Tucker Carlson behaved in a manner that would get any employee fired from any organization with two atoms of integrity and professionalism to rub together unless the organization was completely in thrall to The King’s Pass. It is really as simple as that; this isn’t hard. Nevertheless, pundits, politicians and hack journalists on both sides of the ideological divide set out to misrepresent the event in order to promote their own world views, confusing the American public when they should be illuminating a basic ethics and life competence issue.
Let’s see...why not start with one of the biggest hacks out there, CNN’s former fake journalism ethics watchdog and veteran Fox News-a-phobe, Brian Stelter? “Why Tucker Carlson’s Exit From Fox News Looks Like an Execution” is the title of his analysis in “Vanity Fair,” itself now a nest of progressive propaganda merchants (but Stelter lowers the net ethics quotient anyway). The answer to Stelter’s question is, he offers, this: “He’s not being given a chance to say goodbye. It is technically possible, I suppose, that Carlson turned down a chance to sign off on his own terms. But my 20 years of experience covering cable news suggests otherwise.”
Wow. This guy is really something. Completely inept and intellectually dishonest, Stelter has to begin an article by reminding readers how special he is. Of course Carlson wasn’t given a chance to give a last broadcast. He was fired for cause. When you are fired for cause, security ushers you out of the building. Your bosses don’t give you anything but a severance package—maybe—and ten minutes to put your stuff in a cardboard box. Allowing a likely bitter and angry demagogue like Carlson to “say good bye” is like the Charles Addams cartoon where a guy arrested for making obscene phone calls is allowed to make his one call and he makes another obscene one. What Fox did with Carlson wasn’t “an execution.” It was a standard firing.
Over at the New Republic, long-time leftist hysteric Michael Tomasky (whose biased news analysis helped drive me away from The Daily Beast) writes in “Why Fox News Is Going to Get Worse—a Lot Worse” that Carlson is certain to be replaced by someone who is “more trolly, more racist, more pro-Putin, and just all-around more outrageous than Carlson.” Tomasky is just using Carlson’s demise as an excuse to attack Fox News when it has done the right and responsible thing for once, and at significant cost: its value dipped a billion dollars on the news of the firing. In the process, he repeats the Big Lies that the Left wielded against Carlson in its efforts to silence him, because censoring opposition is how Big Blue rolls these days; it’s so much more effective than trying to win a debate with facts and logic.
Carlson’s not “racist,” but the playbook demands that anyone who questions color-based, George Floyd Freakout policies must be a racist. Tucker’s not “pro-Putin,” he’s anti-US involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war, a defensible position. Carlson, moreover, was far less outrageous than the jerk he replaced, Bill O’Reilly, so why does Tomasky assume Carlson’s replacement will be worse than he was?
The Left-of-Left Marxist rag “The Nation” has this measured response: “Don’t Let the Door Hit You in the Ass, Tucker Carlson!” Stay classy, there, Nation! As with Tomasky’s analysis, Carlson is evil (“racist misognyist authoritarian”) because he doesn’t agree with the positions of the Nation’s radical staff, such as resident nut-ball Elie Mystal, who has advocated, for example, that black jurors should refuse to convict black criminals. Tucker also opposes abortion, so he must be a monster.
Perhaps the dumbest takeaway from Carlson’s firing came from dark horse Republican Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, flush with success after triggering the Don Lemon meltdown that finally got CNN’sworst remaining fool his just desserts. Ramaswamy said yesterday that Tucker Carlson should run for President. He really did.
“I think he’d be a good addition to the race,” Ramaswamy told Politico. “I think someone should only do this if they feel called to do it, but I think it’d be good for the country if he got in, to be honest with you.” Sure, it’s always good for the country when a trust fund dilettante with no governing experience whatsoever and who has never indicated that he could run a sidewalk lemonade stand gives ignoramuses with a right to vote a chance to put him in the White House. What a great idea!
One of the Washington Post’s reliable progressive mouthpieces, Greg Sargent, came up with this non-sequitur: Tucker Carlson’s ouster is another sign that MAGA is shrinking. Uh, no, Tucker Carlson’s firing is nothing more than a sign that Tucker Carlson was fired, and that Fox News has some journalism and broadcasting professionalism standards after all. I’m sure the Post has some too, buried somewhere in the darkness. Carlson wasn’t even an enthusiastic Trump supporter.
Finally, over at Rolling Stone (where Matt Taibbi used to write until the publication’s lack of journalism ethics disgusted him), there is “13 Terrible Things Tucker Carlson Said That DIDN’T Get Him Fired. “ It’s similar to the New Republic’s version, “The 10 Most Fascist Things Tucker Carlson Said on Air.” All the 25 items mentioned, save one, represent a stated opinion by Carlson because, again, the Left believes that any opinions it doesn’t like should be silenced, punished, blocked from the vulnerable eyes and ears of a delicate public for their own good.
The one legitimate item appears in The New Republic’s list: “7. He knowingly lied that the 2020 election was stolen.” That’s not accurately phrased: Carlson lied that he believed that the 2020 election was stolen, but that’s close enough for horseshoes and TNR. Yup, Fox News fired the host of a public affairs opinion show for broadcasting as an opinion a position that he didn’t really hold for ratings and to please (and mislead) his audience. That’s why he was fired. That’s why he had to be fired. That’s why no legitimate news or opinion source should hire him, and why nobody should care what he says in the future.
That’s all.
Ethics Alarms 
“Carlson’s not “racist,”
You’re wrong, and the Rolling Stone article you link to proves it. Tucker was a frequent pusher of the “Great Replacement theory,” the fundamental ideology of white nationalist and white supremacist groups. Good luck arguing that they aren’t racist. Tucker also said immigrants make us “dirtier and poorer” and called Iraqis “semiliterate primitive monkeys.” He fearmongered about, of all groups, gypsies. One of the most common themes of his show was that non-white immigrants–both legal and illegal–were a threat to America.
“”Tucker’s not “pro-Putin,””
You’re wrong, and Tucker’s own words prove it:
“”Why do I care what is going on in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia? I’m serious. Why shouldn’t I root for Russia? Which by the way I am.”
https://www.vox.com/2019/11/26/20983778/tucker-carlson-rooting-for-russia-ukraine-invasion-america-first
“Carlson, moreover, was far less outrageous than the jerk he replaced, Bill O’Reilly, so why does Tomasky assume Carlson’s replacement will be worse than he was?”
Here I simply disagree, but I suppose this is a subjective matter. I remember O’Reilly at least sometimes tried to appear moderate and fair. Carlson appeals almost exclusively to the far right.
Honest question, and I ask this as non-white, if pushing the “Great Replacement theory” is a symptom/evidence of racist view, doesn’t this mean that pushing for and celebrating non-whites becoming majority (to ensure political dominance, as many lefties openly do nowadays—they’re most eagerly marking the date/year when whites would no longer are majority) is also racist?
To put it differently, I don’t buy this “racism” BS unless those tossing such “racist” accusations are will to, and do call non-whites (or whites speaking, supposedly, on behalf of BIPOCs) for doing and saying the same thing that gets whites accused of racism.
It’s a Marxist, Saul Alinsky thing, Ron: the oppressed can never be oppressors. It’s that simple. It’s a gold plated get out of jail free card.
But I’d recommend strongly not engaging with Devon and the other person.
Just banned Devon, or he banned himself by stooping to rhetoric he knew would get him kicked out.
Molto gratzie.
Nope.
*produces a piece of paper*
It is by my order and for the good of the state that the bearer of this has done what he has done.
1. “The Great Replacement Theory” has been explicitly endorsed by Democrats in the past in their embarce of illegal immigration. It became “racist” when conservatives like Ann Coulter picked up the theme. Like so many langiage tricks, the title implies racism. The argument that open borders will inevitably create a public that does not accept core American values and principles isn’t racist, but tarring it as such is part of the “xenophobic” trope used to intimidate those who think immigration laws should be enforced.
2. Saying that he’s “rooting for Russia” was a flip way of saying that he doesn’t think Ukraine is worth fighting for, and that Zelensky is corrupt. Putin isn’t Russia. My son is from Russia. I’m rooting for Russia to get its act together and get rid of Putin. If “I’m rooting for Russia” against Ukraine is the best RS has to prove Carlson is pro-Putin, its pretty weak evidence. But even if he meant it and is pro-Putin, his opinion is not a firing offense.
3. I had taken notes on O’Reilly for years. He was the worst narcissist on TV, got caught in lies routinely, and isn’t as smart as Carlson…and I say that as someone who was treated very well by him when I appeared on his show. And Carlson has taken moderate positions now and then. It’s close, I’ll give you that.
FROM THE MODERATOR: Alert: Devon is banned. I tried to engage him civilly and politely, and in his last two comments, he resorted to insults when he ran out of bad arguments. So disappointing…
Don’t respond to any comments he tries to sneak on here from now on, because they will vanish with the comment.
Surely there are committed progressives somewhere who aren’t arrogant, closed-minded assholes….
I assume George Soros or someone like him and outfits like MoveOn.org or the DNC employ numerous people fulltime to blow-up commentary at non-aligned websites and weblogs. These people are so ferocious and energetic and willing to spend unlimited time dogging non-lefties that they simply can’t be doing it in their spare time. Their being paid is the only logical explanation. I know businesses hire people to manage their image on social media. I have to assume political groups do the same thing.
but is there any evidence of that? Sometimes, as I believe Freud once said, an asshole is just an asshole.
But if they’re just random assholes, shouldn’t they very to some extent? They all work from the same script to the same end.
vary
It wouldn’t surprise me. Record companies used to hire operatives to patrol their artists’ sites to make he’s/she’s/they’re the greatest posts and to attack anyone who criticized the artist even a little bit. Sometimes a jerk is just a jerk, of course, but I get a little suspicious when multiple posters all sound the same.
There are very few. I think the movement takes it out of you. Diana Oughton, Weather operative who perished in the 1973 Greenwich townhouse explosion, looked like a happy if slightly goofy college student initially, but the last few pictures of her showed her with her hair shorn, her eyes hidden behind ugly John Lennon glasses, and her body pretty much emaciated. The movement had turned her into essentially a robot, devoid of feelings even for her family. This is a movement that gave us people who set fires, tear down statues they don’t like, throw dangerous stuff at police officers, and provoke fights so they can beat those they don’t agree with up. Do you think people like that are going to be kind or even civil?
I’ve been reading books from the early ’70s as background research for my, I think, I hope? piece of fiction about the era with the working title “Love in the Time of Birth Control.” “The Second Sex,” Doris Lessing’s “The Golden Notebook,” “Fear of Flying,” “The Feminine Mystique.” You know what concept is missing from all of them? Affection. And I would add concern for the well-being of others who are close to you and need your concern, like, oh say, spouses or children or other family members. There’s a lot of concern in concept for the proletariat and the oppressed, but actual humans you interact with, forget it. I’m coming to think revolutionaries are somewhere on the autism spectrum. They have a crippling difficulty relating to human beings.
Alas, Poor Devon,
I did not know him.
-Jut
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=9bnJoDuw&id=9D9989FC2E923726CA463DC3349FE146B1F26747&thid=OIP.9bnJoDuwlmnZ_qL4Ebv41gHaHa&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2f736x%2fca%2fda%2f73%2fcada73de6e3211201bf5a79e7cb3cc54.jpg&cdnurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.f5b9c9a03bb09669d9fea2f811bbf8d6%3frik%3dR2fysUbhnzTDPQ%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=648&expw=648&q=charles+addams+obscene+phone+call+cartoon&simid=608009074287252613&FORM=IRPRST&ck=8250B9A6F89B8D2B3941731B05B74277&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0
Made my day, first thing in the morning.
Knowingly lying that he thought the election was stolen, when he didn’t really think it was stolen. One word: stupid. Some kind of tragic flaw. Almost Greek. Cue Victor Davis Hanson.
Isn’t all the speculation surrounding why Carlson was terminated just that speculation. I have absolutely no faith in any of the players at Fox or any other media to tell me the actual facts.
Was it because he lied about an opinion for ratings? Maybe. Did he piss off the left leaning Murdock boy and his wife? Maybe. Was it because he aired exculpatory video of January 6 and this is a reaction from the Schumer call for his termination? Maybe.
Personally, I don’t care. I have enough intelligence to ferret out BS from fact. I can also discern opinion from actuality. Whether Carlson openly opined an understanding similar to mine but did not actually believe is immaterial to me because I don’t rely on the opinions of others to form my own. The problem with most of these shows – right and left – fly under the banner of “news” be it Fox, MSNBC, CNN or Newsmax. The audience who accept the opinions proffered by pundits on these shows as fact are really the problem not the person delivering an opinion.
This is an interesting read on this topic:
https://brownstone.org/articles/tucker-carlson-departure-power-of-big-pharma/?utm_medium=onesignal&utm_source=push
Chris,
What your linked article explains was likely the last straw and Tucker probably knew it. This is also shown and commented on in the video link I provided, near the beginning. It was a brutal take-down by Carlson of how Big Pharma now controls the MSM. Too severe to be forgiven or overlooked.
Insightful analysis of Tucker, his opinions, and the function of the MSM.
“Fox News fired the host of a public affairs opinion show for broadcasting as an opinion a position that he didn’t really hold for ratings and to please (and mislead) his audience. That’s why he was fired.”
That’s not quite right. If that’s the reason (I’m not sure I buy it), then he wouldn’t have been fired for lying about his opinion. He would have been fired because the lie got out. The statements in question, I believe, came from a series of group texts or emails with other hosts and executives at Fox News. They knew about all of this more than a year ago. If that’s why he was fired now, it’s only because it became public in a very expensive lawsuit, not because he lied to his audience. They could have fired him in January 2021 if they were at all upset about him lying on air.
But my gut feeling is this is because Carlson committed the cardinal sin of cable news. He criticized Big Pharma. Fatal mistake.
1. It’s an interesting point about executives knowing that Carlson was lying. However—a) there is no evidence that I’ve seen that the CEO or the board knew—he wasn’t texting the Murdochs; b) firing him earlier would have looked like an admission that it engaged in malicious defamation
2. The Big Phrama theory sure loos like a way to make a creep look like a martyr. Firing Carlson for deliberately issuing defamatory statements that he believed weren’t true and getting caught is a no brainer. Firing him for attacking Big Pharma seems like a confirmation bias theory based on assuming Fox News is evil.
3. I’ll buy it when there’s clear and convincing evidence. Attacking Big Pharma at this point is calling the sky blue. We know they lied abut the vaccines and fed the opioid epidemic. Fox is going to kill its cash cow because he piles on? Sound like a saving face theory they came up with in the back rooms of the Daily Caller.
I don’t think his show has been a “cash cow” for a while. He gets great ratings, but he’s also the main target of lots of attempts to intimidate advertisers. I don’t think Fox gets the premium rate on commercials for his show that the ratings would ordinarily command, because lots of high-end advertisers are afraid to be associated with him. The MyPillow guy can only buy so many commercial spots.
Whatever the proximate cause was for his firing, I think it’s clear that Tucker hasn’t fit in much at Fox, and hasn’t gotten along with the other personalities or executives there. The clock has been ticking on this for a while, I suspect, and it finally reached a point where the Tucker headaches were no longer outweighed by the Tucker revenue. The money equation (whether it was the Dominion settlement or threatened loss of advertisers) finally tipped into “not worth it” and gave them an opening to get rid of a guy who was a constant pain in the ass.