FRIDAY, JULY 8, 2022
We'd say the errors were general: Even at the age of 46, Ben Smith has had a long career in and around the upper-end mainstream press corps.
According to the leading authority on the subject, he recently left the New York Times for the following reason:
In early January 2022, [Ben] Smith announced he would be leaving The New York Times to start a global news venture aimed at the 200 million college educated English readers. Justin B. Smith would lead the business side of the new venture and Ben would be the top editor. The news site claims to break news and supplant complex news stories. In a memo that Justin Smith sent to “close confidants,” he described a new company that would “reimagine quality global journalism” aimed at what he said was an "English-speaking, college-educated, professional class" that had "lost trust in all sources of news and information." The name of the new venture, Semafor, was announced in March 2022.
For a New York Times report on the Semafor site, you can just click here.
Yesterday morning, Semafor began its institutional roll-out with a two-hour series of interviews. You can watch the whole event just by clicking this.
In the final interview of the day, Ben Smith spoke with (or at) Tucker Carlson for roughly twenty minutes. At the start of the session, Smith said this to Carlson:
"I’m just hoping you’ll let me ask questions and not steamroll me, because you’re a professional and I’m not.”
It's true! As it turns out, Smith isn't a professional interviewer. We thought that fact became abundantly clear during the twenty-minute session.
With respect to that interview, we'd say the errors were general on both sides. We mainly despaired about Smith.
At present, we'd love to see a skillful interview with that same Tucker Carlson. At present, much of his program seems to emerge from a resentment so deep, and from a journalism so unkempt, that it makes each evening's program instantly unwatchable.
On occasion, Carlson's program doesn't strike us like that. On such occasions, Carlson seems to flirt with making sense, though even then he will tend to proceed so far over the top that we can't help wondering where all the thrashing comes from.
Early in yesterday's interview, Smith said he wasn't a professional at the interview game. During yesterday's twenty minutes, he demonstrated that fact with his constant interruptions of Carlson, and with some of the painfully childish ways he tried to establish and defend certain basic claims.
Does our nation have the skill to find its way out of our current situation? We're inclined to say that the answer is no, and it has looked that way for years.
Most evenings, Carlson strikes us as derangement-adjacent. Yesterday, Smith struck us as stunningly incompetent. Also, as deeply connected to deeply unhelpful tribalized thinking-points.
So it goes as we slide toward the sea. At this site, we may try again next week.
To watch the interview: To watch the interview, just click this. Move ahead to the 1:26:00 mark.
The exchanges run twenty minutes. It's an embarrassing, failed attempt at human interaction.
Many conservatives cannot be interviewed by anyone, professional or not. They talk over others, are nonrespinsive to questions.
ReplyDeleteIn the clip posted by 4:43 below, notice how Carlson talks over Smith as he asks for a yes/no answer. Somerby characterizes that as Smith "interrupting" Carlson.
DeleteA while ago we heard from Jimmy Dore that more liberals watch incomparable Tucker Carlson than your beloved Goddess Rachel.
ReplyDeleteSo, you're one of those, dear Bob, it sounds like?
Good, good. Keep watching.
There's a trend of people watching stuff they disagree to get their daily dose of enragement or agitation (what's the word I'm looking for here?)
DeleteMuch like our anti-Bob commenters here. Moths to a flame. Never been my cup of tea... I like participating in things I agree with and support.
Anti-Bob commenters here are psychos.
Delete...and dear Bob is, in our humble opinion, an unfortunate liberal suffering from cognitive dissonance. He needs to practice liberal doublethink harder.
...yes, harder, dear Bob, harder. Hold two fingers in front of you, knowing that your tribal shamans tell you it's five. And realize that it is five fingers. Five. Five, dear Bob. Practice every day, and then watch more Goddess Rachel. You'll be okay.
It's trolling. A way to scapegoat resentments about a broken system that doesn't serve their needs. Eg. the problem is Bob and what he writes, not the broader fortified system of corruption and ineptitude.
DeleteBen Smith asking questions that Somerby didn’t like isn’t a sign that our system is broken.
DeleteOn the other hand, the fact that deranged Tucker Carlson has a highly-rated show on a major cable channel where he spews misinformation and propaganda IS a sign of that.
Corruption and ineptitude about sums it up. Cowardice, laziness, and incompetence are top reasons for just about any systemic failures.
DeleteIt's not even trolling. We don't mind trolling.
DeleteWhat liberals do in social media is more like spamming.
I see, the problem is Bob and the others, not the broader fortified system of corruption and ineptitude over which you are practically powerless.
DeleteProblem needs a face. A dartboard to throw at. Who's at fault!
DeleteYes - Ie. a scapegoat.
Delete"There's a trend of people watching stuff they disagree to get their daily dose of enragement or agitation (what's the word I'm looking for here?)"
DeleteOutrage. People who watch FOX are outrage junkies who enjoy feeling victimized. That is what FOX serves up double-helpings of, 24/7.
I did watch that interview. I agree with Bob that Smith came across as an inept interviewer. He also came across as stupid. He showed that he had no understanding of what Carlson was saying. A real interviewer would have followed up on Carlson's answers and asked relevant questions. But, all Smith could do as a follow up was to keep implying that Carlson is a racist.
ReplyDeleteHe implied that Carlson was a racist? How exactly did he do that, David?
DeleteHere's some insight on how:
Deletehttps://youtu.be/4AfHlaHI5Ys
Smith first said he was going to try to avoid talking about labels such as "racist". Then he asked Carlson if he believes that white people are superior to other races. Carlson laughed and said "of course not." Then he asked "do you think white people have more of a claim on America?" and he said "of course not" and that "God created everyone with equal value in His eyes." He then said that the people he is mad at are well-educated white liberals, especially 38-year old female lawyers with a "barren personal life" (whatever that means).
DeleteSo, he admits to being misogynist, but what makes him think he is not racist if his targets are white liberals? And how has Somerby missed this confession about why people dislike liberals when Carlson admits to targeting them (and the guy in this clip does the same, confirming a right-wing vendetta to portray liberals as bad)?
Then the black guy in the clip says that Carlson occasionally says things that are "telling the truth about black people," things that the liberal media doesn't want to be said about black people. Presumably this is the negative stereotyping that people who ARE racist say about black people. So, how are we to tell the difference between someone who is pure of heart and thinks all people are equal, like Carlson, and someone who doesn't think that, if they are both saying the same derogatory things about blacks? People will be judged based on their actions and statements, their behavior, not their self-image and intentions (e.g., I'm just telling it like it is -- it isn't my fault if black people are awful).
So, I don't really see that this clip exonerates Carlson in the way that you suggest it does @4:43.
Thank you for giving me your idiotic, psychotic opinion.
Deletemh -- Smith pointed out that Carlson had referred to a theory about immigrants strengthening the Democratic Party. It has a name, which I cannot thing of at the moment. Smith claimed that referring to this theory made Carlson a white supremacist.
DeleteCarlson pointed out that he didn't invent this theory. Democrats have been discussing it for years. Carlson pointed out that when he contrasted immigrants with Americans, his definition of "Americans" included people of all races and ethnicities. Without evidence, Smith asserted that by "Americans", Carlson meant "whites".
David the allegedly offensive phrase was more accurately "legacy Americans".
Deletehttps://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/580980-legacy-american-is-the-latest-catchphrase-in-the-racist-lexicon/
Delete"Now Tucker Carlson has added a new term to the coded racism lexicon: “Legacy Americans.” In a September broadcast, Carlson accused President Biden of encouraging immigration of non-Europeans to dilute the voting power of Euro-Americans.
“In political terms,” he asserted, “this policy is called ‘the great replacement,’ the replacement of legacy Americans with more obedient people from far-away countries.” “The Great Replacement,” is a white supremacist conspiracy theory that dark-skinned, non-European people are replacing those of European descent. Neo-Nazis expressed a version of this theory when they chanted “Jews will not replace us” during their tiki torch parade at the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va. The man who murdered 51 Muslims in Christ Church, New Zealand and the one, who killed 21 in an El Paso, Texas Walmart also subscribed to replacement theory.
While replacement theory is decades old, “legacy Americans” is a relatively new term. Carlson did not define it, but his meaning seems clear from the context. He is referring to white Americans whose ancestors have lived in the country for a long time, the people he and his followers consider “real Americans.”
With an average of 4.33 million viewers during the second quarter of 2020, Carlson’s show gained the largest audience in the history of cable news. The failure of Fox News to take any action in response to his racist comments shows how mainstream such views have become. Coded racism works. "
@10:05 - that article from The Hill plays an ugly game. It takes something Carlson said, and, without evidence, claims that this phrase means something different, which happens to be negative.
DeleteI can play that game, too. The Hill wrote the words, "Unpleasant truths." It's obvious that this phrase really meant "Bring back lynching." So, The Hill is viciously racist.
See how easy it is to prove someone's a racist?
Carlson is the one playing the ugly game. He takes something that he said, and pretends, sometimes, that he meant it.
DeleteYou can not call Carlson a racist in good faith, because Carlson has never made a good faith statement.
Now, if the question is "Does Tucker Carlson spread racist ideas to his bigoted audience?", the answer is not "Yeah", it's "Fuck yeah".
It means what everyone else in his audience recognizes it means. Carlson doesn't get to have private meanings that let him escape responsibility for what he says.
DeleteBy the way, The Hill has a conservative owner and they run conservative editorials and put a conservative slant on whatever they can, without appearing to be an obvious conservative outlet. So your gambit about making them seem racist comes across as a bit odd.
Carlson knows what he is saying and who he is playing to, even if you want to whitewash him.
Until Carlson makes a good faith argument, it's premature to guess what he really thinks about anything.
DeleteOdds are, Carlson will unveil his true thoughts on the 10th of Never.
In the link, Carlson carefully explains what he means by "legacy Americans", and it has nothing to do with race. Is his word about what he he meant sufficient? Or, will his critics continue to damn him, based on their pre-conception that he made a racist comment?
DeletePlaying the race card is all they know.
DeleteHe explains it with a wink wink nod nod, but his viewers know what it means. He doesn’t get to use such terms with his own special meanings when called to explain why he is using white supremacist language.
Delete"legacy" means "of, relating to, associated with, or carried over from an earlier time, technology, business, etc." By this definition, blacks are clearly "legacy Americans", since they've been here a very long time. They were here earlier than most groups of whites.
DeleteCarlson has many black viewers. They see liberals playing the race card based on flimsy to no evidence like this and it shows them that these liberals are full of shit. If they're going to be full of shit about something like this, what else are they going to be full of shit about? That's why playing the race card is such really really bad strategy for liberals. It's like tattooing "I'm clueless" on your forehead. Meanwhile Carlson talks to them about issues of class and economic unfairness while the 1% moves into their final stages of ravaging the middle class. It just couldn't be more clueless and out of touch on the part of the accusers.
DeleteAnyone who isn't a bigot, or isn't perfectly fine with bigotry, left the Republican Party more than two decades ago.
Delete1:59,
DeleteA much better liberal strategy is telling Republican voters that the Republican Party is the party that arms young black men to defend themselves against the police,
--------
Take David in Cal, for instance. He wants Trump to be the 2024 Republican Presidential nominee so badly, he refuses to discuss all the great things Trump did for black people.
It doesn't seem like a good idea to be full of shit and perfectly fine with party and media leaders who are as well. But you be you.
Deleteis there any PROOF that Tucker Carlson is more racist than the average Reagan Republican?
DeleteI have seen nothing even intimating as such.
@10:08 - thanks for your interest in my views. To clarify
Delete1. I don't want Trump to be the candidate. I think DeSantis would be easier to elect and would do a better job in office.
2. What black people most need IMO is education, jobs, and safety
a. Trump encouraged school choice, which allows black chidden to escape from failing schools and get into better schools.
b. Trump's policies encouraged business expansion in the inner cities.
c. Reducing illegal immigration led to more entry -level jobs for and higher salaries for such jobs.
d. Trump's improved economy produced better jobs for all Americans.
e. Trump's policies reduced crime. Blacks are victims of crime at a much higher rate than whites and Asians.
DeSantis? God help us.
DeleteDavid, you must be very excited and satisfied with President Biden's job record to date. I can't wait till you give him your full support.
Delete5:53,
DeleteHe hates the same minorities David hates.
Trump's economic results were (1) not better than Obama's and (2) not better than Biden's. Crimes of property are down, continuing a trend that began under Obama and continues under Biden, except for homicides, which went up under Trump (especially during the pandemic). Trump reduced all immigration, resulting in a shortage of workers that has hurt businesses. Wages, however, have not gone up in real terms (adjusted for inflation). See Kevin Drum's webpage for the stats on all of this.
DeleteIt is a mistake for you to believe Republican propaganda about this stuff. Read Paul Krugman instead.
I agree with Anonymous about "both sides". Inflation and rents go up and wages stay the same no matter which party is in control. Both sides are in the pocket of the 1%. Quite obviously.
Delete10:52,
DeleteThe giveaway about the media is they are banging the drum about inflation, but won't acknowledge raising taxes reduces spending, which lowers the inflation they pretend they care about.
Yeah, that's the ticket. Call your congress-reptiloid and demand to raise taxes to reduce spending, dear dembot.
DeleteBut wait, cutting the wages would also help, n'est-ce pas? Demand to implement the maximum wage, five bucks/hour!
Touting the raising of taxes to reduce inflation is bigoted toward Republicans, who know nothing about economics.
DeleteRaising taxes would reduce inflation, but not enough to make only minorities suffer, so there is no way anyone on the Right will support this idea.
DeleteSomerby is completely vague here. Which “tribalized thinking-points” is he accusing Smith of perpetrating?
ReplyDeleteIt isn’t clear that Smith was doing this.
Smith was like the five year old encouraged to recite something cute he said to a group of adults, and he excitedly squirms and waits for a chance to blurt it out.
ReplyDeleteSmith is a laughable figure, who basically insisted we could not attack Brent Kavanaugh because Jaunita Broaddrick said so. The NYT's freakish vendetta against the Clintons just got worse and worse, but by then Bob had stopped writing about it.
ReplyDeleteThe walls may be closing in on Bob's boy Trump today.... the best he can ask us to do is think about Tiucker Carlson.
Why does anyone care what Tucker Carlson says? Given that he has his own show, why interview him elsewhere?
ReplyDeleteHere is Digby's take on the Smith/Carlson interview:
ReplyDeletehttps://digbysblog.net/2022/07/07/mainstreaming-tucker/
She calls Smith ineffective and wonders why he is giving Carlson a podium, then concludes:
"Why Smith and the Knight Foundation decided he [Carlson] would offer any real insights is beyond me — until you remember that Carlson is a source for Smith. "
The only place I want to see Carlson is in a penitentiary.
ReplyDeleteSmith may have interviewed Carlson, for the same reason people interview Newt Gingrich: They want to catch him accidentally saying something he actually believes, which would be MAJOR news.
ReplyDelete