HuffPost: News Corp Donates $1 Million To Republican Governor's Association

[aREDSKIN]

That's the irony: You have fallen prey to the exact same sort of thing that you are accusing the Democrats of doing, and you're probably unaware of this reality. Republicans have become walking, talking points, droning the same stuff over and over again like some mantra. This isn't by accident: it's by design, and they have been doing this for a long time.

The irony is I hardly watch Fox News. I do like their sports programming, Fox news watch and a couple of the commentator discussions. I rarely watch Fox News. I watch more MSNBC for that. The mainstream media bias has been around for decades & Fox quite a bit less than that. You can circle jerk all you want about how bad Fox is and how great the others are but the facts belie your hysterical assertions. But that is expected of those trying to justify inconvenient facts.

[Larry]

lies! Damn lies!!!!

And statistics!!!!!!

(Had to.)

[Larry]

Here you go just another example per your request.

[Edited]

http://newsbusters.org/node/40946/print

I'll observe that the first half of what you posted was "AP instructs it's reporters to not say things that aren't true".

That said, though, the second half of what you posted is clearly an example of what I was looking for. Yes, they're telling their reporters what to say.

Thank you.

[Burgold]

The irony is I hardly watch Fox News..

But it's not just FOX news... that's part of the very cleverly calculated myth that the right wing media has developed. In truth, their influence is actually quite vast and pervasive. It ranges from the most popular cable news station, to the majority of talk radio, to thousands upon thousands of blogs, to major newspapers and editorial sections. You also hear it on every political talk show and in the so called MSM as they report on the news of the day.

I'd say the the left wing media is still larger (after all it's a center-left leaning country), but the idea that the right wing media is not a considerable force is faulty.

[Baculus]

The irony is I hardly watch Fox News. I do like their sports programming, Fox news watch and a couple of the commentator discussions. I rarely watch Fox News. I watch more MSNBC for that. The mainstream media bias has been around for decades & Fox quite a bit less than that. You can circle jerk all you want about how bad Fox is and how great the others are but the facts belie your hysterical assertions. But that is expected of those trying to justify inconvenient facts.

Color me skeptical.

In spite of your assertions, it's amazing that much of what you spout on this message board sounds like it came directly from Fox News (or other right-wing media). Seeing how you lean to the political Right, I'm very surprised you watch MSNBC at all. And not only that, but you seem to spend a lot of time defending Fox News . . . considering it's a channel that you supposedly never watch.

Why is that?

BTW, I never said the other networks were "great." After all, I had plenty of criticism for them, during the Bush years, for all of their administration cheerleading, so at least stick to the content of my posts. Also, there is certainly nothing hysterical in my words -- I can back up everything I say with sources. After all, criticizing Fox News for their obvious bias, especially for a million dollar donation to a political party, is not hysteria.

I notice, though, you don't seem to have any issues with the hysteria, and fear mongering, that emanates from Fox.

In aREDSKIN's world:

"Obama is a Muslim-communist-fascist trying to destroy America!" <---Not hysterical.

"Fox News, with political its donations to the RNC, is a biased news source." <---Hysterical.

[aREDSKIN]

Color me skeptical.

In spite of your assertions, it's amazing that much of what you spout on this message board sounds like it came directly from Fox News (or other right-wing media). Seeing how you lean to the political Right, I'm very surprised you watch MSNBC at all. And not only that, but you seem to spend a lot of time defending Fox News . . . considering it's a channel that you supposedly never watch.

Why is that?

BTW, I never said the other networks were "great." After all, I had plenty of criticism for them, during the Bush years, for all of their administration cheerleading, so at least stick to the content of my posts. Also, there is certainly nothing hysterical in my words -- I can back up everything I say with sources. After all, criticizing Fox News for their obvious bias, especially for a million dollar donation to a political party, is not hysteria.

I notice, though, you don't seem to have any issues with the hysteria, and fear mongering, that emanates from Fox.

In aREDSKIN's world:

"Obama is a Muslim-communist-fascist trying to destroy America!" <---Not hysterical.

"Fox News, with political its donations to the RNC, is a biased news source." <---Hysterical.

First off point me to a post where I'm "defending" Fox. My unapologetic bashing of the "liberal" media in your mind automatically places me in the Fox camp. Your delusional. I've stated in many post that I gather my news from a VARIETY of sources. They gamut runs from The Nation to The Washington Ties and everything in between. Depending on the issue I'm right, left & center. Your pigeon holing of people is a bit tiresome. I really could care less what religion obama is because i'm on the agnostic atheist border myself.

Is it the dollar level you're so concerned about or just the fact that Fox contributed to the Repubs Gov Association?? You do know that Murdoch has contributed to may left leaning causes & politicals don't you??

[Larry]

deleted post.

[aREDSKIN]

update-

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.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-Democrats-got-88-percent-of-TV-network-employee-campaign-contributions-101668063.html#ixzz0y0BDlEZE

[Burgold]

And yet, look at the election... look at the sentiment towards the Republicans in 2008. Conditions were so bad that a black guy with a Muslim name and no experience so to speak of trounced a distinguished war veteran, with a substantial politicial record, and who has been historically lauded by both parties. Is it really a surprise that giving was greater in the Democratic direction?

Do you think that had anything remotely to do with it? The donations in every segment were well tilted everywhere away from the Republicans. Bush had nearly historically low approval rating as did the Republican Party.

So, is it a surprise that those who follow the news more closely would be even more upset with the state of the country?

Given all of that an 11:7 ratio ain't all that bad.

Certainly better than Newscorps' 1:0 ratio.

[aREDSKIN]

And yet, look at the election... look at the sentiment towards the Republicans in 2008. Conditions were so bad that a black guy with a Muslim name and no experience so to speak of trounced a distinguished war veteran, with a substantial politicial record, and who has been historically lauded by both parties. Is it really a surprise that giving was greater in the Democratic direction?

Do you think that had anything remotely to do with it? The donations in every segment were well tilted everywhere away from the Republicans. Bush had nearly historically low approval rating as did the Republican Party.

So, is it a surprise that those who follow the news more closely would be even more upset with the state of the country?

Given all of that an 11:7 ratio ain't all that bad.

Certainly better than Newscorps' 1:0 ratio.

McCain or any Rep was Bush wacked in 2008. Any dem was going to win I agree but this contribution IMO has been this way for decades not just this last cycle. And it's 88% of the total not a 11:7 ratio. My point is that the left has no credibility when it come to complaining about "Media companies" contributing to political candidates.

[Bang]

McCain or any Rep was Bush wacked in 2008. Any dem was going to win I agree but this contribution IMO has been this way for decades not just this last cycle. And it's 88% of the total not a 11:7 ratio. My point is that the left has no credibility when it come to complaining about "Media companies" contributing to political candidates.

I guess you're right. After all Rupert Murdoch is certainly comparable to Mike O'meara. (named in the article... remember him? The other half of Don and Mike? Now podcasts rather than broadcasts?) and his million dollars is definitely offset by CBS News Editor in Chief Jane Goodman's 250 bucks.

I never realized how honest and forthright Fox appears when compared to such news luminaries and their gigantic contributions.

I wonder who Buzz Burbank donated to? Someone should blow the lid off this thing!

~Bang

[Burgold]

lol... I compared the 1100 employees to the 700 buck Republican ave.

[aREDSKIN]

I guess you're right. After all Rupert Murdoch is certainly comparable to Mike O'meara. (named in the article... remember him? The other half of Don and Mike? Now podcasts rather than broadcasts?) and his million dollars is definitely offset by CBS News Editor in Chief Jane Goodman's 250 bucks.

I never realized how honest and forthright Fox appears when compared to such news luminaries and their gigantic contributions.

I wonder who Buzz Burbank donated to? Someone should blow the lid off this thing!

~Bang

Well, I guess you might have a point if the 1 big propagandist was just a republ donor. He's not, many thousands have gone to the dems too via Murdoch. I wonder if we add up all those "little" propagandists voices in all their little voice boxes, columns and pieces would that equate to one Murdoch? And in the end why would it matter to you? You've consistently claimed everyone's a propagandist it's just what side they are on.

[Larry]

update-

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.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-Democrats-got-88-percent-of-TV-network-employee-campaign-contributions-101668063.html#ixzz0y0BDlEZE

So your point is that if you combine the money which all of the employees of all three networks donated to all political organizations and/or candidates of any kind, then it's almost the same amount of money as one corporation donated to one political organization in one contribution?

[Bang]

Well, I guess you might have a point if the 1 big propagandist was just a republ donor. He's not, many thousands have gone to the dems too via Murdoch. I wonder if we add up all those "little" propagandists voices in all their little voice boxes, columns and pieces would that equate to one Murdoch? And in the end why would it matter to you? You've consistently claimed everyone's a propagandist it's just what side they are on.

I certainly don't hold my accusations of propagandists to one side.

But damn, Mike O'Meara? SNL producers?

These guys are who is being held up by this article. The most influential person on that list donated a bill from a nice steakhouse dinner.

Hardly at all comparable.

I would hope that if this point were valid that they could come up with some more damning evidence.

This article compares apples to cinderblocks. "Employees" as compared to the owner.

"

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"

1,160 eployees.. they break down to..

"710 such contributions worth a total of $461,898, for an average contribution of $651 from the network employees.

Ninety-six contributions by broadcast network employees to the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Senate and House campaign committees totaled $217,881

Thirty-eight contributions by broadcast network employees to the Republican National Committee and the Republican Senate and House campaign committees totaled $23,805.

Now, i was never any good at math but..

710 + 96 + 38 = 844

which leaves 276 employees unaccounted for...

Employees.. who are they? Like I said, they use the word "influential".. and the most influential people the named..

ABC News President donated 1,000 dollars.

NBC Editor in chief and VP donated $250. (!! Holy smokes!)

The other "influential employees" named include a Sports Illustrated writer (Seth Davis.. who shows the highest individual donation in the article,,, except of course for Murdoch's million.. the sportswriter donated $2750, probably because Obama promised to abolish the BCS....?)

Mike O'Meara really? Is this writer SERIOUS in using this clown in this article?

Beverly Williams, who a google search turned up a page full of real estate agents before finally finding this woman, who worked for an affiliate in Philadelphia and produced a show called "Eye on Philadelphia".. a nice happy talk show about interesting things around Philly in 2003.

Figuring since she was so influential, I figured it must be a mistake that she takes a backseat to a real estate agent on Google, so I dug some more to find more recent work... and here it is

http://findarticles.com/p/search/?qa=Beverly%20Williams

It certainly appears she does most of her writing for UK publications, and spends a lot of her energy writing about tennis and the murder of a british spy.

These comparisons are a joke, right?

~Bang