By Noah
Rothman
Monday,
April 24, 2023
On March
22, 2022, the New York Times
Magazine published
a deep dive into what it called the “rise of the Tucker Carlson politician.”
The
piece took a despairing view of the curiosities emerging from the invisible
primary within the New Right, in which aspiring nationalist Republicans compete
for the support of broadcasters like Carlson and quixotic investors like Peter
Thiel. One of the two Carlson-style candidates profiled, Blake Masters, lost
his bid for U.S. Senate. But to hear his boosters tell it, Masters was a pawn
in a larger game and a victim of forces beyond his control.
In
his exit interview on Carlson’s Fox News Channel
program, Masters left it up to the viewers to decide whether Senate Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell withheld financial support from that race out of either
“malice” or “gross incompetence.” It could not have been that the polling of
that race leading up to the week before the election found that the incumbent
Democrat, Senator Mark Kelly, was much better
positioned to
win his reelection. It could not have been that the Senate landscape in 2022
was littered with similar charity cases, and Republican leaders and donor
groups were forced to triage resources. No, this had to have been done to
a figure Carlson had
deemed “the
future of the Republican Party.”
For his
part, the former Fox
host implied that,
between the institutional GOP’s behind-the-scenes incompetence and the liberal
establishment’s equally unseen command of the levers of control in this
country, the obstacles to his preferred political outcomes are difficult to
anticipate because they are so clandestine.
Given
the extent to which he has primed his audience to believe in the omnipotence of
the ill-defined forces arrayed against them, Carlson’s viewers might be tempted
to chalk up the summary cancellation of his show to those same forces. But the
sequence of events that produced this outcome was at least as transparent as
the last time a
prime-time Fox host lost
his No. 1–rated program following a costly settlement.
Last
week, Fox was ordered to fork over the astronomical sum of $787 million to just
one of the firms suing the outlet over allegedly defamatory statements on-air
talent made in support of the dubious election-fraud claims proffered by Donald
Trump in 2020. Carlson’s name was all over the
embarrassing documents that Dominion Voting Systems’ lawyers uncovered during the
discovery process. You can read all about
it if you’re
so inclined.
According
to the Los Angeles
Times, News
Corp chief Rupert Murdoch had become increasingly discomfited by
Carlson’s flirtation
with the claim that the January 6 riots were “provoked by government agents” and
his veiled allegation that one of the rioters was an FBI plant. But the final
straw was a conventional one:
Carlson’s exit is related to the discrimination lawsuit filed by Abby
Grossberg, the producer fired by the network last month, the people said.
Carlson’s senior executive producer Justin Wells has also been terminated,
according to people familiar with the matter. A Fox News representative would
not comment.
“People
familiar with the situation who were not authorized to comment publicly said
the decision to fire Carlson came straight from Fox Corp. Chairman Rupert
Murdoch,” the L.A. Times added.
Fox’s
decision to cut its losses might have happened behind closed doors, but the
conduct that necessitated that decision was entirely out in the open. Moreover,
as keen observers like Commentary editor John Podhoretz observed, Murdoch has a habit of
pruning even
profitable enterprises within his business empire when they become legal liabilities.
No
shadowy cabal did this. This outcome didn’t occur as a result of the
machinations of some establishmentarian sect or well-heeled lobbying outfit.
These are the consequences that Carlson’s own actions inspired, and they are
owed only to best business practices. That might be a bitter pill to swallow
for those on the right who have recently become besotted with conspiratorial
thinking, but tough medicine is salutary, nonetheless.
No comments:
Post a Comment