[Hazaanko]

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301702713742569

Original thread title was "Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1"

Karajorma changed it for.... dunno why.

[BloodEagle]

Wait.... Fox donated purely to the Democrats? .... .... I'm so confused.

[karajorma]

Seems a little unlikely doesn't it?

They're looking at the amount donated by the reporters and news staff. Let's ask how much was donated by the companies running those particular TV stations and Newspapers instead.

Smoke and mirrors.

[Al Tarket]

lol thats a small amount from the companies, an insultingly low amount, even if its for another person who's going be using it to burn money away to light his cigar everyday.

$100,000 from NBC to the Dems and only $3,000 to Reps
$40,000 from Fox to Dems and $0 to the Reps.

looks like Barrick has the job as far as the media is concerned.

[karajorma]

It's the amounts donated by the people who work there. You could have just as easily gone into a Mcdonalds, asked the staff what they had given and then concluded that McDonalds has a liberal bias.

It is not the amount donated by the company nor the amount donated by the people running the company. If the numbers meant something then the 100-1 bias would also mean that Fox favours the democrats infinitely more. In other words it means nothing at all.

[NGTM-1R]

It's made of handwavium. That's all you need to know.

[karajorma]

Someone should use this article as proof that Fox has a ridiculously high liberal bias which means that conservatives are better off with MSNBC or CNN.

[Hazaanko]

It's the amounts donated by the people who work there. You could have just as easily gone into a Mcdonalds, asked the staff what they had given and then concluded that McDonalds has a liberal bias.

It is not the amount donated by the company nor the amount donated by the people running the company. If the numbers meant something then the 100-1 bias would also mean that Fox favours the democrats infinitely more. In other words it means nothing at all.

Oh it certainly means something.

[Al Tarket]

It's the amounts donated by the people who work there...
...It is not the amount donated by the company nor the amount donated by the people running the company...

is this one of those things i where i didnt understand what you said or that a simple mistake their?

[Mars]

Individuals are limited in their (official) campaign donations.

[Al Tarket]

$500 limit?

[Sir T]

From the beginning of that article

The New York Times' refusal to publish John McCain's rebuttal to Barack Obama's Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen.

You mean the one that had him saying the surge working is a fact of history? if they had run that they would have risked the whole blogosphere descend on them with clips of General Petreus telling McCain to his face that successes had nothing to so with the surge bar speeding things up a bit (at a congressional hearing last September) Oh and of course President Bush saying the same thing before he needed the opposite for political reasons.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8s_NpaQGC8

Not reporting someone making a complete fool of himself is not an example of being against that person.

Just thought I'd drop that in.

[karajorma]

It's the amounts donated by the people who work there...
...It is not the amount donated by the company nor the amount donated by the people running the company...

is this one of those things i where i didnt understand what you said or that a simple mistake their?

They counted donations from the journalists, from their own personal money. It's not the amount donated by Ted Turner or Rupert Murdoch. Nor is it the amount donated by the companies CNN, ABC etc from their business accounts.

[Sir T]

Yeah its a long established fact tht the reported tend to sway one way while those that get promotions and the editors sway the other.

[Al Tarket]

Rupert Murdock giving money way for anything?!?!?!

[Hazaanko]

It's the amounts donated by the people who work there...
...It is not the amount donated by the company nor the amount donated by the people running the company...

is this one of those things i where i didnt understand what you said or that a simple mistake their?

They counted donations from the journalists, from their own personal money. It's not the amount donated by Ted Turner or Rupert Murdoch. Nor is it the amount donated by the companies CNN, ABC etc from their business accounts.

Ted Turner = 7:1 Dem
http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Ted_Turner.php
Rupert Murdoch = 2:1 Repub
http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Rupert_Murdoch.php

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand the big one...
http://www.theusreport.com/the-us-report/obama-favorite-for-donations-by-media-web-employees-and-inde.html

[General Battuta]

Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee do not accept donations from political action committees or lobbyists. Nor do they accept contributions from companies, I believe. But corporate employees are, of course, able to donate on a personal level, up to a yearly maximum of 28,500 dollars.

These statistics reflect the personal donations of media employees, not donations by media companies.

[karajorma]

Seriously, what point are you trying to make with all this Hazaanko?

Either you make one or I'm renaming the topic "Fox News displays liberal bias!". That at least would get the ball rolling.

[Hazaanko]

Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee do not accept donations from political action committees or lobbyists. Nor do they accept contributions from companies, I believe. But corporate employees are, of course, able to donate on a personal level, up to a yearly maximum of 28,500 dollars.

These statistics reflect the personal donations of media employees, not donations by media companies.

#1: Obama and the DNC do and have done so (read the first article or just google around for a few seconds)
#2: Media companies don't make campaign contributions.  Simple as that.  But media companies, as all companies, are run by those in its employ.  Companies ARE the people who work in it.

[General Battuta]

If Obama or the DNC have accepted money from PACs or lobbyists, it was either a) prior to five months ago, when he made that promise or b) subject to some really weird loophole. Obama can't take money from PACs or lobbyists because he made a legally binding promise not to.

I'll ask about this at work, but I'm pretty sure that the no-PACs-or-lobbyists thing has been upheld.

Now, understand that

And while the money totals pale in comparison to the $9-million-plus that just one union's PACs have spent to get Obama elected

means that PACs can still spend money on campaigns for Obama, they just can't give to him or to the Democrats. They have to run their own campaigns.

McCain and the Republican National Committee, on the other hand, take a ton of money from lobbyists. At one point in recent weeks the RNC had 85 million dollars and the DNC had 3, and the discrepancy could be attributed to corporate donations to the RNC. (My source here is my employers, a grassroots campaign operation.)