Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
It really is Clinton news network.
Once upon a time, journalists were supposed to be OBJECTIVE. They would get fired if they showed any personal bias. Because the media is now owned by six corporations, it is now expected that the journalists are subjective on behalf of the Corporation that owns it.
Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
It really is Clinton news network.
Once upon a time, journalists were supposed to be OBJECTIVE. They would get fired if they showed any personal bias. Because the media is owned by six corporations, it is expected that the journalists are subjective on behalf of the Corporation that owns it.
This is a fictional time. Review your history... Yellow journalism, Hearst, Pulitzer, Ben Franklin for chrissake. It is a myth. All these links that you post from alt news, etc., do you consider them objective?
Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
It really is Clinton news network.
Once upon a time, journalists were supposed to be OBJECTIVE. They would get fired if they showed any personal bias. Because the media is owned by six corporations, it is expected that the journalists are subjective on behalf of the Corporation that owns it.
This is a fictional time. Review your history... Yellow journalism, Hearst, Pulitzer, Ben Franklin for chrissake. It is a myth. All these links that you post from alt news, etc., do you consider them objective?
BBC news seems objective. They actually report global news!
Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
It really is Clinton news network.
Once upon a time, journalists were supposed to be OBJECTIVE. They would get fired if they showed any personal bias. Because the media is owned by six corporations, it is expected that the journalists are subjective on behalf of the Corporation that owns it.
This is a fictional time. Review your history... Yellow journalism, Hearst, Pulitzer, Ben Franklin for chrissake. It is a myth. All these links that you post from alt news, etc., do you consider them objective?
BBC news seems objective. They actually report global news!
Yeah, but I was talking about the US specifically. I hear you though.
Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
It really is Clinton news network.
Once upon a time, journalists were supposed to be OBJECTIVE. They would get fired if they showed any personal bias. Because the media is owned by six corporations, it is expected that the journalists are subjective on behalf of the Corporation that owns it.
This is a fictional time. Review your history... Yellow journalism, Hearst, Pulitzer, Ben Franklin for chrissake. It is a myth. All these links that you post from alt news, etc., do you consider them objective?
BBC news seems objective. They actually report global news!
Yeah, but I was talking about the US specifically. I hear you though.
Let s create an objective nationally news broadcast in the us!
Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
It really is Clinton news network.
Once upon a time, journalists were supposed to be OBJECTIVE. They would get fired if they showed any personal bias. Because the media is owned by six corporations, it is expected that the journalists are subjective on behalf of the Corporation that owns it.
This is a fictional time. Review your history... Yellow journalism, Hearst, Pulitzer, Ben Franklin for chrissake. It is a myth. All these links that you post from alt news, etc., do you consider them objective?
BBC news seems objective. They actually report global news!
Any good international source is more reliable than US news. Less bias, and you hear different information that you won't hear here merely because it's from a different, global perspective
Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
It really is Clinton news network.
Once upon a time, journalists were supposed to be OBJECTIVE. They would get fired if they showed any personal bias. Because the media is owned by six corporations, it is expected that the journalists are subjective on behalf of the Corporation that owns it.
This is a fictional time. Review your history... Yellow journalism, Hearst, Pulitzer, Ben Franklin for chrissake. It is a myth. All these links that you post from alt news, etc., do you consider them objective?
Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
It really is Clinton news network.
Once upon a time, journalists were supposed to be OBJECTIVE. They would get fired if they showed any personal bias. Because the media is owned by six corporations, it is expected that the journalists are subjective on behalf of the Corporation that owns it.
This is a fictional time. Review your history... Yellow journalism, Hearst, Pulitzer, Ben Franklin for chrissake. It is a myth. All these links that you post from alt news, etc., do you consider them objective?
Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
It really is Clinton news network.
Once upon a time, journalists were supposed to be OBJECTIVE. They would get fired if they showed any personal bias. Because the media is owned by six corporations, it is expected that the journalists are subjective on behalf of the Corporation that owns it.
This is a fictional time. Review your history... Yellow journalism, Hearst, Pulitzer, Ben Franklin for chrissake. It is a myth. All these links that you post from alt news, etc., do you consider them objective?
BBC news seems objective. They actually report global news!
Yeah, but I was talking about the US specifically. I hear you though.
Let s create an objective nationally news broadcast in the us!
There have been some programs and anchors that met that bar. 60 Minutes from 30 years ago, Walter Cronkite during Nam, but news has always served a capitalistic purpose, ultimately.
Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
It really is Clinton news network.
Once upon a time, journalists were supposed to be OBJECTIVE. They would get fired if they showed any personal bias. Because the media is owned by six corporations, it is expected that the journalists are subjective on behalf of the Corporation that owns it.
This is a fictional time. Review your history... Yellow journalism, Hearst, Pulitzer, Ben Franklin for chrissake. It is a myth. All these links that you post from alt news, etc., do you consider them objective?
BBC news seems objective. They actually report global news!
Yeah, but I was talking about the US specifically. I hear you though.
Let s create an objective nationally news broadcast in the us!
There have been some programs and anchors that met that bar. 60 Minutes from 30 years ago, Walter Cronkite during Nam, but news has always served a capitalistic purpose, ultimately.
No it hasn't. It was a public service then, unbiased, unowned, just the facts. Again,
Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
It really is Clinton news network.
Once upon a time, journalists were supposed to be OBJECTIVE. They would get fired if they showed any personal bias. Because the media is owned by six corporations, it is expected that the journalists are subjective on behalf of the Corporation that owns it.
This is a fictional time. Review your history... Yellow journalism, Hearst, Pulitzer, Ben Franklin for chrissake. It is a myth. All these links that you post from alt news, etc., do you consider them objective?
BBC news seems objective. They actually report global news!
Yeah, but I was talking about the US specifically. I hear you though.
Let s create an objective nationally news broadcast in the us!
There have been some programs and anchors that met that bar. 60 Minutes from 30 years ago, Walter Cronkite during Nam, but news has always served a capitalistic purpose, ultimately.
No it hasn't. It was a public service then, unbiased, unowned, just the facts. Again,
Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
It really is Clinton news network.
Once upon a time, journalists were supposed to be OBJECTIVE. They would get fired if they showed any personal bias. Because the media is now owned by six corporations, it is now expected that the journalists are subjective on behalf of the Corporation that owns it.
Which 6 corporations?
And can you please post believable, reliable, and verifiable links to back up your assertion?
Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
It really is Clinton news network.
Once upon a time, journalists were supposed to be OBJECTIVE. They would get fired if they showed any personal bias. Because the media is now owned by six corporations, it is now expected that the journalists are subjective on behalf of the Corporation that owns it.
I can't find the sources I'm thinking of but that is my understanding- that news is far less objective today than once was. It's more show-biz that it was in the 50's through 70's, somewhat in the 80's. The stories are less thorough- mostly little bites of "news" I stopped watching it in preference for more broad reading- anything from BBC to Wall Street Journal to Huffington Post to Business Insider to Mother Jones to NPR... and it's still hard to know what to believe at times. Science and environmental news can be more accurate through more technical sources like realweather.org, NOAA etc.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
It really is Clinton news network.
Once upon a time, journalists were supposed to be OBJECTIVE. They would get fired if they showed any personal bias. Because the media is now owned by six corporations, it is now expected that the journalists are subjective on behalf of the Corporation that owns it.
Which 6 corporations?
And can you please post believable, reliable, and verifiable links to back up your assertion?
Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
It really is Clinton news network.
Once upon a time, journalists were supposed to be OBJECTIVE. They would get fired if they showed any personal bias. Because the media is now owned by six corporations, it is now expected that the journalists are subjective on behalf of the Corporation that owns it.
Which 6 corporations?
And can you please post believable, reliable, and verifiable links to back up your assertion?
Thanks
This is been posted multiple times in the last eight months.
NBC Universal, News Corporation, Turner Broadcasting and Thomson Reuters are among more than a dozen media organizations that have made charitable contributions to the Clinton Foundation in recent years, the foundation's records show. The donations, which range from the low-thousands to the millions, provide a picture of the media industry's ties to the Clinton Foundation at a time when one of its most notable personalities, George Stephanopoulos, is under scrutiny for not disclosing his own $75,000 contribution when reporting on the foundation. The list also includes mass media groups like Comcast, Time Warner and Viacom, as well a few notable individuals, including Carlos Slim, the Mexican telecom magnate and largest shareholder of The New York Times Company, and James Murdoch, the chief operating officer of 21st Century Fox. Both Slim and Murdoch have given between $1 million to $5 million, respectively. Judy Woodruff, the co-anchor and managing editor of PBS NewsHour, gave $250 to the foundation's “Clinton Haiti Relief Fund" in 2010. The following list includes news media organizations that have donated to the foundation, as well as other media networks, companies, foundations or individuals that have donated. It is organized by the size of the contribution: $1,000,000-$5,000,000 Carlos Slim Chairman & CEO of Telmex, largest New York Times shareholder James Murdoch Chief Operating Officer of 21st Century Fox Newsmax Media Florida-based conservative media network Thomson Reuters Owner of the Reuters news service $500,000-$1,000,000 Google News Corporation Foundation Philanthropic arm of former Fox News parent company $250,000-$500,000 Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publisher Richard Mellon Scaife Owner of Pittsburgh Tribune-Review $100,000-$250,000 Abigail Disney Documentary filmmaker Bloomberg Philanthropies Howard Stringer Former CBS, CBS News and Sony executive Intermountain West Communications Company Local television affiliate owner (formerly Sunbelt Communications) $50,000-$100,000 Bloomberg L.P. Discovery Communications Inc. George Stephanopoulos ABC News chief anchor and chief political correspondent Mort Zuckerman Owner of New York Daily News and U.S. News & World Report Time Warner Inc. Owner of CNN parent company Turner Broadcasting $25,000-$50,000 AOL HBO Hollywood Foreign Press Association Presenters of the Golden Globe Awards Viacom $10,000-$25,000 Knight Foundation Non-profit foundation dedicated to supporting journalism Public Radio International Turner Broadcasting Parent company of CNN Twitter $5,000-$10,000 Comcast Parent copmany of NBCUniversal NBC Universal Parent company of NBC News, MSNBC and CNBC Public Broadcasting Service $1,000-$5,000 Robert Allbritton Owner of POLITICO $250-$1,000 AOL Huffington Post Media Group Hearst Corporation Judy Woodruff PBS Newshour co-anchor and managing editor The Washington Post Company
You guys can all call me Matt. I consider everyone a friend. I hate my handle. I didn't realize when I chose a username, that it would be the handle.
Nice to meet you Matt! I'm Levi, rgambs is my wife, rebecca, who goes by becca lol She's the 10club member and I just took over the account for posting here, don't care for my handle either, I want a clever PJ lyric name!
NBC Universal, News Corporation, Turner Broadcasting and Thomson Reuters are among more than a dozen media organizations that have made charitable contributions to the Clinton Foundation in recent years, the foundation's records show. The donations, which range from the low-thousands to the millions, provide a picture of the media industry's ties to the Clinton Foundation at a time when one of its most notable personalities, George Stephanopoulos, is under scrutiny for not disclosing his own $75,000 contribution when reporting on the foundation. The list also includes mass media groups like Comcast, Time Warner and Viacom, as well a few notable individuals, including Carlos Slim, the Mexican telecom magnate and largest shareholder of The New York Times Company, and James Murdoch, the chief operating officer of 21st Century Fox. Both Slim and Murdoch have given between $1 million to $5 million, respectively. Judy Woodruff, the co-anchor and managing editor of PBS NewsHour, gave $250 to the foundation's “Clinton Haiti Relief Fund" in 2010. The following list includes news media organizations that have donated to the foundation, as well as other media networks, companies, foundations or individuals that have donated. It is organized by the size of the contribution: $1,000,000-$5,000,000 Carlos Slim Chairman & CEO of Telmex, largest New York Times shareholder James Murdoch Chief Operating Officer of 21st Century Fox Newsmax Media Florida-based conservative media network Thomson Reuters Owner of the Reuters news service $500,000-$1,000,000 Google News Corporation Foundation Philanthropic arm of former Fox News parent company $250,000-$500,000 Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publisher Richard Mellon Scaife Owner of Pittsburgh Tribune-Review $100,000-$250,000 Abigail Disney Documentary filmmaker Bloomberg Philanthropies Howard Stringer Former CBS, CBS News and Sony executive Intermountain West Communications Company Local television affiliate owner (formerly Sunbelt Communications) $50,000-$100,000 Bloomberg L.P. Discovery Communications Inc. George Stephanopoulos ABC News chief anchor and chief political correspondent Mort Zuckerman Owner of New York Daily News and U.S. News & World Report Time Warner Inc. Owner of CNN parent company Turner Broadcasting $25,000-$50,000 AOL HBO Hollywood Foreign Press Association Presenters of the Golden Globe Awards Viacom $10,000-$25,000 Knight Foundation Non-profit foundation dedicated to supporting journalism Public Radio International Turner Broadcasting Parent company of CNN Twitter $5,000-$10,000 Comcast Parent copmany of NBCUniversal NBC Universal Parent company of NBC News, MSNBC and CNBC Public Broadcasting Service $1,000-$5,000 Robert Allbritton Owner of POLITICO $250-$1,000 AOL Huffington Post Media Group Hearst Corporation Judy Woodruff PBS Newshour co-anchor and managing editor The Washington Post Company
Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
It really is Clinton news network.
Once upon a time, journalists were supposed to be OBJECTIVE. They would get fired if they showed any personal bias. Because the media is now owned by six corporations, it is now expected that the journalists are subjective on behalf of the Corporation that owns it.
Which 6 corporations?
And can you please post believable, reliable, and verifiable links to back up your assertion?
Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
It really is Clinton news network.
Once upon a time, journalists were supposed to be OBJECTIVE. They would get fired if they showed any personal bias. Because the media is now owned by six corporations, it is now expected that the journalists are subjective on behalf of the Corporation that owns it.
Which 6 corporations?
And can you please post believable, reliable, and verifiable links to back up your assertion?
Thanks
This is been posted multiple times in the last eight months.
I just want to make sure my point is clear on this. I agree with you on several points. The television media has been consolidated to the major corps as you say. Old style print media has been consolidated too, not as narrowly but the days of newspapers all being indy are over. Fortunately there are many alternative sources today to fit anyone's preference, style or bias. The common person, however, is getting their info from these big media sources. This means most people get their news from these six sources as you rightly point out.. But I'm not sure how different that is from the 60's into the 90's. During those times, people read their local paper and watched one of the two 30 minute nightly newscasts. So that was a pretty limited source as well.
My point or counter to your point is that, although your statement about ownership is correct, I take issue with the statement that they were objective. With the exception of PBS historically (many say they are left wing shills), the media is profit motivated and have always served the profit motives of their most senior ownership. That's not new or different. Today that's a muti-national corp, in the past it was a smaller corp or individual owner, but still with the same purpose.
Yesterday Rush Limbaugh posted a video that was supposed to be Obama walking around a plane with a big boner.
The video had apparently circulated among the alt right 8 years ago but I don't remember seeing it. It was an obviously doctored video. Pretty ridiculous.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Maybe they endorsed her two, five, ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty or forty years ago but who cares? She's got my vote, one step away from world domination (insert evil devil cackle laugh here).
Comments
Once upon a time, journalists were supposed to be OBJECTIVE. They would get fired if they showed any personal bias. Because the media is now owned by six corporations, it is now expected that the journalists are subjective on behalf of the Corporation that owns it.
Read about the Maine, the Mexican War and the role that newspapers played in getting into the wars with lies that benefited the owners.
Any dead pools on who's going to end up dead?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
And can you please post believable, reliable, and verifiable links to back up your assertion?
Thanks
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6
http://investmentwatchblog.com/only-six-corporations-own-all-mainstream-media-in-the-united-states/
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&hl=en-us&biw=320&bih=460&q=who+owns+the+media+2016&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5yIDb1tfPAhXDVD4KHQTLCdgQ1QIIwAEoAA
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundation-donors-include-dozens-of-media-organizations-individuals-207228#ixzz4MxqvgYGN
I'm Levi, rgambs is my wife, rebecca, who goes by becca lol
She's the 10club member and I just took over the account for posting here, don't care for my handle either, I want a clever PJ lyric name!
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/washington-elector-hillary-clinton-rejection-229647
I just want to make sure my point is clear on this. I agree with you on several points. The television media has been consolidated to the major corps as you say. Old style print media has been consolidated too, not as narrowly but the days of newspapers all being indy are over. Fortunately there are many alternative sources today to fit anyone's preference, style or bias. The common person, however, is getting their info from these big media sources. This means most people get their news from these six sources as you rightly point out.. But I'm not sure how different that is from the 60's into the 90's. During those times, people read their local paper and watched one of the two 30 minute nightly newscasts. So that was a pretty limited source as well.
My point or counter to your point is that, although your statement about ownership is correct, I take issue with the statement that they were objective. With the exception of PBS historically (many say they are left wing shills), the media is profit motivated and have always served the profit motives of their most senior ownership. That's not new or different. Today that's a muti-national corp, in the past it was a smaller corp or individual owner, but still with the same purpose.
www.headstonesband.com
The video had apparently circulated among the alt right 8 years ago but I don't remember seeing it. It was an obviously doctored video. Pretty ridiculous.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Maybe they endorsed her two, five, ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty or forty years ago but who cares? She's got my vote, one step away from world domination (insert evil devil cackle laugh here).
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©