Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

MSNBC Doesn't Denounce Tucker Carlson's Gay Bashing Remarks

Posted by Pam Spaulding at 4:46 AM on September 3, 2007.


Pam Spaulding: If Don Imus' racist comments were inappropriate for MSNBC, then Carlson's homophobic talk shouldn't be tolerated either.
Tucker's Confession

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by Pam Spaulding, originally appeared on Pam's House Blend

Media Matters, which highlighted Tucker Carlson's "macho" on-air comments about an incident where he and a friend slammed the head of a man into a stall after Carlson was the recipient of some sort of overture in a mens' room, has noted that MSNBC hasn't see a peep about the incident.

Carlson said, "Having sex in a public men's room is outrageous. It's also really common. I've been bothered in men's rooms." Carlson continued, "I've been bothered in Georgetown Park," in Washington, D.C., "when I was in high school." When Abrams asked how Carlson responded to being "bothered," as Abrams and Scarborough laughed, Carlson asserted, "I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the -- you know, and grabbed him, and ... hit him against the stall with his head, actually." The laughter continued.

comments, coupled with laughter from Abrams and Scarborough, suggested to viewers that physical violence is an appropriate response to an unwelcome overture. This is dangerous and wrong.

MSNBC has yet to acknowledge Carlson's comments or address why Abrams and Scarborough laughed while Carlson recounted his actions. Instead, MSNBC has treated Carlson's comments as a laughing matter, re-airing the portion in which Carlson claimed to have been "bothered," but omitting the portion in which he seemed to boast of physical assault.

When Don Imus stepped into his own steaming pile after racist comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team, Steve Capus, president of NBC News said: "that there have been any number of other comments that have been enormously hurtful to far too many people. And my feeling is that ... there should not be a place for that on MSNBC."

Carlson's on-air comments suggest the appropriate reaction to an unwelcome pass is grounds for physical assault as retaliation -- legitimizing in this case a "gay panic" defense for doing so -- why is it that Capus doesn't make the connection between the silence and tacit endorsement of such violence?

Think about this -- Tucker's defenders seem to ignore the fact that being on the receiving end of unwanted, tacky and inappropriate advances of men is a common experience for many women. Is MSNBC's silence (and laughter by Abrams and Scarborough) a suggestion that women should mace or give a nice knee to the groin to guys whenever they encounter such advances? Or is it only appropriate when a guy finds his masculinity challenged when he's come on to in some inappropriate way by a man, and has seemingly no other recourse, such as saying "no thanks" and finding law enforcement to take care of the matter without violence.

Who knows, because the network has chosen to say nothing about what Tucker Carlson has said on the air. As Media Matters noted, someone at the network knows the comments are inflammatory -- when the network re-aired the exchange, they left the head-bashing portion of Tucker's braggadocio out.

Tucker Carlson has said that he's "pro-gay," supporting marriage equality, for instance, yet he and his network fail to realize is that the violence that he and his colleagues made light of happens to LGBT citizens all over the country, with their assailants, particularly when it's a man-on-man encounter, justifying a violence response as a legitimate defense of manhood.

IMHO, it's not really productive to say Tucker Carlson is a homophobe or a gay-basher. It's about reminding people like him -- who sincerely believe that they are not homophobic -- that they are awash in a culture that still tolerates homophobia on many subtle, ingrained levels that seem innocuous in a TV studio, but in fact do affirm violence -- and that has consequences.

Tucker and the network should simply acknowledge that his overreaction was inappropriate and foments anti-gay violence. Silence and hoping this will go away is a conscious and mistaken decision on their part that those on-air comments don't matter. If it was easy for the network to rebuke Imus, certainly this incident shouldn't cause handwringing over doing the right thing.

Media Matters' action item is here.

Digg!

Tagged as: homophobia, media, msnbc, carlson

Pam Spaulding blogs at Pam's House Blend.


Race-Baiting Former Senator Jesse Helms Has Died
Conservative Republican railed against "Negro hoodlums", opposed the Voting Rights Act, backed terrorists, and died an unrepentant segregationist.
Post by Lindsay Beyerstein. July 4, 2008.
NYC Cops Harass Club Owner Whose CCTV Footage Overturned Drug Conviction
Talk about shooting the messenger.
Post by . July 4, 2008.
Watermelon is the New Viagra
USDA-funded research helps Americans put some pizazz in their picnic baskets this fourth of July.
Post by Lindsay Beyerstein. July 3, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
BS
Posted by: kelt65 on Sep 3, 2007 5:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It isn't that Tucker's comments were exactly homophobic, it's that he stated that gay rights groups should 'disavow' this behavior, as if we have ANYTHING to do with it, and that is absurd and highly insulting. If anyone should collectively apologize for that it's asshole conservatives who want everyone back in the closet, which is the whole reason for this pathological behavior in the first place. And yes, it IS our business that Larry Craig's gay, since he's one of our most vocal legislative enemies. Sexuality is not a private matter. If you think it is, try hiding your heterosexuality for a while and see how easy it is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another thing
Posted by: kelt65 on Sep 3, 2007 5:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If sexuality is no one's business, why did all three of these idiots first all state they're not gay? Why didn't they keep quiet about it? Hypocrites.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There really is a difference...
Posted by: PJAW on Sep 3, 2007 8:43 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
between consensual, intimate relations and confronting a stranger for sexual purposes. There is also a difference between perpetrating violence against gays simply because they are gay, and responding with violence when one is approached (possibly in an aggressive manner - it does happen) by a stranger looking for a sexual encounter.

The fact is, not all "gay" people are alike, gay people have as many individual personality traits and behaviors as "straight" people. Some gay people are very reserved and timid about their sexuality, just as are straight people. Some gay people are quite overt and aggressive about their sexuality, just as are straight people. What appears likely to have happened in the Carlson incident is that an aggressive individual hit on Tucker and he didn't like it and he's just homophobic and macho enough to have gotten violent. From what he's related, his violent reaction was not typical, and was circustance driven. It seems he has a history of being "bothered" by gay or homosexual men and not reponding with violence. Does that make his response okay, no, but when you approach strangers in a public toilet and hit on them for sex, you're engaging in risky behavior, on several levels.

We're a long way from having perfected human behavior, and discussing incidents such as Tucker Carlson's "toiletgate" (sorry, I couldn't help it) will move us toward better understanding of each other. The violence of banging a guy's head against a toilet stall is a little heavy, but it hardly even registers on the scale that includes people being beaten to death simply because someone else disapproves of their sexual preference.

I don't agree with Tucker Carlson on much of anything, and I'd just as soon he got a job in a car wash or somewhere where his distorted opinions have less chance of creating problems, but he doesn't deserve the same fate as Imus over this particular incident. And I'm completely in agreement with the idea that a public toilet ought to be a safe and comfortable place to take a crap or empty one's bladder without having to deal with someone's sexual advances.

Perhaps the gay people who resort to using public toilets as a hunting ground would be less inclined to do so if there were less villification of them in other venues. And just out of curiosity, I wonder if this is limited to men's toilets, or if it occurs in women's as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Women's toilets? Posted by: Ellie1
» RE: There really is a difference... Posted by: goeswithness
big brave Tucker
Posted by: Fairybear on Sep 3, 2007 8:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh Tucker, he's so cute. I'm so glad he had somebody to go with him when he attacked that naughty homosexual. I bet little Tucker would be soooo mad if the nasty homosexual had beat the shit out of him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: big brave Tucker Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
Frankly I don't necessarily believe him anyway
Posted by: goeswithness on Sep 3, 2007 4:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because as I said in another post, gay people are careful who they flirt with. But thank you for pointing out that women DO have to deal with unwanted passes every day of the year, and we manage to do it, usually without feeling like it's cause to beat the crap out of the guy. Why do some men feel so threatened by the idea of being approached by other men? Is it because they're thinking this could turn into a rape? That's a serious question and I'd like to know what men think.

But of course that wasn't the case in Carlson's story - in his case he came back with a friend and searched the guy out. That automatically makes him the aggressor. The reaction of a normal person who thought the guy needed to be stopped would be to call the police.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

morality
Posted by: johnp on Sep 3, 2007 4:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not only are your sexual preferences no one's business, ideally, they shouldn't arouse such intense aversive feelings in us, in the first place. Why is it that so many of us, are so profoundly affected by the discovery that the people around us are engaging in "odd" sexual behaviors? Isn't it principally because from early childhood, we're trained to feel repulsion and disgust at these behaviors? Who, by the way, is mostly responsible for this training? Isn't it largely a product of people that thnik like Larry Craig? Not only do people like Craig, train us to be moral hypocrites and imbeciles, and ruin so many lives in the process, but we're often astonished to find that the Larry Craigs of the world, are the people involved in precisely the behaviors they've condemned throughout their, and our, lives. MSNBC, for their part. can't be relied on to take action against creeps like Tucker Carlson, or Imus, because they put people like Carlson and Imus in media, among other reasons, because they can be relied on to destroy and demean MSNBC's political enemies, i.e. the perverse Left and liberal elements. Imus will soon get back in media's graces, since he never really lost them. They were just waiting for these annoying Liberals to get over it. Craig must go, quickly. He really blew it, allowing the public to see what a bunch of twofaced nitwits are running things, and controlling our moral standards.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've had sex in the men's bathroom on . . .
Posted by: Scientz on Sep 4, 2007 8:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . at least three occasions I can remember. All with women. It was exhilarating. Why aren't the heterosexual rights groups lining up to disavow this reprehensible behavior?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tucker? Busting heads?
Posted by: Ras3hilton on Sep 4, 2007 11:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look the guy usually wears bowties.

I don't trust him. If he was given a polygraph test, I'm certain that it would show he had never been accosted in a bathroom and never went back with "someone he knows" to bust some heads.

That's another thing that is off, why does he say "with someone I know" why not just say a "buddy" or "friend". I think Tucker is lying because he's trying to be cool around uber cool Scarborough. Also, Tucker started to say he, "grabbed the guy by the..." I wonder why he cut that thought short.

Anyways, Tucker strikes me as the type who would hold it in as opposed to using a icky public restroom. Did I mention he wears bowties? Orville Reddinbocker, the popcorn guy, wore bowties too, I never believed him either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Tucker? Busting heads? Posted by: Ras3hilton
All Three Hypocrites
Posted by: mrb1960 on Sep 4, 2007 3:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's ironic to hear these three closeted neo-cons joke about committing the crime of assualt & battery. I've had Mr. Abrams' number for years & he's a great big closet case as big a cocksucking faggot as they make them, Scarborough is the type who'd have sex with anyone - male or female -who's self-esteem is low enough to have sex with a low-down dog like him. Tucker Carlson is a GREAT BIG CLOSET CASE who knows all about sucking anonymous cocks in men's rooms, bathhouses, adult movie theaters, etc. I bet he didn't turn down the guy who propositioned him either, he probably sucked the guy's cock & swallowed his semen! I say hang them all three by their testicles and beat them with bamboo canes!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: All Three Hypocrites Posted by: hellofriends
» RE: All Three Hypocrites Posted by: mrb1960