Let me make this perfectly clear. As a 50-something suburban dad, I am clearly not a regular reader of Teen Vogue. For a long time, I thought “Kardashian” was the name of a planet in the Star Wars universe. Meanwhile, my fashion sense remains stuck in the ‘70s, and not the good part of the ‘70s. It’s more the part where “long” was an acceptable hairstyle and denim was acceptable formal wear.
I bring this up now because I recently came across a video while perusing my Facebook feed (you know, that thing with all the fake news and real photos of people doing way happier than you). It featured a Teen Vogue writer named Lauren Duca and Fox News host Tucker Carlson discussing Ivanka Trump’s recent encounter with an angry airline passenger. And by “discussing,” I mean sniping at each other.
At one point, the bottom of the screen included the words “Tucker Takes On Liberal Defending Ivanka Harasser.” Let me stop you right there. First, why the use of first names, like the host is our buddy but his guest is a callous jerk? Second, even as those words crossed the screen, Duca was explaining that she didn’t endorse the plane passenger’s behavior any more than Tucker (now that we’re on a first-name basis) did.
At another point, Tucker obsessively pushed Duca to explain why she’d written a tweet claiming Ivanka was “sinisterly complicit” in her father’s anti-woman attitude. He accused his guest of encouraging a world where everyone “not on your side is evil.” Even though she said nothing of the kind and, in fact, he was the one trying to paint anyone who criticizes a Trump as moronic (a term he applied to Duca’s writing later in the interview).
Perhaps my favorite moment of the entire exchange, though, was when Tucker referenced a column of Duca’s after saying he “guessed” she wrote for Teen Vogue (his confusion is understandable because after all, his own show had just identified Duca not as a writer but as the defender of air passenger harassers). I’m sure Tucker is a nice fellow, charitable with family and friends and a great guest at cocktail parties. However, his exchange with Duca is the perfect example of where we’re at with politics in America right now. I went to Twitter and discovered how happy fans were that he “destroys a moron journalist.” I dug deeper and found out they were also quite pleased to watch as he “destroys Newsweek writer” and “destroys millennial climate activist.” That’s an impressive amount of destruction for anyone.
Now I’m sure those people figured Tucker meant it when he repeatedly told Duca “I’m trying to understand…” even though honestly, he didn’t seem to be trying that hard. After all, he did try to dismiss Duca’s credentials by referencing Teen Vogue articles like one about Arianna Grande’s thigh high boots. If the idea here was to prove Duca wasn’t a serious journalist, perhaps Tucker might remember his time on “Fox & Friends” driving go carts and stuffing his face with cake.
Still, I get what he was doing with Duca. He was simply playing to his legion of Tweeters eager for the demolition of yet another stupid liberal. And why not? It’s his show. He can belittle the opinions of whomever he chooses. But that’s what is so disappointing. There was no need to misrepresent and mock Duca. Having someone on your show is like having them over to your house for coffee, so you should at least stay respectful with them. (And for those who will soon be calling me a “lib-tard” on social media, please don’t tell me Tucker was doing his job as an aggressive interviewer. Just watch him act like a dog in search of a belly rub during his interview with a woman he agrees with, Kellyanne Conway.)
I’m not a regular Tucker watcher, but from the segments of his show I have seen, his manners fit right in with our current angry, fact-adjacent assumptions that those who disagree with us are automatically people who probably kick puppies in their spare time. On both sides of the political aisle. When any problem arises and requires critical thinking to resolve it, find a scapegoat to demonize instead because frankly, ridicule is a whole lot easier than reason. And besides, it makes for better television.
Years ago, I spent a brief amount of time as a producer on a cable news opinion-cast. That’s where I saw firsthand the job isn’t about finding guests with whom the host can have a productive discussion. It’s about finding either a big-name celebrity or a human punching bag because those are the kind of guests who make the host look good. In the case of Tucker’s recent “interview,” apparently Scott Baio wasn’t available so they went with the punching bag. Only this time, the punching bag hit back.
Look, I know that few of us are capable of staying neutral and respectful of the opposition. Which is fine at Thanksgiving dinner or encounters in line at Macy’s. On television, it’s counter-productive if you really want to educate all people and not just your Twitter patrol (emphasis on “troll). The more we see this sort of antagonism, the more legitimate it becomes to dismiss rather than discuss. Which reminds me....now I feel kind of bad about that “troll” comment a couple sentences ago.
The goal in political discussions is no longer to look for something we can all agree on. Instead, the goal is to peek underneath other people’s beds in order to point out the monsters that surely live there. There aren’t monsters under our beds (trust me, I check every night). They are, however, a great way to encourage your audience to a) stay tuned to you because you are their true protector and b) grab a pitchfork and torch to join the other villagers storming the castle upon hearing Frankenstein’s monster is alive and well up there. Which, of course, is their right. Ultimately, though, didn’t we all pretty much agree that the monster ends up as the sympathetic one?