Tucker Carlson's Jerk Store
In the Seinfeld episode "The Comeback," George Costanza is embarrassed by his inability to think of a response to a co-worker who made fun of his overconsumption of shrimp cocktail by saying, "Hey George, the ocean called. They're running out of shrimp." George later thinks up what he believes is the ideal comeback, "Well, the Jerk Store called, and they're running out of you," and becomes obsessed with gaining an opportunity to use the line, eventually flying to Ohio in order to do so.
George's long-planned zinger falls flat, however, when the co-worker responds, "What's the difference? You're their all-time best seller." Flustered, and again unable to think of a witty response, George blurts out: "Oh yeah? Well I had sex with your wife!" -- a jibe that blows up in his face when he is told the man's wife is in a coma. The episode ends with George driving home, plotting yet another attempt to win the verbal battle.
Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson has been doing his best George Costanza impersonation for the past week, as he lashes out again and again at Jon Stewart, who humiliated Carlson on national television more than four years ago.
In October 2004, Stewart appeared on Crossfire, the long-running CNN debate show Carlson co-hosted at the time. It didn't go well -- either for Crossfire, which was canceled shortly thereafter, or for Carlson. Stewart said Crossfire, and cable shout-fests like it, were "hurting America." Things went downhill from there, with Carlson telling Stewart he should be more aggressive in questioning politicians, and Stewart responding, "[I]t's interesting to hear you talk about my responsibility. I didn't realize that ... the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity. ... You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls." Exasperated, Carlson sarcastically told Stewart, "You need to get a job at a journalism school," leading to the response: "You need to go to one."
At that point, Carlson was reduced to pleading for mercy: "I thought you were going to be funny. Come on. Be funny." But Stewart wasn't finished, telling him, "No. No. I'm not going to be your monkey."
It now seems Carlson has spent the past four years seething -- and looking for an opportunity to finally put Stewart in his place. And with Stewart in the spotlight following his criticism of financial reporting at CNBC, Carlson pounced -- or tried to.
Carlson began last Friday, telling Politico: "Jim Cramer may be sweaty and pathetic ... but he's not responsible for the current recession. ... His real sin was attacking Obama's economic policies. If he hadn't done that, Stewart never would have gone after him. Stewart's doing Obama's bidding. It's that simple."
It was only a few sentences, but Carlson managed to get two things wrong. Nobody is saying Jim Cramer is "responsible" for the current recession; they're saying he and CNBC and other media didn't do enough to expose problems earlier. And Stewart has been criticizing Cramer for at least a year, so Carlson's claim that he is only doing so because Cramer attacked President Obama's economic policies is demonstrably false.
Carlson must have liked the "sweaty and pathetic" line; he came back to it during an appearance on CNN's Reliable Sources on Sunday: "Cramer was craven and sweaty and pathetic. ... But Jon Stewart, let's be honest, this was a partisan attack. He went after Cramer the moment Cramer criticized Obama's budget. That was the mortal sin. That's what kicked off this entire feud."
Again: That isn't -- can't be -- true, because Stewart was criticizing Cramer a year ago, before Obama had either a budget or a presidency from which to offer one. But Carlson was insistent and offered what he seems to think is proof: "[W]as Jim Cramer the only analyst to call it wrong ... to, you know, come up with stupid stock picks? Of course not. He criticized Obama's budget, and that's what started this, because in the end, Jon Stewart is a partisan hack." According to Carlson, the fact that Stewart singled Cramer out demonstrates that his criticism is really just about defending Obama from Cramer's attacks. Ah, but Stewart hasn't singled Cramer out; he has been criticizing CNBC broadly.
Next, Carlson used his weekly Washington Post online discussion to continue taking shots at Stewart. "Cramer humiliated himself the other night (and on many previous nights on his own show) but that doesn't mean he and his network are responsible for the meltdown. That's way too simple. In fact it's demagoguery." But -- again -- Stewart's argument isn't that CNBC is "responsible for the meltdown"; it's that it acted as cheerleaders for the financial markets rather than a watchdog. There's a difference there, whether Carlson chooses to see it or not.
Carlson continued:
And by the way, where was Jon Stewart when the bubble was swelling? How many shows did he do on the coming financial collapse? Why didn't he warn us?
Stewart's answer invariably is: I'm a comedian. That's not my job. But that's a dodge, and increasingly unsustainable. In fact, Stewart is a player in the national conversation. He seeks to influence politics and policy, and he succeeds. It's time for him to admit that, and be held to the same standards everyone else at his level (including Jim Cramer) lives by.
Got that? The problem isn't that news organizations like CNBC don't meet a high enough standard; it's that Jon Stewart isn't more like Jim Cramer. The news media are fine; our national discourse suffers from the fact that our comedians aren't better journalists. Carlson made a similar argument during his 2004 debate with Stewart, so this is apparently something he really believes. (Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen seems to believe this as well.)
Carlson insists that his insults of Stewart had nothing to do with their run-in on Crossfire:
Obviously I haven't been a big fan since he made that ludicrous scene on Crossfire. (I still have no idea what he was talking about. Honestly.) But if anything, that experience prevented me from criticizing him in public for the past five years. I didn't want to sound bitter, which (and you don't have to believe me) I'm not. But the Cramer exchange was just too phony and annoying, so I lost control of myself and said something.
"Lost control?" Bull. Reliable Sources was the second time in three days Carlson had attacked Stewart, and both times he described Cramer with the same "sweaty and pathetic" line. The Washington Post discussion marked his third attack on Stewart in four days. Two days later, he posted his fourth anti-Stewart tirade on The Daily Beast. Either Carlson is prone to losing control of himself in precisely the same way, over and over, or his campaign against Stewart is a little more premeditated than he wants you to think. Probably because he knows that as lame as "the Jerk Store called, and they're out of you" was, what was really sad was how often George rehearsed it.
Of course, the real problem isn't that Carlson's attacks on Stewart seem overeager and contrived, it's with the merits of his case. He's wrong or lying about the details of the Stewart-Cramer war of words. In (falsely) challenging Stewart's motives, and in defending CNBC from criticism nobody is making, Carlson is downplaying the problems with, if not defending, CNBC's reporting. And his contention that Jon Stewart, rather than CNBC, fails to meet the appropriate standards of journalism, shows an extraordinary lack of perspective. Maybe he'll come up with a more compelling critique of Stewart soon. We can be sure he'll keep trying -- just like George Costanza.
Jamison Foser is Executive Vice President at Media Matters for America.
Tucker Carlson is no George Costanza, George had class. John Stewart pegged the repug Carlson and put him out of business.
Marker:
Well, one has to admit that Carlson hasn't been heard from much since then. Apparently he can't keep a show of his own, but has to mooch off other hosts. Must be hard to be a has-been at such a young age...
Perhaps he and coulter can get together and have a pity party?
Or a diva party.
Tuck is a repressed, seething homosexual. How else do you explain his gloating over getting his buddies together to go back to that public restroom to beat up that cruiser? He deserves pity for his derangement.
God bless the soul of a woman born a man, but Ann is repressed too. She couldn't bear the shame of being a gay Republican, so she got together enough money to get a sex change so she wouldn't have to hate herself as much. Now, if doctors could only figure a way to get rid of her Adam's apple, her self loathing could be soothed...
Dude, ouch...;-)
Tell me about it. On second reading, it seems I must have been peeved.
Maybe he should take the time he has off and go back to school and finish, with a degree.
" Apparently he can't keep a show of his own, but has to mooch off other hosts."
It's called think tank welfare. Conservatives have the patent.
Mr. Foser and MMfA,
Reading this report... I have come to the conclusion that it is well researched and well written and makes sense...
Yet... I fear that a few of the posts that will follow mine will attempt to claim that MMfA or Mr. Foser in general is reaching or that Mr. Foser is resorting to partisan attacks...
So... MMfA... Mr. Foser ... congrats on another good and well built thread!
Hey, the gops and their gopologists have gotta cling to some nitwit nonsense.
The facts ain't doin' 'em any favors.
"I want different facts!"
Come on, J-Fos. Leave the poor little crybaby alone!
If Tucker really wants to engage Stewart he should go on the Daily Show. I'm sure they'd be happy to have him.
Sure. Then they could feed what's left of him to cramer in the green room before Stewart inevitably gives him a rematch.
"His real sin was attacking Obama's economic policies"
In my mind this sort of begs the question... outside the obvious _generic_ attacks on "Obama's Policies" is there anybody (in main stream media) actually making any pertinent, noteworthy, i.e. reasonable, points in opposition to policy?
I do not see any real debate over policy going on.
Gops have nothing to offer when they're in power. They're meat they're in the minority.
In a word..... NO
C'mon, trying to trade jabs with a professional comdiean, who has already humiliated him on TV once before. Can't these pundits learn from their mistakes, or are they just doomed to repeat them over and over for our entertainment benefit. I mean what's next? Is Tucker going to challenge Eminem in a Rap Battle, or A-Rod in a Home run contest?
The problem is that Carlson is bored with being unemployed, so is attempting to raise his profile in hopes someone will offer him a book contract.
I think the media has had about enough of the hate-speech substituted for relevance and reason. Buh-bye, Carlson.
Sorry Tucker, you're still John's beeyotch. Besides, if you'd pay one ounce of attention, Cramer got dragged down because he responded to Stewart's going after Rick Santelli's ridiculous populist rant to begin with.
I don't blame Cramer or CNBC for doling out their pap to the financially challenged, nor for being intellectually lazy in not challenging the CEOs and corporate reports - it's what they do. But spare us the outrage. Stewart took you to the woodshed as you deserved to be.
Keep poking Stewart with a stick Tuck, see what happens. . . again.
"Jerk store." Hilarious, perfect analogy, Mr. Foser!
See this posting, Caseysprings?
Mr. Foser and MMfA doesn't attack the messenger. They attack his message.
They use specific examples to criticize what he has said, and they did it well. This is the difference between making sweeping generalizations about people based upon one's personal disagreements with them, like Carlson did about Jon Stewart, or what you do about people you have disagreements with, and what MMfA does about Tucker Carlson.
CONSTANZA analogy is hilarious and spot on. Howling with laughter. Thanks for the article.
I like Jon Stewart, I don't like Tucker Carlson, and I agree with Stewart's take on Cramer, but for the life of me, I don't know why Stewart has been praised so much for his critique of Crossfire some years back.
Listen to what Stewart was saying --- he said that Begala and Carlson were both "partisan hacks" because they couldn't say anything nice about their opposition and that discourse needed to be more "civil". That's the kind of "on the one hand/on the other" nonsense that made the media so servile during the Iraq war --- the right made blatantly dishonest claims, the left was making claims based on reality, yet the the media treated both as if they had equal merit. I know Stewart has shown brilliance in other critiques, but his Crossfire critique was so off target, he was actually displaying the exact kind of mentality that's wrong with most mainstream media.
And can Stewart stop with the "but I'm a comedian" response to any rejoinder made of his critiques? Being a commentator with a certain point-of-view and being a comedian (even one who makes "fart jokes") are not mutually exclusive.
I agree that Jon Stewart was not too effective on Crossfire. He got irritated by Tucker and got off message. I also agree that he was acting as a commentator in that regard and does so often on his show.
He is wrong to say that his is only a comedy show, it is a commentary on society with a strong sense for irony and hypocracy. Jon's opening session is the funniest part because it chides the stupidity of the media, governance and politics. He mixes in the most base humor and sophomoric set pieces (I hate the interviews by his colleagues for their disrespect - although their targets are mostly witless idiots).
Jon's contribution to the Daily Show ranks among the best verbal commentary in the media. Tucker is right that he is more than a comedian; but Jon is right that Fox News, CNN, CNBC, etc., have an obligation to follow journalistic ethics and standards. Jon has no such responsibility. Comedy Channel is paying him to be funny and incisive. That Jon chooses to be factually accurate as well, is just a choice. The viewer is forewarned not to rely on him. The news channels advertise that they are reliable and that they have standards, and then fail them. That's the difference!
The reader of this promotional posting is entitled to one, Tucker Carlson Bitch-slap!® This offer is good for anyone who spies that dumb-schmuck anywhere, within the continental United States [Alaska & Hawaii included, should that moron decide to venture there…including Puerto Rico!]. Note: Only one bitch-slap per claimant allowed.
"Our national discourse suffers from the fact that our comedians are not better journalists."
This is very funny, and, at the same time, very frightening.
Welcome to cable news! Mr. and Mrs. America.
it was funny that a big piece of Carlson's blog, on The Daily Beast, was about Stewart's humor not being funny
Tucker has a blog? Guess the coma store is missing some inventory....
in fairness, both messrs carlson and cramer are low-hanging fruit, mr. carlson the lower of the two. i've had the misfortune of viewing mr. carlson on tv a couple of times. both were extremely painful, from an intellectual standpoint; mr. carlson is just not very bright.
i totally believe that: a. mr. carlson has yet to figure out what jon stewart was talking about, when he appeared on mr. carlson's show., and b. he really, really does believe that stewart's raping and pillaging of mr. cramer was strictly a partisan hack job. really, who would know partisan hack better than mr. carlson?
i believe these two things because mr. carlson is on the very low end of the intellectual food chain. how he ever got where he is remains a complete mystery to me, it isn't because of his rigorous knowledge of the issues and facts. i just assume he knew someone.
He was hired to sling mud -- while lying that that is "news". Viewers and readers need to learn the difference between news and opinion, and between legitimate opinion and BS.
I agree, but you miss the main point of Stewart's criticism. It was in response to the attacks on 'irresponsible mortgage holders'. His point was that it is difficult to blame mortgage holders for making bad choices when all the information that they were being given suggested that the 'party would go on'. The bad choices are bad in a context. Cramer told his viewers to buy, even if they knew things were overvalued. If you listen to Stewart's original attack on CNBC, you will hear that as his main point.
You're asking too much to expect admitted "conservative" idealogues to be, factual, logical, or honest. Their only choice is to blame others for the disasters their policies have produced. See The 9/22/08 Economic Crisis and Jobs & 'Trade' Data Update Feb09.
carlson's still smarting from that spanking stewart gave him.
he's definitely imitating constanza because he couldn't/is unable to come up with a retort for stewart's insult.
Incidentally, The Daily Show has had a recurring, almost-nightly segment on the economic collapse called "Clusterf*@k to the Poorhouse" since September at least. As Carlson would say, they 'conveniently' don't provide transcripts, but they do have full video archives on their website.
I look at Tucker Carlson as the fat kid who always complained in the movie " Willie Wonka and the Chocolate factory ".
What did Tucker Carlson every do? He just appeared one day as a talking head and to spite being wrong constatntly and being an annoying jerkwad most of the time we are still treated to him on various channels and articles.
Who cares what this douche thinks?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_Carlson
From your wiki link: After four years I had met a lot of interesting people, gone to a couple of classes and restored a motorcycle and that was it. And so I wasted my time at college."
Must be nice being a rich boy. The rest of us had to work hard at college and apply for a job.
I beleive the wiki says his dad was former pres of CBS - he has quite the HELPLESS RICH MANS son bio.
I'm sorry - not CBS, but still...I hardly think he's a tough working journalist.
He isn't a journalist. He's either an ideologue and demagogue, or paid to be that.
I watched an instance of his show when it was on PBS. The intellectual dishonesty gave me a headache, it was so out of the normal channels.
"think tank welfare"
Good one! I'll have to rmeember that, though I don't think it'll get much use: those who are dupred by the Limbaughs and Carlsons aren't sufficiently sophisticated to know what "think tank" means, especially when they are extreme far-right lunatic fringe propaganda mills.
This thread is another example of why MMFA does a great job in research. Outstanding in putting Tucker in his place, again.
A very good article. I thought Carlson would have faded into well-deserved obscurity after being trashed by a comedian years ago.
I think the French call it l'esprit de l'escalier
Just when things seemed darkest, I discovered Media Matters. I have observed all the blog posts and comments to posts in the last couple of days criticizing the Fairness Doctrine, and most of them, if not all, have the look of posts written by PR firms hired by the GOP or by the banks and Wall Street companies, trying to pass themselves off as private citizens. As a former member of the media (28 years with two major newspapers in the Northeast) it makes me feel good to see Media Matters jumping into the blogosphere with genuine news people doing most of the work. Keep it up guys and gals. It makes this old gray-haired, former ink-stained wretch feel good.