[BostonCard]

There is nothing libertarian about Carlson, at least not any more.  I think he is nominally conservative, but only to the extent that Trump is conservative.  Provocateur is accurate; so is the fact that he has found it to be a very lucrative career.

And I think you are right to hold the New York Times to a higher standard than a cable news commentator.  But I hold Carlson to a higher standard than someone like Alex Jones, and it is worth noting that the New York Times has a circulation of something like 3 million (including digital edition), while Carlson has a weekly average rating of something like 4.5 million.  In an ideal world Carlson would use that reach responsibly.  Saying "that's his schtick" doesn't mean it's ok.

That doesn't mean that you (Lex) have a responsibility to call out every time a conservative is not behaving irresponsibly.  And, for that matter, the whataboutism inherent in the question is misplaced.  Whether Carlson is or is not engaging in "responsible journalism" is irrelevant of whether the New York Times was.  I happened to think the article was fine (as long as it wasn't an above-the-fold A1 heaadline), but not because "Tucker was worse".

BC

Look at my original post -  I DID  mention Fox.

Ironically, I didn't.  I only mentioned Carlson (who I am aware works at Fox), to say that being a pot-stirrer should not let him off the hook, and noting that his viewership outstrips the NY Times' readership.

BC

---

One thing to note; Pfizer excluded people with a history of severe allergies from their clinical trial.  Moderna did not exclude people from their trial with a history of allergies and didn't see any allergic reactions.  That doesn't mean that there won't be any once the drug makes it into distribution (probably next week), but if I had a concern about allergies, I might feel better about the Moderna vaccine.

BC

[BostonCard]

There is nothing libertarian about Carlson, at least not any more.  I think he is nominally conservative, but only to the extent that Trump is conservative.  Provocateur is accurate; so is the fact that he has found it to be a very lucrative career.

And I think you are right to hold the New York Times to a higher standard than a cable news commentator.  But I hold Carlson to a higher standard than someone like Alex Jones, and it is worth noting that the New York Times has a circulation of something like 3 million (including digital edition), while Carlson has a weekly average rating of something like 4.5 million.  In an ideal world Carlson would use that reach responsibly.  Saying "that's his schtick" doesn't mean it's ok.

That doesn't mean that you (Lex) have a responsibility to call out every time a conservative is not behaving irresponsibly.  And, for that matter, the whataboutism inherent in the question is misplaced.  Whether Carlson is or is not engaging in "responsible journalism" is irrelevant of whether the New York Times was.  I happened to think the article was fine (as long as it wasn't an above-the-fold A1 heaadline), but not because "Tucker was worse".

BC

Look at my original post -  I DID  mention Fox.

Ironically, I didn't.  I only mentioned Carlson (who I am aware works at Fox), to say that being a pot-stirrer should not let him off the hook, and noting that his viewership outstrips the NY Times' readership.

BC

---

One thing to note; Pfizer excluded people with a history of severe allergies from their clinical trial.  Moderna did not exclude people from their trial with a history of allergies and didn't see any allergic reactions.  That doesn't mean that there won't be any once the drug makes it into distribution (probably next week), but if I had a concern about allergies, I might feel better about the Moderna vaccine.

BC