Still waiting on that list.

BlackRock Increases Position in Fox Corporation (FOXA)

Fintel reports that BlackRock has filed a 13G/A form with the SEC disclosing ownership of 45.74MM shares of Fox Corporation, Class A (FOXA). This represents 15.1% of the company.
In their previous filing dated January 27,…

— Jonathan Kogan (@Kogz) April 24, 2023

shiftyandquick said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

Not sure if this has been posted.

This clip is very telling to probably what happened to Tucker pic.twitter.com/x6I6LvAQrc

— Luke Rudkowski (@Lukewearechange) April 25, 2023

---

Tucker's biggest regret is that he didn't entertain more conspiracy theorists. That is rich. This guy couldn't stop lying if his life depended on it.

---

Think you need to listen to that clip again. He doesn't say that he should have entertained more conspiracy theorists, but rather he shouldn't have dismissed people that contradicted the mainstream narrative as conspiracy theorists by default.

Conspiracy theorist is used as a pejorative, but real deal conspiracies do exist. In 2011 if a person said that the NSA conducts widespread surveillance of the American people that person would have been labeled a conspiracy theorist and the mainstream media would have assured you that it wasn't true.

If you don't accept that everyone, Tucker, Hannity, Anderson Cooper, Don Lemon, Chris Cuomo, and Rachel Maddow, are capable of being wrong and even outright lying to you to maintain a narrative then you don't understand reality. Everyone lies, it's a matter of how often and how big.

CNN/MSNBC do it every time they amplify the story of a black man being killed by a police officer, not in that a black man being killed by a police officer can't be a miscarriage of justice but in that they never, ever, report on that happening to a white man. That is dishonest. There are lots of people in this country, due to that imbalance in coverage, that believe that white people are never killed by police despite the fact that in absolute terms it is a more frequent occurrence. That is what you could call a conspiracy.

They do it every time they cover gun violence in this country when they amalgamate genuine homicides with suicides. Is gun violence a problem? Absolutely, but suicide is not remotely the same as homicide. That is what you could call a conspiracy.


The point of criticism against Tucker in that clip isn't whether or not he should have entertained more "conspiracy theorists", but rather that he portrays himself as ignorant to the manipulation that happens in news media. He is behind the curtain, he has certainly known that stories have been juiced or downplayed during his career. He is not stupid.

Charpie said:

---

This is sorta crazy. He was the one banking money for the network. I mean, I didn't watch and I didn't agree with the majority of the crap he spewed. And let's be clear, he wasn't news. It was an opinion show.

He was their cash cow. Not sure anyone can step into his place to bring the eyeballs to Fox News at night.

I wonder if this was part of the Dominion settlement?

---

You are wrong. Gutfeld is the cash cow. Look it up.

Quote:

---

How about the top cable news shows of Q1 among adults 25-54? After all, this is a demographic that advertisers of TV news still focus their ad dollars on.

Tucker Carlson Tonight remains No. 1 by a substantial margin, averaging 443,000 from the measurement in Q1 2023. The Five remained in second (357,000) with Hannity (317,000), Jesse Watters Primetime (304,000) and Gutfeld! (301,000) rounding out the top five.

---

The only way you come to the conclusion that Gutfeld out earned Tucker is if you either combine the two shows he's on, or you think that total viewership is what draws ad dollars. Demographics determine ad dollars and Tucker wins that easily.

Tucker is consistently just barely behind The Five in total viewership, but consistently significantly ahead in 25-54 year olds.

Rockdoc said:

---

Still waiting on that list.

---

Don't hold your breath.

shiftyandquick said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

Not sure if this has been posted.

This clip is very telling to probably what happened to Tucker pic.twitter.com/x6I6LvAQrc

— Luke Rudkowski (@Lukewearechange) April 25, 2023

---

Tucker's biggest regret is that he didn't entertain more conspiracy theorists. That is rich. This guy couldn't stop lying if his life depended on it.

---

Could you name a few of those lies?

Don Lemon 'parted ways' with CNN as well yesterday in what shall now be referred to as 'Cable News pundit Black Monday'.

JSKolache said:

---

Charpie said:

---

This is sorta crazy. He was the one banking money for the network. I mean, I didn't watch and I didn't agree with the majority of the crap he spewed. And let's be clear, he wasn't news. It was an opinion show.

He was their cash cow. Not sure anyone can step into his place to bring the eyeballs to Fox News at night.

I wonder if this was part of the Dominion settlement?

---

You are wrong. Gutfeld is the cash cow. Look it up.

---

NY Times editors very good at pushing the inconsistent narratives of “Advertisers fleeing Tucker” and “Haha! Fox lost its largest source of advertising revenue!” on the same day. pic.twitter.com/ANQW6yIvFR

— (((tedfrank))) (@tedfrank) April 25, 2023

“it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair.

This is the Board of Fox. Does anybody find anything unusual about this list?

Also, What’s this Wisconsin thing ? 🤔 pic.twitter.com/CXlm8pCnv2

— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) April 25, 2023

Oh boy, what a step down.

Brian is getting mauled. https://t.co/uiINnMu0QZ

— Carpe Donktum🔹 (@CarpeDonktum) April 24, 2023

Tucker needs to start a radio show. If anyone could fill the void left by Rush it could be Tucker.

But I can't see his hair on TV and 3 hour radio show too long.

astros4545 said:

---

AggiePops said:

---

Getting rid of Bongino and Carlson means FOX must have decided they needed to start moving away from the fake news part of their programming. Losing their defamation trial (okay, they settled without it going to trial, but that's losing) with Dominion opened their eyes. Especially since they're not done yet with more defamation suits coming up that they know they'll lose.

---

CNN also trying to do the same by getting rid of Don Lemon?

they only have everyone left to fire to clean that place out

---

Lots of bad talking heads around in all networks.

Tucker's fundamental and recent understanding of the role of the media put him at loggerheads with the Murdoch media empire.

Wow! Tucker really opens up here and describes his own awakening and how he regrets being part of the apparatus ie the media which is used by a “small group of people who actually rule the world” pic.twitter.com/tjxh0yqtQC

— Magdi Shalash (@magdishalash) March 16, 2023

Rupert thinking of selling out? Or hostile takeover happening?

BlackRock, the worlds largest asset manager, just disclosed a 15.1% ownership in Fox Corporation. They’ve been increasing their position over the last year.

Could they have pushed Tucker Carlson out? pic.twitter.com/KFLk1u9XTB

— Genevieve Roch-Decter, CFA (@GRDecter) April 25, 2023

I wonder what the major straw that broke the camel's back was. I wonder if it was tucker wanting to report on the findings of dominion or something along the lines of the lawsuit.

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

I wonder what the major straw that broke the camel's back was. I wonder if it was tucker wanting to report on the findings of dominion or something along the lines of the lawsuit.

---

I think Tucker was much more in touch with Fox viewers than his superiors were. He was not happy after the 2020 election because he knew that early call for Arizona really infuriated a lot of people who stopped watching.

It was 2021 when Tucker agreed to help the fledgling Fox News Nation streaming service. He built it up. And if he and not Fox owns his content, he'll crater it.

aggiehawg said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

I wonder what the major straw that broke the camel's back was. I wonder if it was tucker wanting to report on the findings of dominion or something along the lines of the lawsuit.

---

I think Tucker was much more in touch with Fox viewers than his superiors were. He was not happy after the 2020 election because he knew that early call for Arizona really infuriated a lot of people who stopped watching.

It was 2021 when Tucker agreed to help the fledgling Fox News Nation streaming service. He built it up. And if he and not Fox owns his content, he'll crater it.

---

Fox had a massive number of cancelations yesterday from the Fox Nation streaming service.

Seeing references that Fox's BOD expect a lawsuit from Ray Epps against Tucker.

So being called a possible FBI member, asset is defamatory now?

Crazy.

last time I flew to Tel Aviv in August 2019 Epstein was suicided during my flight,

this time in 2023 Tucker's career at Fox News was suicided.

yikes.

aggiehawg said:

---

Seeing references that Fox's BOD expect a lawsuit from Ray Epps against Tucker.

So being called a possible FBI member, asset is defamatory now?

---

And I wonder who would be footing the bills for Epps legal team. Such a mystery.

Gigem314 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Seeing references that Fox's BOD expect a lawsuit from Ray Epps against Tucker.

So being called a possible FBI member, asset is defamatory now?

---

And I wonder who would be footing the bills for Epps legal team. Such a mystery.

---

I'm just trying to figure out WTH Epps legal cause of action would be? I mean he was out in public, knew he was being filmed, likely even heard other people near him speculate that he was a Fed. Showing the videos of him is not defamatory, nor any invasion of privacy. FBI put him on the alert for people wanted for Jan 6th actions before quietly taking it down. Tucker wasn't the only one who noticed that.

So where is the damage to Epps?

aggiehawg said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Seeing references that Fox's BOD expect a lawsuit from Ray Epps against Tucker.

So being called a possible FBI member, asset is defamatory now?

---

And I wonder who would be footing the bills for Epps legal team. Such a mystery.

---

I'm just trying to figure out WTH Epps legal cause of action would be? I mean he was out in public, knew he was being filmed, likely even heard other people near him speculate that he was a Fed. Showing the videos of him is not defamatory, nor any invasion of privacy. FBI put him on the alert for people wanted for Jan 6th actions before quietly taking it down. Tucker wasn't the only one who noticed that.

So where is the damage to Epps?

---

I don't know if you have a duty to mitigate your damages in defamation law, but if so, his going on 60 minutes sure didn't do that. You go on a "news" show and tell half the audience who hasn't even heard of you what your looney theory is.

Quote:

---

I don't know if you have a duty to mitigate your damages in defamation law, but if so, his going on 60 minutes sure didn't do that. You go on a "news" show and tell half the audience who hasn't even heard of you what your looney theory is.

---

Not sure about that but in most jurisdictions you send a cease and desist letter before initiating suit. Wonder if one was sent already? In any event, Tucker is now gone and he has deep pockets too. Sue him, not Fox.

But then there are also anti-slapp laws.

Quote:

---

As of April 2022, 32 states and the District of Columbia have anti-SLAPP laws, including Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. Minnesota previously passed an anti-SLAPP law, but it was struck down as unconstitutional, as discussed below.

---

Quote:

---

For the most part, anti-SLAPP laws are broad enough to cover SLAPP suits aimed at silencing or retaliating against journalists or news outlets for critical reporting. These laws typically provide critical protections to the news mediaallowing defendants to secure a quick dismissal before the costly discovery process begins, permitting defendants who win their anti-SLAPP motions to recover attorney's fees and costs, automatically staying discovery once the defendant has filed an anti-SLAPP motion, and allowing defendants to immediately appeal a trial court's denial of an anti-SLAPP motion.

---

LINK

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Actual Talking Thermos said:

---

Retired FBI Agent said:

---

Tucker Carlson’s last segment Friday night featured a “pizza delivery hero” who stopped a robbery. They ate pizza together in the studio. That same night President Trump made an appearance at a pizza restaurant in Fort Myers, Florida and sent pizzas to local law enforcement. pic.twitter.com/os20E7aYPE

— LIZ CROKIN (@LizCrokin) April 24, 2023

---

Try as I might I can't figure out what point this tweet is trying to make

---

The FBI sleuth is sharing a tweet suggesting Tucker and Trump are in cahoots sharing pizza with law enforcement and vigilantes alike.

It is typical brainless nonsense from the usual suspects.

---

I don't think that could be it, could it? If it's supposed to be an accusation (I'm not even sure it is), how is synchronized pizza eating an accusation in and of itself? What meaning is this person assigning to pizza eating? Apparently it's so obvious to them that they didn't think it was worth elaborating.

Quote:

---

Ms. Grossberg said in the lawsuit naming Mr. Carlson that male producers regularly used vulgarities to describe women and frequently made antisemitic jokes.

On her first day working for Mr. Carlson, Ms. Grossberg said she discovered the office was decorated with large doctored pictures of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wearing a plunging swimsuit. She said she was once called into the top producer's office to be asked whether Ms. Bartiromo was having a sexual relationship with the House Republican leader, Kevin McCarthy.

---

[tip of the cap to Tucker and staff]

Charlie Kam

aggiehawg said:

---

Seeing references that Fox's BOD expect a lawsuit from Ray Epps against Tucker.

So being called a possible FBI member, asset is defamatory now?

---

After they rolled over for Dominion now everyone is going to look for a payday.

Sarge 91 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Seeing references that Fox's BOD expect a lawsuit from Ray Epps against Tucker.

So being called a possible FBI member, asset is defamatory now?

---

After they rolled over for Dominion now everyone is going to look for a payday.

---

Cannot argue with that. Which is the reason why 99.99% of courthouse step settlements include a NDA with a large liquidated damages clause for the breach of it.

People keep saying Fox had to have the best of the best lawyers. That's likely true but what they fail to recognize is that perhaps those best of the best lawyers had a crappy client that would not let them do their job, in Rupert.*

I have often said I would hate to be Trump's lawyer for just that reason. He's not a good client and will not follow his counsel's advice as much as he should have.

*Blackrock has taken over a 15% stake in Fox. Is Rupert selling? Or is that a hostile takeover being aided by a mentally feeble Rupert? Taking that much market cap off of Fox sure makes for an enticing target to get on the cheap.

aggiehawg said:

---

Rupert thinking of selling out? Or hostile takeover happening?

BlackRock, the worlds largest asset manager, just disclosed a 15.1% ownership in Fox Corporation. They’ve been increasing their position over the last year.

Could they have pushed Tucker Carlson out? pic.twitter.com/KFLk1u9XTB

— Genevieve Roch-Decter, CFA (@GRDecter) April 25, 2023

---

Lukas Mattson buying

Quote:

---

Lukas Mattson buying

---

Confused. Significance here? TIA.

aggiehawg said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Seeing references that Fox's BOD expect a lawsuit from Ray Epps against Tucker.

So being called a possible FBI member, asset is defamatory now?

---

And I wonder who would be footing the bills for Epps legal team. Such a mystery.

---

I'm just trying to figure out WTH Epps legal cause of action would be? I mean he was out in public, knew he was being filmed, likely even heard other people near him speculate that he was a Fed. Showing the videos of him is not defamatory, nor any invasion of privacy. FBI put him on the alert for people wanted for Jan 6th actions before quietly taking it down. Tucker wasn't the only one who noticed that.

So where is the damage to Epps?

---

It's a ruse. Part of a coverup. It's a certainty Epps is not paying whatever legal bills he's generating. Those are being paid by a Soros type or some arm of the Democrat Party. It's just noise to distract the already ignorant and unsuspecting.

Apparently Tucker Carlson had dinner with Rupert Murdoch and his then fiancé (who would've been his 5th wife at 92 years) in late March in which she called him a "messenger from God."

Rupert then dumped her and fired Tucker from his network a month later. pic.twitter.com/lYnb7VABtx

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) April 25, 2023

aggiehawg said:

---

Sarge 91 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Seeing references that Fox's BOD expect a lawsuit from Ray Epps against Tucker.

So being called a possible FBI member, asset is defamatory now?

---

After they rolled over for Dominion now everyone is going to look for a payday.

---

Cannot argue with that. Which is the reason why 99.99% of courthouse step settlements include a NDA with a large liquidated damages clause for the breach of it.

People keep saying Fox had to have the best of the best lawyers. That's likely true but what they fail to recognize is that perhaps those best of the best lawyers had a crappy client that would not let them do their job, in Rupert.*

I have often said I would hate to be Trump's lawyer for just that reason. He's not a good client and will not follow his counsel's advice as much as he should have.

*Blackrock has taken over a 15% stake in Fox. Is Rupert selling? Or is that a hostile takeover being aided by a mentally feeble Rupert? Taking that much market cap off of Fox sure makes for an enticing target to get on the cheap.

---

My theory is that the Murdock son's want their estate a la the Prodigal Son. Carlson's contract was up next year and he would command Hannity money ($45MM per year). Makes it easier to sell without that contract negotiation looming.