Moutin has a valid point, IMO.
Before we cut the sat TV, we noticed that FNC had *moderated* their tone on the administration. It was around the same time that Beck revealed he had been *approached* by a Soros minion and told to give it up, since they had already *won*.
There have been countless anecdotes over the past several years of various media outlets being warned. zer0 himself takes the time to let Governors know he has read their books and isn’t pleased at how they portrayed their interactions with him. When Beck was on FNC, various NGOs spent a lot of time and money trying to intimidate him out of his job. Why would the TPTB stop at attempting to control one single presenter?
We are all free to get our information where we wish, for the time being. But, it is difficult to not notice that all the mainstream outlets are circumspect and that the *news* becomes more bland by the week. Not only that, but where they do employ a conservative from time to time, in the end, the outlet owns the archival material and can suppress it at will. Eventually, things go down the memory hole and everyone forgets the hard-hitting moments. Beck now owns all his material, he makes it available and he stands in public on his past statements.
Where is that evident anywhere else?
Roger Ailes put Glenn Beck on his network and fought to keep him on even when affiliates were scared off by harassed advertisers and (no doubt) the White House leaned. The show was is a ratings free-fall as Beck got weirder by the day.
I don't know why it isn't enough for Beck to state publicly that WH intimidation had NOTHING to do with his cancelation. Just like it had nothing to do with the cancelation of Rush's TV show after many affiliates dumped it into 3:00am and 4:00am time slots.