This analysis was first published in SvD Näringsliv, in Swedish, on February 9th, 2024. This piece was translated from Swedish by Claude. Some phrasing may differ from a human translation.

Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk have found each other on platform X. But what is being portrayed as free speech looks a lot more like a new type of advertising.

Tucker Carlson stares straight into the camera. A rumpled red velvet curtain hangs behind him. He was fired from Fox News when it emerged that he was not just playing an angry man with xenophobic views on TV — he had also written text messages suggesting he actually was one.

Now he has his own channel — Tucker Carlson Network — broadcasting on his own site and on Elon Musk’s social network X. He makes a big deal of going to Moscow to interview Vladimir Putin, but the pre-roll video accompanying the programme gives a broader picture of what this venture is really about. He dispenses advice to a 22-year-old losing his hair: “If you’re going to get a wig, go for one that makes you look like a 1970s pimp.”

That Tucker and Musk have found each other is no surprise.

Carlson is not the tenacious, courageous interviewer he likes to present himself as. Rather, he is an entertainer who moves between politics and social commentary — packaged in a way that sounds like he is speaking for the people and the silent majority.

Given this position, the sense of kinship with another man who likes to position himself as a voice of the people — entrepreneur and multi-billionaire Elon Musk — is easy to understand. Several major decisions on X have been put to users to vote on by Musk, often invoking the phrase “vox populi” — the voice of the people.

Musk caused enormous upheaval on the platform formerly known as Twitter by changing rules and overhauling the verified user system. Since then he has both renamed the service and tried to rebrand its associations. X is to be a bastion of free speech.

The success of this depends somewhat on who you ask. The organisation Reporters Without Borders calls X a “safe haven for disinformation.” At the same time, he has been celebrated by the American political right for reinstating previously banned users — including Donald Trump.

There is, however, something suggesting this mutual interest is not solely about amplifying temporarily silenced political voices.

In a blog post from January this year, X declared itself a “video-first platform” — a service where video takes priority. It was a surprising statement, given that X had been one of the few text-based social networks to achieve real success. A bit like Volvo Cars announcing it was going to start making bicycles. Not unthinkable, but perhaps not the most obvious strategic choice.

The sudden interest in video has a simple explanation: more expensive ads.

Earlier in January, American fund giant Fidelity wrote down the value of X by 72 percent compared to what Elon Musk paid for it — around 44 billion dollars. Fidelity is one of Musk’s financial partners. The write-down reflects many advertisers having stopped spending money on X. Rather than trying to win back those who fled — Musk even told them to “go f*** themselves” from a stage in New York — the company changed strategy. New name, new advertising strategy, and hopefully a new type of advertiser: those who buy expensive video ads.

Both want to make money — so they need each other.

X’s CEO is Linda Yaccarino, formerly chief advertising officer at broadcaster NBCUniversal. Video advertising is her home turf.

But to sell video advertising, you need people watching video. And this is where the circle closes with Tucker Carlson.

Carlson’s popular profile fits perfectly into Musk’s rebuilt X. He has the right political profile, is not available on other platforms, and is good at attracting attention. Going to Moscow to interview Putin is the perfect move to achieve exactly that — and that attention spills over onto Musk and X.

Carlson himself says the purpose of the Putin interview is to “inform people.” He believes the American public is paying too much for the war between Ukraine and Russia without understanding what is happening in the region. Given the American debate currently unfolding about precisely this — in the middle of an election year — it is hard not to see the cynicism in the timing.

Here too, Carlson and Musk have something in common. One wants to find his way back to his audience and become an important political commentator again. The other wants to be the platform for free speech. But both want to make money and rebuild the revenues they have lost. For that, they need each other.