FOX News Corp & Friends vs Mediamatters

[Dante]

Will the wingnut base take their fingers out of their ears and stop singing la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la..?


Politico has detailed[/URL] what Media Matters went through to gain approval for the ad; it took three tries before Fox News would accept it. The result, as The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent points out (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/fox_relents_will_run_ad_about.html), is that “Fox primetime viewers will finally learn that fair and balanced Fox News's parent company gave $1 million ‘to oppose Democratic candidates for office this November.’ "

[chloe]

QeKynim5-Iw



What a monumental waste of donor money.
I’m sure the powers that be at Media Matters thought something like we'll make a point but if I was a Media Matters donor I would demand my money back.




http://americanglob.com/2010/09/15/media-matters-wastes-35000-of-donor-money/

[SassyLady]

I'm disappointed......they only gave $1M? :laugh2:

[Noir]

For as bad as it can be at times that's why I like the BBCnews. There can never be a conflict of interest (unless you're an anarchist or sommit like that) News companies of any stripe having an interest in elections beyond reporting them is a bad sign.

[Kathianne]

So much hypocrisy to go around. I agree that FOX though should have just accepted the ad, perhaps do a background story though on where MSM employees and owners donate their political money to:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-Democrats-got-88-percent-of-TV-network-employee-campaign-contributions-101668063.html


Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters UPDATED!

By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
08/27/10 3:45 PM EDT

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.

Disclosure of the heavily Democratic contributions by influential employees of the three major broadcast networks follows on the heels of controversy last weekwhen it was learned that media baron Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. contributed $1 million to the Republican Governors Association...

[SassyLady]

So much hypocrisy to go around. I agree that FOX though should have just accepted the ad, perhaps do a background story though on where MSM employees and owners donate their political money to:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-Democrats-got-88-percent-of-TV-network-employee-campaign-contributions-101668063.html

Looks like Rupert is just trying to keep things fair and balanced!

[Kathianne]

Looks like Rupert is just trying to keep things fair and balanced!

Personally I've much less trouble with owners giving money to politicos, as opposed to wholesale donations by reporters, who also set up a messageboard system to collude with the campaign they donated to.

[bullypulpit]

For as bad as it can be at times that's why I like the BBCnews. There can never be a conflict of interest (unless you're an anarchist or sommit like that) News companies of any stripe having an interest in elections beyond reporting them is a bad sign.

We used to think FOX News was just the propaganda arm of the GOP. We now know it runs the GOP.

[Kathianne]

We used to think FOX News was just the propaganda arm of the GOP. We now know it runs the GOP.

LOL! For $1m sure it does. Now how much did Soros give the Dems? What a bunch of BS all around.

[Nukeman]

We used to think FOX News was just the propaganda arm of the GOP. We now know it runs the GOP.

So let me get this straight Bully, your telling me the PRIVATE CITIZENS that work at Fox news have to give money to BOTH parties to be fair and balanced???

You do some research and tell me how much money Chris Mathews gave to the DNC and GOP, Also tell me all about Kieth Oberman and Rachel Maddow, once again I am sure they "donated" to the GOP just as much as they did the DNC....

fucking hypocrite!!!!!!!!!

[krisy]

We used to think FOX News was just the propaganda arm of the GOP. We now know it runs the GOP.

Give me a break Bully!!!!! If you are going to be reasonable,there is NO denying that your buddies at ABC,NBC,CBS are left leaning. Why is that o.k.? I want an answer! You whine and moan about Fox and their right wing views,but always fail to mention that almost every major news source is liberal. And don't deny they all lean left,because if they didn't you would be hammering them too,but you don't because you know they are on your side.

[krisy]

Another thing,who actually believes that any of the Obama ass kissin networks would run something like this about themselves.....? I have no doubt,as Kathianne pointed out that they have some skeletons in thier closet.

[MtnBiker]

media matters, a proproganda mouthpiece from the liberal democrat establishment


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbzC6-N9mwM

[revelarts]

both parties are bought and paid for every day.
I won't give a dime to either one of them.

Both sides shouting hypocrisy at each other is like a fight between 2 known whores. Each one claiming the other is taking money for their warm company. Both are, and the fight is disgusting.

[Dante]

We used to think FOX News was just the propaganda arm of the GOP. We now know it runs the GOP.

they can't handle the truth

[BoogyMan]

We used to think FOX News was just the propaganda arm of the GOP. We now know it runs the GOP.

In the same way that ThinkProgress, Media Matters, et al run the DNC? You betcha!

[chloe]

they can't handle the truth

Media has its hand in everything, like annenberg owning factscheck.org which is not non-partison as it pretends. Do you think it is only one political party that is handled or bought by media?

[BoogyMan]

I have to wonder why the left never bemoans the fact that much of the media and most egregiously MSNBC is a tool of the left? I never hear our apoplectic friends on the left whining about the beam in their own eye.

[Dante]

I have to wonder why the left never bemoans the fact that much of the media and most egregiously MSNBC is a tool of the left? I never hear our apoplectic friends on the left whining about the beam in their own eye.

The left? I have no clue about the left.

Liberals? I'm a liberal. Some of the shows on MSNBC have given in to supporting the left. But Anderson Cooper and others are not Kieth or Rachel. And now MSNBC has Lawrence O'Donnell, who is a liberal, not a leftist. The difference is...MSNBC shows aren't claiming they are Fair and Balanced. They do not claim a no spin zone and as a network they are NOT a voice for the DNC talking points

[Dante]

Media has its hand in everything, like annenberg owning factscheck.org which is not non-partison as it pretends. Do you think it is only one political party that is handled or bought by media?

Annenberg? You mean the media empire of Ronald Reagan's oldest and dearest friend?

Reagan Foundation Announces Walter and Leonore Annenberg Presidential Learning Center (http://www.annenbergfoundation.org/news/news_show.htm?doc_id=539921)

Annenberg Foundation Donates $10 Million

what world were you living in when you posted this one? no disrespect meant, but this post of yours reflects no reality I know of. Where did you get the idea that the Annenberg Foundation was a liberal left group that opposed the right?

[Dante]

In the same way that ThinkProgress, Media Matters, et al run the DNC? You betcha!


run the DNC? you have no credibility if you believe this nonsense. I've attended national conventions and I can tell you those two groups are on the fringe of the party (I no longer belong too) where influence is concerned.

[chloe]

Annenberg? You mean the media empire of Ronald Reagan's oldest and dearest friend?

Reagan Foundation Announces Walter and Leonore Annenberg Presidential Learning Center (http://www.annenbergfoundation.org/news/news_show.htm?doc_id=539921)

Annenberg Foundation Donates $10 Million

what world were you living in when you posted this one? no disrespect meant, but this post of yours reflects no reality I know of. Where did you get the idea that the Annenberg Foundation was a liberal left group that opposed the right?

I don't think I said it was a liberal left group that opposed the right, I said media is owned and its not non-partison. Then I asked a question which was do you think its only one political party that owns handles or manipulates media? So do you?

[jimnyc]

Annenberg? You mean the media empire of Ronald Reagan's oldest and dearest friend?

Reagan Foundation Announces Walter and Leonore Annenberg Presidential Learning Center (http://www.annenbergfoundation.org/news/news_show.htm?doc_id=539921)

Annenberg Foundation Donates $10 Million

what world were you living in when you posted this one? no disrespect meant, but this post of yours reflects no reality I know of. Where did you get the idea that the Annenberg Foundation was a liberal left group that opposed the right?

We talking about the same place here? The Annenberg you refer to re: Reagan is here:

http://www.annenbergfoundation.org/news/news_show.htm?doc_id=539921

The Annenberg that runs factcheck, and widely rumored to be extremely left leaning, is here:

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/

Can someone verify if these entities are one and the same?

[chloe]

I had thought it was a non profit non partison fact reporter and then I read this blog and so thats where I got information.




Factcheck.org is run by the Annenberg Foundation, the same folks who brought you the Chicago Annenberg Challenge that hired Barack Obama and William Ayers to disburse monies. They claim to be non-partisan.
The Annenberg Foundation was established by Walter H. Annenberg, a longtime conservative. He passed in 2002. It is now run by by his daughter,Wallis Annenberg a very different personality. She is a California liberal. She lists among her interests, politics. During the 2008 Campaigns she doled out her contributions to the DNC. Unlike others who spread the wealth around she did not. She donated solely to the DNC;

Ms. Annenberg claims she is bipartisan when it comes to her philanthropic endeavors. The political arm of the Annenberg Foundation is the Annenberg Public Policy Center headed by its director Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Ph.D. Co-Author of the book “Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment”. A treatise on the “evil’” right wing media, so you know how non-partisan she is. The Public Policy Center is the parent of … you guessed it … FactCheck.Org. They also produce the NPR program Justice Talking


http://forthardknox.com/2009/08/12/facts-about-factcheck/

[Dante]

We talking about the same place here? The Annenberg you refer to re: Reagan is here:

http://www.annenbergfoundation.org/news/news_show.htm?doc_id=539921

The Annenberg that runs factcheck, and widely rumored to be extremely left leaning, is here:

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/

Can someone verify if these entities are one and the same?

The Public Policy Center is at the University of Pennsylvania. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annenberg_Public_Policy_Center I guess some spin doctors would consider that as evidence of a liberal bias. :lol:

It was funded by the Annenberg's Foundation/Money. I doubt they would have been secretly funding leftist orgs.

I never heard a widely known rumor that Factcheck is biased. So again --- here we go:

FactCheck.org is a non-partisan,[1] nonprofit[2] website that describes itself as a "'consumer advocate' for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics."[3] It is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, and is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factcheck.org

[Dante]

I had thought it was a non profit non partison fact reporter and then I read this blog and so thats where I got information.

http://forthardknox.com/2009/08/12/facts-about-factcheck/

a personal blog where a partisan draws correlations and imagines drawing correlations establishes something it doesn't?

people who make fun of wikipedia often then use personal blogs as sources for what they imagine is fact.

If the correlations drawn from a connection between Obama and the Foundation were supported by evidence of only liberal giving that would be one thing. But they do not. Guilt by association is what you have become a part of, wittingly or unwittingly and it is a poor reflection of you personally. I'd be more careful in hurling accusations if I were you. But then again, that's me.

[Dante]

I don't think I said it was a liberal left group that opposed the right, I said media is owned and its not non-partison. Then I asked a question which was do you think its only one political party that owns handles or manipulates media? So do you?

All people and parties manipulate the media. It's a non issue. American media has always been partisan, biased, manipulated. Yet some people have managed to use critical thinking skills to get around all that.

Look at the founders and framers. Their environment was toxic by our standards, yet look what they accomplished. How did they do that? I'd say because they were educated and elitist. They were not your average Joes (there were no Janes). They believed in compromise and a greater good and they believed in altruism and more.

In effect we resemble them little.

[chloe]

a personal blog where a partisan draws correlations and imagines drawing correlations establishes something it doesn't?

people who make fun of wikipedia often then use personal blogs as sources for what they imagine is fact.

If the correlations drawn from a connection between Obama and the Foundation were supported by evidence of only liberal giving that would be one thing. But they do not. Guilt by association is what you have become a part of, wittingly or unwittingly and it is a poor reflection of you personally. I'd be more careful in hurling accusations if I were you. But then again, that's me.

I didn't make fun of wikipedia. Journalists give opinions too don't they? Also if Annenberg funds certain special interests or lobbies for policies then doesn't that mean they have a political slant or interest in something?

How come you didn't answer my question about when I asked if you think only one political party manipulates media or do you think all poltical parties do?

[Dante]

I didn't make fun of wikipedia. Journalists give opinions too don't they? Also if Annenberg funds certain special interests or lobbies for policies then doesn't that mean they have a political slant or interest in something?

How come you didn't answer my question about when I asked if you think only one political party manipulates media or do you think all poltical parties do?

I apologize. I never meant to imply you were one who made fun of wikipedia. I see no evidence you did, so you've misread my post. Maybe I was not sensitive enough to your sensitivity?

I guess an understanding of non profits and Foundations is in order. Things like the Annenberg Foundation fund specific initiatives and causes. They initiatives and causes may be nonpartisan, but that will never stop partisans from saying they are. Their interest may just be furthering non partisan initiatives and dialogue and that in itself sets off partisans who despise and fear non partisanship.

--- your question to me addressed below...

It is not always simple to discern what is going to get answered. The simplest of reasons is I don't know? Overlooked?

I was not really addressing the manipulation of the media. The fact that the media is manipulated does not bother me. It is the degree to which it may be manipulated that would bother me.

Many of my posts are nuanced. I don't live in a world of black and white, right and wrong, or good and bad. I may take positions like that in specific cases, but it is not part of my critical thinking process.

For me an open mind means being able to challenge tradition, morality, ethics, myself...

You see, I'm a liberal. Not a progressive and gawd forbid a populist. I am simply a liberal.

:salute:

[chloe]

All people and parties manipulate the media. It's a non issue. American media has always been partisan, biased, manipulated. Yet some people have managed to use critical thinking skills to get around all that.

Look at the founders and framers. Their environment was toxic by our standards, yet look what they accomplished. How did they do that? I'd say because they were educated and elitist. They were not your average Joes (there were no Janes). They believed in compromise and a greater good and they believed in altruism and more.

In effect we resemble them little.


Sorry about that I sat in idle in this thread doing other stuff and then replied and you had answered my question by then. Thanks for answering my question.

PS. I wonder what reality I am in sometimes too.....:laugh:

[chloe]

I apologize. I never meant to imply you were one who made fun of wikipedia. I see no evidence you did, so you've misread my post. Maybe I was not sensitive enough to your sensitivity?

I guess an understanding of non profits and Foundations is in order. Things like the Annenberg Foundation fund specific initiatives and causes. They initiatives and causes may be nonpartisan, but that will never stop partisans from saying they are. Their interest may just be furthering non partisan initiatives and dialogue and that in itself sets off partisans who despise and fear non partisanship.

--- your question to me addressed below...

It is not always simple to discern what is going to get answered. The simplest of reasons is I don't know? Overlooked?

I was not really addressing the manipulation of the media. The fact that the media is manipulated does not bother me. It is the degree to which it may be manipulated that would bother me.

Many of my posts are nuanced. I don't live in a world of black and white, right and wrong, or good and bad. I may take positions like that in specific cases, but it is not part of my critical thinking process.

For me an open mind means being able to challenge tradition, morality, ethics, myself...

You see, I'm a liberal. Not a progressive and gawd forbid a populist. I am simply a liberal.

:salute:

Ok. I don't mean to take away from your original intent of the topic. I am not a liberal or republican, I am just Independant. I start wondering things based on what people say, and then I look things up and read about it.

I suppose I read that blog I posted a link to because of your thread here making me think about it. I guess I misinterpreted your topic. Anyway at least it was something interesting to ponder.

[bullypulpit]

There's no "versus" between FOX Noise and MediaMatters. MediaMatters analyzes the broadcasts and cites their flaws and falsehoods with documentation and links to sources. In short, they fact check. FOX, on the other hand, just throws shit out there to see what sticks. Doesn't matter if it's true or FAUX. As far as FOX is concerned the facts are whatever they say they are, and the truth involves hoodwinking enough people into believing whatever they claim as fact. It's the mainstreaming of idiot America.

[red states rule]

So now libs are in an upraor over a donation from Fox News

Where is the outrage when liberal media reportrs give money to Dems. Oh, they are giving money to keep Dems elected - so theat is fine





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.

Disclosure of the heavily Democratic contributions by influential employees of the three major broadcast networks follows on the heels of controversy last week when it was learned that media baron Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. contributed $1 million to the Republican Governors Association.

The News Corp. donation prompted Nathan Daschle, executive director of the Democratic Governors Association and son of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, to demand in a letter to Fox News chairman Roger Ailes that the cable news outlet include a disclaimer in its coverage of gubernatorial campaigns. Fox News is owned by News Corp., which also owns The Wall Street Journal.



http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-Democrats-got-88-percent-of-TV-network-employee-campaign-contributions-101668063.html

[Dante]

There's no "versus" between FOX Noise and MediaMatters. MediaMatters analyzes the broadcasts and cites their flaws and falsehoods with documentation and links to sources. In short, they fact check. FOX, on the other hand, just throws shit out there to see what sticks. Doesn't matter if it's true or FAUX. As far as FOX is concerned the facts are whatever they say they are, and the truth involves hoodwinking enough people into believing whatever they claim as fact. It's the mainstreaming of idiot America.

I agree with you in certain areas, but if we are to NOT be like FOX News we must be honest. FOX News does have content that is biased but true. They spin news more than any other network. Their commentators are partisan to a fault and that is since 2008 somewhat balanced by certain commentators on MSNBC playing against them.

But being fair and honest, one must be more specific when criticizing FOX News lest one become what one claims to hate most. :laugh2:

[bullypulpit]

So now libs are in an upraor over a donation from Fox News

Where is the outrage when liberal media reportrs give money to Dems. Oh, they are giving money to keep Dems elected - so theat is fine

Ooooh...and let's not forget that Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee, '12 presidential hopefuls all, are on the FOX payroll.

And it's not about conservative media reporters giving money to Teapublicans. It's about Rupert Murdoch and FOX NewsCorp donating $1million to the GOP. And you need to slow down Red. Your phony outrage is compromising your spelling. :laugh2:

[Dante]

So now libs are in an upraor over a donation from Fox News

Where is the outrage when liberal media reportrs give money to Dems. Oh, they are giving money to keep Dems elected - so theat is fine
I've seen people criticize CRP before because of who funds them. It's silly. CRP collects and maintains a data base. The data base is non partisan. Spinning the data can be very partisan. What is missing in this story that is used to spin things?

1) What is the percentage of employees who gave money from the 3 major networks?

2) What is the percentage of employees of the cable news orgs who gave money to campaigns?

3) Where is the data on cable news orgs donations and why is it not included in this story?

What is included but not commented on by the mindless and braindead?

1) The owner of FOX News gave an amount to one group that almost equals the amount given to Obama, and all Democrats in 2008, from an unknown percentage of the 'execs, writers, reporters' of the 3 major networks.


Support for CRP comes from a combination of foundation grants, individual contributions and payments from custom research requests. Major donors to CRP include the Sunlight Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Joyce Foundation and the Ford Foundation. CRP accepts no contributions from businesses, trade associations or labor unions. According to the organization's 990 form, in 2007, it had just over $1 million in revenue and net assets of $1.6 million.[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Responsive_Politics

There are more questions I have, but what is most disturbing to me is how ignorant we are of and little we know about what we use as sources to refute or back things,

Idiot America is alive and well on the internet

[red states rule]

Ooooh...and let's not forget that Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee, '12 presidential hopefuls all, are on the FOX payroll.

And it's not about conservative media reporters giving money to Teapublicans. It's about Rupert Murdoch and FOX NewsCorp donating $1million to the GOP. And you need to slow down Red. Your phony outrage is compromising your spelling. :laugh2:

The key word is "hopefuls" BP. Chris Matthews openly talked about running for the Senate in PA and I did not see you or any other liberal demanding he give up his job at MSNBC or cancel his Sunday talk show

Perhaps because he is a fellow liberal and he plays under a seperate set of rules

James Carville still works for CNN and is advising Obama and the Dems on how to survive in the election cycle. Where is your "outrage" BP?

Libs like you were happy when it was Obama and Dems were setting records were political donantions - now when you are losing the whining starts