What the Hell Is Wrong With Tucker Carlson?


I used to enjoy the occasional Tucker Carlson monologue on Fox News. His content was usually pointed and amusing and delivered with a breezy charm. But I rarely bothered with a Tucker Carlson interview. As an interviewer, too often, I found him strangely incurious and glib instead of breezy.


But his interview on Tuesday with Reverend Munther Isaac was so much worse than merely glib or incurious.

Carlson chose to interview Isaac to find out how the Jewish State of Israel treats Christians. Isaac is a priest who neither lives nor works in Israel and who uses the loaded phrase "Occupied Palestine" as his location on his Twitter/X profile. He is a Palestinian Christian from Palestinian-controlled Bethlehem, where Christian ministers serve at the mercy of the Palestinian Authority. 

These things would have been nice to know before, during, or after the interview. Barring providing context, Carlson could have conducted a second interview with a Christian priest who actually does live and work in Israel. Or he could have spoken to them both at the same time in a discussion/debate format. Or maybe Carlson could have at least asked Isaac more pointed and revealing questions.

But he did none of these things. Why not?

Breitbart's Joel Pollack wrote that Carlson "says he is concerned about Christians; I'll accept that. But there's no excuse for this."

For what it's worth, Palestinian Authority diplomat/propagandist Husam Zomlot endorsed the interview, calling it "an important interview and a powerful voice."


But there's more.

Did Carlson not know before he chose to interview Isaac that Bethlehem was 80% Christian before the Palestinian Authority took it over and that now it is 80% Muslim? Was Carlson unaware before the interview that the Arab world has been on a decades-long ethnic cleansing of Christians from their ancient communities in the Middle East and North Africa? 

If he did know these things, why didn't he bring them up with his guest, or at least during his opening or closing remarks, to give his audience the necessary context? 

If Carlson did not know these things, why did he choose to conduct a potentially important interview so glibly unprepared? I'm suddenly reminded of Carlson's February show trip to Russia, from which he returned somehow still unfamiliar with the phrase "Potemkin Village."

Richard Hanania, founder of the right-leaning Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, correctly pointed out, "Israel is the only country in the region where a Christian pastor can complain about his government and keep his head. This would be good context to provide." But I stopped nodding along when he concluded that "Tucker is an online influencer now, and antisemitism is what sells."


Did Hanania go too far at the end, or is he on solid ground? Before you decide, here's more context Carlson didn't provide his viewers.

There's a world of difference between "just asking questions" and "just letting a guest misrepresent where he's from and what he does to mislead viewers."

Or, arguably worse, "just asking misleading questions."

So my question for Carlson — giving him the benefit of several doubts — is this: "What the hell were you thinking?"

Recommended: Hamas Just Begged Israel to Finish It Off

P.S. Help PJ Media ask uncomfortable questions by becoming one of our VIP or VIP Gold supporters. You need independent news and analysis and we need to keep the lights on. You can join here and don't forget our massive 50% off SAVEAMERICA promo code.


Trending on PJ Media Videos

Join the conversation as a VIP Member