Tucker Carlson was unceremoniously fired from Fox, which tells you how much Rupert Murdoch really wanted him out the door. Don Lemon was fired from CNN, but unless the two join hands for the new Hannity and Colmes, who cares? But as Fox’s top performer, what does Carlson’s tossing mean?
As an entertainer, Bret Stephens catalogues his fall from grace and where he might land.
Part of it is the thought that, whatever Carlson does next, it will probably be even more unhinged and toxic than his previous incarnation: This is a guy whose career arc has moved from William F. Buckley wannabe to Bill O’Reilly wannabe to soon, I expect, Father Coughlin wannabe. Nobody should rule out the possibility of his going into politics, either as Donald Trump’s running mate or as the Republican Party’s compromise candidate between Trump and Ron DeSantis.
Not too many have voiced the possibility of Carlson becoming Trump’s “running mate,” but it could happen. But does this departure mean Murdoch has a second chance to reinvent Fox the way it could have been, should have been?
But there’s also the sense of what Fox might have become. Murdoch had an opportunity to build something the country genuinely needed in the mid-1990s, when the G.O.P. was moving away from the optimistic and responsible party of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush toward the angry populism of Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay: an effective center-right counterbalance to the overwhelmingly liberal tilt (as conservatives usually see it) of most major news media.
In other words, instead of trying to surf a killer wave, Murdoch could have purchased a ship and steered it. It might not have had the ratings that Fox would get — though Fox was always about influence, as much as money, for Murdoch. But, executed well, it could have elevated conservatism in the direction of Burke, Hamilton and Lincoln, rather than debase it in the direction of Andrew Jackson, Joe McCarthy and Pat Buchanan.
Then again, was Tucker Carlson to blame for his happily spewing nonsense he knew to be lies to his audience with his oddly twisted face making his insipid questions appear quasi-legit? Will anyone miss that look when he’s gone?
Tucker Carlson’s abrupt departure from Fox News today is being hailed by many as a positive development that will improve our political discourse. But I fear it won’t make nearly as much difference as some hope.
At the same time, I think it’s at best premature to conclude that Carlson’s departure will significantly improve the right-wing media scene. Tucker Carlson didn’t become popular by persuading his audience to change their minds. He did it by telling them what they wanted to hear. Whoever replaces him is likely to do the same.
Was it ever really about Tucker Carlson, or some talking head on the boob tube telling his audience what they want to know? It’s not that this is a phenomenon that only affects the right, or that Fox’s friends gave much consideration to the revelations in the Dominion suit that their fav hosts knowingly lied to them, making up absurd excuses rather than saying, “crap, I was wrong.”
Not too long ago, the question was posed whether the disclosure that Carlson, Fox’s Number One property, hated Trump and thought his crew were all lying idiots, would finally get Fox’s audience to open their minds, just a little bit. Now that Carlson’s been canned, will he double down on an even less credible network or will he come clean and try to recapture his Bill Buckley image? What if, instead of starting that new show on OAN with Don Lemon, Ebony and Ivory, Tucker Carlson actually told the truth about all of it? Would it matter?
*Tuesday Talk rules apply.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s not about Carlson as an individual, it’s about the incentives of news as entertainment. As you said, this isn’t unique to Fox or the right. Maddow’s portrayal of Trump as a Russian agent taking direct orders was as far removed from reality as anything Carlson ever said. The blurring of opinion and news along with the willingness to say anything for ratings won’t go away with Carlson any more than it did when Glenn Beck left.
FWIW, I was betting on Willie’s, “Turn Out the Lights, the Party’s Over”.
Best quip I’ve heard, so far, on Tucker’s ouster, “Who’d have guessed that the network so opposed to gender confirming surgery would cut off it’s own dick”.
I also liked, “Tucker was afraid of Mexican’s taking his job, he should have worried about an Australian”.
Speaking of “how are they still employed”, how exactly does Brett Stephens get paid by the NYT? He makes Tucker look valuable.
Once upon a time media concentrated on appealing to the centre, no organization wanted to alienate too much of the audience but technology has allowed a proliferation of blogs, internet magazines and cable channels which fragment the audience. There are now two Overton windows a left aka liberal one and a right aka conservative one and they do not overlap. Consumers choose media catering to one or the other and no longer get any exposure to contrary opinions. hence extreme polarization.
If a media organization wants to maximise profitability it will have to choose an ideology and a corresponding Overton window and I don’t think either Carlson or Fox is going to move left.
The problem is that there is too much choice, to rid us of the polarization one would have restrict the number of voices allowed to the number that was possible with the technology available in the ‘80ies, i.e. the ban media on the internet, ban cable TV and ban digital television and use of any transmission frequency above VHF.
Everyone should have seen this coming a long time ago. It all started to go downhill for Tucker the moment he ditched the bowties. Like Alfalfa’s cowlick, it was his personality.
I’m showing my age here but I grew up with Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, and David Brinkley. Daily national news then was condensed to fit within a single 30 minute television spot. Of course some national news had to be excluded to fit the time limit but we didn’t know any better as the nightly news and newspapers were all you had. If it wasn’t mentioned there you knew nothing of it.
Since that time we have advanced, or devolved, into multiple 24 hour news networks each struggling to find enough actual news to fill an entire day while keeping enough eyeballs watching their network to make it profitable to stay on the air. News is now created by the networks to pander to an audience of like thinkers for the money and nothing but the money. We’ve gone from real reporters of actual news to individuals like Carlson and his like who create the news to the point at which they become the news.
From this crap, to the chipping away of freedom of speech, the inability of people to have an honest debate, to the incivility of political discourse on the state and federal levels, I truly pray for the future of this country.
(Mostly said better above by Carlyle Moulton)
Assuming that Tucker is just an actor playing a role on entertainment news, there are two questions. Will the actor who replaces him be as convincing, and will Tucker take his show elsewhere and bring his audience with him.
But will Tucker change? Will Fox change. Will their audience change? I think we all know the answers to these questions.
No. And not just because Betteridge says so.