X Close

Tucker Carlson’s accidental confession The people's tribune is a trickster in disguise

“Just pick a side” (Credit: Tucker on Twitter)


August 1, 2023   6 mins

At the end of the Nineties, I called Tucker Carlson to ask his advice. I was about 20. He spoke kindly to me, and I liked him.

He had started his Washington career working for the Right-leaning Weekly Standard magazine. In a town of grey suits and cement blocks, he wrote with cleverness and style. I covered local crime for a small newspaper in Alabama. But I wanted to write like he did, so I asked: to work for the Weekly Standard, did I need to buy into a whole ideology? Or could I write for the Left-leaning New Republic, too? I wanted to tell all kinds of stories.

I’ve returned to his answer many times since. “Just pick a side,” he said.

In the years that followed, Carlson rose, then fell, then rose higher again, and often I wondered how he did it. I believe among the millions of words he employed — the thundering waterfall of words; the warring, imprecatory, wheedling words — only one mattered most: “you”.

This was his great insight. Instead of describing events from around the globe with detachment, he invited viewers into a conspiracy of knowing. It was a modern Gnosticism, a rebellion outside the gates of information. And his audience — an ageing, shrinking middle class — found that call irresistible. It was ingenious television.

Never mind that he was one of the most influential figures in the ruling party. Never mind that the most powerful news network paid him $20 million per year for that influence, on the highest-rated cable news show in history. It wasn’t about him. The mobs are coming for you.

Then, a few months ago, Carlson suddenly lost his lofty seat. In a book published today, he claims Fox News fired him as part of a $787.5 million deal with Dominion Voting Systems, after the network broadcast Donald Trump’s lies about election fraud. “They agreed to take me off the air, my show off the air, as a condition of the Dominion settlement,” Carlson says in Tucker, a biography by Chadwick Moore. “They had to settle this.” (Dominion’s lawyers flatly deny this: “Dominion made no requests or demands whatsoever regarding Mr Carlson’s employment with Fox.”)

In the days after his downfall, Carlson posted a video to social media in which he described how most of it — the whole televised political battle — was a sham, but that he would soon reveal the truth. And he concluded with a final, second-person invitation: “See you soon.”

Now Carlson truly does find himself cast outside the gates, maybe for the first time. He’s been an insider since his magazine stories turned into occasional television appearances, which became regular guest spots on CNN, then a hosting job on the show Crossfire, which pitted him against the liberal commentator Paul Begala. Carlson’s most famous moment on that show was a catastrophic encounter in 2004 with the comedian Jon Stewart, who accused Carlson and Begala of faking their outrage. “You’re partisan — what do you call it? — hacks,” Stewart said. He had drawn back a curtain to reveal the machinery of television debate, and the show never recovered. CNN soon cancelled it.

Carlson moved to MSNBC, where he hosted a show called Tucker. It never really caught on, and after its cancellation Carlson retreated to start a website called The Daily Caller, a conservative tabloid that gained popularity but never much respect as a real source of news. Then, in 2013, Carlson began his true upward trajectory, joining Fox News to co-host the chatty Fox & Friends. In 2016, he took over his own primetime show.

His timing was serendipitous, coming in the churn of Donald Trump’s first presidential campaign. But Carlson didn’t win an audience of millions by accident; he was exceptionally effective at the job, in ways small and large. His pacing, for instance, is impeccable. Speaking on television is hard — too slow and you’re plodding, too fast and you seem nervous — but Carlson had perfect timing. More importantly, he understood historical timing; as white Americans shifted from majority towards minority, many hardened into a political bloc and eyed institutions with distrust. Carlson recognised the power in their grievance and made a shift alongside them, casting himself as a populist voice for the forgotten and downtrodden.

It was a deft dance with his audience. It required them to forget that he rose to prominence wearing a bow tie, an affectation he began at preparatory school; that he lunched at The Palm on DuPont Circle in Washington, deep inside the Beltway; that he embodied the very Republican establishment against which he raged. It required him to rage for you.

Carlson and his producers pioneered a new style of commentary. Instead of bowing to Jon Stewart’s accusations of manufactured outrage, they built a full-scale factory. It worked like this: producers would scour the American landscape for someone — anyone — behaving in outlandish ways. Hyper-wokeness worked best, but sheer nuttiness served at a pinch. Then they presented this fringe behaviour as central, as representative of them, the un-Americans who would supplant you.

It started with mere exaggeration about issues that genuinely, legitimately, do matter to Americans. Immigration, for instance. In 2017 in Pennsylvania, a Roma refugee child couldn’t make it to a bathroom on time, pulled down his pants, and defecated outside. By the time Carlson injected the story into the national consciousness, “gypsies” had overrun the town and left “streets covered — pardon us now, but it’s true — with human faeces”.

Viewers reacted with anger and fear. And soon Carlson’s show grew so big it competed less against other news programmes than the internet itself. But rage is a market with inflation. By the end of his tenure at Fox, Carlson railed against candy: “Woke M&Ms have returned. The green M&M got her boots back, but apparently is now a lesbian maybe?”

For a time, a conscientious viewer could overlook the widgets tumbling from Carlson’s outrage assembly line because they mattered so little. “You know the official story about pandas. They’re cute but adorably helpless, which is why they’re almost extinct,” he told viewers in 2018. “But like a lot of what we hear that’s a lie.”

Then, in 2020, the country suffered a presidential election so fractious it tore at the fabric of American society. The author Mark Bowden and I wrote a book about the effort to overturn that election, and much of our attention went to the literal machinery of democracy: the vote tabulators made by Dominion and Smartmatic. As we pieced together accounts from county-level election officials — themselves almost all conservative Republicans — reality diverged ever-further from the version put forward by Carlson and his colleagues on Fox News. And we wondered: how are they getting away with this?

Carlson had retooled the factory, and instead of cranking out horny pandas and woke M&Ms, the show offered viewers conspiracies about matters of life and actual death. The apparatus of democracy. The January 6 attack on the US Capitol. The war in Ukraine.

Segments from Tucker Carlson Tonight started appearing in Russia’s internal propaganda. And suddenly he wasn’t getting away with it. Dominion weighed in with a gargantuan defamation lawsuit against Fox News, a suit so strong that Fox scrambled to apologise, repeatedly and in prime time. Then, thanks to the suit, the private text messages of Fox’s biggest stars went public, revealing that they didn’t believe the lies from Trump’s team. “Sidney Powell is lying by the way. I caught her. It’s insane,” Carlson wrote of Trump’s lawyer, to a colleague. “Our viewers are good people and they believe it.” Carlson didn’t believe any of it. But he had picked a side.

Uglier, if less consequential, revelations followed. The day after the January 6 attacks, for instance, Carlson had sent the following text to a producer:

“A couple of weeks ago, I was watching a video of people fighting on the street in Washington. A group of Trump guys surrounded an Antifa kid and started pounding the living shit out of him. It was three against one, at least. Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously. It’s not how white men fight.”

All of it — the Dominion reporting, the hypocrisy about Trump, the racist messages — led Fox News in April to pull their highest-rated host from the air. In Tucker, Carlson’s biographer describes Carlson’s downfall not as the consequence of his own actions, but instead, naturally, as the result of a conspiracy with foreboding consequences for the reader: “What’s most stunning was the brazenness. A major network had caved to political and regulatory pressures, and the leftists behind it didn’t even feel the need to pretend otherwise. This is the way healthy societies die.”

Carlson remains under contract with Fox — still receiving a paycheck according to the new book — although he has created a showdown with the network since then by broadcasting on Twitter (since renamed “X”). The videos portray Carlson in exile, and there’s an element of truth to it. He’s still fabulously wealthy and famous, but he no longer sits on the Fox News throne. Instead, he broadcasts from a less polished set, where he uses his hand to scroll his own teleprompter, and his shows feel like an attempt to grab a piece of a younger, online zeitgeist. Take the two-and-a-half-hour interview with “alpha male” influencer Andrew Tate, which Carlson began by claiming public schools in America are removing urinals from boys’ bathrooms because “masculine qualities are oppressive” and boys should “sit down when you pee, like a good little girl”. Carlson used a different set, for that episode, as Tate is under house arrest in Romania, awaiting trial for rape and human trafficking.

It is impossible to say where Carlson will go next. Maybe he’ll find a larger, younger audience. Maybe, like Howard Stern, the former broadcast radio shock jock who turned to satellite radio, he’ll shift to a narrower but even more lucrative format. Only one option seems unimaginable: that he could simply fade away.

At the end of the new biography, Carlson muses on his future, and makes what he intends to be a jab at television. One last conspiratorial offering for you. But for years he was the leading voice on the format, so instead it comes across as unintended confession: “You can tell when someone’s lying to you or when someone’s shading the truth or trying to spin you,” he says. “And there’s a lot of artifice in television.”


Matthew Teague is a journalist and co-author of The Steal.

MatthewTeague

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

170 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
1 year ago

Teague is a lying sack of crap about the whole Dominion thing. Guess who at Fox gave Sydney Powell the biggest pushback on her election fraud claims?
“We have no intention of fighting with her,” Mr. Carlson said Thursday evening. “We’ve always respected her work. We simply wanted to see the details. … We invited Sidney Powell on this show. We would’ve given her the whole hour; we would’ve given her the entire week actually and listened quietly the whole time at rapt attention — that’s a big story. But she never sent us any evidence despite a lot of requests, polite requests, not a page. When we kept pressing, she got angry and told us to stop contacting her.”

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

So Fox paid Dominion hundreds of millions of dollars out of the goodness if their hearts?

Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
1 year ago

Hardly, just that Tucker Carlson keeps getting brought up like he was one of the reasons Fox was in trouble with Dominion when he was one of the few people who did not go along with it. The people at Dominion may have wanted Carlson gone. There is still a lot of smoke and mirrors around the whole thing, but if it comes out that they demanded Carlson’s firing even though he was not involved in the whole voting machine fraud claims, Dominion may find themselves in a lawsuit. As far as I’m concerned, it is great to watch Murdoch’s empire commit suicide right along side the slow painful deaths of CNN and MSNBC.

Konstantinos Stavropoulos
Konstantinos Stavropoulos
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Besides, Teague is so much one-sided on this. Tucker was successful because he is a good performer. If he exaggerates or even lies, his exaggeration and lying is less dangerous of that of the New York Times. That is where this article gets super biased. The author picked a side. On this article at least. We didn’t see any argument including the whole picture of the US public discourse and politics. Only shooting on Carlson while out of the main stage. What about the play that goes on..? Furthermore what about the lost common sense and the middle ground politics we desperately need. Not a word from Matthew Teague..!

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
1 year ago

‘If he exaggerates or even lies, his exaggeration and lying is less dangerous than that of the New York Times’. Blimey you must be desperate.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Coralie Palmer

I think that is a valid point, sadly, in a world where (almost) everyone lies we have to be grateful for the best of a bad lot. What other options do we have? We still have our own ability to filter out the exaggeration at least.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Not everyone has the capacity to filter out untruths, particulary when listening to those lies on a daily basis, and that’s all they hear. The lies become brainwashing, and the suspicious and paranoid listening mind feels validated. Half of America bought into Carlson’s outright lies. He has a lot to answer for. I find it beyond belief that he appears unscathed. Is that not a psychopath?

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Not everyone has the capacity to filter out untruths, particulary when listening to those lies on a daily basis, and that’s all they hear. The lies become brainwashing, and the suspicious and paranoid listening mind feels validated. Half of America bought into Carlson’s outright lies. He has a lot to answer for. I find it beyond belief that he appears unscathed. Is that not a psychopath?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Coralie Palmer

I think that is a valid point, sadly, in a world where (almost) everyone lies we have to be grateful for the best of a bad lot. What other options do we have? We still have our own ability to filter out the exaggeration at least.

Jimminy Timminy
Jimminy Timminy
1 year ago

‘We didn’t see any argument including the whole picture of the US public discourse and politics.’
That would have been a long article… And I don’t think that’s a reasonable criteria to expect from an opinion piece – a bit like saying you can’t write an article about Lionel Messi’s greatness because there are plenty of other great footballers.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
1 year ago

‘If he exaggerates or even lies, his exaggeration and lying is less dangerous than that of the New York Times’. Blimey you must be desperate.

Jimminy Timminy
Jimminy Timminy
1 year ago

‘We didn’t see any argument including the whole picture of the US public discourse and politics.’
That would have been a long article… And I don’t think that’s a reasonable criteria to expect from an opinion piece – a bit like saying you can’t write an article about Lionel Messi’s greatness because there are plenty of other great footballers.

Konstantinos Stavropoulos
Konstantinos Stavropoulos
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Besides, Teague is so much one-sided on this. Tucker was successful because he is a good performer. If he exaggerates or even lies, his exaggeration and lying is less dangerous of that of the New York Times. That is where this article gets super biased. The author picked a side. On this article at least. We didn’t see any argument including the whole picture of the US public discourse and politics. Only shooting on Carlson while out of the main stage. What about the play that goes on..? Furthermore what about the lost common sense and the middle ground politics we desperately need. Not a word from Matthew Teague..!

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago

Really, your comments belong at the Guardian where everyone will bob in agreement like dashboard toys.

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
1 year ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

Sounds to me like you can’t handle a bit of healthy debate, Jezza, my boy! Are you one of the UnHerd bobbing heads?!?!?
Come on, take your best shot – I promise to go easy on you!

Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
1 year ago

I don’t see the problem with your comment. It just brought up something that deserved further clarifying.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago

This site needs some different viewpoints for sure. Unfortunately, SC you don’t deliver. You mostly make condescending remarks. You don’t really make arguments. Some of the other left-leaning commenters are much better at that.

Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Agreed I’ve followed some very interesting discussions on here with excellent contra the Unherd herd positions very well elucidated. CS just trolls.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

Oh be fair. Posters saying ‘oh go away to the guardian’ deserve everything they get. I wouldn’t waste reasoned argument either.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

Oh be fair. Posters saying ‘oh go away to the guardian’ deserve everything they get. I wouldn’t waste reasoned argument either.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I’d like to hear something about the Dan Wootton story.
I mean, that’s topical, and involves a different viewpoint (ie, would be given by someone on the other side) and I’m surprised there’s no mention of it.

Last edited 1 year ago by Dumetrius
Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Actually he does when he’s interested. It’s just that you don’t agree with him. I don’t every time. To be honest, what you see as ‘condescending remarks’ I just see as old-fashioned ridicule, or taking the p***. A fine British tradition in my view.

Last edited 1 year ago by Coralie Palmer
Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

True.

Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Agreed I’ve followed some very interesting discussions on here with excellent contra the Unherd herd positions very well elucidated. CS just trolls.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I’d like to hear something about the Dan Wootton story.
I mean, that’s topical, and involves a different viewpoint (ie, would be given by someone on the other side) and I’m surprised there’s no mention of it.

Last edited 1 year ago by Dumetrius
Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Actually he does when he’s interested. It’s just that you don’t agree with him. I don’t every time. To be honest, what you see as ‘condescending remarks’ I just see as old-fashioned ridicule, or taking the p***. A fine British tradition in my view.

Last edited 1 year ago by Coralie Palmer
Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

True.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago

What you are offering is not ‘debate’.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

Where’s the healthy debate?

Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
1 year ago

I don’t see the problem with your comment. It just brought up something that deserved further clarifying.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago

This site needs some different viewpoints for sure. Unfortunately, SC you don’t deliver. You mostly make condescending remarks. You don’t really make arguments. Some of the other left-leaning commenters are much better at that.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago

What you are offering is not ‘debate’.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

Where’s the healthy debate?

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

Unfortunately a lot of comments on UnHerd are now descending into the same partisan nonsense, albeit from the other side

Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

And yet interesting exchanges do still happen. Something that is not possible at all on, say, the Guardian comments section.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

That’s a fact about the Guardian and quite true about the WSJ and Washington Post too (nonsense back-and-forth, left-tilted raillery and lunatic-fringe trolling there). Good exchanges occasionally occur in the NYT comments but usually only in a fractured way because they wait so long to publish anything controversial and usually suppress anything confrontational–especially if it is not safely to the left of center or if it genuinely challenges establishmentarian wisdom.
I cannot deny your point about UnHerd either. I find more sensible or intriguing views here from the center-right, hard right, and especially the hard-to-place than I find elsewhere. People that both sharply disagree and who seem to share a great deal in common engage in meaningful, nuanced exchanges; not on every board, but often. The trolls and hard partisans don’t run the show here, at least not yet. That’s also true of persuasion.community but their membership and commentariat is not as robust yet. [end overlong reply]

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Excellent post

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I see the point you’re making but I think you’re missing something. It’s just as possible on Unherd as anywhere else that a poster can say something pompously and at great length that is completely barking. Reasoned argument is redundant in those situations: life is too short. Taking the p*** is an entirely appropriate response in those situations in my view. And entirely in the tradition of British debate (Christopher Hitchens was past master of that technique).

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Coralie Palmer

Yes, the verbose, pompous and long winded comments are impossiblle to wade through, let alone repond to.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Coralie Palmer

Yes, the verbose, pompous and long winded comments are impossiblle to wade through, let alone repond to.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Excellent post

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I see the point you’re making but I think you’re missing something. It’s just as possible on Unherd as anywhere else that a poster can say something pompously and at great length that is completely barking. Reasoned argument is redundant in those situations: life is too short. Taking the p*** is an entirely appropriate response in those situations in my view. And entirely in the tradition of British debate (Christopher Hitchens was past master of that technique).

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

Actually in all fairness, that’s not true. The journalism’s a joke (as in most broadsheets now) and granted anything btl on trans, race or green issues is just a howling monotone. But quite often they’ll have a supposedly factual piece on say, the impact of quantum technology on computer chips. It turns out they always get these hilariously wrong. I only know this because worldwide, a load of boffins then start discussing it btl. These discussions are always terrific because the posters couldn’t give a toss about politics, they’re proper nerds. They’re just pursuing these astonishing tasks and reading about it is fabulous.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Coralie Palmer

Overall you sound rather dissatisfied with Uherd so I wonder why you hang out here.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Coralie Palmer

Overall you sound rather dissatisfied with Uherd so I wonder why you hang out here.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

That’s a fact about the Guardian and quite true about the WSJ and Washington Post too (nonsense back-and-forth, left-tilted raillery and lunatic-fringe trolling there). Good exchanges occasionally occur in the NYT comments but usually only in a fractured way because they wait so long to publish anything controversial and usually suppress anything confrontational–especially if it is not safely to the left of center or if it genuinely challenges establishmentarian wisdom.
I cannot deny your point about UnHerd either. I find more sensible or intriguing views here from the center-right, hard right, and especially the hard-to-place than I find elsewhere. People that both sharply disagree and who seem to share a great deal in common engage in meaningful, nuanced exchanges; not on every board, but often. The trolls and hard partisans don’t run the show here, at least not yet. That’s also true of persuasion.community but their membership and commentariat is not as robust yet. [end overlong reply]

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

Actually in all fairness, that’s not true. The journalism’s a joke (as in most broadsheets now) and granted anything btl on trans, race or green issues is just a howling monotone. But quite often they’ll have a supposedly factual piece on say, the impact of quantum technology on computer chips. It turns out they always get these hilariously wrong. I only know this because worldwide, a load of boffins then start discussing it btl. These discussions are always terrific because the posters couldn’t give a toss about politics, they’re proper nerds. They’re just pursuing these astonishing tasks and reading about it is fabulous.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Which side?

Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

And yet interesting exchanges do still happen. Something that is not possible at all on, say, the Guardian comments section.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Which side?

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

Yep – all these infants have is a line or two of sophomoric snark.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Joy

Gosh how frightful, someone not taking you seriously. (Be fair, you set yourself up for that one).

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Joy

Gosh how frightful, someone not taking you seriously. (Be fair, you set yourself up for that one).

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
1 year ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

Perish the thought that you’re faced with an opinion you disagree with. Still – first one off my bingo card, this early! ‘Go off to the Guardian’ – carbon copy of the Guardian’s ‘go off to the Daily Mail’, and every bit as puerile.

Last edited 1 year ago by Coralie Palmer
Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
1 year ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

Sounds to me like you can’t handle a bit of healthy debate, Jezza, my boy! Are you one of the UnHerd bobbing heads?!?!?
Come on, take your best shot – I promise to go easy on you!

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

Unfortunately a lot of comments on UnHerd are now descending into the same partisan nonsense, albeit from the other side

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

Yep – all these infants have is a line or two of sophomoric snark.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
1 year ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

Perish the thought that you’re faced with an opinion you disagree with. Still – first one off my bingo card, this early! ‘Go off to the Guardian’ – carbon copy of the Guardian’s ‘go off to the Daily Mail’, and every bit as puerile.

Last edited 1 year ago by Coralie Palmer
Bernard Hill
Bernard Hill
1 year ago

I’d say that Dominion are on the level saying that they didn’t ask for Carlson to go, but I don’t put it past the Murdochs’ apparatus to have told or implied that Dominion had, to Carlson. I can’t see that Dominion had a motive to lump the blame on one guy, but the Fox board, with of course Mr. Paul Ryan of GOP Establishment fame had every incentive to see him gone.

Last edited 1 year ago by Bernard Hill
Terry M
Terry M
1 year ago
Reply to  Bernard Hill

Maybe so, but they shot themselves in the foot. Are the Murdochs really that stupid, petty? You think maybe they were just jealous of Carlson getting too big for his britches?

Bernard Hill
Bernard Hill
1 year ago
Reply to  Terry M

…has to be an economic reason, as Peter suggests below.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Terry M

I didn’t see it as petty to fire Carlson. He’s the king of liars, the figurehead.

Bernard Hill
Bernard Hill
1 year ago
Reply to  Terry M

…has to be an economic reason, as Peter suggests below.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Terry M

I didn’t see it as petty to fire Carlson. He’s the king of liars, the figurehead.

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago
Reply to  Bernard Hill

It was Blackrock, who objected to his analysis of their and Nuland’s State Dept’s Ukraine war project. They increased their Fox stake substantially – and within a week, Fox had fired him.
Both financially and in terms of credibility, it’s cost Fox a lot more than it’s cost Tucker Carlson,

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Joy

I find it extraordinary that so many people here are taking Tucker Carlson seriously as a journalist. I mean, you must be setting the bar pretty low. The man is a ruthless media maven and like all of them is chiefly concerned with his own power, status and above all visibility. I wouldn’t frankly trust him to recognise a fact, let alone get it right. He’s in the business of stirring up opinion. That’s it, and that’s all of it.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Joy

I find it extraordinary that so many people here are taking Tucker Carlson seriously as a journalist. I mean, you must be setting the bar pretty low. The man is a ruthless media maven and like all of them is chiefly concerned with his own power, status and above all visibility. I wouldn’t frankly trust him to recognise a fact, let alone get it right. He’s in the business of stirring up opinion. That’s it, and that’s all of it.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Bernard Hill

That is my theory.
I get the sense that alliances are shifting and Murdoch needed Carlson gone

Terry M
Terry M
1 year ago
Reply to  Bernard Hill

Maybe so, but they shot themselves in the foot. Are the Murdochs really that stupid, petty? You think maybe they were just jealous of Carlson getting too big for his britches?

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago
Reply to  Bernard Hill

It was Blackrock, who objected to his analysis of their and Nuland’s State Dept’s Ukraine war project. They increased their Fox stake substantially – and within a week, Fox had fired him.
Both financially and in terms of credibility, it’s cost Fox a lot more than it’s cost Tucker Carlson,

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Bernard Hill

That is my theory.
I get the sense that alliances are shifting and Murdoch needed Carlson gone

David Barnett
David Barnett
1 year ago

There is no way that Dominion suffered $787M damage. There is much more to it. The “deal” is a sham. In may ways Murdoch is paying himself. He does not want Trump (or any other populist). That is the game. The alleged “libel” is a red-herring.
———————-
P.S. Powell was a patsy who followed a trail laid for her to distract from the real means of fraud in 2020 – phoney mail-in ballots. There are severe problems with the voting machines, and maybe they will be used next time, now that no one dare question them

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 year ago
Reply to  David Barnett

Fox settled. It wasn’t a judgement. So its fair to say they didnt want to go trial. Why? Becaue of all the things it would have exposed apparently.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  David Barnett

Rubbish.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 year ago
Reply to  David Barnett

Fox settled. It wasn’t a judgement. So its fair to say they didnt want to go trial. Why? Becaue of all the things it would have exposed apparently.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  David Barnett

Rubbish.

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago

Fox paid them, partly out of Old Man Murdoch’s post-NOTW phobia of courtroom appearances. But it had absolutely nothing to do with Carlson (however much Fox and the Left-MSM would like you to think it did).

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
1 year ago

Watching the frothing of outrage among posters here, faced with an actual journalist who knows what he’s talking about rather than a bloviating media twerp like Tucker, is massively entertaining. Probably keep me going till lunchtime.

Last edited 1 year ago by Coralie Palmer
Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
1 year ago

Hardly, just that Tucker Carlson keeps getting brought up like he was one of the reasons Fox was in trouble with Dominion when he was one of the few people who did not go along with it. The people at Dominion may have wanted Carlson gone. There is still a lot of smoke and mirrors around the whole thing, but if it comes out that they demanded Carlson’s firing even though he was not involved in the whole voting machine fraud claims, Dominion may find themselves in a lawsuit. As far as I’m concerned, it is great to watch Murdoch’s empire commit suicide right along side the slow painful deaths of CNN and MSNBC.

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago

Really, your comments belong at the Guardian where everyone will bob in agreement like dashboard toys.

Bernard Hill
Bernard Hill
1 year ago

I’d say that Dominion are on the level saying that they didn’t ask for Carlson to go, but I don’t put it past the Murdochs’ apparatus to have told or implied that Dominion had, to Carlson. I can’t see that Dominion had a motive to lump the blame on one guy, but the Fox board, with of course Mr. Paul Ryan of GOP Establishment fame had every incentive to see him gone.

Last edited 1 year ago by Bernard Hill
David Barnett
David Barnett
1 year ago

There is no way that Dominion suffered $787M damage. There is much more to it. The “deal” is a sham. In may ways Murdoch is paying himself. He does not want Trump (or any other populist). That is the game. The alleged “libel” is a red-herring.
———————-
P.S. Powell was a patsy who followed a trail laid for her to distract from the real means of fraud in 2020 – phoney mail-in ballots. There are severe problems with the voting machines, and maybe they will be used next time, now that no one dare question them

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago

Fox paid them, partly out of Old Man Murdoch’s post-NOTW phobia of courtroom appearances. But it had absolutely nothing to do with Carlson (however much Fox and the Left-MSM would like you to think it did).

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
1 year ago

Watching the frothing of outrage among posters here, faced with an actual journalist who knows what he’s talking about rather than a bloviating media twerp like Tucker, is massively entertaining. Probably keep me going till lunchtime.

Last edited 1 year ago by Coralie Palmer
Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

So Fox paid Dominion hundreds of millions of dollars out of the goodness if their hearts?

Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
1 year ago

Teague is a lying sack of crap about the whole Dominion thing. Guess who at Fox gave Sydney Powell the biggest pushback on her election fraud claims?
“We have no intention of fighting with her,” Mr. Carlson said Thursday evening. “We’ve always respected her work. We simply wanted to see the details. … We invited Sidney Powell on this show. We would’ve given her the whole hour; we would’ve given her the entire week actually and listened quietly the whole time at rapt attention — that’s a big story. But she never sent us any evidence despite a lot of requests, polite requests, not a page. When we kept pressing, she got angry and told us to stop contacting her.”

Bernard Hill
Bernard Hill
1 year ago

Mmmmm…. Mr Teague seems to be saying that Carlson’s advice about ‘picking a side’ implies that Carlson himself was prepared to go to bat for either political tribe. But for anyone who’s followed him over the last few years, its obvious that he is a conservative but not a partisan of either color.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Bernard Hill

Also, at that time, both sides did have a lot of common ground, such as patriotism, common decency, some control over immigration etc.

It’s not like today where joining one side makes you the mortal enemy of the other.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

It was there bubbling under the surface. I still remember the subtle attacks on Reagan. It exploded under GW Bush.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

It was there bubbling under the surface. I still remember the subtle attacks on Reagan. It exploded under GW Bush.

Ddwieland
Ddwieland
1 year ago
Reply to  Bernard Hill

Carlson has described himself as a classical liberal, which, given the disappointing shift in the political spectrum in the U.S. (and Canada) at least, is reasonable. I’ve experienced that shift myself. As in the stick figure cartoon that Musk tweeted, maintaining the same place ideologically moves us into what is now called conservative. Liberal doesn’t mean leftist, although some use the term that way.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Ddwieland

When has Carlson described himself as a classical liberal?

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Ddwieland

When has Carlson described himself as a classical liberal?

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
1 year ago
Reply to  Bernard Hill

He’s only partisan about himself, his viewing numbers, his fame and his salary.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Bernard Hill

Also, at that time, both sides did have a lot of common ground, such as patriotism, common decency, some control over immigration etc.

It’s not like today where joining one side makes you the mortal enemy of the other.

Ddwieland
Ddwieland
1 year ago
Reply to  Bernard Hill

Carlson has described himself as a classical liberal, which, given the disappointing shift in the political spectrum in the U.S. (and Canada) at least, is reasonable. I’ve experienced that shift myself. As in the stick figure cartoon that Musk tweeted, maintaining the same place ideologically moves us into what is now called conservative. Liberal doesn’t mean leftist, although some use the term that way.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
1 year ago
Reply to  Bernard Hill

He’s only partisan about himself, his viewing numbers, his fame and his salary.

Bernard Hill
Bernard Hill
1 year ago

Mmmmm…. Mr Teague seems to be saying that Carlson’s advice about ‘picking a side’ implies that Carlson himself was prepared to go to bat for either political tribe. But for anyone who’s followed him over the last few years, its obvious that he is a conservative but not a partisan of either color.

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago

This writer clearly is someone who hoped Tucker would give him more of a leg up. Sour grapes don’t make for a vintage year, but it’s good he got it out of his system.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
1 year ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

Hmmm. Sounds like a bit of projection in that bitterness.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Coralie Palmer

Exactly.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Coralie Palmer

Exactly.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

That’s silly.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
1 year ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

Hmmm. Sounds like a bit of projection in that bitterness.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

That’s silly.

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago

This writer clearly is someone who hoped Tucker would give him more of a leg up. Sour grapes don’t make for a vintage year, but it’s good he got it out of his system.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago

Interesting essay. I think there’s some even-handed criticism, there’s some biased quote mining, but it’s ultimately unfair to hold Carlson to a standard of objective news reporter.

He’s a television news personality. Rage and superficial analysis is the bread and butter of television – that’s why I never watch. It doesn’t matter if it’s Fox, CNN, MSNBC – the personalities are raging all the time about everything. That’s what they do. Why should Carlson be different?

The out of context quotes – about Sydney Powell and Antifa – betray the author’s own biases. I’ve never watched Carlson’s show, but I’ve heard him on a couple podcasts, and he comes across as an intelligent, humble, genuinely nice person.

Ultimately, it’s up to the consumer to figure out what’s true or not. If you’re watching Fox or CNN, don’t expect to get unbiased, objective news. And realize that Unherd has its own spin as well. I subscribe because I enjoy the content, but I also understand they share similar biases.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

“it’s up to the consumer to figure out what’s true or not”
And judging by Tucker’s views versus Fox’s ratings after he left, they have certainly figured it out

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Not necessarily or even likely. Highly partisan audiences don’t actually want balanced truthful reporting, but an ongoing tribal call to arms. Carlson has gone well down in my estimation as a commentator after reading this article. I don’t say this with any glee at all by the way.

If Carlson doubted the (false, as various US courts have upheld) election fraud narrative, he should have been interrogating the people who were making it. But “he had chosen a side”. He’s not alone in that of course, but in the end even Fox probably had no choice but to lose him, however much a sharp attraction he could certainly be.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Not necessarily or even likely. Highly partisan audiences don’t actually want balanced truthful reporting, but an ongoing tribal call to arms. Carlson has gone well down in my estimation as a commentator after reading this article. I don’t say this with any glee at all by the way.

If Carlson doubted the (false, as various US courts have upheld) election fraud narrative, he should have been interrogating the people who were making it. But “he had chosen a side”. He’s not alone in that of course, but in the end even Fox probably had no choice but to lose him, however much a sharp attraction he could certainly be.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Tucker is smart as a whip – in the main smarter than the others which in itself brings detractors. To me, he is compelling viewing. The author seems to have a personal beef with him.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago

Whole heartedly agree

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
1 year ago

Definitely smart as a whip, but fundamentally dishonest – and indeed dangerous – over the whole false stolen election narrative.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

I think most unbiased people can state unequivocally that it was rigged. It simply was. Deep sixing the laptop, ballot harvesting, etc. The only thing we are quibbling over is the language; stolen vs. rigged.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

yes.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

I think most unbiased people can state unequivocally that it was rigged. It simply was. Deep sixing the laptop, ballot harvesting, etc. The only thing we are quibbling over is the language; stolen vs. rigged.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

yes.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago

Whole heartedly agree

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
1 year ago

Definitely smart as a whip, but fundamentally dishonest – and indeed dangerous – over the whole false stolen election narrative.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

…he comes across as an intelligent, humble, genuinely nice person.
That is certainly my view. I saw a podcast in which he expressed scorn for the fact that he once threw his lot in with the establishment. To paraphrase what he said once you see that they are lying you can’t unsee the lies

Peter Lee
Peter Lee
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

“objective news reporter” Does that species still exist?

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Humble? I think you’re mistaking the TV persona for the actual person in a very big way. They’re not related. They’re not even close…

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Really?!! “an intelligent,humble genuinely nice person”. Then beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

“it’s up to the consumer to figure out what’s true or not”
And judging by Tucker’s views versus Fox’s ratings after he left, they have certainly figured it out

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Tucker is smart as a whip – in the main smarter than the others which in itself brings detractors. To me, he is compelling viewing. The author seems to have a personal beef with him.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

…he comes across as an intelligent, humble, genuinely nice person.
That is certainly my view. I saw a podcast in which he expressed scorn for the fact that he once threw his lot in with the establishment. To paraphrase what he said once you see that they are lying you can’t unsee the lies

Peter Lee
Peter Lee
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

“objective news reporter” Does that species still exist?

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Humble? I think you’re mistaking the TV persona for the actual person in a very big way. They’re not related. They’re not even close…

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Really?!! “an intelligent,humble genuinely nice person”. Then beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago

Interesting essay. I think there’s some even-handed criticism, there’s some biased quote mining, but it’s ultimately unfair to hold Carlson to a standard of objective news reporter.

He’s a television news personality. Rage and superficial analysis is the bread and butter of television – that’s why I never watch. It doesn’t matter if it’s Fox, CNN, MSNBC – the personalities are raging all the time about everything. That’s what they do. Why should Carlson be different?

The out of context quotes – about Sydney Powell and Antifa – betray the author’s own biases. I’ve never watched Carlson’s show, but I’ve heard him on a couple podcasts, and he comes across as an intelligent, humble, genuinely nice person.

Ultimately, it’s up to the consumer to figure out what’s true or not. If you’re watching Fox or CNN, don’t expect to get unbiased, objective news. And realize that Unherd has its own spin as well. I subscribe because I enjoy the content, but I also understand they share similar biases.

Mark Goodhand
Mark Goodhand
1 year ago

“the literal machinery of democracy: the vote tabulators made by Dominion and Smartmatic”

Why is this nut allowed to write for UnHerd?
Anyone who’s witnessed an election in the UK knows that “vote tabulators” are unnecessary. We record our votes the old fashioned way, with pencil & paper, and we get our results within hours of the polls closing.
We should require voter ID, and we should severely restrict (if not eliminate) postal voting, but I don’t know anyone who thinks our election process would be improved by the introduction of electronic votes.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Goodhand

Here in the USA the voting form can be four or five pages long. Votes for State, district officials, all the down to School Board! Thank God for postal voting

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Particularly if one is housebound.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Particularly if one is housebound.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Goodhand

The British system may or not be better than the (manifold) US ones, but that doesn’t in any way justify Carlson’s dishonesty in propagating an incendiary view of a “stolen” election with massive and widespread fraud, which has not been upheld by a single US court, is contrary to the views of election officials, and which Tucker Carlson himself did not believe.

Last edited 1 year ago by Andrew Fisher
Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

Again, there’s no doubt it was rigged. Stolen is not the proper word. I watched Tucker every night and he never claimed it was stolen.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

Rubbish. You’ve been brainwashed.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

Rubbish. You’ve been brainwashed.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

Well said.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

Again, there’s no doubt it was rigged. Stolen is not the proper word. I watched Tucker every night and he never claimed it was stolen.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

Well said.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Goodhand

Here in the USA the voting form can be four or five pages long. Votes for State, district officials, all the down to School Board! Thank God for postal voting

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Goodhand

The British system may or not be better than the (manifold) US ones, but that doesn’t in any way justify Carlson’s dishonesty in propagating an incendiary view of a “stolen” election with massive and widespread fraud, which has not been upheld by a single US court, is contrary to the views of election officials, and which Tucker Carlson himself did not believe.

Last edited 1 year ago by Andrew Fisher
Mark Goodhand
Mark Goodhand
1 year ago

“the literal machinery of democracy: the vote tabulators made by Dominion and Smartmatic”

Why is this nut allowed to write for UnHerd?
Anyone who’s witnessed an election in the UK knows that “vote tabulators” are unnecessary. We record our votes the old fashioned way, with pencil & paper, and we get our results within hours of the polls closing.
We should require voter ID, and we should severely restrict (if not eliminate) postal voting, but I don’t know anyone who thinks our election process would be improved by the introduction of electronic votes.

Steve White
Steve White
1 year ago

I don’t know this author Teague, but some things seem obvious. First off many might call this article a “hit peace”, because it is quite negative of Carlson. It’s got carefully selected slices of information cobbled together into an unflattering opinion that makes it look like Carlson is a liar, a really a guy who just formulates himself as a product calculating all things, the cadence of his delivery, the topics and ability to grab hold of a cultural zeitgeist.
Everything is about how you get people to like you, think you are competent, admire you, make yourself the best among all others. In short it’s what a covert narcissist is like. They are fake people who often mirror others they admire for certain things, all while simultaneously hating them, because all others who are not the narcissist are simply useful tools, supply for the narcissists own gain, and when they are better, just their very existence is a threat to diminish the narcissist.
However, I think this hit peace, and what the author chooses to notice, almost admire, and assume as Carlson’s modus operandi is simply projection. In other words, it seems he’s telling us about himself more, (his real self) in this than Carlson. So, yes, this is a hit peace, yes we see the ugliness of what supposedly makes this phony person Carlson tick, but really it’s the author himself who is revealed. I would argue that it’s his own mind we are getting a glimpse into. Because it’s so true, again and again, what they accuse you of, they’re doing. 
In this case, he sees only what he is capable of formulating the way someone is, the way someone makes it, because this is all his own mind can grasp. This is his “accidental confession”, according to him Carlson was kind to him, he admired him, so of course he should be destroyed.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve White
Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

Gosh, what a load of psycho babble from I presume – someone very opposed to the progressive Left!

It seems to me pretty simple. Carlson is immensely talented, he is entitled to his political leanings, many of which I agree with. However hasn’t he now been
proven as being dishonest over the stolen election narrative? Which is hardly some minor issue.

Last edited 1 year ago by Andrew Fisher
Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

Exactly.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

Exactly.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

It’s “piece”,not “peace” for Pete’s sake

Ron Wigley
Ron Wigley
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

Steve, a very good incisive piece, a narcissist at work and you have torn the mask off and revealed him as such, your knowledge here of this subject is impressive.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

What a load of twaddle!!

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

Gosh, what a load of psycho babble from I presume – someone very opposed to the progressive Left!

It seems to me pretty simple. Carlson is immensely talented, he is entitled to his political leanings, many of which I agree with. However hasn’t he now been
proven as being dishonest over the stolen election narrative? Which is hardly some minor issue.

Last edited 1 year ago by Andrew Fisher
UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

It’s “piece”,not “peace” for Pete’s sake

Ron Wigley
Ron Wigley
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

Steve, a very good incisive piece, a narcissist at work and you have torn the mask off and revealed him as such, your knowledge here of this subject is impressive.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

What a load of twaddle!!

Steve White
Steve White
1 year ago

I don’t know this author Teague, but some things seem obvious. First off many might call this article a “hit peace”, because it is quite negative of Carlson. It’s got carefully selected slices of information cobbled together into an unflattering opinion that makes it look like Carlson is a liar, a really a guy who just formulates himself as a product calculating all things, the cadence of his delivery, the topics and ability to grab hold of a cultural zeitgeist.
Everything is about how you get people to like you, think you are competent, admire you, make yourself the best among all others. In short it’s what a covert narcissist is like. They are fake people who often mirror others they admire for certain things, all while simultaneously hating them, because all others who are not the narcissist are simply useful tools, supply for the narcissists own gain, and when they are better, just their very existence is a threat to diminish the narcissist.
However, I think this hit peace, and what the author chooses to notice, almost admire, and assume as Carlson’s modus operandi is simply projection. In other words, it seems he’s telling us about himself more, (his real self) in this than Carlson. So, yes, this is a hit peace, yes we see the ugliness of what supposedly makes this phony person Carlson tick, but really it’s the author himself who is revealed. I would argue that it’s his own mind we are getting a glimpse into. Because it’s so true, again and again, what they accuse you of, they’re doing. 
In this case, he sees only what he is capable of formulating the way someone is, the way someone makes it, because this is all his own mind can grasp. This is his “accidental confession”, according to him Carlson was kind to him, he admired him, so of course he should be destroyed.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve White
Mark Morrison
Mark Morrison
1 year ago

Well, Mathew Teague certainly followed Tucker Carlton’s advice and picked his side. This article lacked any semblance of balance nor, indeed, any curiosity – much less criticism – as to how the prolonged, ideologically-driven actions of his ‘side’ provided the perfect societal and institutional Petri dish for Tucker. But then again, maybe this reader response shows how effective Tucker was, and continues to be, in ‘capturing’ his wounded and increasingly demographically compromised audience!

laura m
laura m
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Morrison

Teague misrepresented the demographics of Tucker’s audience, making his biased remarks all the more hollow.

laura m
laura m
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Morrison

Teague misrepresented the demographics of Tucker’s audience, making his biased remarks all the more hollow.

Mark Morrison
Mark Morrison
1 year ago

Well, Mathew Teague certainly followed Tucker Carlton’s advice and picked his side. This article lacked any semblance of balance nor, indeed, any curiosity – much less criticism – as to how the prolonged, ideologically-driven actions of his ‘side’ provided the perfect societal and institutional Petri dish for Tucker. But then again, maybe this reader response shows how effective Tucker was, and continues to be, in ‘capturing’ his wounded and increasingly demographically compromised audience!

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago

How predictable: yet another twisted, dishonest hatchet-job on Tucker Carlson delivered by a shill hack for the west’s increasingly shaky neoliberal junta, complete with the statutory straw-grasping ‘racism’ allegation. ‘Accidental confession’? What bulls.
Fox ‘fired’ Carlson because Larry Fink’s Blackrock increased its stake then ordered him fired. They did not appreciate his inconveniently truthful analysis of the neocons’ demented but lucrative proxy war in Ukraine. Losing Carlson has cost Fox millions of subscribers and billions of dollars and badly diminished its credibility with Republican voters. By contrast, Carlson’s profile, credibility and influence are stronger than ever. All Fink and Murdoch have achieved is to demonstrate their own corruption, fear of Carlson and fear of exposure to the sunlight of truth, and to establish Carlson as the real deal.
And a note to the editor of UnHerd. There is an increasing trend of UnHerd publishing dishonest, bad faith pieces by young know-littles who can barely hide their obsolete, left-liberal assumptions. If I want to read that sort of hack dreck, I can find it for free on the BBC or Guardian. For a handsome subscription, people expect better quality, and for UnHerd to live up to its name.

Last edited 1 year ago by Peter Joy
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Joy

You came to a website called UnHerd to be spoon fed content that tastes like quality to you because it’s familiar to your palate?
This is a rather well-written, fact-informed opinion piece by someone who knows a lot about the media landscape from the inside. Yet you are convinced you know far more about the real story, according to your easy-click “research” and observation. I allow that is it remotely possible that you do, but very far from likely.
To the editorial powers-that-be at UnHerd: As you already know, not every subscriber here confuses quality with content that only confirms or reinforces what they think they already know. Please continue to publish a variety of worthwhile material from across the cultural and political spectrum.
Granted, this was more of a hit piece than an attempt at a evenly-weighted profile–and this website could stand to cut down on hit pieces–but in this case the target could hardly be more deserving. The number of smitten fans, enraged at the very idea of their Tucker receiving less than reverent treatment, is indication enough that this skillful puncturing was called for. Don’t worry superfans, he’ll still be your favorite, re-inflated demagogue on a nightly basis.

laura m
laura m
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

“This is a rather well-written, fact-informed opinion piece by someone who knows a lot about the media landscape from the inside.”
Teaque did not offer any insights about the “media landscape” whatsoever.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  laura m

Perhaps not. But he is well-steeped in it, for better or worse, with a co-authored, well-received work of book-length journalism, not a semi-anonymous commenter like you or me (my screen name is the first part of what’s on my official documents, including the first name: AJ). he also examines Carlson’s career in considerable detail, whether from the inside or not.
https://www.amazon.com/Steal-Attempt-Overturn-Election-Stopped-ebook/dp/B09JDM2DS4/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3I5FHGPKTIETY&keywords=matthew+teague&qid=1690904545&s=books&sprefix=matthew+teague%2Cstripbooks%2C196&sr=1-1

laura m
laura m
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

You are such a capable web searcher. wow.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  laura m

Thanks. But my remarks don’t rely on anything but the internal content of the article, and my own opinionated assessment of what it says about a man I’ve watched–not often, but not that rarely–with dismayed fascination, and with a dash of grudging respect, for years. If Carlson decides he wants to be president we’ll be in bigger trouble than we already are. A master manipulator that makes Bill Clinton and Donald Trump look like lightweights.

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Time to switch from martinis to near beer.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

Nice try you cheap shot simpleton artist (don’t wanna overdo it, even with a part-time troll). Perhaps you’re imbibing today?

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

Nice try you cheap shot simpleton artist (don’t wanna overdo it, even with a part-time troll). Perhaps you’re imbibing today?

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Time to switch from martinis to near beer.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  laura m

Thanks. But my remarks don’t rely on anything but the internal content of the article, and my own opinionated assessment of what it says about a man I’ve watched–not often, but not that rarely–with dismayed fascination, and with a dash of grudging respect, for years. If Carlson decides he wants to be president we’ll be in bigger trouble than we already are. A master manipulator that makes Bill Clinton and Donald Trump look like lightweights.

laura m
laura m
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

You are such a capable web searcher. wow.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  laura m

Perhaps not. But he is well-steeped in it, for better or worse, with a co-authored, well-received work of book-length journalism, not a semi-anonymous commenter like you or me (my screen name is the first part of what’s on my official documents, including the first name: AJ). he also examines Carlson’s career in considerable detail, whether from the inside or not.
https://www.amazon.com/Steal-Attempt-Overturn-Election-Stopped-ebook/dp/B09JDM2DS4/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3I5FHGPKTIETY&keywords=matthew+teague&qid=1690904545&s=books&sprefix=matthew+teague%2Cstripbooks%2C196&sr=1-1

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

“This is a rather well-written, fact-informed opinion piece by someone who knows a lot about the media landscape”
No it is not. It is a hatched job. The question is why did Unherd give it a platform

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

If the exact same style of piece–a hatchet job–were written about someone you don’t like: Can we assume you’d still object. Because UnHerd publishes many hit pieces. The only off-limits human subjects seem to be those whom they interview. And the comments are always close to a free-for-all.
You’d object to a Chris Cuomo, Ezra Klein, or Russell Brand hatchet job?

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Yes I would object. They do not help

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

Fair enough then. I’ll try to remember to check you on that, Mr. Rodenydo.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago

They do not help what?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

Fair enough then. I’ll try to remember to check you on that, Mr. Rodenydo.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago

They do not help what?

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Yes I would object. They do not help

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

If the exact same style of piece–a hatchet job–were written about someone you don’t like: Can we assume you’d still object. Because UnHerd publishes many hit pieces. The only off-limits human subjects seem to be those whom they interview. And the comments are always close to a free-for-all.
You’d object to a Chris Cuomo, Ezra Klein, or Russell Brand hatchet job?

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
0 0
0 0
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I welcome articles that disagree with my POV, all the better to challenge my assumptions. Which is why I read this with interest. I agree with some of what he wrote regarding Carlson ginning up the culture war narratives– though that’s exactly what they do at CNN and MSNBC as well.
That said, the author should do some more homework regarding the 2020 election fraud claims– Carlson pushed back on the Dominion issue more than any other Fox commentator, even asking Sidney Powell to come on his show and explain herself (she declined.)

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  0 0

Ok. But he also minimized the actions of the Jan 6th Rioters more and more over time.
I will, however take a look into what you say in the interest, if you will, of being fair and balanced. To be honest I couldn’t usually watch more than 5 or 10 minutes of him before getting more than enough, so much of what I heard was/is selected clips, not only from left-leaning sources but rarely from anyone who is on the far right or likes him. Perhaps that’s part of why I’m still a bit intemperate in response to his major fans or defenders. And perhaps certainly I’m not always calm or moderate in tone anyway.
I did watch most of a long interview he did with Russell Brand, and found there was something to like and admire about Tucker in there somewhere, and even not that hard to see. I do wish his public act leaned more into what is good, fair-minded, and even a little fun about him, according to my subjective view.
Thanks for your polite and interesting reply.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Peter Lee
Peter Lee
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

His minimization of certain Jan 6th rioters, as with the Shaman, was based totally on video evidence. This evidence was exculpatory and was deliberately not shown at trial.
Hence the Shaman’s speedy release from jail.
I believe this is predominately why he was let go at the ‘anti-Trump’ Fox Network.

Last edited 1 year ago by Peter Lee
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Lee

No. It was not based on evidence at all You need to watch less carefully edited footage. Trust one of the few unsold out Republicans left: Liz Cheney.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Lee

Carlson has said in private that he couldn’t stand Trump.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Lee

No. It was not based on evidence at all You need to watch less carefully edited footage. Trust one of the few unsold out Republicans left: Liz Cheney.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Lee

Carlson has said in private that he couldn’t stand Trump.

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

You need more in your life than posting on Unherd. Get outdoors once in a while. And, please, knock off the booze when you hit the keyboard.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

I usually get plenty of fresh air and a decent amount of execrcise. Purely sober on most days. A few times I haven’t been and yet commented, and I regret that. It’s true I find this multi-headed miasma of a website too compelling and that I’ve been over-posting, especially into the vacuums of radical right-wing backslapping that dominate certain boards.
I’ve never seen you write a single thoughtful, kind, or interesting thing. You seem like one hell of a mean old man most of the time, leading me to believe you could use a bit more of something good in your life too. Good luck.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

That’s an offensive comment.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

I usually get plenty of fresh air and a decent amount of execrcise. Purely sober on most days. A few times I haven’t been and yet commented, and I regret that. It’s true I find this multi-headed miasma of a website too compelling and that I’ve been over-posting, especially into the vacuums of radical right-wing backslapping that dominate certain boards.
I’ve never seen you write a single thoughtful, kind, or interesting thing. You seem like one hell of a mean old man most of the time, leading me to believe you could use a bit more of something good in your life too. Good luck.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

That’s an offensive comment.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I’ve never watched his show, but I’ve heard him on a couple podcast and he seemed truly likeable, nice and humble.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

The problem is what comes out of his mouth.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

The problem is what comes out of his mouth.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

The one thing that laid bare the amount of lying that went on by the congressional investigation is the clip they showed of Josh Hawley hightailing it out of the capital making him look like a sniveling coward. When Tucker showed the rest of the clip-it showed him trailing AFTER a bunch of other politicians, including democrats, running out as a group. Democrats are sleazebag liars.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

So you watched the hearings and not just curated clips from your far-right bubble? Anyone who is sold all the way out to Trump is not much of a real conservative, nor a patriot, in my view. Such all-in followers belong to a cult of personality. Perhaps you’re not among them, but you seem like an angry extremist on most days, Kat.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Kat L
Kat L
11 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

The hearings were left wing curated clips. Listen to yourself.

Kat L
Kat L
11 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

The hearings were left wing curated clips. Listen to yourself.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

I’m sure you would have hightailed it out of there too. The point is Hawley was a hypocrite because he was enouraging the mob.

Kat L
Kat L
11 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

He wasn’t encouraging the mob, that’s a ridiculous statement

Kat L
Kat L
11 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

He wasn’t encouraging the mob, that’s a ridiculous statement

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

So you watched the hearings and not just curated clips from your far-right bubble? Anyone who is sold all the way out to Trump is not much of a real conservative, nor a patriot, in my view. Such all-in followers belong to a cult of personality. Perhaps you’re not among them, but you seem like an angry extremist on most days, Kat.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

I’m sure you would have hightailed it out of there too. The point is Hawley was a hypocrite because he was enouraging the mob.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Exactly, Carlson is personable, it’s such a waste I always think.

Peter Lee
Peter Lee
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

His minimization of certain Jan 6th rioters, as with the Shaman, was based totally on video evidence. This evidence was exculpatory and was deliberately not shown at trial.
Hence the Shaman’s speedy release from jail.
I believe this is predominately why he was let go at the ‘anti-Trump’ Fox Network.

Last edited 1 year ago by Peter Lee
Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

You need more in your life than posting on Unherd. Get outdoors once in a while. And, please, knock off the booze when you hit the keyboard.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I’ve never watched his show, but I’ve heard him on a couple podcast and he seemed truly likeable, nice and humble.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

The one thing that laid bare the amount of lying that went on by the congressional investigation is the clip they showed of Josh Hawley hightailing it out of the capital making him look like a sniveling coward. When Tucker showed the rest of the clip-it showed him trailing AFTER a bunch of other politicians, including democrats, running out as a group. Democrats are sleazebag liars.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Exactly, Carlson is personable, it’s such a waste I always think.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  0 0

Ok. But he also minimized the actions of the Jan 6th Rioters more and more over time.
I will, however take a look into what you say in the interest, if you will, of being fair and balanced. To be honest I couldn’t usually watch more than 5 or 10 minutes of him before getting more than enough, so much of what I heard was/is selected clips, not only from left-leaning sources but rarely from anyone who is on the far right or likes him. Perhaps that’s part of why I’m still a bit intemperate in response to his major fans or defenders. And perhaps certainly I’m not always calm or moderate in tone anyway.
I did watch most of a long interview he did with Russell Brand, and found there was something to like and admire about Tucker in there somewhere, and even not that hard to see. I do wish his public act leaned more into what is good, fair-minded, and even a little fun about him, according to my subjective view.
Thanks for your polite and interesting reply.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I agree. I appreciate essays that represent a range of political viewpoints. I’m a little more charitable about Carlson. His job at Fox was to stoke the rage machine.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I agree to some extent. When he is being nice, he is very nice. But as a whole he puts in rage-stoking overtime, well-outstripping his predecessor O’Reilly and other rage-drivers like Laura Ingraham and Judge Jeanine–and let’s include Rachel Maddow and Chris Cuomo too–in my opinion. Largely because of his viewership and formidable charisma, he does greater damage. He also indulges greater deliberate manipulation and demagoguery, in lowlights like his apologies for Putin, Orbán, Tate, and, especially, the Jan. 6th Rioters.
Though I didn’t address it above, I also agree, to an extent, with “00” who points out that CNN and MSNBC gin up outrage too; fair point. I think Tucker does it on a heightened level though, the worst of the lot in the history of American TV, in my view (radio is another story). And I’ll just leave it there. More than enough said for one day.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Outrage is one thing, violence is quite another.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Outrage is one thing, violence is quite another.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

By knowingly lie. He got paid to lie.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I agree to some extent. When he is being nice, he is very nice. But as a whole he puts in rage-stoking overtime, well-outstripping his predecessor O’Reilly and other rage-drivers like Laura Ingraham and Judge Jeanine–and let’s include Rachel Maddow and Chris Cuomo too–in my opinion. Largely because of his viewership and formidable charisma, he does greater damage. He also indulges greater deliberate manipulation and demagoguery, in lowlights like his apologies for Putin, Orbán, Tate, and, especially, the Jan. 6th Rioters.
Though I didn’t address it above, I also agree, to an extent, with “00” who points out that CNN and MSNBC gin up outrage too; fair point. I think Tucker does it on a heightened level though, the worst of the lot in the history of American TV, in my view (radio is another story). And I’ll just leave it there. More than enough said for one day.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

By knowingly lie. He got paid to lie.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Well said.

laura m
laura m
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

“This is a rather well-written, fact-informed opinion piece by someone who knows a lot about the media landscape from the inside.”
Teaque did not offer any insights about the “media landscape” whatsoever.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

“This is a rather well-written, fact-informed opinion piece by someone who knows a lot about the media landscape”
No it is not. It is a hatched job. The question is why did Unherd give it a platform

0 0
0 0
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I welcome articles that disagree with my POV, all the better to challenge my assumptions. Which is why I read this with interest. I agree with some of what he wrote regarding Carlson ginning up the culture war narratives– though that’s exactly what they do at CNN and MSNBC as well.
That said, the author should do some more homework regarding the 2020 election fraud claims– Carlson pushed back on the Dominion issue more than any other Fox commentator, even asking Sidney Powell to come on his show and explain herself (she declined.)

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I agree. I appreciate essays that represent a range of political viewpoints. I’m a little more charitable about Carlson. His job at Fox was to stoke the rage machine.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Well said.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Joy

Hear hear!

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Joy

Your’s isn’t the only voice or the only side. If you want to just preach to the converted find another publication. Besides there are plenty of right wingers her so you should be “right” at home, so to speak.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Joy

You came to a website called UnHerd to be spoon fed content that tastes like quality to you because it’s familiar to your palate?
This is a rather well-written, fact-informed opinion piece by someone who knows a lot about the media landscape from the inside. Yet you are convinced you know far more about the real story, according to your easy-click “research” and observation. I allow that is it remotely possible that you do, but very far from likely.
To the editorial powers-that-be at UnHerd: As you already know, not every subscriber here confuses quality with content that only confirms or reinforces what they think they already know. Please continue to publish a variety of worthwhile material from across the cultural and political spectrum.
Granted, this was more of a hit piece than an attempt at a evenly-weighted profile–and this website could stand to cut down on hit pieces–but in this case the target could hardly be more deserving. The number of smitten fans, enraged at the very idea of their Tucker receiving less than reverent treatment, is indication enough that this skillful puncturing was called for. Don’t worry superfans, he’ll still be your favorite, re-inflated demagogue on a nightly basis.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Joy

Hear hear!

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Joy

Your’s isn’t the only voice or the only side. If you want to just preach to the converted find another publication. Besides there are plenty of right wingers her so you should be “right” at home, so to speak.

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago

How predictable: yet another twisted, dishonest hatchet-job on Tucker Carlson delivered by a shill hack for the west’s increasingly shaky neoliberal junta, complete with the statutory straw-grasping ‘racism’ allegation. ‘Accidental confession’? What bulls.
Fox ‘fired’ Carlson because Larry Fink’s Blackrock increased its stake then ordered him fired. They did not appreciate his inconveniently truthful analysis of the neocons’ demented but lucrative proxy war in Ukraine. Losing Carlson has cost Fox millions of subscribers and billions of dollars and badly diminished its credibility with Republican voters. By contrast, Carlson’s profile, credibility and influence are stronger than ever. All Fink and Murdoch have achieved is to demonstrate their own corruption, fear of Carlson and fear of exposure to the sunlight of truth, and to establish Carlson as the real deal.
And a note to the editor of UnHerd. There is an increasing trend of UnHerd publishing dishonest, bad faith pieces by young know-littles who can barely hide their obsolete, left-liberal assumptions. If I want to read that sort of hack dreck, I can find it for free on the BBC or Guardian. For a handsome subscription, people expect better quality, and for UnHerd to live up to its name.

Last edited 1 year ago by Peter Joy
Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago

You wonder whether this writer has paid any attention at all to Carlson’s contemporaries on the left. For every Tucker there’s a small army of equally disingenuous propagandists like Joy Reid and Rachel Maddow.

It’s foolish to take sides with either establishment in US politics.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Yes indeed. I was wondering if the author’s next piece would reveal that the Easter Bunny is not real.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

For every Fox presenter, there’s half a dozen on the left. CNN and MSNBC like to sprinkle in a few ex CIA and FBI chieftains as well.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Yes indeed. I was wondering if the author’s next piece would reveal that the Easter Bunny is not real.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

For every Fox presenter, there’s half a dozen on the left. CNN and MSNBC like to sprinkle in a few ex CIA and FBI chieftains as well.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago

You wonder whether this writer has paid any attention at all to Carlson’s contemporaries on the left. For every Tucker there’s a small army of equally disingenuous propagandists like Joy Reid and Rachel Maddow.

It’s foolish to take sides with either establishment in US politics.

Saul D
Saul D
1 year ago

Fox has an angle it caters to. Carlson is paid for his point of view. Both play to their audience, making this a bit dog-bites-man in terms of interest.
However, the much more interesting question is how badly manipulative the other side is and how that manipulation is happening, because that’s the side that claims to be ‘neutral’ or the ‘media of record’, and there is very little written on how and who is doing the manipulating.
This would be the man-bites-dog story. Fox is overt – we know. But the other media – how is that being played? No-one is looking at the bottom of that pond. Wikileaks showed links between political parties and surrogates and friendly journalists who would promote ‘talking points’ for the party. The Biden cover up. The Russian collusion hoax. Political operators are working in the heart of media, and unlike Carlson, they are not out in the open where they can be criticised for the opinions they promote. How can journalism be so manipulated and have gone so wrong?

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Saul D

Yes, and social media algorithms only inflate the hyperbole bubble.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Saul D

The biggest threat to the west is the unholy alliance between the regime media, the Dems, big tech, the security state and academia.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Saul D

Yes, and social media algorithms only inflate the hyperbole bubble.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Saul D

The biggest threat to the west is the unholy alliance between the regime media, the Dems, big tech, the security state and academia.

Saul D
Saul D
1 year ago

Fox has an angle it caters to. Carlson is paid for his point of view. Both play to their audience, making this a bit dog-bites-man in terms of interest.
However, the much more interesting question is how badly manipulative the other side is and how that manipulation is happening, because that’s the side that claims to be ‘neutral’ or the ‘media of record’, and there is very little written on how and who is doing the manipulating.
This would be the man-bites-dog story. Fox is overt – we know. But the other media – how is that being played? No-one is looking at the bottom of that pond. Wikileaks showed links between political parties and surrogates and friendly journalists who would promote ‘talking points’ for the party. The Biden cover up. The Russian collusion hoax. Political operators are working in the heart of media, and unlike Carlson, they are not out in the open where they can be criticised for the opinions they promote. How can journalism be so manipulated and have gone so wrong?

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago

Tucker’s an excellent writer with unique and forceful takes on myriad subjects. There’s nothing false or made-up about him as a person. He doesn’t hide anything. He’s an interesting voice in the media cacophony.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

“Nothing false or made-up”. Haha! Re-calibrate your honesty & sincerity meter at your earliest convenience.
Selected Tucker Texts:
“We need to do something to reassure our core audience. They’re our whole business model”
“I’ve got four more years here. I’m stuck with Fox. Got to do whatever I can to keep our numbers up and our viewers happy.”
On Trump:
“What he’s good at is destroying things,” Carlson texted producer Alex Pfeiffer on November 5. “He’s the undisputed world champion of that. He could easily destroy us if we play it wrong.”
“I hate him passionately,” Carlson texted Pfeiffer on January 4, days prior to the riot at the U.S. Capitol. He added, of Trump’s presidency, “We’re all pretending we’ve got a lot to show for it, because admitting what a disaster it’s been is too tough to digest. But come on. There really isn’t an upside to Trump”
On election denialism:
On November 5, in response to his producer Alex Pfeiffer, who had written that “I really think many on ‘our side’ are being reckless demagogues right now,” Carlson wrote, “Of course they are. We’re not going to follow them. The sun will rise tomorrow and we want to wake up intact. I always think that”
A small sampling of things Carlson said in now-publicized internal tweets, that belied, in a major, deliberate way, his prime time national act and much of what he is saying now.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Jim C
Jim C
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

And exactly how do those quotes – noticeably stripped of context – clash with what he told his viewers on Fox?

For instance, with regards to election “denialism” (a ridiculous term that outs you as highly partisan, BTW) as others here have pointed out, Carlson told his viewers that Sydney Powell had repeatedly refused to go on his show to make her case.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim C

Perhaps I deserved much of epsecially after overpopulating this board with my opinions, and into a defensive squadron of Tucker fans.
Two things: 1) I certainly prefer the Democrats to the Republican on most issues, but not exclusively and that could change, and I cannot stand the fringes of either party. “Election denialism” was the terminology of an article I copied and pasted from, quite lazily and without attribution–they might strip me of my online-commenter doctorate. I didn’t compile or frame the quotes in my own language, not that that’s a plus. 2) the greatest context fail is Tucker’s airbrushed presentation of January 6th, 2021.
This footage is heavily edited too, but it shows much of the worst violence on that day, which is more to the point with a riot than the standing around or lulls between outbreaks (which there were) or huge number of people who did not get rowdy (whom there were). It’s five minutes long and I’d be grateful if you watched it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXnHIJkZZAs

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim C

Perhaps I deserved much of epsecially after overpopulating this board with my opinions, and into a defensive squadron of Tucker fans.
Two things: 1) I certainly prefer the Democrats to the Republican on most issues, but not exclusively and that could change, and I cannot stand the fringes of either party. “Election denialism” was the terminology of an article I copied and pasted from, quite lazily and without attribution–they might strip me of my online-commenter doctorate. I didn’t compile or frame the quotes in my own language, not that that’s a plus. 2) the greatest context fail is Tucker’s airbrushed presentation of January 6th, 2021.
This footage is heavily edited too, but it shows much of the worst violence on that day, which is more to the point with a riot than the standing around or lulls between outbreaks (which there were) or huge number of people who did not get rowdy (whom there were). It’s five minutes long and I’d be grateful if you watched it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXnHIJkZZAs

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Jim C
Jim C
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

And exactly how do those quotes – noticeably stripped of context – clash with what he told his viewers on Fox?

For instance, with regards to election “denialism” (a ridiculous term that outs you as highly partisan, BTW) as others here have pointed out, Carlson told his viewers that Sydney Powell had repeatedly refused to go on his show to make her case.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

Except he lies.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

“Nothing false or made-up”. Haha! Re-calibrate your honesty & sincerity meter at your earliest convenience.
Selected Tucker Texts:
“We need to do something to reassure our core audience. They’re our whole business model”
“I’ve got four more years here. I’m stuck with Fox. Got to do whatever I can to keep our numbers up and our viewers happy.”
On Trump:
“What he’s good at is destroying things,” Carlson texted producer Alex Pfeiffer on November 5. “He’s the undisputed world champion of that. He could easily destroy us if we play it wrong.”
“I hate him passionately,” Carlson texted Pfeiffer on January 4, days prior to the riot at the U.S. Capitol. He added, of Trump’s presidency, “We’re all pretending we’ve got a lot to show for it, because admitting what a disaster it’s been is too tough to digest. But come on. There really isn’t an upside to Trump”
On election denialism:
On November 5, in response to his producer Alex Pfeiffer, who had written that “I really think many on ‘our side’ are being reckless demagogues right now,” Carlson wrote, “Of course they are. We’re not going to follow them. The sun will rise tomorrow and we want to wake up intact. I always think that”
A small sampling of things Carlson said in now-publicized internal tweets, that belied, in a major, deliberate way, his prime time national act and much of what he is saying now.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

Except he lies.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago

Tucker’s an excellent writer with unique and forceful takes on myriad subjects. There’s nothing false or made-up about him as a person. He doesn’t hide anything. He’s an interesting voice in the media cacophony.

B Davis
B Davis
1 year ago

Everyone spins; everything is spun. Is this news?
Mr. Teague seems outraged(?)…or at least upset / disappointed that Tucker himself is both spinner and spinnee…that some portion of his prime-time rants was ‘manufactured’ hype…was exaggerated….was calculated to excite his audience and bring them back over and over again to hear the latest diatribe aimed at Woke enculturation.
Tucker as Maximus, asked and was answered, “Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?!”
But he misses what Tucker quite clearly recognized & leveraged: the truth is in the detail. It is revealed, piecemeal, in the smallest of things and Tucker had a knack for finding and highlighting that emergent truth in a manner which both riled and delighted his audience. The recasting of the cartoon face of M&M’s was and is an exceedingly silly bit of trivia. But to capture that recasting as yet another symptom of Wokeness gone mad was and is entirely appropriate. Wokeness has gone mad.
From a Realpolitik perspective it is exactly these insidious, seemingly meaningless ‘little things’ which erode the political landscape…which twist the common culture…which begin to shift in incremental ways the public perception of what is and is not acceptable in the Overton Window. Tucker understood this and a portion of his show highlighted these shifting things.
But truly this is little different from any and every other ‘talking head’. Every news/commentary show out there picks & chooses what they wish to ‘centerpiece’ and what they prefer to sweep to the side. Doesn’t matter if you’re Lester Holt, or Tucker, or the Ladies on the View, or or or or — they all (either personally or through their associated editorial staffs) harvest & sort each days news NOT from the perspective of what is most important but what feeds and fits their audience & conforms most effectively to their own narrative slant.
Tucker (and much of Fox) spotlights druggie Hunter and his corruption and debauchery. Lester does not. Who is right? Beneath both editorial decisions there is the fundamental reality which is Hunter Biden’s behavior and how it relates to Papa Joe and the ‘selling’ of political influence. Should we not ask Lester, is this not at least as newsworthy as RussiaGate? Is there not already more substance to this than to ‘Russian Collusion’? Lester, we presume, does not find that possibility ‘entertaining’ if the political alternative is MAGA.
Tucker says, ‘pick a side’… but the truth is that we all have already ‘picked a side’….as have those who tell us the news…as have those who comment on the news. Mr. Teague, with the slightest of sneers & muted chuckle gives us Tucker’s quote: “You can tell when someone’s lying to you or when someone’s shading the truth or trying to spin you,” he says. “…there’s a lot of artifice in television.” and calls it an “unintended confession”. Maybe. But Mr. Teague’s commentary leaves us feeling (especially with the passing reference to Tate and his Romanian arrest for rape & human trafficking), quite honestly, as though, I dunno…someone’s trying to spin us. I guess there’s a lot of artifice in pretty much everything…

Sue Sims
Sue Sims
1 year ago
Reply to  B Davis

Excellent, perceptive comment.

B Davis
B Davis
1 year ago
Reply to  Sue Sims

Thanks! Glad you liked it!

B Davis
B Davis
1 year ago
Reply to  Sue Sims

Thanks! Glad you liked it!

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  B Davis

Great post. They’re all part of the rage machine – that’s what they get paid for.

B Davis
B Davis
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Exactly. Appreciate the kind words!

B Davis
B Davis
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Exactly. Appreciate the kind words!

Ralph Faris
Ralph Faris
1 year ago
Reply to  B Davis

Yours is one of the fairest most revealing posts in part because you aren’t fooled by Fazi’s fake outrage over Tucker; rather you appropriately focused only on the multiple news outlets producing untruths that undermine the sad realities of our former republic. Corruption by any one source is no better than another. Why choose at all since corruption is system wide and will swallow us all

Last edited 1 year ago by Ralph Faris
Sue Sims
Sue Sims
1 year ago
Reply to  B Davis

Excellent, perceptive comment.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  B Davis

Great post. They’re all part of the rage machine – that’s what they get paid for.

Ralph Faris
Ralph Faris
1 year ago
Reply to  B Davis

Yours is one of the fairest most revealing posts in part because you aren’t fooled by Fazi’s fake outrage over Tucker; rather you appropriately focused only on the multiple news outlets producing untruths that undermine the sad realities of our former republic. Corruption by any one source is no better than another. Why choose at all since corruption is system wide and will swallow us all

Last edited 1 year ago by Ralph Faris
B Davis
B Davis
1 year ago

Everyone spins; everything is spun. Is this news?
Mr. Teague seems outraged(?)…or at least upset / disappointed that Tucker himself is both spinner and spinnee…that some portion of his prime-time rants was ‘manufactured’ hype…was exaggerated….was calculated to excite his audience and bring them back over and over again to hear the latest diatribe aimed at Woke enculturation.
Tucker as Maximus, asked and was answered, “Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?!”
But he misses what Tucker quite clearly recognized & leveraged: the truth is in the detail. It is revealed, piecemeal, in the smallest of things and Tucker had a knack for finding and highlighting that emergent truth in a manner which both riled and delighted his audience. The recasting of the cartoon face of M&M’s was and is an exceedingly silly bit of trivia. But to capture that recasting as yet another symptom of Wokeness gone mad was and is entirely appropriate. Wokeness has gone mad.
From a Realpolitik perspective it is exactly these insidious, seemingly meaningless ‘little things’ which erode the political landscape…which twist the common culture…which begin to shift in incremental ways the public perception of what is and is not acceptable in the Overton Window. Tucker understood this and a portion of his show highlighted these shifting things.
But truly this is little different from any and every other ‘talking head’. Every news/commentary show out there picks & chooses what they wish to ‘centerpiece’ and what they prefer to sweep to the side. Doesn’t matter if you’re Lester Holt, or Tucker, or the Ladies on the View, or or or or — they all (either personally or through their associated editorial staffs) harvest & sort each days news NOT from the perspective of what is most important but what feeds and fits their audience & conforms most effectively to their own narrative slant.
Tucker (and much of Fox) spotlights druggie Hunter and his corruption and debauchery. Lester does not. Who is right? Beneath both editorial decisions there is the fundamental reality which is Hunter Biden’s behavior and how it relates to Papa Joe and the ‘selling’ of political influence. Should we not ask Lester, is this not at least as newsworthy as RussiaGate? Is there not already more substance to this than to ‘Russian Collusion’? Lester, we presume, does not find that possibility ‘entertaining’ if the political alternative is MAGA.
Tucker says, ‘pick a side’… but the truth is that we all have already ‘picked a side’….as have those who tell us the news…as have those who comment on the news. Mr. Teague, with the slightest of sneers & muted chuckle gives us Tucker’s quote: “You can tell when someone’s lying to you or when someone’s shading the truth or trying to spin you,” he says. “…there’s a lot of artifice in television.” and calls it an “unintended confession”. Maybe. But Mr. Teague’s commentary leaves us feeling (especially with the passing reference to Tate and his Romanian arrest for rape & human trafficking), quite honestly, as though, I dunno…someone’s trying to spin us. I guess there’s a lot of artifice in pretty much everything…

Walter Lantz
Walter Lantz
1 year ago

“Instead of describing events from around the globe with detachment, he invited viewers into a conspiracy of knowing. It was a modern Gnosticism, a rebellion outside the gates of information”.
So what is the author saying here? Who exactly occupies the territory inside the gates of information? If we’re to assume he means legacy media then that’s a bit of a laugh but it would explain the root of his complaints against Carlson. Covid accelerated the steadily decreasing viewership of legacy media and there’s been no bigger loser than CNN. Once well known for “describing events from around the globe with detachment”, I recall in particular their “conspiracy of knowing” regarding the drug Ivermectin. Long in use as a cheap and effective anti-parasitic some in the scientific community thought they detected potential for use against Covid. It was a theory born out of Covid case numbers in Africa. Tests were needed and some were being done. Nobody knew for sure. Except CNN. They knew it was just a horse de-wormer and that too many silly fools were listening to that paragon of conspiracy grifters Joe Rogan instead of trusted news – backed by experts – as employed by CNN.
What does this have to do with Carlson? The fact that he’s a polished on-air talent who is not above gilding the lily to market his point of view isn’t a problem. The problem for legacy media is the numbers. You can always find a fringe viewership for any crackpot theory you can dream up but you don’t get Carlson or Rogan type numbers unless there’s some real meat on the bone that appeals to a broader audience of people that think about things and have questions they want answered.
In my view the tone of this article smacks of the “gate-keepers of information” gas-lighting prevalent in the Leftwaffe these days. Carlson appears to have been wobbly on the 2020 Stolen Election story, ergo he’s a proven conspiracy theorist. Goodbye Tucker. How fortuitous, because now we can dismiss any questions Carlson raises about the failed Russian Influence claim of 2016 or the unresolved Hunter Biden Laptop story.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Lantz

Excellent post

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Lantz

Excellent post

Walter Lantz
Walter Lantz
1 year ago

“Instead of describing events from around the globe with detachment, he invited viewers into a conspiracy of knowing. It was a modern Gnosticism, a rebellion outside the gates of information”.
So what is the author saying here? Who exactly occupies the territory inside the gates of information? If we’re to assume he means legacy media then that’s a bit of a laugh but it would explain the root of his complaints against Carlson. Covid accelerated the steadily decreasing viewership of legacy media and there’s been no bigger loser than CNN. Once well known for “describing events from around the globe with detachment”, I recall in particular their “conspiracy of knowing” regarding the drug Ivermectin. Long in use as a cheap and effective anti-parasitic some in the scientific community thought they detected potential for use against Covid. It was a theory born out of Covid case numbers in Africa. Tests were needed and some were being done. Nobody knew for sure. Except CNN. They knew it was just a horse de-wormer and that too many silly fools were listening to that paragon of conspiracy grifters Joe Rogan instead of trusted news – backed by experts – as employed by CNN.
What does this have to do with Carlson? The fact that he’s a polished on-air talent who is not above gilding the lily to market his point of view isn’t a problem. The problem for legacy media is the numbers. You can always find a fringe viewership for any crackpot theory you can dream up but you don’t get Carlson or Rogan type numbers unless there’s some real meat on the bone that appeals to a broader audience of people that think about things and have questions they want answered.
In my view the tone of this article smacks of the “gate-keepers of information” gas-lighting prevalent in the Leftwaffe these days. Carlson appears to have been wobbly on the 2020 Stolen Election story, ergo he’s a proven conspiracy theorist. Goodbye Tucker. How fortuitous, because now we can dismiss any questions Carlson raises about the failed Russian Influence claim of 2016 or the unresolved Hunter Biden Laptop story.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
1 year ago

‘“Sidney Powell is lying by the way. I caught her. It’s insane,” Carlson wrote of Trump’s lawyer, to a colleague. “Our viewers are good people and they believe it.” Carlson didn’t believe any of it.’
Wow! Somebody at a broadcasting company did not believe the allegations of one of the people interviewed by the company.

I guess the BBC should now pay Farage hundreds of millions of dollars if there is a single one of its reporters who did not believe Coutt’s claim that Farage’s bank account was not in sufficient funds.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 year ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

Did Farage send a cease and desist letter to the BBC demanding they should stop stating that claim and the BBC continued? That’s a rather important part of the equation don’t you think?

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 year ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

Did Farage send a cease and desist letter to the BBC demanding they should stop stating that claim and the BBC continued? That’s a rather important part of the equation don’t you think?

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
1 year ago

‘“Sidney Powell is lying by the way. I caught her. It’s insane,” Carlson wrote of Trump’s lawyer, to a colleague. “Our viewers are good people and they believe it.” Carlson didn’t believe any of it.’
Wow! Somebody at a broadcasting company did not believe the allegations of one of the people interviewed by the company.

I guess the BBC should now pay Farage hundreds of millions of dollars if there is a single one of its reporters who did not believe Coutt’s claim that Farage’s bank account was not in sufficient funds.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
1 year ago

‘“A couple of weeks ago, I was watching a video of people fighting on the street in Washington. A group of Trump guys surrounded an Antifa kid and started pounding the living shit out of him. It was three against one, at least. Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously. It’s not how white men fight.”
All of it — the Dominion reporting, the hypocrisy about Trump, the racist messages ‘

I see. Telling white people not to jump on guys and beat them up is ‘racist’.
Why does Unherd allow this kind of stupid article to be published?

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

For the same reason the MSM does: revenue. Directly or otherwise, it is Corporate-sponsored copy, the same as the Richard Kemp’s or neoCon Coughlin’s in the Daily Telegraph and their equivalents all over the neoliberal-globalist propaganda machine that used to be a free and independent press.

James Kirk
James Kirk
1 year ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

Three against one is democracy in the USA, if the cavalry don’t turn up.

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

For the same reason the MSM does: revenue. Directly or otherwise, it is Corporate-sponsored copy, the same as the Richard Kemp’s or neoCon Coughlin’s in the Daily Telegraph and their equivalents all over the neoliberal-globalist propaganda machine that used to be a free and independent press.

James Kirk
James Kirk
1 year ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

Three against one is democracy in the USA, if the cavalry don’t turn up.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
1 year ago

‘“A couple of weeks ago, I was watching a video of people fighting on the street in Washington. A group of Trump guys surrounded an Antifa kid and started pounding the living shit out of him. It was three against one, at least. Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously. It’s not how white men fight.”
All of it — the Dominion reporting, the hypocrisy about Trump, the racist messages ‘

I see. Telling white people not to jump on guys and beat them up is ‘racist’.
Why does Unherd allow this kind of stupid article to be published?

Neil Ross
Neil Ross
1 year ago

The writer is suffering from Tucker Derangement Syndrome. If commentators find an audience that agrees with much of what they are saying it is free speech and democracy. Now do a long article of the Russian Conspiracy that ran for 5 years and was based upon nothing!

Neil Ross
Neil Ross
1 year ago

The writer is suffering from Tucker Derangement Syndrome. If commentators find an audience that agrees with much of what they are saying it is free speech and democracy. Now do a long article of the Russian Conspiracy that ran for 5 years and was based upon nothing!

William Miller
William Miller
1 year ago

Really well written article detailing the author’s jealousy and anger that Tucker did not give him a job instead of cheap advice. His smug contention that Tucker speaks for “you” is ironic considering that is what the author is purporting to do. Ah well, let the baby have his bottle.

William Miller
William Miller
1 year ago

Really well written article detailing the author’s jealousy and anger that Tucker did not give him a job instead of cheap advice. His smug contention that Tucker speaks for “you” is ironic considering that is what the author is purporting to do. Ah well, let the baby have his bottle.

Fran Martinez
Fran Martinez
1 year ago

Hit job no?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Fran Martinez

Yes. A well-struck, well-deserved one.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Fran Martinez

Yes. A well-struck, well-deserved one.

Fran Martinez
Fran Martinez
1 year ago

Hit job no?

Cho Jinn
Cho Jinn
1 year ago

“A major network had caved to political and regulatory pressures, and the leftists behind it didn’t even feel the need to pretend otherwise. This is the way healthy societies die.””
…you’re talking about Fox?

Cho Jinn
Cho Jinn
1 year ago

“A major network had caved to political and regulatory pressures, and the leftists behind it didn’t even feel the need to pretend otherwise. This is the way healthy societies die.””
…you’re talking about Fox?

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
1 year ago

Even if everything you say is correct and Tucker is a complete phony milking it for money… does it matter? He was the only major voice on any network that articulated a point of view shared by at least 30% of the American people. And for that 30%, his firing was just further confirmation that the Establishment of both parties hates them.

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
1 year ago

Even if everything you say is correct and Tucker is a complete phony milking it for money… does it matter? He was the only major voice on any network that articulated a point of view shared by at least 30% of the American people. And for that 30%, his firing was just further confirmation that the Establishment of both parties hates them.

Paul MacDonnell
Paul MacDonnell
1 year ago

Whenever I hear the phrase “attack on the capitol” I reach for a pinch of salt. It was a cross between a fancy-dress party and a football pitch invasion.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago

Hardly. People were killed and a cop had a heart attack. They were out of control maniacs. I bet you would run.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago

Hardly. People were killed and a cop had a heart attack. They were out of control maniacs. I bet you would run.

Paul MacDonnell
Paul MacDonnell
1 year ago

Whenever I hear the phrase “attack on the capitol” I reach for a pinch of salt. It was a cross between a fancy-dress party and a football pitch invasion.

Paul Hendricks
Paul Hendricks
1 year ago

“There’s a lot of artifice in television.” Quite the understatement.

Reading it just now, I found the gypsy boy story hilarious, not scary. I’m no connoisseur, but isn’t it possible that Tucker’s tone, the hyperbole, the inevitable winding up of gullible people, is the point for much of his audience? “Pardon us now, but it’s true!”

Paul Hendricks
Paul Hendricks
1 year ago

“There’s a lot of artifice in television.” Quite the understatement.

Reading it just now, I found the gypsy boy story hilarious, not scary. I’m no connoisseur, but isn’t it possible that Tucker’s tone, the hyperbole, the inevitable winding up of gullible people, is the point for much of his audience? “Pardon us now, but it’s true!”

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
1 year ago

Tucker Carlson’s laugh is even more irritating than Kamala Harris’s.
That’s one reason why I don’t watch him very much.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

I respect your bi-partisan laugh standards. Didn’t love most of what Bill O’Reilly had to say, but he had a better laugh than both.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

I respect your bi-partisan laugh standards. Didn’t love most of what Bill O’Reilly had to say, but he had a better laugh than both.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
1 year ago

Tucker Carlson’s laugh is even more irritating than Kamala Harris’s.
That’s one reason why I don’t watch him very much.

Bill Wainwright
Bill Wainwright
1 year ago

So, what’s your point?

Bill Wainwright
Bill Wainwright
1 year ago

So, what’s your point?

James Kirk
James Kirk
1 year ago

Anyone with millions of dollars in the bank and a persuasive voice should be going for the top job, POTUS.

James Kirk
James Kirk
1 year ago

Anyone with millions of dollars in the bank and a persuasive voice should be going for the top job, POTUS.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago

This is a, pardon me-partisan hack job. I couldn’t even get through half the slanted narrative.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago

This is a, pardon me-partisan hack job. I couldn’t even get through half the slanted narrative.

Stephen Quilley
Stephen Quilley
1 year ago

‘then they presented this fringe behaviour as central, as representative of them, the un-Americans who would supplant you’
This is a very accurate description of what has happened with the woke/DEI take over of schools and universities. Fringe positions HAVE become totalitarian and dominant. Dissidents HAVE been sacked and silenced. Centrists and people articulating the common sense of the last 1000 years HAVE been supplanted, careers destroyed – and bank accounts frozen in Canada, given insane disproportionate prison sentences (J6) compared with orchestrated leniency and forgiveness for actual terrorists on the other side (2 years of BLM/Antifa rioting, murder and destruction)
This is possibly the most bad faith article UNHERD has yet to publish.

Stephen Quilley
Stephen Quilley
1 year ago

‘then they presented this fringe behaviour as central, as representative of them, the un-Americans who would supplant you’
This is a very accurate description of what has happened with the woke/DEI take over of schools and universities. Fringe positions HAVE become totalitarian and dominant. Dissidents HAVE been sacked and silenced. Centrists and people articulating the common sense of the last 1000 years HAVE been supplanted, careers destroyed – and bank accounts frozen in Canada, given insane disproportionate prison sentences (J6) compared with orchestrated leniency and forgiveness for actual terrorists on the other side (2 years of BLM/Antifa rioting, murder and destruction)
This is possibly the most bad faith article UNHERD has yet to publish.

TheElephant InTheRoom
TheElephant InTheRoom
1 year ago

Meh, Tucker is ordinary yet extraordinary. But people like his voice and he has been cancelled! Nothing says more about a truth-teller than that.

TheElephant InTheRoom
TheElephant InTheRoom
1 year ago

Meh, Tucker is ordinary yet extraordinary. But people like his voice and he has been cancelled! Nothing says more about a truth-teller than that.

Douglas McNeish
Douglas McNeish
1 year ago

The vehemence of this hit piece is a reflection of how effective Carlson is at communicating to the widest cable audience ever the truths that are masked by partisan media coverage elsewhere. His intelligence, perspicacity, and accessibility have won over millions. He helped them to feel comfortable with views that until recently were centrist, but now labelled “far right” by partisan activists in the media. For this he is hated by those who feel threatened by him.

Douglas McNeish
Douglas McNeish
1 year ago

The vehemence of this hit piece is a reflection of how effective Carlson is at communicating to the widest cable audience ever the truths that are masked by partisan media coverage elsewhere. His intelligence, perspicacity, and accessibility have won over millions. He helped them to feel comfortable with views that until recently were centrist, but now labelled “far right” by partisan activists in the media. For this he is hated by those who feel threatened by him.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

Tucker Carlson is a notably clever charlatan. His impassioned stances are for sale, whether for money or fame; I think he chooses the stances himself, but mostly with a cynical motive. His greatest trick may be that he seems to have an unextinguished conscience in there somewhere, which is not expressed in the earnestly-questioning-boy’s face he shows the viewing world, but which I can see when I squint at my screen (nah, that’s just my overall impression of him).
Sincerity is most important of all…and if you can fake that you’ve got it made. Got it made in a deeply cynical, sell-your-own-soul-hoping-to-gain-the-whole-world sort of way, that is.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Very well said. This article has certainly got under the skin of the Carlson supporters here on Unheard.
I’m, like many, are feed up with the loony left, but repulsed by insanity of Fox News – that includes for me Carlson.

Perhaps the now Unfoxed Carlson should write a piece for Unherd. Should ruffle some feathers!

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

That’d be amazing if they could get him! To be honest: I think I’d agree with some of what he might write, to some degree–that’s his dark appeal.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

That’d be amazing if they could get him! To be honest: I think I’d agree with some of what he might write, to some degree–that’s his dark appeal.

B Davis
B Davis
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

A charlatan?
In what way? Is he pretending to be something he’s not?
He’s just a ‘talking head’… the media is filled with ‘talking heads’ whose stock in trade is sincerity. His narrative slant is towards the Right….most of the others lean Left. They all get paid large dollars to be impassioned, clever, funny, insightful, and otherwise entertaining. His talents…every talking head’s talents are quite obviously for sale….as are yours and mine. We all sell what we can (usually our labor, time, and attention) to earn a buck (or a million bucks, as the case may be).
Do you find Capitalism upsetting?
Did you think Tucker a saint…somehow above the pull of fame & fortune?
As for cynicism…heck, aren’t we all? Isn’t everyone? Is there anyone who has not told their boss (or their Board of Directors) exactly what we knew they wanted to hear while — cynically — in our heart of hearts, believing the exact opposite? That Tucker occasionally hypes a perspective that he personally may disagree with…because that’s what his audience wants ..is hardly surprising (except perhaps for those who believe him saintly).
I don’t understand the anger, honestly. Are you equally angry at Jon Stewart, John Oliver, Trevor Noah, Steven Colbert, et al? They’re all cynical; they’re all impassioned; they all act completely sincere; they’re all ‘for sale’ (up to a point).
Or is this simply a matter of “I don’t like him”?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  B Davis

No we are not all cynics. Most people have some cynicism these days. That is different than being a Machiavellian or a full-time cynic. The people you named are politically biased opinionators too, but I doubt any would pretend to support a rogue president they actually hated and feared. Or give Viktor Orbán–or let’s say Hugo Chavez–a platform for self-promotion and normalization.
I can’t see right into Carlson’s nor anyone’s soul, heck on many days and in some ways I can’t see into my own. As Jordan Peterson justly observes: We are far from transparent to ourselves, however we might be tempted to imagine otherwise.
But I have my opinion of Carlson, based on long observation of his act, since CNN days, and on the energy that is created around his fanboys and fangirls (ok, men and women who love Tucker). More anger and division. Colbert in particular of the lefties you named does this too, at a bad enough level that I’m sick of him as well. I don’t think he talks at quite the level of essentialism and division that Carlson does, but I can see how someone well to my right might disagree.
I’m not angry at Carlson. I have contempt for him and think he is dangerous. It is well beyond mere dislike. I dislike Sean Hannity, for example, but he is too dumb and ridiculous to consider much of a danger to his credulous audience or anyone else. Tucker is brilliant, and there is something good about him–which is far more scary given his lack of restraint or moral compass. (Don’t get me wrong: I don’t think Hannity is pure evil or whatever either).
I don’t need you to understand or agree with any of this and I’ve said quite a lot about it already, should you have the patience to read all that I wrote here of any substance (provided you can allow there is any). Nor do I think you’re very open to adjusting your pre-established views or having an exchange that is much more than an oppositional squawk fest where you perform what you think is a series of slam dunks based on what you think you already know beyond any legitimate dispute. I’ve come to that conclusion after previous long exchanges with you. If I’m wrong, you can certainly try to persuade me to the contrary. To be fair sometimes you’re a bit better than that. And I’m not highly partisan, ideological, or immovable.
I’m not against capitalism. I am against runaway greed and raging material self-interest. I’m against capitalism as an overarching, unrestrained end-in-itself. Those who espouse Capitalism as the greatest good or view the Market as a magic healing force in society, if not actually sold out to greed and rampant self-interest, tend not to be as against those things strongly enough for me to respect their point of view a great deal. And most with views that extreme, whether far-right free-marketarians or top-down socialists or whatever else, tend not to demonstrate much respect for dialogue or opposing views either.

B Davis
B Davis
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Appreciate the thoughtful reply.
And I definitely am glad that you don’t need me to understand anything in particular, but I suspect the reason we both frequent comment forums is exactly because we wish the Other (whoever that Other happens to be) to understand at least something of whatever particular point we’re attempting to make. Shame to waste all this time talking only to one’s self.
As for Tucker, as you yourself said: it’s an act. Nor does he pretend otherwise except in the sense that every talking head ‘pretends’ a certain level of sincerity because, indeed, ‘sincerity’ is a part of the act. Personally I’ve never spent much time watching him or any other Professional Commentator (let alone made an investment of “long observation”. Too many better things to do (like read Unherd!).
Interesting you note previous “long exchanges” with me. What were they…which issues or articles? Nothing of note comes to mind, but memory is an unreliable thing.
Interesting also that you describe these exchanges (which evidently registered more significantly with you than with me) as “an oppositional squawk fest where (I) perform what (I) think are a series of slams dunks based on what (I) think (I) already know beyond any legitimate dispute.” Not sure exactly what that means, but it sounds ugly (or like something the Lakers might do!). Have you been squawking and I missed it? Personally I hate squawking and do my best to avoid it.
But seriously, don’t we all, as we craft a comment based that comment on what we think we know? what we think is known? And I would certainly trust that any legitimate dispute is always possible, wouldn’t you? Just as persuasion to a more sensible understanding is equally possible. (though, people being what they are, probably a bit unlikely).
Glad to hear that sometimes you think I’m a bit better than that; I trust that you are, too. It would probably help if you did less ‘loud labeling’ of those you judge less worthy based on ‘long observation’.
Also glad to hear that you’re not ‘anti-capitalism’…but again, given that capitalism is founded upon greed — the desire for more as incented by profit — the distinction between normal, acceptable greed (we do want that nicer home or newer car) and ‘runaway greed’ is rather subjective isn’t it? Equally the distinction between self-interest (which we all share) and ‘raging material self-interest’. [If I’m self-interested is that normal but if you’re self-interested is that raging?]
You say you are against capitalism as “an overarching, unrestrained, end in itself” … but who isn’t? And who actually believes that capitalism (private, for profit ownership…open markets…competition) is an end unto itself. I would guess that Buffett, Bezos, Gates, et al would all completely agree that capitalism is not and should not be an end unto itself.
The problem seems to be that you are inventing arguments that no one is making (at least that I’m not making) and draping them around those you encounter in these forums. No one is saying that Capitalism “is the greatest good”. No one is saying the Market “is a a magic healing force” (don’t know of any magic healing forces actually). But what is being said by many of us is that capitalism has proven to be the most successful economic engine to drive society-wide material improvement / standard of living advancement in the history of the world. The market, as a fundamental part of capitalism is key to that advancement. But it’s not magic; nor is it foolproof, failsafe, friendly, or ‘healing’.
And no one is pro “rampant self interest” (except perhaps for DiCaprio’s ‘Jordan Belfort, or Douglas’ “Gordon Gecko” who tells us ‘Greed is Good’).

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  B Davis

Ok. Since I oppose easy labels I should do a better job of avoiding them myself. But would you like to be called a “libertarian postmodernist?” Just kidding, mostly. Because about half of the time you seem to be playing devil’s advocate just for fun, to no discernible purpose but to demonstrate how clever you are or pull the sides off and center out of everything you can name. Admittedly, you are quite clever and make some genuine, good points too. But maybe you can tell that I actually care about a lot of these issues and events. Serious question: Do you?
Out of curiosity, and to do you the courtesy of confirmation, I looked back through my comments and found one major (maybe the only other?) long exchange between us, as I was alluding to above. It’s below an article called “Are American Moms Better Workers?” from very early this year. There you announced yourself to be an employer of many people and claimed that there would be nothing blameworthy for you to pay full-time workers so little that they could not get by, but that they had the right to go get another job in order to make ends meet. And if that worker were a single mom or whatever; tough luck, not your problem and you feel no compunction or sympathy about whatever the Market, in this case with your own hand on its levers, decides is right. (Not your precise words, mind you). That’s the sort of ruthless, extreme cowboy capitalism that I oppose.
Now maybe you were just having fun or playing hypothetical thought games there, or perhaps something I or another commenter said to you on that board caused you to take an extreme, blatantly selfish position. It got pretty contentious. But we’ve been through much of this before and you seemed pretty sincere about it.
I acknowledge that you have worthwhile and intelligent things to say, even some that I don’t agree with or would rather not hear. My objection to your approach as I perceive it is that you nearly always very often take a stance of radical opposition or radical skepticism. You’re entitled to those attitudes or tactics, of course, but they don’t make for very worthwhile or interesting discussions. See you around the boards.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
B Davis
B Davis
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

You searched longer than I did; good catch! I’d forgotten all about that discussion
I think it’s safe to say that we all care about the issues we comment upon. I’m guessing none of us reads the essays to which we’re indifferent. But given that caring, our commentary can go in different directions (stylistically) at different times. Satire and exaggeration are not bad choices as long as they’re not used excessively.
As far as the “Mom’s make better workers…” (I went back and scanned what we were discussing)… essentially what I was saying was that I (the ‘editorial’ I….meaning you, me, anyone) pay our employees what we’re required to pay them to retain them. No more; no less. That’s how the labor market works. If our understanding of ‘retention’ is narrow, then we pay them only what we have to to keep them today & tomorrow. If our understanding is deeper (as it should be) we pay them significantly more than that because we wish to invest in them, as they invest their time, effort, and creativity in us. But yes, regardless, they have a right to get whatever other jobs they might prefer.
As for paying ‘more morally deserving’ employees more than the market bears…heck no. No one does that. Not if they’re interested in treating a workforce fairly, making a profit, investing in the future of the business. You speak about my hands on the levers of the market…truthfully we all have our hands on the levers of the market. Employees, Owners, Management, Consumers, Suppliers — we all are shifting market levers and pushing market buttons. And yes, I say that quite sincerely (and quite accurately, actually).
But what I describe is neither ruthless nor cowboyish. It’s simply how the market economy works; it’s always worked like that. If I’m trying to build and retain a highly skilled workforce, I pay significantly more than if I’m paying essentially interchangeable entry level workers (like grocery store baggers). If I’m investing $50K to develop an employee, then I’m paying them a significant premium to avoid having to reinvest another $50K in their replacement. If their skill set is rare and particularly suited to the business, I pay them an even larger premium. [All that being said, there are always exceptions, good & bad.]
You say you oppose that kind of capitalism. But there is no other kind, not really. The operation of the market over time sets prices, sets supply, shapes demand, and drives innovation….which in turn shifts markets. Any given business at any given point is working as hard as it can to stay afloat (meaning solvent, profitable, making a product that consumers want to buy). And part of that means building a workplace that attracts and retains good employees. The challenge is finding that magic balance at which we’re spending enough to do what we want and need to do…and not so much that we’re wasting our always limited funding.
But all that is significantly beyond the issues of this essay.
Interesting that you also describe that past exchange as contentious. It didn’t feel particularly contentious to me (meaning an emotionally heated argument)…but definitely a lively back & forth. Nothing wrong with that. Keeps us all awake (and maybe less complacent).
Interesting also that you describe at least some of my commentary as “radical opposition”? Not sure exactly what that means. If you feel like explaining, I’d be glad to listen!
Till next time!

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  B Davis

Maybe next time for the explanation man. I’m tired, for which I’m not blaming you in any way (just to be clear).
What I was getting at all those months ago is this: Would you even feel any sympathy or empathy for a full-tome employee of yours who couldn’t make it and would you ever consider trying to help, whether you were able to or not? I wasn’t talking about a sliding income scale of moral worth. Or if you were making tens of millions, would you cut them in on your success at all–and see them as at least some part of that success–at least to the point where they were not merely scraping by or incurring debt? I get that their lives are their own and they have financial and career choices to make and all that. I am seeking to establish questions of degree and saving graces of compassion or duty to one’s neighbor and fellow human, if any. I’m not sure you allow, or at least admit to any of that. You sound like a pretty severe hard-liner to me. Would you even dispute that?
To me, the idea that full-time work in any kind of real job couldn’t support some kind of housing and basic needs or come close suggests a morally bankrupt system that is just too ruthless. There are levels of capitalistic severity or safety-nets, despite your claim that total market dominance in the only of capitilism there is. Most European countries have a mix of market driven and socially protected policies. They are not therefore “not-capitalist”. The U.S. has some safety-net features too, but in my opinion certain things that are privatized or monetized here should not be
There should be no such thing as a for-profit prison, for example: just a literally brutal conflict of interest (I did a study of profit-driven prisons for a college class). And that’s putting aside the half-for-sale U.S. government and corporate ability to break the rules because they are regarded as too big or lucrative to fail or be held to certain limits and laws in the way the a full-time in-debt wage worker would be held to them. Medicine should be less profit-oriented too.
The market cannot, should not rule the whole system and society.
I think our views are pretty far apart on most things but I respect your willingness to keep at it, ask meaningful questions, and challenge my assumptions, which I admit are sometimes hasty or faulty (and assumptions should be resisted in general too). You also make a few moderating admissions or clarifications here and there. Cheers and talk to you down the digital road.
*One last thing for now: I am glad you care. Just checking given the detached tone I sometimes detect from you. Pretty hard to read tone or people through a screen though. It’s hard enough face to face!

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  B Davis

Maybe next time for the explanation man. I’m tired, for which I’m not blaming you in any way (just to be clear).
What I was getting at all those months ago is this: Would you even feel any sympathy or empathy for a full-tome employee of yours who couldn’t make it and would you ever consider trying to help, whether you were able to or not? I wasn’t talking about a sliding income scale of moral worth. Or if you were making tens of millions, would you cut them in on your success at all–and see them as at least some part of that success–at least to the point where they were not merely scraping by or incurring debt? I get that their lives are their own and they have financial and career choices to make and all that. I am seeking to establish questions of degree and saving graces of compassion or duty to one’s neighbor and fellow human, if any. I’m not sure you allow, or at least admit to any of that. You sound like a pretty severe hard-liner to me. Would you even dispute that?
To me, the idea that full-time work in any kind of real job couldn’t support some kind of housing and basic needs or come close suggests a morally bankrupt system that is just too ruthless. There are levels of capitalistic severity or safety-nets, despite your claim that total market dominance in the only of capitilism there is. Most European countries have a mix of market driven and socially protected policies. They are not therefore “not-capitalist”. The U.S. has some safety-net features too, but in my opinion certain things that are privatized or monetized here should not be
There should be no such thing as a for-profit prison, for example: just a literally brutal conflict of interest (I did a study of profit-driven prisons for a college class). And that’s putting aside the half-for-sale U.S. government and corporate ability to break the rules because they are regarded as too big or lucrative to fail or be held to certain limits and laws in the way the a full-time in-debt wage worker would be held to them. Medicine should be less profit-oriented too.
The market cannot, should not rule the whole system and society.
I think our views are pretty far apart on most things but I respect your willingness to keep at it, ask meaningful questions, and challenge my assumptions, which I admit are sometimes hasty or faulty (and assumptions should be resisted in general too). You also make a few moderating admissions or clarifications here and there. Cheers and talk to you down the digital road.
*One last thing for now: I am glad you care. Just checking given the detached tone I sometimes detect from you. Pretty hard to read tone or people through a screen though. It’s hard enough face to face!

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
B Davis
B Davis
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

You searched longer than I did; good catch! I’d forgotten all about that discussion
I think it’s safe to say that we all care about the issues we comment upon. I’m guessing none of us reads the essays to which we’re indifferent. But given that caring, our commentary can go in different directions (stylistically) at different times. Satire and exaggeration are not bad choices as long as they’re not used excessively.
As far as the “Mom’s make better workers…” (I went back and scanned what we were discussing)… essentially what I was saying was that I (the ‘editorial’ I….meaning you, me, anyone) pay our employees what we’re required to pay them to retain them. No more; no less. That’s how the labor market works. If our understanding of ‘retention’ is narrow, then we pay them only what we have to to keep them today & tomorrow. If our understanding is deeper (as it should be) we pay them significantly more than that because we wish to invest in them, as they invest their time, effort, and creativity in us. But yes, regardless, they have a right to get whatever other jobs they might prefer.
As for paying ‘more morally deserving’ employees more than the market bears…heck no. No one does that. Not if they’re interested in treating a workforce fairly, making a profit, investing in the future of the business. You speak about my hands on the levers of the market…truthfully we all have our hands on the levers of the market. Employees, Owners, Management, Consumers, Suppliers — we all are shifting market levers and pushing market buttons. And yes, I say that quite sincerely (and quite accurately, actually).
But what I describe is neither ruthless nor cowboyish. It’s simply how the market economy works; it’s always worked like that. If I’m trying to build and retain a highly skilled workforce, I pay significantly more than if I’m paying essentially interchangeable entry level workers (like grocery store baggers). If I’m investing $50K to develop an employee, then I’m paying them a significant premium to avoid having to reinvest another $50K in their replacement. If their skill set is rare and particularly suited to the business, I pay them an even larger premium. [All that being said, there are always exceptions, good & bad.]
You say you oppose that kind of capitalism. But there is no other kind, not really. The operation of the market over time sets prices, sets supply, shapes demand, and drives innovation….which in turn shifts markets. Any given business at any given point is working as hard as it can to stay afloat (meaning solvent, profitable, making a product that consumers want to buy). And part of that means building a workplace that attracts and retains good employees. The challenge is finding that magic balance at which we’re spending enough to do what we want and need to do…and not so much that we’re wasting our always limited funding.
But all that is significantly beyond the issues of this essay.
Interesting that you also describe that past exchange as contentious. It didn’t feel particularly contentious to me (meaning an emotionally heated argument)…but definitely a lively back & forth. Nothing wrong with that. Keeps us all awake (and maybe less complacent).
Interesting also that you describe at least some of my commentary as “radical opposition”? Not sure exactly what that means. If you feel like explaining, I’d be glad to listen!
Till next time!

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  B Davis

Ok. Since I oppose easy labels I should do a better job of avoiding them myself. But would you like to be called a “libertarian postmodernist?” Just kidding, mostly. Because about half of the time you seem to be playing devil’s advocate just for fun, to no discernible purpose but to demonstrate how clever you are or pull the sides off and center out of everything you can name. Admittedly, you are quite clever and make some genuine, good points too. But maybe you can tell that I actually care about a lot of these issues and events. Serious question: Do you?
Out of curiosity, and to do you the courtesy of confirmation, I looked back through my comments and found one major (maybe the only other?) long exchange between us, as I was alluding to above. It’s below an article called “Are American Moms Better Workers?” from very early this year. There you announced yourself to be an employer of many people and claimed that there would be nothing blameworthy for you to pay full-time workers so little that they could not get by, but that they had the right to go get another job in order to make ends meet. And if that worker were a single mom or whatever; tough luck, not your problem and you feel no compunction or sympathy about whatever the Market, in this case with your own hand on its levers, decides is right. (Not your precise words, mind you). That’s the sort of ruthless, extreme cowboy capitalism that I oppose.
Now maybe you were just having fun or playing hypothetical thought games there, or perhaps something I or another commenter said to you on that board caused you to take an extreme, blatantly selfish position. It got pretty contentious. But we’ve been through much of this before and you seemed pretty sincere about it.
I acknowledge that you have worthwhile and intelligent things to say, even some that I don’t agree with or would rather not hear. My objection to your approach as I perceive it is that you nearly always very often take a stance of radical opposition or radical skepticism. You’re entitled to those attitudes or tactics, of course, but they don’t make for very worthwhile or interesting discussions. See you around the boards.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
B Davis
B Davis
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Appreciate the thoughtful reply.
And I definitely am glad that you don’t need me to understand anything in particular, but I suspect the reason we both frequent comment forums is exactly because we wish the Other (whoever that Other happens to be) to understand at least something of whatever particular point we’re attempting to make. Shame to waste all this time talking only to one’s self.
As for Tucker, as you yourself said: it’s an act. Nor does he pretend otherwise except in the sense that every talking head ‘pretends’ a certain level of sincerity because, indeed, ‘sincerity’ is a part of the act. Personally I’ve never spent much time watching him or any other Professional Commentator (let alone made an investment of “long observation”. Too many better things to do (like read Unherd!).
Interesting you note previous “long exchanges” with me. What were they…which issues or articles? Nothing of note comes to mind, but memory is an unreliable thing.
Interesting also that you describe these exchanges (which evidently registered more significantly with you than with me) as “an oppositional squawk fest where (I) perform what (I) think are a series of slams dunks based on what (I) think (I) already know beyond any legitimate dispute.” Not sure exactly what that means, but it sounds ugly (or like something the Lakers might do!). Have you been squawking and I missed it? Personally I hate squawking and do my best to avoid it.
But seriously, don’t we all, as we craft a comment based that comment on what we think we know? what we think is known? And I would certainly trust that any legitimate dispute is always possible, wouldn’t you? Just as persuasion to a more sensible understanding is equally possible. (though, people being what they are, probably a bit unlikely).
Glad to hear that sometimes you think I’m a bit better than that; I trust that you are, too. It would probably help if you did less ‘loud labeling’ of those you judge less worthy based on ‘long observation’.
Also glad to hear that you’re not ‘anti-capitalism’…but again, given that capitalism is founded upon greed — the desire for more as incented by profit — the distinction between normal, acceptable greed (we do want that nicer home or newer car) and ‘runaway greed’ is rather subjective isn’t it? Equally the distinction between self-interest (which we all share) and ‘raging material self-interest’. [If I’m self-interested is that normal but if you’re self-interested is that raging?]
You say you are against capitalism as “an overarching, unrestrained, end in itself” … but who isn’t? And who actually believes that capitalism (private, for profit ownership…open markets…competition) is an end unto itself. I would guess that Buffett, Bezos, Gates, et al would all completely agree that capitalism is not and should not be an end unto itself.
The problem seems to be that you are inventing arguments that no one is making (at least that I’m not making) and draping them around those you encounter in these forums. No one is saying that Capitalism “is the greatest good”. No one is saying the Market “is a a magic healing force” (don’t know of any magic healing forces actually). But what is being said by many of us is that capitalism has proven to be the most successful economic engine to drive society-wide material improvement / standard of living advancement in the history of the world. The market, as a fundamental part of capitalism is key to that advancement. But it’s not magic; nor is it foolproof, failsafe, friendly, or ‘healing’.
And no one is pro “rampant self interest” (except perhaps for DiCaprio’s ‘Jordan Belfort, or Douglas’ “Gordon Gecko” who tells us ‘Greed is Good’).

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  B Davis

He lies. He outright lies, he’s two faced. He admitted off camera that he couldn’t stand Trump.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  B Davis

No we are not all cynics. Most people have some cynicism these days. That is different than being a Machiavellian or a full-time cynic. The people you named are politically biased opinionators too, but I doubt any would pretend to support a rogue president they actually hated and feared. Or give Viktor Orbán–or let’s say Hugo Chavez–a platform for self-promotion and normalization.
I can’t see right into Carlson’s nor anyone’s soul, heck on many days and in some ways I can’t see into my own. As Jordan Peterson justly observes: We are far from transparent to ourselves, however we might be tempted to imagine otherwise.
But I have my opinion of Carlson, based on long observation of his act, since CNN days, and on the energy that is created around his fanboys and fangirls (ok, men and women who love Tucker). More anger and division. Colbert in particular of the lefties you named does this too, at a bad enough level that I’m sick of him as well. I don’t think he talks at quite the level of essentialism and division that Carlson does, but I can see how someone well to my right might disagree.
I’m not angry at Carlson. I have contempt for him and think he is dangerous. It is well beyond mere dislike. I dislike Sean Hannity, for example, but he is too dumb and ridiculous to consider much of a danger to his credulous audience or anyone else. Tucker is brilliant, and there is something good about him–which is far more scary given his lack of restraint or moral compass. (Don’t get me wrong: I don’t think Hannity is pure evil or whatever either).
I don’t need you to understand or agree with any of this and I’ve said quite a lot about it already, should you have the patience to read all that I wrote here of any substance (provided you can allow there is any). Nor do I think you’re very open to adjusting your pre-established views or having an exchange that is much more than an oppositional squawk fest where you perform what you think is a series of slam dunks based on what you think you already know beyond any legitimate dispute. I’ve come to that conclusion after previous long exchanges with you. If I’m wrong, you can certainly try to persuade me to the contrary. To be fair sometimes you’re a bit better than that. And I’m not highly partisan, ideological, or immovable.
I’m not against capitalism. I am against runaway greed and raging material self-interest. I’m against capitalism as an overarching, unrestrained end-in-itself. Those who espouse Capitalism as the greatest good or view the Market as a magic healing force in society, if not actually sold out to greed and rampant self-interest, tend not to be as against those things strongly enough for me to respect their point of view a great deal. And most with views that extreme, whether far-right free-marketarians or top-down socialists or whatever else, tend not to demonstrate much respect for dialogue or opposing views either.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  B Davis

He lies. He outright lies, he’s two faced. He admitted off camera that he couldn’t stand Trump.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Very well said. This article has certainly got under the skin of the Carlson supporters here on Unheard.
I’m, like many, are feed up with the loony left, but repulsed by insanity of Fox News – that includes for me Carlson.

Perhaps the now Unfoxed Carlson should write a piece for Unherd. Should ruffle some feathers!

B Davis
B Davis
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

A charlatan?
In what way? Is he pretending to be something he’s not?
He’s just a ‘talking head’… the media is filled with ‘talking heads’ whose stock in trade is sincerity. His narrative slant is towards the Right….most of the others lean Left. They all get paid large dollars to be impassioned, clever, funny, insightful, and otherwise entertaining. His talents…every talking head’s talents are quite obviously for sale….as are yours and mine. We all sell what we can (usually our labor, time, and attention) to earn a buck (or a million bucks, as the case may be).
Do you find Capitalism upsetting?
Did you think Tucker a saint…somehow above the pull of fame & fortune?
As for cynicism…heck, aren’t we all? Isn’t everyone? Is there anyone who has not told their boss (or their Board of Directors) exactly what we knew they wanted to hear while — cynically — in our heart of hearts, believing the exact opposite? That Tucker occasionally hypes a perspective that he personally may disagree with…because that’s what his audience wants ..is hardly surprising (except perhaps for those who believe him saintly).
I don’t understand the anger, honestly. Are you equally angry at Jon Stewart, John Oliver, Trevor Noah, Steven Colbert, et al? They’re all cynical; they’re all impassioned; they all act completely sincere; they’re all ‘for sale’ (up to a point).
Or is this simply a matter of “I don’t like him”?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

Tucker Carlson is a notably clever charlatan. His impassioned stances are for sale, whether for money or fame; I think he chooses the stances himself, but mostly with a cynical motive. His greatest trick may be that he seems to have an unextinguished conscience in there somewhere, which is not expressed in the earnestly-questioning-boy’s face he shows the viewing world, but which I can see when I squint at my screen (nah, that’s just my overall impression of him).
Sincerity is most important of all…and if you can fake that you’ve got it made. Got it made in a deeply cynical, sell-your-own-soul-hoping-to-gain-the-whole-world sort of way, that is.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

He ‘picked a side’. The truth or balanced reporting didn’t matter. Says it all.
If your neurones can only absorb confirmatory bias then a grifter like Carlson always going to find a way to keep you buying.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

And there is sure no shortage of buyers. Calls to mind H.L. Mencken’s cynical, but all-too-true quip that “no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public”.

Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

And where do you get your ‘truth or balanced reporting’ from may I ask?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

And there is sure no shortage of buyers. Calls to mind H.L. Mencken’s cynical, but all-too-true quip that “no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public”.

Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

And where do you get your ‘truth or balanced reporting’ from may I ask?

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

He ‘picked a side’. The truth or balanced reporting didn’t matter. Says it all.
If your neurones can only absorb confirmatory bias then a grifter like Carlson always going to find a way to keep you buying.