Fox News donates $1 million to GOP campaign organization

[JoeTheJuggler]

From the CNN story:

Quote:

The Democratic National Committee called into question Fox News' objectivity Tuesday after it was reported that the cable network's parent company – News Corporation – recently donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association.

So whenever a politician is on Fox News, we have to keep in mind that "fair and balanced" actually means unabashedly partisan.

Lest there be any doubt what the RGA is, this is from their own website:

Quote:

The Republican Governors Association is the key to a GOP Comeback. Our primary mission is to help elect Republicans to governorships throughout the nation. . . .

and

Quote:

Our political team has experience running state parties and winning gubernatorial campaigns. As a result, we understand that governors’ races take unique strategies and a comprehensive approach. The RGA runs political campaigns that go far beyond simply running negative TV ads in the last few weeks before the election.

[elbe]

And CNN's parent company, Time Warner, gives a lot of money to more left wing groups or people.

Starting 08, GE started giving more money to left wing groups, but before that it appeared to lean right wing. Opensecrets.org lists them as on the fence.

Newscorp doesn't show up in their top 124, but so what? Who doesn't know where Murdoch leans?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by elbe

And CNN's parent company, Time Warner, gives a lot of money to more left wing groups or people.

But this isn't a case of a parent company doing something. This is Fox News (News Corporation) itself.

ETA: This would be analogous to CNN or CBS rather than Time Warner and GE making large partisan campaign contributions. Also, Fox is the news outlet that goes around claiming to be "fair and balanced". I think CBS makes no bones about its slightly left-leaning editorial position. (I don't know about CNN.)

Also, there's a difference between having an editorial position (such as "left leaning") and outright partisanship.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by elbe

Newscorp doesn't show up in their top 124, but so what?

Could be opensecrets hasn't taken into account this recent $1 million donation yet.

Quote:

Who doesn't know where Murdoch leans?

Apparently the people who still promote Fox News as "fair and balanced".

[elbe]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

But this isn't a case of a parent company doing something. This is Fox News (News Corporation) itself.

ETA: This would be analogous to CNN or CBS rather than Time Warner and GE making large partisan campaign contributions. Also, Fox is the news outlet that goes around claiming to be "fair and balanced". I think CBS makes no bones about its slightly left-leaning editorial position. (I don't know about CNN.)

News Corporation is the parent company of Fox news. From your own quote:

Quote:

after it was reported that the cable network's parent company – News Corporation – recently donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Could be opensecrets hasn't taken into account this recent $1 million donation yet.

Could be, but the bottom of the "Heavy Hitters" list is $4,632,215 so maybe News Corp hasn't racked up that much.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by elbe

News Corporation is the parent company of Fox news.

You don't see any difference between the relationship between Fox News and News Corporation and CBS and GE?

News Corporation owns Fox News and little else.

At any rate, from the page you cited about Time Warner: their contributions reflect their interest in issues regarding their industry and have gone to both Republicans and Democrats (over the 20 year period the D/R ratio has fluctuated from 52/47% to 85/15%). Again the Fox donation is to an organization with a partisan agenda only.

[elbe]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

You don't see any difference between the relationship between Fox News and News Corporation and CBS and GE?

News Corporation owns Fox News and little else.

At any rate, from the page you cited about Time Warner: their contributions reflect their interest in issues regarding their industry and have gone to both Republicans and Democrats (over the 20 year period the D/R ratio has fluctuated from 52/47% to 85/15%). Again the Fox donation is to an organization with a partisan agenda only.

First off, List of assets owned by News Corporation shows a lot more than just Fox News.

I'm not saying they aren't partisan, just that corporations make donations to parties and PACs that support their agenda or are in their own best interests. Singling out News Corp just seems counter productive. We all know Fox is biased, and News Corp is also, though probably less, biased. What new information are we to gain out of seeing them donate a "measly" million dollars to a partisan group when that's what we'd expect from them?

[mortimer]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

News Corporation owns Fox News and little else.

Seriously?

Movie industry:
20th Century Fox
20th Century Fox Espanol
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
20th Century Fox International
20th Century Fox Television
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Fox Studios Australia
Fox Studios LA
Fox Television Studios
Blue Sky Studios

Television:
FOX Broadcasting Company
FOX Sports
FOX Sports Australia
FOX Television Stations
MyNetworkTV

Cable:
FOX Business Network
Fox Movie Channel
FOX News Channel
FOX College Sports
FOX Sports Enterprises
FOX Sports En Espanol
FOX Sports Net
FOX Soccer Channel
Fuel TV
FX
Nat Geo Wild
National Geographic Channel United States National Geographic Channel Worldwide
Speed
STAR
Stats, Inc.

Satellite:
BSkyB
FOXTEL
Sky Deutschland
SKY Italia

Newspapers:

AUSTRALASIA
Daily Telegraph
Fiji Times
Gold Coast Bulletin
Herald Sun
NT News
Post-Courier
Sunday Herald Sun
Sunday Mail
Sunday Tasmanian
Sunday Territorian
Sunday Times
The Advertiser
The Australian
The Courier-Mail
The Mercury
The Sunday Mail
The Sunday Telegraph
Weekly Times
Big League
Inside Out
donna hay
ALPHA

UNITED KINGDOM
News International
News of the World
The Sun
The Sunday Times
The Times
Times Literary Supplement

UNITED STATES
New York Post

INTERNATIONAL
The Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal Digital Network
Dow Jones

[McHrozni]

Oh my, an openly pro-Republican company dared to donate a significant amount of money to their reelection campaign. It's the end of the world as we know it I'm sure.

In similarly shocking news, Earth keeps orbiting the Sun, more at 11.

McHrozni

[JoeTheJuggler]

OK, I stand corrected. I didn't realize News Corp was indeed a real parent company for all of Fox's stuff.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by elbe

I'm not saying they aren't partisan, just that corporations make donations to parties and PACs that support their agenda or are in their own best interests.

But again, there's a difference between a news outlet being partisan and a company making donations in the company's self-interests. In other words, you're lumping donations in a company's interest and donations that support an agenda or political ideology.

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Oh my, an openly pro-Republican company dared to donate a significant amount of money to their reelection campaign. It's the end of the world as we know it I'm sure.

First, I never claimed it was shocking or the end of the world or any such a thing. In fact, it's pretty much what I'd expect.

Second, Fox News at least is not openly pro-Republican. They still claim to be "fair and balanced".

[elbe]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

But again, there's a difference between a news outlet being partisan and a company making donations in the company's self-interests. In other words, you're lumping donations in a company's interest and donations that support an agenda or political ideology.

Who's to say giving money to right wing groups isn't in their best interest? At the very least it helps support the Fox News viewer base's political agenda, and what's good for their costumers is good for them.

On the other hand, I think Fox News (via News Corp) should give money to the Dems, because when the Dems are in charge it's probably easier to rile up their viewers. But I doubt they'd get away with that.

ETA: If you want to see what people at News Corp are doing you can look at Campaignmoney.com.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by elbe

Who's to say giving money to right wing groups isn't in their best interest? At the very least it helps support the Fox News viewer base's political agenda, and what's good for their costumers is good for them.

On the other hand, I think Fox News (via News Corp) should give money to the Dems, because when the Dems are in charge it's probably easier to rile up their viewers. But I doubt they'd get away with that.

Looks like you answered your own question there.

Again, I see a difference between partisanship and self interest. (Not that I think either are very ethical.) The fact that partisanship can be construed as self-interest and it can also be construed as contrary to self-interest sort of shows that it's not the same thing.

But mostly, I think Fox News should admit overtly that it is partisan and stop the "fair and balanced" charade.

For example, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch quotes the Pulitzer Platform as their editorial policy:

Originally Posted by Pulizter

I know that my retirement will make no difference in its cardinal principles, that it will always fight for progress and reform, never tolerate injustice or corruption, always fight demagogues of all parties, never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty.

I would find it less problematic if they donated money to campaigns and causes that were consistent with this policy than if they claimed to be "fair and balance" yet donated to purely partisan organizations.

ETA: But again, I admit I was dead wrong on the relationship of Fox News to News Corporation. I really thought this was a decision made by the same people who set editorial policy.

[elbe]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Looks like you answered your own question there.

Again, I see a difference between partisanship and self interest. (Not that I think either are very ethical.) The fact that partisanship can be construed as self-interest and it can also be construed as contrary to self-interest sort of shows that it's not the same thing.

But mostly, I think Fox News should admit overtly that it is partisan and stop the "fair and balanced" charade.

For example, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch quotes the Pulitzer Platform as their editorial policy:



I would find it less problematic if they donated money to campaigns and causes that were consistent with this policy than if they claimed to be "fair and balance" yet donated to purely partisan organizations.

I agree that the Fox News "fair and balanced" claim is more about a catch phrase than any attempt at accuracy, but that make no statement about the parent company.

For comparison: How fair and/or balanced MSNBC might be says nothing about how politically balanced GE should be.

But I think this is going to just go 'round in circles. I consider News Corp's donation to be a non-story. Others, obviously, disagree with me.

Quote:

ETA: But again, I admit I was dead wrong on the relationship of Fox News to News Corporation. I really thought this was a decision made by the same people who set editorial policy.

I don't know the structure at Fox News or News Corp but there could be some crossover between them.

[The Charnel Expanse]

There's far too much emphasis on balance and not nearly enough emphasis on conscientious reporting of facts. The problem with Fox isn't that it's slanted in one direction or another, or that it's brimming with opinion/commentary shows. The problem is that their hosts and guests routinely lie without consequence. And in addition to this they peddle fake scandals/controversies in order to drive the news cycle.
THAT is what makes them a propaganda outfit, and not a news network. Not the fact that they're obviously slanted. You can push opinion without constantly lying in the process. They haven't figured that out.

[Cleon]

There are few people who still maintain the fiction that Fox News is somehow objective and unbiased.

The reality is, whether you like it or not, the court ruling allowing for-profit entities to contribute directly to electoral campaigns pretty much opened the floodgates to this sort of activity. A few weeks ago, Target got some flack for contributing to Tim Pawlenty's campaign in Minnesota. (The GLBTQ community was particularly incensed.) The difference between the two is that Target angered many of its customers with its actions; however, I don't expect many Fox News viewers to angrily stop watching because FNC's propaganda support for the Republicans has finally translated into financial support.

[Spindrift]

Originally Posted by Cleon

There are few people who still maintain the fiction that Fox News is somehow objective and unbiased.

Those few would include Fox News itself.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Spindrift

Those few would include Fox News itself.

Exactly.

And probably also their most loyal audience.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by elbe

I consider News Corp's donation to be a non-story.

Now that I've been schooled on the relationship between Fox News and News Corporation, I rather agree with you.

Again, I wrongly thought this was a decision made by the same people making editorial policy decisions at Fox News.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Now I'm less sure. I just heard a piece on NPR where Murdoch was asked about whether or not News Corp should support the Tea Party, and he said that they shouldn't support the Tea Party or any other party. The piece also noted that News Corp's donation was the single largest campaign donation this year. It further noted that News Corp has not given anything to any Democratic campaign.

[elbe]

Did he really equate the Tea Party with political parties?
It's entirely possible he's talking out of both sides of his mouth, I believe Murdoch is a man who'll heavily push his political agenda through his companies.

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

The piece also noted that News Corp's donation was the single largest campaign donation this year.

Oddly, opensecrets says this about the Republican Governors Association:

Quote:

In the second quarter, the Republican Governors Association received three donations more than a million dollars: $1,480,000 from the Michigan Chamber of Congress, $1,000,000 from David Koch of Koch Industries and $1,000,000 from News America Inc., a subsidiary of News Corp. The largest donation to the Democratic Governors Association was $500,000 which came from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

So it looks like the News Corp donation isn't the largest donation given just to that one group. So I guess one of them is wrong.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by elbe

Did he really equate the Tea Party with political parties?
It's entirely possible he's talking out of both sides of his mouth, I believe Murdoch is a man who'll heavily push his political agenda through his companies.

In the little sound bite they played, right after he said that, he said something to the effect of "but don't hold me to that" (not in those words).

Quote:

Oddly, opensecrets says this about the Republican Governors Association:


So it looks like the News Corp donation isn't the largest donation given just to that one group. So I guess one of them is wrong.

Or I relayed what I heard on the radio wrong. Let me check. . . .

ETA: Here's the story I heard, but the print version is a subset of the audio, and the audio isn't yet available (but should be any minute now): http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=129277651

For the point in question, the story said (my bolding), "News Corp.'s million-dollar gift represents one of the largest single donations to any American political party this election season." So I got it a little wrong.

On the other hand, OpenSecret's article is a bit wrong as worded. It says there have been 3 donations "more than $1 million", then lists just one that's over a million, two for $1 million--including News Corp's-- and one for half a million. To me, the factual statement should say that there has only been one donation larger than News Corp's--and only one other equal to it.

[elbe]

As I didn't hear the report on NPR, but I guess if it was just a political pundit it could have been they just didn't know about the Michigan Chamber of Congress donation.

[elbe]

Yeah, I just looked up the NPR story. I'm sure on the radio its easier to miss words later when you can't just glance at the quote written anywhere.

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

On the other hand, OpenSecret's article is a bit wrong as worded. It says there have been 3 donations "more than $1 million", then lists just one that's over a million, two for $1 million--including News Corp's-- and one for half a million. To me, the factual statement should say that there has only been one donation larger than News Corp's--and only one other equal to it.

Accepting the "more than a million dollars" actually means "more than or equal to a million dollars", 500 thousand one is a comparison number for the Democratic Governors Association. The OpenSecrets article wasn't about the News Corp donation, just how the Republican Governors Association is doing on donations for the second quarter, so they had no reason to single out the one donation in that way.

Either way, it's a decent chunk of change, but the republican party best supports Murdock's agenda so it's not too surprising who the recipients are.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by elbe

Accepting the "more than a million dollars" actually means "more than or equal to a million dollars"

Hmmm. . .seems to me that they should have worded it that way. "More than" really should mean "more than".

At any rate, being equal to the second largest certainly qualifies as "one of the largest". (And from the OpenSecrets article, it sounds like these are the largest single donations.)


The audio is up on the NPR story now.

Murdoch said, "No I didn't think we should be supporting the Tea Party or any other party [pause], but I'd like to investigate what you're saying before I condemn anyone." (The question asked was whether or not Fox talk show hosts should support the Tea Party.)

I think the comments of that guy (Burns) who used to work for Fox were spot on--about it going further and further to the right, further and further blurring the difference between news and opinion. I think there is also a valid criticism of Fox for becoming more and more a soapbox for the GOP. Again, having an ideology--even one that happens to line up much of the time with those of a party--is still different from being overtly partisan.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

But again, there's a difference between a news outlet being partisan and a company making donations in the company's self-interests. In other words, you're lumping donations in a company's interest and donations that support an agenda or political ideology.

Oh, by all means, let's not lump them together!

On the one hand, we have for-profit corporations cynically exploiting political corruption to feed their greed. Joe thinks this is pretty okay, compared to...

.. the other hand, on which we have for-profit corporations that for some reason choose to spend their money in defense of their political ideals. What wankers these fellows must be!

Joe, of course, following the lead of the noble news outlets he approves of, talks a good game about political ideals, but when it comes to putting his money where his mouth is, he makes sure to spend it on politicians that will put more money into his pockets, regardless of their ideology.

Isn't that right, Joe?

[elbe]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Joe, of course, following the lead of the noble news outlets he approves of, talks a good game about political ideals, but when it comes to putting his money where his mouth is, he makes sure to spend it on politicians that will put more money into his pockets, regardless of their ideology.

Isn't that right, Joe?

If we want to look at the news outlets themselves.

CNN has given $21,710 to the democrats and $11,500 to the republicans over every cycle since 1990.

MSNBC is split between the channel and the website, but together $5,250 to the democrats over that same 20 year period (specifically during the 2008 cycle).

I don't see anything from FNC, just News Corp (primarily the "News America" subsidiary). However, News Corp doesn't appear to be that big of a lobbyist, at least from what I can find. So take that as you will.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Joe thinks this is pretty okay, compared to...

.. the other hand, on which we have for-profit corporations that for some reason choose to spend their money in defense of their political ideals. What wankers these fellows must be!

Joe, of course, following the lead of the noble news outlets he approves of, talks a good game about political ideals, but when it comes to putting his money where his mouth is, he makes sure to spend it on politicians that will put more money into his pockets, regardless of their ideology.

Isn't that right, Joe?

Not even remotely. You're living in a dream world.

I said nothing like what you said.

In fact, my primary and consistent criticism has been that Fox News claims to be non-partisan but is becoming more and more overtly partisan. In fact, I even showed an example of an editorial policy that fully admits to being progressive (what people now call "liberal") and makes no pretense at not having an ideology. Fox claims to be "fair and balanced" and non-partisan, yet everyone knows this is a lie.

And I never ever said that I have no problem with other large political campaign contributions (the ones for self-interest). I merely note that being inconsistent with one's stated position is more odious. (ETA: I think it's also odious of corporations to spend huge amounts of money that basically circumvents the democratic process, but at least they're not claiming they're not doing what they're doing.)

In other words, Fox should come up with a stated editorial policy that admits that they are largely a mouthpiece for the GOP.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by elbe

If we want to look at the news outlets themselves.

CNN has given $21,710 to the democrats and $11,500 to the republicans over every cycle since 1990.

MSNBC is split between the channel and the website, but together $5,250 to the democrats over that same 20 year period (specifically during the 2008 cycle).

I don't see anything from FNC, just News Corp (primarily the "News America" subsidiary). However, News Corp doesn't appear to be that big of a lobbyist, at least from what I can find. So take that as you will.

Yes. And News Corp has not given a single dollar to a Democratic campaign. Again, it's a different thing going on, despite what they claim.

They're claiming it's just regular lobbying and that it just so happens that the GOP supports pro-business policies. If that were true, then why do these other companies contribute to both parties?

[MattusMaximus]

Fair and balanced

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Joe, of course, following the lead of the noble news outlets he approves of, talks a good game about political ideals, but when it comes to putting his money where his mouth is, he makes sure to spend it on politicians that will put more money into his pockets, regardless of their ideology.

You're the last guy who should be talking about standing behind what you say.

[elbe]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Yes. And News Corp has not given a single dollar to a Democratic campaign. Again, it's a different thing going on, despite what they claim.

They're claiming it's just regular lobbying and that it just so happens that the GOP supports pro-business policies. If that were true, then why do these other companies contribute to both parties?

Well, I don't think News Corp, as an entity, claims to be fair and balanced, just it's subsidiary FNC. It looks like, campaign donation wise, that they stuck to their "fair and balanced" model and didn't donate to anyone, but I don't hold accounting shenanigans above them.

As for News Corp itself, employees of it have donated to the Dems and the DNC. Obviously employees != the corporation, but corporations have donated through their employees before (probably before certain court cases).

I'm not really trying to defend Fox, I think they use extreme right-wing talking heads on opinion shows as a substitute for actual political news, but this just doesn't look like anything against Fox.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by elbe

And CNN's parent company, Time Warner, gives a lot of money to more left wing groups or people.

Most of the period they are looking at Time Warner was being run by a lifelong Republican who spent nearly half a decade working as a Republican Whitehouse staffer. The again this was for the Ford administration and centrist Republicans like that have largely been pushed out of the party.

The guy running CNN in the early part of the last decade (including the run up to the invasion of Iraq) could be called a far right Republican.

[lomiller]

If it were just Fox it may not be so much of a problem, but there are cities in the US, particularly the South where every single media outlet (TV, Radio, Newspaper) is controlled by NewsCorp or some other far right leaning company like Clear Channel.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by lomiller

If it were just Fox it may not be so much of a problem, but there are cities in the US, particularly the South where every single media outlet (TV, Radio, Newspaper) is controlled by NewsCorp or some other far right leaning company like Clear Channel.

Local news caters to the local people. If there was a market for lefty media then it would exist.

It's all getting academic in the internet age. How many people under 40 get their news from TV any more?

[thaiboxerken]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...to-republicans

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by WildCat

How many people under 40 get their news from TV any more?

9.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Local news caters to the local people. If there was a market for lefty media then it would exist.

It's all getting academic in the internet age. How many people under 40 get their news from TV any more?

I love watching the US news channels. They're comedy gold.

[Walter Wayne]

The stock holder should be annoyed. Doesn't FOX get better ratings when the democrats are doing well? Their interest should be in keeping the democratic party in power.

[elbe]

Originally Posted by Walter Wayne

The stock holder should be annoyed. Doesn't FOX get better ratings when the democrats are doing well? Their interest should be in keeping the democratic party in power.

I suggested something like that earlier, but it would probably backfire. Donations are public knowledge, like this coming out, and with how much hatred the FNC base has for the Dems they'd probably turn on Fox if they caught wind of them giving "aid" to the enemy.