,
8 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
When Tucker Carlson was losing advertisers & Jeanine Pirro was suspended for her anti-Muslim comments, Trump personally called Rupert Murdoch to pressure him to stand with the incendiary hosts.
Murdoch then pressured executives to the President's liking.
vanityfair.com/news/2019/04/f…
Murdoch then pressured executives to the President's liking.
vanityfair.com/news/2019/04/f…
"While Fox's primetime shows generate the lion's share of the network's ratings & ad revenues, there have been increasing issues w/ lost advertising. Many blue-chip companies don't want to buy time on those shows because of the divisive pro-Trump content"
bit.ly/2vqh0p6
bit.ly/2vqh0p6
“Executives are very worried Fox & Friends will be next. If advertisers start bailing on them, they're screwed.”
vanityfair.com/news/2019/04/f…
vanityfair.com/news/2019/04/f…
I'm trying to imagine Fox News' response if, in say 2014, @DonLemon got suspended and Obama called Jeff Zucker to dissuade him from firing Lemon.
The news of Trump's interference in Fox News' internal disciplinary matters comes at the same time as The Daily Beast's scoop regarding internal emails at Fox that—to one reporter—were like "something you’d read on a White Supremacist chat room.”
So when you look at these two stories, and apply historical context regarding Fox News' volatility—the racism, the bigotry, the personal attacks—if you're an advertiser, is reaching that audience worth the risk? If you're a shareholder, at what point is it too risky of an asset?
These are Fox News' leading advertisers
mediamatters.org/research/2018/…
mediamatters.org/research/2018/…
If you want to get more involved in our campaign, visit DropFox.com #DropFox
