Talk:Tucker Carlson/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 19

RfC: Media Matters analysis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Tucker Carlson#COVID-19 pandemic include a two-sentence summary of the analysis in Tucker Carlson's Fox News show undermined vaccines 99% of the days it covered them since Biden became president?

A previous discussion of this matter is here. soibangla (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose on several grounds. First, MM4A is a marginal source for with a very strong bias. We can not assume they approached their data gathering without confirmation bias. Second, the information they present is about Carlson's show since it hinges on the opinions/comments of Carlson's guests, not just Carlson himself. This makes it less appropriate for a BLP about Carlson himself.. Some editors noted that the MM4A claims are generally consistent with those made by other sources. If that is true what value does this stand alone paragraph add to an article about Carlson himself (vs his show's content)? It is also worth noting that this article is already really long. We need to be summarizing large sections vs trying to further fill things in with low quality sources. Questionable study by a partisan group about Carlson's show vs the man himself in an article that is already way to long = UNDUE (and not clearly reliable for the claims being made). Springee (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - let's get one thing out of the way first. In the discussion above, various people noted that all of Media Matters' facts are backed up by clips and transcripts, so you can't call MMFA an unreliable source in this case. That's all true, and I don't doubt a single one of their transcripts. The issue, though, is with their analysis - and specifically their claim that 99% of his segments about COVID-19 vaccines "undermined vaccines or vaccination efforts". This is extremely misleading analysis, because they count any statement about vaccines or vaccine mandates that isn't fully positive as "undermining" - even obviously true statements such as that these vaccines don't prevent people from contracting the disease. Their "99%" claim, if quoted on its own, is misleading and makes it sound like he's encouraging people not to take the vaccine, which as far as I know he's never done. Korny O'Near (talk)

even obviously true statements such as that these vaccines don't prevent people from contracting the disease Yes, it is true that vaccines don't prevent infection, rather they create antibodies to fight infections so as to prevent sickness and death. Do you think many of Carlson's viewers, who aren't exactly the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, are able to discern that distinction? Or are they more apt to interpret it to mean "the vaccines don't work" and avoid them? That's the sort of sleight of hand that may elude some, but not MMFA, which has been monitoring and analyzing these techniques for many years, and they document all of it with clips. Tucker's writers and producers carefully craft scripts every day to provide plausible deniability that Tucker didn't actually say something, knowing full-well that it's what non-discerning viewers heard. It's similar to the "joking/not-joking loophole" mentioned in the article. makes it sound like he's encouraging people not to take the vaccine, which as far as I know he's never done. See: [1] soibangla (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like you agree with me that he wasn't actually undermining the vaccine, since only in the minds of Carlson's idiotic viewers (as you say) is that connection formed. As for that last link - he was clearly making the point that it's experts like Dr. Fauci who are themselves undermining the vaccine, by saying that vaccinated people need to keep masking and distancing. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Korny, "these vaccines don't prevent people from contracting the disease" is your paraphrase, not an actual quote. When I asked you for clarification earlier, you provided two links: Media Matters "Tucker Carlson guest claims 'there's just no evidence that the vaccines halt infection or transmission in any way'" and The New York Times "Most of the World’s Vaccines Likely Won’t Prevent Infection From Omicron". What you've done is taken a very specific finding (AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson and vaccines manufactured in China and Russia may be ineffective at preventing the spread of Omicron, although they do protect against serious illness) and used it to justify a sweeping generalization (There's no evidence that vaccines halt infection or transmission in any way). Do you have any better examples of specific quotes that are being misrepresented or is that all you've got? –dlthewave ☎ 15:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

We've already gone over this, but sure: MMFA is counting every time Carlson has spoken against vaccine mandates as "undermining vaccination efforts". By that logic, I assume they would characterize anyone who doesn't want to force people to run on treadmills as "undermining weight loss efforts". Korny O'Near (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Examples? –dlthewave ☎ 23:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The MMFA analysis groups nine (!) separate instances of Carlson "Suggesting that vaccine requirements or vaccine passports are forms of control or violations of civil liberties and freedoms" as examples of his "undermining" vaccination. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

And that's putting it nicely. Let's take a look at those nine:

Extended content

1 "According to the administration, this vaccine works perfectly and that means that vaccinated people are protected from COVID, they're bulletproof, they can't get sick. That's why they took the vaccine in the first place. So why is official Washington so angry at the people who won't get vaccinated? How precisely do they pose a threat? It makes you think, once you think about it, that maybe none of this is really about COVID. Maybe it's about social control." 2 Fox News' Tucker Carlson says vaccine mandates “are hurting the country” 3 "The point of mandatory vaccination (within the military) is to identify the sincere Christians in the ranks, the free thinkers, the men with high testosterone levels, and anybody else who doesn't love Joe Biden and make them leave immediately" 3 "But counterfeit vaccine cards? That might allow people to get around insane vaccine mandates, which are immoral and unconstitutional? No. Those people need to go to prison. That'd be very bad for America's health. It's totally, completely nuts." 4 (Guest Victor Hanson): "Well, I think it was too serious a crisis to go to waste for the left. You know every — in his befuddlement Joe Biden can be very clear when he said he was a president, i.e. [Dr. Anthony] Fauci, he almost, God, he's more like a monarch. He's got legislative, judicial, and executive power all in one." 5 "This is lunacy. We should not go along with it. It has nothing to do with medicine. It is a terrifying precedent that — if we let solidify — we will deeply, deeply regret. This is not about COVID; this is about the existence of rational decision making in this country and personal autonomy. Most people are going along with this because they are afraid. A few brave souls are not." 7 "If you don't take the shot that Joe Biden wants you to take ... then Joe Biden is going to have to shut the country down again" 8 "On the basis of no demonstrated threat to public health whatsoever, the Biden administration is once again locking down the country and persecuting its perceived political opponents, otherwise known as (air quotes) 'the unvaccinated'..." 9 "More Americans have died from COVID in 2021 than died in 2020, before there was a shot"

The MM4A analysis looks accurate to me. These examples range from misrepresentations to crazytown conspiracy theories, clearly intended to undermine vaccination efforts. –dlthewave ☎ 02:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for quoting these - I think these help prove my point that Media Matters' analysis is flawed, but anyone can judge for themselves. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Would you care to explain one or two that strike you as particularly flawed? –dlthewave ☎ 04:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Almost all of these have to do with issues of government policy, and not whether getting vaccinated is a good idea or not. But Media Matters is framing them as if they're the latter. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Right off the top, is "According to the administration, this vaccine works perfectly" an accurate portrayal of government policy? No, it is a gross misrepresentation that is but one element of a persistent pattern to cast doubt on everything about vaccines, regardless of whether its a distortion of government policy or the vaccines themselves. The distinction you draw fails, as do your assertions that the provided examples prove your point. The MMFA approach here is completely sound. soibangla (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Korny is correct. Many of those examples aren't critical of the vaccines but are critical of government policies, claims made on behalf of the government etc. To call these all "undermining vaccines" without proper context is pretty clearly an attempt by MM4A to cloud the waters. It also clearly shows how their partisan nature drives the study and the studies conclusions. Springee (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support. The proposed content is brief, properly supported, clearly attributed, and neutrally phrased. This is not specifically a BLP issue since the this is not an extraordinary claim, the source has editorial oversight, and the facts being presented by the source are not credibly disputed by any other sources. Wikipedia uses reliable sources for analysis. I have not seen any specific reason to doubt the analysis of this particular source. To contrast a source's analysis with an individual editor's analysis would be original research.

Consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, there is a valid reason so many reliable sources are looking at Carlson's "skeptical" comments about vaccines. Grayfell (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support - As per what I wrote above. I'm not in favor of inclusion every MM source critical of this or that Fox News personality, but this was a thorough report which effectively summarizes a whole lot of material that we already include, cited to other sources. It's also attributed to MM. On the specific example raised multiple times above, someone who repeatedly challenges vaccines stating "vaccines don't prevent people from contracting the disease" when the only possibly true interpretation of that statement is "vaccines are not 100% effective at preventing infection," is squarely in the "misleading-at-best" category of misinformation, and it's shocking to hear anyone argue it's not. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Grayfell. The methodology is good, and the addition complements the rest of the section by quantifying the extent of the misinformation. There's no reason to believe that statements are being misrepresented or taken out of context, and the editors asserting this have yet to produce a compelling example. –dlthewave ☎ 15:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose (edit: Support compromise wording suggested by soibangla below) (Oppose, after reading further comments below and reading more about MM4A, I've returned to my view that's it's an inappropriate/questionable source, and alternatives should be found. Jr8825 • Talk 17:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)) It would've been helpful to have had the proposed text in the RfC statement; thanks Grayfell for linking it. The proposed text looks well written and suitably brief. However, I'm not comfortable with using Media Matters as the sole source for a statistical claim such as this, given that it has no-con/marginally reliable status at WP:RSP following two RfCs at the source noticeboard. We should be using better/more authoritative sources for our coverage of US politics, given how contentious and polarised the topic is. Has this analysis been picked up and reported by any RS media outlets/quality newspapers? If it has been reported on several times, this would likely indicate due weight – in which case I'd support similar text but summarising and citing RS coverage of the analysis. Jr8825 • Talk 02:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)

it would've been helpful to have had the proposed text in the RfC I deliberately omitted it so we could first clear the hurdle of the concept of inclusion, then haggle over the text. I've seen RfCs get derailed by editors quibbling over specific words and losing sight of the big picture. As far as using Media Matters as the sole source for a statistical claim goes, they have frequently conducted analyses like this for many years and I have never seen a credible source call their methods into question. And I've looked. soibangla (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I purposefully didn't attempt my own personal analysis of their methodology/accuracy, as I see other editors have done in the above discussion (both for and against it), as I don't feel qualified to do so. As it happens, I have my reservations on how meaningful a "99% of days" statistic really is – we're using it to effectively demonstrate to the reader that "Tucker Carlson's show undermines vaccines all the time" – why can't we just quote a reliable source that says as much? Regardless of my concern about the appropriateness (not accuracy) of the statistic, the way I see it is that two community discussions were unable to agree that Media Matters is generally reliable, which means we should be treating it with extra caution. I think an appropriate way to exercise that extra caution is to not use it for a disputed (by more than one editor in good standing) claim relating to US politics until it has been cited/mentioned by another reliable source. If the analysis is notable/groundbreaking enough, it'll get picked up. If it's ignored, this could either be because it's questionable, or because it's telling us what other sources are already saying/is considered common knowledge: either way we should be looking to use sources marked as reliable at RSP for US political bios. Jr8825 • Talk 03:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the reason it's not being picked up by others is likely that it's telling us what other sources are already saying/is considered common knowledge, but as some in the previous discussion noted, though other reliable sources have reported numerous anecdotes, they have not provided a summary statistic that encapsulates how extensive Carlson's statements have been. MMFA provides that while also affirming what reliable sources previously reported and is included in the article. soibangla (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand your argument, but my view remains that MMFA is an inappropriate sole source for a statistic such as this. I think it's better to simply find an RS which says Carlson's anti-vax statements have been extensive and use that instead of this statistic. Jr8825 • Talk 03:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. A source that merely says it is extensive would be vague. It wouldn't be wrong, necessarily, and certainly wouldn't hurt, but vague sources are more easily disputed as being subjective. These statistics are more informative, and less (arguably) subjective, and therefore more appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as was written, but support with additional attribution and contextualization. Per my read on the above and the previous discussion, this seems to break down into a couple of main issues:

• First, is MMFA reliable and worthy of citing? The answer for this one is pretty straightforward: yes, provided proper inline attribution is used per WP:RSP. I think that is somewhat missing from the original insertion — Media Matters should specifically be contextualized as a "liberal watchdog group" or similar. Part of that has to do with the methodology.
• Second, is the methodology sound? The methodology description is fairly robust, but it is unfortunate that MMFA doesn't provide full links to the underlying data/transcripts; rather, it just highlights some of the more egregious examples. While I am not as concerned with the chance of outright lying or fabrication, the necessary subjectivity involved here means that due to this omission of data, we are ultimately relying on the judgment of researchers with a stated ideological agenda. Thus, my preference above that we include something like "liberal watchdog" or similar to attribute MMFA.
• Third, is this relevant to Carlson, or just his show? Carlson is widely known to be the driving force of the show, which should be obvious given its name. Given how his notability is inextricably linked to the show, and how the body of utterances of guests on his show are ultimately linked to his editorial decisions on who to invite and who to platform, it seems entirely fair to include this note about the show in the article.

So with minor adjustments, I do think the content should be inserted into the article. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 22:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Note — I also think there's room to overcome some of the methodology/weight concerns by avoiding the specific 99% figure (which, again, given the lack of complete access to the underlying transcripts, seems a bit precarious, even assuming complete good faith and diligence from MMFA) and instead opting for "the overwhelming majority" "almost exclusively" or similar. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 22:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis. I'm much more supportive of using a quote/paraphrase/summary of MMFA's analysis such as "overwhelming majority" instead of the 99% statistic, as my concern is the combination of a "precarious" statistic (as you nicely put it) with MMFA's no-con status at RSP. If the 99% number is dropped in favour of a word-based summary, and MMFA is contextualised (i.e. "liberal/left-leaning media watchdog" etc.) for readers who are unaware of it, then I think it's completely appropriate and I support it. I think this does the job of conveying the same thing, but in a more transparent and trustworthy manner. Jr8825 • Talk 05:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

WhinyTheYounger and Jr8825: Would you support if we included "left-leaning media watchdog" and changed 99% to "nearly all?" soibangla (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I don't have any particular preference on the exact wording, if need be it can be stronger than "nearly all". Jr8825 • Talk 18:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

That seems pretty reasonable to me as well. The particular wording for "nearly all" can definitely be tinkered with, but in principle that seems like a good option. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 02:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support. As I said above, there is significant high-quality coverage of MMFA's coverage of Carlson on this broad topic (eg. ) and many similarly contentious ones. () That makes it clear that they can be trusted in this context and that a sentence or two on what they say here isn't WP:UNDUE - with attribution, of course. Others have said that MMFA is a marginally reliable source, but what that means (as the RSP entry helpfully says) is that whether to use it or not is contextual. And the context that this is a topic in which other high-quality sources have trusted their analysis makes it clear it can be used here. --Aquillion (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

References

• Oppose per Springee and WhinyTheYounger.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 06:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Spy-cicle: Please would you elaborate on why you oppose on the basis of both one editor who is a firm oppose versus another editor who is a qualified oppose but would support with "minor adjustments?" soibangla (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I reason I oppose is 1) MMFA is a partisan and not the best source, especially as this as a BLP 2) This focuses more on his show and does not really help understand Carlson (belongs more related to his show article) and it is a vague metric, what counts as "undermine". Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support. An attributed MMFA analysis in the body is fine. It's clearly of longterm encyclopedic value to cover how Carlson, a widely popular cable news host of our era, chose to turn his show's coverage of a deadly and revolutionizing pandemic into deadly misinformation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  Snooganssnoogans Question, do we see the original version of the text as adequately attributing the source (naming MMFA), or should it include further attribution to describe its ideological background (as I wrote above, e.g. liberal media watchdog group MMFA or something)? WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 15:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  Interjecting here, I would not object to adding "left-leaning media watchdog," per Media Matters. soibangla (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Media Matters for America is a hyper-partisan, political advocacy group. Any content on it's pages originates from it's own research. Since there are no independent reviewers (those who don't have a conflict of interest with respect to MMFA's advocacy) to check their work, any content on their web pages are self-published. And we never use self-published content on BLP's. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support: per my extensive comments in this and previous thread. soibangla (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: my thoughts remain the same as my comments in the previous thread. Viktory02 (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: MMFA has proven an unreliable source on multiple topics. At a minimum, this needs more reliable citation(s). sbelknap (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Where has MMFA proven an unreliable source on multiple topics? soibangla (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Nothing has changed since my response in the previous discussion. To quote the RSP entry, There is consensus that Media Matters is marginally reliable... We should not use a marginal and biased source to make claims about a BLP. Period, full stop! If what they are saying is factual and has weight, we use more reliable sources. If other sources do not exist then it is probably undue weight. PackMecEng (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose First, I would prefer the text report a conclusion, rather than evidence and let readers connect the dots. It could say something like, "since Biden became president, Carlson's show has become dedicated to undermining vaccinations." The second problem is the source, which clearly partisan and run by someone who has admitted dishonesty in political attacks on his opponents. The fact he was a Republican at the time doesn't rehabilitate him. TFD (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I know I can't change your mind, but I'll just ask rhetorically if the fact it was 30 years ago might rehabilitate him? Redemption is a wonderful thing. soibangla (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It was about 20 years ago that he switched sides. But in the 2016 campaign he used a similar strategy against Sanders. His attempts to link Sanders to Corbyn and Chavez were particularly criticized at the time. He called it "opposition research," which is how I would categorize MMfA. TFD (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per TFD as well as the RS questioning (marginal source) per others. I don't remember ever watching Tucker Carlson. We "should" have neutrally worded content and, as mentioned, let the readers connect the dots. According to the web MMfA is "liberal group that researches claims made by the conservative media". It would seem that countering "a claim" by Tucker (balance) would be one thing but to rely on a media outlet making a report, that would certainly be opposed to the show, and then finding sites such as the Baptist News Global remaking the assertion "...proved false yet again "in an analysis by the 'media watchdog group Media Matters, is bias. According to the initiator of the RFC "many of Carlson's viewers, who aren't exactly the brightest bulbs in the chandelier" seems to infer either the person personally knows "many" of the viewers or there may be some editor bias. Since there was a reported 2020 average of from 3.2 to 4.33 million viewers that's a lot of people to personally know to report how "bright" they are for watching Tucker Carlson or possibly for just being conservative. Landed here from "Feedback request". -- Otr500 (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

In no way do I "infer" I personally know viewers of the show, nor does "many" mean "most" or "all," nor does my statement suggest bias. Judge tosses suit over Trump affair story after Fox News argues no "reasonable viewer" takes Tucker Carlson seriously yet he has the top-rated cable news show. If you don't remember ever watching Tucker Carlson, perhaps you can get a good sampling at https://www.mediaite.com/tag/tucker-carlson, including Tucker Carlson: "Seems Like the Covid Shot Makes it More Likely You Are Going to Get Covid" Or how about the death by COVID of fully-vaxxed Colin Powell: "So, what does that tell you, exactly? Well, it tells you, you’ve been lied to."[2] He is heavy pro-Trump with a major pro-Trump audience, so this is no surprise: Pro-Trump counties now have far higher COVID death rates. Misinformation is to blame. The persistent thread of his narrative is: the vaccines don't work, and they could kill you, and the government is lying to you. We document numerous anecdotes of this, and the MMFA analysis quantifies it to affirm it. soibangla (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Saying they "found" implies fact so violates WP:CLAIM. The words "undermined vaccines" are bad English (taken from the original), people don't undermine vaccines. I had a look at the first MediaMatters statement "Claiming in July that the COVID-19 vaccine is killing people and the government and media are covering it up" but the Fox News transcript (which they don't directly point to) shows Mr Carlson actually was agreeing with a guest who'd said CDC acknowledged a linkage between three deaths and J&J vaccine (and I saw a later mention of that by BBC). So, in context, it appears that this source is not merely biased but distorting. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

If "found" is a dealbreaker for you, I suppose we could use another term, though I don't really see a problem with "analysis found" anymore than "poll found" or other examples in which something is found but not asserted as indisputable fact. people don't undermine vaccines So artificial intelligence does it? All vaccines have had purported side effects for small percentages of people, including death, which explains why we have a vaccine court. But Tucker goes waaay beyond that:

Fox News host Tucker Carlson suggested to his 3.3 million viewers on May 6 that more than 3,000 people have died from the COVID-19 vaccines. “The actual number is almost certainly higher than that,” he said. “Perhaps vastly higher than that.” Social media posts then spread this claim further. But the claim is based on a misrepresentation of data collected by federal agencies[3]

soibangla (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Re "undermine" -- I use the Lexico dictionary. Re "died from the COVID-19 vaccines" -- he said "died after taking" not "died from" so that's another distortion example. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The distortion/insinuation is on the part of Carlson. I agree it's important to accurate convey what his vaccine misinformation consists of, and that we should use unambiguously strong sources, which is why after reviewing MM4A's history I'd prefer to find another source. However, "undermining vaccines" is a perfect description of what Carlson's comments shown above amount to. Jr8825 • Talk 19:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

For example, one case that was included in Carlson’s count was for an 85-year-old senior home resident who died on Dec. 29. This was what was reported to VAERS: “My grandmother died a few hours after receiving the moderna covid vaccine booster 1. While I don?t expect that the events are related, the treating hospital did not acknowledge this and I wanted to be sure a report was made.” Another report included in Carlson’s count was for a woman who was vaccinated on Jan. 9, had a car accident two weeks later, and died with a brain hemorrhage nine days after that. Another report was for a 17-year-old who killed himself with a gun eight days after he was vaccinated.[4]

Do you believe those coincidental deaths were what Tucker was suggesting to his audience? What plausible alternative explanation could there be for him to make these statements other than to suggest causality? None. The deception isn't coming from MMFA. soibangla (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You don't say what "these statements" or "Carlson's count" are, but your source (which now is SciCheck not Media Matters) points to a talk where Mr Carlson said "We know a lot about the upside of the vaccine. We’ve been completely in favor of vulnerable people taking vaccines. ... In fact, you’ve probably already had your shot, and good for you. ... Vaccines aren’t dangerous. That’s not a guess, we know that pretty conclusively from the official numbers. ... So what is the real number of people who apparently have been killed or injured by the vaccine? Well, we don’t know that number. Nobody does, and we’re not going to speculate about it. ..." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Have no doubt that I am able to dismantle what you wrote, but I perceive it would be an exercise in futility as you've firmly made your decision, so I'll spend my time on other matters. soibangla (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

soibangla, you'd be wasting your time. It's always possible to find the occasional and exceptional statement by the most fringy and deceptive person, including The Former Guy, which goes against the general thrust of everything else they do and say. They are just covering their ass. They accidentally reveal that they really know what's true, but are more interested in spreading propaganda most of the time. These exceptions just prove the rule and should be ignored. -- Valjean (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

But Carlson falsely implies that the deaths reported to VAERS are being covered up instead of being investigated: "news organizations aren't looking into it because there's an enormous amount of pressure just to ignore it"; "At CNN, they are worried about reports of vaccine-related injuries. They are worried you'll hear about them, so they spend most of their time daydreaming about ways to punish people who refuse to take the vaccine." The tone and intent seems to be to cast doubt on the number of confirmed deaths. I would categorize the BBC (media organization) article covering the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (government organization) recommendation to discontinue the J&J vaccine due to deaths and side effects as evidence against the claim that deaths are being covered up by the government and the media. –dlthewave ☎ 18:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support in more tightly worded version proposed by Soibangla above. Brief, attributed and important. Would be better if accompanied by secondary sources showing it's DUE. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. This is a perfectly proper use of this source and a good contribution that improves the article. Also support Soibangla's version. MMFA's analysis is solid and exposes Carlson's well-known antivax bias. He, like Trump, is a contrarian, and such people automatically deal with facts in ways that gain them the most attention, IOW they instinctively cast doubt on facts, which immediately moves them to the top of the attention heap. They automatically draw all attention to themselves. It's a narcissistic ego marketing ploy. Later, if forced to do so, they can demur, downplay, lie about their own public actions, and otherwise fend off attacks against their foolishness. Their important aim has been achieved, that of dominating the news cycle. -- Valjean (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Valjean has !voted twice. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Good catch. Now fixed. Peter, please feel free to ping me next time. I found this by accident. -- Valjean (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I could not find any other sources with any independent analysis to support "99%". That is an extraordinary claim and this is a BLP. I see discussions of tweaking the wording but the MM source title states "Tucker Carlson's Fox News show undermined vaccines 99% of the days it covered them since Biden became president". This is Wikipedia and shouldn't be a Trump/anti-trump or conservative/liberal-leaning vehicle. If a single source quotes a figure of 99%, and it might be misleading, it deserves to be treated with caution.

This source mirrors the MM claim: According to Media Matters’ analysis, Tucker Carlson Tonight discussed vaccines in roughly 50% of all original episodes since Biden was inaugurated — and all but one of those episodes featured a claim that undermined vaccines or vaccination efforts.

According to MM (in that article) We deemed claims to be undermining vaccines if they described the vaccines as: unnecessary or dangerous; coercive, representing government overreach, or violating personal freedom or choice; or cynical ploys for political or financial gain. We also considered claims that dismissed the efficacy of vaccines; highlighted individual experiences with vaccine hesitancy; politicized vaccine distribution or deployment speed; criticized continued adherence to health measures; or suggested that vaccination efforts are a violation of civil rights, liberties, and freedoms or are a form of control. The last part ("suggested that vaccination efforts are a violation of civil rights, liberties, and freedoms or are a form of control.") would suggest the Supreme Court is against vaccines as a Biden mandate was struck down because it was seen as overreaching. I still think the claim is too broad, and unsupported as stated, especially to be used in a BLP. -- Otr500 (talk) 09:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

would suggest the Supreme Court is against vaccines The Court struck down the mandate because the conservative majority asserted it specifically exceeded the authority of OSHA, not because they opposed the concept of a mandate based on a broad principle (they may have also believed that, but that's not what the decision argued). They argued OSHA encroached into public health rather than workplace safety, not that it violated civil rights, liberties, and freedoms. soibangla (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Extra comments: Everyone should look at the vaccine(s) with some caution. As potentially one of the millions possibly subjected to contaminated polio vaccines (SV40- 1955–1963), it should not be seen as far-reaching in a direction against "authority" when there are those that question such actions. First, a person needed the "shot(s)" to keep from getting Covid 19, then a person needed a booster shot, then the CDC stated: "vaccines are not 100% effective at preventing infection". Everyone must mask up to prevent spreading but masking has been determined to be (possibly) only somewhat effective. The single-layer cloth masked that was circulated around the world is being questioned. The CDC now states "Use masks effectively to help slow the spread of COVID-19" but also stated, "it was estimated that the better fit achieved by combining these two mask types, specifically a cloth mask over a medical procedure mask, could reduce a wearer's exposure by >90%". If we wear three masks and portable oxygen, plus never leave the house or have any personal contact, it might make 99%. How effective are the N95 masks? If we are going to add negative content to a BLP, it needs to be well-sourced and not vague. MM is both marginal and appears biased as too vague. -- Otr500 (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The statement that vaccine mandates are "coercive, representing government overreach, or violating personal freedom or choice" "undermin[es] vaccines" is a matter of opinion. For full disclosure, I think it does undermine vaccines but there are many reasonable people that have their opinion. To complicate things, even if one believes that Congress has that power, it is unclear whether legislation allows the president to do that by executive order. IOW it would be government overreach. This shows why MMfA is not a reliable source. It incorrectly uses data in order to exaggerate Carlson's anti-vaxxer position.

Keep in mind that this RfC is not about whether the article should say Carlson is an anti-vaxxer, but whether this specific source should be used.

TFD (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Most people would expect that Carlson is some sort of anti-vaxxer anyways and the source lines up with what Fox News is already generally known for. Makes sense and I probably won't change my mind, so, Support. shanghai.^{talk to me} 18:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Media Matters is a very biased source. Using it is like using JihadWatch as a source for Terrorism. https://www.thewrap.com/why-does-media-matters-only-seem-to-target-fox-news-stars-like-tucker-carlson/. Obviously, Tucker Carlson has said some controversial things (probably things I would oppose), but it's better to use more reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theophilus Andronicus (talk • contribs) 07:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Policy: Some comments and !votes perplex me. Yes, the subject may "undermine vaccines" but one source goes against the verifiability policy: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources, yet someone above commented it is not an exceptional claim.

  Biased opinions should be the thing this encyclopedia avoids. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. Stating "most people would expect that Carlson is some sort of anti-vaxxer", seems to show bias.

  The entire concept of striving for a neutral point of view, supposedly "non-negotiable" and even part of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, especially concerning BLP's and controversial issues, is undermined when we attempt to use one source. If "...so many reliable sources are looking at Carlson's "skeptical" comments about vaccines" they are not giving an independent assessment but just mirroring MM. I realize essays have their place but it is likely not arguable that when editing we should put on the "editor's hat" taking no side in the matter. When a biased mindset makes it to an article BLP page it becomes unfair treatment of living persons. I think an encyclopedia is better when it is left up to the reader to "...fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints." My mind can be changed with the right evidence but in this case, I feel the MMfA source "is a poor source" and offer that using it might be POV pushing (WP:What Wikipedia is not). -- Otr500 (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Otr500: Does the MMFA content refute or support the several anecdotes that precede it? MMFA would be WP:EXTRAORDINARY only if the former applies. soibangla (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know about the "several anecdotes that precede it" but I think your interpretation of extraordinary and mine differ as it is simply "very unusual or remarkable" and the source claims seem just that. With 113 out of 114 shows, being counted as 99% undermining vaccines, I consider the title of the source as evidence enough to be regarded as extraordinary. The source is intended to be used to support some form of a "summary of the analysis in Tucker Carlson's Fox News show undermined vaccines 99% of the days it covered them since Biden became president." Not only do I feel this dubious, but MMfa has also had at least one previous instance where it was accused of "methodological bias". -- Otr500 (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Otr500: Why is it you don't know about the "several anecdotes that precede it"? Where has MMfa has also had at least one previous instance where it was accused of "methodological bias"? soibangla (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copy edit tag at top

Hello Beetricks, why did you add this copy edit tag? Llll5032 (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Unless we learn what needs to be edited specifically, I think we should remove this tag tomorrow. Any objections? Llll5032 (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

We do not need to rush to remove it so quickly, but obviously if nobody agrees with it soon then let's remove it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The tag has been on the article for three weeks without explanation, so WP:WTRMT #3/4/5/7/8 may apply. Llll5032 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I have sent them this message on their talkpage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Llll5032: @Emir of Wikipedia: Okay... Here's the list of reasons for putting the {{Copy edit}} tag, which should suffice:

• The article's tone, to a reader who knows nothing about Carlson or American politics, can come off as extremely negative towards the subject (the lead is fine, though).

• "Carlson [...] has downplayed some of the Assad regime's human rights violations in the Syrian Civil War." (if they really were to try to read this article in full... )
• "Carlson frequently hosts guests who downplay the scientific consensus on climate change,..." (come on, is Insider that reliable?)

• There are some grammatical errors in the sentences:

• "In January 2022 Carlson released the film Hungary vs. Soros on Fox Nation" (where's your comma gone?)

• Weasel words hidden...

• "He is also said to have influenced some of Trump's decisions as president" (by who?)

• The same words are used more than in a sentence when they don't need to be

• "Carlson called [...], said children wearing masks was child abuse, and said, "Your response [...]".
• "Carlson said he wanted to focus on his new show, Tucker, on MSNBC, and said that although PBS was one of the "least bad" instances of government spending he disagreed with, it was still "problematic""
• "In 2019, Carlson lobbied Donald Trump to fire his national security advisor, John Bolton, said Bolton was "demented" for seeking a military strike against Iran, and accused Bolton of undermining Trump by disagreeing publicly with Trump's decisions." (two times is enough; the last comma after Iran can be removed)

There might be more problems missed above...

Not typing an edit summary, which is something I do when adding a tag on Twinkle at times, was a mistake on my part, and I am sorry for confusing editors like you both. lIl-†V!^{wanna talk?`} 21:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm also quite keen on the idea of the article being moved up to B-Class, so some copy editing is definitely a step to that lIl-†V!^{wanna talk?`} 22:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of Tokyo Rose sentence

This deletion serves to maintain the Carlson-protective whitewashing atmosphere here. It creates a catch-22 filter bubble of circular reasoning where "there isn't enough coverage to warrant inclusion" is enforced by deletions of added content. It's also a big NPOV violation to delete criticism. We're talking about ONE simple sentence:

• Carlson's outspoken support for Putin and his war against Ukraine has led commentators to describe him as Putin's Tokyo Rose.

This is really sad. So in addition to the Trump exemption policy widely practiced, we also have a Carlson exemption which also violates many policies. Drop the kid-glove treatment and double standards for how we treat him. Let's just apply our policies to him in exactly the way we do for every other public person. -- Valjean (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

No one is exempt, we apply the same rules to Carlson as to anyone else (wp:blp). Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

That is clearly not the case here. My description of the catch-22 at work here is quite accurate.

Adding the BLP blip doesn't help your case. It only shows a misuse of BLP. It is only UNSOURCED negative content that is affected by BLP. Carlson is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE whom we are not supposed to treat with kid gloves, so even properly-sourced gross lies about him would be fair game for inclusion. This sentence is about opinions that happen to be pretty accurate comparisons between his actions and the actions of Tokyo Rose. My parents secretly listened to her while in a Japanese internment camp (3 years) in the Philippines. They also listened to real news from San Francisco. -- Valjean (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Odd we seem to have a lot of negative content about him here. Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion. This is a meme/school yard insult. Wikipedia can summarize the responses, in particular the substance of the response rather than the style. We do not need to quote comments that might make for catchy sound bites but are largely evidence free insults. It also is an issue with IMPARTIAL as the meme is not a neutral description of the substance of the criticism of Carlson's Russia commentary. Springee (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Valjean, I don't believe it is accurate to say that Carlson expressed "outspoken support for Putin and his war against Ukraine".* To the contrary, Carlson condemned the Russian invasion (calling it "a tragedy" and noting that "[Putin] fired the first shots. He is to blame for what we're seeing tonight in Ukraine"), but has since suggested that Putin was provoked by NATO expansion and that the U.S. may have been involved in funding a bioweapons program in Ukraine—all under the guise of "just asking questions," of course. Furthermore, Carlson has described the Ukrainian government as authoritarian and corrupt, opining (at 16:43) that "Ukraine, to be technical, is not a democracy. Democracies don't arrest political opponents and they don't shut down opposition media, both of which Ukraine has done." Praising Putin's war would be extremely uncharacteristic for him, as "Carlson is often more careful than other right-wing hosts to avoid assertions that are factually disprovable, instead sticking to innuendo," according to Time. Can you point to a source that explicitly substantiates your proposed language about Carlson's "outspoken support for Putin's war against Ukraine"? (Note also that the post-2013 version of Newsweek is not generally reliable per Wikipedia:RS/P and almost certainly should not be used for contentious material about a living person, especially if presented in wikivoice as your edit was.) A brief excerpt (hopefully from a more reliable source than Newsweek) should suffice. Otherwise, it is probably worth remembering that Russian state-controlled media is propaganda; any Carlson clip would likely be reviewed and edited to remove criticism of Putin prior to being broadcast in Russia.

*As an exception, more than two years before the current invasion and during the First impeachment of Donald Trump, Carlson trolled a Democratic guest on his show by asking "Why do I care what is going on in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia? ... Why shouldn't I root for Russia? Which I am." Later in the same episode, Carlson referred back to this exchange, saying "of course, I'm joking. I'm only rooting for America."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Good analysis. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Democracies don't arrest political opponents and they don't shut down opposition media, both of which Ukraine has done says Carlson. Note that he doesn't say when this happened. Does he mean under Zelenskyy, or under his predecessor, the Russia-aligned president Viktor Yanukovych who jailed pro-West Yulia Tymoshenko whom he defeated in the 2010 election (lock her up!) before fleeing to Russia after he was kicked out in the 2014 revolution, after which Zelenskyy was elected. soibangla (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The phrasing "has led commentators to describe him as" is weasel-wording. Which commentators? How many? When we provide this type of opinion, we need to explain that per NPOV. We could cherry-pick a handful of comments about any well-known person. For example, lots of right-wing commentators have called Biden and Pelosi socialists. Toykyo Rose incidentally was convicted of treason for working for an enemy of the United States. The United States however is not at war with Russia and speaking in its favor (if that is what Carlson did) is not illegal. TFD (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

'Tuckyo Rose' as a moniker is not yet a noteworthy phenomenon. Insulting monikers certainly can be included in Wikipedia entries. For instance, there is a whole section on Mitch McConnell's monikers. However, 'Tuckyo Rose' has not yet risen to the level of widespread notoriety, as this search shows: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Tuckyo+Rose%22&client=firefox-b-d&tbm=nws&sxsrf=APq-WBtcNKMMADS7K7dWJ-uiRflsQ8UH8g:1647594435649&ei=w0s0Yr2YJ6SFhbIPoNmO8As&start=0&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwj9hcjIp8_2AhWkQkEAHaCsA744ChDy0wN6BAgHEDc&biw=1536&bih=731&dpr=1.25 Johncdraper (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Conspiracy Theories

WirmerFlagge, please discuss your edits here. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

i did not remove the language around conspiracy theories. i simply adjusted it for neutrality. that is the mandate. i didn't undo anyone's edits, i simply added language to preserve neutrality. my edits were done in good faith and i defy anyone who simply undoes them to show me how my changes did not in fact add to the credibility of the page and wikipedia in general~~ WirmerFlagge (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

You misunderstand WP:NPOV. We do not show both sides or not take a stance on something. Rather we neutrally reflect what reliable sources say about a subject. Those sources call them conspiracy theories, so we do too. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

perhaps you should read what the sources say. you know, past the headline. WirmerFlagge (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

As you can see below, I already quoted them for you. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Specifically, here are some quotes from the sources used in the article on the areas you edited:

• Carlson has referenced the white-supremacist “replacement” conspiracy theory—which claims elites are planning to replace white Christian voters with nonwhite immigrants—by name on his show, making him a hero to many white nationalists.
• The segment was a master class in spreading conspiracy theories under the guise of merely asking questions.
• Tucker Carlson often hosts guests who downplay climate science on his show

EvergreenFir (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• These changes add original research: The sources do not mention "controversial stances on sensitive topics", describe the Great Replacement conspiracy theory as "so called" or say that his critics "disagree with Carlson's politics". This is whitewashing and it is unacceptable. –dlthewave ☎ 01:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• I concur with Evergreen and Dlthewave. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• If RS call them conspiracy theories so do we, they do. Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Personal conflict subsection

I've removed the recently added Personal Conflict subtopic[5] as UNDUE. My reasons are, first, this is already a very long article. It's not clear why this content is DUE. Yes, at the time we have several sources reporting on it but it doesn't appear that any of the content had staying power. The Avenatti material ended up going no where and now Avenatti has been found guilty of several crimes related to his legal practices. No evidence was given that this interaction had a long term impact on Carlson. Basically all the same arguments apply to the second incident. Since the entire section was new and added just to house these two incidents I've removed the topic. Ping Rossenbaum as the editor who created the content. Springee (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. This isn't an article on Avenatti, who is not an important enough figure in Carlson's bio to warrant a mentions. Let's leave the "feud with", "beef with" topics to the WWE and hip-hop. ValarianB (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

FYI, Rossenbaum's "I received this news late today and I'm confident that I will be cleared of any charges of sockpuppetry." [6] apparently wasn't a winning strategy. So I think we're all set here, unless someone else objects. ValarianB (talk)