Drop “or”, insert “is.”
I’m a bit confused by that. This site says that the Blaze has an annual revenue of 2.1 Million. I don’t see how they can pay Beck 10 to 20 times what the company brings in.
ETA: This one says 19.9 million, and other sites seem to give around the same amount. So more than I first found, but still not enough to cover the proposed salary, as well as all of the other upkeep of the company.,
He could be making money from book sales, licensing his name, doing personal speaking gigs, and maybe by making residuals on work that he did earlier in his career, for other people.
But that would all be non-Blaze money.
ETA: this is a response to earlier posts suggesting Tucker is knowingly doing harm just for the money.
Again, I don’t buy that it’s only about the money for tuckems.
I think he’s a true believer about the white supremacy stuff. He must be aware that he lies and misleads his audience on a secondly basis. But he thinks it’s for the greater good of a white ethnostate.
I don’t doubt that. But what do we make of his texts proclaiming to hate trump passionately. How do you explain how he can kiss the ass of someone he hates so much and who he admits has achieved nothing significant, if it’s not about the money.
What do he and TFG think is going to happen to all their “wealth” if the country collapses?
They are incapable of thinking that far ahead.
I disagree slightly StraighTalk, I think that for certain powerful, wealthy, and vain individuals (TC, Trump, DeSantis) that they no longer care in anyway what happens after they’re gone. All of them think (perhaps short sightedly as you and Morgyn point out) that as long as everything collapses AFTER they’re gone, it’s no problem.
These people have long since given up on what sort of ‘legacy’ they have in the future, whether it be infamy, progeny, or the nation itself. It’s all in, all now, all for me.
It’s not so much short-sighted, but a singular focus that obliviates the need for most future considerations.
Does it help if their wealth is measured in rubles?
Well, you cff my quote off at ‘The Blaze’ for some reason. What I actually said:
I should have added book sales. It’s reasonably clear where he gets his income. He writes best selling books, He has a popular syndicated radio show, a popular podcast, and he charges $50,000-$100,000 per speaking engagement. Plus Blaze TV.
Sorry, I think I misparsed your sentence.
I parsed it as:
“He makes $20-$40 million a year from The Blaze, plus [in addition to the 20-40 million he gets from the Blaze], his radio show …”
Instead of how it may have been intended:
" He makes $20-$40 million a year from [a combination of] the Blaze, plus his radio show …"
I call bullshit. Stephen King makes $30m a year through his books, zero chance that O’Reilly even comes close. When one can find a reputable source for this figure, I’ll stop calling bullshit.
More research shows that this $25-$30m a year figure comes from a 2017 Forbes article which includes his Fox earnings, copied and pasted as to appear this is his 2021/2022 earnings, like the following:
But the last Forbes article about BoR’s earnings is this one:
The Forbes article mentions 2 million books being sold (2017, at the peak of BoR’s influence). As SK earns between $1-$3 per book sold, again, I call bullshit.
Except he’s talking about Glenn Beck. 
Actually he does need everyone. If the didn’t, he wouldn’t have spent all those years ranting on the 8pm slot at Fox.
But you’re right, money isn’t the thing he needs. What he craves is respect and approval. He’s always tried to cast himself as some sort of intellectual, a thought leader. He failed at that, so he went for the lower-hanging fruit, the populist white supremacist crowd.
I’m not sure how much lower he can sink in his quest for approval and popularity, but be well-assured that we’re going to find out.
Oh, gawddammit.
Last time Beck appeared on the Forbes list of top 100 earning celebrities was 2014. The cite Sam gave misrepresents this number as being from 2020. And, in fact, at the very bottom of Sam’s cited article this graphic appears:
I still call bullshit. 
Tucker’s departure has us all just a little verklempt.
To be fair, Rachel Maddow won a defamation lawsuit with exactly the same argument:
TV opinion shows rot the brain.
Preach.
I’ll also put one out there against all the comedy shows (SNL, Colbert, etc.)
I mean, let’s assume that Colbert never said an incorrect thing, had the world’s best researchers, and never adjusted a truth in the slightest to punch up a joke. A textbook is still going to be better than a Colbert episode, to fill you in properly on the main elements of the Holocaust. It’s just not the right format for serious discussion and examination.
It’s like dessert. If you’re getting a good meal of entrees and salads then, sure, go for some sweets every once in a while. But it should be a “sometimes” food, not an “all-the-time” food.
Are rubles even worth that much since the war started? He has it sunk in some nice offshore account. Or a Congressman or two.
That was also mentioned in the article I originally posted, but I think the comparisons ignore an important nuance. The suit against Maddow was dismissed on the basis that a single statement she made could be reasonably interpreted as hyperbole; by my reading, Tucker’s defense was that any reasonable person would consider his entire show to be the bullshit that it truly is. Both shows are biased opinion pieces, no doubt, but Maddow’s is grounded in reality, while Tucker spouts blatant lies that are not just pure fabrication, but fabrications that are explicitly damaging to democracy and to a rational and peaceful society.