Rush Limbaugh was a once-in-a century, maybe once in several centuries, talent triggering a complete industry overhaul of radio programming. Love him or hate him, he had an unprecedented audience and few major markets all over the country didn't take advantage of his ability to draw in audience and by default advertisers. He left a huge vacuum in the genre he largely created when he died, but with other popular radio personalities like Hannity and Bongino, the industry continues to thrive.
Then there is the phenomenon of Tucker Carlson. He was the largest draw on Fox News and actually in all of cable television, but most other hosts at Fox also enjoyed being #1 in their time slots.
Then Lachlan Murdoch fired Tucker and the effect was incredible. By Wednesday of this week, for the first time ever, Chris Hayes, airing the same time as Tucker at MSNBC, without significantly increasing his audience, was No. 1 in the coveted 25-54 age group and total viewers. News Corp, Fox News parent org, stock dropped by almost a billion and a half within 48 hours. Subscribers to Fox's "Fox Nation" paid streaming service cancelled subscriptions by the hundreds of thousands. And many, if not most Fox News programs are no longer #1.
The audience abandoning Fox isn't going to CNN or MSNBC. Many with access have gone to Newsmax where Eric Bollings' "The Balance" in Tucker's time slot saw an increase in viewers of more than 260% by Wednesday. And Newsmax is available to 24 million fewer cable subscribers than is Fox. At this rate that won't be true for long I think. Others have gone to OANN with even a much smaller coverage area.
So what do you think? The Customer is always right? This could be a terrible thing or a healthy thing. It is difficult to feel sorry for Fox who have demonstrated timidity and unwillingness to buck the leftist attack machines. For sure they prevented Tucker from releasing any more of the J6 video in his possession than he was allowed to do.
Who will be the ultimate beneficiary of Fox News bad business decisions? And is this whole situation a good thing? Bad thing? Or just one of those things?
Then there is the phenomenon of Tucker Carlson. He was the largest draw on Fox News and actually in all of cable television, but most other hosts at Fox also enjoyed being #1 in their time slots.
Then Lachlan Murdoch fired Tucker and the effect was incredible. By Wednesday of this week, for the first time ever, Chris Hayes, airing the same time as Tucker at MSNBC, without significantly increasing his audience, was No. 1 in the coveted 25-54 age group and total viewers. News Corp, Fox News parent org, stock dropped by almost a billion and a half within 48 hours. Subscribers to Fox's "Fox Nation" paid streaming service cancelled subscriptions by the hundreds of thousands. And many, if not most Fox News programs are no longer #1.
The audience abandoning Fox isn't going to CNN or MSNBC. Many with access have gone to Newsmax where Eric Bollings' "The Balance" in Tucker's time slot saw an increase in viewers of more than 260% by Wednesday. And Newsmax is available to 24 million fewer cable subscribers than is Fox. At this rate that won't be true for long I think. Others have gone to OANN with even a much smaller coverage area.
So what do you think? The Customer is always right? This could be a terrible thing or a healthy thing. It is difficult to feel sorry for Fox who have demonstrated timidity and unwillingness to buck the leftist attack machines. For sure they prevented Tucker from releasing any more of the J6 video in his possession than he was allowed to do.
Who will be the ultimate beneficiary of Fox News bad business decisions? And is this whole situation a good thing? Bad thing? Or just one of those things?
Last edited: