I actually read a New York Times article from start to finish a few days ago. Well… mostly finish. I almost made it to the end of Part 1 of the Times’ three-part insane attack job against Fox News host Tucker Carlson. I fell asleep and had a nightmare at one point. That thing was like a gajillion words long!
The only reason why I read it was to try to figure out “Why?” Why attack Tucker Carlson in such a way right now? There’s no way Fox News was going to cancel Tucker Carlson Tonight, since his show is the sole reason why Fox’s ratings haven’t cratered like CNN’s or MSNBC’s since the 2020 election.
The three-part hit job is titled, “How Tucker Carlson Stoked White Fear to Conquer Cable.” Tucker responded to his enemies the same way that he often does: He tweeted a photo of himself holding up that copy of the New York Times while laughing hysterically.
The title of the piece, about Carlson “stoking white fear” is just as grimy as most of the article itself. It’s incredibly invasive of his private family life, to the point of cruelty. The Times even did opposition research on Carlson’s ancestors, to try to figure out the psychology of why he is such a dirty, filthy racist. The worst they could find was one of his ancestors who first arrived in California in 1850. Apparently that guy might have swindled a couple of people in land deals. Oh no! Because that’s never happened in California before or since!
Seriously, New York Times… is that the best you’ve got?
Here are just a few of the slanderous smears hurled at Carlson by the New York Times, in no particular order:
“Mr. Carlson has constructed what may be the most racist show in the history of cable news.”
“His show teaches loathing and fear.”
And “He was roundly labeled an apologist and Putin cheerleader, only to press ahead with segments that parroted Russian talking points and promoted Kremlin propaganda about purported Ukrainian bioweapons labs.”
Really, New York Times? Purported Ukrainian bioweapons labs? Do you mean the ones that a senior Biden administration official admitted were real while under oath and delivering congressional testimony? Those purported bioweapons labs?
The meta description of Part 2 of this gajillion-word hit piece reads, “A string of setbacks made the pundit flee television, the Republican establishment and even his home.”
That sentence pieces together several different times from Carlson’s life to make it sound like he’s a coward who always runs away. He didn’t “flee television.” MSNBC fired him because he made his co-host Rachel Maddow look like a dunce every night. He was simply too smart to be on the same set as her.
Carlson didn’t “flee the Republican establishment,” either. The Republican establishment fled from its own voters, which finally resulted in Donald Trump’s 2016 election. And as for Carlson “fleeing his home,” the Times leaves out the fact that Antifa tried to break down the front door of Tucker’s Washington, DC house so they could kill his wife while he was at work. He moved his family to a safer part of America as a result.
Again: Why? Why would the New York Times go to so much trouble, conduct so much invasive research, and devote so much ink space to smearing Tucker Carlson right now? They’re not going to drive advertisers away or pressure the Murdocks to fire their biggest cash cow. Tucker Carlson is un-cancelable.
Several pundits have offered their theories on this bizarre exercise, but here’s my thought: Tucker Carlson Democrats are a real thing. All of those liberal news junkies who used to watch CNN and MSNBC got tired of being called terrible racists every night. They’re still watching the news, but they’re getting their news from Tucker Carlson now. Tucker is now their guilty, secret pleasure. They can’t tell any of their friends that they’re watching him every night, but they just can’t turn away.
This hit piece was aimed at the Tucker Carlson Democrats. Only a bigoted racist who is a terrible person would watch Tucker Carlson, after all. The Times is trying to pressure those Democrats to come back to CNN and MSNBC to help bail them out. Otherwise, those networks will soon collapse. Good luck with that mission, New York Times.