Why doesn’t work capitalism in the media business?


Why doesn’t work the law of supply and demand in the entertainment and media business?

Within a well-performing capitalistic system one should expect, that produced goods (supply) correspond to what people call for and require (demand).
Since about 50% of the people are conservative and ought to ask for corresponding media coverage: Why aren’t at least 50% of media products conservative too?

Normally (in a well-performing capitalistic system) companies couldn’t decide what the do or which products they provide by themselves! In well working capitalistic system they had to align their offer to the needs and wants of the consumer - or go bankrupt.


  • Hollywood is liberal
  • The NFL is liberal
  • TV-News-Networks are liberal (except FOX)
  • Newspapers are liberal

Isn’t a condition with a low number of competitors but a high of potential customers the ideal circumstance to make money? So, why aren’t there more companies which try to fill the (conservative) gap in market and why isn’t there a greater offer of conservative media products?


Govt controls a lot of business in the US. They all but own the Financial sector, they control the media more than less and as long as they do there is no real freedom. There is a reason why the conservative vews are so prevalent on radio and the internet, the govt either has less control.


O.K. But can they really control the media sector? For example: How could they hinder investors to establish a new TV-channel that broadcasts conservative content? FOX is an example. If FOX can exist why can’t other conservative channels exist or grow?


Absolutely they can, and they do. Remember that for years there were only three networks. Then the UHF stations started. Then the cable channels, satellite channels, and now subscriber channels.

Now, let’s look at the main reason the gov’t can control it: You must have a license to broadcast anything.

Who controls the licenses? The gov’t
Who controls the agency that issues? Liberals (and that trend continues for most gov’t agencies)


Right off the top if my head, without doing a lot of research I’d say its because the denser population areas tend to lean more to the left.

Take this map for instance:

1/2 of the population lives there and most (not all) are areas that lean left, naturally, now that media covers the nation, you are going to target areas of high density…

That’s just my .02 without looking into the question at all. I’ll look into it later.


Can’t afford to care about us folks in flyover country…


To the contrary, the OP states that capitalism isn’t working with respect to right/ left media. I’m making the point that it is capitalism that creates the skew.

I’m just analyzing it, not stating a value judgment.


O.K. You say, you will never get a media license if you are conservative??


So you think media concerns attune their offer to that people that live in denser population areas?
Actually the concerns can only consider the average viewer’s demands, if they deal capitalistically. Even if liberals live in denser regions and conservatives scattered: The total amount of liberal viewers would not be higher be higher.

Even if conservatives live in areas of lower population density, naturally these areas have to be lager in size. So why should concerns ONLY be interested IN DENSITY and not in the total number of viewers?


NO, I didn’t say that. I said they control it.


So you think media concerns attune their offer to that person that live in denser population areas?

Isn’t that capitalism? Isn’t it more profitable to cover a small land area with lots of people? Remember that stations used to go out over the air with Terrestrial Antennas. It’s been less than a generation since we broke from that.

If those people tend to be more liberal, wouldn’t you expect the coverage to reflect that?

I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying that it makes sense.

Actually the concerns can only consider the average viewer’s demands if they deal capitalistically. Even if liberals live in denser regions and conservatives scattered: The total amount of liberal viewers would not be higher be higher.

You are forgetting that media didn’t happen in the internet age, it’s only been the last 15 years that national, highly selective media has even existed.

Before that, we had cable and newspapers. Where were the most influential newspapers? In big cities.

The result over the past 15 years has been highly specialized media, but the culture that existed prior to the 2000’s still shows its influence.

I think as time goes by liberal and conservative media will become increasingly biased, but I also think it will level out.

The 20 somethings of today don’t watch CNN for news and a tiny fraction have ever held an actual newspaper never mind read one, though newspapers are increasingly going digital.

I think capitalism created the landscape we see today, but I suspect that landscape will change quite a bit over the next several years.

Remember that Sinclar Group, a highly conservative media company now owns more local stations than any other single group and they are using that influence to push stories that Conservatives will find interesting.

We’ll see how that plays out…


O.K. They control it.
So you say: If you are conservative it’s harder to get a media licence than if you are liberal?
Or what effect has “controlling” else? Or what has controlling to do with the circumstance, that are fewer conservative TV-channels than liberal channels?


Apply simple logic to this.

If I control water, and I don’t like you, I can still give it to you. I can also make it very hard for you to get and make it easy for people I like.

That’s closer to the situation.

Where times have changed is that you do not need a license with the internet. You can setup a youtube channel…
Oh wait! Liberals control that too.
So you can setup a Facebook page and post your messages…
Oh wait! Liberals control that too!


Ya - that’s what I said. But I think you are overrating the effect.
For example: There are many conservative radio channels.


I see.
This explains the effect on terrestrial or cable channels which are only available in local areas.

Conservatives consumed fewer media-products in general in the past.
So the good news is: There will be more conservative news in the (non terrestrial) future?

Another question in this regard:
Why are most actors / tv-producers liberal?
Most protested against Trump. Are there indeed more liberal than conservative actors – or are conservative actors just hiding?

And one more:
Al least today conservatives have more or less the same access to media than liberals. So you might expect that movie-producers would produce series and films for conservatives as well as for liberals.
But I see more and more videos with a very liberal undertone. For Example Jack Gyllenhall played an astronaut in “Live” that doesn’t want back to earth because of certain conservative political issues (I don’t remember exactly). By contrast I found no series or films that had an explicit conservative tone. Why aren’t they producing such stuff? There definitely is a market.

These questions are especially interesting because the media (news as well as entertainment) has a very high influence on how people are thinking.


I’m no expert in this regard, and it’s a good question. I suspect it’s just the evolution of the culture of Hollywood.

Just spitballing and without looking it up, I think the 24-35 year old demographic is the most important one to Hollywood. What percentage of 24-35-year-olds are liberal/ conservative?

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that capitalism is rearing its ugly head here too…Hollywood (and I admit I’m guessing here so take with a grain of salt) is playing to its core demographic which is more likely to be liberal.


Conservatives didn’t pay much attention to EITHER TV “news” or so-called “entertainment” for very good reasons. You may not have noticed, but both have nearly ALWAYS been left-leaning–at least in the era of TV, especially since the early 60’s. Since the 70’s, EVERY sit-com featured a “father” who was a dolt and children who at least pretended to be smarter than either parent. The self-styled “Most Trusted Man in America,” Walter Cronkite, constantly lied to his adoring public, particularly with regard to what was going on in Vietnam. The so-called “news” agencies are directly responsible for our failure to save the Vietnamese from the communist North. Rush Limbaugh became so wildly successful because he was saying what the VAST majority of us already knew and believed–while no one else in ANY media were. That gave rise to conservative radio and was WHY “liberal radio” failed miserably.


The news departments in the lame stream new media (ABC, CBS, NBC and MSNBC) are subsidized by the entertainment division. That’s what keeps them going. As for CNN I suppose that they have a loyal following of Republican haters who give them enough of an audience to sell ads.


Yah – sadly. I think it is indoctrination plus group-thinking.
If there is no gene that makes conservatives being bad in acting, conservative actors have to be transformed in Hollywood. Same happens at universities.

Even if there were – let’s say – only 30% conservatives in this age-group, there still would exist a huge target audience – large enough to motivate media companies to produce movies for this group. Think about the fact, that there is almost no competition: Paradisiacal conditions for every capitalistic working concern.

I fear that it will get worse in the future. But I also have to say, that my definition of conservative may be different from yours.
The news and film industry could be the most powerful factor regarding the direction in which a society is evolving. If you have the possibility to present your ideas to an audience of hundred million people 4h every day, you can systematically change their mindset. I think it is more powerful than any political campaign ever can be.

If they wouldn’t be profitable by themselves, why should they be subsidized?


Walter Cronkite was the “father” of editorializing and calling it news.