By SI Filings
Sep
15
2022
"Interviews with more than a dozen current and former employees reveal how the think tank sidelines its scholars to score political points." - The Dispatch
484 reads
There are 2 Comments
In one encounter, a member of
I miss the days when conservative media pundits (i.e Rush Limbaugh) would base many of their arguments/positions from the sound, conservative, scholarly work of the Heritage Foundation. Fast forward to today, in order to be relevant to the spirit of the MAGA age, the Heritage Foundation is expected to conform their political policies to partisan populist media pundits such as Tucker Carlson who isn't necessarily interested in being factual (When Fox News/Carlson was sued for slander (McDougal vs. Fox News) a few years ago, Fox News lawyers successfully made the argument that "Carlson's statements...are constitution protected opinion commentary that should not be reasonably understood as factual." )
Linguistic Devices
I find that Tucker uses many of the same linguistic devices that the Doctor of Democracy employed - sarcasm, satire, hyperbole, etc.
With what substantive areas do you disagree with Tucker? Or do you disagree with the manner in which he communicates his message?