I will have a longer and more detailed response to the views expressed by my colleague here, A.B. Stoddard, about the Tucker CarlsonTucker CarlsonKaren McDougal sues Fox News over alleged slander Conservative Dan Bongino launches alternative to the Drudge Report Trump's Afghanistan 'peace deal' evidences Tucker Carlson's 'salesman' claim MORE issue.

For now, first, this past July 6 I wrote a post on this site discussing a letter I had written to the Board of Directors of General Electric about their political treatment on several cable shows that, in my view, disrespected large numbers of progressive Americans in ways that were highly disadvantageous from a media, content and ratings point of view to MSNBC.

Through a long-term family investment account I am indeed a long-term investor in GE and exercised my rights by writing to the Board of Directors.

Let me emphasize that any views I express, including the view that the Carlson show will soon be canceled, are opinions, without any "inside information."

And I will mention that another letter is in the works. I was talking this morning with two significant players in the progressive media and movement about them and others signing it along with me. More on that soon.

The reason the Tucker Carlson show will probably be canceled, in my view, is not because of his personal opinions, but rather because he offers those opinions in snide and hostile terms without any corresponding representation of the other view.

For now, I will limit myself to the two Al GoreAlbert (Al) Arnold GoreImpeachment can't wait Lessons of the Kamala Harris campaign The Memo: Will impeachment hurt Democrats or Trump? MORE shows I have written about here. The first, purportedly about his book The Assault On Reason, did not discuss the book, but included personal and amateur insults to Gore. His guests on those shows either joined in the demeaning tone (suggesting Gore is the voice of anger
and rage, etc.) or offered a tepid and pathetic response.

There was no cogent defense of Gore, nor a serious discussion of the book, which was a best-seller and in my view (see my earlier post here on The Assault On Reason) the single most sweeping, profound and substantive statement of opposition and alternatives to Bush policies.

The other show, of course, was the recent show that did indeed include a sneering and leering style of contempt for Gore, by the host, with no serious or significant defense of Gore, or statement of Gore's side, or representation of those of us who admire Gore.

Both of these shows were one-sided insult sessions, without the kind of debate that Gore's stature, the worldwide credibility of his views, and the large number of his supporters should mandate.

Tucker has the right to do this; the guests have the right to agree with him or be incoherent and weak offering the alternative view; the viewers have the right to vote with their low ratings; and GE has the right to cancel.

Of the many of us who support Gore, and the many of us who have very large outside levels of readers of what we write or listeners to us on talk radio or credibility with the large outside audience of progressives and Gore supporters, we were unrepresented and insulted along with Al Gore.

Tucker has the right to insult, demean and exclude these views; it is his show. We have the right to watch something else. Nielsen has the right to show low ratings, and GE has the right to cancel.

As I wrote to the GE Board, and will soon write again asking for a conference call with myself and others who will sign the letter along with me, this approach is bad journalism, bad media, bad for ratings, bad for credibility, bad entertainment, bad for advertising revenues and objectionable and insulting to those of us who represent audiences, and potential audiences, exponentially larger than what Tucker, as we know him, can ever dream of.

The problem, I would respond to A.B. and to Tucker, is not his views, but his disrespect and contempt for those of us who hold other views, demonstrated by the failure on the show to give voice to those other views.

I come out of the entertainment business and had one of the great entertainers in history as a client for much of the 1990s. This is not show insults, this is show business. If a show is a litany of insults directed towards a Nobel laureate, without even minimal respect for that Nobel laureate, without even minimal respect for the large number of us who support or agree with him, what does Tucker expect?

Not to mention the fact that GE only recently has done significant quality work on global warming across its network and cable properties, to its credit, which is why I quoted JFK about Tucker: "There is always someone who does not get the message."

Frankly, whether one agrees or disagrees with my views, what I wrote about The Assault On Reason, on this site and others, and what I wrote about the differences between Bush and Gore after the recent show, on this site and others, should have been presented during the show, by someone. It was not. The show was insults to Gore versus bad jokes and mumbled and timid responses by guests who, as I wrote
recently, either lacked the intellectual firepower or courage to challenge a host insulting one of the most popular and prestigious figures on earth.

Let Tucker believe, and say, whatever he wants, but if he fails to fairly present the other view, which would be far better television, would attract far higher ratings, and represent far higher-quality media, the consequences in this business are harsh, like the James Bond villain sending his failed agent into the pool of alligators (a not unfair comparison with modern media management).

If Tucker wants a platform to insult and demean those he does not like, without providing a fair platform for a two-sided debate, he might find a place at Fox, with its sham Democrats who play Tatu to Mr. Rourke's insults.

My guess is, MSNBC is headed in a very different direction, as it should be.