By now, you've probably read the excellent diary by Louise detailing the reasons why Tucker Carlson deserves to be fired or otherwise face consequences for his homophobic and violent on-air comments regarding his purported assault by a man in a D.C. bathroom. A quick check of Carlson's biography (see below) raises one question about his story that could be used to check its veracity. Many of you clever Kossacks out there might be inclined to use your investigative skills to check on some of the details of Carlson's statements, of course to confirm that he is telling the truth, and not to turn up the heat on this sorry excuse for a journalist.
Jump below the fold, where I will discuss several points you may want to consider.
Thanks to Atrios, I copy here the following record of Carlson's spoken comments regarding the alleged incident:
CARLSON: I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the -- you know, and grabbed him, and -- and --
ABRAMS: And did what?
CARLSON: Hit him against the stall with his head, actually!
[laughter]
CARLSON: And then the cops came and arrested him. But let me say that I'm the least anti-gay right-winger you'll ever meet --
After many critical responses, Carlson releases the following statement to "clarify" what happened:
Let me be clear about an incident I referred to on MSNBC last night: In the mid-1980s, while I was a high school student, a man physically grabbed me in a men's room in Washington, DC. I yelled, pulled away from him and ran out of the room. Twenty-five minutes later, a friend of mine and I returned to the men's room. The man was still there, presumably waiting to do to someone else what he had done to me. My friend and I seized the man and held him until a security guard arrived.
Well, what happened here? Did Tucker Carlson bash a man who had merely flirted with him, albeit in an inappropriate place? Was he the victim of a physical assault and responding to the fear that he felt? Or is something else going on?
Along with many of the commenters in Louise's diary, I suspect the 3rd option is correct. The vagaries and inconsistencies of Carlson's tales, and the context in which his original comments were made, lead me to believe his original story was completely apocryphal, and designed to project an image of machismo to his audience. Remember, they were discussing the Craig case. I'm sure we've all have met people who, the moment anything to do with a gay person comes up, feel the need to say they'd respond violently to any same-sex proposition. I'll leave the reader to speculate as to the reasons for this weird behavior.
Anyway, Carson's story is vague on many details that lead me to doubt that this incident ever really happened. He could quite easily clarify these points if his e-mailed explanation of his behavior is accurate, and he is indeed a victim here. He says he was assaulted "in the mid-1980's". In a "men's room in Washington, DC". Well, I'd assume that anyone who was really sexually assaulted would have a pretty specific recall of the exact circumstances of the event. When exactly did it happen? Was Tucker a sophomore, or a senior? Did the assault happen during the day, or in the evening? And where was this men's room? In a public place, a restaurant, an adult movie theater?
Carlson may claim that his memories of the exact details of these events have become hazy over time. We can help him with that, though. Admittedly, my on-line sleuthing skills border on the non-existent. However, a quick glance at several of Carlson's online biographies indicate that he attended high school at St. George's School, a boarding school in Middletown, Rhode Island. He should therefore have a pretty good recollection of the exact date he was in D.C., and under what circumstances.
Luckily for Carlson, his clarified version of the story makes it harder to check one of the most important details. In the original story, "the cops came and arrested him". Well, I should hope so, if he were guilty of assaulting a minor. If this were indeed the case, a police record of the incident should exist. But in his e-mailed clarification, "a security guard arrived." No mention of arrest. If I were a cynical person, I'd comment on how convenient for Carlson that his clarified version of events omits one incident that could be checked quite easily. It is also suspicious that in the original story, the police respond to Tucker being merely bothered, while in his revised story, an actual physical assault is responded to by a security guard. Perhaps Tucker can clarify whether the second case resulted in a arrest, and if he did not know, explain why he would choose to leave before his presumably dangerous attacker was in proper custody.
Carlson can still do much to make his case, though. He says he "went back with someone I knew" to exact vengeance on this sexual predator. Again, assuming he'd remember the details surrounding an attempted sexual assault, I'm sure he can tell us who "someone I knew" actually is. A relative, a friend, a classmate? This individual could corroborate his story and put all speculation to rest.
Carlson's story strikes me as one of those "I knew this guy who..." type of things, with Carlson placing himself in the role of the "hero". In the original on-air version, his story was of the "if some faggot hit on me, I'd kick his ass," genre we all know and love so well. The accepted protocol when telling such bigoted stories is, of course, to preface your comments with "I have nothing against Gays/Jews/Blacks/Mexicans/Women/etc/, but..." It's telling how he felt he had to emphasize that he's the "least anti-gay right winger" out there. His corrected or clarified statement fixes these problems, however, and falls in the category of the "tolerant gay-friendly guy selflessly protects others from a sociopath" story.
It appears to me that Tucker Carlson has been caught in a lie. A vile, stupid, homophobic lie at that. And, to mitigate the damage, he has produced another flimsy fabrication. We as a community need to keep the pressure up until he responds appropriately. As far as I'm concerned, I don't necessarily think he needs to be fired. I'd settle for a public on-air admission that he lied twice, and a serious apology that he unintentionally promoted violent behavior against others, and some time spent dialoging with members of the gay community. If the pressure causes him to lose his job over this, though, I wouldn't consider that inappropriate given the astounding ignorance of his comments. And finally, if some of you out there can dig up corroborating evidence that somehow supports and upholds his contradictory accounts, I'll be the first to apologize to him.