So, where was it for, say, the last 50-60 years or so? Was "conservative" news just not exciting enough to sell, or were there other considerations?
This of course begs the question of how it is that we find ourselves in a position where large numbers of both Liberals and Conservatives are convinced that the media distorts reporting in favor of the other's opinions.
Just my own observation, but liberals are mental cases who believe anything and anyone not left of Josef Stalin are right wingnuts, and wouldn't recognize true media bias if it bit 'em in the a$$. And it has. I have watched the "animated" Neal Gabler on Fox NewsWatch a few times and the guy's arguments almost always fall flat. "The media is owned by corporations, so they must be biased towards business"(that is, conservative) as an example. No evidence, even anecdotal, but he says it loud and long enough the others on the panel, even Jane What's-her-face, just shake their heads in apparent bewilderment. I personally know of people just like him who will not even debate the issue of utopian dreamers running the media, or anywhere else for that matter. I expect these people will always be with us. The trick is to see their ranks aren't increased.
It ain't gonna be easy but we've got to continue trying. Our target audience should probably be the 20% or so of the uncommitted electorate that are the swing votes in each election. They are reachable and and persuadable, given the proper motivations. What that is, is anybody's guess.
That is exactly how I feel. There are just enough people who can be influenced in the proper way at the right time.
If Hillary runs in 2008 I am rather sure that I have about two pages of literature and info on her "core values" that, if distributed well, will certainly influence that 20% to avoid voting for her.
The point, surely, is that it depends on what you mean by "conservative." Every ongoing corporation has a culture, and it sustains itself by conserving that culture. So that is "conservatism" WRT itself, whether or not you or I would consider it "Conservative." When it comes to self preservation, Fidel Castro is "conservative."So whether it is Hooters or a Communist dictatorship or The New York Times, self preservation can be called conservative - but with no implication of any desire to
form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterityfor we-the-people of the USA.