Journalists shower Hillary Clinton with campaign cash

[MattRoxx]

Totally illogical premise.

You do realize most of the media is owned by mega-corporations and big business routinely skews to the right politically.

In light of this, it strengthens fuji's assertion as to explaining this incongruency.

Yeah that is where the "left wing media conspiracy" assertion falls off a cliff. To be more precise, 6 corporations control 80% of US media: Disney, GE, NewsCorp, Viacom, Time/Warmer and CBS.
These are capitalist, right-leaning corporations that exist to maximize profit potential for investors. They make political donations to both parties in order to get their legislation passed and they are not part of any left-wing conspiracy.

Further, it seems bizarre that Trump and the right have whined about Clinton being paid millions to speak at corporate events and that she is beholden to those corporations, and yet she is also getting 'showered' with money from left-wing journos.

 

[Butler1000]

Yeah that is where the "left wing media conspiracy" assertion falls off a cliff. To be more precise, 6 corporations control 80% of US media: Disney, GE, NewsCorp, Viacom, Time/Warmer and CBS.
These are capitalist, right-leaning corporations that exist to maximize profit potential for investors. They make political donations to both parties in order to get their legislation passed and they are not part of any left-wing conspiracy.

Further, it seems bizarre that Trump and the right have whined about Clinton being paid millions to speak at corporate events and that she is beholden to those corporations, and yet she is also getting 'showered' with money from left-wing journos.

You are correct there isn't a left wing conspiracy. You are wrong in thinking that Hillary Clinton is left wing. She is not. Not by a long shot. She is a Neo-Con who will be happy to start a war and leave Wall St alone to do as they please.

So if they are supporting her it's because it's in their own best interests. Ask yourself why these 6 media corps would support anyone who didn't have their best interests at heart. They prefer the status quo. Where a few Washington Power brokers and Wall Stretters call the shots.

 

[Butler1000]

IMO, journalists were never as partisan as they are now, left and right.

I believe the shift began with the uber partisanship displayed when Fox News came on the air. The left is merely reacting to the right's attempt to disguise right wing policies as straight up news.

Actually at one time Journalists were considered lft wing mainly due to their natural distrust of gov't. They considered it their duty to hold the gov't accountable. Had real investigative arms. And we're sympathetic to the "little guy".

Now they are essentially as has been stated under one of 6 corporate entities. With no will or desire to really go after the gov't proactively on issues and use an investigative arm. Now they just parrot the talking points( Jon Stewart used to do montages showing this). The airwaves have been taken over by hired surrogates who are paid to argue on the air before all heading to the same bar after to wait for the next days talking point. It's almost like the inane walls from Fahrenheit 451.

None of them really report news now. They fake argue on air to generate ratings. Blame more the success of Jerry Springer then Fox News for the shift.

 

[Butler1000]

You guys are either kidding yourself or ignorant. Does anyone really challenge that a VAST majority of main stream media reporters and execs are liberals?

See my main response above and 25+ years ago you would be correct. Now? I think real journalists have been weeded out in exchange for paid surrogates, shills, so called experts, ex gov't consultants and others lining up to the trough.

The best example I can give is why are there never any news reports on Medical malpractice and Bad drug lawsuits. Or any investigations by news agencies into them. But then all you have to do is see that we'll over 50% of the advertising on all the news networks is for drug companies, medical outfits, and insurance companies to see they have outright bought off the media to prevent any bad publicity, and any discussion about public health care that doesn't pay them.

Sad but go ahead and monitor any of the news channels for one day. Count the adverts as I stated above. That's just how it works now.

 

[fuji]

Fuji's ridiculous statement that more liberals consume news has no basis in fact.

It's a well known fact regardless of your extreme ignorance. It is for example the reason why post debate polls skew Democrat if they limit their sample to people who actually watched the debate: Democrats are more likely to watch than Republicans.

It's even more true with Trump supporters who tend to be less likely to have a college education.

 

[Butler1000]

It's a well known fact regardless of your extreme ignorance. It is for example the reason why post debate polls skew Democrat if they limit their sample to people who actually watched the debate: Democrats are more likely to watch than Republicans.

It's even more true with Trump supporters who tend to be less likely to have a college education.

I think there is a difference between news consumption and watching the debate. Although 70 million watched this one.

While democrats may be more prone to watch it and therefore answer a poll that doesn't mean the republicans don't consume news. They just don't think it's worth it to watch because they are decided.

When I used to work in the hotel the number one station found on in rooms was FOX news.

And again this goes to something else I believe. That too many people are now watching news not to be informed but to have their pre-existing views validated. On all sides of the spectrum.

In this case more Dems watched so they would have something to tweet about, talk about, blog about, youtube video about, mock about etc.

And the Trump supporters could care less what Hillary thinks, even to do the above, except for a lesser amount who put together the false youtube crap you bitch about.

But both sides are guilty of hubris in that they are RIGHT dammit! And guilty of falling into the trap of us vs them. They aren't any smarter. They have just been led to believe they are.

 

[wigglee]

It must all be a giant conspiracy.

It's just not fair.... have they got something against incompetent assholes?

 

[fuji]

When I used to work in the hotel the number one station found on in rooms was FOX news.

That's because it's the only choice of the right. Democrats have four stations to choose from. Even if they are twice likely to watch news as Republicans Fox would still be twice as popular.

The reason why there are so many more choices for Democrats is that it's s bigger market. Not because there are more Democrats, but because they watch more news.

 

[wigglee]

I'm saying liberals go into the news business and the business is hostile to non-liberals. Thus news coverage has a liberal bias.

Fuji's ridiculous statement that more liberals consume news has no basis in fact.

The news industry has shifted from facts ( Who what when where why) to analysis and opinion - the blatant bias has moved from omission of inconvenient facts to spin on facts.

So.....the journalists work for and answer to the owners of mainstream media, who are billionares and large corporations. Are you telling us these billionares are stark raving libtards?????????

 

[MattRoxx]

When I used to work in the hotel the number one station found on in rooms was FOX news.

That could be changing.

Republicans abandon Fox News:

Since January, Fox News has seen a precipitous drop in its reputation amongst its mostly conservative viewership — falling to 50th place on a list of brands most trusted by Republicans over the past two years.

In 2014, the most dominant cable news channel was the 10th best-perceived brand by Republicans, according to AdAge. But in a YouGov Brand Index survey released at the end of February 2016, the perception of Fox News among Republicans had “declined by approximately 50 percent since January of this year” — to a three-year low.

And in a just-released 2016 YouGov BrandIndex ranking, Fox News’ position plummeted to outside of the top-20 for the first time.

 

[Butler1000]

That could be changing.

Probably. As more people turn to the net.

Just more of what I said before. People aren't consuming news to be informed, but to be validated.

I still find newspapers the best source. You have to weed through a lot but read enough of them and you can still find good individual writers.

 

[Butler1000]

So.....the journalists work for and answer to the owners of mainstream media, who are billionares and large corporations. Are you telling us these billionares are stark raving libtards?????????

Well yes. Some are. Look at the owner of facebook. They were found to be adjusting news feeds to a lefty bent. I would put say Oprah who owns a brand and network in that category.

That's just two examples. George Soros. I think Bill Gates has softened(he was quite ruthless). In many cases these corps are appealing to an audience. And will pander to it to sell advertising. They don't care about the content. Just the ratings.
It's like when the teachers owned the Leafs. They didn't care about winning, just the bottom line.

 

[italianguy74]

Time Warner is among Clintons top 10 contributers, they are probably the largest media conglomerate in the world. If they support Clinton, does anyone really believe the msm is going to be unbiased? Only someone with the inteligence to walk down the up-escalators would actually think the media is bipartisan. lol

 

[SuperCharge]

Well yes. Some are. Look at the owner of facebook. They were found to be adjusting news feeds to a lefty bent. I would put say Oprah who owns a brand and network in that category.

That's just two examples. George Soros. I think Bill Gates has softened(he was quite ruthless). In many cases these corps are appealing to an audience. And will pander to it to sell advertising. They don't care about the content. Just the ratings.
It's like when the teachers owned the Leafs. They didn't care about winning, just the bottom line.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-course-Obama-presidency-averaging-week.html
...and don't forget Google. They've got Google now too