I will say that I agree with NonLemming (quoted below). I also agree with much else that I have read on this thread and another that Jamie helpfully pointed out to me where the Tucker Carlson interview was discussed. I thought it was particularly helpful that Jaimie pointed out the use of language by Tucker. IRD was the first to use the term "crash" which calls up the image of an assault or, at least, uninvited entry. They took our word about keeping our plans "discrete" and made it sound like some nefarious plot to mug the Easter Bunny. Again this right-wing media machine that David Brock has called the "Republican Noise Machine" is constantly playing with language to shape and manipulate people's mental images. It's what folks mean by the term "framing." And, by the way, the best book on the subject of "framing" in political discourse is the book
Don't Think of an Elephant.
By the way, I don't mean to trash the Republican Party as a whole. We are dealing with the neoconservative and theoconservative elements that are now controlling that party to a large extent. And that's not to trash traditional conservatives either--these neocons and theocons are something else!
Interviewing with Tucker Carlson may have been a mistake--but we are going to make mistakes. Don't let that deter or dismay us. Let's "keep our eyes on the prize!"
Steven Webster
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NonLemming
Steven: You make some great points. I guess my point was, "let's just shut up, show up and roll our eggs." We don't need to make anything more of it than it is. If we're prevented, then we have a story. Mel needs to be careful not to let himself get hoodwinked into doing "interviews" with the Tucker Carlsons of the world without a clear understanding of what the questions will be. It can backfire, as was evidenced here. Again, let's pick our battles carefully and intelligently.
|