An interesting bit of information that is, but it merely emphasizes the fact that the media elite types existed during earlier times, during the Hollywood of the 1950s onward, and somewhat even earlier. The current producers still had to make the selection of whether or not to release a remake of this film, which in itself is an expression of their metaphysical value-judgments.
I'd imagine anything the late Bob Fosse was identified with would be heavy on dancing and spectacle and light on moral or intellectual values. While it may not inspire, I'd be surprised if it had much power to deprave. Amorality in stage and cinema is hardly something new. The gangster, the fast talking con-man, the woman of dubious virtue, the cynical reporter were all found in the films of the 1920s and 1930s, though virtue had to triumph in the end and there were limits on what could be shown on screen.
Hollywood has long loved films about people who get away with murder. It comes from the feeling that working in the entertainment business is getting away with murder. The question is whether it's done tongue in cheek or seriously and in a truly destructive fashion. I haven't seen the film, but I suspect "Chicago" falls in the first, harmless category and not in the second, truly subversive one.
"Chicago" may not be the best of films, but I can't think that it's the worst or any sort of new departure. Look at previous Oscar winners: "Titanic," "American Beauty," "The English Patient," "The Silence of the Lambs," "Amadeus." Spectacle and buzz win out over content, let alone moral values.