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
crew almost as much as I do
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
. 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.
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,
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
; 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
keep you away from a company loaded with marquee talent, networks and, like
, 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 (
) and TheStreet's Twitter feed (
) on how you marry the sociopolitical with your portfolio.
At the time of publication, Rocco Pendola was long NWSA