Bill O’Reilly is out after 21 years of holding the flagship position on-air at Fox News Channel, as the sexual harassment charges and settlements piled up. But no one should seriously doubt that Rupert Murdoch remains the Palpatine of his media empire. Indeed, the turmoil at the network even now proves it.
To be sure, people will opine that O’Reilly’s ouster represents a victory for Rupert’s sons, James and Lachlan, bolstered by senior executives at other divisions within the Murdoch empire who chafed at the seeming special treatment for the man with the falafel. And it is nice that 21st Century Fox is being dragged into the late 20th Century. I know people who still work there and the HR office doesn’t need to be run by Roger Sterling and Don Draper.
But what Rupert understands is money. Not just the relatively small-to-him sums being paid out to settle claims brought against O’Reilly or former program honcho Roger Ailes, or to buy out their contracts.
Rather, he’s likely looking at the threat posed by FNC’s highest-rated show being boycotted by prestige advertisers. FNC’s primetime has always been based on the model of talk-radio-with-pictures; Rupert undoubtedly noticed what happened to the revenues and clearance for the entire conservative talk radio sector once a similar boycott stuck to Rush Limbaugh.
But the turmoil that has gripped FNC over the past year largely has been caused by Rupert’s control over his vision for the operation, both before and after yanking O’Reilly off camera.
The general narrative has been one of Rupert fighting his sons over the direction of the network he created with Ailes many years ago. As right-leaning talk video, it has attracted largely the same demographic as right-leaning talk radio: white seniors.
James and Lachlan would like to start the transition that will be inevitable as its core audience literally dies and is replaced by another generation that may not have the same politics as the current one. Rupert sees the current FNC as a yuge cash cow and is loath to fuss with the formula.
While I might prefer the sons’ vision for FNC, I can’t blame Rupert for the impulse to not fix what isn’t broken, especially when you have to answer to stockholders. That said, there is also an argument that you can stagnate and lose when you don’t take the initiative to innovate from time to time. And it is very much a question of timing that is probably unknowable.
All of that said, consider that the departures of Ailes and O’Reilly were basically forced upon Rupert by the circumstances, not by choice. OTOH, Rupert chose to let Megyn Kelly leave last year — and FNC’s schedule would have been far more stable had he met her asking price.
That choice was quite consciously one in the direction of a Trumpier FNC, as is yesterday’s decision to give Eric Bolling a show while moving the rest of The Five to primetime. And it is most evident in the meteoric rise of Tucker Carlson, who has surfed the shock waves at FNC from weekends to Greta Van Susteren’s slot into O’Reilly’s chair.
Carlson is nothing if not flexible. He has been a middle-of-the-road conservative for CNN, a provocative prankster at the Daily Caller, a libertarianish righty for MSNBC, and now a Trumpian tribune for Fox (even dropping his signature WASPy bow tie in favor of more proletarian neckwear).
As Carlson told McKay Coppins recently: “I’m not much of an economic conservative, and I’m not conservative at all on foreign policy. If your politics don’t change when circumstances do, you’re an idiot, you’re a reactionary.”
I could write a longread deconstructing that quotation alone, but today is not that day.
Rather, the important thing now is that Carlson’s chameleon-like adaptability has provided him with an opportunity, but one that comes with its own inherent challenge — and one Rupert has imposed on FNC in general.
The challenge of boarding the Trump Train is that it doesn’t run on tracks. You have no idea where it’s going to make stops. Indeed, Trump has recently been making a raft of policy shifts seemingly away from populism and nationalism, and toward a far more conventional Republican approach.
Carlson thus seems (so far) to be taking the Bannonesque position of holding Trump accountable to that segment of his core voters who were really serious about Trump’s advertised nationalism and populism.
But what if that’s not a yuge segment of Trump voters, let alone Fox News viewers? What if Trump’s support is driven more by the tribal drums of traditional partisanship, by GOPers who voted for Trump because he was a better choice than Hillary Clinton, who like his recent turn towards more traditional Republicanism, and are just more inclined to side with the President over some griping talking head on Fox?
Carlson has changed his politics to fit what he thinks are vastly changed circumstances. But he’ll be judged by an audience that may become less incline to cheer New Tucker at the very moment he’s received the big promotion.
And again: Rupert runs a capitalist empire; he won’t think twice about demoting Carlson if the ratings decline — or dispatching any of the people at FNC who have trimmed their sails to the Trumpian winds of months past. In that regard, Rupert is the alpha chameleon of his empire. It’s not easy being green, but that’s his preferred color.
*[Aside: Carlson’s inferior knowledge of the Middle East compared to Graham, much like his flailing idiocy about capitalism when trying to debate Mark Cuban, tends to prove my point that Carlson should debate tomato cans less, to keep in shape. I reiterate this even though the New New Left’s collegiate antifa are a major symptom of what’s wrong with America these days and need to be exposed. Carlson’s taking the big chair and will need to up his game if he wants to stay there.]
PS: Consider subscribing to WHRPT in the sidebar (the posts come straight to your inbox; no muss no fuss). And following WHRPT on Twitter. Thanks for reading and sharing!