Quick check in on Tucker Carlson's "video views"

[VakAttack]

As mentioned previously, these numbers don't actually represent the number of people who watch the videos, just the ones who scroll by the Tweet.  The actual number of people watching the videos is much lower, but Twitter has removed the stats for video views.

[WrestlingRasta]

And I have to wonder how many of those actual views are people just stopping in to see what kind of bullshit he is spewing. 

[Husker_Du]

lmfao.

i knew exactly what was going to be in this thread before i opened it. 

you guys are dorks. 

what exactly is your thesis here?

that Tucker

• doesn't matter?

• is overrated?

• is a waning star?

c'mon, spell it out. so that it can be easily refuted.

meanwhile...you're watching MSM like lapdogs. 

dorks. 

 

[WrestlingRasta]

Thesis….hmmm….

My personal opinion is that he is a piece of shit horrible example of a human being. 
 

I’ll try to come up with something a little more clear in the meantime. 

[VakAttack]

3 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

lmfao.

i knew exactly what was going to be in this thread before i opened it. 

you guys are dorks. 

what exactly is your thesis here?

that Tucker

• doesn't matter?

• is overrated?

• is a waning star?

c'mon, spell it out. so that it can be easily refuted.

meanwhile...you're watching MSM like lapdogs. 

dorks. 

 

Wrong.  I don't watch any "MSM", I don't even have cable.  My news is primarily garnered through reading multiple articles on a subject from multiple sources and forming my opinion from that.  The only time I personally see anything from Fox, MSNBC, or CNN is if a clip makes it into an article I'm reading.

As to your questions re: Tucker, the answer to all is "yes."  The modern day Republican party and conservative movement is much older than it was, and Tucker's popularity was propped up by the place that broadcast him.  Just like Bill O'Reilly before him.  Whomever they replace him with will get similar numbers to what Tucker got, and Tucker will fade to obscurity because older people primarily get their news from the cable news sources.  He's overrated in the sense that it was never about him.  It was a combination of Fox News and the current political moment when he got big.  You can tell that by the way he brutally failed at the other two mainstream media networks in MSNBC and CNN.

 

[Husker_Du]

1) why?

2) thats not Vak's point. it is clearly that Tucker's numbers aren't great and getting worse

3) who has better numbers

4) this is where you say Tucker only has good numbers b/c this country is inherently racist and everyone who listens to him is racist and racist. racist. racist. racism. 

 

[Husker_Du]

2 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Wrong.  I don't watch any "MSM", I don't even have cable.  My news is primarily garnered through reading multiple articles on a subject from multiple sources and forming my opinion from that.  The only time I personally see anything from Fox, MSNBC, or CNN is if a clip makes it into an article I'm reading.

As to your questions re: Tucker, the answer to all is "yes."  The modern day Republican party and conservative movement is much older than it was, and Tucker's popularity was propped up by the place that broadcast him.  Just like Bill O'Reilly before him.  Whomever they replace him with will get similar numbers to what Tucker got, and Tucker will fade to obscurity because older people primarily get their news from the cable news sources.  He's overrated in the sense that it was never about him.  It was a combination of Fox News and the current political moment when he got big.  You can tell that by the way he brutally failed at the other two mainstream media networks in MSNBC and CNN.

 

yeah, this is full of shit.

who else has done those numbers?

who else in news is as followed?

if he was a MSM type you'd be singing his praises.

objectively....objectively...no one comes close to those numbers.

so try again

[VakAttack]

Just now, Husker_Du said:

yeah, this is full of shit.

who else has done those numbers?

who else in news is as followed?

if he was a MSM type you'd be singing his praises.

objectively....objectively...no one comes close to those numbers.

so try again

First of all, calm down buddy.  You're going to blow a gasket.

Second of all, these aren't real numbers.  As mentioned, these are just the numbers of people who have seen the Tweet that had the video.

Thirdly, you can keep screaming about MSM all you want, but again, I don't consume any cable news directly, unless a video clip is cited in an article I'm reading and then I'll watch it for the context the writer is going for.

[Husker_Du]

 idk what you mean. i'm completely fine lol. 

anyway, so what's your point about those numbers? it can't be that Tucker is bad. he blows everyone else out of the water. so what is the point?

RE: MSM - so you watch none of it, and you watch no national shows. but you're an armchair QB on all things national news shows. got it

 

[VakAttack]

Just now, Husker_Du said:

 idk what you mean. i'm completely fine lol. 

anyway, so what's your point about those numbers? it can't be that Tucker is bad. he blows everyone else out of the water. so what is the point?

RE: MSM - so you watch none of it, and you watch no national shows. but you're an armchair QB on all things national news shows. got it

 

You're just like making things up to fulfill your image of what you think a liberal is (which is weird, since we've met each other), and my point is that people were using teh initial number as a prop up for how much better Tucker was going to do on Twitter vs. Fox News, and the numbers were fake then and, still fake, but much worse now as his time away from the controversy of his leaving has grown.

My point is that Tucker's success was a product of Fox News, not of anything special about Tucker.  Those numbers up there aren't real, and we have no ide what the numbers are, but we know they can't be great because they aren't going out of their way to tell us the actual numbers.  Tucker failed at CNN.  He failed at MSNBC.  He's nobody special, he's just the guy who got the slot that O'Reilly lost.  He will fade to obscurity unless he finds a broadcast job.  He's not Rogan who has the charisma to build his own media empire.  He appeals primarily to an older demographic that was served to him on a platter by the shambling, dying hulk of a cable news giant.

And where have I been an "armchair QB on all things national news shows"?

[Husker_Du]

There it is:  my point is that people were using teh initial number as a prop up for how much better Tucker was going to do on Twitter vs. Fox News

that is a good point and valid thesis

i would have said nothing if you opened with that. (not that i believe it to be a foregone conclusion).

 

although this "Tucker's success was a product of Fox News, not of anything special about Tucker"

doesn't necessarily have to be true also.

 

 

[VakAttack]

13 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

There it is:  my point is that people were using teh initial number as a prop up for how much better Tucker was going to do on Twitter vs. Fox News

that is a good point and valid thesis

i would have said nothing if you opened with that. (not that i believe it to be a foregone conclusion).

 

although this "Tucker's success was a product of Fox News, not of anything special about Tucker"

doesn't necessarily have to be true also.

 

 

I agree, it doesn't have to be true. It's my opinion, so obviously it could be wrong. 

[Offthemat]

I don’t know how that all works.  I watched a couple of his episodes on different sites and noticed there was no count number and no place to like it either.  I don’t know if that counted as a view for Tucker or the other site.  But I think Tucker will be alright.  He’s nothing like some of the descriptions spouted here.  Tucker did well in O’Reilly’s spot because he was better than O’Reilly.  
 

 

Edited July 8, 2023 by Offthemat

[Le duke]

I don’t know how that all works.  I watched a couple of his episodes on different sites and noticed there was no count number and no place to like it either.  I don’t know if that counted as a view for Tucker or the other site.  But I think Tucker will be alright.  He’s nothing like some of the descriptions spouted here.  Tucker did well in O’Reilly’s spot because he was better than O’Reilly.  
 
 

He’s literally the reason Fox had to pay nearly 900 million dollars in the first of many lawsuits.

He admitted that he knowingly spread lies about a variety of topics. It’s one thing to have an opinion; he knowingly spread a narrative he knew to be false.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Plasmodium]

Did our friend Tucker ever claim to be anything other than an entertainer?  I think the Fox lawyers said as much in many of the lawsuits they litigate.

[Husker_Du]

15 hours ago, Le duke said:

He’s literally the reason Fox had to pay nearly 900 million dollars in the first of many lawsuits.

He admitted that he knowingly spread lies about a variety of topics. It’s one thing to have an opinion; he knowingly spread a narrative he knew to be false.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

what did he admit he lied about? sincere question.

the Dominion stuff seemed to focus on Maria Bartiralmo

[Husker_Du]

My point in all this is not get anyone to like Tucker,

but to say that if you think he isn't effective, you're nuts.

to be fair though, it's kinda easier nowadays. you have CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC etc etc all espousing fake science and whack ass ideas

all you need to do is be sane and have a slot and you're good. 

[Offthemat]

Lots of people wanted to see the Dominion case tried because they thought it was frivolous, and that a trial would show the liabilities of the Dominion machines. Tucker didn’t say much, if anything, about the machines, some of his guests did, and some of those statements, like their ability to be remotely changed, have been shown to be true.  I don’t know why they settled, but I don’t think they did it to protect Tucker.  

[Le duke]

Lots of people wanted to see the Dominion case tried because they thought it was frivolous, and that a trial would show the liabilities of the Dominion machines. Tucker didn’t say much, if anything, about the machines, some of his guests did, and some of those statements, like their ability to be remotely changed, have been shown to be true.  I don’t know why they settled, but I don’t think they did it to protect Tucker.  

Who are “a lot of people”?

Not the highly informed legal team that Fox News hired to represent them, apparently. They thought it was sufficiently likely that Fox would lose (and face a higher loss) that they convinced Fox to settle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Husker_Du]

15 minutes ago, Le duke said:

Who are “a lot of people”?

Not the highly informed legal team that Fox News hired to represent them, apparently. They thought it was sufficiently likely that Fox would lose (and face a higher loss) that they convinced Fox to settle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

that is the point that is often repeated: "their legal team must have thought they were liable, because the settled."

and it's a good, fair point.

however i think there's more to it. and i say that b/c 1) i watch fox a lot and i don't recall any of their hosts banging the 'dominion is crooked' drum'. (for sure their guests did, though). 2) where are the clips of those hosts doing so?

so at the end of the day, the only argument anyone makes is 'well they must have felt guilty b/c they settled.'

imo, due to the lack of evidence wherein their hosts were liable, the more likely reason they settled is b/c they were afraid of internal documents and directives. 

just my guess though 

[Offthemat]

Lawyers don’t decide, they just present offers, and it works the same for both sides.  If Dominion was so confident, why’d they settle for so much less?

[Wrestleknownothing]

5 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

what did he admit he lied about? sincere question.

the Dominion stuff seemed to focus on Maria Bartiralmo

In his text messages that were part of the discovery process in the Dominion lawsuit he admitted that he knew the narrative he was pushing of a stolen election was a lie.

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

Lawyers don’t decide, they just present offers, and it works the same for both sides.  If Dominion was so confident, why’d they settle for so much less?

Dominion is majority (or perhaps wholly) owned by an investment firm. They did the return calculation on their investment and said thank you very much.

[Wrestleknownothing]

4 hours ago, Offthemat said:

Lots of people wanted to see the Dominion case tried because they thought it was frivolous, and that a trial would show the liabilities of the Dominion machines. Tucker didn’t say much, if anything, about the machines, some of his guests did, and some of those statements, like their ability to be remotely changed, have been shown to be true.  I don’t know why they settled, but I don’t think they did it to protect Tucker.  

Most importantly, the people with the deepest knowledge, Fox executives, did not want to see the case tried because they thought their defense was weak and that the suit was not frivolous.

[VakAttack]

The Dominion settlement is, by orders of magnitude,  the biggest payout for this type of lawsuit in American history.  The only bigger award was from a jury against Alex Jones.  There is no feasible argument that this was good for Fox other than it prevented them from having to put some of their stuff more firmly and un-plausible-deniabilty-ly in the public eye.  The standard for the plaintiff's to prove in this case was EXTREMELY high, so much so that most cases like this are dismissed out of hand....and Fox still paid that much money.  I can buy the "it's cheaper to settle this case than to try it" in a lot of situations.  That doesn't fly when you're paying THE LARGEST SUCH SETTLEMENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.