Should Fox be Required to Reveal its Conflict of Interest?

[Gangster Octopus]

Newscorp, which owns Fox News, gave $1 million to the Republican Governors Association. The Democratic head of the Democratic Governors Association said:


In the interest of some fairness and balance, I request that you add a formal disclaimer to your news coverage any time any of your programs cover governors or gubernatorial races between now and Election Day.


But Fox has done no such thing. Just yesterday Bill O'Reilly had GOP Gubernatorial Candidate for Ohio John Kasich on, but made no reference to the conflict of interest.

Is the donation unusual for a news agency? Should they have more transparency.

I would think so, maybe other news agencies do it to, but I have never heard about it, and if they did it seems like a bad idea.

What say you?

[Justin_Bailey]

Is the donation unusual for a news agency? Should they have more transparency.

News Corp. does not equal Fox News. No matter how much people want it to be true, there's more to Rupert Murdoch's empire than just Fox News.

[gonzomax]

Is the donation unusual for a news agency? Should they have more transparency.

News Corp. does not equal Fox News. No matter how much people want it to be true, there's more to Rupert Murdoch's empire than just Fox News.
That is true. But everything they do is pro conservative. Their donation is not a big shock. Why? Because they are a right wing ,conservative enterprise.

[Oakminster]

Should every CNN/MSNBC/Hippy Dippy Liberal Network guy make similar disclosure, or are you only interested in harassing conservatives?

[Sateryn76]

Should we review Ted Turner's or Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.'s contributions? And then require the disclosure on CNN?

But wait! AOL-Time Warner owns Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., and they're huge republican donors! So, they should need to spend 10-20 seconds to report their donations each time they interview or take a position on anything?

[markdash]

Should every CNN/MSNBC/Hippy Dippy Liberal Network guy make similar disclosure, or are you only interested in harassing conservatives?

Does GE (or whatever they are calling the umbrella parent company) make contributions to political parties? Because if they do, then yes, they should also run disclaimers.

Please note that this is different than Murdoch making contributions to political parties. He is free to do whatever he wants and Fox News shouldn't be tainted by it. But when the company itself makes the contributions, that's when the viewer should be informed.

[Lightnin']

Should every CNN/MSNBC/Hippy Dippy Liberal Network guy make similar disclosure, or are you only interested in harassing conservatives?

Everyone should. Does that satisfy your urge to point out potential Liberal Hypocrisy, or do you want more?

[Dangerosa]

I don't think it would be a bad idea for news organizations to have disclaimers similar to how investment advisors need to. For that matter, I don't think its a bad idea for corporations to do so (see the recent Target flap). I think people would be surprised how many corporations donate where.

i.e. this is from a Motley Fool article on Google: Google and Microsoft are Motley Fool Inside Value recommendations. Google is a Motley Fool Rule Breakers pick. Apple is a Motley Fool Stock Advisor selection. Motley Fool Options has recommended a diagonal call position on Microsoft. The Fool owns shares of Google. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days.

Longtime Fool contributor Rick Munarriz still uses Google a lot in his daily life. He does not own shares in any of the companies in this story. He is also part of the Rule Breakers newsletter research team, seeking out tomorrow's ultimate growth stocks a day early. The Fool has a disclosure policy.

[cosmosdan]

News corp, which owns Fox News, gave $1 million to the Republican Governors Association. The Democratic head of the Democratic Governors Association said:


In the interest of some fairness and balance, I request that you add a formal disclaimer to your news coverage any time any of your programs cover governors or gubernatorial races between now and Election Day.


But Fox has done no such thing. Just yesterday Bill Reilly had GOP Gubernatorial Candidate for Ohio John Kasich on, but made no reference to the conflict of interest.

Is the donation unusual for a news agency? Should they have more transparency.

I would think so, maybe other news agencies do it to, but I have never heard about it, and if they did it seems like a bad idea.

What say you?

Isn't it already obvious enough? No, I don't think anything like that is necessary.

[Marley23]

There's not any kind of legal requirement that they do so, so they won't. There's not much sense in pretending they're going to do it.

News Corp. does not equal Fox News. No matter how much people want it to be true, there's more to Rupert Murdoch's empire than just Fox News.
True. Nonetheless this is an enormous and blatant conflict of interest, and it's just a joke. You really can't find a more basic ethical issue than this: you can't donate money to a political party and then present yourself as an unbiased news organization. If News Corp. and Fox don't take a major hit for this, it's only because everyone already knows they are in the tank for the Republican Party.

I know Ted Turner is a major donor to Democrats (http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Ted_Turner.php) (with a few independents and Republicans sprinkled in), but that's money from Turner as an individual - not money coming from Time Warner, the company that owns CNN. I welcome a cite if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

[Bricker]

Well, GE gave $2.2 million to Democrats in 2008. They own NBC.
Walt Disney gave $1M to dmeocrats in 2008. They own ABC.

[Gagundathar]

Is it ethical for a foreign national to donate money to an American political entity?
I am certain that it is not illegal, but that wasn't my question.
It isn't hard for me to imagine a foreign conspiracy to undermine our country's ideals by promoting those candidates that are most likely to kow-tow to specific foreign interests.

Of course, in this case, the foreign national is Rupert Murdock and he supports the GOP which is supposedly not into 'internationalism' (whatever the heck that means these days).
So, I suppose my question is purely rhetorical since this is not what is happening in this instance (... or is it... <insert spooky music here>)

Maybe I am just rambling.

[Bricker]

If News Corp. and Fox don't take a major hit for this, it's only because everyone already knows they are in the tank for the Republican Party.


And you feel the same way about Disney and GE, right?

[Asympotically fat]

Is the donation unusual for a news agency? Should they have more transparency.

News Corp. does not equal Fox News. No matter how much people want it to be true, there's more to Rupert Murdoch's empire than just Fox News.

That's certainly true, but also doesn't detract in any way from the original point.

[Czarcasm]

Well, GE gave $2.2 million to Democrats in 2008. They own NBC.
Walt Disney gave $1M to dmeocrats in 2008. They own ABC.Did either corporation give to the Republicans as well?

[mlees]

Is it ethical for a foreign national to donate money to an American political entity?
I am certain that it is not illegal, but that wasn't my question.
It isn't hard for me to imagine a foreign conspiracy to undermine our country's ideals by promoting those candidates that are most likely to kow-tow to specific foreign interests.

Of course, in this case, the foreign national is Rupert Murdock and he supports the GOP which is supposedly not into 'internationalism' (whatever the heck that means these days).
So, I suppose my question is purely rhetorical since this is not what is happening in this instance (... or is it... <insert spooky music here>)

Maybe I am just rambling.

Back in the '96 elections, there was allegations of China trying to donate money to the Presidential Campaign. I think it's illegal for a foreign government to donate money. Dunno about private individuals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy

[Marley23]

If News Corp. and Fox don't take a major hit for this, it's only because everyone already knows they are in the tank for the Republican Party.


And you feel the same way about Disney and GE, right?
That any contributions from them to a political party should be public? Of course they should. Here's a CNN piece that actually does detail the donations made to each party by the various conglomerates. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/17/fox-news-takes-heat-for-news-corporations-gop-donation/)

[Bricker]

Well, GE gave $2.2 million to Democrats in 2008. They own NBC.
Walt Disney gave $1M to dmeocrats in 2008. They own ABC.Did either corporation give to the Republicans as well?



Walt Disney, in 2008, gave Republicans $348,858. And it gave Democrats $1,066,125.

GE gave Republicans $1,167,584 in 2008, when it gave Democrats $2,241,527.

And of course News Corp gave to the Democrats as well.

[Kyrie Eleison]

Did either corporation give to the Republicans as well?
Come now, for parity's sake, you must also strive to determine how much Newscorp gave to Democrats. Chortle.

ETA, because Bricker types faster than I:

And of course News Corp gave to the Democrats as well.
Do you have that figure handy?

[Whack-a-Mole]

Nearly all corporations donate to campaigns. No news there.

What I have noticed is corporations often donate to a lot of sides. Rather than choosing a party they want to choose the winners so the people who get to congress are beholden to them...whatever their political stripe. Rarely do they want to go all in for one side or the other else, if they make the wrong bet, the winning side will tell them to fuck off next time they come hat-in-hand.

In the case of Newscorp they are clearly pushing for one side. Also considering they report the news (at least they pretend at that) then a conflict of interest is relevant. For instance a stand-in host the other day on the Rachel Maddow show made it clear the guy he was interviewing was his father-in-law. I think that is good, open reporting.

Is it illegal for Newscorp to not divulge that? No (I don't think so anyway). Should they when doing political reporting from now till the election? Yeah if they had any sense of responsibility in reporting. Since we already know they don't and couldn't give a fuck about that we know they won't.

Not like them pushing for the Republicans is news anyway. You'd have had to be in a coma the last 10 years to miss it. Jon Stewart talking about this last night noted that really, the Republican party should be paying FOX for this kind of support. Was funny and scary because that makes sense.

[markdash]

I don't know how you could possibly draw the line, but it seems less ethically shady for a company to give money to both parties, even if it gives twice as much to one party as the other.

That sort of donation sounds more like "we're trying to gain some benefit here (fewer restrictions on business? etc.), and we're going to donate to both parties to cover our asses." A donation to only one party sounds like "we want this party to win."

[Bricker]

Did either corporation give to the Republicans as well?
Come now, for parity's sake, you must also strive to determine how much Newscorp gave to Democrats. Chortle.

So does the "chortle" mean you expect to find little or no contributions? Or you expect to find the contributions to the GOP outweighing those to the Dems by, say, 2:1?

Like we find with GE (NBC) and Disney (ABC), but in the other direction?

[Whack-a-Mole]

Did either corporation give to the Republicans as well?



Walt Disney, in 2008, gave Republicans $348,858. And it gave Democrats $1,066,125.

GE gave Republicans $1,167,584 in 2008, when it gave Democrats $2,241,527.

And of course News Corp gave to the Democrats as well.

As I noted corporations tend to donate to who they think the winners will be.

If you want to be fair with your cites note what GE and Disney did in 2004:

GE in 2004 (cite (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00024869&cycle=2004)):
Contributions from this PAC to federal candidates (list recipients)
(36% to Democrats, 64% to Republicans)


Disney in 2004 (cite (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00197749&cycle=2004)):
Contributions from this PAC to federal candidates (list recipients)
(51% to Democrats, 49% to Republicans)


As you can see they seem to bend the way the wind is blowing. 2008 was a no-brainer the Republicans would take a bath so corporations bet heavy on Dems. They were right and it paid off for them.

[Bricker]

I don't know how you could possibly draw the line, but it seems less ethically shady for a company to give money to both parties, even if it gives twice as much to one party as the other.

That sort of donation sounds more like "we're trying to gain some benefit here (fewer restrictions on business? etc.), and we're going to donate to both parties to cover our asses." A donation to only one party sounds like "we want this party to win."

OK, so in your view, this:

MegaCorp gives $2,000,000 to Democrats and $1,000,000 to Republicans

is fine, but this:

MegaCorp gives $1,000,000 to Democrats and $0 to Republicans

is not?

One should trigger disclosures about bias, but the other should not?

[Czarcasm]

Come now, for parity's sake, you must also strive to determine how much Newscorp gave to Democrats. Chortle.

So does the "chortle" mean you expect to find little or no contributions? Or you expect to find the contributions to the GOP outweighing those to the Dems by, say, 2:1?

Like we find with GE (NBC) and Disney (ABC), but in the other direction?I'd rather not assume either way, so what did Newscorp give to the Democrats?

[Bricker]

As you can see they seem to bend the way the wind is blowing. 2008 was a no-brainer the Republicans would take a bath so corporations bet heavy on Dems. They were right and it paid off for them.

Oh, absolutely.

But did the 2008 donations trigger the need for those corporations to disclose their bias during their news stories?

[Jas09]

Did either corporation give to the Republicans as well?



Walt Disney, in 2008, gave Republicans $348,858. And it gave Democrats $1,066,125.

GE gave Republicans $1,167,584 in 2008, when it gave Democrats $2,241,527.

And of course News Corp gave to the Democrats as well.
I'm guessing you got those numbers from OpenSecrets? As far as I can tell that is a conglomeration of all individual donations (i.e., employees of GE). Is that correct?

Do you know of any way to break down which parts of that are from the company itself... and am I wrong in stating that before the recent Supreme Court ruling the company itself *couldn't* make the type of donation directly to the parties that News Corp just made?

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000125

Also, somewhat interesting to notice the totals from 1990-2010 for GE: Dems, 51%, Reps, 48%.

[Czarcasm]

Walt Disney, in 2008, gave Republicans $348,858. And it gave Democrats $1,066,125.

GE gave Republicans $1,167,584 in 2008, when it gave Democrats $2,241,527.

And of course News Corp gave to the Democrats as well.
I'm guessing you got those numbers from OpenSecrets? As far as I can tell that is a conglomeration of all individual donations (i.e., employees of GE). Is that correct?

Do you know of any way to break down which parts of that are from the company itself... and am I wrong in stating that before the recent Supreme Court ruling the company itself *couldn't* make the type of donation directly to the parties that News Corp just made?

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000125

Also, somewhat interesting to notice the totals from 1990-2010 for GE: Dems, 51%, Reps, 48%.Well, that certainly changes things, Bricker.
Would you happen to know what the GE and Walt Disney gave to the Democrats and Republicans as corporations?

[Kyrie Eleison]

So does the "chortle" mean you expect to find little or no contributions? Or you expect to find the contributions to the GOP outweighing those to the Dems by, say, 2:1?

Like we find with GE (NBC) and Disney (ABC), but in the other direction?
My guess? The ratio of Newscorp's Republican to Democrat contributions will be comparable to, but still higher than, the reciprocal ratio for both GE and Disney. Side bet: I'd also expect to see that, over the years, GE's and Disney's contributions varied a lot more according to which party was in power than did Newscorp's.

The chortle was an ill-defined, and perhaps unwarranted, personal response to a combination of the notion of Newscorp financing the Democrats and the unmentioned assumption that any such contributions weren't worth noting.

[Marley23]

My second post has a link to a CNN story with information about how money the political action committees of Time Warner, News Corp., and so on gave to the two parties. That should be distinct from donations by employees.

[Sateryn76]

So does the "chortle" mean you expect to find little or no contributions? Or you expect to find the contributions to the GOP outweighing those to the Dems by, say, 2:1?

Like we find with GE (NBC) and Disney (ABC), but in the other direction?
My guess? The ratio of Newscorp's Republican to Democrat contributions will be comparable to, but still higher than, the reciprocal ratio for both GE and Disney. Side bet: I'd also expect to see that, over the years, GE's and Disney's contributions varied a lot more according to which party was in power than did Newscorp's.

The chortle was an ill-defined, and perhaps unwarranted, personal response to a combination of the notion of Newscorp financing the Democrats and the unmentioned assumption that any such contributions weren't worth noting.

Well, we need a little more than "guesses" to make a debate.

Sorry about that

[Bricker]

I'd rather not assume either way, so what did Newscorp give to the Democrats?

Of course. Much better to get all the facts first, and then figure out what your principled position should be. Anyone can see that.

In 2008, Newscorp gave (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00330019&cycle=2008) a TOTAL of $242,850; 53% to Democrats, 47% to Republicans.

[Czarcasm]

My second post has a link to a CNN story with information about how money the political action committees of Time Warner, News Corp., and so on gave to the two parties. That should be distinct from donations by employees.From the site you providedData collected by CQ Moneyline shows that News Corporation, through its political action committee, has contributed over $105,500 to Democratic candidates in the 2010 election cycle, while donating $74,700 to Republicans during the same time period. News Corporation's PAC has also donated $7,500 to Democratic-affiliated leadership PACs and $14,500 to GOP-related PACs. News Corporation, owned by Rupert Murdoch, has also given a total of $45,000 to other Democratic and Republican committees.

On the Democratic side, that includes $30,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and $15,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. As for Republicans, News Corporation donated $30,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee and $15,000 to the National Republican Senatorial CommitteeGeneral Electric, which owns NBC, has also made substantial political contributions in the 2010 election cycle. For example, GE donated $688,900 to Democrats through its PAC this election cycle compared to $410,100 to Republicans. The company has also given $75,500 to Democratic-affiliated leadership PACs and $74,500 to Republican-affiliated leadership PACs.

Meanwhile, GE has donated $237,000 to the Democratic Governors Association and $205,000 to the Republican Governors Association.And Disney, the parent company of ABC, has given $110,500 to Democratic candidates and $95,000 to Republicans through its PAC. It has also donated $16,000 to Democratic-affiliated leadership PACs and $20,000 to Republican-affiliated committees. Disney has also given $11,000 to Democratic Party PACs and $20,000 to Republican Party PACs

[Bricker]

I'm guessing you got those numbers from OpenSecrets?

Yes.

As far as I can tell that is a conglomeration of all individual donations (i.e., employees of GE). Is that correct?


No.

It lists the PAC contributions.


Do you know of any way to break down which parts of that are from the company itself...

See my link above.

and am I wrong in stating that before the recent Supreme Court ruling the company itself *couldn't* make the type of donation directly to the parties that News Corp just made?


Depends on when "before" is.

Also, somewhat interesting to notice the totals from 1990-2010 for GE: Dems, 51%, Reps, 48%.


Sure. And News Corp's totals: 54 percent of its donations to Democrats and 46 percent to Republicans.

Chortle. :rolleyes:

[Czarcasm]

I'd rather not assume either way, so what did Newscorp give to the Democrats?

Of course. Much better to get all the facts first, and then figure out what your principled position should be. Anyone can see that.I'm not much of a supporter of blind faith in anything.

[Whack-a-Mole]

I think this sums up the issue well and why this particular donation seems "special" to us somehow:

As Politico’s Ben Smith noted, “The company’s media outlets play politics more openly than most, but the huge contribution to a party committee is a new step toward an open identification between Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. and the GOP.”

<snip>

Time Warner has given the DGA $35,000 and the RGA $25,000. Both organizations have received $105,000 from GE (the parent company of MSNBC).

SOURCE: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/17/news-corps-governors/


Newscorp is waaaay out there ahead of the other two on this one and distinctly skewed in comparison.

[Lightnin']

Sure. And News Corp's totals: 54 percent of its donations to Democrats and 46 percent to Republicans.

Chortle. :rolleyes:

You'll have to excuse me if I'm dubious of the exact veracity of this statement. Rightwingers, of late, have had the bad habit of saying "Obama received X millions from Y corporation!", without disclosing that the donations actually came from individual employees of that organization. So how much from NewsCorp, the corporation?

[Bricker]

I think this sums up the issue well and why this particular donation seems "special" to us somehow:


Newscorp is waaaay out there ahead of the other two on this one and distinctly skewed in comparison.

I see.

So let's consider Newsweb Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweb_Corporation), a publisher of ethnic and alternative newspapers in the United States; they also own television and radio stations.

Since 2002, they've given over $7.5 million to the Democrats, and $0 to the Republicans. Absolutely zero. In fact, since 1990, they've given $0 tot he Republicans.

They should be running some kind of disclaimer or disclosure -- right?

Time Warner's split in 2008 was 81% Democrat ($2.35 million) and only 19% GOP. Disclosure needed?

And why is the Governor's Association so special? You note that Time Warner gave the DGA $35K and the RGA $25K, which is somewhat even, I grant. But overall, Time Warner gave Democrats over 80% of their money.

I don't see what line you're drawing that somehow excludes Time Warner but snags News Corp.

[Bricker]

Sure. And News Corp's totals: 54 percent of its donations to Democrats and 46 percent to Republicans.

Chortle. :rolleyes:

You'll have to excuse me if I'm dubious of the exact veracity of this statement. Rightwingers, of late, have had the bad habit of saying "Obama received X millions from Y corporation!", without disclosing that the donations actually came from individual employees of that organization. So how much from NewsCorp, the corporation?

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00330019

That is the corporation.

[Lightnin']

I think this sums up the issue well and why this particular donation seems "special" to us somehow:


Newscorp is waaaay out there ahead of the other two on this one and distinctly skewed in comparison.

I see.

So let's consider Newsweb Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweb_Corporation), a publisher of ethnic and alternative newspapers in the United States; they also own television and radio stations.

Since 2002, they've given over $7.5 million to the Democrats, and $0 to the Republicans. Absolutely zero. In fact, since 1990, they've given $0 tot he Republicans.

They should be running some kind of disclaimer or disclosure -- right?


Newsweb Corporation has donated that money to Democrats, or Newsweb employees? 'Cause I wouldn't be a bit surprised if employees at such a company donate to Liberal politicians.

[markdash]

I don't know how you could possibly draw the line, but it seems less ethically shady for a company to give money to both parties, even if it gives twice as much to one party as the other.

That sort of donation sounds more like "we're trying to gain some benefit here (fewer restrictions on business? etc.), and we're going to donate to both parties to cover our asses." A donation to only one party sounds like "we want this party to win."

OK, so in your view, this:

MegaCorp gives $2,000,000 to Democrats and $1,000,000 to Republicans

is fine, but this:

MegaCorp gives $1,000,000 to Democrats and $0 to Republicans

is not?

One should trigger disclosures about bias, but the other should not?

I didn't say that it necessarily makes sense, that's just my intuitive feelings on the subject.

Obviously there would be an imaginary line somewhere; if MegaCorp gave $2m to one part and $10 to the other, clearly that would be just the same as giving them $0.

[Bricker]

I see.

So let's consider Newsweb Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweb_Corporation), a publisher of ethnic and alternative newspapers in the United States; they also own television and radio stations.

Since 2002, they've given over $7.5 million to the Democrats, and $0 to the Republicans. Absolutely zero. In fact, since 1990, they've given $0 tot he Republicans.

They should be running some kind of disclaimer or disclosure -- right?


Newsweb Corporation has donated that money to Democrats, or Newsweb employees? 'Cause I wouldn't be a bit surprised if employees at such a company donate to Liberal politicians.

Did you click the link? That's the PAC, the corporation.

[Jas09]

I think a number of figures are being conflated here (or perhaps I'm just getting confused).

The link I provided (which is where your initial GE 2008 number came from) states a 2008 total of $3,410,973, broken down both by Rep/Dem percentage and as PAC and individual contributions. This leads me to believe that this number includes both corporate donations (though PACs) and individual donations. In fact, one of the tabs identifies one such individual (Earl and Sallie Phillips - who gave $166k to Republicans).

The second link you gave (for the News American Holdings PAC), shows just the PAC money for 2008 (and other years).

In the end it's all rather moot - anybody that doesn't understand Fox's role in the current US political discourse isn't paying attention.

[Whack-a-Mole]

I think this sums up the issue well and why this particular donation seems "special" to us somehow:


Newscorp is waaaay out there ahead of the other two on this one and distinctly skewed in comparison.

I see.

So let's consider Newsweb Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweb_Corporation), a publisher of ethnic and alternative newspapers in the United States; they also own television and radio stations.

Since 2002, they've given over $7.5 million to the Democrats, and $0 to the Republicans. Absolutely zero. In fact, since 1990, they've given $0 tot he Republicans.

They should be running some kind of disclaimer or disclosure -- right?

Time Warner's split in 2008 was 81% Democrat ($2.35 million) and only 19% GOP. Disclosure needed?

And why is the Governor's Association so special? You note that Time Warner gave the DGA $35K and the RGA $25K, which is somewhat even, I grant. But overall, Time Warner gave Democrats over 80% of their money.

I don't see what line you're drawing that somehow excludes Time Warner but snags News Corp.

Newsweb seems a distinctly and unabashedly liberal/alternate media company. I won't fuss about them anymore than I would fuss to find World Net Daily donated exclusively to Republicans.

I guess the governor's thing is notable because apparently it has not been done by the major MSM to the tune of this much money before nor so completely lopsided between the two parties. As Ben Smith noted this seems the first time a news corporation has so distinctly and definitively identified with a single party.

[Lightnin']

Can someone explain to me what "Pac to Pac" donations are? 'Cause those (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pac2pac.php?cycle=2008&cmte=C00330019)donations, from News America, seem to be going mostly to Republicans.

[Bosstone]

Can someone explain to me what "Pac to Pac" donations are?You see, when Pac-Man and Ms. Pac-Man fall in love...

[elucidator]

And dey PAC to PAC, and belly to belly
Don't give a damn, done dead already...

23rd Calypso, Bokonon

[Bricker]

I guess the governor's thing is notable because apparently it has not been done by the major MSM to the tune of this much money before nor so completely lopsided between the two parties. As Ben Smith noted this seems the first time a news corporation has so distinctly and definitively identified with a single party.

Why doesn't Time Warner's lopsided giving qualify?

I agree that this is the first time money has been given to governors' groups. But that seems like an odd line to draw in the sand.

To be blunt, it seems like you (and others) are sort of wriggling around a bit, trying to justify earlier lopsided giving from Time Warner, Disney, GE; while still trying to drum up indignation over News Corp.

[Bricker]

Can someone explain to me what "Pac to Pac" donations are? 'Cause those (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pac2pac.php?cycle=2008&cmte=C00330019)donations, from News America, seem to be going mostly to Republicans.

Just what it sounds like: donations to another Political Action Committee.

Yes, it looks like those are majority GOP, but not as skewed as Time Warner's are towards Democrats.

[marshmallow]

So let me see if I have a firm grasp of how this works. It reflects poorly on a corporation to make lopsided donations to one of the political parties. But it does not reflect poorly if the employees of the corporation make lopsided donations to one of the political parties. Even though, presumably, these employees are the ones who shape the product people are supposedly worried about containing bias or...whatever we're supposed to be wringing our hands over while worrying about political donations.

[Jackmannii]

So let me see if I have a firm grasp of how this works. It reflects poorly on a corporation to make lopsided donations to one of the political parties. But it does not reflect poorly if the employees of the corporation make lopsided donations to one of the political parties. Even though, presumably, these employees are the ones who shape the product people are supposedly worried about containing bias or...whatever we're supposed to be wringing our hands over while worrying about political donations.And obviously, there cannot be a suggestion that any of said employees felt the slightest pressure (directly or indirectly) to contribute to parties who are favored by their Corporate Overlords.

[Marley23]

So let me see if I have a firm grasp of how this works. It reflects poorly on a corporation to make lopsided donations to one of the political parties. But it does not reflect poorly if the employees of the corporation make lopsided donations to one of the political parties. Even though, presumably, these employees are the ones who shape the product people are supposedly worried about containing bias or...whatever we're supposed to be wringing our hands over while worrying about political donations.
It doesn't matter if the president of GE's lightbulb business gives money to a political party, or someone who works at Disneyworld. They're huge companies and not that many of the employees work for the news divisions. It does matter if someone with influence over the news programming is making political contributions. That means the corporation itself (someone has to authorize the donations), its leadership, and people within the news division. I suppose I assumed that these companies were lobbying but not giving money directly to the two parties.

[Shodan]

It does matter if someone with influence over the news programming is making political contributions. Do you include news reporters in the group of "people who have influence over news programming"?

MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/)

Regards,
Shodan

[Marley23]

It does matter if someone with influence over the news programming is making political contributions. Do you include news reporters in the group of "people who have influence over news programming"?
Why wouldn't I?

The Times in 2003 banned all donations, with editors scouring the FEC records regularly to watch for in-house donors. In 2005, The Chicago Tribune made its policy absolute. CBS did the same last fall. And The Atlantic Monthly, where a senior editor gave $500 to the Democratic Party in 2004, says it is considering banning all donations. After MSNBC.com contacted Salon.com about donations by a reporter and a former executive editor, this week Salon banned donations for all its staff.
[...]
Giving to candidates is allowed at Fox, Forbes, Time, The New Yorker, Reuters — and at Bloomberg News, whose editor in chief, Matthew Winkler, set the tone by giving to Al Gore in 2000. Bloomberg has nine campaign donors on the list; they're allowed to donate unless they cover politics directly.

Donations and other political activity are strictly forbidden at The Washington Post, ABC, CBS, CNN and NPR.

Politicking is discouraged, but there is some wiggle room, at Dow Jones, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report.
I might've adopted an overly restrictive definition earlier in that if you cover entertainment or sports it probably doesn't matter if you give money to politicians; it's not likely to affect your work. When I think of Fox News I think of reporting and commentary on politics.

[Whack-a-Mole]

I guess the governor's thing is notable because apparently it has not been done by the major MSM to the tune of this much money before nor so completely lopsided between the two parties. As Ben Smith noted this seems the first time a news corporation has so distinctly and definitively identified with a single party.

Why doesn't Time Warner's lopsided giving qualify?

I agree that this is the first time money has been given to governors' groups. But that seems like an odd line to draw in the sand.

To be blunt, it seems like you (and others) are sort of wriggling around a bit, trying to justify earlier lopsided giving from Time Warner, Disney, GE; while still trying to drum up indignation over News Corp.

First, has it been determined if that giving included employee contributions or whether it was strictly corporate giving?

Second, as I noted the corporations tend to ebb and flow who they are donating to which seems more a function of who they think will win and be beholden to them rather than a distinct political bent one way or the other.

Third, as noted, Newscorp is unambiguously siding exclusively with one political party. To my knowledge the other corporations, while maybe lopsided to some extent, are not completely bent in favor of one group.

[Quartz]

That is true. But everything they do is pro conservative.

You mean like Murdoch backing Labour when Blair became PM?

I think you are mistaken. Murdoch's primary interest is advancing the cause of Murdoch. Not right-wing politics, not left-wing politics.

[yojimbo]

You mean like Murdoch backing Labour when Blair became PM?

When Kinnock looked like he might win did they do the same? Nope.

Blair was moving labour to the right much closer to the Conservatives than any Labour leader before him so there could be an argument made that he was still favouring the right even when he was supporting Blair.

It is mostly about power and favour though I'll give you that.

[Bricker]

Why doesn't Time Warner's lopsided giving qualify?

I agree that this is the first time money has been given to governors' groups. But that seems like an odd line to draw in the sand.

To be blunt, it seems like you (and others) are sort of wriggling around a bit, trying to justify earlier lopsided giving from Time Warner, Disney, GE; while still trying to drum up indignation over News Corp.

First, has it been determined if that giving included employee contributions or whether it was strictly corporate giving?

Second, as I noted the corporations tend to ebb and flow who they are donating to which seems more a function of who they think will win and be beholden to them rather than a distinct political bent one way or the other.

Third, as noted, Newscorp is unambiguously siding exclusively with one political party. To my knowledge the other corporations, while maybe lopsided to some extent, are not completely bent in favor of one group.

What do you mean, "...unambiguously siding exclusively with one political party?" This one donation, yes, but adding up ALL the donations they have made has them less lopsided than Time Warner is. Why is this one donation so compelling?

The money links I gave were all corporate giving.

So if your objection is truly to the lopsidedness, why isn't your ire first focused on Time Warner?

C'mon - how about a little honesty here? How about an admission that you're looking for any way you can to craft a rule that allows you to be more upset at Newscorp than at Time Warner?

[Whack-a-Mole]

What do you mean, "...unambiguously siding exclusively with one political party?" This one donation, yes, but adding up ALL the donations they have made has them less lopsided than Time Warner is. Why is this one donation so compelling?

The money links I gave were all corporate giving.

So if your objection is truly to the lopsidedness, why isn't your ire first focused on Time Warner?

C'mon - how about a little honesty here? How about an admission that you're looking for any way you can to craft a rule that allows you to be more upset at Newscorp than at Time Warner?

You want to say they are all lopsided fine. Smoke and mirrors though with this latest donation by News Corp.

I'm going with unusually lopsided (unless you think CNN is dishonest too):

A CNN review of financial contributions made by media corporations showed that the parent companies of CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC have all made at least six-figure contributions to political parties and candidates. But none of them has given one political organization such a large sum, without a significant contribution to the opposing party.

SOURCE: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/19/organizing-for-america-fundraising-off-news-corp-donation/

[Whack-a-Mole]

C'mon - how about a little honesty here? How about an admission that you're looking for any way you can to craft a rule that allows you to be more upset at Newscorp than at Time Warner?

I should also note that I do not think I have taken a position that FOX must air a notice about their political giving.

This News Corp donation makes me uncomfortable I admit but as has been mentioned already it is not news that FOX is practically the communications arm of the Republican party and has been for years.

I just dislike the notion of overt bias from a MSM news source. It may not be illegal and certainly you cannot completely avoid bias yet I still find this troubling.

Yeah you can point to MSNBC bias if you want and I dislike it there too and only marginally tolerate it as a counter balance to FOX. Ideally I wish neither of them went so overtly left/right.

[Bricker]

I'm going with unusually lopsided:

A CNN review of financial contributions made by media corporations showed that the parent companies of CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC have all made at least six-figure contributions to political parties and candidates. But none of them has given one political organization such a large sum, without a significant contribution to the opposing party.

SOURCE: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/19/organizing-for-america-fundraising-off-news-corp-donation/


Yes, I agree that this one donation is unusually lopsided.

But which is worse? A single lopsided donation? Or a pattern over the years of lopsided donations?

Why, specifically, is Time Warner's $2.35 million given to Democrats in 2008 not a subject of even more concern, considering it's 83% of their total; only 17% of their giving was to Republicans and that prior years reveal similar lopsided patterns.

Since 1990, Time Warner has given $14,394,024 to Democrats and only $5,482,191 to Republicans. That's a gap of nearly TEN MILLION DOLLARS, and it's not a one-shot deal. It's consistent, year to year.

Tell me why a one-time, one million dollar contribution raises more concerns than that.

[Grumman]

This donation does not create a conflict of interest for Newscorp with regard to the Republican Governors Association and its members. It does create a conflict of interest for the Republican Governors Association and its members with regard to Newscorp, but not the other way around.

[elucidator]

Liberal hypocrisy! Everybody come see the liberal hypocrisy!

Fuhgedaboutit! The work Fox News does as the propaganda wing of the Republican Party far, far exceeds any benefit of a mere million dollars. Piffle. Chump change. Thye pump out insinuatons, innuendo, half-truths and bold faced lies 24/7/365, whats a mere million bucks next to an effort like that?

And if anybody watching Fox doesn't know already what they are getting, fighting their ignorance is a lost cause. And if they do, it probably isn't much better.

Does kinda make me wish I had a more traditional religious outlook, would take a lot of the sting out of going to Hell if I could see the surprised look on Sean Hannity's face when he arrives.

[Algher]

Thanks to reporting, the disclaimer has effectively been made. Adding any sort of a listing at midnight on broadcast TV of where donations go would have no effect.

I think the bigger problem is the large donations to both parties that serve to do nothing more than keep incumbents in power. The corps back the assumed winners, reducing the chances of others to unseat an incumbent.

Then again, I have long felt that corporate personhood is a bad thing, and I would reform donations to be unlimited but only made by registered voters.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Why is there a conflict of interest here? Corporations donate money to people all the time. If Merck donates $1 million to the members of the Senate Committee on Health, Labor, Education and Pensions, should it have to disclose that?

Apparently the distinction with News Corp is that it probably won't enjoy any direct benefits from its donation, and apparently that makes it wrong.

[elucidator]

Well, they'll still treat Rupert the same, but maybe now they'll swallow.

[Jas09]

I'm going with unusually lopsided:



Yes, I agree that this one donation is unusually lopsided.

But which is worse? A single lopsided donation? Or a pattern over the years of lopsided donations?

Why, specifically, is Time Warner's $2.35 million given to Democrats in 2008 not a subject of even more concern, considering it's 83% of their total; only 17% of their giving was to Republicans and that prior years reveal similar lopsided patterns.

Since 1990, Time Warner has given $14,394,024 to Democrats and only $5,482,191 to Republicans. That's a gap of nearly TEN MILLION DOLLARS, and it's not a one-shot deal. It's consistent, year to year.

Tell me why a one-time, one million dollar contribution raises more concerns than that.I still think you are conflating corporate PAC donations with individual donations. The 10 million dollar, consistent, gap is for individuals *and* PACs. Time Warner PACs are listed here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup.php?strName=time+warner&goButt2.x=0&goButt2.y=0&goButt2=Submit

I don't see any donations of the magnitude you indicate, nor the lopsidedness (in fact, in 2004 the majority of donations went to Republicans, by a 2-to-1 margin). In 2008, as far as I can tell, it was 59/41 in favor of Dems (link: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00339291&cycle=2008).

[elucidator]

Changing that lopsided contribution from business was the whole point of the Clintonista-Dem leadership movement. They were looking to be seen as more "business friendly", what they did was make the Dems into Republican Lite. Feh! as they say in Lubbock. Tweedledum. Tweedledumber.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

ISTM that people are using "conflict of interest" and "bias" interchangeably. They are not the same.

I don't see how giving money to a politician or party creates a conflict of interest. It demonstrates bias. But here too, it doesn't create bias. It only demonstrates it.

I am opposed to all restrictions on news organizations and new people giving money to or otherwise openly affiliating with political parties. The bias is there anyway. Let's have it all out in the open.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I don't see how giving money to a politician or party creates a conflict of interest. It demonstrates bias. But here too, it doesn't create bias. It only demonstrates it.
Well, that depends on how seriously you take the "Fair and Balanced" tagline. However, if Fox News (via its parent company, for the purposes of this discussion) donates to a Republican campaign committee, it now has a vested interest in Republican electoral victories.

After all, anything donated to losing candidates is effectively dead money.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

That's a valid point, to the extent that you're talking about practical self-interest. ISTM that the focus of this discussion has been ideological bias, and I was responding to that.

After all, anything donated to losing candidates is effectively dead money.Not completely, if you're a big enough donor. Because the Republican and Democratic parties will be around after the election and continue to exert influence, and if they recognize that you've been a supporter of their candidates they'll be grateful and want your continued support. But obviously you're better off if the party that is grateful and wants your continued support has more and not less influence.

[Quartz]

You mean like Murdoch backing Labour when Blair became PM?

When Kinnock looked like he might win did they do the same? Nope.

Kinnock becoming PM wasn't in Murdoch's interests. A weak Major government was very much in Murdoch's interests.

I wonder if Americans know that Murdoch supported Hillary Clinton? And other Democrats? Cite (http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Rupert_Murdoch.php).

[Bricker]

I don't see any donations of the magnitude you indicate, nor the lopsidedness (in fact, in 2004 the majority of donations went to Republicans, by a 2-to-1 margin). In 2008, as far as I can tell, it was 59/41 in favor of Dems (link: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00339291&cycle=2008).

OK, then apply your methodology to Newscorp. What's their score?

[Jas09]

I don't see any donations of the magnitude you indicate, nor the lopsidedness (in fact, in 2004 the majority of donations went to Republicans, by a 2-to-1 margin). In 2008, as far as I can tell, it was 59/41 in favor of Dems (link: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00339291&cycle=2008).

OK, then apply your methodology to Newscorp. What's their score?
We already did that. As you pointed out, prior to this donation they were rather equal with donations on the order of $200-250k per cycle:

2002: 87k (55D/45R)
2004: 215k (52/48)
2006: 256k (40/60)
2008: 243k (53/47)

Link: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00330019&cycle=2010

For this cycle, rather than doing something resembling a 50/50, or even 2-to-1 split, they are giving a million bucks to one party. This is rather different than anything I can find in the OpenSecrets database for a media company PAC.

I'm not saying companies can't fund campaigns, or even parties. And, fortunately, disclosure laws (for the most part) require this to be out in the open. But it's also perfectly within reason to point out that a company that, at least in the current cycle, is financially supporting one party exclusively has a stake in seeing that party do well.

[Bricker]

OK, then apply your methodology to Newscorp. What's their score?
We already did that. As you pointed out, prior to this donation they were rather equal with donations on the order of $200-250k per cycle:

2002: 87k (55D/45R)
2004: 215k (52/48)
2006: 256k (40/60)
2008: 243k (53/47)

Link: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00330019&cycle=2010

For this cycle, rather than doing something resembling a 50/50, or even 2-to-1 split, they are giving a million bucks to one party. This is rather different than anything I can find in the OpenSecrets database for a media company PAC.

I'm not saying companies can't fund campaigns, or even parties. And, fortunately, disclosure laws (for the most part) require this to be out in the open. But it's also perfectly within reason to point out that a company that, at least in the current cycle, is financially supporting one party exclusively has a stake in seeing that party do well.

So up until now, they have been even-handed - moreso than ABC's or CBS's parent companies, in fact - right?

And in this cycle, WHICH ISN'T EVEN OVER YET, they are lopsided.

But this makes them the worse offender than the others?

Not really seeing it...

[Jas09]

So up until now, they have been even-handed - moreso than ABC's or CBS's parent companies, in fact - right?Correct.
And in this cycle, WHICH ISN'T EVEN OVER YET, they are lopsided.Is your prediction that the final numbers for the 2010 cycle will be in line with previous cycles? Even though they have already contributed 4 times what they have in the past? A $1 million donation to the DNC is incoming?
But this makes them the worse offender than the others?I think a one million dollar unbalanced donation to the RGA is abnormal, yes. If you can point me to a cycle where a news organization or their parent company has such a disparity, please feel free to. You have access to the same data I do (and CNN does...).
Not really seeing it...I'm not sure how much clearer it can be. I repeat:

55/45
52/48
40/60
53/47
07/93

Nothing jumps out at you about that data set?

[Lemur866]

So.....let me get this straight. The parent company of Fox News supports Republicans.

And this is bad, because no one knew until now that Fox News was a pro-Republican network?

And no one knew, because they had as their slogan "Fair and Balanced", which tricked people into believing that they did not favor Republicans.

Seriously, guys?

As Elucidator says, their in-kind on-air backing of Republican candidates is worth far, far more than a million dollars. The cash donation is like a tip on top of regular salary. You're quibbling that it's the tip that proves that Fox is biased?

No, it's the relentless on-air backing of Republicans that proves Fox is biased. And so what? Who says media outlets have to be impartial? Even ones that claim to be fair and balanced?

Everyone knows Fox News is the Republican News Channel. This is not a secret, and it is not a violation of any ethical principle. No media organization is required to present both sides, or back both parties equally. Even looking at things from "both sides" is blatant bias on its own. If you don't want to trust a media org that has a particular point of view, then go nuts. If you think Fox is wrong to support Republicans, because Republicans are assholes, then go nuts. But it's silly to pretend that it isn't faaaaaaaiiiiiiir for them to support Republicans.

[Bricker]

I'm not sure how much clearer it can be. I repeat:

55/45
52/48
40/60
53/47
07/93

Nothing jumps out at you about that data set?

Yes, I get that there's a large disparity in this election cycle thus far.

But I'm saying:

1. In aggregate, their contributions are in line with other media organizations, and more balanced than many.
2. The data set for this cycle is incomplete.

So why is this year's disparity such a cause for concern? Why wasn't the steady, year-after-year disparity of other news organizations also suspect?

[Magiver]

As you can see they seem to bend the way the wind is blowing. 2008 was a no-brainer the Republicans would take a bath so corporations bet heavy on Dems. They were right and it paid off for them.GE sells wind turbines so that's an applicable choice of words.

[gonzomax]

As you can see they seem to bend the way the wind is blowing. 2008 was a no-brainer the Republicans would take a bath so corporations bet heavy on Dems. They were right and it paid off for them.GE sells wind turbines so that's an applicable choice of words.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=16 GE has received a lifetime achievement award for their illegal actions.
Corporations hedge their bets. They will give money to Dems when it is obvious a backlash is coming. They want whoever is is power to be beholden to them. But it is apparent who is the most closely aligned with corporate interests. It is not the Dems. Although Clinton did push them that way. They still show some interests in the general welfare in opposition to corporate power.

[astorian]

Attention: love him or loathe him, Rupert Murdoch is NOT a "foreign national." He became a U.S. citizen decades ago.

[emacknight]

So again it seems that there can be no criticism of Fox News.

With that in mind, should the premise still stand: a news agency should disclose it's financial contributions to a political party.

Like others have said, I'm used to watching CNBC, so I've come to expect those sort of disclosures. It just makes sense to me that the anchors mention GE and NBC Universal are their parent company when discussing stories concerning those two companies. I think this sets the president that we're talking about here. Otherwise, CNBC could be used as a propaganda tool for GE and NBC Universal, giving the impression the two companies are better than they are.

What would people think of CNBC is nightly they ran several hours of shows talking about how great GE is?

So if the parent company of CSPAN made a significant campaign contribution to a political party, it would put into question their ability to report factually.

This is the nature of propaganda that supporters of Fox News fail to understand in thread after thread after thread. We don't expect fair and balanced reporting from the White House Press Secretary. We don't expect the CEO of BP to present a fair and balanced report of the oil spill.

It really shouldn't be a big deal. Today, the Fox News contributor can read the prepared speech from the Republican party, "in other news, Republicans are awesome, they would have done a much better job running the country, and they make great governors." Then she just has to mention, "Fox News is a a subsidiary of News Corporation who is a key contributor to the Republican governors association."

[Bosstone]

And this is bad, because no one knew until now that Fox News was a pro-Republican network?It has been argued, seriously, in the past that Fox is fair and balanced, and it's only because the rest of the media is so lefty-biased that it looks right-biased. There is no shortage of people who believe Fox delivers unbiased truth.

So yes, strong evidence that Fox is a conservative shill is desired. There's nothing especially wrong with being a shill for one side or the other (so long as they don't just fabricate facts and stories out of whole cloth), but it would be nice to see it acknowledged as such.

[emacknight]

And this is bad, because no one knew until now that Fox News was a pro-Republican network?It has been argued, seriously, in the past that Fox is fair and balanced, and it's only because the rest of the media is so lefty-biased that it looks right-biased. There is no shortage of people who believe Fox delivers unbiased truth.

So yes, strong evidence that Fox is a conservative shill is desired. There's nothing especially wrong with being a shill for one side or the other (so long as they don't just fabricate facts and stories out of whole cloth), but it would be nice to see it acknowledged as such.

And by that we assume you actually mean ALL news organizations, regardless of their leanings, right?

[Grumman]

So again it seems that there can be no criticism of Fox News.
I'm no supporter of Fox News, I just expect people to limit themselves to the wide variety of criticisms that actually make sense. And that means not accusing them of a "conflict of interest" if you have to mutilate the meaning of the phrase to do it.

[Bosstone]

And by that we assume you actually mean ALL news organizations, regardless of their leanings, right?Of course. Fox is just the most egregious about it, so far as I can see.

[emacknight]

So again it seems that there can be no criticism of Fox News.
I'm no supporter of Fox News, I just expect people to limit themselves to the wide variety of criticisms that actually make sense. And that means not accusing them of a "conflict of interest" if you have to mutilate the meaning of the phrase to do it.

Sure, except the purpose of disclosure is to avoid the accusation. The anchors for CNBC don't actually have a conflict of interest, they simply acknowledge their relationship so it's all in the open.

Is that too much to ask with regards to political contributions?

[emacknight]

And by that we assume you actually mean ALL news organizations, regardless of their leanings, right?Of course. Fox is just the most egregious about it, so far as I can see.

And by that you mean they are ONE of the most egregious, right?

I've read a lot of these threads concerning Fox News, and there is a very predictable pattern. You need to choose your words carefully when a lawyer is involved. Especially a lawyer who may or may not have a conflict of interest regarding conservative politics.

[elucidator]

Or such sympathies which may, or may not, have direct bearing upon the fiscal well-being of said lawyer, or group of lawyers, in any way, shape, or form, or might have direct or indirect consequences for any future condition, as might be anticipated given appropriate perceptions of pending circumstance.

[Bricker]

It really shouldn't be a big deal. Today, the Fox News contributor can read the prepared speech from the Republican party, "in other news, Republicans are awesome, they would have done a much better job running the country, and they make great governors." Then she just has to mention, "Fox News is a a subsidiary of News Corporation who is a key contributor to the Republican governors association."

So why is this year's disparity such a cause for concern? Why wasn't the steady, year-after-year disparity of other news organizations also suspect?

[Bricker]

And by that we assume you actually mean ALL news organizations, regardless of their leanings, right?Of course. Fox is just the most egregious about it, so far as I can see.

So why is this year's disparity such a cause for concern? Why wasn't the steady, year-after-year disparity of other news organizations more egregious than a one-time disparity (that may or may not change as the election cycle period continues?)

[elucidator]

Damn, Bricker, these quizzes of yours aren't much fun. The answer is pretty much always "liberal hypocrisy". Couldn't it be "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" or even "42"? Just for a change? A little variety?

[Jas09]

It really shouldn't be a big deal. Today, the Fox News contributor can read the prepared speech from the Republican party, "in other news, Republicans are awesome, they would have done a much better job running the country, and they make great governors." Then she just has to mention, "Fox News is a a subsidiary of News Corporation who is a key contributor to the Republican governors association."

So why is this year's disparity such a cause for concern? Why wasn't the steady, year-after-year disparity of other news organizations also suspect?
You still haven't pointed out a year-after-year disparity for the PAC of other news organization. You have pointed out only that the PAC's for Fox News' parent company has in the past been rather even-handed and that the *employees* of the other organizations have been rather lopsided.

If you have a cite for the company or PAC of another news organization being lopsided (on the order of 80/20, let's say), please provide it.

[emacknight]

It really shouldn't be a big deal. Today, the Fox News contributor can read the prepared speech from the Republican party, "in other news, Republicans are awesome, they would have done a much better job running the country, and they make great governors." Then she just has to mention, "Fox News is a a subsidiary of News Corporation who is a key contributor to the Republican governors association."

So why is this year's disparity such a cause for concern? Why wasn't the steady, year-after-year disparity of other news organizations also suspect?

1. I hadn't even considered it until it was mentioned here. To me it seems like a conflict of interest for a news organization to be funding gubernatorial campaigns, to be honest I'm a little shocked it happens at all. Although I should admit when I read the thread title I assumed it was the Republican Governors that paid FNC.

2. Straw the broke the camel's back.

3. Why can't it cause concern? Is it not worthy of concern? Once again your argument is based on, "the other guys did it too." Fine, start a thread and go after them. This thread is about whether or not FNC should reveal a potential conflict of interest. Do you think they should? Or is your only contribution to point out that someone at some time may have done something similar in some way?

[emacknight]

Of course. Fox is just the most egregious about it, so far as I can see.

So why is this year's disparity such a cause for concern? Why wasn't the steady, year-after-year disparity of other news organizations more egregious than a one-time disparity (that may or may not change as the election cycle period continues?)

Still waiting on answers to my questions.

Fox News Channel is owned by News Corp which is owned in part by Rupert Murdoch.

If FNC was reporting on a story about News Corp of Rupert Murdoch, do you think they should disclose their relationship? In other words, should they disclose their potential conflict of interest?

You've very eloquently pointed out that "others make donations too." So let's say hypothetically a Governor was caught up in a alleged conspiracy to sell a Senate seat. In the process of reporting that story, should the news organization reveal that their parent company made a significant campaign contribution?

If after hearing a said story, and you discovered that there was a large contribution made, would you feel different about the reporting?

As a lawyer, either prosecuting or defending said governor, would you expect the judge to disclose any perceived conflicts of interest? Would it impact the case to find out afterwords that the judge had made a significant contribution to that governor's campaign?

[Bricker]

So why is this year's disparity such a cause for concern? Why wasn't the steady, year-after-year disparity of other news organizations also suspect?
You still haven't pointed out a year-after-year disparity for the PAC of other news organization. You have pointed out only that the PAC's for Fox News' parent company has in the past been rather even-handed and that the *employees* of the other organizations have been rather lopsided.

If you have a cite for the company or PAC of another news organization being lopsided (on the order of 80/20, let's say), please provide it.

Please - as though the employees are not in even BETTER position to slant coverage than anyone else?

And I'll note again that we have prior years' data asone number. Here we are midway through the election cycle and treating the numbers as though they are final. Do YOU have a cite that this kind of disparity midway through a year is unusual?

[Bricker]

So why is this year's disparity such a cause for concern? Why wasn't the steady, year-after-year disparity of other news organizations also suspect?

1. I hadn't even considered it until it was mentioned here. To me it seems like a conflict of interest for a news organization to be funding gubernatorial campaigns, to be honest I'm a little shocked it happens at all. Although I should admit when I read the thread title I assumed it was the Republican Governors that paid FNC.

2. Straw the broke the camel's back.

3. Why can't it cause concern? Is it not worthy of concern? Once again your argument is based on, "the other guys did it too." Fine, start a thread and go after them. This thread is about whether or not FNC should reveal a potential conflict of interest. Do you think they should? Or is your only contribution to point out that someone at some time may have done something similar in some way?

No, no. Your claim is that it's cause for concern, which creates the inference taht your concern is the inappropriate behavior. But now we see that your concern is only triggered when the supposedly inappropriate behavior comes from your political enemies. There is no principled reason that we should have one thread to explore whether Fox should disclose their contributions, and a different thread to explore whether other news organizations should disclose theirs, when the issue in each case is the same.

When I say, "The other guys do it too," it both rebuts the inference that Fox is unique, and prevents you and your ilk from trying to simultaneously argue that Fox is unethical and Time Warner is doing just fine.

It's cause for concern if you're concerned about the behavior.

It's not cause for concern if you're concerned about Fox and Fox alone.

[Bricker]

If FNC was reporting on a story about News Corp of Rupert Murdoch, do you think they should disclose their relationship? In other words, should they disclose their potential conflict of interest?

I have no idea. That is, I don't know if there is some widely-accepted journalistic standard to that end. If there is, then yes. If not, then no.


You've very eloquently pointed out that "others make donations too." So let's say hypothetically a Governor was caught up in a alleged conspiracy to sell a Senate seat. In the process of reporting that story, should the news organization reveal that their parent company made a significant campaign contribution?

If there is a journalistic standard, then yes. If not, then no.


If after hearing a said story, and you discovered that there was a large contribution made, would you feel different about the reporting?


No.

As a lawyer, either prosecuting or defending said governor, would you expect the judge to disclose any perceived conflicts of interest? Would it impact the case to find out afterwords that the judge had made a significant contribution to that governor's campaign?

Yes, and yes.

I bet you can guess why! (http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mcjc/toc.html)

[Bricker]

In fact... just look at this thread, and be honest with yourself.

The bulk of this thread has been an attempt to find some kind of basis, thin better than nothing, to be able to say that Time Warner and GE and Disney didn't do anything wrong, but NewsCorp did.

That's not a neutral, detached approach, is it?

C'mon. You can say. They all know anyway. It's all right.

[emacknight]

No, no. Your claim is that it's cause for concern, which creates the inference taht your concern is the inappropriate behavior. But now we see that your concern is only triggered when the supposedly inappropriate behavior comes from your political enemies. There is no principled reason that we should have one thread to explore whether Fox should disclose their contributions, and a different thread to explore whether other news organizations should disclose theirs, when the issue in each case is the same.

That's right, you made an inference. Someone made a criticism of FNC, and you inferred a great and many things. One might say that you imputed a set of beliefs onto someone, and then suggested hypocrisy.

If, as you say, FNC is our political enemy, does that mean we can never accuse them of inappropriate behavior? If we don't, who will? Des the conservative movement have an internal code of conduct? Do they have an internal review process? Who else is going to hold them accountable?

And why shouldn't we have separate threads? If this act was illegal wouldn't there be separate trials?

Why is it that when ever one of your political friends (like James O'Keefe) is charged with something, your defense is "a liberal did it too." So what?

At least have the decency to be honest about the charges. And once it's settled, you can go back and apply the ruling to YOUR political enemies. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

When I say, "The other guys do it too," it both rebuts the inference that Fox is unique, and prevents you and your ilk from trying to simultaneously argue that Fox is unethical and Time Warner is doing just fine.

Again, the inference, and by that I mean YOUR inference, as to someone else's beliefs, which then follows with the charge of hypocrisy. Why does that sound so familiar?

So did FNC act unethically?


It's cause for concern if you're concerned about the behavior.

It's not cause for concern if you're concerned about Fox and Fox alone.
[QUOTE=Bricker;12837851]

I'm concerned about the behavior, but that could just be me. As an immigrant, the level of journalistic integrity within the US (or lack thereof) is concerning. I personally, was shocked that this wouldn't be disclosed, and was further shocked that in happens as frequently as you have shown.

So back to the question at hand should FNC disclose the gubernatorial contributions as part of their reporting process?

[emacknight]

The bulk of this thread has been an attempt to find some kind of basis, thin better than nothing, to be able to say that Time Warner and GE and Disney didn't do anything wrong, but NewsCorp did.

Why does it matter so much to you what others have done? The question is if FNC did something wrong. Did they?

Once you/we answer that, we can start to look at broader issue of corporate journalism and how it will continue to shape democracy.

...I don't know if there is some widely-accepted journalistic standard to that end. If there is, then yes. If not, then no.
<snip>
If there is a journalistic standard, then yes. If not, then no.

Which is what, in my opinion, should have been the first and only question asked. It doesn't matter how many other people do it, or to what extent. My answer was based on CNBC and their use of disclosure. Granted, that is based more on the SEC.

From there, we can explore the evils that is mainstream media.

[Bricker]

Why does it matter so much to you what others have done?

Asked and answered.

But to repeat, since you missed it: I am proving that few people in this thread care about the supposed bad conduct. They care about slamming NewsCorp. This is proved by showing how quickly the supposed concern vanishes when it's a reliably liberal entity like NBC or Time Warner.


Once you/we answer that, we can start to look at broader issue of corporate journalism and how it will continue to shape democracy.


I have answered that: I don't know. It depends on the existence of some widely-accepted journalistic standard. I am not aware of one, but that doesn't mean much, since this isn't a subject I know a great deal about.

Which is what, in my opinion, should have been the first and only question asked. It doesn't matter how many other people do it, or to what extent. My answer was based on CNBC and their use of disclosure. Granted, that is based more on the SEC.

From there, we can explore the evils that is mainstream media.

No.

There are two cases: there IS such a standard, or there isn't.

If there is, then only criticizing Fox for violating it obviously is unfair, and suggests that the critics don't care about the standard, but on who's violating it.

If there is not, then only criticizing Fox for their actions obviously is unfair, since it seeks to hold Fox to an imaginary standard that, not incidentally, other reliably liberal organizations are not held to.

Either way, when the criticism is leveled only at Fox, it shows the concern is not the conduct, but the actor.

[emacknight]

But to repeat, since you missed it: I am proving that few people in this thread care about the supposed bad conduct. They care about slamming NewsCorp. This is proved by showing how quickly the supposed concern vanishes when it's a reliably liberal entity like NBC or Time Warner.

First, what do you think you proved, that liberals don't like Fox News?

Second, "reliably liberal entity like NBC or Time Warner." Seriously, did you actually mean to say that? Is that was this is reduced to? Anyone not as far right as FNC is a "reliably liberal entity."

I have answered that: I don't know. It depends on the existence of some widely-accepted journalistic standard. I am not aware of one, but that doesn't mean much, since this isn't a subject I know a great deal about.

Well, this thread is actually about journalistic ethics, did you happen to notice that in the OP?

Is the donation unusual for a news agency? Should they have more transparency.

I would think so, maybe other news agencies do it to, but I have never heard about it, and if they did it seems like a bad idea.

What say you?

And what did you pop in here to say? You came in to impute a set of beliefs to someone and then claim that he's a hypocrite for violating them.

There are two cases: there IS such a standard, or there isn't.

If there is, then only criticizing Fox for violating it obviously is unfair, and suggests that the critics don't care about the standard, but on who's violating it.

Unfair? So what? As you said, either there is a standard or there isn't. What does fair have to do with anything?

If there is not, then only criticizing Fox for their actions obviously is unfair, since it seeks to hold Fox to an imaginary standard that, not incidentally, other reliably liberal organizations are not held to.

Either way, when the criticism is leveled only at Fox, it shows the concern is not the conduct, but the actor.

Or, it is concern about the conduct of that actor. It's unfortunate that conservatives can't be bothered to criticize FNC, what with the apparent conflict of interest and the 11th Commandment.

If it helps, think about the charge of perjury or lying under oath. As a lawyer you are probably familiar with how common it happens and the rate at which people are charged with it.

But then, when a liberal President commits perjury, it was suddenly an impeachable offense. Did those involved care about the conduct, or the actor?

In the end, perjury was committed, so "fairness" doesn't matter, nor does how many other people did it.