People with principles, of course, tend not to be thus.
“I am genuinely scared†of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.†Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws.
In other words, Fox is an outlier to Davies’ world, because unlike proper people and organizations that can be swayed by calling them names and the like, Fox doesn’t pay attention to such things as peer pressure or ostracism.
I remember thinking back at UC Berkeley in the ’80s that simple spinelessness among students was the real reason that a basic reminder to be polite transformed so quickly into the monstrosity of political correctness.
Fox pays attention to RATINGS, which is why it seems like about 2/3 or more of their ‘anchors’ are leggy blondes, and why they give air time to bombasts like O’Reilly and Beck (who are the cable TV versions of the op-ed page, just like Olbermann and Maddow).
It’s also a big reason FNC is kicking CNN’s ass.
“Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “I hate to open this can of worms,†he wrote, “but is there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?—
Speechless.
Lawls. Davies needs to shut his pie hole about libel laws; not for nothing is Britain one of the places people like to file libel lawsuits from. The rules there are extremely canted against the defendant.