Skip to main content

Carlson’s Firing: Was it Over Liability or Money?

 Carlson’s Firing: Was it Over Liability or Money?

Like a rousing game of Pong, the Tucker Carlson saga continues to amuse. 


In this case I run up against two of my favorite concepts for making judgments. The law of parsimony, and the principle of “follow the money” There may be others involved but these are, for the reason mentioned already, the most obvious:


Parsimony:


The simplest answer is almost always the right answer! That is Parsimony, also often called Occam's Razor, named for the hometown of Willam of Ockham. 


Liability


Carlson was fired because he was a legally indefensible liability to Fox particularly after several liable trials including the last one with Dominion voting systems. 


If this is the case, a couple of other questions come to mind:


  1. Will Carlson's firing mitigate the legal case involving future legal action involving Carlson which occured before his termination?
  2. Will Carlson be on his own in any such future legal battles?


Follow the money:


At first glance dropping Carlson may seem to be a bad economic decision for the cable network. A closer look is needed. 


Carlson’s departure has caused a temporary loss in viewership, and ratings. This does not mean that Fox will not recover. It has done so in the past with no appreciable damage in the cases of such notables as Bill O'reilly and Glen Beck. 


The Money


While Fox may have lost a portion of viewership it will no doubt regain the advertisers it lost during the later part of Carlson’s tenure. Carlson had alienated most of the sponsors of his show and was almost down to “My Pillow”. What good does it do for a company based on an advertising model if they have more viewers, but no advertisers?


So which is it, Liability, or Money? 


In the end I suspect that they are one and the same. It may be that Money is always the shortest route to the simplest answer as to why someone rids himself of a liability.

Popular posts from this blog

Problems for Federalism if States Can't Determine Eligibility

If the court rules that individual states can not determine eligibility the door would be open to all third parties for ballot access challenges. The court would have to set up or help to establish federal rules to determine eligibility requirements or face a flood of challenges for all 50 states. That seems to be a nail in the coffin of Federalism. A Trump victory in SCOTUS would set up a 50 state rush of indie candidates who would take eligibility questions to the high court. To avoid that they would have to legislate from the bench or convince Congress to legislate an end to Federalism!
Read more

It's All Biden's Fault!

  There was a period of reverse immigration! That is, more people headed south than north, between 2008 and 2016. The Republicans began running on border security in spite of this fact. What do you think happened? The “Quick, let's get in before the opportunity closes!” idea kicked in! We saw a resurgence of immigration not seen in decades! It goes like this: Before Trump: reverse immigration.  Trump lies and threats: massive migration.  Trump regulations: Four years of border backup.  I t's Biden's fault  Today: Biden resets after ending Trump regulation: System working legally and properly with backup gone and new people processed by sending those with no credible claim home and the 1 to 2 percent of credible claims through!  Republicans: But, but, but, where's Hunter? Inflation We all agree that too much money chasing too few goods caused inflation, so what is the solution? Raising interest is not it! Producing more goods is! Why do we have a shortage o...
Read more

Preliminary findings after reading the Durham report

  After reading the report: 1. Did not exonerate Trump. 1. Did not exonerate Trump. 2. Made no suggestion for criminal charges beyond the ones made in an earlier iteration and noted below. 3. Durham found no reason for opening a full investigation into Trump/Russian collaboration at that time. 4. Suggested that the FBI should have opened a preliminary investigation. The implication being that a preliminary investigation would have led to a full investigation. 5. Durham said that it was possible that the FBI needed to put some reforms in place. In addition, the investigation as a whole did see an earlier iteration that made 3 criminal charges: One plead guilty, the 2 others were tried and acquitted. I am awaiting the Durham appearance before congress to do a full report. I have an inescapable sense that there is something else going on here. Similarities between this report and the Müller report like something is being left out of the story by both. Somewhere in my reading, I ran ac...
Read more