There are moments when political commentary stops being serious analysis and turns into a performance of provocation. Tucker Carlson, who for years was one of the most influential commentators on American television, has in recent years become a prominent example of one of the most antisemitic influencers.
The man who stood at the center of one of the most watched news programs in the United States has gradually turned into an amplifier of extreme ideas, conspiracy theories and fringe figures whose connection to responsible political reality is almost nonexistent.
Precisely because of his enormous media power, this conduct is astonishing. Carlson is not an anonymous blogger or a marginal commentator. For years he was one of the most influential people shaping public discourse in America. Millions of viewers listened to his words every evening. Therefore, when a person in such a position gives a platform to extreme figures or spreads baseless claims, the public damage can be enormous.
Over the past several years, Carlson’s program has turned into a kind of regular stage for conspiracy theories and for people who represent the radical fringes of political discourse. He allowed interviews with bizarre individuals, gave a platform to people who question well established historical facts and at times even spread outrageous claims himself.
The problem is not only the theories themselves. The problem is also the people Carlson chooses to bring to the screen. Over the years he has given a platform to controversial figures, some of whom hold extreme or anti-Western positions. Instead of confronting them with difficult questions, at times it seems he allows them to present their ideas almost without criticism.
After his brief visit to Israel and after he was declared persona non grata, he hurled fire and brimstone at Israel during an entire program and, among other things, hinted that the honorable President of the State Isaac Herzog had visited sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, something that never happened, following which the president sent Carlson a warning letter before filing a lawsuit.
A program that is supposed to serve as an arena for public debate turns into a kind of theater of fringe ideas. When conspiracy theories receive a central platform during television prime time, they begin to appear legitimate in the eyes of some viewers.
The difficulty intensifies when examining Carlson’s attitude toward the Middle East. Instead of directing most of his criticism toward dictatorial regimes such as Iran, a state that finances terrorist organizations around the world, he repeatedly chooses to direct his criticism specifically at Israel, the only democratic state in the region.
Carlson frequently attacks US, Israel policies
When Carlson is required to analyze the reality of the region, at times it seems that the order of priorities is reversed. Instead of pointing to the ideological and military threat posed by the Iranian regime and the terrorist organizations it supports, he frequently attacks the policies of Israel or of the United States.
This paradox became particularly evident after the Hamas terrorist attacks in recent years. While most of the Western world recognized these events as further proof of the murderous nature of the organization, Carlson at times chose to present the conflict through a distorted lens that minimizes the severity of terrorism and focuses primarily on criticism of Israel’s response.
This approach has also drawn criticism within the conservative camp in the United States. Many commentators and public figures have wondered how someone who for years presented himself as an American patriot and as a sharp critic of totalitarian regimes suddenly begins adopting rhetoric that at times resembles the narratives of the enemies of the West.
Beyond politics, however, there is also a deeper question about the role of the media. Political commentary can be sharp and that is part of democracy. However, when the line between legitimate criticism and the spreading of baseless ideas becomes blurred, the result is dangerous public confusion.
The influence of media figures does not end on the television screen. It seeps into public discourse, into social networks and into the political consciousness of millions of people. Therefore, when an influential commentator repeatedly chooses to give a platform to extreme figures or to spread unfounded ideas, his public responsibility becomes enormous.
Tucker Carlson still enjoys a loyal audience. But the central question is not how many viewers he has or how long they will continue listening to his provocative program, but what kind of discourse he encourages. Is it critical and responsible journalism, or a continuing performance of provocations and fringe theories?
At a time when the world is dealing with international terrorism, with the spread of extreme ideologies and with information wars, the answer to this question is more important than ever. Because when extreme ideas receive a central platform in the media, they stop being fringe.
And the problem is not only that of one antisemitic individual, however extreme he may be, but it affects the entire public discourse.
The author is CEO of Radios 100FM, honorary consul and deputy dean of the consular diplomatic corps, president of the Israeli Communications Association, and a former Army Radio monitor and NBC television correspondent.