Popular media personalities: Good thing? Bad thing? Beneficial? Dangerous?

[Foxfyre]

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?

https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/newsmax-fox-tucker-carlson/2023/04/28/id/1117912/

 

[White 6]

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?

https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/newsmax-fox-tucker-carlson/2023/04/28/id/1117912/

Changing the media personalities is a good thing. Like dirty underwear, they should be changed regularly, as some start out dirty, while others become dirty with use, misuse, often their own, thinking their sh#t don't stink.

 

[Meister]

Getting rid of Carlson was a big negative hit and then add Bongino with his leaving.
Fox took a hit, I believe the writing is on the wall with Fox. They are slowly moving left
from where they were, especially from where they were when they first opened shop
as a news network.

 

[Foxfyre]

Getting rid of Carlson was a big negative hit and then add Bongino with his leaving.
Fox took a hit, I believe the writing is on the wall with Fox. They are slowly moving left
from where they were, especially from where they were when they first opened shop
as a news network.

And it's sad because they really had access to pretty much the entire U.S. population, a status that media orgs. like Newsmax and OANN have not yet achieved. Just as Limbaugh was for a time the ONLY conservative talk show host before he put conservative talk radio on the map as the norm as it could hold an audience where vacuous left wing radio could not, Fox News for decades was the only game in town offsetting vacuous left wing television. They would report news that the leftist alphabet news orgs. refused to report.

To lose it without somebody in a position to step up and take its place is not good for America or Americans.

And, though I generally resist conspiracy theories, I do have to wonder if that is not the intention here?