Fair and balanced? Um ... no

[Riot]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

the Murdoch contribution was very public, but lets not forget that up and down the line, ALL of the other media companies donate full tilt to the Democrats. generally its in the form of personal contributions but nonetheless if you add it all up its a large number.

Can you show us that large number? As all corporate contributions are public and readily available on the internet, where other news organizations have donated only to the Democrats?

We are not talking about "personal" donations, we are talking about news corporations donating. Not private people. Private donations do not count. Private citizens may donate to whomever they wish within election law. Who cares?

And for extra impact, are any other of those news orgs major owners Saudi Muslims, as News Corp is?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Can you show us that large number? As all corporate contributions are public and readily available on the internet, where other news organizations have donated only to the Democrats?

We are not talking about "personal" donations, we are talking about news corporations donating. Not private people. Private donations do not count. Private citizens may donate to whomever they wish within election law. Who cares?

And for extra impact, are any other of those news orgs major owners Saudi Muslims, as News Corp is?

i thought companies could also donate to whomever they wished?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i thought companies could also donate to whomever they wished?

Sure. Nobody said it was illegal. Do you think it's ethical for a news organization to donate to political parties? How about the Associated Press - is it okay for that company to donate to a political party?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Sure. Nobody said it was illegal. Do you think it's ethical for a news organization to donate to political parties? How about the Associated Press - is it okay for that company to donate to a political party?

i don't see what ethics has to do with it. it might show a conflict of interest-but everyone knows rupert murdoch is a conservative, so i don't see why his giving money would be an issue or a surprise. if his shareholders and board members, assuming they exist, don't care, why should anyone else? i'd imagine a lot of corporations will choose to do this. after all, why use your own personal fortune if you can write it off on the biz's books?

[Riot]

i don't see what ethics has to do with it.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Why don't you pull some historical figures from one of the watchdog websites?
You know, show us all how true that is.

Here you go:

An academic study cited frequently showing a liberal media bias in American journalism is The Media Elite,* a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter. They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey found that most of these journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including such hot-button social issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. Then they compared journalists' attitudes to their coverage of controversial issues such as the safety of nuclear power, school busing to promote racial integration, and the energy crisis of the 1970s.

The authors concluded that journalists' coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes, and the predominance of political liberals in newsrooms therefore pushed news coverage in a liberal direction. They presented this tilt as a mostly unconscious process of like-minded individuals projecting their shared assumptions onto their interpretations of reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias

And here is a snippet from one of the best studies ever done on media bias. It was done by UCLA: It was an absolutely exhaustive review (where objective measures were used) of whether a liberal bias exists in the media. Here is a snippet of what they found: "Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets, including the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than the center. These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample."

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/f...dia.Bias.8.htm

[clyde]

Puptent!!






Shut up!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Here you go:

An academic study cited frequently showing a liberal media bias in American journalism is The Media Elite,* a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter. They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey found that most of these journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including such hot-button social issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. Then they compared journalists' attitudes to their coverage of controversial issues such as the safety of nuclear power, school busing to promote racial integration, and the energy crisis of the 1970s.

The authors concluded that journalists' coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes, and the predominance of political liberals in newsrooms therefore pushed news coverage in a liberal direction. They presented this tilt as a mostly unconscious process of like-minded individuals projecting their shared assumptions onto their interpretations of reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias

And here is a snippet from one of the best studies ever done on media bias. It was done by UCLA: It was an absolutely exhaustive review (where objective measures were used) of whether a liberal bias exists in the media. Here is a snippet of what they found: "Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets, including the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than the center. These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample."

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/f...dia.Bias.8.htm

all that work rupe, and no gold trophy in return. you must be disappointed.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Sure. Nobody said it was illegal. Do you think it's ethical for a news organization to donate to political parties? How about the Associated Press - is it okay for that company to donate to a political party?

News Corp.’s million-dollar donation to the Republican Governors Association in June may have received a wave of press and critics yelling, “Told ya so.” But the company, owned by conservative Rupert Murdoch, has not been the only corporate conglomerate featuring prominent television media organizations to have donated big money to politics.


The parent companies of six major media outlets have all donated anywhere from five to seven figures to political organizations during the 2010 election cycle alone, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics.


The corporations include:
•News Corp. (Fox News Channel, FX, FUEL TV, others)
•General Electric (NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, Telemundo, USA, Bravo, others)
•National Amusements (CBS Corp. and Viacom)
•Comcast Corp. (G4, E!, others)
•Time Warner (CNN, TBS, Cinemax, TNT, Warner Bros./CW, others)
•Walt Disney Co. (ABC, ESPN, others)


These organizations have -- either through corporate treasuries, sponsored political action committees or both -- donated almost $7 million to political action committees and so-called “527 committees” during 2009 and 2010 and nearly $38 million since the 1990 election cycle.


These figures do not reflect additional money donated by individuals who work for the companies.

[Danzig]

http://www.businessandmedia.org/arti...819153400.aspx

Olbermann said that GE, MSNBC’s parent company, donated an equal amount of money to both the DGA and RGA. He didn’t mention, however, that according to OpenSecrets.org, in 2008, 100 percent of MSNBC Cable’s donations went to Democrats and 99 percent of NBC’s donations went to Democrats.



Additionally, so far in 2010, 100 percent of ABC News’s donations have gone to Democrats and CBS Corporation’s PAC has contributed $51,000 to Democrats in 2010.



The Media Research Center previously noted News Corp.’s donations favored Democrats and that other outlets critical of the donation, such as Viacom’s Comedy Central, have all given substantial money to Democrats, yet there is no outrage over their political contributions.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

How is this handled in other Democracies? Having Corporate interests trump the average citizen's interests is an excellent reason why not to vote for a Republican for President. He put a-holes on the court that voted for companies to get more n' more power in our Gov't. They already had too much. No matter what a liar Obama is, he will never be as bad as a Republican...He could fk 2 farm animals a night, and still be a better person than them.

[Riot]

I like the UCLA study, but comparing "left" and "right" to "the average member of Congress" as the benchmark definition?

[Riot]

We already talked about GE - over the years they are virtually equal in their lobbying monies donated to Dems and GOP as a large corp:

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summ...?id=D000000125

I think it's important to discriminate between what the larger comglomerates donate in aggregate, versus the "news" branches of those conglomerates (which is the subject) Sure they can hide donations by splitting it between subsidiaries, but I don't want to see any alleged "impartial" news org participating.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php (can enter and search)

Here's GE, with the NBC/MSNBC donations separated out by subset (NBC Saturday Night Live, NBC News, NBC Sports, etc)

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/affi...&id=D000000125

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

How is this handled in other Democracies? Having Corporate interests trump the average citizen's interests is an excellent reason why not to vote for a Republican for President. .

I don't think it's democratic vs republican, it's what Congress ("we") just did removing corporate caps on election funding, making it pretty much free reign.

[clyde]

I'm thinking if you mated Dud'sMother's avytar with Danny's avytar ...you would get quiet's!! avytar.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Riot

I don't think it's democratic vs republican, it's what Congress ("we") just did removing corporate caps on election funding, making it pretty much free reign.

Are you as tarded as they're saying? If they hadn't kept Geedubbya (in 2004,) the court wouldn't of been able to take those restrictions off corporations giving money during our elections. Why the fk was that Justice shaking his head at OBAMA (when he was simply telling the truth.) That fool really believe the FEC will keep Foreign companies from getting involved? Obama didn't say it was now legal for foreign companies to get involved. He said it was gunna lead to them foreign companies being able to more easily get involved. What distorted Republican Logic was that guy using? Of course they allowed corporations to more easily do exactly what Obama was saying. Why didn't he just accept the responsibility for it? That was bizarre. Own it. Fkn corporate whore in a robe. They bitch about every gov't institution, and then want to rely on one to keep foreign companies from doing something. Wouldn't have this problem if they hadn't been so quick to give elections to corporations. We need a political party that will be for protecting us from religious extremists, and for protecting us from greedy corporate interests. We don't have one. Don't tell me 'bout them Libertarian Roaches. They wouldn't want to pay to protect their own mother.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pB5uR3zgsA

Lets review how to make a corporate ho(in a robe) own their disgusting decision. Now, for all those saying how he's done nothing? I gave this brotha 'bout $50. This, alone, is worth $15. Same thing will happen to him if he ever again talks in front of an Armenian American Organization. Same for that bitch, Hilary. Somebody will have the nad to crucify him right before he gets a chance to speak. Russians probably secretly gave the Turks evidence to blackmail him with. He better stay away from Burbank, and never again set foot in Glendale. Probably had proof he'd been with other women. The way White People are after him, the last thing he could afford is for it to come out that he had a couple fun Blondes a while back.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

I like the UCLA study, but comparing "left" and "right" to "the average member of Congress" as the benchmark definition?

It was an exhaustive study, probably the best study ever done on the subject. The study used objective measures to actually quantify the left or right slant of each news organization. Here is what they did:

"Few studies provide an objective measure of the slant of news, and none has provided a way to link such a measure to ideological measures of other political actors. That is, none of the existing measures can say, for example, whether the New York Times is more liberal than Tom Daschle or whether Fox News is more conservative than Bill Frist. We provide such a measure. Namely, we compute an ADA score for various news outlets, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, the Drudge Report, Fox News’ Special Report, and all three networks’ nightly news shows."

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/f...dia.Bias.8.htm

I think that sounds like an excellent way to have done the study. Do you have a problem with the way the study was done?

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pB5uR3zgsA

Lets review how to make a corporate ho(in a robe) own their disgusting decision. Now, for all those saying how he's done nothing? I gave this brotha 'bout $50. This, alone, is worth $15. Same thing will happen to him if he ever again talks in front of an Armenian American Organization. Same for that bitch, Hilary. Somebody will have the nad to crucify him right before he gets a chance to speak. Russians probably secretly gave the Turks evidence to blackmail him with. He better stay away from Burbank, and never again set foot in Glendale. Probably had proof he'd been with other women. The way White People are after him, the last thing he could afford is for it to come out that he had a couple fun Blondes a while back.

how bout tiger now scuds ? he going to start winning again?

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by gales0678

how bout tiger now scuds ? he going to start winning again?

Brotha trippin'. He can't be this bad. Wait until he gets a white girlfriend, and we will see where his game's really at. Maybe, when he gets to release that sap, he won't be trippin' so much.