In 2019, I debated making a quiz asking whether something was from a Tucker Carlson monologue or the Christchurch mosque shooter's manifesto because they had some major similarities. If anything, Carlson's only gotten more blatant since then. https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/tucker-carlson-gives-passionate-defense-white-replacement-theory

I didn't make it because I didn't want to give *the actual mass-murderer's manifesto* more attention than it already had, but it's just depressing that this is the message that seems to appeal to so many people.

Guys like J.D. Vance will say that Carlson challenges the powers that be and is a populist or whatever, but that's not even true. What, exactly, is he "challenging" by pushing the same tired nativist talking points that have existed for centuries around the world?

Like... what is this even supposed to mean? https://twitter.com/JDVance1/status/1380611143656484870

"...consistently challenges elite dogma—on both cultural and economic questions."

He doesn't challenge anything. He plays rhetorical tricks to make it *seem* like he's challenging "elite dogma" (whatever that's supposed to mean)

I've written a few pieces about Carlson's style of speaking. In early 2019, I wrote this one about the bait-and-switch game his arguments often use: https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson/tucker-carlsons-war-ruling-class-master-class-misdirection

One thing he does is he'll identify a real, totally legitimate problem.

In his book, "Ship of Fools," he wrote:

“What would happen if large numbers of Americans actually understood the federal tax code? All sorts of questions might arise. Why do we tax capital at half the rate of labor? That might be the first one."

That's a very real problem, a good point. Why is the tax code so deliberately complicated? Why are there so many carve-outs for the rich? These are real questions that should concern all of us.

But then... he pivots to something that's just... not even related. In the case of his tax code point, he ends up blaming... "identity politics."

But when you go back and read the points he's making, you'll notice that he just plucks convenient answers to problems out of thin air, even if they contradict something that he just said. From my piece:

And it's the same thing he does on his show.

As I wrote: the transition he makes from saying something that makes perfect sense to giving an explanation that simply reinforces his own political dogma is so seamless that viewers might not even catch the exact moment when things go completely off the rails.

He convinces his audience, his readers, that they are the victims of misdirection. He's right. They are. He's the one doing it.

He's very good at what he does, but what he does is not good — especially if you happen to be a woman, an immigrant, an LGBTQ person, a Muslim, etc.

He would have you believe that every problem that exists is either directly or indirectly the result of someone else's identity.

No, immigrants are not the reason that the gulfs of income inequality keep getting bigger. No, trans people are not the reason college is unaffordable. No, women in the workforce are not why companies mistreat their workers.

The entire time he's telling you, "Hey! The ruling class is trying to divide you!" all the while dividing people.

He'll argue that real people don't have time to waste debating esoteric blah blah trans issues... and then devote more time to trans issues than anyone else on TV.

Seriously, I don't think there's a single person on TV who brings up trans issues more often than Tucker Carlson. Here's a comparison between his show (red) and Rachel Maddow (blue) https://tvnews.stanford.edu/?dataVersion=v1&data=eyJvcHRpb25zIjp7InN0YXJ0X2RhdGUiOiIyMDE5LTA0LTAxIiwiZW5kX2RhdGUiOiIyMDIxLTAzLTMxIiwiYWdncmVnYXRlIjoibW9udGgifSwicXVlcmllcyI6W3siY29sb3IiOiIjNEU3OUE3IiwidGV4dCI6IltUUk1TXSBzaG93PVwiVGhlIFJhY2hlbCBNYWRkb3cgU2hvd1wiIEFORCB0ZXh0PVwidHJhbnNnZW5kZXJcIiJ9LHsiY29sb3IiOiIjRTE1NzU5IiwidGV4dCI6IltUdWNrZXIgQ2FybHNvbl0gc2hvdz1cIlR1Y2tlciBDYXJsc29uIFRvbmlnaHRcIiBBTkQgdGV4dD1cInRyYW5zZ2VuZGVyXCIifV19

But anyway. I don't know. It can't be said that I don't watch his stuff. I do. I watch his show, I read his book, I am a sponge for conservative media content. As long as it's on, I'll keep doing that.

There's a line in the @NiemanLab interview @BrandyZadrozny did with @bradesposito, about "super-charismatic sociopaths" who could use their skills for good or evil... and choose the latter. She was talking Alex Jones, but it applies to Tucker Carlson, too. https://www.niemanlab.org/2021/04/the-idea-that-we-can-change-anything-i-have-given-up-on-nbc-news-brandy-zadrozny-on-documenting-the-depressing-internet/

He's got a gift, a skill, a talent that most of us don't have. I certainly don't have it. He's impressive. He's smart. I just wish he used all of that for good, to actually be the working-class-minded populist people keep projecting onto him. But that's not him.

And there you go: https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1380693552167063555