The NYT's feature about Fox Weather is getting a lot of attention this morning. Here's a #thread full of context...
https://twitter.com/grynbaum/status/1412407316201316354
Fox Weather was announced last year. I viewed it as part of a bigger story Fox is telling via the press – portraying CEO Suzanne Scott as an expansionist, leading Fox into new lines of businesses like lifestyle (they produced a Christmas movie) and weather and podcasts and books.
"But," I wrote in HoaxTheBook.com, "these experiments belied the fact that Fox was more dependent than ever on its propaganda players." Sure, Fox News Media has lots of arms, but its face is Tucker Carlson. The profits come from Carlson, Hannity, "The Five" – rage TV.
Adding a streaming weather service is pretty easy for Fox, since it's tapping into the company's local TV stations. It's also "hiring a throng of meteorologists and weather data analysts," as @grynbaum wrote. But other streaming weather options already exist. Others are coming.
Tweeters are understandably raising concerns about whether Fox Weather will distort the public discourse about climate change, but will it get the public's eyeballs? That's my Q. Fox can market the new venture on TV and Fox's homepages, but to what effect?
https://twitter.com/alexweprin/status/1412395735488897029
The Weather Channel is the reigning champ on TV but it averages 150,000 viewers at any given time, only spiking during big storms. Plus there's AccuWeather. And WeatherNation. So the marketplace is crowded, but rather small. That's one of the main reasons I'm skeptical of Fox Wx.
Will some people watch? Of course. Will it be as profitable as "Fox & Friends?" Of course not. And that's why I come back to the point about Fox's "expansionist" messaging: They can add more arms, but they're still Tucker Carlson TV.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
