It's interesting that Carlson has gone so quietly. Maybe the Murdochs have some really damaging information on him. A lawsuit over sexism and a hostile work environment doesn't sound enough to cause them to dump their most popular presenter.
Printable View
It's interesting that Carlson has gone so quietly. Maybe the Murdochs have some really damaging information on him. A lawsuit over sexism and a hostile work environment doesn't sound enough to cause them to dump their most popular presenter.
Edit: I'm gonna wait to offer an opinion. I'm actually at a loss over the Tucker situation. Glad he's gone though.
Strangely, on his various webpages it's as if nothing has happened
https://www.foxnews.com/shows/tucker-carlson-tonight
https://twitter.com/tuckercarlson
https://tuckercarlson.com/
Call me old fashioned, but I cling to the belief that in a robust, open, liberal democracy, accountability for those in the public sphere maintains the system. What Murdoch has is lots of money, and uses that money to shut down any exposure of his business practices and ethos, the irony being that a man who believes Markets are more important and effective than Governments, doesn't want to spook the Markets when the truth of his shabby practices is revealed.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Thus the Carlson sacking allied to the Dominion lawsuit has attempted to squash any open exposure of election lies; just as it is claimed Murdoch paid off the Royals to avoid any detailed scrutiny of his company breaking the law on a daily basis to report the private lives of people who do, in spite of their titles, have a right to privacy.
Markets =Money=? Reputation? Murdoch, in the end, is a coward who uses all and any ruthless measures to get what he wants for his own benefit, but then attempts to Buck the Market, thus exposing his own creed as a fraud.
What do 'The People' prefer: Markets in Command; or Democratically Elected Government?
Murdoch firm ‘paid secret phone-hacking settlement to Prince William’ | Prince William | The Guardian
It was enough to get rid of Bill O' Reilly.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
I think it's a combination of many of the above. Fox got rid of Glenn Beck because he was a crackpot and while Murdoch doesn't mind making money off of crackpots Beck spooked people with his unhinged racist conspiracy theories. Fox got rid of Bill O'Reilly after multiple sexual harassment suits and claims. The first one was in 2004 by Andrea Mackris where those embarrassing transcripts were released. Fox News paid something like 9 million dollars to her yet O'Reilly didn't leave until after 2017 after multiple claims I think.
There's also the new lawsuits about the election lies which are costly and damaging. I think Murdoch knows that while Tucker is popular, he's a liability to them. He will pick up any lie, rumor, or conspiracy theory and it can get them sued. There's the sexual harassment suit. He is also the most active in promoting great replacement theory at Fox and while Murdoch will do what's popular, I think maybe he sees a chance to reset a tick away from such obvious and overt racism. I'm not trying to be cynical but there is a feeling among some Republicans (and frankly anyone who wants to maintain the appearance of condemning racism while engaging in it) that racism in some forms is okay but they want to be able to deny it and the people Tucker defended and whose views he parroted made it obvious enough that it wouldn't surprise me if this were a factor. How obvious is obvious you might ask? Well, they can dogwhistle racism but they can't defend people whose entire lives are committed to using the N word, threatening black people, trying to rehabilitate Hitler (Nick Fuentes etc.). It's not a matter of morals but a matter of optics for Murdoch. But by itself that might not have been enough for them to fire Tucker. He's also getting them sued.
Actually, you maybe on to something:Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Fox Has a Secret ‘Oppo File’ to Keep Tucker Carlson in Check, Sources Say
//www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/fox-news-tucker-carlson-secret-dossier-oppo-file-1234723855/
There has also been speculation about the redacted portions of his emails in the Dominion case.
Broncofan is probably right that it's the combination of various things. Another factor putting him offside with the Murdochs may be that he was getting too big for his boots in thinking that he was bigger than Fox rather than a cog in the machine.
He's now posted a short video complaining about powerful people on both sides of politics colluding to suppress the truth, which I guess includes the Murdochs.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/other/t...ed/ar-AA1aoRUc
Perhaps he sees himself as the leader of some kind of third force political movement.
If he thinks AOC and MTG, Rand Paul and Elizabeth Warren are members of the same party, he is even less intelligent than he wants you to think. This is cynicism taken to a new low, shaped only by his personal resentment at the way he has been treated, given that he has inherited wealth from a frozen fish company. I believe this is the third time he has been fired. And yet I guess someone will give him a platform. But as with the post I am about to write on Twitter, all these people do is SHOUT! If he was seriously interested in debating political issues, the issues would be dealt with analytically, calmly, and be informative of different positions, rather than his shouty ridicule and demeaning, often hysterical distortions of fact. This is not debate, it is just noise.
I seems to be characteristic of the populist right that they complain about the wealthy and powerful when it suits them, but they never propose to do anything about the structural factors that lead to accumulation of wealth and power.
The problem with Capitalism is similar to that with Socialism. When you start to dismantle its corpus of ideas, you find within them contradictions. I see no contradiction in Socialism between individual liberty and the collective good, some think it is irreconcilable; in Capitalism there are 'One Nation Conservatives' who think Government can use the best of Capitalism -its surplus wealth- to ameliorate the worst of it, ie Poverty, and those who think Government is the problem not the solution, and think Markets are the only guarantor of freedom.
At least with Murdoch you know he hates Govt in all its form, and is as committed to Market Forces as Rothbard and people like him. With Trump I am not even sure he believes in Markets, given that most of his wealth comes from tax breaks, tax remittances, building loans and the money he has laundered for various Russian crime syndicates through his Atlantic City casinos and multi-national golf clubs. In this sense, he is a tool for the 'big boys' whose Billions out-count him. And they can manipulate him because he is so dumb at real politics.
But I don't see any serious debate on Capitalism in the US, maybe Elizbeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, but someone like Noam Chomsky has failed at it over many years. As for Socialism in the US....well...it had a moment with the Wobblies but by the end of the 1930s they had been floored by a mixture of good old American violence, and FDR, of whom an American once told me with trembling voice, 'he was a Communist'.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tu...4e462a76&ei=21
This is a story I've seen reported and hinted at a few times. Basically that in complying with discovery obligations in the dominion suit, Fox's lawyers had possession of Tucker Carlson text messages that were so bad that it would have severely damaged Fox to be accused of knowing about them and not firing him. When they were forwarded to the board, they felt they had no choice but to fire him. What could be that much worse than what he said on air? I'm not going to even speculate because I have no clue but I really hope we eventually find out.
Edit: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/26/b...-fox-news.html
I checked back to see if anyone had said anything. I think we're talking about the same thing and I've now seen a couple of articles that make it sound more concrete. None of them report what Fox News executives saw, but there are multiple reports that what they saw motivated their decision. I'm not sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Hard to know until we do know. Some have argued Carlson would not have been fired merely because he called Sidney Powell a 'lying fucking bitch' or another woman, or multiple women in Fox News the C-word. Murdoch worships money and the power it gives him, so I suspect he was given a legal overview of the litigation and where it is going, and is most concerned that the share price will fall as the details of Fox News campaign of lies is exposed, with Carlson a leading figure who knew it was all lies. The simple truth is that there are no good outcomes for Fox News as far as the 2020 Election and January 6th are concerned, and Murdoch is thus at the moment saving his investment, given that Fox News earns him money not Carlson, who may have decided he was too important to be fired.
Is this it? Does it surprise anyone? Seems the issue was not what he wrote, but that the court case might expose it to public viewing.
New York Times Obtains Tucker Carlson Text That Contributed To Removal From Fox News (yahoo.com)
On a lighter note, this is good indication of the intelligence level of Fox News presenters.
Fox host claims Messi should 'learn English like Beckham did'
https://www.msn.com/en-au/sport/foot...dc90f471&ei=12
Given that Spanish is the second language of the USA, why should Messi learn English? He might be learning some, and the Argentinian player Carlos Tevez claimed he would not learn English as a protest at the UK's 'occupation' of Las Malvinas [Falkland Islands]. Sergio Aguerro is another Argentinian whose commitment to learning English wasn't great.
Makes one wonder how many English players learned Italian, German or Spanish when moving there, Gary Lineker, of course, being the exception. He probably speaks Japanese too.
Since the weekend the Media has been in hysterics over a claim in The Sun, that a famous TV presenter shared sexually explicit photos with a teenager, 17 at the time it started, but now 20 years old. It has claimed the mother of the person, who became addicted to crack cocaine funded, she claims by the thousands of pounds given to her child by the presenter, complained to the BBC in May this year but went to The Sun when the BBC did not respond.
The media has been torching the BBC every day, the name of the person concerned has been bandied about in social media even though I can think of at least one other person whom it could be. But the BBC receives allegations from the public of improper conduct by its staff every day and its bureaucracy might not have taken the allegations seriously. Moreover, to complicate the story, the young person at the centre, or is it the sidelines? of this story, has through his or her lawyer denounced The Sun story as rubbish, indeed, told The Sun before the story was first printed it was rubbish, but they published anyway, and later today (Tuesday) it's headline will read 'Dad: The BBC are Liars', though in fact he is not the Dad but a Step-Dad.
Disregard for the moment the so-called meat in this story, the photos nobody has seen, indeed, a story now bereft of facts. Consider this: Rupert Murdoch owns The Sun and hates the BBC. He wants the licence to end, and the Corporation smashed to pieces in a market place Murdoch wants to grow for himself. Given the negative coverage of this story it doesn't matter to him if it is true or not, he has succeeded in exposing the BBC to severe criticism, and thus it is 'Job done'.
Now the sick irony of it all: until the law changed in 2003, The Sun, legally, published topless photos of 16 year olds, one of whom appeared on its notorious Page 3. The hard copy dropped page 3 in 2015 and in 2017 on its online editions, yet now is fomenting a national scandal over alleged photos of a 17 year-old. Since when did a newspaper that has ruined people's lives over 40 or more years with its lies and vicious attacks, become the country's Moral Guardian?
And, given that you can see the topless 16 year old in the National Archives, or online if you register, doesn't this pose the problem that it might be illegal to do so? And where does this leave Rupert Murdoch -the publisher of what today is classed as Child Porn?
If the BBC is damaged goods and must go, what of Rupert Murdoch, whose newspapers not only ruined people's lives with lies, not only published topless photos of 16 year-old girls, but broke the law again and again through its phone hacking exploits still being prosecuted in the Courts?
The truth will come out, but will those who need to be, be held accountable -not just in the BBC, but in The Sun?
Less than a year ago we were told the Murdoch media empire were going to back away from climate change denialism and support the goal of net zero emissions.
https://www.businessinsider.com/rupe...-change-2021-9
So how have they responded to the recent news about the highest global temperatures on record? You guessed it - the same old denialism. They will never change because their business model depends on appealing to a certain audience by telling them what they want to hear.
https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/ep...mate/102641590
The greatest test is about to come: the survival of the Empire without the Emperor. The Children circling each other in the shadows. It might be consequential for the Empire's Legions and Slaves, and lead to a structural if not tonal shift in the media landscape populated by the anti-Govt, Markets-Know-Best. We wait and see.
The assessment in the UK that Murdoch played a key role in the transformation of the print industry is rubbish. Everyone knew the print newspapers were about to undergo a technological change, but while Mrs Thatcher urged Murdoch to take on the Unions which he was keen to do, and the Wapping confrontations made the headlines, the Mirror Group negotiated redundancy agreements with the Unions and made their transition to the digital world without a single strike or confrontation, which Murdoch could have done -but why choose peace when you can have war, a war he knew he was going to win?
Hence the Mantra to be Chanted when you want to undermine freedom, democracy and Government:
Where there is Balance, let there be Bias.
Where there is Celebrity, let there be Cheats.
Where there is Decency, let there be Dirt.
Where there is Honour, let there be Humiliation.
Where there is Innocence, let there be Indictment.
Where there is Sensible, let there be Sensation.
Where there is Truth, let there be Trash.
Where there are Values, let there be Vulgar.
The old gnome is putting Lachlan in charge, and will still be pulling strings behind the scenes, so I don't think anything much will change until he dies.
Clearly no sense of irony in these comments in his statement:
"Self-serving bureaucracies are seeking to silence those who would question their provenance and purpose. Elites have open contempt for those who are not members of their rarefied class. Most of the media is in cahoots with those elites, peddling political narratives rather than pursuing the truth."
A more elaborate version of your post! Interesting angle on the Australian dimension to Mudoch's permanent 'anti-elitism'...Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Rupert Murdoch’s toxic legacy? The powerful can now blame the world’s ills on ‘the elite’ | Jonathan Freedland | The Guardian
There's a recent book on Murdoch's early career in Australia, which I haven't read. It seems he may have been genuinely anti-establishment back then, although ruthless pursuit of his own interests was always the priority.
https://theconversation.com/from-the...terests-207829
As with Trump, I think much of his antipathy toward educated elites stems from resentment that they have never given him the respect he felt he deserved.
The critical point being he has never deserved it. I don't know for sure, but I think there was an arid intellectual climate in Australia in the 1950s which may explain why the most famous Australians we know in the UK spent most of their lives here rather than there, although I believe this changed when Bob Hawke was PM. I don't rate either Barry Humphries or Clive James, the former being an insult to the intelligence, the latter trading in his for a trashy tv sbow, though he was a great admirer of Philip Larkin, a poet of the most uninteresting poetry who has the highest reputation, based on what I don't know. As for Germaine Greer and Robert Hughes, both have, or did produce books worth reading, notably the book Hughes wrote on Goya.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
The riposte to all this clever thinking is some thick-jawed Aussie crushing a can of Castlemaine in his hands before reaching for another and passing judgment in crude language on a passing Sheila. Crocodile Dundee syndrome, and one to which Murdoch has remained loyal ever since, presumably admiring the ruthless manner in which crocodiles snatch their prey and swallow them.
Why report the news when you can create it? And always kick your best mate in the balls to remind him who has the power.
This podcast I usually listen to had an episode a couple of weeks ago previewing the following book, "The Fall: The End of Fox News and the Murdoch Dynasty", by Michael Wolff. One of the things they talked about was the succession plan once Rupert passes away and supposedly it breaks down like this. I'm paraphrasing the transcript of the episode, so there may be errors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Upon his death, the power ownership of the company, the voting majority of the company passes to his four children in equal amounts and there is no tie breaker.
At this moment, Lachlan is the CEO of Fox and the executive chairman of News Corp. Apparently the newspaper side of the Murdoch holdings wants him to keep the job.
His brother, Jamie wants to take the job from him. Mainly for political reasons since he is a liberal and believes Fox is a cancer on the American political body and wants to turn into a force for good.
Their sister, Elizabeth sides with her brother Jamie. But also believes that its cable television, its not going to get any more valuable, and maybe they should just sell it.
The older sister, Prudence who has never been part of the company, lives in Australia, and tends to side with whatever the majority is.
Its Wolff belief that within a couple of years after Murdoch's death he can see either the end of Fox News or it being sold. He believes there is no way for Lachlan to maintain control of a US right wing network and that Jamie will win control of the company. But at the same time, Jamie doesn't want to sell it because of his desire to make it a force for good.
But by trying to turn Fox News into a force for good, all Jamie would be doing is turning a billion dollar grosser into CNN and this will eventually lead to showdown with the shareholders. A battle that most likely the Murdochs will win since its a family controlled company.
My two cents is this. Given how uncertain the future of linear television is, I would side with Elizabeth Murdoch and say the time is right to get out and sell. Having said that, the thing you worry about is the selling to the wrong buyer. The last thing you want is the network to fall in the hands of someone like the Saudis.
When it comes to James Murdoch's plan to turn the Fox News into a force for good. I really don't see what good he is going to do by having Fox News became a liberal network, just to wind up in third place in the ratings behind MSNBC and CNN. I also don't think having all three of the major cable news networks be left leaning, with the the right wing ones (OAN and Newsmaxx) on the fringes is a good idea either.
Now if James wants to turn the network into a place where the news is just being reported, with no commentary from either side of the aisle, (sort of like a 24 hour version of a 6:30 P.M. nightly news broadcast), that would truly be doing some good. Of course, the network would still probably come in third place behind MSNBC and CNN. But at least his conscience would probably be clear.
I haven't read the book, but what is the evidence that James Murdoch would want to take Fox News in liberal (rather than more centrist) direction? Objecting to their one-sided propaganda doesn't necessarily imply wanting to go in the opposite direction. Apart from his objection to them publishing disinformation, I can't recall reading anything about his political stances.
I think the idea that you can be neutral by publishing only news and no commentary seems like a chimera. The selection of which news gets published always involves some value judgements. Facts are often not clear-cut or self-explanatory, so there has to be some analysis and interpretation. What people on both sides are saying is arguably news in itself.
Rather than avoiding commentary, maybe we need to go back to something like the fairness doctrine, although there are obviously big questions about how this could be enforced in the current political climate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
Here is a link to the podcast if anybody is interested. Its less than a 30 minute interview. Its the episode entitled, The End of Fox News and the Murdoch Empire from September 21st.
pod.link/1612131897