<hr/>**评论：**<br/><br/>Deuce232: <pre><p>I've locked this thread. The post has been sufficiently explained and it is now generating a lot of low quality responses.</p></pre>AndrewJamesDrake: <pre><p>The Fox News Channel and the Standard Fox Channel are not the same organization. They are owned by the same <em>parent company</em>, but that doesn't mean much. The Parent Company has very little influence in the Day-to-Day decision-making for Fox News and Fox under normal circumstances, they only step in when one of the Fox channels starts under-performing (not making enough money).</p>
<p>Fox News Channel and Standard Fox Channel have different content for one reason: They do not want to compete with each-other. Their Parent Company wants <em>both of them</em> to have their own audience. This is because people can only watch one Advertisement at once. If your own Channels steal each-other's audiences, then the amount of Ad Money that is produced by all the Channels <em>does not increase</em>.</p>
<p>It's worth noting that Fox News's Parent Company <em>also</em> owns National Geographic. You know, the publication that believes that Global Warming is real and calls people to work against it. Meanwhile, Fox News believes it's fake and tells everyone to work against anti-Global Warming things.</p>
<p>Basically: Corporations have no internal Moral Values, except a desire to make more money. They only have alternative brands that pander to different audiences.</p></pre>gvwlgm: <pre><p>Money is a big factor. They're a corporation, and as to not gain any animosity, they don't choose sides. If Fox made a leftist news company, they wouldn't have as much room for profit as they would with Fox News. Same idea goes for their television, where sticking to a formula someone else has already tapped into doesn't gain revenue as easily.</p></pre>Sylvanmoon: <pre><p>I think Seth MacFarlane, creator of Family Guy, said it best.</p>
<p>"Rupert Murdoch is a businessman first, and a Republican second."</p></pre>basketcase456: <pre><p>It amazes me no one posted yet a link to the summary of The Simpsons episode You Kent Always Say What You Want. In this episode, Kent and Lisa ask this every question. The answer is clearly only one possible and entertaining answer, but still a possibility. </p>
<p><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Kent_Always_Say_What_You_Want">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Kent_Always_Say_What_You_Want</a></p></pre>Mr_Belch: <pre><p>Money. And each have different target audience. They don't put all their eggs in one basket, so they get the senior demographic with their conservative news and get a younger demographic with their more raunchy and trashy programming.</p></pre>partofthevoid: <pre><p>Fox News isn't really a news organization. They fought in court and won in Florida on the basis that they have no obligation to be honest or truthful: They are an entertainment organization. </p>
<p>Fox News purveys just as much if not more smut than regular Fox does, and it can be confusing with the big "Fox News" icon emblazoned in the bottom left-but make no mistake, the only thing that matters is ratings and they have a formula to get those ratings. </p>
<p>Also, Fox News is run independently from regular Fox. The only 'responsibility' that the two share is to turn a profit.</p></pre>40_Minus_1: <pre><p>It's almost like Fox News doesn't actually exist for the purpose of promoting conservative propaganda. It's almost like it promotes conservative propaganda because that's a good way to make money from a niche market.</p>
<p>Seriously, all these decisions are about money. In the same vein, you don't really think that conservative politicians actually deny science or don't believe in climate change or evolution, so you? They say they disagree with science because there are entities that make a lot of money from going against whatever changes modern science is urging them to make.</p></pre>grass_type: <pre><p>First of all, they're largely separate entities on paper- Fox News is, essentially, an unofficial organ of the Republican Party as well as a news broadcaster, whereas the broad Fox umbrella is overwhelmingly located in the entertainment sector.</p>
<p>Second, there's no real reason a corporation needs to take a consistent moral stance on their programming between franchises. So, Fox News is conservative and puritanical because that makes them money, and general Fox programming is lewd and base because that makes <em>them</em> money. If this caused them problems, they would stop doing it, and since they haven't, we must assume it doesn't.</p></pre>mainfingertopwise: <pre><p>What about political conservatism do you think regular Fox programming goes against? Being politically "conservative" is not the same thing as being socially "conservative." But what's more, you're not going to see much - if anything - that's a political turn off to <em>anyone.</em> And that applies to all network programming.</p></pre>not_kelsey_grammar: <pre><p>One format appeals to the base fears and suspicions of a certain demographic, the other appeals to the base desires of a certain demographic. Both equal big ratings, which equals advertising revenue, which equals profit.</p></pre>Psycho_Logically: <pre><p>Just want to point out that Fox news is not "so conservative", they just seem that way compared to the far-Left programming you're used to from the majority of other networks. In real terms, Fox is perhaps just right of centre, if we're being generous. The overton window (the range of acceptible political discourse) has spent the last decade the furthest to the Left that it has perhaps ever been, historically.</p>
<p>Too illustrate my point, I'll make a list of some topics you might find on an actual far-Right network in America. You'd likely see some of the following ideas being endorsed: Ban on ALL non-essential immigration, not just Muslim. The benefits of reinstating Apartheid. The genetic mental and behavioural disparities between various races. The implications of gender dimorphism. Revoking the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 and deportating non-White citizens, also ammending the constitution to no longer permit anchor-babies. Ethnic identitarianism. The benefits of eugenics. I could keep going, but I think you get the picture. </p>
<p>So again, in real terms, Fox is actually quite centrist, but many of the networks you may be used to are far-Left, so Fox seems very conservative in contrast.</p>
<p>EDIT: A lot of people attacking my character for actually <em>being</em> pretty far right, although notice how not one of them actually provides any counter arguement? Everything I post and everything I have posted is either true, or deliberately hyperbolic to make a point. This further illustrates the fact that the overton window is currently at the far-Left, to the degree where people think that merely stating right-wing viewpoints somehow equates to refuting them? I'm going to bed now, but remember: I'm still right.</p></pre>Kevin_Uxbridge: <pre><p>I'm not sure I agree that Fox News is all that conservative. Can't say I frequent their website as much as others but I'm always surprised at the amount of shit like celebrity gossip and (mildly) risqué fashion and bikini shots. If they are 'conservative' it's of a very particular kind. </p>
<p>Edit: Being clearer, I meant that Fox seems politically conservative (although you could unpack that), but not so much <em>socially</em> conservative, or at least not what I think of as such. Woulda thought those would go together but apparently not. Down vote away, tovarish-bots.</p></pre>10110010111000: <pre><p>Is Fox News still considered conservative? </p></pre>ScornedSquirrel: <pre><p>Fox is a money making organization. They don't actually care about anything. It sold well to be the racist hate filled news org. it payed well to be the raunchy TV network. </p></pre>garrett_k: <pre><p>Fox News isn't really that conservative. Depending upon how you rate it, it's the major media organization closest to the median American.</p>
<p>They are, however, sensationalist with an emphasis on rage. They use lots of talking heads because the cost is lower. This provides for the greatest return on investment.</p></pre>Penelepillar: <pre><p>Because it's trash TV that appeals to the lowest common denominator. Cartoons for grown ups and jingoistic yellow journalism disguised as information.</p></pre>BiggNiggTyrone: <pre><p>all news organizations are there to make money. fox makes money saying what they say and so does CNN/MSNBC/NYT/whatever but none of them are honest. btw tim pool did an ama in january, you may find it interesting. it talks a bit about the bias inherent in news.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5q3ck5/iam_independent_journalist_tim_pool_founding/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5q3ck5/iam_independent_journalist_tim_pool_founding/</a></p>
<p>wikileaks pretty much tells us that all news organizations have pretty much been bought out. if you think CNN has any obligation to be honest then you're seriously deluding yourself.</p>
<p>CNN = liars</p>
<p>MSNBC = liars</p>
<p>Fox = liars</p>
<p>Wikileaks = telling the truth</p></pre>PapaNickWrong: <pre><p>Fox only seems conservative in comparison to the average news network. They are probably the most center network you can watch</p></pre>toakleaf: <pre><p>Are you implying that regular Fox is less moral than Fox News?</p>
<p>I disagree with that premise. I cite as my source pussy grabbing. And no, I'm not specifying which incident I'm referring to.</p></pre>C0rdt: <pre><p>Because "conservative" and "liberal" are both extremely subjective and basically mean nothing. </p></pre>imahik3r: <pre><p>Can you provide examples of the NEWS show not the talk shows ?</p></pre>whoismikejoneswho: <pre><p>Money money money. They're simply cashing in on niche markets they've realized are undeserved by the others.</p></pre>
