quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
^^^Pretty sure she wasn't his boss, and let's be serious, if Tucker Carlson disparaged ANYONE by referring to them by that descriptor, it would be all over the internet, AND all over the legacy media. They wouldn't be talking about anything else! I've heard that NOWHERE...

No. That was false reporting. By all accounts, he was referring to a publicist at Fox who seemingly everyone hates. Megyn Kelly revealed this information on her show (yes I listen to her show). Not surprisingly, she knows a lot of inside goings on there. And by all accounts, no one at Fox at the higher ups are offended by this type of talk and name calling. It's par for the course. So the idea that Tucker was canned for calling someone, who is roundly despised by nearly everyone there, a bad name is nothing but shade.

ETA: Tried to edit a grammatical error on the post you were responding to and accidentally deleted it.

Victor Davis Hanson Gives Big Picture Perspective on Fox News and Tucker Carlson Firing

Victor Davis Hanson often has a unique big picture perspective on current events, linking and contrasting the disconnected high-brow outlook to the pragmatic perspectives of the modern populist movement.

Hanson takes an academic approach to the reality of current social constructs, yet in his own unique way he can describe the current status in a thoughtful and practical way. In this analysis VDH contrasts the goals of the ideological media, specifically the goals of those in the Republican wing of the media control apparatus, to the reality they have created by removing the voice of Tucker Carlson.
WATCH:

‘Fox News can't replace him’ Victor Davis Hanson on Tucker Carlson’s firing



https://theconservativetreehou...-firing/#more-246171

^^^^

This clip from a longer interview where VDH discusses a broader range of topics.

VDH really shines with these casual interviews, manages to cover a wide scope of issues with his insight. These work much better than the speeches I've seen him deliver, IMHO.

Why Tucker Carlson was Doomed
By Seth Grossman

Most conservatives were shocked and surprised when Fox News took the Tucker Carlson program off the air last week. It was watched by 3.2 million mostly affluent viewers each night. It was the seventh most popular program on cable TV. It attracted nearly twice as many viewers as MSNBC and CNN combined. MSNBC had an audience of roughly 1.14 million viewers. CNN only had roughly 473,000.

However, Tucker Carlson’s program had been on life support since December 18, 2018. That is when “progressive” Democrats cancelled most of its sponsors.

On December 13, 2018, Tucker Carlson did a segment on the effects of massive, uncontrolled, and often illegal immigration from poor countries. Tucker showed videos of caravans of illegal immigrants coming to our borders, and of the piles of garbage they left behind. Tucker explained how this was hurting America in many ways. He criticized political leaders of both parties and business elites for ignoring the problem.

Tucker agreed that most of the immigrants themselves were “nice people”. However, he concluded:

“But as an economic matter this is insane. It’s indefensible, so no one even tries to defend it. Instead, our leaders demand that you shut up and accept this. We have a moral obligation to admit the world’s poor, they tell us, even if it makes our country poorer and dirtier and more divided.”

Everything Tucker Carlson said was true, undisputed, and reasonable. It had all been said many times by many political leaders and economic experts. In 2016, candidate Donald Trump won widespread, mainstream support by promising to fix these problems. Trump promised a border wall and strict enforcement of immigration laws. Tucker Carlson was correct to remind his viewers of how the leaders of both parties were ignoring this critical issue.

However, the Left used Tucker’s December 13, 2018 program to begin an orchestrated campaign to eliminate Tucker Carlson’s program, and possibly the entire Fox News network, from cable television.

For the next two days, various “progressives” made phone calls and sent letters and emails to every company and ad agency that bought ads on the Tucker Carlson program.

For the next week, the mainstream media reported non-stop that there was national outrage over Tucker’s remarks. They reported that advertisers and ad agencies were angry and embarrassed by what Tucker Carlson had said.

Within days, at least 26 mainstream corporate sponsors publicly announced that they would no longer sponsor the Tucker Carlson program.

Those sponsors included CareerBuilder, Takeda Pharmaceuticals (makers of Entyvio), TD Ameritrade, IHOP, the United Explorer credit card, Just For Men, Jaguar Land Rover, Ancestry.com, SCOTTeVEST, Zenni Optical, Voya Financial, Nautilus, Inc. for Bowflex, SmileDirectClub, NerdWallet, Minted, Pacific Life insurance, Indeed.com, Norwegian Cruise Lines, Red Lobster, Farmers Insurance, Lexus/Toyota, Mint Mobile, Graze snacks, Samsung, SodaStream, Pfizer’s Robitussin and SanDisk.

When these sponsors left, Tucker Carlson had only “second tier” sponsors paying much lower rates. They included My Pillow, Relief Factor, and Granite Stone pots and pans. The Tucker Carlson program may have had a superstar, prime-time audience. But it had the income of something like a 1970s late-night TV show sponsored by Veg-O-Matic and Ginsu Knives.

Money from “second tier” advertisers alone cannot sustain a prime-time TV program on a major network very long. Although Tucker Carlson was on the air until last week, it was doomed since December of 2018.

Was there real public outrage against Tucker Carlson because of what he said about immigration? Was the campaign to bully his advertisers planned months or even years in advance? Exactly how many phone calls were made and how many letters and emails were sent? Were they sent by just a handful of professional or radical agitators, as Rush Limbaugh often explained? Did any of those phone calls, letters, or emails include illegal threats or extortion? Did “woke” financial institutions like BlackRock use undue influence on corporations they invested in?

We may never know. All this happened when Republican Donald Trump was president. To the best of my knowledge, neither Trump nor anyone in his administration ordered any investigation to find out. Neither President Trump nor any national Republican official did or said anything to defend or help Tucker Carlson in any way. There were no investigations by Congress. Republicans had just lost their majority in the “Blue Wave” elections of 2018.

I suspect that a Democrat president would have handled things far differently if Christians or conservatives bullied advertisers of a popular “progressive” TV host on a network like CNN or MSNBC.

I suspect that the FBI would have subpoenaed phone records and every letter and email. I suspect they would have questioned everyone involved under oath. I suspect that people would have been indicted and prosecuted for making threats. And at some point, all the mainstream corporate sponsors would have been “persuaded” to continue their sponsorship.

However, most Republicans, including Trump, have been unwilling to push back against woke corporations and cowardly corporations bullied by “woke” activists. We see how they attack Florida Republican governor Ron DeSantis when he pushed back against Disney.

Fox News may have hoped that some of these corporate sponsors would have quietly returned to Tucker Carlson as time passed. However, Democrats were not about to let that happen.

In April of 2021, the ADL, a once mainstream Jewish group that now promotes a radical left agenda publicly called Tucker Carlson a “racist” and urged Fox News to fire Tucker Carlson. CNN and other news organizations dutifully reported the false accusations of the ADL as headline news.

On May 12, 2022, the New York Times and government-funded NPR falsely claimed that Tucker Carlson created “the most racist show in the history of cable news”.

Periodic attacks like these guaranteed that mainstream corporations would never return to Tucker Carlson.

Now that the Tucker Carlson program is gone from Fox News, Democrats are emboldened. I am sure that they are now ready to take down other hosts, or even the whole network. The Murdoch family and Fox News do not seem eager for a fight. I suspect they will soon do whatever Democrats demand as the price for ending the attacks, and getting corporate sponsors to return.

Conservatives who love and admire Tucker Carlson are angry. They are eager to boycott Fox News and turn to other conservative networks like Newsmax. However, Comcast and Direct TV already proved that they can drop networks like Newsmax at any time. Even if conservative networks like Newsmax keep their cable access, how long can they survive if they only have “second tier” sponsors like My Pillow and Relief Factor?

https://www.americanthinker.co...lson_was_doomed.html

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
So, how are TV ratings measure these days? In the past, we had the Nielsen system; first, it was a journal participants kept IIRC, and then it was an electronic apparatus connected to their TV.

How are we getting these near-instantaneous numbers these days? I realize most viewers are not getting their shows OTA, so, do these cable and satellite providers furnish numbers, or what?

It's my understanding that the old methods are still used, but also your set-top-box feeds this info back, it is anonymized and shared for the purpose of advertisement pricing/billing.

Since the advertisers are extremely interested in this info, they've gotten pretty good at it.

Of course, with the set top box, there is no accounting for that TV that's left on for the family dog while the humans are away, or the fact that there may be a group of 12 watching the same screen.

It's my understanding that even OTA will be able to gather this info with the upcoming ATSC 3.0, which will include targeted advertising on your OTA TV, just like Google does.

Yes, well, it's true that your DVR is "listening" to the channel it's tuned to, whether it's on or off, so I've stopped watching Fox at all, at least for the foreseeable future. Whether or not the provider shared that data with advertisers and whoever, I've lost all interest in Fox's programming.

I did the same thing after the 2020 election, stopped watching Fox for about a year and a half, and even stopped visiting their website.

They may have lost me for good this time. I'm sick of the nonsensical shit like dumping their ratings leader.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

https://www.americanthinker.co...lson_was_doomed.html

^^^ That chellim1 is one of the most viable explanations of Tuckers removal from Fox, yet.

Don't know if it's true but better than Bill O'Reilly's theory of fending off lawsuits albeit has it's merits.
BTW, the only reason I mention BO'R as it one of the few that make sense.

Don't know if it true either.

Or the Murdoch's getting ready to sell, making it more centrist hence palatable to buyers wanting to follow the ESG bullshit.

Probably something in between but it seems it is all about money more than politics.

Got to love a good conspiracy story.

The Tucker Carlson bidding war begins at $100 million

A public offer has been made to engage the services of Tucker Carlson at a total of $100 million. Patrick Bet-David, an entrepreneur reportedly worth $200 million, tweeted out the offer:



Newmax has let it be known that it, too, wants to make an offer to Carlson:

Newsmax, a fellow conservative leaning media organization, is reportedly interested in not just giving Tucker Carlson his own primetime show on their network, but allowing him to program the whole channel, per TMZ. That would give the former Fox News employee a huge amount of power, including making decisions about what shows would precede and follow his own. Network executives have apparently made it clear to the people around Carlson that he would play a big part in rebranding their channel.

Tucker Carlson is still under contract with Fox News, so no formal discussions with other networks are allowed at this point.

Both of these offers notably offer Carlson a say in, if not control over, the outlets, addressing his major concern in the wake of the tensions we now know existed with FNC management. The financial terms of the offer from Bet-David equal the rported $20 million a year that Tucker is said to have been pulling down from Fox, and which, for the moment, he is collecting for remaining silent while still under contract.

I have no way of knowing if these terms would be more attractive than the prospect of starting his own platform. I bet that is he needed startup capital beyond his own resources or risk preferences, he could find partners. He is just over 50 years old, which is still a good age to be involved in entrepreneurship.

https://www.americanthinker.co..._at_100_million.html

Bongino was talking about this yesterday, the word is that TC wasn't fired, his show was cancelled, so he's still employed by Fox and under contract, which would explain why we don't see much happening from him in the SM world or why he's not surfaced elsewhere as of yet.

Of course, this all is conjecture, since nothing has been released to substantiate the claim that TC is still under contract but it is an interesting take on the situation..

It would make sense to keep his contract active, and pay him over time vs writing a termination check or paying nothing and making TC hire attorneys to sue for his rightful funds, all the while keeping him off air elsewhere.


Bongino was a Fox contributor, and he stated his contract was terminated, so he still has sources available inside FOX...

This video appeared in my YouTube feed. Interesting perspective on Tucker's personal texts regarding Trump and the content of his broadcasts.

https://crankers.com/videos/19...cker-tucker-carlson/

I like Tucker more and more

quote:

Originally posted by doublesharp:
https://crankers.com/videos/19...cker-tucker-carlson/

I like Tucker more and more

No idea, I guess, who he was talking about

An unnamed Dominion lawyer

The Crime of “Talking to Tucker Carlson”
A note of support, from a surprising detente.

By Naomi R. Wolf

https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14492

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
The Crime of “Talking to Tucker Carlson”
A note of support, from a surprising detente.

By Naomi R. Wolf

https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14492

That's a solid read, thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
The Crime of “Talking to Tucker Carlson”
A note of support, from a surprising detente.

By Naomi R. Wolf

https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14492

Now THAT...is "journalism"!!!

Recently found this- Carlson was a Dead Head, and continues to be a fan. In this offbeat interview a couple of years ago, he speaks of the band, meeting Jerry Garcia when he was young, the type of cheese he likes, pens he buys, etc.



https://www.maxraskin.com/inte...-with-tucker-carlson

The Naomi Wolf editorial was a breath of fresh air. Thanks for posting it