I have long admired Paul Mirengoff's commentary. In this piece, he traces a very complicated issue of journalistic ethics and, in my opinion, gets it just right. This is Mirengoff at his best.
Embarrassing? Maybe. Damning? Hardly. Regarding Dominion, I will NEVER trust an election run by electronic voting. EVER. They can win every court case from here to eternity and I will NEVER trust that the result is legitimate. We need traceable, verifiable paper ballots. Watermarks, barcodes, whatever it takes to be able to trace a ballot to a legitimate voter. Anything less than that is not reliable, verifiable, or legitimate in my eyes. And using censorship and court cases to shut people up from even asking questions about elections is the very epitome of a banana republic.
Paul: I come at this from the perspective of one who has worked as a reporter in the pre-internet era.
I think your conclusion from Carlson's quote – "Carlson thus admits that he had been “pretending” the Trump administration was other than a “disaster” and that there’s an ”upside” to the man" – is a leap too far.
1. There is a difference between what one personally believes as an individual and what one thinks is worth covering as a journalist. They can be, and often are and should be at odds with each other.
I don't know the context of the Carlson quote - was it made specifically about the Dominion story? Or was it a general comment about coverage? Given Carlson's first statement ("we're almost at a point where we don't have to cover him anymore") it seems to be latter.
Reporters report on news, and if the President of the United States says he believes that voting machines are rigged, that's news. You can add information by saying, "The President didn't provide any specific evidence to back the claim." That's not spin, it's reporting. I'm not sure, but I remember hearing that disclaimer in the Fox coverage. That's how we got the "release the Kraken" promise from Sidney Powell.
As a reporter, you can hate politicians and believe the things they say are lies, but you have to report on them and do so as honestly as you can. Good reporters are skeptical but also curious, experienced ones are often cynical given their prolonged exposure to dishonesty and fraud. I think good reporters distrust most politicians and may in private moments say they're all idiots and liars, but they have to report the news about them. I wish more reporters approached it that way, instead of being advocates.
The fact that Carlson thinks that Trump is appalling, or thinks he was a failed President has conservatives clutching their pearls: How could he say that and report positively on the Trump administration? Yet it has no bearing on what he should and shouldn't cover as a reporter.
News organizations have this debate all the time, though it was sharper when the limits of paper column inches severely limited what could be covered. The discipline applied to coverage decisions is largely gone in the post-internet era, but still the issues are: Will our audience be interested in this? Do they care? Are the other outlets going to cover it? And is it consequential?
Clearly, if Trump says Dominion machines were rigged, that's worth reporting, whether or not you believe it.
2. I also think people are getting caught up in Tucker Tone.
"I hate him passionately" is a typical Tucker device using overstatement, which he does all the time on his show. "They're monsters," "They lie all the time," "They have no integrity," etc. I'm sure Carlson talks this way as well about the ice cream he dislikes.
3. This is very small potatoes compared to the active news suppression and misinformation peddled by the major newspaper and networks since Trump came on the scene. You know the list. These stories were either deliberately misreported, using sources without any corroboration and withheld important context and disclaimers and ignored comment from the other side.
J. Peder Zane makes that case over at RCP (and has the list):
Let me start with your third point. Peder Zane is right, of course, to say that the mainstream media is dishonest. And by the way, that dishonesty long predates Trump coming on the scene, as I spent many years trying to document in my writing. However, the mainstream media's lack of integrity has no bearing on the issue of Tucker Carlson's integrity. A "Joy Reed is even worse" defense is no defense at all.
Regarding your first point, (1) you incorrectly assume I was attacking Carlson for his coverage of Dominion and (2) you overlook the fact that Carlson isn't just (or even primarily) a reporter.
My critique of Carlson stems from documents discovered in the Dominion case, but I was careful not to attack Carlson's coverage of Dominion. I also acknowledged the argument in favor of Fox airing Team Trump's attack on Dominion -- essentially, the same argument you make -- and took no position on whether that argument outweighs the competing concern of protection from slander.
The problem with Carlson isn't what he said about Dominion; it's what he said off-air about Trump. Nor is there any ambiguity about what he said -- exaggeration, possibly; ambiguity, no.
When Carlson admits he's been pretending that the Trump administration was other than a disaster and adds that there's no upside to the man, he's clearly not talking about Dominion, as you seem to suggest he might have been. Instead, he's repudiating a standard defense of Trump -- that he may be flawed, but he did lots good (or even great) things as president.
No, says Carlson. Trump's administration has been a disaster. There's little to show for it, and there is no upside to the man.
If Carlson were just a reporter, his unwillingness to say, or even hint, this on the air would be commendable, not problematic. But Carlson is an opinion journalist, above all else. For him to defend Trump night after night when he actually believes the man's administration has been a disaster demonstrates lack of integrity.
Regarding your second point, you want to discount Carlson's blistering attack on Trump as "Tucker Tone," i.e. the way he talks on his show. However, his attack didn't occur on his show. It took place in private correspondence.
Maybe Carlson routinely overstates things in private, too. Maybe not.
But let's assume for the moment Carlson was exaggerating in his statements about Trump. Even so, he could not have said what he did unless he has a very low regard for the man and his presidency. That is, unless the way he presented Trump to the public as an opinion journalist was wildly at odds with his actual opinion.
Fair points, Paul. Journos are a cynical lot, and the opinion-oriented ones are the most cynical of all. I take it in stride that they play to their audience, and that accounts for the seemingly astonishing turns and twists they make (e.g. Nicole Wallace, Hannity, Leo 2.0).
Has Carlson addressed the criticism, on Twitter or elsewhere? I cannot find it. I would like to know why he thinks the Trump administration was a disaster or finds no upside in it because I, like you, can identify real accomplishments that impacted the lives of people that Tucker claims to be an advocate for. Unless he's professing some idealistic standard for judging Presidents, the comment makes little sense. It's the kind of shoot-from-the-remark that, if made to your or me, would demand explanation.
Given the litigation, he may have to be silent on the matter for now. But I do think it's possible for Carlson to find Trump appalling, while at the same time directing vitriol at democrats (detestable vs demonic).
The comment captures the cynicism of journos who claim to be "straight-shooters".
Written by a true "Bushie". You and your partner now belong to the two most hated and distrusted (with good reason) "professions"- journalists and attorneys. You still haven't gotten over the fact that Jeb Bush was shown to be such a weak, silver spooned RINO by Trump. Read this and try and tell me he is wrong.
Great post, analytical and nuanced, as usual. Like Paul, I think Carlson's too harsh on Trump.. We need to move past Trump, who, midst other misdeeds, has cost us the Senate twice and significantly narrowed the Republican majority in the current House. However, I love his policies. The least dangerous place for Donald Trump is the White House. Jim Dueholm
I didn’t believe Tucker Carlson when he was sucking up to Trump and I don’t believe this comment where he says he hates him. I don’t think TC speaks the truth too often. He is an entertainer.
I have long admired Paul Mirengoff's commentary. In this piece, he traces a very complicated issue of journalistic ethics and, in my opinion, gets it just right. This is Mirengoff at his best.
Embarrassing? Maybe. Damning? Hardly. Regarding Dominion, I will NEVER trust an election run by electronic voting. EVER. They can win every court case from here to eternity and I will NEVER trust that the result is legitimate. We need traceable, verifiable paper ballots. Watermarks, barcodes, whatever it takes to be able to trace a ballot to a legitimate voter. Anything less than that is not reliable, verifiable, or legitimate in my eyes. And using censorship and court cases to shut people up from even asking questions about elections is the very epitome of a banana republic.
Paul: I come at this from the perspective of one who has worked as a reporter in the pre-internet era.
I think your conclusion from Carlson's quote – "Carlson thus admits that he had been “pretending” the Trump administration was other than a “disaster” and that there’s an ”upside” to the man" – is a leap too far.
1. There is a difference between what one personally believes as an individual and what one thinks is worth covering as a journalist. They can be, and often are and should be at odds with each other.
I don't know the context of the Carlson quote - was it made specifically about the Dominion story? Or was it a general comment about coverage? Given Carlson's first statement ("we're almost at a point where we don't have to cover him anymore") it seems to be latter.
Reporters report on news, and if the President of the United States says he believes that voting machines are rigged, that's news. You can add information by saying, "The President didn't provide any specific evidence to back the claim." That's not spin, it's reporting. I'm not sure, but I remember hearing that disclaimer in the Fox coverage. That's how we got the "release the Kraken" promise from Sidney Powell.
As a reporter, you can hate politicians and believe the things they say are lies, but you have to report on them and do so as honestly as you can. Good reporters are skeptical but also curious, experienced ones are often cynical given their prolonged exposure to dishonesty and fraud. I think good reporters distrust most politicians and may in private moments say they're all idiots and liars, but they have to report the news about them. I wish more reporters approached it that way, instead of being advocates.
The fact that Carlson thinks that Trump is appalling, or thinks he was a failed President has conservatives clutching their pearls: How could he say that and report positively on the Trump administration? Yet it has no bearing on what he should and shouldn't cover as a reporter.
News organizations have this debate all the time, though it was sharper when the limits of paper column inches severely limited what could be covered. The discipline applied to coverage decisions is largely gone in the post-internet era, but still the issues are: Will our audience be interested in this? Do they care? Are the other outlets going to cover it? And is it consequential?
Clearly, if Trump says Dominion machines were rigged, that's worth reporting, whether or not you believe it.
2. I also think people are getting caught up in Tucker Tone.
"I hate him passionately" is a typical Tucker device using overstatement, which he does all the time on his show. "They're monsters," "They lie all the time," "They have no integrity," etc. I'm sure Carlson talks this way as well about the ice cream he dislikes.
3. This is very small potatoes compared to the active news suppression and misinformation peddled by the major newspaper and networks since Trump came on the scene. You know the list. These stories were either deliberately misreported, using sources without any corroboration and withheld important context and disclaimers and ignored comment from the other side.
J. Peder Zane makes that case over at RCP (and has the list):
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/03/09/fox_news_deception_reveals_rot_in_modern_journalism_148959.html
Thanks for this thoughtful comment, David.
Let me start with your third point. Peder Zane is right, of course, to say that the mainstream media is dishonest. And by the way, that dishonesty long predates Trump coming on the scene, as I spent many years trying to document in my writing. However, the mainstream media's lack of integrity has no bearing on the issue of Tucker Carlson's integrity. A "Joy Reed is even worse" defense is no defense at all.
Regarding your first point, (1) you incorrectly assume I was attacking Carlson for his coverage of Dominion and (2) you overlook the fact that Carlson isn't just (or even primarily) a reporter.
My critique of Carlson stems from documents discovered in the Dominion case, but I was careful not to attack Carlson's coverage of Dominion. I also acknowledged the argument in favor of Fox airing Team Trump's attack on Dominion -- essentially, the same argument you make -- and took no position on whether that argument outweighs the competing concern of protection from slander.
The problem with Carlson isn't what he said about Dominion; it's what he said off-air about Trump. Nor is there any ambiguity about what he said -- exaggeration, possibly; ambiguity, no.
When Carlson admits he's been pretending that the Trump administration was other than a disaster and adds that there's no upside to the man, he's clearly not talking about Dominion, as you seem to suggest he might have been. Instead, he's repudiating a standard defense of Trump -- that he may be flawed, but he did lots good (or even great) things as president.
No, says Carlson. Trump's administration has been a disaster. There's little to show for it, and there is no upside to the man.
If Carlson were just a reporter, his unwillingness to say, or even hint, this on the air would be commendable, not problematic. But Carlson is an opinion journalist, above all else. For him to defend Trump night after night when he actually believes the man's administration has been a disaster demonstrates lack of integrity.
Regarding your second point, you want to discount Carlson's blistering attack on Trump as "Tucker Tone," i.e. the way he talks on his show. However, his attack didn't occur on his show. It took place in private correspondence.
Maybe Carlson routinely overstates things in private, too. Maybe not.
But let's assume for the moment Carlson was exaggerating in his statements about Trump. Even so, he could not have said what he did unless he has a very low regard for the man and his presidency. That is, unless the way he presented Trump to the public as an opinion journalist was wildly at odds with his actual opinion.
Fair points, Paul. Journos are a cynical lot, and the opinion-oriented ones are the most cynical of all. I take it in stride that they play to their audience, and that accounts for the seemingly astonishing turns and twists they make (e.g. Nicole Wallace, Hannity, Leo 2.0).
Has Carlson addressed the criticism, on Twitter or elsewhere? I cannot find it. I would like to know why he thinks the Trump administration was a disaster or finds no upside in it because I, like you, can identify real accomplishments that impacted the lives of people that Tucker claims to be an advocate for. Unless he's professing some idealistic standard for judging Presidents, the comment makes little sense. It's the kind of shoot-from-the-remark that, if made to your or me, would demand explanation.
Given the litigation, he may have to be silent on the matter for now. But I do think it's possible for Carlson to find Trump appalling, while at the same time directing vitriol at democrats (detestable vs demonic).
The comment captures the cynicism of journos who claim to be "straight-shooters".
Good points, David. Thanks again.
Written by a true "Bushie". You and your partner now belong to the two most hated and distrusted (with good reason) "professions"- journalists and attorneys. You still haven't gotten over the fact that Jeb Bush was shown to be such a weak, silver spooned RINO by Trump. Read this and try and tell me he is wrong.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/03/09/fox_news_deception_reveals_rot_in_modern_journalism_148959.html
Great post, analytical and nuanced, as usual. Like Paul, I think Carlson's too harsh on Trump.. We need to move past Trump, who, midst other misdeeds, has cost us the Senate twice and significantly narrowed the Republican majority in the current House. However, I love his policies. The least dangerous place for Donald Trump is the White House. Jim Dueholm
I didn’t believe Tucker Carlson when he was sucking up to Trump and I don’t believe this comment where he says he hates him. I don’t think TC speaks the truth too often. He is an entertainer.
Maybe you should listen to this before you jump to conclusions:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/system-update-with-glenn-greenwald/id1669610956
Maybe you should listen to this before you jump to conclusions:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/system-update-with-glenn-greenwald/id1669610956