Should Fox be Required to Reveal its Conflict of Interest?

[markdash]

@Bricker

@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]

@Lightnin

@Bricker

I see.

So let’s consider 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]

@Bricker

@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, 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 thosedonations, from News America, seem to be going mostly to Republicans.

[Bosstone]

@Lightnin

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]

@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.

[Bricker]

@Lightnin

Can someone explain to me what “Pac to Pac” donations are? 'Cause thosedonations, 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]

@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.

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]

@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.

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]

@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”?

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.

Regards,
Shodan

[Marley23]

@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]

@Bricker

@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]

@gonzomax

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]

@Quartz

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]

@Whack-a-Mole

@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]

@Bricker

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]

@Bricker

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.