Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, r

[j-mac]

Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880.

By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744.


Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters | Washington Examiner

Every day we in here are told that we can only post from "objective" "real news" sources. My question is who are they? It is clear that following the money clearly shows the bias present in today's faux journalism.


j-mac

 

[zimmer]

Re: Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writer

Every day we in here are told that we can only post from "objective" "real news" sources. My question is who are they? It is clear that following the money clearly shows the bias present in today's faux journalism.


j-mac

You mean the Journolists?

.

 

[j-mac]

Re: Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writer

You mean the Journolists?

.

Heh, heh....No doubt. But I am sure that the explanation for them would be that they were just talking, and it meant nothing. Question is, are we that stupid to believe it?


j-mac

 

[damianvincent]

Re: Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writer

Oh come on now, this can't be true, tis shocking, really????


Only 88%?

 

[Boo Radley]

Re: Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writer

It's meaningless. Who they contribute to, even if true (not a given), doesn't make them biased. Again, biased has to be proven by showing it in language (you know: Liberal communist ) and accuracy without consequences.

 

[Ockham]

Re: Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writer

Oh come on now, this can't be true, tis shocking, really????


Only 88%?

I agree --- sounds too low to me.

 

[j-mac]

Re: Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writer

It's meaningless. Who they contribute to, even if true (not a given), doesn't make them biased. Again, biased has to be proven by showing it in language (you know: Liberal communist ) and accuracy without consequences.

That is so full of it....If this were an article talking about how Fox Execs, and editors contributed to Republicans, you'd be all over it painting bias.....Oh wait...I think there was a thread about that wasn't there?


j-mac

 

[damianvincent]

Re: Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writer

I agree --- sounds too low to me.

No doubt spend ten minutes with MSNBC or CNN and it'll sound real low. I got stuck in a place where I could only watch CNN the day before the Beck rally, and it was a bash Glenn Beck rally all day long, he's a joke, irrelevant, I must have herd them refer to him as a rodeo clown 15 times.

 

[zimmer]

Re: Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writer

It's meaningless. Who they contribute to, even if true (not a given), doesn't make them biased. Again, biased has to be proven by showing it in language (you know: Liberal communist ) and accuracy without consequences.

You have the sack to make this claim after finding out they are Journolists?

It would have been a more difficult claim to make without their collusion for their party, but I for one can add.

In fact, you don't have to draw conclusions from info like donations to party, you don't even have to be able to add. You only have to know they are Journolists of the finest kind. The kind that gets thrills running up their legs.

End of story.

.

 

[Ockham]

Re: Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writer

On a side note, been seeing Klein and Altman on Morning Joe a bit more this month. Either they were scraping the bottom of the barrel for liberal guest spots or they've found a new home trolling the halls at MSNBC.

 

[Boo Radley]

Re: Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writer

You have the sack to make this claim after finding out they are Journolists?

It would have been a more difficult claim to make without their collusion for their party, but I for one can add.

In fact, you don't have to draw conclusions from info like donations to party, you don't even have to be able to add. You only have to know they are Journolists of the finest kind. The kind that gets thrills running up their legs.

End of story.

.

Absolutely. It makes no difference. Even if the claim is true, it is not evidence of biased reporting in the slightest. you have to actually show the reporting was slanted (language) and that it was inaccurate without consequence. Until you understand what biased reporting s, you will never understand how wrong headed these efforts are.

 

[Boo Radley]

Re: Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writer

That is so full of it....If this were an article talking about how Fox Execs, and editors contributed to Republicans, you'd be all over it painting bias.....Oh wait...I think there was a thread about that wasn't there?


j-mac

Find any place where I've ever said anything of the kindJ. Being delusional about liberals does not equal evidence. And this "evidence" you present means nothing concerning biased reporting. I'm sorry, but your premise is flawed.

 

[Barbbtx]

Re: Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writer

Absolutely. It makes no difference. Even if the claim is true, it is not evidence of biased reporting in the slightest. you have to actually show the reporting was slanted (language) and that it was inaccurate without consequence. Until you understand what biased reporting s, you will never understand how wrong headed these efforts are.

Journolisters suggesting to each other, (that whenever anyone mentions Rev. Wright in the 2008 election), to call them racists. I know, they were just talking among themselves and that never happened......oh wait.

 

[Boo Radley]

Re: Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writer

Journolisters suggesting to each other, (that whenever anyone mentions Rev. Wright in the 2008 election), to call them racists. I know, they were just talking among themselves and that never happened......oh wait.

Not sure exacly what you're refering to, but the reporting is what matters. Nothing else. Not who they voted for. Not who they contributed to. Not what they say over coffee. Only the reporting.

This is not ahrd to understand. Really, it isn't. Biased reporting is measured by measuring language (liberal marxists for example) and inaccuraices without consequnece. Everything else is meaningless.

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writer

Not sure exacly what you're refering to, but the reporting is what matters. Nothing else. Not who they voted for. Not who they contributed to. Not what they say over coffee. Only the reporting.

This is not ahrd to understand. Really, it isn't. Biased reporting is measured by measuring language (liberal marxists for example) and inaccuraices without consequnece. Everything else is meaningless.

So when people argued that News Corp's $1m donation to the RGA was proof of Fox's slant, they were just pulling it out of their asses?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...million-republican-governors-association.html

 

[Boo Radley]

Re: Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writer

So when people argued that News Corp's $1m donation to the RGA was proof of Fox's slant, they were just pulling it out of their asses?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...million-republican-governors-association.html

You completely missed my argument. :lamo :lamo :lamo

You have to understand what is being said by ME. What soe people argue has nothing to do with me. And as I read those threats, it was really about Fox using faulty logic that could be used against them as well. That was and is the real issue.

But seriously, by means, do let it divert you from the points being made here.

 

[Wiseone]

Re: Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writer

Every day we in here are told that we can only post from "objective" "real news" sources. My question is who are they? It is clear that following the money clearly shows the bias present in today's faux journalism.

This really seems like a non-issue to me. A million bucks from three major news networks and only 1,160 people gave any money? Those three networks must employ thousands of people each. Although I see your point, and it does raise suspensions about what biased material may have made it into news publications or broadcast, it seems like an unavoidable problem. People have opinions and its unavoidable that it may affect their work when they are supposed to be unbiased. However I entirely believe its possible for a person to have an opinion while at the same time presenting information unbiasedly.

What some people here seem to be taking from this is that the media is entirely biased, and there's some sort of deliberate plan to move their viewers toward one viewpoint or another. That is ridiculous.

 

[samsmart]

Re: Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writer

So when people argued that News Corp's $1m donation to the RGA was proof of Fox's slant, they were just pulling it out of their asses?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...million-republican-governors-association.html

At this point in time, I think objective unbiased journalism is a thing of the past. This is a result of 1) the explosion of internet news sites and bloggers and 2) the Supreme Court ruling that any campaign finance reform is a restriction against free speech. Considering these two things, news, especially political news, can't help but be biased towards the left or right.

 

[roughdraft274]

Re: Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writer

, I must have herd them refer to him as a rodeo clown 15 times.

I find that incredibly hard to believe. Who called him that? I'm tryng to find any info on it and can't find a single thing about anyone calling beck a rodeo clown except for himself.

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writer

You completely missed my argument. :lamo :lamo :lamo

You have to understand what is being said by ME. What soe people argue has nothing to do with me. And as I read those threats, it was really about Fox using faulty logic that could be used against them as well. That was and is the real issue.

But seriously, by means, do let it divert you from the points being made here.

The smilies are cute and all, but I don't think you made much of a point.

You said that donations are entirely irrelevant to proving bias, and that the only thing that matters is the language used. I noted (with some amusement) a thread where a group of people on your side of the equation were perturbed about the fact that Fox's parent company donated money to the RGA. If we apply your logic, they're all wrong to even consider that in evaluating bias and should stick to the language in order to prove their case. If you'll note, that's pretty much the exact same thing that I repeated throughout that thread.

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writer

At this point in time, I think objective unbiased journalism is a thing of the past. This is a result of 1) the explosion of internet news sites and bloggers and 2) the Supreme Court ruling that any campaign finance reform is a restriction against free speech. Considering these two things, news, especially political news, can't help but be biased towards the left or right.

I think you're absolutely right as to the first part, but I don't see Citizens United having much of an impact at all. In the months since the decision was handed down, I've yet to see any substantial difference in the way that campaigns are being funded. I think that the doomsdayers will turn out to have been very wrong about the effect of that case.

 

[samsmart]

Re: Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writer

I think you're absolutely right as to the first part, but I don't see Citizens United having much of an impact at all. In the months since the decision was handed down, I've yet to see any substantial difference in the way that campaigns are being funded. I think that the doomsdayers will turn out to have been very wrong about the effect of that case.

Well, I meant more to point out that SCOTUS ruled that corporations have no limits on campaign donations, and news corporations definitely have political agendas as well. This includes First Amendment issues, television and radio licensing issues, whistleblower protections, and so forth.

I meant that news corporations donating to politicians is less sinister than is implied. While people may prefer objective and unbiased news reports, there are still bureaurcratic isssues involved that deal with politics, and the news corporations should be involved in those as well.

 

[Boo Radley]

Re: Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writer

The smilies are cute and all, but I don't think you made much of a point.

You said that donations are entirely irrelevant to proving bias, and that the only thing that matters is the language used. I noted (with some amusement) a thread where a group of people on your side of the equation were perturbed about the fact that Fox's parent company donated money to the RGA. If we apply your logic, they're all wrong to even consider that in evaluating bias and should stick to the language in order to prove their case. If you'll note, that's pretty much the exact same thing that I repeated throughout that thread.

I think you still misunderstand what most those people are arguing. Not that they speak for me in any way, or that we're a unified voice. You seem fixated on something that really isn't the major arguemtn. Not that a voice or two might actually mean it. Most are arguing about the stupid logic used by Fox.

The money doesn't speak to Fox's bias. Their stupidity does. Asking mindless questions. Is iran finaincing them? We don't know? How about the undead, could be. We're just asking. Mindless.

 

[mpg]

Re: Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writer

What some people here seem to be taking from this is that the media is entirely biased, and there's some sort of deliberate plan to move their viewers toward one viewpoint or another. That is ridiculous.

I don't believe that there's a coordinated effort, or a conspiracy, but individual reporters, editors and producers have their own personal agendas, and 90% of them have a partisan, Democratic agenda.

 

[pbrauer]

Re: Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writer

Every day we in here are told that we can only post from "objective" "real news" sources. My question is who are they? It is clear that following the money clearly shows the bias present in today's faux journalism.


j-mac

Totally meaningless statistic, these are the donations by private people. People that put together network programs such as comedy and drama shows.