I don’t believe for a minute that Tucker got fired because of all the corporate intrigue and his strong opinions. He got terminated because he pushed the limits of the “pain – change” continuum,” which postulates that the pain inflicted on an audience, must be balanced with a proposed change that offers the possibility of some relief. Tucker’s positions, and brutally honest analyses may (depending upon your politics) have some intellectual validity and can be woven, at times, into arguments for the moral and ethical bankruptcy of our current leadership, across the board.
The problem was his relentlessness in creating a contemporary (and future) feeling of hopelessness – that anything could change. When all you do is inflict pain, you overwhelm people’s ability to manage their feelings, and want to continue to engage with the culture.
Given this dilemma, people are left with two choices: 1.) Disengage from your culture; or 2.) Eliminate the messenger.
In these last few months, I have heard from an increasing number of clear-headed, balanced critics of our society, that even they have “had enough” and they have been looking for alternatives to Tucker. I see his situation as sad. Like a number of very bright, incisive, and articulate thinkers, I have known and worked with, Tucker paid much too little attention to his impact on his audience, and, ironically, let his unrestrained brilliance undermine his support.
Morrie, when it comes to Tucker Carlson, I go with Fox’s defense of him in a lawsuit in which he was found innocent
According to Judge Vyskocil, “Fox persuasively argues . . . that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer arrives with an appropriate amount of skepticism about the statements he makes.” She doesn’t stop there, writing that “[w]hether the Court frames Mr. Carlson’s statements as exaggeration, non-literal commentary, or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same—the statements are not actionable.”
Good point. But I’m not arguing a legal point in my critique. I don’t think that the preponderance of viewers were going to run out and commit civil disobedience or revolution. My point addressed how people make choices about the impact of information on them. And the criteria they use to filter information is primarily emotional and psychological, not legal, logical or ethical. Carlson simply overwhelmed the audience, albeit with usually accurate data, with unyielding doomsday scenarios, without a break. This was a classical “shoot the messenger” situation, and Carlson was a perfect messenger. All the great political orators of modern times, (FDR, JFK, Churchill, et. al.) interspersed their scary messages with bits of hope and inspiration. The hope may have been illusory, but it eventually reassured people.
Thank you Rich. Always good to hear from you. Morrie
Morrie, as always…”you hit the nail on the head!”
Great to hear from you again. Have you had a chance to look at the description of my new offering – “Monetize Your Impact” – its jam-packed with my best information, all in a one-day workshop. It’s geared towards successful agents, managers, and directors. Let me know if you have any questions.