Two Months Later It’s Clear: Tucker Carlson Needed Fox News More Than Fox Needed Tucker

On Apr. 24, Fox News announced that its 8 p.m. host Tucker Carlson was leaving the network. The ouster of the most-watched host on cable news sent shockwaves through the political-media ecosystem. It sparked a reporting frenzy to get to the bottom of what actually happened, why he was fired, and what would come next — both for the top-rated cable news network and the most influential hard-right pundit in the country.

Now the dust has settled, it’s clear that Fox News was far more important to Carlson than he was to Fox News — a result that might surprise the Tucker Stans, who insisted his departure was Fox’s death knell.

It hasn’t all been rosy. Fox News took a significant hit in ratings in the weeks that followed Carlson’s ouster. In some metrics, the replacement hosts tapped to fill in the slot drew just half of Carlson’s audience, which remains enraged by his firing.

Viewership has started to tick back up, however, indicating that this viewer revolt is not as dire as ones seen in the past (see: the 2020 bloodbath). Even the ratings plunge came with a silver lining: advertisers that had steered clear of Carlson’s controversial show returned to the hour after his ouster. Brands like P&G, GM, T-Mobile, Allstate, Subway, and Bayer are now advertising on the 8 p.m. hour of Fox News which they didn’t touch when Carlson was hosting.

Moreover, Carlson’s career as an independent news anchor hasn’t proved to be much of a match for his former network.

Since leaving Fox, Carlson has taken to posting roughly 12-minute monologues he records at his home in Maine on Twitter. Elon Musk, who now owns the social media platform, has promoted the episodes and touted their public viewer stats.

His debut episode drew staggering numbers — or so it seemed. Mediaite’s Aidan McLaughlin wrote earlier this month that “as of writing, Twitter says 114 million people have seen the 10-minute monologue” His second episode generated roughly half that, which is not a great trend, but it still clocked in at more than 50 million views.

But that “view” metric only measures users who have viewed the tweet. They are not even close to being comparable to cable news ratings, which are measured in terms of a concurrent average.

Earlier this week, Carlson dropped his seventh “Tucker on Twitter” episode, and as of writing, the tweet has just 14 million views. Again, that measures only users who have had the tweet served to them, not individuals who have watched the video. The actual number of people who are still watching Carlson’s Twitter show is far, far lower.

Let’s look at how Fox’s ratings are faring. Yes, Fox News saw a sharp decline in viewers following Tucker’s ouster. Prime time ratings dropped 34 percent and the advertiser-coveted adults 25-54 demo dipped 46 percent. But total day ratings saw a less steep dip of 19 percent and 25 percent in the key demo. That’s bad but not nearly as catastrophic as the 2020 post-election decline that saw Fox News temporarily in last place. Following the 2020 presidential election, Fox News saw a decline of 41 percent in total day viewers and 47 percent in the demo. Prime time — which included Tucker Carlson — dropped 47 percent in total viewers and a massive 57 percent in the demo.

Fox News ratings have yet to fully return to the highs seen before Carlson was shown the door. But does anyone seriously question, with the 2024 election approaching, that they will get there? This isn’t Fox’s first rodeo, nor will it be its last. The network recently announced a new lineup filling key hours with familiar faces. Critics might call it uninspired, but watch it work. It’s all part of the Fox show; does it really matter who the talking head is? (So long as it isn’t Kayleigh McEnany, the ex-Trump official who bombed in Carlson’s old slot.)

Putting aside the declining numbers of Carlson’s Twitter show, another soft metric illustrates his weakened influence: His videos generate next to zero buzz.

When he was hosting his show on Fox News, Carlson’s commentary was hotly debated across Twitter and covered on the pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post. CNN and MSNBC hosts would look to fill their daily rundowns with whatever outrage Carlson had spawned.

Tucker had a knack for identifying the forbidden topic in the eyes of mainstream media and going right at it, even if it meant spewing racist tropes or supporting a Russian dictator responsible for killing children in Ukraine. Carlson didn’t care much — he was getting an audience and attention. He was getting talked about and driving a narrative. Sure, maybe he was a divisive wedge whose commentary fueled a movement that undermined U.S. democracy. But to quote a Carlsonism: “whatever!”

The trouble for Carlson is that “Tucker on Twitter” has failed to maintain the buzz he commanded on his nightly Fox News show. His most recent episode featured the usual high brow-low brow commentary with a hint of conspiracy and an oversized dollop of snark. Beyond the style, though, it was mostly a mess of disconnected ideas and insults. I transcribed the episode in a failed attempt to make sense of his case, which he kicked off by arguing that supporting Ukraine is really about D.C. careerists who really want to be fascists and ended by concluding that California Governor Gavin Newsom is leading the coup.

Now, Carlson is seeking investment to start his own media company, according to the reliable reporting of Puck News’s Dylan Byers. This seems a natural progression and one that follows other ex-Fox Newsers like Glenn Beck and Megyn Kelly, who have forged their own paths by hosting shows outside of linear television platforms.

It makes sense, particularly since no other cable or broadcast outlet would have Carlson on their air. And as more cords are cut, there is a strong argument that streaming platforms will, at some point, take over traditional cable outlets.

More concerning to Carlson, again, is not the number of eyeballs he will gather, but which eyeballs he’s collecting. Like Beck and Kelly, Carlson is now confined to preaching to his choir of most loyal supporters. No longer is he driving a narrative across the country, one that makes it onto the opinion pages of the Times or the halls of the U.S. House and Senate — bodies he delights in deriding but whose influence over he craves.

The leading influencer in conservative media and politics in the coming years is far more likely to be Carlson’s replacement, Jesse Watters, than anyone else. And given the power of the star-making machinery created by Roger Ailes, and streamlined under Suzanne Scott, it’s easy to imagine a future headline: “Tucker Who? Jesse Watters is the New Ratings Titan Driving Fox News.”

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.