Apparently the viewership for the Fox News time slot hosted by Tucker Carlson tanked after his departure. He was replaced this week by Brian Kilmeade, the doofus who used to be on the Fox and Friends morning show where his purpose seemed to be to make his two co-hosts look smart in comparison.
Every night viewers have given an unforgiving verdict on Kilmeade’s efforts: by turning off in their droves.
It’s a shame for Kilmeade, but a clue as to how he might be received had already come early on Monday.
“Join me tonight at 8 pm!” he tweeted an hour before his show started a now Tucker-free Fox News line-up. It turned out that not only did people not want to join Kilmeade, they were furious that he was going to be on air in place of their fallen hero.
“Not a chance in hell ya sellout,” was one of the more polite online responses, while someone else noted: “I’d rather watch grass grow.”
…On Monday the audience for Kilmeade, a less angry, less charismatic, apparently less race-obsessed host, was 47% of the number Carlson had attracted a week earlier, according to the Los Angeles Times.
It isn’t just that Carlson’s departure has turned off viewers. The hastily renamed Fox News Tonight show appears to have actively driven people to Fox News’ competitors, with Newsmax in particular, seeing record ratings.
Things did not get better as the week went on.
In the days following Carlson’s dismissal, things didn’t go so well for Fox News ratings-wise. Carlson was averaging about 3 million viewers for what would be his last week. His replacement got 2.59 million on Monday, 1.7 million on Tuesday, and 1.33 million on Wednesday, at which point MSNBC’s Chris Hayes won the slot. Perhaps more worrying for Fox, its conservative news rival, Newsmax, has seen its 8 pm viewership increase by hundreds of thousands of people. It’s still nowhere close to overtaking Fox, but we know from the Dominion lawsuit texts that the network is terrified of losing viewers, especially to Newsmax.
I do not think we can draw any significant conclusions from this. This was to be expected. Fox had to know that their ratings would take a hit after Carlson’s firing. It is likely that many of the viewers will come back slowly. Fox probably chose Kilmeade as the sacrificial lamb to get slaughtered in the initial ratings because he never had a chance of being the permanent replacement. The person they groom to be the permanent host will have the benefit of being compared to Kilmeade.
There are many reasons being floated for Carlson’s firing. Kevin Drum lists all the speculations and ends:
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.
Carlson’s replacement will have filthy shoes to fill but I am sure that there are many people at Fox eager to try them on.
It wouldn’t surprise me if a significant percentage of Carlson’s viewers were hate-watching. I don’t think Kilmeade will ever be able to approach the level of inane JAQing off that Carlson did. I don’t know if Carlson was the first pseudo-news reader who took that internet troll approach to a program, but he certainly has been the most successful. Fox will undoubtably have someone who will be able to take over, but will they have Carlson’s eminently punchable face?
I wonder if Fox even knows that Carlson’s JAQing off approach was the reason for his success? I mean, they must, right?
OT
Five dead in shooting in Cleveland, Texas.
Peter Maass/The Intercept: The Ejection of Tucker Carlson Is a Classic “Reverse Ferret” by Rupert Murdoch
@2: If you’re going to post something off topic, at least report something unusual or notable.
@4: Still off topic but when you have a ubiquitous, terrible problem like this it’s this period where bringing it up can do the most good. I understand the objection but once the existence of the problem can no longer be denied but it’s still notable for killing people, that’s when bringing it up yet again has the best chance to promote change. Because it becomes harder for people who’ve been blocking any progress to defend their position. Don’t expect instant progress though, they’re still useless assholes whose only response to mass murder is a simple form letter.
Ain’t ubiquitous, lanir. It’s just the USA.
Yet you lauded a response consisting of a comment — an out-of-topic comment — in an obscure blog that is hardly likely to be even seen by “people who’ve been blocking any progress”.
birgerjohansson has a habit, here and elseblog, of just posting whatever catches their attention in whatever the most recent thread is. As if other people don’t have access to the news.
I grant it falls under the category of “This does not mean much”.
@ 6 Resident Fuckwit
We’ll pass that on to the bereaved.
Not to join in the derail, or worse encourage the blogs resident fuckwit troll, but do Americans realise how batshit this sounds:
Also, not to channel Dr Phil, but I have to ask Americans: that precious, “right to bear arms”… how’s that working out for you?
Um. To the blogs [sic] resident fuckwit troll:
Go for it. After all, trolling is evidently your thing.
Mind you, why you imagine telling them I don’t think much of habitually posting off-topic comments in an obscure blog network is something about which they should be informed is left to the imagination, but sure.
Heh. I’ve used that exact line upon you, previously. More than once.
(And more appositely, of course)
Note to self:
Saying you don’t want to encourage the blog’s resident fuckwit troll doesn’t make it so.
Heh.
Hey, did you know that apparently the viewership for the Fox News time slot hosted by Tucker Carlson tanked after his departure.
(I read that somewhere)
Anyway, more than one source makes that claim:
e.g.
https://www.salon.com/2023/04/28/its-a-bloodbath-fox-news-loses-more-than-half-of-audience-after-axing-tucker-carlson/
Silentbob @ 8
Sorry, I meant to inform of recent news, not derail.