I’ve got to think after losing an $800 million lawsuit and staring squarely at several more potentially huge judgments that were in part caused by Carlson’s on air deceptions that jettisoning him to limit future losses was an easy Fox decision. He wasn’t worth the trouble or money.
Dave, I think it's incorrect to characterize Carlson as a "TV news anchor." He's a talk show host, which gives him more power than an anchor. An anchor is a conduit for content. Big name talk show hosts, like Carlson or Oprah, ARE the content. Viewers are tuning in for them, and not necessarily the guest. (Oprah is always on the cover of her magazine because research showed putting anyone else on the cover reduced sales.)
I'm not sure even Lemon or Cooper can be considered anchors in the traditional sense that you and I know as former local TV news directors. They're some kind of hybrid between anchor and talk show host. They regularly express opinions that would never be acceptable in local TV news. Fox has never been "news," but do MSNBC or CNN even have what you would call a "newscast"? Their shows are personality-driven: Anderson Coooper 360, Erin Burnett OutFront.
They learned from Fox that you can't leave ratings to news of the day. You drive the numbers with personalities and talking heads. People want to know what they're going to get when the tune in. The problem is, Fox is way better at it because they don't let facts get in the way and are willing to pander to viewers (as clearly shown in the Dominion lawsuit). While CNN and MSNBC are much more fact based, they are guilty of blurring the line between news and opinion, damaging news credibility by confusing viewers.
As always a measured, reasonable and informed perspective, Dave. Fred beat me to it, but I would also take issue with any inference that Carlson can be lumped in with the vast majority of TV anchors. He's not even just an idealogue like Hannity or Ingraham. Getting props from Putin and Orban not to mention calls to run for POTUS and his own wealth put him into a completely different category.
You're absolutely right, Dave. There are lots of news anchors who are also decent humans -- at all levels. But there are a few who forget they're replaceable and act that way. They get intoxicated with power and have a false sense of security. It's especially interesting for me to be on the other side now and observe this kind of behavior. No words 😳
Thank you for another excellent essay. And thanks for the one of the great coincidences in media HR history --the same-day sacking of Lemon and Carlson will tamp down conspiracy theories.
Your observations about those you trust.. echo my sentiments. Jane Pauley.. one of the most ‘regular’ normal persons one could know. But the critical thinking one needs as news is consumed seems to be at an all time low. Or maybe its just more exposed.
I’ve got to think after losing an $800 million lawsuit and staring squarely at several more potentially huge judgments that were in part caused by Carlson’s on air deceptions that jettisoning him to limit future losses was an easy Fox decision. He wasn’t worth the trouble or money.
👍
Dave: once again you are spot-on.
Dave, I think it's incorrect to characterize Carlson as a "TV news anchor." He's a talk show host, which gives him more power than an anchor. An anchor is a conduit for content. Big name talk show hosts, like Carlson or Oprah, ARE the content. Viewers are tuning in for them, and not necessarily the guest. (Oprah is always on the cover of her magazine because research showed putting anyone else on the cover reduced sales.)
I'm not sure even Lemon or Cooper can be considered anchors in the traditional sense that you and I know as former local TV news directors. They're some kind of hybrid between anchor and talk show host. They regularly express opinions that would never be acceptable in local TV news. Fox has never been "news," but do MSNBC or CNN even have what you would call a "newscast"? Their shows are personality-driven: Anderson Coooper 360, Erin Burnett OutFront.
They learned from Fox that you can't leave ratings to news of the day. You drive the numbers with personalities and talking heads. People want to know what they're going to get when the tune in. The problem is, Fox is way better at it because they don't let facts get in the way and are willing to pander to viewers (as clearly shown in the Dominion lawsuit). While CNN and MSNBC are much more fact based, they are guilty of blurring the line between news and opinion, damaging news credibility by confusing viewers.
As always a measured, reasonable and informed perspective, Dave. Fred beat me to it, but I would also take issue with any inference that Carlson can be lumped in with the vast majority of TV anchors. He's not even just an idealogue like Hannity or Ingraham. Getting props from Putin and Orban not to mention calls to run for POTUS and his own wealth put him into a completely different category.
Keep up the good work.
David, you hit it out of the park! If you lie, you pay the price!
You're absolutely right, Dave. There are lots of news anchors who are also decent humans -- at all levels. But there are a few who forget they're replaceable and act that way. They get intoxicated with power and have a false sense of security. It's especially interesting for me to be on the other side now and observe this kind of behavior. No words 😳
Thank you for another excellent essay. And thanks for the one of the great coincidences in media HR history --the same-day sacking of Lemon and Carlson will tamp down conspiracy theories.
Your observations about those you trust.. echo my sentiments. Jane Pauley.. one of the most ‘regular’ normal persons one could know. But the critical thinking one needs as news is consumed seems to be at an all time low. Or maybe its just more exposed.