Who owns the liberal media? Details inside.

[Midnight Son]

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php

So ya think we have a "free press" eh? Check out who owns who, and who owns what you think.......

GENERAL ELECTRIC --(donated 1.1 million to GW Bush for his 2000 election campaign)

Television Holdings:
* NBC: includes 13 stations, 28% of US households.
* NBC Network News: The Today Show, Nightly News with Tom Brokaw, Meet the Press, Dateline NBC, NBC News at Sunrise.
* CNBC business television; MSNBC 24-hour cable and Internet news service (co-owned by NBC and Microsoft); Court TV (co-owned with Time Warner), Bravo (50%), A&E (25%), History Channel (25%).
The "MS" in MSNBC
means microsoft
The same Microsoft that donated 2.4 million to get GW bush elected.

Other Holdings:
* GE Consumer Electronics.
* GE Power Systems: produces turbines for nuclear reactors and power plants.
* GE Plastics: produces military hardware and nuclear power equipment.
* GE Transportation Systems: runs diesel and electric trains.
==================================================

WESTINGHOUSE / CBS INC.
Westinghouse Electric Company, part of the Nuclear Utilities Business Group of British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL)
whos #1 on the Board of Directors? None other than:
Frank Carlucci (of the Carlyle Group)

Television Holdings:
* CBS: includes 14 stations and over 200 affiliates in the US.
* CBS Network News: 60 minutes, 48 hours, CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, CBS Morning News, Up to the Minute.
* Country Music Television, The Nashville Network, 2 regional sports networks.
* Group W Satellite Communications.
Other Holdings:
* Westinghouse Electric Company: provides services to the nuclear power industry.
* Westinghouse Government Environmental Services Company: disposes of nuclear and hazardous wastes. Also operates 4 government-owned nuclear power plants in the US.
* Energy Systems: provides nuclear power plant design and maintenance.
================================================== ==============
VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC.
Television Holdings:
* Paramount Television, Spelling Television, MTV, VH-1, Showtime, The Movie Channel, UPN (joint owner), Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, Sundance Channel (joint owner), Flix.
* 20 major market US stations.
Media Holdings:
* Paramount Pictures, Paramount Home Video, Blockbuster Video, Famous Players Theatres, Paramount Parks.
* Simon & Schuster Publishing.
=============================================
DISNEY / ABC / CAP (donated 640 thousand to GW's 2000 campaign)
Television Holdings:
* ABC: includes 10 stations, 24% of US households.
* ABC Network News: Prime Time Live, Nightline, 20/20, Good Morning America.
* ESPN, Lifetime Television (50%), as well as minority holdings in A&E, History Channel and E!
* Disney Channel/Disney Television, Touchtone Television.
Media Holdings:
* Miramax, Touchtone Pictures.
* Magazines: Jane, Los Angeles Magazine, W, Discover.
* 3 music labels, 11 major local newspapers.
* Hyperion book publishers.
* Infoseek Internet search engine (43%).
Other Holdings:
* Sid R. Bass (major shares) crude oil and gas.
* All Disney Theme Parks, Walt Disney Cruise Lines.
================================================== ====

TIME-WARNER TBS - AOL (donated 1.6 million to GW's 2000 campaign)
America Online (AOL) acquired Time Warner–the largest merger in corporate history.
Television Holdings:
* CNN, HBO, Cinemax, TBS Superstation, Turner Network Television, Turner Classic Movies, Warner Brothers Television, Cartoon Network, Sega Channel, TNT, Comedy Central (50%), E! (49%), Court TV (50%).
* Largest owner of cable systems in the US with an estimated 13 million subscribers.
Media Holdings:
* HBO Independent Productions, Warner Home Video, New Line Cinema, Castle Rock, Looney Tunes, Hanna-Barbera.
* Music: Atlantic, Elektra, Rhino, Sire, Warner Bros. Records, EMI, WEA, Sub Pop (distribution) = the world’s largest music company.
* 33 magazines including Time, Sports Illustrated, People, In Style, Fortune, Book of the Month Club, Entertainment Weekly, Life, DC Comics (50%), and MAD Magazine.
Other Holdings:
* Sports: The Atlanta Braves, The Atlanta Hawks, World Championship Wrestling.
================================================== =====
NEWS CORPORATION LTD. / FOX NETWORKS (Rupert Murdoch) (donations see bottom note)
Television Holdings:
* Fox Television: includes 22 stations, 50% of US households.
* Fox International: extensive worldwide cable and satellite networks include British Sky Broadcasting (40%); VOX, Germany (49.9%); Canal Fox, Latin America; FOXTEL, Australia (50%); STAR TV, Asia; IskyB, India; Bahasa Programming Ltd., Indonesia (50%); and News Broadcasting, Japan (80%).
* The Golf Channel (33%).
MEDIA HOLDINGS:
* Twentieth Century Fox, Fox Searchlight.
* 132 newspapers (113 in Australia alone) including the New York Post, the London Times and The Australian.
* 25 magazines including TV Guide and The Weekly Standard.
* HarperCollins books.
OTHER HOLDINGS:
* Sports: LA Dodgers, LA Kings, LA Lakers, National Rugby League.
* Ansett Australia airlines, Ansett New Zealand airlines.
* Rupert Murdoch: Board of Directors, Philip Morris (USA).

*(Phillip Morris donated 2.9 million to George W Bush in 2000)*

So all our right wingers can just STFU.

[steve]

What have those same entities donated to Democrats in the same period? Because with a lot of companies, they donate fairly equally to both parties.

[chet]

It is hard to say yet Steve, reporting and sifting through the data takes time. But unlike previous elections, if you remember post election last year, bush made it clear with donators ,you donate to us and not them.

Here is a fairly recent breakdown of top donors.
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contriball.asp

If you click the names you can see a breakdown of the top 20. Only Kerry has one media group TW (and there is some crossover with others ignoring bush's demand).

As you can see the runaway favorites for this election (remember this only looks at this election cycle), is Bush with investment firms... now why would that be... oh yeah... But the funny thing is, people will see a kerry lead reflecting in the markets and think it means it is bad for the economy, when that is not true for sure, it is just bad for the rich investment firms.

Chet

[shift6]

The entire Disney/ABC multi-national conglomerate donated a whopping 640,000 bucks to Bush? Well hold the fuckin horses, that's some serious funds! :roll:

Also I seem to recall an article about political donations from MS which specified that it is generally even in amounts between democrats and republicans. This was from a few years back.

[Brian Koontz]

Also I seem to recall an article about political donations from MS which specified that it is generally even in amounts between democrats and republicans. This was from a few years back.

Wow... Midnight Son really IS a Moderate!

[Malderi]

What liberal media?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/01/po...er=rssuserland

When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1.

Oh. THAT liberal media.

We can cite all the different and differently-pointing articles from newspapers we want. It all depends on perspective (not to mention whether or not you're watching Fox or CNN ;-))

[Jason McCullough]

I know at work I get to do whatever the hell I want - my bosses have no control!

[Andrew Mayer]

What liberal media?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/01/po...er=rssuserland

When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1.

Oh. THAT liberal media.

Now ask the editors and owners who they voted for in the last election.

Do you tell your boss what your job is, or is it the other way around?

[Midnight Son]

Igg-zacly, Mr. Mayer. The journalists don't tell the conservative owner/board who to vote for.

[Tim Partlett]

It's definitely not the leaning of the journalists, that makes for the political leaning of the paper as a whole. Unless the paper is run as some kind of journalist co-operative, then their copy will get edited into whatever line it is the owners want to take. According to my friend, who works as sub-editor at the conservative and right-wing Daily Mail, he has to edit everything so that it reads just to the right of Margaret Thatcher. This is in spite of the fact that he is a far left socialist, and many of the other journalists at the Mail are left leaning Labour voters. At the Observer, on a Sunday, he has to toe the left of centre line, even though many of the journalists there are conservative ex-public school boys.

[Nick Walter]

I know at work I get to do whatever the hell I want - my bosses have no control!

Your post count sort of gives that away. :wink:

[BrewersDroop]

What liberal media?

When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1.

Oh. THAT liberal media.

So what you're saying is that people who are intimately familiar with the political scene, who watch it first hand, write about it and follow it in detail, who deal with politicians and their functionaries both on and off the record, who, in short, know far more than the general populace about the realities of politics, the inner workings of the political machines and the characters of the politicians themselves, favour Kerry 12 to 1? Hmm. Interesting.

[Anders Hallin]

So what you're saying is that people who are intimately familiar with the political scene, who watch it first hand, write about it and follow it in detail, who deal with politicians and their functionaries both on and off the record, who, in short, know far more than the general populace about the realities of politics, the inner workings of the political machines and the characters of the politicians themselves, favour Kerry 12 to 1? Hmm. Interesting.

Journalists are like Swedish politicians it seems.

[MikeJ]

What have those same entities donated to Democrats in the same period? Because with a lot of companies, they donate fairly equally to both parties.

That always bugged me a bit. I mean, if you donate to one party, you can at least say you support their policies and would like to see them succeed. If you donate to both major parties, isn't it basically an admission that you are just buying influence? It seems dirty to me.

[Linoleum]

So what you're saying is that people who are intimately familiar with the political scene, who watch it first hand, write about it and follow it in detail, who deal with politicians and their functionaries both on and off the record, who, in short, know far more than the general populace about the realities of politics, the inner workings of the political machines and the characters of the politicians themselves, favour Kerry 12 to 1? Hmm. Interesting.

That's brilliant! They must be right! They are truly the enlightened elite and should enform the rest of the rabble that comprises America how they should vote. You know, maybe it would be a lot more efficient to just let them select the leadership? Waste not, want not.

[Andrew Mayer]

That's brilliant! They must be right! They are truly the enlightened elite and should enform the rest of the rabble that comprises America how they should vote. You know, maybe it would be a lot more efficient to just let them select the leadership? Waste not, want not.

What if, instead of debating the point, everybody took every argument to ridiculous extremes?
What would you do THEN?
:roll:

[BrewersDroop]

That's brilliant! They must be right! They are truly the enlightened elite and should enform the rest of the rabble that comprises America how they should vote. You know, maybe it would be a lot more efficient to just let them select the leadership? Waste not, want not.

I take it then that you don't have a cogent rebuttal? Or are you going to argue that the journalists who report on the political scene in Washington are actually less well-informed and more politically blindered than the general populace?

[Guido Jones]

I know at work I get to do whatever the hell I want - my bosses have no control!

Your post count sort of gives that away. :wink:

Yeah I totally didn't get Jason's post at first because I thought "Doesn't he sit and post on QT3 and read liberal blogs all day?"

[Linoleum]

I take it then that you don't have a cogent rebuttal? Or are you going to argue that the journalists who report on the political scene in Washington are actually less well-informed and more politically blindered than the general populace?

I'll give you better informed. I'd argue more politically blindered, or more specifically stuck in their own ideology. When journalists as a class are completely unable to culturally relate or don't bother to understand large sections of the American population, is that their fault or the unwashed masses?

I'll just let Alterman's words stand by themselves.

It serves me right. Just last week I had lunch with a Times editor and I defended Okrent for doing an excellent job as public editor, despite a few mishaps. Now he goes and does this. Let's get this straight everybody. Journalists are socially liberal, just like every single group of well-educated, well-paid group of urban professionals.

Peanut, minorly relevant example of resulting output: this P&R board. I think from the poll threads its safe to say that at least 80% of this board will vote for Kerry in the upcoming election. Now, look at the balance of threads weighted towards the screw-ups, fallacies and brouhahas of one political party versus another. The coverage and flavor of the board represents the leanings of the majority. This isn't to say that what gets brought up isn't valid more often than not. But what isn't present speaks volumes.

[Jason McCullough]

I know at work I get to do whatever the hell I want - my bosses have no control!

Your post count sort of gives that away. :wink:

Yeah I totally didn't get Jason's post at first because I thought "Doesn't he sit and post on QT3 and read liberal blogs all day?"

Not much since I got fulltime, actually.

Peanut, minorly relevant example of resulting output: this P&R board. I think from the poll threads its safe to say that at least 80% of this board will vote for Kerry in the upcoming election. Now, look at the balance of threads weighted towards the screw-ups, fallacies and brouhahas of one political party versus another. The coverage and flavor of the board represents the leanings of the majority. This isn't to say that what gets brought up isn't valid more often than not. But what isn't present speaks volumes.

You're right, that of a bunch of people post what they personally find interesting to a message board is *directly analogous* to how the professional media works. After all, it's not like they care about ratings - they just put up whatever they want.

[Linoleum]

You're right, that of a bunch of people post what they personally find interesting to a message board is *directly analogous* to how the professional media works. After all, it's not like they care about ratings - they just put up whatever they want.

I always have to get so amazingly pedantic with you, it's tiring. Despite my prefacing with minorly relevant which I would assume the reader would realize I was speaking into a very narrow domain of political issues versus the totality of news output. Much less the information desert of any sort of television based media.

Although if you switch "4 die in home fire" with "DOOM 3 being pirated" maybe it does work in a broader sense...

[Guido Jones]

Not much since I got fulltime, actually.

Heh, I was just joking. I'd turn Tim in before you anyway.

[BrewersDroop]

Linoleum,

Reading on in the article you referenced: "Journalists are socially liberal, just like every single group of well-educated, well-paid group of urban professionals. On occasion this shows up in the coverage, when it comes to say, creationists and people who think homosexuals should burn in Hell sooner rather than later. But even on this issue set, where attitudes are consistent, there is evidence of considerable effort to bend over backwards to be nice to Bible-thumpers. On most political issues, however, journalists are not only not liberal, they are often more sympathetic to the conservatives than to the liberals; this is in part a reflection of their economic status and in part a reflection of the fact that they are but a weathervane of the force of gale winds attacking them and until recently, just about all the attacks have been coming from the right.

Add this to the fact of corporate demands that no major segment of the audience be offended and you end up with coverage that politically speaking, favors the right almost every time."

You seem to feel that it's a bad thing that journalists are both well-educated and well-informed about the political landscape, as this will colour their opinions. Would you honestly prefer journalists to be poorly educated and ignorant of the political scene? If the well-educated and well-informed tend to be socially liberal, maybe being socially liberal isn't such a bad thing after all?

[quatoria]

Thanks, Brewers. I was about to call Linoleum on precisely that point - his omission of the context and full meaning of Eric Alterman's quote.

[Ben]

Socially liberal is undefined there, and probably includes a lot of Republicans.

[Jason McCullough]

Not mentioned is that reporters are actually noticably to the right of the general population on economic issues.