The Steady Drip of Agitprop

Tucker wants to talk about panda-Eff’ing.

Reliable Sources email thingie:

Pretty much every time I watch Fox talk show hosts interview Trump, I see missed opportunities. This was one of those times. Tucker Carlson‘s pre-taped interview with Trump in Helsinki aired on Tuesday… While Carlson did ask about John Brennan‘s claim that Trump’s behavior was “nothing short of treasonous,” he just let Trump call Brennan a “bad person” without any followup…

And later on, when Trump blamed Barack Obama for doing “nothing” when Russia meddled in 2016, Carlson skipped all the obvious follow-up Q’s. For instance: “What about now? Your director of national intelligence, Dan Coats, says the ‘warning lights are blinking red again.’ What are you doing NOW to protect our elections?” Carlson didn’t ask. Maybe Glor will…

I’m guessing Stelter is being generous here, but he’s undermining his own analysis that Fox News = Trump, if he thinks that vanity press owner and frozen food heir Tucker Carlson is a journalist.

Carlson/Hannity/Fox News have no interest in setting the record straight; they are setting the agenda with leading questions and of course unlimited flattery to spray-tanning enthusiast and former food/beverage manager Comrade Stupid. Fox is bucking up the base and giving their viewers a steady drip of agitprop.

Stelter hit it out of the park with his premise of the Fox-Trump vicious circle; it is the defining journalism story arc of our era. If he really believes that Tucker’s interview was a missed opportunity, that’s a level of naivety that makes me wonder if he really believes his own analysis.



This entry was posted in CNN, Death of the Media, Fox News, Tucker Carlson. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The Steady Drip of Agitprop

  1. Hell, the agitprop is everywhere! My local rag features an editorial :

    Honestly, I’ve never fooking heard Vlad go on about ‘a low flat tax on income across the board’.


  2. MDavis says:

    That editorial was quite something. Rachel Marsden: You cannot investigate espionage without engaging in espionage? Sorta like you cannot tell the bank an unauthorized person withdrew money from your account or you must have been accessing that same account to find out and therefore you are just as guilty of unauthorized access of your own accaount as the thief. Did I understand what she said there? Does what she said make more sense than my metaphor? I cannot even tell anymore.
    What an asshole.


Comments are closed.