journalist are suppose to adhere to an ethical standard of their trade.
Sure. That doesn't mean they have to research/interview/promote any specific story. Whichever story they choose to write/talk about though should still be within the confines of ethical standards.
Tucker has the freedom to promote it, and he's doing so on one of the most popular social media channels in the world.
There definitely were implications of free speech infringement on the part of Twitter past as evidenced by the Twitter Files that proved government officials worked with Twitter to get people like Tucker Carlson, Robert Malone, Peter McCullough and countless others banned.
It's a well know, though little acknowledged fact that the FBI controls the narrative at New York Times, and CIA at Washington Port.
When you bring pressure on media organizations to report lies, and hoaxes, and punish anyone that wants to tell a different side of the narrative, that is free speech infringement.
The DOJ was conspiring with media during Russia collusion hoax. They would pump a story to media, media would report on it, and the DOJ would use that media report to justify an investigation.
Your blink if you can't see the link between nefarious Government agencies and the media.
What do you think Operation Mockingbird was all about.
Implications and direct interference are different things.
It’s one thing to say “this may have been happening” and it’s another thing to say that it is a direct infringement.
Fact is, Tucker has information he wants to share, MSM outlets wouldn’t show it, so he found a new outlet that would. That’s the literally definition of freedom of speech, being able to find a platform that can broadcast his channel without being persecuted for his words
Sure. That doesn't mean they have to research/interview/promote any specific story. Whichever story they choose to write/talk about though should still be within the confines of ethical standards.
Tucker has the freedom to promote it, and he's doing so on one of the most popular social media channels in the world.
Nothing to disagree with here.
So the way I see, there’s no real free speech infringement at play here
There definitely were implications of free speech infringement on the part of Twitter past as evidenced by the Twitter Files that proved government officials worked with Twitter to get people like Tucker Carlson, Robert Malone, Peter McCullough and countless others banned.
It's a well know, though little acknowledged fact that the FBI controls the narrative at New York Times, and CIA at Washington Port.
When you bring pressure on media organizations to report lies, and hoaxes, and punish anyone that wants to tell a different side of the narrative, that is free speech infringement.
The DOJ was conspiring with media during Russia collusion hoax. They would pump a story to media, media would report on it, and the DOJ would use that media report to justify an investigation.
Your blink if you can't see the link between nefarious Government agencies and the media.
What do you think Operation Mockingbird was all about.
Implications and direct interference are different things.
It’s one thing to say “this may have been happening” and it’s another thing to say that it is a direct infringement.
Fact is, Tucker has information he wants to share, MSM outlets wouldn’t show it, so he found a new outlet that would. That’s the literally definition of freedom of speech, being able to find a platform that can broadcast his channel without being persecuted for his words