The Battle Over Tucker Carlson

Brent and A.B are going at it over Tucker. But the battle may really be about something more fundamental.

Brent, you know I am in your camp on the issue debates — whether Iraq, Bush-Cheney or this collection of neocon candidates on the Republican side — but I find it hard to play the rightist game of censorship, or press-bashing.

When I have to debate the right-wing authors of the anti-Clinton book Whitewash, who accuse the press of going soft on the Clintons citing their sources of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Dan Burton, I shake my head in disbelief. When I am confronted with “evidence” that the Clintons murdered Vince Foster and scores of others “who got in their way,” my only reply on these talk shows is “Yes, and I came up in the elevator with Elvis.”

I, too, get angry at the insanity of some of what masquerades as TV news. But our job is to unleash facts and solid arguments as you do so well, Brent, and to take it right to the other side in a civil and logical way. We can scream all we want at those we disagree with, but surely a better approach is to encourage the kind of debate that sheds more light than heat.

As someone who has also been a frequent guest on Tucker’s show, who was part of the “Crossfire” regulars and co-hosted “Spin Room” with him on occasion, I will tell you one thing — he is a bright and talented journalist who thinks for himself and raises interesting arguments and deeply held beliefs with respect for others. His style is quick and fast and funny, he pushes back hard, and he is not shy. But he is thoughtful and he listens and he treats those like me on the other side with kindness and consideration even when we tell him he is off his rocker. He is not knee-jerk, he does not follow the RNC talking points like some of the others, and his irreverence is refreshing. His ratings are up, even in a tough time slot (he’s beating “Hardball” lately), and he has a following at all points along the political spectrum. You have more time for the back and forth, more chance to discuss topics in some depth and a better chance at combining solid news with an entertaining format.

MSNBC should not only keep him but give him a better time slot. The fact that he is viewed as a conservative/libertarian is a plus, not a minus. In my view, those of us who disagree on many issues with Tucker should realize that his show provides the kind of free flow of ideas that is so necessary in an era of “gladiator TV.”

The last thing America needs is more networks that espouse one point of view, one philosophy, one predictable show after another. Calling for GE or MSNBC to cancel Tucker is a tactic that we would condemn if it was coming from the other side — say, right-wingers calling for “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” to be scrapped (a great show!) — so we should hesitate when we call for censorship or that kind of retribution.

Yes, I am biased because I know Tucker, but I like to think that it is precisely that kind of personal relationship that breeds civility, not contempt, dialogue, not disdain, and, most important, a common desire to discuss and confront the problems that we all care so much about solving. After all, isn’t that why most of us do this?