- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
As a member of The Daily Signal team, I took offense to The Washington Post’s recent questioning of our “legitimacy” as a news organization.
The Washington Post began its story stating that, “In an age of partisan media, the lines between ‘partisan’ and ‘media’ can sometimes blur.”
I wonder if the reporter has taken a look at just how partisan some of our country’s media behemoths actually are. Here is a summary of the ownership, lobbying, and political contributions of several of America’s largest media companies.
ABC is owned by the Walt Disney Co., which has spent over $70 million lobbying the federal government since 1998. During the 2016 election cycle, individuals and PACs associated with the company contributed $1.6 million to Democrats and $250,000 to Republicans.
NBC is owned by Comcast Corp. In 2014, Comcast spent $17 million in lobbying and hired 128 lobbyists. When it came to the 2016 election cycle, contributions were almost evenly distributed between the two political parties, with Democrats receiving $3.5 million and Republicans $3.3 million.
However, if you look at the contributions related specifically to NBC properties, the vast majority of contributions were to Democrats. The only outlier was NBC Sports.
CBS is owned by CBS Corp., which spent $4,470,000 in lobbying in 2016.
CNN is owned by Time Warner Inc. In 2016, individuals and PACs related to the company gave 87 percent of contributions to Democrats and 11 percent to Republicans. The only year since 1990 that such contributions didn’t heavily favor Democrats was 1996, when contributions were split 50-50.
Though I don’t normally consider the Fox News Channel to be part of the “establishment” media, considering its audience share is now larger than their cable counterparts, I took a look at the campaign contributions.
Fox News is owned by 21st Century Fox. At least when it comes to campaign contributions, Fox appears to be more “fair and balanced” than its competitors. Since 1998 and over 10 election cycles, the corporation has given a majority of contributions to Democrats five times, to Republicans four times, and roughly 50-50 in 2014.
And then there is The Washington Post, which is owned by billionaire businessman Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com.
Among his political donations? A reported $2.5 million was given to support the gay marriage referendum in Washington state. He has also been a vocal supporter of the internet sales tax. The Washington Post editorial pages have reflected similar views on both marriage and taxes.
To say that the aforementioned political contributions are nowhere near “balanced” is an understatement. And while you can’t link every dollar to every instance of bias, most Americans have come to the conclusion that the media is less than trustworthy.
According to Gallup, Americans’ confidence in the media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly” is at its lowest point in Gallup’s polling history with only 32 percent saying they have “a great deal or fair amount of trust” in the media.
Also of note, a recent Emerson College poll showed voters find the Trump administration “to be more truthful than the news media.” Forty-nine percent of voters considered the administration truthful, but only 39 percent said the same about the news media.
In addition to a lack of trust among American news consumers, technology is playing a role in the changing and broadening media landscape.
According to a 2016 study by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are now more people working in internet/digital publishing (outlets like The Daily Signal) than working at newspapers. And the numbers are pretty stark.
In 1990, there were 458,000 people working in the newspaper industry. Fast forward to 2016, and that number had fallen by 60 percent, to 183,000. On the flip side, the number of people working in internet publishing grew from 30,000 in 1990 to almost 198,000 in 2016.
And, as more and more Americans are going online to get their news (44 percent of U.S. adults now get news on Facebook, according to the Pew Research Center), newspaper circulation continues to decline, and the traditional broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) have fewer eyeballs watching their morning programs and evening news broadcasts—1 million fewer than last year.
Perhaps it’s little wonder that what is known as the “establishment” media is feeling, well, a little less established than it used to.
http://dailysignal.com/2017/03/20/why-the-establishment-media-is-finding-itself-on-shaky-ground/
Originally posted by checkbaiterUh huh...
Though I don’t normally consider the Fox News Channel to be part of the “establishment” media
a) Why no link? Is this from another obviously right-wing site?
b) Why wouldn't Fox be part of the "establishment" when it's (then CEO) Roger Ailes become Donald Trump's advisor? Isn't that a rather convenient thing to leave out?
This same CEO was also a media consultant for Republican presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush, and for Rudy Giuliani's first mayoral campaign. How is this "fair and balanced" as the article claims?
Whoever you copied this article from, by their own definition, seems to also be part of the "establishment media".
Originally posted by vivifyHe put a link at the bottom.
Uh huh...
a) Why no link? Is this from another obviously right-wing site?
b) Why wouldn't Fox be part of the "establishment" when it's (then CEO) Roger Ailes become Donald Trump's advisor? Isn't that a rather convenient thing to leave out?
This same CEO was also a media consultant for Republican presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H ...[text shortened]... this article from, by their own definition, seems to also be part of the "establishment media".
http://dailysignal.com/2017/03/20/why-the-establishment-media-is-finding-itself-on-shaky-ground/
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by vivifyThere is a link and you can google these facts if you wish, but you probably won't.
Uh huh...
a) Why no link? Is this from another obviously right-wing site?
b) Why wouldn't Fox be part of the "establishment" when it's (then CEO) Roger Ailes become Donald Trump's advisor? Isn't that a rather convenient thing to leave out?
This same CEO was also a media consultant for Republican presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H ...[text shortened]... this article from, by their own definition, seems to also be part of the "establishment media".
Originally posted by DeepThoughtSeems I was right in suspecting this to be an obviously right-wing site. Next to thier "Must Reads" tabs in the header, is "Immigration" followed by "Obamacare". As if that doesn't scream "right-wing bias!" loud enough, the second-to-last tab is (take a wild guess)...terrorism.
He put a link at the bottom.
http://dailysignal.com/2017/03/20/why-the-establishment-media-is-finding-itself-on-shaky-ground/
I clicked on the "Immigration" tab. The very first article? "14-Year-Old Girl Says She Was Raped by Illegal Immigrants. Here’s How the Community Is Reacting."
The second article? "The Consequences of Immigration for America’s Public Schools".
Honestly, after seeing the bias in the article, finding out that it came from a right-wing source is no surprise.
Originally posted by checkbaiterThis is what Emerson says of its poll.
As a member of The Daily Signal team, I took offense to The Washington Post’s recent questioning of our “legitimacy” as a news organization.
Also of note, a recent Emerson College poll showed voters find the Trump administration “to be more truthful than the news media.” Forty-nine percent of voters considered the administration truthful, but only 39 percent said the same about the news media.
The national Emerson College poll was conducted February 5-6 under the Supervision of Professor Spencer Kimball. The sample consisted of only registered voters, n=617, with a margin of error (MOE) of +/- 3.9 percentage points. The national data was weighted by 2016 election results, gender, party affiliation, race, age and region. It is important to remember that subsets based on gender, age, party breakdown and school carry with them higher margins of error, as the sample size is reduced. Data was collected using an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system of landlines only.
Now if 617 registered voters who were contacted by landline are representative of the way the general populace feels about Trump, then sure, but I would argue that the 3.9% margin of error, given the specifics of this poll are pretty generous.
It will be interesting to see what more recent follow up polls by Emerson say, in light of the CBO numbers on Trump/Ryan care etc
Originally posted by checkbaiterI didn't doubt the facts; the problem is with the article's spin. By adding that they "don't consider" Fox News to be mainstream media, and that they seem "fair and balanced"...their obvious bias betrays them.
There is a link and you can google these facts if you wish, but you probably won't.
Originally posted by checkbaiterWhen the GOP has people like the Koch brothers willing to spend $889 million dollars into the 2016 election cycle, it kind of makes a mockery of the notion that somehow right leaning politics are under-represented in the mainstream. It kind of makes Disney's $70 million spend since 1998 seem laughable.
....ABC is owned by the Walt Disney Co., which has spent over $70 million lobbying the federal government since 1998. During the 2016 election cycle, individuals and PACs associated with the company contributed $1.6 million to Democrats and $250,000 to Republicans.
NBC is owned by Comcast Corp. In 2014, Comcast spent $17 million in lobbying and hired ...[text shortened]... lier was NBC Sports.
CBS is owned by CBS Corp., which spent $4,470,000 in lobbying in 2016.
But believe what you need to believe...
Originally posted by robbie carrobieEver since the Supreme Court ruled that limiting "campaign contributions" was the same as limiting "free speech". Overturning this decision is what people talk about when they mention "getting money out of politics".
What is lobbying? Is it attempting to buy political influence? Why should companies be allowed to buy influence in a democracy?
Now everyone with enough money owns a politician (or many politicians, depending on how much money you're willing to shovel out) that they have bought and paid for. Corporations are the new slave holders. They own the most politicians because they have the most money. This is why Trump's cabinet is composed of billionaire CEO's.
Originally posted by vivifyMore than just bias, their main agenda is fear-mongering, as in those articles you mentioned.
Seems I was right in suspecting this to be an obviously right-wing site. Next to thier "Must Reads" tabs in the header, is "Immigration" followed by "Obamacare". As if that doesn't scream "right-wing bias!" loud enough, the second-to-last tab is (take a wild guess)...terrorism.
I clicked on the "Immigration" tab. The very first article? "14-Year-Old Gi ...[text shortened]... eeing the bias in the article, finding out that it came from a right-wing source is no surprise.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, it is mostly legalised corruption. There are two aspects to lobbying: one, is merely presenting the government with an industry's point of view. This is important, and I would say practically essential for a well run government. After all, if the president and his cronies are totally ignorant as is the case in the US, they need input from somewhere.
What is lobbying? Is it attempting to buy political influence? Why should companies be allowed to buy influence in a democracy?
The other aspect is 'campaign donations' and other forms of monetary means of encouraging politicians to listen to you and vote your way. That is corruption.