In fact, Fox is intensely moralistic. You just happen to disagree with what those morals are.
Also, you imply that holding these morals indicates that one is less intelligent than those that share your morals. I'm sure this is incorrect, and it's certainly true that you haven't offered any reason to believe it.
That's a very important distinction to remember.
If the network were actually moralistic, it wouldn't defend, promote and directly pay so many people who talk the talk, but have been exposed as acting in stark contrast to the network's stated morals.
(I'm not claiming other news networks are different in this regard.)
But I'd claim this is turtles all the way down. The politicians that they're covering exhibit the same dichotomy of actual morals versus play acting for market share.
I could go on for days with examples, but here are a few:
* Apparently Republicans themselves were the first to suggest an "individual mandate" for health insurance. Yet they're opposed to it now. See discussion here (http://volokh.com/2010/03/29/was-the-individual-mandate-a-re... ) for example.
* Barney Frank and friends twisted the arms of mortgage lenders to get them to extend loans to people that wouldn't traditionally be considered good candidates. A few years later, he's on TV crucifying banks for doing just that.
All the more reason to note the distinction between words and deeds (marketing/reality). If we point out the lack of clothes, refuse to discuss talking-head spin and instead stick to reality and actions, I think we'll be better off.
We (private citizens) aren't served by allowing that marketing to be perpetuated as truth.
First, the "Myth of the Rational Voter" tells us that for any individual, deep research on politics doesn't pay off economically (their individual opinion makes little enough difference that what they lose due to a bad decision is smaller than what they'd have to invest to make the right decision). Thus, the actual democratic process is an example of the tragedy of the commons.
Second, I wonder to what degree people really hold the positions that they talk about. To what degree are the people trying to fit into the norms of their community? Perhaps the people are showing a behavior that's analogous to the "marketing" chameleon behavior of politicians and the MSM.
About half of the country, in fact....
Once the initial demand for the iPad has been served and the initial viral marketing has run its course, I can't see how this can be a good thing for Apple.
ADDED: my mid-70s parents are up to using Windows XP with some help from me (and of course I do the work behind the scenes, like build the machines) ... but when they're in their '80s, will any WIMP computer be the right solution?
(And, yes, like me, they're "arch-conservatives". They're be annoyed buying a machine from a company that's got AlGore on its board, but they'd get over that. On the other hand, if Apple strongly positions itself as a company for only the other half of the country ... well, that would be a mistake, in the evil category, I'd say).