Wow this is getting you guys really riled up. I wonder why.......... hehe
Who do you think you are kidding with that? Companies are run by the people at the top not by the employees.
Then why would they hire anybody if they run it themselves? An engine runs a car. The people who work for a business run it. If you think the journalists/editors/etc have no influence over the company they work for, I believe you'd be embarrassingly wrong.
Your car analogy is a good one. Yes the car you have influences how fast the car drives, accelerates etc but you've completely ignored the fact that the majority of the choice about destination and how to get there comes from the driver not the engine. And it is exactly the same with a company.
Let me stop the silly argument you are trying to make though and point out something. Even if I believed you had a point one of the most biased stations on that list is FOX News. Even when Murdoch gave money to Democrats it was to Hilary not Obama. So By your own argument you should be telling people to watch CNN instead of FOX News because it displays less of a liberal bias. Is that what you are saying?
Am I not allowed to post a topic like this and discuss it?
Prior to my comment what had you actually discussed? You posted a link and said nothing about it. When we pointed out the flaws you didn't answer and simply asserted it meant something without going into any detail about why you were correct. It's only after I said something you seem to have bothered to actually start discussing why you feel that it's important at all and even then the argument is ridiculous unless you want us to believe that FOX News is unfairly liberal.
Discussions take two people (or maybe just one crazy person...?). Say something, wait for a reply, formulate another reply in turn, and do so.
Analogies only go so far. If companies were like cars, then there would be one human (the boss) and the rest would be machines/robots. This can get deep into philosophy, but why do companies hire people and NOT machines? Why do you think that is? Is it because technology isn't advanced enough?
I don't say things until later in the discussion because I enjoy seeing what other people's opinions and biases are. It is also quite amusing to see people try and guess what my opinions are and/or put words into my mouth.
And no, that isn't what I'm saying.
As far as flaws go... what flaws? Its simply data. Unless the data itself is flawed I don't quite get what you're trying to say about it.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_lame_claim_about_mccains_money.html
Explain to me why I should even bother clicking this link. Please. It just screams bias with a dose of stupidity.
EDIT: And having clicked it, explain to me what it has to do with the topic?
That link was in response to someone's claim that neither Obama nor the DNC take contributions from lobbyists. While it does indeed contain a heavy bias, the data remains intact and if you have enough sense, its pretty easy to maneuver around the bias. With practice, you might even be able to listen to somebody who's opinion differs from yours (GASP)
Yes, Hazaanko, the journalists of companies like FOX have influence over the company they work for.
Examples:
- They can quit their jobs... which does what? The management will hire new people, people who agree with the them and the president/heads of the company.
- They can try to publish stuff that goes against what the heads of the company are saying... which does what? It gets them fired, and the story doesn't make it into the news.
- They can keep quiet and try to rise through the ranks of the company... which does what? It keeps them from working for a company where they will actually be able to publish the story.
You seem to have confused the roles of employee and shareholder. The typical journalist at FOX is not a major shareholder, and will not be able to control the future of the company. Real companies are hierarchical, with a president, CEO, etc. at the top, high, middle, and low management in the middle, and people like the journalists at the bottom.
my point stands - If you think the journalists/editors/etc have no influence over the company they work for, I believe you'd be embarrassingly wrong.
Although I can't be certain, I am going to agree. You do believe we'd be embarassingly wrong. But believing something doesn't make it true. And being embarassed is irrelevant.
The fact of the matter is, Hazaanko, that the journalists are not in charge. Companies are not democracies in which each member has an equal say. The editors are in charge of them, and somebody else is in charge of them. At the top of FOX, for example, is Rupert Murdoch. If the people directly under him were to tell their subordinates to do something Murdoch didn't like, he'd have them kicked out. So they don't. And if Murdoch finds out they're letting their subordinates getting away with something he doesn't like, he'll see to it those subordinates are fired and that it doesn't happen again. Sure, the subordinates can dislike the company's stance, but they can't shape it, and they generally can't get away with defying it.
The journalists working at FOX are giving money to Barack Obama. That says nothing about what the actual news content will be like.
And about that car analogy... yes, if the engine in a car breaks, the car will cease to function. But the only way the 'engine' of a company could break is if a HUGE number of its employees braved the fear of losing their jobs, and stopped following the president's orders. That's like saying that in an instant every single piece of equipment under the hood is going to shut down. It's not going to happen that way. If a part breaks, the OWNER of the car--Mr. Rupert Murdoch is the owner of this particular car--will have that part repaired--that is, the person or people will get fired. Murdoch is the owner of FOX, and even if every single person quit, he would still have all of the money and all of the infrastructure needed to hire new people who will actually do what he tells wants. And I have a strange feeling that he DOES NOT support Obama.
[/outrage]
Never said that journalists were "in charge."
If you want credentials... actually, I was a senior journalist (among many other things) for a local newspaper for 3 years. Even though every media station differs, I'm pretty sure I have the gist of how it works there.
Not to put words in your mouth, but you make all employees sound like slaves where one misstep is met with the crack of a whip. I'm sorry you feel that way. My personal experience has been that of receiving a large amount of control and responsibility over my own work. People I have worked with as well as people I have talked to (from larger media stations as well) have expressed similar experiences. Of course, it all depends on the boss, but even when I've had bad ones, there was still quite a bit of leeway. I made the decisions over my area of work and was trusted with it. Yes, my work was reviewed and more often than not corrected, but it was still my article and still housed my views and biases, however hard I or others tried to 'unbias' them.
I guess what this part of the discussion boils down to is whether you believe employees are slaves with no control or say over their work (nothing but "car engines"), or if they are stewards - hired for their expertise and left alone for the most part to work.
