Interesting article published on Thursday on Consortium News, thought others here might like to see and perhaps comment on. A few comments of my own on the article first. I didn't really follow Carlson's early career, so I can't really comment on the author's claim that he "played on white fears". All I remember is a quote from him during 9/11 essentially saying that questioning or disagreeing with the official 9/11 narrative was "blasphemy", a sentiment I certainly don't agree with. According to this article, he was also a supporter of the war in Iraq at the time it happened, but this article points out that he's since regretted that stance. Regarding Rupert Murdoch's payout, I've heard he could have fought it, but he didn't want to testify in court and that's what drove him to settle instead. Quoting the beginning and the end of the article:
**
April 27, 2023
The Fox News host paid the price because he tried the impossible — straddling the divide between corporate media and critical journalism, writes Jonathan Cook.
Many of the people who are now busy hating on Tucker Carlson, with reason, are missing the bigger picture. Carlson was a genuine aberration in U.S. corporate media. Which is why he is gone — sacked by media “titan” Rupert Murdoch.
Yes, over the years Carlson played on white fears, placing him firmly on the right. But he also gave over his massive corporate platform at Fox News to some of the most critical and thoughtful independent journalists and pundits around — from Glenn Greenwald and Aaron Matè to Jimmy Dore.
Carlson not only brought them into the living rooms of Main Street, he also undoubtedly helped them grow their audiences and influence.
In that way, he exposed ordinary Americans to critical perspectives, especially on U.S. foreign policy, that they had no hope of hearing anywhere else — and most certainly not from so-called “liberal” corporate media outlets like CNN and MSNBC.
And he did so while constantly ridiculing the media’s craven collusion with those in power.
But all that is being ignored. Media analysis of Carlson’s departure has focused so far almost exclusively on his clashes with Fox News management, and a series of disrespectful tweets, that have come to light as a result of the recent Dominion court case, in which Murdoch was forced to settle with a massive payout.
But those clashes cannot be understood outside a wider context in which Carlson was pushing against institutional media constraints at Fox designed to prevent the real work of journalism — holding the powerful to account.
Nord Stream Silence
Here is just a taste of some of the highlights of his time with Fox News:
•While the rest of the U.S. media ignored a major investigation by the legendary journalist Seymour Hersh, or deflected attention to a crazed, semi-official conspiracy theory involving a rogue crew on a yacht, Carlson dared present evidence that the U.S. blew up the Nord Stream pipelines — an act of unprecedented industrial and environmental terrorism directed against Europe:
•Uniquely among corporate journalists, Carlson gave airtime to the testimony of whistleblowers from the OPCW, the U.N. body monitoring chemical weapons. The testimony confirmed that, under U.S. pressure, the OPCW rigged an investigation into a gas attack in Douma, Syria, to blame Syrian President Bashar Assad and retrospectively provide the pretext for illegal U.S., U.K. and French air strikes:
[video in original article]
[snip]
But beyond speculating about Carlson’s motives, the more significant point — the one we should celebrate and highlight — is that media “consumers” are slowly becoming less passive and more critical of traditional sources of information.
Carlson understood that trend and tried to straddle the divide. He had a foot in both the corporate media camp and the independent camp. Through his sacking, he has proved just how untenable that position is.
One — the corporate media — is there to entertain and distract us, and keep us locked into tribal identities, banging heads against each other in utter futility. The other — independent media – is there to help us think more critically about power and about our responsibilities as citizens.
You can’t serve those two masters — as Tucker Carlson just found out the hard way.
**
Full article:
Tucker Carlson Tried to Serve Two Masters | Consortium News
**
April 27, 2023
The Fox News host paid the price because he tried the impossible — straddling the divide between corporate media and critical journalism, writes Jonathan Cook.
Many of the people who are now busy hating on Tucker Carlson, with reason, are missing the bigger picture. Carlson was a genuine aberration in U.S. corporate media. Which is why he is gone — sacked by media “titan” Rupert Murdoch.
Yes, over the years Carlson played on white fears, placing him firmly on the right. But he also gave over his massive corporate platform at Fox News to some of the most critical and thoughtful independent journalists and pundits around — from Glenn Greenwald and Aaron Matè to Jimmy Dore.
Carlson not only brought them into the living rooms of Main Street, he also undoubtedly helped them grow their audiences and influence.
In that way, he exposed ordinary Americans to critical perspectives, especially on U.S. foreign policy, that they had no hope of hearing anywhere else — and most certainly not from so-called “liberal” corporate media outlets like CNN and MSNBC.
And he did so while constantly ridiculing the media’s craven collusion with those in power.
But all that is being ignored. Media analysis of Carlson’s departure has focused so far almost exclusively on his clashes with Fox News management, and a series of disrespectful tweets, that have come to light as a result of the recent Dominion court case, in which Murdoch was forced to settle with a massive payout.
But those clashes cannot be understood outside a wider context in which Carlson was pushing against institutional media constraints at Fox designed to prevent the real work of journalism — holding the powerful to account.
Nord Stream Silence
Here is just a taste of some of the highlights of his time with Fox News:
•While the rest of the U.S. media ignored a major investigation by the legendary journalist Seymour Hersh, or deflected attention to a crazed, semi-official conspiracy theory involving a rogue crew on a yacht, Carlson dared present evidence that the U.S. blew up the Nord Stream pipelines — an act of unprecedented industrial and environmental terrorism directed against Europe:
•Uniquely among corporate journalists, Carlson gave airtime to the testimony of whistleblowers from the OPCW, the U.N. body monitoring chemical weapons. The testimony confirmed that, under U.S. pressure, the OPCW rigged an investigation into a gas attack in Douma, Syria, to blame Syrian President Bashar Assad and retrospectively provide the pretext for illegal U.S., U.K. and French air strikes:
[video in original article]
[snip]
But beyond speculating about Carlson’s motives, the more significant point — the one we should celebrate and highlight — is that media “consumers” are slowly becoming less passive and more critical of traditional sources of information.
Carlson understood that trend and tried to straddle the divide. He had a foot in both the corporate media camp and the independent camp. Through his sacking, he has proved just how untenable that position is.
One — the corporate media — is there to entertain and distract us, and keep us locked into tribal identities, banging heads against each other in utter futility. The other — independent media – is there to help us think more critically about power and about our responsibilities as citizens.
You can’t serve those two masters — as Tucker Carlson just found out the hard way.
**
Full article:
Tucker Carlson Tried to Serve Two Masters | Consortium News
