I’ll be honest. I debated long and hard with myself about how to start today’s newsletter.
The question I asked: Should I lead today’s newsletter with comments about how Fox News, and in particular primetime host Tucker Carlson, reacted to the Derek Chauvin guilty-guilty-guilty verdict?
On one hand, Carlson, his guests and others on Fox News (Greg Gutfeld, for example) had commentary that questioned the fairness of the verdict and whether it could be trusted. Such irresponsible and damaging comments should be exposed.
On the other hand — and this happens quite often when it comes to Carlson and some of the more extreme voices on Fox News — there’s always a worry that publicizing their comments only amplifies their views and gives them more exposure than they deserve. Perhaps they should just be ignored. Aren’t they just trolling everyone and getting what they want when media critics and others react to that trolling?
In the end, however, I maintain that their commentary should be exposed in the hopes that, one day, the bosses at Fox News — specifically ownership (the Murdochs) — do something about it.
This is mostly about Carlson, who just hours after Tuesday’s verdict seemingly had a meltdown on his highly rated prime-time show. His opening commentary included this question: “Can we trust the way this decision was made?” Then he interviewed frequent Fox News guest Candace Owens, who said, “No one can say this was a fair trial.” Carlson went on to say “nobody has more faith in the system after this.”
Then he cut off a guest — Ed Gavin, a former New York City deputy sheriff and corrections officer — because he started talking about something Carlson had no interest in discussing: police reform. (Here’s the clip, which includes a maniacal and somewhat disturbing laugh from Carlson.) He concluded with: “Nope. Done.”
It all showed that Carlson was more concerned about protests over George Floyd’s death than the actual death of Floyd.
Wednesday’s show was more of the same with Carlson suggesting that the Chauvin verdict was a result of mob intimidation. Again, Carlson was more concerned with protests than a Black man dying at the hands (or knee) of police. And then Carlson tried to scare viewers that protesters standing up for civil rights have been emboldened and that could lead to a more violent America.
The headline on Charlotte Klein’s story for Vanity Fair: “In Shocking Turn of Events, Tucker Carlson and Majorie Taylor Greene aren’t happy with Chauvin verdict.”
The headline on a column by Erik Wemple in The Washington Post: “Tucker Carlson despises the Derek Chauvin verdict.”
Wemple wrote, “To viewers of ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight,’ accordingly, the George Floyd story is one of civil unrest, fires and broken windows. And when someone comes on air and dares to explain the atrocity, well — that person needs to be cut off and shut down. That’s because the truth of the Floyd murder threatens the fragile white-grievance ecosystem that Carlson has fashioned on Fox News’s airwaves. It speaks to the systemic racism that Carlson so commonly mocks. So desperate was Carlson to exonerate the system of Floyd’s death that he claimed that Floyd had died of a drug overdose. The Chauvin jury repudiated that nonsense; no wonder Carlson doesn’t want to talk about it.”
And Carlson not wanting to talk about it is something that all of us should be talking about.
Then again, does any of this — complaining about Tucker, calling him out, citizens threatening a boycott, pleading with his bosses to take notice — even matter?
Politico’s Jack Shafer writes, “Given the commercial value Carlson provides Fox, no advertiser boycott or denunciations from high places will dislodge his show from the network. As long as he maintains his audience (his show is consistently one of the most-watched on cable) and avoids the sort of legal trouble that destroyed Bill O’Reilly’s reputation, Carlson is all but cancel-proof.”
In fact, Shafer points out that Carlson is probably loving all this as he “has been wisely leaning into the storm against him, characterizing the calls for his ouster as a campaign to silence him and, by extension, his audience.”
Shafer adds, “‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’ remains integral to the Fox formula because the sensationalist views the show serves — populist, race-baiting, nativist, anti-immigrant — slipstream neatly behind those of Fox owner Rupert Murdoch. This is not to suggest that Murdoch endorses everything Carlson says any more than he endorses every tack his British tabloids take. But Murdoch adores ballyhoo and the lurid smell of burning garbage. And he loves to outrage those he considers his elitist foes. As long as the 90-year-old Murdoch lives, you can be sure there will be a space for Carlson — or someone exactly like him — in the Fox parking lot.”
Shafer is right. And that’s incredibly disheartening.
Where did viewers watch the verdict?
It’s believed that more viewers turned to CNN than any other network to see the verdict in the Chauvin trial. This is according to Nielsen in the early ratings. I say it’s believed CNN had the most viewers because NBC’s ratings are not included in the early returns.
CNN had 4.08 viewers in the U.S. from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. Eastern. That was followed by ABC (4.003 million), Fox News (3.442 million), MSNBC (3.066 million) and CBS (3.017 million).
