scbriml wrote:

It seems it was the devil that fired Carlson. Yep!

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... 234724478/

Lance Wallnau — promoter of a seven-part plan for Christians to capture America — filmed a live video late Tuesday night in which he denounced demonic mischief behind Carlson’s departure from the network. “The devil hates [him]” Wallnau said, because Tucker has “the voice of the populace.”

Wallnau insisted that “Tucker is a casualty of war,” and added: “I don’t like it when the devil wins.”

Now you can call Rupert Murdoch a lot, but the devil?

On another note, I wonder if promoting Mass immigration from Latin America is part of Mr. Wallnau's plan to get America captured by Christians, Christianity is very prevalent among Latin Americans.

Tugger wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

It's been barely two days since his brutal ouster from Fox News - but Tucker Carlson looks like a man without a care in the world.

The TV firebrand shrugged off the media storm and insisted he was more interested in enjoying a romantic date with his wife Susan as he broke his silence in an exclusive chat with DailyMail.com.

'Retirement is going great so far,' chuckled Carlson, 53, as he emerged from his $5.5 million beach home in Boca Grande, Florida on Tuesday night.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... plans.html

Well right now he should be and certainly can be with probably over $100M in the bank. But his lifestyle is also probably equally expensive so I don't see him sitting and doing nothing but "enjoying retirement" for more than a few months. I am sure he is getting quite a few calls with offers (though I suspect any from NewMax or OAN would wait until AFTER the lawsuits against them are settled, can't see Carlson helping their case AT ALL).

Tugg

Tucker Carlson was financially set up for life from his family; his step mother is a heiress to Swanson family wealth, who made their money in TV dinner industry. The family is worth hundreds of millions, holding tons of stock, trusts, real estate and cash.

There's some chatter that Tucker Carlson has a non-compete clause in his contract that is still valid for a few years; he can't go anywhere else otherwise he'll violate that non-compete clause.

ThePointblank wrote:

There's some chatter that Tucker Carlson has a non-compete clause in his contract that is still valid for a few years; he can't go anywhere else otherwise he'll violate that non-compete clause.

Non-competes are easy to defeat when part of an employment contract. They are not easy to defeat when they are a part of a severance agreement where you took compensation and agreed to not work for a competitor. If he's as rich and as eager to take a leadership role as many project him to be, he will have not signed a severance agreement, was fired for cause, and will be eager to reestablish himself. If he just was there to cash in, he'll disappear for a while. My money is on the later, he's been there to cash in all along, now he's gonna take the easy money and chill for a while. Faux will just find another person willing and able to lie on cue, they're a dime a dozen.

Revelation wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

There's some chatter that Tucker Carlson has a non-compete clause in his contract that is still valid for a few years; he can't go anywhere else otherwise he'll violate that non-compete clause.

Non-competes are easy to defeat when part of an employment contract. They are not easy to defeat when they are a part of a severance agreement where you took compensation and agreed to not work for a competitor. If he's as rich and as eager to take a leadership role as many project him to be, he will have not signed a severance agreement, was fired for cause, and will be eager to reestablish himself. If he just was there to cash in, he'll disappear for a while. My money is on the later, he's been there to cash in all along, now he's gonna take the easy money and chill for a while. Faux will just find another person willing and able to lie on cue, they're a dime a dozen.

Does he though? He went on Twitter last night, and his words were of someone mad that that he was silenced from his podium. I think he shows up real soon elsewhere.

Tucker may very well pop up elsewhere. But if the reporting is true that his ratings had dropped significantly at Fox, then he'll be a has-been with no real credibility. He'll have loyal followers but won't ever return to his previous prominence.

Fox News gave him that platform and rode his wave, cashing in along the way. But that is spent now, and won't recur because he's been caught in too many lies. The Jan 6 security videos were supposed to be his big vindication, but that openly fizzled in front of the public, and he just looked foolish. Fox reportedly killed it against his wishes, based on the backlash.

Avatar2go wrote:

But if the reporting is true that his ratings had dropped significantly at Fox, then he'll be a has-been with no real credibility.

Source for this? Everything I'm hearing and reading is Fox News ratings are negatively impacted by Carlson's departure.

I have not heard or read anything of the sort that Carlson's ratings were on the decline.

Not that it matters - having the highest rating is reflective of the age demographic who continues to use television as the main medium. It only made sense for Murdoch to keep Carlson until it didn't, when high ratings translated to a $787M loss.

scbriml wrote:

Source: https://www.guide4moms.com/wp-content/u ... 8x666.jpeg

That’s one down, how many left??

phatfarmlines wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

But if the reporting is true that his ratings had dropped significantly at Fox, then he'll be a has-been with no real credibility.

Source for this? Everything I'm hearing and reading is Fox News ratings are negatively impacted by Carlson's departure.

I have not heard or read anything of the sort that Carlson's ratings were on the decline.

Not that it matters - having the highest rating is reflective of the age demographic who continues to use television as the main medium. It only made sense for Murdoch to keep Carlson until it didn't, when high ratings translated to a $787M loss.

Remember the two former "can't miss" stars of Fox who were going to take their viewers with them? I'm speaking of Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. Where are they today? Basically, nowhere. It appears that Carlson thought that he was bigger than the network, just like they did. Nobody is.

phatfarmlines wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

But if the reporting is true that his ratings had dropped significantly at Fox, then he'll be a has-been with no real credibility.

Source for this? Everything I'm hearing and reading is Fox News ratings are negatively impacted by Carlson's departure.

I have not heard or read anything of the sort that Carlson's ratings were on the decline.

Not that it matters - having the highest rating is reflective of the age demographic who continues to use television as the main medium. It only made sense for Murdoch to keep Carlson until it didn't, when high ratings translated to a $787M loss.

I also saw some reporting that indicated that Tucker was actually a comparatively low producer of revenue. Presumably, with large advertisers out, they might have had to sell those slots at a discount, I guess high ratings don't necessarily guarantee high profitability.

I'm surprised Tucker is a misogynist who deemed it appropriate to use the C-word in a professional setting to refer to a female colleague.. said no one, ever.

He may have been fired by Fox

https://www.yahoo.com/news/eve-trial-di ... 24495.html

Redacted messages from Carlson were even more inflammatory than anything he ever said on air. This would have been troubling for Fox, if this had been brought up during a trial.

seb146 wrote:

He may have been fired by Fox

https://www.yahoo.com/news/eve-trial-di ... 24495.html

Redacted messages from Carlson were even more inflammatory than anything he ever said on air. This would have been troubling for Fox, if this had been brought up during a trial.

Given some of the things he is known to have said...

phatfarmlines wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

But if the reporting is true that his ratings had dropped significantly at Fox, then he'll be a has-been with no real credibility.

Source for this? Everything I'm hearing and reading is Fox News ratings are negatively impacted by Carlson's departure.

Well Carlson hasn't been replaced yet by some equivalent so current ratings reflect that, it doesn't negate the fact they were going down before his firing.

Aesma wrote:

phatfarmlines wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

But if the reporting is true that his ratings had dropped significantly at Fox, then he'll be a has-been with no real credibility.

Source for this? Everything I'm hearing and reading is Fox News ratings are negatively impacted by Carlson's departure.

Well Carlson hasn't been replaced yet by some equivalent so current ratings reflect that, it doesn't negate the fact they were going down before his firing.

To be clear, Tucker was still winning his time slot over his competitors. But he was declining in viewers, being down 15% in Q1 2023 over 2022. And that includes the massive surge for one week in January, when his viewership rose by 60% due to the Jan 6 security footage, which he had exclusively, but then fizzled.

Tucker ended his Fox stint about where he began, with about 3 million viewers. He had increased that significantly during his heydey. But recently "The Five", which is not primetime, had pulled even and sometimes beaten him.

So I think Fox made the calculus, that if his ratings were about the same as other premiere hosts could bring in, they could swap him out, and perhaps gain back the advertisers, with no loss of licensing revenue. As Rupert testified, it's not red or blue, it's green.

Avatar2go wrote:

Aesma wrote:

phatfarmlines wrote:

Source for this? Everything I'm hearing and reading is Fox News ratings are negatively impacted by Carlson's departure.

Well Carlson hasn't been replaced yet by some equivalent so current ratings reflect that, it doesn't negate the fact they were going down before his firing.

To be clear, Tucker was still winning his time slot over his competitors. But he was declining in viewers, being down 15% in Q1 2023 over 2022. And that includes the massive surge for one week in January, when his viewership rose by 60% due to the Jan 6 security footage, which he had exclusively, but then fizzled.

Tucker ended his Fox stint about where he began, with about 3 million viewers. He had increased that significantly during his heydey. But recently "The Five", which is not primetime, had pulled even and sometimes beaten him.

So I think Fox made the calculus, that if his ratings were about the same as other premiere hosts could bring in, they could swap him out, and perhaps gain back the advertisers, with no loss of licensing revenue. As Rupert testified, it's not red or blue, it's green.

His firing will likely make him more popular. IMO, in most cases whoever they don't want you watching or listening to is exactly who you need to be hearing more from.

afcjets wrote:

His firing will likely make him more popular. IMO, in most cases whoever they don't want you watching or listening to is exactly who you need to be hearing more from.

So you're saying you want to be lied to more? The boy who cried wolf wasn't a story about unfair media censorship!

Newark727 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

His firing will likely make him more popular. IMO, in most cases whoever they don't want you watching or listening to is exactly who you need to be hearing more from.

So you're saying you want to be lied to more? The boy who cried wolf wasn't a story about unfair media censorship!

There might be a reason no one is worried about disinformation from those global world news publications at the supermarket checkout that report on alien abductions.

afcjets wrote:

There might be a reason no one is worried about disinformation from those global world news publications at the supermarket checkout that report on alien abductions.

Fox News and Tucker - as trustworthy as the supermarket checkout magazines that tell me which celebrities are secretly dying.

Wow that was not the swerve I was expecting LOL

Tucker posted a video online addressing his departure from Fox and ended it with "see you soon" indicating he's not retiring. This is likely why Tucker had such high ratings:

"Carlson quickly transitioned and said on his time off he has noticed how “unbelievably stupid most of the debates you see on television are, they are completely irrelevant they have no meaning and in five years we won’t even remember we had them. Trust me as someone who has participated.

The former star of Fox News continued and said the big topics such as “war, civil liberties, emerging science, demographic change, corporate power, natural resources” are not allowed to be discussed in American media.

Tucker Carlson proceeded to take shots at both the left and the right and stated “both political parties and their donors have reached consensus on what benefits them and they actively collude to shut down any conversations about it. Suddenly the United States looks like a one party state.”"

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/0 ... new-video/

afcjets wrote:

Tucker posted a video online addressing his departure from Fox and ended it with "see you soon" indicating he's not retiring. This is likely why Tucker had such high ratings:

"Carlson quickly transitioned and said on his time off he has noticed how “unbelievably stupid most of the debates you see on television are, they are completely irrelevant they have no meaning and in five years we won’t even remember we had them. Trust me as someone who has participated.

The former star of Fox News continued and said the big topics such as “war, civil liberties, emerging science, demographic change, corporate power, natural resources” are not allowed to be discussed in American media.

Tucker Carlson proceeded to take shots at both the left and the right and stated “both political parties and their donors have reached consensus on what benefits them and they actively collude to shut down any conversations about it. Suddenly the United States looks like a one party state.”"

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/0 ... new-video/

Seems like Tucker has invested in Alluminum foil at a high rate. Using the "both sides" do it argument, when we have records of him threatening to end Republican Career's for not doing what he wants .

afcjets wrote:

His firing will likely make him more popular. IMO, in most cases whoever they don't want you watching or listening to is exactly who you need to be hearing more from.

Emphasis added. Who is the 'they' in that sentence?

skyservice_330 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

His firing will likely make him more popular. IMO, in most cases whoever they don't want you watching or listening to is exactly who you need to be hearing more from.

Emphasis added. Who is the 'they' in that sentence?

Basically anyone who wanted or tried to get him off the air.

afcjets wrote:

skyservice_330 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

His firing will likely make him more popular. IMO, in most cases whoever they don't want you watching or listening to is exactly who you need to be hearing more from.

Emphasis added. Who is the 'they' in that sentence?

Basically anyone who wanted or tried to get him off the air.

As I mentioned, Tucker's status will not be diminished among his loyal followers, who are the true believers.

If his own multiple statements, across multiple lawsuits, that he knowingly misled the public on his broadcasts, did not convince them of his lack of credibility, nothing will. They really care only that he reinforces their world view. That has been the secret of his popularity, and his success.

The point I was making, is that it will be difficult for him now to increase that following. Or repeat the building of his audience that occurred under Fox. Because everyone knows now what his true game is.

The only outlets that will host him now, are extreme right and out of the mainstream. They too, will be among the true believers.

afcjets wrote:

His firing will likely make him more popular. IMO, in most cases whoever they don't want you watching or listening to is exactly who you need to be hearing more from.

It can't happen. He no longer has the soapbox of Fox News. Is Glenn Beck more popular since he left Fox? How about Bill O'Reilly? Nope, they've both faded into obscurity.
Of course, Tucker will say anything about anything if you pay him enough, so maybe he will go to MSNBC or CNN. The man has no conviction about anything except money.

afcjets wrote:

His firing will likely make him more popular. IMO, in most cases whoever they don't want you watching or listening to is exactly who you need to be hearing more from.

You’re still not looking at this from a business perspective. Say what you want about Rupert Murdoch, but he is ruthless and very good at making money. So once TC’s show no longer looked like the most profitable product he could be selling in that time slot, he stopped selling it.

He’ll find someone else to keep a large enough audience watching his channel; the methods might shift, but the purpose will remain the same: to make as much money as possible.

afcjets wrote:

Tucker posted a video online addressing his departure from Fox and ended it with "see you soon" indicating he's not retiring. This is likely why Tucker had such high ratings:

"Carlson quickly transitioned and said on his time off he has noticed how “unbelievably stupid most of the debates you see on television are, they are completely irrelevant they have no meaning and in five years we won’t even remember we had them. Trust me as someone who has participated.

The former star of Fox News continued and said the big topics such as “war, civil liberties, emerging science, demographic change, corporate power, natural resources” are not allowed to be discussed in American media.

Tucker Carlson proceeded to take shots at both the left and the right and stated “both political parties and their donors have reached consensus on what benefits them and they actively collude to shut down any conversations about it. Suddenly the United States looks like a one party state.”"

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/0 ... new-video/

You're seriously quoting TGP?

Avatar2go wrote:

As I mentioned, Tucker's status will not be diminished among his loyal followers, who are the true believers.

If his own multiple statements, across multiple lawsuits, that he knowingly misled the public on his broadcasts, did not convince them of his lack of credibility, nothing will. They really care only that he reinforces their world view. That has been the secret of his popularity, and his success.

As I have mentioned, there's no disconnect between Tucker's on air reporting and internal text messages and emails at Fox. This is an unsubstantiated false narrative repeated over and over again that many believe to be true. I actually stopped watching Tucker for almost a year because he didn't cover the election anamolies approximately a week after having Sidney on once and saying she blew him off when he asked her to present evidence of the claims she made about Dominon and Smartmatic, both before the certification of the election and before Dominion released a statement. I included links in previous posts pages up.

scbriml wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Tucker posted a video online addressing his departure from Fox and ended it with "see you soon" indicating he's not retiring. This is likely why Tucker had such high ratings:

"Carlson quickly transitioned and said on his time off he has noticed how “unbelievably stupid most of the debates you see on television are, they are completely irrelevant they have no meaning and in five years we won’t even remember we had them. Trust me as someone who has participated.

The former star of Fox News continued and said the big topics such as “war, civil liberties, emerging science, demographic change, corporate power, natural resources” are not allowed to be discussed in American media.

Tucker Carlson proceeded to take shots at both the left and the right and stated “both political parties and their donors have reached consensus on what benefits them and they actively collude to shut down any conversations about it. Suddenly the United States looks like a one party state.”"

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/0 ... new-video/

You're seriously quoting TGP?

They're quoting his video. I figured it would be easier to read than make you suffer through the whole video.

afcjets wrote:

As I have mentioned, there's no disconnect between Tucker's on air reporting and internal text messages and emails at Fox. This is an unsubstantiated false narrative repeated over and over again that many believe it to be true. I actually stopped watching Tucker for almost a year because he didn't cover the election anamolies approximately a week after having Sidney on once and saying she blew him off when he asked her to present evidence of the claims she made about Dominon and Smartmatic.

I can only point out that Fox News just gave Dominion $787M, and admitted they had failed to meet their journalistic standards. That's about as much of an admission as we will get from them.

But it means that effectively, Dominion proved their case that Fox had made false claims about election fraud and voting machines. And did so with malicious intent. And we know that Tucker was a principal player in that effort, based on his efforts to silence Fox reporters who told the truth, and his advocacy for Fox to resume and double-down on making those claims. Which is what he did.

Also very notably, Judge Davis rightly prohibited Fox from making the claims you are making here, that Fox and Tucker presented the other side, because doing so did not reverse or undo the damage they had already done, and had continued to do, for months.

You're clinging to your beliefs here, I get that and understand. But there is no denying the objective evidence, and the result. Tucker is gone for a reason. At any other news network, he would have been gone long ago. Fox held on because he was making money for them. But he cost them as well.

Avatar2go wrote:

Also very notably, Judge Davis rightly prohibited Fox from making the claims you are making here, that Fox and Tucker presented the other side, because doing so did not reverse or undo the damage they had already done, and had continued to do, for months.

It's telling you say her reason was not because the claims I am making or that Fox wanted to make were untrue.

Do you have a link that shows Fox presented arguments against Dominion after November or December, 2020? (aside from Tucker interviewing Mike Lindell about being cancelled from Twitter over his claims). You say they continued for months but I don't recall any.

afcjets wrote:

It's telling you say her reason was not because the claims I am making or that Fox wanted to make were untrue.

Do you have a link that shows Fox presented arguments against Dominion after November or December, 2020? (aside from Tucker interviewing Mike Lindell about being cancelled from Twitter over his claims). You say they continued for months but I don't recall any.

It's in the court documents Dominion released in support of their motion for summary judgement. Those have all been posted here and discussed in detail, as well as being posted and the source of numerous news stories online. Have you read them?

All of that information was the result of discovery, and was established as fact by the court. They outline the timeline of what was said on the air, as opposed to what was said in private e-mails and texts, at the same time. Tucker was still referencing the election fraud claims and Dominion, even after Jan 6. In fact he used them as a defense of the rioters.

At the same time, he was disparaging team Trump in private. At the same time, he was complaining about truthful coverage presented on Fox by other reporters. At the same time, he was imploring management to continue making the false claims, in order to maintain viewership and ratings.

Then in his deposition for Dominion, under oath, he said that he never believed the fraud claims, or the Dominion claims. And every person at Fox, testified to the same thing.

You cannot reconcile this by claiming that he questioned Sydney Powell on air, or that he somehow refuted those claims on air. In fact the Dominion discovery shows that he never did, nor has he ever, to this day. Nor has Fox.

Finally the judge affirmed this, and said as a finding of fact of the court, that Fox made no significant effort to redress the claims they had previously made about Dominion. That by definition, includes Tucker.

Thus it's impossible for your claims about Tucker to be correct, unless you believe all these findings and rulings and evidence and Fox's settlement, are somehow incorrect. And you have presented no evidence that they are incorrect, that I can see.

Avatar2go wrote:

It's in the court documents Dominion released in support of their motion for summary judgement. Those have all been posted here and discussed in detail, as well as being posted and the source of numerous news stories online. Have you read them?

Of course not, court documents are very long. Feel free to copy/paste the part that supports your claim since you're familiar with them and the one making the claim.

Avatar2go wrote:

You cannot reconcile this by claiming that he questioned Sydney Powell on air, or that he somehow refuted those claims on air. In fact the Dominion discovery shows that he never did, nor has he ever, to this day. Nor has Fox.

Finally the judge affirmed this, and said as a finding of fact of the court, that Fox made no significant effort to redress the claims they had previously made about Dominion. That by definition, includes Tucker.

Thus it's impossible for your claims about Tucker to be correct, unless you believe all these findings and rulings and evidence and Fox's settlement, are somehow incorrect. And you have presented no evidence that they are incorrect, that I can see.

I can totally reconcile it with this 11/19/2020 segment on Tucker Carlson Tonight. My claims about Tucker are correct because I claim exactly what he said after his one interview with her. How on God's green earth anyone can watch this and think Tucker believed Sidney Powell's claims of Dominion flipping votes is beyond me.

https://youtu.be/BspHzH6RRxo

Avatar2go wrote:

Aesma wrote:

phatfarmlines wrote:

Source for this? Everything I'm hearing and reading is Fox News ratings are negatively impacted by Carlson's departure.

Well Carlson hasn't been replaced yet by some equivalent so current ratings reflect that, it doesn't negate the fact they were going down before his firing.

To be clear, Tucker was still winning his time slot over his competitors. But he was declining in viewers, being down 15% in Q1 2023 over 2022. And that includes the massive surge for one week in January, when his viewership rose by 60% due to the Jan 6 security footage, which he had exclusively, but then fizzled.

Tucker ended his Fox stint about where he began, with about 3 million viewers. He had increased that significantly during his heydey. But recently "The Five", which is not primetime, had pulled even and sometimes beaten him.

So I think Fox made the calculus, that if his ratings were about the same as other premiere hosts could bring in, they could swap him out, and perhaps gain back the advertisers, with no loss of licensing revenue. As Rupert testified, it's not red or blue, it's green.

It was reported that Tucker Carlson was considered 'toxic' to most blue chip advertisers, so advertisement spots on his program were heavily discounted as a result. It's likely that some of the financial calculus was that by ditching Carlson and replacing him with a more advertiser-friendly host, they can regain those blue chip advertisers back onto his old time slot, and come out either on par or ahead, even with a decline in viewership.

afcjets wrote:

Of course not, court documents are very long. Feel free to copy/paste the part that supports your claim since you're familiar with them and the one making the claim.

This is a canard and a disingenuous argument. Educating yourself is your responsibility, not mine. Ignorance is neither a defense nor evidence. Especially if it's willful.

I can totally reconcile it with this 11/19/2020 segment on Tucker Carlson tonight. My claims about Tucker are correct because I claim exactly what he said after his one interview with her. How on God's green earth anyone can watch this and think Tucker believed Sidney Powell's claims of Dominion flipping votes is beyond me.

You can reconcile this one event to your claims, if you view it in isolation, and ignore the mountain of other evidence against them.

As I explained, Judge Davis specifically blocked Fox from making this same defense, because it hides the elephant behind the mouse. The mouse has no relevance to the elephant. If that argument is not appropriate for a court of law, it's not appropriate here either.

afcjets wrote:

Of course not, court documents are very long. Feel free to copy/paste the part that supports your claim since you're familiar with them and the one making the claim.

This is perhaps making me miss the days of "doing your own research"....

Remember the old "Reading is fun-damental" ad campaign? I guess that some don't...

afcjets wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

His firing will likely make him more popular. IMO, in most cases whoever they don't want you watching or listening to is exactly who you need to be hearing more from.

So you're saying you want to be lied to more? The boy who cried wolf wasn't a story about unfair media censorship!

There might be a reason no one is worried about disinformation from those global world news publications at the supermarket checkout that report on alien abductions.

Those would be the same publications that bought and buried stories regarding Trump during the run up to the 2016 election.

https://www.ft.com/content/2056d7c1-569 ... 568209b7d6

Revelation wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Of course not, court documents are very long. Feel free to copy/paste the part that supports your claim since you're familiar with them and the one making the claim.

This is perhaps making me miss the days of "doing your own research"....

The ones who scream "DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!!!" are the ones who demand you buy into the cult.

seb146 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Of course not, court documents are very long. Feel free to copy/paste the part that supports your claim since you're familiar with them and the one making the claim.

This is perhaps making me miss the days of "doing your own research"....

The ones who scream "DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!!!" are the ones who demand you buy into the cult.

It's the favourite refrain of many a flat-Earther. Which is bigly ironic.