Tucker Carlson, Media Matters and How the Media Determines Whose Past Comments are Shocking
The media is big on chasing offensive comments by conservatives and disregarding offensive comments by leftists.
I've said in the past that if Roseanne had made her joke about Condoleezza Rice, instead of Lyft board member Valerie Jarrett, we would have been told to lighten up and she would still be employed.
The media's coverage of Media Matters vs. Tucker Carlson is a typical example.
Media Matters describes the media in language much harsher than anything Trump has used. Despite that the media slavishly adheres to its agendas. And its coverage of Media Matters' accusations against Carlson selectively chooses which comments are offensive.
Carusone posted a lengthy diatribe in November 2005 about a Bangladeshi man who was robbed by “a gang of transvestites,” as Carusone described it. Carusone was offended that the gang was described as “attractive” in an article.
“Did you notice the word attractive? What the fuck is that doing in there? Is the write[r] a tranny lover too? Or, perhaps he’s trying to justify how these trannies tricked this Bangladeshi in the first place? Look man, we don’t need to know whether or not they were attractive. The fucking guy was Bangladeshi,” Carusone wrote. “And while we’re out, what the hell was he doing with $7,300 worth of stuff. The guy’s Banladeshi! [sic]”
Typical internet garbage. But enough to get you permanently banned from everything these days.
And then there's the anti-Semitism.
He wrote in one October 2005 post that “despite his jewry, you KNOW he’s adorable,” referring to his boyfriend.
In another post, Carusone claimed that his boyfriend only leaned conservative “as a result of his possession of several bags of Jewish gold.”
Rep. Omar would approve. Apparently so does the media.