CARLSON UNBOUND: Three nights of menace went unremarked!

MONDAY, APRIL 10, 2023

Carlson, ignored and unbound: Last Friday, we said we were going to spend this week reviewing Tucker Carlson's "meltdown."

(We're quoting Salon's Samaa Khullar, who reported what Carlson did.)

We didn't lie when we said that. But as it turns out, we misspoke.

It really would take at least a week to do justice to the ugliness, and to the stupidity and the menace, of the three Carlson programs in question. 

To the jaw-dropping dumbness of the three programs. To the silence with which they were met.

It would take at least a week to review the ridiculous conduct in question. Since other topics await discussion, we're going to suggest that you familiarize yourself with what Carlson said and did on those three broadcasts of Tucker Carlson Tonight.

Beyond that, we'll suggest something else:

We'll suggest that you marvel at the silence with which those three broadcasts were met throughout the mainstream press and all through blue tribe cable. 

At Salon, a very young journalist had the good sense to record what Carlson had said. But across the sweep of the mainstream press, Carlson's astonishing conduct was met with silence—with the type of silence with which such conduct has been greeted for roughly three decades now.

The mainstream press has averted its gaze dating all the way back to the 1990s, when the very holy Reverend Falwell was peddling a crackpot film about the many murders conducted by Bill and Hillary Clinton. 

(There was no Internet then. Falwell had to parade across the countryside selling copies of his tape.)

The mainstream press corps averted its gaze from Falwell's remarkable conduct. In our view, the press corps' default to such silence—to such avoidance—hasn't worked especially well. 

As of 1998, Gennifer Flowers was running a for-profit web site devoted to the same crazy theme—to the Clintons' many deeply troubling murders. Meanwhile, wouldn't you know it?

By 1999, the mainstream press corps was lionizing Flowers as one of our great truth tellers. Blue tribals don't know about this poisonous history because the children we've been trained to trust spend their time informing us about Spiro T. Agnew instead.

Which of Carlson's nightly programs are we talking about? We're talking about the set of programs which started on Tuesday evening, March 28.

By Thursday night, March 30, the lunacy and the menace were so strong that Khullar spoke up at Salon. Below, you see the dual headlines which sit atop the (partial) transcripts of the first two proframs in this poisonous sequence:

Tuesday, March 28, 2023:

TUCKER CARLSON: The trans movement is targeting Christians
Tucker dissects what is not being said about shooting at the Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee

Wednesday, March 29, 2023:

TUCKER CARLSON: Garland lying when he says motive in Nashville school shooting hasn't been identified
Tucker takes a look at why the Nashville school shooter's manifesto has not been released

The trans movement is targeting Christians! With conduct which was perfectly captured by that truly remarkable headline, Carlson began the stupid and dangerous three-night "meltdown" which has gone almost wholly unnoticed.

By Thursday night, the "meltdown" had reached the point where Khullar spoke up at Salon. Understandably, the home site for Tucker Carlson Tonight has posted no transcript for Carlson's disordered program that night—but we posted the contents of its most remarkable segment the very next morning.

Meanwhile, consider this:

"The trans movement is targeting Christians!"

With the monologue recorded beneath that headline, Carlson began the three-night breakdown which would go almost wholly unnoticed. Last Friday, we gave you a tiny sample of the sheer stupidity with which Carlson pretended to establish his poisonous case on that first night.

On many nights (though not on all), the sheer stupidity of Carlson's performance is its defining characteristic. On those frequent occasions, Tucker Carlson Tonight is defined by Carlson's logical leaps and fractured facts.

On those nights, the program is defined by the sheer stupidity of the way Carlson paraphrases the statements of public figures. By the spectacular dumbness he brings to his parodies of "news analysis."

By the ease with which he selects his "facts." By the logical leaps he provides.

So it was on the three nights under review. That said, by Thursday night, March 30, Carlson's truly spectacular dumbness had turned to menace.

Carlson's "meltdown" had produced a genuine air of menace. The following day, a peaceful, easy feeling prevailed all over blue cable as the children joked and played.

If you review the transcripts in question, you'll find Carlson advancing some of the dumbest theses ever advanced on American air. This is the theory you'll see him advance—and no, we aren't making this up:

"Transgenderists" are murdering our Christian kids because "transgenderists" believe that they themselves are God! 

"Transgenderists" believe that they themselves are God! That's the braindead, gong-show thesis this silly abandoned child spread across the countryside across the sweep of three nights. 

"Transgenderists" believe that they're God! It would be hard to come up with something stupider than that—but Carlson is likely to try. At any rate, that was the theory Carlson drew from our nation's latest mass shooting—the mass shooting which took place at the start of that week inside a Nashville school.

By that Thursday night, Carlson and his guests were connecting the murders in Nashville to the indictment of Donald J. Trump, which had been announced that day. On that program—on the program for which no transcript has been posted—Jason Whitlock's performance showcased the anguish, the anger and the menace which can arise from the product Carlson is selling.

It would take at least a week to run through the sheer stupidity on display in these three programs. But out of that brain-jangling stupidity, there emerged an overt call to arms.

Whitlock offered that call to arms on Thursday evening, March 30. Carlson voiced agreement. 

We posted the transcript the following morning. At Salon, a very young journalist had the good sense to report what Whitlock and Carlson had said and done that night.

Elsewhere, the waters closed over. Carlson's astounding performance was met with almost total silence. The mainstream press has behaved this way all through the era of Rush and Sean, but Carlson's work is becoming more dangerous still.

That Thursday evening, Whitlock's performance gave the world a troubling look at where Carlson's behavior can lead. To an extent which can't be measured, cable performances of this type have already given us January 6. The ongoing craziness of Carlson's "analyses" could lead to something worse.

It's very, very hard to know why Carlson behaves as he does. It's often said that he can't possibly believe the various things he says—that he simply can't be that stupid.

As with others, so too here. It seems to us it would take (carefully selected) medical / psychological specialists to create an intelligent discussion of behavior so odd and extreme. 

For better or worse, that discussion isn't going to happen within the tents of the high-end mainstream press corps. Their journalistic "ethics" forbids such discussion! 

(It's also true that our mainstream news orgs, as a group, may not have the technical chops to know how to talk about Carlson's work. They simply don't have those skills.)

We leave you today with one main thought—this silence of the lambs hasn't helped. 

The silence of the lamps in the mainstream press. The silence of the lambs in blue tribe cable—the silence of lambs who have names like Joe and Mika and Nicolle and Lawrence and Rachel.

We've said it for the past twenty years. When millions of people are disinformed or misinformed or proselytized in such remarkable ways, it should be front-page news.

Dating all the way back to the very holy Reverend Falwell, the mainstream press has generally preferred to avert its gaze from such peculiar behavior. The longing for avoidance is understandable, but go ahead:

Read again what Whitlock said to Tucker Carlson that night. Jason Whitlock was wholly sincere, but "what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"

As before, so too today: To watch the tape of Whitlock's segment, you can just click here.


  1. tl;dr
    "...the ugliness, and to the stupidity and the menace..."

    Jeez, dear Bob, why don't you calm down?

    ...y'know, you being triggered so much, it tells us that the incomparable Tucker Carlson is doing something right...

    ...also, wouldn't you agree that anyone who believes in wimmin trapped insides men's bodies is obviously capable of any -- any -- kind of stupidity. Consequently, "targeting Christians", whatever the hell that means, certainly isn't out of the question...

    1. Hey scuzbucket king, you really illustrate the far right snowflake will bitch about anything. He knows I don’t want to change your soiled baby pants anymore than he does, yet he tries to call me
      to account for your stink.

  2. Today Somerby apparently wants other mainstream journalists to engage in the kind of vendetta against Carlson that Somerby has waged against Rachel and Nicolle and Joe and Mika for years here, to no effect.

    Many of us here agree that Tucker Carlson is awful. It is why we don't watch him and tend to pay no attention to him, because giving him attention helps his audience numbers and gives breath to his hate speech. Somerby instead repeats Carlson's messages in his own forum here. How does that help shut down anti-trans hate speech?

    Transpeople are a tiny minority of our population. They want to be left alone and allowed to live their lives in the same freedom as others enjoy in our society. The right wing, by targeting them, has brought violence and interference to their lives. It isn't one man doing that (not even Tucker), but the fact that the right wing has made transpeople a target of their culture war against the left. Somerby could talk about that, deplore the interference, which comes from DeSantis and other politicians, not simply Tucker Carlson's hate speech. Somerby could recognize the political purposes behind Tucker's campaign. Somerby doesn't do that. He pretends it is Rachel's fault, Joe and Mika's fault, that trans people are being targeted.

    Liberals help trans people by addressing their civil rights directly, not by wasting time on a piece of garbage like Tucker Carlson. Tucker has 1st Ammendment rights and his opinions cannot be suppressed by other media figures, as Somerby seems to be claiming. It is far more important to address issues of trans rights politically and practically in the real world, not by fighting Somerby's fight against mainstream media.

    Somerby cannot show the sincerity of his support for trans people by targeting Nicolle Wallace with renewed strength because she doesn't talk about everything on each show.

    And what on earth does April 1 have to do with anything? Is it now a crime to smile or laugh before the last unjust act has been undone? That is almost more foolish that Tucker's hate speech. No child is allowed to play in the sunshine until Somerby's list of wrongs have been righted. Yes, that's the ticket!

    1. Congrats to Joe Biden for ensuring that transgender students can play sports under Title IX (under appropriate conditions). That will have a real impact on kids, unlike Somerby's chiding of Joe and Mika for not getting in a word-war with Tucker Carlson.

    2. We could use some more balance information on these transgender
      Issues from the press but addressing
      them in the context of Carlson’s
      garbage is probably a net loss.
      That much Bob sort of gets

    3. The right won't listen to balanced information about transgender issues. They know very well that their claims are ridiculous. This is political.

    4. "Transpeople...want to be left alone and allowed to live their lives in the same freedom as others enjoy in our society."

      Whether you agree or not, transpeople are actually making some demands: E.g., pronouns, people with peruses showering with school girls, children choosing big-time surgery without their parents' consent.

    5. No one is forced to give or us pronouns. It is a matter of courtesy not forced compliance. The shower issue is bogus and children do not receive surgery without parental consent. These are not things that are happening but rather scare stories. It is like Phyllis Schlafly did back when the ERA was being considered -- she said that there would be compulsory unisex bathrooms -- men intruding on women's sacred pee spaces. This is what is meant about "disinformation" being spread on the right.

  3. "Dating all the way back to the very holy Reverend Falwell, the mainstream press has generally preferred to avert its gaze from such peculiar behavior."

    When was Falwell elected president? I must have missed his terms in office.

  4. It isn't the mainstream media who has enabled Tucker Carlson, but his viewers, including Somerby. Those viewers are all The Others who place faith in what he says. No one on the left believes him, even if they waste time hate-watching him.

    Somerby doesn't understand how the media works. Viewers=power. Instead of urging others to watch and talk about Carlson, ignoring him and not watching him is exactly the right approach to blunting his ability to hurt his targets.

    1. Not everyone is obsessed with deontology.

    2. What?? A reactionary blowhard being held to account for his own actions? What kind of Woke insanity is that???


    Donald Trump Jr. made up a trans bogeyman that doesn't exist. How much time should liberals spend debunking such statements?

    "The latest example of brazen anti-trans language comes from former President Donald Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., on an episode of the "Full Send" podcast.

    Former GOP prosecutor Ron Filipkowski shared a clip of the MAGA heir's rant Sunday, writing, "Junior claims he has trans friends and is pretty liberal on the trans issue but he's tired of rainbow-haired teachers forcing 3-year-olds to become trans."

    After an explanation of what gender-confirming therapy is, the pushback sounded like this:

    "Agatha: "Just curious: Uh, so how many cases of 'rainbow-haired teachers forcing 3-year-olds to become trans' are there? Just so we’re clear on what reality looks like."

    El Pepe: "What 3-year-old goes to school?"

    Brian Brewer: "When I was young my brother and I were in the backseat of my parents' car when a car full of rainbow-haired teachers cut us off, grabbed my brother from the car, and took off. We found him a week later. Long story short I now have a sister."

    @TraciRC60: "I don't understand these obsessions with things that aren't even…well, a thing."

    @GiseleDubson: "Junior has friends? Sure."

    Annie Hudson: "Ah yes, I remember my days at school as a 3 yr old. I excelled at potty training & transgender studies."

    Ann Autumn: "Now I'm sad I never had a rainbow-haired teacher."

    Ian Smith: "The people interested in kids' sexuality are usually republicans, not teachers."


    The bigger danger here is the attack on women with multi-colored hair, which will affect far more people, and seems pretty innocuous to me.

    My concern is that Somerby will consider this too much fun and games and insufficiently serious in refuting Jr.'s idiocy, but should hate-fueled nonsense be dignified by anything other than ridicule?

    Should Rachel and Nicolle and Joe and Mika actually engage in serious discussion of whether 3 year olds are being turned trans by their rainbow-haired teachers? I think that would make the mainstream media sound as foolish as right-wing idiots. But the bigger problem is that the right doesn't realize how stupid it sounds to those with even a tiny bit more education and life experience. I see the problem as one of education, not turning the mainstream media into attack dogs who will make Carlson seem vindicated in his followers' eyes.

    Tucker Carlson doesn't believe a word of his rant against trans kids and if his followers do not realize that, they are too stupid to convince of anything, even though not one single one of them will tune in to any mainstream media show (much less Rachel Maddow). So who would such figures be talking to? They would be preaching to the choir, wasting their time and NOT talking about things that are more important to say to audiences capable of being convinced by real news.

    Tucker Carlson is as fake as Don Jr. and this has nothing to do with telling the truth or hearing the truth. Somerby is trying to increase Carlson's audience size with his stupid suggestion, expressed with all of the earnestness of the worst demagogue.

  6. Somerby has no interest in trans kids. He didn't refer to a single one of them as beautiful and deserving.

  7. It’s nice Bob has recalled some of the crap pulled on Bill Clinton, but over the last 15
    years as ALL aspects of the media have
    branded Clinton a sex criminal and rewritten
    the whole history of that era, it is BOB
    who looked away and kept his mouth
    shut about it.
    This Carlson nonsense is just the
    most obvious and extreme example
    of blaming the left for the travesties of
    the Right. Bob is a fool, but this is
    the general spin that is our way of

  8. Can any of Bob’s usual defenders see
    any value in this blame the left for
    Carlson stuff? I’m sincerely

    1. What do you mean "blame the left for Carlson stuff"? Sounds like another in a string of thousands of laughable misreadings.on your part.

    2. Here is the way Somerby blames the left:

      "We leave you today with one main thought—this silence of the lambs hasn't helped."

      "...We've said it for the past twenty years. When millions of people are disinformed or misinformed or proselytized in such remarkable ways, it should be front-page news.

      Dating all the way back to the very holy Reverend Falwell, the mainstream press has generally preferred to avert its gaze from such peculiar behavior. "

      Somerby's tone of blame, aimed at certain cable news hosts, is obvious to anyone paying attention:

      "The silence of the lambs in blue tribe cable—the silence of lambs who have names like Joe and Mika and Nicolle and Lawrence and Rachel."

      Silence of the lambs, of course, meant something entirely different in the film of that name. Then it referred to the absence of killing (the lambs were noisy when being slaughtered), so the silence was a good thing. Somerby has grabbed the phrase because it includes the word "silence" and he clearly thinks the silence of cable news hosts is a bad thing.

      I think Somerby is wrongheaded. If being noisy in Tucker Carlson's way is spreading disinformation and hate, then being silent should be better. Not so in Somerby's essay. Silence of the "lambs" (cable hosts) is somehow bad even though it is Tucker who is doing the dirty work.

      And notice that Somerby is not suggesting that the mainstream press should counter the disinformation. He is suggesting that they call out Tucker and attack him, in the way Somerby does here with the mainstream press (who he mischaracterizes as liberal or blue). He is trying to provoke us viewers to deplore mainstream hosts for not getting in Tucker's face about his content.

      I've said before that Somerby's attempts to egg the left into displaying the vitriol that is commonplace on the right would make us as bad as they are, and is inconsistent with the way the left operates. We DO tend to go high when Tucker goes low. That seems to upset Somerby, based on today's essay, which claims the mainstream media is doing it all wrong.

      And of course, if we do not counter Tucker, then we are to blame for his excesses. It is implicit, but also obvious to anyone with half a brain.

      Connect the dots @11:26. Don't be obsessively literal, as Somerby is. That is a processing deficit, or a legalistic attempt at plausible deniability, but it isn't good faith communication.

    3. None of that is "blaming the left for Carlson stuff".

      You're stupid.

    4. Bob often blames the left media for being almost as bad as Carlson. Here, as I read it, Bob is blaming the left media for being in sufficiently critical of Carlson.
      D in C

    5. 1. The left is being blamed. See quotes.
      2. Somerby says the left is not attacking Carlson for his stuff.
      3. Somerby says this has been happening for years.
      4. Somerby says Carlson is getting worse because the left has done nothing for years.

      Somerby does not say how the left attacking Carlson is going to change what Carlson says or does.

      Calling other people names makes you sound like the stupid one. Too stupid to make an argument.

    6. Somerby titles today's post:
      CARLSON UNBOUND: Three nights of menace went unremarked!

      This implies that Carlson is unbound because his menace went unremarked. Those who said nothing are the ones who made Carlson "unbound," the reason he is considered unbound.

      As if anything said elsewhere would change in any way what Carlson decided to say on his own show.

      Somerby is being stupid. When you think logically about what he has said, it makes no sense. That leads me to believe that Somerby's purpose is to present another essay in which he chides and nags the mainstream media, making it appear venal, not to stop Carlson, but to undermine faith in the mainstream media itself. For those purposes, it doesn't matter what Somerby says about the media, as long as it is negative.

      Today's claim is ludicrous. The mainstream media spent years NOT talking about Tucker Carlson -- so it is very very bad, and it has made Tucker worse.

      This is an extension of the campaign on the right to convince viewers that liberals are the spawn of the devil, with evil hearts and coming for you and your children. The drip drip drip of criticism is all that matters, not the truth or sense of anything Somerby says. Likewise, the trolls and fanboys in comments are here to discredit whatever substantive commenters say, and name-calling is as good a way to do that as disputing anything said. Because the goal is to create the association: commenter=stupid, bad, wrong, just as mainstream media=rich, oblivious to issues, greedy, self-serving, liberal, did I say liberal?, more liberal, lying about the right because their facts are wrong (not carefully selected?), liberal.

    7. Them we differ on the definition of "blame" and what you.mean by "Carlson stuff". I don't see any blame for his behavior.

      I do agree that "When millions of people are disinformed or misinformed or proselytized in such remarkable ways, it should be front-page news". I think this is a great point. Think about how the media has lost almost all credibility. This may be one.of the ereasons why.

    8. OK, thanks. The intellectual dishonesty required to contend that Bob is NOT blaming others (the left press mostly) for Carlson’s work is stunning, a sort of zombification. But thanks, we should know what we are up against with you idiots.

    9. 12:09, yes, it should be noted that sometimes Carlson is commented upon at MSNBC and Bob always ignores this. Bob’s contention is that what goes on at Fox is MSNBC’s responsibility because they don’t say enough about it. It’s a pathetic contention, and those that pretend it’s not what he’s doing play the fool and the knave at the same time.

    10. Weak. 12:10. Were that true what goes on at Fox would be page one at the Times every night. Bob talks about bad stories on MSNBC all the time, does he ever bemoan Fox’s incompetence for not pointing such a story out and therefore baring the responsibility for making it possible?

    11. Nothing in this post blames the left for Carlson's behavior. The complaint is that they fail to address it.

      You stupidly misread the post as usual.

    12. The contention is, my idiotic non friend, that failing to address it causes it, this could not be more clear. How many times have you purchased the Brooklyn Bridge?

    13. You're the only one that has made that contention and it's wrong and dumb.. Sorry.

    14. Carlson is a symptom, not the cause, in the anti-trans hatred. It flows from his audience. So why focus exclusively or specifically on him? Most of the other Fox hosts do it, and other right wing media are full of the hatred. Besides, it’s being called out in the media, just maybe not at Morning Joe. So?

    15. 1:03, wake me up when you get near an argument beyond “your stupid.”

    16. I don't have an argument. You haven't provided a basis for your claim Somerby blames the left for Carlson's presentations. It's a really dumb accusation which is par for the course with you.

      Sorry. If you don't want to be called stupid, don't make stupid accusations, idiot.

    17. 1:53: Somerby brings up Flowers/Clinton and the Falwell video in order to remind you of his contention that the mainstream media (not “the left” as you say here) was culpable in damaging Clinton’s presidency. He has made the explicit claim before that the mainstream media caused Gore’s defeat in 2000. That is the context within which Somerby complains here about MSNBC. So you connect the dots. What outcome (a la Gore’s defeat) is Somerby predicting if the media doesn’t call out Carlson or, more ludicrously, investigate his mental state?

    18. mm - that doesn't support a claim Somerby is "blaming the left for Carlson stuff". You're boring.

    19. Well then, why, in your opinion, does Somerby think that MSNBC should be reporting on Carlson? Can you cite a justification for that in today’s post?

    20. He feels cable performances of this type are newsworthy because they could lead to something worse than January 6th.

    21. This comment has been removed by the author.

    22. Aside from the fact that the media were busy debunking Trump’s election lie continuously up until Jan 6 and beyond, how would MSNBC reporting on Carlson change anything vis a vis transgender issues? What would a Jan 6 look like in that context? Isn’t he saying that, unless MSNBC reports on Carlson, something bad will happen? And that is blaming the mainstream media for whatever might happen.

    23. Was Jan 6th blamed on the left and MSNBC? You're so stupid. GTFO of my face, idiot.

    24. 3:35, Somerby (and you if you are 3:21) brought up Jan 6, as if something like that might happen if the mainstream media didn’t report on Carlson’s anti-trans rants.

  9. "It seems to us it would take (carefully selected) medical / psychological specialists..."

    What does Somerby mean by "carefully selected"? Such specialists have to be board certified. What more does he want? Is he suggesting they should be pre-selected to agree with his own diagnoses? Or does he mean only Bandy Lee who is willing to diagnose people remotely, in conflict with her professional ethics?

  10. "Carlson's "meltdown" had produced a genuine air of menace. The following day, a peaceful, easy feeling prevailed all over blue cable as the children joked and played."

    It was April Fool's Day. Are we not supposed to celebrate that elsewhere because Tucker Carlson behaved badly on his own show?

    Look at the contrast. Peace on the left. Hate on the right. That's the way it is. Being less peaceful on the left isn't going to make Tucker Carlson less hateful.

  11. “It's very, very hard to know why Carlson behaves as he does. It's often said that he can't possibly believe the various things he says—that he simply can't be that stupid.

    As with others, so too here. It seems to us it would take (carefully selected) medical / psychological specialists to create an intelligent discussion of behavior so odd and extreme.”

    Somerby often claims that “blue tribe” cable is in the business of “pleasuring” its liberal audience.

    There’s no reason not to assume that “red tribe” cable also pleasures its audience. In other words, Carlson‘s viewers WANT to hear hatred of transgender people.

    It’s unclear why Somerby wants to focus exclusively on Tucker Carlson. The kind of anti-transgender stuff that he traffics in every night is also on other right wing media outlets, like Newsmax for example. and the language is often apocalyptic. For example, Greg Kelly at Newsmax says that
    “transgender individuals armed with guns are the real threat to our democracy, to our way of life”.

    Anti-trans legislation has been making the rounds of every Republican state house in this country.

    You can’t examine Carlson’s behavior or beliefs without discussing those of his audience. As we learned in the dominion case, Carlson and others at Fox News were terrified of losing viewers if they reported the truth about the 2020 election. So the real pathology exists within carlson’s right wing audience.

    But Somerby is afraid to go there.

    1. Bob often bemoans the high salaries at MSNBC, it seems beyond him to imagine the profit motive in Carlson’s madness. As if the other wealthy schmucks at Fox don’t have the same motive, and do the same thing.

    2. Greg Kelly lost his thread. More guns make the nation safer. What kind of miserly cheapskate would fight a tax hike going to arm trans kids?

  12. "disinformed or misinformed or proselytized"

    Jeez, dear Bob. A talking head has an opinion. He expresses his opinion; he informs the public of his opinion. His show is not a news service; it's a political opinion show.

    End of story. So, what's with all the hysteria, dear?

    We don't like Rachel Maddow, we don't watch Rachel Maddow. Who forces you to watch Tucker Carlson?

  13. Bringing up the Gennifer Flowers/Bill Clinton saga in the context of Carlson’s anti-trans rants is odd.

    The Flowers/Clinton stuff was directed at a specific person (Clinton), whereas the anti-trans stuff is directed at an entire group of people, and is meant to vilify and dehumanize anyone anywhere who is trans.

    I suppose the willingness to attack and demean is similar, but it seems to me it’s much darker and more dangerous when directed against an entire group of people, particularly people who aren’t powerful presidential candidates.

    As for the media, they aren’t silent about the right wing anti-transgender stuff. Somerby himself cited the Salon piece, and yesterday I cited a piece in the Washington Post that Somerby , um, ignored:

    “The right exploits Nashville shooting to escalate anti-trans rhetoric”

    By Fenit Nirappil
    March 30, 2023 at 6:00 a.m. EDT

    And this was after Somerby said “The New York Times didn't say a word; the Washington Post was silent.”

    Chris Hayes has done some reporting as well, on air and on his podcast.

    1. Bob is quite correct that Flowers and others puffed up or created their claims for profit, even if you think Clinton got what he deserved for Monica. You are correct, it’s an odd thing to bring up in the context of Carlson’s bullshit.

    2. He was 100% correct, way back then. Now, not so much. Of course, I thought his complaint about Flowers was that mainstream people like Chris Matthews were actively promoting her, whereas the Falwell Clinton tapes were not debunked by the msm, so kind of a category error in his thinking here.

    3. The Falwell nonsense was noted and much of the BS was noted and brought up in Clinton’s defense. Even Matthews let Clinton’s defenders on from time to time. Paula Jones was a phony case used to loosen up other scandals and it succeeded beyond there wildest dreams when Clinton’s idiotic behavior with Lewinsky destroyed himself. Over time, the press had made sure that’s all anyone remembers.

  14. What reason has Somerby given as to why the mainstream media ought to report on Carlson’s rants?

    If he thinks that Carlson’s rhetoric is dangerous and might lead to a wave of anti-trans violence, would it help avert that if Joe Scarborough or Nicolle Wallace were to specifically discuss Carlson’s pathology? Would anyone prone to attacking trans people decide to put down their guns because Nicole Wallace talked about Tucker Carlson on her show?

    How do you debunk the idea that transgender people just want to “kill all Christians” and want to “destroy our democracy”? It’s so irrational that there’s no way to respond rationally to such nonsense.

  15. One more time: Bob is not interested in transgender issues. He is interested in owning

  16. The second amendment is evil.