The Trouble City Forums

Full Version: Fox News - this is not satire
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
AWow, this is a day that I thought would never come.

I suppose the lesson of the Beck and Limbaugh boycotts still holds: corporations that care about nothing but the bottom line can still be made to do the right thing, if only to cover their own asses. Sponsors had to drop O'Reilly like a hot potato in order to avoid being boycotted themselves, leaving Fox answering to stockholders about precisely when this hour-long block of prime time television was supposed to go back to generating revenue in accordance with its ratings.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

They're all melting down.


The dog caught the car.  Now it's getting ground up in the wheel well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmacq1 View Post
 

We joke, but his books do sell to "the base" and that's enough to keep him wealthy, and he can still cry himself to sleep in giant piles of money from Fox if he wants.  Now we need some good lawsuits to drain him of those assets for the ruination to be truly complete, but it's probably wishful thinking it'd go that far (he'll settle).  Guess we take the small victory.  And yes...let's hope Hannity's next.



I don't see Bill having the gumption of a zealot like Glenn Beck to keep the machine going once he doesn't have the platform of FOX News. I'd be surprised if he wound up anywhere other than The Daily Caller or Breitbart.



Editing to add that The Daily Caller is probably out too, because of the Tucker connection, and you just know Tuck's been dying to see all of this go down since he got his new show.

Has Trump tweeted about this yet?  You know he's going to side with Bill, but will he say anything bad about Fox News?  Probably not.  Probably blame a FAKE liberal media witch hunt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dalyn View Post
 

Has Trump tweeted about this yet?  You know he's going to side with Bill, but will he say anything bad about Fox News?  Probably not.  Probably blame a FAKE liberal media witch hunt.



That might be hard. FOX didn't pay out a fake $13,000,000.

A[quote name="Schwartz" url="/community/t/149438/fox-news-this-is-not-satire/240#post_4272790"]
The dog caught the car.  Now it's getting ground up in the wheel well.  
[/quote]

Poor dog.
AEnjoy your vacay, Bill!

Huh, all this time I've been hearing about how Bill-O hosts an opinion show meant to entertain, but there's old Rupert saying the man is deserving of news accolades.



No wonder their audience has a hard time parsing out the difference.

There's still a sexual predator in the White House, though.



Brian Williams was exiled due to in-house policy matters. For O'Reilly, it was a lawsuit leading to a legal settlement. That means, apology or no apology, any company hiring him is now "on the hook" if future accusations arrive, since his sexual harassment-issues are have been officially held to public account.



So he's basically untouchable to work for any major media organization now. Jeff Zucker is in a tricky spot right now trying to balance being successful at his job, and alienating all his liberal friends socially for the blood on his hands after airing the Trump-rallies nonstop for ratings. Though O'Reilly could always try to find an online location to spread his loudmouth sexist, racist claptrap. If that happens, pray he doesn't start caring about the Oscar-race.

A[quote name="Leto II" url="/community/t/149438/fox-news-this-is-not-satire/250#post_4272992"]There's still a sexual predator in the White House, though.[/quote]
Oh, sure. But one little victory at a time, right?
AThey're giving his timeslot to Tucker Carlson, who I'm certain doesn't have a penis, but is just as vile in his opinions. Win some, lose some.
Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

They're giving his timeslot to Tucker Carlson, who I'm certain doesn't have a penis, but is just as vile in his opinions. Win some, lose some.


The fact that Carlson even got to replace Megyn Kelly is all the proof I need that Fox doesn't give a shit about the culture at the network when the heat isn't on:



https://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/tucke....mq7MbKnB1



Quote:

Daily Caller founder Tucker Carlson's brother Buckley Carlson referred to New York City mayor Bill de Blasio's spokesperson as a "self-righteous bitch" in an email to his brother obtained by BuzzFeed News.



The email appears to have been accidentally sent to de Blasio's spokesperson, Amy Spitalnick, as well as to Tucker Carlson. In the email, Buckley Carlson, who occasionally writes for the Daily Caller, makes several offensive comments about Spitalnick after she asked for a correction on a piece about the mayor:



Great response. Whiny little self-righteous bitch. "Appalling?"
And with such an ironic name, too… Spitalnick? Ironic because you just know she has extreme dick-fright; no chance has this girl ever had a pearl necklace. Spoogeneck? I don't think so. More like LabiaFace.
ATwo brothers named Tucker and Buckley had to have gone through high school with a severe case of unfuckablitis.
Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

They're giving his timeslot to Tucker Carlson, who I'm certain doesn't have a penis, but is just as vile in his opinions. Win some, lose some.


I hate to quote myself, but really I don't.



Quote:


Originally Posted by matches View Post
 


I don't see Bill having the gumption of a zealot like Glenn Beck to keep the machine going once he doesn't have the platform of FOX News. I'd be surprised if he wound up anywhere other than The Daily Caller or Breitbart.



Editing to add that The Daily Caller is probably out too, because of the Tucker connection, and you just know Tuck's been dying to see all of this go down since he got his new show.

Glenn Beck is struggling to keep his one man network afloat, mostly because he got treatment for his mental illness and dialed it back, which alienated his audience. So he had the need and the infrastructure; if O'Reilly teams up with them there's a chance The Blaze might become something ratings wise.


Fox deciding to shit can O'Reilley is fascinating because it most certainly NOT a business decision. His show was generating $200 MILLION in revenue per year, vs. $13M paid to various women over more than 10 years.



So either the Younger Murdocks are making a major statement, or there is/was something about to come out that they wanted to head off.

A[quote name="Cylon Baby" url="/community/t/149438/fox-news-this-is-not-satire/250#post_4273016"]Glenn Beck is struggling to keep his one man network afloat, mostly because he got treatment for his mental illness and dialed it back, which alienated his audience. So he had the need and the infrastructure; if O'Reilly teams up with them there's a chance The Blaze might become something ratings wise. 


Fox deciding to shit can O'Reilley is fascinating because it most certainly NOT a business decision. His show was generating $200 MILLION in revenue per year, vs. $13M paid to various women over more than 10 years. 

So either the Younger Murdocks are making a major statement, or there is/was something about to come out that they wanted to head off. 
[/quote]

They were losing advertisers. Of course it was a business decision.
Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

Two brothers named Tucker and Buckley had to have gone through high school with a severe case of unfuckablitis.


Well at least they had each other.

A[quote name="JacknifeJohnny" url="/community/t/149438/fox-news-this-is-not-satire/250#post_4273020"]They were losing advertisers. Of course it was a business decision.[/quote]
I do wonder about that, because one thread of commentary that came up in a lot of articles over the last couple weeks was the claim that advertiser revenue was fairly paltry compared to O'Reilly's value as a ratings draw and lynchpin of the network, but then I know even less about TV accounting than about movie accounting and 90% of movie accounting is lies and voodoo, so who really knows.
Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post


They were losing advertisers. Of course it was a business decision.

A bad one. $200 million per year...gone.



His show was pulling in 4 Million viewers per night!



Quote:

Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post


I do wonder about that, because one thread of commentary that came up in a lot of articles over the last couple weeks was the claim that advertiser revenue was fairly paltry compared to O'Reilly's value as a ratings draw and lynchpin of the network, but then I know even less about TV accounting than about movie accounting and 90% of movie accounting is lies and voodoo, so who really knows.


Reading the WSJ summary, it seems when O'Reilly negotiated his new contract, there was a clause that, should any more "red flags" pop up, Fox had the right to terminate the contract.



At the same time Fox had a law firm doing an internal review to make sure there were not such red flags, and found some. I'd guess there was someone else about to go public, or details from an old case (or his divorce) were/are about to surface.

Haha so Howard Stern talked about other shit heads at Fox...like the Comptroller who made racial remarks and called a cancer survivor "one Boon Girl". I think his take is the right one.



A[quote name="commodorejohn" url="/community/t/149438/fox-news-this-is-not-satire/250#post_4273023"]
I do wonder about that, because one thread of commentary that came up in a lot of articles over the last couple weeks was the claim that advertiser revenue was fairly paltry compared to O'Reilly's value as a ratings draw and lynchpin of the network, but then I know even less about TV accounting than about movie accounting and 90% of movie accounting is lies and voodoo, so who really knows.[/quote]

It's pretty straightforward. The ratings for that time slot determine the price Fox can set for advertising buyrates in that time slot, which in turn determines things like the show's budget and O'Reilly's salary. With advertisers boycotting and the network filling ad time with promos for its other shows and other crap that doesn't actively generate revenue, suddenly the network's single most expensive hour of television has stopped paying for itself.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reasor View Post


It's pretty straightforward. The ratings for that time slot determine the price Fox can set for advertising buyrates in that time slot, which in turn determines things like the show's budget and O'Reilly's salary. With advertisers boycotting and the network filling ad time with promos for its other shows and other crap that doesn't actively generate revenue, suddenly the network's single most expensive hour of television has stopped paying for itself.


...assuming the boycott lasts.



When Rush Limbo got boycotted the advertising stayed away for years...I don't think he's recovered yet.



Obviously Fox made that part of their calculation too. Just seems preemptive to me...like that make the decision after a week or two of controversy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post


I do wonder about that, because one thread of commentary that came up in a lot of articles over the last couple weeks was the claim that advertiser revenue was fairly paltry compared to O'Reilly's value as a ratings draw and lynchpin of the network, but then I know even less about TV accounting than about movie accounting and 90% of movie accounting is lies and voodoo, so who really knows.

Rampant speculation follows:



Maybe the Murdoch kids were just looking for an excuse because they were miffed at whatever part O'Reilly might have played in pushing Megyn Kelly away from the network.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
 


...assuming the boycott lasts.



When Rush Limbo got boycotted the advertising stayed away for years...I don't think he's recovered yet.



Obviously Fox made that part of their calculation too. Just seems preemptive to me...like that make the decision after a week or two of controversy?



I was wondering on that too.  I don't think that Rush has ever really bounced back in terms of generating advertising revenue.

ACould be a number of things that doomed O'Reilly, but at the top of the heap is money, always and forever.*

What I do know, is that this is, if not *good*, then certainly not bad for the morale of anti-Trump leftwingers like myself.







*Until we all perish in a nuclear holocaust, anyway. *shrugs*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
 

A bad one. $200 million per year...gone.



His show was pulling in 4 Million viewers per night!




Reading the WSJ summary, it seems when O'Reilly negotiated his new contract, there was a clause that, should any more "red flags" pop up, Fox had the right to terminate the contract.



At the same time Fox had a law firm doing an internal review to make sure there were not such red flags, and found some. I'd guess there was someone else about to go public, or details from an old case (or his divorce) were/are about to surface.



Scuttlebutt being that it's the younger Murdochs pushing to cut ties with O'Reilly, which suggests that they have a long term plan to make money without being dependent on Papa Bear.  It could be that they're genuinely more moderate and disgusted by the direction in which the network has pullled the country.  Or it could be that they see the network's profitability as a mainstream media outlet is in danger of becoming a casualty of its success as a propaganda arm that has spent the last 20 years tirelessly poisoning its audience against the idea of mainstream media outlets.  The likes of O'Reilly and Hannity having ironically paved the way for a brave new world in which their increasingly radicalized audience continues bleeding off to places like Brietbart and InfoWars, that don't play nice with cucks and tratiors like Tucker Carlson or Megyn Kelly.  They've helped make the fringe so big and loud and dumb that it can't be accomodated without alienating the normal-ish that advertisers need to peddle soda and erection pills and reverse mortgages too.  So Fox has to either marginalize itself by doubling down on the crazy, or tack back toward the center and keep the whales in play.



Or something else.  It's a theory.

ASounds about right.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
 

Glenn Beck is struggling to keep his one man network afloat, mostly because he got treatment for his mental illness and dialed it back, which alienated his audience. So he had the need and the infrastructure; if O'Reilly teams up with them there's a chance The Blaze might become something ratings wise.



This is what I was trying to say. Badly.


Only a few episodes of "The Factor" will be aired, the last show is tomorrow.  In memorandum to Billo's career, here's my favorite segment - that time that Killa Cam and Dash visited the studio.





Before:





After:





So, how'd you move then?