For instance, there's Kelly's report to Newsmax host Eric Bolling earlier this week about the belief shared with her by "a lotta people" that "the Obamas are already running the government and that there is some sort of shadow puppet situation going on that they're controlling."
Couple this with Tucker Carlson's interview with convicted con artist Larry Sinclair, who also qualifies as "people," and who resurfaced his never-proven claims from 2008, when Barack Obama was running for president, that the then-Senator from Illinois paid Sinclair for drugs and sex in 1999.
At the top of his interview posted on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, Carlson asserted that Obama "came from nowhere" and that nobody knew anything about him. There's a tool called Google anyone can visit to fact-check that noise, but why bother? Carlson assures his wide-eyed followers that Sinclair had firsthand knowledge of Obama back then, claiming that the "media" shilling for the presidential candidate – you know, they – summarily dismissed Sinclair's claims as absurd.
That's because the claims were absurd and remain absurd.
Even if you don't believe that, one thing you can trust reporters to do is pursue any potential scandal mixing politics and sex to ground. When said tawdry whispers involve a Black politician quickly rising to national prominence — in an election year, no less — newsrooms press the nitro button on that task.
Yet Sinclair's fable remains unsubstantiated while his lengthy rap sheet, including multiple charges for larceny and forgery, is very real and easy to track down, as Politico did in 2008.
"But the claims weren't absurd," Tucker insists, adding this telling statement: "We're not claiming they're true, but they were certainly credible" – emphasis mine, and with purpose.
Not true, but "certainly credible" is the meat of both Carlson and Kelly's pundit strategies. It's the reason Kelly can blurt, "People are saying" without pointing to a poll or naming names. It's why Carlson would promote a salacious accusation by a ludicrously untrustworthy source with a 27-year record of fraud and trust his followers will applaud him for it.
According to Merriam-Webster, credible means "good enough to be effective." Et voila. There you have it.
Fox News honed Kelly and Carlson into experts on stoking rage and fear. In their new guises — as a podcast host in Kelly's case, and whatever Carlson's fiddling with on X – they're doubt peddlers with a mainstream pedigree and the appearance of being politically connected.
It's a lazy and desperate tactic. It's also unwise to ignore it. While neither Carlson nor Kelly pulls the average audience numbers they once took for granted on Fox News or NBC, each knows they don't necessarily need to. (Kelly is doing just fine. Variety reports that she just extended her multi-year, first-run deal with Sirius XM for "The Megyn Kelly Show," which as of this writing is the second most popular news commentary podcast on Apple. Chartable ranks it fourth on its list of the most popular news podcasts, according to audience data collected between Monday, Aug. 28 and Sunday, Sept. 3.)
Not true, but "certainly credible" is the meat of Carlson and Kelly's pundit strategies.
All either needs is a slice of the attention economy fed by right-wing skeptics and a few "open-minded" visitors from the left end of the conspiracist continuum to have an alarming impact on national politics. It doesn't take much. Conservatives can't stand the Obamas, making them easy to cast in the roles of Shadow President and Cruella de Veep. Liberals bristle at establishment politicians of all kinds, even Democrats.
For Kelly going after Michelle Obama might as well be a hobby, dating back to at least 2008 when she defended a Fox News chyron referring to the soon-to-be First Lady as Obama's Baby Mama.
Insinuating that Michelle Obama might throw her hat into the presidential race, which she's gone on the record saying she'd never do, is throwing chicken feed to the cluckers. Remember when they floated similar threats about Oprah Winfrey? In a way, that makes Michelle Obama the new Oprah.
Now there's a triggering headline for some . . . people.
Donald Trump interview notwithstanding, if Carlson wanted to be taken seriously by what he recently described to Adam Carolla as "permanent Washington," he would be pursuing other GOP figures, not platforming a convict with a story designed to rile up homophobes. Obviously, that's not his aim; before interviewing Sinclair, Carlson welcomed misogynistic influencer Andrew Tate, who has been charged by Romanian officials with rape, human trafficking and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit women.
Besides, promoting policymakers' agendas isn't Carlson's strong suit. Reeling in the disaffected by providing them with reasons for their rage, regardless of whether they're factual or even real, is his true artistic medium. He's spent years persuading his audience to disbelieve or ignore empirical facts, including what they see with their own eyes, such as his successful rebranding of the Jan. 6 riot as a peaceful demonstration. So when he tells people a con man is "certainly credible," trust that they will not switch on their critical faculties to test that statement.
We need your help to stay independent
Kelly prefers to trawl for clicks by attacking Dr. Anthony Fauci or, say, amplifying a Hamptons bartender's flimsy claim that Don Lemon assaulted him long after the man dropped his lawsuit and released a statement saying that he inaccurately recalled the events of the night in question.
This was cited in a Mediaite column from May which observed that after wearing "a lot of prominent hats in the media industry . . . it seems [Kelly] has taken on a new role as a conspiracy theorist." We're going to assume the writer was being facetious — trafficking in conspiracy theory is nothing new for the former Fox News and NBC host.
In 2010 Media Matters for America reported that Kelly devoted 45 segments to a conspiracy theory that the Obama administration was intentionally allowing the New Black Panther Party to intimidate voters, linked to one member standing outside a polling station in 2008. This focus didn't play out over months but through a two-week carpet bombing.
And that's merely one memorable incident in a Fox News tenure built on anti-Black racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, climate change denial and platforming bigots. She'd go on to be hired by NBC and fired soon afterward for defending blackface on "Today."
Carlson easily outdid her on every front, promoting the racist "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory and assuring his mostly white audience that white supremacy is a hoax on a near-nightly basis.
The larger takeaway here is that each of them excels at tossing accelerant on dim embers of credulity lurking in the eternally suspicious or the plain old hateful.
Via his still-under-construction home on X, Carlson continues to capitalize on white Obamaphobia to keep the MAGA trolls content while tapping the shoulders of Robert Kennedy Jr.- curious Democrats. (Those folks may never vote for Donald Trump but could be disillusioned enough with Joe Biden, already considered to be a weak option, to search for moral failings they can seize upon. One that might stick is the suggestion that Biden's decisions may not be his own.)
It's a lazy and desperate tactic. It's also unwise to ignore it.
Few strategies are more adept at solidifying compunctions than suggesting that a revered political figure might be hiding something that the lamestream media — including Fox News since they fired Carlson — is too timid to share. In that conversation with Carolla, when the host asked if they were ever going to let Trump be president, Carlson responded with an emphatic no before leaping straight to shouting fire in a crowded theater.
"I mean, you know, graph it out, man. We're speeding toward assassination, obviously. And no one will say that!" Does Carlson have evidence to back up this claim? Ha. No. What a silly pondering. "But I don't know how you can't reach that conclusion. You know what I mean?" he said.
Mind you, the Sinclair interview may have been a bridge too far even for those who ordinarily glom on to free-thinkers who are "just asking questions."
X owner Elon Musk, for one, found the interview suspect. "Mr Sinclair is not super convincing," he posted afterward, adding in a subsequent response to another user's post, "Of course, the probability that his claims are true would have to rest on objective evidence, rather than claims made by someone with a dubious history." Musk's sway may outstrip Carlson's by a broad margin.
He's also known for pulling an about-face when it suits him, and ultimately he and Carlson tend to be in sync philosophically. That matters more than any moral responsibility to deal in accuracy or truth, since in the final estimation they know something most of the media doesn't, which is how unifying the Church of Conspiracy Theory can be.
Commiseration remains an inadequately considered motivator in American politics, if not the greatest one. This version of commiseration is distinct from the GOP's long-successful strategy of falling in line behind those knighted by their leadership, including Kelly and Carlson's former employer. It refers to an entrenched disillusionment among young right-wingers who are apprehensive about losing their political and cultural power, and believe they're being socially rejected for remaining loyal to what they view as conservative values.
When you feel like no one is taking your anxiety seriously, you may indulge anyone who claims to and gives you someone or something to blame for it, regardless of whether those justifications hold water. That's a booming business in an age when mistrusting "mainstream" information, the new term for whatever was previously known as an agreed-upon set of facts and truths, is viewed as heroic.
Anybody who remains baffled as to why Kelly and Carlson still command strong followings as they amplify conspiracist lunacy needs to sit with that, especially as we barrel toward 2024. But don't take my word for it. Ask people.
