Comments by "Black Cat Dungeon Master\x27s Familiar" (@blackcatdungeonmastersfami5311) on "Tucker Carlson Blows Up at Rutger Bregman in Unaired Fox News Interview | NowThis" video.

@neil2444 Bernie Sanders is a millionaire who has attacked elitism too. Does being a millionaire make Bernie Sanders wrong? I don't think so.
2
@neil2444 I'm not trying to tell you what you meant. I don't think having his own show makes him an oligarch. Unless you want to argue someone like Joe Rogan is an oligarch because he has a big audience and a big bank account too? That's not what an oligarch is. On the other hand, guys like Bezos or Zuckerberg or Dalio - these guys with the money to bend policy decisions in their direction - at least when they have a collective interest like when taxes are at stake.
2
Bregman starts rudely insulting Carlson without justifying his criticism. If you're going to say this guy is part of the problem you have to have a robust argument. It's not really a fair argument Bregman has because Carlson for all his faults is pretty fearless about saying what he thinks even when it's going against the grain of the rest of society. Just saying you're a millionaire funded by billionaires isn't really helpful unless you've got a reason to believe the millionaire is censoring himself to benefit the billionaires. Given what Carlson says elsewhere, that's not really credible. Luckily for Bregman, Carlson takes the bait, loses his temper and embarrasses himself. Seems to me they both come off badly.
1
@wfcoaker1398 Which main stream media is not propaganda? CNN, MSNBC, etc. call out Fox when they're lying or misleading but Fox do the same for them. If you want some balance you have to watch both sides and mistrust both sides.
1
@wfcoaker1398 The BBC has its own bias, its own problems. Apart from the wokeness, not that different from the Guardian, it's generally very superficial with very little analysis. If you want to hear how British gardening culture is 'racist' due to its use of terms like 'heritage' and 'native' then sure, stick to the BBC. If you want to hear about the news with politically incorrect but important facts censored like a terrorists was screaming about a certain religion while attacking people then sure, stick to the BBC. But if you're deliberately avoiding "right wing" sources then your perception of reality will be skewed.
1
@wfcoaker1398 I watch Fox news from time to time, I agree with you that much of it is just worthless, boring, uninformative obvious propaganda. But some of it is pretty good. The business news seems fine. Watters and Gutfield can be pretty funny and interesting in the sense that they call out the other side's weaknesses. The political debates on the "Five" are pretty good and it's a mixture of Republican/Democrats. Dana Perino is really good. As for Tucker Carlson - yeah you have to be suspicious of everything he says. He certainly wouldn't be my first choice of guys to drink beer with. But he also comes up with a lot of stuff worth hearing. In many cases, he's the only big news anchor taking a particular position for example questioning the Zelensky personality cult. It's interesting that a lot of guys we used to call left wing like Glenn Greenwald and Russel Brand are pretty positive about Tucker Carlson as they become disillusioned with the rest of the MSM. That's my opinion :)
1
@wfcoaker1398 Yeah the whole left/right dichotomy is maybe becoming a bit obsolete anyway except in the pretty mindless tribalism sense. I'm personally more worried about the creeping authoritarianism and censorship in Western countries. The stuff that happened in Canada over the past couple of years seems pretty scary ie. executive government bypassing judicial process to do stuff like freeze bank accounts of people who haven't been convicted of any crime. But the same kind of things seem to be happening in every Western country. For all his faults, that's something that Tucker Carlson opposes.
1
@neil2444 Neither are hypocrites just because they're millionaires. Being a millionaire doesn't give you influence, it's the multi-billionaires who are rich enough to fund law suits to intimidate enemies, hire lobbyists and buy politicians. I don't want to defend Tucker Carlson but calling out oligarchic corruption is part of what he does. I certainly don't claim he has much integrity himself by the way - but that's irrelevant. For all his faults, he's certainly not a shill for the oligarchs. Yes, he works for the MSM ultimately and all the MSM is owned by oligarchs - but he has and he uses quite a lot of journalistic freedom. Which is already more than you can say for most news anchors.
1
@nukeninmgt1504 Seems to be that Joe Rogan is a massively popular talk show host - that's not an oligarch. I don't know how rich he is but the real oligarchs are the guys with billions like Rupert Murdoch, Ray Dalio, Jeff Bezos, George Soros, Bill Gates etc., not just people who made millions from a successful career. The oligarchs are so rich they can buy media organisations and collectively, they control almost all the media. If you want to define oligarchs much more widely than I would, that's fair enough. All media people get courted by politicians seeking election. The personal wealth of the media people concerned is irrelevant to this observation.
1
@HuehuehueEsBest Firstly get your facts right before calling me disingenuous otherwise you make yourself look like a clown. I was surprised by your claim that Tucker Carlson has hundreds of millions so I looked into it - it's not true. More like 30 million as a quick google will tell you. Thanks for wasting my time - not. Secondly, and this is the more important point - this money comes from a salary, he works for an organisation he neither owns nor controls. Yes it's a very high salary but that's irrelevant. The actual oligarchs who run society have billions, not a few million. They make their money from their investments.
1