Steven Crowder BLASTS Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, Dave Smith & More! Whose Right?

A Needed Reckoning: Addressing Hyperbole and Accountability in Online Discourse

In a significant live stream recently, reaching over 100,000 concurrent viewers, Steven Crowder made direct call-outs to several prominent figures within our sphere, including Candace Owens, Ian Carroll, and Tucker Carlson. Crowder’s core accusation centered on what he termed “algorithmic-driven lying”.

We believe it’s crucial to first acknowledge our own role in this landscape. I must apologize for being overly hyperbolic with our titles and thumbnails, particularly concerning serious subjects like war. While less critical for lighter content, we recognize the impact when discussing matters of global importance. We’ve actively been working to change this approach in our recent content. Our philosophy is to try and take people at face value, not automatically assuming someone is “on the payroll” simply for holding a differing opinion. We’ve seen numerous accusations, such as Tucker Carlson being “Qatar-funded” or Candace Owens being “Israel-funded,” but we’ve found no evidence to support these claims and, in fact, have seen direct contradictions. However, what we have learned is that fomenting panic is simply not worth the clicks.

The recent geopolitical climate, particularly concerning potential conflict with Iran, highlighted a significant amount of hyperbole and “blackpilling”. While some of this reaction was understandable given past events like the WMD claims leading to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the extreme rhetoric was concerning.

Let’s look at some key examples that emerged during this period:

• Candace Owens repeatedly stated that President Trump would send Americans “to die for Israel,” using highly charged language such as, “get ready white American men it’s time for you to go die for Israel again”. She implied that refusing to die for Israel made one an “anti-Semite”. She even declared America a “colony of Israel” and urged soldiers to defect. While we understand her underlying point that soldiers shouldn’t die in foreign wars unrelated to America, her advice to “get dishonorably discharged” was incredibly flippant coming from a pundit, potentially ruining military careers and benefits.
• Tucker Carlson asserted that a campaign against Iran would “set off a war” and predicted that a strike on Iranian nuclear sites would “almost certainly result in thousands of American deaths”. While this strike did happen, no American lives were lost, proving his specific prediction wrong. We believe he wasn’t knowingly lying, but it underscores the risk of such definitive statements.
• Dave Smith vociferously claimed that Trump’s actions, such as using bunker busters, constituted war and that Trump should be “impeached and removed” for having “betrayed MAGA and every principle of America first”. He propagated the idea that Netanyahu and Trump conspired for a “perpetual war with Iran”.
• Ian Carroll (who we believe works with Candace) pushed the narrative that “stopping Iran from getting a nuke” was “propaganda cooked up by Israel”. He suggested Iran’s nuclear program was a “SCOP” (psychological operation) and linked it to the idea of a “false flag” event, drawing parallels to the anthrax hoax before the Iraq War to “manufacture consent”.

Crucially, the predicted war did not happen. While hindsight is 20/20, it highlights the need for caution when stating speculative outcomes as fact. We understand that past governmental deceptions regarding wars have led to a general distrust among the public. However, there’s a significant responsibility for pundits to avoid sensationalizing potential conflicts.

One of the biggest problems we observed was the widespread reliance on “anonymous sources”. While legitimate anonymous sources can be valuable, we’ve seen how this terminology can be abused to lend false credibility to claims fabricated “out of thin air”. It becomes incredibly difficult to discern truth when so many claims are presented as facts based on unverified sources.

We believe it’s vital for all content creators, including ourselves, to do a better job at remaining calm and transparent. We owe it to our audiences to frame information clearly, especially by admitting when we “don’t know for a fact”. The “race to get mind share” driven by algorithms can be addictive, but accountability matters. We hope this discussion has been informative, and we are committed to continually improving how we present information to you.