It is curious isn't it? They must have some interesting business models (Such as they are).
Or maybe what many/some of us suspect is true, that is, they have ulterior motives, and uninhibited by any moral values, they charge ahead flinging $HIT everywhere, KNOWING at least some of it will stick. Ahem.
The Hollywood types have to show enough profit, obviously, that they can brag about it and pay for their Porsches. On the other hand, most would gladly sacrifice another $10 mil. at the box office for "critical accalaim." After all, it's not "their money," it's the money of the producers, and producers rarely get involved in the marketing (for a good book on this, see "Final Cut," about the "Heaven's Gate" fiasco). On the other hand, if someone says, "Our pic won an Academy Award nomination, the producer immediately forgets about the potential $$ he might have made and is the toast of the town for having "courage."
I think on a rational basis, most of these people don't even THINK in terms of "what will red-state American say?" They assume that if their Hollywood buddies like it, we can be made to like it. Same with newspapers. I live in Dayton, OH, which has one of the most blatantly left-wing papers in the world. (When Dick Cheney came here in 2004, the headline was "Cheney Ties Up Traffic!" and when Kerry came here the headline was "Kerry Draws Big Crowd!") We get requests from the publisher/editor at DDN all the time for "input" and suggestions, but when I suggest to them that their papers is biased, they go "hmmm, really?" then do nothing.
So bottom line, I think both the news media and Hollywood, so long as they can show ANY profit to justify that they are "doing a good job" for the stockholders, will consistently be more affected by their culture and beliefs than by their wallets.