The problem with your argument is that it applies to everything. Virtually everyone gets money from consumer spending, one way or another. Yes, government subsidies encourage consumer spending in some ways, and discourage it in others. Because govenment tends to be quite wasteful, there would likely be more consumer spending with smaller government, not less.
Much of the old media is failing, not getting enough money to survive, because they put agenda over money. CNN and MSNBC could put on conservatives, and gain audience, but the will not, because it does not promote the agenda.
Money is far from the most potent motivator, especially once survival is ensured.
I don’t understand the point of your “applies to everything” criticism. Why must it only apply to the media to be true [and it definitely doesn’t apply to investment or savings]?
And yes, temporarily, everyone benefits from consumer spending- until the debt has to be paid!
Media, like most corporations, looks only to the next quarter, or maybe year.
Government subsidies of investment- which media doesn’t benefit from- are typically Republican policies.
Government subsidies of spending- which media does benefit from- are typically Dem policies.
Government subsidies of spending: entitlements, will soon take all government revenue. The media is profiting greatly from it’s support of Dems.
The 7+ trillion of debt under Obama has gone mostly to consumer spending, so he’s been good for over a half-trillion of dollars for media.
TV shows are for advertisers, advertisers don't want hard-headed, tight-fisted conservative viewers LOL! They want 'dumb sluts' who'll part with their money as unquestioningly as possible: Dems.
Not as simplistic as it sounds...