From Yid with Lid:

According to Mediaite, examining the ratings of Fox News primetime shows an average loss of one million viewers per night since firing Tucker Carlson on April 24.

Epoch Times provides the numbers.

In the four weeks before Carlson left the network, Fox News' primetime hours averaged some 2.6 million total viewers. But in the four weeks after his departure, those hours are down to just 1.6 million viewers.

...( a Fox News spokesperson responded to the Carlson-linked drop in primetime ratings, saying that the network is still the No. 1 cable news channel.

Yid With Lid points out that advertisers don't pay based on whether you're number one or two or five or fifty. They pay based on number of viewers.

He also points out that most advertising space is sold with a guarantee of the minimum number of viewers that will see the ad. If that guaranteed level is not met, the network has to give the advertiser what I think are called "make-ups" -- free ads to make up for the failure to meet the guaranteed number of viewers for the paid ad. And obviously, if that ad time slot is being given away for free as a make-up, it can't be sold.

Yid also links this:

Fox News employees have told me privately that all on-air talent have been banned from saying the name "Tucker" on air.

Related: A couple of weeks ago I guessed that when Megyn Kelly was talking about "slashies," she meant this kind of make-up advertising. I was wrong. She later said that when a program is so low-rated that its actual rating cannot be established -- like when it's below 0.1, maybe -- its ratings are listed as two slashes. //, I guess. Thus, "slashies" means an especially low-rated show.

I think she referred to Chris Wallace as someone whose ratings are "slashies."

Is his show literally in the "slashies" range or was she just exaggerating? I'm not sure, but it seems possible his ratings are indeed too low to measure.

New timeslot, same outcome. CNN's attempt to move Chris Wallace to a new timeslot to garnish viewers failed as his latest Friday night ratings came in dead last among his competitors, RadarOnline.com has learned.
Article continues below advertisement

Who's Talking to Chris Wallace? had already suffered drastically low numbers after its first two seasons, leaving the network's boss, Chris Licht, to change his airtime in hopes the veteran host would attract a new audience.

Wallace's 10 PM ET Friday, May 5, failed to deliver and was worse than the week before.

According to Nielsen, CNN's Who's Talking to Chris Wallace? came in last place among both categories, losing to FOX News channel's The Ingraham Angle by roughly 300%.

I think Chris Licht is going to be fired. I think that because even a craven, cringing Soyboy Beta Cvck like Oliver Darcy doesn't seem to fear Chris Licht.

This old article, from March 13th, predicted that Licht would be gone by Labor Day.

I think that's even more likely now.

CNN boss Chris Licht will allegedly be gone from the struggling news network by Labor Day, RadarOnline.com has learned.

,,,

Even more surprising are reports that Licht's allegedly imminent departure is a result of "frustrations" over the fact the 51-year-old newsman and producer is "scarcely more familiar" with CNN and its staff than he was when he took over for Jeff Zucker last year.

"He's constantly with an entourage," one network source told Page Six on Monday. "You see him rush by with his lackeys, but he doesn't stop to talk with us regular folk. It's like he's scared of us."

...

"He hates the job and can't do it," added another CNN insider, claiming the "consensus at CNN HQ" is that Licht's "days are already numbered."

As RadarOnline.com previously reported, Licht's nearly 12 months at CNN has resulted in countless shakeups, firings, and poor ratings despite his vision to save the struggling news network.