Fox News
Options
Comments
-
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.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.......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 -
Sure if you think silencing one of the only critical truth telling voices of all time is good for democracy...Merkin Baller said: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.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
Carriage fees from who? Is that AT&T, cable, or the total of all them?mickeyrat said: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.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.......
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.0 -
You've really got your old school Stephen Colbert fake conservative thing going today.static111 said:
Sure if you think silencing one of the only critical truth telling voices of all time is good for democracy...Merkin Baller said: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 -
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.mrussel1 said:
You've really got your old school Stephen Colbert fake conservative thing going today.static111 said:
Sure if you think silencing one of the only critical truth telling voices of all time is good for democracy...Merkin Baller said: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.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
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.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.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
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 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
You've really got your old school Stephen Colbert fake conservative thing going today.static111 said:
Sure if you think silencing one of the only critical truth telling voices of all time is good for democracy...Merkin Baller said: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 -
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 clausesmrussel1 said:
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 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
You've really got your old school Stephen Colbert fake conservative thing going today.static111 said:
Sure if you think silencing one of the only critical truth telling voices of all time is good for democracy...Merkin Baller said: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.Post edited by static111 onScio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
following the 10c model.....Tucker who? Fox News hosts avoid Carlson's name after ousterBy DAVID BAUDERToday
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 COVERAGEBrian 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.
_____________________________________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 have to imagine that’s been said a Couple dozen times in recent years.Merkin Baller said: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 -
_____________________________________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 -
_____________________________________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 -
Haha! Brilliant!mickeyrat said:0 -
I think you mean the Deep State threw the switch on the Covid microchip, don’t you?static111 said:
"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.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
People say all sorts of shit.DewieCox said:
I have to imagine that’s been said a Couple dozen times in recent years.Merkin Baller said: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.
Do you disagree with the sentiment that tucker having less of a reach / audience is a good thing for America?0 -
I honestly don’t feel like it makes one bit of difference. He still has every bit as much reach as he wants.0
-
He'll never again have the reach that he had with Fox.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.
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.0 -
This is my view. He may make more money, like Joe Rogan, but he won't have as many old people to radicalize.Merkin Baller said:
He'll never again have the reach that he had with Fox.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.
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.0 -
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.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