What to do about it?
I hate to boycott Tucker, but as Ace says, that may be the only way to hit these morons between the eyes with a two by four. And yeah, maybe Newsmax and OAN could merge, or maybe if he doesn’t pull it out, Trump could start a new network.
I think they’ll clean out the problem people in a few months.
Murdoch went in the tank for the BidenFraud and put Democrat loyalists in charge. I suspect that a lot of the regular talent at Fox is very afraid of getting canned, as they don’t have the star power of Tucker or Hannity. They aren’t stand-alone media personalities and are disposable. ABC, NBC, and CBS probably wouldn’t take them (under a Biden win), so they’re worried about winding up their careers doing the 6:00 AM morning show at some local Fox affiliate.
The election narrative is already shifting. Plan A failed and they had no plan B. We’re going to see liberals pundits take a sequence of predictable positions.
We started out at “Biden won a huge victory!” Fox News tried to push it, but Fox viewers didn’t buy it. The Democrat plan required a buy-in from Republicans, and assumed that R’s just believe anything Fox said, just like D’s believe anything CNN said. Well, that was entirely false. R’s don’t trust the media at all. They’re critically analyzing everything they hear.
So we ignored Fox, ignored Twitter and Facebook, and kept pointing to evidence of fraud. We wouldn’t budge an inch.
For the first days the talking point was:
1) “There’s NO EVIDENCE of election fraud!”
The narrative is already starting to shift to
2) “There’s no evidence of SERIOUS election fraud!”
And onward we go through all the expected stages of this fiasco.
3) “There’s no evidence of WIDESPREAD serious election fraud!”
4) “There’s no evidence that the widespread election fraud CHANGED the result!”
5) “There’s no evidence that any of the widespread election fraud was COORDINATED!”
6) “There’s no evidence that any top Democrats even KNEW about the coordinated widespread election fraud!”
7) “There’s no evidence that any top Democrats ORDERED the coordinated widespread election fraud!”
8) “Those Democrats are NOT REPRESENTATIVE of the Democratic party!”
9) “Republican election reforms based on a ONE TIME episode of A FEW people engaging in election fraud isn’t reason to disenfranchise people!”
10) “Republicans are engaging in widespread voter suppression because they don’t want to COUNT THE VOTES!”
And Democrats will defend each of these positions, in sequence, for all their worth, because they’re barely capable of independent thought.
Do you believe that a massive conspiracy is possible? Would not people ‘blab?’ Conspiracy is so often not taken seriously because it seems impossible in practice unless there are only a very few people involved, as is the case with proven criminal conspiracies.
Blab?
“We have put together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.” – Joe Biden.
^_^
Given his record of gaffes, it would be almost inevitable that Dementia Joe would sooner or later let slip a Kinsley Gaffe.
In Dementia Veritas. They say a gaffe is when a politician accidentally tells the truth, and Biden is known for his gaffes. He has always been a profoundly stupid man.
You don’t need a massive conspiracy. A smallish number of separate city- and/or county-level ones will do it. Joy Reid, Idiot Extraordinaire, claims that there can’t be tens of thousands of fake votes, but there are already several examples of hundreds of them, and possibly one of ~1700, and there’s that New Jersey election a few years ago where 20% of all votes were fake.
The Project Veritas investigation was very believable and when it comes to career public servants altering procedures, a lot of it is out in the open, and there all the whistle blowers that have come forward too.
It is less individual voter fraud than election fraud carried out by partisan election officials.
It doesn’t matter whether people ‘blab’ when the entire media establishment is dedicated to covering up the conspiracy.
Besides, it wouldn’t take many people to, say, write vote-counting software which randomly converts a percentage of votes from Republican to Democrat.
The “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy writ large… again and again and again.
Sadly, I have seen the same thing happening at Drudge over the last few months. More anti-Trump than anything else but a bad sign. So I quit visiting his site. Sad because it used to be a really good source.
He used to find that kernel of interest in a story and make that the headline but now takes the publication’s headline and takes what is already sensational and makes it more sensational.
All Fox has is Tucker, Hannity and Ingraham. Maybe Bartiromo. The hand-wringing Ingraham suggested that Trump do the “decent” thing and “concede with grace”. Screw that.
The fired Judge Pirro, they dis-invited Joe DiGenova and his wife.
I was so pleased with Tucker’s show last night where he dissed Cavuto, though not by name. I just don’t see how he will last on Fox.
I’m done with Fox too. I’ve had to find alternative sources of information and weed through a lot of crap doing so. Hell, I’ll even go to 4chan and at least put my ear to the rail to see what is coming.
I number the days of being a news consumer and having a trusted source. Those concerned have to dig and research, and most people are too lazy to do so.
Newsmax & OAN seem to be the most-recommended right now.
Pretty sure most audience numbers are broken down by time slot. Seems like you could keep watching Tucker and just make sure you switched the channel or switched off after his slot and the pain for the rest of the lineup would still be present.
I like that plan. I believe it would send a clear message to Fox Execs if every single Fox program tanked except for Tucker / Hannity, even better than a total boycott.
The Epoch Times is reasonable. Also perhaps CitizenFreePress.
Fox still gets some of your money if you have cable, right?
Sky News Australia has been great, but it’s not widely available and I can’t find a source that streams it.
PlutoTV has a Sky News but I’m not sure if it is the AUS one.
It is the UK one.
I’m as much done with Fox as I am with National Review, for which I was a paid contributor in the 1970s. I’m giving Newsmax a trial run. I hope Tucker can keep his gig at Fox for as long as the network lasts (since it still has more viewers than CNN), but bails at the first opportunity to run for President. I think he’d be a magnificent candidate.
The only things I’ve read at National Review for the past four years are the articles by Victor Davis Hanson.
I turned off Fox News after the 2016 debate moderated by Chris Wallace. I quit listening to Hannity in 2008 when his stop Hillary Express lead to Barack Obama. The only time I’ve seen Tucker Carlson on TV was his season on Dancing With The Stars.
To be fair though, there came a point for me when “if it bleeds, it leads” really hit home. Probably from too much DrudgeReport that ruined all news for me. I see news as a form of depression. The few good news stories are no where near sufficient to offset the bad that is showcased. I never found my life to compare to what I saw on the news.
Drudge is one that I don’t visit anymore. I used to have a bookmark bar link to him on my computer, and his app on my phone. Both are gone, now. I link to the Bongino Report, and a few other blogs to get news and information. I understand that Drudge’s traffic is way down. Don’t know what happened to him.
Rumor is that Matt Drudge sold the rights and made out like a bandit. I wonder if there was a time limited “do not compete” clause and he’ll be back as the “MattReport” or some such thing?
I wouldn’t blame him for that. Especially if he could come back and demonstrate that turning against his base was a disaster (while still earning a significant dividend from his hard work)!
TheLibertyDaily.com is an interesting source with a heavy pro-Trump slant and inflammatory headlines, but refreshing compared to MSM. A little like Drudge used to be before he sold out.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/ is pro-Christian / anti-CCP. Pretty level reporting.
Reading these for a bit you realize how skewed the rest of the media really is. The omissions and slanted reporting become much more obvious.
I may be slow to catch on, but I knew something was Up with Fox News when, after years of hearing “liberals” and other State-shtuppers complaining about “right-wing” it is, Fox silenced Newt Gingrich for bringing up Darth Soros. As the saying goes, you know who’s calling the shots when you’re told who you can’t criticize.
Hannity was good when he had Colmes. Competing views make things entertaining but Fox’s news programs have been drifting left since they got rid of Ailes and they hired that cheat Donna Brazile. She should never have had another job in broadcast news again.
Wallace is a big disappointment. You could always tell he was a bit of a lefty but he didn’t bother trying to hide it after 2016. Democrats created a moral obligation to act out and ignore norms because the they thought the threat of Trump was so big. This lead to people like Wallace letting their freak flag fly rather than trying to be objective.
What to do about Fox? I’ve deleted their app from my devices. I’ve deleted their URL from my browsers. I’ve turned off all notifications from them. I’m one step removed from blocking them from my channel listing on TV. Like a lot of Democrat voters, Fox is dead to me.
Well, what do you expect? Rupert Murdoch (he of Fox, WSJ, the NY Post and other outlets in the UK and his native Australia)
backed Trump to the hilt for several years. Now Murdoch has decided Trump is a loser and more money is to be made backing other horses. It’s just capitalism in action.
Heavily in debt and likely looking at big legal battles ahead, Trump needs to develop his post-presidential income stream. Trump TV in some form, such as a stake in a rebranded OANN, is an obvious possibility. An interesting question is whether any of Trump’s mouthpieces on Fox, e.g., Hannity and Ingraham, would follow.
How can intelligent people take Trump’s latest allegations of widespread electoral fraud seriously, given his lengthy track record of sensational specious claims?
In particular, recall that he claimed massive voter fraud in 2016. Then his hand-picked commission led by Kris Kobach looked into it and found — nothing.
Trump’s been the most powerful man in the country for 4 years. If voter fraud is half the problem he claims, why didn’t he document and deal with it it 2 or 3 years ago?
I see no reason whatsoever to take Trump’s latest claims any more seriously than the birther hoax, hydroxycholoquine or any of the many other shiny objects he’s used to distract the public.