Tucker Carlson, anchor of the second most-watched news programme on US cable news, has lost his job at Fox News. He found out about it - like the rest of America - on the morning of Monday 24 April, without any prior notice. This comes as a shock to the US media, which is trying to find a new model for how to function in the 'post-Trump' era.

With surprise (sources say Carlson was shocked to repeatedly ask the dismissing station boss "why? why?"), with no opportunity to say goodbye (a laconic message read out on Fox News: both parties "have agreed to part ways", "the last programme was aired on Friday, 21 April", "thank you for your service to our station"). Why? Rumours and unofficial reports have been swirling since Monday, as officially both Fox News and Tucker Carlson have remained silent.

A few text messages too far

According to the most likely version, the decision was to be made by Rupert Murdoch himself, the 92-year-old creator of the media empire that owns Fox News, along with his son Lachlan (he is the one who runs the corporation on a day-to-day basis). This came just days after the station agreed to pay a staggering $787.5 million for a settlement with Dominion Voting Systems, the company accused by Fox News of rigging the November 2020 presidential election.

And it wasn't just the fact that Carlson's programmes repeatedly revisited the forgery theory so eagerly promoted by former President Donald Trump. In preparation for trial, lawyers for Dominion Voting Systems led to the disclosure of Carlson's text messages sent to colleagues and co-workers at the station. And it was a very interesting read.

SIGN UP TO OUR PAGE Just two days before the riots on Capitol Hill on 6 January 2021. Tucker - officially on air portraying himself as one of Donald Trump's biggest supporters - wrote that "we are getting closer to the moment when we will be able to ignore Trump most evenings. Really, I'm looking forward to it". After a while, he added that he "hates wholeheartedly" the then US president.

That's not all. He was secure in his position - from its inception in 2017, his show was the most-watched or in the top two most popular Fox programmes. It lasted for years, despite numerous calls for a boycott. Carlson criticised his bosses in an unflattering way. "Do they realise how much credibility and trust our viewers have lost?" - he texted colleagues when the Fox News station, like other media, announced that Joe Biden had won the presidential election. He continued, "These motherf.... are destroying our credibility. We are dealing with a mix of incompetent lefties and a top leadership that has too much pride in itself to back down."

On top of that, a whole host of other offensive and vulgar words, which would constitute strong evidence in the hands of Dominion Voting Systems' lawyers, showing that the medium had reproduced Trump's accusations without believing them at all. No wonder, then, that Fox News agreed to pay a fortune just to avoid a jury trial.

With Ukraine in the background

Is that enough to sack the host of the Tucker Carlson Tonight show, which attracted an average of 3.3 million viewers Monday to Friday between 8pm and 9pm, most of them in the most important demographic for advertisers between the ages of 25 and 54? It seems that there must be more. Because at the same time there are negotiations with TV channel companies about increasing licence fees. There have even been rumours of a desire to sell the station. Also, the mammoth amount of the settlement - $787.5 million - has certainly been noticed by the strategic investors of the listed News Corp. (which owns Fox News), as it means unrealised profits for them.

There is also a Ukrainian theme. After Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Tucker Carlson unfortunately underwent an evolution like a certain part of the American populist right that is keen on Donald Trump. He started to strongly attack Ukraine and especially US military aid in his programme. Half bad if this was a criticism on the basis of political perversity: since President Joe Biden strongly supports Ukraine, we cannot support it.

Carlson's programmes began to feature people overtly presenting Putin's point of view, who was often portrayed as the last defender of 'Western civilisation'. Or, as Trump's guest star on the programme, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green, put it, it is the United States that is waging "a war in Ukraine against Russia".

And in a survey Carlson directed at possible Republican presidential candidates, Trump's most serious rival so far, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, called the war in Ukraine ... a "territorial dispute" that should not be meddled with. This was clearly a nod to Carlson's populist audience and only after massive criticism from the Republican Party establishment did DeSantis decide to criticise Putin more harshly and said the words "Russia's war on Ukraine".

The culmination of Carlson's attitude (repeating theses like: corrupt Ukraine is not worth supporting, the corrupt Biden administration is only supporting Kiev in its own interests, against the Americans) was a cursory 'red strip' on the screen during one of the programmes: "another 10 billion dollars for a Ukrainian pimp" - and it was about President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Carlson's anti-Ukrainian appearances on the programme were said to have greatly displeased Murdoch and were reportedly the biggest factor in his decision to sack the TV host.

A younger version of Donald

What's next for Carlson? For six years, he has made a strong name for himself as the voice of the American populist MAGA right (Make America Great Again - the election slogan of Trump's first presidential campaign). Thanks to his undoubted intelligence, but also his swashbuckling manner (in contrast to, for example, another star of the MAGA movement, Sean Hannity, who sounds like an old broken longplay), he has become, for some, a better, younger version of Donald Trump himself. Much more radical on the cultural issues so important to the right. And while many would love to see Tucker Carlson in the political scene, it is rather doubtful that the 54-year-old would take such a step.

At least not, now that he is the only TV star to boast of being fired from one of the big three cable news networks: CNN, MSNBC and Fox News. On Wednesday, he managed to make a short speech on his Twitter account in which he stated that "a few days beyond the noise" had made him realise "how incredibly stupid all TV discussions are", "they mean nothing", and that those running America (the de facto "one party" of politicians and their wealthy sponsors) are sowing hysteria and aggression. So the media sequel is likely to follow.

What's next for Fox News? The network seems to be hoping that, as it did after the sacking of other stars - Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck or Megyn Kelly - the audience will remain loyal to the station rather than to photogenic faces (each of the aforementioned broke ratings records on Fox News and found themselves outside the premier league of journalism after losing their jobs). Carlson or not, what matters to viewers is a distinctively profiled conservative-populist message from 8pm to 9pm, Monday to Friday.

However, it is hard not to notice a trend: although Fox News continues to be the leader among US 24-hour news channels, in general the entire segment is losing audience. Viewers are becoming distracted: the number of consumers of line-delivered news (having to wait in front of the screen for their favourite programme at a certain time on a certain day of the week) is decreasing all the time. Streaming platforms, where content can be viewed anytime, anywhere, are becoming increasingly popular (interestingly, Carlson was the main face of the Fox Nation platform). Added to this is material published online.

For 44 per cent of Americans surveyed, aged 24-40, the source of news is social media, 15 per cent chose TV news stations and only 11 per cent selected newspapers. Numerous podcasts and YouTubed content are phenomenal. The real star of the right-wing media is Joe Rogan, commentator on MMA fights and reality in general, a favourite target of leftists and enemies of free speech. Each episode of the Joe Rogan Experience on Spotify is listened to by an average of 11 million Americans. The youngest among them - teenagers - already derive their knowledge of the world from TikTok and YouTube.

The agora of free speech

Substack, founded in 2018, a platform that allows authors to publish content for subscribers, is becoming an absolute phenomenon. Authors write texts, which the company delivers in the form of a newsletter to email addresses or posts on its own website, where the subscribed content can be read. Substack also handles the collection of fees and transfers for the authors, deducting about 30 per cent commission for these services. It is being used by an increasing number of authors who do not fit into the corset of the mainstream media, or who have been 'invalidated' by it in a 'cancelling' or 'deplatforming' action.

Substack is worth a closer look, as the creators of this platform see their role as - what they wrote in a text-manifesto in February this year - "a new economic engine for culture". What are the thoughts of the people behind a service that, after five years, already has 20 million subscribers and two million paid subscriptions (and its top authors earning several hundred thousand dollars a year each)? "People have more power than algorithms or mad rulers, and the main currency is trust," they write of the concept, which is based on the elimination of the intermediary between creators and audiences, i.e. the current media companies. Indeed, Substack is intended to be a place where "the consumers are the writers and readers, not the companies trying to sell them something". In this model, there is also no need for moderation of discussions, as content is only read by those who pay the creator directly for it.

The creators of Substack dream of an almost unlimited agora of free speech as an antidote to the increasingly strong censorship or invalidation ('cancelling') tendencies. Interestingly, Elon Musk, who bought out the Twitter platform for $44 billion, seems to be aiming for something similar. One of the first things, is the account verification being introduced.

Until now, world-famous and respected names and companies have been able to obtain verification (blue check) free of charge. Now, verification comes through the purchase of a subscription ($7 a month for individuals, from a thousand for institutions), which comes with additional privileges. This has already caused an outcry, mainly from left-wing commentators, many of whom - amusingly referred to as 'blue checkists - in the name of defending democracy and against 'disinformation', advocate restrictions on access to the platform for enemies of democracy. Musk, as befits an eccentric billionaire genius, is carrying out his changes with a mass of chaos and confusion, such that some are even predicting the collapse of the whole project.

Interestingly, Twitter and Substack are beginning to fight over a similar customer. After the latter platform introduced the ability to publish short messages - and therefore introduced a Twitter-like service - Musk temporarily banned linking 'competitors'.

Attractive Trump, boring Biden

Far worse is the future of the 24-hour cable TV stations, which cannot find their way in the 'post-Trump' world. When Donald Trump was campaigning for election and in office in the White House, their lives seemed simple. All they had to do was throw up the slogan: "Donald Trump is the greatest threat to democracy" (or "Trump defends America and the American people" in the Fox News version) and invite a few commentators into the studio, and everyone's ratings rose. Not a day went by without the red bar of 'Breaking News' heralding the next apocalypse that Trump would cause, with dozens of reporters and columnists commenting on it, on the verge of hysteria or even beyond it already. This all ended with the advent of the boring Biden, although when the opportunity presents itself - such as the recent prosecution charges for the former president - the hysterical 'Trump Show' returns to the airwaves with images of reporters traipsing around with microphones chasing even a few seconds of commentary....

With the 'Trump show' gone, it appears that TV celebrities reading - often written by someone else's hand - texts from teleprompters really have little to say.

Although there have been exceptions. CNN in the first month of the war in Ukraine was an example of first-rate journalism, finally tapping into the great potential that is its correspondents scattered around the world. However, after a month or so, everything went back to normal and the "Trump the great threat is" material, ripped off like an old record, went back on air.

On the horizon, of course, are the challenges posed by the rapid proliferation of so-called generative artificial intelligence, represented, for example, by the best-known ChatGPT. According to critics, these fast-learning machines could rapidly destroy the profession of journalism and the media that live on selling news, as humans are unable to measure up to the speed of the material they produce.

For now, however, there is still a quality problem... When I asked ChatGPT after more than a day what Tucker Carlson thought of his dismissal, the machine wrote back: "I have no information about Tucker Carlson being made redundant. As far as I can tell, Carlson is a political commentator and the host of the popular show Tucker Carlson Tonight."

Poorly, because even a novice journalist or researcher could find out within seconds that this is not true, using Google or another Wikipedia search....

- Paweł Burdzy
- Translated by Tomasz Krzyżanowski

TVP WEEKLY. Editorial team and jornalists