The famous American FOX News TV presenter and propagandist Tucker Carlson was fired from the news show on April 24, 2023. He became famous for his support for Putin and his openly anti-Ukrainian position. Subsequently, he began to release his own program on Twitter, where the absurdity of his statements about Ukraine reached the highest point.
We became interested in this person because we had previously “met” his colleague Clayton Morris in detail. So we’ll take a look at a few of his statements and explain why they’re not true.
Tucker Carlson fired from FOX News
As we already wrote above, the American TV presenter of the political talk show Tucker Carlson Tonight was fired from the TV channel. However, this happened far from the fact that he expressed propaganda and conspiracy theories, but because of a lawsuit from the company Dominion Voting Systems for defamation.
In one of the broadcasts, the journalist stated the alleged use of Dominion ballot-counting machines to manipulate in favor of Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 US presidential election. Of course, it turned into a big scandal, and less than a week after Fox News settled the situation, Carlson said farewell.
It is important to note here that Dominion Voting Systems presented evidence in court that Carlson and team knowingly spread this fake. So FOX News agreed to pay the company 787.5 million dollars, but was under no obligation to deny the allegations or apologize.
Fox News — is an American cable news television channel based in New York City. It is owned by Fox News Media, which itself is owned by the Fox Corporation. Fox News provides a service to 86 countries and territories, with international broadcasts featuring Fox Extra segments during advertising breaks. They have been described as practicing partisan reporting in favor of the Republican Party, the George W. Bush and Donald Trump administrations, and conservative causes, while portraying the Democratic Party in a negative light. Critics have argued that the channel is damaging to the integrity of news overall.
Tucker Carlson Tonight – an American conservative talk show and current affairs program hosted by political commentator Tucker Carlson. The show aired on Fox News from November 14, 2016, to April 21, 2023, replacing On the Record hosted by Greta Van Susteren. In July 2020, the show became the highest-rated prime-time program across all cable news; its dominance in the time slot ended only after the program’s abrupt cancellation.
“FOX News Media and Tucker Carlson have agreed to part ways. We thank him for his service to the network as a host and prior to that as a contributor”, – the company’s statement says.
Indeed, on April 21, 2023, the last episode of Carlson’s show was released, but he did not end his media activity. Already on June 7, 2023, he released a new show Tucker on Twitter, which has already managed to make a lot of noise.
“Carlson is also key to additional legal battles facing Fox, including a lawsuit filed by his former head of booking Abby Grossberg, who said Fox coerced her testimony in the Dominion case”, – write Reuters.
The woman was subjected to sexism, disrespect and considerable pressure to testify falsely in court, but still she told the truth to journalists.
Kakhovska HPP was blown up by Ukraine or the new absurdity of the propagandist
Quote: “Blowing off the dam may be bad for Ukraine, but it hurts Russia more. And surprisingly, it’s the reason why the Ukrainian government had considered destroying it. In December, The Washington Post quoted a Ukrainian general saying his men had fired American-made rockets at the dam’s floodgate as a test strike. So really once the facts start coming in it becomes much less of a mystery about what might have happened to the dam. Any fair person would conclude that the Ukrainians probably blew it up”.
On June 6, 2023, Russia destroyed the Kakhovska dam in the occupied south of Ukraine, which caused large-scale flooding of the territories and a humanitarian disaster. As of June 15, the area of flooded agricultural land in the de-occupied territory decreased by 600 hectares. On the right bank of the Dnieper, 1 919 residential buildings in 26 settlements remain flooded, and on the temporarily occupied Left Bank, another 17 settlements remain.
“There are a lot of reports on the left bank that people are missing. We cannot officially confirm the facts of the deaths. But there are a lot of reports that people see in some houses through the windows of the people who are there… Who died,” – said Oleksandr Tolokonnikov, the spokesman of Kherson regional military administrative.
The President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, stated that it would be physically impossible to blow up the dam from the outside by shelling.
“Russia has been controlling the dam and the entire Kakhovka HPP for more than a year. It is physically impossible to blow it up somehow from the outside, by shelling. It was mined by the Russian occupiers. And they blew it up. Russia has detonated a bomb of mass environmental destruction. This is the largest man-made environmental disaster in Europe in decades”.
Ihor Syrota, the head of the state-owned hydroelectric company Ukrhydroenergo, and others said that the dam was designed to “withstand a nuclear attack,” so it is virtually impossible to destroy it from the outside.
We will remember that in October 2022, Zelenskyy warned the Council of Europe that Russia had mined the dam. His adviser, Mykhailo Podolyak, said that Russia plans to destroy the dam to flood the area and stop a Ukrainian counteroffensive. During the war with Ukraine, Russia attacked other dams.
“Yes, there is a journalistic protocol that obliges us to give the floor to the opposing side as well. But you see how several high-ranking politicians, such as the president of the European Council Charles Michel, the high representative of the EU for foreign policy and security policy Josep Borrell, have absolutely clearly stated that it can only be Russia. And this is obvious, since this dam is under illegal Russian occupation. In any case, they are responsible for this,” – said the head of the EU Delegation to Ukraine, Matti Maasikas.
The Russians were preparing to blow up the Kakhovska HPP and withdrew equipment and part of the troops in advance. This information was confirmed by the secretary of the parliamentary committee on national security, defense and intelligence Roman Kostenko.
Olena Churanova, the fact-checker of the “StopFake” project, noted that there is more than enough evidence of Russia’s guilt, so there is no need to doubt that she did it.
“First of all, it is worth paying attention to who is spreading this narrative. Carlson repeatedly spread fake Russian propaganda, and during the pandemic he spread fakes about the coronavirus. So, he is clearly not a quality source, and also a committed one. There is already more than enough evidence to prove that this terrorist attack was organized by the Russians – from the explosion recorded by satellites to the confused conversations between the Russians that it was a small explosion that was planned, but everything did not go according to plan”.
The first telephone conversation between Russians soldiers released by the Security Service of Ukraine also leaves no doubt: the Kakhovska HPP was blown up by the occupiers, probably to stop the counteroffensive of the Armed Forces. The invaders admit that they wanted to blackmail Ukraine, but something went wrong with them.
“The most important thing is that back in 2022, the Ukrainian authorities warned that the Russians had mined the hydroelectric power plant and could use these explosives to create a collapse if there was a counteroffensive, which actually happened,” – Churanova added.
UN response to dam failure
It is also worth making a short footnote here and talking about the reaction of the UN and other international organizations to the terrorist act at the Kakhovska HPP.
For example, the UN reported that they “have been delivering water, food and cash to those displaced or suffering the impact of the dam breach, and collapse of the crucial hydroelectric plant in the southeast region near the city of Kherson”. On their website, they wrote the following 3 days after the disaster:
“Plans are now being made, also in partnership with oblast authorities, to reach the wider flood affected areas as soon as possible, once the military deems it safe, given the risks as fast moving water shifts mines and unexploded ordinance to areas previously assures as cleared”.
However, on the same day, the representative of the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Jeremy Lawrence, said that the organization is not sure that Russia has committed a war crime and wants to conduct an investigation.
“Since the circumstances of the incident remain unclear, it is premature to consider whether a war crime could have been committed”.
We asked Taras Zhovtenko, PhD in National Security, MFA of Ukraine Public Advisory Board, why the organization reacted so “coldly” to the catastrophe in Ukraine and did not send physical aid. He replied that the vast majority of international humanitarian organizations, first of all – agencies of the UN system showed their maximum inefficiency in responding to numerous war crimes committed by the Russian army on the territory of Ukraine.
“Mainly, this is due to the fact that the UN itself was created after the end of the Second World War not as an “international policeman” endowed with effective tools for practical action. The main goal of the UN was to become an international platform for dialogue and communication between the then antagonists of world politics – the USA and the USSR, to prevent an armed clash between the two nuclear superpowers, and, as a result, a global nuclear war”.
He added that this approach was preserved in the activities of the UN even after the end of the Cold War. This also explains the specificity of the mechanism of the same United Nations Security Council. This lack of tools of direct action makes it impossible for the UN and its institutions to respond quickly and effectively to the Russians’ undermining of the Kakhovska HPP, nuclear blackmail around the ZANP, and other outright terrorist actions.
Quote: “Now you see him on television, and it’s true you might form a different impression. Sweaty and rat-like, a comedian turned oligarch, a persecutor of Christians, a friend of BlackRock. But don’t believe your own eyes. Actually, Mr. Zelenskyy is a very good man… of all the people in the world, our shifty, dead-eyed Ukrainian friend in the tracksuit is uniquely incapable of blowing up a damn. He’s literally a living saint, a man in whom there is no sin”.
The demonization of Zelenskyy is not a new phenomenon for propaganda media. During the elections, he was called a “Ukrainian clown”. It should be understood that all this is done in order to undermine his authority and impose “their politicians” on the audience.
Firstly, this is connected with his past, because until 2019 he was engaged in comedy and acting. He also had his own rather successful business, where he learned effective management.
Accusing him and the leadership of Ukraine of war crimes is an attempt to shift the blame from the Russians to the opponents. In any attacks, murders, atrocities and terrorist acts, the Russian Federation will never admit guilt, despite the existing evidence. They continue to lie to the whole world until the end, while knowing that everyone knows everything.
Taras Zhovtenko commented on it as follows:
“The myth of Zelenskyy as the “biggest war criminal” is dispelled by the fact that it was the Russian Federation that first attacked Ukraine, launching a full-scale military invasion on February 24, 2022. All war crimes, crimes against humanity and other flagrant violations of the international law of war are recorded by international experts precisely in those territories where Russian troops were stationed. It is the Russian army that is purposefully striking Ukraine’s civilian and critical infrastructure with long-range cruise and ballistic missiles”.
He also explained that in this situation, the vast majority of efforts and decisions of the Ukrainian authorities were aimed at ensuring external support, demonstrating significant effectiveness.
“Even purely internal problems related to allegations by representatives of the US Republican Party regarding abuses in the use of American aid were successfully resolved by the joint efforts of the Ukrainian and American parties”.
Quote: “What’s happened to the hundreds of billions of US dollars we’ve sent to Ukraine? No clue. Who organized the BLM rights three years ago? No one has got to the bottom of that. What exactly happened on 9/11? Well it is too classified… So endlessly on. Not only the media are not interested in any of this. They are actively hostile to anybody who is. In journalism, curiosity, it’s crime”.
Then the journalist began to tell that the US armed forces discovered a UFO that fell to the ground and have evidence of this, but for some reason the authorities are silent about this fact and the media do not write anything about it. Thus, he hinted that the US government is using the war in Ukraine to hide certain problems from its own population.
Taras Zhovtenko said that, in fact, the Biden administration pays a lot of attention to internal problems: the taxation system, economic development and growth, social security, etc. However, it does this by focusing on the real result, and not on creating political noise.
“In contrast to Trumpists and Carlson himself – one of their main mouthpieces, who openly speculate on the internal problems of the USA, turning a mixture of “alternative facts” and their own assessments into populist shows. At the same time, they deliberately ignore the fact that, having given the opportunity to the Russian Federation and other authoritarian regimes around the world to do whatever they want, they themselves are putting the citizens of the United States under an even greater and more terrible threat than the prices at American gas stations…”
Regarding the corruption that Carlson alludes to in the Ukrainian government, we wrote an excellent article earlier. There, we considered similar accusations by Seymour Hersh, regarding the theft of part of the US funds that went to help the Armed Forces of Ukraine by the top of the Ukrainian government. In that article, our expert explained why such propagandists spread anti-Ukrainian narratives, and by the way, another expert, whom you will meet in the next chapter, shares his opinion.
Why does Tucker Carlson and others have such a wide influence?
It is worth noting that Tucker Carlson, like Clayton Morris, is from FOX News, which is quite telling. We asked Olena Morozova, Ph.D. in Communication, Associate Professor of Sociology, Advertising and PR, if she had heard of Tucker Carlson before.
“Yes of course. He is one of the most famous conservative commentators in the United States. Along with Neil Patel, an adviser to Dick Cheney, Carlson co-founded The Daily Caller, a Republican-focused news outlet with more than 10 million unique visits per month. On Fox News, Carlson appeared as a commentator and expert until in 2016 he got his own show “Tucker Carlson Tonight” in the prime evening slot, which in fact made him a “star” with an audience of millions”.
She emphasized that it is worth understanding that author’s programs have a special tonality. The universal journalistic principle “news not views” does not apply there. The show itself is worth exactly as much as the name of the presenter in its title. Therefore, channels are definitely interested in growing their stars.
In addition, there is a certain national specificity in the USA. From the 20s of the 20th century to the present, political commentators and columnists are extremely influential. So much so that their opinion often becomes decisive in determining the vector of the state’s domestic and foreign policy. In order to influence public opinion or defend one’s position in a political dispute, control over or unrestricted access to the national media is required.
“In American society, it is an unreal task for any politician to exert such influence on the media industry. For example, the host of a television channel (the same Carlson with his show) addresses millions of viewers five times a week. Unlike him, the President of the United States can directly address the same audience only a few times a year, but even these appearances on the air require the consent of the heads of television networks. Of course, with the emergence and development of social networks, there are more ways to communicate with a mass audience, but also to manipulate it,”- added Morozova.
We also asked what caused such love for Russia among American journalists. The expert answered that this is a consequence of the spread of marginal influence.
“And why are commentators and streamers who support the ideas of white supremacism popular in American YouTube? The downside of free access to information platforms is that ideas that were once the prerogative of fringe groups are increasingly seeping into mainstream political and cultural discussions, with toxic results. In essence, Carlson’s theses differ little from the thesis that Trump used in the election campaign. Their task is to polarize and mobilize the electorate (including the electorate with marginal views)”.
She also added that such popularity of pro-Russian speakers in the USA is explained by simple psychology:
“Persuasion is an active process. In particular, psychologists John Cacioppo and Richard Petty concluded that if the audience likes the speaker, the audience is more willing to accept what the speaker says. Another regularity: if the message says something we like, the message is accepted. If something is not liked, the message is rejected. All propagandists of the world (regardless of nationality) use this technique”.
Tucker Carlson launched his own show on Twitter because it lacks the censorship he complained about while working in the media. His lawyer Harmeet Dhillon wrote: “Tucker will not be silenced by anyone… He is a singularly important voice on matters of public interest in our country, and will remain so”. Olena Morozova explained it as follows:
“First, as far as I know, Carlson was fired not for expressing a subjective opinion, but for a combination of actions that negatively affected the capitalization and reputation of Fox News. In the US, media is primarily a business. If the presenter does not contribute to the increase in profit, this presenter is ballast. Secondly, the two-party system also extends to mass media. That is, it is obvious to the Fox News audience that Fox News supports the Republicans. It is also obvious to the audience that there is some self-censorship at Fox News in this regard. In this context, any statements by Carlson regarding the suppression of freedom of speech are nothing more than a deliberate manipulation and substitution of concepts”.
An expert in sociological communications believes that the financing of such propagandists primarily falls on the Russians, because they benefit the most from it.
“Considering the fact that Carlson has been very popular on Russian-language YouTube for years, even without having his own channel on this platform (operational translations of his shows, speeches and statements were released), it is possible that Russians. Surkov’s protégé, Khrystyna Potupchyk, who actively worked with the “Nasha” movement, recruited bloggers, etc., openly and publicly declared that “information is the new oil.” I am not a fan of conspiracy theories, but this is an undeniable fact: the Russians invest billions in propaganda and informational influence in the world – precisely because propaganda works”.
By the way, she cited an interesting statistic that 65% of American adults prefer that the United States continue to support Ukraine in returning its territory, even if it leads to a protracted conflict. Meanwhile, 31 percent say they would prefer the U.S. to work toward an early end to the war, even if it allows Russia to keep the captured territories. These are data from the GALLUP think tank, published in February 2023.
So Tucker Carlson is nothing more than another propagandist paid by Russia. His statements are full of unwarranted hate, and the information he provides is either recycled or outright fake. Like Clayton Morris, he believes in conspiracy theories, which shows that he is not very picky about sources of information. In any case, the audience should understand that not all loud statements should be taken as truth and should also learn to distinguish frank propaganda from the truth.
Tetiana Stelmakh
