Trump says it's for keeping the whole world safe. And guess whose side the Democrats are on?”

He then aired a video of a reporter telling Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), “They're asking for $200 billion now for this war,” and Ocasio-Cortez responding that she won’t support the request because “this administration has plunged the American people into a war that we don't want to be in.”

“Soldiers are risking their lives to do what every president of either party, going back decades, said had to be done,” Hurt responded. “The Democrats don't want to give them the money to finish the job.”

That was the only discussion of the $200 billion war funding figure on Fox’s 8-11 p.m. prime-time block.

The request for war funding drew only 19 seconds of coverage on Thursday’s edition of the popular morning show Fox & Friends, with co-host Brian Kilmeade noting the $200 billion figure and asking, “Are Democrats gonna look to defund a war again?”

The remainder of the network’s coverage of the figure through Thursday consisted of reports from correspondents on America’s Newsroom and Special Report; a handful of passing mentions; and panel discussions on Special Report and Fox News @ Night.

Such lackluster coverage might suffice to help Trump ram a war spending bill through Congress if the war were popular, the consequences at home limited, and Republicans lawmakers united. But under the present circumstances, the network’s propagandists are going to need to develop some talking points if they hope to pull it across the finish line over the weeks to come.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

Behind War On Iran: The Fox News-White House Feedback Loop

Behind War On Iran: The Fox News-White House Feedback Loop

President Donald Trump, across both of his terms, has regularly shaped federal policy in response to the propaganda he hears from his sycophants at Fox News. But his decision over the weekend to launch a war of choice against Iran without a clear goal may prove to be the most consequential example of this feedback loop to date.

Trump is deeply immersed in the Fox universe. He famously consumes the network’s content; highlights particular segments that strike his fancy on social media; hires its employees to run his administration; consults its personalities for advice on domestic and foreign policy; and doles out contracts and pardons alike based on what he sees on its airwaves.

And for decades, the Fox stars Trump trusts most have consistently called for military strikes and regime change in Iran.

That campaign took on new urgency when Trump returned to the White House.

Last June, Fox personalities — particularly Trump loyalists Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Brian Kilmeade — used their programs to urge Trump to follow up on Israeli attacks on Iran by launching strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. They warned that Iran is, as Kilmeade put it, “our enemy,” that it posed an imminent threat to American citizens and that, in Levin’s words, “force” is the “only thing to stop” Iran.

Other MAGA media figures from non-Fox outlets opposed U.S. involvement in the conflict. But the overwhelmingly pro-war Fox coverage — and a White House meeting Levin had with the president — were apparently dispositive.

And after Trump ordered the U.S. military to attack three Iranian nuclear sites, Fox’s war hawks rewarded the president by showering him with praise for what Hannity said would “go down in history as one of the greatest military victories.”

The same pattern appears to be playing out eight months later, albeit on a much larger scale.

A Fox-fueled push for war with Iran

Over the past weeks, as U.S. military forces converged in the Middle East, the same Fox figures again urged Trump to attack. Notably, their argument was noticeably light on defining a goal for U.S. military operations after the bombs began to fall.

Instead, they argued that because Iran could, at some point in the future, pose a threat, Trump should act now while he is empowered to do so — and that the result would be an easy U.S. victory. “I cannot think of any reason not to take this regime out,” Levin argued. The U.S. would “lose credibility forever” without a strike, Kilmeade claimed. For Hannity, “The world is going to be better and safer.”

While some on the network seemed to shy away from the topic, criticism of potential strikes largely took place elsewhere in the MAGA media — outside of the Fox programming the president himself watches.

On Friday, hours before the attack began, the trio made their final pitch.

“I hope the president chooses to go at it,” Kilmeade said Friday morning. “We have been looking at these headlines for 47 years, and we have an opportunity to end it. And this president likes to make history.”

“This president knows right from wrong,” Levin told Hannity that night. “He knows good from evil. He knows that this regime is a death cult. And he knows that there's only really two countries that are prepared and willing to put an end to this.”

“We don't need to put up with their crap,” he concluded, as Hannity nodded along. “It's time to put it to an end.”

They got what they wanted: The U.S. and Israeli militaries began attacking Iranian targets that night. Since then, hundreds of Iranians have reportedly been killed, including Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the Pentagon has reported the first U.S. casualties in the conflict. There is no end currently in sight — the Iranian government remains defiant, while the U.S. is sending more troops to the region.

The propaganda war has an aim. The real one doesn’t.

Trump, meanwhile, has had trouble articulating what he’s trying to accomplish.

He first suggested his aim was regime change when he urged the Iranian people to “take over” the government in his first public statement after the attack, but in interviews since then, he just seems to be riffing. He told The Washington Post he is seeking “freedom for the people” of Iran, but he bemoaned to ABC News that regime figures he expected to take over the country had also been killed in the initial strikes. Trump also stressed to The New York Times that his model was the U.S. attack on Venezuela, where the dictatorial regime remained in place after U.S. forces seized its leader. But he also suggested that the Iranian military could turn over its arms to its public. “They would really surrender to the people, if you think about it,” he explained.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a former Fox & Friends host, added to the incoherence of the administration’s message when he said at a Monday morning press conference, “This is not a so-called 'regime change war,' but the regime sure did change.” But the Iranian regime currently remains in place, and according to at least some of his statements, Trump may prefer it that way.

Perhaps the reason there doesn’t seem to be a clear goal for the U.S. bombing of Iran is because the goal, as laid out by Trump’s Fox propagandists, was for the U.S. to bomb Iran. That is the aim the likes of Kilmeade, Hannity, and Levin had in mind, and now that they’ve goaded Trump into following through, they are cheering him on.

“Donald Trump did what nobody else could do for half a century,” Levin marveled on Saturday. “How do you like that? And you know why he did it? Because he loves his country.”

So what happens next in Iran? That’s beyond the remit of Trump’s Fox Cabinet. Instead, they are gearing up for a propaganda war in which they declare Trump a world-historic victor and paint his critics as terrorists and traitors. For them, the details of what happens to the Iranians is for someone else to handle.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like anyone within the official Trump administration has answers either.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Trump and Ellison

Trump Escalates His Corrupt Scheme To Deliver CNN To Billionaire Ellison

President Donald Trump’s second term has been characterized thus far by America’s corporate leaders, including the owners of major media outlets, caving to his authoritarian threats of corrupt state retaliation. But with Trump’s public support cratering to levels not seen since he encouraged a mob of his supporters to sack the U.S. Capitol in 2021, the tide may be starting to turn.

Trump demanded in a Saturday social media post that Netflix “IMMEDIATELY” fire Susan Rice, who served in senior posts in the Obama and Biden administrations, from its board of directors — or face unnamed “consequences.” At issue were comments Rice made on a podcast last week about future accountability for corporations that violate the law on Trump’s behalf, which MAGA media figures denounced as a sign that “Democrats are out for blood” and plotting “retribution.”

Though the president did not detail the “consequences” Netflix would suffer for failing to bow to his whim, he was responding to an ally who urged him to “kill the Netflix-Warner Bros. merger now.” Trump actually cannot unilaterally cancel Netflix’s bid to take over Warner’s theatrical and streaming assets — but his administration can force it into expensive regulatory and court battles.

And Warner Bros. could, in turn, decide to pull out of their deal rather than face that scrutiny, leaving a potential acquisition open to rival bidder Paramount. That would surely be the preferred result for Trump, and could place Warner Bros.’ CNN subsidiary in the hands of Paramount’s owner David Ellison, a Trump supporter whose right-skewed stewardship of CBS News has drawn praise from the president. Ellison’s father, Larry Ellison, a megabillionaire and Trump ally, has reportedly already discussed with the White House which CNN hosts could be fired under their leadership.

But Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos, thus far, has refused to cave to Trump’s pressure. “This is a business deal. It's not a political deal," he told the BBC on Monday. “This deal is run by the Department of Justice in the U.S. and regulators throughout Europe and around the world.”

Sarandos defended the merger on its merits and minimized the import of the president’s comments, saying, “He likes to do a lot of things on social media.”

While Sarandos could still reverse himself and capitulate to Trump — or Warner Bros. could fold and switch to Paramount’s bid — the Netflix head’s public comments nonetheless stand out when compared to the behavior of media moguls like Jeff Bezos or Bob Iger. As we learned in Trump’s first term, corporate media leaders can defeat Trump’s authoritarian tactics — but only if they are willing to stand up to him.

How the right-wing freakout over Susan Rice’s remarks reached Trump

Rice, in a Thursday interview, pilloried law firms, media outlets, corporations, and others that have decided to act “in their perceived very narrow self-interest” to “take a knee” for Trump during his second term. She repeatedly warned that if those entities violated the law, they would be “held accountable” when Democrats come back into power.

“If these corporations think that the Democrats, when they come back in power, are going to, you know, play by the old rules, and say, ‘Oh, never mind, we’ll forgive you for all the people you fired, all the policies and principles you’ve violated, all, you know, the laws you’ve skirted,’ I think they’ve got another thing coming,” she told former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara.

“You know, companies already are starting to hear they better preserve their documents,” she added. “They better be ready for subpoenas. If they’ve done something wrong, they’ll be held accountable, and if they haven’t broken the law, good for them.”

Right-wing media figures quickly seized on Rice’s comments, downplaying or ignoring the portions of her remarks in which she made clear that she was referring to entities that had broken the law in order to portray her as committing the Democrats to a campaign of retribution.

“Democrats are out for blood,” Fox News host Jesse Watters said Friday on The Five. “Former Obama lackey, Susan Rice, making it clear they want scalps if the Democrats take back power in the Midterms.

His co-host, Greg Gutfeld, added that what Rice was “saying is we'll destroy you when we come back unless you are obedient to us and do not play along,” adding that her remarks were “very anti-American.”

Fox & Friends Weekend co-host Rachel Campos-Duffy, the wife of Transportation Secretary and former Fox host Sean Duffy, interviewed Fox host Lara Trump, the president’s daughter-in-law, about Rice’s comments Saturday morning.

“Lara, I mean, they are vindictive,” Campos-Duffy began. “They are mad that anyone would dare to work with President Trump in his administration, and basically they're saying paybacks are a you-know-what.”

Lara Trump, with a smirk, described Rice’s comments as “straight out of the authoritarian playbook” to “intimidate and threaten your political opponents.”

“It’s just so amazing to see that these people are the ones who call President Trump a fascist. That is the behavior they’re displaying with this sort of thing,” she later added. “And don’t forget, President Trump always said, he said during the campaign and you’ve seen it as proof when he’s now been back in office, ‘My revenge will be success, success for this country.’ What a great statement, and maybe the Democrats want to pay attention to that.”

In reality, Reuters documented “at least 470 targets of retribution under Trump’s leadership – from federal employees and prosecutors to universities and media outlets” in a November report. More than a dozen of Trump’s political adversaries have faced criminal investigations, with prosecutors seeking federal charges in many of those cases. Trump himself has personally ordered such prosecutions, and has replaced prosecutors who refused to file the charges he has demanded.

Later on Saturday, Laura Loomer, a deranged bigot who wields a disturbing amount of influence over the president and his administration, weighed in — and tied Rice’s remarks back to Netflix and its bid for Warner Bros.

“Does Netflix stand by their Board Member threatening half of the country with weaponized government and political retribution for choosing who they wanted to vote for as President?” she asked. “This is as anti-American as it gets, and Netflix is proving everyday they are an anti-American, WOKE company.”

Loomer added that Rice’s remarks are “more horrifying” because “if the Netflix-Warner Bros. merger is approved, positive messaging of the Democrats' upcoming witch hunts against Trump … would likely be blasted across all streaming services.”

“President Trump @POTUS must kill the Netflix-Warner Bros. merger now,” she concluded, adding the handle of Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr.

Loomer’s diatribe drew support from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), the chairman of the Senate’s Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which oversees the FCC. He wrote of Rice’s comments: “Does @netflix stand by their board member threatening punishment & persecution for half of America that dares to disagree with her?”

By the evening, Trump had signed on to Loomer’s rant.

Truth Social post

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters


Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World