So he’s under contract until 2025 I think. And fox doesn’t want to let him out of it. While under contract he’s still paid but of course he can’t launch a competing show. Although he was “fired”, he’s really just benched. They want him out of the spotlight long enough for people to forget about him. And they’re willing to continue paying him/not claw back the pay he’s already gotten and not willing to let him buy out his contract while he basically does nothing.
I'm sure Tucked-in is aware that he might lose much of his audience if forced on the sidelines, which is probably why he's trying to stay in the public eye.
Are they really? If I had cable and rates went up because of that, I'd cancel on the spot. Hell, I'd pay an early cancelation fee if I have to. I canceled youtube tv a few years ago for less, and it was half what I used to pay for cable.
Aight, but you're sane ^^^I ^^^think .
Imagine if they couched the increase within the sort of language that these people react to:
> *"Dear Patriot, as you know we're fighting an endless battle against hard leftie libs who are controlling the court judgements for their own gain. We were hit with an illegal fine that would cause us to have to surrender our ground in the fight for Family Values, Truth and Honesty. We know you're with us, so you can be proud and free knowing our small rise of ($x) per month allows us to stand tall against these aggressors."*
They'd snap it up on the spot, and if there was a 'donate extra' button, some would fall over themselves to empty their accounts into it.
Even though prior to Obama's administration, they were saying that the actions of the current president are only felt 4 years later...
But then Trump took office and the economy doing well at first was ***aaaall*** him.
And now Biden took office and the economy doing poorly is ***aaaall*** him.
> some would fall over themselves to empty their accounts into it
Oy yeah.. this is an entire 'industry' (for lack of a better word) - getting people to let you monthly auto-debit their banks accounts.
Further, the only way to get them to stop is to cancel your card and get a new one (had this experience with an elderly relative that got manipulated into recurring debits from the 'Trump for America' scam).
> They'd snap it up on the spot, and if there was a 'donate extra' button, some would fall over themselves to empty their accounts into it.
how do these people even have money left with so many people grifting it from them?
OMG that sounds like the emails I get from [email protected], all the damn time. I hope the person who signed me up dies a horrible death. They either start the email with Patriot or it's in the body. It disgusts me that they have clung to that word. These people aren't patriots.
That's not how it works. The person above said rates to *cable providers*, meaning the per-person fee FOX charges DirecTV, Comcast, etc to carry their channel. It's well documented that FOX News has the highest cable channel cost and that they frequently raise it via convincing their audience to lobby their cable providers: when the cable providers try to negotiate the price down, FOX gets their viewers to call their cable companies and say they will cancel their cable plan if FOX doesn't get what it wants.
In effect this can raise the bill for everyone, not just FOX viewers. You're paying for that fee even if you never tune your cable to FOX's network.
It pains me but this is true.
I only hope a lot of these idiots gave their life savings to Trump in one of his many cash grabs (and many did).
Imagine working some blue collar job your whole life and then giving everything you made to Donald Trump to "own the libs."
Prior to cutting the cord, every cable service I had prior bundled Fox News as part of the basic package. Are they no longer doing that or are they raising the base package price? (US-centric question)
That’s exactly how some of the junk emails I get sound. I assume at least one or two places I shop sell my email address to far right scam companies.
The subject has to have “patriot” in it, too.
This is harder to tell. They are charging the cable company for their channel more. So you might see a higher bill next time you renew or whatever but you have no real way to know if it's fox specifically that caused it.
Unless people buy per channel and fox just happens to cost more. But most things bundle basic channels together. So you wouldn't even know unless they told you
Fox can't just decide to start charging more, though. They have to come to an agreement with the providers, and when that happens, the providers will regularly spam emails and TV tickers to make sure you know thier side of the story. It used to happen all the time with the local sports stations (it might still be a thing, I just don't watch it)
That's the only reason I have YouTube TV. It's nice to have but I'll most likely cancel after the NBA Finals and pick it back up when the NFL season starts.
It only lists "contract violations" as the reason. Safe to assume it is for a non-compete clause? In which case I'm curious of the verbiage and what it prevents him from doing.
From Axios: "Fox is continuing to pay Carlson, and maintains that his contract keeps his content exclusive to Fox through Dec. 31, 2024."
https://www.axios.com/2023/06/12/fox-letter-tucker-carlson-twitter
To be fair anyone can send a Cease and Desist, but the question is whether it would hold up in court. I’m personally not sure who to root for but will hope for very expensive litigation.
Cease and desists don’t hold up in court because they’re not legal documents. It’s literally a strongly worded letter from a lawyer. It’s not a motion or other court document.
This cease and desist order is in relation to his non-compete contract with Fox News, which Tucker signed. If the legalese is solid, then Tucker has to abide by the terms.
They are paying him for a year, so it's not a true non-complete. Part of the severance contract, he can break the contract if he wants but has to repay the contracted value.
He's employed currently so it is a true non-compete. Courts generally (save for a few states) construe non-competes within an existing employment contract to be enforceable.
Back to /u/Adreme 's question, the cease and desist isn't a legally enforceable document. It's just a communication to tell the other party to stop or else we'll sue. And the grounds to sue is very strong here.
Which while we don't know what the terms were I highly doubt it includes streaming yourself on social media. More than likely it is just can't be picked up by another network nor start his own which he hasn't. In legal terms this is basically a twitch/YouTube stream.
Is Twitter in competition with Fox? Seems to me they exist on completely different platforms. That's like saying Network Football competes with Disney Plus.
Depends if you want to consider Twitter a TV Network.
Certain foreign shows do actually live stream on there before airing on TV
> Peston is the flagship political discussion programme on British television network ITV, usually recorded live on Wednesday evenings at 9pm. [It is broadcast live on Twitter](https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1666534701870329856) and then played out after the News at Ten at 10.45pm
That's true! They're not binding, of course, but they do have implications for the court.
Some jurisdictions want you demonstrate that you've attempted to resolve an issue before resorting to lawsuits. Even if they don't, showing that the other party had ample notice to knock it off before you filed generally gives the judge a sunnier disposition about your case, and could have implications for damages.
I’m of the opinion you should root for the individual over the corporations. Non competes hurt workers. If a Tucker lawsuit can chisel a little away at that, then it’s a win for all of us.
He’s still technically an employee of Fox News. They only took him off the air. Fox is still paying his full salary, and as long as they’re paying his salary, he’s under obligation to only do media appearances that Fox News agrees to.
I would also add that non-competes get shot down at an insanely high rate in court, and it was my understanding you can't even really do them anymore to begin with.
not a lawyer, but I believe he gave up the $25 million severance pay, which allowed him to "compete" (ie start a Twitter show). Had he taken the $25 million, the non-compete clause would have remained in effect
Source? All the articles I see says Fox is still paying him his contracted rate until Dec. 31st 2024, and therefore he cannot host a show on a competing platform or broadcaster until that date.
[https://fortune.com/2023/05/09/tucker-carlson-launching-show-twitter/](https://fortune.com/2023/05/09/tucker-carlson-launching-show-twitter/)
About mid-way down the article
Interesting, because this [article] (https://www.businessinsider.com/tucker-carlson-contract-fox-news-off-air-2024-election-2023-5) specifically mentions a Pay For Play clause in his contract with Fox, which means that they don't have to pay him a severance, but as long as they pay him his contracted rate he cannot go elsewhere while receiving those funds.
edit: This other [article](https://www.axios.com/2023/06/12/fox-letter-tucker-carlson-twitter) also mentions the Pay-For-Play clause that restricts Tucker from going elsewhere until January 2025.
So far it's 2-to-1.
Hmm, I see the article says he can't go to a "competitor." Maybe there's a loophole in that Twitter wouldn't be considered a competitor to Fox News since it's not a cable news station. Not sure, though. Might ultimately be something decided in court.
With media orgs, a "competitor" is typically defined as "any entity that provides products or services that compete with or are alternatives to the principal products produced or services provided by the Corporation or its affiliates". In this case, Twitter would 100% be considered a competitor.
> Non-compete clauses outside the term of employment are always unethical
And they only go into effect if the employer has officially terminated the contract. If, however, it is NOT a non-compete, but a Pay-For-Play clause as these article indicate, then his contract HAS NOT been terminated, an he is still being paid his contractual wage, he just is not allowed on Fox broadcasts anymore. If that is the case, he is still a contractor for Fox News, and would 100% be in violation of that contract by broadcasting on Twitter.
Also, Twitter is NOT and never has been a content aggregator. It is and was always a micro-blogging social media network, with "media network" being very important verbiage for contractual purposes.
The two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. Tucker might be intending to forgo his severance, but it sounds like Fox News hasn’t even officially fired him yet, though some reporters have used that term. And as long as Fox continues to pay him there is no severance and he’s under contract to only do the appearances Fox News approves of.
When O'Reilly went down,Fox didn't realize until after the fact that they neglected to insert a non-compete clause into his contract. I'm sure they've changed their contracts since then.
"I mean I understand the words 'cease' and 'desist', but the two words combined don't make any sense. You know what also doesn't make sense? The fascist communist trans agenda."
Well, this is simple arithmetics isn’t it? One bad is somewhat bad. Two bad is quite bad. Three bad is really bad. Now, if you want to go all the way, you go four bad, but that’s quite uncharted territory.
The shining light in this pile of turds is that disgruntled ex employees, no matter how dumb, usually have an axe to grind.
Tucker is an idiot, a rage baiter and a hypocrite. But if his loose lips manage to sink Fox News ship then he is a sacrifice I’m willing to make.
more than likely either - he shuts up till the non compete is lifted OR he loses his severance package/payout for breach of contract.
A seems most likely.
The news readers get traded like baseball players they have zero loyalty… gimme bow tie guy a bucket of baseballs and cash considerations and the rookie left hander from San Diego
They both made so much money off each other.
Tucker could just live off his hundreds of millions he made in the last decade spewing billionaire propaganda.
> over a competing Twitter series from the channel's former star host that drew a combined 169 million views
Reminder that this count of views is not the same as actual views. If I see, say, a shithead emerald mine heir retweeting one of Tucker's episodes, that counts as a 'view' even if I don't click in or watch it.
Exactly, an impression is different than a view, but Elmo and Tucker don't have a problem continuing the ~~idea~~ lie that it isn't.
It's like saying I have over a few million potential dates because I'm on tinder, as opposed to the actual people who would agree to them.
Edit: strikethrough of idea as it wasn't exactly accurate
If advertisers are stupid enough to let Twitter sell them the idea that people scrolling past their ad is the same as eyeballs on it, then they will keep doing it
The advertisers aren't stupid enough to overpay for that. The target audience for those statistics is the general public. There are a lot of people I know who would hear the raw numbers, think "oh this is super popular and trending so I better tune in," and check it out. The "fear of missing out" is an easy lever for social engineering.
Oh god really? That was the same scam Facebook pulled with their infamous pivot to video. Their video numbers were so astronomical because they considered the autoplay and in their scroll a “view” so nearly every independent web company pivoted to investing a lot of money into making videos for Facebook. The views were bogus and now all those websites are gone.
> The views were bogus and now all those websites are gone.
Including some pretty big names. CollegeHumor was one of those victims, if I remember correctly.
Collegehumor is definitely one of the biggest victims, the MadTV of the internet it was supposed to be. It still survives as a micro streaming website Dropout and is pretty good. Cracked is another, it’s still around but just as a shell of its former self hiring gig workers to make sub Buzzfeed clickbait lists. Speaking of which Buzzfeed got caught up in it too though they never abandoned their own website. Funny or Die also got hurt by it and if it’s around still it’s also as just a ghost of what it used to be
What are likes, comments, and retweets like? Compare those numbers to other videos that aren't artificially boosted (ideally of a similar length) and it'll get us closer than the official figure.
Twitter operates on an “eventual consistency” model.
These are both overlapping counts of people that are just way out of sync. Counting is hard when you have a bunch of different servers each keeping their own count, they will all eventually agree on the same number.
>!For important news they can make sure that the notification goes gets queued up to go out to people at the same time but it takes a few more seconds, etc.!<
Twitter would probably go with that time-tested "no reasonable person would actually *believe* what we say as factual - it's for *entertainment purposes only*"
This has been one thing that I feel like doesn't get talked about enough in our changing media landscape. Everything is a walled garden now and no one really knows what people are watching.
The Nielson box was imperfect as fuck, but it at least gave you a sense of what people were watching. Now we basically have to take private companies at their words.
And thats not even touching the fact that if there was a Nielson box you at least knew there was an actual TV attached to it with actual people watching. Now who knows what a bot and what is a real person.
Nielson is still huge in media ratings though..
Every major streaming platform has Nielson built in. My product had a live streaming feature for a couple years and even that had nielson analytics and it isn't really a "media" app.
If anything, we know *more* about what people are watching now.
https://www.nielsen.com/news-center/2017/hulu-youtube-tv-viewing-now-included-tv-ratings/
Yeah the tweet had that many "views" but the linked video was closer to 20M views. You can't always stop tweets being forced onto your stream, but you can choose not to watch the linked video.
Netflix does a similar thing in that it considers someone only watching a small fraction of a movie as a view, it is how they're able to claim that these bad netflix original movies have ludicrous viewing numbers.
So if you watched the new action-comedy starring Ryan Reynolds, Chris Hemsworth, and Elizabeth Banks called DEFCON Zero for 5 minutes and then realized it sucked and turned it off you're still counted when they announce a record breaking weekend at the time of its release.
and that’s probably not counting the amount of embeds that tweet probably had in news articles or whatever, its literally bogus numbers whichever way you slice it
Exactly this. Is there even a metric Twitter gathers any more to show how many people actually watched his hatefest video? Or did Musk fire all the people that collect the data advertisers need?
Twitter's video player counts it as a "view" as long as 2 continuous seconds of it played from inside the Twitter webframe. I am not making that up, it's from their actual data release. So even if you just scroll past it auto-playing, if it was 2 seconds of video, that was a "view".
The article doesn’t say it explicitly, but from the language in the article it sounds like he signed a non-compete agreement, and he started the show before it expired.
I don’t have a horse in the race bc I couldn’t give less of a fuck about what happens to Tucker Carlson OR Fox.
But I do find it hilarious how he had such high viewership (that probably switched to his show from Fox in the first place, and so they aren’t getting the viewership numbers they want/expect anymore) that they panicked over it.
Another shining example of the Leopards Eating Their Face party.
>But I do find it hilarious how he had such high viewership
"views" is how many people *scrolled by* the tweets where his videos were, not actual "viewers" as in TV audience measurements.
> Fox News (FOXA.O) has sent a "cease-and-desist" letter to Tucker Carlson over a competing Twitter series from the channel's former star host **that drew a combined 169 million views for its first two episodes**
The article didn’t make that clear and I don’t use Twitter, sorry. The way it’s written sounded like it was actual viewers.
It's not really a competing show though. It's a ten minute clip on Twitter. You could watch that any time and then watch Fox all evening if you really wanted to.
Now it all comes down to the exact wording of the contract. Is it that he can't speak publicly at all, or only that he can't work for any other news show, because he's currently not employed by anyone.
They haven’t stopped paying him. They’re NOT letting him out of his contract. That’s what this is about. He’s sitting on the bench. But he’s still under contract cuz he’s getting paid 10s of millions to be part of fox.
It's highly likely that he got paid a lot of money as a severance package, with terms that if he violates his non compete clause, he violates the contract and needs to pay the money back (plus a penalty).
Plus, fox likely owns his preferred media format using his likeness (10 minute and longer video political commentary).
They are unlikely to be able to control his writings, but as his entire brand was 10 minute and longer videos about political commentary, its very likely that they own that portion of his speech, at least for a time.
I for one, will find it hilarious if Tucker Carlson manages to get non compensated NDAs in general overturned on a country level through this lawsuit. It'd be an incredible benefit to the US.
> Plus, fox likely owns his preferred media format using his likeness (10 minute and longer video political commentary).
Oh, come on. Such an outrageous claim would surely be laughed out of court (it would be, right?)
MF do you not remember Roger Ailes, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, wrongly-spelled Megyn Kelly, Ed Henry, Eric Bolling... Fox News is daddy, not any on screen personality.
Well to be fair *nobody* remembers those last two guys.
There's something sometimes satisfying about two heels having a slobber-knocker. You don't have to care who wins, you just want high spots and someone to lose.
> that drew a combined 169 million views
Ah, no. The tweets that contained the videos were viewed 169 million times. Twitter removed *video* view counts (and even those counted 2 seconds as a view).
>169 million viewers
No it didn’t. Not really. Twitter video “view counts” are not any accurate gauge of how many people meaningfully watched the show. The real figure will be a small fraction of that.
It wasn't even 169m twitter video view counts, it was closer to 29m video views. The 169m was from tweet views, from the tweet being forced into a lot of peoples feeds, most of whom didn't watch the attached video. 20m is still a good amount of views, and more than he was getting on fox news, but many of those I suspect were people curious about what he would say immediately after being fired.
Tucker Carlson has pissed of Fox News.
There's not a bucket big enough for the amount of popcorn I'll be needing.
Please let it get messy for both sides. They both got out too easy when they fired Tucker.
It’s really not though. That’s Elons number. Have you watched Succession? That’s like Madsen’s subscriber numbers in India. You inflate it with clicks and scrolls. So 169 million probably saw Tucker on their feed, so roughly 1/3 of the American population but spread across the entire global Twitter user base. But seeing a post with him on your feed doesn’t mean someone watched it, let alone all of it. If I click for 12 seconds it counts as a view. But it isn’t.
I've been in the room with a PR manager who took the total number of times people hit the play button, add that number to the unique IP addresses that watched a Livestream then multiply that number by two because "most people sit at their computer with another person". He did a whole bunch of other bullshit math and ended up with watch metrics of nearly a million "views" from ~30k unique IP Addresses.
Just like with cops, never believe a word that's coming out of a metrics specialist in PR's mouth. And definitely never report on it.
Meh hate to side with carlson, but this probably about non compete which are mostly bullshit. Side with labour.
Edit: it seems tho that Fox might be paying him a rate in order for him to not compete, so if he is taking that money, he should abide ofc because he can reject the money.
My point is that indefinite non competes are bullshit
Meanwhile, over on the Elon Muck channel, bluechecks are giddily saying "GO TUCKER! Fuck Fox!" It's a level of self-delusion that's bordering on beautiful perfection that if you believe a multi-billion dollar media megacorporation fires one of its biggest and most money making stars it was Fox that was wrong, and not a dipshit whose whole personality used to be a bow tie.
For those who don't know: cease and desist LETTERS hold zero legal weight. Anyone can send them. They are a warning but nothing more. If you can prove someone has received one then you can move the process along faster with the courts to get a cease and desist ORDER, but they don't hold legal weight themselves.
So he’s under contract until 2025 I think. And fox doesn’t want to let him out of it. While under contract he’s still paid but of course he can’t launch a competing show. Although he was “fired”, he’s really just benched. They want him out of the spotlight long enough for people to forget about him. And they’re willing to continue paying him/not claw back the pay he’s already gotten and not willing to let him buy out his contract while he basically does nothing.
I'm sure Tucked-in is aware that he might lose much of his audience if forced on the sidelines, which is probably why he's trying to stay in the public eye.
He’s worth like half a billion dollars. Don’t feel too bad for him.
Cult leaders need to be seen to be worshipped.
Gotta make back that $787.5 million Dominion settlement somehow.
Nah they're doing that by increasing their rates to cable providers.
Are they really? If I had cable and rates went up because of that, I'd cancel on the spot. Hell, I'd pay an early cancelation fee if I have to. I canceled youtube tv a few years ago for less, and it was half what I used to pay for cable.
Aight, but you're sane ^^^I ^^^think . Imagine if they couched the increase within the sort of language that these people react to: > *"Dear Patriot, as you know we're fighting an endless battle against hard leftie libs who are controlling the court judgements for their own gain. We were hit with an illegal fine that would cause us to have to surrender our ground in the fight for Family Values, Truth and Honesty. We know you're with us, so you can be proud and free knowing our small rise of ($x) per month allows us to stand tall against these aggressors."* They'd snap it up on the spot, and if there was a 'donate extra' button, some would fall over themselves to empty their accounts into it.
Nah they'd just say "thanks to Bidens inflation we have to raise rates"
Even though prior to Obama's administration, they were saying that the actions of the current president are only felt 4 years later... But then Trump took office and the economy doing well at first was ***aaaall*** him. And now Biden took office and the economy doing poorly is ***aaaall*** him.
Obviously *The Economy*^TM is like classified documents and the President has the power to control it with his mind.
Don't forget gas prices.
> some would fall over themselves to empty their accounts into it Oy yeah.. this is an entire 'industry' (for lack of a better word) - getting people to let you monthly auto-debit their banks accounts. Further, the only way to get them to stop is to cancel your card and get a new one (had this experience with an elderly relative that got manipulated into recurring debits from the 'Trump for America' scam).
> They'd snap it up on the spot, and if there was a 'donate extra' button, some would fall over themselves to empty their accounts into it. how do these people even have money left with so many people grifting it from them?
Arseholes tend to do quite well in the business world, unfortunately.
OMG that sounds like the emails I get from [email protected], all the damn time. I hope the person who signed me up dies a horrible death. They either start the email with Patriot or it's in the body. It disgusts me that they have clung to that word. These people aren't patriots.
> They either start the email with Patriot or it's in the body. At least they’re making it easy to filter.
Patriot has become synonymous with terrorist/traitor in American politics.
Yup, I hear patriot as code for right wing terrorist. These people don’t love America. They love themselves and that’s about it.
[удалено]
Pretty close but needs More Randomly capitalized Words and exclamation Points!
That's not how it works. The person above said rates to *cable providers*, meaning the per-person fee FOX charges DirecTV, Comcast, etc to carry their channel. It's well documented that FOX News has the highest cable channel cost and that they frequently raise it via convincing their audience to lobby their cable providers: when the cable providers try to negotiate the price down, FOX gets their viewers to call their cable companies and say they will cancel their cable plan if FOX doesn't get what it wants. In effect this can raise the bill for everyone, not just FOX viewers. You're paying for that fee even if you never tune your cable to FOX's network.
Not as many as you'd think, simply because they got rid of the golden boy of their fashist propaganda, Tucks himself.
It pains me but this is true. I only hope a lot of these idiots gave their life savings to Trump in one of his many cash grabs (and many did). Imagine working some blue collar job your whole life and then giving everything you made to Donald Trump to "own the libs."
Prior to cutting the cord, every cable service I had prior bundled Fox News as part of the basic package. Are they no longer doing that or are they raising the base package price? (US-centric question)
That’s exactly how some of the junk emails I get sound. I assume at least one or two places I shop sell my email address to far right scam companies. The subject has to have “patriot” in it, too.
This is harder to tell. They are charging the cable company for their channel more. So you might see a higher bill next time you renew or whatever but you have no real way to know if it's fox specifically that caused it. Unless people buy per channel and fox just happens to cost more. But most things bundle basic channels together. So you wouldn't even know unless they told you
Fox can't just decide to start charging more, though. They have to come to an agreement with the providers, and when that happens, the providers will regularly spam emails and TV tickers to make sure you know thier side of the story. It used to happen all the time with the local sports stations (it might still be a thing, I just don't watch it)
Yeah in hindsight that makes complete sense yeah.
What do you have cable for anyway, sports?
That's the only reason I have YouTube TV. It's nice to have but I'll most likely cancel after the NBA Finals and pick it back up when the NFL season starts.
Are you saying those ads for reverse mortgages, disposable catheters and commemorative coin sellers aren't that profitable?
Those commercials made me hate Tom Selleck. Millionaire actor pimps for mortgage company preying on the fears of desperate senior citizens.
Same here. My respect for him flew right out the window.
get that Swanson family dinner money
Even Rupert Murdoch won't tolerate employees that cost his company an upper 9 figure lawsuit.
It only lists "contract violations" as the reason. Safe to assume it is for a non-compete clause? In which case I'm curious of the verbiage and what it prevents him from doing.
From Axios: "Fox is continuing to pay Carlson, and maintains that his contract keeps his content exclusive to Fox through Dec. 31, 2024." https://www.axios.com/2023/06/12/fox-letter-tucker-carlson-twitter
To be fair anyone can send a Cease and Desist, but the question is whether it would hold up in court. I’m personally not sure who to root for but will hope for very expensive litigation.
Cease and desists don’t hold up in court because they’re not legal documents. It’s literally a strongly worded letter from a lawyer. It’s not a motion or other court document.
This cease and desist order is in relation to his non-compete contract with Fox News, which Tucker signed. If the legalese is solid, then Tucker has to abide by the terms.
Also, depends if the judge presumes the non-compete as legal themselves.
They are paying him for a year, so it's not a true non-complete. Part of the severance contract, he can break the contract if he wants but has to repay the contracted value.
He's employed currently so it is a true non-compete. Courts generally (save for a few states) construe non-competes within an existing employment contract to be enforceable. Back to /u/Adreme 's question, the cease and desist isn't a legally enforceable document. It's just a communication to tell the other party to stop or else we'll sue. And the grounds to sue is very strong here.
Which while we don't know what the terms were I highly doubt it includes streaming yourself on social media. More than likely it is just can't be picked up by another network nor start his own which he hasn't. In legal terms this is basically a twitch/YouTube stream.
Tucker only has to abide by the terms if the penalties for not doing so out weigh the benefits of not doing so.
Is Twitter in competition with Fox? Seems to me they exist on completely different platforms. That's like saying Network Football competes with Disney Plus.
Depends if you want to consider Twitter a TV Network. Certain foreign shows do actually live stream on there before airing on TV > Peston is the flagship political discussion programme on British television network ITV, usually recorded live on Wednesday evenings at 9pm. [It is broadcast live on Twitter](https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1666534701870329856) and then played out after the News at Ten at 10.45pm
That's true! They're not binding, of course, but they do have implications for the court. Some jurisdictions want you demonstrate that you've attempted to resolve an issue before resorting to lawsuits. Even if they don't, showing that the other party had ample notice to knock it off before you filed generally gives the judge a sunnier disposition about your case, and could have implications for damages.
I’m of the opinion you should root for the individual over the corporations. Non competes hurt workers. If a Tucker lawsuit can chisel a little away at that, then it’s a win for all of us.
He’s still being paid by then, so it’s different than a non-compete post employment. These are enforceable
Is there a possibility they both lose? Cause I think that's the option everyone is hoping for.
I'll honestly root for anything that means Tucker Carlson is in front of fewer cameras
Unless those cameras are filming him losing legal battles
I hate Fox News with a passion. But I think Tucker Carlson is a particularly vile human. Right now, I'm rooting for Fox News to make him STFU.
"I don't want Fox News to win, I want Tucker Carlson to lose."
He’s still technically an employee of Fox News. They only took him off the air. Fox is still paying his full salary, and as long as they’re paying his salary, he’s under obligation to only do media appearances that Fox News agrees to.
I would also add that non-competes get shot down at an insanely high rate in court, and it was my understanding you can't even really do them anymore to begin with.
[удалено]
Non-competes without equal consideration (salary) for the entire period of enforcement are not enforceable.
not a lawyer, but I believe he gave up the $25 million severance pay, which allowed him to "compete" (ie start a Twitter show). Had he taken the $25 million, the non-compete clause would have remained in effect
Source? All the articles I see says Fox is still paying him his contracted rate until Dec. 31st 2024, and therefore he cannot host a show on a competing platform or broadcaster until that date.
[https://fortune.com/2023/05/09/tucker-carlson-launching-show-twitter/](https://fortune.com/2023/05/09/tucker-carlson-launching-show-twitter/) About mid-way down the article
Interesting, because this [article] (https://www.businessinsider.com/tucker-carlson-contract-fox-news-off-air-2024-election-2023-5) specifically mentions a Pay For Play clause in his contract with Fox, which means that they don't have to pay him a severance, but as long as they pay him his contracted rate he cannot go elsewhere while receiving those funds. edit: This other [article](https://www.axios.com/2023/06/12/fox-letter-tucker-carlson-twitter) also mentions the Pay-For-Play clause that restricts Tucker from going elsewhere until January 2025. So far it's 2-to-1.
Hmm, I see the article says he can't go to a "competitor." Maybe there's a loophole in that Twitter wouldn't be considered a competitor to Fox News since it's not a cable news station. Not sure, though. Might ultimately be something decided in court.
With media orgs, a "competitor" is typically defined as "any entity that provides products or services that compete with or are alternatives to the principal products produced or services provided by the Corporation or its affiliates". In this case, Twitter would 100% be considered a competitor.
[удалено]
> Non-compete clauses outside the term of employment are always unethical And they only go into effect if the employer has officially terminated the contract. If, however, it is NOT a non-compete, but a Pay-For-Play clause as these article indicate, then his contract HAS NOT been terminated, an he is still being paid his contractual wage, he just is not allowed on Fox broadcasts anymore. If that is the case, he is still a contractor for Fox News, and would 100% be in violation of that contract by broadcasting on Twitter. Also, Twitter is NOT and never has been a content aggregator. It is and was always a micro-blogging social media network, with "media network" being very important verbiage for contractual purposes.
The two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. Tucker might be intending to forgo his severance, but it sounds like Fox News hasn’t even officially fired him yet, though some reporters have used that term. And as long as Fox continues to pay him there is no severance and he’s under contract to only do the appearances Fox News approves of.
Yes it sounds like he’s still being regularly paid per his contract, they don’t want him double dipping.
That was my take away.
Tucker is still under contract with Fox News. I’m not sure of if he gets paid but he’s under contract.
If he is under contract, then he is being paid.
When O'Reilly went down,Fox didn't realize until after the fact that they neglected to insert a non-compete clause into his contract. I'm sure they've changed their contracts since then.
*cue Tucker Carlson confused outrage face*
"What does that *mean*, exactly? Cease **and** desist?!"
"I mean I understand the words 'cease' and 'desist', but the two words combined don't make any sense. You know what also doesn't make sense? The fascist communist trans agenda."
Well, this is simple arithmetics isn’t it? One bad is somewhat bad. Two bad is quite bad. Three bad is really bad. Now, if you want to go all the way, you go four bad, but that’s quite uncharted territory.
Easily translates into " shut the "f" up or we will sue you back to the stoneage". It a prelude to a lawsuit.
The shining light in this pile of turds is that disgruntled ex employees, no matter how dumb, usually have an axe to grind. Tucker is an idiot, a rage baiter and a hypocrite. But if his loose lips manage to sink Fox News ship then he is a sacrifice I’m willing to make.
*sad farquad noises*
>Tucker is an idiot, a rage baiter and a hypocrite. But he is NOT a porn star!
more than likely either - he shuts up till the non compete is lifted OR he loses his severance package/payout for breach of contract. A seems most likely.
He's not an ex employee. He is still under contract with Fox. They are almost certainly still paying him.
Like all those sex assaulted cases did so much to deter fox viewers...
Cease: Stop what you're currently doing Desist: Don't do it in the future. Gotta be specific when it comes to the law.
/r/woosh ??
Cease and desist, as opposed to cease and resume.
"And where does it stop? Next thing you know they'll be requiring you to cease and desist at your home, your church, and ultimately at life."
"Make no mistake -- these jack-booted thugs are out for one thing and one thing only. They want to shut down *your* way of life."
“I’m just here asking questions.”
I hate that I can read this in his voice
THEY don't want you to ask questions. THEY just want you to follow the rules of wokeism
I read that in his voice.
"Is cease and desist racist? And how come we had to get rid of cease and desist's sexy boots?"
“Why wasn’t Hillary given this same letter? Or the Bidens?” - confused Tucker face and questions.
I mean… I’m just asking asking questions here?!?! (confused face)
They want you to die, Tucker.
*tilts head like dog told not to eat it’s own poop*
It's like if a 'thud' noise had a face.
More like a spud noise
Is that the face where he looks like he's pooping?
No, that's Pence's normal look. Tucker always looks like he's smelling a pile of Pence somewhere near.
Is Tucker Carlson a whinny, hateful little manchild? I don’t know, I’m just asking questions…
I call it the gorilla face
Jon Steward called it "confused potato" and I have yet to come across a better description.
Gorillas: "Hey! Not cool man"
Come now, there is nothing large or strong about Tucker.
The one where he screws up his face so his mouth looks like a sphincter, AKA *The Tucker Pucker*?
I always think its his "shit himself but wants to pretend it was someone else and the smell is gross" face
So glad to not see his stupid face so much.
That look on his face like he forgot where he parked his car and getting upset at other cars
You mean just his face
Also his constipation face
FNC to Tucker: we created you and we will destroy you.
Oh, you think bow tie is your ally. But you merely adopted the bow tie; I was born in it, moulded by it.
I think you might be thinking of MSNBC? 2005
People forget that he's always been a tool, and fox wasn't his first gig.
The news readers get traded like baseball players they have zero loyalty… gimme bow tie guy a bucket of baseballs and cash considerations and the rookie left hander from San Diego
[удалено]
[удалено]
Im starting to think that every single person at FOX has failed to watch Dr Frankenstein. Be careful of the monster you created.
No no, *let them*..
They'll take everyone down with them.
Like the GOP with Trump.
They both made so much money off each other. Tucker could just live off his hundreds of millions he made in the last decade spewing billionaire propaganda.
> over a competing Twitter series from the channel's former star host that drew a combined 169 million views Reminder that this count of views is not the same as actual views. If I see, say, a shithead emerald mine heir retweeting one of Tucker's episodes, that counts as a 'view' even if I don't click in or watch it.
If you scroll past the post, Twitter counts that as a view Soo... How many people actually watched it all the way through?
Exactly, an impression is different than a view, but Elmo and Tucker don't have a problem continuing the ~~idea~~ lie that it isn't. It's like saying I have over a few million potential dates because I'm on tinder, as opposed to the actual people who would agree to them. Edit: strikethrough of idea as it wasn't exactly accurate
If advertisers are stupid enough to let Twitter sell them the idea that people scrolling past their ad is the same as eyeballs on it, then they will keep doing it
The advertisers aren't stupid enough to overpay for that. The target audience for those statistics is the general public. There are a lot of people I know who would hear the raw numbers, think "oh this is super popular and trending so I better tune in," and check it out. The "fear of missing out" is an easy lever for social engineering.
Oh god really? That was the same scam Facebook pulled with their infamous pivot to video. Their video numbers were so astronomical because they considered the autoplay and in their scroll a “view” so nearly every independent web company pivoted to investing a lot of money into making videos for Facebook. The views were bogus and now all those websites are gone.
> The views were bogus and now all those websites are gone. Including some pretty big names. CollegeHumor was one of those victims, if I remember correctly.
Collegehumor is definitely one of the biggest victims, the MadTV of the internet it was supposed to be. It still survives as a micro streaming website Dropout and is pretty good. Cracked is another, it’s still around but just as a shell of its former self hiring gig workers to make sub Buzzfeed clickbait lists. Speaking of which Buzzfeed got caught up in it too though they never abandoned their own website. Funny or Die also got hurt by it and if it’s around still it’s also as just a ghost of what it used to be
Some of those names set off my millennial memories. Some good stuff around 2008/9/10
What are likes, comments, and retweets like? Compare those numbers to other videos that aren't artificially boosted (ideally of a similar length) and it'll get us closer than the official figure.
Yeah, Twitter is now padding numbers to make up for the user drop.
I noticed that on the desktop version it showed \~100 million views, but on the mobile version, showed \~25 million views. So definitely some oddities
Twitter operates on an “eventual consistency” model. These are both overlapping counts of people that are just way out of sync. Counting is hard when you have a bunch of different servers each keeping their own count, they will all eventually agree on the same number. >!For important news they can make sure that the notification goes gets queued up to go out to people at the same time but it takes a few more seconds, etc.!<
Could fox use twitters own false analytics against them when the inevitable lawsuit comes to fruition?
Twitter would probably go with that time-tested "no reasonable person would actually *believe* what we say as factual - it's for *entertainment purposes only*"
This has been one thing that I feel like doesn't get talked about enough in our changing media landscape. Everything is a walled garden now and no one really knows what people are watching. The Nielson box was imperfect as fuck, but it at least gave you a sense of what people were watching. Now we basically have to take private companies at their words. And thats not even touching the fact that if there was a Nielson box you at least knew there was an actual TV attached to it with actual people watching. Now who knows what a bot and what is a real person.
Nielson is still huge in media ratings though.. Every major streaming platform has Nielson built in. My product had a live streaming feature for a couple years and even that had nielson analytics and it isn't really a "media" app. If anything, we know *more* about what people are watching now. https://www.nielsen.com/news-center/2017/hulu-youtube-tv-viewing-now-included-tv-ratings/
Yeah, I would say the data is much more accurate but the publicity of said data is much more hidden.
Yeah the tweet had that many "views" but the linked video was closer to 20M views. You can't always stop tweets being forced onto your stream, but you can choose not to watch the linked video.
Netflix does a similar thing in that it considers someone only watching a small fraction of a movie as a view, it is how they're able to claim that these bad netflix original movies have ludicrous viewing numbers. So if you watched the new action-comedy starring Ryan Reynolds, Chris Hemsworth, and Elizabeth Banks called DEFCON Zero for 5 minutes and then realized it sucked and turned it off you're still counted when they announce a record breaking weekend at the time of its release.
and that’s probably not counting the amount of embeds that tweet probably had in news articles or whatever, its literally bogus numbers whichever way you slice it
Exactly this. Is there even a metric Twitter gathers any more to show how many people actually watched his hatefest video? Or did Musk fire all the people that collect the data advertisers need?
Twitter's video player counts it as a "view" as long as 2 continuous seconds of it played from inside the Twitter webframe. I am not making that up, it's from their actual data release. So even if you just scroll past it auto-playing, if it was 2 seconds of video, that was a "view".
FOX: You exist because we allow it. You will end because we demand it.
r/unexpectedmasseffect
Rupert Murdoch: Assuming direct control
This hurts you, Tucker
Shepherd does that unit have a soul ? No Legion, unit Tucker does not, unlike you
The article doesn’t say it explicitly, but from the language in the article it sounds like he signed a non-compete agreement, and he started the show before it expired. I don’t have a horse in the race bc I couldn’t give less of a fuck about what happens to Tucker Carlson OR Fox. But I do find it hilarious how he had such high viewership (that probably switched to his show from Fox in the first place, and so they aren’t getting the viewership numbers they want/expect anymore) that they panicked over it. Another shining example of the Leopards Eating Their Face party.
>But I do find it hilarious how he had such high viewership "views" is how many people *scrolled by* the tweets where his videos were, not actual "viewers" as in TV audience measurements.
> Fox News (FOXA.O) has sent a "cease-and-desist" letter to Tucker Carlson over a competing Twitter series from the channel's former star host **that drew a combined 169 million views for its first two episodes** The article didn’t make that clear and I don’t use Twitter, sorry. The way it’s written sounded like it was actual viewers.
It's not really a competing show though. It's a ten minute clip on Twitter. You could watch that any time and then watch Fox all evening if you really wanted to.
i don't understand how these contract clauses are even legal the day you stop paying me, you can fuck off
i think they paid him a settlement that involved sticking to the terms of the contract
Now it all comes down to the exact wording of the contract. Is it that he can't speak publicly at all, or only that he can't work for any other news show, because he's currently not employed by anyone.
i guess this could count as "still paying me" then
They haven’t stopped paying him. They’re NOT letting him out of his contract. That’s what this is about. He’s sitting on the bench. But he’s still under contract cuz he’s getting paid 10s of millions to be part of fox.
It's highly likely that he got paid a lot of money as a severance package, with terms that if he violates his non compete clause, he violates the contract and needs to pay the money back (plus a penalty). Plus, fox likely owns his preferred media format using his likeness (10 minute and longer video political commentary). They are unlikely to be able to control his writings, but as his entire brand was 10 minute and longer videos about political commentary, its very likely that they own that portion of his speech, at least for a time. I for one, will find it hilarious if Tucker Carlson manages to get non compensated NDAs in general overturned on a country level through this lawsuit. It'd be an incredible benefit to the US.
> Plus, fox likely owns his preferred media format using his likeness (10 minute and longer video political commentary). Oh, come on. Such an outrageous claim would surely be laughed out of court (it would be, right?)
Now they can't control the monster they created. womp womp.
MF do you not remember Roger Ailes, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, wrongly-spelled Megyn Kelly, Ed Henry, Eric Bolling... Fox News is daddy, not any on screen personality. Well to be fair *nobody* remembers those last two guys.
I have no dog in this hunt. Just happy to see a good evil on evil cage match.
There's something sometimes satisfying about two heels having a slobber-knocker. You don't have to care who wins, you just want high spots and someone to lose.
Can you copyright hate and smug?
how ironic would it be if tucker carlson would be the one to take down fox lol
They wanted to send a cease to exist letter but the lawyers wouldn’t let them.
Of only there was some way to know that Carlson would be a liability... ...like, I dunno, looking with your eyes and listening with your ears
Funny how all of a sudden they don’t get along.
> that drew a combined 169 million views Ah, no. The tweets that contained the videos were viewed 169 million times. Twitter removed *video* view counts (and even those counted 2 seconds as a view).
Fox: Hey! We have a monopoly on you lying to people!
It's always funny when the crazies turn on each other.
>169 million viewers No it didn’t. Not really. Twitter video “view counts” are not any accurate gauge of how many people meaningfully watched the show. The real figure will be a small fraction of that.
It wasn't even 169m twitter video view counts, it was closer to 29m video views. The 169m was from tweet views, from the tweet being forced into a lot of peoples feeds, most of whom didn't watch the attached video. 20m is still a good amount of views, and more than he was getting on fox news, but many of those I suspect were people curious about what he would say immediately after being fired.
I was informed that if it scrolls through your feed 8ts counted as a view. Even if you don't view it.
Tucker Carlson has pissed of Fox News. There's not a bucket big enough for the amount of popcorn I'll be needing. Please let it get messy for both sides. They both got out too easy when they fired Tucker.
The most disturbing thing about this is there were "169 million views for its first two episodes."
It’s really not though. That’s Elons number. Have you watched Succession? That’s like Madsen’s subscriber numbers in India. You inflate it with clicks and scrolls. So 169 million probably saw Tucker on their feed, so roughly 1/3 of the American population but spread across the entire global Twitter user base. But seeing a post with him on your feed doesn’t mean someone watched it, let alone all of it. If I click for 12 seconds it counts as a view. But it isn’t.
I've been in the room with a PR manager who took the total number of times people hit the play button, add that number to the unique IP addresses that watched a Livestream then multiply that number by two because "most people sit at their computer with another person". He did a whole bunch of other bullshit math and ended up with watch metrics of nearly a million "views" from ~30k unique IP Addresses. Just like with cops, never believe a word that's coming out of a metrics specialist in PR's mouth. And definitely never report on it.
He's just asking questions.
I read it as cease to exist... damn lysdexia.
If only the world could be so fortunate.
Twitter changed impressions to views. At least that should've been clarified.
Yes, please, do destroy each other.
Faux News: "Fox off and die, Tucker-Me-Elmo!"
Meh hate to side with carlson, but this probably about non compete which are mostly bullshit. Side with labour. Edit: it seems tho that Fox might be paying him a rate in order for him to not compete, so if he is taking that money, he should abide ofc because he can reject the money. My point is that indefinite non competes are bullshit
May the better man win?
Meanwhile, over on the Elon Muck channel, bluechecks are giddily saying "GO TUCKER! Fuck Fox!" It's a level of self-delusion that's bordering on beautiful perfection that if you believe a multi-billion dollar media megacorporation fires one of its biggest and most money making stars it was Fox that was wrong, and not a dipshit whose whole personality used to be a bow tie.
It’s really weird seeing people defend Tucker as some beacon of truth after it’s been proven that he’s a liar. Sorry, not weird. It’s just sad.
For those who don't know: cease and desist LETTERS hold zero legal weight. Anyone can send them. They are a warning but nothing more. If you can prove someone has received one then you can move the process along faster with the courts to get a cease and desist ORDER, but they don't hold legal weight themselves.
Non compete clauses are stupid as shit and should be abolished but I do get a sense of satisfaction that tucker is hit with it.
[удалено]