That was my only point. Why not use any benefit you can?
The "cost-benefit ratio" analysis study would be very complex to do. So many factors, it would almost be impossible I'd think. Because how do you differentiate what percent of a voters convictions were driven by one TV show, a year out?
But I put it to you that if it is established that there is some benefit and the question is only does it "trump" the cost.....then I would say that the benefit wins, no matter how small, because there is no tangible cost.
The cost of watching Fox News making another million to throw on the pile? That is not a cost to Democrats.
The cost of Fox News using it to convince Americans that their network really is "fair and balanced"? And so....what?...a few more people will decide that they should watch Fox News more to get a balanced view? I think by now, Americans that watch news networks are pretty clear about Fox News no matter which side they are on. Besides, again, even if you could classify it as a gain for Fox News, propaganda wise, that is not a "cost" to Democrats or the candidate that comes on.
Please name an actual "cost" that outweighs the benefits of appearing on Fox News and exposing your message to such a wide audience? It sure seemed to give Mayor Pete a bump.