Greta 2 Tucker 0

Greta puts Carlson on the spot.  Carlson attempts several smarmy responses consisting of attacks on Greta’s understanding of quotation marks in a highly patronizing tone. Greta was not amused. He refused to admit wrong-doing. He refused to be held accountable for his on-line rag’s phony “News” story.

Greta says at one point: “I think you’re lying, Tucker.” At another point: “Tucker, you tried to hide it”

It sure does seem that way, doesn’t it?

Somebody may wish to make Carlson an offer for the Daily Caller.  Though not officially on the market, it may be for sale.  Greta should have asked him about the Daily Caller’s current financial state.

I also hear smut-peddlers do well on the Internet.

Here’s Greta’s own view of the exchange: GretaWire

Unsurprisingly, S.E. Cupp(of GBTV fame) tweets to Carlson’s defense and attacks Greta as “confused” over quotation marks:

secupp:I’m all for defending Sarah, but Greta is confused. Meet quotation marks. They’re used to indicate what other people say. @TuckerCarlson

Terrific. Next, S.E. Cupp can school us all on parentheses as well. A little later:

secupp:Greta’s apparently imposing a no-speech zone around Palin, which does neither Palin nor her supporters any good.

S.E. Cupp clearly doesn’t get it.  If this was a story about something of substance, on issues, or something remotely real, it would be another matter.  I can’t imagine she’d want to respond to be taken to task for anything other than issues of substance either, and what S.E. Cupp isn’t understanding, for whatever reason, is that this nonsense of attacking people through the use of thugs as surrogates is probably not the most ethical form of journalism. (By way of full disclosure, some of Cupp’s writings have appeared on Carlson’s Daily Caller site.)

If it had been a story about issues, nobody would complain.  The problem is that these sort of pass-along hits on people, particularly in such vile language, are intended to damage their intended targets in a way that has nothing to do with politics or issues or anything of the sort.  It’s simply an attack hidden behind a claim of journalism.
Advertisements