Foxnews NORTH?

[Smallc]

Corporations cannot donate to political parties or candidates in Canada.

[Shady]

Theres a big difference between an organization with that may have a percieved bias, and an organization like Fox that engages in direct political activity, donates and participates in campaigns, organizes rallies, etc.

So what. Fox makes political donations. So do other media outlets. Not to mention that 90% of contributions from people working in the mainstream media go to Democrats. Not to mention that 90% of contributions from professors in universities and colleges also go to Democrats. But lets single out Fox.

My guess is the CBC wouldnt be allowed to donate a bunch of money to liberal candidates in various races.

Probably not. They just pass along questions to liberal members of parlaiment to ask conservatives during hearings.

At least Fox generates their own income, and donates their own money. And doesn't operate using tax payer money.

[BubberMiley]

So what. Fox makes political donations. So do other media outlets. Not to mention that 90% of contributions from people working in the mainstream media go to Democrats. Not to mention that 90% of contributions from professors in universities and colleges also go to Democrats. But lets single out Fox.

Oh, you're just making things up again because otherwise you'd look like you don't know what you're talking about.

[Shady]

Oh, you're just making things up again because otherwise you'd look like you don't know what you're talking about.

LOL! You're a glittering jewel of ignorance!

Academia's funds flow to Democrats

Democratic candidates are the chief recipients of campaign contributions from educators during this year's midterm elections, as shown by a report published Wednesday by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).

The 10 universities and other educational organizations whose employees donated the most provided an average of 77 percent of that money to Democratic candidates, with no institution giving as much as 35 percent to Republican candidates. Indeed, one of the top 10, the Princeton Review, donated exclusively to Democratic candidates.

WT

Journalists dole out cash to politicians

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.

MSNBC

Dumbass.

[dre]

So what. Fox makes political donations. So do other media outlets. Not to mention that 90% of contributions from people working in the mainstream media go to Democrats. Not to mention that 90% of contributions from professors in universities and colleges also go to Democrats. But lets single out Fox.

Probably not. They just pass along questions to liberal members of parlaiment to ask conservatives during hearings.

At least Fox generates their own income, and donates their own money. And doesn't operate using tax payer money.

So what. Fox makes political donations. So do other media outlets. Not to mention that 90% of contributions from people working in the mainstream media go to Democrats. But lets single out Fox

If you dont understand why its a problem for a major media network that markets themselves as object and unbiased being a partisan political action committee at the same time then were pretty much done here.

[dre]

LOL! You're a glittering jewel of ignorance!

Dumbass.

Neither of those examples are relevant at all. Think about it for a minute and youll see why.

[Pliny]

Theres a big difference between an organization with that may have a percieved bias, and an organization like Fox that engages in direct political activity, donates and participates in campaigns, organizes rallies, etc.

Fox is a private corporation.

My guess is the CBC wouldnt be allowed to donate a bunch of money to liberal candidates in various races. I could be wrong though. CNN DOES make political contributions but they claim that each party gets the exact same ammount of money.

The CBC is a public corporation.

Therein lies the difference.

National Public Radio (NPR) in the US could never be seen to contribute to a political party but it's political bias is no secret because only the left considers it should even be funded. I haven't done a lot of research on NPR, it's funding and it's regulatory guidelines but I imagine they are similar to the CBC. Representatives of NPR often appear on Fox to debate on the side of the liberal view.

[Pliny]

If you dont understand why its a problem for a major media network that markets themselves as object and unbiased being a partisan political action committee at the same time then were pretty much done here.

They market themselves as fair and balanced. Not unbiased or objective. They present the point of view of both sides. Most other networks don't present a balanced view, only the left view is presented as credible. The right is given short shrift or shown in a negative light, if at all, with little to no hardball questioning of the left - unless a politician falls out of favour with the darling crowd.

Both sides, or all sides, are expected to defend their positions on Fox. The Democrats are finding it harder and harder to defend their position under the Obama administration.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Pliny

[dre]

Holy crap. Someone actually believes that "fair and balanced" stuff....

[BubberMiley]

Speaking of dumbasses, you said major media outlets gave money to the Dems, and then cited individual reporters' contributions. You really don't know the difference?

<crickets>

[Pliny]

Speaking of dumbasses, you said major media outlets gave money to the Dems, and then cited individual reporters' contributions. You really don't know the difference?

<crickets>

He said "Fox makes political donations. So do other media outlets. Not to mention that 90% of contributions from people working in the mainstream media go to Democrats. Not to mention that 90% of contributions from professors in universities and colleges also go to Democrats.

[Pliny]

Holy crap. Someone actually believes that "fair and balanced" stuff....

Do you believe the mainstream media to be "fair and balanced"?

The left gets grilled and has to defend their position - no free ride. The right gets a voice too. There is no pretense of bias. Unlike the mainstream media where the left gets an easy ride and the right is rarely mentioned or described as not worthy of any serious consideration and there is a pretense of no bias.

[dre]

Do you believe the mainstream media to be "fair and balanced"?

The left gets grilled and has to defend their position - no free ride. The right gets a voice too. There is no pretense of bias. Unlike the mainstream media where the left gets an easy ride and the right is rarely mentioned or described as not worthy of any serious consideration and there is a pretense of no bias.

I think theres always some bias but its amplified 10X on Fox. And again... fox is a political operation that openly backs a specific party. I dont know of any other major network that does this, or organizes political rallies for a specific political ideology.

Even Rupert Murdoch was claimed to be suprised to hear that Fox was a political operation. He said "It would be improper for Fox to fund a specific party. Hes right! But theyre doing it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PHxm7gqUR8

Edited October 12, 2010 by dre

[dre]

Do you believe the mainstream media to be "fair and balanced"?

The left gets grilled and has to defend their position - no free ride. The right gets a voice too.

There is no pretense of bias.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think theres always some bias but its amplified 10X on Fox. And again... fox is a political operation that openly backs a specific party. I dont know of any other major network that does this, or organizes political rallies for a specific political ideology.

Even if this were true, it's a far cry from majority funding by the government in power (e.g. CBC). That just cuts to the chase.

[dre]

Even if this were true, it's a far cry from majority funding by the government in power (e.g. CBC). That just cuts to the chase.

CBC gets its funding regardless of who is in power. I find their coverage of Canadian politics to be relatively balanced. From what I can tell theyre giving the Conservative government a fair shake, and they went after the Martin Liberals pretty hard as well.

Thats a far cry from if they organized political rallies against the Conservatives like Fox does against democrats.

Its not even remotely comparable. One is a media organization. The other is a political operation that funnels money to specific candidates and parties.

[bush_cheney2004]

CBC gets its funding regardless of who is in power. I find their coverage of Canadian politics to be relatively balanced. From what I can tell theyre giving the Conservative government a fair shake, and they went after the Martin Liberals pretty hard as well.

Oh great...so you support government controlled media and content.

Thats a far cry from if they organized political rallies against the Conservatives like Fox does against democrats.

Money = access = speech

Its not even remotely comparable. One is a media organization. The other is a political operation that funnels money to specific candidates and parties.

Agreed...the former in Canada is far worse.

[Shady]

Speaking of dumbasses, you said major media outlets gave money to the Dems, and then cited individual reporters' contributions. You really don't know the difference?

<crickets>

Yep. Individual reporters and journalists that work for all the major media outlets. Not only that, but General Electric gave tons of money to Obama and the Democrats. You know General Electric right? The parent company of NBC news and MSNBC. Dumbass.

General Electric, which owns NBC, has also made substantial political contributions in the 2010 election cycle. For example, GE donated $688,900 to Democrats through its PAC this election cycle

CNN

How many times do I have to completely embarrass you before you finally shut up and stop posting?! I purposely set up traps for you, and you continue to walk into them like a blind man. I'd lie if I said it wasn't very entertaining.

Anyways, it's funny that it only becomes an issue when Fox does it. When Fox didn't do it, or before Fox existed, everything was just fine. It just goes to show you that these people aren't interested in fairness, they're interested in a monopoly of the news. And they can't stand it when there's one lone voice in the media that actually gives differing opinions than the usual liberal garbage.

[Shady]

CBC gets its funding regardless of who is in power. I find their coverage of Canadian politics to be relatively balanced.

That's because you're liberal. Of course you find their coverage to be balanced. But it's not. And worse than that, they use Canadian tax money to perpetuate their bias. How'd you like it if CBC was right leaning? Would you like your taxes funding it? Probably not. Now you know how many Canadians feel about the current CBC.

And like I've said, they don't only just take tax money to push their agenda. But they actually have journalists there writing up questions for Liberal members of parlaiment to ask Conservatives during hearings. Fair and balanced!

CBC reporter reassigned for writing Liberal questions during Schreiber hearings

OTTAWA -- A CBC national television reporter has been transferred out of Ottawa after an internal investigation determined she had fed questions to an opposition MP for use during last month’s Commons ethics committee hearings on the Mulroney-Schreiber affair.

NP

This BS about CBC being a balanced media outlet really needs a STFU response.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Shady

[dre]

Oh great...so you support government controlled media and content.

Money = access = speech

Agreed...the former in Canada is far worse.

Oh great...so you support government controlled media and content.

No but I support public funded media. And I OBVIOUSLY dont support any media organization directly contributing to parties they are reporting on, because thats the classic definition of conflict of interest.

That appears to be the difference in our positions. Youre pro "conflict of interest" and Im not. Its understandable because well... youre a right wing hack. Fox is a partner in your adenda so my guess is even if they get got caught outright falsifying the news to benefit one party(oh wait! They have), you and the fox apologencia would still be on here screwing "FAIR AND BALANCED!!!"

Having said that I dont even have Cable TV! The only think I watch on CBC is hockey night in Canada But its about a million times as reliable as Fox as a source of objective information. Although I guess if I wanted to find out which American celebrities were caught flashing their vaginas, snorting cocaine, or which other celebrities they are banging, then Fox would do just fine.

BTW... Even in the US public news is 10X the quality of fox or CNN. More good information and less sensational ratings driven bullshit. Infotainment makes people stupid and ignorant.

[bloodyminded]

That's because you're liberal. Of course you find their coverage to be balanced. But it's not. And worse than that, they use Canadian tax money to perpetuate their bias. How'd you like it if CBC was right leaning?

They're not left-leaning either.

And since y'all keep claiming it: prove it...with examples and evidence of the biased coverage.

No bland claims: hard evidence. If the bias is so obvious, this will be easy.

Here, I'll even get you started with some actual, genuine CBC bias:

During the fall of Baghdad, CBC spent an entire day running and re-running the footage of the fall of Saddam's statue, accompanied by bland, meaningless commentary. Yet the fall of the statue was a deceptive propaganda exercise; we were meant to see throngs of joyful Iraqis celebrating liberation; instead, there was a hand-picked group of men broguht in by the military to perform for the cameras. We couldn't tell this, because, 1) we weren't informed, and 2) the picture did not provide the educational context that, oh, say, merely panning out with the camera would have offerred.

If the CBC had done something radical--say, showing a larger visual picture--audiences would have noted that the crowd was far smaller than it (intentionally) appeared.

So ok...there's bias. Outright propaganda, actually. (Or, at best, CBC incomepetence, CBC credulity to other news media's propaganda.)

Ok...so if you can't do this, if you can't show "clear bias," then your argument is undermined. In ruins.

Ypur claims are worthless without evidence.

Edited October 12, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

...So ok...there's bias. Outright propaganda, actually. (Or, at best, CBC incomepetence, CBC credulity to other news media's propaganda.)

Not in the example you cited, as operations in Iraq were largely irrelevant to CBC's audience. What was the "propaganda" value in Canada?

[Shady]

Let's face facts. CBC is just MSNBC North. Except that it uses tax money to operate. Tax money that could go to education and health care. Let Global, CTV, etc, cover the news. Let Sportsnet, TSN, etc, cover hockey. Let's stop subsidizing television crap nobody watches like Little Mosque on the Prarie.

It literally draws 5 total views each week.

[BubberMiley]

It literally draws 5 total views each week.

You don't know what "literally" means, do you?

And you find no irony in that the one instance you can cite of CBC bias involves a "FoxNews North" reporter who is the girlfriend of a CPC MP from Calgary?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/krista-erickson-leaves-cbc-apparently-to-join-fox-news-north/article1603372/

Edited October 13, 2010 by BubberMiley

[guyser]

It literally draws 5 total views each week.

It literally draws millions.