BLOG

With Bill O'Reilly Gone, It's the Beginning of the End of Fox News as We Know It

Like him or not, Roger Ailes built a ship at Fox News that could not to be sunk. Rupert Murdoch was part of that, but his children and wives hate Fox News.

"They are embarrassed by the Fox News Channel. They're not conservatives by any stretch of the imagination. And the big thing when I was there was, as soon as Rupert is gone, the kids are going to take over Fox News and they're just going to clean house and stop this nonsense," Glenn said Wednesday on radio.

RELATED: Proof That Liberals Are Working to Remove Bill O’Reilly From Fox News

He also referred to Roger Ailes as a giant bear in the doorway that didn't let anything disrupt it.

"Without Fox News, we probably would not be here today, as a nation. I truly believe that. Without Fox News, I don't know if we would have weathered the storm of the economic crash, if we would have weathered the storm of 9/11," Glenn said.

RELATED: O’Reilly Antagonist Vows to Treat Him Like Glenn Beck

Now that Roger Ailes is out and Rupert Murdoch has become weakened, what impact would Bill O'Reilly's departure have?

"You better make a decision, America. Because you're about to lose a big conservative ally and voice. And it's not just Bill O'Reilly. I'm telling you, Sean Hannity will be next. Then Tucker Carlson will be next. Until everyone complies with what they say is not misinformation, they will continue to go. And once you have the big bear of Fox News out of the way, then they come for TheBlaze. Then they come for The Daily Wire. Then they come for all of us," Glenn said.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: All right. So I want to talk to you about something. I'm going to go into greater detail than I think I've ever gone into on a story on our leaving Fox News. And I'm going to do it for a reason today.

And let me just tell you what the media will say or what Media Matters will pump out to all of their friends, is that Glenn's empire is crumbling. He's just trying to get attention. He's jockeying for a position at Fox. Whatever. Okay.

I'm going to tell you the truth because I believe you have about 24 hours here before the conservative media dramatically changes. And you are going to lose a very important ally in the fight, even though you might not agree with the Fox News Channel.

As you know, no love lost between me and Fox News. And some of the players on Fox News. However, you better stand up now and figure out what's really happening with this O'Reilly thing, or you're going to lose Fox News. And I'll explain exactly how it's going to happen.

In the old days, when I was there, the -- the lineup was a really important piece. And I mean the lineup, not on the air. Off the air. The second floor. It was a well-crafted machine. And what that machine did was honestly not necessarily protect the Constitution and constitutional values. That machine was built to protect the -- the ship. It was an empty cargo ship that Roger Ailes created. Whatever he wanted to put into that ship, he put in that ship.

But that ship was well protected. And you needed to have a well-protected ship because every other ship on the sea was against it because it was a G.O.P. machine. And I contend that it's not a conservative news channel; it is a G.O.P. machine. But it is the closest thing we have in mainstream media. It makes a ton of money, and it makes a huge impact.

Without Fox News, we probably would not be here today, as a nation. I truly believe that. Without Fox News, I don't know if we would have weathered the storm of the economic crash, if we would have weathered the storm of -- of 9/11. After that, when it started all going crazy and everybody was talking about how, you know -- how bad George Bush was in, and Michael Moore was alleging that George Bush was part of the conspiracy. Without a balance to that, I don't know if we would have been -- be here today. And certainly, we wouldn't be here on talk radio because talk radio would have been the only target. It would have been the last -- the last beachhead. And we would have been gone. They would have put us out, but they were busy trying to put out Fox News.

So Roger Ailes, like him, hate him, let's know him for who we think he is -- no matter what, he built a ship that was not going to be sunk.

Rupert Murdoch was part of that. But Rupert Murdoch has children and wives -- lots of them -- that hate the Fox News Channel. They are embarrassed by the Fox News Channel. They're not conservatives by any stretch of the imagination.

And the big thing when I was there was, as soon as Rupert is gone, the kids are going to take over Fox News and they're just going to clean house and stop this nonsense.

So it went Rupert Murdoch, his kids were not in the picture, Roger Ailes, who was a giant bear in the doorway and didn't let anything disrupt it. Then there was Bill Shine, who was, you know, the programming guy at Fox News who worked to execute Roger's vision. And then there was a guy called Brian Lewis and Irena Briganti.

This is the PR department. And I want to be really careful what I say here. But these were not good people, to say the least, in my opinion.

I will tell you that the only meeting that I ever had with Irena Briganti, I will keep to myself for right now. But I left that meeting, and it was on my first day. And I said to my then business partner, I said, "I feel like I've just had a meeting with the mob." And he said, "I think we have."

It was a -- it was a department that let everyone in the building know, "You screw with us, we destroy you." It was made very clear to me on the first day.

I was the only person at Fox News to have my own PR person. The only other person that ever tried to do that and did it successfully was Megyn Kelly, after I left.

And that -- Fox News did not like that. They didn't like that I owned my own company. They didn't like that I was independent. They didn't, quite honestly, like that I -- they couldn't find anything on me. And that too is another story that will remain for another time because it's not important here.

What I want you to know is two things: This was a bulletproof shield for whatever cargo Roger Ailes wanted to carry 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And most of that, we appreciate.

Roger is now gone. Rupert's children are now playing a big role in the future of Fox. That's not going to bode well. Those two things mean the end of the conservative Fox, as we know it, or have known it, is numbered. The end is coming. The days are numbered.

Bill Shine is the next target from Media Matters. And I'm going to get into that in a second. Brian Lewis is already gone. Don't know what happened with Brian Lewis, but there's a book out about Rupert Murdoch. And at the last chapter on this book says: The only two men that Rupert Murdoch are afraid of is Roger Ailes and Brian Lewis. And Brian Lewis because he knows where all the bodies are buried. Brian is a guy who settled for $7 million, a 7 million-dollar settlement. At least that's what I've heard, that he settled for a lot of money after Roger Ailes fired him. $7 million because he knows where all the bodies are buried.

Who brokered that deal between Roger Ailes and Brian Lewis? The head of the PR, which the PR is the one who did all of the fighting in the press, did all of the underhand stuff. Made all these things disappear. Brian Lewis and Roger Ailes. When there was a fight between them and they had to part ways, the media started to salivate because Brian knows all of Roger's secrets.

So who brokered that deal? Who sat in the conference room between those two and said, "What do you have on him? What do you have on him? Okay. I think it's worth this. Both go away happy."

That guy who brokered that deal was Donald Trump. Is it beginning to become clear at all why Donald Trump was treated the way he was by the Fox News Channel, at least when Roger was there?

Now, Brian is gone. Roger is gone. Rupert is weakened. And they're going after Bill O'Reilly.

Tomorrow, the newspaper is telling us, front page of the New York Times today says that Bill O'Reilly is in his last 24 hours.

Now, I want to make this really clear: I've heard -- I mean, I was not surprised by the -- by the findings or the rumors of Roger Ailes. But until Megyn Kelly came out, I didn't believe it. I thought Gretchen Carlson was pretty credible. But I still didn't know. It was one person. But I thought she was really pretty credible. And I had heard rumors like that while I was there. I had no evidence. I never saw anything. But it -- it didn't surprise me when Gretchen said that. But I don't want to -- you know, that's one person. The other people that started to come out against Roger looked really bad. But I didn't know any of them.

When Megyn came out and said, "Yeah, it happened to me," now I had two people that I went, "Okay. It's Gretchen and Megyn, I believe them." And only because I'm judging it -- I'm not judging it -- because I don't have access to anything else. So as an outside person, I didn't want to believe it until I had two credible people that I knew -- I believe it.

With Bill O'Reilly, I've never heard that. We worked closely with Bill on the road. We would go on the road. And he had access to very beautiful women on our staff. And he worked closely with very beautiful women on our staff. We never saw him utter a word that was even blue humor. He was so buttoned up when he was around us, that I find these charges hard to believe.

And to me, it makes sense that he may have had this one sexual harassment thing that was settled from a producer. He may have -- they may have had, you know, some here and there. Somebody could have set him up very easily. Played into, yeah, kind of flirting back with him. It's just one person. And then she wanted to make a name for herself, make money, whatever. That's what the suit alleged. And he pays out to silence -- Fox pays out to silence.

That's pretty bad, right? They paid money -- they settled.

Let me tell you something: I've just settled a case in Boston that I will go to my grave, I'm right. I'm right.

My insurance company pressured me for over a year. Premier pressured me for over a year. Glenn, settle it. Settle it.

"I'm right."

"Settle it."

When it got to a million and a half money of uninsured money that I had to pay out and it was looking at yet another probably $3 million -- I was willing to take it to the Supreme Court. My partners weren't. "Settle it." So I settled that. But I settled it with the stipulation, nothing is sealed. I want everybody to be able to see all the testimony, everything. Nothing is sealed.

Well, this guy, he was going to Saudi Arabia. He didn't care. Now, has anybody taken the time to read all of that? It's all public record? No. No. They're still smearing me --

PAT: Some day we'll help them with that. We'll tell you the story.

GLENN: We're going to help them. We're going to help them.

But it's still being used to smear me. And how am I being smeared? He settled; he must have been guilty. So settlement in today's world -- and you know this because we've all worked for a corporation where they settle things, and you sit around in the hallway and you say, "Why would we settle this? Don't. It just encourages more." You're right. It does. It does.

But what are you going to do, when you have insurance companies and everybody else saying, "Just pay the freight." Okay.

So far, I haven't seen anything with Bill O'Reilly that -- that I believe. That doesn't mean that there's not something there. But I will tell you, even if there is something there, there is something more important going on at the same time. You want to fire Bill O'Reilly for sexual harassment, then good. Make that case. Make it very public. But there's something else. And you need to know about it. And you need to make the decision. Because in 24 hours, I think they're going to fire Bill O'Reilly. And after they fire Bill O'Reilly, who is the next big dog on the ticket? It's going to be Sean Hannity. Sean hasn't done anything wrong. He'll be the next target.

Okay. Well, we'll lose Sean Hannity too. Well, where does that stop?

This is about right and wrong. And there's two rights and wrongs: sexual harassment. Don't know anything about that, has to be settled. The other is a witch hunt. And it's a conservative witch hunt. And I have the evidence that you might have read about -- if you read anything about Bill O'Reilly, he said he's got paperworks. Okay. So I wrote Bill last night in Italy. "Bill, you have the paperwork? Can I see it?" I'll share it, next.

TV

NEW GAMESHOW: The WORST Tesla Vandal Videos!

It's time for America's most DESTRUCTIVE game show: "NAME! THAT! MANIFESTO!" Game show host Glenn Beck brings in the contestants, BlazeTV hosts Stu Burguiere and Dave Landau, to watch the worst of the latest attacks on Tesla vehicles. After watching the short clip, contestants must guess why the perpetrator vandalized the car. Was it climate extremism? Was it to push for communism? Was it just that they hate Elon Musk? Or was it because Disney's "Snow White" crashed at the box office? Play along at home and find out!

RADIO

Did Fake News Just Crash the Market? The Grim Reality Unveiled

The stock market went on a rollercoaster ride due to fake news that President Trump is pausing his reciprocal tariffs for 90 days. Glenn and Stu take a look at the story, why it’s evidence that maybe we should slow the panic a little bit, and how it can help us interpret the stock market moving forward. Plus, Glenn and Stu review a new poll that doesn’t look good for humanity: how many people think they can outrun a horse?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

We have an update. The market bounced back after it was released in the news, that Donald Trump may consider a 90-day pause. And then we were watching it bounce back. And then all of a sudden, it dropped down again. And it lost, maybe 200 points? Again.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Not detainer sure what happened until we checked the news.

STU: It seems like all these media organizations reported, an interpretation from some social media of your of an interview. In which the interview.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. I want to track that back down.

Of an interview with Trump?

STU: No. That was a good question.

It was a Trump official.

GLENN: Named official? Or Trump official, official?

So we have Trump. And then we have the Trump official.

And then it's -- it's somebody on social media. Doing an analysis of what that Trump official said. Right.

STU: Right.

GLENN: And then the media picks up on that.

So they're quoting.

STU: National economic counsel director Kevin Hassett.

Basically, all he said was like, look, I think -- he was asked by Brian Kilmeade.

Would Trump consider a 90-day pause?

And hasn't said, I think the president will decide what the president will decide.

GLENN: Well, and that means, yes. He will consider.

STU: It's incredible.

GLENN: That's how -- that's why where we that story.

We gave it to you, like four minutes ago.

Go off the air. Like commercial break. And it's all reversed. The stock market goes down. I think we should probably slow down a little bit.

There's no --

STU: We even brought it up. It's to discuss why the market moved. Why the market moved.

So it -- it's an appropriate explanation, I think.

But now --

GLENN: Official breaking, the White House now says, 1900 day pause is fake news.

STU: There's no pause. For you the market is down again.

GLENN: That is crazy.

STU: You know, I will say this, Glenn.

And I don't know what you think about this as far as politics go. Taking it out where you end up on this. We've had really bad economic times before. Right? COVID. Housing crisis in '08. The bursting of the bubble of the internet back in 2000. And you go back to '87, right? That market crashed.

All those things.

All those things came from what seemed like an outside event.

Right? To the American people.

Seemed like, you talked about the housing policies. And what led to the housing crisis for years before that.

And warned about that for years. So there were policies that were directly associated with that. But that's not how the American people took that. It felt like, oh, gosh. The housing market just crashed.

COVID just happened.

You know, this one, I think to the American people, right or wrong, is going to feel like, tariffs caused this.

And I'm worried about how they interpret that.

GLENN: Let me help you out on that.

That's because people did not interpret the stock market and what is going on in our economy as bogus.

STU: Yes, you're right. I think you're right.

GLENN: It's all this bogus money that the Fed keeps printing. And putting in the system with 0 percent interest rate.

It's all funny money. The stock market is no longer tied to anything real.

And everybody -- everybody just bypassed that. And went, wow. Things are really good. Things are really good.

No!

It was all bogus.

All of that is bogus.

STU: I sensed the weakness during Biden. Right?

The market went up with bind. They sensed the weakness.

They sensed it in the economy.

I think the optimism of Trump's policies. Launched into another stratosphere.

GLENN: That is our McDonald's attitude!

That is, yeah. I would like some tariffs. And I Diet Coke.

I mean, no! This is not a drive through. You're not going to get it, by the time you get up to the window.

STU: But I think that's the point I bring up. I think that's how a lot of people consume things.

GLENN: Correct.

Look what just happened!

Stock market. The stock market.

People who are supposedly, you know, educated, they turned that thing on a dime he has

STU: Yeah. But that's people who are really engaged, right?

They're overreacting to news that they are seeing.

The average person is not even following this on a day-to-day basis. They're seeing that general downturn. And if that continues with them, I -- I wonder if this is going to be seen, if this is -- turns into a recession, which it's not yet. If it turns into a long-term negative consequence, it could be seen as essentially Trump's fault. Which means that the entire movement has problems. As opposed to COVID, what people saw was, okay. China released this virus, or it started in China. It took over everything.

GLENN: No, they blamed it on Trump because the media did.

STU: I don't think he took.

I mean, I think he won in 2024.

Because of what people remembered in his economy in 2014.

2020, was some outside thing that he couldn't do something about.

GLENN: Why did he lose then?

The economy was doing really, really well.

Why did he lose? They blamed him for COVID, shutting us down.

Blah, blah, blah. You know, the stuff that he did. That made sense, at the very beginning.

STU: Right.

I remember that being more broad an argument. I mean, no one thought it was Trump's fault that the economy crashed because of COVID.

You can blame him and say, hey.

I don't think he should have locked down. Again, he didn't really do that.

GLENN: Democrats have country that. Look what he did to the economy, and they won. And they won.

STU: They did win. They did win.

GLENN: So I think that's the ill-informed again. Let me give you this survey. Ready for this survey?

STU: Hit me with it. Hit me with it.

GLENN: Out of 50 men, if you ask them, in 100-meter sprint, can you beat a horse?

How many say yes?

STU: How many say yes, they could beat a horse?

GLENN: Beat a horse.

STU: A specific horse. Could be a horse that's dead?

GLENN: No. No. No, just a regular horse.

STU: So we assume a normal horse at a regular speed. Not necessarily a race horse. Just a normal horse.

GLENN: No, just a horse. I can outrun a horse.

STU: The correct answer to this would be zero. Zero. That's what it should be.

GLENN: Zero. Because a racehorse can run 40 miles an hour. Doughnut if you know this, you can't. Usain Bolt, he's the fastest in a sprint, 27 miles an hour. Okay?

Horse, a little faster. Okay?

So only 2 percent out of 50. So not --

STU: Okay. That's not actually bad. 2 percent will say anything, right?

GLENN: That's the one they say is number 15 on the big charts of animals I could beat. Okay?

There are 15. Then you get to a zebra. Okay. I will pass that on, maybe you don't think zebras actually exist. You know, we have none here.

STU: It is strange.

GLENN: Deer? I could outrun a deer. A fox. An ostrich. Number ten, I can outrun a cheetah!

STU: A cheetah would be the one I would think would be the lowest number. Because theater fastest animal. Right?

GLENN: Right. A kangaroo. A mongoose. I don't even what an a mongoose is. So I will give this a pass.

Ready for this? I can outrun a swarm of bees.

STU: I mean, no. You can't. Not for a long time.

GLENN: No, no, I don't think you can. I don't think you can. Have you ever seen --

STU: They are fast.

GLENN: Why wouldn't people just run? If the bees -- when you're being swarmed, just run. They can't keep up with you. You can't outrun bees. I can outrun a house cat?

STU: No. I mean, people have seen cats before, they're fast.

GLENN: I can outrun a goat. I can outrun a rabbit.

STU: A goat. How fast are goats?

GLENN: I don't have that stat. I don't have that stat.

STU: I don't -- all the other ones seem completely absurd. I'm thinking of a goat.

They're kind of climbing a side of a mountain.

They don't look that fast. I could probably take them.

GLENN: Would you say, yes, I could probably take a goat. I don't know.

GLENN: Okay. A goat? A rabbit?

STU: No. Rabbits are incredibly fast, no.

GLENN: Okay. A hippopotamus.

STU: I mean, a hippo, again, I've never raised a hippo myself.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: But I -- like, a hippo doesn't seem like a fast animal. They move pretty slow.
GLENN: Is it the hippopotamus or the rhinoceros? One of those is the most deadly animal alive. They're fast, and they'll stomp you to death.

STU: Really? I thought it was mosquitoes. Aren't mosquitoes the most deadly animal?

GLENN: No. Of course not. I can outrun a mosquito.

Number two.

STU: Why don't we tell that to the African nations. Tell your people to outrun a mosquito.

GLENN: Run? Why don't you run? Number two, I can outrun an elephant?

STU: Yeah. See, an elephant does not look like it moves quickly. But the strides are large. You have to factor that in.

GLENN: I don't have to factor that in. I just know, I can't outrun an elephant. They're fast animals. They're an animal. They're a giant animal.

STU: So are we. We're all animals.

GLENN: Right. Yeah. Not fast!

STU: Look, I'm not saying I would say that I could outrun an elephant. I could understand why someone might say that.

GLENN: Why do you think we invented the gun? Why do you think men invented the gun? We couldn't outrun any of these animals.

STU: That's a good point.

GLENN: Okay? That's the only reason why we're at the top of the food chain.

Because we're like, oh, really? Take that elephant. I can outrun an elephant. Yes, if I have a rifle.

I will do that.

STU: Because then it can be dead. And you can walk away from it.

GLENN: So we don't. We have a pretty healthy, we have a pretty healthy view of ourself.

10 percent say that they have actually -- sorry, 28 percent say they have actually been out in the wild, some place, and clocked an animal, and thought to themselves. I can outrun that!

A tenth of them have actually tried to do that. I don't know. Got out of their car. And was like, come on, horse. Bring it on.

And 11 percent.

Now, out of those showdowns, mainly with dogs. 61 percent have tried to race their dog. 26 percent have tried to race their cat.

I mean --

STU: How would you even do such a thing. 19 percent have tried to race a goat. Okay?

But 60 percent. Only 60 percent said, yeah. I couldn't -- I couldn't run. 26 percent considered themselves winners. And here's my favorite, 14 percent said it was a draw. It was a draw.

I mean, I think we both -- I talked to the goat afterwards. You agree, right?

We finished. We're basically at the same place. And you have four legs. So, you know, you might have run double the distance. But you have double the legs. So we're a draw, right?

Oh, my gosh.

I think we're a -- I think we're in trouble.

18 percent say they would back themselves to beat -- beat somebody in an arm-wrestling match. Only 11 percent of women. Why?

Wait. Why would only 11 percent of women? Women are no different than men. Hold on just a second.

Oh, it's ego probably.

It's mansplaining. The 26 percent of men say I could beat anybody in a wrestling match, and only 11 percent of women.

Probably because of what men have said to women. That you are not strong enough to beat a big, strong guy.

Because we all know that could happen. 72 percent of all respondents admitted that men are more likely to believe that men could beat an animal, than -- than women.

My favorite, is sure, I can outrun a horse, I can outrun a cheetah. But some -- some people -- one in 50, believe they can outswim a dolphin.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: Uh-huh. Don't know if you know this, they're in the water. That's their domain. You know.

Now, I could outrun a dolphin. You put one on the beach. I'll beat him every single time. Outswim him? No. I don't -- uh-uh.

I don't think. You should probably -- you get a nap in. Let's readdress this maybe tomorrow.

TV

Decoding Trump's Ukraine/Russia Negotiations

Context is key when trying to understand President Trump’s negotiations to end the Ukraine/Russia war. How did this war even begin in the first place? Will Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio be able to end it? What do Presidents Zelenskyy and Putin really want? Glenn heads to the chalkboard to lay out the entire timeline and explain how America – mostly the Deep State – played a major role in causing this mess.

Watch the FULL SHOW here

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Why Conservatives Flipped to Supporting Trump’s Tariffs | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 252

Donald Trump is the only one telling the American economy, “You have cancer!” Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, says, “The treatment is going to be a little painful.” Kevin responds to criticisms that the Heritage Foundation has changed its position on tariffs, explains why the president’s treatment of Canada may be a “tactical error,” and says it’s time for tax cuts, deregulation, and to stop the “fuzzy math happening in Congress” and cut the budget. Considering why the Epstein files “landed like a lead balloon,” Kevin posits that Pam Bondi is “understaffed” and celebrates what he believes is the best assembled Cabinet in modern history. They discuss nuclear energy, the Chinese Communist Party, the DOGE, and how the socialist president of Mexico “understands Trump.” They both agree that we are experiencing the “second American revolution” and lauded the gutting of the Department of Education and the vision of JD Vance, while warning that “not everyone in Silicon Valley is our friend.” In the end, they have to ask, is Donald Trump moving too fast?