Fox News
Options
Comments
-
First thing I thought of as well. Mattson seems like he'd be interestedHughFreakingDillon said:
is this Succession playing out in real life??Merkin Baller said:
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.www.myspace.com0 -
Post edited by mickeyrat on_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
-
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.0
-
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.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.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
this is great point. this will likely have them burrow further down the hole.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.Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall0 -
JHC, 50 pages on Fox? I didn't even know this thread ws there.0
-
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'.static111 said:
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.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.0 -
HughFreakingDillon said:
this is great point. this will likely have them burrow further down the hole.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.Yup. Conversation I saw on FB:'It's a sad day for conservatives. Hopefully Fox will go belly up.''I just canceled my Fox Nation subscription. He will get his own podcast.''That's good...maybe Newsmax at some point and yes he'll have his own podcast like Bongino!! 2024 election can't come soon enough, our country is decaying before our eyes.'0 -
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:
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'.static111 said:
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.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.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
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.static111 said:
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:
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'.static111 said:
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.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.0 -
Because they have been directed by the deep state to spend their dollars elsewhere!mrussel1 said:
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.static111 said:
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:
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'.static111 said:
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.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.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
Undoubtedly.static111 said:
Because they have been directed by the deep state to spend their dollars elsewhere!mrussel1 said:
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.static111 said:
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:
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'.static111 said:
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.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.
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.0 -
And yesterday was a great day for America.0
-
What about Rush's old AM radio slot?..a lot of damage could be done there. Nobody has filled that vacuum yet.mrussel1 said:
Undoubtedly.static111 said:
Because they have been directed by the deep state to spend their dollars elsewhere!mrussel1 said:
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.static111 said:
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:
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'.static111 said:
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.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.
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.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
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.mrussel1 said:
Undoubtedly.static111 said:
Because they have been directed by the deep state to spend their dollars elsewhere!mrussel1 said:
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.static111 said:
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:
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'.static111 said:
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.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.
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.
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.1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley0 -
Maybe, for sure. That audience got fractured by all of the copy cats (Beck, Savage, etc.). And it's hard to pin down numbers because the only ones that have them are the companies that syndicate them, so they are going to be inflated, misleading, etc. I tend to think he's more likely to go podcast rather than AM.static111 said:
What about Rush's old AM radio slot?..a lot of damage could be done there. Nobody has filled that vacuum yet.mrussel1 said:
Undoubtedly.static111 said:
Because they have been directed by the deep state to spend their dollars elsewhere!mrussel1 said:
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.static111 said:
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:
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'.static111 said:
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.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.
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.0 -
"We" have only forgotten about Bill Oreiily because that's what the deep state wanted. Sheeple!OnWis97 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Undoubtedly.static111 said:
Because they have been directed by the deep state to spend their dollars elsewhere!mrussel1 said:
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.static111 said:
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:
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'.static111 said:
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.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.
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.
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.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
mrussel1 said:
Undoubtedly.static111 said:
Because they have been directed by the deep state to spend their dollars elsewhere!mrussel1 said:
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.static111 said:
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:
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'.static111 said:
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.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.
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.
Correct, no matter how much some want to spin it otherwise, what happened yesterday was good for our country.mrussel1 said:And yesterday was a great day for America.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help