- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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
You mean the Journolists?
.
Oh come on now, this can't be true, tis shocking, really????
Only 88%?
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.
I agree --- sounds too low to me.
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.
.
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
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.
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
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.
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
, I must have herd them refer to him as a rodeo clown 15 times.
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.
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.
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 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.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.
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?