The Tucker Watch

 

It’s rather fascinating to see all the coverage and speculation as to what Tucker Carlson will “do” next. The number of people who viewed his short Twitter video (>60 million) exceeded the number of cable viewers on all channels for some measured period, let alone Fox News Channel or Tucker Carlson Tonight.

Part of this is our “spectacle” culture, no doubt. There are so many elements: cashiering your top draw gets the mind to spinning, if you don’t like Fox you are hoping for collapse, if you like Fox you are looking for signs of threatening insanity in its management. Is Tucker locked up legally? Can he, does he, want to have his voice heard through the remainder of the 2024 election cycle?

Everyone you read/listen to has an opinion. He’s free, he’s not. He will make a bundle, he has to be cautious to avoid financial ruin.

Tucker’s short video was either tailored to stay within the limits of a “non-disparagement” clause or an anodyne message that he will continue to be an independent voice encouraging everyone to speak up.  His brief interaction with media in his golf cart with his wife to get dinner suggests someone who is happy and not feeling a great disappointment.

Tucker has had “[blank] you” money for a while now, and seems to be in no fevered rush to promote the next phase of his career. His lawyers are performing a colonoscopy on, no doubt, his lengthy and detailed contract with Fox.

My best guess is that he will not ever (or at least what seems forever in our news cycle) directly torch Fox. He will at some point launch a program that will continue to speak the truth (as he sees it) without fear or favor. If that truth sears Fox in some people’s minds, so be it, but they will not be named and shamed.

Tucker has a bigger target in mind: Progressivism, and all that fly its banner or march beneath it.

“The sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink.”

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 14 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. WI Con Member
    WI Con
    @WICon

    I think that’s an accurate reading of the Tea Leaves @Rodin. 

    The short 2-minute video indicates he wants to be part of “a coversation” regarding the important issues in American & modern life. The demur way he stayed clear of the conflict with Fox & Murdoch shows he’s careful and not rushing into some blaze of legal fire. 

    I expect he’ll be back in time to be a factor in the 2024 referendum. I think he will be devastating to the corporate newsmedia and our ‘elites’ in this next phase of his career.

     

    • #1
  2. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    We are a spectator culture. In the case of Tucker, though, rather than most of us watching maliciously, we are hoping for the best possible outcomes for Tucker personally and professionally; from all indications, he is a good man. More than that, we need him out there stirring up trouble! I wish him well.

    • #2
  3. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Glenn Beck left Fox in 2011, and he built an empire after that. I suspect that Tucker will do the same. :) :)

    At a 3,000-foot level, I’ve wondered if Fox felt that Tucker had become so popular that he was Fox News for Fox’s viewers. So, Fox had a choice: The network could either become a Tucker News Network, which was limited in its market, or let Tucker go and return to growing its news market share by appealing to a wider group of people. 

    I don’t know, of course, but I suspect that may have been part of what happened. To Tucker’s credit. Fox was in deep trouble after the 2020 election. The news producers made a lot of bad judgment calls. The network would have continued to bleed viewers if it hadn’t been for Tucker. 

    • #3
  4. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    I tried to find it, but was unable. I read at the start of this, when word came out that he had been summarily dismissed, that there was not a non-disclosure agreement in place.

    • #4
  5. She Member
    She
    @She

    Right now, it seems to be generally accepted that Tucker has not been fired, that he’s been removed from the airwaves, and that Fox is holding him to his contract, which may run through the end of 2024. That makes perfect sense, if there isn’t a nondisclosure agreement in place, or – – even worse for Fox – – if there isn’t a non-compete in place, as it will shut Tucker up until after the 2024 elections. I guess we’ll see. 

    • #5
  6. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    She (View Comment):

    Right now, it seems to be generally accepted that Tucker has not been fired, that he’s been removed from the airwaves, and that Fox is holding him to his contract, which may run through the end of 2024. That makes perfect sense, if there isn’t a nondisclosure agreement in place, or – – even worse for Fox – – if there isn’t a non-compete in place, as it will shut Tucker up until after the 2024 elections. I guess we’ll see.

    I also read that his contract paid him $20 million per year. If I were a gambler, I would bet that Carlson is collecting his pay until he figures out the best way to replace it. I believe that is the coded message inside the two-minute video he released last week. I do not see any way he will miss commenting and disclosing during the Presidential election. Obviously, there are a number of platforms that would love to have him.

    • #6
  7. Ekosj Member
    Ekosj
    @Ekosj

    My understanding is that Tucker is under contract until after 2024.    If that’s the case, then if FOX doesn’t actually terminate his employment just takes the show off the air then Tucker continues to get paid but can’t start any new venture until his FOX contract expires.   That sits him out of the election cycle.

    • #7
  8. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    My understanding is that Tucker is under contract until after 2024. If that’s the case, then if FOX doesn’t actually terminate his employment just takes the show off the air then Tucker continues to get paid but can’t start any new venture until his FOX contract expires. That sits him out of the election cycle.

    Breach of contract is almost always an option when the cost of performance exceeds the consequences of breach. In this case, the “cost” is silence (if Fox has anything to say about it). So then the question is what are the consequences of breach? Usually its monetary damages. If Tucker walked off and didn’t do his show, then Fox might claim lost anticipated revenues they would have received (in excess of what they actually received) as damages. Here Fox has benched Tucker so there is no damages for lost revenues. And Fox’s benching but continuing to pay does not create monetary damages due Tucker. So what other things could be in the contract that limit what Tucker can do? There is a potentially (likely) a non-compete provision that limits Tucker for a specified time competing against Fox. But non-compete provisions need to be very precisely defined, so there could be a ton of wiggle room if Tucker wants to “broadcast” to an audience. If Tucker does compete in violation of the precise terms of the contract then there are a couple of things that will happen: (1) Fox will stop paying Tucker even though they are not putting him on the air, and (2) Fox would have a claim for damages similar to that if Tucker had walked off the show (the differential in revenues due to Tucker’s conduct, if any). Then there is a potential (likely) non disparagement clause. This is different from a non-disclosure agreement even though there could be some overlap depending on the language. Non-disparagement is simply that — don’t talk bad about me. Don’t harm my brand, my value. Already, someone at Fox has violated that provision if it applies in any way to Fox not running down Tucker. I have speculated that Tucker isn’t going to do Fox-specific disparagement, assuming he could. But there is probably some language that makes him cautious. The measure of damages might be specified, but if not the idea is a calculation of financial loss due to the disparagement. If the right person offers the right amount of money and indemnities this could all be handled. But I suspect it will take a little time for the lawyers to sort through what’s possible, what’s not, and what’s the price of something in between.

    • #8
  9. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    My understanding is that Tucker is under contract until after 2024. If that’s the case, then if FOX doesn’t actually terminate his employment just takes the show off the air then Tucker continues to get paid but can’t start any new venture until his FOX contract expires. That sits him out of the election cycle.

    It’s all in the details. Contracts are not meant to enslave people. If Tucker Carlson signed a contract to host a television show and fox prevents him from hosting the television show, it might be considered a breach of contract on Fox News. We shall see.

    • #9
  10. Chris O Coolidge
    Chris O
    @ChrisO

    Rodin: Tucker has a bigger target in mind: Progressivism, and all that fly its banner or march beneath it.

    His target is bigger than that. 

    Tucker can easily afford to walk away from that contract, it won’t hold him back. No one wants to walk away from that kind of money, but he developed and sold a prominent conservative web brand. What I’m getting at is he can afford to give it away for a while and that won’t breach anything.

    The catch is he can’t give it away via a platform he doesn’t control, at least that wouldn’t be smart, so the shrewdest move is to either develop his website or launch a new brand, perhaps with some other talent, based around whatever theme (target) he determines.

    His target is not progressivism. His address to the Heritage Foundation noted that there used to be an exchange of thought between the bigger ideas behind progressivism and conservatism. Tucker’s target is the force(s) that corrupted that exchange.

    • #10
  11. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Chris O (View Comment):

    Rodin: Tucker has a bigger target in mind: Progressivism, and all that fly its banner or march beneath it.

    His target is bigger than that.

    Tucker can easily afford to walk away from that contract, it won’t hold him back. No one wants to walk away from that kind of money, but he developed and sold a prominent conservative web brand. What I’m getting at is he can afford to give it away for a while and that won’t breach anything.

    The catch is he can’t give it away via a platform he doesn’t control, at least that wouldn’t be smart, so the shrewdest move is to either develop his website or launch a new brand, perhaps with some other talent, based around whatever theme (target) he determines.

    His target is not progressivism. His address to the Heritage Foundation noted that there used to be an exchange of thought between the bigger ideas behind progressivism and conservatism. Tucker’s target is the force(s) that corrupted that exchange.

    And you distinguish those forces from progressivism?

    • #11
  12. Chris O Coolidge
    Chris O
    @ChrisO

    Rodin (View Comment):
    And you distinguish those forces from progressivism?

    I do. Progressivism is wrongheaded policy meant to enhance lives. Leftism is adversarial policy meant to maintain or increase power.

    • #12
  13. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Chris O (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):
    And you distinguish those forces from progressivism?

    I do. Progressivism is wrongheaded policy meant to enhance lives. Leftism is adversarial policy meant to maintain or increase power.

    Using your formulation, there seems to be a lot of Leftism in Progressivism. 

    • #13
  14. Chris O Coolidge
    Chris O
    @ChrisO

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Chris O (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):
    And you distinguish those forces from progressivism?

    I do. Progressivism is wrongheaded policy meant to enhance lives. Leftism is adversarial policy meant to maintain or increase power.

    Using your formulation, there seems to be a lot of Leftism in Progressivism.

    You asked how I distinguish the two, not how others do, nor what others call themselves. I do not accept that Chuck Schumer, for example, is progressive, he cares very little for people other than their use in his quest for power.

    • #14
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.