Why would Fox News fire its most popular host? On average, a million more people watched Tucker Carlson each night than the Fox programs before and after his show. It attracted four times as many viewers as the 8 o'clock show on CNN, Anderson Cooper 360°. He was the main puller on Fox's streaming service, and no rising star at the network is expected to take his place.
Translation of an English article by Brownstone Institute
It wasn't a lack of success that Carlson worked out, so we might wonder why Fox fired their main anchor. It may have been a battle for egos between Carlson and the Murdochs (fox's biggest owner). Carlson may have threatened to air programs they didn't like related to the Jan. 6 tapes, the recent settlement with Dominion, or the coverage of Donald Trump.
Any of these statements would indicate that ego won out over financial sanity in the boardroom. Carlson is a source of income, and the company's shares plummeted after monday's announcement.
But what if there was a rational economic explanation for his resignation? What if the people who own Fox have far more interest in neutralizing criticism of their other economic holdings than they have in the success of Fox's television division?
Last Wednesday, Carlson opened his show with an attack on the pharmaceutical industry's manipulation of the news media.
"Sometimes you wonder how nasty and dishonest our news media is," Carlson began. "Ask yourself, is there a news organization you know so corrupt that it's willing to hurt you on behalf of its biggest advertisers?"
Carlson then attacked the news media for taking "hundreds of millions of dollars from Big Pharma companies" and promoting "their sketchy products on the air and while doing so, they vilified anyone who was skeptical of those products."
Five days later, Carlson was fired. Perhaps his stardom was not great enough to overcome the problem he described.
- In addition to MyPillow, the largest Advertisers from Fox News GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Novartis and BlackRock.
- Vanguard is the greatest Institutional owner from Fox Corporation, with a 6.9 percent stake in the company. BlackRock owns another 4.7 percent.
- Vanguard and BlackRock are the two largest owners from Pfizer. Together, they own more than 15 percent of the company.
- Vanguard and BlackRock are the two largest shareholders from Johnson & Johnson. Together, they own more than 14 percent of the company.
- Vanguard and BlackRock are the second and third largest owner from Moderna. Together, they own more than 13 percent of the company.
You may see a trend.
Vanguard and BlackRock's stakes in Fox are less than $750 million. Their investments in Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly, Pfizer and Merck amount to more than $225 billion.
When Carlson attacked the pharmaceutical industry, he attacked the same funds that owned his network. But those investments in Big Pharma were 300 times larger than their shares in Fox. Carlson may have stepped on a landmine, saying the unspeakable to the entangled economic interests of the world's most powerful corporations.
When pharmaceutical companies took over government policy during Covid, they spent significantly more money on advertising and marketing than on research and development (R&D).
In 2020, Pfizer spent $12 billion on sales and marketing and $9 billion on R&D. Johnson & Johnson spent $22 billion on sales and marketing and $12 billion on R&D that year.
The efforts of the industry were rewarded. Billions of dollars in advertising led millions of Americans to tune in to programs sponsored by Pfizer. The press promoted their products and rarely mentioned the history of Big Pharma's unjust enrichment, fraud, and criminal trials.
In announcing Pfizer's 2022 annual report, CEO Albert Bourla stressed the importance of customers' "positive perception" of the pharmaceutical giant.
"2022 was a record year for Pfizer, not just in terms of revenue and earnings per share, which were the highest in our long history," Bourla noted. "But more importantly, in terms of the percentage of patients who have a positive perception of Pfizer and the work we do."
Carlson committed the media's sin by attacking that positive perception, and it may have caused his resignation. Either way, the facts show a frightening indication that the establishment media is still dependent on Big Pharma, and that their programming requires the approval of the figures they are supposed to hold accountable.
Here is his broadcast five days before his resignation.
A guy who is Carlson, one who takes the bull by the horns and who understands the entanglement of the media and business
/big pharming in the US dares to criticize out loud. Hardly a reaction in the Dutch media.
Hey , how is that possible?.
The reaction is to throw out ON.
Tucker Carlson told too much truth and that is what the MSM and other rulers do not like. Nothing should be in the media that is not their narrative. There is only 1 truth for them, theirs. So many people are starting to realize this. Who still reads and pays for those lies, who hasn't figured them out yet? The sleepers, who also during the c-hoax period, thought everything was okay.
In Canada, there is a National Citizens Inquiry. The testimonies of Canadians are heartbreaking. How could all this happen so easily? Because even ordinary Canadians, doctors, scientists, etc. followed all orders completely, without a murmur! Dangerous: https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/
See Vera Sharav, a holocaust survivor's speech about the Nuremburg Code and the links she makes to the 30s. Here is the link: https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/an-address-by-vera-sharav
The interesting thing about Tucker Carlson is that in recent years he has allowed the right to express different views (left and right).
Jimmy Dore on the firing of Tucker Carlson;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjw9m1cG5S8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9wGULCAMIs
Now that Carlson has responded to his departure from Fox News, we do know a little more about the reason for that departure. But that's not much. Carlson is apparently not allowed to say anything about it directly, so you have to "read between the lines". I tried that.
Two striking things in the video: he talks about the US as a "one party state" and above all he complains about the mendacity of politics and media.
I looked through the list of recent contributions by Carlson and quickly came across
The following notable contribution from April 13:
TUCKER CARLSON: Telling the truth is the only real sin in Washington
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-telling-truth-only-real-sin-washington
This is a brutal attack on the policy and coverage of the war in Ukraine, based on the recently leaked secret government information. The whistleblower is praised by Carlson, and Carlson states that his only crime is that he has shown the crimes of others
I think this op-ed has gone completely wrong not only with the Pentagon, but also with some senators in the Republican party. Especially with the group of still influential neocons. Hence the hint about "one party state".
The Republican party has power over Fox News, because elections are coming up next year and astronomically large amounts are being spent on commercials and debates. They presumably demanded Carlson's head from Fox.
So it's not directly about the pandemic and stakeholder companies.
By the way, I saw on the Fox News website a list of at least 25 reports about Corona that aired after Carlson's departure. So there is no silence about that.
A fierce louse in the fur, absolutely in several areas. That is no longer the intention today. I just hope that someone at Fox stays fierce, also on pharma.
Hi Anton, Blackrock and Vanguard "own" almost everything, because they invest the (pension) money of almost everyone in the Western world. You can actually point to them as a trend for any industry where something is wrong (or going right). I'm not saying they're sweethearts, but there's not much reason for them to protect pharma, because every dollar we spend on vaccines we don't spend in the home depot or mc Donald's afterwards. Despite the enormous amounts you mention, they really have no (economic) reason to invest energy in 1 doll at 1 media outlet
Calculate that roughly for then? If a small investment undermines a large investment and large advertisers, that sounds to me like a plausible reason for an investment company to intervene. If they do their job well, they opt for profit optimization.
It seems to me that the advertising revenue around Carlson may outweigh their equity interests along with the other advertising revenue they might lose. But it certainly won't be the only reason, he did bring down more.
Blackrock just follows the market and they won't care if an entire industry collapses. They buy each company for about the same amount without thinking about it or having an opinion about those companies at all. This makes them different from the fund managers (and banks) you probably know from the newspaper or film who choose companies to invest in and who then also (can) interfere with their investments. They never weigh investments against each other. If they did, they would probably want to keep him because Tucker, for example, protects their investments in fossil fuels and weapons extremely well