An awful lot of the Internet the past twenty-four hours has been full of speculation about why the Fox News Channel decided to do without the services of Mr. Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson going forward. There's certainly no shortage of possible reasons being bandied about and this might be a good place for me to restate a position of mine: That in cases like this, we never get the whole story. We may get a story and it may be true as far as it goes but it will not be the whole story.
I have been a witness to a few dozen matters in the TV business — and also in comic books and a few other fields — where Management (in some form) makes a big, planet-shaking decision and everyone asks "Why?" The real, full answer is usually something like "Well, there were about nine reasons" with one functioning as The Last Straw or maybe as the excuse to pull the trigger.
Example: A friend of mine was fired from a very good job because of alleged "sexual improprieties." And "alleged" may not be quite the correct word because what he did was not in dispute. What was arguable was whether what he did rose to the level where dismissal was warranted. Not being present for the offenses, I am unqualified to make such a judgement.
But I'm pretty certain that, while the sex stuff was the stated reason and possibly a valid one, the bigger picture encompassed a lot of prior misdemeanors unrelated to the charges of sexual misconduct. They kinda wanted to get rid of him and he finally gave them a more solid reason. (And by the way: Don't assume you can guess who I'm talking about here. Sadly, I have a couple of acquaintances who have been dismissed for transgressions in this category.)
Human Beings who ask "Why?" usually want and are satisfied by a very simple one-sentence reason…but it may not be the only reason. And you may never hear about all the others.
Those extrapolating about the decision to oust Carlson are trying to piece together that sentence given what they know…but they may not know everything. Many, many years ago I took a college course in Criminology and its instructor was always ticking off reminders that solving a crime in real life was not like Perry Mason or Miss Jane Marple solving a crime in one of their novels. In a book, the author makes sure you have all the clues necessary to lead you to the right answer. In real life, you may not.
For all we know, Rupert Murdoch or whoever made the decision to cut Tucker loose might know about some pending scandal that hasn't gone public yet…and might not. Or Ol' Rupert might have gotten a call from some major, spends-a-fortune advertiser on Fox saying, "Get rid of that bastard!" Or you and I could sit here all day making up all sorts of possible scenarios. Hey, maybe they found out that Tucker is quietly undergoing gender transformation and they feared outrage among Fox target viewers not unlike the recent Bud Light mess.
And it might have to do with the leaked e-mails and it might have to do with Carlson's "January 6 was just a big Mardi Gras" broadcasts. The timing suggests it had a lot to do with the Dominion settlement — and maybe it did — or the upcoming Smartmatic lawsuit. Or advertisers fleeing. Or Abby Grossberg's lawsuit against the network. Or something Carlson said to Murdoch. Or none of these or all of these. Like I said, there are plenty of possible factors involved.
This post is not really about Tucker Carlson. I don't really care much about the guy, just as I probably won't care much about whoever will take his time slot and tell Fox News viewers, night after night, that they need to be very, very afraid of immigrants and black people and Liberals and rich people being audited by the I.R.S. and "woke" candy but not of COVID or climate change or Donald Trump or Putin or whatever. I'll bet whoever it is will do just as well in the ratings…and that Rupert Murdoch and his lieutenants believe that and it's among the many reasons for Mr. Carlson's sudden ouster.
Or maybe they just realized he was a dick.