NY Post Editorial Board targets Vivek Ramaswamy, Tucker Carlson
Hell hath no fury like a media empire scorned, apparently.
In a scathing Friday editorial taking aim at presidential candidate and conservative activist Vivek Ramaswamy, the New York Post’s board said his run had “devolved into a bid for social-media fame” in part because he wanted Tucker Carlson as a debate moderator.
Carlson, who was fired from his position at Fox News while still remaining under Fox News contract, has taken his show onto X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, getting a new “very online”
This reaction came after a Friday statement by Ramaswamy in which he offered, as an antidote to declining ratings for Republican debates, a debate on social media to juice interest.
“This January GOP debate should be held on X, not on cable TV, moderated by Tucker [Carlson], who might just ask questions that primary voters actually care about,” Ramaswamy told the Post.
“They say they want to reach younger voters and new audiences? Well that’s how you do it,” he added.
Now, whether or not this actually reaches a larger audience is anyone’s guess; short of an appearance by Donald Trump, who happens to be the frontrunner in this race and has avoided the scrums for second, I suspect nothing would get the ratings out of the gutter.
However, a debate on social media hosted by the most influential social media-only (for now) conservative there is a move made in good faith, particularly given that the 38-year-old biotech entrepreneur and activist is inarguably closer to the pulse of social media than any of the rest of the candidates.
But, no — to the Post’s editorial board, it was proof he was a farce and very dangerous to the Republicans at the same time. I wonder why.
“Sure, he claimed it would be a way to increase viewership — but you don’t get a larger audience by making something harder to watch,” the Post’s editorial board said. [Emphasis in the original.]
“His idea would shrink the audience — while increasing the proportion of views addicted to clickbait,” the editorial continued.
“That he suggests Tucker Carlson to host only doubles down on that gambit: Like Ramaswamy, Carlson used to raise important topics that much of the media didn’t want to touch — but these days he’s largely dedicated to pushing buttons hard for a select audience.”
Yes, Tucker “used to raise important topics that most of the media didn’t want to touch” — presumably, this period ended precisely when his on-air presence on Fox News did — but now he’s going way over the line on that nasty ol’ social media platform.
As for “the direction of Ramaswamy’s campaign,” the Post editorial board insisted “he increasingly relies on conspiracy theories and his most ‘unique’ ideas for his appeal.”
“The answer is not an online-only debate, Vivek,” the board concluded.
“It’s about getting serious about what the country needs and why you’re the candidate to do it. Stop trying to limit the audience and instead broaden it, recapturing some of the excitement that got you on the debate stage in the first place.”
Again, this isn’t an opinion piece with a byline. This is by the editorial board — i.e., demarcating what is, more or less, the official position of a publication.
If that publication is an integral part of a wider media empire, one can also glean that this is probably the opinion of that organization as a whole; the Post is arguably one of the three main components of News Corp’s empire, along with The Wall Street Journal and Fox News.
The last being, you know, the network that fired Carlson.
But, of course, that didn’t factor into any of this. Nothing to see here. Vivek’s campaign is officially a joke. Get the message, people.
Look, one doesn’t expect a newspaper under Rupert Murdoch’s control to officially jump for joy that Ramaswamy name-checked Carlson as a possible debate host, but for that paper’s editorial board to make a bad-faith assumption that Vivek has gone into conspiracy-theory la-la land in part because of that name-check is profoundly inappropriate.
If it isn’t a nakedly cynical move to tear into a former employee and anyone who supports him, it certainly looks like it — and isn’t something a paper that professes to be somewhat fair to the right should be doing.
An Urgent Note from Our Staff:
The Western Journal has been labeled “dangerous” simply because we have a biblical worldview and speak the truth about what is happening in America.
We refuse to let Big Tech and woke advertisers dictate the content we share with our community. We stand for truth. We stand for freedom. We stand with our readers.
We’re asking you to help us in this fight. We can’t do this without you.
Your donation directly helps fund our editorial team of writers and editors. If you would rather become a WJ member outright, you can do that today as well. Your support means we can continue to expose false narratives and defend traditional American values.
Please stand with us by donating today.
Thank you for your support!
The post New York Post Editorial Board Takes Shot at Vivek Ramaswamy, Tucker Carlson appeared first on The Western Journal.
Should a media outlet with a reputation and influence like the New York Post engage in biased and personal attacks against political candidates?
Er with the reputation and influence of the New York Post should engage in.
The editorial board’s criticism of Vivek Ramaswamy’s campaign and his desire to have Tucker Carlson as a debate moderator is not only unfair, but it also reeks of bias and personal vendetta. They argue that Ramaswamy’s campaign has devolved into a bid for social media fame, implying that he is more interested in gaining attention than discussing important issues. However, their argument is weak and lacks substance.
Ramaswamy’s suggestion to have a debate on social media is not as outrageous as the New York Post’s editorial board makes it out to be. In fact, it is a move that could potentially reach a wider audience, particularly among younger voters who are more engaged with social media platforms. Ramaswamy, as a biotech entrepreneur and activist, is undoubtedly closer to the pulse of social media than any other candidate, making him well-suited for such a debate.
But the New York Post’s editorial board dismisses this idea, claiming that it would shrink the audience and increase the proportion of views addicted to clickbait. Their argument is baseless and lacks supporting evidence. Instead of providing a well-reasoned analysis, they resort to personal attacks and unfounded accusations.
Moreover, it is concerning that this editorial reflects not just the opinion of the New York Post but potentially of the entire News Corp’s media empire, including The Wall Street Journal and Fox News. This raises questions about the objectivity and impartiality of these news outlets, as well as the influence of Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of News Corp.
It is evident that the New York Post’s editorial board has a personal grievance against Ramaswamy and anyone associated with him, such as Tucker Carlson. It is unprofessional and inappropriate for a respected publication to allow personal biases to shape its editorial stance. The board’s attempt to delegitimize Ramaswamy’s campaign based on conspiracy theories and his support for Carlson is irresponsible journalism at best.
In conclusion, the New York Post’s editorial board’s criticism of Vivek Ramaswamy and his campaign is unjustifiable and indicative of a media empire scorned. Their biased and unprofessional approach undermines the credibility of the publication and raises questions about the integrity of the wider News Corp media empire. It is crucial for media outlets to maintain objectivity and impartiality in order to fulfill their role as providers of accurate and fair information to the public.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
