I do not take delight in Tucker Carlson’s firing. That’s because I do not believe he was fired for being Tucker Carlson.
Had he been fired for being Tucker Carlson — the white nationalist apologist known for his spitfire misinformation and shameless hypocrisy — I would probably be more cheerful. But this does not appear to be a firing for behaving poorly.
Had he been fired years ago for being Tucker Carlson, instead of being elevated to TV host just before the Trump presidency began, it’s doubtful the former president’s lies about the 2020 election would have gained nearly as much traction. It’s doubtful there would have been a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems against his employer. It’s doubtful a twice-impeached former president would be the Republican Party’s front-runner for the White House.
Carlson understood all of this, which is why he texted this to his producer Alex Pfeiffer on Nov. 5: “What (Trump’s) good at is destroying things,” followed by, “He’s the undisputed world champion of that. He could easily destroy us if we play it wrong.” And so Tucker Carlson did what he’s always done for ratings: purposely mislead the largest audience in cable news while fanning the flames of racism, sexism, antisemitism and homophobia.
This is the person Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, called “the most courageous person in American media.” This is the person to whom House Speaker Kevin McCarthy decided to exclusively give thousands of hours of surveillance recordings from the Jan. 6 insurrection. This is the person who dressed down Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, on his show for daring to call that “a violent terrorist attack on the Capitol.”
“Of all the things that Jan. 6 was, it was definitely not a violent terrorist attack,” Carlson said on air.
Yet in private in January 2021, after that attack, Carlson wrote this: “Trump has two weeks left. Once he’s out, he becomes incalculably less powerful, even in the minds of his supporters. He’s a demonic force, a destroyer. But he’s not going to destroy us. I’ve been thinking about this every day for four years.”
Fox News wanted him to be Tucker Carlson because it was a brand that was good for business. So why wouldn’t his firing be about money now? Although the Dominion settlement certainly didn’t reflect well on him, it’s possible his firing has more to do with a discrimination lawsuit filed by Abby Grossberg, a producer who was fired by the network last month.
In other words: money.
This is why I do not delight in the firing. Democracy may benefit because media mogul Rupert Murdoch has parted ways with his most popular host. It may not. Hard to tell. In any case it doesn’t appear as if democracy was ever part of the equation when it came to Fox and Carlson — neither in their love affair nor in their breakup.
There’s also nothing to suggest Fox’s action was about doing the right thing for journalism. It’s not a public service as much as self-service. There is nothing that shows a change of heart at Fox, only a change in cost-benefit calculations.
So I don’t get my hopes up about whom Fox News will anoint as the next Tucker Carlson. Fear-mongering and appealing to our lower selves are still profitable.
The next Tucker Carlson won’t have to tell the truth to keep the throne, just avoid becoming a financial liability. Judging from Murdoch’s own testimony related to the Dominion case, what happens to democracy is not a concern — just a byproduct.
LZ Granderson is an Op-Ed columnist for the Los Angeles Times.
