With the firing, then death, of Roger Ailes, the departure of Bill O’Reilly, and the swirling rumors about Sean Hannity either leaving or being fired at Fox News, many conservatives flippantly insist that any one (or combination) of these and other conservative entertainers/news people could “start their own network.” It’s certainly possible that the right combination of entertainers and capitalists could buy an existing structure and form it into a network—itself a mammoth undertaking, but not impossible—but start one from scratch?
It’s worth the time to recall how Fox News got to where it is today. In 1986 20th Century Fox television began operations, first with a Joan Rivers late night show (a failed undertaking that got her permanently banned from Johnny Carson’s Tonight Show), then in 1987, with “Married . . . With Children” and “The Tracey Ullman Show,” then added a show a week on Sundays only.
It gradually expanded its lineup and then added Mondays with “The Simpsons,” which remains the longest running sitcom in television (27 years). Fox Television fought its way into competition with the “Big Three” for entertainment value by the early 1990s. In 1996, Rupert Murdoch founded Fox News Channel (FNC) and appointed Roger Ailes as the CEO, with its ratings surpassing those of rival CNN in 2002. Bill O’Reilly’s show, first called “The O’Reillly Report,” then changed to “The O’Reilly Factor” was also started in 1996, along with “Your World With Neil Cavuto” and “Hannity & Colmes.” Murdoch, meanwhile, had acquired a significant interest in Fox in 1985. In 2013, FNC was split off from 21st Century Fox entertainment, including 20th Century Fox Television.
Currently, the stock repurchase price of 21st Century Fox is $4.96 billion. That’s with a “b.” The company’s revenues have shrunk from $31.8 billion in 2014 to $27.6 billion in 2016. Of that, the films account for 31% of the income—down from 33% in 2015—and television (including FNC) yields $5.1 billion in revenues (up from $4.89 in 2015). Television, while seeing more revenue, has witnessed its share of the company’s overall revenue fall from 19% in 2015 to 17%, mostly due to affiliate fees. Sports can be a money maker if Fox carries the Super Bowl, but the NFL keeps raising its rates too. Still, there appears to be no good news on the horizon. In December 2014, the company’s stock stood at $37.32 per share, compared to today’s price of around $24. Both the net sales and net income through the first three months of 2017 are down (5.7% and 3.9%, respectively. Meanwhile, despite a huge hit with “Deadpool” (over $280 million), Fox’s film revenues declined by $1 billion in 2016, producing fewer blockbusters than 2015.
The film industry, as everyone knows, is somewhere between a slow descent and a death spiral. Hollywood execs measure their tenure in months instead of decades. Studio wizards who had presided over a string of hits are now fired for a single pending bad quarter. The latest blockbuster to tank appears to be Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson’s “Baywatch,” and despite a few tentpole super-hero/spandex movies, it’s entirely likely that at least one major studio could leave the scene in the next year. In short, for FNC, it will not be possible for even a committed conservative leadership (which the company doesn’t have) to subsidize a conservative news organization the way Jeff Bezos can prop up the Washington Post with Amazon millions, or Carlos Slim can keep the struggling New York Times on life support with outside cash. A thriving Hollywood, with the right leadership, could have provided a nice buffer for FNC. No more.
What does all this mean for the Hannity, and FNC? First, while television revenues are up, sports remains a key driver. And since overall the television affiliate continues to lose its share of revenues, FNC has a problem. The Murdoch boys can play it safe and hold fast to the conservative audience that built Fox News, but this would require them to suppress their Inner Liberal (as well as that of their wives). If one lives inside the LA/NY/DC bubble, and thinks Donald Trump and his supporters are toxic, it might appear on the surface that shifting leftward would be a good business move. Again, though, that requires that one live in the bubble. Fox’s only chance to avoid irrelevance is to tack much harder to the right, not only keeping Hannity, but recruiting strong Trump defenders such as Laura Ingraham, or witty iconoclasts such as Mark Steyn.
That is, of course, if one is approaching FNC’s problems through a business eye. It’s unlikely that’s the case with the Murdoch boys, who seem intent on virtue-signaling to the Hollywood and New York elites. In such a case, falling revenues are less important than rising social status.
And as for that “new network?” The history of Fox shows that it was carefully planned, with FNC only “arriving” some 17 years after launch of the network itself. Most of all, Fox’s history shows that from the outset its leadership understood the core value of entertainment. However informative Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck are, the entertainment value of watching someone do a live radio show on television rates down there with “The Great Octopus Cookoff” and “Recycling Kings.” And entertainment ain’t cheap. Any new competitor must be phenomenally well-capitalized (in the billions), have a clear business plan that focuses on entertainment value first, and which is in it for the long haul—at least five years before seeing success. Right now, few such billionaires with a conservative vision are raising their hands.
Bypass Tech Censorship!
Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
OUT OUT OUT: Study Shows That Each Illegal Alien is Up to a $6,500-Per-Year Burden for the U.S. Taxpayer
The cost of illegal immigration is massive.
A ground-breaking new study has shown that illegal immigrants cost the U.S. taxpayer approximately $6,500 per year by soaking up welfare cash and other government benefits after they break the law to enter the country.
The study, commissioned by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), showed that that small states are particularly burdened by the illegals, and the money and services are going to aliens instead of veterans, children, and the disabled.
FAIR surveyed ten small states and determined that illegal immigration cost them an average of $454 million per year.
“To put that figure into context, that $454 million expenditure is more than 200 times what the state of Montana budgets for its entire Veterans Affairs program, and it is 2.5 times the total sum that West Virginia invests in its state university,” the report states.
Dan Stein, president of FAIR, notes that the native populations of these small states are getting squeezed the most by the burden caused by illegal immigrants. These individuals are essentially being replaced as a once-great nation transforms into a globalist economic zone.
“In many ways, the influx of immigrants into less populous areas of the country has an even greater impact on long-time residents than it does in larger and more urban areas,” Stein said.
“These areas have neither the tax base, nor the economic and social infrastructure to accommodate the needs of the growing numbers of immigrants taking up residence,” he added.
The FAIR study, Small Migrant Populations, Huge Impacts, analyzed Alaska, West Virginia, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Montana, Mississippi, North Dakota and Maine to discover their startling conclusions regarding the costs of illegal immigration.
“Many local officials tout immigration, including illegal immigration, as a remedy to economic stagnation. However, as this report reveals, the reality is precisely the opposite,” Stein said.
“Illegal immigration, in particular, drives down wages and inhibits job opportunities for legal residents, while bringing more low-skilled, low-wage workers to these states. In turn, this increases costs to state and local governments, and discourages investment by businesses seeking a skilled labor force and lower overhead,” he added.
FAIR released the following video to accompany their newly released study:
“This report highlights the fact that the adverse effects of unchecked mass immigration, combined with an immigration selection process that does not choose people based on individual merit, job skills and education, are now being felt in all parts of the country,” Stein explained.
“Americans, in every part of the nation, are being affected by antiquated and unenforced immigration policies, which is why it is at the top of the list of voter concerns heading into the 2020 elections,” he added.
Trending on BLP
Politics3 days ago
More Americans Now Identify as Republicans Than They Do As Democrats
Border Security3 days ago
President Trump Debunks Fake News Claims of Border Wall Collapse
Hollywood2 days ago
HMM: Actress Rosario Dawson Comes Out as Lesbian Just One Month After She ‘Dated’ Cory Booker
Deep State3 days ago
Alan Dershowitz: George Soros Personally Requested FBI Investigations During Obama Presidency
Fake News Media4 days ago
CNN Host Admits He Was “Snookered” By Avenatti After Felony Extortion Conviction
Sports4 days ago
WATCH: President Trump Kicks off Daytona 500 After Taking Lap In Presidential Limousine
News4 days ago
Bernie Sanders Supporter Out on Bail After Trying to Torch Republican Office in California
Campaign 20203 days ago
Bloomberg Takes Lead in New National Democratic Primary Poll
Around The World3 days ago
At Least 40 Americans Infected With Coronavirus Aboard Quarantined Cruise Ship
The Swamp4 days ago
1,100 Liberal Prosecutors, Bureaucrats, Demand Bill Barr’s Resignation from DOJ
Campaign 20203 days ago
WEAK: Bernie Sanders Allows Nevada Rally to be Overrun by Deranged Anti-Dairy Activists
News2 days ago
Boy Scouts File for Bankruptcy as a Result of Declining Membership and Sexual Abuse Lawsuits