Fox News

HughFreakingDillon said:

Merkin Baller said:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/04/tucker-carlson-fox-news-fired

is this Succession playing out in real life??

Carlson has told people he believes his controversial show is being taken off the air because the Murdoch children intend to sell Fox News at some point. 

First thing I thought of as well. Mattson seems like he'd be interested 

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. 

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. 

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.

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!

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.

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!