Just how seriously do viewers of “Tucker Carlson Tonight” take his off-kilter rants? The Fox News host appears to have set up an experiment on Monday night to test that proposition.

The topic that night was the government’s mask mandates, a proven ratings generator with the network’s conservative audience. Such mandates aren’t just wrongheaded, Carlson argued — they’re abusive. “As for forcing children to wear masks outside, that should be illegal. Your response when you see children wearing masks as they play should be no different from your response to seeing someone beat a kid in Walmart, call the police immediately,” said Carlson. “Contact child protective services. Keep calling until someone arrives.”

It was the latest installment in a game that Carlson plays just about every week: How egregiously can I offend common decency and still keep my job? In this case, quite egregiously: Errant calls to child protective services, after all, can break up families, not to mention gum up government efforts to identify actual child abuse. “Everything that steals more time from hotline operators — every additional false allegation that leads to keeping someone reporting a rare case of actual serious child abuse on hold — means less time to get to the relatively few real cases in time,” writes Richard Wexler, executive director for the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, in an email.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Tuesday announced that vaccinated people needn’t wear masks outdoors, except in crowded situations, so there are clearly grounds to reassess public policy on their use. Yet the call for meddling in people’s private lives contradicts any of Carlson’s small-government credentials. “Carlson is now seeking to use the power of the state to harass and immiserate his political opponents,” wrote the Atlantic’s David Graham.

There’s another consideration, though, regarding Carlson’s depraved appeal: Are people heeding it?

Determined to answer that question, the Erik Wemple Blog emailed social service agencies in more than 40 states to ask whether they’d registered any complaints related to Carlson’s appeal. As of press time, Georgia, Texas, Alabama, Delaware, Nevada, Washington, Arizona, Alaska, New York and New Jersey had reported no such complaints or no awareness of them.

What would happen if someone did follow through on Carlson’s advice? Here’s a statement from the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services: “In no circumstance would a child wearing a mask in public to reduce or prevent the spread of disease meet Nevada’s definition of abuse or neglect of a child pursuant to NRS 432B. The State’s child welfare agencies have limited resources to address real issues of abuse or neglect and if Nevada does see a surge of nonsense calls, children in threat of actual harm will be in increased danger.”

After the Erik Wemple Blog posted a Twitter thread with updates on the states’ responses, some Carlson allies claimed we were taking all of this too seriously. “It should go without saying that no, you should not, in fact call the police or CPS on parents with kids in masks outdoors,” wrote the author of a piece on Twitchy.

In light of that reaction, we asked Fox News: Was Carlson kidding or just engaging in satire here? Whatever the answer, it’s a wonderful world where you say something with a straight face — and then, when critics point out how offensive or dangerous the remarks were, your supporters flock to the just-joking defense.

Let’s assume that the Twitchy crowd is right — Carlson was joshing or engaging in a thought exercise. That would mean that Carlson was satirically calling on people to report parents to child protective services — an instrument that ruins lives when it misfires.

For a contemporary look at the plenary power of such agencies, listen to “Do No Harm,” a podcast series from NBC News and Wondery. Sample the agony of the parents in that series, and then consider: Are child protective services a good thing to snicker about?

The whole episode should hearten the lawyers who defended Carlson against a 2019 defamation case. The judge in that case, upon tossing the complaint against Fox News, wrote, “Fox persuasively argues … that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statements he makes.” Let’s hope so.

© 2021 WASHINGTON POST NEWS SERVICE

Recommended for you

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Please note: Online comments may also run in our print publications.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Please turn off your CAPS LOCK.
No personal attacks. Discuss issues & opinions rather than denigrating someone with an opposing view.
No political attacks. Refrain from using negative slang when identifying political parties.
Be truthful. Don’t knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the “Report” link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with us. We’d love to hear eyewitness accounts or history behind an article.
Use your real name: Anonymous commenting is not allowed.
.
The News&Guide welcomes comments from our paid subscribers. Tell us what you think. Thanks for engaging in the conversation!

Thank you for reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.