Replies

And in the long run they might have done rather better had they used the dough to start a movie studio or buy a TV network.

Maybe that's not such a bad idea.

Or start a first-class university teaching useful subjects (no queer or womyns studies majors) with professors who actually like this country.

And in the long run they might have done rather better had they used the dough to start a movie studio or buy a TV network.

Maybe that's not such a bad idea.

It is a desperately bad idea if you think that you can make a conservative news network which competes. Fox News seems “conservative” because it has Hannity and it does not go flat-out socialist like the other networks - but FNC actually is simply centrist.
An actual conservative network wouldn’t give “Ted Baxter” the time of day. O’Reily is a populist, not a conservative.
An actual conservative network wouldn’t give a fig for political correctness.
An actual conservative network would have fictional entertainment which would be perfectly predictable - the reporter did it! Because in “real” fiction the reporter, if there is one, is the hero - and a rich white man is the villain.
You see, standard network fare - whether fictional or (supposedly objective) news, is entertainment - and in entertainment, there has to be a surprise. The “surprise” is always that the person who in real life circumstances is most likely to be trustworthy is the perpetrator.
In that kind of topsy-turvy world, things are so fouled up that even socialism could seem preferable. Because socialism, we are assured with a straight face, is always run by the good guys (who are either journalists or who could get jobs as journalists any time they want. You know, people like Benito Mussolini or George Stephanopholus. </sarcasm>