News Corp.'s $1,000,000 gift to the GOP

[philab]

That seems like such a menial point to me though. "They say fair and balanced, but they aren't!"

As far as the daytime people. MSNBC actually seems to be going more towards opinion lately. Their lineup is Schultz-Matthews-Olbermann-Maddow-O'donnell(starting Monday). They actually don't have an evening news show. I'm not familiar with who their lead anchor would be. Contessa Brewer? They tried anchoring election coverage with an Olbermann/Matthews combo which didn't work out.

Oh. And my central thesis isn't really about MSNBC. It's just that Fox News leans right. But having a certain political sway doesn't really say that much, due to the fact that everyone (not just MSNBC) is going to have some bias. I don't think straight, right down the middle news is even possible. And I don't view that as problematic. People are smart enough to wade through everything, and find what they like/dislike and what they agree with and disagree with.

Yeah, I have to agree with that bolded statement. It's called puffery, and it's to be expected in corporate advertising.

Now, in the wake of the Colbert/Stewart rallies thread, I have to straighten this apparent inconsistency: First, Colbert and Stewart are comedians, so I expect, even encourage, them to highlight that FOX is not "fair and balanced." No problem there, as made clear in the other thread. Second, that FOX is quite clearly not "fair and balanced" despite its slogan is troubling, yes. And it does hurt FOX's reputation and is ripe for criticism.

My point, echoing gcoll's, is that FOX's hypocrisy here isn't a move into endgame. Companies claim to be "the best" or "the world's greatest" all the time. The situation changes for a news media outlet, of course, but I just don't think it's enough, in itself, to discredit the entire organization and all its newscasters and pundits.

[cabernetluver]

My point, echoing gcoll's, is that FOX's hypocrisy here isn't a move into endgame. Companies claim to be "the best" or "the world's greatest" all the time. The situation changes for a news media outlet, of course, but I just don't think it's enough, in itself, to discredit the entire organization and all its newscasters and pundits.

In reality, I did make a specific exception for Shepard Smith (who I referred to as Shep). However, the organization, because is purports to be a News organization, is discredited, when it donates to one political party such a significantly large donation $1,000,000 (institutional gifting), consistently brings on as regular contributors political fundraisers (Rove) for only one party, political candidates (although not officially so there is no legal problem that I allege) (Huckabee and Palin, both of whom also have PAC's that donate Republicans) and even has outright statements to raise money made by one of its hosts, and who Republican Candidates have stated that it is where they go to raise money to the exclusion of other "news" sites, not just network, even local. So yes, it is discredited as a news organization but it seems to do a heck of a job in party funding.

[philab]

In reality, I did make a specific exception for Shepard Smith (who I referred to as Shep). However, the organization, because is purports to be a News organization, is discredited, when it donates to one political party such a significantly large donation $1,000,000 (institutional gifting), consistently brings on as regular contributors political fundraisers (Rove) for only one party, political candidates (although not officially so there is no legal problem that I allege) (Huckabee and Palin, both of whom also have PAC's that donate Republicans) and even has outright statements to raise money made by one of its hosts, and who Republican Candidates have stated that it is where they go to raise money to the exclusion of other "news" sites, not just network, even local. So yes, it is discredited as a news organization but it seems to do a heck of a job in party funding.

My earlier post wasn't necessarily directed at you, so forgive my omission of your Shep Smith exception.

As for the rest ... yeah, that could pretty much do the trick. I'm a little more hesitant to tie the $1MM contribution from News Corp. directly to FOX, given the nature of subsidiaries and all, but it's poor form, at the very least, on the part of News Corp. But yeah, not that FOX can't or hasn't been discredited, just that the "fair and balanced" hypocrisy doesn't quite do it alone.

[gcoll]

Just the bold part, if you look, you will see the active participation in Republican fund raising functions by hosts of programs on Fox, and by many of the regular participants. It is not just the going on and being interviewed. It is also the hosting of programs by actual candidates (although not presently declared) like Huckabee and Palin. Or the continual televising of Rove who runs a major GOP PAC. Or people like Beck saying on air to Michele Bachmann, "How can I help you raise money?" (twice) and "We should have a fund raiser for you Michele." (October 14,2009) on his program. I really could go on, seriously, but it would just be saying the same thing about many different people.

I don't see what's wrong with any of the things you mention.

Glen Beck is not an example I would point to when I talk about the merit of Fox News as a news channel. I'd list the names I've already mentioned. And I'd add Kirk Cameron, and Mike Wallace. And Major Garrett just left, but he was solid as well.

You say you make an exception for Shep, but he's their top news guy. That's significant. And they do have some good, liberal contributors as well. Juan Williams is very solid. Possibly the most even tempered man on television. I don't know many black people who could take "go back to the porch" in stride, and not lose their cool about it. One of the most impressive things I've seen on TV.

So yes, it is discredited as a news organization but it seems to do a heck of a job in party funding.

What station is worthy of being credited as a news organization?

What news entity in general? Whenever they do a poll of journalists, they find that 80% + favor the Democrats.

That's what gets me whenever this conversation comes up. Conservatives have been complaining for years about bias in the media. Most of the media does lean left, but the one conservative outlet is the one that gets all the ****.

[cabernetluver]

I don't see what's wrong with any of the things you mention.

Glen Beck is not an example I would point to when I talk about the merit of Fox News as a news channel. I'd list the names I've already mentioned. And I'd add Kirk Cameron, and Mike Wallace. And Major Garrett just left, but he was solid as well.

You say you make an exception for Shep, but he's their top news guy. That's significant. And they do have some good, liberal contributors as well. Juan Williams is very solid. Possibly the most even tempered man on television. I don't know many black people who could take "go back to the porch" in stride, and not lose their cool about it. One of the most impressive things I've seen on TV.


What station is worthy of being credited as a news organization?

What news entity in general? Whenever they do a poll of journalists, they find that 80% + favor the Democrats.

I bet you meant Chris Wallace. I have to admit, I thought that Kirk Cameron was an actor and now is an evangelist so I have no opinion on him.

As far as Chris Wallace, the only time I see him is on Sunday in a panel show, which strangely enough tends to have Juan in it.

However, the point is not about what is worthy or not, because that gets into lots of areas, the topic (which I created to not hijack another thread) deals with contributions and fund raising by a purported news organizations. Since I am the one who started this thread, I am roping it back. If you want to start another thread about what makes a news reporting company worthy, I will try to contribute, but it is not what this one is about. Nor is it about leaning left or right or whatever libertarian is, because that, though threadworthy, is not the same thing as being a fund raiser for a political party while calling oneself a news organization.

Nor is it about other kinds of businesses contributing to political parties and campaigns. They are not news organizations, and therefore, have no necessity to be fair and balanced beyond what might help them.

This is about a company that calls itself Fox News, whose tagline is fair and balanced, who, contributed $1,000,000 to one party, who can actually provide a list of over 20 hosts and regular contributers who give money, or raise money, or are candidates themselves (where the programs are effectively giving campaign money), all on the Republican side. That they have a few people who you define as liberal, does not equal an equation.

Frankly, although I am not making this case, so please do not hold me to defend it, I could make a better case for fairness on MSNBC by pointing out that Morning Joe is hosted by a genuine conservative Republican who has been mentioned as a possible political candidate. What liberal hosts a show on Fox that has a political theme? Morning Joe does just that. But more to the point, they don't host fundraisers for the Democrats, they don't give $1,000,000 to the Democratic Party. When the GE PAC does give money, it is pretty well even in distribution between the Democrats and the Republicans. My point is that Fox News is disqualified as a news organization, when it has a monetary interest in who wins elections. This is not about editorial policy, this is about monetary involvement in the outcome.

edit I just figured out you meant Carl Cameron. You confused me.

[gcoll]

lol. I'm ****ing terrible with names. Yeah. Carl Cameron. Chris Wallace. Kirk Cameron, lol. I think Chris Wallace was even on TV as I got his name wrong.

Frankly, although I am not making this case, so please do not hold me to defend it, I could make a better case for fairness on MSNBC

You really couldn't

If Olbermann retires, and MSNBC gets a prime time news show....you could make a case.

It's worthy to note that News Corp's PAC money is usually split up pretty evenly. With an outlier here and there. Murdoch gave a million to the California GOP in the early 90's. But the biggest contributor is actually Comcast. Who I think is in the process of buying MSNBC? Or something. There's something happening with Comcast and MSNBC. They gave more to Dems, but not by too bad of a margin. 60/40.

News Corp actually gave more to the dems in the 90's. Then more to Repubs. Then it evened out a bit. Then the million. And I think they are foreign owned. Aren't they? They aren't an American company.

My point is that Fox News is disqualified as a news organization, when it has a monetary interest in who wins elections

GE has a monetary interest in green energy policy, which is much more enthusiastically supported by the Democrats.

In terms of Fox News' monetary interest, I don't see how their interests are impacted by either party's success or failure. Fox News did well under Bush. They are doing well under Obama.

[cabernetluver]

GE has a monetary interest in green energy policy, which is much more enthusiastically supported by the Democrats.

In terms of Fox News' monetary interest, I don't see how their interests are impacted by either party's success or failure. Fox News did well under Bush. They are doing well under Obama.

First, it is not about contributions without the one sided context of $1,000,000 being given to one party, with nothing being given to its counterpart on anything close to that level. When GE has given money, its donations have been to both parties in substantially even numbers. That is the point.

Second, Fox has a $1,000,000 monetary interest, so, I don't see how that does not equal monetary interest.

[Randy West]

I could have sworn News Corp made the donation. Last I checked News Corp was many things Fox just being one of them.

Murdoch leans right so it is not as surprising as it sounds.

If it were one candidate that would be one thing, it is for the Governors group. Maybe it was easier to do that than contribute 20K to each one running in each state.

[cabernetluver]

I could have sworn News Corp made the donation. Last I checked News Corp was many things Fox just being one of them.

Murdoch leans right so it is not as surprising as it sounds.

If it were one candidate that would be one thing, it is for the Governors group. Maybe it was easier to do that than contribute 20K to each one running in each state.

It is News Corp, but. That is the title that i started with, but, if you go back, you will see where it becomes Fox in attribution, besides, it is easier to type Fox.

[gcoll]

I could have sworn News Corp made the donation. Last I checked News Corp was many things Fox just being one of them.

Murdoch leans right so it is not as surprising as it sounds.

If it were one candidate that would be one thing, it is for the Governors group. Maybe it was easier to do that than contribute 20K to each one running in each state.

I don't know. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia seems to be taking a hard right stance lately. Perhaps News Corp's influence does impact the content on its channels.

First, it is not about contributions without the one sided context of $1,000,000 being given to one party, with nothing being given to its counterpart on anything close to that level. When GE has given money, its donations have been to both parties in substantially even numbers. That is the point.

Second, Fox has a $1,000,000 monetary interest, so, I don't see how that does not equal monetary interest.

I don't know. How are they gonna make money on that investment? Probably just a tax write off or something.

But that's News Corp. Fox News didn't donate the million. Fox News' monetary interest is ratings. They get good ratings, they generate revenue, their parent company News Corp is happy.

[Randy West]

1 ActBlue $16,952,246 100% 0% Solidly Democratic
2 AT&T Inc $3,137,879 48% 51% On the fence
3 Honeywell International $2,937,760 54% 46% On the fence
4 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $2,793,368 98% 2% Solidly Democratic
5 Comcast Corp $2,759,952 67% 33% Strongly Democratic
6 National Beer Wholesalers Assn $2,418,441 57% 43% Leans Democratic
7 American Assn for Justice $2,310,200 97% 3% Solidly Democratic
8 Boeing Co $2,240,667 60% 40% Leans Democratic
9 Elliott Management $2,230,356 2% 98% Solidly Republican
10 Club for Growth $2,165,166 0% 90% Strongly Republican
11 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $2,144,800 99% 0% Solidly Democratic
12 Lockheed Martin $2,134,120 55% 45% On the fence
13 American Bankers Assn $2,126,080 39% 61% Leans Republican
14 Operating Engineers Union $2,122,765 89% 11% Strongly Democratic
15 National Assn of Realtors $2,031,368 57% 43% Leans Democratic
16 International Assn of Fire Fighters $2,001,300 82% 18% Strongly Democratic
17 General Electric $1,945,676 62% 38% Leans Democratic
18 American Federation of Teachers $1,914,320 100% 0% Solidly Democratic
19 Teamsters Union $1,861,760 98% 2% Solidly Democratic
20 American Crystal Sugar $1,843,550 67% 33% Strongly Democratic
21 Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union $1,787,050 98% 2% Solidly Democratic
22 Credit Union National Assn $1,775,593 57% 43% Leans Democratic
23 Laborers Union $1,753,900 96% 4% Solidly Democratic
24 New York Life Insurance $1,748,196 58% 42% Leans Democratic
25 Goldman Sachs $1,740,527 45% 55% On the fence
26 Raytheon Co $1,729,027 54% 46% On the fence
27 National Air Traffic Controllers Assn $1,727,400 84% 16% Strongly Democratic
28 Blue Cross/Blue Shield $1,680,752 45% 55% On the fence
29 Plumbers/Pipefitters Union $1,678,315 95% 5% Solidly Democratic
30 PricewaterhouseCoopers $1,651,448 44% 56% Leans Republican
31 Microsoft Corp $1,628,529 58% 42% Leans Democratic
32 Berkshire Hathaway $1,599,871 47% 53% On the fence
33 United Parcel Service $1,597,865 44% 55% On the fence
34 National Community Pharmacists Assn $1,591,883 62% 38% Leans Democratic
35 AFLAC Inc $1,578,250 47% 53% On the fence
36 Carpenters & Joiners Union $1,573,125 83% 17% Strongly Democratic
37 American Dental Assn $1,535,600 51% 48% On the fence
38 Ironworkers Union $1,483,450 97% 3% Solidly Democratic
39 National Assn of Home Builders $1,465,050 40% 60% Leans Republican
40 Verizon Communications $1,460,882 56% 43% Leans Democratic
41 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu $1,458,933 44% 55% On the fence
42 EMILY's List $1,455,234 100% 0% Solidly Democratic
43 National Auto Dealers Assn $1,419,650 50% 50% On the fence
44 Northrop Grumman $1,415,415 54% 45% On the fence
45 United Food & Commercial Workers Union $1,400,250 100% 0% Solidly Democratic
46 Bank of America $1,393,586 38% 61% Leans Republican
47 Communications Workers of America $1,351,600 96% 2% Solidly Democratic
48 American Hospital Assn $1,338,850 72% 28% Strongly Democratic
49 National Rural Electric Cooperative Assn $1,304,650 51% 49% On the fence
50 Service Employees International Union $1,257,165 100% -1% Solidly Democratic
51 National Cable & Telecommunications Assn $1,225,900 58% 42% Leans Democratic
52 Wal-Mart Stores $1,223,193 49% 51% On the fence
53 Akin, Gump et al $1,216,760 74% 26% Strongly Democratic
54 Union Pacific Corp $1,214,400 52% 48% On the fence
55 Ernst & Young $1,191,941 52% 48% On the fence
56 Patton Boggs LLP $1,191,269 76% 23% Strongly Democratic
57 Every Republican is Crucial PAC $1,184,596 0% 100% Solidly Republican
58 General Dynamics $1,180,773 62% 37% Leans Democratic
59 Pfizer Inc $1,175,952 56% 44% On the fence
60 CSX Corp $1,174,600 59% 40% Leans Democratic
61 Air Line Pilots Assn $1,166,450 87% 13% Strongly Democratic
62 National Assn of Letter Carriers $1,152,850 96% 4% Solidly Democratic
63 National Education Assn $1,145,663 92% 7% Solidly Democratic
64 American Society of Anesthesiologists $1,128,960 42% 57% Leans Republican
65 Morgan Stanley $1,116,863 43% 55% On the fence
66 United Transportation Union $1,110,915 89% 11% Strongly Democratic
67 Aircraft Owners & Pilots Assn $1,110,000 53% 47% On the fence
68 United Auto Workers $1,106,400 100% -0% Solidly Democratic
69 JPMorgan Chase & Co $1,075,488 51% 48% On the fence
70 American College of Radiology $1,073,000 51% 49% On the fence
71 Koch Industries $1,070,900 13% 87% Strongly Republican
72 WPP Group $1,037,298 48% 51% On the fence
73 American Health Care Assn $999,682 66% 33% Leans Democratic
74 American Postal Workers Union $989,000 99% 1% Solidly Democratic
75 Citigroup Inc $979,644 50% 50% On the fence
76 American Optometric Assn $963,650 74% 26% Strongly Democratic
77 American Assn of Orthopaedic Surgeons $959,700 42% 58% Leans Republican
78 DLA Piper $957,622 70% 29% Strongly Democratic
79 Interpublic Group $953,075 82% 18% Strongly Democratic
80 FMR Corp $942,690 52% 48% On the fence
81 Wells Fargo $938,257 36% 64% Leans Republican
82 KPMG International $926,353 51% 49% On the fence
83 Home Depot $921,665 33% 67% Leans Republican
84 Norfolk Southern $918,160 62% 38% Leans Democratic
85 AmeriPAC: The Fund for a Greater America $912,309 100% 0% Solidly Democratic
86 American College of Emergency Physicians $907,300 58% 42% Leans Democratic
87 K&L Gates $893,634 64% 36% Leans Democratic
88 Altria Group $891,750 36% 64% Leans Republican
89 United Technologies $889,259 58% 42% Leans Democratic
90 BRIDGE PAC $885,000 100% 0% Solidly Democratic
91 Amgen Inc $882,009 59% 41% Leans Democratic
92 Greenberg Traurig LLP $879,748 69% 30% Strongly Democratic
93 Indep Insurance Agents & Brokers/America $876,250 38% 62% Leans Republican
94 Freedom Project $868,187 1% 99% Solidly Republican
95 Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance $863,167 62% 36% Leans Democratic
96 UNITE HERE $854,000 99% 1% Solidly Democratic
97 Investment Co Institute $836,775 54% 46% On the fence
98 Blue Dog PAC $835,000 99% 1% Solidly Democratic
99 American Federation of Govt Employees $822,690 98% 2% Solidly Democratic
100 Merck & Co $821,588 53% 47% On the fence


http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php

Top 100 overall donors so far in 2010.

[cabernetluver]

gcoll, you confused me with your question about ownership. Both Comcast and News Corp are publicly traded.

[Randy West]

It is News Corp, but. That is the title that i started with, but, if you go back, you will see where it becomes Fox in attribution, besides, it is easier to type Fox.

So I am still not understanding the problem. You say it is a News Corp donation, how then does it turn into a donation from Fox? Even if the donation was from Fox why would it matter?

[cabernetluver]

The point was made earlier, that it is not about donations per se, but about companies that are in the news business making donations. Corporate donations are something we could address in another thread, but this is a unique business. They literally are protected by the Constitution by name (first Amendment) and as such hold a unique place in our society. That is why I am singling them out.

[Randy West]

The point was made earlier, that it is not about donations per se, but about companies that are in the news business making donations. Corporate donations are something we could address in another thread, but this is a unique business. They literally are protected by the Constitution by name (first Amendment) and as such hold a unique place in our society. That is why I am singling them out.

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.