Fox News Parent Donates a Million Dollars to Republicans

joepistole

joepistole

Deacon Blues
Valued Senior Member
Should this donation cost Fox News it's front row status in presidential press briefings?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...w-briefing-room-seat-in-light-of-gop-donation

A coalition of watchdog groups is asking the White House Correspondents' Association to reconsider Fox News's front-row seat assignment in light of a $1 million donation by its parent company to the Republican Governors Association.

A letter from the coalition called the donation from News Corporation "a massive ethical lapse that demonstrates Fox News’ inability to function as an objective media institution."

How does Fox reconcile their financial support of Republicans with their "Fair and Balanced" nonsense? Then again, why should they care? I think they obviously don't care.
 
Corporations donate money to politicians all the time. Liberals are just butt-hurt because it's Fox News and their money went to Republicans.
 
iceaura said:
Not news corporations.

Until recently not any corporations - on the table, anyway.
Click to expand...

A corporation is a corporation. And I'm guessing Joe wouldn't have bothered posting this if it was conservatives bitching that CNN donated money to Democrats.
 
acid said:
A corporation is a corporation.
Click to expand...
In this new Fox world of utter media corruption, maybe. In the past, people would have gone to jail, been fired, etc.
cowboy said:
And I'm guessing Joe wouldn't have bothered posting this if it was conservatives bitching that CNN donated money to Democrats.
Click to expand...
We'll probably never know - that blatant stuff has not been found outside of the Fox Republican world.
 
Cowboy said:
A corporation is a corporation. And I'm guessing Joe wouldn't have bothered posting this if it was conservatives bitching that CNN donated money to Democrats.
Click to expand...

Well if you made that guess you would be wrong. I have long maintained news should be unbiased. That is why I am a big advocate of the Fairness Doctrine...equal time for all sides.
 
Or you could just let people choose their own news instead of forcing them to be subjected to what you want them to hear/see...oh thats right, thats giving people free choice, cant have that now can we.

Fox news is only as big as it is because people WANT TO VIEW IT!
 
thall53 said:
Or you could just let people choose their own news instead of forcing them to be subjected to what you want them to hear/see...oh thats right, thats giving people free choice, cant have that now can we.

Fox news is only as big as it is because people WANT TO VIEW IT!
Click to expand...

and that just shows the disdain americans have for knowledge and fact
 
thall said:
Fox news is only as big as it is because people WANT TO VIEW IT!
Click to expand...
So?

Bernie Madoff only got as big as he did because people wanted to do business with him.
 
Unbiased news was a myth. Even attempting to be uncontroversial and acceptable to all is a form of bias.

Trying to be rigorously truthful would be a bias against narratives that give clarity meaning and structure to the narrative's adherents by exaggerating some ideas and minimizing others. Truth is not necessarily the most useful narrative upon which for adherents to base their thinking regardless whether usefulness is defined by aiding in wealth accumulation, aiding in happiness, aiding in procreation or any other goal.

Even if somebody is trying to be truthful their choice of which stories to report on is a form of bias.

If the fairness doctrine led to the format where the host for each issue brings on one mainstream corporate Democrat political hack partisan self-appointed expert and one mainstream corporate Republican political hack partisan self-appointed expert and they both unashamedly lie then maybe the fairness doctrine did not work as intended. If that was the fairness doctrine it was unfair to the out of the main stream opinions and non-partisan opinions and anti-corporate opinions.

I don't think Walter Cronkite can be said to be unbiased. How can anybody be unbiased when we all have different beliefs.? At most we can avoid knowingly lying.
 
Just wondering how this thread qualifies as ideological balance? Seems to me that irrespective of what you may think of Buffalo Roam, if he had posted this about say, CNN & Democrats, this thread would have been locked by now.

Just asking, and I hope a mod can actually the question before jos blows up and posts 75responses so no one will see the question.

Seriously, why has this thread not been locked?
 
pjdude-nice try on a grammar distraction, doesn't change the fact that the ratings are overwhelmingly for fox news because people choose to watch it instead of msnbc lies. Also nice try on the liberal 'you don't support my news affiliate so you must only support fantasy' approach. Apparently the country has spoken and the majority of the population has chosen non-liberal news. Christ, deal with it and man up already, your whining is embarrassing.
 
thall53 said:
pjdude-nice try on a grammar distraction,
Click to expand...
not really a distraction.
doesn't change the fact that the ratings are overwhelmingly for fox news because people choose to watch it instead of msnbc lies.
Click to expand...
nice illogical argument so ratings determine the truth funny how I always thought it was facts that did that. also while I do watch MSNBC I get most of my news from the internet.
Also nice try on the liberal 'you don't support my news affiliate so you must only support fantasy' approach.
Click to expand...
you mean right wing because that what your doing right here.
Apparently the country has spoken and the majority of the population has chosen non-liberal news.
Click to expand...
um a majority of people do not watch fox news.
Christ, deal with it and man up already, your whining is embarrassing.
Click to expand...

I'm not whining I really don't give a damn about fox's ratings because they are going to continue to crash over the years as more people turn to the internet and its viewers die off.
 
John T. Galt said:
Just wondering how this thread qualifies as ideological balance? Seems to me that irrespective of what you may think of Buffalo Roam, if he had posted this about say, CNN & Democrats, this thread would have been locked by now.

Just asking, and I hope a mod can actually the question before jos blows up and posts 75responses so no one will see the question.

Seriously, why has this thread not been locked?
Click to expand...

Buffalo Roam's idiotic threads don't usually get locked. Even when Buffalo quotes and links to false information as he often does his threads don't get locked. The OP here presents what I assume is a fact and then gives his opinion as an opinion.

Also CNN is not the left version of Fox. There is no left counterpart to Fox.
 
Last edited:
nirakar said:
There is no left counterpart to Fox.
Click to expand...

yeah
lefty talk radio never made it to the big time.

who cares tho
i have my npr and pacifica



no fundie christian republican warmongers please
thanks

--------------

US

LehrerMacNeil.jpg


THEM!!

beck-blackboard-justice.jpg


/spit
 
Last edited:
thall53 said:
Or you could just let people choose their own news instead of forcing them to be subjected to what you want them to hear/see...oh thats right, thats giving people free choice, cant have that now can we.

Fox news is only as big as it is because people WANT TO VIEW IT!
Click to expand...

People like addictive drugs too. Does that make them right?

What is wrong with a little unbaised news reporting?
 
nirakar said:
Unbiased news was a myth. Even attempting to be uncontroversial and acceptable to all is a form of bias.

Trying to be rigorously truthful would be a bias against narratives that give clarity meaning and structure to the narrative's adherents by exaggerating some ideas and minimizing others. Truth is not necessarily the most useful narrative upon which for adherents to base their thinking regardless whether usefulness is defined by aiding in wealth accumulation, aiding in happiness, aiding in procreation or any other goal.

Even if somebody is trying to be truthful their choice of which stories to report on is a form of bias.

If the fairness doctrine led to the format where the host for each issue brings on one mainstream corporate Democrat political hack partisan self-appointed expert and one mainstream corporate Republican political hack partisan self-appointed expert and they both unashamedly lie then maybe the fairness doctrine did not work as intended. If that was the fairness doctrine it was unfair to the out of the main stream opinions and non-partisan opinions and anti-corporate opinions.

I don't think Walter Cronkite can be said to be unbiased. How can anybody be unbiased when we all have different beliefs.? At most we can avoid knowingly lying.
Click to expand...

All good points, but I never viewed Cronkite as biased. I would rather a news service be more focused on delivering unbiased news than what we have today. I don't think that there is any time in history where voters have been so misinformed. The objective of news services should be to accurately inform viewers....not to secretly sell a politcal agenda (e.g. Fox News Fair and Balanced Nonsense).

I think viewers were more much better informed and therefore much better able to make decisions during the time when the Fairness Doctrine was the law of the land.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

Scroll down to page 15 for the summary.

The above cited University of Maryland study showed Fox News viewers were 4 times more likely to have misperceptions than National Public Radio listeners.

And when it comes to the voting booth, I would much rather have voters who are well and accurately informed doing the voting.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top