ALL CORPORATIONS?

Not a single large corporation is more supportive of democrats?

No. I never said that. You are putting words in my mouth.

TWO INCIDENTS?

BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION?

What planet do you live on?

Find me a corporation which believes in increasing corporate taxes, increasing regulation of businesses in the areas of workplace safety, pollution, and minimum wage, eliminating tax breaks for offshoring, and supporting unions and then you will have found a corporation that might support democrats more than republicans. For all I know you may actually find a company like that. But if you do it will not change the fact that most businesses (especially huge multinational corporations like the ones which own our media) have a vested interest in supporting conservative republicans.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

Your own words - not mine

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

MOST BUSINESSES are irrelevant to this thread.

You are so blinded by your own PETTY partisanship, you are unable to see how the game is played.

You see, the FILTHY rich people give money to both parties. This way they cover their ass no matter what party is in power. Sure, even the filthy rich lean one way, but politics are a fucking game.

Here, look at the campaign contributions for the CEO of Disney.

NEWSMEAT ▷ Michael Eisner's Federal Campaign Contribution Report

Here are the campaign contributions for the CEO of TIME WARNER

Almost ALL democrats, with a few token Republicans like McCain to cover his ass.

NEWSMEAT ▷ Jeff Bewkes's Federal Campaign Contribution Report

HOWARD STRINGER CEO of SONY.

Almost ALL are to democrats.

NEWSMEAT ▷ Howard Stringer's Federal Campaign Contribution Report

I have been unable to find the DETAILED campaign contributions for the CEO of Hartmut Ostrowski of Bertelsmann, or for Philippe Dauman, CEO, Viacom.

I would bet though that they would be very similar to those above.

Here is another tidbit........

And, finally, a search by occupation reveals some interesting statistics. Donors who listed their occupation as "journalist" preferred Democrats to Republicans by a margin of almost 12:1, giving $101,543 to Democrats and $8,660 to Republicans this election cycle. Donors listing their occupation as "editor" were much more generous to Republicans than journalists, giving $51,524, though that still paled in comparison to the $185,175 editors gave to Democrats.

FundRace: How The Media Gave (Or Didn't Give) In 2007 - Media on The Huffington Post

And what about the employees at FOX NEWS?

A search on Opensecrets.org, which follows the money on the campaign trail, found that donors who identified themselves as employees of Fox News' parent company, News Corp., gave to Democrats over Republicans by an overwhelming margin.

Of the 27 donations, totaling $41,000, from News Corp. employees, 25 went to Democrats, with the vast majority—19, totaling $32,100—going to Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.). Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) received five, totaling $3,600, while Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) got one, for $2,100.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and actor/former senator Fred Thompson were the only Republican beneficiaries—$2,300 for McCain and $1,000 for Thompson.

News Corp. president/CEO Peter Chernin, a known Democratic supporter, was the sole Dodd contributor and also gave to Clinton and Obama. Even News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch, who's never been coy about his rightward tilt, gave $2,300 to Clinton, his only recorded donation. (Their counterparts at Viacom, Chairman Sumner Redstone and president/CEO Philippe Dauman, hedged their bets, splitting their contributions between Clinton and Rudy Giuliani.)

The pattern held in searches for "Fox Broadcasting" and "Fox TV" (Dennis Haysbert, who played the president on 24, is an Obama man).

The only donor listed under "Fox News Channel" gave $500—to Hillary Clinton.

BC Beat - 3/3/2008 - Broadcasting & Cable

DO YOU GET IT YET?

Can we say that the national press club should be a center for "liberal bias" if it supposedly exists. Then why are they attempting to sabotage the Obama campaign. First, we all know about the invitation to Rev. Jeremiah Wright 7 days before the Indiana and North Carolina primaries that forced Obama to leave his church. We know about the CONSTANT replaying of Wright's statements both in March and when he reappeared. And NOW the National Press Club has the audacity to host a press conference with Larry Sinclair, the internet blogger who manufactured the non-existent Whitey tape rumor that continues to dog the Obama family to this day.

Meanwhile the media has ignored:

John McCain's infedelities
Cindy McCain's drug addiction
John McCain's infamous temper
John McCain's numerous flip flops on nearly every issue, including today, his flip flop on off shore oil drilling. Fox covered his speech and made no mention of his earlier strong opposition to offshore drilling for environmental reasons. No one, I might add, pointed out that in order for prices to decrease it would take years for our oil to enter the global market and offset supply and, most importantly, all of that means nothing if there aren't new refineries built. So again, who is biased?

Let's move this topic away from broad pronouncements and analyze the way the press is actually covering the candidates. The bias in favor of McCain is striking.

You seem to believe that donations of media CEOs and Presidents speaks to whether media coverage is biased or not. If you believe Fox News is "balanced" and not right wing, well there's not really much convincing you I suppose, but if you acknowledge it has a right wing slant it would suggest that Murdoch's support of Clinton does not indicate how "liberals" or "conservatives" are generally handled on Fox News. Fox has an overwhelming number of conservative commentators over liberal commentators. More often than not their liberal commentators, like Colmes are so weak and centrist there is no way you could reasonably call them liberal. I might also add they don't have one liberal talk show host on their radio network, Hannity, O'Reilly, Cavuto, these are all conservatives of one stripe or another. Sean Hannitty even admitted to being a surrogate of the McCain campaign on the air. YouTube - Hannity Admits He's McCain's Surrogate

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

Sweeping it under the rug. I can see now why tim decided to ignore you instead of further pursuing the point.

I guess the theme of this campaign will be "The press gives their guy a free ride"?

Peachy. Something to look forward to.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

this has nothing to do with the conversation.



Yet the evidence is clear. The newsrooms are staffed by a huge margin by left of center folks by their own admissions. The sites who have conducted polls etc. have it around 70% or higher. And their coverage reflects that as it naturally would, Fox is staffed by a huge majority of righties and viola’.

I have already posted a blurb in a thread to pram that clearly shows this, plus the fact that less than 20% of folks across both spectrums believe the news is NOT slanted. I don't know what to tell you.

You are taking a presumptive ( big corps owning media outlets) and using it to create the illusion of an empirically proven conclusion.

and add to that I already gave you an example ala Hollywood. They are I think any reasonable person would conclude far left, and their donations, and views prove such. Yet, they will apparently throw away money and make films that don't sell.

IF as you say the corps who owns these media outlets is going them marching orders then I’d say they are not following orders. That’s leaves 3 choices; the corps don’t care and won’t mess with content or they are not as left as you presume, or as biz divisions they are making enough where in they again will not chance giving news room editors etc. marching orders as to content etc.

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

I'd say your memory is selective;

The Times published an article that had zeroed in aon a supposed infidelity of McCain with a lobbyist. It was even by their own admission later a ham handed slight. It was all over the place.

Cindy McCain’s drug addition...uhm okay, I have not heard much on Obama cocaine use either.

His temper? Are you kidding? Thats certainly been a mainstay and will be one. Obama and Hill have has their greater share of the news ala the primary etc.


Flip flop? Absolutely he did flip flop, no doubt, hes reading the polls, I saw it on FOX today about oh 15 minutes ago, they spelled it pout.

Where’s the news on Obamas war flip flops and his back tracking on his statement about seeing Ahmadinejad with no pre conditions? Or his signing a campaign pledge form advocating the banning of hand guns? I have not seen any of that..........OR his own anti “smear” sites slight of hand regards his Muslim status earlier in his life? I have not seen a thing on that.

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

Exactly. Which is why i said."most businesses (especially huge multinational corporations like the ones which own our media) have a vested interest in supporting conservative republicans.
The rest of your post had nothing to do with the political interests of the corporations that own our media or with my post.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

It might help if you BOTHERED TO READ MY POSTS.

Jeesh.

Who owns the media corporations?

Who?

Since you're either too lazy to look it up or just can't happen to find the information on your own, here ya go:

There are five major corporations that own all of American media

1. Walt Disney Company
2. TimeWarner
3. Viacom
4. NBC Universal (owned by GE)
5. News Corporation

Here is a nice graphic showing which company is owned by which corporation and how they merged over the past 25 years.