Connect with us

The Nation

Just like a FOX

Published

on

Tucker Carlson smiles as he prepares to go on the air during a recent show at FOX News.

Quick, intelligent and adaptable, Tucker Carlson is on top of his game as host of FOX News’ ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’

This article first appeared in the December/January issue of Truckload Authority, the official magazine of the Truckload Carriers Association.

By Lyndon Finney

 There is a new star in the Fox News universe.

Although he’s been in the television business since 2000, for various reasons he’s now comfortably settled into the coveted 8 p.m. Eastern time slot with his show.

Meet Tucker Carlson, former bad student (that’s why he wound up in journalism), liberalist conservative (our choice of terms based on a recent interview) and a straight, forward-thinking, all-around good guy (except according to some Democrats out there).

His FOX News “Tucker Carlson Tonight” was the third-best rated cable news program in November with 2.825 million viewers. Fox’s “Hannity” was first with 3.026 viewers. Among the 24-54 age group, he was second behind “Hannity.”

Tucker Carlson interacts with the stage at Politicon in Los Angeles, California, on Saturday, October 20, 2018. (Photo by Christian Monterrosa/ Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images)

Before joining Fox, he’d worked at CNN and MSNBC, the latter being where he was fired when the network took Keith Olbermann’s lead and turned very liberal.

Born in California, he’s been a Washington, D.C., resident pretty much ever since.

“It’s a very nice place to live, and there are obviously unsavory elements in Washington,” he said. “But it’s been a nice place to raise kids. I have four of them and two dogs and the same wife I’m proud to say.”

He wound up in journalism because of less-than-desirable grades when his father, also a journalist, told his job-searching son he ought to try journalism. “They’ll take anybody,” his father told him.

“So, I kind of got into it by accident because I didn’t do very well in school and the barrier to entering journalism is very low,” Carlson says now. He says looking back he just had an affinity for journalism, something few today would argue with.

That was 27 years ago and with a couple of exceptions — a time in Little Rock, Arkansas, where he worked for the statewide Arkansas Democrat Gazette newspaper and time spent in New Jersey — he’s been a D.C. resident.

He was working in print journalism early in his career when one day he came back from lunch and the receptionist told him TV’s “48 Hours” was looking for someone to comment on O.J. So he did.

“That led to a chain reaction that brought me to CNN within a year,” Carlson said recently.  “Television is very different from print because it’s about speaking, not writing. And then there’s the visual elements. It’s a hard medium to master. It’s hard to be good at it. I’m not convinced I am good at it. I don’t fully understand it but it’s exciting and it’s interesting and I’ve really enjoyed it.”

So much so that during an interview with Truckload Authority he laughed, was straight-forward in discussing his views, talked about today’s media and had a new spin on why trucking is so important to America.

 Tell us about your journey through CNN, MSNBC and Fox:

 Things have changed a lot in the past 20 years. When I worked at CNN it was posing as a centric news organization. It was not explicitly partisan in the way that it is now. Now it’s just a working of the Democratic Party, but that wasn’t how CNN saw itself when I worked there. … There are some smart people there. I never thought the management was impressive because they weren’t. But I knew a lot of nice people there. And then I went over to MSNBC at a time when they were trying to become a conservative channel and I spent four years there. During that time they became liberal. Keith Olbermann took a pretty aggressive position against [President George W.] Bush and they got good ratings by doing that and they decided to change the format to become a left-wing channel, which wasn’t a crazy idea, by the way. And I didn’t fit and so they fired me. They were very nice to me, though, I have to say. They weren’t nasty at all. They were honest with me and said, “We’re becoming a liberal channel and you’re not in the boat, so you have to leave.” And I said, “that makes sense.” And then about nine-and-a-half years ago, Roger Ailes was nice enough to hire me.

Did he contact you or did you seek him out?

 He actually did. I was up in Maine fishing and Ailes called my cell phone and said, “I heard you’re getting fired from MSNBC.” And I said, “I think I am.” And he said, “why don’t you come to New York and see me?” I went to see him and he couldn’t have been nicer. I had known him before and he said, “Um, I’ll hire you and pay you nothing and you can work your way back into the business.” And I said, “OK, sounds like a good deal.” So I made a couple of documentaries for the channel in 2009. And then he hired me as like a freelance political analyst, and then after a few more years he hired me to do “Fox and Friends” on the weekends, which I loved. And I did that for four years. Then Greta Van Susteren left the channel and I took her time slot at 7. And then Megyn Kelly left and I took her time slot at 9. And then Bill O’Reilly left and I took his time to be where I am now.

Who’s next?

[Laughter.] I don’t want to move. I’m really enjoying it. It’s great show to watch and a great hour to make TV. It’s a nice hour to work in and it fits my natural rhythms and I really enjoy it. I think we’ve got the best staff ever assembled in news, really smart, really hardworking, good people. And it’s been fun every single day. And to its unending credit, it has given me total editorial freedom to say whatever I think is true. You know, obviously you have to be careful about your facts and you don’t want to be inaccurate and when we’ve made mistakes, I think we’ve corrected them immediately as you should, but Fox has never told me what to say, what to believe, what not to say. They’ve really given me as much freedom as you can give a journalist and I know what a rare thing that is because I didn’t have that at MSNBC or CNN. If you took a position they didn’t like, they would tell you about it, then they’ll try and force you to toe the party line, particularly at CNN, and Fox doesn’t do that. So that’s a real blessing.

In your show, do you feel an obligation to entertain as opposed to being hard-hitting?

No, I feel just the opposite, actually. I think we’re at a profound moment in American history, meaning it’s not just that we elected a president we didn’t expect to elect. It’s that everything is changing. Both political parties are changing, the economy is changing, the population of the country is changing. There are a lot of inherently important issues and I think if there’s one criticism I have of television right now, it ignores those issues in favor of focusing on Trump. Trump said this. Trump tweeted. Trump is outrageous. OK, those are stories and I think they should be covered. I’m not arguing against covering Trump. I just don’t think that every story is about Donald Trump. So I’m constantly pushing to make the show more serious because I think this is a very serious moment.

You’ve talked about the role of the media that often interprets rather than just reports the news. Are we seeing too much interpretation or bias today?

I conduct an interpretation and analysis and I am biased and I think my bias is clear. I think what we’re seeing is a lot of lying and stupidity. And if you’re intentionally ignoring things that you know are true because you think saying them will hurt the political party you support, you are dishonest, you’re not a journalist. And the problem I have is not that the media are liberal, it’s that a lot of them are in effect working for the Democratic Party, they’re party hacks. So they’ll say whatever they think helps their political party. And again, there’s a name for that. It’s called political consulting, but it’s not journalism. And I think it’s more prevalent than it has ever been. It’s been really stunning for me to watch it.

Tucker Carlson enthusiastically walks onto the stage at Politicon in Los Angeles, California, on Saturday, October 20, 2018. (Photo by Christian Monterrosa/ Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images)

Who or what formed your political thinking?

I’d like to think that my political thinking is shaped by reality. So my views on politics have changed dramatically over the past 25 years as the country has changed dramatically. There were a lot of things that I supported in the early ’90s which I abhor now. A lot of ideas I held turned out to be wrong. So my views have changed. Well, I mean I thought the war in Iraq would be a good idea and a lot of the people who supported that seemed like trustworthy smart people to me and I took their word for it and I shouldn’t have. And when I realized how wrong I was after I went to Iraq in 2003 right after the war began, I realized just how wrong I had been and it made me rethink a lot of the assumptions I had about foreign policy. Twenty-five years ago, I thought that cutting capital gains taxes to half the rate of labor would make the country more prosperous. And I was wrong. It made a small group very prosperous, but it didn’t do anything for the middle class. And I wish I had been wise enough to know that at the time. At one point I was very pro choice. I believed that abortion was as simple as a woman’s choice. I didn’t understand that there was another side to it, which is the taking of a human life. And that’s a very ugly thing and a very heavy thing, but I didn’t get it. My views change all the time, but the way I approach the news has not changed and that’s where there’s deep skepticism. I learned that from my father, who didn’t graduate high school but he was a deeply learned man and a compulsive reader and a very old fashioned news guy who started working in news 55 years ago. He was the kind of person who didn’t take anything at face value. Every fact needed to be checked and every assumption needed to be examined carefully. And that’s just the way he approached his life. I definitely inherited that from him. What I’m surprised by is not that the press is tough on Trump, but that they don’t focus on anybody else. There are a lot of powerful people in our country who get no scrutiny. I would say Jeff Bezos, who founded Amazon, is a perfect example. He is literally the richest man in the world and controls a lot of the internet to the server funds that Amazon owns. He holds profound influence over America and is never held up to scrutiny. And maybe that’s because he owns The Washington Post. So a functional media would be deeply skeptical of someone with that much power, but they’re not. They suck up to him. They lionize him you know, and I think that’s disgusting. So I think most of the press coverage is contemptible and again, it’s not because they’re liberal, they’re not liberal, actually. They don’t believe in free speech or democracy or the traditional liberal values. I do. I’m a liberal here. They are the apologists for corporate power here. The fascists. So yeah, I have real contempt for a lot of our media.

You recently said on your show that America is a broke country that thinks it is still rich. Can you expand on that statement?

Well, as a mathematical question, yes, our debt is unpayable and the debt is not just what we borrowed from other countries such as … China. The debt includes the unfunded promises that we’ve made to our retirees in the public sector which are literally not payable. If you owe more than you have, you’re not rich by definition and yet the assumption is that the United States is the richest country in the world — it’s not — and that we can pay any price for the things that we want, which is like absurd, actually. Some are acting out of the assumptions that were formed 30 years ago that are no longer true, which is the way people are. They don’t update their impressions. Things change, but they act as if they haven’t changed and that’s where public conversation starts.

Some of your political stances obviously irked some people as evidenced by the protest outside your home. Did police ever determine who was behind that and did it unnerve your family?

We know who’s behind it because some of them bragged about it and they vandalized my house and terrified my wife and no, no one’s going to do anything about it because they’re on the left. I know that. I’m not brooding about it. For my family, the key is really to keep from becoming angry and paranoid. That’s the real cost. Speaking for myself, I’m not worried about being hurt; I’m worried about my family being hurt. The worst that can happen is they can kill you and we’re all going to die anyway. I’m not a fatalist. It doesn’t bother me at all. What I’m worried about is living in a way that’s reactive where you’re afraid all the time and you can’t go anywhere. You think people are watching you and it corrupts your soul. It makes you angry. And I’ve seen that happen to other people in my position who have this job and are under attack all the time and they become defensive and mad. I’m a Christian, so I really believe that harboring anger at other people destroys you. I really believe that. I don’t want to feel that way. I don’t want to feel angry. I don’t want to feel self-conscious. That’s been the struggle for us and because it happened at our home and you’re comfortable in your own house, which is a huge cost.  But you know, it’s getting better.

You always seem to give some real thought to your position on things. But in the landscape of sound bites, slogans or frustrated shouting matches in today’s news, is there really room for genuine, intellectual conversation?

I try really hard because I know I’m not going to have this job forever.  We’re all just passing through, we’re all going to die. I try to remember that every morning. I’m an Episcopalian and there is a line in the Episcopal liturgy on Ash Wednesday and it says, basically you began as dust and to dust you will return.  I try to remember that every day is just a moment in time. While I have this job, I do

my very best to tell the truth and to try and not be afraid and to get to the issues that actually matter. I will say it’s television, so there’s always a temptation to go with the stories that you know, provoke the most immediate response, to go with the sugar-high of some dumb story and certainly we do that sometimes, but we try not to. And the other thing I’ve really tried to do self-consciously, and we always talk about this at work, is we have power because we have a TV show and people watch it, so you need to make certain that you’re going after worthy opponents. It’s very easy on television to pick someone who’s done something wrong and just land on them, crush them. Here’s a picture of so-and-so and he’s a bad person and here’s his phone number. I don’t want to do that. I don’t want to misuse power. I want to make sure the people we’re going after are powerful people. … So the people we go after, like Google, are the most powerful companies in the world, and the government of China, the biggest country in the world. I want to make certain that we’re not being bullies, that we’re being the opposite of bullies. I really care about that. And you know, we don’t always reach that standard, but I try.

Let’s shift to the midterm elections. If you would, share your thoughts on whether the outcome surprised you, whether you think the two branches of Congress can work together to pass meaningful legislation, or whether we’re headed for two years of gridlock.

Our presidential campaign just started. I hate to say that, but it’s true. We are going to be debating that and every politician is distracted by the possibility he could be president. That does not improve people’s behavior or the prospect of bipartisan cooperation when you’ve got a presidential campaign going on. What I was so interested in seeing in the last midterm election was how the realignment basically is complete now. The Republican Party was always the party of management. The Democratic Party was the party of wage earners, a middle class and working-class party. The Republican Party was famously the party of the country club. It is now the opposite. The Republican Party is the party in the middle class. They don’t always want to be that, but that’s in fact what they are. And the Democratic Party is the party of the rich and the poor. So out of the top 10 richest zip codes in the country, all of them are now represented by Democrats. Of the top 50, 42 are represented by Democrats. All of Orange County is now Democrat. Why? Because it’s the home of affluent, well-educated people and I don’t think we’ve updated our assumptions about this. Wall Street, big tech, the most affluent people in America vote Democrat now. That’s why Arkansas and West Virginia, big middle-class states that always voted Democrat, are now voting Republican. It’s an economics question. It’s really interesting.

So you think we’re in for two years of gridlock?

I would think so. We’ve just had two years of that. From my perspective, the most important thing is not what laws get passed, but you know, what public conversations we have. As long as we’re talking about things that actually matter, the country will get better.

Let’s talk about your recently published book “Ship of Fools.” What prompted you to write the book and what is the message you’re trying to convey?

I basically wrote it for the same reason I have ever written anything, which is because I was deeply annoyed. That’s always the reason, right? I was mad that no one in Washington who I know personally had spent two minutes to tell you why Donald Trump got elected.

 Why did he get elected?

He got elected because people in charge on both sides and both parties had done a really bad job of running the country. They mismanaged the economy. They made a small number of people incredibly rich. They got us into a lot of foreign wars which took the lives of some of our best people and cost us a ton of money and didn’t make America safer or richer. So they screwed up and they never admitted it, and anyone who asks them about it gets yelled at. They disqualified themselves and electing Trump was a way for the rest of the country to say, “You did a terrible job, we’re really mad at you and we’re going to let this very loud orange man get your attention.” And the people who run the country didn’t even pause and ask what message our voters were sending us. They were like, “no, no, no. Russia did this,” and it created this insane conspiracy theory.

What are Trump’s chances in 2020?

If they [Democrats] keep focusing on him, it’s very good. Democrats for the past few years have made everything be about Trump. “Trump is evil.” Well, Trump’s not evil. Trump has a lot of bad qualities. He doesn’t hide them, they’re very obvious. You don’t have to wonder what Trump thinks, he’ll just tell you and maybe you like it or maybe you don’t. But to say that he’s the cause of all of our problems is like insane. He got elected because of our unaddressed problems. I think if you came to this country from Mars and you weren’t a Republican or a Democrat, and you were just watching and trying to figure out what was going on, you would reach that conclusion because it’s obvious. But none of the geniuses running our country were willing to reach that conclusion because it implicates them, makes them look bad.

Share with us the overarching theme of the book.

The overarching theme is really clear: It’s that the debates we’re having aren’t really between left and right or even Republicans and Democrats, they’re between people who have gotten richer or poorer since the financial collapse in 2008. Where do you live, for example?  [Little Rock], Arkansas, is a perfect example. A lot of Arkansas is not richer than it was, except for the northwest part of the state, which is a totally different world. But is El Dorado richer than it was in 2008? And yet a small number of cities are much, much richer than they were and everyone else has less. So that’s really the debate. You know, it’s the people who are benefiting from our current policies versus everyone else.

How did they get richer?

It’s a complicated story, but I would just summarize it by saying this: The economy moved from a manufacturing economy to primarily a finance economy and a tech economy. No one person decided this, this was the product of many choices over many years. But the net result is an economy where only a relatively few people reap most of the benefit and that makes for an unstable country, and conservatives didn’t want to admit this because it sounded like they were socialists or something, and liberals didn’t want to admit it because they were the ones getting rich. In 2015 for the first time in a hundred years, the middle class became the minority in this country. That’s a disaster. You can’t have a democracy except in a middle-class country, period. And yet no one even noticed.

Truckload Authority will be read by 3,000 trucking executives. What’s your message to them about the importance of the trucking industry?

If you care about employment, it’s absolutely vital. And this is why I’m so concerned about autonomous vehicles driving all commercial driving. This would include ambulances, school buses, taxis, but also trucking. Long distance and local trucking is the single biggest employer of high-school educated men in America. It’s No. 1 in all 50 states. So it’s a huge part of the economy. Now, the way that we understand trucking is part of the supply chain in Washington. So we think of trucking as the way that, you know, Amazon gets its goods to market, brings the paper towels to your house after you ordered them. That’s true. It’s a vital link that makes commerce possible. Of course, the way policymakers also need to think about trucking is as one of the biggest and most important employers of men in this country. Male-dominated occupations, working-class occupations are in decline. I know that it’s unfashionable to care about what men do for a living; it’s fashionable to hate men. But 50 percent of our population is male. And if men don’t succeed in the workplace, they don’t get married and families fall apart. And so it is absolutely essential that our policymakers care about what men do for work and in rural America, male jobs have disappeared to a large extent. Disappeared. So automation in the agricultural sector has, you know, increased dramatically over a hundred years. And over time it has dramatically reduced the number of jobs and those are the remainder of the lowest jobs that primarily are taken up by foreign labor, and manufacturing is dying. And so really trucking is like an essential part of the economy outside the cities in all 50 states. It really matters. If you replace all truck drivers tomorrow with autonomous vehicles, you know, the society would collapse outside the cities in a lot of places. You put millions of men out of work and families would collapse around them. That’s a big thing. No one seems to care, which tells you a lot.

Do you have any political aspirations?

Well, I couldn’t get elected room mother, but thank you for asking. Why? I’m always giving my opinion and a lot of people disagree with me. But I’ve never said anything I didn’t believe, but I’ve been wrong a lot. And as I told you, I’ve had a lot of dumb opinions. I don’t know if that reflects poorly on me or not, but everything I say I mean with total sincerity and I don’t think that’s the way you get elected.

You’ve said a lot about immigration. Where do you stand on the immigration situation? You’ve got Trump wanting to block them out, you’ve the Democrats wanting to let them in. Where do you stand on immigration?

I’m for immigration. I think immigration is good, but not every immigrant is the same. If you’re in charge of the country, you’ve got a responsibility to think about the effects of your decisions on the people who live in the country. Just like if you’re a parent, you have responsibility to think about your children. It’s the same dynamic. And so to act like all immigrants are equally good is insane. We have an economy that’s becoming increasingly sophisticated and automated and requires increasingly higher levels of education to meaningfully participate in. Yet the majority of our immigrants have high school educations or less. Why are we importing people who can’t, on average, meaningfully participate in what our economy is becoming? It’s insane. So what you’re doing is creating a massive and permanent underclass and that makes the country poor and more unstable and that’s why California, which when I left it 35 years ago was the richest state, now has more poverty than any state because it has more low-skilled immigrants than any state. Of non-citizens in California, over 70 percent are on welfare. There are millions of them, so anyone who’s telling you that system is good for the country is either ignorant or lying. It’s terrible. Now, it’s very good for certain employers. It’s been great for the chicken plants because they can pay less, but the only reason they pay less is because the rest of us middle-class taxpayers pay the difference in housing subsidies and food stamps and health care education. We’re paying for big companies to pay their workers crappy wages. Why are we doing that? So companies can get richer and leave us with a society where people have nothing in common and don’t speak the same language. It’s nuts. And the Democratic Party has decided that they’re all in on this because these people will ultimately be voters once they get amnesty and citizenship. But the effect on the country is ruinous and that’s why Trump got elected because he was saying that out loud. He was right. Trump hasn’t been right about everything, but he was right about that.

 

 

 

 

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Nation

Can you say oversized load!

Published

on

That is big!

 

Continue Reading

The Nation

Diesel prices all but stagnant nationwide, less than 2-cent shift anywhere

Published

on

The average price for a gallon of diesel nationwide fell by 0.7 cents for the week ending July 22, to currently stand at $3.044 per gallon, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

The lack of movement in diesel prices continues a pattern that has been going on for the past month. On June 24, diesel was at 3.042, with changes of less than 1.5 cents every week in between.

Though tiny, the movement in diesel prices was nearly unanimous this past week, down in all but one region of the country.  That one exception was the Rocky Mountain region, where diesel rose 0.3 cents, to $2.978. Year-to-date, diesel prices are lower in every region, with the Rocky Mountain region again being the standout, having the greatest difference, 39.1 cents from this time last year.

California made it a clean sweep for lower diesel prices year-to-date with a drop of 1.3 cents this past week, to $3.939, still by far the highest in the country, but 0.4 cents below this time last year.

Along the rest of the West Coast, diesel dropped 1.1 cents to $3.198, bringing the overall West Coast average to $3.611 per gallon.

The average along the East Coast is currently $3.072, with prices highest in the Central Atlantic, where diesel is going for $3.259 after a 1.3-cent drop. Diesel is $3.122 in New England following a decrease of 0.9 cents over the past week, while in the Lower Atlantic region diesel slipped by 0.4 cents to stand at $2.937 per gallon.

That’s still slightly better than the Midwest, where diesel is going for $2.948 per gallon after a drop of 0.8 cents. Meanwhile, the Gulf Coast, the low-price leader in diesel, fell by the same 0.1 cent it gained the week before to stand at $2.804.

On Monday, increasing tensions between Iran and Western countries failed to produce a sharp reaction in the crude oil markets. Brent crude, the global benchmark, rose 98 cents, or 1.57%, to settle at $63.45 a barrel. U.S.-based West Texas Intermediate crude rose 59 cents, or 1.06%, to settle at $56.22 a barrel.

Click here for a complete list of average prices by region for the past three weeks.

Continue Reading

The Nation

DOL opinion letter: Time in sleeper berth does not count as compensable time

Published

on

The Department of Labor says the time a truck driver spends in the sleeper berth is not compensable time. Pictured in the Peterbilt 579 UltraLoft sleeper berth. (Courtesy: PETERBILT MOTORS)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Labor said Monday said it had determined that time spent in the sleeper berth by professional truck drivers while otherwise relieved from duty does not count as compensable time.

The DOL issued the determination in a written opinion letter by the department’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) on how a particular law applies in specific circumstances presented by the individual person or entity that requested the letter.

The American Trucking Associations lauded the opinion.

“ATA welcomes Monday’s opinion letter from DOL Wage and Hour Division Administrator Cheryl Stanton that concluded time spent by a commercial driver in the sleeper berth does not count as compensable hours under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, unless the driver is actually performing work or on call,” said ATA President and CEO Chris Spear. “This opinion, which is consistent with decades-old DOL regulations, the weight of judicial authority, and the long understanding of the trucking industry, clears up confusion created by two recent court decisions that called the compensability of sleeper berth time into question.

Significantly, this opinion letter provides new guidance, the DOL said.

Under prior guidance, the DOL said WHD interpreted the relevant regulations to mean that while sleeping time may be excluded from hours worked where “adequate facilities” were furnished, only up to eight hours of sleeping time may be excluded in a trip 24 hours or longer, and no sleeping time may be excluded for trips under 24 hours.

“WHD has now concluded that this interpretation is unnecessarily burdensome for employers and instead adopts a straightforward reading of the plain language of the applicable regulation, under which the time drivers are relieved of all duties and permitted to sleep in a sleeper berth is presumptively non-working time that is not compensable,” the opinion letter said. “There may be circumstances, however, where a driver who retires to a sleeping berth is unable to use the time effectively for his or her own purposes. For example, a driver who is required to remain on call or do paperwork in the sleeping berth may be unable to effectively sleep or engage in personal activities; in such cases, the time is compensable hours worked.”

The ATA commended Acting Secretary Patrick Pizzella and Stanton for adopting a straightforward, plain-language reading of the law, rather than the burdensome alternative interpretation embraced by those outlier decisions.

“ATA also commends the department for making guidance like this available through opinion letters, which provide an opportunity for stakeholders to better understand their compliance obligations prospectively, rather than settling such matters only after the fact, through costly and wasteful litigation,” Spear said.

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending