Yes, that is what MSNBC tries to be, a liberal Fox, following Fox's business model.
Not that it seems particularly successful, getting a low viewership for what is a larger ideological segment of the population. I would guess it is because it lacks Fox's internal corporate discipline, and its internal ideological discipline, within the cable show itself--Fox rewards its Olbermanns, it doesn't can them--and, probably more important, it lacks the direct programming discipline from corporate HQ over its local affiliates. NBC affiliates are not "NBC News" and not "MSNBC."
But even if MSNBC-NBC ran like corporate money-printing clockwork, I don't see why it would be a counter-example to my point.
Doug Henwood: "...Bill Maher's still on HBO, ..."
And this means...?
Doug Henwood: "...and CNN continues to be a cure for insomnia..."
Well, sure, they went from founding, and owning, a media niche to surviving as some kind of presumed-necessary obligatory spot on "free" cable, in what... ten years? Quite the inspiring model of today.
No mention of Comedy Central? ;)
I realize these were supposed to be counter-examples, and I gave them some thought, but I still can't quite see your point.
Now, on my key point:
Doug Henwood: "This is weird reasoning: because Fox makes a lot of money, it must have enormous political influence."
OK, you've got me, that basically *is* what I think. Although I would word it, "because Fox makes a lot of money, it must have enormous influence within its industry, which under capitalism translates into political influence." Yes, I'm weird that way. And yeah I think media-based industries are situated, relatively, to have greater direct influence on what is commonly called "politics" than other industries, I'm not sure this is controversial... but I would still argue my point stands, even for non-media industries.
And (sigh):
Doug Henwood: "Relatedly: before Fox, there were no crazy right-wingers in the U.S. Yup."
Nope.
Can someone help me? I was trying to remember/Google the fallacy committed by Doug here... it's not post hoc ergo propter hoc, which is what jumped to my mind. Its form must be something like "If A [Fox News], then must assume B [crazy right-wingers in the U.S.] Therefore, if not A, then not B." Modus tollens? Or alternately he's saying that I'm saying that Fox causes crazy right-wingers... it's hard to tell. Which would be a fallacy of a different type, I assume.
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On May 31, 2011, at 4:13 PM, socialismorbarbarism wrote:
>
>> So, by the most important standard of capitalism--making
>> profits--Ailes's operation is wildly successful. It is not just that
....