If the schtick is listening intently while getting the guest's POV, what's wrong with that?
It's not that he's listening intently. He already knows exactly what the guy is going to say. It's an act. He's
pretending to be ignorant/uniformed on the topic, usually prefacing it by saying something like "I don't understand what's going on, can you explain it to us", etc.. He does that to elevate the speaker in the mind of his audience as someone whose opinion is of value. Because if it's good enough to convince Tucker, it's good enough for the audience.
It's a big act. I've seen lawyers use that exact technique a million times when questioning an expert at trial.
But that particular habit of Tucker's is really just a minor irritant in general What it much more annoying for me is when I realize that with MacGregor, he's doing it with someone even
Tucker himself doesn't believe.
Watch Hannity if you want incessant, annoying and interuptive banter.
Ugh. You obviously see Hannity a I do. But the weird thing is I could almost excuse Hannity if
he was doing this with MacGregor, because I honestly think Hannity is just not a very bright guy.
Tucker on the other hand is very smart, and there is no way he does not know that McGregor has been
wildly wrong with his predictions. But he keeps putting the guy on anyway, not only not challenging MacGregor on his prior bogus predictions, but continuing to tell his audience that MacGregor is one of the few honest and a reliable sources out there.
And he's been doing that for over a
year. I just cannot fathom that.
