Tucker Carlson

In Jonathan Rauch's just published, excellent book, The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defence of Truth, the author writes: "Digital media have turned out to be better attuned to outrage and disinformation than to conversation and knowledge." The same thing could be said about all media.

The right is currently outraged about schools teaching critical race theory. The left is currently outraged about the disinformation promulgated by the right. And no one on the right does outrage and disinformation better than Tucker Carlson on Fox News. On the left, the number-one outrager on cable news is Rachel Maddow on MSNBC.

Carlson has the highest ratings on cable news with approximately three million viewers. Wednesday, June 23, seemed like a typical cable news prime-time night. Carlson on Fox News (8:00 pm) had 3,064,000 total viewers, 494,000 25-54 viewers (83% not 25-54). Maddow (9:00 pm) on MSNBC was number three behind Hannity (9:00 pm) on Fox News. She had 2,289,000 total viewers, 318,000 25-54 viewers (86% not 25-54).

Why is Carlson number one? He's not only the top outrager and disinformationer, he's also a liar and a hypocrite.

David Frum wrote in the Atlantic on June 21, that Carlson lied about protesters attacking his home when he said on his show, “Someone started throwing himself against the front door and actually cracked the front door.” Subsequent investigations determined there was no crack in his front door. Frum writes:

Carlson’s own lawyers have?argued in court that he regularly speaks in ways that are “loose, figurative, or hyperbolic.” Carlson’s descriptions of events—including outright accusations of criminal conduct by named individuals “would not have been taken by reasonable listeners as factual pronouncements but simply as instances in which [people like Carlson] expressed their views over the air in the crude and hyperbolic manner that has, over the years, become their verbal stock in trade.”

In other words, he lies.

The New York Times media columnist, Ben Smith, wrote a column titled "Tucker Carlson Calls Journalists ‘Animals.’ He’s Also Their Best Source" in which Smith claims that Carlson is hypocritical because he recently said on his show that the media at large are “cringing animals who are not worthy of respect,” yet has also been a consistent source for mainstream media reporters, including some New York Times reporters, about conversations with Trump when he was president. Smith writes that Carlson "spends his time when he’s not denouncing the liberal media trading gossip with them" and asks of Carlson viewers "How can the guy who tells you every night that the media is lying be texting with the enemy?" In other words, Smith makes the case the Carlson is a hypocrite.

So if Carlson is a liar and a hypocrite who dishes out disinformation, why would anyone watch his show (it's a show, not a news program)?

Confirmation bias, of course, but there is another reason that is detailed by Jonathan Rauch in The Constitution of Knowledge: group status.

Rauch refers to psychologist Jonathan Haidt's position that "people care a great deal more about appearance and reputation than about reality." Human beings are social animals who feel safe and secure in groups, in their tribes. Rauch writes that our group identity is primary. We want acceptance and status in our group more than we want reality or the truth. The tendency is for groups, and thus for individuals in that group, to connect emotionally with a charismatic leader and then to rationalize backward from our emotions rather than reason forward from policy views.

Therefore, a person can be a nice, caring person and generally a good community member, yet believe in conspiracy theories, support Trump and watch and believe Tucker Carlson because of their group identity and need for status in that group.

For liberals, it is difficult to change group identity. It takes a long time and needs the support of the media to debunk disinformation and calm down outrage.

But help may be on the way -- the media is changing. A recent analysis from Axios titled "Boring news cycle deals blow to partisan media" shows that "in the months since former President Donald Trump left office, media companies’ readership numbers are plunging — and publishers that rely on partisan, ideological warfare have taken an especially big?hit."

The Axios chart linked to above shows the following declines of selected media publications, August 2020-January 2021 (before) and February 2021-May 2021 (after):

• Far Right (e.g. NewsMax) - 43.8%
• Far Left (e.g Mother Jones) - 27.3%
• Right Leaning (e.g. Fox News) - 26.9%
• Mainstream (e.g. US Today) - 18.3%
• Left Leaning (e.g. Vox) - 16.7%

So, the Trump slump affects all media, but affects the far-right media the most and the left-leaning media the least. If these trends continue, perhaps agendas will change. Perhaps the groups that listen to and believe far-right and right-leaning media will shrink in size and, thus, be less influential. Perhaps Tucker Carlson will fade in importance and left-leaning media such as the Atlantic and The New York Times will stop writing about him and, thus, giving him exposure and publicity. Maybe he'll just fade away.

Let's hope.