Scott says that Shafer has a point, which he does, but also, he doesn't.
Shafer says that gosh there has always been This Sort of Thing, and also that Murdoch hasn't been able to directly subvert democracy and appoint our Political Leaders, and therefore, he is not all-powerful.
Dickinson's thesis, "that Ailes has used Fox News to pioneer a new form of political campaign—one that enables the GOP to bypass skeptical reporters and wage an around-the-clock, partisan assault on public opinion," just doesn't pass the historical sniff test. Nor does Dickinson's frenzied assertion that Ailes has turned Fox News into "one of the most powerful political machines in American history" float my boat, especially after reading Sherman on Ailes' failure to find a viable presidential candidate. If Fox News were really one of the most powerful political machines in American history, it should be able to transform a tree stump into a good candidate.
Sure! But that has nothing to do with why Fox is alarming.
It's not at all the case that the Fox business model depends upon always winning political battles for the GOP. Indeed, Obama's win in 2008 was an absolute bonanza for Fox. Ratings soared. Beck got hired.
Fox can transform a good candidate into a tree stump, and a tree stump into someone the media will have to Take Seriously, at least for a while.
What Fox does is to create, re-create, and enforce a bizarre right-wing identity politics, which it muscles other media organizations into considering legitimate.
Shafer's argument is absurd; "that Ailes doesn't always win means liberals should not be bothered by him" -- that is, well, a load of shit.
Fox's impact as a political machine is not trivial; it basically owns the GOP. The tree stump line is especially hilarious, here -- the VP in 08 was not half as bright as a tree stump.
Fox is a 21st century right wing Tammany Hall.
Actually winning elections is utterly incidental to how Fox News exerts power.
The Democrats had historical majorities, and climate change was addressed, how?