Sitting in for Sean Hannity on FOX News this week Tucker Carlson called for Michael Vicks execution for pet abuse. Gawker has the clip.
Is this for ratings? Attention? Is it racism? Is it just reality TV?
The question of why the FOX bosses allow this is obvious – cloaked in “free speech” it garners attention and column inches, like these.
But is any one thinking of the longer term damage to discourse? Of course, if it is Tucker’s opinion calling for executions of pet abuses, then he’s welcome to it. Maybe he wants his own show again and feels this is the best way to accomplish that goal. But it just doesn’t pass the smell test of reasonableness… So why say it? For effect? For attention? One can only surmise he was motivated by being quote-worthy. He succeeded. But at what price?
What is the price for discourse? What is editorially responsible? Where is the line? Where are the editors? The managers? The grown-ups?
petershaplenproductions.com 
Thanx for the post Peter…but this kind of racism,reality TV or whatever it’s called should be punishable by the courts….who watch these folks?…you also ask the right questions…where are the editors,the managers?…maybe i’m a bite sinsitive because usually I don’t respond to such crap.
I would never have said that because it doesn’t seem the “Christian” thing to do, but, in my heart, I can’t stand to look at Michael Vick and believe what he did is the next worst thing after child molesting. Like child molesters, animal abusers are typically repeat offenders. I doubt the President would have made that call to Vick’s bosses if it was his daughters’ dog Vick had killed. I doubt he would have given Vick a job in the White House. Has Obama asked that any animal abusers be employed at the White House? I doubt he has or would. But if he thinks it’s such a good idea for Philadelphia’s football team why not practice it in his own professional neighborhood.