Okay? Have you watched any other Fox anchors? Even ones in his time slot? Like Hannity or Ingraham? What are they talking about? Beyond Ingraham occasionally doing anti immigration stuff, I’m not familiar with any other Fox anchor doing what Tucker does.
He's always in-line with the common beats of the other hosts. I mean, put simply, he wouldn't be on Fox if he wasn't going to say what they have on his teleprompter. No talking head exists in the MSM without toeing whatever line they're given, and if they didn't have at least one outlier with opinions of the kind Tucker has, the network wouldn't have as much political sway.
Your attitude reeks of a purity spiraling that is the death of any practical politics. Do I think Tucker Carlson is a savior? No of course not. Do I think he’s useful? Yes.
Purity spiraling is frankly a concept that doesn't really apply to people like Tucker Carlson. He will do whatever he is going to be told to do, whether or not people find him acceptable until the day comes that he's either taken off-air or retires. He's beholden to nobody but his seniors at his channel.
Like, what exactly do you think boomers will do without someone like Tucker to expose them to what he is exposing them too?
I’ll tell you-nothing. All they’ll do is rail about “Socialism!!!” And Democrats waging war on Christmas.
Consider it informing, consciousness raising or whatever-but Tucker lays the groundwork for someone who is a political leader to work in.
I mean there's quite literally nobody outside of the movers and shakers at Fox who can do anything about it, for good or for ill, so there's really no sense in giving a shit what someone else's opinion of him is at any given time unless he ends up at the mercy of something like Patreon.
Without that, sincere or not then no progress is made.
Regardless of my other statements, it is important to point out when people are being used as "thought leaders" like Tucker, imo. Whether you think he's useful or whatever, or not, his purpose on that station is the same as any other anchor's purpose in any other part of the MSM - he's there to influence and guide opinion, and in some sense to establish a consensus false or otherwise. He's not an "ally" nor is the guy really even part of the body politic. He's a dude who gets in front of a camera, says what's on the teleprompter, puts some emotion into it depending on the cues (probably also on the teleprompter nowadays) and pulls down a paycheck for it.
The entire discussion should be framed in that reference point when it revolves around such people. They're cogs in a machine, ostensibly set for life as long as they keep up whatever their role is when they're in front of a camera, not politically active agents of change in the greater political landscape.
