Home | About | Donate

Watching Tucker Carlson Eats At My Soul. Here’s Why I Do It Anyway


Watching Tucker Carlson Eats At My Soul. Here’s Why I Do It Anyway

Madeline Peltz

I watch Tucker Carlson’s show every night. I actually watch at least three hours of Fox News programming each evening, but Tucker Carlson Tonight is the network’s primetime anchor: He’s on five days per week, at 8 p.m.—the slot Bill O’Reilly held until the news of his sexual harassment settlements forced him out. I’ve been doing this every night for more than a year, but I still find Carlson’s opening jarring: As soon as I hear it, my shoulders tense, I roll my eyes, and sigh.


Tucker Carlson: Making Amygdala Grow Again!


I admire anyone who has at least one news source that makes them uncomfortable. I am a conservative so I listen to NPR every day, because I need to hear the other side. Everyone should have one source they listen/read/watch every day. It makes them more informed. Thanks


I admire people who can see through the self-defeating conservative/liberal Bullshit game. People with enough smarts to realize that no matter who is running the show, left or right, the conservatives and liberals of the 1% always win and the rest of the conservatives and liberals always lose.


I don’t envy Ms. Peltz her job, but am glad she has the strength to do it. Trying to correct even some of the lies, half-truths and omissions of Fox News must be like trying to take a sip of water from a fire hose.

Meanwhile, I have some relatives by marriage who turn this crap on upon waking, and don’t turn it off until going to bed. I find it impossible to have any substantial discussion with them, because they seem to inhabit some weird parallel universe where up is down and 2+2=3.33.

I assume that this result is what was intended by Murdoch et al.


2.9 million people? BFD.


2.9 million have an outsized influence because so many Murkins are not dialed in to ANY “news” beyond Hollyweird gossip.

Recall 150 years ago Mark Twain noting “people who don’t read newspapers are uninformed, while those who do are misinformed”.


The point is not comfort or discomfort. Information (let’s skip news for now) is either fact-based or fact-less, defensible or indefensible, sound or unsound.

The trouble comes in that facts don’t necessarily (and may not ever) point to one position that is clearly right. In most cases, what is right depends on our individual values, morals, and ethics.

Take the environment. The globe is warming in large part due to human activity, namely, the burning of fossil fuels. It is not disputable that we are blanketing the sky with carbon, with millions of measurable tonnes of the stuff, and we know what carbon in the atmosphere does to temperatures on earth. It is not up for debate, not subject to a left or a right interpretation.

Given this set of facts, we can decide to continue to burn fossil fuels, which saves some money in the short term, and accept that consequences now and in the future of rising sea levels and hotter temperatures on humans, animals, sea life, agriculture, and so on.

Americans could further decide that with technology and infrastructure they may be able to mitigate the negative effects for themselves, regarding not so much those who live closer to the equator and have fewer resources.

What we should not argue about is whether the negative effects are highly probable. They are. We should only argue about our obligations to others who share the planet and future generations.

I tend to think we have obligations and that doing nothing, effectively, would be immoral.

But that is my moral belief. It is not a fact.


Another take on your interesting point.

If one exposed a 10-year old to contradictory reports on the same topic from, say, Fox and MSNBC, how would that 10-year old know which source to believe (assuming his or her parents had not indoctrinated the child to trust one or the other)?

Most adults assume that at some point in life they acquired the skill necessary to distinguish fact from fiction, good argument from bad, prophet from charlatan.

I think this assumption is false. Incredibly false.

Adults don’t automatically inherit the ability to parse arguments or discern truth by attending school, listening to television or radio, or breathing. And that much admired and largely undefined common sense seems to be, in no meaningful way and to no meaningful extent, particularly common.

To return to your point, yes, everyone should leave the door open to new information that may challenge one’s beliefs.

I just doubt that most people have the ability to know if the door should be opened wider or shut.

I don’t think the history of people in the US or Germany or Russia or [name your nation] suggests as much.


Actually, this isn’t true. Fossil fuels are barely cheaper on an internalized cost basis in the short term. When you add in external costs, mostly from health impacts, it turns out that fossil fuels do not save money, even in the short term. And, of course, when you add in the existential threat from climate change, the cost of getting of fossil fuels is chump change.

This brings to mind another point. Climate change deniers often express their position as a matter of belief – they do not believe in climate change, or the left does believe in climate change. However, climate change is not about a belief system, it is about facts. So one either accepts or does not accept the science. Beliefs systems are fine for religion and other fantasies, but have no place in the science or politics of climate change.

Otherwise, your comment is dead-on accurate.


For someone who gets paid to watch the news, you are pretty bad at it.

Tucker doesn’t just speak for white Americans he speaks for all legal residents of the USA. If you were not mentally handy-capped you would know the difference.

Any monitoring you do I would find highly suspect of political bias based on your “feelings”.


I admire the author’s fortitude. I watch, in small doses, to keep tabs. For news I go elsewhere.


Laughing out loud here, sorry, Little Phucker Carson most certainly does not speak for me, re your idiot comment that “he speaks for all legal residents of the USA”. Jaysus, where oh where did you come up with that bizarre statement??? The only thing the Little Phucker Carson speaks to is his bank account and a fleeting amount of ‘fame’.


NPR is not really the opposite side. If you want to experience a different view of events, watch FSTV or LINK TV. If you want to hear real news rather than fake news/propaganda, stay away from FOX and listen to Amy Goodwin’s program, Democracy Now instead.


You are what you eat. You eat Tucker and you become a petrified, racist slowly devolving into a shell of your soul. Nobody’s out to get you Whitey. You don’t have anything anyone wants and much of what you deem yours does not belong to you. signed, old beige guy


Yes, I’ve been saying this for years. The left and democrats are not good at getting their messages and ideas out to the public. We need progressive wealthy people to buy Clear Channel radio and create a progressive version of Limbaugh only telling the truth, instead of lies. I’ll do it for free. I’ll bet I can make Limbaugh look like the bafoon he really is easily. I just need the help of a research team to help me tape his show the night before and then use his own words against him by showing the truth and comparing it to what he says and to show the techniques that right wing media uses to spin lies and disinformation, the lie sandwich and how they misuse facts and statistics to confuse people. The public needs to learn how our government is supposed to work and how republicans are undermining it, and what we can do about this.

Also, there are many issues that the left never discusses and information that the public never hears. For instance the fact that abortion and birth control were never illegal during Bible times, and abortion was never murder during Bible times or for many thousands of years of human history. The idea that abortion is murder is a right wing lie. The unborn had no rights during Bible times and no one could ever be murdered until after they were born. Also making abortion illegal will not stop abortions, it will only criminalize people, and even women who have had spontaneous miscarriages have been put in prison for life for murder, under these kinds of laws, when they had no control over this natural loss of a pregnancy. Antiabortion laws will only open up a huge can of injustice against women and girls and will do nothing to reduce abortions. Planned Parenthood has prevented more unnecessary abortions than the entire right to life movement has ever done in their entire history! This is a fact, because of helping poor women prevent unwanted pregnancy. If there is no unwanted pregnancy, then there is no need for any unnecessary abortions. This use of birth control and by encouraging and facilitating responsible sexuality, we can do even more to reduce the need for unnecessary abortions by using birth control and abstinence and sex education and encouraging and facilitating respectful dating practices. Young people need help having safer places to date, and learning how to protect one’s self from unwanted male sexual aggression. Young men need to learn to be respectful of young women and girls and girls need to learn social skills also. This could be a good time to discuss domestic violence and sexual abuse prevention also The social aspect of reducing premarital or extramarital sex will require other solutions, but this problem has always been with us and will not just go away if we enact severe right wing laws and restrictions.

In countries where birth control and abortion are illegal, the abortion rates skyrocket due to illegal abortions and many more women die. These laws are not the way to go at all. We need to work together on this issue and create healthier and more sensible solutions rather than locking up innocent women for life at $60,000 per year for a miscarriage! Millions of people never hear about these facts that could be helpful in the debate on many of these important issues.


The biggest problem is the entrenched power and money and influence that the fossil fuel companies have. Every American that wants to stay alive and who cares about their children at all must do whatever they and we can do to stop using fossil fuels and to create a green economy in America where we all get off of fossil fuels once and for all. No more pollution. This earth is our only home, we can’t afford to destroy its life giving capacity or we will all die! This could happen very soon if we don’t stop now!


Judge much yourself?


“Fox News is still the highest-viewed news network in the country…”

This is because all of the ignorant White racists are piled up watching their only “news source” while the rest of the nation is scattered among the other networks for their news.


Sorry, deckhughes2, but NPR is actually National Propaganda Radio. Not once did the network question the invasion of Iraq, even though most all progressive news knew there were zero weapons of mass destruction.

Fox and MSNBS are two sides of the corporate news coin. Any news person who makes millions of dollars a year is a corporate shill. Sites like Common Dreams, Information Clearing House, Consortium News, BrasscheckTV, and Democracy Now! work to bring the news without trying to make billions of dollars on advertising bogus products like they do on corporate media. Follow the money and find the lies.