Tucker Carlson delivers the 'perfect response' to NYT journo plotting a hit piece against conservative media



Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, and Mike Davis of the Article III Project revealed Monday that a New York Times reporter reached out to them for comment regarding an upcoming hit piece about so-called "misinformation" — the likely objective of which is to get conservative commentators demonetized or possibly removed from YouTube.

Shapiro pre-emptively attacked the paper and its apparent collaborators at the leftist outfit Media Matters, while Carlson shared screenshots of his fiery textual exchange with Times reporter Nico Grant.

"Would I like to participate in your attempt to censor me?" Carlson wrote to Grant. "No thanks. But I do hope you'll quote what I wrote above and also note that I told you to f*** off, which I am now doing. Thanks."

Grant apparently opened with an introduction and the following note to Carlson on Monday: "I wanted to give you an opportunity to comment for an upcoming article that takes a look at how political commentators have discussed the upcoming election on YouTube. We rely on an analysis conducted by researchers at Media Matters for America."

Media Matters for America is a leftist organization founded by Democratic operative David Brock. It claims to document "conservative misinformation throughout the media" and to notify "activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions."

Media Matters, now led by Angelo Carusone — the former Democratic National Committee employee who fought to get Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck ousted from Fox News and was responsible for the "#DumpTrump" campaign in 2012 — now serves as an attack dog for the Democratic Party, characterizing dissenting views as "misinformation."

'So the New York Times is working with a left wing hate group to silence critics of the Democratic Party?'

Media Matters is presently in hot water, as Elon Musk's social platform X sued the leftist organization last year for alleged defamation. Judge Reed O'Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied Media Matters' request to have that lawsuit dismissed in August.

Grant asked Carlson to comment on the following points, which will apparently be including in the planned Times piece:

  • "Media Matters identified 286 YouTube videos between May and August that contained election misinformation, including narratives that have been debunked or are not supported with credible evidence."
  • "Researchers identified videos posted by you in those four months that contain election misinformation."
  • "We feature a clip of you saying: '...All the sadness we've seen after the clearly stolen election. All these bad things happen, but people I know love each other more.'"

Shapiro and Davis appear to have been asked to comment on the same points but on different quotes.

'These outlets are beneath contempt.'

Grant gave away the plot with three follow-up questions, in all three cases, about the conservatives' membership in the YouTube Partner Program, their track records of demonetization, and history of notes from YouTube regarding "misinformation."

Carlson, wise to Grant's apparent scheme, responded, "So the New York Times is working with a left wing hate group to silence critics of the Democratic Party? Please ask yourself why you're participating in it. This is why you got into journalism? It's shameful."

"I hope you're filled with guilt and self-loathing for sending me a text like this," continued Carlson. "Please quote me."

BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales said of Carlson's reply to Grant, "Epic."

Elon Musk tweeted, "Perfect response."

Mike Needham's forward-looking conservative think tank America 2100 tweeted, "These outlets are beneath contempt. 1) Powerful activist groups (Media Matters) put out enemy hit lists. 2) The press (New York Times) publishes the names to send a signal to Big Tech. 3) Big Tech dutifully censors the enemies. They're the enforcement arm of the Left."

Conservative filmmaker Robby Starbuck wrote, "YouTube needs to be very careful how they respond to this story or risk a massive exodus from their site. Treating right wing content creators differently is going to become increasingly an offense that loses you a lot of business. People have alternatives now."

Chris Pavlovski, the CEO of the video platform Rumble, noted, "The corporate media is on their campaign to deplatform as many conservative voices as possible. This type of activist garbage is not possible on Rumble. @TuckerCarlson, we have your back."

Blaze News reached out to Grant and Media Matters for comment as well as for their definitions of "misinformation" but did not receive responses by deadline.

Grant has set his X page to private, so that his past tweets are now protected.

Shapiro referred to the anticipated Times-Media Matters hit piece as an "October surprise."

"What, precisely, is NYT doing?" wrote Shapiro. "It's perfectly obvious: using research from Media Matters, a radical Left-wing organization whose sole purpose is destroying conservative media ... in order to pressure YouTube to demonetize and penalize any and all conservatives ONE WEEK FROM THE ELECTION."

While noting that he supported the view that Biden won the 2020 election, Shapiro emphasized that the Constitution guarantees the right of Americans to suggest otherwise.

"This is totally scandalous. In 2020, the legacy media shut down dissemination of the Hunter Biden laptop story and laundered the claim that it was all Russian disinformation, all to get Joe Biden elected," continued Shapiro. "In 2024, they're even more brazen: they're openly trying to intimidate YouTube, one of the most dominant news platforms in America, into shutting down anyone who isn't pro-Kamala."

Shapiro worked his way up to echoing Carlson's sentiment, concluding, "The New York Times wants comment? Here's my comment: kindly, go f*** yourself."

U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt responded by echoing the defiant, nearly assassinated Republican president, "Fight, fight, fight!"

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

End Times & the Fight for America’s Future | Guest: Steve Deace | Ep 651

End Times & the Fight for America’s Future | Guest: Steve Deace | Ep 651

The judge in Sarah Palin's lawsuit against the New York Times prepares to dismiss her case



Sarah Palin’s libel lawsuit against the New York Times is to be thrown out, as the judge presiding over the case believes her legal team failed to produce adequate evidence supporting their claims, reported Politico.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff said on Monday that he intends to order the dismissal of Palin’s lawsuit and that he will wait to enter his order until after the jury concludes its deliberations.

Rakoff indicated that he expects Palin to appeal his ruling and that the appeals court “would greatly benefit from knowing how the jury would decide it,” so he will wait for the jury to reach a verdict before he dismisses the case.

The judge said in his ruling, per Politico, that Palin’s attorneys “failed to elicit enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee had met the ‘actual malice’ standard the Supreme Court established for libel suits against public figures in the landmark 1964 ruling New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.”

Rakoff affirmed that it was not his role to revisit the standard established in Times v. Sullivan.

He said, “The Supreme Court made that balance and set a very high standard, and I don’t think that standard has been realized by plaintiff with respect to at least one aspect of the actual malice requirement.”

Continuing, he said, “I don’t think a reasonable juror could conclude that [the New York Times] either knew the statements were false or that he thought the statements were false and he recklessly disregarded that high probability.”

In recent years, however, members of the Supreme Court — notably Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch — have criticized the precedent established in Times v. Sullivan.

Palin’s lawsuit stems from a 2017 editorial in the New York Times in which the author linked a 2011 graphic sponsored by the former governor’s political action committee to a mass shooting.

The graphic was a map that superimposed crosshairs on the congressional districts of Democrats who supported the Affordable Care Act and were politically vulnerable.

The same year the graphic was circulated, there was a mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona where several people including Rep. Gabby Giffords were severely injured.

The editorial that inspired Palin’s lawsuit cited Palin’s graphic as an example of right-wing political speech that incited violence.

Palin is represented by the attorneys who advocated for professional wrestler Hulk Hogan in his lawsuit against the gossip blog Gawker.

FLASHBACK: Voter-fraud concerns used to be a bipartisan issue

Before launching their vote-by-mail campaign, The New York Times was gravely concerned in 2012 about election fraud committed through mail-in voting.
William B. Plowman/NBC/NBC Newswire/NBCUniversal via Getty Images

AOC: 'I don’t even know if I want to be in politics'

"I tell people the odds of me running for higher office and the odds of me just going off trying to start a homestead somewhere — they’re probably the same."

The New York Times spreads election disinformation about declaring the winner on election day

The New York Times spread election disinformation on Twitter as they proclaimed that the news media are the ones who are meant to declare the winner of the hotly contested US presidential election.

BREAKING: Project Veritas sues The New York Times for defamation

NYT labelled Project Veritas as “deceptive,“ “coordinated disinformation," using “solely unidentified sources” and "no verifiable evidence.”

The New York Times parrots Chinese propaganda in failed takedown of Epoch Times

They use The Epoch Times opposition to human rights abuses and extensive inquiries into the origin of the coronavirus as a reason to bash them.

Can you tell the difference between Biden and Trump voters based on fridge contents? The New York Times sure thinks so

The New York Times ran a quiz claiming readers can guess voting preference by looking into people's fridges.

WATCH: Donald Trump Jr. correctly predicted NYT's 'Anonymous' author was 'very low-level person'

Donald Trump Jr. was seemingly correct when he predicted the New York Times op-ed penned by an anonymous senior administration official was written by a “very low-level person"