Unpaid Commentary |
|||
|
Because the best things in life are free. The UltraFecta My Due Diligence Wonkette Political Animal Daily Kos Eschaton About Thomas Bio Archives 05/01/2002 - 06/01/2002 06/01/2002 - 07/01/2002 11/01/2002 - 12/01/2002 12/01/2002 - 01/01/2003 01/01/2003 - 02/01/2003 02/01/2003 - 03/01/2003 03/01/2003 - 04/01/2003 04/01/2003 - 05/01/2003 05/01/2003 - 06/01/2003 08/01/2003 - 09/01/2003 09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003 10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003 11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003 12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004 02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006 
|
1.10.2003
Why Fox News Has no Democratic Equivalent A story that ruffled feathers all the way across the country among big time Democrats and liberals was that the left was tired of getting pounded in the media on cable TV news and talk radio that some individuals were hoping to duplicate the success of such individuals as Ben Shapiro and Rush Limbaugh with a Democratic News Channel. The answer that conservative pundits gave was that if you looked over all, most liberals tended to watch the local TV news and Network news for their information, forcing people looking for a conservative slant to either subscribe to the Wall Street Journal or turn on Larry Elder. The networks and other mass media were so unforgivably liberal that this was born out in the Gallup study. This grand theory however, does not work. While it is true that many of the media network are owned by a few companies who seemingly all are commanded by Jews, and therefore must be liberal in this sort of antiquarian thinking, there is a much simpler reason for all of this. It’s called money. Thinking about how much a new format of media cost the individual consumer. Fox News is on cable, and cable usually costs a person $40 a month for a subscription. Then consider how much the cheapest Internet connection cost is, and then realize that network TV costs a person that owns a TV set….absolutely nothing! It should be no surprise to anyone that the poorest people in society favor the most accessible means of information. It could be true that the networks are guilty of pandering to people on the lower rings of society, but that would make them no different than Fox News. The problem is that too many people get caught up in this idea that poor people are seemingly able to have the same access to the same media (or dare we say has time to watch shows and the like) and therefore assume suddenly that Rush is the only thing people are watching. Instead, conservatives should be more worried that while talk shows continue to grow, they can’t seem to get rid of NPR. |
||