Fair and balanced? Um ... no

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I agree with you. But to me that's not any bigger knock on Fox than it is a knock on the other channels. I think that most of the other news channels are left of center and it shows in their reporting. I think Fox is right of center and it shows in their reporting.

Do you think it is appropriate for the News Corp to donate to a political party? What would you say if The Associated Press donated to a political party?

I wouldn't care if it were Murdoch privately. Citizens can donate to whomever they want.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Do you think it is appropriate for the News Corp to donate to a political party?

Yes if they had

But like GM never to be subsidized we already have that god forbidden station PBS who has about 2 good shows and cancelled Monti Python?

[/quote]I wouldn't care if it were Murdoch privately. Citizens can donate to whomever they want.[/quote]

yea right! including that crazy Hsu or not?

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Do you think it is appropriate for the News Corp to donate to a political party? What would you say if The Associated Press donated to a political party?

I wouldn't care if it were Murdoch privately. Citizens can donate to whomever they want.

it is his business.....just because Soros hides his moves!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Do you think it is appropriate for the News Corp to donate to a political party? What would you say if The Associated Press donated to a political party?

I wouldn't care if it were Murdoch privately. Citizens can donate to whomever they want.

I don't know if it truly makes a difference whether a guy donates from his personal funds or his company. It probably doesn't look very good if a news company donates to a political party. I believe Ted Turner used to make large political donations but I don't think he did it through his company (which owned CNN).

[Danzig]

i'm with rupe, i'm not quite sure that since rupert gave the money, you can say his company gave the money. and yeah, ted turner has been vocal in the past on issues.
is fox fair and balanced? of course not. are they they only news outlet that is biased? of course not. but, like so many things, people think those with their viewpoint are right, and those with an opposing view are 'them'.
i don't watch any of the news, preferring to read it so as to glean the facts without seeing/hearing body language, catching side comments, etc. i also read a variety from wsg, to the wash post, ny times, ap, etc.
i saw sean hannity and bill o'reilly mentioned above-they aren't newsmen, are they?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i'm with rupe, i'm not quite sure that since rupert gave the money, you can say his company gave the money.

You've got it backwards. Rupert didn't give the money. News Corp gave the money.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't know if it truly makes a difference whether a guy donates from his personal funds or his company..

Are you aware of what is happening to Target and Best Buy right now? The corporation donated to support a blatently anti-gay candidate. The consumer and shareholder (read: bosses, owners of the companies) backlash is solid, strong, and increasing daily.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Are you aware of what is happening to Target and Best Buy right now? The corporation donated to support a blatently anti-gay candidate. The consumer and shareholder (read: bosses, owners of the companies) backlash is solid, strong, and increasing daily.

I'm sure that's going to kill their business. You should short those two stocks.

[Riot]

You don't want nothing but bad Facebook press during such stagnant times. http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx...=1&Category=26

The internet can cause millions of dollars in damage and everlasting bad PR, and it doesn't much matter if something is true or false (for false, see Proctor & Gamble having to spend a couple million to "prove" Febreze Kills Dogs was a false internet rumour, from a few years back)

Shareholders Demand Changes As Target Boycott Rolls On
Published: August 21, 2010
http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx...=1&Category=26

Institutional shareholders are demanding Target overhaul its campaign donation policies as a boycott over an anti-gay donation gains steam, the Los Angeles Times reported.

On Thursday, three management firms announced they have sponsored a resolution demanding the retail giant rethink its donation policies to avoid future potential political hot button issues.

The action comes just days after the progressive group MoveOn.org launched a new ad urging shoppers to boycott the retail giant for contributing $150,000 to MN Forward, an independent political fund supporting Tom Emmer, the anti-gay Republican nominee for Minnesota governor. The Minnesota-based business apologized for the donation but rejected a request from the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation's largest gay rights advocate, to give an equal amount of money to a pro-gay candidate.

Tim Smith, a senior vice president at Walden Asset Management, which is sponsoring the resolution along with Calvert Asset Management and Trillium Asset Management, cautioned that “imprudent donations can potentially have a major negative impact on company reputations and businesses if they don't carefully and fully assess a candidate's positions.”

While together the firms hold $57.5 million of Target stock, it's only a small fraction of the company's outstanding shares. However, other institutional shareholders are considering signing on to the resolution.