The Strange Afterlife of Tucker Carlson

The New York Times ^ | Sept. 20, 2024, 5:03 a.m. ET | Jason Zengerle

[E. Pluribus Unum]

On Saturday night in Hershey, Pa., JD Vance will participate in one of the more unusual political events of this presidential campaign. Several thousand people — almost all of whom have paid for the privilege, some as much as $1,600 — will pack into a hockey arena to watch the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson interview Mr. Vance, the Republican Party’s vice-presidential nominee.

The money made from the event will not go to the Trump campaign but to Mr. Carlson’s new media company, which made headlines earlier this month when Mr. Carlson aired — and praised — the views of a Nazi apologist historian who has argued that concentration camps were a “humane” solution to widespread hunger. “Didn’t expect Tucker Carlson to become an outlet for Nazi apologetics, but here we are,” the conservative talk radio host Erick Erickson wrote on X.

Even as Democrats and Republicans denounced Mr. Carlson, Mr. Vance refused to join the chorus, declaring that he would still appear with Mr. Carlson in Hershey because “we believe in free speech and debate.”

But Mr. Vance’s decision to stand with Mr. Carlson isn’t about free speech or even loyalty. Instead, it’s a stark reminder of where power resides in the Make America Great Again movement, and where it will likely stay in the years to come. And it’s not with JD Vance.

Mr. Carlson had the highest-rated show in the history of cable news, and when he was abruptly fired from Fox News last year, it was widely assumed he would fade from relevance. He did — for many Americans, especially liberals. After his disappearance from Fox News’s lineup, the army of liberal media monitors devoted to chronicling his every provocation and outrage turned their attention elsewhere...

[Jim W N]

Tucker (as many) seems to have trouble with the heart of THE political issue of the day: reconciling the Constitution, applying it to today’s mostly unconstitutional federal gov’t, and reasoning to nullify and dismantle the $3+ trillion, 80%+ unconstitutional portion as the means of recovering our Free Constitutional Republic.

[woodbutcher1963]

Nobody’s perfect. He is 10X(100X) better than most everyone else.

[Gaffer]

Ha! These NYT twits are pi$$ed because Tucker still has ‘draw’ power and notoriety even after leaving Fox. Well, so does Megyn Kelly.

What they’re really mad about is that Tuck coupling with Vance is a BIG ‘draw.’ One they can’t control, nor which Que-Mala or AWalz can muster without several dozen buses and paid astroturf crowds.

[Jim W N]

If Tucker’s going to be a supposedly pro-America commentator and patriot, he should be knowledgeable about and able to properly apply the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended.

Otherwise, he should learn such and then come back to being a commentator.

That’s not perfection, it’s just reasonable qualification.

[FES0844]

Loved his interviews with Jesse Kelly and Megan Kelly.

[Tea Drinker]

The comments are the interesting part. The readers of the NYT are not fans of free speech or opinions that differ from their very narrow lib world view.

[Jacquerie]

Thanks for regularly posting NYT garbage.

Gotta’ know the enemy.

[Stanwood_Dave]

Amen. Jehovah’s /Yahweh / word to be spread in the last day’s.

[Captain Compassion]

I suspect that Tucker really isn’t a Nazi. Should Tucker allow people like Ericson or perhaps the NYT to tell him who he should and should not interview. The Nazi guy had some interesting to say about Jim Jones. His stuff about Hitler and Churchill was historically moronic.

[Wuli]

You are so wrong.

I am all for free speech. But would I invite a known communist to speak in my house to my friends, just to honor free speech? No. They don’t need me to be heard.

Free speech means I hire my own megaphone, without legal opposition from you, and you hire your own megaphone, without legal opposition from me - end of free speech. My opponents get to get their own megaphone, not mine.

Tucker claiming some Nazi has a right to be heard and would not be heard unless Tucker gave him the microphone, is an intellectual lie and Tucker knows it.

He does these things only to get more attention and income for himself, period.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Tucker claiming some Nazi has a right to be heard and would not be heard unless Tucker gave him the microphone, is an intellectual lie and Tucker knows it.

You aren't for free speech.

You don't believe Tucker has a right to interview anybody he feels like interviewing.

I know! You should start your own podcast with hundreds of millions of subscribers! That way you can not talk to anybody you choose!

[Wuli]

“You aren’t for free speech.”

Wrong.

“You don’t believe Tucker has a right to interview anybody he feels like interviewing.”

Wrong again. I believe Tucker has that right. That does not change my right to claim Tucker makes bad choices in exercisizing that right.

He uses the “free speech” excuse for interviewing a Nazi, when that Nazi does not and did not require Tucker in order to exercize his free speech rights. Tucker did it only to get interest in himself and make money. His “right” yes, but I disagree with his choices and refuse to agree that Tucker had to make those choices “in the name of free speech”. B.S.

[Reily]

Too many people confuse journalism with what “talking heads (TH)\media personalities” do. Tucker is a TH\media, etc. Rush explained it well. They’re entertainers first journalists a distant third or fourth; they have to generate “Buzz” to get “ratings”. They don’t get good “ratings” they don’t stay on the air. Tucker gave that WWII revisionist airtime, he got the “buzz” he wanted from. Now everyone’s talking about Tuck! We all have to watch\listen to see what wild and crazy thing he does next! Notice this has very little to do with “information”. Just the facts (Which is all I want!) is too boring!

[Jim W N]

The Word of Christ who is able to save to the uttermost.