Channel 13 News’ May 18 announcement about an upcoming interview with discredited American media personality Tucker Carlson sparked a raucous reaction. Netizens and journalists protested the Israeli station’s decision, arguing that the move not only provided a platform for one of the loudest anti-Israel voices in the world today, but also extended legitimacy to a blatant antisemite.
Channel 13 News responded that an interview is not a reward. The network maintained that there is value in interviewing Carlson, thereby promoting Israeli public awareness of a rising trend in American public life which cannot be ignored. According to that logic, the interview presented an opportunity to challenge Carlson’s worldview and confront him with tough questions.
But viewers who expected to see interviewer Udi Segal challenge Carlson in the May 19 broadcast were surely disappointed. It’s not that Segal showed sympathy or agreement with Carlson. He did indeed try to confront Carlson’s claims and refute them, but he failed at that. Carlson was relaxed throughout the broadcast, answered every question at length, and was eager to respond to every effort to embarrass him. Udi Segal, on the other hand, frequently stammered, jumped from one topic to another, and seemed desperate to create a “gotcha” moment that never came.
Following the broadcast of the 18-minute interview on the evening news, a fuller 48-minute version appeared online. It does not dramatically change the picture. In short, it is evident from the interview that Udi Segal did not do his homework.
Segal expressed shock at Carlson’s “equation between a democratic government [Israel] acting from self-defense to the terror regime in Iran that hangs gay people from cranes,” spotlighting the Israeli journalist’s failure to adequately prepare. Influencers like Carlson build their careers on refutations of valid talking points such as Segal’s. Similarly, when Segal tried to confront Carlson with his claim that Israel is committing genocide, the latter deflected saying that the exact terminology simply does not interest him.
So, what should Channel 13 News have done to achieve an effective interview? Below are several hard-hitting questions which Tucker Carlson would have had more difficulty ducking. Had Channel 13 posed these challenging questions, the viewer experience would have been completely different:
- What would you consider a reasonable Israeli response to the atrocities of Oct. 7? Given that Hamas fights Israel without uniforms, embeds itself completely and intentionally within the Palestinian civilian population, and has placed all its military infrastructure inside and underneath civilian infrastructure with the aim of making it impossible to fight it without collateral damage – how would you fight Hamas without causing civilian casualties? Do you expect Israelis to continue living with Hamas on their border and wait for the next massacres because Hamas placed the entire population of Gaza as a human shield?
- Recently you told millions of viewers multiple tales about Israel that turned out to be complete fabrications. For instance, you apologized to President Isaac Herzog after claiming he visited Jeffrey Epstein’s island. During the war with Iran, you claimed that Mossad agents were caught in Qatar and Saudi Arabia staging “Iranian attacks” – which brought vigorous denials from both countries. You also claimed that Chabad is one of the central forces that brought about the war with Iran, with the goal of destroying the Dome of the Rock and building the third Temple. Does your willingness to believe anti-Israel and anti-Jewish lies and spread them so easily not indicate prejudice and hatred on your part?
- About a year and a half ago, you shared in an interview that you experienced a “physical” attack by an invisible entity or a demon while you were sleeping in your bed. Would you care to elaborate further on this matter?
- About six months ago, you hosted Nick Fuentes, a Holocaust denier who admires Hitler and claims that “organized Jewry” controls America. Why did you give him a platform for over two hours without confronting him about his blatantly antisemitic claims?
- You hosted podcaster Darryl Cooper and allowed him to claim that the Nazis did not intend to exterminate Jews and that Churchill is the “chief villain” of World War II. You claimed he “may be the best and most honest popular historian in the United States.” Why did you not confront these revisionist claims? Doesn’t this give legitimacy to Holocaust denial?
- You protest when interviewers speaks about the “Iranian terror regime” and divert the discussion to Israel. When the Iranian authorities massacred tens of thousands of protesters this past January, you said nothing about it, and you have said nothing about it since. Why this hypocrisy on your part?
- Critics claim that while you present yourself as an American patriot, you act as a propaganda mouthpiece for anti-American regimes. They have solid ground to stand on. In February 2024, you conducted a two-hour interview with Vladimir Putin without asking him even a single tough question about war crimes, the lack of democracy, or the murder of Navalny. You held a similar interview with the President of Iran, about which you admitted you refrained from asking him tough questions. You have also praised Nicolas Maduro’s regime in Venezuela. Why do you defend and carry the water for the most anti-American dictators?
In conclusion, Tucker Carlson is not merely a sharp critic of Israeli policy or a representative of a legitimate movement in the United States; he is a man who whitewashes Holocaust deniers, echoes false libels, and serves as a convenient mouthpiece for the greatest enemies of the free world. The questions that went unasked in this interview should have been the minimal line of defense for professional journalism.
In their absence, the public did not get to see Carlson confronted with his own contradictions, but instead received a sterile television show that left the interviewee’s image intact. Channel 13 granted him exactly what he sought: a public relations platform in the guise of poignant confrontation. The next time the Israeli media purports to unmask an international propagandist, it had better do its homework first.
For the Hebrew version of this post, see CAMERA Hebrew.