Fox News: Subsidizing Porn

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

Would someone, anyone, please tell me why right-wing evangelical Christians love Fox News so much? Especially since Fox News is just subsidizing Fox entertainment like Married by America, Trading Spouses, and How to Make Love Like a Porn Star? (Not to mention Bill O'Reilly...)

Maybe it's time to talk to Bill Deiz about his suggested Fox News boycott. Maybe even get Red Staters involved in that boycott, too...

From Frank Rich at the New York Times:

If anyone is laughing all the way to the bank this election year, it must be the undisputed king of the red cultural elite, Rupert Murdoch. Fox News is a rising profit center within his News Corporation, and each red-state dollar that it makes can be plowed back into the rest of Fox's very blue entertainment portfolio. The Murdoch cultural stable includes recent books like Jenna Jameson's "How to Make Love Like a Porn Star" and the Vivid Girls' "How to Have a XXX Sex Life," which have both been synergistically, even joyously, promoted on Fox News by willing hosts like Rita Cosby and, needless to say, Mr. O'Reilly. There are "real fun parts and exciting parts," said Ms. Cosby to Ms. Jameson on Fox News's "Big Story Weekend," an encounter broadcast on Saturday at 9 p.m., assuring its maximum exposure to unsupervised kids.

Almost unnoticed in the final weeks of the campaign was the record government indecency fine levied against another prime-time Fox television product, "Married by America." The $1.2 million bill, a mere bagatelle to Murdoch stockholders, was more than twice the punishment inflicted on Viacom for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction." According to the F.C.C. complaint, one episode in this heterosexual marriage-promoting reality show included scenes in which "partygoers lick whipped cream from strippers' bodies," and two female strippers "playfully spank" a man on all fours in his underwear. "Married by America" is gone now, but Fox remains the go-to network for Paris Hilton ("The Simple Life") and wife-swapping ("Trading Spouses: Meet Your New Mommy").
  • Tenskwatawa (unverified)

    Well, great minds, parallel, serious, whatever. I am starting an essay on the germ of an idea that we see, we are seeing, the emergence of a new political party. The idea crystallized when I named it the Media Party. It has both leftist and rightist aims and purposes, so it is not 'replacing' either the conventional D's or R's. This Media Party exists outside of all the conventional forms, (preconceived notions must be this low = to ride this ride). I guess the Media Party candidate for President of the World must be Murdoch, and maybe Nov. 2 he got elected. Murdochian is the connection with your post, Kari. Frank Rich always seems to have my flank, right in parallel, circumspecting these recent years' portents. But I fly off the handle ...

    So, the other early bit about the Media Party that came to me was that it elects celebrities, like Shwarthybeggar. Not lawyers.
    This 'new party' breakout is the start of a 172-year life (cycle), and precedent for this was the Dem's origin in 1932, antedated by the 1924 splinter faction from the Democrat-Republicans and coincided with the invention of the party nominating convention ... also, the 1932 invention of the factory, as in the assembly line, which was the invention of hour/wage work when time became money, which was the invention of metropolitan living, which, as I say, was the invention of Democrats, or 'labor,' as in: management and labor. Also, telegraphy and photography were invented then, 1835. What happened then is happening now. That's the history this sees repeating, in seeing a new 'Media Party' emerging these days. But I digress ...

    I mean, cable TV simply announced who won the electoral vote and everybody started living it. That's who voted for Bush: Cable TV elected him. There's this small technicality that the ballots haven't been counted yet and the result is not foreseen. (Did you get today's memo from

    Just since Bill posted his idea to boycott FOXzi, (maybe I can trade in 'FOXzi' for my new favorite,'FIX News'), he has already escalated to BOYCOTT Cable TV. For all the reasons to consider it and then add this one: Cable TV subscriptions money goes into the GOP, cable TV subscriptions money is what paid for the "dedicated GOP vision-building effort for decades" that Jeff posted about -- we cable TV subscribers built this GOP.

    Comments? Media Party?

  • Tenskwatawa (unverified)

    Oh, almost forgot. What to think of this departure from a stongly credible site.

    "...norms of freedom of speech" ...??? More like 'words of freedom of stupid.'

    <h1></h1> <hr/>

    Blogosphere: DemocraticUnderground Reported to Homeland Security Date 2004/11/13 17:56:31 | Topic: Cyberwar

    The fights between conservative and liberal bloggers on the Internet, continued this week on Wednesday, with a new nasty climax: (DU), basically one of the first and strongest supporters into the alleged voter-fraud, was reported to the Homeland Security Department. In another disturbing twist, on friday, DU shut down the popular 9/11 Forum

    DemocraticUnderground Reported to Homeland Security Department

    hundredpercenter.blogspot -November 10th, 2004

    Dear Secretary Ridge,

    I am writing to you as an American citizen that is deeply concerned by a subversive site on the internet. This site needs to be investigated for actively sympathizing with foreign terrorists and inciting violence against U.S. troops abroad. I felt it is my duty to report this internet site that may be engaged with supporting terrorism /anti-government activities. The name of the site is I believe in freedom of speech and I consider myself to be an open-minded person. I recognize that many in our country are against the Iraq war and although I do not share that view, that is their right. However, I am not tolerant of extremist propaganda that is preaching death to our troops. This site is more than offensive and far exceeds the norms of freedom of speech.

    It is an aggressive, hateful group of people that pose a danger to our country. There are many radical Islamic sites, as you well know, that promote terrorism and are used to recruit their followers. I feel this site, DemocraticUnderground, is very similar in kind.

    It has the potential to incite their cohorts to act out against troops or cause harm to our fellow citizens. This site also accepts so-called donations that truly warrant a thorough investigation by the IRS. I am enclosing a page with some excerpts from this site and the webmaster’s name and address.

    I thank you in advance.



    This article comes from INN World Report

    The URL for this story is:

  • allehseya (unverified)

    I'd be happy to -- but it will be soooo long -- so I'm actually considering submitting an article on Media and its role in government to this site. Will get back to you, I promise.

  • Tenskwatawa (unverified)

    Sometimes my information gets ahead of my data. To focus exactly on the first offer, to take anyone's explanation "why right-wing evangelical Christians love Fox News so much," get this: Cable TV subscriptions, invented in 1975, pumped hundreds of millions of dollars, no -- billions-with-a-B dollars annually by 1980, cash dollars into evangelical Christian television studios -- indeed, cable TV minted the term 'televangelism' -- and they slush-funded into GOP campaigns and politics. Any thing, in any way, that swells cable TV business, the 'right-wing evangelical Christians' luh-uh-uh-unh-uvvve. 'FEEEL the healin' POWer .. uvv the luhhhvv. F-fEEEL, it H-hEEEAL. Ladies and gentlemen now it's time to vote. Come forward and puts your fingers on the compound computer television machine, and unh f-fEEEL, it VOTE.'

    There I go, getting off point again. Kari: Follow the money. Billions-with-a-B dollars. Cable payer ==> right-wing evangelical Christians numb enough to not listen to what anyone says of how they look ==> school board candidates voting to put green Mr. Yuck stickers on science books, and creationism in the lunch cafeteria ==> Congress. (for '==>' read: "goes to")

    I'm lazy and it's inefficient to redevelop this same topic when it was the subject of personal correspondence this week. Here is that from my email box, and trusting it's all properly introduced: From: Amy Sullivan Subject: Re: Formation of C. Coalition Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 19:15

    To: [email protected] Thanks so much for your note. You're right--the rise of the Christian Right and its alliance with the Republican Party is a complicated, rich story. I was just trying to sketch the barest of explanations for how it came to be, but am familiar with most of the details. Most Americans, however, would be surprised to know that the alliance is relatively recent and that it didn't have to be. That's one of the most tragic parts of the story. all the best, amy ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] Date: Friday, November 5, 2004 2:27 am Subject: Formation of C. Coalition Dear Amy Sullivan, You are the first person I've read who speaks to the founding of the Christian Coalition being precipitated by Roe. (By the way, what groups does the 'coalition' include? One could imagine groups of Christian denominations and be wrong. Is it not a two-part 'coalition' -- a certain racist evangelically white denomination and the GOP?) I have cited the galvanizing effect of Roe v. Wade for so long I have numbers made up to convey that cusp in the culture. The starting point, as you said, (Washington Monthly, filling in for Kevin Drum, and thence to me), was from an era which prescribed an apolitical pose for religiosity. As avowed along the lines that those who keep God's laws don't deign to dabble in man's laws, or politics. Devouts and seminarians did not vote, that just wasn't done. The voting public was like 55 - 40 Dem.-Rep., with 5 'other' in every 100 voters. The abruptness of the Roe ruling traumatized the morally indignant crusaders -- which surveys consistently show is 1-of-6, about 17% of people -- whose political motivation began and is entirely articulated in the single issue of abortion. (I chide that it is probably 1-of-8 people, a statistical signal that their pathos obsession could be something genetic, as from a great-grandparent; twelve percent plus a few hangers-on.) Starting with the 1976 vote, say 15 new voters were added in the electorate with every 100 regulars, and the new breakdown was 55 - 55 Dem.-Rep., with 5 'other' in 115 voters. That percentage parity broadly remains today. The anti-abortion voters' affect on 1976 tallies was diffused because Carter partly ran as a Sunday School teacher. A fine point often forgotten from the '73-'76 days is that the moralizers approached the Dems. first with their 'coalition' plan, and the Dems. told them to take a hike. There was no special rectitude-convergence with the Reps., the moral masses only wound up teamed with the GOP by a process of elimination. An overarching point is also often left out of describing the socio-cultural seedbed in which the C. Coalition germinated: Cable TV was invented in 1975. It continues to be the funding mechanism of the religious right today, most markedly in Murdoch's mein. To begin with, cable operators contracted to deliver a bundle of about eight 'basic package' channels. Not appreciated today is that there were not eight channel programmers in the whole country in 1975 -- after the three networks and an 'independent' and public broadcasting was counted, there were three empty channels left. Desperate for anything they took Pat Robertson's production out of Virginia, mostly because he was near the military-associated satellite uplink antennas in that area, by which he was specially able to get his signal up to the bird and the cable operators could take it from there. Of course, the televangelizers came into every cable home asking for charity donations, and getting it, and all of that is what I call the 'above board' money which could be fairly well accounted and, incidentally, sponsored some rather colorful or lurid examples of reverend purchases .... But under the table is where the big bucks moved. Each channel provider got an equal share from each cable subscriber's payment, whether the subscriber watched that channel, every channel, any channel, or not. Go on vacation for a month and not watch any cable channels at home -- the same monthly cable fee was still owed and each channel got its pay, when no one watched. By 1980, with 10 million cable subscribers, say, at $10 a month, for 10 channels, the church service broadcaster in Virginia is getting a $10 million check every month from cable subscribers. What did the collection plate bring in a month, $1 million? Anyway, the cable revenues financed Robertson's campaign for president and a lot of other campaigns he selected to bankroll. Today, with about 50 million cable homes and 50 million cable-paying businesses, say fifty channels for fifty bucks a month, each channel supplier grosses about $80 million a month which is $1 billion a year. There are complications to this simplified sketch, but the central conclusion is that cable channels are cash cows. Not counting, yet, the revenues from selling ad time, although it's less than subscriber revenues. And it is not only that the FOXzis get paid excessively for propaganda programming which hardly anyone watches. It is that they then apply that money to sponsor rightwing radio hate by buying time for commercials that advertise cable TV programs. Or they buy display ads in favored print periodicals and newspapers and prop them up, as long as they have the 'right' profile. And in many other ways the cable TV cash is the lifeblood of the C. Coalition and religious right organizations which could all dry up and blow away if subscribers ever stop making their cable payments, en mass. Boycott cable TV is one effective mobilization against today's third reich-going politics. Another is to lobby for pay per view a la carte television, delivered through the internet. Where the viewer pays who he watches for what he watches only as long as he watches. Internet 'cable' channels without many viewers would make less money ... what, a cash calf? The idea that stopping one's cable TV addiction also stops the religious right's preying on fears is both an obvious and obscure connection between those dots. Yes, Roe v. Wade begat the Christian Coalition, but cable TV raised it.

  • (Show?)

    As long as said boycott doesn't extend to sports channels, I'm already on board.

connect with blueoregon