As far as changing Fox News, yeah, I'd do that not just because it would good for the news business in America, or the people of America, but also for Fox News' own good and perhaps the Republican party's own good. As for toppling it, I think regardless of their ratings, how they are as a news organization as of now won't work in the long run. Perhaps even collapse once we're halfway into this decade of 2010-2019 or at the end of it. And it's all the fault of the guy put in charge of it, Roger Ailes.
First, I'll say why I think it will go through Hell sometime inbetween halfway into this decade or the end of it. As of this moment, I base my opinions largely on the three pillars of sorts of what's keeping it afloat; Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdoch, and Bill O'Reilly. And I base my opinion also on a recent Rolling Stone magazine article based on how Roger Ailes runs Fox. According to the Rolling Stone magazine, Roger Ailes more or less has made Fox News go sharply toward the right that many News Corp executives, News Corp being the parent company that owns Fox, get annoyed by the bad PR it gets and hate Ailes. Only reason why Ailes is keeping his job is because he's gained so much power in Fox News, by firing him, Fox News would probably topple shortly afterword and all the money put into it flushed down the toliet. Also, because he's gained so much power in the News media, American politics, and somewhat within News Corp, Murdoch has somehow come to fear Ailes if he'd stab him in the back.
However, regardless of his standing in Fox News, I don't see Ailes running it halfway into this decade or at the end of it. Murdoch is 80 years old, Ailes is 71. And Bill O'Reilly, the guy who hosts the highest rated program on Fox News, is 60. Just who thinks any one of them will be still at Fox halfway into the decade, or at the end of it? If Bill O'Reilly goes, Fox News loss of it's top rated program will most likely hurt it like how NBC lost their program, "Friends," a long time ago. Huge ratings losses. It's ratings leading up to 8pm and after the program will suffer from it's absence. Thus, that ripple effect on those programs will affect their other programs. Rupert Murdoch I highly doubt will still be running News Corp halfway or at the end of the decade, and since it's been said that Murdoch's family really hates Ailes, I have a strong feeling that Murdoch would see to Ailes being replaced on Fox in his last year running News Corp, or his son James, the heir to his position at News Corp, would do it within his first year or so if his father didn't since it's said he loathes Ailes too. To say to Ailes, you've taken Fox down a path that's too extreme, clean out of your office and be out of the building by the end of the next hour. And if Ailes goes, not only would Ailes be no longer there to manage it with an iron fist, many of the people who have said they'd leave Fox if Ailes goes, like Bill O'Reilly and Neil Calvuto, would go too. With Ailes gone, they'd be a ripple affect of people at Fox quitting it or being fired. After all, the main reason why sometimes people at Fox get away with some of the BS that happens there is due to Ailes backing them up and not punishing them for it.
I also say Fox News needs to change for the good of the Republican Party, is because Ailes has been so successful in organizing and controlling the party with free publicity on Fox, that Republicans can't seem to get any recognition without Fox News' help. It's been said that Fox has turned into the communication wing of the party. Now, people are saying Fox has become the torso of the Republican party. That Republicans are starting to think that Fox doesn't work for them, but that they're working for Fox. I know conservatives and Republicans don't like the majority of the mainstream media because it's mostly liberal biased, but Fox News has gained so much power in effecting Republican politics, it going down the toliet would most likely harm the Republican party greatly. Yes, they'd still have Right wing talk radio, but radio just doesn't have the power of television. Republicans are going to have to learn that they shouldn't depend of Fox to get their viewpoints across. Yes, it means going on networks that will challenge their views and beliefs in a harsher way, but it's unhealthy for something or someone having that much affect on one political party.
And it's not as if I hate Fox. It's my least favorite of the 24 hour news channels, but there are people at the network; like Brett Baier, Shepard Smith, and Chris Wallace who are good reporters and respected journalists. I'd hate to see good journalists get their careers harmed by the network they're on. So if I were Rupert Murdoch and his board of directors, I'd show some damn backbone and start getting tough on Ailes. Tell him he needs to tone down the right wing bias of the network and be true to their slogan, Fair and Balanced. And getting rid of Glenn Beck isn't enough. Get rid of Huckabee's weekend program or get a liberal weekend program which would run before or after it to balance out the weekend programming. Either make Hannity's program a weekday show and have a liberal weekday program to balance it out, or place Hannity again as co-host with a liberal. When it comes to Bill O'Reilly, tell him he also needs to tone down the right wing bias and apologize for some of the trouble he's made for Fox in the year's he's been there. And if he doesn't apologize, suspend him for two to three months and fire his producers to get the point across. Cancel Red Eye. Get rid of contributors like Palin, Coulter, Ingraham, Cheney, Luntz, Morris, and Malkin who are very controversal to have on the network. Also probably change the hosts of Fox & Friends. If Ailes doesn't do much of that, then they might need to bite the bullet and fire the guy. Yes, the network's ratings will get hard by losing him, but if they play their cards right and make good chocies, they can make a decent recovery. I think they'll fall behind CNN in the ratings, but they'd recover to a certain degree.
