> It doesn't matter that not all the properties fall in line with Fox News' agenda

It matters in the sense that a media conglomerate can't consistently act in concert to effect cultural change, which was the original question. But I think you're being insufficiently cynical if you don't think the news properties are there to put money in the pot, too.

Before Fox News was launched, the overwhelming sentiment among conservative Americans (who, let's not forget, make up about half the country) was that other news sources had a liberal bias. It was an obvious opportunity to exploit.

Murdoch absolutely uses his news properties to influence politics and government policy. I don't deny that News Corp may be primarily a profit-motivated division. But you do realize that the policies Murdoch wants to influence lead to more profits, right? Even if the cultural effect is a side effect, it is a result of a motivated corporate agenda. And the reason it happens is because the corporations are so big and rich, and therefore influential, and therefore powerful.

This is completely and utterly wrong.

In the UK/Australia, News Limited has been heavily involved through its newspapers in dictating government policy. For example the "boat people" issue was very much promoted in Australia and in the UK there are countless examples of governments capitulating on policy at the behest of the News International papers.

I'm not denying that News Corporation is influential, I just think the primary motivation is profit rather than an actual desire to see through any kind of political agenda.

Tony Blair is the godparent of one of Mirdoch's children. Those two deserve each other with their insidious and seedy behavior. Profit may be a motivation for them both, however Murdoch is far more clever and manipulative than Blair and his agenda would hardly be hurt by having the PM as a godparent to his kid.