Thursday, October 21, 2010

NewsCorp v. Cablevision

I haven't been watching much TV lately. I go through the channel listings a couple of times a night, and see nothing I particularly want to watch except for the PBS NewsHour and John Stewart — and I know when those are on.

Still, I know about the "conflict" between Fox and Cablevision. When I turn on the cable box, I am automatically directed to a looping announcement telling me that Fox wants Cablevision to pay exorbitant fees to carry Fox entertainment programming.

Okay, I enjoy the musical numbers on "Glee," but I certainly can live without it. Today, though, I noticed something I hadn't noticed before. Even though Fox entertainment is absent from Cablevision, Fox NEWS remains.

If Cablevision really wanted to put Rupert Murdoch's balls in a vise, it would refuse to carry Fox News until an agreement was reached. Two scant weeks before election day, and given the market penetration of Cablevision, Murdoch would cave instantly. So why are we still able to see Beck and Hannity and the rest of the crazy crew on Cablevision?

Could it be because Cablevision's politics and Fox's politics are identical, despite their relatively minor financial quarrels? (All together, now: "Duh!")

So, when Cablevision splits the difference with Fox and raises your monthly access fee, don't be surprised. Personally, I wouldn't mind canceling cable altogether and putting a big antenna on my roof if only I had an alternative high speed internet provider. Unfortunately, where I live, I don't.

Why is nobody bothering to enforce the Sherman and Clayton anti-trust statutes? Oh, I forgot!

That would make them "socialists."

1 comment:

Unknown said...

Cablevision Subscribers: Missing FOX? Have Your Voice Heard - Take this quick survey and tell everyone you know to do the same