He was definitely fired. The most likely scenario is advertisers don't like him. He just did a hit piece on big pharma. He did a hit piece on Jan 6th. He's anti-corporate establishment. They don't want to pay Fox for him to be there. I'd bet most of what I have that they just needed an excuse to fire him on behalf of their advertisers. That's it. It used to be that corporations paid for views, but I don't think that's the case anymore. I think they pay for influence. If you can do that with the most views possible, great. If not, controlling information is way more important.

---

Meh.  I really couldn't care less about Tucker Carlson parting ways with FOX News.  I watched some of his show(s) because some of his monologues and interviews were mildly interesting.  He definitely wasn't my "source" of news.

That being said, I don't know if he was so much "fired".  The statement released said that "they agreed to part ways".  That could mean any number of things.  It really doesn't matter much, though he did have the largest audience and ratings.  After all, in the media business it's all about the ratings.

As far as Sean Hannity or Laura Ingraham, I never watch their shows because I know what it is... one sided partisan politics.

Honestly, for the most part I watch/listen to FOX Business during the day and switch over to FOX News at around 2:00 EST.  I also "scan" other networks to see/hear the coverage on occasion.

Agree.  He can name his price now.  He's a former employee of liberal fodder like the Daily Beast, CNN and MSNBC.  Wherever he lands, he can be whatever they want him to be on air.  Which should help us all remember that it's not the storyteller that is important, its the story.

I think the storyteller is important.  I want the people who tell me stories to actually believe the stories they are telling me.  And in the case of Tucker Carlson, it has been proven that he did not believe the stories he was telling.

Please say it isn't so.

But wouldn't a network that employs both conservative and liberal pundits be the ultimate 'fair and balanced' network?  Hell, they could even reboot Crossfire with Carlson and Lemon going at it.  Or, they could get Dan Ackroyd and Jane Curtin out of retirement.  Man, I miss those early SNL's.

Two extremists having a debate is not a way to get at the truth, because neither one will ever admit that the truth is somewhere in between.

As for the idea of having Crossfire with Lemon and Carlson, one is an idiot and the other is a liar.  There's nothing to be gained from putting those two on a show.  Firing Line with William Buckley is the model of the show I would like to see.  Most people in this message board are too young to have seen those but that show had actual intelligent discussions.

---

Agree.  He can name his price now.  He's a former employee of liberal fodder like the Daily Beast, CNN and MSNBC.  Wherever he lands, he can be whatever they want him to be on air.  Which should help us all remember that it's not the storyteller that is important, its the story.

I think the storyteller is important.  I want the people who tell me stories to actually believe the stories they are telling me.  And in the case of Tucker Carlson, it has been proven that he did not believe the stories he was telling.

---

But wouldn't a network that employs both conservative and liberal pundits be the ultimate 'fair and balanced' network?  Hell, they could even reboot Crossfire with Carlson and Lemon going at it.  Or, they could get Dan Ackroyd and Jane Curtin out of retirement.  Man, I miss those early SNL's.

Two extremists having a debate is not a way to get at the truth, because neither one will ever admit that the truth is somewhere in between.

The Grey Fallacy is still a fallacy.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I think the storyteller is important.  I want the people who tell me stories to actually believe the stories they are telling me.  And in the case of Tucker Carlson, it has been proven that he did not believe the stories he was telling.

---

Two extremists having a debate is not a way to get at the truth, because neither one will ever admit that the truth is somewhere in between.

The Grey Fallacy is still a fallacy.

The truth is not always somewhere in between, but having two rigid ideologues yelling at each other is not enlightening in the least.

---

He was definitely fired. The most likely scenario is advertisers don't like him. He just did a hit piece on big pharma. He did a hit piece on Jan 6th. He's anti-corporate establishment. They don't want to pay Fox for him to be there. I'd bet most of what I have that they just needed an excuse to fire him on behalf of their advertisers. That's it. It used to be that corporations paid for views, but I don't think that's the case anymore. I think they pay for influence. If you can do that with the most views possible, great. If not, controlling information is way more important.

Advertisers do have a major influence on programming, as they should.  After all, they're paying for it.  

The Wall Street Journal weighed in on the influence of the advertisers:

Tucker Carlson’s Vulgar, Offensive Messages About Colleagues Helped Seal His Fate at Fox News - WSJ

While Mr. Carlson’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” was popular, it was also repellent to blue-chip advertisers. Top-tier marketers tend to steer clear of content they deem too controversial, and the show was sometimes the target of advertiser boycotts. As advertisers have fled prime time, some have shifted to airing commercials on Fox at other times. 

Mr. Carlson’s show has filled the void mostly with ads from direct-response advertisers and MyPillow Inc. The pillow manufacturer’s commercials star CEO Mike Lindell, who has also appeared as a guest on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” and was one of the most prominent people spreading the false election-fraud narrative. Direct-response advertisers typically are smaller businesses whose ads encourage people to take actions such as calling a toll-free number.

The lack of advertiser demand meant the commercials in many cases weren’t being sold at a premium or at a rate commensurate with its audience size, which meant it wasn’t providing a huge financial windfall to the network, people familiar with the network’s operations said. 

---

The Grey Fallacy is still a fallacy.

The truth is not always somewhere in between, but having two rigid ideologues yelling at each other is not enlightening in the least.

You seem to think that an ideologue can never be right.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The truth is not always somewhere in between, but having two rigid ideologues yelling at each other is not enlightening in the least.

You seem to think that an ideologue can never be right.

I don't think an ideologue can never be right.

---

People turned on Fox because they always heard what they wanted to hear.. Biden bad, democrats bad. Complete opposite for CNN, Trump bad, republicans bad..

This country has gone full tribal with party affiliation and the news networks are trying to give the people what they tune in for, that's all. It's not complicated.

That's why I quit watching all of them..

---

Agree.  He can name his price now.  He's a former employee of liberal fodder like the Daily Beast, CNN and MSNBC.  Wherever he lands, he can be whatever they want him to be on air.  Which should help us all remember that it's not the storyteller that is important, its the story.

I think the storyteller is important.  I want the people who tell me stories to actually believe the stories they are telling me.  And in the case of Tucker Carlson, it has been proven that he did not believe the stories he was telling.

Way to run with a tiny snippet of information and turn it into a narrative that's unprovable.

---

He was definitely fired. The most likely scenario is advertisers don't like him. He just did a hit piece on big pharma. He did a hit piece on Jan 6th. He's anti-corporate establishment. They don't want to pay Fox for him to be there. I'd bet most of what I have that they just needed an excuse to fire him on behalf of their advertisers. That's it. It used to be that corporations paid for views, but I don't think that's the case anymore. I think they pay for influence. If you can do that with the most views possible, great. If not, controlling information is way more important.

Advertisers do have a major influence on programming, as they should.  After all, they're paying for it.  

The Wall Street Journal weighed in on the influence of the advertisers:

Tucker Carlson’s Vulgar, Offensive Messages About Colleagues Helped Seal His Fate at Fox News - WSJ

While Mr. Carlson’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” was popular, it was also repellent to blue-chip advertisers. Top-tier marketers tend to steer clear of content they deem too controversial, and the show was sometimes the target of advertiser boycotts. As advertisers have fled prime time, some have shifted to airing commercials on Fox at other times. 

Mr. Carlson’s show has filled the void mostly with ads from direct-response advertisers and MyPillow Inc. The pillow manufacturer’s commercials star CEO Mike Lindell, who has also appeared as a guest on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” and was one of the most prominent people spreading the false election-fraud narrative. Direct-response advertisers typically are smaller businesses whose ads encourage people to take actions such as calling a toll-free number.

The lack of advertiser demand meant the commercials in many cases weren’t being sold at a premium or at a rate commensurate with its audience size, which meant it wasn’t providing a huge financial windfall to the network, people familiar with the network’s operations said. 

They should be able to choose what they spend their money on, certainly. However, when businesses become so profitable that they can start controlling information, we've moved into dangerous territory. You moderates are killing this country by continuously burying your head in the sand. You're selling this nation's soul for comfort, and soon, you won't have that, either.

---

I think the storyteller is important.  I want the people who tell me stories to actually believe the stories they are telling me.  And in the case of Tucker Carlson, it has been proven that he did not believe the stories he was telling.

Way to run with a tiny snippet of information and turn it into a narrative that's unprovable.

---

Advertisers do have a major influence on programming, as they should.  After all, they're paying for it.  

The Wall Street Journal weighed in on the influence of the advertisers:

Tucker Carlson’s Vulgar, Offensive Messages About Colleagues Helped Seal His Fate at Fox News - WSJ

While Mr. Carlson’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” was popular, it was also repellent to blue-chip advertisers. Top-tier marketers tend to steer clear of content they deem too controversial, and the show was sometimes the target of advertiser boycotts. As advertisers have fled prime time, some have shifted to airing commercials on Fox at other times. 

Mr. Carlson’s show has filled the void mostly with ads from direct-response advertisers and MyPillow Inc. The pillow manufacturer’s commercials star CEO Mike Lindell, who has also appeared as a guest on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” and was one of the most prominent people spreading the false election-fraud narrative. Direct-response advertisers typically are smaller businesses whose ads encourage people to take actions such as calling a toll-free number.

The lack of advertiser demand meant the commercials in many cases weren’t being sold at a premium or at a rate commensurate with its audience size, which meant it wasn’t providing a huge financial windfall to the network, people familiar with the network’s operations said. 

They should be able to choose what they spend their money on, certainly. However, when businesses become so profitable that they can start controlling information, we've moved into dangerous territory. You moderates are killing this country by continuously burying your head in the sand. You're selling this nation's soul for comfort, and soon, you won't have that, either.

You assign a motive to businesses which doesn't really exist.  Money makes the world go round, and everything a business does is for the purpose of making money.  They really don't give a crap if you believe in global warming, or racial "equity" or anything else, unless it helps them make more money.

---

You're so naive, dude. Unfortunately, you think you're a man of the world. Is what it is, I guess.

---

But, since you're playing this stupid game, how am I assigning a motive that doesn't exist?

---

No, let me reframe this discussion, because your confidence annoys me.

Tucker is THE most watched show on all of cable network television. Even though he offends different groups at different times, he has a MASSIVE following.... more than double his competitors. Advertisers are getting twice the bang for their buck by airing on his show. So, if a company is not choosing to put their product on his show, it's not because of the lack of views. It's because there is an alternative pressure that's coming from somewhere else. Now, I know you like to believe that it's the people that put pressure on advertisers, but you yourself say that Americans don't successfully boycott anything, right? So, it's not the people that are creating that pressure. Where's it coming from, Marty?

---

Agree.  He can name his price now.  He's a former employee of liberal fodder like the Daily Beast, CNN and MSNBC.  Wherever he lands, he can be whatever they want him to be on air.  Which should help us all remember that it's not the storyteller that is important, its the story.

I think the storyteller is important.  I want the people who tell me stories to actually believe the stories they are telling me.  And in the case of Tucker Carlson, it has been proven that he did not believe the stories he was telling.

Hmmm....Adolf Hitler agrees with you. As do chain-smoking pulminologists.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

Agree.  He can name his price now.  He's a former employee of liberal fodder like the Daily Beast, CNN and MSNBC.  Wherever he lands, he can be whatever they want him to be on air.  Which should help us all remember that it's not the storyteller that is important, its the story.

I think the storyteller is important.  I want the people who tell me stories to actually believe the stories they are telling me.  And in the case of Tucker Carlson, it has been proven that he did not believe the stories he was telling.

But wouldn't a network that employs both conservative and liberal pundits be the ultimate 'fair and balanced' network?  Hell, they could even reboot Crossfire with Carlson and Lemon going at it.  Or, they could get Dan Ackroyd and Jane Curtin out of retirement.  Man, I miss those early SNL's.

Two extremists having a debate is not a way to get at the truth, because neither one will ever admit that the truth is somewhere in between.

As for the idea of having Crossfire with Lemon and Carlson, one is an idiot and the other is a liar.  There's nothing to be gained from putting those two on a show.  Firing Line with William Buckley is the model of the show I would like to see.  Most people in this message board are too young to have seen those but that show had actual intelligent discussions.

Firing Line with Margaret Hoover is still on PBS.

While I appreciated Buckley on a number of different levels, he could also be a good substitute for a sleeping pill when he started rambling.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

No, let me reframe this discussion, because your confidence annoys me.

Tucker is THE most watched show on all of cable network television. Even though he offends different groups at different times, he has a MASSIVE following.... more than double his competitors. Advertisers are getting twice the bang for their buck by airing on his show. So, if a company is not choosing to put their product on his show, it's not because of the lack of views. It's because there is an alternative pressure that's coming from somewhere else. Now, I know you like to believe that it's the people that put pressure on advertisers, but you yourself say that Americans don't successfully boycott anything, right? So, it's not the people that are creating that pressure. Where's it coming from, Marty?

Advertising on Tucker Carlson's show is not a good look.  He offends too many people.  A lot of companies don't want to be associated with the views he expresses.  It's that simple.  There are a million other ways for them to advertise.  There's no reason they would pick his show, with all that controversy.  It's not that there would be any kind of successful, organized boycott.  It's just unnecessary controversy that they don't want to deal with.  Why offend people if you don't have to?  

How would you answer the question you posed?

---

The Grey Fallacy is still a fallacy.

The truth is not always somewhere in between, but having two rigid ideologues yelling at each other is not enlightening in the least.

As long as they're not yelling, and as long as they get more than a few minutes to speak uninterrupted,  it could be very enlightening.  But that's not the society we live in anymore.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The truth is not always somewhere in between, but having two rigid ideologues yelling at each other is not enlightening in the least.

As long as they're not yelling, and as long as they get more than a few minutes to speak uninterrupted,  it could be very enlightening.  But that's not the society we live in anymore.

If they had a moderator who could ask questions and force the participants to give straight answers and stay on topic, it might be okay.

---

Why should an ideologue who is right back down from his position?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Why should an ideologue who is right back down from his position?

I don't see any reason anyone would back down from their position if they think they're right.   Why do you ask?

By the way, the definition of "ideologue" is "an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic."   Or, "a person who strongly supports and follows a particular ideology, often without considering other views or evidence."  

And that's the way I am using the word.  And ideologue is like a broken clock.  It will give you a certain time, all the time, even when it's incorrect, but it will be correct occasionally.  

---

The issue is what matters, not the adherent.

This is why cancel culture thrives. People can't separate issues from personality, art from artist, etc. Personality discredited, issue invalid. Artist shamed, art banned/burned/scorned.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption