Podcast Summary: The Political Scene | The New Yorker
Episode: What to Make of the Fall of Tucker Carlson
Date: May 1, 2023
Host: David Remnick
Guests: Andrew Marantz and Kelefa Sanneh (New Yorker Staff Writers)
Overview
This episode examines the sudden firing of Tucker Carlson from Fox News, exploring Carlson’s evolution as a media figure, the dangers and influence of his rhetoric, and the broader implications for conservative media and politics. Host David Remnick is joined by staff writers Andrew Marantz and Kelefa Sanneh, both of whom have covered right-wing media and profiled Carlson extensively for The New Yorker.
Key Discussion Points & Insights
1. Tucker Carlson’s Career Trajectory
(02:05–05:42)
- Early days: Carlson began as a magazine journalist, writing “pretty great pieces” for outlets like the Weekly Standard.
- Kelefa Sanneh jokes about a fictitious hiring (“Is Tucker returning to long form journalism?” [03:45]), underscoring Carlson’s move away from his writing roots.
- Transition to TV: Began at CNN’s “Crossfire,” had a memorable clash with Jon Stewart (“you’re hurting America”), later moved to PBS, MSNBC, and finally Fox News.
- Show Evolution: Started with a confrontational format, evolved to monologue-driven segments (the “A-block”), paralleling Rachel Maddow’s style but with a right-wing, populist twist.
- “He made news, he set the agenda. People were wondering, what is Tucker gonna be saying tonight?” — Sanneh [05:37]
2. Carlson’s Dangerous Rhetoric and Audience
(05:42–09:16)
- Demagogic Skill: Both Remnick and Marantz argue Carlson had a dangerous rhetorical skill, going beyond “dog whistling” to direct provocations about issues like immigration and transgender rights (“immigrants make our country poorer and dirtier” [06:21]).
- Personalization: Carlson’s use of the word "you" to directly implicate his audience—“You are being robbed. You are being replaced. They’re robbing masculinity from the American culture.” — Remnick [07:36]
- Undercurrent of White Nationalism: Marantz and Remnick argue that while Carlson rarely said anything overtly white supremacist, his words carried unmistakable subtext.
- “But he was more sly and subtle than that. So it’s not that everything he said was reducible to that, but that was a ringing dog whistle underneath it all that he could have some shred of plausible deniability about.” — Marantz [08:36]
3. Sincerity vs. Opportunism
(09:16–11:19)
- Does Carlson believe what he says?
- Sanneh describes Carlson as originally taking a “lawyer” mentality: representing the unrepresented Trump voter.
- Over time, Carlson’s positions became more deeply held, as “most of us over time find ways to convince ourselves that the things that we’re saying, we really believe it.” — Sanneh [10:06]
- Evolution as an Advocate: “He becomes the lawyer, quote unquote, for the great replacement theory and a certain kind of white nationalism, and then… he is it.” — Remnick [10:22]
4. Carlson’s Political Potential and Uniqueness
(10:59–12:29)
- Presidential Ambitions: Marantz seriously doubts Carlson will disappear. He has discussed Carlson as a possible presidential candidate, highlighting his “rhetorical skill” and ability to tap into shifting, emergent political coalitions—traits others (O'Reilly, Megyn Kelly, Laura Ingraham) lack.
- “He’s clearly testing the waters…when he gives those speeches, I think he’s incredibly impressive—in an amoral, mercenary way. I find it scary, but I think it’s very impressive.” — Marantz [12:17]
5. What Next for Tucker & Fox?
(12:29–15:57)
- Post-Fox Trajectory:
- Sanneh posits the “Howard Stern model”—Carlson could become a successful but less broadly influential figure by “narrowcasting” on a smaller or online platform (“make more money and be less influential” [13:03]).
- Fox's Future:
- Greg Gutfeld is cited as a likely inheritor of the primetime mantle, bringing a “snarkier, sillier” sensibility compared to Carlson’s populist outrage. Marantz humorously rejects the notion of Gutfeld as funny (“I can’t go that far” [14:12]).
- Cable News’s Aging Audience & Political Shift:
- Remnick highlights the demographic crisis for cable news (“average age of the Fox News viewer is at 70 or around there” [14:16]), suggesting a generational transition is underway.
6. Could Fox Embrace New Voices?
(15:26–17:57)
- Candace Owens as a successor?
- Sanneh believes Owens’s unpredictability, not her race, would make her a difficult fit for the 8PM slot (“someone who’s a little more predictable, a little less of a loose cannon” [15:35]).
- Marantz notes that even if a Black woman filled Carlson’s chair, Fox could blend individual identity with its broader project—“these ideologies…can be pretty flexible.” [16:00]
- Aesthetics and Messages:
- Carlson’s “End of Men” series is called out for its fascist themes and visual aesthetics.
- “If the most powerful seat in conservative media is controlled by someone willing to put out aesthetics into the world that strike me as fascist aesthetics with a capital F…that’s not a good thing.” — Marantz [17:35]
7. Mainstreaming of Fringe Rhetoric
(17:57–18:39)
- Sanneh underscores that Carlson’s true significance was not just his message but that he pushed extreme ideas into the mainstream.
- “You’ve stumbled down a rabbit hole.” — Sanneh [18:26]
Notable Quotes
- “He became, over time, the voice of the aging and angry white man, the voice of white nationalism and extremist politics.” — David Remnick [01:39]
- “But he was more sly and subtle than that…that was a ringing dog whistle underneath it all that he could have some shred of plausible deniability about. But everyone knew what he meant, and the white supremacists clearly knew what he meant.” — Andrew Marantz [08:36]
- “As his show evolved, it became less of a site for confrontation and it became more writerly…He was able to express [the populist Trump moment] on TV.” — Kelefa Sanneh [04:40]
- “When he gives those speeches, I think he’s incredibly impressive—in an amoral, mercenary way. I find it scary, but I think it’s very impressive.” — Andrew Marantz [12:17]
- “Greg Gutfeld is one of the defining voices of Fox News…It’s a very different sensibility from Tucker’s sensibility. It’s snarkier, it’s sillier.” — Kelefa Sanneh [13:35]
- “If the most powerful seat in conservative media is controlled by someone who is willing to put out aesthetics into the world that strike me as fascist aesthetics with a capital F…that’s not a good thing.” — Andrew Marantz [17:35]
- “It doesn’t feel like you’re watching like normal mainstream American TV. It feels like you’ve stumbled down a rabbit hole.” — Kelefa Sanneh [18:26]
Timestamps for Key Segments
- Introduction & Framing – [01:17–03:32]
- Carlson’s Career Arc – [03:32–05:42]
- Dangerous Rhetoric – [05:42–09:16]
- Belief vs. Opportunism – [09:16–10:59]
- Carlson’s Political Future – [10:59–12:29]
- Post-Carlson Fox News – [12:29–15:26]
- Diversity & Conservatism – [15:26–17:57]
- Mainstreaming the Fringe – [17:57–18:39]
- Closing Remarks – [18:39–18:46]
Conclusion
The fall of Tucker Carlson marks a major moment in conservative media, reflecting the shifting boundaries of mainstream and extremist politics. The episode interrogates not just his personal brand, but what his rise and fall reveal about Fox News, right-wing populism, and the evolution of political discourse in the US. The conversation is insightful, wry, and candid—drawing clear lines between entertainment, dangerous rhetoric, and the changing face of media.