No one at present has been a thorn in the side of established liberal regime than Tucker Carlson. On any range of issues, whether immigration, gender ideology, endless war, COVID policy, Tucker has been relentlessly providing a platform to heterodox opinions across both the left and right, and by doing so, has done the most to present a political landscape that goes beyond those conventional polarities. But the most important aspects of all this is the challenge it presents to established political interests and elites, not merely in challenging established interests on this or that issue, but in exposing the structure of those interests and how they employ the various institutions of public life to the benefit of their own private interests and to the detriment of the common good. In many ways, Tucker provided an alternative direction to political/ public life, whether it involved actual substantive engagement with people from different political positions on specific issues on the merits, a media open to heterodox or dissident opinions based on the merits of their argument, went against the typical narrative management of the MSM, and so on. But even more than his example, what was even more dangerous was the success of this approach and the reception this received across the political and demographic landscape of the US and beyond. His audience size, the numbers across the demographic (he is the most watched cable news program even among Democrats in the 25-54 key demo) and political divide were second to none.
All of this explains why Tucker’s presence in the MSM was a dire threat to the current regime. And it also indicates that his likely return will see him rise higher than ever before. Having not buckled to the pressure that must have inevitably have been placed upon him by executives since at least 2018, his decision to persevere editorially with this direction over the last several years, indicates his loyalty to his audience as much as it does to his integrity, and his audience will repay him for that in spades, as will those that come to know him in future.
It’s odd to echo the bitterest of green-left opinionista signoffs from the Blair – Bush – Howard years-
Tucker was forced out because the Murdochs value patronage over truth, and the U.S. government needs the spectre of War hovering over the world to retain their domestic power.
Dammit “patronage over probity” -edit for the print edition.
Tucker upset all sides by telling the painful truth. The Murdock’s, the military establishment, the Democrats, the non MAGA Republicans, big Pharma etc all had issues with him.
Although the highest rating news TV host by far his advertising revenue was not good due to boycotting.
The main short term issue is that he is still under contract and it would be worth Fox keeping him on without a show just to stop him competing.
If he goes the subscription podcasting model he should be able to make far more money. The effect on Fox ratings, even other time slots, has been huge and hopefully many who have dropped Fox will sign up to follow him if it becomes possible.
I have always appreciated that Fox covered the conservative side of politics but when it comes to Fox v Tucker I am far more on Tuckers side. This has also affected my thinking towards Bolt and Chris Mitchell.
Murdock’s need to think very carefully how they handle his exit as could lose even more viewers.
If no one has noticed this anti Murdoch campaign is reaching a fever pitch. I am waiting for Murdoch family members to be beaten up in public if not murdered.
Once you have that self obsessed twat Tunball sinking the boots in its time for them to be looking over their shoulders for the threat of their lives.
It time to start making products eg coke a cola , bring back lotus 112, GM Ford and the clothing companies on political leanings. Its that or divide the land and the people up – the best thing really.
Good on Tucker – to me, what I saw and heard of him and I really enjoyed and felt at ease with – there was no violence or destruction to what we have evolved to or racisim.
Is truth a prerequisite for the holding of power?
Tucker’s hypothesis on the ousting of Nixon was riveting viewing and seemed to put more noses out of joint than usual, until his Jan 6 videos expose, which led to even more unhinged “audible in space” squawking.
On the face of it, his removal from the air makes no sense, until you realise how many people and particular interests from across the political spectrum (and the globe) he’d figuratively poked in the eye.
I’m not buying any of this.
What helped in the decision was that although Tucker had a very popular show, it wasn’t attractive to advertisers because they considered him controversial. Only exaggerating a little, the only advertising buyers Tucker attracted were the pillow guy and a couple of other similar ad buyers. Ultimately, Fox is there to make money, and although we’ll most likely never know the reasons the show was booted off air, I know I’d make the same decision as the Murdochs if I ran Fox. I’d want to make money, and I’d suspect Tucker’s show depressed the advertising not just his show, but across all of Fox News.
Let me make another point or two. I would have fired Tucker even though I agree with a lot of what he says.
Fox could see a drop in viewer numbers, but it could still be much more profitable if the big-name advertisers crawl back. Absolutely, a private firm has to make money!
Tucker’s show shouldn’t be on Fox. He needs to be on a streaming-like service.
Tucker’s speech at the Heritage Foundation, I think, is part of the story.
https://youtu.be/N32UPXGChgo
That, JC, depends on whether they keep those subscription viewer numbers up.
Many of them have taken their money away and will go elsewhere.
It comes down to this: the Murdoch children are the third generation of the empire their father buillt and therefore their impulse is to destroy it — because defending it would make them unfashionable.
The Murdoch children have calculated that obeying the Democratic Party’s Washington DC ruling class is more important to them and the success of their dinner parties than the profitability of Fox News, which was built on the fact that it had a monopoly on serving half the country, which the rest of the media business had abandoned.
The Murdoch children are the dumbest heirs to a business fortune since the idiot children of Sir Frank Packer destroyed his.
Fox News will cease to exist inside a decade because the idiots running it have abandoned the mega-profitable formula wise business people like Roger Ailes had laid out for them.
The legacy of the Murdoch children will be their spectacular failure.
Yes the subscription revenue projections would have also been considered. The question would be do they gain more subscriptions than they lose compared with changes in advertising revenue. I would Fox would not gain subscriptions that much if they kept him on, and Fox might think they might not lose that many subscriptions if they sacked him, or they might eventually return.
The assumptions underlying the projections of course no one will see except the authors.
Tom
The Murdoch children are the dumbest heirs to a business fortune since the idiot children of Sir Frank Packer destroyed his.
Don’t you mean the idiot children of Kerry Packer?
They may have not had much revenue from advertising in Tucker, but what about Tuckers coat tails? Hannity has tanked as well, and the rest?
It is early days, but a death spiral is very hard to turn into a wave of success. The momentum is against them.
And there is no plan. They have no-one to replace him, it is a reaction rather than an action, hot heads and spur of the moment does not a cunning plan make.
The best part is that many loyal Fox viewers now realise who Murdoch really is. He ain’t on your side. He’s on Murdoch’s side. Controlled opposition. Wake up and take your money elsewhere.
As if the Record Dominion payout and Carlson debacle aren’t closely related.
There is quid pro quo in all this, and if Murdoch doesn’t get every penny back, plus, plus, plus, god help the Democrats
Obviously not. Quite the opposite, in fact.
I think Warwick Fairfax deserves an honourable mention at the very least! 🙂
Boxcar says:
May 3, 2023 at 7:28 am
As if the Record Dominion payout and Carlson debacle aren’t closely related.
There is quid pro quo in all this, and if Murdoch doesn’t get every penny back, plus, plus, plus, god help the Democrats
Murdochs Spoke With Zelenskyy Weeks Before Firing Anti-War Host Tucker Carlson
BY TYLER DURDEN
Both Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy shortly before firing Fox News’ anti-war host Tucker Carlson,
who has repeatedly asked why the United States is sending vast resources to one of the most historically corrupt nations on the planet while neglecting its own citizens.
“Fox News Executive Chairman Rupert Murdoch held a previously unreported call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy this spring in which the two discussed the war and the anniversary of the deaths of Fox News journalists last March,” according to Semafor, adding “The Ukrainian president had a similar conversation with Lachlan Murdoch on March 15, which Zelenskyy noted in a little-noticed aside during a national broadcast last month.”
As Semafor further notes; “The conversations came weeks before the Murdochs fired their biggest star and most outspoken critic of American support for Ukraine, Tucker Carlson. Senior Ukrainian officials had made their objections to Carlson’s coverage known to Fox executives, but Zelenskyy did not raise it on the calls with the Murdochs, according to one person familiar with the details of the calls.”
Weeks later, Lachlan Murdoch was credited with the decision to let Carlson go, according to the NY Times.
The decision to let Mr. Carlson go was made on Friday night by Lachlan Murdoch, the chief executive of Fox Corporation, and Suzanne Scott, chief executive of Fox News Media, according to a person briefed on the move. Mr. Carlson was informed on Monday morning by Ms. Scott, another person briefed on the move said.
Carlson, according to the report, has previously described Zelenskyy as a “dictator.”
Interestingly, on March 11 – right around the time of the Lachlan Murdoch call, Carlson suggested to Redacted host Clayton Morris that he could be fired over his anti-war stance.
“I’m saying what I really think and I think it really really matters and if I get fired for it, I don’t know what to say, I’m not going to change,” he said, adding that one of the top people he worked for at the network texted him to say “For the record, I really disagree with you on Ukraine!”
From the Comments WRT Dominion
– The entire saga with the Fox Dominion suite seemed off to me. I get not wanting to go to trial, but a $1Billion settlement? Why not let it drag out and appeal, appeal, appeal? Then self immolate by firing Tucker? There is more to the story. Maybe the MIC is going to spend billions on feel good war propaganda on Fox network. Idk but something ain’t right.
– Fox / Dominion was just a propaganda tactic, Blackrock is the major stockholder in both
… All to make it appear that the 2020 election was perfect. Fox has always been controlled opposition, but now they don’t need opposition so they are all spewing the same NWO mantra that’s given to all the media…
– Goolie you are correct, there’s more to the story.
Where’s that substack, damb it I shoulda bookmarked it.
It went like this—- Murdocs own 60% of Fox and 55% of dominion or something like those figures. So they sued themselves and fired Carlson.
– Of course it’s not right.
They did it to provide cash for Dominion to continue harassing the other parties. Now Dominion has a billion to go after all the little guys. In other words, for $700 million, Fox gets a write-off and all of their competitors are buried in litigation.
It’s a very peculiar decision by advertisers to boycot a program that is not only the most popular cable news program absolutely, but also in the key demo, as well as most watched by Dems. That doesn’t appear to be a purely economic decision by advertisers if it’s the case. It’s also strange if Fox’s decision was simply economic that they just shut Tucker down over a weekend without him even signing off. I suppose the fact that they are now leaking off-air conversations that they think are embarrassing for Tucker to Media Matters is instructive, as was the wall of silence by their on-air line up last week.
The other thing here is, given the popularity of Tucker in the demo and across the political divide, is for whom Tucker was ‘controversial’. Was he controversial so far as the public was concerned – his numbers say otherwise – or was he controversial to corporate interests and their relationship to the regime?
Dover Beach:
The latter, I think.
But I also think we’ve only just opened the door to the rabbit burrow, and there’s all kinds of sinister facts are going to get some oxygen.