Reply #12: to understand why writers are kept on and published you must know...

[Didereaux]

...and understand what their function is to the media in which they exist. They must get response, good or bad the public has to know them, talk about them cuss and discuss them. That drives readership and viewer numbers and THAT generates money. Just as the old adage in advertizing says, an ad needs to be noticed, good or bad it does not matter solong as the products name is remembered. It is proven beyond any limit that name recognition sells the product.

Now as the the two second criteria that keeps, especially writers, employed...consistent,on time, product! Editors could give a crap how good your material is, if you cannot produce at a consistent rate you are history, period!

Take Don Imus for example, the people who demanded his ouster turned out NOT to be of any measurable quantity as respects the advertizers of that time slot. Imus proved that his listeners had not abandoned him, and the network proved that a replacement did not generate the same ratings; therefor, Imus is back!

Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh both hated by more people than like them; however, the numbers of those who do are sufficient and 'loyal' enough to produce profits for sponsors. So the two remain on the air.

So you see that in only a very rare instance or two where some rich whacko backs a loser and keeps them writing or running thier mouths despite lack of commercial sponsorship, it is no great conspiracy that drives the media. It is just plain, old everyday filthy lucre that is the goal. The who, the how, even the what are irrelevent so long as the green flows to the product.