Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 45 of 45
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by cabernetluver View Post
    gcoll, you confused me with your question about ownership. Both Comcast and News Corp are publicly traded.
    Oh. I'm a bit confused about it too. I just know that Comcast has an interest in NBC. That's all. I think GE is still a part owner, but I think Comcast owns more.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,264
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    Oh. I'm a bit confused about it too. I just know that Comcast has an interest in NBC. That's all. I think GE is still a part owner, but I think Comcast owns more.
    You are correct, but all of them are publicly traded, therefore ownership is international.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,264
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Randy West View Post
    I tried finding that brought up in the thread before I asked but must have missed it.

    I added the donations link for 2010 because I thought it was interesting reading and on topic.

    I thought the first Amendment protected everyone, once again confused sorry.
    The freedom of the press is a unique protection as compared to the freedom to make jewelry (something I know a great deal about). Of course parts of the First Amendment protect us all, but within the context of this thread, I was referring to the unique position of the press as compared to any other business.

    In a lot of things, to me, context is important.

    Because of this unique position that the press holds, in my opinion, it is egregious conduct when a company acts in this manner that is part of the press, while, although I have opinions about corporate donations, I don't find them on the same level.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Valencia, CA
    Posts
    3,780
    vCash
    1500
    Threads such as this one bore me. No one's going to change any opinion about Fox News or anyone else. Attempts to demonize Fox News, such as this, especially when in the public square, only serve to boost FNC's ratings.

    Anyone who doesn't believe that CNN, anything with "NBC" in its name, LA Times, NY Times, Media Matters, etc were not firmly in the camp for Obama flat out isn't living in reality. Strangely enough, none of the cries of bias are heard around their names. It's only Fox News that gets it, and by total coincidence I'm sure, most of the time it's from people and organizations that lean left.

    Just because FNC trademarked the slogan "Fair & Balanced," therefore no one else uses it because no one else can, doesn't mean that the trust the public places in EVERY media organization to be fair, accurate, nonpartisan, and nonconclusory doesn't apply to EVERY media organization out there. No media group has any excuse to be biased, no matter what their slogan is. That's how I see it. Bias, itself, is a betrayal of public trust that should be dealt with appropriately regardless of what flavor it is.

    So, if one media group is showing partisan bias, then it should be exposed in a fair, rational, factual manner with real and clear evidence, and clear examples, in a cogent argument whose purpose is to discourage bias in the media. Too often these arguments get lost in a dark forest of moral equivalency. Why? Bias, regardless of direction, hurts the public's ability to gleam the real story of what's going on. Ending bias in the media is a goal we should all be able to agree on.
    Last edited by DodgersFan28; 09-25-2010 at 09:59 AM.
    "If [Republicans] were around when Columbus set sail, they must have been founding members of the Flat Earth Society." -- Pres. Barack Obama

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,264
    vCash
    1500
    So pointing out a $1,000,000 gift to the GOP is or is not a
    fair, rational, factual manner with real and clear evidence, and clear examples, in a cogent argument whose purpose is to discourage bias in the media.
    when not any other member of the press has done anything even close to this?
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    7,707
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by cabernetluver View Post
    So pointing out a $1,000,000 gift to the GOP is or is not a when not any other member of the press has done anything even close to this?
    I am going to admit that honestly I don't care one bit about the $1,000,000 gift to the GOP anymore than any of the money donated to the Democrats. I actually find it a bit hypocritical that its not OK for them to donate to the GOP when you have organized labor in the back pocket of the DNC. You have the president speaking at their rallies, meeting with more than anyone else and eventually appointing the head of SEIU to a post within the government.

    Do you honestly believe that they have not already topped that $1,000,000 mark by a large margin by now? It may not have been in one lump sum therefore escaping the scrutiny that is being given to the lump sum payment. Though even if it was given in a lump sum I do not honestly believe that it would receive the same scrutiny. When you have 80+% of reporters being Democrats. Reminds me of the joke Obama said at the corespondents dinner about how everyone in the room voted for him then apologizing to the Fox News table.

    In all honestly until true MEANINGFUL campaign finance reform is done and all candidates are forced to abide by it this is nothing more than business as usual. Do you not think that before its said and done some huge checks are going to get dumped in the Democrats pockets? If that happens will you have the same outrage?
    French writer Alexis de Tocqueville warned about when visiting this fledgling democracy in the early 19th century that this "American republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    I think Cab's point is meant strictly in terms of news agencies. He's not necessarily angry at the money being donated; he just feels that it compromises Fox News' status as a news outlet.

    It's not a thread about campaign contributions in general.

    That's what I've gathered so far.

    As far as unions donating to Dems. I have no problem with that. They feel that the Dems represent their interests. They're probably right about that too, as far as I can tell.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,604
    vCash
    1500
    In the 24-7 news cycle how can you get the national influence out of local campaigns? I would love to see ads from MY candidates, not some national ad catered to MY candidates. But i dont know how you can go about doing it without "infringing" on other's freedom of speech.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    7,707
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    I think Cab's point is meant strictly in terms of news agencies. He's not necessarily angry at the money being donated; he just feels that it compromises Fox News' status as a news outlet.

    It's not a thread about campaign contributions in general.

    That's what I've gathered so far.

    As far as unions donating to Dems. I have no problem with that. They feel that the Dems represent their interests. They're probably right about that too, as far as I can tell.
    Fair enough though Newscorp is a truly MASSIVE company. Until I just looked it up I did not realize how big it truly is holding everything from Newspapers to movie production studios. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation#Holdings is a listing of everything that is held by Newscorp. I ask is it fair to hold one company (Fox News) responsible the donation of a parent company? Again I personally don't care either way and would not have any issue if GE gave a equal donation to the Democrats even though they own NBC. They are an equally huge company that has its fingers in many different areas just like Newscorp.
    French writer Alexis de Tocqueville warned about when visiting this fledgling democracy in the early 19th century that this "American republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,264
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    I think Cab's point is meant strictly in terms of news agencies. He's not necessarily angry at the money being donated; he just feels that it compromises Fox News' status as a news outlet.

    It's not a thread about campaign contributions in general.

    That's what I've gathered so far.

    As far as unions donating to Dems. I have no problem with that. They feel that the Dems represent their interests. They're probably right about that too, as far as I can tell.
    Thank you. You understood my point exactly. When I started this thread, the pure intent was about "the press" donating. It is the unique position of the press in our Constitution that points to a different standard.

    When the press donates, it is a huge step. Now if someone wants to make another thread about business donations, transparency, who and whatever else, outside of this unique situation, I would be happy to join in.

    No one can point to another donation, so one sided, of such magnitude, by another member of the community of the press. This in and of itself is a quantified ($1,000,000) way of measuring one sides position, as opposed to the qualified (well this guy said this, this guy said that) way that we normally discuss this.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Valencia, CA
    Posts
    3,780
    vCash
    1500
    So if Disney gave a big donation to the DNC, would that compromise ABC's status as a news outlet? How about Ted Turner? Didn't he actually speak at a DNC Convention one year? Does that compromise CNN's status as a news outlet?

    That's why I think this is purely a partisan play to drum up so much attention to the Newscorp donation.
    "If [Republicans] were around when Columbus set sail, they must have been founding members of the Flat Earth Society." -- Pres. Barack Obama

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,264
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by DodgersFan28 View Post
    So if Disney gave a big donation to the DNC, would that compromise ABC's status as a news outlet? How about Ted Turner? Didn't he actually speak at a DNC Convention one year? Does that compromise CNN's status as a news outlet?

    That's why I think this is purely a partisan play to drum up so much attention to the Newscorp donation.
    Your call for,"fair, rational, factual manner with real and clear evidence, and clear examples" was met by this unprecedented $1,000,000 gift to one political party. Your response failed to meet your standards vis a vie factual, real evidence. This is not about anything other than money in such size as to dwarf anything any other member of the press has actually, not speculatively, done. Turner, who stepped down from management in 2006 is not a specific money gift, but since you brought him up, what convention did he speak at, and what was his topic?

    So, once again, it is the $1,000,000 donation, completely unprecedented in size, to only one side, from the press, that is a rational, factual, quantitative measurement that makes this such a disqualifies of News Corp and its actively managed subsidiaries as members of the press, and purely pushes them into the opinion section.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,010
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by DodgersFan28 View Post
    So if Disney gave a big donation to the DNC, would that compromise ABC's status as a news outlet? How about Ted Turner? Didn't he actually speak at a DNC Convention one year? Does that compromise CNN's status as a news outlet?

    That's why I think this is purely a partisan play to drum up so much attention to the Newscorp donation.
    I think the salient point in your post, lost slightly in the return volleys, is that News Corp. is not FOX. These are two separate entities, and although funds and personnel may overlap considerably, it's a stretch to impute the follies of the parent onto the subsidiary.

    News Corp., or any news conglomerate, probably shouldn't be making such a one-sided donation, to echo cab. But again, it was News Corp. -- and not FOX -- that made the donation. So, getting to the point, I don't really see any reason for FOX to be included in this discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by cabernetluver View Post
    Your call for,"fair, rational, factual manner with real and clear evidence, and clear examples" was met by this unprecedented $1,000,000 gift to one political party. Your response failed to meet your standards vis a vie factual, real evidence. This is not about anything other than money in such size as to dwarf anything any other member of the press has actually, not speculatively, done. Turner, who stepped down from management in 2006 is not a specific money gift, but since you brought him up, what convention did he speak at, and what was his topic?

    So, once again, it is the $1,000,000 donation, completely unprecedented in size, to only one side, from the press, that is a rational, factual, quantitative measurement that makes this such a disqualifies of News Corp and its actively managed subsidiaries as members of the press, and purely pushes them into the opinion section.
    I think your concerns are valid, but it seems the root of the problem goes much deeper ...

    Is any donation from a news conglomerate acceptable? I mean, if News Corp. had divvied up its donations evenly, is that palatable? I'm inclined to think not. Certainly a series of one-sided donations compromises integrity much more swiftly, but even nonpartisan gift-giving does the job eventually. To use a speech analogy so wonderfully afforded by the SCOTUS in the wake of Citizens United ... I'd rather there be silence than a bunch of incomprehensible noise (or, of course, than the easily-distinguishable shout we have here).

    Do you agree (for anyone)?

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    19,669
    vCash
    1500
    Move it along, nothing to see here, folks. Everybody is picking on poor, ol' fair and balanced FOX News. This 1 million contribution? Means nothing. Neither does the nightly echoing of GOP talking points, and painting in president in the ugliest brush possible. No connection there whatsoever.

    All this is, is further proof of the FOX News/GOP connection. It's another snowflake on top of Mount Everest basically.

    Also, the MSNBC comparison is a weak one. MSNBC declares itself to be the "place for politics", while FOX News tries to portray itself as some non-biased, objective entity. Meanwhile not only does it grossly distort reality, it tries to scare people with dangerous rhetoric.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,604
    vCash
    1500
    And i think this thread has run its course.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •