Ever since he took the coveted primetime hosting slot at Fox News, Tucker Carlson has enjoyed a common wisdom belief that his grotesque bigotry is, on some level, just an act. Pundits who remembered Carlson from before, in his bow tie-wearing smartass phase, would often remark on how he remolded himself into a more white nationalist form to meet the Donald Trump era. While some allowed this version of Tucker might be the "real" one, mostly he was afforded the assumption that his bigotry was a costume worn for profit and political gain.
Carlson even leveraged this notion that his demagoguery was an act to wiggle out of a slander lawsuit in 2020. Former Playboy model Karen McDougal sued Carlson after he accused her of "extortion" when she revealed she received hush money payments from Donald Trump. But Carlson's lawyers argued that his on-air comments are "non-literal commentary" that reasonable people do not take seriously. Trump-appointed Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil agreed, writing, "any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statements he makes."
At first, the pre-trial filings by Dominion Voting Systems in a separate defamation case against Fox appeared to reinforce this idea that Carlson isn't serious, but just play-acting the part of a fascist demagogue. Off-camera, Carlson was skeptical of Trump's Big Lie and of Trump himself, calling the GOP leader "demonic" and saying, "I hate him passionately." On-camera, of course, Carlson continued to cheer Trump on and make apologies for the Big Lie and the insurrectionists who acted on it.
Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.
But just because Carlson had his off-camera doubts about the political wisdom of the coup does not mean he's insincere when it comes to his deeply bigoted ideology. People who've argued that Carlson's racism and other hatreds are not an act were vindicated late Tuesday night, when the New York Times published one of the text messages Dominion had gathered, which was redacted in their public filings. In it, Carlson reveals his white supremacist attitudes are entirely sincere.
For years, Carlson was able to evade both moral and legal responsibility for his on-air rhetoric because of this presumption that he's just playing a character on TV.
Carlson texted a producer in the aftermath of the January 6 riot about how he saw a group of Trump supporters beating an "Antifa kid," and how he felt conflicted between his desire to see "them to hurt the kid" and his concern that it's "dishonorable," because, "It's not how white men fight."
Gross and racist, but as many people pointed out, it's not measurably different than what Carlson says on-air. Many people argued that made it unlikely that the text was the real reason Carlson was fired.
But it makes sense in light of this larger "Tucker doesn't actually mean it" narrative. For years, Carlson was able to evade both moral and legal responsibility for his on-air rhetoric because of this presumption that he's just playing a character on TV. This text message strips away the cover story and leaves bare the truth many have long been warning about: Carlson is every inch the racist he portrays when the camera light is on.
A similar drama is playing out now over the right-wing "comedian" Steven Crowder. For years, Crowder has been raking in cash with an online talk show built in large part around his over-the-top misogyny. It's predictable stuff that gets a lot of traffic from people who imagine they're "triggering the liberals": Complaints about "undue influence from women" in public schools. Claims that only men can be geniuses. Arguing that only "whores" need abortion access. It's "comedy" for men who have no sense of humor, but do have fragile egos that can only be propped up with soothing myths that their gender means they are inherently superior. Since there are a lot of such men, Crowder has done very well for himself financially.
Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.
Like Carlson, Crowder has benefitted from the assumption that he's exaggerating his ugly views for attention and profit. As Kevin Roose of the New York Times wrote in 2019, Crowder and others like him make money by "portraying themselves as truth-telling rebels doing battle against humorless 'social justice warriors.'" This allowed outsiders to dismiss their nasty rhetoric as mere trolling, more an effort to get a rise out of people than a sincere expression of bigotry.
Crowder's attempts at clean-up have only reinforced his image as abusive.
Progressives spent years filing complaints that Crowder's videos violated YouTube's rules banning hate speech, only to be told that while his act is "offensive," it's not hate speech. Implicit in the rebuttals is an assumption that, because Crowder packages hatred as "jokes," it's not worth taking seriously. As tech journalist Will Oremus wrote in 2021, "You're free to mock, caricature, and belittle people based on their race, just as long as you don't come right out and say you literally hate them."
Last week, however, a video was leaked of Crowder berating his wife, who is now divorcing him, in a way that can safely be described as "abusive." In it, one can hear Crowder shaming the heavily pregnant woman for not doing enough "wifely things," even as he's denying her access to the car so she can accomplish basic chores like grocery shopping. When she understandably complains about being put in an impossible situation, he snaps, and can be heard saying, "I will f*ck you up."
Crowder's attempts at clean-up have only reinforced his image as abusive. He complained that no-fault divorce is legal in Texas, and suggested a woman should only be able to divorce her husband with his permission. He publicly threatened to unveil divorce papers, including "medical records concerning mental health history," which is an unsubtle way of calling his ex-wife "crazy." Soon, the New York Post published a story accusing Crowder of similar abuse of his staff, including repeatedly exposing his genitals and rubbing them on employees.
It's a narrative deeply rooted in classism.
As Will Sommer of the Daily Beast pointed out, the expose of Crowder has all the signs of being an inside job from a right-wing press that has decided it's time to throw him overboard. These right-wing figures "all hoard a different kind of junk on each other," he explained on the Fever Dreams podcast. "They're all collecting screenshots and amassing things for when they have their next big, anime betrayal moment—and it looks like that is coming right now for Steven Crowder."
Crowder is in a big, public fight with Ben Shapiro of the Daily Wire, over a contract negotiation that went south. Sadly, that's a likely explanation for his current defenestration. After all, the stories coming out suggest this abuse was going on without exposure for years. The safe conclusion, as with Carlson, is that this behavior is very normal in conservative media, and only comes to light when there are ulterior motives for ending the career of a right-wing talking head.
The larger question is why these monsters keep getting the benefit of the doubt that they can't "really" mean it, but are just playing it up for the cameras. It's a narrative deeply rooted in classism. The assumption is there's a large, uneducated audience that is being expertly manipulated by wealthy propagandists. And yes, there's a lot of cynical profiteering in right-wing media. But that doesn't mean that the people who put this garbage out don't also agree with it. The ugly people you see onscreen are just as bad when cameras are off. Often, they're even worse.
Shares