* Denounced CIA, FBI and DHS for its systemic lies and corruption;
* Devoted himself to a pardon for Julian Assange;
* Objected to regime change efforts in Cuba;
* Criticized Trump Admin's militarism.
From 8pm to 9pm on Fox, there was extreme, even fundamental, disagreements between Tucker and Hannity on those key issues - the kind of internal debate unthinkable on any other network: in lockstep.
I'd wager the new 8pm host will be far more aligned with Hannity: standard GOP.
I'm not making claims, yet, on what caused this separation. I'm just noting: the removal of Tucker means the elimination of the only real, sustained dissent on US militarism, the US Security State and more 👆(Laura & Jesse Waters are the only others in prime-time near that).
A major irony is that Tucker's separation from Fox may be the best thing that could happen to him in terms of his influence and impact.
The sector of media growing most explosively are independent platforms. Joe Rogan is vastly more influential than every MSNBC and CNN host.
No matter how free you believe you are when you're attached to a media corporation, there are subtle yet powerful ways it constrains and limits you.
What people most distrust are media corporations, and what they crave most are authentic voices that come only with independence.
Don't forget: yesterday, AOC went on the show of Biden's ex WH Press Secretary and demanded the Govt ban Tucker from being allowed on TV.
Dems like AOC are utter authoritarians who crave state censorship. Independent platforms are immune from that.
We had close to 250k watching tonight's @SystemUpdate_ show on the key context of Tucker's separation from Fox - the ideological divisions within the US Right v. lock-step left-liberal politics - and AOC's call for Biden to ban Fox shows.
The belief that Joe Rogan and those like him are just an updated Fox News -- a non-stop messaging of right-wing ideology -- is beyond stupid.
Those podcasts grew organically: in part because they're not ideological or partisan. They're normal conversations: how humans speak.
Depicting Rogan as a far-right ideologue is something only those who never heard his show would say. AOC separated from Bernie's campaign after Bernie touted Rogan's endorsement.
He is a vehement defender of same-sex marriage. He believes in full freedom for adults' personal lives. He frequently argues that corporate power is suffocating the lives of ordinary people, etc. etc.
The most consequential - yet overlooked - Trump era change is many debates are no longer shaped by old left/right divisions, but instead by who loves, respects, and is loyal to institutions of authority (Dems) and who believes they're fundamentally corrupted (Trump supporters).
Today's NYT column by @ezraklein notes obvious exceptions (abortion, gun control), yet argues the key difference between Kamala and Trump voters is how much one likes US ruling institutions.
Hence, Dems love CIA, FBI, DHS, corporate media. Even views of corporate power changed.
@ezraklein Think about key debates. Which is right or left?
- Trust in large media corporations.
- Opposition to BigTech/state internet censorship.
- Opposition to funding endless wars (Ukraine).
- Eagerness to remain tied to NATO and EU-based institutions.
While many people in the West believe that Russia/Putin are "isolated" - because their media tells them that -- 2 dozen world leaders are in Russia now for a 3-day BRICS conference.
BRICS itself includes the 2 most-populous countries and 4 of the top 10 most populous.
Beyond the founding 5 (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), it expanded to 5 more (including key US "partners" Egypt, UAE and maybe Saudi).
They "account for 45% of the global population" and 28% of global economy.
Key goal: a financial system independent of US dollar.
There's Western skepticism and even mockery that this huge confederation of countries -- united over perceived abuses of US/EU sanctions -- could create a non-dollar system. @TheEconomist takes it seriously.
Inacreditável que Alexandre de Moraes esteja constantemente concentrando em si próprio a figura de suposta vítima, investigador policial, promotor e o juiz - em seus próprios interesses.
Não há democracia onde uma pessoa pode investigar criminalmente o jornalismo que a reporta.
@lf_ponde @folha Aqui também: um ótimo artigo de @lygia_maria sobre a visão perturbada e perigosa de Moraes, a marca registrada de uma mentalidade tirana:
Que qualquer crítica ou questionamento feita ele é em si "um ataque à democracia" e, portanto, um crime.
There are few people in the democratic world more powerful or tyrannical than Moraes. He believes he is Brazilian democracy itself, and thus any criticisms of him are a criminal attack on the state.
Brazil's left views him as a deity, since he censors/imprisons their opponents.
On Tuesday, we began reporting in @Folha on a massive archive of data we obtained from his chambers between his top aides (6gb).
After the first day, the left united to defend him because they see him as infallible, and he called our reporting a plot to destroy democracy.
It's hard to explain the cult-like adoration the left has for him. No matter what he does - ban people from the internet or imprison them with no due process or trial - they go online and type "Eu autorizo, Xandão!" (we support you, Great Alexandre!).
Not even herd animals are this flagrant about it. You tell me how and why corporate media constantly speaks from the same exact script this way, verbatim. #KamalaIsJOY