The Opposite of Tucker

As a rookie journalist, I have role models in the field who inspire and inform me. And then I have reverse role models who I can't stand but still check on from time to time, just to remind myself what not to do.  One such person is Tucker Carlson.

For example:

Earlier this week, [Carlson's website] the Daily Caller reported that the Environmental Protection Agency was "asking taxpayers" to pay for "230,000 new bureaucrats," at a cost of $21 billion, to implement new rules to control greenhouse gas emissions. Given that the agency currently employs 17,000, this seemed like a rather shocking revelation. Naturally, this factoid whipped Fox News and conservative blogs into a frenzy; they pointed to it as evidence that the Obama administration is ape-crazy out of control. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a foe of climate change action, enthusiastically cited it.

But there was a problem: This was not true. [...] The EPA was defending a rule that would allow it to limit the number of pollution sources it must regulate, so the agency wouldn't have to expand its workforce to such an absurd level.

See, perfect media ethics question. "Faced with this dilemma, do you a) print a correction and apology and learn to read government reports more carefully, or b) deny you made a mistake, attack anyone who criticises you and create a viral Internet scandal that drags on for weeks?"

If you're Tucker Carlson, you pick B. If you're a decent journalist, you make fun of Tucker Carlson.