Carlson had an anonymous guest on making completely unsubstantiated claims. What is there to report on? You think this was good journalism on Carlson's part?
As I said, in the past, when Tucker has made controversial or hateful remarks on his show, the mainstream media has covered it even when they were skeptical about his credibility.
The best example from last year was his claim that the NSA spied on him:
Tucker Carlson claimed the NSA is spying on him. Even his own colleagues don’t seem to believe ithttps://www.cnn.com/2021/06/29/media/tucker-carlson-nsa-spying/index.htmlThe AP, NY Times, and NBC News also published articles about Tucker's claim about the NSA.
Do I think Tucker refusing to name his CIA source is good journalism? No. I don't think he should've made such a bold claim without citing documentary evidence or naming his source. But regardless of how weak his allegation is, it's newsworthy that such a serious allegation was made on a popular prime time cable TV show. Tucker has a huge audience.
As they did with Tucker's NSA allegation, why couldn't the mainstream media reported on Tucker's JFK claim with heavy skepticism and fact-checks? Their silence speaks volumes.
I'm not saying the silence means that Carlson's claim is credible. What I believe it mean is, JFK assassination conspiracy speculation is still very taboo in the mainstream media even while there are signs that things may be changing.
Question: Why would the same media that exposed the abuses by Hoover and the FBI, e.g., Cointelpro, the CIA's abuses, the lies of Vietnam and Watergate and other abuses/crimes cover up for the CIA's murder of JFK? Why would they expose one but not the other?
The media didn't expose all of those things. Whistleblowers came forward and the news media at least did their jobs and reported on the revelations that the Whistleblowers highlighted. The same is true of the Wikileaks and Edward Snowden stuff. The media reported on their information but didn't break the stories via their own investigations.
In contrast, revelations about the assassinations of JFK, MLK, and RFK have been for the most part ignored or downplayed by the mainstream media. You have to be blind to not see how their behavior is different on those sensitive topics.
This was the sainted JFK, a hero to the liberal establishment. I find it completely illogical for the media like the NY Times and Washington Post who certainly didn't care for LBJ or Hoover or the CIA to then turn around and cover for the murder of Kennedy. It's even worse than illogical, there isn't the slightest evidence for it. No one who worked for those outlets, to my knowledge, has ever come forward and exposed this corruption.
It's not corruption. News outlets have the right or privilege to cover or not cover whatever stories they want and put whatever spin on the stories that they want. We can speculate on their motives but we'll never know for certain. It's not something that would need to be explained in court.
Operation Mockingbird was real and it didn't end in the 1970s. The example of NBC's Ken Dilanian is proof of that.
National security reporters build close relationships with their sources in the FBI, CIA, DOJ, etc and don't want to ruin those relationships by publishing stuff that embarrasses the military or spy agencies.
But also, people like me don't get hired at the Washington Post or NBC News. They hire likeminded people who are middle of the road in their political views, not people who are critics of the military industrial complex and the CIA.
So Groupthink plays a role too. There's no need for a conspiratorial explanation when certain explanations are more obvious. These folks attend the same elite colleges, live in the same neighborhoods between DC and NYC, think alike, and have the same interests.
