MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Goose on April 24, 2023, 10:36:28 AM
-
Tucker is gone from Fox. That should make for a lot of happy scoopers. As for me, I stopped watching him and network news a couple of years ago and have enjoyed not watching news non stop.
-
The Mope Squad will have to find a new bogeyman.
-
Thoughts and prayers.
-
As Rupert said, it's all about the green, and that guy was a nightly liability. There's lying, and then there is admitting you are lying and continuing to lie without regard.
-
He'll land on his feet at RT.
-
As Rupert said, it's all about the green, and that guy was a nightly liability. There's lying, and then there is admitting you are lying and continuing to lie without regard.
Unfortunately for America, this came too late to stop the Land of Make Believe video he made about those sweet, unassuming 1/6/21 tourists.
Still, it's good to see a treasonous scumbag lose his forum, even if it was only for $$ reasons and even if another fraud network ends up bringing him on.
-
He will make more movies.
He is the fall guy for Dominion. Who will take the fall for the Smartmatic lawsuit?
-
He will make more movies.
He is the fall guy for Dominion. Who will take the fall for the Smartmatic lawsuit?
IIRC, Dobbs was the fall guy for Dominion before things even really got going.
As for Tucker, I will say I'm grateful for him being so stupid that he didn't think his texts about how much he hated Trump and how bad Trump was for America would get out.
-
He'll land on his feet at RT.
*Rumble
-
Don Lemon chit-canned, hey?
-
Don Lemon chit-canned, hey?
Good. He sucked, too.
-
Don Lemon chit-canned, hey?
Cool. Don't harass female colleagues.
-
Don Lemon chit-canned, hey?
Excellent News
-
They are both fking awful, good riddance.
-
Tucker being gone means nothing. He has a huge following and will likely parlay this into his own brand where he reaps even more money with even less oversight.
As with most things GOP related these days, it's a cult of personality. His viewers will follow him, and especially when he uses the tried and true, "They tried to silence the truth" line that all of his rubes routinely fall for.
For them there is a boogey man around every corner coming for their, 'way of life'. He is the PERFECT man to give the hogs their daily feeding of slop.
If you didn't watch him before, great, but get those you know away from people like him. They're too stupid to know how dangerous a man with low moral character and a megaphone can be.
I'd say good riddance, but this isn't even close to the last anyone has heard of him.
-
Tucker being gone means nothing. He has a huge following and will likely parlay this into his own brand where he reaps even more money with even less oversight.
As with most things GOP related these days, it's a cult of personality. His viewers will follow him, and especially when he uses the tried and true, "They tried to silence the truth" line that all of his rubes routinely fall for.
For them there is a boogey man around every corner coming for their, 'way of life'. He is the PERFECT man to give the hogs their daily feeding of slop.
If you didn't watch him before, great, but get those you know away from people like him. They're too stupid to know how dangerous a man with low moral character and a megaphone can be.
I'd say good riddance, but this isn't even close to the last anyone has heard of him.
You may be right, but Bill O'Reilly hasn't exactly toted audiences around with him since Fox dumped him. Most of his viewers just kept watching Fox. I'm guessing it'll be the same here.
-
Yeah, his fans were so "stoopid" that they didn't vote for Biden, Harris, Fetterman or Feinstein
-
Fox fed their audience lies because they knew they did not want the truth.
See: discovery in Dominion case.
-
Tucker being gone means nothing. He has a huge following and will likely parlay this into his own brand where he reaps even more money with even less oversight.
As with most things GOP related these days, it's a cult of personality. His viewers will follow him, and especially when he uses the tried and true, "They tried to silence the truth" line that all of his rubes routinely fall for.
For them there is a boogey man around every corner coming for their, 'way of life'. He is the PERFECT man to give the hogs their daily feeding of slop.
If you didn't watch him before, great, but get those you know away from people like him. They're too stupid to know how dangerous a man with low moral character and a megaphone can be.
I'd say good riddance, but this isn't even close to the last anyone has heard of him.
^^^ ban dis they
-
Doc,
Don Lemon getting canned does not seem to move the needle on scoop. How he lasted 17 years at CNN shows how messed up the media world is, imo.
-
You may be right, but Bill O'Reilly hasn't exactly toted audiences around with him since Fox dumped him. Most of his viewers just kept watching Fox. I'm guessing it'll be the same here.
Times have changed.
-
He will make more movies.
A Tucker-Don buddy cop movie. Who says no?
-
^^^ ban dis they
dis vs di's
-
Yeah, his fans were so "stoopid" that they didn't vote for Biden, Harris, Fetterman or Feinstein
Found the Tucker watcher.
-
Yeah, but he was "stunned" at the news. Did his show this morning then given the pink slip. Probably felt he was untouchable, hey?
-
A Tucker-Don buddy cop movie. Who says no?
Horror?
Dumb and Dumber spoof?
Tango and Cash remake?
Rom-com with a meet-cute? I can see it working on Hallmark.
-
Yeah, but he was "stunned" at the news. Did his show this morning then given the pink slip. Probably felt he was untouchable, hey?
Just another guy.
-
Times have changed.
Old people don't change (channels, viewing habits, etc.).
The median age of a Fox News viewer is 65.
-
https://twitter.com/edsbs/status/1650546397681266706?s=46&t=ppua9BCUAa7dWM9-SthPmg
-
My boy Greg is the KING OF LATE NIGHT.
I miss my days of writing for Red Eye, but love to see his enormous success
-
JB
Red Eye was an all awesome program. It made me laugh every night.
-
He will make more movies.
He is the fall guy for Dominion. Who will take the fall for the Smartmatic lawsuit?
IMO, its more about Rupert protecting against the next potential lawsuit. Remember, in the middle of the Dominion lawsuit Tuckems started pumping the stolen election lie again. He literally handed Dominion even more evidence, publicly, in the middle of the freakin' lawsuit! Just too much of a liability.
-
Tucker is gone from Fox. That should make for a lot of happy scoopers. As for me, I stopped watching him and network news a couple of years ago and have enjoyed not watching news non stop.
Good thing to do. Basically, I go with the NY Times and Wall Street Journal. Two of the very best at reporting news. Two opposite views when it comes to the Editorial Staff.
-
Doc,
Don Lemon getting canned does not seem to move the needle on scoop. How he lasted 17 years at CNN shows how messed up the media world is, imo.
Immediately after Doc's post, the first 4 commenters applauded the news that Lemon got the heave-ho. Where were you hoping the needle would move, Goose?
-
You may be right, but Bill O'Reilly hasn't exactly toted audiences around with him since Fox dumped him. Most of his viewers just kept watching Fox. I'm guessing it'll be the same here.
I think this is true, so long as Fox just keeps pumping out the lies that its audience demands. Remember that they went in hard for the Big Lie because they immediately lost viewers to Newsmax and OAN when they admitted that Biden won. It was their fear of losing audience by telling the truth that led them down this path.
So to a certain extent, it doesn't matter who replaces Tuckems, the audience now controls Fox. If Fox doesn't accede to whatever crazy sh!t the edges of the right-wing nutters come up with on a daily basis, the audience riots. Tuck was #1 because he absolutely had no moral qualms about amplifying the most outrageous, racist crap that the audience demanded, but as long as *someone* continues to deliver the delicious lies that the viewers want, Fox will be fine. Rupert just wants someone who will do it without him facing trillion dollar lawsuits.
-
Causing a company to lose $787 million with another lawsuit pending that could triple this $$$ with cause things like this to happen.
-
Old people don't change (channels, viewing habits, etc.).
The median age of a Fox News viewer is 65.
Newsmax and OAN exist. Also, after this I would bet my house that he is fielding multiple offers from online media.
The 65 year olds all are on facebook and share Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Dennis Prager, and Steven Crowder clips nonstop.
To think Tucker can't collaborate with those groups is short sighted. Tucker isn't stupid, and his value on the open market will never be higher.
-
Tucker being gone means nothing. He has a huge following and will likely parlay this into his own brand where he reaps even more money with even less oversight.
As with most things GOP related these days, it's a cult of personality. His viewers will follow him, and especially when he uses the tried and true, "They tried to silence the truth" line that all of his rubes routinely fall for.
For them there is a boogey man around every corner coming for their, 'way of life'. He is the PERFECT man to give the hogs their daily feeding of slop.
If you didn't watch him before, great, but get those you know away from people like him. They're too stupid to know how dangerous a man with low moral character and a megaphone can be.
I'd say good riddance, but this isn't even close to the last anyone has heard of him.
Greenwald pretty much took your "all things GOP" argument apart.
---
Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald
Tucker was the cable host who most:
* Opposed US proxy war in Ukraine;
* Denounced CIA, FBI and DHS for its systemic lies and corruption;
* Devoted himself to a pardon for Julian Assange;
* Objected to regime change efforts in Cuba;
* Criticized Trump Admin's militarism.
From 8pm to 9pm on Fox, there was extreme, even fundamental, disagreements between Tucker and Hannity on those key issues - the kind of internal debate unthinkable on any other network: in lockstep.
I'd wager the new 8pm host will be far more aligned with Hannity: standard GOP.
I'm not making claims, yet, on what caused this separation. I'm just noting: the removal of Tucker means the elimination of the only real, sustained dissent on US militarism, the US Security State and more 👆(Laura & Jesse Waters are the only others in prime-time near that).
11:36 AM · Apr 24, 2023
-
This could be in the Investing thread, too, but I'll throw it here ...
FOX down about 3%, WBD (CNN parent company) down about 1.6%. Both stocks have bounced off earlier lows.
-
Newsmax and OAN exist. Also, after this I would bet my house that he is fielding multiple offers from online media.
The 65 year olds all are on facebook and share Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Dennis Prager, and Steven Crowder clips nonstop.
To think Tucker can't collaborate with those groups is short sighted. Tucker isn't stupid, and his value on the open market will never be higher.
A few thoughts here:
- Regardless of where Tucker goes, it won't have the platform or built-in audience he had at Fox. When Tucker began hosting his Fox prime-time show, his ratings almost immediately matched those of O'Reilly, Why? Not because he brought new viewers with him or was established as must-watch TV on the right. Because O'Reilly's audience for the most part simply didn't change the channel. They were loyal to the Fox brand, not an individual host. As TSmith notes above, the only time Fox viewers threaten to abandon the brand is when they're told what they don't want to hear. As long as Tucker's replacement provides a reliable Fox Newsy spin, I believe the audience largely will stay put.
- I don't believe those 65-year-olds scrolling through Facebook are likely to watch 60-minute online news programs while glued to their iPads. They're going to turn on their TVs, as they have for the past four decades. Brand and viewing habits are hard to break, especially for the AARP crowd.
- I have little doubt Tucker catches on somewhere and continues his spiel. I very much doubt a large portion of his current audience abandons Fox and follows him there. Again, see Bill O'Reilly Or Megyn Kelly.
-
Old people don't change (channels, viewing habits, etc.).
The median age of a Fox News viewer is 65.
Honest question - what is the median age of any news viewer? I'm pretty sure my kids watch very little -- if any -- news.
-
Honest question - what is the median age of any news viewer? I'm pretty sure my kids watch very little -- if any -- news.
From what I found:
Fox - 65
MSNBC - 68
CNN - 64
Young people don't watch TV news (or read news, for that matter).
-
From what I found:
Fox - 65
MSNBC - 68
CNN - 64
Young people don't watch TV news (or read news, for that matter).
Thank you for an informative, non-snarky response. You'll probably get a temporary ban for a TOS violation.
-
From what I found:
Fox - 65
MSNBC - 68
CNN - 64
Young people don't watch TV news (or read news, for that matter).
Weather Channel?
-
...and CNN just "fired" Don Lemon.
-
I think this is true, so long as Fox just keeps pumping out the lies that its audience demands. Remember that they went in hard for the Big Lie because they immediately lost viewers to Newsmax and OAN when they admitted that Biden won. It was their fear of losing audience by telling the truth that led them down this path.
So to a certain extent, it doesn't matter who replaces Tuckems, the audience now controls Fox. If Fox doesn't accede to whatever crazy sh!t the edges of the right-wing nutters come up with on a daily basis, the audience riots. Tuck was #1 because he absolutely had no moral qualms about amplifying the most outrageous, racist crap that the audience demanded, but as long as *someone* continues to deliver the delicious lies that the viewers want, Fox will be fine. Rupert just wants someone who will do it without him facing trillion dollar lawsuits.
"If you like your Doctor you can keep your Doctor, if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance."
Barak Obama
-
The Mope Squad will have to find a new bogeyman.
You guys moving on from The View?
-
"If you like your Doctor you can keep your Doctor, if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance."
Barak Obama
In all seriousness, you consider these two things to be remotely the same thing?
-
Once again, Jon Stewart is right
-
Sew wuz Billy, aina?
-
Sew wuz Billy, aina?
Yup. That’s why Marquette went 17-3 in the Big East and is a consensus top-5 team entering 2023-24 in one of the best leagues in college basketball
-
Greenwald pretty much took your "all things GOP" argument apart.
---
Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald
Tucker was the cable host who most:
* Opposed US proxy war in Ukraine;
* Denounced CIA, FBI and DHS for its systemic lies and corruption;
* Devoted himself to a pardon for Julian Assange;
* Objected to regime change efforts in Cuba;
* Criticized Trump Admin's militarism.
From 8pm to 9pm on Fox, there was extreme, even fundamental, disagreements between Tucker and Hannity on those key issues - the kind of internal debate unthinkable on any other network: in lockstep.
I'd wager the new 8pm host will be far more aligned with Hannity: standard GOP.
I'm not making claims, yet, on what caused this separation. I'm just noting: the removal of Tucker means the elimination of the only real, sustained dissent on US militarism, the US Security State and more 👆(Laura & Jesse Waters are the only others in prime-time near that).
11:36 AM · Apr 24, 2023
Glenn Greenwald is a grifter that Tucker had on his program all the time. Also, the disclaimer of "cable news host" is prescient.
-
Glenn Greenwald is a grifter that Tucker had on his program all the time. Also, the disclaimer of "cable news host" is prescient.
Has anyone gotten catturd’s response? As a leading voice of the American conservative movement, it’ll be interesting what he says
-
Has anyone gotten catturd’s response? As a leading voice of the American conservative movement, it’ll be interesting what he says
Baked Alaska has been dethroned? Damn, you can't let off the gas even for a second.
-
Glenn Greenwald is a grifter that Tucker had on his program all the time. Also, the disclaimer of "cable news host" is prescient.
Also, a fellow Putin apologist.
-
He'll land on his feet at RT.
Yep.
@RT_com
Hey @TuckerCarlson, you can always question more with @RT_com
-
In all seriousness, you consider these two things to be remotely the same thing?
Of course not. One Big Lie was spread by a TV pundit, the other Big Lie by a President. One lied to a TV audience the other lied to the voters. A Big Lie is a Big Lie is it not, but a Big Lie by a Democrat President is not the same thing I guess.
-
Of course not. One Big Lie was spread by a TV pundit, the other Big Lie by a President. One lied to a TV audience the other lied to the voters. A Big Lie is a Big Lie is it not, but a Big Lie by a Democrat President is not the same thing I guess.
Case closed, snowflakes
-
Of course not. One Big Lie was spread by a TV pundit, the other Big Lie by a President. One lied to a TV audience the other lied to the voters. A Big Lie is a Big Lie is it not, but a Big Lie by a Democrat President is not the same thing I guess.
My lord is this just awful logic. Not to mention irrelevant whataboutism.
-
Well, the Buffoon supposedly announces tomorrow. We'll see how long that lasts, hey?
-
Well, the Buffoon supposedly announces tomorrow. We'll see how long that lasts, hey?
Imagine getting routed by the buffoon, hey? Embarrassing
-
Well, the Buffoon supposedly announces tomorrow. We'll see how long that lasts, hey?
DeSantis is announcing?
-
Maybe just stick to police shootin's in Grand Rapids, hey?
-
Shut up and drill, aina.
-
Slow your roll. Yule putt bedder, hey?
-
26 in my last round. I'm good.
We agree that there are politicians that are buffoons. We disagree on who they are.
-
Congo River or Splash Putt Putt, hey?
-
Nyuk, nyuk.
-
"If you like your Doctor you can keep your Doctor, if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance."
Barak Obama
This was reassuring to me at the time.
I liked my Doctor and kept my Doctor. Pretty good deal all things considered.
-
The fact of the matter is the country should have better options than Donald Trump vs. Joe Biden (or Hillary Clinton).
-
Finally agree on somethin'. They're both too fookin' old, aina?
-
Fascinating how we settle on and argue the merits of or which of two old, white, incompetent, selfish, lying men is better suited to lead the country. We can likely do better. Is the disdain for either of their politics political? My bad, if yes.
-
Of course not. One Big Lie was spread by a TV pundit, the other Big Lie by a President. One lied to a TV audience the other lied to the voters. A Big Lie is a Big Lie is it not, but a Big Lie by a Democrat President is not the same thing I guess.
Simply amazing. Discussing this with someone that lives in an alternate reality is futile, so I won't try.
Instead, I'll sit back with a drink and fondly reminisce about the time Obama summoned a violent mob and sent them to attack the Capitol to force politicians to vote for Obamacare, all for the insidious purpose of giving people affordable health care.
-
Simply amazing. Discussing this with someone that lives in an alternate reality is futile, so I won't try.
Instead, I'll sit back with a drink and fondly reminisce about the time Obama summoned a violent mob and sent them to attack the Capitol to force politicians to vote for Obamacare, all for the insidious purpose of giving people affordable health care.
🐷🐷
-
(https://images2.imgbox.com/55/6c/XzQ3jUHW_o.jpg) (https://imgbox.com/XzQ3jUHW)
-
I have no problem with Tucker. Any more than I do with Rachel Maddow, Don Lemon or a host of other commentators on either side. Or even the View for that matter!
As long as what they're brandishing is labeled opinion, which it is, then OK. They're entitled. If Fox, MSNBC, CNN or any other network wants to pontificate, go for it and see if you can get an audience. That's the goal -- to get an audience to sell beer, soap and even My Pillows (gosh, I can't stand that guy LOL).
What scares me is that people take this stuff as Gospel truth. That it replaces news in an era where objectivity in news coverage is rare, if not impossible.
I truly believe in the concept ascribed by the Houston Chronicle: "Written and Edited to Merit Your Confidence."
Or the Daily Herald: "Fear God, Tell the Truth and Make Money" (Not necessarily in that order).
-
(https://images2.imgbox.com/55/6c/XzQ3jUHW_o.jpg) (https://imgbox.com/XzQ3jUHW)
That's cute, dos swine.
-
I effectively gave up watching cable news years ago. I have watched less than one hour of all of them together since getting the 2020 election results.
Serious question ...
Does anyone here watch them? No wrong answers. Just curious.
A second serious question is, does any of this matter? Do they still have any influence on the public narrative?
-
We agree on something. My new year's resolution for 2021 was to not watch cable news anymore. I have held to that with two exceptions. January 6 and the recent Nashville shooting, as I had relatives at that school. Other than that, I have spent more time on this post than I have spent watching cable news.
Does it have influence? Yes, some. Eat lunch in a small town diner or a popular local restaurant that has older customers and listen to conversations around you.
-
We agree on something. My new year's resolution for 2021 was to not watch cable news anymore. I have held to that with two exceptions. January 6 and the recent Nashville shooting, as I had relatives at that school. Other than that, I have spent more time on this post than I have spent watching cable news.
Does it have influence? Yes, some. Eat lunch in a small town diner or a popular local restaurant that has older customers and listen to conversations around you.
I understand that Grandpa meets with his golfing buddies for lunch and complains about the world based on what he watched on Fox News or MSNBC. But, I ask again, does that matter? So what? Does it move the needle on anything?
My biggest complaint about Cable News is that it creates no news. It emotionally reacts news broken somewhere else (typically, it is still the dead tree newspapers). So, you watch what fits your political view, as they assemble a panel to be outraged at whatever is happening in politics based on their viewpoint. I found that exhausting and stopped watching.
I think what moves the needle is social media. Twitter (the center of social media) matters as that is where things start; even if it is a dead tree newspaper breaking news, the story gets its narrative and acceleration there. Cable News is just the summary of that for the elderly. Again, no thank you for me.
I looked it up. Tucker's show was the highest-rated show, with around 4 million viewers. There are 258 million people over 18 in the US (2020 Census). So, what are 98.5% of the adult population doing on any given night? The answer is not watching Tucker, and even more are not watching all the other Cable News shows.
But how many social media posts from prominent influencers have more than 4 million impressions? Hundreds of them!
So, I understand this post and why people are talking about it. I'm just struggling to figure out why any of this matters.
-
I blame Dan Rather. When he started injecting opinion and bias into news reporting I stopped watching news on ALL us channels.
Yes, that was some time ago...
Walter Cronkite was the last honest newsman. Maybe Mcneil and Lehrer.
BTW, I think Tucker and Lemon deserve each other. Their purgatory should be spent with only each other, and no outside information. They could just spew lies and make up new facts for us for several more years.
-
Heisie, I said 'some'. It only has to influence enough voters to flip an election. How many is that? When the margins in some states are so razor thin, flipping the correct million votes in the correct places turns the course of the country.
Since 1988, the Republican presidential candidate has won the popular vote one time. 2004. But the margins are such that by winning the right combination of states by just enough, it results in an electoral college victory.
So, in answer to your question, it doesn't need to impact 100 million people. It needs to impact the correct combination of 1-2 million people.
-
According to The New York Times, this interview last week sealed Don Lemon's fate.
Wow! Just wow!
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/24/business/media/don-lemon-cnn.html
Here is the video
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1650563196795641871?s=20
-
I blame Dan Rather. When he started injecting opinion and bias into news reporting I stopped watching news on ALL us channels.
Yes, that was some time ago...
Walter Cronkite was the last honest newsman. Maybe Mcneil and Lehrer.
BTW, I think Tucker and Lemon deserve each other. Their purgatory should be spent with only each other, and no outside information. They could just spew lies and make up new facts for us for several more years.
I thought Bernard Shaw, John Holliman, and Peter Arnett were stellar reporters for CNN while in Baghdad during the Gulf War. Those days are obviously over.
-
Walter Cronkite was the last honest newsman.
This line always makes me laugh. Did people even watch Cronkite? He interjected his opinions ALL THE TIME into his broadcasts.
I really wish we would stop yearning for eras that actually never happened.
-
Heisie, I said 'some'. It only has to influence enough voters to flip an election. How many is that? When the margins in some states are so razor thin, flipping the correct million votes in the correct places turns the course of the country.
Since 1988, the Republican presidential candidate has won the popular vote one time. 2004. But the margins are such that by winning the right combination of states by just enough, it results in an electoral college victory.
So, in answer to your question, it doesn't need to impact 100 million people. It needs to impact the correct combination of 1-2 million people.
Eh, I actually think it doesn't influence that many. The people that watch it are by and large confirming their own biases.
-
I think it influences 1-2% of voters. Which can be just enough. I also think it can drive or suppress turnout, which amounts to the same thing.
Cronkite is given credit for changing the American public's perception of the police action in Vietnam.
-
I think it influences 1-2% of voters. Which can be just enough. I also think it can drive or suppress turnout, which amounts to the same thing.
Cronkite is given credit for changing the American public's perception of the police action in Vietnam.
[/color]
Cronkite did not change the perception of the war he just confirmed it. I can remember the Marquette Tribune would print the obituary of no fewer than 3 MU grads every week lost in the war. It was personal for a lot of Americans even those who did not lose a family member or friend.
-
Russert is the last news person I remember liking. As far as the impact Fox/CNN or television news has on voters? I would say minimal and nowhere near 1-2%.
-
Eh, I actually think it doesn't influence that many. The people that watch it are by and large confirming their own biases.
Definitely agree with this when it comes to Fox News. You don't watch Fox News if you're not voting GOP up and down the ballot. The exception might be primary season -- depending on what Fox is airing, it could influence choices on the GOP primary ballot. But again, that's not moving the needle one iota once there is one GOP and one Dem candidate. (Having said that, I have checked out Fox on election day; their news department generally has done a good job reporting on elections as they happen, and it's even famously pissed off viewers by having the temerity to use actual facts.)
CNN is probably that way for the left, too ... though maybe more independents watch it when there is a big news story on a particular day. Tower's example of what network one would watch during the events of 1/6/21 rings true.
-
Definitely agree with this when it comes to Fox News. You don't watch Fox News if you're not voting GOP up and down the ballot.
That’s not true. I watch Fox News (The Five and Gutfeld, regularly) and am not a Republican.
-
I effectively gave up watching cable news years ago. I have watched less than one hour of all of them together since getting the 2020 election results.
Serious question ...
Does anyone here watch them? No wrong answers. Just curious.
A second serious question is, does any of this matter? Do they still have any influence on the public narrative?
Somewhat like you I gave up watching cable news altogether except Presidential Election years I will watch MSNBC or CNN Labor Day through the election. I'll watch the same for about 2-3 days only around Election Day in 1/2 year elections.
Influence the narrative? - As Tower said, it may effect 1%-2% people and that's it which seems to be enough if in the right location/state.
Strangely, Fox News has an excellent polling outfit also.
-
That’s not true. I watch Fox News (The Five and Gutfeld, regularly) and am not a Republican.
Worth noting that Gutfield is the highest-rated late-night comedy show. Higher than The Tonight Show, Colbert and Kimmel.
These are another set of shows I have not watched in over a decade.
Unwatchable.
-
Worth noting that Gutfield is the highest-rated late-night comedy show. Higher than The Tonight Show, Colbert and Kimmel.
These are another set of shows I have not watched in over a decade.
Unwatchable.
If you haven't seen them in over a decade, how do you know they are unwatchable? Things change over time.
Imagine applying your logic to MUBB. 5,6,7 years ago almost unwatchable. Now, not so much. ;D
-
Worth noting that Gutfield is the highest-rated late-night comedy show. Higher than The Tonight Show, Colbert and Kimmel.
These are another set of shows I have not watched in over a decade.
Unwatchable.
This is (sort of) off topic, but I wonder how much of an editorial decision to make media consumable in youtube-able bites for redistribution the day after broadcast to hunt virality has affected viewership on programming in general, and late night programing in particular. There's a 0% chance I will watch the Tonight Show, but a non-zero chance I might catch a clip of it the next day if what happened was noteworthy enough. I feel like in the past few years this has been my experience with SNL (though the sketch-length bits they did naturally lent themselves to this format) as well.
I do know that there is a whole cottage industry of outrage farming the cable news propogandists. Clip out whatever nonsensical take they have, cue up the derision, repackage it on twitter, presto chango you're the remora on the shark of Tucker (or whomever). And, conversely, who can forget one of my least favorite genres of repackaged content "Watch as [propagandists] OWNS/DESTROYS/DECIMATES [target]" (looking at Ben Shapiro's media ecosystem in particular for this one, but certainly the Resistance Twitter loves it way too freaking much). For that reason, when people are saying "oh the audience is only 2-3M (or whatever)" I do think that somewhat undersells the reach.
-
That’s not true. I watch Fox News (The Five and Gutfeld, regularly) and am not a Republican.
You're not "voting GOP up and down the ballot"? Great. Thanks!
-
This line always makes me laugh. Did people even watch Cronkite? He interjected his opinions ALL THE TIME into his broadcasts.
I really wish we would stop yearning for eras that actually never happened.
This shouldn't get lost in the cacophony of bullcrap about cable news.
Cronkite was an inveterate opinion-maker and people who claim he was only straight news "tell it like it is" are regurgitating what they've read or been told by others rather then experiencing him firsthand.
-
Cronkite's broadcasts were mostly "just the facts," but, from what I've read, there definitely were times he inserted his views or emotions. He famously fought off tears when reporting the JFK assassination, and he enthusiastically reported on the 1969 Apollo mission.
His biggest expressions of opinion involved the Vietnam War, which he despised and advocated against. After he visited Nam in 1968, he declared the war a "stalemate" and urged LBJ to get America out of it.
I'm too young to remember Nam (nice to say I'm too young to remember something!) but I did sometimes watch the Cronkite news as a teen and into my early 20s. Huntley and Brinkley on NBC were cut from the same cloth.
-
Somewhat like you I gave up watching cable news altogether except Presidential Election years I will watch MSNBC or CNN Labor Day through the election. I'll watch the same for about 2-3 days only around Election Day in 1/2 year elections.
Influence the narrative? - As Tower said, it may effect 1%-2% people and that's it which seems to be enough if in the right location/state.
Strangely, Fox News has an excellent polling outfit also.
I think those who say this are looking at it from a far too short timeframe. At any given moment? Sure, maybe 1%-2% are influenced in the moment. It's the cumulative, long-term effect that is most powerful.
Few people are swayed by a single segment. It's the constant repetition that builds up perceptions over time, to the point that some become so terrified they shoot anyone on their doorstep that doesn't look like them...
...or go from vaccine proponent to posting memes about how the vaccine changes your DNA.
-
Of course not. One Big Lie was spread by a TV pundit, the other Big Lie by a President. One lied to a TV audience the other lied to the voters. A Big Lie is a Big Lie is it not, but a Big Lie by a Democrat President is not the same thing I guess.
Not even close, one lied for profit and money knowing full well what they were doing, the other had to compromise with another political party dead-set against providing healthcare for anyone not sponsored by their employer to get legislation passed.
-
I understand that Grandpa meets with his golfing buddies for lunch and complains about the world based on what he watched on Fox News or MSNBC. But, I ask again, does that matter? So what? Does it move the needle on anything?
My biggest complaint about Cable News is that it creates no news. It emotionally reacts news broken somewhere else (typically, it is still the dead tree newspapers). So, you watch what fits your political view, as they assemble a panel to be outraged at whatever is happening in politics based on their viewpoint. I found that exhausting and stopped watching.
I think what moves the needle is social media. Twitter (the center of social media) matters as that is where things start; even if it is a dead tree newspaper breaking news, the story gets its narrative and acceleration there. Cable News is just the summary of that for the elderly. Again, no thank you for me.
I looked it up. Tucker's show was the highest-rated show, with around 4 million viewers. There are 258 million people over 18 in the US (2020 Census). So, what are 98.5% of the adult population doing on any given night? The answer is not watching Tucker, and even more are not watching all the other Cable News shows.
But how many social media posts from prominent influencers have more than 4 million impressions? Hundreds of them!
So, I understand this post and why people are talking about it. I'm just struggling to figure out why any of this matters.
You're missing the influence of someone like tucker who's headlines, video clips and talking points get spread on social media.
-
Not even close, one lied for profit and money knowing full well what they were doing, the other had to compromise with another political party dead-set against providing healthcare for anyone not sponsored by their employer to get legislation passed.
Username checks out.
-
Lurch is a really great guy who has been in the heart of the insurance industry for a couple of decades. Ground zero for all the changes of Obamacare.
-
Slow your roll. Yule putt bedder, hey?
26 putts again today.
-
Godd thing you retired early, aina?
-
I retired right on time. The game is coming along. And the roll does not need slowed.
-
26 putts again today.
Not bad for 9
-
Really good for 18. A testament to hitting fringes and chipping well.
-
Not even close, one lied for profit and money knowing full well what they were doing, the other had to compromise with another political party dead-set against providing healthcare for anyone not sponsored by their employer to get legislation passed.
So lying by a Democrat is not lying. Even the Washington Post gave Obama 4 Pinocchios for lying knowing full well it was for votes. He had the house and senate so no compromise with Republicans was necessary.
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/sr6fh.jpg)
-
Lmao
https://twitter.com/gabrielsherman/status/1650964676606324736?s=46&t=G2FhP_F2kWewaBOpvRv5lg
-
You're missing the influence of someone like tucker who's headlines, video clips and talking points get spread on social media.
Confirmation bias
Meaningless level of opinions are changed.
This applies for all of cable news. Everybody six out their own opinion and nothing is changed.
-
I think those who say this are looking at it from a far too short timeframe. At any given moment? Sure, maybe 1%-2% are influenced in the moment. It's the cumulative, long-term effect that is most powerful.
Few people are swayed by a single segment. It's the constant repetition that builds up perceptions over time, to the point that some become so terrified they shoot anyone on their doorstep that doesn't look like them...
...or go from vaccine proponent to posting memes about how the vaccine changes your DNA.
This is spot on.
-
Viewer responses to his departure. ;D
https://www.theonion.com/tucker-carlson-fox-news-exit-viewers-react-1850369577
-
Confirmation bias
Meaningless level of opinions are changed.
This applies for all of cable news. Everybody six out their own opinion and nothing is changed.
I actually think these shows and the viral outflows are what solidify less opinions changing or that they are unwilling to change. Outrage and apathy result from getting fed what you want all the time.
It drags the dialog to a cynical place even if some people aren’t there or changing beliefs because of it directly.
-
To be honest even if it were 1-2%, you have to break that down and look at where that 1-2% is located throughout the country. In other words if it is actually 1% in Wisconsin it could have an impact on elections. Whereas if it's 1% in Illinois it would have no impact whatsoever. Now, I've heard conservatives argue that big-tech withholding certain points of view about for example the covid lab theory and Hunter Biden could have swayed voters and the election. My take, similar to TV "news" shows, is that it had very little if any impact.
The truth is debates, tv news, and even the counless lies, douchebaggery, and dishonesty displayed by both Trump and Biden are not swaying voters much at all. People are entrenched in their political party with the exception of young voters. And the vast majority of young voters will vote Democrat. The fact that this disgusting rematch will likely take place is a condemnation of our entire society and country. They're both are old as fk and suck royally in different ways, not to mention are clear criminals. No rational person wants to see either of these fkbags running our country.
-
Fox didn't just pay $787 million settlement in a defamation suit because it has no influence on the public.
Any one of us could say the same nonsense about Dominion here and it wouldn't cost us a dime. Fox isn't paying up because it told lies, it's paying up because it told lives that people believed, shattering the otherwise unquestioned reputation of a company.
-
Peddled lies while knowing the truth.
-
So lying by a Democrat is not lying. Even the Washington Post gave Obama 4 Pinocchios for lying knowing full well it was for votes. He had the house and senate so no compromise with Republicans was necessary.
Wow, 4 Pinocchios? I stand corrected.
Anyone who had already purchased a health insurance plan by March 23, 2010 had a plan with “grandfathered status.” The grandfather clause allowed current plans to stay the same, as long as their insurer continued to offer that plan.
The insurers just had to not offer the existing plan in order to make people switch.
Did Obama know that this was a risk, I'm sure he did. If there's any fault to his words, that's where the lie is. Not making the public aware that the health plan has to be offered in order for them to keep their health plan.
-
Peddled lies while knowing the truth.
Sure, but damages in a case like that are determined by the effect of the lie, not the lie itself.
A lie is relatively harmless if no one believes it. Judging by their payout, Fox seemed pretty concerned that their lies weren't harmless.
-
Confirmation bias
Meaningless level of opinions are changed.
This applies for all of cable news. Everybody six out their own opinion and nothing is changed.
So, social media does or doesn't matter? Cause, you previously said social media does matter. And if Tucker's stuff ends up on social media...
-
So, social media does or doesn't matter? Cause, you previously said social media does matter. And if Tucker's stuff ends up on social media...
When you write "it matters" are you saying people in significant numbers are voting based on what Tucker Carlson or Don Lemon say? I find that difficult to believe no matter how their opinions are viewed or shared. People that have watched these tools are generally middle aged or older and not remotely swing voters.
-
Cronkite's broadcasts were mostly "just the facts," but, from what I've read, there definitely were times he inserted his views or emotions. He famously fought off tears when reporting the JFK assassination, and he enthusiastically reported on the 1969 Apollo mission.
His biggest expressions of opinion involved the Vietnam War, which he despised and advocated against. After he visited Nam in 1968, he declared the war a "stalemate" and urged LBJ to get America out of it.
I'm too young to remember Nam (nice to say I'm too young to remember something!) but I did sometimes watch the Cronkite news as a teen and into my early 20s. Huntley and Brinkley on NBC were cut from the same cloth.
I'm a news junkie and one can draw the following:
1) Cronkite really was objective. To Brother MU's point, the only time Cronkite became an advocate was on space. The excitement, the technological enthusiasm really caught Cronkite and I don't think he was objective. He treated astronauts like sportswriters treat ballplayers -- with kid gloves. Burn 'em and they stop talking to you.
2) The controversial 1968 Vietnam piece was extremely well-researched and detailed. Cronkite's "opinion" was part of a commentary at the end of a one-hour special examining the purpose and tactics in Vietnam. Long form documentaries, as was CBS Reports, tended to be more interpretive reporting and commentary as opposed to straight news. Ed Murrow did the same thing with a "See it Now" piece, Harvest of Shame, a report about migrant workers that CBS broadcast in 1960.
3) To expect reporters not to have human emotions is ridiculous. I've seen the tape of Mr. Cronkite announcing the death of President Kennedy many times and Mr. Cronkite had the same emotion many of us and our families did when we learned a dynamic young President of the United States died. You'd have to ask Mr. Cronkite when you cross the pearly gates, but I suspect he would have felt the same way had Presidents Eisenhower or Reagan been assassinated.
4) Huntley/Brinkley was objective as well. In fact, for the first time, the CBS Evening News passed Huntley Brinkley during a strike in which Brinkley honored the picket lines but Huntley did not.
5) Cronkite was an interesting watch during the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. On one hand, he called the Chicago Police "a bunch of thugs" after the police assaulted Dan Rather on the floor of the International Amphitheatre (Go Cops!) but he allowed Richard J. Daley to spew lies and nonsense about the threats to the Democratic Convention in Chicago without challenging Mayor Pinocchio. In those days, the way you could tell Daley was lying was his lips were moving. Cronkite was docile after the convention and it gave Daley the sense that he was above the media.
-
When you write "it matters" are you saying people in significant numbers are voting based on what Tucker Carlson or Don Lemon say? I find that difficult to believe no matter how their opinions are viewed or shared. People that have watched these tools are generally middle aged or older and not remotely swing voters.
You'd have to ask heisy. He was the one who said social media matters
-
You'd have to ask heisy. He was the one who said social media matters
Yes, social media mattering to public opinion, and by extension elections, is unique to me.
-
That’s not true. I watch Fox News (The Five and Gutfeld, regularly) and am not a Republican.
(https://media.tenor.com/43riVRFX3HMAAAAM/jennifer-lawrence-j-law.gif)
-
This is (sort of) off topic, but I wonder how much of an editorial decision to make media consumable in youtube-able bites for redistribution the day after broadcast to hunt virality has affected viewership on programming in general, and late night programing in particular. There's a 0% chance I will watch the Tonight Show, but a non-zero chance I might catch a clip of it the next day if what happened was noteworthy enough. I feel like in the past few years this has been my experience with SNL (though the sketch-length bits they did naturally lent themselves to this format) as well.
I do know that there is a whole cottage industry of outrage farming the cable news propogandists. Clip out whatever nonsensical take they have, cue up the derision, repackage it on twitter, presto chango you're the remora on the shark of Tucker (or whomever). And, conversely, who can forget one of my least favorite genres of repackaged content "Watch as [propagandists] OWNS/DESTROYS/DECIMATES [target]" (looking at Ben Shapiro's media ecosystem in particular for this one, but certainly the Resistance Twitter loves it way too freaking much). For that reason, when people are saying "oh the audience is only 2-3M (or whatever)" I do think that somewhat undersells the reach.
Spot on. It isn't the full broadcast watchers as you'll find most people under retirement age don't have time to watch. It's the clips that pop up on Twitter, Facebook, and TikTok that push the narrative now.
The real problem with Tucker is that he is a white nationalist, and he is good at his job.
-
Found the Tucker watcher.
Yes , because there is no one source for truth
If I had stuck to one source I would have believed
51 ex gubmint officials that the laptop was Russian disinformation. Lifelong Independent who tries to verify what goes on and tries to listen to everybody
-
Sydney newspaper with the clever headline: ;D
‘Tucker for president?’ What Carlson does next, now he’s been outfoxed
https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/tucker-for-president-what-carlson-does-next-now-he-s-been-outfoxed-20230425-p5d32e.html
-
I am looking forward to his lawsuit against Fox. I hope their opposition research on him is made public. Just for the entertainment value.
-
I for one think that whenever an employer feels compelled to develop an oppo research file on its employees that is a sign of a healthy and well-functioning workplace.
-
Agree completely.
-
Interesting take
I did not write this
-----
The political left is notorious for celebrating whenever they believe a prominent opponent to their agenda has been silenced. Often they celebrate far too soon and become enraged when they realize the people they wanted gone are stronger and more popular than ever. The Tucker Carlson situation is likely another case of this dynamic in play.
When CNN's Brian Stelter was taken off the air after years of disinformation peddling, conservatives celebrated as well, but there's a difference between the two events. In the case of Stelter, his show was tanking along with CNN's overall ratings. The company was bleeding audience numbers and people like Stelter had zero public trust. This was the market telling CNN and Stelter that they are not wanted.
In the case of Tucker Carlson, he had the top slot on FOX and the highest-rated cable news show in the country. The removal of Carlson had nothing to do with the market – The market wants Carlson's show. He was removed, most likely because of his views. Stelter was removed because he is irrelevant; Carlson was removed as an attempt to censor (deplatforming).
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez seems to think that the demands of the market do not matter and applauded Tucker Carlson's “deplatforming” from FOX, comparing it to the defeat of a villain in a Marvel movie. This is odd considering villains do not get deplatformed; it's the villains that do the deplatforming.
AOC celebrates Fox News terminating Tucker Carlson
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1650763682811465730
In case her crazy eyes didn't give it away, it should be noted that AOC seems to be very excited about the prospect of Carlson being suppressed. But perhaps her bartender's brain missed the bigger picture?
In the era of digital media such personalities take their audiences with them. That's millions of viewers that Fox News is about to lose, and surely there are multiple alternative media outlets ready to offer Carlson a spot for his show. If anything, FOX getting rid of him has strengthened his credibility even more. The truth is, he was the only reason many conservatives bothered to tune in to FOX at all.
AOC does note that she's afraid of the “cut scene” at the end of the movie where the “villain's hand” jumps out to indicate he's not dead. But if this is the case, then her theory about deplatforming is ignorant. If Carlson takes his audience with him, then how is he deplatformed? If this move inspires an even bigger audience shift over to alternative media, then the leftists haven't won anything. In fact, they have lost.
What AOC should really be doing is demanding FOX give Carlson his job back. Strike him down and he comes back more powerful than she can possibly imagine. However, in her rabid lust for control she has overlooked the obvious.
Perhaps in this case leftists like AOC believe that having Carlson on a corporate news network gives him a form of legitimacy – They tend to think the mainstream news is the only viable news, but this is an outdated and foolish assumption. In reality, it was not FOX that gave Carlson legitimacy, it was Carlson that gave FOX legitimacy.
Tucker Carlson will be fine wherever he goes, FOX's market value will plunge along with its viewership, and AOC will still look like a crazed communist. Deplatforming is the removal of a voice despite broad public demand. It's the tool of authoritarians, and all it does is tell us who is close to the target when it comes to the truth. They wouldn't be deplatformed if they weren't a threat to the establishment.
-
Why did AOC have to do with Tucker Carlson losing his job?
Adding a tweet by Jack Posobiec, too. Bravo!
-
Is there a link to that article?
What "views" would Fox fire Tucker for?
-
"Suppressed" is a funny way of saying "fired for defaming a company and contributing to his employer being sued for hundreds of millions of dollars".
He is perfectly capable of continuing to spread his message. He just can't do it as a fox employee. Free speech does not mean free from consequences of speech
-
Is there a link to that article?
If you guessed that it came from a far-right, largely deplatformed website with links to Russia, and written under the very original nom de plume Tyler Durden, come collect your prize.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/aoc-celebrates-deplatforming-tucker-carlson-did-she-miss-point-yet-again?ref=biztoc.com
-
Interesting take
I did not write this
-----
The political left is notorious for celebrating whenever they believe a prominent opponent to their agenda has been silenced. Often they celebrate far too soon and become enraged when they realize the people they wanted gone are stronger and more popular than ever.
Let's see, the first two lines are lies/distortions.
And a posting of the PizzaGate guy as if he were a legitimate voice.
I think I can safely not read the rest.
-
Perfect.
-
Lol zerohedge. Perfect.
-
Zerohedge and Jack Posobiec.
Take this to the scoop hall of fame!
-
Carlson will find a platform. I think the O'Reilly template fits here. Although if Fox makes it a mission to make TC toxic, perhaps Olbermann would be more apt.
-
Carlson will find a platform. I think the O'Reilly template fits here. Although if Fox makes it a mission to make TC toxic, perhaps Olbermann would be more apt.
Agree. Olbermann and Megyn Kelly would seem to be likely good analogies. Both have top 50 podcasts. (Somehow Glenn Beck is in the top 20????)
-
Agree. Olbermann and Megyn Kelly would seem to be likely good analogies. Both have top 50 podcasts. (Somehow Glenn Beck is in the top 20????)
Can we put all 4 of them on a rocket ship to Mars?
-
Carlson will find a platform. I think the O'Reilly template fits here. Although if Fox makes it a mission to make TC toxic, perhaps Olbermann would be more apt.
I mentioned to Pakuni earlier, but I think TC is much more savvy than BO ever was. I would be absolutely shocked if this was the last meaningful job that TC holds.
-
Can we put all 4 of them on a rocket ship to Mars?
Only if Eloon is piloting it.
-
Carlson will find a platform. I think the O'Reilly template fits here. Although if Fox makes it a mission to make TC toxic, perhaps Olbermann would be more apt.
From the NYT's DealBook:
Two days after being fired from Fox News, Tucker Carlson emerged on Twitter … with a two-minute video that didn’t address his shocking ouster. But he may have offered a hint about what he’ll do next after his surprise exit from Rupert Murdoch’s media empire.
Carlson criticized the state of political discourse, saying, “both political parties and their donors have reached consensus on what benefits them and they actively collude to shut down any conversation about it.”
“Where can you still find Americans saying true things? There aren’t many places left,” Carlson added. “But there are some. And that’s enough.” He concluded with “See you soon,” suggesting that he may return to the public forum, either on his own or as part of some news media outlet.
More details have emerged about Carlson’s firing. The Times reports that just before Fox News’s defamation trial was set to begin, the Fox board belatedly learned more about highly offensive and crude remarks that the host had made privately — and that surfaced as part of the legal discovery process.
The full extent of what he said is still not known, but news outlets have challenged court-ordered redactions of the private messages, and the communications could still emerge in a lawsuit against Fox News filed by the voting software maker Smartmatic.
Numerous reports say Tucker was especially fond of using the c-word.
-
Numerous reports say Tucker was especially fond of using the c-word.
Conservative?
Congress?
-
I mentioned to Pakuni earlier, but I think TC is much more savvy than BO ever was. I would be absolutely shocked if this was the last meaningful job that TC holds.
Yea, love him or hate him, he’s an intelligent dude and seems very savvy at the media politics game behind the scenes. He also seems to have a hold on the kayfabe aspect of being a talking head more than O’Reilly did (constantly trumpeting “I’m a registered independent” is was one of the dumbest ongoing schticks). And he’s not gotten to be completely unhinged like Olbermann or Glenn Beck yet.
I think he’s does the podcast/DIY route for a bit and then another big gig in a few years
-
Yea, love him or hate him, he’s an intelligent dude and seems very savvy at the media politics game behind the scenes. He also seems to have a hold on the kayfabe aspect of being a talking head more than O’Reilly did (constantly trumpeting “I’m a registered independent” is was one of the dumbest ongoing schticks). And he’s not gotten to be completely unhinged like Olbermann or Glenn Beck yet.
Beck is the best becuase he's never even pretended to be anything but a grifter. He's like a smarter, less meme-able Alex Jones. Remember when for a minute he thought there was more money in going the remorseful, move to the middle route? Then he realized that in fact there was more money in steering into insanity, so he went on a "I TAKE ALL MY APOLOGIES BACK" rampage. A true American success story.
-
Heisy misses Tuckems already. When you need a fix, Newsmax is too weak.
-
Carlson will find a platform. I think the O'Reilly template fits here. Although if Fox makes it a mission to make TC toxic, perhaps Olbermann would be more apt.
I predict the Daily Wire.
-
Yea, love him or hate him, he’s an intelligent dude and seems very savvy at the media politics game behind the scenes. He also seems to have a hold on the kayfabe aspect of being a talking head more than O’Reilly did (constantly trumpeting “I’m a registered independent” is was one of the dumbest ongoing schticks). And he’s not gotten to be completely unhinged like Olbermann or Glenn Beck yet.
I think he’s does the podcast/DIY route for a bit and then another big gig in a few years
It's this last part I have a hard time imagining.
What potential "big gig" is out there? Right now, there are three large platforms that sell political commentary: CNN, FOX and MSNBC. He's been fired by all three and I can't see any path back for him at any one of them.
So, where's this other gig? I could imagine him at a place like Newxmax or Daily Wire (as jficke suggests), but those aren't big gigs relative to what else is out there, unless you're also predicting a sea change in political media in the next few years. And I think he's way too toxic to land a show on s streamer like HBO (a la Maher/Oliver) or Apple (Stewart).
I don't think he disappears, but he, his audience and his influence will be much diminished.
-
Maybe he'll write books like his predecessor.
I could see "Killing O'Reilly" or "Killing Murdoch" in his future.
-
From the NYT's DealBook:
Two days after being fired from Fox News, Tucker Carlson emerged on Twitter … with a two-minute video that didn’t address his shocking ouster. But he may have offered a hint about what he’ll do next after his surprise exit from Rupert Murdoch’s media empire.
Carlson criticized the state of political discourse, saying, “both political parties and their donors have reached consensus on what benefits them and they actively collude to shut down any conversation about it.”
“Where can you still find Americans saying true things? There aren’t many places left,” Carlson added. “But there are some. And that’s enough.” He concluded with “See you soon,” suggesting that he may return to the public forum, either on his own or as part of some news media outlet.
More details have emerged about Carlson’s firing. The Times reports that just before Fox News’s defamation trial was set to begin, the Fox board belatedly learned more about highly offensive and crude remarks that the host had made privately — and that surfaced as part of the legal discovery process.
The full extent of what he said is still not known, but news outlets have challenged court-ordered redactions of the private messages, and the communications could still emerge in a lawsuit against Fox News filed by the voting software maker Smartmatic.
Numerous reports say Tucker was especially fond of using the c-word.
So it's either:
A. They're silencing me from speaking the truth
or
2. They fired an a-hole for being an a-hole to his staff/colleagues/boss
-
Beck is the best becuase he's never even pretended to be anything but a grifter. He's like a smarter, less meme-able Alex Jones. Remember when for a minute he thought there was more money in going the remorseful, move to the middle route? Then he realized that in fact there was more money in steering into insanity, so he went on a "I TAKE ALL MY APOLOGIES BACK" rampage. A true American success story.
I have first hand knowledge Beck is nothing but a grifter and a complete d-bag to boot.
He was a Top 40 DJ here in southern Connecticut and there's much more to that.............
-
I have first hand knowledge Beck is nothing but a grifter and a complete d-bag to boot.
He was a Top 40 DJ here in southern Connecticut and there's much more to that.............
He's done a hell of a job of grifting, gotta give him that!
-
It's this last part I have a hard time imagining.
What potential "big gig" is out there? Right now, there are three large platforms that sell political commentary: CNN, FOX and MSNBC. He's been fired by all three and I can't see any path back for him at any one of them.
So, where's this other gig? I could imagine him at a place like Newxmax or Daily Wire (as jficke suggests), but those aren't big gigs relative to what else is out there, unless you're also predicting a sea change in political media in the next few years. And I think he's way too toxic to land a show on s streamer like HBO (a la Maher/Oliver) or Apple (Stewart).
I don't think he disappears, but he, his audience and his influence will be much diminished.
So I'm cautiously optimistic that while he will not disappear, and his audience might actually *increase* in raw numbers, I think you are right that his influence will be much diminished.
Tucker was uniquely placed to be a vector to reach people a particular set of people: Mostly boomers, mostly not terminally online, conservative folks (even very conservative folks) mostly primed to be susceptible to his message but not already True True Believers. Sure there were probably some True True Believers in his audience. But think of a random late Middle Aged Dad or New Grandpa. This person is probably broadly unaware of the sea of crazy/fashy/Daily Wire stuff because that stuff exists mostly online, and unless it gets pushed across Middle Aged Dad's facebook page, he's not seeing it. But Tucker was really good at bundling up the online ecosphere stuff and repackaging it in a way that reached all those people who aren't consuming the Stephen Crowder/Matt Walsh podcast stuff.
So while I think Daily Wire pays a lot of money to Tucker to come onto their platform, and using their platform I bet he reaches more than a 3M audience number, it's a different audience. He will be preaching to the choir rather than spreading the stochastic terrorism gospel of libs of tiktok to virgin ears.
-
I predict the Daily Wire.
nm
-
according to the Lincoln Project, Tucker will run for president
-
according to the Lincoln Project, Tucker will run for president
That would be fun. We'd get to see just how many Americans now embrace Russia and outright fascism.
But I think jficke's call of the Daily Wire is a good one. The platform has the perfect blend of outright misogyny, Christian Nationalism, and pseudo-intellectualism that Tuckems would slide in effortlessly like a greased pig.
-
That would be fun. We'd get to see just how many Americans now embrace Russia and outright fascism.
But I think jficke's call of the Daily Wire is a good one. The platform has the perfect blend of outright misogyny, Christian Nationalism, and pseudo-intellectualism that Tuckems would slide in effortlessly like a greased pig.
If Tucker runs, he’ll have to pay off Fox not to release their files on him
-
If Tucker runs, he’ll have to pay off Fox not to release their files on him
Or pay them TO release the files. All of that content would be features not flaws in the primaries.
-
Or pay them TO release the files. All of that content would be features not flaws in the primaries.
That’s true. May not matter
-
It's this last part I have a hard time imagining.
What potential "big gig" is out there? Right now, there are three large platforms that sell political commentary: CNN, FOX and MSNBC. He's been fired by all three and I can't see any path back for him at any one of them.
So, where's this other gig? I could imagine him at a place like Newxmax or Daily Wire (as jficke suggests), but those aren't big gigs relative to what else is out there, unless you're also predicting a sea change in political media in the next few years. And I think he's way too toxic to land a show on s streamer like HBO (a la Maher/Oliver) or Apple (Stewart).
I don't think he disappears, but he, his audience and his influence will be much diminished.
That’s fair. I obviously didn’t mean one of the legacy big 3 platforms. I was thinking more of a streamer or some new major format political media, not something like Truth Social or The Blaze.
-
according to the Lincoln Project, Tucker will run for president
Grifters speculating on grifters
-
That would be fun. We'd get to see just how many Americans now embrace Russia and outright fascism.
But I think jficke's call of the Daily Wire is a good one. The platform has the perfect blend of outright misogyny, Christian Nationalism, and pseudo-intellectualism that Tuckems would slide in effortlessly like a greased pig.
The ones embracing fascism are the 29% who think Brandon is doing a good job and are ok with weaponizing gubmint departments.
-
The ones embracing fascism are the 29% who think Brandon is doing a good job and are ok with weaponizing gubmint departments.
And drink Bud Lite and wear Nike shoes
-
The ones embracing fascism are the 29% who think Brandon is doing a good job and are ok with weaponizing gubmint departments.
Sounds very Independent. “Weaponizing gubmint”? Repeating the Fox nuts does not prove your independence. Every political post you have ever made screams wingnut.
Maybe you can work ‘woke’ or ‘lame stream media’ into your next post.
But keep pretending
-
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1651376097349578753
65 Million views.
-
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1651376097349578753
65 Million views.
Cancelled! Sad!
-
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1651376097349578753
65 Million views.
I love the people who said he is the one honest voice. De-lusional!
-
The ones embracing fascism are the 29% who think Brandon is doing a good job and are ok with weaponizing gubmint departments.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/bf/8e/UGUvxU2Z_o.gif) (https://imgbox.com/UGUvxU2Z)
-
The ones embracing fascism are the 29% who think Brandon is doing a good job and are ok with weaponizing gubmint departments.
I’m the farthest thing from a Biden supporter or defender, but people who still call him Brandon and further perpetuate one of the lamest memes of the last few years are major red flags on any political topic
-
Heisy misses Tuckems already. When you need a fix, Newsmax is too weak.
Good call ... again
I effectively gave up watching cable news years ago. I have watched less than one hour of all of them together since getting the 2020 election results.
Serious question ...
Does anyone here watch them? No wrong answers. Just curious.
A second serious question is, does any of this matter? Do they still have any influence on the public narrative?
-
To the question of do they influence voters, the answer is 100% yes and it's far more than 1-2%. What people like Carlson do is move the Overton window and start conversations that carry on elsewhere. Lies like the Great Replacement Theory, open borders, voter fraud, the faux 1/6 documentary, and so many others start to gain traction on his show and spread to other sources of media and voters that don't watch Fox directly, but talk to or watch people who do. I have zero doubt there are people here on Scoop that believe these lies whether they watched Carlson's show or not.
I would say the number is at minimum 15-20% of the electorate that takes his brand of lying as gospel, whether they hear it from him or elsewhere, and it influences far more than that as it spreads.
-
To the question of do they influence voters, the answer is 100% yes and it's far more than 1-2%. What people like Carlson do is move the Overton window and start conversations that carry on elsewhere. Lies like the Great Replacement Theory, open borders, voter fraud, the faux 1/6 documentary, and so many others start to gain traction on his show and spread to other sources of media and voters that don't watch Fox directly, but talk to or watch people who do. I have zero doubt there are people here on Scoop that believe these lies whether they watched Carlson's show or not.
I would say the number is at minimum 15-20% of the electorate that takes his brand of lying as gospel, whether they hear it from him or elsewhere, and it influences far more than that as it spreads.
Heisy says you're wrong
-
Heisy says you're wrong
Well….
-
To the question of do they influence voters, the answer is 100% yes and it's far more than 1-2%. What people like Carlson do is move the Overton window and start conversations that carry on elsewhere. Lies like the Great Replacement Theory, open borders, voter fraud, the faux 1/6 documentary, and so many others start to gain traction on his show and spread to other sources of media and voters that don't watch Fox directly, but talk to or watch people who do. I have zero doubt there are people here on Scoop that believe these lies whether they watched Carlson's show or not.
I would say the number is at minimum 15-20% of the electorate that takes his brand of lying as gospel, whether they hear it from him or elsewhere, and it influences far more than that as it spreads.
There's a difference between saying "his brand of lying as gospel" and saying one individual affects X% of the electorate, brew, but your point is well taken. As a group, these lying, racist, extreme, hate-filled conspiracy theorists are indeed a threat to our democracy.
-
There's a difference between saying "his brand of lying as gospel" and saying one individual affects X% of the electorate, brew, but your point is well taken. As a group, these lying, racist, extreme, hate-filled conspiracy theorists are indeed a threat to our democracy.
But what they believe is in very large part because he spent 8 years mainstreaming those thoughts and turning them into gospel. I don't think it's a coincidence that his rise began right after the 2016 election, and how easily lies went from anathema to accepted.
-
But what they believe is in very large part because he spent 8 years mainstreaming those thoughts and turning them into gospel. I don't think it's a coincidence that his rise began right after the 2016 election, and how easily lies went from anathema to accepted.
Fair.
-
The ones embracing fascism are the 29% who think Brandon is doing a good job and are ok with weaponizing gubmint departments.
"I'm an independent"
-
From the NYT DealBook:
Viewership for the conservative network Newsmax has surged this week after Carlson was fired from Fox News. Newsmax’s 8 p.m. show, which competed against “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” drew 562,000 viewers on Tuesday; it reported 146,000 last week.
-
"I'm an independent"
I think "independent" is a misnomer. Most of us are unaffiliated in that we are not declared Democrats or Republicans but politically we lean and vote more often for one of those parties than the other.
-
I think "independent" is a misnomer. Most of us are unaffiliated in that we are not declared Democrats or Republicans but politically we lean and vote more often for one of those parties than the other.
Aren't you from Wisconsin? There is no such thing as declared or party registration in Wisconsin. In any case, that's the thinest pretense to claim "independence" imaginable.
-
I think "independent" is a misnomer. Most of us are unaffiliated in that we are not declared Democrats or Republicans but politically we lean and vote more often for one of those parties than the other.
Not being registered with a party is very different from being an independent. It's a silly distinction.
Aren't you from Wisconsin? There is no such thing as declared or party registration in Wisconsin. In any case, that's the thinest pretense to claim "independence" imaginable.
No, I'm pretty sure he is out East.
-
...
No, I'm pretty sure he is out East.
My bad. All the fear of the city of Milwaukee must have had me mistaken.
-
I wonder if Tucker knows what the last country outside of the US he’s been to is..
-
Rough week for right-wing media figures.
-
Rough week for right-wing media figures.
It’s really unfair women can file for divorce in this country but that’s the woke mob for you
-
It’s really unfair women can file for divorce in this country but that’s the woke mob for you
Seeing the ring video cam of this one might be the perfect moment to deploy the Fry Shocked Not Shocked Gif.
-
Fox appears to be trying to make TC toxic. Also trying to head off TC's wrongful termination lawsuit.
-
Fox appears to be trying to make TC toxic. Also trying to head off TC's wrongful termination lawsuit.
Yes, this shocking news just in: Tucker Carlson is a racist scumbag who was cheering for "an Antifa kid" to get murdered by three white terrorists on 1/6/21.
I mean, who could have known?
Of course, Fox knew ... and not only did they keep paying him gobs of money but they actually let him make that fraud of a Jan. 6 "investigative report" that depicted 1/6/21 as tourists having a lovely day at the Capitol. Duplicitous dirtbags.
-
To the question of do they influence voters, the answer is 100% yes and it's far more than 1-2%. What people like Carlson do is move the Overton window and start conversations that carry on elsewhere. Lies like the Great Replacement Theory, open borders, voter fraud, the faux 1/6 documentary, and so many others start to gain traction on his show and spread to other sources of media and voters that don't watch Fox directly, but talk to or watch people who do. I have zero doubt there are people here on Scoop that believe these lies whether they watched Carlson's show or not.
I would say the number is at minimum 15-20% of the electorate that takes his brand of lying as gospel, whether they hear it from him or elsewhere, and it influences far more than that as it spreads.
Tucker drew 3 to 4 million viewers a night. As noted here earlier, those were people seeking validation of their views, not people searching for a view.
So, please explain how that translates into influencing 20 to 30 million voters (15% to 20% of the electorate). And you seem to be suggesting undecided viewers. How did you arrive at this?
Since you said his show was a "brand of lying as gospel," you gave away the answer. You desperately need him as a bogeyman.
Question/warning. Fox News is collapsing, and what will replace them is Tucker as an even big kingmaker on another platform, be it streaming or another network. Newsmax, ONN, and/or Sinclair will take Fox News' place. In the end, nothing will change because there is a market for those seeking validation, and whatever platform their validators are on, they will find them.
---
Oh ... and here is a name that has not been mentioned yet ... the biggest kingmaker of them all. The name that is quickly becoming an empire ... Ben Shapiro.
-
Tucker drew 3 to 4 million viewers a night. As noted here earlier, those were people seeking validation of their views, not people searching for a view.
So, please explain how that translates into influencing 20 to 30 million voters (15% to 20% of the electorate). And you seem to be suggesting undecided viewers. How did you arrive at this?
Since you said his show was a "brand of lying as gospel," you gave away the answer. You desperately need him as a bogeyman.
Question/warning. Fox News is collapsing, and what will replace them is Tucker as an even big kingmaker on another platform, be it streaming or another network. Newsmax, ONN, and/or Sinclair will take Fox News' place. In the end, nothing will change because there is a market for those seeking validation, and whatever platform their validators are on, they will find them.
---
Oh ... and here is a name that has not been mentioned yet ... the biggest kingmaker of them all. The name that is quickly becoming an empire ... Ben Shapiro.
It's kind of like when the US goes to other countries and takes out their ruler. Be careful what ends up filling that vacuum. It could be worse than what was there before.
-
Tucker drew 3 to 4 million viewers a night. As noted here earlier, those were people seeking validation of their views, not people searching for a view.
So, please explain how that translates into influencing 20 to 30 million voters (15% to 20% of the electorate). And you seem to be suggesting undecided viewers. How did you arrive at this?
Since you said his show was a "brand of lying as gospel," you gave away the answer. You desperately need him as a bogeyman.
Question/warning. Fox News is collapsing, and what will replace them is Tucker as an even big kingmaker on another platform, be it streaming or another network. Newsmax, ONN, and/or Sinclair will take Fox News' place. In the end, nothing will change because there is a market for those seeking validation, and whatever platform their validators are on, they will find them.
---
Oh ... and here is a name that has not been mentioned yet ... the biggest kingmaker of them all. The name that is quickly becoming an empire ... Ben Shapiro.
Much of this scenario could end up being true -- democracy could be under an even bigger threat after Carlson brings his lies and white supremacy somewhere else, and/or Shapiro receives a bigger platform -- but I think you are "collapsing" Fox News a little too quickly. They've survived significant hits in the past, and it would hardly be surprising if they survive this.
Let's wait to see who replaces the "bogeyman" -- a word that suggests Tucker being a racist, lying scumbag was only a figment of others' imagination rather than a truth even Fox had to finally admit (when it conveniently made fiscal sense to do so) -- and see if he doesn't emerge as powerful or more than Carlson did after replacing O'Reilly.
Fox News is The Cockroach Network -- and likely to still be around spreading disease after the rest of us are gone.
-
[...]
Oh ... and here is a name that has not been mentioned yet ... the biggest kingmaker of them all. The name that is quickly becoming an empire ... Ben Shapiro.
I literally said TC would end up on the Daily Wire like a dozen posts ago.
-
Tucker drew 3 to 4 million viewers a night. As noted here earlier, those were people seeking validation of their views, not people searching for a view.
So, please explain how that translates into influencing 20 to 30 million voters (15% to 20% of the electorate). And you seem to be suggesting undecided viewers. How did you arrive at this?
Since you said his show was a "brand of lying as gospel," you gave away the answer. You desperately need him as a bogeyman.
Question/warning. Fox News is collapsing, and what will replace them is Tucker as an even big kingmaker on another platform, be it streaming or another network. Newsmax, ONN, and/or Sinclair will take Fox News' place. In the end, nothing will change because there is a market for those seeking validation, and whatever platform their validators are on, they will find them.
---
Oh ... and here is a name that has not been mentioned yet ... the biggest kingmaker of them all. The name that is quickly becoming an empire ... Ben Shapiro.
I think the argument that was made is that while he drew 3 - 4 million viewers a night, it was the clip industrial complex that reached more people. A lot of people won't admit that they sat down and watched an hour of Tucker Carlson each night, but I can promise you they saw clips of him shared on facebook, twitter, tiktok, etc.
Do not underestimate the power that a short well edited clip can have on the average American. Especially if you see those type of clips every day. That is the true influence. Two minutes before bed? While on break at work? On the chitter? That is when people consume social media... and the algorithms learn tendencies and push people into boxes and feed them content to keep their eyes and minds.
As you mentioned (I did as well) Ben Shapiro (and to lesser degrees, others) do this extremely well.
-
I think the argument that was made is that while he drew 3 - 4 million viewers a night, it was the clip industrial complex that reached more people. A lot of people won't admit that they sat down and watched an hour of Tucker Carlson each night, but I can promise you they saw clips of him shared on facebook, twitter, tiktok, etc.
Do not underestimate the power that a short well edited clip can have on the average American. Especially if you see those type of clips every day. That is the true influence. Two minutes before bed? While on break at work? On the chitter? That is when people consume social media... and the algorithms learn tendencies and push people into boxes and feed them content to keep their eyes and minds.
As you mentioned (I did as well) Ben Shapiro (and to lesser degrees, others) do this extremely well.
Are there any Democrats in the TV or print media that manipulate the minds of the average American or is it just Tucker Carlson and Fox News?
-
Are there any Democrats in the TV or print media that manipulate the minds of the average American or is it just Tucker Carlson and Fox News?
Isnt that the "Main Stream Media" everyone is always yelling about?
-
Isnt that the "Main Stream Media" everyone is always yelling about?
Cmon....it's "Lame Stream Media." Try to keep up.
-
It’s really unfair women can file for divorce in this country but that’s the woke mob for you
Don't worry, Texas is going to fix this.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/stephen-crowder-divorce-1234727777/
-
Isnt that the "Main Stream Media" everyone is always yelling about?
Well I assume that's what Fox News calls it. We barely have an actual news media anymore. Although it was refreshing that both the WSJ and NYT wrote in depth about the child migrant/sex slave crisis which has been totally disregarded by our administration.
-
Are there any Democrats in the TV or print media that manipulate the minds of the average American or is it just Tucker Carlson and Fox News?
When in doubt, set up whataboutism and false equivalence. But sure, I'll play ...
I can't think of as any lefty media folks who are as anti-democracy, proudly dishonest and outwardly racist as Carlson, especially on a forum as large as Fox News. Can you, Muggs?
-
Don't worry, Texas is going to fix this.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/stephen-crowder-divorce-1234727777/
Here is my shocked face. In my lifetime, will I see a movement towards not allowing women the right to vote?
Magic-8 ball says “yes”
-
When in doubt, set up whataboutism and false equivalence. But sure, I'll play ...
I can't think of as any lefty media folks who are as anti-democracy, proudly dishonest and outwardly racist as Carlson, especially on a forum as large as Fox News. Can you, Muggs?
That's not tbe point. I think he's an asshat, so what? There are racists in democracies and prejudice of all kinds. Do you think neo-nazi skinheads should have been allowed to march in Skokie? Do you think social media companies that ban certain stories or accounts for example about the Covid Lab leak theory are being democratic?
I believe we have to be allowed to hear all points of view, regardless of how awful they may be. I will also add that when Tucker Carson says asinine things he may influence more people than you think to turn against his opinions.
-
Let me just add this MU82: I used to watch a few FoxNews programs. In particular I liked Krauthammer on the early evening show with Bret Baer. On occasion I watched their prime-time lineup back then but was so disgusted with Hannity in particular that I will not watch anything in the evening. That said the drivel on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc is unwatchable as well and an embarrassment.
-
That's not tbe point. I think he's an asshat, so what? There are racists in democracies and prejudice of all kinds. Do you think neo-nazi skinheads should have been allowed to march in Skokie? Do you think social media companies that ban certain stories or accounts for example about the Covid Lab leak theory are being democratic?
I believe we have to be allowed to hear all points of view, regardless of how awful they may be. I will also add that when Tucker Carson says asinine things he may influence more people than you think to turn against his opinions.
Gotta admit, I didn't come to Scoop this morning expecting to find a "Racists should be given a massive platform" post, and yet here we are.
I'm sure you're well intentioned, Muggs, but this is awful.
-
That's not tbe point. I think he's an asshat, so what? There are racists in democracies and prejudice of all kinds. Do you think neo-nazi skinheads should have been allowed to march in Skokie? Do you think social media companies that ban certain stories or accounts for example about the Covid Lab leak theory are being democratic?
I believe we have to be allowed to hear all points of view, regardless of how awful they may be. I will also add that when Tucker Carson says asinine things he may influence more people than you think to turn against his opinions.
What if these "points" are obviously factually incorrect, defamatory, and leads people to cause additional harm?
-
Let me just add this MU82: I used to watch a few FoxNews programs. In particular I liked Krauthammer on the early evening show with Bret Baer. On occasion I watched their prime-time lineup back then but was so disgusted with Hannity in particular that I will not watch anything in the evening. That said the drivel on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc is unwatchable as well and an embarrassment.
If you don't watch them, how do you know they are "unwatchable" and "an embarrassment"?
FWIW, I watch little to no news channels. I see plenty of clips, and if I desire more information I seek it out. I do subscribe to the NYT, WSJ, WaPo, the Charlotte newspaper and The Athletic.
I disagree that anti-democratic, knowingly dishonest, racist asshats "deserve" multi-million-viewer forums, but I also strongly believe in the First Amendment and so I defend their right to spew their venom. I like knowing who the white supremacists, liars and traitors are, and I believe them when they confess to it on air, at rallies, in text messages, etc. I also believe they should be held accountable when their known lies cause harm to others, as just happened to Fox News and Carlson.
And yes, that includes the neo-Nazis who marched on Skokie and, more recently, the very fine people who marched with torches in Charlottesville while chanting "Jews will not replace us!"
-
If you don't watch them, how do you know they are "unwatchable" and "an embarrassment"?
FWIW, I watch little to no news channels. I see plenty of clips, and if I desire more information I seek it out. I do subscribe to the NYT, WSJ, WaPo, the Charlotte newspaper and The Athletic.
I disagree that anti-democratic, knowingly dishonest, racist asshats "deserve" multi-million-viewer forums, but I also strongly believe in the First Amendment and so I defend their right to spew their venom. I like knowing who the white supremacists, liars and traitors are, and I believe them when they confess to it on air, at rallies, in text messages, etc. I also believe they should be held accountable when their known lies cause harm to others, as just happened to Fox News and Carlson.
And yes, that includes the neo-Nazis who marched on Skokie and, more recently, the very fine people who marched with torches in Charlottesville while chanting "Jews will not replace us!"
Again, you're missing the point. Did I say they were "fine people"? Have there been groups outside of white nationalists or racists that have done horrible things in this country? Should certain churches who teach hate have that platform? Those that teach antisemitism? Do you think there might be professors that teach dreadful ideas and to hate our country? Tucker Carlson isn't the only scumbag with a platform.
-
Again, you're missing the point. Did I say they were "fine people"? Have there been groups outside of white nationalists or racists that have done horrible things in this country? Should certain churches who teach hate have that platform? Those that teach antisemitism? Do you think there might be professors that teach dreadful ideas and to hate our country? Tucker Carlson isn't the only scumbag with a platform.
Nads just repeats the same talking points that he just makes up out of thin air but sounds just like what the lefty talking head say each night.
It's a fetish for him.
-
Again, you're missing the point. Did I say they were "fine people"? Have there been groups outside of white nationalists or racists that have done horrible things in this country? Should certain churches who teach hate have that platform? Those that teach antisemitism? Do you think there might be professors that teach dreadful ideas and to hate our country? Tucker Carlson isn't the only scumbag with a platform.
Sure, there are other scumbags with platforms, but few with a platform as large as Carlson had who were white supremacists. Plus, Carlson happens to be in the news now because his white supremacism and lies played a part in costing his employer hundreds of millions of dollars, so he is being discussed more. Just as Lemon was discussed when he got canned. Maybe it'll be Hannity's turn or Wolf Blitzer's turn or Rachel Maddow's turn next ... but if it is, it won't make Carlson any less of a dangerous white supremacist.
-
Yes, this shocking news just in: Tucker Carlson is a racist scumbag who was cheering for "an Antifa kid" to get murdered by three white terrorists on 1/6/21.
I mean, who could have known?
Of course, Fox knew ... and not only did they keep paying him gobs of money but they actually let him make that fraud of a Jan. 6 "investigative report" that depicted 1/6/21 as tourists having a lovely day at the Capitol. Duplicitous dirtbags.
Again, Murdoch has been very upfront about it being all about the $. Stirring constant outrage has been an extraordinarily profitable business model for him from his very first days. As long as Tuckems or anyone else is generating profit for him he doesn't care what they say...until the moment those people start costing him more $ in the form of lawsuits than they are bringing in.
-
I think the argument that was made is that while he drew 3 - 4 million viewers a night, it was the clip industrial complex that reached more people. A lot of people won't admit that they sat down and watched an hour of Tucker Carlson each night, but I can promise you they saw clips of him shared on facebook, twitter, tiktok, etc.
Do not underestimate the power that a short well edited clip can have on the average American. Especially if you see those type of clips every day. That is the true influence. Two minutes before bed? While on break at work? On the chitter? That is when people consume social media... and the algorithms learn tendencies and push people into boxes and feed them content to keep their eyes and minds.
As you mentioned (I did as well) Ben Shapiro (and to lesser degrees, others) do this extremely well.
And people tend to talk about bad news far more often than good, at about a 10:1 ratio. So when you have someone like TC that trafficks in conspiracy theories and bad news, the 3-4 million that watch talk to people. They push those lies to their families, their friends, their co-workers, etc.
And I don't "need him to be a bogeyman." What a stupid statement. It's the simple reality that constant lies from Tucker over the course of the past 8 years have shifted the Overton window on what is acceptable to say and believe. What starts with him spewing made-up nonsense makes it okay for "alternative facts" and a president that lies to the American people for 4 straight years, including in the middle of a pandemic when thousands of Americans are dying every day.
He helped make facts subjective and sewed division and hate. In doing so, those narratives were woven into the overall media and public discourse. Just look at the Dominion lawsuit, Tucker and others at his network were openly talking about how they needed to perpetuate election lies because they were losing market share to NewsMax and OAN when they told the truth.
That's not him being a bogeyman, that's reading the texts of Carlson and other FNC employees as they acknowledged reality.
-
Here is my shocked face. In my lifetime, will I see a movement towards not allowing women the right to vote?
Magic-8 ball says “yes”
There is a movement to make it harder for college aged women to vote. College age men, too. Not actually sexist. Ageist.
-
There is a movement to make it harder for college aged women to vote. College age men, too. Not actually sexist. Ageist.
It is ageist, I suppose, but that's not the aim. Those proposing these laws simply are trying to keep the right to vote unavailable for those who reliably vote for Democrats. Crafting every law imaginable to make it impossible or difficult for Democrats to vote has been part of the GOP playbook for decades.
-
There is a movement to make it harder for college aged women to vote. College age men, too. Not actually sexist. Ageist.
It's not because of their age.
It's the same reason legislators elsewhere want to make it harder to vote for people living in certain communities.
-
Would like to see a package deal : the Military Draft eliminated and Voting Age moved to 25.
-
When in doubt, set up whataboutism and false equivalence. But sure, I'll play ...
I can't think of as any lefty media folks who are as anti-democracy, proudly dishonest and outwardly racist as Carlson, especially on a forum as large as Fox News. Can you, Muggs?
Much smaller forum since she doesn't pull in great ratings, but Joy Reid is as anti-democracy, proudly dishonest and outwardly racist as anyone out there.
-
Would like to see a package deal : the Military Draft eliminated and Voting Age moved to 25.
(https://y.yarn.co/5f321128-6878-4f0a-bc6a-58542346473a_text.gif)
Modern conservatism.
24 is too young to vote.
12 is not too young to get married and have children.
-
Much smaller forum since she doesn't pull in great ratings, but Joy Reid is as anti-democracy, proudly dishonest and outwardly racist as anyone out there.
Never watched her, so citations needed.
-
Never watched her, so citations needed.
I think it’s a he
-
Would like to see a package deal : the Military Draft eliminated and Voting Age moved to 25.
Taxation without representation?
-
It’s really unfair women can file for divorce in this country but that’s the woke mob for you
Put ‘em in beekeeper suits and take away their rights.
-
Yes, this shocking news just in: Tucker Carlson is a racist scumbag who was cheering for "an Antifa kid" to get murdered by three white terrorists on 1/6/21.
It’s way worse than that. He was enjoying it and hoping to see a murder.
Lots of Scoopers really like this guy, although I think few will now admit it. The proof is indisputable that it takes real lowlifes to appreciate TC.
-
Nads just repeats the same talking points that he just makes up out of thin air but sounds just like what the lefty talking head say each night.
It's a fetish for him.
And you said this same thing over and over and over.
-
I believe we have to be allowed to hear all points of view, regardless of how awful they may be.
I think you eat babies and cheer for the Badgers. Much like FOX I have no proof of this.
There is a difference between having a point of view and straight up telling lies.
-
MU82, Pakuni, I know exactly why the changes are being proposed. By whom and their reasoning.
-
(https://y.yarn.co/5f321128-6878-4f0a-bc6a-58542346473a_text.gif)
Modern conservatism.
24 is too young to vote.
12 is not too young to get married and have children.
Don’t forget, they also want to ease child labor laws.
Get to work? ✔️
Get Married? ✔️
Have babies? ✔️
Vote? Whoa, whoa, whoa
-
All fun and games until they get serious about pornhub.
-
All fun and games until they get serious about pornhub.
That’s not going anywhere. Evangelicals are the biggest porn hub customers. Don’t rile the base
-
That’s not going anywhere. Evangelicals are the biggest porn hub customers. Don’t rile the base
Weird!
https://lawsuit.org/general-law/republicans-have-an-obsession-with-transgender-pornography/
-
I think you eat babies and cheer for the Badgers. Much like FOX I have no proof of this.
There is a difference between having a point of view and straight up telling lies.
Do CNN and other networks tell lies? Does the press secretary? Mayorkas?
-
Do CNN and other networks tell lies? Does the press secretary? Mayorkas?
Jeesh, Muggs, now you actually sound like Carlson.
Was Jan. 6 really violent at all? Or was it just good Americans using their right to peacefully assemble? And if it was violent, did that antifa kid start the whole thing? And if the antifa kid did start it, weren't those three white guys beating on him just fine patriots protecting America? And if the three white patriots were protecting America, didn't you -- like me -- want to see them kill the antifa kid?
-
Weird!
https://lawsuit.org/general-law/republicans-have-an-obsession-with-transgender-pornography/
That’s just facts. The RNC in Milwaukee is going to be a boon for the strip clubs and prostitutes
-
Jeesh, Muggs, now you actually sound like Carlson.
Was Jan. 6 really violent at all? Or was it just good Americans using their right to peacefully assemble? And if it was violent, did that antifa kid start the whole thing? And if the antifa kid did start it, weren't those three white guys beating on him just fine patriots protecting America? And if the three white patriots were protecting America, didn't you -- like me -- want to see them kill the antifa kid?
MUGGS IS JUST ASKING QUESTIONS!!!!
-
MUGGS IS JUST ASKING QUESTIONS!!!!
He hasn’t learned to start his sentences with “some people say”.
-
Jeesh, Muggs, now you actually sound like Carlson.
Was Jan. 6 really violent at all? Or was it just good Americans using their right to peacefully assemble? And if it was violent, did that antifa kid start the whole thing? And if the antifa kid did start it, weren't those three white guys beating on him just fine patriots protecting America? And if the three white patriots were protecting America, didn't you -- like me -- want to see them kill the antifa kid?
When in doubt, set up whataboutism and false equivalence.
-
And you said this same thing over and over and over.
You haven't had a fresh thought for 40 years.
-
Do CNN and other networks tell lies? Does the press secretary? Mayorkas?
Not to the extent they had to pay $788M with another larger lawsuit on the way.
-
What a clown. 🤣
-
I think you eat babies and cheer for the Badgers. Much like FOX I have no proof of this.
There is a difference between having a point of view and straight up telling lies.
Whoa, dude that is totally uncalled for and low! ;D
-
In all seriousness, why would Fox fire Tucker over this?
-
In all seriousness, why would Fox fire Tucker over this?
$$
-
Picture Tucker on the stand trying to defend these texts. That is what the Fox attorneys were doing. So they settled. Cut him loose a week later. And have now beeen making the texts public. Pretty obvious they viewed him as a liability going forward. And are now now setting up a wall against a wrongful termination suit.
-
Meanwhile, Patrick Bet-David reportedly has offered Tucker $100 million to join his media conglomerate, hey?
-
Picture Tucker on the stand trying to defend these texts. That is what the Fox attorneys were doing. So they settled. Cut him loose a week later. And have now beeen making the texts public. Pretty obvious they viewed him as a liability going forward. And are now now setting up a wall against a wrongful termination suit.
But he was always a racist, always a white supremacist. Always a misogynist. And Fox actively encouraged it. Jesse Waters is an even more rabid racist and Fox continues to support him. That is their brand. It is what gets them an audience.
Why now pretend that they are offended? If it was to save money on a wrongful termination suit, there was no reason to make any text public now.
-
Meanwhile, Patrick Bet-David reportedly has offered Tucker $100 million to join his media conglomerate, hey?
There’s alway a Republican audience for racism, hatred, and misogyny.
-
But he was always a racist, always a white supremacist. Always a misogynist. And Fox actively encouraged it. Jesse Waters is an even more rabid racist and Fox continues to support him. That is their brand. It is what gets them an audience.
Why now pretend that they are offended? If it was to save money on a wrongful termination suit, there was no reason to make any text public now.
It is different when it is evidence.
-
all this hand wringing about tucker and no love left for your hero, donald lemone? maybe tucker is just getting past his prime, eyn'a? one thing both of them seem to have in common...they couldn't get along with their female coworkers. chances are better you haven't seen the last of tucker however...not so sure i can say the same for donny except maybe a bud light commercial
-
all this hand wringing about tucker and no love left for your hero, donald lemone? maybe tucker is just getting past his prime, eyn'a? one thing both of them seem to have in common...they couldn't get along with their female coworkers. chances are better you haven't seen the last of tucker however...not so sure i can say the same for donny except maybe a bud light commercial
9 out of 10
-
Meanwhile, Patrick Bet-David reportedly has offered Tucker $100 million to join his media conglomerate, hey?
Grifters gonna grift.
-
9 out of 10
The forced Bud Light reference really is the cherry on top. rocket wants you to know he really isn't into that. No, really, he's not. Totally, utterly not his thing.
-
all this hand wringing about tucker and no love left for your hero, donald lemone? maybe tucker is just getting past his prime, eyn'a? one thing both of them seem to have in common...they couldn't get along with their female coworkers. chances are better you haven't seen the last of tucker however...not so sure i can say the same for donny except maybe a bud light commercial
No, people replied immediately that Lemon's firing was well warranted for his misogyny. However, I haven't seen anyone on the right agree that Tuckems should have been fired.
In fact, your barely intelligible babbling would seem to indicate you are pulling for Tuckems. A fan of authoritarianism, white nationalism, misogyny, racism, and lying to your face while telling you he is lying to your face? Imagine everyone's surprise.
-
The forced Bud Light reference really is the cherry on top. rocket wants you to know he really isn't into that. No, really, he's not. Totally, utterly not his thing.
The casual racism spewed on a nightly basis by Tucker Carlson? Shrugs
Bud Light transgender spokesperson? Well, we just can’t have that
-
There’s alway a Republican audience for racism, hatred, and misogyny.
^^^ ban dis they
-
^^^ ban dis they
Huh?
Never mind. Complaining about someone's politics by making a snarky joke about pronouns. You are reinforcing Jockey's point.
-
The casual racism spewed on a nightly basis by Tucker Carlson? Shrugs
Bud Light transgender spokesperson? Well, we just can’t have that
This is what I've largely been thinking about as it is very very telling. The optics of the facts are horrible, and enlightening.
They will boycott entities for supporting trans rights (Bud Light), and supporting the Pride community (Disney), but still support a company (Foxnews) that knowingly (the text was sent to a producer shortly after Jan. 6th) supported a white supremacist (no other way to view his texts).
If they truly found his actions appalling, they would boycott Foxnews also. They only fired him when the texts became public knowledge due to a lawsuit.
-
No, people replied immediately that Lemon's firing was well warranted for his misogyny. However, I haven't seen anyone on the right agree that Tuckems should have been fired.
In fact, your barely intelligible babbling would seem to indicate you are pulling for Tuckems. A fan of authoritarianism, white nationalism, misogyny, racism, and lying to your face while telling you he is lying to your face? Imagine everyone's surprise.
obviously.
2🐷
-
No, people replied immediately that Lemon's firing was well warranted for his misogyny. However, I haven't seen anyone on the right agree that Tuckems should have been fired.
In fact, your barely intelligible babbling would seem to indicate you are pulling for Tuckems. A fan of authoritarianism, white nationalism, misogyny, racism, and lying to your face while telling you he is lying to your face? Imagine everyone's surprise.
i must have missed the whole thread titled lemon...is it in the hangin' at the al section?
you make a lot of ass umptions here smith...everything you state here could be applied to your guy donny to except for of course change "white" nationalism to black nationalism and bingo! ya got yourselves the don
and if you could put some face covering on while you type, your spitting and foaming at the mouth is getting all over my computer screen
-
i must have missed the whole thread titled lemon...is it in the hangin' at the al section?
you make a lot of ass umptions here smith...everything you state here could be applied to your guy donny to except for of course change "white" nationalism to black nationalism and bingo! ya got yourselves the don
and if you could put some face covering on while you type, your spitting and foaming at the mouth is getting all over my computer screen
7.5 out of 10
-
i must have missed the whole thread titled lemon...is it in the hangin' at the al section?
you make a lot of ass umptions here smith...everything you state here could be applied to your guy donny to except for of course change "white" nationalism to black nationalism and bingo! ya got yourselves the don
and if you could put some face covering on while you type, your spitting and foaming at the mouth is getting all over my computer screen
Talk to Goose; he started this Tucker thread. Why didn't he start a Lemon thread? Maybe because he's a secret lefty lib woke pinko commie who hates white people?
As for the rest of this, Rico shortchanged you a couple of points.
-
i must have missed the whole thread titled lemon...
It was discussed starting on page one of this topic. Pretty much everyone supported his firing.
-
i must have missed the whole thread titled lemon...is it in the hangin' at the al section?
you make a lot of ass umptions here smith...everything you state here could be applied to your guy donny to except for of course change "white" nationalism to black nationalism and bingo! ya got yourselves the don
and if you could put some face covering on while you type, your spitting and foaming at the mouth is getting all over my computer screen
Ahh, the "I know you are, but what am I?" defense. Well, I certainly can't argue with that rhetorical brilliance.
-
obviously.
2🐷
(https://images2.imgbox.com/6c/fa/EDwxX2n6_o.jpg) (https://imgbox.com/EDwxX2n6)
-
Zig, rent free, eh?
-
Zig, rent free, eh?
His lil piggie feet making me pictures is so cute.
-
Picture Tucker on the stand trying to defend these texts. That is what the Fox attorneys were doing. So they settled. Cut him loose a week later. And have now beeen making the texts public. Pretty obvious they viewed him as a liability going forward. And are now now setting up a wall against a wrongful termination suit.
I still have a hard time understanding why Tucker's text would have been relevant evidence in the Dominion lawsuit. Something doesn't add up when I hear that Tucker's text is what prompted Fox to settle the lawsuit.
-
Hot: What about Don Lemon?
Not: What about Chicago?
-
Zig, rent free, eh?
Congrats on continuing by the biggest hypocrite on the board.
Piggy Ziggy following me around from post to post? Crickets from you.
Me responding? Here comes real hypocrite 83 to defend piggy ziggy.
-
Congrats on continuing by the biggest hypocrite on the board.
Piggy Ziggy following me around from post to post? Crickets from you.
Me responding? Here comes real hypocrite 83 to defend piggy ziggy.
Sunday.
🐷🐷
-
Sunday.
🐷🐷
(https://images2.imgbox.com/ce/2e/exsnIBKF_o.jpg) (https://imgbox.com/exsnIBKF)
-
I still have a hard time understanding why Tucker's text would have been relevant evidence in the Dominion lawsuit. Something doesn't add up when I hear that Tucker's text is what prompted Fox to settle the lawsuit.
I imagine they very much wanted to avoid the optics of their biggest star on the witness stand answering questions about his snuff film yearnings and what he means by "It's not how white men fight."
Probably a stretch to say this is the reason Fox settled - a likely disastrous judgement is why they settled - but this may have been one of several factors that helped nudge it across the finish line.
-
Congrats on continuing by the biggest hypocrite on the board.
Piggy Ziggy following me around from post to post? Crickets from you.
Me responding? Here comes real hypocrite 83 to defend piggy ziggy.
LOL
-
LOL
Try not to be too broken up that 🐷🐷 doesn't post chili photos in response to you. 🤣
-
I still have a hard time understanding why Tucker's text would have been relevant evidence in the Dominion lawsuit. Something doesn't add up when I hear that Tucker's text is what prompted Fox to settle the lawsuit.
Fair. Maybe another case of knowing the truth yet selling the lie?
-
No, people replied immediately that Lemon's firing was well warranted for his misogyny. However, I haven't seen anyone on the right agree that Tuckems should have been fired.
In fact, your barely intelligible babbling would seem to indicate you are pulling for Tuckems. A fan of authoritarianism, white nationalism, misogyny, racism, and lying to your face while telling you he is lying to your face? Imagine everyone's surprise.
We still don't know why he was taken off the air, and officially he is still under contract.
-
We still don't know why he was taken off the air, and officially he is still under contract.
Lol
-
We still don't know why he was taken off the air, and officially he is still under contract.
People are saying -- and they're saying it very strongly -- that a Jewish space laser blasted him off the air.
-
People are saying -- and they're saying it very strongly -- that a Jewish space laser blasted him off the air.
Are you sure it wasn’t the deep state lead by George Soros and the Rothschild family?
-
We still don't know why he was taken off the air, and officially he is still under contract.
We literally know why he was taken off the air.
-
I imagine they very much wanted to avoid the optics of their biggest star on the witness stand answering questions about his snuff film yearnings and what he means by "It's not how white men fight."
Probably a stretch to say this is the reason Fox settled - a likely disastrous judgement is why they settled - but this may have been one of several factors that helped nudge it across the finish line.
I've heard a key reason was that Murdoch was now going to have to testify and that either he was going to have to perjure himself, or some very very uncomfortable information was going to come out.
-
We literally know why he was taken off the air.
If someone gets all their news from FNC, they probably don't know why.
-
If someone gets all their news from FNC, they probably don't know why.
so what is your morning joe, the view, and joy reid telling you guys?
-
so what is your morning joe, the view, and joy reid telling you guys?
You forgot to mention the commie pinko woke Wall Street Journal.
-
so what is your morning joe, the view, and joy reid telling you guys?
9 out of 10
Succinct and dumb
-
so what is your morning joe, the view, and joy reid telling you guys?
Don't think I've ever watched any of those. I prefer my media admittedly Crooked.
-
so what is your morning joe, the view, and joy reid telling you guys?
I don't watch any of them, but I have a hunch they might have mentioned the Proud Boys being convicted of sedition and conspiracy.
That.is pretty cool. I have been a tourist a lot of times and a lot of places, but I have never accomplished that. Underachiever.
-
9 out of 10
Succinct and dumb
excellent reeko! great retort to my honest question as all of you scholars seem to have the answers and i'm assuming you're not getting them from fox. on the other hand, anything that went with russiarussiarussia and russian disinformation for as long as they did are all steaming piles of crap. and those are just a couple of the stink bombs they've been touting as "journalism" for the past few years. it's putting our country at a huge disadvantage.
here's a translation of your comment- duhhhhhhhh
-
excellent reeko! great retort to my honest question as all of you scholars seem to have the answers and i'm assuming you're not getting them from fox. on the other hand, anything that went with russiarussiarussia and russian disinformation for as long as they did are all steaming piles of crap. and those are just a couple of the stink bombs they've been touting as "journalism" for the past few years. it's putting our country at a huge disadvantage.
here's a translation of your comment- duhhhhhhhh
Zero people here have claimed to watch any of those shows, yet you seem to breathlessly defend Tucker several times a day.
Amazing!
-
Zero people here have claimed to watch any of those shows, yet you seem to breathlessly defend Tucker several times a day.
Amazing!
"breathlessly defend tucker several times a day"
show me
just listening to you guys it's obvious where you get your info from
-
"breathlessly defend tucker several times a day"
show me
just listening to you guys it's obvious where you get your info from
Honest question, but why do you do this? Is it a like “my mission to combat the heretics is divinely appointed” kind of thing?
Are you having fun repeating the same stuff in thread after thread and getting the same dunked on response over and over again?
I don’t know you, but I know we’re all subject to the same tyranny of the one perfectly finite resource—time. Why spend it doing something that clearly will attain no different result and, based on what I can infer from your tone, is not only bringing you no joy but is actively bringing you unhappiness?
-
Honest question, but why do you do this? Is it a like “my mission to combat the heretics is divinely appointed” kind of thing?
Are you having fun repeating the same stuff in thread after thread and getting the same dunked on response over and over again?
I don’t know you, but I know we’re all subject to the same tyranny of the one perfectly finite resource—time. Why spend it doing something that clearly will attain no different result and, based on what I can infer from your tone, is not only bringing you no joy but is actively bringing you unhappiness?
j man, i've essentially sat back and casually watched this thread evolve into 1, 2, 3 pages then i don't believe i responded until about page 11 of the 12 pages. i am proud of myself for exercising some self control, but then i just couldn't bear to watch everyone else having all the fun
btw, j-man, where was your post with your concerned response say, 11-12 pages ago to umm, any of the others here? then i respond a few times and bango. did i upset the "status quo" goin here? ruin the circle thingy, just wondering.
you are right however j-man. nothing is going to change, but i do feel better that i could get a few things outta the ole melon. now i will just hang up and listen, watching for the usual suspects, the cool people to come out and do what they do
-
excellent reeko! great retort to my honest question as all of you scholars seem to have the answers and i'm assuming you're not getting them from fox. on the other hand, anything that went with russiarussiarussia and russian disinformation for as long as they did are all steaming piles of crap. and those are just a couple of the stink bombs they've been touting as "journalism" for the past few years. it's putting our country at a huge disadvantage.
here's a translation of your comment- duhhhhhhhh
8 out of 10
“reeko” is pretty pedestrian. This is why bantering with Doc is way more enjoyable. He has taken the time to use “Petrocelli” or “Carty”. I wouldn’t mind a Brogna but appreciate his baseball knowledge.
Not sure what Russia has to do with Tucker unless you’re pointing out his strong pro-Putin stance which tracks for Tucker since it’s been proven Russian interfered directly in the 2016 election in a variety of ways for Tucker’s team and continue to do so.
I agree about the stink bombs of journalism. I’m glad you agree, too. It’s why Fox is paying Dominion $787 million. Fox personalities, lead by Tucker Carlson lied on a nightly basis about the election being fraudulent. His texts and emails clearly show this. Add in a touch of racism, and kudos to Fox for dumping him. Hopefully they decide to be leaders and not put our country at a “disadvantage” anymore.
I probably misinterpreted what you typed but hopefully I’m close!
-
"breathlessly defend tucker several times a day"
show me
just listening to you guys it's obvious where you get your info from
Tell me where I get it from, please.
-
Behind the scenes: Axios has learned that Carlson and Elon Musk had a conversation about working together, but didn't discuss specifics.
https://www.axios.com/2023/05/07/fox-news-tucker-carlson
Makes sense. With Elon’s backing and Twitter, They could start a new network that could in very short order be as large, if not larger, than Fox News.
Tucker gets fired, and it is looking more and more like the winner is … Tucker
-
Behind the scenes: Axios has learned that Carlson and Elon Musk had a conversation about working together, but didn't discuss specifics.
https://www.axios.com/2023/05/07/fox-news-tucker-carlson
Makes sense. With Elon’s backing and Twitter, They could start a new network that could in very short order be as large, if not larger, than Fox News.
Tucker gets fired, and it is looking more and more like the winner is … Tucker
If we're lucky, Elon does for Tucker what he's done for Twitter.
-
If Tucker goes scorched earth on Fox, whom are you rooting for? Can you believe either one? Or are you just going to sit back with popcorn?
-
Behind the scenes: Axios has learned that Carlson and Elon Musk had a conversation about working together, but didn't discuss specifics.
https://www.axios.com/2023/05/07/fox-news-tucker-carlson
Makes sense. With Elon’s backing and Twitter, They could start a new network that could in very short order be as large, if not larger, than Fox News.
Tucker gets fired, and it is looking more and more like the winner is … Tucker
This really gets your juices flowing!
-
Behind the scenes: Axios has learned that Carlson and Elon Musk had a conversation about working together, but didn't discuss specifics.
https://www.axios.com/2023/05/07/fox-news-tucker-carlson
Makes sense. With Elon’s backing and Twitter, They could start a new network that could in very short order be as large, if not larger, than Fox News.
Tucker gets fired, and it is looking more and more like the winner is … Tucker
How’s Apple doing?
-
How’s Apple doing?
Probably about as well as the NFL.
-
If Tucker goes scorched earth on Fox, whom are you rooting for? Can you believe either one? Or are you just going to sit back with popcorn?
That is one where you root for an asteroid.
I'd go with sit back with popcorn and hope for mutual destruction. Both are the scraps of the bottom of the barrel.
-
This really gets your juices flowing!
Not really, I have not watched cable news in years, and while this soap opera is interesting, I doubt it will make me watch
-
Not really, I have not watched cable news in years, and while this soap opera is interesting, I doubt it will make me watch
Then don’t breathlessly report on it. The story was given to Axios by Tucker’s camp for Tucker’s benefit. All speculation. There was no ‘news’ in the article.
As far as burning things down, Tucker will go up in flames way faster than Fox.
People think that Dominion leaked the news about Tucker getting off on watching what he thought was a murder. I think the leak was a warning shot from Fox.
-
Then don’t breathlessly report on it. The story was given to Axios by Tucker’s camp for Tucker’s benefit. All speculation. There was no ‘news’ in the article.
As far as burning things down, Tucker will go up in flames way faster than Fox.
People think that Dominion leaked the news about Tucker getting off on watching what he thought was a murder. I think the leak was a warning shot from Fox.
Fox ain’t losing to Tucker Carlson
-
How will Fox News survive without O’Reilly? He had millions of viewers.
-
Fox News Suffers Ratings ‘Bloodbath’ after Tucker Carlson Ouster
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/fox-news-suffers-ratings-bloodbath-194811626.html
In the first week after Carlson’s ouster on April 24, the channel’s primetime viewership fell 29.6 percent to 1.449 million viewers, coming in third among cable networks, according to figures from Nielsen.
Viewership for the network’s 8 p.m. time slot was down 47 percent overall for that week, according to an analysis from former Fox News host Megyn Kelly. The analysis averaged the viewership from the first week of his absence and compared it with the last week he was on air. Among the key demographic of 25-54 year olds, ratings were down a whopping 59 percent.
--------
@TyCardon
Since firing Tucker Carlson, Fox News Channel’s ratings in the all-important 25-54 demo have fallen off a cliff:
•6pm ET: -42%
•7pm ET: -62%
•8pm ET: -75%
•9pm ET: -70%
•10pm ET: -66%
•11pm ET: -49%
-
Well, this could sure get fun ...
Tucker Carlson is preparing to unleash allies to attack Fox News in an effort to bully the network into letting him work for — or start — a right-wing rival, sources close to him tell Axios.
https://www.axios.com/2023/05/07/fox-news-tucker-carlson
Bryan Freedman, the high-powered Hollywood lawyer Carlson retained for the contract dispute, told Axios: "The idea that anyone is going to silence Tucker and prevent him from speaking to his audience is beyond preposterous."
Why it matters: Tucker vs. Fox could reshape the conservative news world. Fox, which has seen its ratings plunge in Carlson's slot since he was let go 13 days ago, wants to sideline him by paying him $20 million a year not to work.
The intrigue: Axios has learned Carlson is busy plotting a media empire of his own. But he needs Fox to let him out of his contract, which expires in January 2025 — after the presidential election.
We're told Carlson has been contacted by outlets — including the right-wing Rumble and Newsmax — that offered to pay him more than his Fox contract.
Behind the scenes: Axios has learned that Carlson and Elon Musk had a conversation about working together, but didn't discuss specifics.
Carlson confidants say he also is contemplating building a direct-to-consumer media outlet where his millions of fans could pay to watch him. Carlson's predecessor in his Fox slot, Bill O'Reilly, created a blueprint for this.
Two days after being booted, Carlson teased in a Twitter video posted at 8 p.m. ET, counter-programming his former show: "See you soon." The two-minute video has racked up 24 million views.
State of play: The ousted host "knows where a lot of bodies are buried, and is ready to start drawing a map," said a Carlson source who wasn't authorized to speak publicly.
Carlson allies with big platforms are prepared to attack Fox for trying to keep him on the shelf.
Bare-knuckle brawlers from Trumpworld are standing by.
-
The majority of the idiots who post on this site are laughable morons. MU82 is an excellent example of a crapbag doufus.
-
Oddly, we think the same of you.
-
Oddly, we think the same of you.
Wait, who can argue with this logic? ::)
This pandemic is political and it is clearly now an effort to destroy capitalism. Very clear to those of us taught to think critically.
-
Well, this could sure get fun ...
Tucker Carlson is preparing to unleash allies to attack Fox News in an effort to bully the network into letting him work for — or start — a right-wing rival, sources close to him tell Axios.
https://www.axios.com/2023/05/07/fox-news-tucker-carlson
Bryan Freedman, the high-powered Hollywood lawyer Carlson retained for the contract dispute, told Axios: "The idea that anyone is going to silence Tucker and prevent him from speaking to his audience is beyond preposterous."
Why it matters: Tucker vs. Fox could reshape the conservative news world. Fox, which has seen its ratings plunge in Carlson's slot since he was let go 13 days ago, wants to sideline him by paying him $20 million a year not to work.
The intrigue: Axios has learned Carlson is busy plotting a media empire of his own. But he needs Fox to let him out of his contract, which expires in January 2025 — after the presidential election.
We're told Carlson has been contacted by outlets — including the right-wing Rumble and Newsmax — that offered to pay him more than his Fox contract.
Behind the scenes: Axios has learned that Carlson and Elon Musk had a conversation about working together, but didn't discuss specifics.
Carlson confidants say he also is contemplating building a direct-to-consumer media outlet where his millions of fans could pay to watch him. Carlson's predecessor in his Fox slot, Bill O'Reilly, created a blueprint for this.
Two days after being booted, Carlson teased in a Twitter video posted at 8 p.m. ET, counter-programming his former show: "See you soon." The two-minute video has racked up 24 million views.
State of play: The ousted host "knows where a lot of bodies are buried, and is ready to start drawing a map," said a Carlson source who wasn't authorized to speak publicly.
Carlson allies with big platforms are prepared to attack Fox for trying to keep him on the shelf.
Bare-knuckle brawlers from Trumpworld are standing by.
Fox was not only #1 in the cable news; they had three of the top ten TV shows in all cable (including sports). Since Tucker's firing, Fox News is now third in cable news and has no top 10 shows.
This does not mean the end of demand for right-leaning programming. The audience still exists in the same size. The audience will move to where they get what they want.
So, yes, Tucker's firing can potentially mortally wound Fox News. They will not go away. But they will not have to split their audience with Newsmax, Tucker, and others and may not return to their pre-Tucker dominance. In other words, they will go from the dominant player to just another voice in the crowd.
This will cost Fox a lot more than the Dominion settlement.
-
This will cost Fox a lot more than the Dominion settlement.
It won't.
And for a guy who doesn't care about Tucker and Fox News, you sure seem to care a lot about Tucker and Fox News.
Or maybe you just like making bold predictions we can revisit later for giggles.
-
Fox was not only #1 in the cable news; they had three of the top ten TV shows in all cable (including sports). Since Tucker's firing, Fox News is now third in cable news and has no top 10 shows.
This does not mean the end of demand for right-leaning programming. The audience still exists in the same size. The audience will move to where they get what they want.
So, yes, Tucker's firing can potentially mortally wound Fox News. They will not go away. But they will not have to split their audience with Newsmax, Tucker, and others and may not return to their pre-Tucker dominance. In other words, they will go from the dominant player to just another voice in the crowd.
This will cost Fox a lot more than the Dominion settlement.
You could be wrong, Smuggles. I know it's rare, but it's possible.
But if you're right ... good!
-
It won't.
And for a guy who doesn't care about Tucker and Fox News, you sure seem to care a lot about Tucker and Fox News.
Or maybe you just like making bold predictions we can revisit later for giggles.
The people that decide to follow Tucker says a lot more about them than anything.
A lot more and it isn’t good
-
Fox was not only #1 in the cable news; they had three of the top ten TV shows in all cable (including sports). Since Tucker's firing, Fox News is now third in cable news and has no top 10 shows.
This does not mean the end of demand for right-leaning programming. The audience still exists in the same size. The audience will move to where they get what they want.
So, yes, Tucker's firing can potentially mortally wound Fox News. They will not go away. But they will not have to split their audience with Newsmax, Tucker, and others and may not return to their pre-Tucker dominance. In other words, they will go from the dominant player to just another voice in the crowd.
This will cost Fox a lot more than the Dominion settlement.
H2O:
The bench is deep at Fox. It will take them a few months to get the schedule changed. My guess is they will promote from within
-
America's favorite welfare fraudster is on Team Tucker.
https://www.mediaite.com/sports/brett-favre-calls-for-fox-news-boycott-im-with-tucker/
-
America's favorite welfare fraudster is on Team Tucker.
https://www.mediaite.com/sports/brett-favre-calls-for-fox-news-boycott-im-with-tucker/
Packers legend!
-
Packers legend!
Vikings Legend*
-
Jets legend ! ! ! 8-)
-
Vicodin legend!
-
Dick pic legend!
-
America's favorite welfare fraudster is on Team Tucker.
https://www.mediaite.com/sports/brett-favre-calls-for-fox-news-boycott-im-with-tucker/
People boycotting Fox, because they fired a person for blatantly being a racist, and being excited about a person getting beaten.
Says a lot about those people.
-
It won't.
And for a guy who doesn't care about Tucker and Fox News, you sure seem to care a lot about Tucker and Fox News.
Or maybe you just like making bold predictions we can revisit later for giggles.
This is already wrong.
Fox lost 1% of its value that week after the Dominion settlement. It lost 6% the week after Tucker was fired, and 3% the day he was fired.
The stock market says Tucker was 6x more important than Dominion.
-
People boycotting Fox, because they fired a person for blatantly being a racist, and being excited about a person getting beaten.
Says a lot about those people.
Man, the superbar circle jerk running full speed.
Don't hurt yourself boys.
-
People boycotting Fox, because they fired a person for blatantly being a racist, and being excited about a person getting beaten.
Says a lot about those people.
It certainly does. But I guess we’re in a circle jerk for pointing it out.
-
This is already wrong.
Fox lost 1% of its value that week after the Dominion settlement. It lost 6% the week after Tucker was fired, and 3% the day he was fired.
The stock market says Tucker was 6x more important than Dominion.
Good God. You consider yourself wise on markets and investing but trot this out?
Embarrassed for you.
-
Good God. You consider yourself wise on markets and investing but trot this out?
Embarrassed for you.
You answered your own question. “You consider yourself wise”.
-
People boycotting Fox, because they fired a person for blatantly being a racist, and being excited about a person getting beaten.
Says a lot about those people.
He was rooting for the kid to be murdered. That is way, way different than being excited about a person being beat up.
My God. You sound like you could be Tucker’s publicist.
-
He was rooting for the kid to be murdered. That is way, way different than being excited about a person being beat up.
My God. You sound like you could be Tucker’s publicist.
Jockey, I simply put that phrasing in because I couldn't remember his exact words and in my opinion that was bad enough. Was not remotely trying to lessen anything. What Tucker said is shockingly bad.
We are 100% aligned on this topic.
-
Tucker Carlson is out at 8 p.m. on Fox News Channel, and the network hopes that a host of blue-chip advertisers that for years avoided his controversial hour will soon come back in.
Since Carlson’s stunning exit last month, a timeslot that has been shunned by many Madison Avenue stalwarts seems as if it is being embraced. Procter & Gamble, one of the nation’s largest and most influential advertisers, has been running ads in “Fox News Tonight,” the network’s new 8 p.m. program, for female-skewing products like Venus razor blades by Gillette and Secret underarm deodorant. Also showing up in commercial breaks: Novo Nordisk’s trendy medication Ozempic, and Scotts Miracle-Gro.
https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/tucker-carlson-fox-news-advertisers-return-1235606123/amp/
-
Jockey, I simply put that phrasing in because I couldn't remember his exact words and in my opinion that was bad enough. Was not remotely trying to lessen anything. What Tucker said is shockingly bad.
We are 100% aligned on this topic.
No prob. My reply was partly tongue-in-cheek because it was unlike you.
-
Tucker Carlson is out at 8 p.m. on Fox News Channel, and the network hopes that a host of blue-chip advertisers that for years avoided his controversial hour will soon come back in.
Since Carlson’s stunning exit last month, a timeslot that has been shunned by many Madison Avenue stalwarts seems as if it is being embraced. Procter & Gamble, one of the nation’s largest and most influential advertisers, has been running ads in “Fox News Tonight,” the network’s new 8 p.m. program, for female-skewing products like Venus razor blades by Gillette and Secret underarm deodorant. Also showing up in commercial breaks: Novo Nordisk’s trendy medication Ozempic, and Scotts Miracle-Gro.
https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/tucker-carlson-fox-news-advertisers-return-1235606123/amp/
Are you really so insecure you need Gilette, P&G and big Pharma ads to vaidiate your moral superority?
-
Are you really so insecure you need Gilette, P&G and big Pharma ads to vaidiate your moral superority?
Wow, you're easily triggered by a few facts.
-
Are you really so insecure you need Gilette, P&G and big Pharma ads to vaidiate your moral superority?
What's this gibberish mean?
-
Are you really so insecure you need Gilette, P&G and big Pharma ads to vaidiate your moral superority?
Someone misses Tuckems. Even though they never watched him. Wink. Wink.
-
Tucker Carlson is out at 8 p.m. on Fox News Channel, and the network hopes that a host of blue-chip advertisers that for years avoided his controversial hour will soon come back in.
Since Carlson’s stunning exit last month, a timeslot that has been shunned by many Madison Avenue stalwarts seems as if it is being embraced. Procter & Gamble, one of the nation’s largest and most influential advertisers, has been running ads in “Fox News Tonight,” the network’s new 8 p.m. program, for female-skewing products like Venus razor blades by Gillette and Secret underarm deodorant. Also showing up in commercial breaks: Novo Nordisk’s trendy medication Ozempic, and Scotts Miracle-Gro.
https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/tucker-carlson-fox-news-advertisers-return-1235606123/amp/
So how much are the new advertisers paying FOX for the 8PM ads? The article does not say.
-
So how much are the new advertisers paying FOX for the 8PM ads? The article does not say.
$69
-
Well, a jury just said Carlson was right about the guy he called "a demonic force."
-
So how much are the new advertisers paying FOX for the 8PM ads? The article does not say.
I'd imagine Fox isn't going to be sharing that info, but from the story ...
For years, Carlson’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” has largely been supported by so-called “direct response” advertisers, which typically pay a lower price in exchange for allowing the network to place their commercials on an as-needed basis. The top advertisers in the show in the past few years, according to audience-measurement firm iSpot.TV, have been Fox News Channel itself, via promos for its programs and its Fox Nation streaming service; MyPillow, the bedding product from conservative entrepreneur Mike Lindell; and Balance of Nature, a maker of nutritional supplements.
I'm not an expert on advertising rates, but I would imagine having more potential advertisers (especially those with large budgets like P&G) vying for air time is probably a good thing for the network.
-
Did this article come out before or after Ozempic stopped buying ad space
https://www.foxbusiness.com/healthcare/ozempic-weight-loss-could-deadly-should-not-be-given-out-candy-doctor-warns (https://www.foxbusiness.com/healthcare/ozempic-weight-loss-could-deadly-should-not-be-given-out-candy-doctor-warns)
Oh, I cannot get the Ozempic jingle out of my head now
-
I'd imagine Fox isn't going to be sharing that info, but from the story ...
For years, Carlson’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” has largely been supported by so-called “direct response” advertisers, which typically pay a lower price in exchange for allowing the network to place their commercials on an as-needed basis. The top advertisers in the show in the past few years, according to audience-measurement firm iSpot.TV, have been Fox News Channel itself, via promos for its programs and its Fox Nation streaming service; MyPillow, the bedding product from conservative entrepreneur Mike Lindell; and Balance of Nature, a maker of nutritional supplements.
I'm not an expert on advertising rates, but I would imagine having more potential advertisers (especially those with large budgets like P&G) vying for air time is probably a good thing for the network.
Unsaid in this article is that direct response advertisers are generally slotted to air during programming or time periods that the network is unable to sell to more desirable advertisers who are willing to pay more for a fixed position spot. In other words, the show was being supported by companies who don’t care where their ads run (they just want them to be as cheap as possible) because those who do care about where their ads run wouldn’t buy time in his show.
-
Dick pic legend!
This is legend!
-
Tucker Carlson Says He’s Launching a New Show on Twitter
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-09/tucker-carlson-says-he-s-launching-a-new-show-on-twitter
On Tuesday, Carlson posted a three-minute video on Twitter, lamenting the decline of free speech and saying he would bring a “new version” of the show he’d done on Fox to Twitter “starting soon.”
-----------
Cable news is irrelevant. It is all unwatchable garbage.
And now Tucker will have a much bigger voice than ever before.
And no matter how many boner pills start advertising on Fox News again, to the delight and validation of Pakuni, Fox has peaked (they are currently 3rd the cable news rating, after being first for a decade until the day they fired Tucker). Fox is not going away. Instead, Fox is sinking into background noise that means little to nothing.
Meanwhile Tucker will elect the next President ... which he was unable to do being on Fox at 8PM ET.
-
$69
Touche!
-
Tucker Carlson Says He’s Launching a New Show on Twitter
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-09/tucker-carlson-says-he-s-launching-a-new-show-on-twitter
On Tuesday, Carlson posted a three-minute video on Twitter, lamenting the decline of free speech and saying he would bring a “new version” of the show he’d done on Fox to Twitter “starting soon.”
-----------
Cable news is irrelevant. It is all unwatchable garbage.
And now Tucker will have a much bigger voice than ever before.
And no matter how many boner pills start advertising on Fox News again, to the delight and validation of Pakuni, Fox has peaked (they are currently 3rd the cable news rating, after being first for a decade until the day they fired Tucker). Fox is not going away. Instead, Fox is sinking into background noise that means little to nothing.
Meanwhile Tucker will elect the next President ... which he was unable to do being on Fox at 8PM ET.
😂😂😂 I’m sure this will hold up like most of your predictions.
-
Tucker Carlson Says He’s Launching a New Show on Twitter
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-09/tucker-carlson-says-he-s-launching-a-new-show-on-twitter
On Tuesday, Carlson posted a three-minute video on Twitter, lamenting the decline of free speech and saying he would bring a “new version” of the show he’d done on Fox to Twitter “starting soon.”
-----------
Cable news is irrelevant. It is all unwatchable garbage.
And now Tucker will have a much bigger voice than ever before.
And no matter how many boner pills start advertising on Fox News again, to the delight and validation of Pakuni, Fox has peaked (they are currently 3rd the cable news rating, after being first for a decade until the day they fired Tucker). Fox is not going away. Instead, Fox is sinking into background noise that means little to nothing.
Meanwhile Tucker will elect the next President ... which he was unable to do being on Fox at 8PM ET.
You’re saying, America will elect the next president based on the words of a known racist, misogynist and proven liar? Not good news for the republic.
He’s going to be bigger than Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck for sure. Going to be something watching boomers navigate Twitter.
I’m also surprised you give him that much credit since you never watched him because he was part of the unwatchable garbage on cable news. Quite the pretzel of logic you’ve twisted
-
You’re saying, America will elect the next president based on the words of a known racist, misogynist and proven liar? Not good news for the republic.
He’s going to be bigger than Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck for sure. Going to be something watching boomers navigate Twitter.
I’m also surprised you give him that much credit since you never watched him because he was part of the unwatchable garbage on cable news. Quite the pretzel of logic you’ve twisted
I specifically did not say who he would elect. He could elect the other side.
-
Fox has peaked (they are currently 3rd the cable news rating, after being first for a decade until the day they fired Tucker). Fox is not going away. Instead, Fox is sinking into background noise that means little to nothing.
Is there no subject you aren't eager to be wrong about in the most humiliating way possible?
It wasn’t a walk in the park, but Fox News remained the most-watched cable news network for the 116th consecutive week, averaging 1.46 million total primetime viewers (No. 3 among all basic cable networks) and 1.12 million total day viewers (No. 1 among all basic cable network) for the week of May 1.
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/week-of-may-1-basic-cable-ranker-fox-news-leads-cable-news-rankings-despite-recent-primetime-losses/530139/?ver=1683672280925
Meanwhile Tucker will elect the next President ... which he was unable to do being on Fox at 8PM ET.
Sure. Tucker's geriatric viewers are definitely going to figure out Twitter.
-
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1656037032538390530
-
Elon, like others, has found the right-wing grift VERY profitable
-
Elon, like others, has found the right-wing grift VERY profitable
Rubes, idiots, morons and country folk are very easily conned.
-
Rubes, idiots, morons and country folk are very easily conned.
Eh. Some folks will turn to anyone looking for answers. Can't blame them
-
Elon, like others, has found the right-wing grift VERY profitable
We’ll he’s down about $22B so far… that grift’s gonna have to do gangbusters if he’s going to recoup his losses.
-
We’ll he’s down about $22B so far… that grift’s gonna have to do gangbusters if he’s going to recoup his losses.
Losing $22 billion but getting more likes on his tweets than before is worth it
-
Losing $22 billion but getting more likes on his tweets than before is worth it
Did it for the lolz
-
Eh. Some folks will turn to anyone looking for answers. Can't blame them
Are his viewers looking for answers or looking for validation? I suspect it's more of the latter.
-
The last five or so posts above are the Superbar circle jerk in all its glory and kneepads, each trying to pleasure the rest more than the next.
Quite the sight!
-
The last five or so posts above are the Superbar circle jerk in all its glory and kneepads, each trying to pleasure the rest more than the next.
Quite the sight!
What else is there to say? Pakuni gave you the numbers that said Fox is still first, advertisers have returned and Twitter has been a colossal investment failure for Elon in every shape and form.
I’d think Tucker would be wiser to hitch his wagon to something with a better future
-
The last five or so posts above are the Superbar circle jerk in all its glory and kneepads, each trying to pleasure the rest more than the next.
Quite the sight!
You are coming across as one of the rubes Fox felt compelled to grift to when they knew the truth, as they were afraid to tell them the truth lest they defect to Newsmax.
Quite the sight.
-
Losing $22 billion but getting more likes on his tweets than before is worth it
But, did he pay for his account to be verified?
-
Triggered Heisey is the best Heisey.
-
What else is there to say? Pakuni gave you the numbers that said Fox is still first, advertisers have returned and Twitter has been a colossal investment failure for Elon in every shape and form.
I’d think Tucker would be wiser to hitch his wagon to something with a better future
Got those kneepads on for Pakuni.
-----
13 hours old ... first two sentences
https://www.newsweek.com/tucker-carlson-departure-fox-news-ratings-msnbc-1799153
Fox News' ratings for primetime slots among key demographics of cable television viewers have declined sharply since the departure of Tucker Carlson, with the latest figures showing rival MSNBC overtaking the conservative juggernaut.
Cable news ratings show that in the two weeks since the host was fired, figures for Carlson's former spot have dropped by around 50 percent, while the network's audience among 25- to 54-year-olds had shrunk by two thirds.
-
Triggered Heisey is the best Heisey.
You hate Fox News with every fiber of your unstable body. You should be celebrating their demise. It is what you wet dreamed of, they are collapsing like a dead star.
But you rather argue with me on an anonymous basketball board.
I have you so screwed up that you down know which end to put the knee pads on.
My work here is complete!
-
You are coming across as one of the rubes Fox felt compelled to grift to when they knew the truth, as they were afraid to tell them the truth lest they defect to Newsmax.
Quite the sight.
Oh no, you have knee pads too!
-
You hate Fox News with every fiber of your unstable body. You should be celebrating their demise. It is what you wet dreamed of, they are collapsing like a dead star.
But you rather argue with me on an anonymous basketball board.
I have you so screwed up that you down know which end to put the knee pads on.
My work here is complete!
Pakuni owns a bigger share of you than Rodgers owns of the bears.
-
Got those kneepads on for Pakuni.
-----
13 hours old ... first two sentences
https://www.newsweek.com/tucker-carlson-departure-fox-news-ratings-msnbc-1799153
Fox News' ratings for primetime slots among key demographics of cable television viewers have declined sharply since the departure of Tucker Carlson, with the latest figures showing rival MSNBC overtaking the conservative juggernaut.
Cable news ratings show that in the two weeks since the host was fired, figures for Carlson's former spot have dropped by around 50 percent, while the network's audience among 25- to 54-year-olds had shrunk by two thirds.
Fluffer, aina?
-
Tucker Newest Show. Points out selective reporting by media.
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1656037032538390530/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1656037032538390530¤tTweetUser=TuckerCarlson
-
Tucker Newest Show. Points out selective reporting by media.
Ironies abound.
-
The fascination by some here with circle jerks, fluffing and knee pads belies a deeper issue, methinks
-
You hate Fox News with every fiber of your unstable body. You should be celebrating their demise. It is what you wet dreamed of, they are collapsing like a dead star.
But you rather argue with me on an anonymous basketball board.
I have you so screwed up that you down know which end to put the knee pads on.
My work here is complete!
The Baghdad Bob of the Superbar.
-
The fascination by some here with circle jerks, fluffing and knee pads belies a deeper issue, methinks
Which is fine. However they want to live their life….
-
Which is fine. However they want to live their life….
Which is why we have a multi page discussion on whether what Bob Huggins said was a slur/problem.
-
You hate Fox News with every fiber of your unstable body. You should be celebrating their demise. It is what you wet dreamed of, they are collapsing like a dead star.
But you rather argue with me on an anonymous basketball board.
I have you so screwed up that you down know which end to put the knee pads on.
My work here is complete!
It's cute that you think this is an "argument." Heisey, this is just me taking out my red pen and correcting all the stupid things you write here.
Because I find you amusing.
Why would I argue with you?
As for your obsession with knee pads, perhaps spend a little less time totally not caring about Tucker and Fox News, and read up on internalized homophobia.
-
And back to your regularly scheduled discussion of Tucker Carlson and not like a meta commentary on various posters' fixations and such:
I had predicted the Daily Wire, so I got that wrong. But, I maintain that his reach will be amplified in that the raw numbers of people that could be exposed to him will go up, but that the impact of that reach will go down. These tweets fairly sum up what I'm thinking on the subject:
Robert Evans (The Only Robert Evans)
@IwriteOK
·
5h
i tend to agree, all viewership numbers are not created equal. The people who watched Tucker on Fox had him on as a constant part of their daily life, because Fox is white noise for a specific chunk of America.
Quote Tweet
hasanabi
@hasanthehun
·
7h
i think this will be annoying, it will have the full might of twitter behind it, it will get more media coverage than his actual show did because it will be here and still only reach a fraction of the real world impact his prime time show held. twitter.com/tuckercarlson/…
Show this thread
Robert Evans (The Only Robert Evans)
@IwriteOK
·
5h
twitter does still have influence but it's primarily a place weirdos and freaks spend too much time. fox news is the eternal wallpaper of countless gyms, hotel lounges, military bases, etc...
(emphasis added).
-
And back to your regularly scheduled discussion of Tucker Carlson and not like a meta commentary on various posters' fixations and such:
I had predicted the Daily Wire, so I got that wrong. But, I maintain that his reach will be amplified in that the raw numbers of people that could be exposed to him will go up, but that the impact of that reach will go down. These tweets fairly sum up what I'm thinking on the subject:
Robert Evans (The Only Robert Evans)
@IwriteOK
·
5h
i tend to agree, all viewership numbers are not created equal. The people who watched Tucker on Fox had him on as a constant part of their daily life, because Fox is white noise for a specific chunk of America.
Quote Tweet
hasanabi
@hasanthehun
·
7h
i think this will be annoying, it will have the full might of twitter behind it, it will get more media coverage than his actual show did because it will be here and still only reach a fraction of the real world impact his prime time show held. twitter.com/tuckercarlson/…
Show this thread
Robert Evans (The Only Robert Evans)
@IwriteOK
·
5h
twitter does still have influence but it's primarily a place weirdos and freaks spend too much time. fox news is the eternal wallpaper of countless gyms, hotel lounges, military bases, etc...
(emphasis added).
That’s just it and the news cycle of his Twitter vignettes will slowly evaporate.
Twitter isn’t real life. Each successive generation moves onto the newest social media fad/gathering place. It’s a weird strategy for him, imo. The no compete clause probably limits him at the moment but lost time in mass media is crucial
-
There aren't quite enough white supremacists and traitors posting regularly on the twits, so it's not surprising that Elon might want the best of 'em.
-
The other thing is that I think there is a decent share of the "Fox" viewer who is... well lets' just say that they're not necessarily the most tech savvy generation. I'll be curious what percentage of them manage to figure out how to watch a 30-60 minute television show on twitter.
-
The other thing is that I think there is a decent share of the "Fox" viewer who is... well lets' just say that they're not necessarily the most tech savvy generation. I'll be curious what percentage of them manage to figure out how to watch a 30-60 minute television show on twitter.
They won’t. It’ll get disseminated to them in some form but in time, they’ll lose interest in having to find it. Someone will replace him at Fox and that’ll be the new voice for them. It’s not complicated.
-
They won’t. It’ll get disseminated to them in some form but in time, they’ll lose interest in having to find it. Someone will replace him at Fox and that’ll be the new voice for them. It’s not complicated.
Yes, this exactly.
Tucker was a failure at two other networks (not to mention a failed would-be game show host) before Fox's right-wing starmaking machine got a hold of him and turned him what he is today.
Most of these Fox News stars were minor figures before they got there. O'Reilly was a TV news reporter and Maury Povich wannabe before Fox came along. Hannity was a small-time talk radio host. Gutfeld edited softcore magazines and blogged for HuffPost.
The hosts don't carry Fox News; Fox News carries the hosts.
As they did with the departures O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Megyn Kelly and its other dearly departed, Fox will just reach into its bag and create another star to replace Tucker.
-
Rubes, idiots, morons and country folk are very easily conned.
Way to paint with a wide brush
-
Cable news ascendency started on January 16, 1991, when Bernard Shaw, John Holliman, and Peter Arnett reported live from a suite at the Rashid Hotel in Baghdad as Desert Strom began.
This event was so important that TIME made Ted Turner the 1991 Man of the Year
(https://content.time.com/time/magazine/archive/covers/1992/1101920106_400.jpg)
We now have more evidence that the book-end of this event just happened Fox firing Tucker Carlson.
https://deadline.com/2023/05/fox-news-tucker-carlson-may-ratings-1235383937/
The month of May was the first full month without cable news’ top primetime host, Tucker Carlson, and it showed.
Fox News continued to top primetime and total day viewers, but the margins have narrowed considerably with MSNBC, which was the only major cable news network to see viewership gains.
Fox News averaged 1.42 million viewers in primetime, a 37% drop from the same month a year ago. MSNBC averaged 1.16 million viewers, an increase of 14% from May, 2022. CNN averaged 494,000, a drop of 25%
----
The cable news era was from January 16, 1991, to April 24, 2023.
Yes, it existed before and after, but so do fax machines and landlines. All are equally relevant.
-
It's crazy that Time's call in 1991 and 2006 are both in a freefall.
-
Fox News averaged 1.42 million viewers in primetime, a 37% drop from the same month a year ago. MSNBC averaged 1.16 million viewers, an increase of 14% from May, 2022.
Who'da thunk that a white supremacist's departure would turn Fox News-watching right-wingnuts into MSNBC-lovin' commies?
-
Sept. 14, 2016:
"I'm sticking with my long-held idea that in 10 to 15 years the NFL falls to even with the NBA and/or MLB in TV ratings."
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=52294.0
-
The cable news era was from January 16, 1991, to April 24, 2023.
Yes, it existed before and after, but so do fax machines and landlines. All are equally relevant.
Your takes get sillier by the day.
-
Sept. 14, 2016:
"I'm sticking with my long-held idea that in 10 to 15 years the NFL falls to even with the NBA and/or MLB in TV ratings."
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=52294.0
It was fun skimming that thread, which included a banned chicos changing his screen name (for the bazillionth time), claiming he wasn't chicos (for the bazillionth time), and getting proved a liar (for the bazillionth time) by rocky. Saw plenty of contributions from long-gone Scoopers. Good times.
Anyhoo, it turns out our guy Smuggles (Heisey, Tugg, etc) is darn good at making predictions, except about the future.
-
Sept. 14, 2016:
"I'm sticking with my long-held idea that in 10 to 15 years the NFL falls to even with the NBA and/or MLB in TV ratings."
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=52294.0
I still have 5 to 8 more years, ... the NFL's growth rate is zero
https://www.statista.com/statistics/289979/nfl-number-of-tv-viewers-usa/
-
Your takes get sillier by the day.
Thanks for this ... feel better about this now
-
I still have 5 to 8 more years, ... the NFL's growth rate is zero
https://www.statista.com/statistics/289979/nfl-number-of-tv-viewers-usa/
The average viewership for a national NFL broadcast last season was 16.7 million.
The average viewership for a national NBA broadcast was 1.6 million.
The average viewership for a national MLB broadcast (on Fox) was 2.1 million.
The NFL isn't losing 85% of its viewers in the next five to eight years.
-
Who'da thunk that a white supremacist's departure would turn Fox News-watching right-wingnuts into MSNBC-lovin' commies?
waiting for the time you elevate the conversation instead of name calling
Slander is the tool of losers- Socrates
-
waiting for the time you elevate the conversation instead of name calling
Looking through your post history.... thanks for the laugh. Self owns and unintended irony always make me giggle.
-
waiting for the time you elevate the conversation instead of name calling
Slander is the tool of losers- Socrates
Fake quotes are the tools of who?
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/oct/08/viral-image/no-socrates-didnt-call-slander-tool-losers/
-
Fake quotes are the tools of who?
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/oct/08/viral-image/no-socrates-didnt-call-slander-tool-losers/
whom.
-
waiting for the time you elevate the conversation instead of name calling
Slander is the tool of losers- Socrates
Smuggles embraced the nickname, but carry on and wow us with your wonderful conversation-elevating contributions and fake quotes.
-
Tucker on Twitter debuted four hours ago.
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1666203439146172419?s=20
It already has 25+ million views. His May 9 video saying he was coming to Twitter has 133 million views.
For comparison, his Fox show peaked at around 4 million viewers, and the Superbowl has about 130 million viewers.
The best thing to happen to Tucker is getting fired. Not only did that bury an entire industry (cable news), but his reach is now multiple what it was. He has never had more influence. And his $25 million/year income is now believed to be in the $100 million/year range.
All hail the soon-to-be billionaire king-maker.
So ... who among the circle-jerk crowd will take their hand out of the pants to the left, wipe off the KY (or maybe not) and attack me personally? Because that is what they do.
-
Tucker on Twitter debuted four hours ago.
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1666203439146172419?s=20
It already has 25+ million views. His May 9 video saying he was coming to Twitter has 133 million views.
For comparison, his Fox show peaked at around 4 million viewers, and the Superbowl has about 130 million viewers.
The best thing to happen to Tucker is getting fired. Not only did that bury an entire industry (cable news), but his reach is now multiple what it was. He has never had more influence. And his $25 million/year income is now believed to be in the $100 million/year range.
All hail the soon-to-be billionaire king-maker.
So ... who among the circle-jerk crowd will take their hand out of the pants to the left, wipe off the KY (or maybe not) and attack me personally? Because that is what they do.
1) jockitch
1a) rico
2) 82
3) pakuni
3a) rico
4) Rico
In that order.
-
Who goes left in a circle jerk?
-
Who goes left in a circle jerk?
"Leftists". Isn't that where the term cums from?
-
Who goes left in a circle jerk?
82 wants to be last, so they does
-
I have a hard time believing he gets 6x more views from Twitter than he did on Fox News. I understand that views are much different than viewers, but I feel like Fox News is reaching more people in the target demographic than Twitter.
-
I have a hard time believing he gets 6x more views from Twitter than he did on Fox News. I understand that views are much different than viewers, but I feel like Fox News is reaching more people in the target demographic than Twitter.
Sounds like you do believe
-
I have a hard time believing he gets 6x more views from Twitter than he did on Fox News. I understand that views are much different than viewers, but I feel like Fox News is reaching more people in the target demographic than Twitter.
@bennyjohnson 3h
Tucker broke the corporate media monopoly matrix tonight & it’s never coming back.
Tucker uploaded a 10 min monologue.
No ads or interruptions.
No pricy subscriptions.
Watch on demand.
The result?
- 17M views
- 90K RTs
- 25K comments
In under 180 mins
-
1) jockitch
1a) rico
2) 82
3) pakuni
3a) rico
4) Rico
In that order.
that circle is much bigger than that...a lot of hurt feelings from those you left out of the fun
5) smythe
6) 1 testicle
7) jesmu
8)sully but not sure if the others will play nice with him
-
Boy who could have predicted this... and on the first page even.
-
Tucker being gone means nothing. He has a huge following and will likely parlay this into his own brand where he reaps even more money with even less oversight.
As with most things GOP related these days, it's a cult of personality. His viewers will follow him, and especially when he uses the tried and true, "They tried to silence the truth" line that all of his rubes routinely fall for.
For them there is a boogey man around every corner coming for their, 'way of life'. He is the PERFECT man to give the hogs their daily feeding of slop.
If you didn't watch him before, great, but get those you know away from people like him. They're too stupid to know how dangerous a man with low moral character and a megaphone can be.
I'd say good riddance, but this isn't even close to the last anyone has heard of him.
Circle jerker
-
that circle is much bigger than that...a lot of hurt feelings from those you left out of the fun
5) smythe
6) 1 testicle
7) jesmu
8)sully but not sure if the others will play nice with him
There is definitely a market for conspiracy theorists who peddle anti-Semitism, homophobia and racism. All hail the king
-
Someone very smart doesn't understand the difference between how twitter views and TV ratings are calculated.
I'm shocked.
-
Someone very smart doesn't understand the difference between how twitter views and TV ratings are calculated.
I'm shocked.
I do. And I realize that twitter views can be juiced.
But as I said, this isn't the end of Tucker and his cult.
-
I'm too busy making money on AAPL to bother with this silliness.
-
Someone very smart doesn't understand the difference between how twitter views and TV ratings are calculated.
I'm shocked.
So you think his influence and reach have declined?
-
I'm too busy making money on AAPL to bother with this silliness.
Did you wipe the ky off both hands before this (now 8 1/2-year-old) personal attack?
-
Did you wipe the ky off both hands before this (now 8 1/2-year-old) personal attack?
Pointing out that your predictions are almost always wrong, oftentimes laughably so, is not a "personal attack." It's an objectively accurate statement.
-
Did you wipe the ky off both hands before this (now 8 1/2-year-old) personal attack?
What's it say about your future-seeing prowess when a reminder of your prediction = a personal attack?
-
So you think his influence and reach have declined?
Let's revisit that question in a few years.
Do you agree that TV ratings vs Twitter views is a terrible comparison?
-
@bennyjohnson 3h
Tucker broke the corporate media monopoly matrix tonight & it’s never coming back.
Tucker uploaded a 10 min monologue.
No ads or interruptions.
No pricy subscriptions.
Watch on demand.
The result?
- 17M views
- 90K RTs
- 25K comments
In under 180 mins
I may be wrong, as I don't follow social media at all. But I thought the only way to monetize a twitter handle was either through ad-tweets and subscriptions. So if he is to monetize this, he needs to do both of the bolded.
-
Let's revisit that question in a few years.
Do you agree that TV ratings vs Twitter views is a terrible comparison?
He is getting multiple times the views of his Twitter videos than his show ever did on Fox.
It means something now. Why do we have to wait?
I'll answer it, the only reason you want to wait is you know Tucker won by getting fired, and his influence and power have vastly increased. You're hoping in the far-off, undetermined future, these numbers go down.
-
The main Twitter video view metric is triggered when a user watches a video for at least 2 seconds and sees at least 50% of the video player in-view.
A viewer on Fox News is someone who watched for a quarter hour / 15 minutes.
And as you can imagine they are compensated far differently as well. Hards, Jockey & Sultan all could be considered viewers if even half of Tuck's video showed up on their screen. A far cry from the millions who turned on the tv to watch Fox each night. Tucker's views are predictable (also bc he may have been able to buy a lot of them). What is also predictable is the next one up in that chair will eventually have a big name + big ratings. Location, location, location.
-
He is getting multiple times the views of his Twitter videos than his show ever did on Fox.
It means something now. Why do we have to wait?
I'll answer it, the only reason you want to wait is you know Tucker won by getting fired, and his influence and power have vastly increased. You're hoping in the far-off, undetermined future, these numbers go down.
Again, you don't understand how Twitter views work.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/tucker-carlson-twitter-launch-clocks-050051566.html
"But there’s a huge gulf between engagement and ‘views’ numbers, and that discrepancy has a simple explanation: Twitter ‘views’ really tell us nothing whatsoever about how popular or sought-out a given tweet is.
That’s not our assertion. According to Twitter’s own FAQ regarding view counts, which you can read here, “Anyone who is logged into Twitter who views a Tweet counts as a view, regardless of where they see the Tweet (e.g. Home, Search, Profiles, etc.) or whether or not they follow the author. If you’re the author, looking at your own Tweet also counts as a view.”
In other words, a view is counted even if you didn’t seek the Tweet out, but it crosses your screen while you’re scrolling. And that is very likely to happen on the new algorithmic “For You” tab added to Twitter last January, especially, as has been widely reported since then, if a tweet features content Twitter owner Elon Musk has a vested interest in.
But there’s more. According to Twitter, “multiple views may be counted if you view a Tweet more than once, but not all views are unique. For example, you could look at a Tweet on web and then on your phone, and that would count as two views.”
Which is to say, again, it is impossible to draw any conclusion whatsoever from the “views” count about the popularity of “Tucker on Twitter.” On the other hand, if the tracking of real engagement is any measure, the show is actually doing much, much worse than on Fox news,"
-
I may be wrong, as I don't follow social media at all. But I thought the only way to monetize a twitter handle was either through ad-tweets and subscriptions. So if he is to monetize this, he needs to do both of the bolded.
His business model is unknown to the public. But we do know he was making taking $25m/year a year, and Newsmax offered him at least $100m/year, and he elected to go with Twitter. He has a plan.
-----
That brings up another point. Musk is trying to break the advertising model. He is doing it with Blue and subscriptions, and other ideas he teases are coming. So, when the media is gloating that Twitter advertising revenues are down 60%, and he is losing money (he can handle it), remember, the plan is to drive advertising down 100%, so he is no longer reliant on it.
This is a huge concern in traditional media and even over at Google. If this works, and he manages to break the hold of advertising on content, it changes many things, from content delivery to marketing strategies of companies trying to build brand awareness.
TBD if successful. But if it is, it will be an earthquake for all businesses.
-
His business model is unknown to the public. But we do know he was making taking $25m/year a year, and Newsmax offered him at least $100m/year, and he elected to go with Twitter. He has a plan.
Honest question - does Newsmax have the bread to dole out $100M/year as they sit today? Because if not, and would depend on increased revenue from increased (Tucker-generated) viewership to pay Tucker, then there's no reason for Tucker to take that. It would be like a sports league signing a massive money deal with Diamond Sports Group.
-
He is getting multiple times the views of his Twitter videos than his show ever did on Fox.
It means something now. Why do we have to wait?
I'll answer it, the only reason you want to wait is you know Tucker won by getting fired, and his influence and power have vastly increased. You're hoping in the far-off, undetermined future, these numbers go down.
Yeah ... as already has been pointed out several times now, you don't understand the difference between TV ratings and Twitter views. Or, maybe you do know and you're conflating them disingenuously.
Either way, you're wrong.
-
Again, you don't understand how Twitter views work.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/tucker-carlson-twitter-launch-clocks-050051566.html
"But there’s a huge gulf between engagement and ‘views’ numbers, and that discrepancy has a simple explanation: Twitter ‘views’ really tell us nothing whatsoever about how popular or sought-out a given tweet is.
That’s not our assertion. According to Twitter’s own FAQ regarding view counts, which you can read here, “Anyone who is logged into Twitter who views a Tweet counts as a view, regardless of where they see the Tweet (e.g. Home, Search, Profiles, etc.) or whether or not they follow the author. If you’re the author, looking at your own Tweet also counts as a view.”
In other words, a view is counted even if you didn’t seek the Tweet out, but it crosses your screen while you’re scrolling. And that is very likely to happen on the new algorithmic “For You” tab added to Twitter last January, especially, as has been widely reported since then, if a tweet features content Twitter owner Elon Musk has a vested interest in.
But there’s more. According to Twitter, “multiple views may be counted if you view a Tweet more than once, but not all views are unique. For example, you could look at a Tweet on web and then on your phone, and that would count as two views.”
Which is to say, again, it is impossible to draw any conclusion whatsoever from the “views” count about the popularity of “Tucker on Twitter.” On the other hand, if the tracking of real engagement is any measure, the show is actually doing much, much worse than on Fox news,"
https://wsau.com/2023/06/05/documentary-what-is-a-woman-dominates-twitter-reaches-170-million-views/
Since being posted by The Daily Wire’s Twitter account on Thursday, the first day of Pride Month, the controversial 90-minute documentary, which stars Daily Wire host Matt Walsh has received more than 172 million views, making it one of the most popular documentaries of all time.
In contrast, the series finale of M.A.S.H received 50.1 million views and the final episode of HBO’s “Game of Thrones” debuted in 2019 with an estimated 19.3 million viewers.
-
https://wsau.com/2023/06/05/documentary-what-is-a-woman-dominates-twitter-reaches-170-million-views/
Since being posted by The Daily Wire’s Twitter account on Thursday, the first day of Pride Month, the controversial 90-minute documentary, which stars Daily Wire host Matt Walsh has received more than 172 million views, making it one of the most popular documentaries of all time.
In contrast, the series finale of M.A.S.H received 50.1 million views and the final episode of HBO’s “Game of Thrones” debuted in 2019 with an estimated 19.3 million viewers.
Are you quoting a conservative Wausau radio station not understanding the difference between TV viewers and Twitter views as evidence that you don't also not understand the difference between TV viewers and Twitter views?
-
As anyone on Twitter knows, Twitter isn’t the real world.
-
Yeah ... as already has been pointed out several times now, you don't understand the difference between TV ratings and Twitter views. Or, maybe you do know and you're conflating them disingenuously.
Either way, you're wrong.
When you have nothing else, screaming "wrong" and attacking me.
But to move the conversation beyond you.
The problem with viewers on Cable TV is the audience is self-selecting to validate their viewpoint. So, the influence is very limited, no matter the size.
A social media site opens it to millions of people who would never watch a cable TV show. And even if the video starts playing automatically, over the next several months, tens and tens of millions of people will watch some or all of a show they never considered before. So this reach is vastly more. His influence is much greater.
Views on social media are power full than viewership on cable TV. It is the opposite of the Sultan post above.
----
(please try and make the personal attack in your response a little more creative than mindlessly screaming "wrong!")
-
Did you wipe the ky off both hands before this (now 8 1/2-year-old) personal attack?
You view me poking fun at your recommendation to sell AAPL 8+ years ago -- something you've poked fun at yourself for over the years -- as a "personal attack"?
What do you consider the term "circle jerk" to be? A bouquet?
Still, it was fun to watch you and your buddies take part in a circle jerk right after you basically challenged your "attackers" to take part in one. Lotsa circle-jerkin' 'round these parts! Not sure they make enough KY!!!
-
You view me poking fun at your recommendation to sell AAPL 8+ years ago -- something you've poked fun at yourself for over the years -- as a "personal attack"?
What do you consider the term "circle jerk" to be? A bouquet?
Still, it was fun to watch you and your buddies take part in a circle jerk right after you basically challenged your "attackers" to take part in one. Lotsa circle-jerkin' 'round these parts! Not sure they make enough KY!!!
You own Apple? Don’t you know where those products are made?
-
Are you quoting a conservative Wausau radio station not understanding the difference between TV viewers and Twitter views as evidence that you don't also not understand the difference between TV viewers and Twitter views?
Yeah, all this proves is that a lot of people seemingly don't understand the Twitter views metric.
-
Are you quoting a conservative Wausau radio station not understanding the difference between TV viewers and Twitter views as evidence that you don't also not understand the difference between TV viewers and Twitter views?
But it is ok for Sultan to quote a far-left progressive site that says the opposite? That should go unquestioned in your world.
A typical pattern, attack me, attack the writer, attack the site, never the facts.
Are they lying when it has 172 million views? And if not (hint they are not), what does that mean? More people have watched some or all of this documentary than any other documentary in history. It upsets you because it is not a progressive documentary. If it were, you would celebrate these statistics.
So here is an inconvenient idea for you ... Twitter views are more powerful than cable TV viewers.
So just assume viewers matter more than views, it is a assumption you want to be true.
-
You view me poking fun at your recommendation to sell AAPL 8+ years ago -- something you've poked fun at yourself for over the years -- as a "personal attack"?
What do you consider the term "circle jerk" to be? A bouquet?
Still, it was fun to watch you and your buddies take part in a circle jerk right after you basically challenged your "attackers" to take part in one. Lotsa circle-jerkin' 'round these parts! Not sure they make enough KY!!!
Man, this is weak; consider rewriting it.
-
Yeah, all this proves is that a lot of people seemingly don't understand the Twitter views metric.
And neither do you ... ad you assume a TV viewer matters more than a Twitter view.
-
And neither do you ... ad you assume a TV viewer matters more than a Twitter view.
You are the one comparing Twitter views to television viewership. I understand they aren't comparable. You apparently do not.
(Sorry if you view this as a personal attack.)
-
(please try and make the personal attack in your response a little more creative than mindlessly screaming "wrong!")
KY, circle jerks and getting on your knees = intelligent discourse.
Pointing out your many errors = personal attack.
Again, not a serious person. (That may be a personal attack, but it's also a statement of fact).
-
@bennyjohnson 3h
Tucker broke the corporate media monopoly matrix tonight & it’s never coming back.
Tucker uploaded a 10 min monologue.
No ads or interruptions.
No pricy subscriptions.
Watch on demand.
The result?
- 17M views
- 90K RTs
- 25K comments
In under 180 mins
Benny Johnson, really?
Tokyo Rose had a better sense of objective reality than that guy.
-
Benny Johnson, really?
Tokyo Rose had a better sense of objective reality than that guy.
Sultan linked Yahoo News, so pretty much the same thing.
-
But it is ok for Sultan to quote a far-left progressive site that says the opposite? That should go unquestioned in your world.
A typical pattern, attack me, attack the writer, attack the site, never the facts.
Are they lying when it has 172 million views? And if not (hint they are not), what does that mean? More people have watched some or all of this documentary than any other documentary in history. It upsets you because it is not a progressive documentary. If it were, you would celebrate these statistics.
So here is an inconvenient idea for you ... Twitter views are more powerful than cable TV viewers.
So just assume viewers matter more than views, it is a assumption you want to be true.
I mean dude - you posted a non-sequitor article from a former Republican field organizer who now works at a Wausau conservative radio station that was published during pride month about how a Daily Wire documentary about gender ideology is one of the most popular documentaries of all time based solely on Twitter views... in the same thread that you have routinely invoked the term "circle jerk."
Then you claimed pointing that out is an ad hominem attack and isn't "attacking the facts."
-
But it is ok for Sultan to quote a far-left progressive site that says the opposite? That should go unquestioned in your world.
The article was written by Ross Lincoln - he's an entertainment reporter.
Are they lying when it has 172 million views? And if not (hint they are not), what does that mean? More people have watched some or all of this documentary than any other documentary in history. It upsets you because it is not a progressive documentary. If it were, you would celebrate these statistics.
No that's not what it means.
So here is an inconvenient idea for you ... Twitter views are more powerful than cable TV viewers.
No because they aren't the same thing.
This is why you get dunked on A LOT. Not only are you repeatedly wrong, but when it is pointed out HOW you are wrong, you keep insisting you are right.