Jeanne Moos -- in "bathroom humor" segment -- was only CNN reporter to cover Carlson story
SUMMARY: In the only coverage that CNN has given to Tucker Carlson's
August 28 comments, Jeanne Moos said of Sen. Larry Craig's arrest during an investigation of "lewd
conduct": "It's causing commentators to tell personal stories
you'd never expect. MSNBC's Tucker Carlson described how he was once bothered in
a men's room." Moos then aired a brief clip of Carlson explaining how he responded to being
"bothered": "I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the -- you
know, and grabbed him, and ... [h]it him against the stall with his head,
actually!"
On the August 29 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, during a segment on media coverage of Sen. Larry Craig's (R-ID) August 8 guilty plea following his arrest during an investigation of "lewd conduct" in a Minneapolis airport restroom, CNN national news correspondent Jeanne Moos said of the story: "It's causing commentators to tell personal stories you'd never expect. MSNBC's Tucker Carlson described how he was once bothered in a men's room." Moos, the only CNN reporter to cover Carlson's comments, then aired a brief clip from the August 28 edition of MSNBC Live with Dan Abrams, during which, as Media Matters for America noted, Carlson was asked how he responded to being "bothered" and replied: "I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the -- you know, and grabbed him, and ... [h]it him against the stall with his head, actually!"
Moos noted that "Carlson later said the man physically grabbed him first," apparently referring to an August 29 response Media Matters received from Carlson through an MSNBC spokeswoman:
Let me be clear about an incident I referred to on MSNBC last night: In the mid-1980s, while I was a high school student, a man physically grabbed me in a men's room in Washington, DC. I yelled, pulled away from him and ran out of the room. Twenty-five minutes later, a friend of mine and I returned to the men's room. The man was still there, presumably waiting to do to someone else what he had done to me. My friend and I seized the man and held him until a security guard arrived.
Several bloggers have characterized this is a sort of gay bashing. That's absurd, and an insult to anybody who has fought back against an unsolicited sexual attack. I wasn't angry with the man because he was gay. I was angry because he assaulted me.
Beyond Moos' reporting, CNN has not covered Carlson's comments. Blitzer introduced the segment by saying the Craig arrest "is giving new meaning to the concept of bathroom humor. Our Jeanne Moos says the political spectacle is truly most unusual." Elsewhere in the segment, Moos aired clips of late-night comedians and other satire of the Craig story.
According to her CNN bio, Moos "carved out a niche in broadcast journalism with her off-beat, thoughtful reporting on the quirkier aspects of life in the 1990s [on] subjects ranging from the uncanny characteristics of automobile air fresheners to the pains of pantyhose runs."
From the 7 p.m. ET hour of the August 29 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: Sex scandals are certainly nothing new here in Washington, but Senator Larry Craig's arrest in a men's restroom is giving new meaning to the concept of bathroom humor.
Our Jeanne Moos says the political spectacle is truly most unusual.
[begin video clip]
MOOS: It's hard to hear this.
CRAIG: I am not gay. I never have been gay.
MOOS: Without being reminded of this.
[Former Gov.] JAMES McGREEVEY [D-NJ]: I am a gay American.
MOOS: The Craig affair has sure led to a lot of late-night gaiety, like [ABC late-night host] Jimmy Kimmel's "Unintentional Joke of the Day."
CRAIG: Thank you all very much for coming out today.
JAY LENO (host of NBC's The Tonight Show): We have a clip of the press conference. Show the press conference today.
CRAIG: Thank you all very much for coming out today.
MOOS: Never have the nation's newscasts spent more time, literally, in the toilet.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what's with the hand signals?
MOOS: But there's something about the toe-tapping part of all this that media folks can't resist tapping into.
You expect it on YouTube.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: At 12:16 hours he started with the foot tap.
MOOS: But a TV station in Sacramento did its own re-creation of the Craig men's room incident. A colleague even provided --
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Here you go.
MOOS: -- a homemade stall divider.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: The senator allegedly started tapping his foot like this. Apparently that's a sign they're interested in having some relations.
MOOS: But if it's high-quality production you're after, check out the re-creation at the website Slate.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I was able to see Craig's blue eyes as he looked into my stall.
MOOS: Slate used verbatim quotes from the arresting officer's report.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Craig moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot, which was within my stall area. At 12:17 hours, I saw Craig swipe his hand under the stall divider for a few seconds.
MOOS: And a YouTuber posted this guide to men's room signals.
[video of foot tapping followed by text reading " 'Come to this airport often?' "]
Senator Craig denies anything lewd took place, allegedly telling police his "wide stance" explains his foot placement. The scandal is generating plays on words and puns. It's causing commentators to tell personal stories you'd never expect.
MSNBC's Tucker Carlson described how he was once bothered in a men's room.
CARLSON: I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the -- you know, and grabbed him.
DAN ABRAMS [host of MSNBC Live with Dan Abrams]: And did what?
CARLSON: Hit him against the stall with his head, actually.
MOOS: Carlson later said the man physically grabbed him first.
It's almost too hot a story for reporters to handle.
Red State Update comedians to the rescue.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tappy, tappy on the tootsie. A little peek a boo through the crack in the door. Hell, I can't keep up with all them signals. When I want to get some, I just go down to the bar and wait for the first woman to fall off the stool and tell her hair looks nice.
MOOS: At least that won't get a senator arrested.
Jeanne Moos, CNN, New York.
[end video clip]
BLITZER: Can't top Jeanne Moos with that. Thank you, Jeanne.
Real funny Jeanne , real funny.
Assault is so funny.
Can someone please tell me why CNN should cover, at all, comments made by MSNBC's commentators?
Wasnt Imus covered by CNN? And FOX ? and ABC? and CBS? This is as bad if not worse than what Imus said.
It happened 20 years ago. Do you want Tucker criminally charged?
No, I want him fired for advocating violence against gays.
You're hysterical, there is no point, for me anyway, in continuing any discussion on this matter with you.
Have a nice day.
It is obvious, Tommy, that some feel the need to be "nice" to someone if assualted in the bathroom. If Carlson's account on the 29 is correct, there is no problem. Advocating violence against gays!!!!!! That is a real laugh riot. It could be better stated as defending yourself against a pervert. How about advocating that.
I've tried this route before but was called a bigot.
Because you are both WRONG. He LEFT THE BUILDING. There is no POSSIBLE claim of defending himself by bringing back a friend to assault the man. No threat, no self defense.
If the shoe fits...
Let me be clear about an incident I referred to on MSNBC last night: In the mid-1980s, while I was a high school student, a man physically grabbed me in a men's room in Washington, DC. I yelled, pulled away from him and ran out of the room. Twenty-five minutes later, a friend of mine and I returned to the men's room. The man was still there, presumably waiting to do to someone else what he had done to me. My friend and I seized the man and held him until a security guard arrived
When little Tuck ran he should have notified security immediately, however he waits 25 minutes and then goes back with a friend to slam the man's head against the wall. Somehow waiting 25 minutes tells me that little Tuck (who was in prep school) went to get his friend (who probably was a big guy) and they together went back to the men's room to assault the guy. Does not sound like little Tuck was simply "defending himself against a pervert".
Pearl
What should happen to Carlson ? Should he be fired? Charged with assault?
Doris, I'm not looking for any thing like Tucker being fired. Tommy is right it happened 20 + years ago.
I guess I find that Tucker, in telling the story is not honest. He say it was not about the guy being "gay" but the fact that he was "assaulted".
Think back to 1980 and Tucker being in High School. High School boys back then were not in any way enlighten about homosexuality. Heck this country was not enlighten about homosexuality. He waits 25 minutes and goes back into the bathroom and he and his friend slam the man's head against the wall. It sounds like Tucker going back with his friend 25 minutes later to the same bathroom had everything to do with the "guy" propositioning him for sex. If it didn't why didn't Tucker when running from the restroom the first time simply notify security?
He should be recognized for what he is, and what he seems to be from his own account is a violent coward.
I'd like him to own up to what he said and apologize for it and then say that people shouldn't beat up gay people just because they "bother" you.
This seems to me to be an issue of a CHILD MOLESTER hanging out in a public bathroom. you really feel sorry for the guy? this is not a "gay" issue.
I feel sorry for ignorance.
The man could have been a very dangerous individual, maybe he has a weapon and kills the two teens.
Is frontier justice acceptable in a society of law and order?
Just get the damn cops. To serve and protect is what they're paid to do.
what was he supposed to do? Call them on his Zack Morris cell phone? This was in the '80's! Maybe where you live, the cops are always right around the corner, but most places it's not like that. There never seems to be a cop around when you need one. they always show up too late.
He left for twenty-five minutes, got a friend and came back. He couldn't just go get a cop or security guard in the same time? Whatever, man.
I'm done with you.
maybe he was trying to find a cop/security guard but couldn't locate one. Maybe, that being the case, he and his friend took it upon themselves to subdue a sexual predator before he had the chance to rape an unsuspecting boy. God. What awful people.
Whatever you say street justice guy.
Zing! "Street Justice Guy". I think I'm going to have to change my handle.
If there were ANY danger of something like that it is even MORE ludicrous that he didnt go to the principles office and get the cops there immediatly
maybe he was trying to find a cop/security guard but couldn't locate one.
In both versions of his sketchy story, security is indeed located and brought to the scene. It's just in the first version, he went to get help to rough the guy up first.
Zach Morris cell phone. If my grandkids did not watch that show I wouldn't know what you meant but that is funny man.... I mean way funny.
'preciate it.
He was at a school. He walks into the principles office and the cops are there in minutes. Get real.
NOTHING in his first account would lead you to believe that. IF it happened the way he said the second time WHY did he change the story in the way he did?
Yeah. If you read and believe the account he gave on the 29th. Where is your outrage against the pervert who roams public bathrooms and preys on high school boys. He was a teenager for christ's sakes!!!!!!!! He did what he did.
Here is my problem with the self serving SECOND version. WHY would he change the story in such a way to ADD an assault and delete the threat and physical assault by the guy in the bathroom? It changes the story in a way that ADDS culpability to Tucker and lessens it for the guy he assaulted. IF it happened the second way why turn it into a merry little gay bashing story? What is the agenda for THAT? The SECOND story smells of CYA
No it isnt. He has told TWO stories about how this happened. Either the first is true in which case he is happily recounting an assault or the SECOND is true in which case he CHANGED the story in a way to pander to the idea that assaulting someone for propositioning him is acceptable. Like THAT version was somehow a better story either way its reprehensible.
It would seem to me that "macho" tucker protested way too much. Sometimes that could be constued as having ones insecurities ( in this case insecurity about his masculinity) surfacing and having to deal with them. Could it be that ,at least at that time, tucker was unconsciously questioning his sexual preference? Did Truman Capote wear a bowtie? Speaking of bathrooms... does anybody know where I can get gwTP?
You're hysterical, there is no point, for me anyway, in continuing any discussion on this matter with you.
That is fine, allthough I do not think i am "hysterical".
Did he advocate anything? He stated that he grabbed a guy and hit his head against the wall. He didn't say that he should have or that others should do the same.
I understand why a homosexual would be upset upon hearing that other that were perceived as such had been assaulted in the past but that is a far cry from calls to do so in the future.
I think the laughter that Tucker got from his buddies was a non-verbal pat on the back for Tucker's behavior, and that sort of thing does indeed lead other people to think it's appropriate behavior.
Tommy, the guy is more than a news reader. He is a commentator on current events watched by millions of people. He blithely told a story about attacking a person for making a sexual advance towards him. While the guy in the john should have been busted, this reasonable commentator described going back with a friend and (apparently) grabbing the guy by the genitals and smashing his head into the door. This is a very violent story being passed off as humor. This in a society where people are sometimes attacked and even killed for being homosexual. I understand the guy in the john isn't behaving appropriately by propositioning people (especially a high school kid!) in a public bathroom. Like I said, he should have been busted by the cops. But the media is giving tacit approval of Carlson's extremely violent response by either ignoring it or passing it off as something to snicker about. If it's not the homosexual nature of the act that makes it so easy for people to accept the violent response, what is it? And why should Carlson be given a pass on telling such a story and then contradicting himself about it later? Do you really not grasp any of the issues here?
This is basically child molestation. As we've been told time and time again, child molesters are not homosexuals. There's no reason to feel bad because a sexual predator got a bump on his head.
You've been told that child molesters are not disproportionately homosexual, not that "child molesters are not homosexual."
Additionally, if this incident happened in the mid 80s, Tucker (who was born in 69) would likely have been about 16-17 years old - lithe and still boyish, but not a child. To assign unwarranted titles to what is very basic predatory action, if Tucker's second story is correct, is to blur the essence of the story - this is entirely unnecssary.
I had no idea when he was born. All I knew is that he was in high school and underage. Whether he was 15 or 16 doesn't matter to me. As long as you're under 18, in the eyes of the law, you're still a child.
Are you saying that Carlson's actions are predatory or the perverts?
There's no reason to feel bad because a sexual predator got a bump on his head.
Again, on the record as advocating violence over justice.
Yes and HE brought it up two days ago
Bushlies
The Imus comparsion has nothing to do with this, other than it occured on MSNBC.
This is similar to Matthew Shepard , if you do not see how bad this is your blinder than a bat.
How is this similiar??? That is ridiculous. some pervert assualted Carlson in the bathroom when he was in high school. Yeah, maybe he overreacted by getting friend and coming back. Teenagers can be a little hotheaded. But, noone stalked a gay man and brutally killed him. Christ!!!!!!!
Violence against Gays, that is how it is similar
We don't even know this guy was guy. Obviously he was a child molesting sexual predator. Are you implying that child molesters are all gay? That kind of homophobia is intolerable and you should be ashamed of yourself. It is that kind of homophobia that led to Matthew Shephard being killed.
Your posts don't make much sense. I wondering where in the story did Tucker say that he was attacked by an adult in a high school bathroom?
You do realize that the individuals that killed MS did try to use a defense similar to this. MS was coming on to them, therefore they had no choice, but to retaliate with violence.
I don't even know what you're talking about. But, the first line of my above post was meant to be "we don't even know this guy was gay". I was referring to the sexual predator who attacked Tucker Carlson. I find it bad that everyone assumes his attacker was gay. Maybe he was, but we shouldn't conflate homosexuals with sexual predators.
Actually, think about the context of WHY tucker is relating this story. Yes we do know the guy was gay, because of the context of why tucker was relating it....sheesh how intelligent do you have to be to see that.....come one guy.
What we do not know unless we read the police report and has anyone seen one as yet from the alledged arrest of tuckers "assaulter", is the age of the person that tucker - 25 minutes later - went back to beat the crap out of, BECAUSE HE WAS HIT ON-NOT ASSAULTED- AND EVERYONE KNOWS IT!
You're the one making the leaps. Tucker originally said "bothered". He didn't say "sexually assaulted" or anything of the sort. For all we know, the guy in the bathroom winked at Tucker.
Regardless, Tucker was safe the instant he left the bathroom. And he returned with security, but only after he and a buddy returned to inflict a bit of damage on the guy in the bathroom. Once Tucker was safely away from the guy in the bathroom, he had no business going back to beat the guy up.
Matthew Shepherd assaulted no one. To compare him to a predator who happened to be homosexual is a denigration of his tragedy.
To point out that this will likely be used by anti-gay idiots as "proof" of how perverted gay men are is quite appropriate. Comparing the predator to a relative innocent is not.
Please tell that again to BUSH-LIES
Your assuming that Tucker Carlson told the truth about the inter-action that took place. His story has changed once already.
MS killers stated that he was coming on to them and that is the reason that they beat and eventually killed him. I said nothing about MS assaulting them. The reason the analogy is apt IMO is that violence should not be used to solve situations like this. If a man comes on to you or "assaults" you in a sexual manner, there is no justification for beating the crap out of him. If a woman "assaulted" you in a sexual manner, would you get a friend and kick the sh*t out of her in the bathroom?
If a person comes on to you, you're right, no need for violence.
If someone assaults you, then I believe you do.
The problem I'm seeing in this discussion is that people have somehow magically converted someone who "bothered" Tucker into a "predator." And then using that as an excuse to go get help. Help to beat the guy up. He should have gotten help from the cops or security and let them handle it.
If someone assaults you, then I believe you do.
Grrr. I meant, I believe you have every right to defend yourself and protect yourself.
You know what? I think this post is real tipping point for me. WTF is going on at MMFA?
Respectfully, the issue in our mind isn't whether CNN should cover this; the issue is that, if CNN is going to cover this, it not trivialize the incident by making it part of a segment that Blitzer characterizes as "bathroom humor."
Sexual predators should not be trivialized. But do you not think, after Carlson's clarification, that there was more to the incident than simply Carlson being "bothered"? Obviously there was. This was a case, of an ostensibly adult male, preying upon a child. Do you not think that you are trivializing the matter by equating self-defense in response to a sexual predator with some sort of gay bashing?
NO. IF it happened the way he said the second time I want to know exactly WHY he would change the story into the one he did. A little nostalgic jaunt about the time he got a buddy to do a little gay bashing with him. A light little tale about the time he got his buddy to back him up while he bashed someones head against a wall who had said something suggestive to him. Either the first story is true which would be a crime or the second one is and I want to know why he would trivialize HIS being basically attacked and turn it into a fun little gay bashing story. Either way Tucker is a jerk
Hmm, here's my problem with your equation. If Carlson had reacted physically at the instant he claims he was "grabbed", I might have a different reaction to his story. But (as a person who, as a child, was attacked by an adult MALE predator hanging around a girls bathroom & fought back) it seems awfully self-serving and legally convenient to now tell a narrative that has himself as the alleged victim going BACK to the scene of the "crime" to assault the man he now claims "assaulted" him versus his earlier "bothered" him.
He also changed the metrics of the story when he went from relaying a story of childhood victimization to laughing and regaling other adult men with a story of how he and a buddy assaulted an a creepy man in a bathroom.
For him to now equate his behavior (frankly as far as I am concerned as a prep school thug) with those of us who actually were victimized by stranger male predators when we were children is simply shameful.
Martha, well said. He is joking like he's a little thug seeking revenge on some who assaulted him and the next time he tells the story he a "victim". Something doesn't ring true. A victim usually runs and seeks help after an assault not wait 25 minutes and then go back to the bathroom with a friend.
Tommy, surely you realise that the issue here is not what happened 20+ years ago but the recounting of the story today. No one with any sense should want to see any punishment for the actual event, it's history and there's surely a statute of limitations for such things anyway (not really that au fait with how US justice works...).
My big issue with this is about the recounting of the story and the lack of remorse and admission that what he did was actually wrong. That sends out a message from someone in the media that violence is right, and this is pre-meditated. I could understand in the heat of the moment but with a gap of nearly half an hour? What would Horatio Caine say (after putting his sunglasses back on)?
Ugh. MMFA, speaking as someone who regularly supports the work you do that does have something to do with political agendas, PLEASE, get back to work.
So supporting the assault of gays is ok in your mind? nice
Yep, makes sense to me. CNN is complicit in advocating assaulting gays by only reporting on Tucker's comments once.
Duh, how can one miss that?
Refusing to take part in a media frenzy over Carlson's highs school bathroom tale is tantamount to supporting violence against gays?
Respectfully, I don't think so.
Further, I think Carlson's war story from a restroom on the frontlines should be relegated to blogger bile, not the focus of a media watchdog.
Pete, I must disagree because the retributive violence Tucker is describing is a hallmark of the violent tendencies of the authoritarian right.
power to the people, peace man peace.
Round, You're not serious with that leap, are you?
I am thinking you should have included a little smiley face at the end for "facetious post"
Tommy,
I am being serious. The initial story Tuck told about banging a gay guy's head into the stall for bothering him is nothing more than a tale of knee-jerk retribution. His actions fit the highly religious, trusts untrustworthy authorities, prejudiced (particularly against homosexuals, women, and followers of religions other than their own) mean-spirited, narrow-minded, intolerant, bullying, zealous, dogmatic, uncritical toward chosen authority, hypocritical, inconsistent and contradictory, prone to panic easily, highly self-righteous, moralistic, strict disciplinarian, severely punitive, demands loyalty and returns it, little self-awareness and usually politically conservative/Republican characteristics of an authoritarian. : )
Wow. Too much caffeine today?
Nah, just too much reality.
He was apparently doing a little more than "bothering him". I don't know about you but if that happenned to me I would be a little angry I'd imagine.
'Bothering' was Tuck's word. Don't get on my case because Tuck is a regressive doofus.
Yeah, but he qualified that on the 29th. If you don't buy it then fine. but the reality is that they were discussing this in the context of a pervert preying on people in the bathroom. Why would Carlson equate the two if the person he is referring to did a little more than "bother" him. Come on. Reasonable people I think know what he was referring to. Parsing words trivializes this.
I tried to point that out yesterday to no avail. Just wait to get called a bigot. That's what happened to me.
You still don't get it.
The INSTANT that Tucker was safely away from this guy, he had no business going back to beat the guy up. That's exactly what he did, and apparently exactly what you are advocating. IT'S WRONG TO DO THAT, AND WRONG TO ADVOCATE USING VIOLENCE IN THAT MANNER.
You get a cop and press charges. You don't go back with reinforcements to beat the guy up.
What part of that are you unclear on?
Fine he got more than bothered. He got hot and bothered couldn't deal so he had to prove his manliness... ;) Just kidding.
Even if he was more than getting bothered, does that excuse his street justice approach? I mean, ould you encourage a kid to get a buddy and beat on a predator, or if you believe he simply seized him ("Thenturion. Theithe him. Fwo him to da fwoor." Thorry couldn't rethitht) But would you instruct your teenager to handle what could only be considered a dangerous predator, in the manner Tuck handled it.
The whole thing is irresponsible all around.
IF there was a man doing more than bothering him what was the reasoning behind him CHANGING THAT STORY to one where he was just being bothered and decided to assault the guy with the help of a friend in a classic gay bashing story? Why change a justifyable action into one completely unjustifyable if not to pander to the homophobia crowd?
Not if his first version is true. Bothering him was all he even claimed. IF the second version is true he certainly should have gone to the principle and had the police there immediatly. Personally I cant see the second version. I went to a PUBLIC not private High School and had ANY grown man been hanging around any of the bathrooms he would have been accosted pretty quickly. In fact I NEVER ONCE saw any such thing in four years. How am I supposed to believe in a preppy private school a grown man spent a substantial amount of time at a SCHOOL bathroom and wasnt noticed or challenged. It doesnt pass the smell test.
if that happened I'd be a little angry
Clearly it doesn't take much to anger you:
Really? You were propositioned by a gay man in the bathroom, and you were polite? Each to his own, I guess. Personally, (for arguments sake) If a man approached me as Sen. Craig did to the officer, polite is the last thing a pervert like that would get.
Round, all the respect the in world, but I think that turning an incident from Carlson's childhood into a major political issue of media fairness is a monumental stretch. I appreciate you being civil, though.
That's cool, Pete.
At this point we see the situation differently. I will continue to make my argument and absorb counter-arguments. If I am convinced I am wrong, I will not be too conceited to admit my error.
but I think that turning an incident from Carlson's childhood into a major political issue of media fairness is a monumental stretch
I think it is a political issue. There is a segment of this population that thinks it's right to deny rights to gay people. And some, even those that post here, think it's perfectly fine to beat a guy up for making a homosexual pass.
The bad man in Tucker's story may or may not have been gay. If he wasn't, Tucker was still wrong to resort to violence. If the bad man was gay, and Tucker thought so, then what he did qualifies as a hate crime today.
And given the laughter that Tucker got for his initial telling of the story, it appears that his coworkers think it's a great idea to take matters into your own hands rather than have the police intervene.
It's bad enough to have right wingers pushing for a more violent society while claiming their on the side of law and order. It's even worse when you mix in the possibility of the "bothering" person being gay, in which case we've got some right wingers advocating violence against gays for being gay.
So this story, in my mind, is totally relevant.
Exactly Pete, this is just silly.
Agreed.
Geez I feel like I just stepped into the Twilight Zone.
Some here need to get a grip...
You ask people to be civil, and then you dismiss an entire argument as "silly."
You wonder why you get so little respect around here.
Pete, I am inclined to agree with you. It was along time ago, I do not understand why MMFA is making an issue out of this. I have issues with Tucker Carlson but it seems he is being painted as a homophobic serial assaulter. Maybe I missed something.
Tucker is a liar....
We have one version of this story from yesterday and another version of the story today. The disturbing part of this is that Tucker is justifying the use of violence against another person to resolve a sexual advance. Do we know if this person actually attacked Tucker or did something else happen? I'm not taking anything he says at face value. If you think the extreme reaction to this advance isn't (at least in part) a homophobic reaction then you to ask yourself if a woman approached Tucker in a public bathroom and made a sexual advance do you think he would have ran out to get a buddy to beat the crap out of her?
CNN shouldn't be making light of this issue and Tucker shouldn't be either.
I have issues with Tucker Carlson but it seems he is being painted as a homophobic serial assaulter.
I have problems with you characterizing opposing positions in such a completely fatuous manner.
Tucker Carlson said this
Let me be clear about an incident I referred to on MSNBC last night: In the mid-1980s, while I was a high school student, a man physically grabbed me in a men's room in Washington, DC. I yelled, pulled away from him and ran out of the room. Twenty-five minutes later, a friend of mine and I returned to the men's room. The man was still there, presumably waiting to do to someone else what he had done to me. My friend and I seized the man and held him until a security guard arrived.
Several bloggers have characterized this is a sort of gay bashing. That's absurd, and an insult to anybody who has fought back against an unsolicited sexual attack. I wasn't angry with the man because he was gay. I was angry because he assaulted me.
Why is this not good enough? What is MSNBC and the MSM supposed to to ?
Fry him.
In that case our nation is in deeper trouble than I ever imagined.
Doris
If Tucker Carlson said in 1987 he was in the bathroom and a black kid tried to rob me , me and my friend went back and beat him up, what would you say then? Racist? Vigilante?
There's a difference in beating up someone who happens to be black, and beating up someone BECAUSE they're black. One is a simple fight the other is a hate crime. Besides, Carlson said the guy who "bothered" him was a man, and he -- Carlson -- was still a teenager, therefore I don't see the connection in how what Carlson did to this guy is a hate crime against gays. Now, I have a lot of respect for Brock and MMFA, but I think to attack this to some type of homophobic act is far fetched.
Damn, I never thought in a million years I would be taking up for Tucker Carlson!
Well said Preston.
The problem lies in the notion that Tucker's original comments can be construed as he and his friend pounding a guy's head in because he was gay. His edited and highly corrected comments ignore the pounding and construe that he and a friend did a civic duty by "holding" a sexual predator.
One of these stories may be entirely true, or it may be a combination of the two. At the very least, this exchange should be remembered in context every time Tucker claims to not have anything against homosexuals in the future.
You're right on target sir.
Either way CNN shouldn't be making jokes about this issue.
Wait, now you're equating being gay to committing a crime like robbery? you're spiraling downward.
The guy assaulted him, he found him again and held him until he could be dealt with. It's not a gay issue, it's a bathroom assault issue.
And, MMfA can't have it both ways with Tucker. He's either a terrible, fringe commentator who doesn't deserve attention, or he's someone very important whose every word should be intently examined and analyzed.
There's actually an easy way for Tucker and his friends to prove part of his story, and give more credence to his whole tale.
For purposes of verification and to clear his name as a "gay basher" he can release the date of the assault, and name his buddy. If, as he claims, the police took the perpetrator away after Carlson and his buddy subdued him and held him, there will be a case notation or a case file, and Tucker Carlson's name will be listed as a witness.
I suspect no such case exists because they never called the police. He fabricated that part to ennoble his thuggery. He and his buddy didn't "run into" the guy again, they sought him out in a premediated assault; they never called the police because they didn't want to explain why they went BACK to assault the guy.
As others have noted, the killers of Matthew Sheppard claimed they beat him and up and killed him because he "made an advance" on one of them. Being "bothered" by a stranger should result in a call to 911, not a pair of guys engaging in their own retribution for sins real or imagined. That's why we have legal system, we see the evidence, we hear both sides, and make an informed decision. I am not sure I want to turn our legal system over to the wisdom of a pair of adolescent prep school boys. (Have you read Lord of the Flies?)
"Why is this not good enough?" -Doris
It's not good enough because Tucker is lying about what happened. He changed the story from beating the guy to seizing the guy.
Roundhouse
What do you want MSNBC to do about Carlson then?
I don't really have an answer for what MSNBC should do, but I do find this an appropriate topic for MMFA. And I think it's appropriate because it, yet again, reveals the prevalence of violent reactionism on the right.
I understand completely that the mindset and lack of emotional maturity of a teenage boy could easily account for Tuckers actions way back in the eighties. But this story was told just a few days ago by a decades removed thirty-something and was treated as a laugh fest.
I don't think stories of beating people up for being bothered by them is healthy. I don't teach my kids to hit first or run and get pals to back them up. I teach them to run first then go get police or the security officer to keep them safe. Self-defence is never okay unless you are facing serious bodily harm.
"Self-defence is never okay unless you are facing serious bodily harm."
What is your definition of "serious bodily harm"? Not trying to start an argument here, just curious.
Whatever it is it cant possibly apply AFTER YOU HAVE GONE AWAY, the still apply to bringing a friend back to beat someone.
OK, here's another part of the story that seems fishy... Who called the cops?
If Carlson had called the cops right after he claims he was "bothered" they would have been there sooner than 30 minutes, they would have also warned him not to go back to the bathroom.
From his story, he seemed to deem the need to have two adolescent boys (which is why he got his buddy) in order to confront and physically restrain one adult male. He says that he and his buddy held Mr Creepy for the cops. So if they were both holding the guy, who called the cops? Cell phones were not in common use when Carlson was in prep school (and they were big bulky things, not something you take on an assault).
Now the other part of this story that seems weird to me, and I am unclear about this part of the story, is that if this took place on the grounds of a private school (people seem to be referencing this but I hadn't seen it) this would have been all over the school by, no later than, the next day. And it would have been part of the Tucker Carlson brave deed folklore. Even if the school wanted to 'hush' this up, anyone who has ever gone to a prep school knows, this stuff spread like wildfire. Surely contemporaries of Carlson's from prep school can come forward to verify the timeline part of his lore.
He changed the story from beating the guy to seizing the guy
Roundhouse, IMO he made the WHOLE damn story up from start to finish.
That is entirely likely.
I agree completely. Tuckey-Tuck doesn't seem to be the violent type. I bet at that age he was playing D&D and trying to avoid the jocks at school.
Has any organization looked for the police report?
I bet it never happened. I bet as soon as he said it, tucker was thinking "oh god. what did I just do?" and spent the time since trying to figure out how to spin it and praying that no on calls him on the lie.
I bet it never happened. I bet as soon as he said it, tucker was thinking "oh god. what did I just do?"
I doubt Tucker is that self-aware. It's only after a ton of bloggers dumped on him that he realized his story was making him look bad.
Uh well Doris, maybe the problem with Tucker's explanation is that it contradicts his own story. Initially he said he grabbed the guy (apparently) by the genitals and then smashed his head into the door. He went back with a friend and did this. You can't make this argument while ignoring his original story. If this guy was really hitting on high school boys in the bathroom he definitely deserved to be busted. But this is a very violent story which Carlson has been allowed to change and then the rest of the media passed it off as humor. There is something a little weird in all that.
Sundog
In that case what do you want MSNBC to do ? Fire Carlson for something that happened when he was in highschool or because of the violent nature of the story?
Doris, I didn't say anything about what MSNBC should do about Carlson. Nor did Media Matters. But it seems weird how easy it is for this guy who criticizes everyone else to change his story and not be challenged for that. He had to be lying about one of the two versions because they contradict one another. And given the violent nature of the story it seems strange to treat it as something humorous as CNN does here. Picture it will you? Some perv propositioning a boy in a bathroom. The boy doesn't report it. He comes back with a friend. Grabs the guy by the penis? scrotum? and then smashes his head into a door. What exactly makes this story humorous? That's all that Media Matters was pointing out here. Tommy and these goofs with their usual straw men are muddying the waters on purpose but you seem to be just missing the point. Respectfully. SD
Nobody that I have seen has said any part of this story is funny or humorous in anyway.
What is funny and humorous, however, is your wide-eyed over-reaction to an uncorrobarated story from over twenty years ago as told by a cable news pundit based solely on your boring, yet rabid, partisan viewpoint.
Apparently CNN thinks it's funny (hence why were posting on this thread)
I don't work for CNN, so I can't comment.
Obviously the story itself has no humorous aspect - however the vulturous gotcha aspect by those wishing to hang some conservative pundit for something he may or may not have done as a teenager twenty years ago is borderline hysterical, no, make that outright hysterical.
That WOULD be relevant IF MMFA had dug this up themselves and were pushing the story. They didnt. It isnt. The point is that Tucker TOLD THE STORY.
by those wishing to hang
Who has said that? Nice job of mischaracterizing those with whom you disagree.
I wrote this in another thread, but what Tucker may or may not have actually done 20 years ago is not the point. The point is that he saw fit to brag/joke about it on a news program. And now CNN apparently thinks its pretty funny as well.
Do you agree with the point of this thread, that CNN should provide more coverage of this breaking story than just one?
Except an MMFA staffer came in and SPECIFICALLY SAID that WASNT the point of the thread. He said straight out that it wasnt whether or not CNN should cover it but if they DO cover it it shouldnt be trivialized as a humor piece
That's half their point. They expect more serious coverage of Tucker's comments, not the joking coverage that CNN gave it here. Tucker Carlson is not Jay Leno. He's supposed to be a newscaster. I don't think he should be excoriated for something he might have done as a teenager, because it's fairly obvious that he's lying about at least one his stated scenarios. Instead he should be taken to task for saying these things on a news program. He's taken his "I'm a tough guy" act to an offensive extreme. Tucker the high schooler would get a pass for bragging about grabbing the guy's "you know" and beating his head against the wall. Tucker the grown-up newscaster should not get that pass.
My wide-eyed overreaction? Nice one. Is that an effort to get me to overreact to you? No Tommy, I see through your silly tactics. It's a shame that people keep getting taken in by your childish threads but I guess it's indicative of how you can sell the right-wing agenda in the first place. People are easily led astray by the cheap tricks you display so well here. The wonderful irony of it is that is essentially what this site is about. I'm not sure if you can understand that and I know if you do understand it you'll pretend that you don't. Now say something that sounds sort of reasonable but is really a thinly veiled insult of me.
Actually, your post, and it's drivel, was overreaction in and of itself, no need to go any further, if you can understand that.
Perfect. Thank you.
Excuse me. Tommy has declared this portion of the conversation as "finished." You'll please refrain from making any further comment.
OK - first of all, before I 'defend' him, let me say that I think Tucker is a tool, and I can't stand him or his opinions.
Nonetheless, the anger here on both sides of the argument is almost hysterically emotional. There are two sides to this story, and obviously his accounts have varied, but give the guy a break, this was like 20 years ago.
Anyways, the question here is: was Tucker's reaction justified, or did he overreact?
To answer that question, we would need to know whether he was physically assaulted (including what grade school teachers would call 'unwelcome touching') or was it merely a verbal, sexual advance?
If it was the former, I think he was justified in his response. The perpetrator committed a crime against Carlson, and he was right to subdue the offender and call the police. If he 'smashed his head against the stall' during the struggle, that is besides the point. In this case, Carlson would be guilty of criminal-bashing or pervert-bashing, not so much gay-bashing as everyone is clamoring about.
HOWEVER, if the advance was merely verbal, then Carlson's response was obviously disproportionate, and could be characterized as assault.
I can't speak to which scenario happened, only Tucker and his 'acquaintance' know the truth behind it. I think Tucker's ambiguous representation of the scene doesn't make it look good though. His clarification seemed reasonable, but obviously a site like MMFA would say that he's 'changed his story' several times, when to me it just seems like he's not being clear.
Anyways - I'm a big fan of MMFA, and annoyed by most of the posters who whine 'why is this here?' but I really don't see how this post is relevant to the struggle for objective media.
Thanks for letting me vent
-Mike
Mike, I can't help feeling that you're being a bit obtuse about this story too. Carlson didn't talk about defending himself. He didn't go and report the guy, he came back with a friend grabbed the guy by the genitals (!) and smashed his head into a door. He obviously didn't plan on telling this story, it came out of him as either memory or fantasy. If you think about it, it was really violent and in retribution, not self-defense. What Media Matters is pointing out is that he has been allowed to change his story and the rest of the media treats it as humorous. It's definitely not funny in any way. I imagine serious gay-bashers would relish hearing it. So what exactly about it is funny? Does CNN not deserve criticism for treating it that way? And why should Carlson who goes after everyone left of right for being disingenuine be allowed to change a story of his own completely unchallenged? There has been a successful muddying of the discussion by Tommy and these others with strawmen and drawing people into emotional arguments. But going back to the original article, I think MM is actually pointing out something pretty weird in the way the media has responded to this.
Sundog-
I don't know if the issue here is 'gay-bashing' though. It is if the offender only made a verbal pass at Tucker, but if it was anything more, I would say his reaction was justified, just a little delayed.
As to how it is portrayed in the media - let's take the 'gay' issue out of the scene, and treat it as a man making a pass at a woman.
If a man makes a verbal come-on to a woman who isn't interested, she should merely dismiss him and move on. However, if the man tries to grab her breast or buttocks, she would have every right to kick the creep in the balls. If that occurence were portrayed in a media story, people would laugh and cheer. I would probably laugh, too. Hey, the guy got what he deserved.
My point is, it does make a huge difference whether the unwanted sexual advance was a physical assault or not. If I were groped by another male in the bathroom, I might react similarly. It wouldn't matter to me whether the groper was 'gay' or not, in my mind he is a danger to me and others, and I have a responsibility to take action.
Obviously violence should never be the answer to any problem, but someone who is assaulted should be able to respond in kind.
I agree than in and of itself it's not a gay issue. I realize the story is about someone coming on to an underage person in a bathroom. Portraying it as self-defense seems a little blithe because as the story went, he was able to leave the bathroom ok. But instead of reporting it, he went back with a friend and attacked the guy. Even that is sort of beside the point. I can understand an emotional reaction to some perv coming onto a kid. If someone threatened one of my kids I don't like to think what my reaction would be. But we're getting drawn into the details of this weird story that is probably only partly true if at all. Media Matters was pointing out that CNN presented this as 'Bathroom Humor.' I think it's reasonable to ask what the hell is humorous about this story? If it's not the homosexual nature of it what is it? There is something weird both in the way Carlson is allowed to change stories unchallenged and trying to treat this as though it's funny. That was the point of MM drawing attention to this. I think the rightwing deviants like Tommy just did a good job of confusing the argument because it's so emotionally charged.
Ugh... I hate to keep defending this arse hat, but here goes:
If the guy was still in the bathroom when Tucker came back 25 minutes later, then that leads me to believe that the guy was trolling for sex in a high school boys bathroom. I would call this guy a sexual deviant. I could see how turning the tables on someone who is trying to assault you could be taken as humorous.
You missed my point though. I showed you how it's not a homosexual issue, you agreed, then later contradicted yourself. My example of the straight man and woman didn't work for you. I would see humor in a female defending herself physically against a male sexual assault.
Maybe you don't see the humor because Tucker is a 'strong, straight man' beating up on a poor defenseless gay man, but I don't see it as that. I see it as Tucker turned the tables on a predator, and gave him a taste of his own medicine. How do you even know that the predator was gay? Was that ever confirmed?
Hey Mike, sorry about the delay. I do get your point. Our difference might just be that I don't find anything about Carlson's story to be funny. I think he was reveling in a violent fantasy that may or may not have happened. And a kid being hit on in a john is definitely not a funny subject from any angle. A a person sinking to depths that low is so pathetic and sad to me. He needs to be busted and not allowed to hurt anyone but high school kids smashing his head into a door even if it might be justice on some level still isn't funny to me. And I happen to believe that there is a double standard when it comes to just about everything in terms of 'conservatives' in the media getting a free pass on all kinds of baloney.
And no, I don't think of the predator as gay. But remember the context of this in the first place. They were talking about this Senator and Tucker made this connection. And yes this Senator is being questioned as to whether or not he is gay because of this. Especially because he has such a strong record opposing gay rights. And yes, people on the right often, blatantly equate homosexuality with pedophilia. This is no mystery. Rightwing religious zealots don't really make any bones about equating homosexuality with perversion. And they use cases like this to do it. I wasn't doing that. The thread here is to discuss how this is treated by the media. I can't help feeling some creepy undercurrents in this being referred to as 'bathroom humor.'
How do YOU know he was a predator has THAT been confirmed? According to the first version of Tuckers story he was just someone who "bothered" him.
Solon, I'm speaking in terms of the character in Carlson's story. Personally, I think if his story is true at all, it's been 'adjusted' over time. That part of it though doesn't actually affect this point. We were talking about how this subject is being handled in the media, not the veracity of Carlson's story but how it's being handled. His credibility is another matter entirely.
but if [the "bothering"] was anything more, I would say his reaction was justified, just a little delayed.
Actually, it's the delay specifically that makes Tucker's response unjustifiable.
Media Matters reports conservative misinformation. I appreciate their efforts to follow the circular nature of news cycles today.
But part of this problem of our so-called news media involves the clique-ishness of the media in reporting on what one another say; news about reporters and pundits saying such and such, and how they say something, etc. Meanwhile so much doesn't get covered.
Well put Mary, could not agree more. Sadly, when you have to fill airtime for upwards of 20 hours per day, not counting overnights and reruns, cable news outlets seem to peep in their competitor's window and report what goes on there too.
Carlson was apparently "bothered" by someone in a restroom, freaked out, and came back with a friend to beat the guy up 25 minutes later. This is the story I believe because it was how he told it originally before people became offended by him. It was the action of a bully, a vigilante, and a disturbed individual. What was Carlson's point in relating this story if not to advocate a sort of anarchic, O. K. Corral brand of justice?
Exactly Bransby. And what is the rest of the media advocating by treating it as though it's somehow humorous? There really is something creepy about this, the rightwingers efforts at obfuscating notwithstanding. Say that ten times fast.
Again, I simply do not believe that Carlson ever did any such thing. His story is misinformation. He has a long history of dishonesty.
There's been a lot of discussion of whether the first or the second version of Tucker's stories is true. I'd like to know why would Tucker tell the story at all. The story was some 20 yeatrs old, the "assault" was relatively minor as far as these things go and Tucker's reaction seems to be a bit of an overreaction. Why would Tucker bring this up and then feel compelled to explain his first story. Is this a story to prove Tucker is some sort of macho guy?
Point 1. Context...they were talking about Craig and him being arrested for soliciting sex in a public restroom.
Point 2. Tucker relates his story because of the "context" of it being related to the above.
Point 3. Where does it anywhere say it was a "School" restroom. It does not. It says it was a Washington D.C. public restroom.
Point 4. Tucker was "bothered" not assaulted in first story...in context to Craig's story of soliciting sex in a public restroom.
Point 5. All the commentators thought this was funny, that tucker found a buddy and went back and banged the guys head.
Point 6. Tucker later changed his story after offending half the nation with his advocacy of banging heads.
Point 7. No I don't believe in violence on others, it was wrong to get a buddy and go back and bust heads. No, Hey I was a kid......excuses. Just a changed story that "he was assaulted" Pretty much, advocating that if you are assaulted, go get a buddy and hunt the person down and bang the crap out of them.
AND MY POINT is that the MSNBC needs to point out that this is NOT humorous as they have portrayed it to be, but is a very serious matter.
I don't give a crap what happen at MSNBC to tucker, however, these types of messages to the PUBLIC VIEWERS are harmful in content and are part of what continues to keep the malignancy of violent behavior ACCEPTABLE to some in our society.
Gay child rapists are more dangerous than straight child rapists, according to Interpol. Tucker Carlson was four times more likely to have been killed by a Gay child rapist, and in a much more violent manner, accordin to FBI statistics. Also, Gay men raping children and adolesents are 26 times more likely to give the child he sodomizes AIDS. So Carlson was very lucky. I understand why GLADD and Media Matters must look for ways to support and defend same sex child rape.