Isn't it a fact that Roger Ailes and Lachlan Murdoch were rivals? Sometimes when Fox News strays far from the path pioneered by Ailes, I wish that whatever remains of the Ailes faction would be restored to power. Am I correct that's even more unlikely now with Lachlan in charge?
And whose bright idea was it to put Paul Ryan on the Fox board? The anti-Trump vein is pumping hard throughout the Murdoch empire, especially on WSJ's editorial team and with Cavuto, Baier, etc. on FNC. Is Lachlan their friend at the top?
Another aging clot in the NewsCorp bloodstream is its remnant of old time religion. It thumps loudly when the WSJ Editorial Board or certain FNC personalities reference the abortion issue, bringing not "life" but certain and imminent electoral death to GOP recruitment of young voters. Will the Murdoch empire continue to lean toward the Catholic religious right, post-succession? Can secular conservatism now finally get as much play as those wearing a cross on-air, or that guy commanding viewers to "go to Church" just before their own best Sunday show begins?
Roger wasn't a big fan of the Murdoch kids. It was a tactical mistake though. Even if Rupert sided with Roger on some issues, when push comes to shove, if someone's in a rivalry with my kids, I'm going to choose my kids.
When I left Fox, Rupert was fine with Trump, but I think that he -- and about half of the GOP -- had enough of him after the election loss and the "steal" events that unfolded. Certainly Fox reduced his presence, and we saw it in other Murdoch outlets as well -- NY Post, WSJ. No idea if or how religious things come into play -- I never saw anything like that at all besides Fox being generically more sympathetic to Christianity than any other news outlet besides the 700 Club.
Overall, it's easy, and fair, quite frankly, to be disappointed in some of the Fox actions, but I like to remind people of how much it's contributed to the American discourse. Before it existed, conservatives -- besides a few over-the-top tokens -- were essentially verboten from our airwaves. As was reasonable conservative discourse.
If it wasn't for Rupert deciding to launch the channel and giving Roger over $1 billion to do it, America would look a lot more like Europe these days.
Maybe it was half of GOP pols and writers vs. Trump, but a smaller fraction of its voters including indies. Fox obviously messed up challenging the many state-based easy cheats of the pandemic election: write-in ballot/signature/registration verification, etc. Upstairs NewsCorp always wanted Trump to fail, so as to recapture influence and restore the GOP of yesteryear. That old coalition is dead. To capture young voters (and retain older Trump supporters) the GOP needs a less uptight, less doctrinally-driven public image.
Lachlan was mentioned by Tucker Carlson often when he talked about his own role on the company and the efforts by enemies and rivals to remove him. The references were always favorable, making it sound, to me at least, that Tucker had an ally in Lachlan, one reason it was a shock for me, and I am sure for many people with my mindset, when Tucker was suddenly removed, such a betrayal I have not turned on the channel since. I wonder whether Lachlan will care enough about his alienated audience to make any moves to attract us back again, or whether we truly, as it seemed at the time of Tucker’s removal, mean nothing to the billionaire family? There are millions of us, disaffected and still angry.
I understand that completely. Tucker always gave them some problems from the outside; the NYT and media world hating him carried a certain amount of weight, from advertisers fleeing to regulatory problems to more. I think they believed -- not without some reason -- that over time people would come back. For the most part, that's been true. People can cherry pick ratings numbers, but they've largely (not completely) bounced back and their stock price is where it was at before Dominion/Tucker. Still, it was a betrayal to many people who trusted Tucker more than they trust any entity, including Fox.
Why do you think Lachlan would toe a leftist line? All the reporting I've seen suggests that Lachlan is conservative and likes to make money just like his dad. If so, there's no reason to expect Fox News to change much.
I'd give it a solid "maybe." As I wrote, he's likely conservative, but it takes a lot more than that to run a conservative channel. My biggest concern for Fox is simply "drift".
Isn't it a fact that Roger Ailes and Lachlan Murdoch were rivals? Sometimes when Fox News strays far from the path pioneered by Ailes, I wish that whatever remains of the Ailes faction would be restored to power. Am I correct that's even more unlikely now with Lachlan in charge?
And whose bright idea was it to put Paul Ryan on the Fox board? The anti-Trump vein is pumping hard throughout the Murdoch empire, especially on WSJ's editorial team and with Cavuto, Baier, etc. on FNC. Is Lachlan their friend at the top?
Another aging clot in the NewsCorp bloodstream is its remnant of old time religion. It thumps loudly when the WSJ Editorial Board or certain FNC personalities reference the abortion issue, bringing not "life" but certain and imminent electoral death to GOP recruitment of young voters. Will the Murdoch empire continue to lean toward the Catholic religious right, post-succession? Can secular conservatism now finally get as much play as those wearing a cross on-air, or that guy commanding viewers to "go to Church" just before their own best Sunday show begins?
Roger wasn't a big fan of the Murdoch kids. It was a tactical mistake though. Even if Rupert sided with Roger on some issues, when push comes to shove, if someone's in a rivalry with my kids, I'm going to choose my kids.
When I left Fox, Rupert was fine with Trump, but I think that he -- and about half of the GOP -- had enough of him after the election loss and the "steal" events that unfolded. Certainly Fox reduced his presence, and we saw it in other Murdoch outlets as well -- NY Post, WSJ. No idea if or how religious things come into play -- I never saw anything like that at all besides Fox being generically more sympathetic to Christianity than any other news outlet besides the 700 Club.
Overall, it's easy, and fair, quite frankly, to be disappointed in some of the Fox actions, but I like to remind people of how much it's contributed to the American discourse. Before it existed, conservatives -- besides a few over-the-top tokens -- were essentially verboten from our airwaves. As was reasonable conservative discourse.
If it wasn't for Rupert deciding to launch the channel and giving Roger over $1 billion to do it, America would look a lot more like Europe these days.
Maybe it was half of GOP pols and writers vs. Trump, but a smaller fraction of its voters including indies. Fox obviously messed up challenging the many state-based easy cheats of the pandemic election: write-in ballot/signature/registration verification, etc. Upstairs NewsCorp always wanted Trump to fail, so as to recapture influence and restore the GOP of yesteryear. That old coalition is dead. To capture young voters (and retain older Trump supporters) the GOP needs a less uptight, less doctrinally-driven public image.
Lachlan was mentioned by Tucker Carlson often when he talked about his own role on the company and the efforts by enemies and rivals to remove him. The references were always favorable, making it sound, to me at least, that Tucker had an ally in Lachlan, one reason it was a shock for me, and I am sure for many people with my mindset, when Tucker was suddenly removed, such a betrayal I have not turned on the channel since. I wonder whether Lachlan will care enough about his alienated audience to make any moves to attract us back again, or whether we truly, as it seemed at the time of Tucker’s removal, mean nothing to the billionaire family? There are millions of us, disaffected and still angry.
I understand that completely. Tucker always gave them some problems from the outside; the NYT and media world hating him carried a certain amount of weight, from advertisers fleeing to regulatory problems to more. I think they believed -- not without some reason -- that over time people would come back. For the most part, that's been true. People can cherry pick ratings numbers, but they've largely (not completely) bounced back and their stock price is where it was at before Dominion/Tucker. Still, it was a betrayal to many people who trusted Tucker more than they trust any entity, including Fox.
I sense new boss will tow Leftist line
2 bad
Love to see Fox Nation sold to NewsMax .
FNC goes more left vs Fox Business.
Love Varney & Co. & loved X Country with Lawrence Jones
Why do you think Lachlan would toe a leftist line? All the reporting I've seen suggests that Lachlan is conservative and likes to make money just like his dad. If so, there's no reason to expect Fox News to change much.
I'd give it a solid "maybe." As I wrote, he's likely conservative, but it takes a lot more than that to run a conservative channel. My biggest concern for Fox is simply "drift".
Hope Your right Ive seen FNC going the other way