Tucker Carlson on the Kennedy Assassination

[Steve M. Galbraith]

About two months before the assassination, Oswald goes to Mexico City to try to defect to Cuba. He tells the Soviet Embassy people/KGB agents that he meets that he needs to escape the US, that "I am afraid...they'll kill me!" He brings out a revolver and says he needs it to protect himself.

This is a man who does not like the US, he thinks "they'll kill me". If he did like it, he wouldn't be trying to escape to Cuba.

But if you think this was all an act, that when he was 16 and 17 and expressed radical views that he was really pretending to hold them (for what reason? He's a 17 year old HS dropout; is he nuts?), then never mind.

[Jon Banks]

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 it
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/29/media/tucker-carlson-nsa-spying/index.html

The 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.

[Jon Banks]

Indie media reaction

[Andrew Mason]

But what annoys me the most is that there's currently no one in the so called "Liberal media" that questions US foreign policies and challenges the military industrial complex as strongly as Tucker does. People like Michael Moore and Oliver Stone have basically been neutered by today's Liberal media which frequently defends the FBI and CIA.

Maybe it is because the "liberal media" requires evidence before reporting a story. 

[Patrick Jackson]

It's all fake...
Told you.

[Jon Banks]

Maybe it is because the "liberal media" requires evidence before reporting a story.

Only true if you’ve forgotten their lack of critical reporting on WMDs during the run-up to the Iraq war and their frequent mistakes in reporting on Trump from 2016-2020.

All news reporting contains some level of bias. The mainstream media tends to be biased in favor of the national security state and people within the US national security state were uncharacteristically rattled by Trump. I mean, hundreds of articles about Trump were published citing nothing more than anonymous sources as evidence.

And the mainstream media tends to accept anonymous intelligence sources as credible often even though those types of stories have a mixed record for accuracy.

So while I don’t think Tucker citing an anonymous CIA source is good journalism, he’s not alone. That sort of thing happens often nowadays.

And regardless of whether it’s true or not, it’s newsworthy given the size of Carlson’s audience…

[Richard Smith]

Tucker has posted a lot of nonsense about UFOs and vaccines.  He is sometimes off the mark but I give him credit for questioning what he is told.  Something the mainstream leftist media never does.  They are foot soldiers for the Biden administration.  If a woman is arrested for silently praying by authoritarian goons, it is only someone like Tucker who comes to their defense. Tucker has one of the most highly rated shows on cable TV.  Why don't our contrarian CTers go to him with their evidence that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and Lifton's body alteration nonsense?  He is clearly not part of the endless conspiracy to cover up the JFK assassination.

[John Iacoletti]

Because Tucker is an even bigger purveyor of nonsense than “Richard Smith”.