Who Owns the News?

[Wind Song]

Let's discuss. Who do you trust and why?

We know Rupert Murdoch owns Fox and he dictates a right wing slant. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with Fox claiming they are "fair and balanced" when they clearly aren't.


http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart

[jimnyc]

Each individual entity is owned differently, and edited differently, and some have simply news and others offer news and pundits. There is no "perfect" news source, as they are much too large and have too many hands in the cookie jar. Some are better and some are worse, but no one "owns" them outside of each individual - in other words, no party/individual/group owns the media in general, as many seem to think.

Best bet - use multiple sources to get your news, and even foreign sources if need be. Mix and match and the truth is always there.

[Wind Song]

We went from 50 media companies to six megacompanies. Our information is in the hands of very few. That affects what happens in our country.

[jimnyc]

We went from 50 media companies to six megacompanies. Our information is in the hands of very few. That affects what happens in our country.

And yet there are thousands and thousands and thousands of individual news stations around the country. Each is independently run, even if somewhere up the chain they have a minimal amount of owners. To think the information coming out of so many stations is controlled by a handful of people is naive. You're probably talking MILLIONS of pages of news every single day, and thousands and thousands of editors and such going over each before air. It's quite naive to think a few people could possibly control so much. Then we have worldwide news, owned differently, broadcasting mostly the same news, sometimes a little different. But one would be even more naive if they thought this was also controlled worldwide.

[Wind Song]

And yet there are thousands and thousands and thousands of individual news stations around the country. Each is independently run, even if somewhere up the chain they have a minimal amount of owners. To think the information coming out of so many stations is controlled by a handful of people is naive. You're probably talking MILLIONS of pages of news every single day, and thousands and thousands of editors and such going over each before air. It's quite naive to think a few people could possibly control so much. Then we have worldwide news, owned differently, broadcasting mostly the same news, sometimes a little different. But one would be even more naive if they thought this was also controlled worldwide.

Seven banking families own the media. Whoever controls the media, controls how Americans think.

[jimnyc]

Seven banking families own the media. Whoever controls the media, controls how Americans think.

Only fucking idiots allow themselves to believe such rubbish and allow another to "control" how they think.

[Dilloduck]

Seven banking families own the media. Whoever controls the media, controls how Americans think.

What message are they sending out ?

[Wind Song]

Only fucking idiots allow themselves to believe such rubbish and allow another to "control" how they think.


I didn't call you any names today.

[Trigg]

I didn't call you any names today.


he didn't call you any either.

[Wind Song]

he didn't call you any either.



http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jimnyc http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=550627#post550627)
Only fucking idiots allow themselves to believe such rubbish and allow another to "control" how they think.

[Trigg]

Seven banking families own the media. Whoever controls the media, controls how Americans think.


Only fucking idiots allow themselves to believe such rubbish and allow another to "control" how they think.


Why do you feel that was directed at you????

Do you let others control how you think?

If not, than I don't think he was talking about you.

[Wind Song]

Why do you feel that was directed at you????

Do you let others control how you think?

If not, than I don't think he was talking about you.


He intended it as a personal insult to me. He called me a fucking idiot.

He completely ignored the point I was making that ALL the news we see, hear and read in America is owned by six entities only.

and he thinks I"M impossible.

[Trigg]

He intended it as a personal insult to me. He completely ignored the point I was making that ALL the news we see, hear and read in America is owned by six entities only.


No, he point out that with the internet, information is available from thousands of different sources.

You perceived it as an insult.

[Wind Song]

No, he point out that with the internet, information is available from thousands of different sources.

You perceived it as an insult.

The iinternet is one of the few sources we have for information. Yes, I felt insulted by his post. And yes, I think that was his intention.

[jimnyc]

He intended it as a personal insult to me. He called me a fucking idiot.

He completely ignored the point I was making that ALL the news we see, hear and read in America is owned by six entities only.

and he thinks I"M impossible.

I ignored nothing, I merely corrected you. You're tossing out rhetoric, as if we are all somehow controlled by the media, or that the media is rigged, and that they tell us what to think. I simply pointed out that anyone who believes that, and who thinks they are told what to think, is a fucking idiot. If the shoe fits...

But to add on further, there are probably 20 independent news agencies here in the NYC area alone, let alone nationwide and then worldwide. And no, these are not all owned by the same entities. You're falling for rhetoric and then trying to pass it off as fact here, and it's not fact.

[jimnyc]

No, he point out that with the internet, information is available from thousands of different sources.

You perceived it as an insult.

Yep, and even without the internet, there are literally thousands and thousands of independent news agencies in every other city in America. To think that these thousands and thousands of media outlets, and the news they deliver daily, are somehow "controlled" on what they should say, is laughable. Sometimes news is on the TV within mere minutes, and then extended to thousands of stations. Anyone who thinks just a handful of people control what is told to us and how this info is propagated, is hilariously naive.

[Wind Song]

Well, no matter what I say, you will dismiss it. I think it's well worth reflecting on who owns mainstream media and what the message is that they're selling.

[jimnyc]

Well, no matter what I say, you will dismiss it. I think it's well worth reflecting on who owns mainstream media and what the message is that they're selling.

I dismiss things that aren't true. And I clearly explain reality. You're the one ignoring what I am writing. Or you're just extremely naive.

[Wind Song]

I dismiss things that aren't true. And I clearly explain reality. You're the one ignoring what I am writing. Or you're just extremely naive.


Every word of this post is an insult.

[jimnyc]

Every word of this post is an insult.

Tough shit. If you think I am going to kiss your ass while I reply to absolute crap, you're hallucinating.

[DragonStryk72]

Let's discuss. Who do you trust and why?

We know Rupert Murdoch owns Fox and he dictates a right wing slant. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with Fox claiming they are "fair and balanced" when they clearly aren't.


http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart

Well, I certainly don't think Fox is all that, but they do give time to both sides of the argument. In any event, I generally check several slants on the same news report, liberal and conservative, to see where people are at. then I also watch Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, who rip into the hugely obvious flaws in the logic used.

[Wind Song]

Tough shit. If you think I am going to kiss your ass while I reply to absolute crap, you're hallucinating.

Now here's a post worth commenting on...:gives:

[SassyLady]

Let's discuss. Who do you trust and why?

We know Rupert Murdoch owns Fox and he dictates a right wing slant. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with Fox claiming they are "fair and balanced" when they clearly aren't.


http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart

Old man Murdoch may own it, but Roger Ailes built it and runs it and is the one doing the dictating.

Younger Murdoch is blatantly liberal and fights with Ailes all the time.

[SassyLady]

Best bet - use multiple sources to get your news, and even foreign sources if need be. Mix and match and the truth is always there.

Bingo!!! Here's your reward ... to hell with the Thanks button.

:boobies:

[jimnyc]

Bingo!!! Here's your reward ... to hell with the Thanks button.

:boobies:

I appreciate the sentiment! But I'm afraid I'm going to need to see the real thing to 'truly' understand your thanks. :coffee:

[Kathianne]

Let's discuss. Who do you trust and why?

We know Rupert Murdoch owns Fox and he dictates a right wing slant. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with Fox claiming they are "fair and balanced" when they clearly aren't.


http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart

Actually would be interesting if by 'calling out the bias' you put some other ideas forward:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/14/fox-news-barack-obama-media-opinions-contributors-s-robert-lichter.html


Fox News: Fair And Balanced?
S. Robert Lichter, 11.16.09, 12:01 AM ET

Fox News has become embroiled in a nasty controversy over its ill treatment of President Obama. But are the charges true?


What if I told you that Fox gave Obama his worst press and John McCain his best press of any network during last year's presidential election? If you work for the White House, you'd probably take this as proof that Fox is just a mouthpiece for the opposition. Now what if I told you that Fox had the most balanced coverage of any network during the same campaign? If you work for Fox, you'd probably say we told you so.


But what if I told you that both scenarios are true?


While it seems unlikely, that conclusion is precisely the case, based on an ongoing study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). That both these seemingly contradictory scenarios are true tells us something important not only about the war between Fox and the White House, but about the changing nature of television news in America. (Disclosure: I was once a contributor to Fox News.)


The CMPA study compares ABC, CBS and NBC evening news shows and the first half hour of Fox News Channel's Special Report, which most closely resembles its broadcast news counterparts. (CNN and MSNBC have no comparable flagship evening news show; more on Fox's polarizing talk shows momentarily.)


So how could Fox have both the most balanced and the most anti-Obama coverage? Simple. It's because the other networks were all so pro-Obama. CMPA analyzed every soundbite by reporters and nonpartisan sources (excluding representative of the political parties) that evaluated the candidates and their policies. On the three broadcast networks combined, evaluations of Obama were 68% positive and 32% negative, compared to the only 36% positive and 64% negative evaluations of his GOP opponent John McCain.


In fact, Obama received the most favorable coverage CMPA has ever recorded for any presidential candidate since we began tracking election news coverage in 1988. The totals were very similar--within a few percentage points--at all three networks. (These figures exclude comments on the candidates' prospects in the campaign horse race, which obviously favored Obama.)


Meanwhile, Fox's Special Report was dramatically tougher on Obama, with only 36% favorable vs. 64% unfavorable evaluations during the same time period. But McCain didn't fare much better, garnering only 40% favorable comments vs. 60% negative ones. So the broadcast networks gave good marks to one candidate and bad marks to another, while Fox was tough on both--and most balanced overall.


Of course, all this is old news. White House staffers went after Fox because of what they perceived as the Murdoch News Network's trashing of the new Democratic administration. So what has Fox done to Obama lately? To find out, I consulted CMPA's ongoing study of the president's television news coverage, which is being conducted by scholars at George Mason and Chapman universities...



http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_press_1_18_12.html


...

Broadcast Results On the broadcast networks, evaluative comments of Romney were 78% negative vs. only 22% positive. By contrast, on-air judgments of Ron Paul were 73% positive vs. 27% negative, evaluations of Jon Huntsman were 71% positive vs. 29% negative, Rick Santorum’s evaluations were 56% positive vs. 44% negative, and comments about Newt Gingrich were 52% positive vs. 48% negative. Other candidates received too few evaluations to be statistically meaningful.


FOX Results Romney fared slightly better on FOX “Special Report”, than on the networks, with 63% negative vs. 37% positive evaluations. By contrast, Ron Paul fared less well than he did on the networks, with evenly balanced coverage -- 50% negative and 50% positive comments.

Rick Santorum did best on FOX with 63% positive vs. 37% negative judgments. These were the only candidates who received enough evaluations on FOX for meaningful analysis.


Examples: "[Paul is] in a category of his own as a libertarian and may prove to be fatally flawed." - Charles Krauthammer, FOX


"I like Newt Gingrich because to me Newt has the experience." - voter, CBS


Network Differences However, the various networks differed sharply from one another in their combined evaluations of the entire Republican field. A majority of all candidate evaluations aired on CBS and FOX were positive, while comments were 3 to 1 negative on NBC and 2 to 1 negative on ABC.


CBS had the most positive portrayals -- 57% positive vs. 43% negative, partly because of its highly favorable (89% positive) evaluations of Ron Paul. FOX had the most balanced overall coverage with 52% positive vs. 48% negative comments. NBC was the most negative overall with 27% positive vs. 73% negative coverage, followed closely by ABC with 32% positive vs. 68% negative coverage. Both NBC and ABC featured 85% negative comments on Romney.
Example: "I love his foreign policy because... if you stick your nose into other people's business, you're going to get punched eventually." -- college student, CBS


The Horse Race Wins There were over six times as many stories on the campaign horse race as there were on the policies of the candidates (105 vs. 16 stories). Even when the candidates’ backgrounds are added to the comparison, the horse race outpaced coverage of their records, personalities, and policies by a margin of over 3 to 1 (105 vs. 31 stories). In this respect FOX and the broadcast networks were very similar.


The major topics of the coverage, measured as the number of stories about each, were as follows:


1. Campaign horse race - 105
2. Policy issues - 16
3. Voters - 11
4. Candidates’ professional backgrounds - 8
5. Candidates’ personal backgrounds - 7
6. Campaign conduct - 7
7. Debates - 5
Note: Some stories had more than one major topic.

[SassyLady]

I appreciate the sentiment! But I'm afraid I'm going to need to see the real thing to 'truly' understand your thanks. :coffee:

I thought you had seen them! Here, I'll let you see one of them.



Wait for it...........






















3468

[jimnyc]

I hate the effing bird! For some odd reason, everyone posts him for me, year after year after year. :lol:

[Dilloduck]

hmmm you might have to change your rules to resolve that little problem----:poke:

[Toro]

I hate the effing bird! For some odd reason, everyone posts him for me, year after year after year. :lol:

That bird is awesome! It looks like its holding a gun.

[SassyLady]

I hate the effing bird! For some odd reason, everyone posts him for me, year after year after year. :lol:

Cause she's cute, Jim. How can you resist the little dance she's doing for you. Who else do you know that has blue feet and is called a boob?!?

[gabosaurus]

In other words, it's OK for Fox to offer slanted news, but not OK for any other media outlet to offer slanted news.
Because one side's slanted news is obviously more warranted than the other side's slanted news. Which makes that slant not really as slanted as the other slant, which is perceived as even more slanted.
But I won't use the word slanty because it might offend followers of the Dolly Llama.

[logroller]

Each individual entity is owned differently, and edited differently, and some have simply news and others offer news and pundits. There is no "perfect" news source, as they are much too large and have too many hands in the cookie jar. Some are better and some are worse, but no one "owns" them outside of each individual - in other words, no party/individual/group owns the media in general, as many seem to think.

Best bet - use multiple sources to get your news, and even foreign sources if need be. Mix and match and the truth is always there.

I think there's a tendency for everyone to accept news which fits one's own biases.
That's why I get my news exclusively through Xinhua News Agency. :laugh2:

[fj1200]

I think there's a tendency for everyone to accept news which fits one's own biases.
That's why I get my news exclusively through Xinhua News Agency. :laugh2:

I thought this was your news source.

www.nakednews.com/

:shrug:

[Gator Monroe]

5 Left & Far Left leaning Mega companies & one Middle Left Mega Company.