[ScottinVA]

I suspect the ad buys are already contracted and in the books. Unless there’s proviso that Trump is in the mix, they’ll go forward.

[RoosterRedux]

You're probably right. But that means the advertisers will lose a ton due to lower viewership.

Fox News may keep the money, but lose a lot of goodwill in the process.

That said, I wonder if the contracts don't have a clause to cover contingencies like this.

[Sacajaweau]

The earlier contracts stipulated that Trump had to be present.

[Alberta's Child]

I'm not even sure any of this matters in terms of ad revenue. I've known someone who worked for years in the broadcast media business, and the way he described the business is very different than what you usually hear about it.

He said advertisers didn't even contract directly with the networks anyway. He worked for a third-party broker that would buy up large blocks of advertising spots at discounted prices (due to the volume of business), then sell them off individually to advertisers.

The only incentive Fox has at this point is to protect its image, not its revenues. If their presidential debate has lower ratings than a broadcast of a campaign event for one of the candidates, then it would be a major embarrassment for them.