So there has recently been a very public firing in the media which most of you would have heard about and that is the firing of Tucker Carlson’s from Fox News (although the official line went something like ‘Tucker Carlson and Fox News decided to part ways…’). Supposedly called out by Rupert Murdoch himself. While a reason suggested for Carlson’s exit is the discrimination lawsuit filed by Abby Grossberg, the sudden exit of Carlson immediately followed the lost defamation lawsuit and subsequent settlement of over $700 million USD by Fox News to Dominion voting machine company over its reporting of the 2020 presidential election claiming that Dominion rigged vote totals that cost Trump the election. You do have to wonder about the timing and the reasons. Has Tucker Carlson been scapegoated for FOX News’s role in the reporting of Dominion?
Whilst Tucker Carlson can be heard reporting on the news supporting the notion that Dominion played a role in bringing down American democracy, and downplaying the riots at the United States Capital Building in Washington on January 6th 2021, I did find myself wondering how much of what he said he as accountable for, and how much scapegoating was going on here. The definition of a scapegoat (according to me anyway) is someone who takes the fall for a colossal failure of a company or organization on behalf of others, sometimes many others. In this case, surely there is a team of reporters, researchers and writers behind the scenes that play a role in what gets aired on the news. Further to that, there is the question of the influence that Trump had over Rupert Murdoch and Fox News itself that directed the narrative, and the position employees at Fox were expected to take on certain controversial issues.
Tucker Carlson was described as a ‘ratings juggernaut’ for Fox News which goes to show nobody is too valuable to be fired. But this also got me thinking that the more powerful the person being used as the scapegoat, then the more effective the scapegoat is at directing the blame and attention to one individual, thus saving all those that remain behind to be subjected to more scrutiny. A company doesn’t even have to explicitly say that a person was being accountable for the corporate failure because they can be sure it will be implied. Scapegoating is designed to make it look like something is being done for the firm’s wrongdoings, in a very public way usually. The hope is that the attention will be directed towards the person being used as the scapegoat. It may well save the others remaining at the firm in the court of public opinion to a degree.
I find myself getting a little too political now, and it is not for me to say that scapegoating was at play here over Tucker Carlson’s reporting of voter fraud and the January 6 riots. However, scapegoating is a real thing that goes on all the time. It is a real reason behind why people get fired and so it does get a mention in my book. It would be very difficult to prevent being a scapegoat. I suppose one option would be to become a whistle blower ahead of the failure. But honestly, I think people know when someone is being scapegoated and so this is reason to think they shouldn’t have too much trouble landing a new job as a new employer would be sympathetic to their position. But also, from what I’ve witnessed, the new employer often sees it as their good fortune the employee has come onto the market.
It’s a sign that employers are often more than willing to overlook a perceived mark of failure in someone. Which is a fantastic thing really – there should be some room for failure (or in the case of scapegoating, perceived failure).
Comentários