Tucker Carlson vs. The (now ex) video store clerk…
This story came to life a few days ago, via Wonkette, but I ignored it. ICN’s policy is that it doesn’t get into the private lives/off hours activities of talent when it’s not of an official nature (as in a profile or interview), particularly when it gets into the realm of “he said/she said” or in this case “he said/he said” and you don’t know for sure where the truth lies. And this is not the first time Carlson has been the subject of a blog entry which escalated to another level. ICN was tipped almost a year ago to another incident which I chose not to blog about for the same reason.
However, because Korin Miller in The Washington Post’s Name & Faces has interviewed Carlson about the incident, the situation has changed and I will now blog about it because Carlson chose to go on the record.
Williamson said he agreed to remove the blog post and did so later that night: “All I remember thinking was I was worried about what this guy was going to do.” He consulted a lawyer friend and was told he had probably not broken any laws. “What I said was pretty juvenile, I’ll admit,” he said.
In a phone interview Thursday, Carlson acknowledged that he approached Williamson in the store and said he was “very aggressive” because he wanted the post removed: “I don’t like to call the police or call his boss. . . . I’m a libertarian. I’m not into that.”
On Monday, Williamson said, his Potomac Video manager called and fired him. Williamson said he was told the company was threatened with legal action “and the owner doesn’t like that.” He re-posted the original Carlson item later that day. Williamson said he later learned that a man who identified himself as a lawyer for Carlson had been in the store and asked Potomac Video employees questions about him.
Carlson told us that he was concerned for the safety of his family, but did not threaten legal action against the company or push to have Williamson, who still has his office-manager day job, fired.
I think both parties are in the wrong to put it short and to the point.
Comment by Chad — January 13, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
If Williamson thought he would be able to keep his job after this invasion of privacy, he was whistling past the graveyard!
Comment by cella — January 13, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
Cella: Since the advent of the Internet, issues of privacy and copyright infringement have basically been swept under the rug.
I’d love to see Tucker test the waters with a lawsuit, but it may be an uphill climb to prove damages in a court of law.
Comment by Ira — January 13, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
Maybe so, but the video store was certainly right to fire this guy, and Tucker was justifiably upset. When people give personal info. out in the course of doing business with any entity, they expect to have a certain amount of privacy respected and would not think that any of their info. would make it on to a blog. The employee was not trustworthy and casts doubt on the integrity of anyone else to whom we must provide personal information.
Comment by Missy — January 13, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
I can take or leave Tucker, but if an employee of mine blogged about customers in the same vein that this guy did, I’d fire him too. NOBODY wants to patronize an establishment where the staff makes fun of you, especially online, forgodsake.
What was this idiot thinking?
Comment by Arthur — January 13, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
FWIW, of course, I don’t think Tucker has a leg to stand on legally. The guy didn’t publish any personal info, just made clear he KNEW it, and could if he wanted to, which admittedly could be seen as an implied threat. Still, the store owner was quite right to fire him.
Comment by Arthur — January 13, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
You go to a store and the clerk gratuitously insults you to your face. He gets fired, and deserves to. So Carlson is “wrong” to complain when a the clerk in a video store insults him to the world via the web? OF COURSE the clerk got fired…his conduct was outrageous, and potentially damaging to the store. Stop talking about whether laws were broken…this is terribly unethical conduct by the clerk, and if he thinks the only way you can do bad things is by breaking the law, he’s seriously deluded.
Comment by Jack Marshall — January 14, 2007 @ 12:53 am
If he saw Tucker walking down the street then blogged about it — fine. But he was performing his duties on the job… and attained information he would not otherwise have.
Video store clerks are fairly easy to replace — so it’s a slam dunk case of “ya’ fired.”
Comment by Don — January 14, 2007 @ 2:14 am
Doesn’t Tucker have five young children? Where were they when Tucker and his “wife” were acting “juvenille” in the video store? And why did Tucker send his bodyguard/bouncer/lawyer in to harass everyone? And why did Tucker go back in and threaten the guy personally?
Doesn’t this sound a lot like Bill O’Reilly responding to everything a little loser at MSNBC says about him?… and making the loser’s anemic ratings go up, thus saving his show.
Tucker’s been a public figure long enough to know better. To think I used to stick up for him…
Comment by erljr — January 14, 2007 @ 3:08 am
I’d appreciate it if you kids could read the offending post at http://freelancegenius.blogspot.com
What you will see there is that most of your concerns about the clers behavior are unwarranted. He released no personal information whatsoever about Mr. Carlson, nor did he threaten him in any way. If you wish to raise concerns about the ethical breach of the clerk discussing a video store-client relationship, that may have some traction. However, as the clerk did not discuss the video store in question, it is hard to determine how much of a breach of privacy this would be as “renting a movie” is perhaps slightly less mundane than “buying a coffee” or “walking down the street.” Mr. Carlson is certainly lying or seriously misconstruing the content that is post for you all to see on the clerks blog. The only legal concern of this whole matter would be one of possible slander of Mr. Carlson of the clerk, where he invents specific threats of home invasion out of whole cloth. Just read the posts before you decide to take this cobag Carlson’s side. Just my two cents.
As for information he wouldn’t have obtained otherwise- this is ridiculous, as Mr. Carlson’s home was just the topic of a Washingtonian story on pricy real eastate. The neighborhood and an actual picture of the house were discussed on the internet for all to see. If someone says “I work at a video store and Tucker Carlson came into the store” the fact that the person would know Carlson’s address would be implicit in hs job description. The clerk mentioned explicitly that he would not be sharing that information, almost certainly because it would be obvious to all his readers that the information would have to be in his possession. Tucker overreacted pure and simple. The facts are relatively clear in this case.
Comment by Pinko Punko — January 14, 2007 @ 3:41 am
(Disclaimer - Chuckles’ is a blog buddy of mine).
Look Chuckles admitted that he did something juvenille but if you read his oringinal post you’d be hard pressed to read it as a threat. Tucker’s whole reaction to this situation has been completely out of proportion to what Chuckles did. Proof positive is how this went from a ‘ha ha’ post on a not-widely-read blog to the Washington Post. Good job Tucker. Great instincts buddy.
This is really a story about a b-list pundit with an out of control ego.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — January 14, 2007 @ 5:38 am
erljr, where did you get that Carlson and wife were acting ‘juvenile’? The story from the clerk is that they came in, opened an account and rented a movie. Clerk then goofed on them, including insulting the way the wife LOOKS (”ridiculously wasped-out”???), in his blog. At that point, the clerk is fired in my book.
And what’s with all this “wife” quotes? Is there any reason to think that the woman with Carlson was NOT his wife? He certainly wouldn’t be making a public thing out of this if he were out with a presumptive Other Woman.
Sure, Carlson over-reacted, but the clerk was the FIRST assh*le in this story. I’m surprised WASPs everywhere aren’t calling this guy what he is - a bigot.
In his favor, however, I see “Snow Crash” is listed as one of his favorite books… hmmmm, my sympathies may be shifting.
Comment by Arthur — January 14, 2007 @ 8:51 am
Folks, go and actually read the Washington Post article and visit Williamson’s blog. At no point did he give out any personal information about Carlson other than:
1. He saw him in a video store.
2. He saw him with a woman in a video store.
3. He saw him rent a video.
That is not just cause for firing or for Carlson threatening Williamson, which he does not deny in the Post article. Williamson gave out no personal information about Carlson and what does Carlson being away from home have to do with anything?
And by the way, you can get the price and location of the home purchased by Carlson by going on the Washington Post.com website. You can do it for any home purchased in the District and surrounding environs.
Comment by Adorable Girlfriend — January 14, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
Mr. Williamson did not give out any personal information about Mr. Carlson. If you actually read the Post’s article, where Carlson did not deny the allegations of threating Williamson and read Williamson’s blog, you’d know.
Wikipedia gives out more personal details than Williamson ever did other than saying he saw him in a video store where he rented a video with a woman beside him.
Comment by Adorable Girlfriend — January 14, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
This is one of those stories you gotta go read to understand.
I once wrote about passing Ted Kennedy in the street, and admired his expensive jacket. I didn’t get mobbed or threatened for claiming he was taking bribes.
And it really is just about that bad.
You can learn a lot about someone by how they treat the waiter.
Comment by mdhåtter — January 14, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
Arthur, stop blowing so hard and go read the entire story.
I had no idea where he worked… only Carlsons ego was threatened.
this is a scene out of ‘clerks’, and you, arthur, sound like Jay.
Comment by mdhåtter — January 14, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
No Pinko, didn’t you know it’s wrong to make fun of a well-known conservative? It’s like conservatives feel entitled to having their egos stroked 24-7 because they’re just so wonderfully conservative.
Did I mention how worthless conservatives are, BTW?
Comment by Dr. Squid — January 14, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
“1. He saw him in a video store.
2. He saw him with a woman in a video store.
3. He saw him rent a video.”
He then blogged about it, making fun of the woman Carlson was with. Sorry, but in my store, he’s fired. Bad customer service. Once again, if people know that by renting movies from a particular video store, they leave themselves open to being ridiculed on the internet, they will stop going to that store.
It is really that simple.
I’m only saying that the store owner is justified, not that Carlson’s over-reaction is.
Comment by Arthur — January 14, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
The minions are out in force. The clerk was indiscreet about a customer, then he was fired. End of story. I would not go back to a store that let their employees blog about customers, by name, in any fashion. The blogger deserved to be fired, period. The content of the blog posting is immaterial. Also, referring to Tucker, who I don’t care for, as a cobag undermines any point of the blogger or his fans.
Comment by Stormy70 — January 14, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
Everyone’s links to the original post are wrong. I will try:
http://freelancegenius.blogspot.com/2006/12/not-as-recognizable-as-you-might-think.html
We’ll see if the right thing pops up for me.
Arthur: the word ‘juvenille,’ was used by Tucker himself, according to the Post, in describing his own behavior.
Comment by erljr — January 14, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
No, erljr, the word ‘juvenile’ was used by Williamson: “Williamson said he agreed to remove the blog post and did so later that night: “All I remember thinking was I was worried about what this guy was going to do.” He consulted a lawyer friend and was told he had probably not broken any laws. “What I said was pretty juvenile, I’ll admit,” he said.”
Comment by Arthur — January 14, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Yeah, the store was absolutely within their rights to fire the blogger, no doubt. But if he were fired in response to allegations of threats- this is not appropriate, because their is no viable reading of the post as threatening.
Also, using the term WASP about the east coast upper class bowtie wearing protestant white conservative pundit who’s entire image is based on stereotypes that happen to entirely coinciding with his cultured personality, I don’t think it would be too bigoted to use. I personally would not use it as I would have found a more evocative way to say it.
Comment by Pinko Punko — January 14, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
Just one note- I am visiting AG so our comments will be coming from the same computer- second there are several issues- one of the employer/employee dynamics- here there is nothing to say- the employer could have done whatever they wanted.
What most of us are talking about are:
1) the talking point of a law being violated is incorrect.
2) there was no release of personal info.
3) there were allegations of threatening behavior that are false on all readings of the original post, save irresponsible ones.
I am just trying to correct the record. There are quibbles I would have had with the original post, but there is nothing about Tucker’s behavior that can be defended. This is not arguing two wrongs make a right, this is arguing that there is no way of knowing if the blogger would have been fired if Mr. Carlson had been either truthful to the clerk (in that he demanded the post be removed, which it was, presumably ending their interaction, ) or had been truthful in his interaction with the video store, an interaction that he denies even happening, or truthful about the content of the orginal post (i.e. that it did not, in fact, contain any threats). Tucker words are not tenable in light of actual facts. I don’t see how these arguments can be qualified as “minions.” I hope that my comments have been viewed as logical arguments and not as blather. I appreciate the forum for them.
Comment by Pinko Punko — January 14, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
Arthur - don’t know where you got your quote, but I doubt Williamson would refer to himself in the 3rd person as you quote him doing, re:
…the word ‘juvenile’ was used by Williamson: “Williamson said he agreed…
Comment by erljr — January 15, 2007 @ 2:33 am
For the person who said they wouldn’t go back to a store that “let” it’s employees blog about customers…..could you please tell me from CHUCKLES’S original post what store that would be. Oh, you can’t because he DIDN’T name it, nor did he give any personal information about Tucker.
Comment by annieangel — January 15, 2007 @ 3:08 am
erljr - I got the quote out of the linked WaPo article, just like you did. This: “…the word ‘juvenile’ was used by Williamson:” is my comment and not italicized - the quote from the article is italicized. It is unambiguously a quote from WILLIAMSON. Let me try blockquotes instead of quoted italics…
Comment by Arthur — January 15, 2007 @ 8:08 am