From the Washington Post:
There’s never been a better time to be Tucker Carlson. Or Sean Hannity.
By Erik Wemple February 8 at 3:21 PM
… Media watchdogs have had a blast over the past year or so highlighting how creative Carlson has become in featuring stories other than the scandal du jour to emerge from the White House. He scoffs at the scoffing. In a wide-ranging interview with this blog back in November, Carlson explained his approach to story selection:
Wemple: What’s your philosophy about being on what is regarded as news of the day? Must you be on —
Carlson: Regarded by whom?
Wemple: That’s why I’m asking.
Carlson: Yeah, I mean, being part of our job is to figure out what’s important. I mean, that’s what we do, and I’m sure that the guys over at Vox or the digital blogging staff at The Washington Post or whatever feels like they get to be our assignment editors, but they don’t. And if you want to work here, we can talk about it, but that’s kind of our call. I’m not in charge of Fox News, I’m not in charge of anything other than one hour on Fox News. And part of what they hired me for was to figure out what I think is important. And so that’s what I try to do and that doesn’t always overlap precisely with what you think is important or what guys over at Slate thinks is important, but that’s okay. That’s called diversity. I mean, that’s all right, I think. It’s not like everybody has to have the same opinion — oh wait, that is the position that you’re taking and that you so often take in your blog. That like it’s something immoral about people who’ve got a different view, or they’re doing the bidding of dark forces. Maybe I just disagree and think something else is more important. That’s honestly what the explanation is, believe it or not.
Wemple: Would you concede though that in general that when big negative news stories about Trump hit the public or hit the Internet that you generally do not take those head-on?
Carlson: No, I wouldn’t concede that at all. Every day there’s a big negative story about Trump, from what I can tell.
Do I see my job as adding to the sum total of Trump news? No. I think you’ve got that covered, you and your other blogger friends over there at the washingtonpost.com or whatever. It’s like, that’s pretty well covered. I’d like to add something slightly different. Does that make me a Trump lackey? I don’t think I am a Trump lackey. I could give you a thousand examples, I could give you a number of examples, including recent ones, where I disagree pretty strongly with whatever policy position the White House is taking and have said.
But that’s kind of not the point. The point is, I’ve got an hour. I think there’s a lot of stuff that is under-covered. I think one of the tragedies of Trump, pro and con Trump, is that he kind of sucks up all the oxygen and there’s no room for anything else. And I think it’s sort of nice to have an hour where you can talk about issues of importance that aren’t necessarily about Trump the man.
I really think that. But I must say, just to restate, I find it hilarious that there are people out there who are mad about our story selection or think that they somehow are in charge of what we ought to put on the air every night. It’s like, what? There’s one show out of all shows that is doing something different, and you’re mad about it? I mean, if you’ve come to that conclusion, it’s time to reassess your own assumptions. Because is the world you’re looking for one where everybody has the same view and is doing the same story? Do you really want that? I guess people really do want that. It’s really frustrating to them that somebody is thinking for himself out there. I mean, I know it is.