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
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
8 months 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
8 months 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
9 months 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
8 months 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
9 months 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
8 months 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
9 months 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
9 months ago

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

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months 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
9 months ago

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

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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 9 months ago by Dumetrius
Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
9 months 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 9 months ago by Coralie Palmer
Clare Knight
Clare Knight
8 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

True.

Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
9 months 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
9 months 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 9 months ago by Dumetrius
Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
9 months 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 9 months ago by Coralie Palmer
Clare Knight
Clare Knight
8 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

True.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
9 months ago

What you are offering is not ‘debate’.

harry storm
harry storm
9 months ago

Where’s the healthy debate?

Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
9 months ago

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

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months 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
9 months ago

What you are offering is not ‘debate’.

harry storm
harry storm
9 months ago

Where’s the healthy debate?

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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 9 months ago by AJ Mac
Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Excellent post

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
9 months 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
8 months 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
8 months 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
9 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Excellent post

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
9 months 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
9 months 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
8 months ago
Reply to  Coralie Palmer

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

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
8 months ago
Reply to  Coralie Palmer

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

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
9 months 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 9 months ago by AJ Mac
Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
9 months 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
8 months ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Which side?

Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
9 months 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
8 months ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Which side?

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
9 months ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

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

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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 9 months ago by Coralie Palmer
Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

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

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
9 months 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 9 months ago by Coralie Palmer
Bernard Hill
Bernard Hill
9 months 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 9 months ago by Bernard Hill
Terry M
Terry M
9 months 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
9 months ago
Reply to  Terry M

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

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
8 months 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
9 months ago
Reply to  Terry M

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

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
8 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
8 months ago
Reply to  David Barnett

Rubbish.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
9 months 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
8 months ago
Reply to  David Barnett

Rubbish.

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
9 months 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
9 months 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 9 months ago by Coralie Palmer
Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
9 months 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
9 months ago

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

Bernard Hill
Bernard Hill
9 months 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 9 months ago by Bernard Hill
David Barnett
David Barnett
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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 9 months ago by Coralie Palmer
Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
8 months ago
Reply to  Ddwieland

When has Carlson described himself as a classical liberal?

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
8 months ago
Reply to  Ddwieland

When has Carlson described himself as a classical liberal?

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
9 months ago
Reply to  Bernard Hill

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

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months ago
Reply to  Bernard Hill

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

Bernard Hill
Bernard Hill
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

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

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
8 months ago
Reply to  Coralie Palmer

Exactly.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
8 months ago
Reply to  Coralie Palmer

Exactly.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
8 months ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

That’s silly.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
9 months ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

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

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
8 months ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

That’s silly.

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months ago

Whole heartedly agree

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
9 months ago

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

Kat L
Kat L
9 months 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
8 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

yes.

Kat L
Kat L
9 months 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
8 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

yes.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
9 months ago

Whole heartedly agree

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
9 months ago

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

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
9 months 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
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

“objective news reporter” Does that species still exist?

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
9 months 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
8 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

“objective news reporter” Does that species still exist?

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
9 months 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
8 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
8 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Particularly if one is housebound.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
8 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Particularly if one is housebound.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
9 months 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 9 months ago by Andrew Fisher
Kat L
Kat L
9 months 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
8 months ago
Reply to  Kat L

Rubbish. You’ve been brainwashed.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
8 months ago
Reply to  Kat L

Rubbish. You’ve been brainwashed.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
8 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

Well said.

Kat L
Kat L
9 months 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
8 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

Well said.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
9 months 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
9 months 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 9 months ago by Andrew Fisher
Mark Goodhand
Mark Goodhand
9 months 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
9 months 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 9 months ago by Steve White
Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
9 months 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 9 months ago by Andrew Fisher
Clare Knight
Clare Knight
8 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

Exactly.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
8 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

Exactly.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
9 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

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

Ron Wigley
Ron Wigley
9 months 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
8 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

What a load of twaddle!!

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
9 months 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 9 months ago by Andrew Fisher
UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
9 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

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

Ron Wigley
Ron Wigley
9 months 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
8 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

What a load of twaddle!!

Steve White
Steve White
9 months 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 9 months ago by Steve White
Mark Morrison
Mark Morrison
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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 9 months ago by Peter Joy
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

You are such a capable web searcher. wow.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
9 months 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
9 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Time to switch from martinis to near beer.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
9 months 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 9 months ago by AJ Mac
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
9 months 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 9 months ago by AJ Mac
Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
9 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Time to switch from martinis to near beer.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
9 months 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
9 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

You are such a capable web searcher. wow.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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 9 months ago by AJ Mac
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
9 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Yes I would object. They do not help

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
9 months ago

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

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
8 months ago

They do not help what?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
9 months ago

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

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
8 months ago

They do not help what?

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
9 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Yes I would object. They do not help

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
9 months 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 9 months ago by AJ Mac
0 0
0 0
9 months 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
9 months 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 9 months ago by AJ Mac
Peter Lee
Peter Lee
9 months 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 9 months ago by Peter Lee
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
9 months 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
8 months ago
Reply to  Peter Lee

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

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
9 months 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
8 months ago
Reply to  Peter Lee

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

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
9 months 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
9 months 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
8 months ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

That’s an offensive comment.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
9 months 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
8 months ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

That’s an offensive comment.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months 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
8 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

The problem is what comes out of his mouth.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
8 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

The problem is what comes out of his mouth.

Kat L
Kat L
9 months 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
9 months 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 9 months ago by AJ Mac
Kat L
Kat L
4 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

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

Kat L
Kat L
4 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

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

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
8 months 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
4 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

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

Kat L
Kat L
4 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

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

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
9 months 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 9 months ago by AJ Mac
Clare Knight
Clare Knight
8 months 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
8 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

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

Peter Lee
Peter Lee
9 months 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 9 months ago by Peter Lee
Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
8 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

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

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
9 months 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 9 months ago by AJ Mac
Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months 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
9 months 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
8 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Outrage is one thing, violence is quite another.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
8 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Outrage is one thing, violence is quite another.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
8 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

By knowingly lie. He got paid to lie.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
9 months 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
8 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

By knowingly lie. He got paid to lie.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
8 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Well said.

laura m
laura m
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
9 months 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
8 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Well said.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Peter Joy

Hear hear!

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
8 months 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.