Tucker Carlson, capable of brightening up the evening

Exclusive. Why does nothing threaten the popularity of the scandalous TV presenter?

Tucker Carlson

It is desirable, of course, to spice up the text with a pinch of conspiracy theory, to mention Carlson's ominous connections, to call him, for example, "the fifth horseman of the Apocalypse - the horseman of Lies", and, complaining that the remaining four, Plague, War, Famine and Death, would not be able to accomplish the task without Carlson . I would like to, but, alas, nothing similar can be found either in Carlson himself or around him. The popular pravdorub only entertains the audience, working in its own, rather specific, segment. Nothing personal, no special preferences, business as usual, and everything the audience wants. As a result, Carlson's research flows into the study of the ego of the audience.

Ego's secret (beware, it's a spoiler!)

The first rule of classical journalism in the Anglo-Saxon tradition sounds like this: "do not become news." In other words, a journalist must maintain some detachment, looking at what is happening from the outside. Of course, this principle is inevitably eroded, but Carlson does not simply step over it, but builds his shows on his negation. Carlson does not discuss the news, they only become a reason for his own mind game. As a result, the show acquires the character of a casual conversation with a witty interlocutor expressing original and often taboo points of view. It's just that, in contrast to live conversations, Carlson's interlocutors cannot interrupt him and are forced to follow him. Of course, you can switch the TV to another channel, but everything there will be beaten, politically correct, and, therefore, very fresh. On the other hand, Carlson has everything sharp, and everything is on the verge of a foul. Very often he voices what his audience cannot afford to say out loud without serious consequences for themselves.

But, if you partially accept the interlocutor's opinions and thoughts and cannot argue with him, correcting the direction of the conversation with your remarks, you willy-nilly be driven into the direction of ego logic. And Carlson's viewers, sitting on his ego show, begin to agree with him more and more. This is what is called an "opinion leader".

Of course, sometimes Carlson is made to understand that not all opinions can be expressed publicly, without proof, and, at the same time, with impunity.

Base for a billion. And maybe even more

The Fox News channel announced on April 24 that Carlson was leaving "by mutual agreement." The reasons for the agreement, however, were not a secret: the Dominion company, a manufacturer of electronic voting equipment and software, sued Fox News for $1,6 billion for defamation — for accusations of falsifying the 2020 presidential election in favor of Biden. The version was launched from Trump's entourage, but Carlson picked it up and became one of its active distributors.

By doing this, Carlson raised the rating of his show. He said what his audience wanted to hear, strengthened their opinion about the victory stolen from Trump, and encouraged them to watch themselves again and again. In turn, Fox News, which broadcasts a ratings show, raised advertising revenue. Well, Dominion's lawyers, looking around, chose the loudest fly that buzzed about falsifications the most annoyingly of all, and nailed it in court. Moreover, although it was Tucker Carlson who was the fly, as such, the lawsuit was filed against the channel.

Fox News and its parent company, Fox Corp., agreed with Dominion on compensation in the amount of $787,5 million in a pretrial order, and Tucker Carlson's show, oh my God, decided to cover it up. But there is another lawsuit pending against Fox News, from the company Smartmatic, which also supplied equipment and software for the elections — for $2,7 billion. It will probably be resolved at the stage of pre-trial bargaining.

Carlson himself is too popular to squeeze his ego out of television. After his dismissal, he received many offers, including Soloviev's show, which Carlson preferred not to notice or comment on. Part of what was proposed was leaked in the form of rumors that Carlson himself could have started, but this does not change anything in principle: the scandal with his departure from Fox News, which was presented as the persecution of a brave journalist who decided to tell the truth, but could not overcome the judicial hooking, raised his popularity even more above

Many commentators, who also need to attract the attention of viewers and listeners in their segment, began to push into the shadows the topic of election fraud, which has already fed up with everyone, and put forward a new version of events: Carlson suffered for calling Ukraine a tyranny, Zelensky a "puppet of the administration Biden" and declared that the USA will support the war until "until the whole of Ukraine is destroyed, and millions of Ukrainians do not become refugees." Such a statement was made, for example, by a certain Jackson Hinkle (Jackson Hinkle), who few people had heard of until he was quoted by RT. But Hinkle is developing the same audience segment as Carlson, and it would be strange for him not to use the opportunity to take a ride on Carlson, and in his showdown with Fox News, like a flea on a dog, he slightly raised his rating.

Of course, no claims about Ukraine, which could lead to his leaving the channel and closing the show, were not presented to Carlson. The USA is a free country and he has the right to have any opinion about Ukrainian events, and objections to him could only be expressed on a personal level. The leadership of Fox News was not seen in a pro-Ukrainian position. But the Ukrainian topic is common knowledge, and the lawsuit for defamation is boring and obvious, there are no secret springs or behind-the-scenes influence in it. And without such an intrigue, the whole story of Carlson's departure, in the retelling of Hinkle or someone else, looks fresh and does not sell well.

As for Carlson's new employment, he has not yet accepted any of the tempting offers made to him. Perhaps they were not so tempting, since, as I remember the experience of Fox News, the offerors could attach additional conditions to them without bringing them to public discussion. According to the latest information, Tucker Carlson has decided to limit himself to his own show on Twitter for the time being, as he announced on his page in it. This presupposes some agreements with Elon Musk - but, again, there is no word about them anywhere. There was only information that among the proposals made to Carlson there was also a proposal from Musk, but this topic did not receive development. Carlson, while announcing his show, adopted the beautiful pose of a completely independent journalist, wrote that everyone who works in the English-speaking mass media has a limit to the truth and if it is often exceeded, then "you are guaranteed to be fired." In addition, the Axios portal reported that Carlson accused Fox News of fraud and breach of contract, and sent claims to the company's office. It is difficult to say whether the case will go to court, but the information has already been thrown into the discussion and is working on Carlson's image.

Carlson has no goal, only a path

Even the most independent journalist is always dependent on his readers and must meet their expectations. The requirements for a TV presenter in this regard are even higher. Carlson's biography, with an unbiased study of it, is full of examples of striving for such conformity. But, since it is impossible to please everyone, a successful TV presenter must distinguish his segment of viewers, and train him with iron consistency. This is precisely what Carlson, striving to stay on the wave of popularity, is doing, affecting the sensitive points of his audience.

Of course, his audience is also not completely homogeneous, and far from everyone in it immediately pecks at Carlson's manipulations. To understand the situation, it is necessary to estimate the scale of his popularity: at the peak, Carlson's news show on cable television gathered about 3,2 million viewers - about 1% of the US population. On the one hand, there are hundreds of shows in the US, and 1% is a lot. On the other hand, it would be a clear overstatement to call all of Carlson's viewers unreserved supporters of his views.

Part of the audience subscribed to Fox News not for Carlson's sake, received ego in the general package, and watched him on the show episodically, using ego as an outlet from annoying political correctness, that is, acting in the style of "we are forbidden to zig, smoke and speak obscenely, but let's watch Carlson, despite all prohibitions."

Some did not like Biden, and willingly picked up all the versions directed against him. Some of them sympathized with Putin, who they saw as an American version of Trump: they were far from Ukrainian problems and assessed the situation through American, and more precisely, pro-Trumpist analogies. Someone just liked Carlson, his manner speaks and behaves. And a group of activists formed around Carlson - which was inevitable given the total size of his audience. Democratic congressman from the state of New Jersey, Tom Malinovsky, wrote on Twitter that after watching Carlson's show, constituents called him, expressing their dismay at the fact that the United States does not side with Russia in its conflict with Ukraine, and called on Malinovsky to support Russian demands. True, it was back in January 2022.

But, in general, in the USA, Carlson is more often criticized than praised, saying that his show is a collection of Russian narratives and Trumpian stereotypes. Moreover, he is criticized not only by Democrats, but also by Republicans. So the version that the goal of Carlson's program on Fox News was to criticize the Washington establishment and consolidate the republican core is unconvincing. The goal of the Carlson program was to maximize the popularity of both the Carlson program and Carlson himself. And since Carlson initially, from the start of his career, educated the most rigid and provincial part of the supporters of the Republican Party (the word "conservative" does not quite fit here), this also determined the set of ideas he broadcasted to his audience.

He wove the Ukrainian topic into domestic American politics as an instrument of criticism of the current Biden administration, as well as parts of Republicans distancing themselves from Trump. But Carlson did not work for Trump, but primarily for himself. The key leaders of the Republican Party did not go on ego broadcasts. And, not because they would not have found any points of contact with Carlson, but because Carlson's show was built only for Carlson, and did not assume the presence of other bright figures in the studio. As experts, Carlson usually invited marginals who confirmed what he said and never entered into controversy, and with a few exceptions, he simply did not go to him the second time.

Tucker Carlson as a type: what is the nature of the phenomenon?

Could Carlson receive money for broadcasting pro-Trump or pro-Russian narratives? In principle, yes, I could, but I was never caught by the hand. And he could not receive it, since such support would not have been decisive for him in any case. It could only be a pleasant bonus to the main income from his show - but it could not be at all. Carlson is smart enough to understand what a crushing blow such a story would inflict on his reputation if it got out, and the reputation of an independent journalist and a desperate truth-teller is his main capital, which he worked very hard and hard for a long time.
But Carlson could and will continue to borrow narratives. Why not, if they turn out to be an effective tool for actions in one's interests?

Until February 24.02, Carlson was outraged by the "excessive attention" that the Biden administration paid to Ukraine and mocked Putin's exaggerated threat of attack, but used it as an example of the Biden administration's inadequate policy. Also, with the aim of criticizing Biden and his entourage, Carlson convinced his audience that Washington has no geopolitical interests in Eastern Europe, and Biden is trying to involve the United States in the Ukrainian conflict based solely on personal interests. There was a reference to the case of the Ukrainian gas-producing company Burisma, whose board of directors included Joe Biden's son, Hunter.

Let me remind you that in September 2019, Trump tried to put pressure on Zelensky to resume the investigation by the Ukrainian prosecutor's office into Hunter Biden's activities on charges of corruption. This was considered by the Congress as a request to enlist the help of a foreign state during the upcoming election campaign in 2020, and to use the financial and military assistance provided by the USA to Ukraine in its own political interests. Such actions fell under the article on high treason, and this became one of the arguments for the organization of the first demand for Trump's impeachment. Speculating on this, Carlson explained the support of Ukraine by the Biden administration by the fact that "the Ukrainians paid Joe Biden's family a million dollars an hour in exchange for the work they did. And, as you might have noticed, Biden as president continues to represent Ukrainian interests." It is clear that the supporters of Trump, and the versions about the falsification of the elections in favor of Biden, swallowed it "with a bang".

Carlson devoted several episodes of his show to the US biolaboratories in Ukraine, also deploying this Russian-Chinese propaganda structure against Biden, and demanding that the authorities explain why there are "dangerous bioweapons" in Ukraine. With the same goal, to cast doubt on the aid of the Biden administration to Ukraine and the sanctions pressure on Russia, Carlson said that "Russia fought against Nazism and, like no other country, contributed to the victory over it, while Ukraine collaborated with the Nazis."

Considering that Carlson, to put it mildly, who does not suffer from an excess of education, draws information about Russia and Ukraine from English-language Russian sources, there is nothing surprising in such an obvious puncture. But Carlson's audience knows even less about Russia and Ukraine, and easily swallows it. Carlson also defended RT when its broadcast was suspended in the United States, accusing the American media company of collaborating with special services to block pro-Russian news in order to prevent Americans from learning about alternative opinions. Naturally, the root of evil was once again the Biden administration.

All this creates the impression of Carlson's close connection with the Kremlin and his existence on Moscow's payroll. But, I repeat, this is unlikely to be the case, and if it is, the Moscow payments make up an insignificant part of his income. Carlson makes money on his shows, and the show spins on the dissatisfaction of some Americans with the current government — or, if a Republican sits in the White House, on criticism of the actions of the Democrats. There is nothing personal in this, and the very fact that Carlson has political convictions is, at least, indisputable, and it is not for nothing that he is called the "American Solovyov." It's just that Carlson chose this direction a long time ago, even as a student, and consistently grows and dies in it.

Naturally, Carlson is not alone, but his phenomenon is curious as a systemic phenomenon. In the American society, as well as in any other Western society, there is always a stratum of people who oppose liberalism and, for this reason, side with the external enemies of the West. Naturally, with the collapse of the Western system and the onset of a totalitarian system, as it was, for example, in post-war Eastern Europe, these people will go under the knife in the same list as liberals. But, within the framework of the existing liberal system, it is tactically advantageous for them to slightly shake it, using Russia as an ally, or rather, one of the Russian propaganda images, "the country of white people, ruled by a strong leader."

Practically, this is the Third Reich, which also had many supporters in the USA and other liberal democracies, so there is nothing new in this phenomenon. The only difference is that in the Russian edition of the Third Reich there is neither a swastika, nor Adolf Hitler, nor his racial theory, which are prohibited to propagate under criminal law, and there are still no criminal articles in Western countries for the propagation of Russian narratives and the glorification of Vladimir Putin. by the way, it is an obvious shortcoming of Western, and, in particular, American legislators.

Approximately the same tendencies exist in the West and in the left part of the political spectrum, although the list of possible allies there can be wider and include China, the DPRK, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, etc. Left-handed people are a separate bottom, into which some intellectual is constantly knocking from below. In the USA, Noam Chomsky has been playing this role in recent years, but he is already very old, and he must be replaced. Here, by the way, we can recall that Pol Pot did not immediately start implementing his plan to transform Kampuchea by killing the too educated and pro-Western part of its population. First, he introduced it to his teachers, French leftists from the Sorbonne, and received from them their full approval of the idea. But, I repeat, this is another topic and another story.

As for Carlson's show, with his closing on Fox News, the situation in the Republican Party has become noticeably healthier. So, the speaker of the House of Representatives, the Republican Kevin McCarthy, changed his rhetoric in favor of Ukraine, and the Washington Post suggested that these events could be related to each other.

Well, it's quite possible. No one wants to step on expensive dog shit and then clean the sole. Shit, they try to avoid it if possible - it was exactly the same with Tucker Carlson.

Another issue is that he will not disappear for a long time, and will soon return again, to train that part of the republican voters, which he used to consider his own, by providing them with the usual informational chewing gum.

Sergey Ilchenko, columnist Newsky