I've heard a bunch of theories about why Tucker Carlson was fired from Fox News:
- He was the biggest name in the Dominion lawsuit, so now he's taking the fall.
- Some of his text messages, which were made public during discovery, were critical of Fox. Rupert Murdoch didn't like that.
- Tucker had started to think he was bigger than Fox, and Rupert decided it was time to nip that in the bud.
- Tucker was opposed to US support of Ukraine, something the Deep State couldn't tolerate. So they engineered his departure.
- A former booking producer has sued both Tucker and his senior executive producer, who was also fired, of sexism and harassment. The case was likely to be embarrassing, so Fox decided to bite the bullet and cut him loose.
- He was a pain in the ass and everyone was tired of him.
It is a testament to Fox's reputation that no one thinks Tucker was fired because of his endless appeals to racism, bigotry, and demented conspiracy theories. And why would they? That's why Fox kept him around so long in the first place.
Racism, bigotry and endless conspiracy theories are grist for the mill at Fox. But when you add contempt for management to the list, especially after Fox has had to pay $787.5 M in a settlement not unrelated to said conspiracy theories, management starts lookig for an excuse like misogyny to fire staff.
But expressing contempt doesn’t explain the question of: “Why now?” Fox News has at least one more major lawsuit against it, plus its personalities also have a variety of lawsuits against them that could easily create problems for Fox News. My assumption would be that, for the moment, Fox would rather have Tucker inside the tent pissing out than vice-versa.
Google paid 99 dollars an hour on the internet. Everything I did was basic Οnline w0rk from comfort at hΟme for 5-7 hours per day that I g0t from this office I f0und over the web and they paid me 100 dollars each hour. For more details
visit this article... https://createmaxwealth.blogspot.com
If you read between the lines of all the stories, I think the right narrative is that during his contract renegotiations, Rupert Murdoch's ego got in the way and he finally decided that his hatred of Carlson was reason enough to kick Carlson out.
There's no "biting of the bullet" or "taking the fall", here. They were in contract renegotiations.
The lawsuits, whether Dominion, Smartmatic, or personal ones, mattered little. They were in contract renegotiations.
His opposition to the US helping Ukraine was irrelevant. They were in contract negotiations.
His being a pain in the ass was unimportant. They were in contract negotiations.
The only way they'd let Carlson go is that Rupert was personally offended.
Personal offence is unlikely to enter into this.
However, the Murdoch Family and the Family Trust votes controlling the Fox Corp as well as larger Fox Corp shareholder discontent likely do. Political junkies are thinking uniquely via the political news angle, but Fox News is a subsidiary of a larger beast. One not principally focused on the political.
And Dominion public discovery has pained a picture of the Talent thinking they are the bosses, rather than hired servants.
It would be most plausible that the accumulation of shareholder - Trust and non-Trust - expression of discontent that the hired help had taken over and were driving not profits but risk to profits, and not being controlled... plus other factors certainly accumulating.
If what I’ve read is correct, Rupert is going to pay Tucker $20 million to go away. Even for a billionaire like Rupert that’s a lot of money. And it’s especially a lot of money for someone you’re firing out of some kind of personal pique. There’s got to be something more to this.
Mitch
A severance of $20M for a guy like Carlson is not out of the question and Rupert can afford to pay it out
But I am like you - there's got to be something more to this
"Even for a billionaire like Rupert that’s a lot of money."
Not only is $20 mil *not* a lot of money for a billionaire, the $20 million in question isn't even Rupert's. It's not like Murdoch wrote Tucker a personal check, for chrissakes--Fox did, and that's offset against operating *revenue* of multiple billions per year.
That’s a good point. But, even so, handing over $20 million to buy out Tucker’s contract seems slightly peculiar if you want to be rid of him because you’re pissed at him. No matter whose money it was, it’s definitely Tucker’s money now and $20 million is seriously a lot of money.
Compared to the Dominion settlement, it's couch change. Plus, Fox will expense it on their ledger, if they have to pay it at all. Last I hear, Carlson was told he was fired "for cause."
My guess is that the bulk of the settlement came from Fox’s defamation insurance. In any case, I don’t think that $20 million is a trivial sum even for an organization that seems to routinely pay large settlements.
Probably a combination of things, the upcoming lawsuit from the former producer maybe being the most prominent. I think that is what got Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly.
Fox has a history of firing prominent talent (Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck). It doesn’t seem to hurt them much.
I wonder who’s job it was to tell Tucker he was out? How far down the chain did they have to go to find a staffer to call him. Did he try to log in to email this morning and find that his password didn’t work? Did he make that confused face like he is passing a kidney stone?
There does seem to be an endless stream of right-wing liars willing to dupe the goobers and an endless stream of goobers willing to buy “supplements” and precious metal scams.
No wonder China is eating our lunch.
I've worked for a lot of companies, both directly and indirectly, and there is a rule that says that four out of five bosses are assh0les and will get rid of employees who are not slavishly, publicly loyal to them. I've found this to be true.
Which type do you think Murdoch is?
I believe that Tucker criticized Murdoch, personally, and this came out publicly during the discovery phase of the lawsuit.
Fox management probably also looked at the other lawsuits they were facing and decided that they'd have to do something which would reduce their number in the future. A few lawsuits are just the cost of doing business, but too many lawsuits can get ahead of profits.
So, Fox management had a publicly disloyal employee who was the source of an increasing number of lawsuits. Given those facts, firing Tucker was an easy decision.
"I've worked for a lot of companies, both directly and indirectly, and there is a rule that says that four out of five bosses are assh0les and will get rid of employees who are not slavishly, publicly loyal to them. I've found this to be true."
What is this rule you speak of? I never heard of it, and I can't say it's true based on my experience. I must have had at least 20 bosses in my 30 years of corporate work, and at least half a dozen in other jobs. I don't know if I'd call a single one of them an asshole. The closest one was probably my boss's boss at the end, part of the reason I took an early retirement offer. I had an early boss who fired me, but I was young and did something dumb, and he was sorry to let me go but he had to. I don't know what "slavishly, publicly loyal to them" is supposed to mean, but if that means workers are expected not to go around calling the boss an asshole, that's not an unreasonable expectation. My experience is that most bosses, some more competently than others, work hard to get their teams to do the work that needs to be done. Being a boss is a demanding role. In my experience, it's the most rewarding part of work life. Hiring the right people is important, and if I were hiring for a position and found a candidate who believes 80% of bosses are assholes, I'd give that person a hard pass.
If I found a person who said what you did, I wouldn't want to work for them, because you just proved you wouldn't believe anyone who had a harassment claim, Joseph.
Not all my bosses were that bad, probably not most, but enough have been that I could easily see someone getting a string of bad ones.
He said "assholes." You said "bad bosses." Those are not the same thing, imo.
There's a wide spectrum of good to bad in how to rate bosses. Most fall in the middle, give or take, with some better than others, and a few exceptions at either end. But even a bad boss can be incompetent and ineffective but not necessarily an asshole.
Not sure why you'd think I wouldn't believe a harassment claim. I have supported coworkers who've filed claims, including giving depositions. But that's not most bosses.
If you think 80% of bosses are assholes, you've either picked some terrible work environments or you have a warped sense of what is normal.
My boss is an asshole and incompetent. Ok, mostly an incompetent boot licker who does not give two shits about his employees, which makes him an asshole. Has to happen at the end….
Lucky you.
Whatever the reason, Tucker's out a shitload of money, I reckon. I realize he's getting a fat severance payment, but, moving forward, he won't get the same kind of money (up to $45 million annually according to some sources) that Fox News could afford to pay him, will he? Maybe I'm missing the obvious, and there's someway he could duplicate that kind of salary (podcasts? radio?), but all the right wing outlets I can think of are considerably smaller players than Fox News. Right? And CNN/NBC/CBS/ABC won't offer employment, will they?
(Yes, I'm well aware he's not exactly going to be slumming it anytime soon. But still.)
This is my theory of why Carlson was let go; he is probably the highest paid employee at Fox and they need to shore up the bottom line after lawsuit loses. How hard is it to find a neo nazi to spew white supremacist grievance who will do it for a lot less money?
I think it's along those lines, too. I read what I thought was a fairly sober analysis on CNN's website yesterday. They suggested the Murdochs are basically rational, bottom-line oriented business people, and as such they keep an eye on risk-reward calculus. The risks-reward calculus of employing Carlson has been deteriorating of late: lawsuits, alienates advertisers, ad rates have fallen, bad for their brand, not a team player so they doubt he'll cooperate on tightened defamation standards, lack of insurability, etc. And yes, his enormous compensation obviously eats into whatever profitability they've hitherto been able to generate via that slot. So, they decided to make a change. And they have a track record of quite easily weathering the loss of major personnel (Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Megyn Kelly, etc).
Sexual harassment lawsuits on the horizon, I think.
Also on twitter some discussion that the producer suing FOX is alleging that he was involved with underage girls possibly met via Congressman Goetz.
If that is the case, I hope that there was enough involvement by Gaetz to result in charges against him. That the witnesses in the previous investigation of him were deemed "unreliable" may have been the result of intimidation or a payoff, so this could be a better opportunity to remove one congressman of low character.
So, did he show up to work on Monday....or did he watch the announcement on Fox News from home?
I'd like to think he was standing outside his front door, checking his phone and waiting for the limo . . . that never showed up.
Not 'no one'. A fair number of the forever trumpers think Fox went woke and fired him.
One theory I've encountered in the last 24 hours:
With DeSantis fading, it's nearly a certainty that Trump will be the nominee and the effective leader of the GOP. In that environment, Carlson's private remarks (“I hate him passionately" ) would gain currency, to the disadvantage of Fox News.
Can't have a Trump hater in the prime time lineup in 2024. Bad for business. Rupert Murdoch only cares about the green ($).
I kinda lean this direction. Murdock made a business decision, which is who he is and what he does. Carlson was starting to be bad for business.
Carlson was starting to be bad for business.
Yep. I doubt it was any one thing. But if in totality Tucker Carlson had become a threat to profits, he'd have to go.
"In that environment, Carlson's private remarks (“I hate him passionately" ) would gain currency, to the disadvantage of Fox News."
If that was correct, Lindsay Graham would also be persona non grata at Fox. Tucker proved, if anything, that he'll set his personal feelings aside and say--with conviction, vehemence, and a pinched, puzzled look--whatever needs saying to get their audience whipped up in a frenzy and primed for reverse mortgages, gold coins, pillows, and whatever else Fox sells.
The simplest and likely truest explanation is that Tucker was at the forefront of a group of Fox personalities who broadcast lies on their shows and ended up costing Fox the better part of a billion dollars as a result. I'd be astonished if he kept his job after that.
I think the salient point is that they admitted privately that they were lying, the whole Dominion case hinged on their personal messages proving that they knew full well they were lying.
That's much more plausible: Tucker done screwed up and cost Fox nearly a cool billion)
The idea that Tucker got fired because he privately said mean things about El Jefe is risible. Everyone in Trump's orbit says mean things about him in "private"--it's an open secret that the man is a moron and that people around him so think. Trump doesn't care, however, as long as you praise him in public, which Tucker was aces at.
Anyway, what's the mechanism here? Murdoch &Co. are fine with Tucker costing them hundreds of millions of dollars, but if (a) Tucker says mean things about Trump in private, and (b) that comes out in a lawsuit, and (c) accordingly the Fox audience who barely know about the lawsuit let alone specific details because Fox doesn't report on it will (d) express displeasure via declining ratings for Fox if (e) Trump tells them to, so (f) in anticipation of said complaints by Trump and potential declining ratings, neither of which has actually happened unlike (g) the nearly-billion-dollar Dominion settlement, Fox fires Tucker?
Thanx to Bret Stephens in the NY Times today, we have the simple answer to the question everyone here is speculating on. Stephens wrote about a conversation he had with Murdoch years ago. Whatever you think of Bret Stephens personally, you have to admit that this explains what happened and why:
------------------------------
"In the summer of 2011, Rupert Murdoch stopped by my small office at The Wall Street Journal, where I was a columnist and editor. He was just back from London, where he had given testimony to a parliamentary committee investigating the phone-hacking scandal by his British tabloids (and where he was attacked with a shaving-foam pie). The scandal ultimately resulted in the closure of News of the World, at one point one of the world’s biggest-selling English-language newspapers.
"I don’t remember many specifics about the conversation — Murdoch loved to talk politics and policy with his journalists, sometimes by taking us to lunch at the Lamb’s Club in Midtown Manhattan — but I do remember the gist of what he said about the fiasco: NEVER PUT ANYTHING IN AN EMAIL. His private takeaway, it seemed, wasn’t to require his companies to adhere to high ethical standards. It was to leave no trace that investigators might use for evidence against him, his family or his favorite lieutenants."
Let's not overlook the efficient cause. Carlson's private conversations, proving they all knew what they were doing, threatened that if they went to court now a jury could/would have fined them billions of dollars for their outlandish behavior. The big guy couldn't risk that much money and it was Carlson's loose lips emails, etc. that was the direct cause of that.
Wouldn't it be funny if he was fired for having an affair with Rupert's latest fiance? That recently broke off, so it's the perfect coincidence to turn into a rumor.
Fox does this a lot - cuts loose its biggest star when the lawsuits start to pile up. it's kind of their modus operandi: find an obnoxious blowhard (which the audience just loves), wait until the obvious negatives of the obnoxious blowhard pile up, fire them, repeat.
It makes you wonder, though. Is it the legal liability, or is it the concentrated fame that FOX finds the most threatening?
What better time is there to fire Carlson? Fox just made a of $3/4 billion payout, there's another misogyny law suit on the horizon, much more discovery for follow-up Dominion trials and Smartmatic trials.
If Carlson were a Klingon, he would know it's a good day to die.
Guy laments for Tucker,
https://twitter.com/BrentTerhune/status/1650641108144214018
Outstanding
Josh Marshall, over at Talking Points Memo, is leaning towards the "crazy man" theory. Rupert Murdoch wants to look "unpredictable." And what could be more unpredictable than firing the network's biggest star?
In 2003, MSNBC fired the host of their highest-rated show (Donahue) when he was opposed to the Iraq war.
So it's not that unpredictable that Murdoch would fire his biggest star, if that star let it out that he hates passionately the leader of the political party of their audience.
I keep seeing he was fired because Lachlan Murdoch thought the vulgarity revealed in the Abby Grossman suit was too much.
At first it may sound like less than the rest of it, but it may be that one thing made Lachlan speak up at just the moment Rupert was feeling especially annoyed.
Rupert is about the money. Carlson brought a lot of eyes to the party but little to no cash from advertisers, who were embarrassed to be associated with him. If Fox News is to survive and even grow, it couldn't have this guy weighing it down financially and reputationally.
On the other hand, Fox hasn't offed (yet) Pirro, Hannity, and Ingraham, so perhaps Carlson made unrealistic demands during his contract negotiations. We'll keep you around for a mere $20MM a year, but the minute you demand a share of the business, you're out, mate.
We'll find out in time.
Look, all of the text messages and emails revealed from the Dominion lawsuit showed that the folks at Fox News, including upper management, knew that it was all performative.
Claiming that Tucker somehow became too much of a liability makes no sense. They all knew it was an act. He did not operate in a bubble inside of FNC; they were all in on the gimmick.
They were in the middle of contract negotiations. They -- management -- accepted the facade and the lies that supported it.
I'm telling you, there is only one reason why he was fired. He did something to personally offended Rupert. Rich men are especially sensitive to anyone who would insult or offend them directly. Or maybe some of you remain clueless on Twitter.
I wonder if Rupert got Donald Trump to call Tucker and tell him “You’re fired!”
CNN's take on this is that it was due to limited appetite of mainstream advertisers to buy ads on Tucker's show, notwithstanding that it has the largest audience on Faux News. While I typically don't give much credence in most of what is on CNN's website, the fact that it always comes down to money as a corporation's primary objective makes this claim ring true for me. Faux News could not afford to have more hours of programing be viewed as too toxic for mainstream advertisers is likely why they decided to ax their most toxic host.
The timing is tied to the Dominion settlement and contract negotiations. Giving Tucker that big megaphone could have resulted in forcing Faux to extend his contract given the shit storm he would bring right to the end.
Not yet mentioned:
"I also would point out that Fox is in the middle of trying to negotiate carriage fees with cable providers. And it would be very in keeping with the Murdoch style to essentially try to assuage concern about their programming with those other cable companies by cutting someone loose. "
https://www.mediamatters.org/msnbc/msnbc-guest-suggests-tucker-carlsons-ousting-could-be-strategy-fox-news-carriage-fee
At a time when cable use is dropping and streaming is rising, the cable providers are trying to skin every flint they can. FoxNews is more dependant on the cable money than any other revenue stream.
Indeed, that's where they make their money, not advertising. I mean you can only run so many My Pillow or gold ads. What's interesting about Carlson's show is the ads largely promoted other Fox shows that get advertising, a cute way around being unpopular with advertisers.
This is my theory of why Carlson was let go; he is probably the highest paid employee at Fox and they need to shore up the bottom line after lawsuit loses. How hard is it to find a neo nazi to spew white supremacist grievance who will do it for a lot less money?
No way.
That settlement is only 20% of Fox's cash on hand. They can pay that without breaking a sweat. It's an even smaller drop in Murdoch's 92 year old bucket.
The Murdochs aren't that thin skinned. There was probably no single cause. Things like this always come about as part of a risk/benefit analysis, and Carlson was getting increasingly risky. So I suspect is was a lot of smallish things and one big one. In other words, #6 + #3 + #1.
Let's go theory by theory and test them out:
- He was the biggest name in the Dominion lawsuit, so now he's taking the fall.
Actually that's not true. Baritimoro and Pirro were worse according to court documents and now its all over the news that Baritomoro was secretly recorded with Ted Cruz talking sedition. They may well be gone too.
- Some of his text messages, which were made public during discovery, were critical of Fox. Rupert Murdoch didn't like that.
That's probably true. Loyalty is valued currency in Murdoch-world until it isn't but it takes a lot to break those bonds, which leads to....
- Tucker had started to think he was bigger than Fox, and Rupert decided it was time to nip that in the bud.
This has happened before in Murdoch-world (Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin come to mind) so it wouldn't be surprising if Carlson was fired before Frankenstein's monster got off the table and started to wreak havoc. Apparently Rolling Stone is breaking a story tonight that sources inside Fox say the execs kept a massive personnel file with damning oppo research on Carlson for that very reason. And anyone who thinks he's running for President, there are rumors that within the redacted court file are nasty comments about Jews that will almost certainly will find their way into public record if he's stupid enough to do so. And as for going to another, rival network? I'm sure there's an non-compete clause for some time as part of the $20 million settlement.
- Tucker was opposed to US support of Ukraine, something the Deep State couldn't tolerate. So they engineered his departure.
How? Paul Ryan has sat on the Fox News Board for years as a cypher and he's the only one who would have raised a stink about Ukraine
- A former booking producer has sued both Tucker and his senior executive producer, who was also fired, of sexism and harassment. The case was likely to be embarrassing, so Fox decided to bite the bullet and cut him loose.
Probably true. See Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly. Rupert doesn't like people embarassing him with their loutish behavior. Settlements are probably also on the way to keep their cases from going to trial
- He was a pain in the ass and everyone was tired of him.
Closest to the mark. He did his show from a remote location near his home in Maine. Doubtful he interacted much with other Fox employees or execs - outside of his immediate staff - who probably couldn't stand his email comments about them. I'm sure he thought so long as he was tight with Lachlan, Rupert's son and heir, he could do or say whatever he wanted. Alas, so long as Rupert even at age 92 maintains at least one cohesive thought and can still breath, he's still running the show and he determined who stays on stage and who doesn't. He may well be a right-winger but he's pragamatic enough to know when to cut his losses.
It is a testament to Fox's reputation that no one thinks Tucker was fired because of his endless appeals to racism, bigotry, and demented conspiracy theories. And why would they? That's why Fox kept him around so long in the first place.
The only color Murdoch-world is green, something he's said himself. You make green, you a hit with Rupert. You cost him green, you're done. End of story.
The only advice I have for Tucker is to take your money, shut up and live out the rest of your miserable life quietly and perhaps make yourself a better citizen. There is no need nor point for you in politics today because if you're as cynical as people who actually know the real you say you are, why torture yourself further trying to play another character? What's next, a Klan rally, Jordan Peterson tom-tom session in the woods or (to throw a swerve,) supporter of Biden's re-election? Give it up!