News brings word that the SJW’s have bagged their biggest trophy to date. Bill O’Reilly is the most popular cable news talker in the business and he was just fired for making the girls cry. It is all part of what is looking like a well orchestrated effort to break Fox News on the wheel of political correctness. The screeching harpies knocked out Roger Ailes and now they have taken out the top star, all via the same method – powerskirts claiming to have been done wrong by the knuckle-dragging misogynists running the network.
The claim will be that the advertisers demanded Fox fire O’Reilly, but that is complete nonsense. Cable channels, like Fox News, exist on subscription revenues, not advertising dollars. FNC gets $1.50 from every cable home each month. That’s roughly $1.8 billion a year whether people watch or not. Their ad revenue is less than a third of that number. In the case of ESPN, for example, ad revenue is around one billion, and they have an audience about ten times the size of a cable news operation, even Fox News.
An advertiser boycott could certainly harm the bottom line for Fox, but there is another reality to the cable business. Those companies demanding their ads be pulled from the O’Reilly show would still be running ads on other Fox programs. The reason they choose to run ads on Fox News is they believe there are people watching Fox News who will also buy crap they see advertised. Bill O’Reilly could be strangling kittens on his show. If he gets a valuable audience to watch, advertisers will want to get their name on his show.
The reality is Fox could weather the storm and ride out this thing if they wanted to do it, but they probably have another agenda. It’s tempting to assume that Fox is stuffed to the rafters with right-wing ideologues, but that’s not the case. Fox is just as Prog infested as every other media company.This could very well be part of an effort to make the channel more Prog friendly. It could also be the dream-child of someone in management, to remake the network to appeal to younger, gayer viewers.
Anyway, a good lesson to recall in all of this is the story of Time Magazine. Henry Luce founded the magazine, as well as Life, Sports Illustrated and other famous publications. He was also involved in radio, newsreels and eventually television. His company was the first multimedia corporation. In his heyday, he was considered the most influential private citizen in the country. The reason for that is his publications reached almost every American. He was an arbiter of the news.
After Luce died, his media company was slowly infiltrated by lunatics. By the 60’s it was unrecognizable. By the 70’s it was fully refashioned into a weapon of the Left. Even though its over the top Progressive bias slowly killed its circulation, the people running it did not care. What mattered was promoting the one true faith, even if it destroyed the institution from which it was broadcast. Time Magazine is gone now and the Luce company exists in name only.
That’s the fate of Fox News. Rupert Murdoch was never a man of the Right. He was just a guy who loved tabloid news and was a genius at making money on modern media properties. His kids are Kool-Aid drinking Prog loonies, who will piss away the family fortune trying to buy status within the Cult of Modern Liberalism. As a result, Fox News will slowly be converted into a megaphone for the one true faith. We’ll sooner see a trans gender-fluid lesbian of color in prime time than another Bill O’Reilly type.
I never liked O’Reilly myself; in fact, I couldn’t stand him, and back in the days when I still had cable, avoided watching him like the plague. But I think Zman has the right of it; O’Reilly’s seems to be one of the few scalps the SJW fascists can legitimately claim of late, although if they’re smart they won’t publicly crow too much about it. Rush fills in the gaps:
The way this works is this. The New York Times runs a story, and the story talks about how valuable O’Reilly is to Fox News and how much money O’Reilly is generating, and this irritates everybody that reads the New York Times. They don’t want to see this. They don’t want to see how successful O’Reilly is. They don’t want to see how big Fox is ’cause they hate it. They hate Fox, they hate O’Reilly, they don’t want to see any of this. And the New York Times pounds ’em with how much money O’Reilly is making, how much money he’s generating for Fox, how powerful Fox is, and they see as they read this.
And then the New York Times lowers the boom and points out that O’Reilly is a serial whatever and has paid off $13 million to other women to shut up. There has to be an outlet for the anger. Then what happens is where the real story begins. And it is not that advertisers are reading the New York Times and going, “Oh, my God, I can’t have my product there,” and they call their agency and say, “You get us out of there.” That is not how it happened. That is what they want you to think happens, but that’s not how it happens.
The advertisers are not taking the initiative here. The advertisers are themselves being inundated with what they think is tens of thousands of complaint emails and tweets from people they believe represent tens of thousands of legitimately angry citizens. When in truth it is a bunch of bots, Facebook bots and Twitter bots that may have been generated by no more than 10 people, made to look like tens of thousands. And that’s all she wrote.
When the advertisers are swarmed with that, if Fox, O’Reilly, if the salespeople are not prepared, if they don’t know what’s going on, and if they can’t hit these advertisers and explain what’s happening to them and tell ’em to ignore it, that it’s all part of an organized campaign and that these tweets do not represent real people.
Because, you know, liberals, sponsors of O’Reilly have been…have you noticed many of them sponsor the Clinton Foundation? Many of them…There’s a serial alleged rapist. I mean, you talk about sexual abuse? Bill Clinton’s wife ran the bimbo eruptions units when he was in the White House to seek and find the women who might accuse Bill Clinton of sexual abuse (and other things) and destroy them. And advertisers never leave the Clintons, and donors never leave the Clintons. Why is that?
Because donors and advertisers never receive massive numbers of complaint emails from all of these Twitter and Facebook bots. It’s a one-way street.
Yeah, liberalism always is. Again, Ace:
I’m not sure if there should be a rule against men with money and power just hitting on women. For one thing, you don’t become a monk just because you make it.
For another thing, women often seem to dig men with money and power.
It also seems like O’Reilly did not “retaliate” against this woman. She did not get the coveted Fox News Contributor status she coveted — but then, 90% of the people you see on Fox News covet that paid status, but never get it. The Fox News Contributor thing is one of the most chased-after prizes in media — and far more chased than caught.
But he kept having her on his show after the turn-down, and advertised her book a fair amount.
Is that “retaliation”?
She says O’Reilly “promised” to “help” her get that coveted slot.
How does she know he didn’t?
“Help” doesn’t get you a gig that every woman (and dude) loosely affiliated with the conservative movement is chasing. They’re not handing these out like tampons in a male bathroom, after all.
Eh, I kinda don’t like O’Reilly but this seems like very thin gruel — especially thin gruel for a dismissal.
I think he just nailed it completely. And I also think Zman ultimately gets the bigger picture straight: Fox News is well on its way to re-aligning itself with the Powers of Progressivist PC. Maybe Tucker Carlson and Bret Baier can save them. And maybe not. All I know is, I care less and less about whether they can with every passing day, and I’ve never been more glad that I cut the cable-TV cord years ago.
Is Hannity still on Fox? If so, look for some sort of thin-gruel allegations against him too, sexual harassment or something else, before too long.