"Fair and Balanced"?

[HoyaNyr320]

So much for Fox News pretending to be fair and balanced:

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/17/fox-news-takes-heat-for-news-corporations-gop-donation/


All the networks do give contributions to the political parties, but only the supposed "fair and balanced" network gave 7 figures to one governor's association and 0 to the other. You can guess which party's association got the money.....

Not that I ever thought they were "fair and balanced" before this story....

[theexorcist]

NewsCorp gave the money, not Fox News.

Like GE giving money rather than NBC, which they, um, did.

[HoyaNyr320]

Aug 18, 2010 15:21:41 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

NewsCorp gave the money, not Fox News.

Like GE giving money rather than NBC, which they, um, did.

GE, um, gave 6 figures in donations in relatively equal amounts to the DGA and the RGA. ($237,000 to $205,000)

News Corp. for one reason or another appears to prefer one party to the other to the tune of $1 million... imagine that.

[theexorcist]

Aug 18, 2010 15:40:41 GMT -5 HoyaNyr320 said:

Aug 18, 2010 15:21:41 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

NewsCorp gave the money, not Fox News.

Like GE giving money rather than NBC, which they, um, did.

GE, um, gave 6 figures in donations in relatively equal amounts to the DGA and the RGA. ($237,000 to $205,000)

News Corp. for one reason or another appears to prefer one party to the other to the tune of $1 million... imagine that.

Ever heard the story where Winston Churchill asked the nice woman if she'd sleep with him for 20,000 pounds, to which she replied "I rather think I would!" Then Winston asked if she'd sleep with him for 20 pounds, to which she replied "What do you think I am?"

Winston responded "We've settled that, now we're just arguing prices".

GE gave their money, favoring one side, even if a slight bit. They're tainted just as much as News Corp.

[HoyaNyr320]

Aug 18, 2010 15:49:13 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Aug 18, 2010 15:40:41 GMT -5 HoyaNyr320 said:

GE, um, gave 6 figures in donations in relatively equal amounts to the DGA and the RGA. ($237,000 to $205,000)

News Corp. for one reason or another appears to prefer one party to the other to the tune of $1 million... imagine that.

Ever heard the story where Winston Churchill asked the nice woman if she'd sleep with him for 20,000 pounds, to which she replied "I rather think I would!" Then Winston asked if she'd sleep with him for 20 pounds, to which she replied "What do you think I am?"

Winston responded "We've settled that, now we're just arguing prices".

GE gave their money, favoring one side, even if a slight bit. They're tainted just as much as News Corp.

I think you are using what one of the GOP's former party leaders would call "fuzzy math".

$1,000,000 difference in donation >>>>>> $22,000 difference. If GE is "favoring" one side, News Corp. is fully in bed with one side.. to borrow from your analogy.

[Boz]

You either believe there is a wall between the corporations and their news organizations or you don't.

If you do, this is not a big deal.

If you don't, then yes, the fact the Time-Warner, Disney, Viacom and GE ALL favor Democrats should count just as much as News Corp favoring Republicans. (Disney seems to be the one closest to true balance).

This is one donation. If you look at overall, across-the-board political contributions from these corporations, GE gives not just $20,000 or so more to Democrats. They give HUNDREDS of thousands more to Democrats.

[SFHoya99]

I think it is much more believable that there is a wall between GE and NBC -- where one has just a few other interests than media, than NewsCorp and Fox.

Then again, what's the point of this? I think it's pretty clear Fox is slanted towards the Conservative view. Even if it wasn't obviously Murdoch's personal prediliction, it's definitely the marketing angle the company is taking.

The donations don't really change that.

[kchoya]

Attack the source, but whatever:

newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/07/24/medias-campaign-donations-tilt-100-1-favor-democrats

Writing in Thursday’s Investor’s Business Daily, author William Tate documents that campaign donations from employees of big media companies are tilting 100-to-1 in favor of the Democrats so far this election cycle.

That’s right, 100-to-1.

It’s perhaps not a surprise that those working for NBC Universal are the most eager givers to the Democrats, racking up $104,184 in contributions this cycle, compared to just $3,150 to Republican candidates. Maybe more surprising is that those at Fox broadcasting and the Fox News Channel combined to give $41,853 to the Democrats, with no listed donations going to the Republicans. (Only $1,280 was listed as coming from Fox News employees.)

[Boz]

I think my favorite part of this story (which is sure to continue tonight when Edward R. Editedbag and Butch Maddow take to the air) was watching clips of a Media Matters representative on MSNBC and the MSNBC anchor (someone filling in for Ed Schultz) ranting and raving about how biased Fox News was.

The interview concluded and then the anchor teased the next segment saying that "I will tell you why Republicans are worthless."

Priceless.

As someone smarter than me once said, "the last thing a fish notices is the water."

[HoyaNyr320]

Aug 18, 2010 18:08:20 GMT -5 Boz said:

I think my favorite part of this story (which is sure to continue tonight when Edward R. Editedbag and Butch Maddow take to the air) was watching clips of a Media Matters representative on MSNBC and the MSNBC anchor (someone filling in for Ed Schultz) ranting and raving about how biased Fox News was.

The interview concluded and then the anchor teased the next segment saying that "I will tell you why Republicans are worthless."

Priceless.

As someone smarter than me once said, "the last thing a fish notices is the water."

Sounds about right for MSNBC. However, they can at least take solace in the fact that they don't advertise themselves to be "fair and balanced."

[SFHoya99]

Aug 18, 2010 17:33:45 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Attack the source, but whatever:

newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/07/24/medias-campaign-donations-tilt-100-1-favor-democrats

Writing in Thursday’s Investor’s Business Daily, author William Tate documents that campaign donations from employees of big media companies are tilting 100-to-1 in favor of the Democrats so far this election cycle.

That’s right, 100-to-1.

It’s perhaps not a surprise that those working for NBC Universal are the most eager givers to the Democrats, racking up $104,184 in contributions this cycle, compared to just $3,150 to Republican candidates. Maybe more surprising is that those at Fox broadcasting and the Fox News Channel combined to give $41,853 to the Democrats, with no listed donations going to the Republicans. (Only $1,280 was listed as coming from Fox News employees.)

I'm a bit skeptical that there aren't some conservative commentators out there donating, but whatever.

Is this shocking?

Most journalists are going to be liberals. This should not be shocking. Their jobs rely on preserving liberty. The aspirational motivation behind the career is to preserve liberty. There's a long history of the media being the only defense against the powers that be -- the status quo. And there's not a lot of money in it.

[EasyEd]

I thought the news media motivation is supposed to be to provide news, not preserve liberty.

[SFHoya99]

Aug 18, 2010 19:10:25 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

I thought the news media motivation is supposed to be to provide news, not preserve liberty.

Much like many lawyers think of their profession as a noble one through their version of professional ethics, I imagine most journalists do the same.

I know you're just being contrarian and stubborn on purpose, but I don't really think it's hard to see how many journalists -- who do want to report the news -- see that as means to a very noble calling.

I think that's true whether they are conservative or liberal in their leanings. I just think the sentiment tends to be one a bit more liberal in nature.

[Boz]

For the record, I'd like to give credit where it's due, given what I posted this afternoon.

MSNBC actually gets a lot of points with me tonight for covering what is really the big news story of the day evening, the last of US combat troops leaving Iraq. And Maddow is over in Baghdad to cover it.

Obviously, I disagree with a lot of the commentary they are providing in covering this story, but they stepped away from Mosque-gate, election stories, bashing Sarah Palin, etc., to give this story the attention it deserves.

Fox completely dropped the ball on this. They gave this story only a couple of brief mentions and proceeded with their normal prime time commentary programming. (I imagine Van Susteren might cover Iraq in more detail).

Just wanted to make that point & give MSNBC their just props.

(But Olbermann is still a d-bag!)

[jerseyhoya34]

One conclusion is appropriate - Fox hates America.

[The Stig]

Aug 18, 2010 19:10:25 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

I thought the news media motivation is supposed to be to provide news, not preserve liberty.

Fox, CNN, and MSNBC don't exist to do either of those. They exist solely to make money. As a result, their "news broadcasts" are just infotainment - garbage to keep you interested that may or may not have something to do with current events.

What's the main message you hear on CNN? Keep watching CNN! More importantly, stay on CNN through this ad break, then the next ad break, and the ad break after that. Fox and MSNBC are the exact same. Honestly, sit down sometime in front of the TV, put on one of the 24 hour networks for an hour, and count how many times they tell you to keep watching. It would be a great drinking game if you want to get absolutely plastered, especially if you count a "BREAKING NEWS" banner as a message to keep watching.

What Fox mastered first was the preaching to the choir approach of keeping people tuned in. They know their (conservative) audience and tell them what they like to hear, then they tell them it's "fair and balanced" to keep them from feeling guilty about it. It's genius. MSNBC has tried to do the same on the left, albeit with a lot less success. CNN can't figure out who the heck they are, so they just keep the "BREAKING NEWS" banner up 24 hours a day. But whichever way you go, the point is that the main goal of the news networks is to keep you through the next ad break so they can get more money from their sponsors. Preserving liberty or informing people has nothing to do with it.

Somebody did a study recently examining the amount of serious news presentation and analysis vs. gimmicks and other junk on the 24 hour networks. They found that the ratio of news to junk on those networks was no better than you'd find on The Daily Show. The difference of course is that the junk on The Daily Show is hilarious, while the junk on the 24 hour networks is cringe-worthy.

That's why the most reliable, high quality news sources out there are the publicly funded ones, like PBS or the BBC. Before you play the "keep watching CNN/Fox/MSNBC" drinking game, watch The News Hour on PBS and marvel at how Jim Lehrer presents the news in a clam, informative, rational, and objective manner. It's pure news, no gimmicks, and no infotainment.

That said, I'll tip my hat to NBC for having the balls to roast one of their own on SNL: www.hulu.com/watch/42024/saturday-night-live-countdown-with-keith-olbermann

Actually, I just needed an excuse to post that video!

[theexorcist]

Aug 18, 2010 20:30:20 GMT -5 Boz said:

For the record, I'd like to give credit where it's due, given what I posted this afternoon.

MSNBC actually gets a lot of points with me tonight for covering what is really the big news story of the day evening, the last of US combat troops leaving Iraq. And Maddow is over in Baghdad to cover it.

Obviously, I disagree with a lot of the commentary they are providing in covering this story, but they stepped away from Mosque-gate, election stories, bashing Sarah Palin, etc., to give this story the attention it deserves.

Fox completely dropped the ball on this. They gave this story only a couple of brief mentions and proceeded with their normal prime time commentary programming. (I imagine Van Susteren might cover Iraq in more detail).

Just wanted to make that point & give MSNBC their just props.

(But Olbermann is still a d-bag!)

Sorry for the off-topic, but is leaving Iraq a story at all? "Combat operations" may be over, but we still have 50,000 troops there with guns.

You know what the real story is, which hasn't been covered much by anyone? ONE-FIFTH of Pakistan is UNDERWATER. For what most agree is the real front in the battle against the Taliban, this is huge.

[Boz]

Good point exorcist. I agree with you on Pakistan, but yes, I do think pulling the last combat troops out of Iraq is a big story. At least bigger than most any other American news that is going on right now.

Assuming, that is, that we don't have to send them back in in the next six months.

[EasyEd]

Does anyone actually believe our combat role in Iraq is over? Of course the lawyers will give a parsed view that we're now in an advisory role or a combat-support role but what happens when the bad guys fire at our 50,000 troops. As I said in another thread, remember "Mission Accomplished".

[kchoya]

Aug 19, 2010 8:10:29 GMT -5 Boz said:

Good point exorcist. I agree with you on Pakistan, but yes, I do think pulling the last combat troops out of Iraq is a big story. At least bigger than most any other American news that is going on right now.

Assuming, that is, that we don't have to send them back in in the next six months.

Depends on what your definition of "combat troops" is.

www.armytimes.com/news/2010/08/dn-brigades-stay-under-different-name-081910/