(h/t commentor Emily 68)
Marc Tracy at TNR has a hopeful argument on why “There is no Democratic Roger Ailes”:
… [W]hat the demographic data makes clear is that, even if a left-leaning programming genius were to emerge, it’s unlikely any network could have the same pull with Democrats. The groups that tend to vote for liberal candidates get their news from a more diffuse set of platforms—there’s cable, sure, but also social media, national papers, and a constellation of websites. While one-fifth of Republicans cited Fox News as their main source, CNN won first-place among Democrats with just one-tenth. Being on the whole younger, Democrats are less likely to go in for traditional platforms: 28 percent of those 18-29 rely solely on digital platforms, and it is only among those 50 and over that news engagement with digital platforms falls off a cliff. Black people, a prominent Democratic-leaning minority, use Twitter more than white people, according to Pew.
Maybe the lack of a liberal Ailes is a sign—and a guarantor—of vitality, though. Fox News caters to, reflects, and you might say represents a group of predominantly old white people. There are enough such people to ensure the continued success of Ailes-style management and journalism. But there are not enough to enable Fox News to change substantially the political direction of the entire country, particularly in the face of growing forces trying to push the country in the opposite direction. In fact, by presenting this group of voters an inaccurate vision of the country, Ailes is probably lulling them into a false sense of complacency (this he does, ironically, by appealing to delusions of victimhood)….
Democratic cat-herding — it’s a feature, not a bug! Apart from cherishing our own probably-false sense of complacency, what’s on the agenda for the day?