Is Fox News censoring Hannity?

Because of the Meuller report 34 individuals and three Russian businesses were indicted on charges ranging from computer hacking to conspiracy and financial crimes.

Those indictments led to seven guilty pleas and five people sent to prison.

That’s a something, not a nothing.

1 Like

The fetishes of trump followers are so violent and authoritarian…

Pee tape or nothing.

Well, Q followers. Not that there’s much daylight between the two anymore. And there probably won’t be any in a month.

I’m well familiar with Harf (Barf) and if she is running things Fox is about done.

Would be comparable to letting Acosta run the show.


Yeah…I know…rite? Did you see them burning down buildings in Minneapolis, looting stores and destroying personal property? Oh…wait…


I don’t know if Hannity is being censored, but I will unload a bit. I know that this time of year, the cable and radio hosts take a two week holiday break. And I have no problem with that generally, but this particular year is unique, with the election, allegations of fraudulent ballot counting, the virus and the run-off in Georgia. I would think that key people in the broadcast news media, who have superior sources, would step up and not leave their audience to fill-ins and best-of.
I have read numerous stories of Fox losing viewership, a ratings dip that has not gone to the other major cable competitors (CNN and MSNBC) but to NewsMax, OAN and something called The National Pulse. I think this all began when Fox called Arizona for Biden.
I do think that in this age, when your viewer has many options, it’s more important than ever to know who your audience is, why they watch you and to do what you can to retain them - customer acquisition in business is important, but customer retention is what keeps your business afloat.
Right now, my Fox favorites are Greg Gutfeld, Lou Dobbs, Dagen McDowell (when she’s on The Five) because I think they’ve been the most consistent.

1 Like

I like Gutfeld, Dobbs, Hannity, and Tucker.

The rest can take a flying leap if they think i’m going to listen to many of the rest of them. Watching OAN and Newsmax a lot these days especially during the day when so many never Trumpers are on.

Calling AZ so quickly was a blunder but they started showing their new colors when they started hiring the likes of Donna Brazille, to go with people like Juan Williams, and Chris Wallace.

They seem to think we have no where else to go but their sinking ratings and the rise of outlets like OAN and Newsmax prove otherwise.


the accusation was that Trump colluded with Russians to steal the election. Remember now?


They were right. So why is it a blunder? Could it be they have really good data analysis?

They stuck with that narrative for 4 years but yet we are supposed to just come together, sing Kum Buh Yah, and ignore the massive shenanigans of this year. :roll_eyes:

1 Like

The Senate intelligence and Mueller report documents the hundreds of contacts the Trump campaign had with Russians through their campaign. They colluded but collusion isn’t a crime. Conspiracy is and they did not find enough evidence to rise to that level.

Basically the Trump campaign wanted to crime but they were too stupid to do it right.

ain’t gonna happen.

It’s sure not!

1 Like

Why not try to go where they give both sides equal time?

Well, yes, if these people really believed the election was rigged, they wouldn’t be going on vacation.

But they are…so…

I can see why Tucker is so popular:

In light of this precedent and the context of “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” the Court finds that Mr. Carlson’s invocation of “extortion” against Ms. McDougal is nonactionable hyperbole, intended to frame the debate in the guest commentator segment that followed Mr. Carlson’s soliloquy. As Defendant notes, Mr. Carlson himself aims to “challenge[] political correctness and media bias.” Def. Br. at 14. This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.” Fox persuasively argues, see Def Br. at 13-15, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer “arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism” about the statements he makes. Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson’s statements as “exaggeration,” “non-literal commentary,” or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same—the statements are not actionable.

The argument that Carlson’s lawyers made (and the judge agreed with) is that reasonable people should understand he’s full of ■■■■■

Thus, I understand his popularity with a certain type of individual.

1 Like

“They seem to think we have no where else to go but their sinking ratings and the rise of outlets like OAN and Newsmax prove otherwise.”

If they think that, it would be a significant business miscalculation. In '96, when Fox News came on to the scene, it was considered the conservative alternative to CNN, the networks, PBS. That was before blogging, streaming, Youtube, podcasts. Now there is competition, and the audience that wants a conservative viewpoint does not have to put up with the only kid on the block.
I have also become a bit bored with some of the Fox programs - same guests every night, same format, same opening remarks. Even The Five has gotten a bit tedious. On the other hand, I do like Steve Hilton’s show on Sunday night. And there are a few commentators that I do like - Victor Davis Hanson, Leo Terrell, Tammy Bruce, Charlie Kirk, Candace Owens, so if I know they’re going to be on, I’ll tune in.

1 Like

Still doubling down on the con you fell for. Can’t admit you were taken for a ride.

1 Like

It wasn’t a con. Did you read the Mueller report? Did you read the Senate investigation report?
They both said the same thing. There was collusion.