Did the New York Times Publish Tucker Carlson’s Address?

No.

By
22

A viral post on Facebook claimed that a New York Times reporter “has published Tucker Carlson’s home address & location.” The post is referring to allegations that Carlson made on his Fox News show Monday night. Carlson claimed that the Times is “doing a story on the location of my family’s house.” The New York Times was quick to deny the charge on Twitter:

Regardless of whose version of events is correct, one thing is sure: The New York Times has not published Carlson’s address and Antifa has not ‘“shown up threatening his wife & kids.” Even Carlson did not go so far on his show, instead claiming that while such a story existed it had not yet been published and was “slated to run in the paper this week.” Carlson had his home address revealed in 2018, leading to protesters showing up outside his home and harassing his family. Carlson mentioned on his show Monday that his family had to move as a result, and currently his new address is not publicly known.

The viral post seems to have mixed elements from Carlson’s past experience with doxxing with his current claim of the New York Times’ threat to do so. However, the Times has not published an article revealing Carlson’s address and continues to deny that the paper ever planned to do so. 

Photograph of Tucker Carlson by Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons.

22
By
Comments (22)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Angie

    I trust you Alec, surprised so many in the comments do not, or are sure this is some conspiracy or the NYT's backed off because he said something...

    Collapse
    1. John M

      I pretty much assumed it was blown out of proportion since it's Tucker Carlson, but it's not like the NYT is above doing it. Maybe they prefer easier targets.

      It's a shame, because https://slatestarcodex.com had some really thoughtful content. Click through and read his story. David French has linked his stuff in the past, which is how I originally found the blog. I actually saved one of his posts as text a month ago thinking it might not last and the next morning he had taken his blog down. It was surreal.

      Collapse
  2. Deleted Comment

    This comment has been deleted

  3. Trichwages

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/21/tucker-carlson-new-york-times/

    Collapse
    1. Trichwages

      No mention of the doxing of the reporter as a result. Why is that?

      Collapse
  4. deathtomcmansions

    I saw that some Carlson fans had actually doxxed some of the NYT reporting staff (camera operator for one.) So there's that, if true.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Aylene Wright

    I understand why the Fact Check was done but unfortunately this is one of those issues that a Fact Check is not enough to counter. Easy to prove that the NYT didn't publish Carlson's address. Much harder to prove that they were not GOING to until he called it out and basically threatened to return the favor.

    Unless TD has some deep (throat) source within the NYT, the only evidence we have either way is the say so of NYT vs. Carlson. In this scenario, most people are just going to go tribal and believe who they already trust more, and for most on the RW media, it's Tucker.

    I also wish you'd mentioned the group that doxxed Tucker before had nothing to do with the NYT or any legit news outlet. I have seen many Tucker fans say "They did it before, why wouldn't they do it again" as they see all "MSM" as a big cabal that is engaged in the Resistance.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      KAM

      Third possibility:

      NYT doesn't publish the specific street address, but gives enough info to make locating Tucker easy: the name, for example, of the (reportedly small) town where he moved.

      Publicly available real estate sales info, in a given time frame....

      Collapse
    2. David D

      Very true being hard to disprove, however I think Andrew Egger had a great point on twitter:
      "The argument seems to be that the most prominent newspaper in the world planned to dox the most prominent pundit in America and that the only way to prevent that happening was to... let people know they were going to do it?"
      https://twitter.com/EggerDC/status/1285624437442842629

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Aylene Wright

        I think the point Andrew may have missed is that Tucker, albeit somewhat subtly for him, threatened to repay the NYT in kind by encouraging his fans to doxx the alleged doxxers themselves. And that it was this threat that got them to reconsider.

        I don't believe this actually is what happened, and Tucker himself didn't accuse NYT of actually planning to publish his address, the charge was that they were writing an article on where he lived, that would make it easy for people to find him based on the information.

        I am also aware that TD resident redhead, has also stated on Twitter that the allegation is "ludicrous" & "outrageous" and against NYT editorial policy. I am sure they don't teach that in journalism school, that doxxing is okay.

        But here is where what the NYT has recently done re the Cotton editorial, the ouster of James Bennett, the allegations by Bari Weiss of workplace bullying, the allegations by slatestarcodex of planned doxxing, etc. Have affected the NYT credibility, and given Tucker an opening to attack them.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Aylene Wright

          PS: to clarify, I do not personally believe there ever was a plan to doxx Tucker in the first place. I am just saying "they would have done this if Tucker didn't expose them and threaten revenge doxxing" makes sense in a way that "they would have done this if Tucker didn't expose them" does not. The latter makes little sense because obviously, if they had actually done it, they would have been exposed anyway by their own actions, regardless of what Tucker did.

          But for Tucker supporters committed to a culture war, us vs them, "the media are the enemy of the people" outlook, this Fact Check is as relevant as a hypothetical one where someone Fact Checks an allegation against the CCP by citing a Tweet from the Chinese ambassador denying the allegation.

          Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Nick H

    The NYT has said that they don't plan to publish his address. That's not the same as saying they WON'T publish it, or that they won't publish enough information that someone could figure out his address from what's provided (or close enough to threaten/harass his family and neighbors).

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    Not sure why anyone would say his address was published. Tucker was heading off (if it’s true what he said) the story at the pass. The NYT’s was forced to deny they were running a piece. Honestly, with the way the NYT’s kick out Weiss and it being a utter failures the past few years, wouldn’t be surprised if they were doing some shady stuff. Also, for the record, I am not a fan of Tucker Carlson.

    Collapse
  8. Rev. Daniel Bellavia

    How about fact checking something that takes more than high school education and five minutes on Google. For instance what was the threat posed against Carlson? Was it real? Does doxxing qualify as a threat against person or property? The fact that Carlson already had this happen certainly would make him sensitive to the threat and perhaps less than trusting of the denials at the NYT. Yet you blithely accept the denial (instead of fact checking whether NYT has ever threatened doxxing before). Ps. I googled it and they threatened Slate Star Codex in June according to Reuters.

    How about a discussion about the constitutional right to assembly? Yes it must be peaceable but what other limits are there. Does one have to respect private property? Public property? Can a group enter a private street or step up to your door to protest? I know that one has to stay on the side walk in order to pass out tracks to the High School or abortion clinic without approval. Perhaps a primer on what a crowd can and cannot do would be appropriate? I am getting tired of the assumptions that (unlike other constitutional rights) the right to assembly has no limits.

    I paid before the pay wall went up because I expect more from you guys.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Victor Clairmont

      Whoa there. It was a viral Facebook post and The Dispatch is actually recognized as an official fact checking source for Facebook. Even if it seems silly, Alec was just doing his job because if something goes viral on Facebook he is probably going to get tapped to cover it, and so he also just uploaded the extra check to The Dispatch (not that he needs me to defend him).

      Collapse
      1. Rev. Daniel Bellavia

        Thanks for the clarification. I was not aware of the other duties. If that is so, then I stand down. I do however think that there are much more salient aspects of this story to be discovered and discussed.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Steve Hayes

          Victor is right here. Our fact-checking effort includes broad fact-checks and fact-checks designed to scrutinize content going viral on social media, including Facebook. This fell into the latter category.

          I do think those fact-checks are important. Some of them are long and involved and take lots of additional time to report and research. Others are pretty straightforward, like this one. But Alec's focus is narrow and wouldn't allow him to get into many of the (legitimate) story ideas you floated. We count on him to help us (and you) determine what's true and what's false, what's real and what's fake, what you can believe and what you should dismiss. And while I know I'm not objective about it, he's one of the best in the business.

          Collapse
  9. Peter Sperry

    Would the NYT have published his home’s location if he had not taken preemptive action? They will deny it but he probably made a wise move.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Mick.Staton

      Or... Carlson was trying to get out from under some bad news with his top writer let go for anonymous racism, plus a brand new sexual harassment suit filed at FOX News that may or may not include him, so he decides to change the story and go on the attack with a claim that all of his supporters will leap onto and instantly believe and the Times is unable to disprove, because even if such a story never is published, people will say it is because he took preemptive action.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Victor Clairmont

        I read the alleged sexual harassment. The allegation against Tucker and Hannity is so stupid, it’s not even sexual harassment. There are some other claims against a few others that may have merit, but it’s like the lawyers or people that put this thing together decided at the last minute, “Oh right, let’s put Sean and Tucker in this too.” (-__-)

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Aylene Wright

          It actually makes sense as a strategy if the point is to make a hostile workplace environment sexual harassment claim. The allegations of Hannity's actions of jokingly offering people money to date the woman making the complaint, even if true, if evaluated in isolation, just seem to be a crass joke. But not in the context of an overall pattern of behavior by others at the network. Same with the Tucker allegation, it is not just that he personally propositioned her, but that his staff kept her on the studio after her on air segment to facilitate that. I have no idea if any of the allegations are true. Reserving judgement.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Victor Clairmont

            Always a good move to reserve judgement. Especially these days.

            Collapse