Re: OT: Fox News--New Low, possibly illegal



Spender wrote:

Which is another reason they don't particularly care. As long as it
isn't losing money.

Do you really not get this? Why would a huge corporation allow a
newspaper or TV network it owns to harm the profitability of other
divisions of the corporation?

They rarely do allow that, regardless of which political point of the
view one usually expects from any particular outlet. I am speaking of
politics in general, not particular media events related to any media
outlet's parent company's interests.

In other words you're making it up as you go--they don't, but they do
sometimes, except when they don't, or something.

Besides, GE didn't seem to have any particular problem back when
Letterman was regularly lambasting them on the Late Show. They are
not as sensitive as you think.

Was anything Letterman said doing them any real harm, dragging down the
parent company's reputation in the eyes of the public? Leno and Conan make
jokes about NBC, The Simpsons writers throw in digs at Fox--obviously the
networks don't care because it doesn't damage them. But the media covered
the story about GE's faulty reactors except for one network, can you guess
which network had more important things to talk about? Gee, what a
coincidence huh? But we're supposed to believe that the media have a
liberal bias that the corporations that own the media companies don't care
about because it's just "politicis in general"--whatever that's supposed to
mean. Sure, that's convincing.


.