x

[mudhen]

For me personally, it's not all about accuracy with the likes
of Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. etc... But it's more the way they
only tell part of the story, and pass it off as absolute fact.
(Although I find it hard to believe a 96% accuracy rate for
Limbaugh)

For example, with Kerry and his proposal (vote), whatever it
was to cut 3 billion or so from intelligence. This makes Kerry
soft on security in their minds, but what they don't tell you is
that the 3 billion cut was for a government agency misusing
money, and the Republicans ended up cutting twice that
much from the budget anyway!

Or how Kerry wanted to reduce and/or eliminate some military
programs, Hannity rips him constantly for this as being soft
on defense. I'd love to hear it straight from ol' Sean's mouth
that many, if not all of the cuts Kerry voted for at the time were
also SUPPORTED by one Sec. Defense named......Dick Cheney.

The 87 billion dollar Iraqi vote, the one Kerry voted for when it
was the IRAQI's paying for it. All Kerry wanted was to reduce,
not eliminate, just reduce the tax cut by 90 billion to pay for
this. Was it too much to ask for the wealthy 2% of the population
to make the sacrifice?? I guess so, because now joe taxpayer
like me is footing the bill, the iraqi people get a handout, and
the deficit continues to climb.

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by Kendra17
This list is irrelevant because we don't know how much each company donated to the Democrats. Many corporations donate to both parties during a campaign, since they would like favor with whoever actually wins.

Top 25 Media Companies’ Campaign Contributions, 1999-2002^
(see also Top 25 Media Companies' Lobbying Activity)

Company
(listed in order of revenue)*


AOL Time Warner**
2000 Election Cycle $4,195,811
2002 Election Cycle $2,009,691
Company Total $6,205,502
% to Dem 63
% to Rep 36

Disney
2000 Election Cycle $1,505,182
2002 Election Cycle $1,282,839
Company Total $2,788,021
% to Dem 55
% to Rep 45

Viacom
2000 Election Cycle $1,066,275
2002 Election Cycle $2,092,341
Company Total $3,158,616
% to Dem 81
% to Rep 19

Comcast
2000 Election Cycle $613,609
2002 Election Cycle $567,672
Company Total $1,181,281
% to Dem 47
% to Rep 53

Sony
2000 Election Cycle $323,840
2002 Election Cycle $227,799
Company Total $551,639
% to Dem 67
% to Rep 33

Vivendi Universal
2000 Election Cycle $2,126,960
2002 Election Cycle $1,271,363
Company Total $3,398,323
% to Dem 65
% to Rep 35

News Corp.
2000 Election Cycle $1,041,873
2002 Election Cycle $743,995
Company Total $1,785,868
% to Dem 38
% to Rep 62

Cox Communications
2000 Election Cycle $250,741
2002 Election Cycle $88,100
Company Total $338,841
% to Dem 56
% to Rep 44

Hughes Electronics
2000 Election Cycle $230,584
2002 Election Cycle $30,700
Company Total $261,284
% to Dem 50
% to Rep 50

Clear Channel Communications
2000 Election Cycle $167,450
2002 Election Cycle $537,910
Company Total $705,360
% to Dem 25
% to Rep 75

NBC
2000 Election Cycle $166,650
2002 Election Cycle $82,745
Company Total $249,395
% to Dem 77
% to Rep 23

Gannett
2000 Election Cycle $23,200
2002 Election Cycle $12,250
Company Total $35,450
% to Dem 57
% to Rep 43

Tribune
2000 Election Cycle $150,280
2002 Election Cycle $38,750
Company Total $189,030
% to Dem 54
% to Rep 46

Hearst
2000 Election Cycle $99,200
2002 Election Cycle $80,900
Company Total $180,100
% to Dem 68
% to Rep 32

EchoStar Communications
2000 Election Cycle $893,800
2002 Election Cycle $1,118,075
Company Total $2,011,875
% to Dem 53
% to Rep 47

McGraw-Hill
2000 Election Cycle $51,040
2002 Election Cycle $17,950
Company Total $68,990
% to Dem 39
% to Rep 61

USA Interactive
2000 Election Cycle $141,740
2002 Election Cycle $94,826
Company Total $236,566
% to Dem 80
% to Rep 20

Charter Communications
2000 Election Cycle $468,600
2002 Election Cycle $247,380
Company Total $715,980
% to Dem 35
% to Rep 65

Cablevision Systems
2000 Election Cycle $1,072,316
2002 Election Cycle $891,130
Company Total $1,963,446
% to Dem 59
% to Rep 41

Adelphia Communications
2000 Election Cycle $237,675
2002 Election Cycle $51,500
Company Total $289,175
% to Dem 23
% to Rep 77

New York Times
2000 Election Cycle $9,550
2002 Election Cycle $2,133
Company Total $11,683
% to Dem 94
% to Rep 2

Washington Post
2000 Election Cycle $6,750
2002 Election Cycle $1,450
Company Total $8,200
% to Dem 42
% to Rep 58

Liberty Media
2000 Election Cycle $26,500
2002 Election Cycle $40,100
Company Total $66,600
% to Dem 57
% to Rep 40

Discovery Communications
2000 Election Cycle $195,150
2002 Election Cycle $117,750
Company Total $312,900
% to Dem 90
% to Rep 9

E.W. Scripps
2000 Election Cycle $9,750
2002 Election Cycle $655
Company Total $10,405
% to Dem 38
% to Rep 53

Total
2000 Election Cycle $15,074,526
2002 Election Cycle $11,650,004
Company Total $26,724,530
% to Dem 59
% to Rep 41


^Based on data released by the Federal Election Commission on April 28, 2003. Totals include PAC, soft money and individual contributions to federal candidates, party committees and leadership PACs, 1999-2002.

*As ranked by Broadcasting & Cable magazine.

**America Online and Time Warner merged Jan. 11, 2001. Figures for the 2000 cycle include both companies’ contributions. Figures for the 2002 cycle represent the combined operation’s contributions.

http://www.capitaleye.org/mediacontribs.6.2.03.asp

Richard

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Kendra17
Even if the corporations themselves donate, do they mandate what is actually reported or how it is reported? I'm not certain this is a useful argument.

I STRONGLY suggest that you watch the documentary "Outfoxed" about the bias at Fox...Yes, it was an institutional bias, and yes, it most certainly was reflected in not only what stories were presented, but, just as importantly, how some stories were presented.

Mudhen, you make some great points, but you're just not going to get through to some of these people. They don't care about the truth if it doesn't fit into a 10 second sound bite. Facts just don't matter if they aren't flashy and easily understood in a headline.

(But keep it up....it's always nice to have the facts on your side, isn't it )

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by richiebaseball
Top 25 Media Companies’ Campaign Contributions, 1999-2002^
(see also Top 25 Media Companies' Lobbying Activity)

*snip*

Thanks for posting that, it made for interesting reading (and I now have to change cable providers )

The really sickening part is that there isn't a one in that bunch that doesn't try to butter both sides of the bread, so to speak. I almost have more respect for groups like Clear Channel and the New York Times, as at least the vast majority of their donations were to one party. These groups are basically just trying to pay off both sides in the hope that whoever wins will remember their contribution fondly. That's not "free speech" it's political prostitution.

(Sorry...campaign finance reform rant now over)

 

[cati]

x

 

[Saffron]

Let's hope that if Kerry wins this is not what we have to look forward to!!!

You mean normally you look forward to them sleeping together and you hope this isn't something that happens often if he's elected?

I don't get it.



I'm not looking forward to thinking about the Kerrys or the Bushs sleeping together, no matter who's elected. It's really not an issue I would base my vote on.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by mudhen
For me personally, it's not all about accuracy with the likes
of Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. etc... But it's more the way they
only tell part of the story, and pass it off as absolute fact.

I would agree with this ALMOST (more for Limbaugh than Hannity). And here's why: these particular talk show hosts field calls from so many people. And, if you listen to them, you'd know that MANY of the callers are liberals disagreeing with these. Now, Limbaugh has much less patience and sometimes there isn't discussion. Often, though, there is. Hannity, on the other hand, clearly holds the conservative opinion, but he discusses and points out facts and refutes facts. A debate often ensues. . .

Also, Hannity OFTEN has democrats on as guests. They discuss and debate often, and those discussions include both sides.

Also, Hannity has Hannity and Combs, and they discuss on there, too.

But, remember, these are conservative talk show hosts. They freely admit their opinion and "side". They don't pretend to be on the fence, so to speak. So, comparing them to Dan Rather, who pretends to be nonpartial but, at the same time, clearly states he's a liberal as are most of his colleagues, is not the same thing. We don't listen to Hannity for news, we listen to Hannity for opinion. Same with Rush, if we listen to him.

When I turn on CNN, though, or NPR, or the news on the hour on the radio, I expect the NEWS to remain nonbiased. . .or at least fair and balanced. I don't often hear this. . .it's subtle but, for those of us here, heard.

Lastly, liberals admit they hear this, too. . .that's why you CAN listen to CNN without getting upset. That's why ABC, CBS, and NBC usually don't get a ton of complaints from liberals--because they present the news the same way you'd present it--that America is wrong to be in Iraq, that Israel is the aggressor, that we are at fault for angering the Europeans, etc.. . that Bush is hated internationally, etc.

That FOX presents the news with the same foundation we have--that we should be in Iraq, that the Middle East's rulers are despotic tyrants that sponsor terror, that Israel is the victim, that the Europeans' opinion of us is based on us not following the liberal agenda, etc., that Bush, though he isn't the most eloquent public speaker, is in fact a smart guy, doesn't make them Ultra-right wing. It makes them conservative, yes. . .not fringe.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by Saffron


You mean normally you look forward to them sleeping together and you hope this isn't something that happens often if he's elected?

I don't get it.



I'm not looking forward to thinking about the Kerrys or the Bushs sleeping together, no matter who's elected. It's really not an issue I would base my vote on.

This is funny. but, i'm still a bush supporter!

Edited to add: but, come to think of it, it has been pleasant to have a President in office these past 4 years that clearly has a good marriage--no negatives to report. There is enough going on in the world that it's comforting to know the President is able to focus on the things he's supposed to be focusing on, rather than marital problems. We certainly got sick of that in the adminitration prior to Bush'.

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Thanks for posting that, it made for interesting reading (and I now have to change cable providers )

The really sickening part is that there isn't a one in that bunch that doesn't try to butter both sides of the bread, so to speak. I almost have more respect for groups like Clear Channel and the New York Times, as at least the vast majority of their donations were to one party. These groups are basically just trying to pay off both sides in the hope that whoever wins will remember their contribution fondly. That's not "free speech" it's political prostitution.

(Sorry...campaign finance reform rant now over)

http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaw...&L1=10&L2=70&L3=15&L4=0&L5=0&State=&Year=2000

This is an older, but still interesting and relevant article regarding the media and campaign donations. Here's a snip:

"Regardless of who wins in November, the next president will have gotten to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. with more than $1 million in political donations from media interests, the Center found. Gore has taken in $1.16 million; Texas Gov. George W. Bush has received $1.07 million. Gore’s media money comes mostly from the larger media conglomerates, such as Disney, Time Warner and Viacom Inc.; Bush draws more heavily from smaller, regional broadcast and cable companies."

Richard

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by wvrevy
I STRONGLY suggest that you watch the documentary "Outfoxed" about the bias at Fox...Yes, it was an institutional bias, and yes, it most certainly was reflected in not only what stories were presented, but, just as importantly, how some stories were presented.

Mudhen, you make some great points, but you're just not going to get through to some of these people. They don't care about the truth if it doesn't fit into a 10 second sound bite. Facts just don't matter if they aren't flashy and easily understood in a headline.

(But keep it up....it's always nice to have the facts on your side, isn't it )

I strongly suggest you read Bernard Goldberg's Bias, first, then Arrogance. And, since they're published by Warner Press, rather than Regnery, maybe you'll consider it.

For other bias in womens' magazines, try Spin Sisters, by Myrna Blyth (St. Martin's Press).

Richiebaseball. . .your post was enlightening

 

[Saffron]

No negatives reported and no negatives to report are two different things.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by mudhen
For me personally, it's not all about accuracy with the likes
of Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. etc... But it's more the way they
only tell part of the story, and pass it off as absolute fact.
(Although I find it hard to believe a 96% accuracy rate for
Limbaugh)

For example, with Kerry and his proposal (vote), whatever it
was to cut 3 billion or so from intelligence. This makes Kerry
soft on security in their minds, but what they don't tell you is
that the 3 billion cut was for a government agency misusing
money, and the Republicans ended up cutting twice that
much from the budget anyway!

Or how Kerry wanted to reduce and/or eliminate some military
programs, Hannity rips him constantly for this as being soft
on defense. I'd love to hear it straight from ol' Sean's mouth
that many, if not all of the cuts Kerry voted for at the time were
also SUPPORTED by one Sec. Defense named......Dick Cheney.

The 87 billion dollar Iraqi vote, the one Kerry voted for when it
was the IRAQI's paying for it. All Kerry wanted was to reduce,
not eliminate, just reduce the tax cut by 90 billion to pay for
this. Was it too much to ask for the wealthy 2% of the population
to make the sacrifice?? I guess so, because now joe taxpayer
like me is footing the bill, the iraqi people get a handout, and
the deficit continues to climb.

Originally posted by wruvy
Mudhen, you make some great points, but you're just not going to get through to some of these people. They don't care about the truth if it doesn't fit into a 10 second sound bite. Facts just don't matter if they aren't flashy and easily understood in a headline.

Wasn't the political contribution list bsears posted "part of the story?" Richiebaseball, thankfully, had to chime in with the other half.