Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Does Fox News Coverage = Republican Campaign Contribution?

Page 4 of 8 [ 121 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Is Fox News providing unlawful corporate, in-kind contributions to Republicans?
Fox News is Guilty 85%  85%  [ 11 ]
Fox News is Not Guilty 15%  15%  [ 2 ]
Total votes : 13

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

02 Nov 2011, 9:52 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Recently released emails between liberal "journalists," professors and activists have revealed that NPR producer Sarah Spitz fantasized about laughing in Rush Limbaugh's face as he died of a heart attack.

:roll:
Who hasn't?

Inuyasha wrote:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7msrF1V4NeY[/youtube]
Note this NPR employee was not fired for the remarks in video above.

:roll:
Why should she be fired? She makes a good point on retributive justice.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,528
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

02 Nov 2011, 9:56 am

pandabear wrote:
You didn't quote the whole article. And, the part that you did quote doesn't state that the stations are breaking any laws, only that "lawmakers and conservative critics argue the stations are breaking two laws." There is a difference between conservative critics "arguing" that stations are breaking laws, and stations actually breaking laws. "Conservative" critics certainly do a lot of arguing, and, if they had their way, then none of us would know anything or even have any fun that didn't involve shooting guns. "Conservative" critics arguing something does not automatically make it true.

I was really more interested in the 'lawmakers' part.

pandabear wrote:
As discussed in the case against Media Matters, non-profit organizations are not banned from "doing much lobbying of any kind"-- only from engaging in "excessive" lobbying. This is also mentioned in your article.

Is it illegal to be tax free and lobby or is it illegal to take funds directly from the government? I know its a conceptual line but I think is an important one regarding what's being discussed here.

pandabear wrote:
Your article further states that the radio and television stations have been careful not to use money from the federal government in their advertisements.
In a way that hardly makes any sense though. Fox News could take government funding in that case, use it to pay for Sports or whatever non-political branch it has, direct that extra money to Fox News, and then claim that on the balance sheet that none of the government money is going to 'that account'. That's great but, its still padding their bottom line.


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

02 Nov 2011, 10:07 am

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
I was really more interested in the 'lawmakers' part.

At this point, the lawmakers are only arguing, too. They are the ones who wrote the laws in the first place. If they want to rewrite the laws, that is up to them. That is why they are called "lawmakers." It is up to the courts to interpret the laws that the lawmakers made.

pandabear wrote:
Is it illegal to be tax free and lobby or is it illegal to take funds directly from the government? I know its a conceptual line but I think is an important one regarding what's being discussed here.

A tax-exempt organization is permitted to lobby--only "excessive" lobbying is prohibited.

Quote:
pandabear wrote:
Your article further states that the radio and television stations have been careful not to use money from the federal government in their advertisements.
In a way that hardly makes any sense though. Fox News could take government funding in that case, use it to pay for Sports or whatever non-political branch it has, direct that extra money to Fox News, and then claim that on the balance sheet that none of the government money is going to 'that account'. That's great but, its still padding their bottom line.

Fox news is, itself, a for-profit entity. But, yes, everyone is aware of the principle of fungibility.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,528
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

02 Nov 2011, 10:15 am

pandabear wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
I was really more interested in the 'lawmakers' part.

At this point, the lawmakers are only arguing, too. They are the ones who wrote the laws in the first place. If they want to rewrite the laws, that is up to them. That is why they are called "lawmakers." It is up to the courts to interpret the laws that the lawmakers made.

pandabear wrote:
Is it illegal to be tax free and lobby or is it illegal to take funds directly from the government? I know its a conceptual line but I think is an important one regarding what's being discussed here.

A tax-exempt organization is permitted to lobby--only "excessive" lobbying is prohibited.

If this is actually about government dole and not 501c status, its problematic that there's even such a thing as allowed 'non-excessive' lobbying whatever the heck that means. Tax payers are liberal, conservative, and all kinds of independent inbetween, thus federal revenue going toward lobbying of any kind is really a problematic thing unless some kind of leveling measure is levied on news orgs who take that money. 501c is still a discount but on the other hand its value is based on the value of their own activity.


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

02 Nov 2011, 10:22 am

pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Recently released emails between liberal "journalists," professors and activists have revealed that NPR producer Sarah Spitz fantasized about laughing in Rush Limbaugh's face as he died of a heart attack.

:roll:
Who hasn't?

Inuyasha wrote:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7msrF1V4NeY[/youtube]
Note this NPR employee was not fired for the remarks in video above.

:roll:
Why should she be fired? She makes a good point on retributive justice.

What she said was ignoble. Defending it is mean-spirited.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

02 Nov 2011, 10:25 am

Gedrene wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Recently released emails between liberal "journalists," professors and activists have revealed that NPR producer Sarah Spitz fantasized about laughing in Rush Limbaugh's face as he died of a heart attack.

:roll:
Who hasn't?

Inuyasha wrote:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7msrF1V4NeY[/youtube]
Note this NPR employee was not fired for the remarks in video above.

:roll:
Why should she be fired? She makes a good point on retributive justice.

What she said was ignoble. Defending it is mean-spirited.


It was also nearly a decade and a half ago the depth of barrel scraping for examples
implies a lack of wealth in the category of NPR crimes. :lol:


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

02 Nov 2011, 10:27 am

JakobVirgil wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Recently released emails between liberal "journalists," professors and activists have revealed that NPR producer Sarah Spitz fantasized about laughing in Rush Limbaugh's face as he died of a heart attack.

:roll:
Who hasn't?

Inuyasha wrote:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7msrF1V4NeY[/youtube]
Note this NPR employee was not fired for the remarks in video above.

:roll:
Why should she be fired? She makes a good point on retributive justice.

What she said was ignoble. Defending it is mean-spirited.


It was also nearly a decade and a half ago the depth of barrel scraping for examples
implies a lack of wealth in the category of NPR crimes. :lol:

I get that easily, but that doesn't mean Pandabear should defend the person for what they did.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,528
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

02 Nov 2011, 10:32 am

I didn't finish reading this article past a certain point because they started getting really tenuous but it seems fair to say that 15.7%, by the figures shown on the list, is federal for NPR:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/ ... nding.html

(and yes, that American Thinker is partisan isn't lost on me - this is why I stuck with the concrete and left their implied savings out because I saw that they were starting to play it both ways)

Apparently, on the bright side, NPR's CPB numbers are a bit on the low side with the 15 to 20% discussed but still, they get that on top of not-for-profit status.

Its a healthy kickback and for the stacking benefits (being both tax exempt and receiving that big a cut) they're receipts are worth discussing since what they really get back is better than make-or-break on final revenue analysis.


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

02 Nov 2011, 10:36 am

pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Recently released emails between liberal "journalists," professors and activists have revealed that NPR producer Sarah Spitz fantasized about laughing in Rush Limbaugh's face as he died of a heart attack.

:roll:
Who hasn't?

Inuyasha wrote:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7msrF1V4NeY[/youtube]
Note this NPR employee was not fired for the remarks in video above.

:roll:
Why should she be fired? She makes a good point on retributive justice.


Journalists aren't allowed having opinions unless they are pro-GOP in the Inuverse


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

02 Nov 2011, 10:38 am

visagrunt wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
I'd say free information is a sine qua non of a functioning democracy. A free press is a sine qua non of polarized groups of voters and softcore porn. It just happens to be the most primitive method of distributing free information. The horse and cart of information distribution.
[edited for format, J.]


I suggest to you that free information cannot exist in the absence of free press.

Free press is a vehicle of free information. When I talk about free information I talk generally about freedom to speak on subjects of public importance. Press would be included under that definition. The press as we know it is simply the most primitive method of information distribution. Take twitter, that is a more refined form of information distribution and I wouldn't call it press.

visagrunt wrote:
We might like to believe that social media exist in an environment separate and apart from "mainstream" media--but I don't think that this is the case. One need look no farther than the PRC to see how the coercive force of the state suppresses the free exchange of information and ideas. Given the broader and more effective reach of mainstream media, the suppression of these is far more inimical to a robust democracy.

Not true. I think you are overvaluing the power of the press and you are moreover saying that social media sites are less important but your example is of social media sites that have had their information constricted. Social media has been many thousands of times more important for the Arab Spring than a free press. Without it one could simply have not been able to pick out the Human Rights abuses occuring in Syria with such disturbing regularity.

Youtube, Twitter, Wikileaks and Facebook have been more crucial to world freedom than any newspaper is today. Wikileaks and Youtube have shaped the world's minds more than any newspaper. If they are silenced and gagged then the effect will be amazingly detrimental.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

02 Nov 2011, 1:18 pm

Gedrene wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Recently released emails between liberal "journalists," professors and activists have revealed that NPR producer Sarah Spitz fantasized about laughing in Rush Limbaugh's face as he died of a heart attack.

:roll:
Who hasn't?

Inuyasha wrote:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7msrF1V4NeY[/youtube]
Note this NPR employee was not fired for the remarks in video above.

:roll:
Why should she be fired? She makes a good point on retributive justice.

What she said was ignoble. Defending it is mean-spirited.


It was also nearly a decade and a half ago the depth of barrel scraping for examples
implies a lack of wealth in the category of NPR crimes. :lol:

I get that easily, but that doesn't mean Pandabear should defend the person for what they did.


Do you have no idea who Jesse Helms was? It is like wishing that Kim Jong Il would stub his toe.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

02 Nov 2011, 3:45 pm

Gedrene wrote:
Free press is a vehicle of free information. When I talk about free information I talk generally about freedom to speak on subjects of public importance. Press would be included under that definition. The press as we know it is simply the most primitive method of information distribution. Take twitter, that is a more refined form of information distribution and I wouldn't call it press.


I don't see how you can describe twitter as more refined. If anything, twitter represents the decay of information sharing, permitting no idea that cannot be compressed to 140 character snippets.

That's not to say that twitter is not important, but it is more akin to pamphleting than it is to journalism. Important--but surely not a refinement.

Quote:
Not true. I think you are overvaluing the power of the press and you are moreover saying that social media sites are less important but your example is of social media sites that have had their information constricted. Social media has been many thousands of times more important for the Arab Spring than a free press. Without it one could simply have not been able to pick out the Human Rights abuses occuring in Syria with such disturbing regularity.

Youtube, Twitter, Wikileaks and Facebook have been more crucial to world freedom than any newspaper is today. Wikileaks and Youtube have shaped the world's minds more than any newspaper. If they are silenced and gagged then the effect will be amazingly detrimental.


Ask anyone who works in communications--reach is essential. And as important as social media are, none of them have the reach that broadcast media and print journalism have.

Social media played their role in Arab Spring and similar movements precisely because there was no free mainstream media--they were the only game in town. But how much more effective would a populist movement have been with a solid broadcast and print media presence behind it?

The real value of social media is to give a broader voice to people whose views are not reflected in mainstream media. Anyone with bandwidth can write a blog. Anyone with a phone can tweet. But how many people see the message, and of those, how many are persuaded?

Social media are important, but they do not stand in the shoes of journalism.


_________________
--James


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

03 Nov 2011, 12:35 am

JakobVirgil wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Recently released emails between liberal "journalists," professors and activists have revealed that NPR producer Sarah Spitz fantasized about laughing in Rush Limbaugh's face as he died of a heart attack.

:roll:
Who hasn't?

Inuyasha wrote:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7msrF1V4NeY[/youtube]
Note this NPR employee was not fired for the remarks in video above.

:roll:
Why should she be fired? She makes a good point on retributive justice.

What she said was ignoble. Defending it is mean-spirited.


It was also nearly a decade and a half ago the depth of barrel scraping for examples
implies a lack of wealth in the category of NPR crimes. :lol:


I would have went for the watching someone have a heart attack and dieing in front of them, but I couldn't find the audio of that.

I do find it interesting that pandabear didn't see any problem with what Nina Totenberg said though.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

03 Nov 2011, 8:17 am

Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Recently released emails between liberal "journalists," professors and activists have revealed that NPR producer Sarah Spitz fantasized about laughing in Rush Limbaugh's face as he died of a heart attack.

:roll:
Who hasn't?

Inuyasha wrote:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7msrF1V4NeY[/youtube]
Note this NPR employee was not fired for the remarks in video above.

:roll:
Why should she be fired? She makes a good point on retributive justice.

What she said was ignoble. Defending it is mean-spirited.


It was also nearly a decade and a half ago the depth of barrel scraping for examples
implies a lack of wealth in the category of NPR crimes. :lol:


I would have went for the watching someone have a heart attack and dieing in front of them, but I couldn't find the audio of that.

I do find it interesting that pandabear didn't see any problem with what Nina Totenberg said though.


Do you know who Jesse Helms is?
Are his Views your Views?


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

03 Nov 2011, 9:10 am

JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Recently released emails between liberal "journalists," professors and activists have revealed that NPR producer Sarah Spitz fantasized about laughing in Rush Limbaugh's face as he died of a heart attack.

:roll:
Who hasn't?

Inuyasha wrote:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7msrF1V4NeY[/youtube]
Note this NPR employee was not fired for the remarks in video above.

:roll:
Why should she be fired? She makes a good point on retributive justice.

What she said was ignoble. Defending it is mean-spirited.


It was also nearly a decade and a half ago the depth of barrel scraping for examples
implies a lack of wealth in the category of NPR crimes. :lol:


I would have went for the watching someone have a heart attack and dieing in front of them, but I couldn't find the audio of that.

I do find it interesting that pandabear didn't see any problem with what Nina Totenberg said though.


Do you know who Jesse Helms is?
Are his Views your Views?


Is Inuyasha also hoping and fervently praying that Kim Jong Il doesn't stub a toe?



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

03 Nov 2011, 9:15 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJX-2Lrte3U[/youtube]