Can you show us that large number? As all corporate contributions are public and readily available on the internet, where other news organizations have donated only to the Democrats?

We are not talking about "personal" donations, we are talking about news corporations donating. Not private people. Private donations do not count. Private citizens may donate to whomever they wish within election law. Who cares?

And for extra impact, are any other of those news orgs major owners Saudi Muslims, as News Corp is?

i thought companies could also donate to whomever they wished?

Sure. Nobody said it was illegal. Do you think it's ethical for a news organization to donate to political parties? How about the Associated Press - is it okay for that company to donate to a political party?

i don't see what ethics has to do with it. it might show a conflict of interest-but everyone knows rupert murdoch is a conservative, so i don't see why his giving money would be an issue or a surprise. if his shareholders and board members, assuming they exist, don't care, why should anyone else? i'd imagine a lot of corporations will choose to do this. after all, why use your own personal fortune if you can write it off on the biz's books?

:tro:

Here you go:

An academic study cited frequently showing a liberal media bias in American journalism is The Media Elite,* a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter. They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey found that most of these journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including such hot-button social issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. Then they compared journalists' attitudes to their coverage of controversial issues such as the safety of nuclear power, school busing to promote racial integration, and the energy crisis of the 1970s.

The authors concluded that journalists' coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes, and the predominance of political liberals in newsrooms therefore pushed news coverage in a liberal direction. They presented this tilt as a mostly unconscious process of like-minded individuals projecting their shared assumptions onto their interpretations of reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias

And here is a snippet from one of the best studies ever done on media bias. It was done by UCLA: It was an absolutely exhaustive review (where objective measures were used) of whether a liberal bias exists in the media. Here is a snippet of what they found: "Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets, including the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than the center. These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample."

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/f...dia.Bias.8.htm

Puptent!!






Shut up!

all that work rupe, and no gold trophy in return. you must be disappointed.

News Corp.’s million-dollar donation to the Republican Governors Association in June may have received a wave of press and critics yelling, “Told ya so.” But the company, owned by conservative Rupert Murdoch, has not been the only corporate conglomerate featuring prominent television media organizations to have donated big money to politics.


The parent companies of six major media outlets have all donated anywhere from five to seven figures to political organizations during the 2010 election cycle alone, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics.


The corporations include:
•News Corp. (Fox News Channel, FX, FUEL TV, others)
•General Electric (NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, Telemundo, USA, Bravo, others)
•National Amusements (CBS Corp. and Viacom)
•Comcast Corp. (G4, E!, others)
•Time Warner (CNN, TBS, Cinemax, TNT, Warner Bros./CW, others)
•Walt Disney Co. (ABC, ESPN, others)


These organizations have -- either through corporate treasuries, sponsored political action committees or both -- donated almost $7 million to political action committees and so-called “527 committees” during 2009 and 2010 and nearly $38 million since the 1990 election cycle.


These figures do not reflect additional money donated by individuals who work for the companies.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/arti...819153400.aspx

Olbermann said that GE, MSNBC’s parent company, donated an equal amount of money to both the DGA and RGA. He didn’t mention, however, that according to OpenSecrets.org, in 2008, 100 percent of MSNBC Cable’s donations went to Democrats and 99 percent of NBC’s donations went to Democrats.



Additionally, so far in 2010, 100 percent of ABC News’s donations have gone to Democrats and CBS Corporation’s PAC has contributed $51,000 to Democrats in 2010.



The Media Research Center previously noted News Corp.’s donations favored Democrats and that other outlets critical of the donation, such as Viacom’s Comedy Central, have all given substantial money to Democrats, yet there is no outrage over their political contributions.

How is this handled in other Democracies? Having Corporate interests trump the average citizen's interests is an excellent reason why not to vote for a Republican for President. He put a-holes on the court that voted for companies to get more n' more power in our Gov't. They already had too much. No matter what a liar Obama is, he will never be as bad as a Republican...He could fk 2 farm animals a night, and still be a better person than them.

I like the UCLA study, but comparing "left" and "right" to "the average member of Congress" as the benchmark definition? :D

We already talked about GE - over the years they are virtually equal in their lobbying monies donated to Dems and GOP as a large corp:

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summ...?id=D000000125

I think it's important to discriminate between what the larger comglomerates donate in aggregate, versus the "news" branches of those conglomerates (which is the subject) Sure they can hide donations by splitting it between subsidiaries, but I don't want to see any alleged "impartial" news org participating.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php (can enter and search)

Here's GE, with the NBC/MSNBC donations separated out by subset (NBC Saturday Night Live, NBC News, NBC Sports, etc)

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/affi...&id=D000000125

I don't think it's democratic vs republican, it's what Congress ("we") just did removing corporate caps on election funding, making it pretty much free reign.

I'm thinking if you mated Dud'sMother's avytar with Danny's avytar ...you would get quiet's!! avytar.

Are you as tarded as they're saying? If they hadn't kept Geedubbya (in 2004,) the court wouldn't of been able to take those restrictions off corporations giving money during our elections. Why the fk was that Justice shaking his head at OBAMA (when he was simply telling the truth.) That fool really believe the FEC will keep Foreign companies from getting involved? Obama didn't say it was now legal for foreign companies to get involved. He said it was gunna lead to them foreign companies being able to more easily get involved. What distorted Republican Logic was that guy using? Of course they allowed corporations to more easily do exactly what Obama was saying. Why didn't he just accept the responsibility for it? That was bizarre. Own it. Fkn corporate whore in a robe. They bitch about every gov't institution, and then want to rely on one to keep foreign companies from doing something. Wouldn't have this problem if they hadn't been so quick to give elections to corporations. We need a political party that will be for protecting us from religious extremists, and for protecting us from greedy corporate interests. We don't have one. Don't tell me 'bout them Libertarian Roaches. They wouldn't want to pay to protect their own mother.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pB5uR3zgsA

Lets review how to make a corporate ho(in a robe) own their disgusting decision. Now, for all those saying how he's done nothing? I gave this brotha 'bout $50. This, alone, is worth $15. Same thing will happen to him if he ever again talks in front of an Armenian American Organization. Same for that bitch, Hilary. Somebody will have the nad to crucify him right before he gets a chance to speak. Russians probably secretly gave the Turks evidence to blackmail him with. He better stay away from Burbank, and never again set foot in Glendale. Probably had proof he'd been with other women. The way White People are after him, the last thing he could afford is for it to come out that he had a couple fun Blondes a while back.

It was an exhaustive study, probably the best study ever done on the subject. The study used objective measures to actually quantify the left or right slant of each news organization. Here is what they did:

"Few studies provide an objective measure of the slant of news, and none has provided a way to link such a measure to ideological measures of other political actors. That is, none of the existing measures can say, for example, whether the New York Times is more liberal than Tom Daschle or whether Fox News is more conservative than Bill Frist. We provide such a measure. Namely, we compute an ADA score for various news outlets, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, the Drudge Report, Fox News’ Special Report, and all three networks’ nightly news shows."

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/f...dia.Bias.8.htm

I think that sounds like an excellent way to have done the study. Do you have a problem with the way the study was done?

how bout tiger now scuds ? he going to start winning again?

Brotha trippin'. He can't be this bad. Wait until he gets a white girlfriend, and we will see where his game's really at. Maybe, when he gets to release that sap, he won't be trippin' so much.

Wait until he gets a white girlfriend? Every girlfriend he has ever had has been white.

Yea, wait until he gets another one that he likes enough that he can tolerate playing house with her.

He needs to go back to the multiple whores and put a few of them in condos in different parts of the country.

He liked having both the family life thing, and playing another 18 holes. It worked for him. It just didn't work for most of the other people involved. That was his version of ideal. He'd of loved for that to have kept going on.

That's why he should consider joining The European Tour. His ex probably wants to move back to Sweden and he can share custody over there. Plus the women tend to be much more liberal. This is evident with all of the Arab royalty turning cities like Paris and London into harems.

Don't insult me, idiot, I agree with what you say.

rather interesting i suppose.

I just said, "I like the UCLA study, but comparing "left" and "right" to "the average member of Congress" as the benchmark definition? :D

I was laughing at the benchmark, but that obviously doesn't invalidate the scale from the reference.

Yeah, 'Zig, because I'm one of the mental giants on this board quick to be first about calling other posters ******, ****, whore, bitch, etc.

Sure.

The only thing that ever kept Tiger from totally fitting the profile of a Narcissist is his loyalty to Stanford sports teams, and the Lakers. They usually aren't fans of much. If he is a Narcissist, then his reaction (on the inside) is not regret. It's deep anger at being punished for something he shouldn't be blamed for. To him, this is all unjust. We all know what he should feel, but it's like 95% probably not the case. He's probably a Narcissist, and they are almost totally unable to accept blame for anything. Quite honestly, this is probably someone who's still very angry at the world, and is doing his best to act sorry for something that he is totally unable to feel sorry for. He will probably come around when he is treated more like he thinks he is entitled to be treated.

so, second is ok, but first is not. got it.

Takes a village.

He wouldn't wear cardinal red if there wasn't a financial benefit in doing so. He is a fan of money, power, and white whores.

Yeah, 'Zig, that's exactly right. When I'm called retarded, for agreeing with what was said - I'm obviously not the retarded one. And I have no compulsion against pointing that out :D

he asked if you were as retarded as others call you, he wasn't calling you retarded. i just find it funny that you complain about name calling, and then engage in it. i don't recall anyone else doing that; i just find it bizarre. reminds me of the saying 'how great the sin when someone else commits it'. yeah, there's name calling here, it's a shame sometimes. sometimes it's funny. your reply to scuds....well, i don't know if it was funny or just ironic.

Maybe she should get checked out for sleep apnea?

Are you as big an idiot as other people call you, 'Zig?

I'm sorry you find it funny, or characterize it as "complaining", when people stand up for themselves.

I thought it was odd that you didn't think corporate money coming into politics was a Democratic versus Republican thing. I regret using the term "tarded." Just gave you 2 one more thing to catfight about, but you'd of found something, regardless.

I don't think they said that was the actual benchmark. When they mentioned the thing about "the average member of Congress", they were just giving one example of their findings. They also compared news organizations to the most liberal and the most conservative members of congress.

Here is some more interesting information:

Survey research has shown that an almost overwhelming fraction of journalists are liberal. For instance, Elaine Povich (1996) reports that only seven percent of all Washington correspondents voted for George H.W. Bush in 1992, compared to 37 percent of the American public.[2] Lichter, Rothman and Lichter, (1986) and Weaver and Wilhoit (1996) report similar findings for earlier elections. More recently, the New York Times reported that only eight percent of Washington correspondents thought George W. Bush would be a better president than John Kerry.[3] This compares to 51% of all American voters. David Brooks notes that for every journalist who contributed to George W. Bush’s campaign, 93 contributed to Kerry’s.[4]


These statistics suggest that journalists, as a group, are more liberal than almost any congressional district in the country. For instance, in the Ninth California district, which includes Berkeley, twelve percent voted for Bush in 1992, nearly double the rate of journalists. In the Eighth Massachusetts district, which includes Cambridge, nineteen percent voted for Bush, approximately triple the rate of journalists.[


http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/f...dia.Bias.8.htm

Why is it assumed someone is Liberal if they simply decided to stay out of the Bushes? I stayed out of the Bushes, but I wouldn't be very welcome around Liberals(especially, right now.)