Does Fox News Coverage = Republican Campaign Contribution?

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


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

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Nov 2011, 12:37 pm

pandabear wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
pandabear wrote:
According to Conservative Commentator Stephen Colbert

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... t-official

Fox News and the Republican Party have plans for an all-white wedding.

And, why would a company that pretends to provide "news" give money to Republican candidates?


According to the courts, that is legal.

ruveyn


The million bucks that Fox News gave to the Republican Governor's Organization had to be reported. But, what about their in-kind contribution of non-stop cheerleading for the Republican party? Shouldn't that also be reported as an in-kind contribution?

And, what other news media outlet actually gives away millions of dollars in cash to political causes?


More like which one hasn't, the real question should be which one has the honesty to report it.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Nov 2011, 1:51 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
pandabear wrote:
According to Conservative Commentator Stephen Colbert

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... t-official

Fox News and the Republican Party have plans for an all-white wedding.

And, why would a company that pretends to provide "news" give money to Republican candidates?


According to the courts, that is legal.

ruveyn


The million bucks that Fox News gave to the Republican Governor's Organization had to be reported. But, what about their in-kind contribution of non-stop cheerleading for the Republican party? Shouldn't that also be reported as an in-kind contribution?

And, what other news media outlet actually gives away millions of dollars in cash to political causes?


More like which one hasn't, the real question should be which one has the honesty to report it.


Okay. Which other media outlets have given millions of dollars away to Republican causes?



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Nov 2011, 1:55 pm

pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
pandabear wrote:
According to Conservative Commentator Stephen Colbert

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... t-official

Fox News and the Republican Party have plans for an all-white wedding.

And, why would a company that pretends to provide "news" give money to Republican candidates?


According to the courts, that is legal.

ruveyn


The million bucks that Fox News gave to the Republican Governor's Organization had to be reported. But, what about their in-kind contribution of non-stop cheerleading for the Republican party? Shouldn't that also be reported as an in-kind contribution?

And, what other news media outlet actually gives away millions of dollars in cash to political causes?


More like which one hasn't, the real question should be which one has the honesty to report it.


Okay. Which other media outlets have given millions of dollars away to Republican causes?


I wasn't saying they were donating to Republicans, I'm saying they were giving to Democrats. The idea that most of the media has a Conservative bias is rather ridiculous, they have a liberal bias.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Nov 2011, 2:03 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
pandabear wrote:
According to Conservative Commentator Stephen Colbert

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... t-official

Fox News and the Republican Party have plans for an all-white wedding.

And, why would a company that pretends to provide "news" give money to Republican candidates?


According to the courts, that is legal.

ruveyn


The million bucks that Fox News gave to the Republican Governor's Organization had to be reported. But, what about their in-kind contribution of non-stop cheerleading for the Republican party? Shouldn't that also be reported as an in-kind contribution?

And, what other news media outlet actually gives away millions of dollars in cash to political causes?


More like which one hasn't, the real question should be which one has the honesty to report it.


Okay. Which other media outlets have given millions of dollars away to Republican causes?


I wasn't saying they were donating to Republicans, I'm saying they were giving to Democrats. The idea that most of the media has a Conservative bias is rather ridiculous, they have a liberal bias.


No, they're mostly conservative in their bias. Fox News is just plain ridiculous. How much money did they give to Democrats, then?



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Nov 2011, 2:06 pm

pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
pandabear wrote:
According to Conservative Commentator Stephen Colbert

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... t-official

Fox News and the Republican Party have plans for an all-white wedding.

And, why would a company that pretends to provide "news" give money to Republican candidates?


According to the courts, that is legal.

ruveyn


The million bucks that Fox News gave to the Republican Governor's Organization had to be reported. But, what about their in-kind contribution of non-stop cheerleading for the Republican party? Shouldn't that also be reported as an in-kind contribution?

And, what other news media outlet actually gives away millions of dollars in cash to political causes?


More like which one hasn't, the real question should be which one has the honesty to report it.


Okay. Which other media outlets have given millions of dollars away to Republican causes?


I wasn't saying they were donating to Republicans, I'm saying they were giving to Democrats. The idea that most of the media has a Conservative bias is rather ridiculous, they have a liberal bias.


No, they're mostly conservative in their bias. Fox News is just plain ridiculous. How much money did they give to Democrats, then?


pandabear, the mainstream media is left wing, you've lost this argument before...



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Nov 2011, 3:23 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
pandabear wrote:
According to Conservative Commentator Stephen Colbert

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... t-official

Fox News and the Republican Party have plans for an all-white wedding.

And, why would a company that pretends to provide "news" give money to Republican candidates?


According to the courts, that is legal.

ruveyn


The million bucks that Fox News gave to the Republican Governor's Organization had to be reported. But, what about their in-kind contribution of non-stop cheerleading for the Republican party? Shouldn't that also be reported as an in-kind contribution?

And, what other news media outlet actually gives away millions of dollars in cash to political causes?


More like which one hasn't, the real question should be which one has the honesty to report it.


Okay. Which other media outlets have given millions of dollars away to Republican causes?


I wasn't saying they were donating to Republicans, I'm saying they were giving to Democrats. The idea that most of the media has a Conservative bias is rather ridiculous, they have a liberal bias.


No, they're mostly conservative in their bias. Fox News is just plain ridiculous. How much money did they give to Democrats, then?


pandabear, the mainstream media is left wing, you've lost this argument before...


No, I didn't lose the argument. I won. And, see? The "mainstream media" did not give millions of dollars to the Democrats.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Nov 2011, 4:20 pm

pandabear wrote:
No, I didn't lose the argument. I won. And, see? The "mainstream media" did not give millions of dollars to the Democrats.


They were only about 1,000 volunteer press secretaries.

Anyways, PEW Research found some information in 2008 that torpedos your statements.

http://www.journalism.org/node/13436

Looks like Fox News actually did have the most balanced coverage of the bunch. :lol:



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Nov 2011, 7:38 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
No, I didn't lose the argument. I won. And, see? The "mainstream media" did not give millions of dollars to the Democrats.


They were only about 1,000 volunteer press secretaries.

Anyways, PEW Research found some information in 2008 that torpedos your statements.

http://www.journalism.org/node/13436

Looks like Fox News actually did have the most balanced coverage of the bunch. :lol:


Did you read your article?

Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Nov 2011, 10:08 pm

pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
No, I didn't lose the argument. I won. And, see? The "mainstream media" did not give millions of dollars to the Democrats.


They were only about 1,000 volunteer press secretaries.

Anyways, PEW Research found some information in 2008 that torpedos your statements.

http://www.journalism.org/node/13436

Looks like Fox News actually did have the most balanced coverage of the bunch. :lol:


Did you read your article?

Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.


Yes, and you apparently didn't look at the graphs which contradicted that quote.

If you had looked at the actual data you would know that the left wing PEW research was lieing about the results of their data.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Nov 2011, 10:09 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
No, I didn't lose the argument. I won. And, see? The "mainstream media" did not give millions of dollars to the Democrats.


They were only about 1,000 volunteer press secretaries.

Anyways, PEW Research found some information in 2008 that torpedos your statements.

http://www.journalism.org/node/13436

Looks like Fox News actually did have the most balanced coverage of the bunch. :lol:


Did you read your article?

Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.


Yes, and you apparently didn't look at the graphs which contradicted that quote.


or more precisely you misread the graphs


_________________
?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/


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Nov 2011, 10:24 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
No, I didn't lose the argument. I won. And, see? The "mainstream media" did not give millions of dollars to the Democrats.


They were only about 1,000 volunteer press secretaries.

Anyways, PEW Research found some information in 2008 that torpedos your statements.

http://www.journalism.org/node/13436

Looks like Fox News actually did have the most balanced coverage of the bunch. :lol:


Did you read your article?

Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.


Yes, and you apparently didn't look at the graphs which contradicted that quote.


or more precisely you misread the graphs


More like you didn't bother to read the article.

Here is an example of something that sounds dubious at best:
The distinct tone of MSNBC—more positive toward Democrats and more negative toward Republicans—was not reflected in the coverage of its broadcast sibling, NBC News. Even though it has correspondents appear on their cable shows and even anchor some programs on there, the broadcast channel showed no such ideological tilt. Indeed, NBC’s coverage of Palin was the most positive of any TV organization studied, including Fox News.
http://www.journalism.org/node/13436

I put the part that shows they are lieing through their teeth in bold.

Anyways here is another nice little tidbit:

Image

Compared to their coverage of Obama

Image

If you look at the negative coverage

Negative 40 for McCain and 40 for Obama
Neutral 38 for McCain and 35 for Obama
Positive was 22 for McCain and 25 for Obama

I'll let you look at how the media in general did and you'll see that Pew Research Center inadvertantly showed they are not very credible anymore, and that Fox News was actually the least biased of the bunch cause they did their best to play it right down the middle.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Nov 2011, 11:14 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
No, I didn't lose the argument. I won. And, see? The "mainstream media" did not give millions of dollars to the Democrats.


They were only about 1,000 volunteer press secretaries.

Anyways, PEW Research found some information in 2008 that torpedos your statements.

http://www.journalism.org/node/13436

Looks like Fox News actually did have the most balanced coverage of the bunch. :lol:


Did you read your article?

Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.


Yes, and you apparently didn't look at the graphs which contradicted that quote.


or more precisely you misread the graphs


More like you didn't bother to read the article.

Here is an example of something that sounds dubious at best:
The distinct tone of MSNBC—more positive toward Democrats and more negative toward Republicans—was not reflected in the coverage of its broadcast sibling, NBC News. Even though it has correspondents appear on their cable shows and even anchor some programs on there, the broadcast channel showed no such ideological tilt. Indeed, NBC’s coverage of Palin was the most positive of any TV organization studied, including Fox News.
http://www.journalism.org/node/13436

I put the part that shows they are lieing through their teeth in bold.

Anyways here is another nice little tidbit:

Image

Compared to their coverage of Obama

Image

If you look at the negative coverage

Negative 40 for McCain and 40 for Obama
Neutral 38 for McCain and 35 for Obama
Positive was 22 for McCain and 25 for Obama

I'll let you look at how the media in general did and you'll see that Pew Research Center inadvertantly showed they are not very credible anymore, and that Fox News was actually the least biased of the bunch cause they did their best to play it right down the middle.


Think hard with you big boy brain.

and look at the part I bolded re-read try to figure out context.


_________________
?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/


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Nov 2011, 11:17 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

Think hard with you big boy brain.

and look at the part I bolded re-read try to figure out context.


I would recommend you heed your own advice, cause it looks like you aren't thinking things through.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Nov 2011, 11:29 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:

Think hard with you big boy brain.

and look at the part I bolded re-read try to figure out context.


I would recommend you heed your own advice, cause it looks like you aren't thinking things through.

Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.

Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.
Quote:
on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere.


_________________
?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/


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Nov 2011, 11:53 pm

Spamming something that is an example of how Pew isn't being entirely honest, really doesn't help your case JakobVirgil.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Nov 2011, 11:59 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Spamming something that is an example of how Pew isn't being entirely honest, really doesn't help your case JakobVirgil.


they are saying the Nightly broadcast news i.e. local news tends to be less biased, less ideological
as well as giving its viewers the lowest scores on news quizzes followed by Fox news watchers.
This is true.


_________________
?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/