Fox News

mickeyrat

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

DewieCox said:

I’m loving the Fauxsnooze meltdown but it’s only going to make things worse. Their viewers aren’t going to jump to some reasonable source for their news. 

True,  This had nothing to do with lies and costing the company 3/4 bn dollars.  It was the deep state getting rid of critical truth telling media just like the fascist dictatorships that the radical left want the US to become.  

Bill O'Reilly had more viewers than Tucker when he was canned.  No one is untouchable.  I also read that many companies refused to advertise with him. Viewers mean nothing if they don't drive up advertising dollars, so presumably the value of the viewers wasn't 'optimized'.  

1.3 billion in total carriage fees. they dont need one goddamn cent from advertising to be profitable.

word is since they are due for renegotiation in 23 and 24 they want that increased to 1.8.......

static111

Merkin Baller said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

DewieCox said:

I’m loving the Fauxsnooze meltdown but it’s only going to make things worse. Their viewers aren’t going to jump to some reasonable source for their news. 

True,  This had nothing to do with lies and costing the company 3/4 bn dollars.  It was the deep state getting rid of critical truth telling media just like the fascist dictatorships that the radical left want the US to become.  

Bill O'Reilly had more viewers than Tucker when he was canned.  No one is untouchable.  I also read that many companies refused to advertise with him. Viewers mean nothing if they don't drive up advertising dollars, so presumably the value of the viewers wasn't 'optimized'.  

I fail to see what this comment has to do with the deep state victimization of Tucker "America's hero" Carlson?  Are you saying the deep state will see to it that no woke advertising dollars come his way ensuring a much lower viewership wherever he lands next?  If so that makes perfect sense.

Haha, no.  I was talking about your first sentence, the 750mm settlement.  No one is untouchable when you cost your company that much money.  And while he was a ratings juggernaut in cable, I'm not sure that translated to advertising dollars that matched that viewership.  If Little House on the Prairie pulled in 2.5MM viewers every single night, the ad dollars would be enormous.  From what I read, too many companies are hands off on his show.  

Because they have been directed by the deep state to spend their dollars elsewhere!

Undoubtedly.  

Some on the right say that Tucker will just be stronger somewhere else.  I call total bullshit on that.  Where's Bill?  Still doing low rent talks? What about Megyn Kelly?  The reality is that Tucker might make more money somewhere else, but his reach is diminished.  Nothing is easier for the right wing than turning on the tv at 8PM.  No podcast or any other modern tool will connect him with his audience like 8PM on Fox. 

mrussel1 said:

And yesterday was a great day for America. 

Correct, no matter how much some want to spin it otherwise, what happened yesterday was good for our country. 

Sure if you think silencing one of the only critical truth telling voices of all time is good for democracy...

mrussel1

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

DewieCox said:

I’m loving the Fauxsnooze meltdown but it’s only going to make things worse. Their viewers aren’t going to jump to some reasonable source for their news. 

True,  This had nothing to do with lies and costing the company 3/4 bn dollars.  It was the deep state getting rid of critical truth telling media just like the fascist dictatorships that the radical left want the US to become.  

Bill O'Reilly had more viewers than Tucker when he was canned.  No one is untouchable.  I also read that many companies refused to advertise with him. Viewers mean nothing if they don't drive up advertising dollars, so presumably the value of the viewers wasn't 'optimized'.  

1.3 billion in total carriage fees. they dont need one goddamn cent from advertising to be profitable.

word is since they are due for renegotiation in 23 and 24 they want that increased to 1.8.......

Carriage fees from who?  Is that AT&T, cable, or the total of all them?

Also, that's a big number, but what's their expense line?  They have an EPS of $2.80 which is fine, but not out of this world.  Neflix is almost $10, Chase is $13.  So advertising dollars are important.  

mrussel1

static111 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

DewieCox said:

I’m loving the Fauxsnooze meltdown but it’s only going to make things worse. Their viewers aren’t going to jump to some reasonable source for their news. 

True,  This had nothing to do with lies and costing the company 3/4 bn dollars.  It was the deep state getting rid of critical truth telling media just like the fascist dictatorships that the radical left want the US to become.  

Bill O'Reilly had more viewers than Tucker when he was canned.  No one is untouchable.  I also read that many companies refused to advertise with him. Viewers mean nothing if they don't drive up advertising dollars, so presumably the value of the viewers wasn't 'optimized'.  

I fail to see what this comment has to do with the deep state victimization of Tucker "America's hero" Carlson?  Are you saying the deep state will see to it that no woke advertising dollars come his way ensuring a much lower viewership wherever he lands next?  If so that makes perfect sense.

Haha, no.  I was talking about your first sentence, the 750mm settlement.  No one is untouchable when you cost your company that much money.  And while he was a ratings juggernaut in cable, I'm not sure that translated to advertising dollars that matched that viewership.  If Little House on the Prairie pulled in 2.5MM viewers every single night, the ad dollars would be enormous.  From what I read, too many companies are hands off on his show.  

Because they have been directed by the deep state to spend their dollars elsewhere!

Undoubtedly.  

Some on the right say that Tucker will just be stronger somewhere else.  I call total bullshit on that.  Where's Bill?  Still doing low rent talks? What about Megyn Kelly?  The reality is that Tucker might make more money somewhere else, but his reach is diminished.  Nothing is easier for the right wing than turning on the tv at 8PM.  No podcast or any other modern tool will connect him with his audience like 8PM on Fox. 

mrussel1 said:

And yesterday was a great day for America. 

Correct, no matter how much some want to spin it otherwise, what happened yesterday was good for our country. 

Sure if you think silencing one of the only critical truth telling voices of all time is good for democracy...

You've really got your old school Stephen Colbert fake conservative thing going today.  

static111

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

DewieCox said:

I’m loving the Fauxsnooze meltdown but it’s only going to make things worse. Their viewers aren’t going to jump to some reasonable source for their news. 

True,  This had nothing to do with lies and costing the company 3/4 bn dollars.  It was the deep state getting rid of critical truth telling media just like the fascist dictatorships that the radical left want the US to become.  

Bill O'Reilly had more viewers than Tucker when he was canned.  No one is untouchable.  I also read that many companies refused to advertise with him. Viewers mean nothing if they don't drive up advertising dollars, so presumably the value of the viewers wasn't 'optimized'.  

I fail to see what this comment has to do with the deep state victimization of Tucker "America's hero" Carlson?  Are you saying the deep state will see to it that no woke advertising dollars come his way ensuring a much lower viewership wherever he lands next?  If so that makes perfect sense.

Haha, no.  I was talking about your first sentence, the 750mm settlement.  No one is untouchable when you cost your company that much money.  And while he was a ratings juggernaut in cable, I'm not sure that translated to advertising dollars that matched that viewership.  If Little House on the Prairie pulled in 2.5MM viewers every single night, the ad dollars would be enormous.  From what I read, too many companies are hands off on his show.  

Because they have been directed by the deep state to spend their dollars elsewhere!

Undoubtedly.  

Some on the right say that Tucker will just be stronger somewhere else.  I call total bullshit on that.  Where's Bill?  Still doing low rent talks? What about Megyn Kelly?  The reality is that Tucker might make more money somewhere else, but his reach is diminished.  Nothing is easier for the right wing than turning on the tv at 8PM.  No podcast or any other modern tool will connect him with his audience like 8PM on Fox. 

mrussel1 said:

And yesterday was a great day for America. 

Correct, no matter how much some want to spin it otherwise, what happened yesterday was good for our country. 

Sure if you think silencing one of the only critical truth telling voices of all time is good for democracy...

You've really got your old school Stephen Colbert fake conservative thing going today.  

I'm rewriting my company safety manual to cover situations and practices that we will never be affected by, in order to do business with one of our larger corporate clients that require a one size fits all all industry safety program.  Lost in the halls of a bureaucratic nightmare.  I am losing sanity to all of the hollow verbiage that will not actually make anyone safer, but could save our customer in the event that something happens to one of us.  Basically I am in the thralls of the deep state and trying to cast off my shackles.

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

DewieCox said:

I’m loving the Fauxsnooze meltdown but it’s only going to make things worse. Their viewers aren’t going to jump to some reasonable source for their news. 

this is great point. this will likely have them burrow further down the hole. 

Without a doubt. He will probably start a crazy-ass podcast that they'll all flock to or something, and it will go the way of Alex Jones.

mrussel1

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

DewieCox said:

I’m loving the Fauxsnooze meltdown but it’s only going to make things worse. Their viewers aren’t going to jump to some reasonable source for their news. 

True,  This had nothing to do with lies and costing the company 3/4 bn dollars.  It was the deep state getting rid of critical truth telling media just like the fascist dictatorships that the radical left want the US to become.  

Bill O'Reilly had more viewers than Tucker when he was canned.  No one is untouchable.  I also read that many companies refused to advertise with him. Viewers mean nothing if they don't drive up advertising dollars, so presumably the value of the viewers wasn't 'optimized'.  

I fail to see what this comment has to do with the deep state victimization of Tucker "America's hero" Carlson?  Are you saying the deep state will see to it that no woke advertising dollars come his way ensuring a much lower viewership wherever he lands next?  If so that makes perfect sense.

Haha, no.  I was talking about your first sentence, the 750mm settlement.  No one is untouchable when you cost your company that much money.  And while he was a ratings juggernaut in cable, I'm not sure that translated to advertising dollars that matched that viewership.  If Little House on the Prairie pulled in 2.5MM viewers every single night, the ad dollars would be enormous.  From what I read, too many companies are hands off on his show.  

Because they have been directed by the deep state to spend their dollars elsewhere!

Undoubtedly.  

Some on the right say that Tucker will just be stronger somewhere else.  I call total bullshit on that.  Where's Bill?  Still doing low rent talks? What about Megyn Kelly?  The reality is that Tucker might make more money somewhere else, but his reach is diminished.  Nothing is easier for the right wing than turning on the tv at 8PM.  No podcast or any other modern tool will connect him with his audience like 8PM on Fox. 

mrussel1 said:

And yesterday was a great day for America. 

Correct, no matter how much some want to spin it otherwise, what happened yesterday was good for our country. 

Sure if you think silencing one of the only critical truth telling voices of all time is good for democracy...

You've really got your old school Stephen Colbert fake conservative thing going today.  

I'm rewriting my company safety manual to cover situations and practices that we will never be affected by, in order to do business with one of our larger corporate clients that require a one size fits all all industry safety program.  Lost in the halls of a bureaucratic nightmare.  I am losing sanity to all of the hollow verbiage that will not actually make anyone safer, but could save our customer in the event that something happens to one of us.  Basically I am in the thralls of the deep state and trying to cast off my shackles.

So similar story.. and maybe a word of caution.  About a decade ago we won a deal with a major corporation.  We already had plenty of deals with bigger ones, but these guys had the strangest requirement.  They required a BCP in the event of a Pandemic.  We were so annoyed that we had to put this together for something so stupid as a global pandemic...   We didn't know shit. 

static111

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

DewieCox said:

I’m loving the Fauxsnooze meltdown but it’s only going to make things worse. Their viewers aren’t going to jump to some reasonable source for their news. 

True,  This had nothing to do with lies and costing the company 3/4 bn dollars.  It was the deep state getting rid of critical truth telling media just like the fascist dictatorships that the radical left want the US to become.  

Bill O'Reilly had more viewers than Tucker when he was canned.  No one is untouchable.  I also read that many companies refused to advertise with him. Viewers mean nothing if they don't drive up advertising dollars, so presumably the value of the viewers wasn't 'optimized'.  

I fail to see what this comment has to do with the deep state victimization of Tucker "America's hero" Carlson?  Are you saying the deep state will see to it that no woke advertising dollars come his way ensuring a much lower viewership wherever he lands next?  If so that makes perfect sense.

Haha, no.  I was talking about your first sentence, the 750mm settlement.  No one is untouchable when you cost your company that much money.  And while he was a ratings juggernaut in cable, I'm not sure that translated to advertising dollars that matched that viewership.  If Little House on the Prairie pulled in 2.5MM viewers every single night, the ad dollars would be enormous.  From what I read, too many companies are hands off on his show.  

Because they have been directed by the deep state to spend their dollars elsewhere!

Undoubtedly.  

Some on the right say that Tucker will just be stronger somewhere else.  I call total bullshit on that.  Where's Bill?  Still doing low rent talks? What about Megyn Kelly?  The reality is that Tucker might make more money somewhere else, but his reach is diminished.  Nothing is easier for the right wing than turning on the tv at 8PM.  No podcast or any other modern tool will connect him with his audience like 8PM on Fox. 

mrussel1 said:

And yesterday was a great day for America. 

Correct, no matter how much some want to spin it otherwise, what happened yesterday was good for our country. 

Sure if you think silencing one of the only critical truth telling voices of all time is good for democracy...

You've really got your old school Stephen Colbert fake conservative thing going today.  

I'm rewriting my company safety manual to cover situations and practices that we will never be affected by, in order to do business with one of our larger corporate clients that require a one size fits all all industry safety program.  Lost in the halls of a bureaucratic nightmare.  I am losing sanity to all of the hollow verbiage that will not actually make anyone safer, but could save our customer in the event that something happens to one of us.  Basically I am in the thralls of the deep state and trying to cast off my shackles.

So similar story.. and maybe a word of caution.  About a decade ago we won a deal with a major corporation.  We already had plenty of deals with bigger ones, but these guys had the strangest requirement.  They required a BCP in the event of a Pandemic.  We were so annoyed that we had to put this together for something so stupid as a global pandemic...   We didn't know shit. 

Yes there is a requirement for a global pandemic preparedness involved in this, because even though the governments of the world couldn't get it right our small (under 50 employees) company needs to be ready for anything..It seems the biggest concern though is that we have a plan in place to provide full service and all staffing of their needs should a pandemic wipeout our entire workforce.  Basically a way around force majeure clauses

mickeyrat

following the 10c model.....

https://apnews.com/article/carlson-fox-fired-hannity-ingraham-a86f831174be8478d01f162649a95830

 

Television Tucker Carlson Florida

Tucker who? Fox News hosts avoid Carlson's name after ouster

By DAVID BAUDER

Today

NEW YORK (AP) — The day he was fired, Tucker Carlson was nearly invisible on the Fox News prime-time lineup that he used to dominate.

“We're not talking about him,” former colleague Sean Hannity said in one of the two very brief mentions of Carlson's name on Fox News on Monday night. In contrast, his ouster was the lead story on ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts.

Carlson was abruptly bounced from his popular prime-time show earlier in the day without any explanation from Fox. It was less than one week after Fox had agreed to pay $787 million to settle a lawsuit with Dominion Voting Systems over the network's dissemination of bogus election conspiracy theories, and it came as more legal threats loom.

MORE COVERAGE

• Defamation suit produced trove of Tucker Carlson messages
• Fox News ousts Tucker Carlson, its most popular host

Brian Kilmeade took over Carlson's hour, telling viewers that Carlson and Fox had agreed to part ways, “as you may have heard.” He swiftly moved on to other stories.

Hannity led his hour-long broadcast with a story on Hunter Biden, the president's son, and interviewed Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin.

Carlson's name came up when Hannity did a segment on the other big media story of the day, CNN's firing of anchor Don Lemon. He brought on Kellyanne Conway, former aide to President Donald Trump, to criticize Lemon as a studio audience cheered.

“We're not talking about Tucker,” Hannity said, unprompted. “I don't have any details on it. He had a massive audience and he had a huge following. This guy (Lemon) had nobody.”

Fox's other prime-time host, Laura Ingraham, didn't mention Carlson. Instead, she criticized Democrats in her lead story, “Whatever Happened to Hope and Change?” She also did a segment on a contest in Belgium where people pretended to screech like seagulls.

Carlson, Hannity and Ingraham appeared close in November 2020. That's when they engaged in a three-way text conversation bashing their own network's news division following the presidential election, according to documents revealed earlier this year as part of Dominion's lawsuit.

Fox has said that rotating guest hosts will occupy Carlson's old time slot until a full-time replacement is named.

---

TELEVISION

NBCUniversal CEO Shell departs over ‘inappropriate conduct’

The front door, threshold of welcome — and perilous border

Seeking a rebound, CNN turns to Charles Barkley, Gayle King

New this week: 'Judy Blume,' Rodrigo y Gabriela, Minecraft

DewieCox

Merkin Baller said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

DewieCox said:

I’m loving the Fauxsnooze meltdown but it’s only going to make things worse. Their viewers aren’t going to jump to some reasonable source for their news. 

True,  This had nothing to do with lies and costing the company 3/4 bn dollars.  It was the deep state getting rid of critical truth telling media just like the fascist dictatorships that the radical left want the US to become.  

Bill O'Reilly had more viewers than Tucker when he was canned.  No one is untouchable.  I also read that many companies refused to advertise with him. Viewers mean nothing if they don't drive up advertising dollars, so presumably the value of the viewers wasn't 'optimized'.  

I fail to see what this comment has to do with the deep state victimization of Tucker "America's hero" Carlson?  Are you saying the deep state will see to it that no woke advertising dollars come his way ensuring a much lower viewership wherever he lands next?  If so that makes perfect sense.

Haha, no.  I was talking about your first sentence, the 750mm settlement.  No one is untouchable when you cost your company that much money.  And while he was a ratings juggernaut in cable, I'm not sure that translated to advertising dollars that matched that viewership.  If Little House on the Prairie pulled in 2.5MM viewers every single night, the ad dollars would be enormous.  From what I read, too many companies are hands off on his show.  

Because they have been directed by the deep state to spend their dollars elsewhere!

Undoubtedly.  

Some on the right say that Tucker will just be stronger somewhere else.  I call total bullshit on that.  Where's Bill?  Still doing low rent talks? What about Megyn Kelly?  The reality is that Tucker might make more money somewhere else, but his reach is diminished.  Nothing is easier for the right wing than turning on the tv at 8PM.  No podcast or any other modern tool will connect him with his audience like 8PM on Fox. 

mrussel1 said:

And yesterday was a great day for America. 

Correct, no matter how much some want to spin it otherwise, what happened yesterday was good for our country. 

I have to imagine that’s been said a   Couple  dozen times in recent years.

mickeyrat

https://twitter.com/MollyJongFast/status/1650813015938289666?t=2JCAtyhDLieLUxejQqHgFg&s=19

mickeyrat

https://twitter.com/TotalSeasons/status/1650872694823370754?t=ugM5Yi4w952W_jQ1LC60zw&s=19

mickeyrat

https://twitter.com/ReallyAmerican1/status/1650562588936216579?t=4G8R0NcYJJENksJ41fdPpg&s=19

RunIntoTheRain

mickeyrat said:

https://twitter.com/TotalSeasons/status/1650872694823370754?t=ugM5Yi4w952W_jQ1LC60zw&s=19

Haha! Brilliant! 

Halifax2TheMax

static111 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

DewieCox said:

I’m loving the Fauxsnooze meltdown but it’s only going to make things worse. Their viewers aren’t going to jump to some reasonable source for their news. 

True,  This had nothing to do with lies and costing the company 3/4 bn dollars.  It was the deep state getting rid of critical truth telling media just like the fascist dictatorships that the radical left want the US to become.  

Bill O'Reilly had more viewers than Tucker when he was canned.  No one is untouchable.  I also read that many companies refused to advertise with him. Viewers mean nothing if they don't drive up advertising dollars, so presumably the value of the viewers wasn't 'optimized'.  

I fail to see what this comment has to do with the deep state victimization of Tucker "America's hero" Carlson?  Are you saying the deep state will see to it that no woke advertising dollars come his way ensuring a much lower viewership wherever he lands next?  If so that makes perfect sense.

Haha, no.  I was talking about your first sentence, the 750mm settlement.  No one is untouchable when you cost your company that much money.  And while he was a ratings juggernaut in cable, I'm not sure that translated to advertising dollars that matched that viewership.  If Little House on the Prairie pulled in 2.5MM viewers every single night, the ad dollars would be enormous.  From what I read, too many companies are hands off on his show.  

Because they have been directed by the deep state to spend their dollars elsewhere!

Undoubtedly.  

Some on the right say that Tucker will just be stronger somewhere else.  I call total bullshit on that.  Where's Bill?  Still doing low rent talks? What about Megyn Kelly?  The reality is that Tucker might make more money somewhere else, but his reach is diminished.  Nothing is easier for the right wing than turning on the tv at 8PM.  No podcast or any other modern tool will connect him with his audience like 8PM on Fox. 

It will be interesting to see Tucker vs. the Time Slot, if you will. We've largely forgotten about Bill O'Riley but times continue to evolve in worse and more cultish ways.

My guess is that the people upset with Fox News are a loud but small minority on Twitter and that most viewers will continue to watch the channel regardless of on-air personalities. But I don't know that means that Tucker is going to fall into obscurity at the same rate.

Oh well, none of this matters. At the end of the day, there's a huge market for "news" that starts with "wait until you hear this outrageous story" and someone will be there fill that demand. The rest of this is just a sideshow to the growing anger of a third of America.

"We" have only forgotten about Bill Oreiily because that's what the deep state wanted.  Sheeple!

I think you mean the Deep State threw the switch on the Covid microchip, don’t you?

Merkin Baller

DewieCox said:

Merkin Baller said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

DewieCox said:

I’m loving the Fauxsnooze meltdown but it’s only going to make things worse. Their viewers aren’t going to jump to some reasonable source for their news. 

True,  This had nothing to do with lies and costing the company 3/4 bn dollars.  It was the deep state getting rid of critical truth telling media just like the fascist dictatorships that the radical left want the US to become.  

Bill O'Reilly had more viewers than Tucker when he was canned.  No one is untouchable.  I also read that many companies refused to advertise with him. Viewers mean nothing if they don't drive up advertising dollars, so presumably the value of the viewers wasn't 'optimized'.  

I fail to see what this comment has to do with the deep state victimization of Tucker "America's hero" Carlson?  Are you saying the deep state will see to it that no woke advertising dollars come his way ensuring a much lower viewership wherever he lands next?  If so that makes perfect sense.

Haha, no.  I was talking about your first sentence, the 750mm settlement.  No one is untouchable when you cost your company that much money.  And while he was a ratings juggernaut in cable, I'm not sure that translated to advertising dollars that matched that viewership.  If Little House on the Prairie pulled in 2.5MM viewers every single night, the ad dollars would be enormous.  From what I read, too many companies are hands off on his show.  

Because they have been directed by the deep state to spend their dollars elsewhere!

Undoubtedly.  

Some on the right say that Tucker will just be stronger somewhere else.  I call total bullshit on that.  Where's Bill?  Still doing low rent talks? What about Megyn Kelly?  The reality is that Tucker might make more money somewhere else, but his reach is diminished.  Nothing is easier for the right wing than turning on the tv at 8PM.  No podcast or any other modern tool will connect him with his audience like 8PM on Fox. 

mrussel1 said:

And yesterday was a great day for America. 

Correct, no matter how much some want to spin it otherwise, what happened yesterday was good for our country. 

I have to imagine that’s been said a   Couple  dozen times in recent years.

People say all sorts of shit. 

Do you disagree with the sentiment that tucker having less of a reach / audience is a good thing for America? 

DewieCox

I honestly don’t feel like it makes one bit of difference. He still has every bit as much reach as he wants. 

Merkin Baller

DewieCox said:

I honestly don’t feel like it makes one bit of difference. He still has every bit as much reach as he wants. 

He'll never again have the reach that he had with Fox. 

Fox News is everywhere. You think your average 60-70yo is going to seek out whatever podcast or website he starts up on a regular basis? 

I can't imagine NewsMax or OAN picking him up... no one will want to insure them. 

mrussel1

Merkin Baller said:

DewieCox said:

I honestly don’t feel like it makes one bit of difference. He still has every bit as much reach as he wants. 

He'll never again have the reach that he had with Fox. 

Fox News is everywhere. You think your average 60-70yo is going to seek out whatever podcast or website he starts up on a regular basis? 

I can't imagine NewsMax or OAN picking him up... no one will want to insure them. 

This is my view.  He may make more money, like Joe Rogan, but he won't have as many old people to radicalize. 

DewieCox

I think you’re wildly underestimating how much his audience appreciate having their victim complex justified. Time to stop pretending that things like this do anything but strengthen their resolve.

Theres no such thing as truly de-platforming anyone. 

I’d love for you to be right but recent history says you're not, whether it’s Tucker or someone filling his shoes.