I agree most with the idea that the media is driven by the free market to show what it does. The news shows probably appear tilted in their content, but it all probably goes back to what advertising they can sell for the most profit based on the profile of their viewers. MSNBC -or maybe more specifically Keith Olberman – probably gets a specific set of advertisers to pay a premium for spots on his show because they know their audience leans more to the left (as a generality) and they have better success selling to that targeted market. If MSNBC decided to be “more balanced” then their advertising might shift and then they would be competing with somebody like Fox. They might then be less profitable.

So in the end, the free market is driving what we see on the news. Advertising is one aspect of capitalism that leaves me a little queasy in the stomach. Advertising to create demand never factors in to a theoretical model of capitalism, but in application it exists.

I’ve always tried to explain to my friends who don’t understand “right wing nutter radio” that it really has little to do with supporting a political philosophy and more to do with how well the advertisements during the shows increase sales. Rush Limbaugh ideas may have resonated with a lot of people, but he wouldn’t be where he was if he didn’t increase the sales (by a substantial amount) of the products he endorsed. He isn’t a great pundit – he’s a masterful pitchman.

In an ideal world, we could get factual news with no commentary, but alas, that serves no advertising purpose.