We just got confirmation as to Tucker Carlson being linked to the Kremlin. Lavrov blabbed in the UN over Tucker Carlson being ousted: Dumb move
quote
Updated Apr 26, 2023, 06:33am EDT
TOPLINE?Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov Tuesday criticized Tucker Carlson’s ouster from Fox News and implied that it reflected a lack of support for free speech and differing viewpoints, amid public job offers made to the former primetime host by Kremlin-controlled outlets.KEY FACTS
Lavrov made his unprompted remarks about Carlson’s exit during a?press conference?at the United Nations on Tuesday, while criticizing the U.S. for denying visas to Russian journalists.
Pivoting the conversation towards the state of “freedom of speech in the United States,” Lavrov called Carlson’s exit from Fox “curious news” and even asked: “What is this related to? One can only guess.”
Lavrov added the move means “the wealth of views in the American information space has suffered.”
Carlson has been a vocal critic of the Biden administration’s decision to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia’s invasion, and clips from his now-canceled primetime show have appeared regularly on Russian state-run outlets.
In his remarks to the press, Lavrov?also claimed?the European Union was increasingly becoming a militarized entity designed to contain Russia along with NATO
end of quote
I.e.
A. Lavrov is once again purposely interfering in with American business. This is NONE of his business and he is intervening because an asset of Russia is no longer with a star rating
B. What Lavrov does not understand is that Murdoch did NOT force Tucker out over the voting machine trial or even the 787 million USD reward which Dominion received from Fox News
Carlson was fired because of the lawsuit of Fox from a former woman employee whom was suing Carlson ( And Fox) over a hyper toxic and sexist work environment.
Murdoch was afraid of losing his conservative women audience
C. As it is, Lavrov is exercising rank hypocrisy here in that in the Russian Federation dissidence is crushed, whereas Tucker Carlson merely lost his JOB.
D. THIS certainly did NOT help Tucker Carlson
quote
Lavrov's remarks come just a day after some major Russian state-run outlets publicly offered Carlson a job. The Kremlin-run international network RT—formerly Russia Today—tweeted?at Carlson: “You can always question more with RT.” Later on Monday, one of Russia’s most prominent TV anchors and pro-Putin propagandists, Vladimir Solovyov, also offered Carlson a spot on his web show Solovyov Live. On Telegram, the show’s official handle?shared a screenshot?of an email sent to Carlson, which praised him for being the “last remaining voice of reason” in the U.S. mainstream media. “You have our admiration and support in any endeavor you choose for yourself next, be it running for President of the United States (which you should totally do, by the way) or making an independent media project,” the email said.
End of quote
Frankly if I were a newspaper CEO, with that floating around I would NOT hire Tucker Carlson under ANY circumstances
Will Carlson defect to Russia ? In a word it makes little difference if he does go there. But the major test will be in if he DID get a show in Moscow. Would GOP voters still tune into Carlson broadcasting from Moscow the way they did when Carlson was on Fox pay ?
Also this goes straight to the at times horrible fifth column hysteria in America
quote
LAST week's arrest of a Brooklyn-born man on charges of planning a ''dirty bomb'' attack here and evidence that other United States citizens have been trained in Al Qaeda camps abroad revived a fear that has permeated popular history: that a home-grown fifth column is betraying fellow Americans on behalf of a foreign foe.
Fears of fifth columns inevitably conjure up memories of guilt by association, smear politics, internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, McCarthyism and of zealous F.B.I. agents defining the limits of political orthodoxy.
end of quote
Aside from MAGA, this will be revisited as to Tucker Carlson. Especially after Lavrov's remarks
https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2023/04/26/curious-news-russian-foreign-minister-criticizes-tucker-carlsons-ouster-from-fox/?sh=4e934d3469da
quote
Kucker Carlson’s Ouster From Fox Criticized By Russia’s Foreign Minister As ‘Curious News’
Forbes Staff
Covering breaking news and tech policy stories at Forbes.Follow
Apr 26, 2023,02:21am EDT
Listen to article3 minutes
Updated Apr 26, 2023, 06:33am EDT
TOPLINE?Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov Tuesday criticized Tucker Carlson’s ouster from Fox News and implied that it reflected a lack of support for free speech and differing viewpoints, amid public job offers made to the former primetime host by Kremlin-controlled outlets.KEY FACTS
Lavrov made his unprompted remarks about Carlson’s exit during a?press conference?at the United Nations on Tuesday, while criticizing the U.S. for denying visas to Russian journalists.
Pivoting the conversation towards the state of “freedom of speech in the United States,” Lavrov called Carlson’s exit from Fox “curious news” and even asked: “What is this related to? One can only guess.”
Lavrov added the move means “the wealth of views in the American information space has suffered.”
Carlson has been a vocal critic of the Biden administration’s decision to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia’s invasion, and clips from his now-canceled primetime show have appeared regularly on Russian state-run outlets.
In his remarks to the press, Lavrov?also claimed?the European Union was increasingly becoming a militarized entity designed to contain Russia along with NATO
Lavrov's remarks come just a day after some major Russian state-run outlets publicly offered Carlson a job. The Kremlin-run international network RT—formerly Russia Today—tweeted?at Carlson: “You can always question more with RT.” Later on Monday, one of Russia’s most prominent TV anchors and pro-Putin propagandists, Vladimir Solovyov, also offered Carlson a spot on his web show Solovyov Live. On Telegram, the show’s official handle?shared a screenshot?of an email sent to Carlson, which praised him for being the “last remaining voice of reason” in the U.S. mainstream media. “You have our admiration and support in any endeavor you choose for yourself next, be it running for President of the United States (which you should totally do, by the way) or making an independent media project,” the email said. Solovyov Live also said it would “happily offer” Carlson a job, adding: “You don't have to be afraid of taking the piss out of Biden here.”
KEY BACKGROUND
Fox News?announced?Carlson’s departure from the network on Monday, without offering any details or explanations. The shocking announcement appeared to have caught everybody, including Carlson and people at the network, off guard. In his last primetime broadcast on Friday, Carlson made no mention of any plans to leave, and the network itself was promoting Carlson’s unaired interview with long-shot GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy as late as Monday morning. The?Wall Street Journal?reported?that Carlson had been fired by Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott and Fox Corp. CEO Lachlan Murdoch, who had made up their minds last Friday.
领英推荐
End of quote
Also, see this
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/16/weekinreview/the-nation-fifth-column-the-evil-that-lurks-in-the-enemy-within.html
quote
The Nation: Fifth Column; The Evil That Lurks in the Enemy Within
By Richard Gid Powers
LAST week's arrest of a Brooklyn-born man on charges of planning a ''dirty bomb'' attack here and evidence that other United States citizens have been trained in Al Qaeda camps abroad revived a fear that has permeated popular history: that a home-grown fifth column is betraying fellow Americans on behalf of a foreign foe.
Fears of fifth columns inevitably conjure up memories of guilt by association, smear politics, internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, McCarthyism and of zealous F.B.I. agents defining the limits of political orthodoxy.
But must a search for American, not just foreign, terrorists, mean a repetition of past abuses? Or does the specter of the past keep Americans from recognizing and responding to an unprecedented danger challenging the country?
This time, the possibility of an insidious ''enemy within'' has not been linked to political forces contesting for control of mainstream politics, which was often invoked to justify the excesses of previous hunts for fifth columnists. Nonetheless, just as Italian immigrants were targeted earlier in the 20th century and American Jews were often identified with Communism in mid-century, there is today the possibility that all Arab-Americans will be stigmatized, along with every jailhouse convert to Islam.
ADVERTISEMENT
In announcing the arrest of Abdullah al-Mujahir, born Jose Padilla, Attorney General John Ashcroft last week pointed out the significance that an American citizen had been linked to Islamic terrorism: ''As a citizen of the United States, holding a valid U.S. passport, al-Mujahir would be able to travel freely in the U.S. without drawing attention to himself.''
The timing of the announcement, just as Congress was investigating intelligence lapses by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency, suggested to some skeptics that the Bush administration was more concerned about criticism from Democratic officeholders and civil libertarians than about Al Qaeda agents masquerading as loyal Americans.
American politics and culture have been punctuated by searches for conspiracies and fifth columnists, from Benedict Arnold to ''Minority Report,'' the futuristic Tom Cruise film that opens this week. Those searches have often been so persistently irrational that the historian Richard Hofstadter diagnosed them as a form of political paranoia.
What most of the searches had in common was that the damage they did was far greater than the theoretical damage they were meant to deter. Whether the threats were genuine or imagined, whether they were potentially serious or grossly overstated, they typically involved barricading the barn door after the horses -- however many had been lurking inside -- had fled.
The internal security search with the most bearing on the present was the 1919-1929 campaign led by Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer and his assistant, the 24-year-old J. Edgar Hoover, against the new Communist parties. Palmer's ''Red Scare'' was precipitated by a series of bombings, one of which blew up the front of his Northwest Washington house, along with the bomber, who was probably not suicidal but clumsy.
Although all the bombings of 1919 and 1920 were the work of a few dozen Italian anarchists in Boston and New York, Palmer and Hoover pinned the ultimate responsibility on American radicalism tied to the Communist International. They launched a dragnet to arrest and deport legally vulnerable immigrant members of the Communist Party.
During that period, two institutions emerged as the leading combatants of all subsequent loyalty drives: the F.B.I. and the American Civil Liberties Union.
The term fifth column didn't originate until the 1930's, coined by General Emilio Mola, the Spanish Nationalist. As his four columns of pro-Franco troops moved toward Republican-held Madrid during the Spanish Civil War, he disclosed that he had a ''fifth column'' of supporters in the capital who would rise up against the Republican government when the time was ripe.
In America, the term emerged out of a left-liberal campaign to link isolationist opponents of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's pre-Pearl Harbor foreign policy, which proposed to render every aid to Britain short of war, to a Nazi fifth column.
STILL, the hunt for fifth columns is generally associated with efforts by the right. Indeed, shortly after Sept. 11, the columnist Andrew Sullivan wrote that while most of America was ready to retaliate, ''the decadent left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead -- and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column.''
Emblematic of all the searches for fifth columnists was the hunt for hidden Communists during the late 40's and early 50's, now wrapped in the generic label of McCarthyism. This hunt started from the hardly debatable premise that American Communist leaders were slavishly devoted to the interests of the Soviet Union, but it took place at the moment when the American Communist party was most isolated and feeble.
Hoover supplied a mathematical justification, though: ''In 1917 when the Communists overthrew the Russian government,'' he said, ''there was 1 Communist for ever 2,277 persons in Russia. In the United States today there is 1 Communist for every 1,814 persons in the country.''
Look magazine devoted five pages to a methodical self-help guide to an emerging American obsession: ''How to Spot a Communist.'' The article was accompanied by a psychological primer that drew on the work of Dr. David Abrahamsen, who described typical Communists as people whose betrayal may have deep psychological roots. ''Betraying the mother country,'' he opined, ''is, in a psychological sense, betraying the mother.''
But by the mid-1970's, in the wake of the revelations of Hoover's campaigns to disrupt and intimidate the civil rights and anti-Vietnam war movements -- and Martin Luther King Jr., in particular -- the civil libertarians had won, won to the extent that the F.B.I. was less concerned about any terrorist threat than about being rebuked for civil liberties violations.
History took its toll.
Today there are circles that regard reflexive opposition to the F.B.I. as indispensable proof of progressive political bona fides. And in these circles the visages of the current leaders of the search for fifth columnists seem irresistibly to recall, through a Herblock-esque transfiguration, the caricatures of Hoover, Joseph P. McCarthy and Richard K. Nixon. Moreover, in those circles, and beyond them, the needle-in-a haystack aspect of today's terrorist search promises once again an assault on civil liberties.
And so it is not strange that, with this much historical baggage, skepticism abounds when an American administration again begins to move against a potential internal menace.
But should the past keep America from responding appropriately to the present?
In ''The New Meaning of Treason,'' Rebecca West warned decades ago of ''confusing unpopular forms of virtue with evil.'' But she also cautioned that ''quite noble attempts to defeat evil may, in sufficiently perverse circumstances, be mistaken for evil.''
A government has to do something when the public feels threatened, and the political graveyard is littered with the cautionary corpses of politicians who responded with sensible caution when the public demanded dramatic action.
Is the threat this time as inconsequential and illusory as in the past?
That question nearly answers itself. The first World Trade Center attack in 1993 was followed by devastating attacks in Saudi Arabia, Africa, a thwarted attack on the millennium and finally Sept. 11. More attacks are undoubtedly being planned.
Is the drive against internal terrorism itself likely to be hijacked to repress unpopular ethnic or political minorities deemed threatening or annoying by the majority of Americans? While something approaching religious or ethnic profiling will undoubtedly ensue if investigations of domestic terrorism is pursued aggressively, care must be taken not to smear legitimate ''diaspora politics'' -- Daniel Patrick Moynihan's term for immigrant groups' involvement in the politics of the old country -- in the fight against ''diaspora terrorism.''
ADVERTISEMENT
THIS time, the possibility of a fifth column of American-based Islamic terrorists -- as terrifying as it might be -- represents more than a threat. It may also be an opportunity for the United States intelligence establishment, which has been hobbled by a lack of Arab-speaking agents and the inability of American-born agents to penetrate foreign Qaeda cells. If Al Qaeda is recruiting Americans, then American agents may be less conspicuous, and more successful, in infiltrating Al Qaeda.
In addition, an F.B.I. counterintelligence official said that there is a possibility that terrorists may try to recruit criminals who convert to Islam while in prison. These are people whose cooperation the bureau could obtain, he said, just as it does in criminal investigations.
However the F.B.I and the nation choose to confront the threat of terrorism at home, what is required now is a debate over the appropriate response to unprecedented circumstances. And that debate must begin from historical knowledge, not to imprison it within the past, but to free the discussion to meet the challenges of the present.
A correction was made on?June 23, 2002:?An article last Sunday about the threat posed by American agents of foreign terrorist groups misstated the middle initials of two political figures associated with the hunt for Communists in the 1950's. They were Joseph R. McCarthy and Richard M. Nixon.
end of quote
Andrew Beckwith, PhD