In the message, sent to one of his producers in the hours after violent Trump supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021
And:
Mr. Carlson described how he had recently watched a video of a group of men — Trump supporters, he said — violently attacking “an Antifa kid.”
Except that he did not use the word 'violent' or any variant. Violent is just what the media uses for people it does not like, just like it uses 'mostly peaceful' for its beloved arsonists.
Yes, that definitely is violence, but it is interesting that Tucker did not use that word and they inserted it anyway. Somehow, when their ilk does it, if it does get an adjective at all, its' "mostly peaceful".
That is absolutely the pattern they use with antifa, BLM, and other useful idiots. I am merely pointing out that their usual smears are plausibly deniable in this case. Nobody who isn't already aware of this pattern will be convinced by an ambiguous example like this, where the summary is accurate enough not to count as obviously biased.
It's not really 'interesting.' It's just journalists behaving like presstitutes, as is usual.
And:
Except that he did not use the word 'violent' or any variant. Violent is just what the media uses for people it does not like, just like it uses 'mostly peaceful' for its beloved arsonists.
To be fair, I don't see how a 'group of guys' can be 'pounding the living shit out of him [the antifa kid]' without it being violence.
It's not a 'gotcha' on Tucker at all, but the use of 'violently attacking' to summarize the video he watched is correct.
Yes, that definitely is violence, but it is interesting that Tucker did not use that word and they inserted it anyway. Somehow, when their ilk does it, if it does get an adjective at all, its' "mostly peaceful".
That is absolutely the pattern they use with antifa, BLM, and other useful idiots. I am merely pointing out that their usual smears are plausibly deniable in this case. Nobody who isn't already aware of this pattern will be convinced by an ambiguous example like this, where the summary is accurate enough not to count as obviously biased.
It's not really 'interesting.' It's just journalists behaving like presstitutes, as is usual.