link probably related https://thehill.com/homenews/media/3966300-tucker-carlson-and-fox-news-part-ways/
I dunno. They're in the middle of negotiating their carry fees and they're looking for like a 40% boost from $2.18 to over $3 per subscriber. This couldn't come at a worse time for Fox, as cable subscriptions are definitely down and while The Olds are there through sheer inertia, Comcast et. al. probably aren't in the mood to pass those costs onto a bunch of millennials and GenXers who have kept their cable through sheer inertia. Which puts them in a position of going "hey fuckers, want Fox News? That's gonna be $3 a month" or "Hey fuckers, want Fox News? It's gonna be $10 a month bundled with a bunch of other bullshit you don't want." DirecTV dropped OAN - granted that's a Murdoch property dropping a Murdoch competitor but still, there comes a time where shit just gets too toxic. Twitter is all-in on the idea that Tucker Carlson committed some sort of super-heinous sexual harassment which would explain the abruptness. Bill O'Reilly basically ceased to have any power. So did Glenn Beck. So did Dan Rather. So did Keith Olbermann. Take away the podium and you're just a screaming guy in the corner. Who are they going to give it to? Hannity? Didn't he already have that slot? Jesse Watters? C'mon. Bret Baier? Bret's almost a journalist, if you squint at him just right. Fox News raison d'etre has been "pandering" not "owning the libs." I could see them splitting the difference and going with Laura Ingraham, who is awful. But she's not nearly as awful as Tucker Carlson.
I dunno, I think we could be about to learn some truly heinous Tucker Carlson things through the Abby Grossberg suit: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/04/tucker-carlson-has-left-fox-news.html
who are they gonna sell it to Pure spitballing here. No knowledge, no analysis. But some facts: 1) Fox News is not profitable without cable carry fees. They have effectively zero advertisers. Brands don't give a shit about you after 35 because you're never going to stop using Tide, you're always going to eat Rice Crispies. NO ONE under 35 is ever going to watch Fox News. 2) Fox News is the legaciest of legacy media. Even newspapers have websites now but cable news? (1) you have to pay for it (2) it just sorta spools out at whatever it's pointed at (3) it has absolutely no tail (4) there are no secondary or tertiary markets (5) you're really only as good as your investigative journalism or your pundits. 3) Fox News has zero investigative journalism and its pundits exist solely for angry white men over sixty. What, exactly, are the assets of Fox News? What items under the masthead have value? I would have assumed Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham. I mean fuck they already cut Lou Dobbs loose. But then I consider the shelf life of post-Fox Megyn Kelly and mmmmaybe? Maybe none of them are worth a fuckin' thing? Look at the list. There's a lot of stuff there that does not cause the Murdochs a lot of grief. They can be nice and sub-rosa about their leanings and influence things however they want. And then there's Fox News, which is already costing them an $800m charge. There's another lawsuit down the pike that's probably not going to be much cheaper. Maybe they're looking to mark down the loss and move on? Fox Corp has lost a billion dollars in market cap in four months. I don't know who they'd unload it to? But I think Tucker's right - I think Fox is gearing up to unload it.Carlson has told people he believes his controversial show is being taken off the air because the Murdoch children intend to sell Fox News at some point.
Heather Cox Richardson with an observation I didn't think of:Insurers on the hook for large settlements are likely to demand that Fox clean up its act, especially with Trump running for office again and likely back in the media lineup.
I hope you're wrong, but I doubt it. Or at least hopefully Grossberg refuses an NDA clause.