Premium

Tucker Carlson Was Right, Neil Cavuto Was Very, Very Wrong

FILE - In this March 2, 2017, file photo, Tucker Carlson, host of "Tucker Carlson Tonight," poses for photos in a Fox News Channel studio in New York. Carlson says he's shocked his segments this week on a South African policy on land reform should be considered an appeal to white nationalists - let alone spark an international incident. (AP Photo/Richard Drew, File)

Cavuto and Carlson represent two schools of thought, and one of them is definitely more right than the other.

One of the things that infuriate me about the mainstream media isn’t just the fact that they blatantly lie to us or censor inconvenient facts, it’s the fact that they do so because they think it’s the right thing to do. They think it’s the right thing to do because they don’t think we’re equipped to handle information that they think is inconvenient.

It reminds me of parents attempting to guard their children against things that they just aren’t ready for. It’s right for a parent to do that, but the media aren’t our mothers and fathers.

The media has a bad habit of looking down on the people they report to. It might be the fancy degrees, time in the spotlight, and conduit through which the world sees what the world is doing, but regardless there are too many souls in the media industry that think they shine brighter than everyone else.

A perfect example is Neil Cavuto of Fox News who, right in the middle of White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany giving an update as to the President’s lawsuits and potential fraud found during the election, had something of an attack on his conscience.

As McEnany was saying that Democrats are welcoming fraud, Cavuto cut in and said that unless McEnany provides proof of this, he “can’t in good countenance continue showing this.”

Why?

I don’t care about the political aspect of it. Why did Cavuto and his producers feel that the American people didn’t deserve to hear what the President’s representative had to say on the subject? Why did they feel the need to intervene on our behalf and forcibly take our eyes and ears away from the update from the White House?

“Because Cavuto has sided with the Democrats” is an answer I’m less concerned about. Maybe that’s true. It’s a media sin to be sure but it’s the lesser sin. A biased reporter is as common as brown on a rat. The greater one is feeling as if we hearing that is bad for us as a country and that they needed to take it away for the greater good.

If our elected leaders or the people they choose represent them have something to say then it’s something that needs to be heard in its entirety if we so choose to hear it. Cavuto and his producers can disagree with this all day but it doesn’t give them the right to make a moral call about whether or not we should hear it. It’s not up to them to define what is and isn’t right to hear.

Let’s take a look at the flip side of this coin.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson blatantly aimed at Cavuto and those like him. Carlson also makes the argument that it’s not up to people like Cavuto to decide what we can and can’t hear and that you can’t just cut away from something someone is saying because you don’t like it and have ruled it morally impermissible.

Carlson brings up a very important point here and it’s one I want to expound upon.

Being that Americans are all adults who can make their own decisions, the information should flow freely from any spigot we decide to turn on. From there, the information can be weighed and measured by the public, and individuals within the public can decide what they want to think about the information all on their own. Ideas and opinions will take root and then these ideas and opinions can, themselves, be thrown into public and social situations where they can be weighed and measured as well.

It’s the free flow of ideas in a free society and it’s an integral part of it.

Ideas that are bad will eventually go bad in a free society. Ideas that are good will be taken and further perfected. It’s social Darwinism and entire societies and cultures have been built around the spread of ideas that people like. That’s not to say that every person will find themselves accepted good ideas. Plenty of bad ones are stubbornly held on to, but America has a solid track record of eliminating horrible ideas from its culture. Slavery, racism, and more have all met their end because Americans came to the realization these were bad ideas.

Notice that the restricted flow of information with the constant introduction of misinformation is bringing some of these bad ideas back, just in different forms. Where racism used to focus on the black race, racism against white people is now not only pardonable, it’s encouraged. Branches of the Marxist critical theory are now openly discussed and talked about in everything from government agencies to news outlets as if it were fact.

The same people who believe it’s their moral duty to censor others are the same people who allow this rot to thrive in our society.

Bad ideas can be cured easily but it begins with the free flow of information. If your position is that you need to control what grown men and women see and hear because you believe it is your moral duty to do so, then that says more about the degradation of your character than it does of our society. It says that you believe yourself above others and that you know better.

You don’t. You’re just a fallible human like the rest of us, and no amount of makeup chairs, wardrobes, camera time, assistants, and staff changes that fact.