5 ms·

Sarcasm? I can think of one... EDIT: News Corp was what I was thinking.

philwelch 14y ago
Really? I'm not being sarcastic at all. Please share. EDIT: Despite Fox News, the Fox network broadcasts left-leaning shows like The Simpsons, Family Guy, and American Dad, which regularly mock Fox News. 20th Century Fox distributes a lot of films without any discernable agenda[1], even backing films like Avatar, or the Wall Street sequel. I'm convinced that News Corporation is entirely mercenary in its agenda and only started Fox News because right-wing cable news was a wide open opportunity in the late 1990's. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_20th_Century_Fox_films http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_20th_Century_Fox_films
- enraged_camel 14y ago
  News Corp, owned by Rupert Murdoch. Koch Industries, owned by Koch brothers. I could go on...
  - ryanwaggoner 14y ago
    Does Koch Industries own any media companies to speak of? Pretty sure they're not a media conglomerate... News Corp is a better example.
    - enraged_camel 14y ago
      Like I said in my response to the parent, a corporation does not need to have media outlets in order to have an influence on political discourse. This is especially true for mega-corps with CEOs whose net worth are in the billions.
  - philwelch 14y ago
    News Corp owns Fox News, which is stridently right-wing, but also the Fox network, which broadcasts more left-leaning shows like The Simpsons, Family Guy, and American Dad. In fact, Fox's prime time cartoons regularly mock Fox News. Koch isn't a media company. Try again.
    - enraged_camel 14y ago
      >>News Corp owns Fox News, which is stridently right-wing, but also the Fox network, which broadcasts more left-leaning shows like The Simpsons, Family Guy, and American Dad. In fact, Fox's prime time cartoons regularly mock Fox News. Except for the fact that Fox News is (unfortunately) taken seriously by millions of Americans and therefore has much more power over political discourse, whereas shows like Simpsons and Family guy are satire. >>Koch isn't a media company. It literally doesn't matter. If you think a corporation has to have media outlets in order to affect cultural and political discourse, you are either living under a rock or just hopelessly naive.
      - philwelch 14y ago
        I wasn't talking about "affecting cultural and political discourse". Read more carefully.
    - taligent 14y ago
      For someone saying "try again" you are awfully ignorant of News Corp and its business which is promoting a right-wing agenda worldwide. It owns News Limited, News International which are dominate right-wing newspapers/websites in Australia and UK respectively. Foxtel and BSkyB which are the PayTV equivalent in Australia and UK. Wall Street Journal and Fox News which is influential in the US. It has also its hands in tonnes of other media assets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation Fox Studios is nothing but a tiny sideshow.
      - philwelch 14y ago
        Sure, right-wing tabloids are a market niche that News Corporation specializes in. I still don't see a consistent agenda or ideology, though. And it's hard to call News Corp's entertainment properties a "tiny sideshow" when 20th Century Fox distributes a fair chunk of Hollywood's output, when three out of the four most popular sports leagues in the world are broadcast by either Fox or Sky Sports, and when Fox is easily one of the more successful TV networks in the United States.
  - NoPiece 14y ago
    What do you think Rupert Murdoch's agenda is with Glee? I don't know if you've worked at a huge company like News Corp, but the Fox News unit runs separately from Fox Broadcasting with its own separate agenda and personality, which is yet again removed from the newspapers.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Pretty much all of them seem fairly consistently "pro establishment". Sure you'll see a lot of inconsistency in left vs right wing politics coming out of most companies in this class, but the underlying message is pretty damn uniform.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Uniformity is comforting. The alternative is challenging. These are billion-dollar properties: they survive based on mass appeal. What's the mass media property that doesn't capitalize in some way on the status quo? What are you really asking for here? A version of Mulan where the heroine dies in a hail of arrows? The Suite Life With Zack And Cody's Meth Habit? Even The Daily Show only works as entertainment because it has mass entertainment to feed off of.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      Don't get me wrong, if I were in charge of those companies I would be a fool to try to run them any differently. All I am saying is that whatever the reason (be it deliberation, market forces, or something else entirely) these companies are capable of putting out a consistent message, provided you look at it from a certain perspective. I suppose you could say I am stretching the meaning of "agenda". Non-deliberate messages, which most of the "pro establishment" stuff probably is, probably doesn't really qualify as agenda now that I think about it.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        Sure. I'm just suggesting that this may be a variant of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. Media companies don't drive the consistency of the culture; they simply feed on the enormous latent drive to comforting conformity that's hardwired into our species.
        jlgreco 14y ago
        Right, agreed.
- afterburner 14y ago
  It doesn't matter that not all the properties fall in line with Fox News' agenda. That Fox News has a huge influence is undeniable, and the rest of News Corps news and pundit properties fall in line with that. The entertainment divisions simply put money in the pot.
  - philwelch 14y ago
    > It doesn't matter that not all the properties fall in line with Fox News' agenda It matters in the sense that a media conglomerate can't consistently act in concert to effect cultural change, which was the original question. But I think you're being insufficiently cynical if you don't think the news properties are there to put money in the pot, too. Before Fox News was launched, the overwhelming sentiment among conservative Americans (who, let's not forget, make up about half the country) was that other news sources had a liberal bias. It was an obvious opportunity to exploit.
    - taligent 14y ago
      This is completely and utterly wrong. In the UK/Australia, News Limited has been heavily involved through its newspapers in dictating government policy. For example the "boat people" issue was very much promoted in Australia and in the UK there are countless examples of governments capitulating on policy at the behest of the News International papers.
      - philwelch 14y ago
        I'm not denying that News Corporation is influential, I just think the primary motivation is profit rather than an actual desire to see through any kind of political agenda.
        lostlogin 14y ago
        Tony Blair is the godparent of one of Mirdoch's children. Those two deserve each other with their insidious and seedy behavior. Profit may be a motivation for them both, however Murdoch is far more clever and manipulative than Blair and his agenda would hardly be hurt by having the PM as a godparent to his kid.
- illuminate 14y ago
  "I'm convinced that News Corporation is entirely mercenary in its agenda and only started Fox News because right-wing cable news was a wide open opportunity in the late 1990's." This might be more plausible if their News wing didn't represent the interests of its Founder.

Really? I'm not being sarcastic at all. Please share. EDIT: Despite Fox News, the Fox network broadcasts left-leaning shows like The Simpsons, Family Guy, and American Dad, which regularly mock Fox News. 20th Century Fox distributes a lot of films without any discernable agenda[1], even backing films like Avatar, or the Wall Street sequel. I'm convinced that News Corporation is entirely mercenary in its agenda and only started Fox News because right-wing cable news was a wide open opportunity in the late 1990's. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_20th_Century_Fox_films http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_20th_Century_Fox_films

enraged_camel 14y ago
News Corp, owned by Rupert Murdoch. Koch Industries, owned by Koch brothers. I could go on...
- ryanwaggoner 14y ago
  Does Koch Industries own any media companies to speak of? Pretty sure they're not a media conglomerate... News Corp is a better example.
  - enraged_camel 14y ago
    Like I said in my response to the parent, a corporation does not need to have media outlets in order to have an influence on political discourse. This is especially true for mega-corps with CEOs whose net worth are in the billions.
- philwelch 14y ago
  News Corp owns Fox News, which is stridently right-wing, but also the Fox network, which broadcasts more left-leaning shows like The Simpsons, Family Guy, and American Dad. In fact, Fox's prime time cartoons regularly mock Fox News. Koch isn't a media company. Try again.
  - enraged_camel 14y ago
    >>News Corp owns Fox News, which is stridently right-wing, but also the Fox network, which broadcasts more left-leaning shows like The Simpsons, Family Guy, and American Dad. In fact, Fox's prime time cartoons regularly mock Fox News. Except for the fact that Fox News is (unfortunately) taken seriously by millions of Americans and therefore has much more power over political discourse, whereas shows like Simpsons and Family guy are satire. >>Koch isn't a media company. It literally doesn't matter. If you think a corporation has to have media outlets in order to affect cultural and political discourse, you are either living under a rock or just hopelessly naive.
    - philwelch 14y ago
      I wasn't talking about "affecting cultural and political discourse". Read more carefully.
  - taligent 14y ago
    For someone saying "try again" you are awfully ignorant of News Corp and its business which is promoting a right-wing agenda worldwide. It owns News Limited, News International which are dominate right-wing newspapers/websites in Australia and UK respectively. Foxtel and BSkyB which are the PayTV equivalent in Australia and UK. Wall Street Journal and Fox News which is influential in the US. It has also its hands in tonnes of other media assets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation Fox Studios is nothing but a tiny sideshow.
    - philwelch 14y ago
      Sure, right-wing tabloids are a market niche that News Corporation specializes in. I still don't see a consistent agenda or ideology, though. And it's hard to call News Corp's entertainment properties a "tiny sideshow" when 20th Century Fox distributes a fair chunk of Hollywood's output, when three out of the four most popular sports leagues in the world are broadcast by either Fox or Sky Sports, and when Fox is easily one of the more successful TV networks in the United States.
- NoPiece 14y ago
  What do you think Rupert Murdoch's agenda is with Glee? I don't know if you've worked at a huge company like News Corp, but the Fox News unit runs separately from Fox Broadcasting with its own separate agenda and personality, which is yet again removed from the newspapers.
jlgreco 14y ago
Pretty much all of them seem fairly consistently "pro establishment". Sure you'll see a lot of inconsistency in left vs right wing politics coming out of most companies in this class, but the underlying message is pretty damn uniform.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Uniformity is comforting. The alternative is challenging. These are billion-dollar properties: they survive based on mass appeal. What's the mass media property that doesn't capitalize in some way on the status quo? What are you really asking for here? A version of Mulan where the heroine dies in a hail of arrows? The Suite Life With Zack And Cody's Meth Habit? Even The Daily Show only works as entertainment because it has mass entertainment to feed off of.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Don't get me wrong, if I were in charge of those companies I would be a fool to try to run them any differently. All I am saying is that whatever the reason (be it deliberation, market forces, or something else entirely) these companies are capable of putting out a consistent message, provided you look at it from a certain perspective. I suppose you could say I am stretching the meaning of "agenda". Non-deliberate messages, which most of the "pro establishment" stuff probably is, probably doesn't really qualify as agenda now that I think about it.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Sure. I'm just suggesting that this may be a variant of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. Media companies don't drive the consistency of the culture; they simply feed on the enormous latent drive to comforting conformity that's hardwired into our species.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        Right, agreed.
afterburner 14y ago
It doesn't matter that not all the properties fall in line with Fox News' agenda. That Fox News has a huge influence is undeniable, and the rest of News Corps news and pundit properties fall in line with that. The entertainment divisions simply put money in the pot.
- philwelch 14y ago
  > It doesn't matter that not all the properties fall in line with Fox News' agenda It matters in the sense that a media conglomerate can't consistently act in concert to effect cultural change, which was the original question. But I think you're being insufficiently cynical if you don't think the news properties are there to put money in the pot, too. Before Fox News was launched, the overwhelming sentiment among conservative Americans (who, let's not forget, make up about half the country) was that other news sources had a liberal bias. It was an obvious opportunity to exploit.
  - taligent 14y ago
    This is completely and utterly wrong. In the UK/Australia, News Limited has been heavily involved through its newspapers in dictating government policy. For example the "boat people" issue was very much promoted in Australia and in the UK there are countless examples of governments capitulating on policy at the behest of the News International papers.
    - philwelch 14y ago
      I'm not denying that News Corporation is influential, I just think the primary motivation is profit rather than an actual desire to see through any kind of political agenda.
      - lostlogin 14y ago
        Tony Blair is the godparent of one of Mirdoch's children. Those two deserve each other with their insidious and seedy behavior. Profit may be a motivation for them both, however Murdoch is far more clever and manipulative than Blair and his agenda would hardly be hurt by having the PM as a godparent to his kid.
illuminate 14y ago
"I'm convinced that News Corporation is entirely mercenary in its agenda and only started Fox News because right-wing cable news was a wide open opportunity in the late 1990's." This might be more plausible if their News wing didn't represent the interests of its Founder.