Now THERE’s something I never thought I’d put in a headline…
“FOX News Media and Tucker Carlson have agreed to part ways,” Fox News announced today in a statement. “We thank him for this service to the network as a host and prior to that as a contributor.”
There will be a lot of cheering from those on the political left who wanted to censor Tucker, but he brought this upon himself, and in fact the move was late in coming. Carlson’s was the network’s most-watched prime-time show, and the most popular and profitable news commentary TV show on cable. In 2022, “Tucker Carlson Tonight” averaged 3.32 million total viewers and received the largest audience with the golden 25-to-54 age demographic. But as Ethics Alarms has pointed out repeatedly, he is an ethics corrupter on the national scene, and the evidence in the Dominion defamation law suit that Fox just settled for three-quarters of a billion dollars proved that he couldn’t even be trusted to tell viewers what his real opinions were.
Personally, I have no idea if Carlson is even really a conservative. He found a lucrative niche and has brilliantly exploited it. The sudden exit of Fox’sbest known talking head can and will be spun many ways: the Washington Post attributes it to the criticism of management revealed in some of his text messages. What matters in the end is that a news network without a prominent commentator whose word cannot be trusted and who appears to lack professional and ethical standards is a better journalism platform that it would be with such a figure.
In their never-ending attacks on Fox News, CNN and MSNBC simply cannot be taken seriously as long as Don Lemon, Joy Reid, Al Sharpton are still getting paychecks.
55 thoughts on “Ethics Hero: Fox News”
Now Don Lemon is gone too!
That is truly man bites dog news.
Let the spinning begin! I wonder if he’ll just slide over the MSNBC?
HIlarious. I think CNN took advantage of the Carlson story to fire Don Lemon thinking no one would notice.
Maybe the CNN and Fox people got together and agreed to what they considered a mutually beneficial deal. If so, CNN came out way ahead on that one…maybe they threw in some cash.
Seems to have worked for CNN. Crickets from the left on Le Lemon: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12008105/The-View-hosts-Jon-Stewart-lead-liberal-celebrity-gloating-Tucker-Carlsons-ouster-Fox.html
Althouse noted Lemon’s departure in a comment she made to her post about Tucker Carlson being canned. CNN’s strategy seems to be working. Lemon and CNN are flying under the radar (or the shrapnel generated by Fox).
‘Brian Stelter, formerly a host at CNN, said in a tweet that his sources say the timing of the two announcements was a “complete and crazy coincidence.”’
Don Lemon just got fired also.
The news isn’t all bad, though. Don Lemon got sacked too.
Sorry, what was the bad news?
Could the networks be clearing house finally and recognizing how the people they put on the air damage their credibility?
And Don Lemon had no idea he was on the way out? I could tell that when he was shunted to the morning show!
From the linked article: “”I was informed this morning by my agent that I have been terminated by CNN,” he shared on social media just hours after appearing on-air Monday morning as usual. “I am stunned.”
Wow. That means Lemon is dumber than I thought. I mean, he was bounced to the 4:00 a.m. time slot with an average of 4.6 viewers on a yearly basis. That didn’t signal that he should update his resume? Or, perhaps he thought he was bulletproof because he is a black gay guy – or gay black guy – I don’t know which one controls anymore. He thought that idiotic statements like the one to Vivek Ramaswamy telling him to mind his own business because he doesn’t have dark skin were beyond reproach. Guess not, Don. Oh, and the fact that he is an absolute jerk to his cohorts didn’t help his cause, either.
PS: Why do I have to log into WordPress each time I comment? That is a new, annoying development.
I wish I could believe Fox was choosing the ethical route rather than throwing Carlson under the bus in hopes of lessening the damage from the next lawsuit.
Oh, absolutely. But if the right thing happens, its still the right thing, or you get the absurdity of identical conduct having the same effect being considered ethical when done by one party and unethical by the other.
Not ethical because who is doing it…but the why definitely matters
So, anything Fox does is per se unethical.
Everyone knows you don’t award “hero” status for doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.
You blog about ethics every day, how do you not know this?!
It’s impossible to weed out bad reasons from good reasons. It takes guts and integrity to fire your biggest star and cash cow because he deserves it—he does deserve it. All the other motive are just gravy. Again: an ethical act doesn’t become unethical because some questionable motives are mixed in with the ethical ones. Fox News is a more ethical network without Tucker. It’s also less profitable. Any time a corporation picks principles over money, it’s in ethics hero territory.
Or look at it this way: is there any way NOT firing Carlson would be ethical? (Hint: NO.)
“ It’s impossible to weed out bad reasons from good reasons.”
No it isn’t. We know they didn’t do this for ethical reasons because there were plenty of ethical reasons to fire Tucker Carlson years ago, and they only fired him now, after he lost them a lot of money.
There, I just weeded them out. Totally possible!
Devon wrote, <"We know they didn’t do this for ethical reasons because there were plenty of ethical reasons to fire Tucker Carlson years ago, and they only fired him now, after he lost them a lot of money.” (Emphasis Mine)
No you foolish troll, we don’t “know they didn’t do this for ethical reasons” to be truth or fact, you just assume that.
There we have it folks, the magical thinking of a troll in a nutshell.
From the guy who brought you “Using sealioning wrong” comes more abuse of the English language!
You need to learn the differences between “assuming,” “magical thinking,” and “making logical inferences based on the evidence.”
I explained very clearly and simply how we know Tucker was fired for losing the network money, not for ethical reasons. There were plenty of ethical reasons to fire Tucker before, but he is only being fired now, after the Dominion settlement. My reasoning is perfectly logical and rational. You are the one refusing to acknowledge the most likely explanation here.
Devon wrote, “From the guy who brought you “Using sealioning wrong” comes more abuse of the English language!”
That looks like another unsupportable trolling accusation to me.
Since I have never, ever used the phrase “using sealioning wrong” (that you appear to be quoting) I’m going to give you a reasonably fair chance to support that argument, whatever the heck it’s supposed to mean. If you can’t properly support your accusation then I’ll publicly declare that you’re a bald-faced liar.
I’m holding my breathe so hurry before I pass out…
What? I’m saying you used the term sealioning wrong in another thread. Looking back, I mixed you up with two other commenters here. My bad. Abuse of language is apparently rampant here.
Warning One: General insults to EA and its readers are not tolerated. Watch it.
I didn’t think I was being insulting, just descriptive. It’s an abuse of language to call it “sealioning” when one asks a relevant clarifying question. It’s an abuse of language to call a logical, clearly reasoned inference “magical thinking.” It seemed to me that, since these terms were so clearly used incorrectly, the intent was to deflect with insults instead of engaging with the argument presented. But I will be more careful.
Devon wrote, “It’s an abuse of language to call a logical, clearly reasoned inference “magical thinking.””
Inference: a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.
Whether you like it or not; absolute correlation equals causation conclusions that are based on assumptions, as presented by you and Amy, fall under the “bias tells them it’s true” section of the definition. Without bias you would present an assumption as a fact and that’s exactly what you and Amy did.
Assumption: a thing that is accepted as true, without proof.
Your assumption was already specifically spelled out. Amy’s assumption was that “They fired him because…”, that argument presentation is an absolute statement of fact that’s based on a correlation equals causation assumption, it’s not a known fact, but her bias told her it was fact.
Correlation = causation presented as fact is a terribly ineffective way to argue and in most cases it’s false because correlation ≠ causation.
You are verifiably wrong on this one Devon. Remember the old adage…
Now Devon, exactly who is the one that’s abusing the English language? It’s not me.
Devon wrote, ” I’m saying you used the term sealioning wrong in another thread.”
So, it wasn’t a quote from anyone?
Rhetorical question; why the heck did you use “____” in that kind of context when you weren’t actually quoting anyone? The context you delivered it in was as if you were quoting someone? The rhetorical language you’re using to deliver your arguments is a bit confusing.
Devon wrote, “Looking back, I mixed you up with two other commenters here.”
Live and learn.
So, what have you learned? You should have learned that it’s preferable to look back and verify the validity of your accusations before you present them as verifiable false statements.
Devon wrote, “My bad.”
I’ll accept that as an apology.
Devon wrote, “Abuse of language is apparently rampant here.”
Your bias has apparently made you stupid. I don’t think your smear of the participants around here is justifiable. Your bias needs to be checked.
What information do you have that conclusively states Tucker Carlson cost the network any money unrelated to his salary and production of his shows?He was the most profitable on-air personality on both his Fox News show and streaming.
Were you involved in the decision to fire him or privy to discussion about the Dominion settlement? You should say so, if that’s the case.
So, they unethically gave him the King’s Pass, and then unethically took the pass away?
Yeah, that seems to be the argument…
No one is saying it was unethical to fire Carlson, just that it wasn’t done for ethical reasons. It was done for financial reasons. Again, the evidence for this is extraordinary. Fox didn’t fire Tucker for lying, for spreading anti-vaxx nonsense, for saying he supports Russia over Ukraine, or for spreading white nationalist propaganda. They only fired him once he became a financial liability.
That comment from Devon is more correlation = causation absolutism.
Bias makes you stupid Devon and…
Just had to ban Devon. He couldn’t help himself, and resorted to ad hominem insults when he couldn’t rebut my points. Typical, but I had hopes that he would rise above the usual Leftist trollery.
Devon was given a chance, and was warned multiple times, “he” made choices.
Seriously? ≥ Devon…?
Wrong wrong obviously wrong. Taking the correct action late doesn’t prove that an organization didn’t act earlier because it approved of the conduct. The King’s Pass is powerful. A repeated offense is worse than a single offense. Organizations, like people, learn. Bill Clinton should have been “cancelled” by the Left as hypocritical, sexual predator pig decades ago; he finally was, late, but that doesn’t mean it still wasn’t the right thing to do.
“ It takes guts and integrity to fire your biggest star and cash cow because he deserves it—”
Uh they didn’t fire Tucker because he deserved it. They fired him because Fox lost a 700 mil lawsuit and he’s a liability and pissed off the wrong people with his leaked texts.
This is simple.
Fox loses one of the biggest defamation lawsuits in American history…a week later they fire their biggest star.
Also, fine…if you want to believe Fox fired Tucker for ethical reasons, go ahead.
But that still doesn’t mean different actions with the same outcomes are good right?
You can’t believe that.
Amy Lewis wrote, “Uh they didn’t fire Tucker because he deserved it. They fired him because Fox lost a 700 mil lawsuit and he’s a liability and pissed off the wrong people with his leaked texts.”
More Magical Thinking (see definition above) from another trolling absolutist.
Amy Lewis wrote, “This is simple.”
I wonder what this trolling absolutist is trying to imply with that statement.
Amy’s comment doesn’t meet your definition of magical thinking at all. It is the most logical conclusion based on the evidence. And she’s not implying anything, she’s telling you that this is simple logic, because it is.
No, I believe and know, because it’s Ethics 101, that the same actions with the same intended outcomes are equally ethical regardless of the motives of the actors. In other words, doing the right thing for some wrong reasons doesn’t change the fact that its still the right thing.
Your theory makes no sense whatsoever. Firing Carlson loses Fox money, certainly for the short term. The laws suit money was already a sunk cost, Firing Tucker didn’t mitigate the damages. It did send the message that on-air personalities can’t lie about their positions to get better ratings, and establish an ethical standard.
That’s not Ethics 101, it’s a specific ethical philosophy called consequentialism. There are competing philosophies. Surely you know this?
Okay just to be clear…
“ actions with the same intended outcomes are equally ethical regardless of the motives of the actors. ”
An old lady is walking across the street about to get hit by a car.
I don’t see she’s about to get hit by the car, but I hate old women so I run up and push her on the ground which causes her arm to break when she falls.
I DO see she’s about to get hit by the car, I love old women so I run up and push her on the ground, out of the way of the car, which causes her arm to break when she falls.
In one reality I push her because I hate her, in another reality I push her to save her from being hit by a car.
You’re saying both pushes are equally ethical since the same action with the same outcome are the same.
I have to say I’ve been disappointed by Tucker Carlson. Although he’s little more than a barely educated trust fund baby (frozen TV dinners, as I recall), I thought he was a straight shooter. Silly me.
Aha, the twisting spin of political propaganda in a nutshell; the Liberals and progressives I’ve read or heard today (so far) say something to the effect of Tucker Carlson was fired and that CNN and Don Lemon parted ways; and on the other hand, most conservatives are saying something to the effect of Don Lemon was fired and that Fox News and Tucker Carlson parted ways. There is no real truth to be known other than the fact that Don Lemon is no longer with CNN and Tucker Carlson is no longer with Fox News.
Personally I just don’t give a damn how the unethical non-journalist talking head propagandists leave these networks as long as their friggin’ gone. Let these unethical propagandists make their way on Rumble and Youtube videos, if they can.
All the networks and newspapers should clean house and get back to real journalism as fast as you can!
ARRRGH! More bad grammar on my part. It should be “they’re friggin’ gone” not “their friggin’ gone”. That’s what I get for changing something without proof reading again.
Should we call this move by Fox a “Reverse Budweiser”?
I’m pretty sure any time a TV network cans its most popular show it anticipates this. CBS cancelling “The Smother Brothers,” …etc.
Though CNN’s value should INCREASE after firing Don Lemon.
Nightmare unethical scenario: The Tucker Carlson Don Lemon show on some platform!
They should switch networks.
Talk about a Great Replacement!
People will call Carlson what they will and heap criticisms on him, but the fact remains he had the number one show on Fox and regularly trounced the competition. This is going to hurt Fox, but even more so if Carlson ends up on another network such as Newsmax, for example.
But I think it likely Fox may have paid Carlson a whole lot of money to keep that from happening which seems similar to the O’Reilly settlement when he was let go.
I also heard a rumor that firing Carlson was part of the Dominion settlement, something they insisted on.
*extremely The Godfather voice* Ratings? You come to an ethics blog to brag about ratings? On the day of Tucker Carlson’s firing?
Allow me to interject: Ed’s take is very Donald Trump-like; he’s always using ratings and poll numbers to “prove” that a critic doesn’t have standing, or to show that criticism must be wrong because he’s popular. I just read another “Tucker is laughing all the way to the bank” piece. So what? We know a lot of people will slobber over Carlson while he cynically lies about what he believes and sends tips to mainstream media journalists. Alex Jones still has an audience; Bill O’Reilly; Dan Rather. That just proves people are gullible and suckers are born every minute. A responsible network doesn’t fire a Tucker Carlson to destroy him; it does it because responsible networks don’t employ liars. (Fox isn’t responsible, but in this case acted responsibly.)
Glad to agree with this comment.