That's just not a good argument. Pineapple on pizza can be one of the most popular toppings but still niche and controversial. Right wing media is relatively consolidated: there's one major cable channel that markets to their interests, and they have room for ~one opinion show in a daily primetime slot. Obviously whatever goes in that slot is going to be hugely popular.

Or to put it more boring, mathematical terms, the mode is not the same as the median. Even if somehow one in three people were huge fans of Carlson, that would still count as relatively niche - and strongly controversial - because that would be the 1/3 most hard right of the US population.

> Even if somehow one in three people were huge fans...

This definition would make eating pizza itself a niche thing, topping or otherwise. 33% of the population is mainstream and it isn't an option to claim otherwise. Less popular? Yes. Fringe? No. Fringe is something like Linux on the desktop at sub-1% of the market. It is not feasible to ignore or marginalise 1 person in 3.

I'm certainly impressed by the position that the most popular show is the fringe one. In theory it is possible, but practically that is a hard sell.

Not mainstream, but not fringe; he's popular on Cable but not popular overall, especially in a world where people under 50 don't even watch cable news. If you combine with the lack of integrity and the personal toxicity, he locks himself in that small category. Everyone in the US knew Rush Limbaugh but he didn't get GM sponsorships.

Controversial, sure.

So do you want to cut your customers who like pineapple pizza or your customers who don't like pineapple pizza?

Or... Maybe neither and sell to everyone?

I didn't argue that Carlson should or should not be cut. I argued that Carlson being niche and controversial was compatible with also being one of the most popular television shows.

He’s no where close to “one of the most popular television shows”.

He was one of the most popular cable, non-sports shows (his show and The Five, also on Fox News, swapped to the top spot back and forth recently), but cable-specific shows other than sports are (individually) niche.

That's fine. I'm responding to people who are making an argument along the lines of "Carlson had one of the most popular television shows, therefore he is not niche or controversial". My point is that this is pure non sequitur. The consequent does not follow from the antecedent.

If it turns out that Carlson's popularity is so tenuous that the truth of the antecedent in the argument is doubtful, that's great. But the argument is completely bogus regardless.

Yes, and the 'most watched cable show' just isn't that big.

Radio personalities in 1950 used to get 50 million listeners nightly.

In the 1970's almost everyone watched 'Walter Cronkite'

And as 'old timey' as it seems, 'Network TV' is still much bigger than Cable.

He's the king of a very, very wide field and it's still a narrow audience, and a much more narrow core.

Throw in the negative public bits and the toxic behind the scenes bits and that leaves out a lot of brands.

I can't really see any major brand buying in - not really even a beer or a truck, because there are other parts of the product line they have to protect.

Cars, drugs, consumer apparel, electronics, gas, retail, energy, entertainment, internet/mobile ... seriously which brand is going to go with him? Probably not even Under Armour.

And by the way, in the US advertisers have incredibly influence, and the 'Pillow Guy' who was a major advertiser pulled Tucker into saying things he wouldn't have otherwise said in terms of coverage - which is a serious credibility problem.

I think Tucker is going to be the new Rush Limbaugh - big audience, nice paycheque, influential, but not really mainstream.

My mistake. There are bigger examples 60 and 80 years ago.

He had a big piece of a small pie. Cable TV is peanuts for advertisers. It is a dwindling market, and even being thoroughly dominating in is not relevant if it means you'll lose out in more relevant markets (such as FB or YT advertising).

Fox earns exorbitant carriage fees from cable companies because they are one of the most watched among the demos that still cling to cable TV. They could practically run their business without ads and still stay afloat. Tucker will be 100% dependent on ads. And the advertisers will have to be willing to directly associate with his brand. More likely he'll have a small number of dedicated sponsors from ideological partners.

https://www.mediamatters.org/murdoch-family/fox-news-wants-m...

My goodness, how big are your peanuts?

Television advertising is a bit less than half the size of internet advertising.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183704