A lot of people are dazzled by the success of the Fox News Network; they see it as a juggernaut of conservative thought that has taken the nation (and the ratings) by storm. But a closer look at the numbers reveals a story that might seem a little strange.
Fox was founded by the indomitable Rupert Murdoch, who hired the indomitable Roger Ailes to put things together, on his supposedly conservative behalf. Ailes, a TV veteran with a resume as long as his girth is wide, promptly assembled a group of mostly unknown talking heads from around the country (and around the world–Murdoch is Australian, after all, and there were a few early nods to the Queen’s Empire) and almost overnight transformed the sleepy aspiring network into the conservative alternative to what it likes to portray as the “mainstream media.” (Slyly hinted to be “left wing media”).
But there are two problems with this picture. Or at least there are two questions that should be asked.
Firstly, is Fox really “conservative?” or does it just play conservative on TV? A close look at Murdoch reveals a man whose political leanings tend to favor whatever political party is in office at the time. This is the man, after all, who became an American citizen because he wanted to buy a New York newspaper, the Post(at the time, he was forbidden to do so unless he became a citizen; he already owned a New York TV station and there were limitations on foreigners owning both.)
Firstly, is Fox really “conservative?” or does it just play conservative on TV? A close look at Murdoch reveals a man whose political leanings tend to favor whatever political party is in office at the time. This is the man, after all, who became an American citizen because he wanted to buy a New York newspaper, the Post(at the time, he was forbidden to do so unless he became a citizen; he already owned a New York TV station and there were limitations on foreigners owning both.)
How conservative is Rupert Murdoch? According to sources, he seriously considered endorsing Barack Obama for his first term as president.
The second question concerns ratings. Is Fox really as big as it seems when the numbers are tallied.
The size of a network’s worth is usually measured in the profits on its bottom line. Here Fox seems to have some problems. Yes, it makes a lot of money, but it also, apparently, misses a lot of money because its ratings tend to skew to a much older, and less advertiser-friendly audience. Simply put, a lot of the Fox viewers are old. Very old. They’re not the audience advertisers crave. This puts Fox at somewhat of a disadvantage against those younger-audience networks–you know, the ones that are part of that “mainstream media.”
The size of a network’s worth is usually measured in the profits on its bottom line. Here Fox seems to have some problems. Yes, it makes a lot of money, but it also, apparently, misses a lot of money because its ratings tend to skew to a much older, and less advertiser-friendly audience. Simply put, a lot of the Fox viewers are old. Very old. They’re not the audience advertisers crave. This puts Fox at somewhat of a disadvantage against those younger-audience networks–you know, the ones that are part of that “mainstream media.”
Fox will soldier on, certainly. There’s a hot presidential election coming up in a few years and there will be plenty of explosive fodder for conservatives and Libertarians. For those of us in the middle of that great political American road, we’ll just have to look at the vast power of the Fox Network with a few grains of salt.
