I probably can be OK owning NWSA, in spite of Murdoch, because, believe it or not, when it comes to politics, I'm pretty much indifferent and agnostic.
I dislike the demeanor and antics of the MSNBC crew almost as much as I do Fox News.
I might be part of an emerging trend here, but I get most of the election and political news I don't find online from CNBC. The network has done an excellent job broadening its scope while staying true to its focus on the stock market.
Maybe this middle ground that I ride justifies ownership of NWSA and a willingness to own, even though I do not, CMCSA/GE.Because if Chick-fil-A were a public company, there's no way I could bring myself to buy a share. I guess it gets too personal for me at that point. Maybe that's where the line gets drawn. I can own a substantial position in NWSA because, at day's end, Fox News will do what it does. Rachel Maddow will as well so, if the time is right, I'll buy CMCSA. Ultimately, I guess the 24-hour news cycle just doesn't bother me enough. Plus, both companies are much bigger than the sum of their parts. When you buy NWSA, you get a heck of a lot more than Fox News; you get major professional sports contracts, loads of other cable networks, international content delivery systems and studio entertainment among a whole slew of other less controversial and politically motivated holdings. Same goes for CMCSA. Why let a mild disdain for MSNBC keep you away from a company loaded with marquee talent, networks and, like Fox, crucial sports programming? But directly mess with people I love like Chick-fil-A did and all bets are off. I could never justify, rationalize, whatever you want to call, it being a shareholder. Would love to see some constructive discussion in the comments as well as at my Twitter feed ( @rocco_thestreet) and TheStreet's Twitter feed ( @TheStreet) on how you marry the sociopolitical with your portfolio. At the time of publication, Rocco Pendola was long NWSA.