Table of Contents
Tucker Carlson interviews Clayton Morris about corporate media's financial incentives for promoting foreign wars and the coordinated propaganda campaigns driving public support for military interventions.
Key Takeaways
- Cable news networks use identical propaganda playbooks from 2003 Iraq War, with 67% of guests supporting military intervention across all major networks
- Fox News revenue increased 150% during Iraq War's first quarter, demonstrating how profitable war coverage becomes for struggling cable news industry
- Major networks implemented explicit pro-war booking policies, with MSNBC requiring two pro-war guests for every anti-war voice during Iraq War buildup
- Current Iran coverage mirrors 2003 tactics: fear-mongering about intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear threats that don't actually exist
- Trump administration figures calling for Iranian regime change are largely Never Trump Republicans who previously opposed his candidacy
- Cable news audience consists primarily of elderly viewers susceptible to war propaganda, while younger demographics avoid traditional television entirely
- Networks profit from perpetual conflict coverage while suppressing dissenting voices that question military interventions or foreign policy orthodoxy
- Murdoch family personally asked Tucker Carlson to run for president against Trump in 2023, revealing Fox ownership's anti-Trump sentiment despite public support
- Jennifer Griffin and Pentagon-embedded reporters function as intelligence community mouthpieces rather than independent journalists questioning military claims
The Iraq War Playbook: From 2003 to Iran 2025
The systematic propaganda campaign promoting Iranian military intervention directly mirrors the techniques used to manufacture consent for the 2003 Iraq invasion. Clayton Morris describes watching networks "grab their book, their manual" and dust off proven strategies for pushing American audiences toward war enthusiasm.
Television coverage follows predetermined scripts emphasizing existential threats to American cities, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons programs requiring immediate military response. Networks coordinate messaging across shows, ensuring consistent fear-based narratives that present military action as inevitable rather than optional policy choice.
The rhetorical framework remains unchanged from 2003: foreign leaders pose imminent threats to American families, diplomatic solutions are impossible, and critics of military intervention are unpatriotic or foreign agents. This messaging saturation creates artificial urgency that bypasses rational policy debate in favor of emotional manipulation.
Morris notes the theatrical elements accompanying war promotion, including television maps showing potential attack routes, military analysts using pointers to indicate strategic targets, and breathless coverage treating speculative military scenarios as breaking news developments requiring immediate viewer attention.
The consistency of these approaches across different networks and time periods suggests coordinated institutional commitment to promoting military interventions rather than genuine journalistic inquiry into foreign policy alternatives or consequences of proposed military actions.
Financial Incentives: How War Boosts Cable News Profits
The cable news industry's enthusiasm for military conflicts stems directly from demonstrable financial benefits generated by war coverage. Fox News revenue increased 150% during the Iraq War's opening quarter, establishing a clear profit motive for promoting military interventions over diplomatic alternatives.
War coverage drives viewership spikes as audiences seek constant updates on developing military situations, creating sustained advertising revenue increases during conflicts. Networks brand their programming around specific wars, with shows like "Countdown Iraq" and "Showdown with Saddam" replacing regular programming to capitalize on public attention.
The financial incentives extend beyond advertising revenue to long-term audience cultivation. Military conflicts create emotional investment in outcomes that keeps viewers returning for updates, establishing viewing habits that persist beyond immediate war coverage periods.
Morris emphasizes that networks understand war's profitability during an era of declining cable subscriptions and aging audiences. Young demographics abandon traditional television for digital platforms, making elderly viewers increasingly valuable for advertisers willing to pay premium rates for engaged audiences.
The business model requires perpetual conflict to maintain revenue streams, creating institutional pressure for networks to promote military interventions regardless of their strategic merit or potential consequences for American interests or international stability.
Systematic Suppression of Anti-War Voices
Cable news networks implement explicit policies limiting anti-war perspectives during military buildup periods. MSNBC's documented "two-for-one" booking policy required two pro-war guests for every anti-war voice, while other networks effectively banned dissenting voices entirely during critical decision-making periods.
The suppression extends beyond guest selection to punitive measures against on-air personalities who question military interventions. MSNBC canceled Phil Donahue's show specifically because of his anti-war positions, replacing it with "Countdown Iraq" to promote military action rather than examine alternative policies.
Fox News removed Judge Andrew Napolitano's show after he questioned foreign military commitments, demonstrating that even libertarian constitutional arguments against interventions violate network red lines on foreign policy discussions.
Tucker Carlson describes being scolded by Fox executives for reading Osama bin Laden's manifesto on CNN to explain terrorist motivations, illustrating how networks prohibit factual information that might complicate simple good-versus-evil narratives supporting military action.
The pattern reveals institutional commitment to war promotion that transcends partisan divisions, with both liberal and conservative networks suppressing voices that question military interventions or examine root causes of international conflicts.
Trump Administration Manipulation and Never Trump Influence
The current Iranian intervention campaign features prominent Never Trump Republicans who previously opposed Trump's candidacy but now claim to support his agenda while pushing policies he campaigned against. Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, and other figures promoting regime change in Iran actively worked to prevent Trump's nomination and presidency.
Tucker Carlson reveals that the Murdoch family, owners of Fox News, personally asked him to run for president against Trump in 2023, offering full media support to prevent Trump's return to office. This opposition occurs simultaneously with Fox's public support for Trump's policies and on-air promotion of his decisions.
The contradiction exposes how foreign policy establishment figures infiltrate Trump's coalition to promote interventionist policies that contradict his America First campaign promises. These figures exploit Trump's desire for positive media coverage to encourage military actions that serve their preferred policies rather than his stated agenda.
Morris notes the sycophantic on-air praise for Trump's Iranian strikes, suggesting that networks deliberately flatter the president to encourage further military interventions. This creates a feedback loop where media praise reinforces policy decisions that benefit network ratings and establishment foreign policy goals.
The manipulation technique exploits Trump's media consumption habits and desire for positive coverage, allowing interventionist voices to shape policy through sustained flattery rather than substantive policy arguments about American interests.
Pentagon-Embedded Journalism and Intelligence Community Control
Major news networks maintain offices inside Pentagon facilities, with reporters like Jennifer Griffin functioning as intelligence community spokespersons rather than independent journalists questioning military claims. These arrangements compromise journalistic independence by making reporters dependent on official sources for access and information.
The embedded system prevents critical examination of military operations by ensuring reporters receive filtered information supporting official narratives. Networks cannot challenge military claims without losing access to sources and exclusive information that drives ratings and competitive advantage.
Griffin's coverage of Iranian strikes exemplifies this dynamic, with breathless praise for "spectacular" military operations and emphasis on diversity among bomber pilots rather than strategic assessment of intervention consequences or effectiveness claims verification.
The intelligence community uses media relationships to plant stories and shape public opinion through coordinated information campaigns. Clayton Morris describes FBI agents explaining how agencies feed information to major newspapers and television networks to advance policy objectives.
This system transforms supposedly independent news organizations into propaganda outlets advancing government and military establishment interests rather than serving public understanding of complex international situations requiring democratic deliberation.
Demographic Manipulation: Targeting Elderly Cable News Audiences
Cable news networks specifically target elderly viewers who leave televisions running continuously, creating captive audiences for sustained propaganda exposure. This demographic proves most susceptible to fear-based messaging about foreign threats and military solutions to international problems.
The viewing patterns create information bubbles where elderly Americans receive constant reinforcement of interventionist messaging without exposure to alternative perspectives or critical analysis of proposed military actions. Networks understand and exploit these consumption habits to shape political opinions.
Morris describes meeting elderly viewers completely unaware of basic facts about Middle Eastern conflicts, including Israel's nuclear weapons program, because their information diet consists entirely of filtered cable news coverage promoting specific narratives while suppressing contradictory information.
The generational divide in media consumption means younger Americans access diverse information sources through digital platforms, while older Americans remain isolated within cable news echo chambers promoting military interventionism and foreign policy orthodoxy.
Networks recognize their aging audience demographics through advertising focused on hip replacements and elderly safety products, acknowledging that their viewership will naturally decline as current audiences pass away without replacement from younger demographics.
Historical Precedents: Manufacturing Consent for Military Interventions
The current Iranian propaganda campaign follows established patterns dating to the 1898 Spanish-American War, when William Randolph Hearst's newspapers manufactured public support for military intervention through sensationalized coverage and false claims about the USS Maine explosion.
The 2003 Iraq War provides the most relevant template, with networks coordinating messaging around Colin Powell's fabricated anthrax presentations and mobile weapons lab claims. These lies originated from "Curveball," an Iraqi defector known to be unreliable by intelligence agencies who deliberately withheld contradictory information from policymakers.
Media analysis from the Iraq buildup period revealed systematic bias toward military intervention, with major networks featuring overwhelmingly pro-war guests while margininalizing or excluding anti-war perspectives entirely. This pattern contradicted public opinion, with 61% of Americans supporting weapons inspection delays rather than immediate military action.
The propaganda techniques remain consistent across different conflicts: emphasizing imminent threats to American cities, claiming diplomatic alternatives have been exhausted, and portraying military action as defensive rather than aggressive intervention in foreign conflicts.
Networks profit from each repetition of this cycle, creating institutional incentives to promote military conflicts regardless of their strategic merit or consequences for American interests and international stability.
Economic Consequences: Oil Prices and Domestic Vulnerabilities
Iranian retaliation for military strikes could include closing the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of global petroleum flows, potentially driving American gasoline prices to $7-10 per gallon. This economic warfare would devastate American consumers more effectively than any military response.
The 2022 precedent shows how $5 gasoline prices created panic buying and forced President Biden to empty strategic oil reserves while inflation exceeded 9%. Iranian petroleum disruption could produce far more severe economic consequences than any nuclear weapons program.
Networks promoting Iranian intervention ignore these economic vulnerabilities while emphasizing speculative military threats. The focus on intercontinental ballistic missiles that don't exist distracts from real economic weapons that Iran possesses and could deploy immediately.
China's relationships with Iran and Russia through BRICS nations provide alternative petroleum sources that could mitigate Iranian disruption for America's primary economic competitor while leaving the United States vulnerable to energy price manipulation.
The economic analysis reveals how military interventions often create greater threats to American prosperity and security than the problems they purport to solve, yet networks systematically ignore these trade-offs in favor of dramatic military scenarios.
The Future of Cable News and War Propaganda
Cable news faces existential decline as younger demographics abandon traditional television for digital platforms, making current propaganda models unsustainable. Young Americans don't purchase cable subscriptions, viewing Fox News and CNN as obsolete technologies like phonographs.
The aging audience demographics mean war propaganda primarily influences elderly viewers who won't participate in long-term political processes, while younger Americans forming future policy receive information from diverse digital sources less susceptible to coordinated messaging campaigns.
Revenue pressures from declining subscriptions may intensify networks' reliance on war coverage to generate short-term viewership spikes, creating desperate attempts to maintain relevance through increasingly extreme interventionist messaging targeting remaining elderly audiences.
The technological transition suggests that current propaganda techniques will lose effectiveness as target demographics age out of relevance and influence. Future information warfare will require different strategies adapted to digital platforms and younger audience consumption patterns.
However, the institutional infrastructure supporting war propaganda extends beyond cable news to include newspapers, radio, and digital platforms controlled by the same corporate interests, suggesting that propaganda techniques will evolve rather than disappear entirely.
Common Questions
Q: How much did Fox News revenue increase during the Iraq War?
A: Fox News revenue increased 150% during the Iraq War's opening quarter, demonstrating the massive financial incentives networks have for promoting military conflicts.
Q: What was MSNBC's booking policy during Iraq War buildup?
A: MSNBC implemented a "two-for-one" policy requiring two pro-war guests for every anti-war voice, while most networks excluded anti-war perspectives entirely.
Q: Do Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles threaten America?
A: Iran does not possess intercontinental ballistic missiles or nuclear warheads capable of reaching American cities, despite cable news claims about imminent threats.
Q: Who asked Tucker Carlson to run against Trump?
A: Lachlan Murdoch personally asked Carlson to run for president against Trump in 2023, offering full Fox News and Wall Street Journal support for the campaign.
Q: What percentage of Iraq War coverage featured anti-war voices?
A: Analysis of 393 network guests found only 3 moderately anti-war voices, representing less than 1% of coverage during the critical decision-making period.
Q: How do networks profit from war coverage?
A: War coverage drives sustained viewership increases, higher advertising rates, and audience loyalty during conflicts, generating massive revenue spikes for struggling cable news industry.
Q: What economic threats does Iran actually possess?
A: Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz, potentially driving American gasoline prices to $7-10 per gallon and creating economic devastation exceeding any military threats.
Carlson and Morris expose how corporate media systematically manufactures consent for military interventions through coordinated propaganda campaigns designed to generate profits rather than inform democratic deliberation about foreign policy choices.
Their analysis reveals the institutional mechanisms that transform news organizations into war promotion outlets, prioritizing financial incentives and establishment foreign policy goals over journalism's democratic functions.
