| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bajaDean
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 289
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:21 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1003638361
Study Finds Conservatives Rule Op-Ed pages -- With George Will as King
By Dave Bauder
Published: September 11, 2007 3:05 PM ET
Quote:
| Quote: | NEW YORK George Will's column runs in more newspapers than any writer in the nation, according to a new study by a liberal media watchdog group that concludes conservative voices such as his dominate editorial pages.
.....
Will's syndicated column runs at least once a month in 368 newspapers with more than 26 million in total circulation, said the Media Matters for America. The organization surveyed 96 percent of the nation's 1,430 English-language daily newspapers.
"He reaches half of the newspaper readers in America," said Paul Waldman, the study's author. "He has a huge megaphone, probably bigger than anybody else in America."
His group found that 60 percent of the daily newspapers print more conservative syndicated columnists each week than liberals. Twenty percent of the papers are dominated by liberals and 20 percent are balanced. Media Matters had no information on local columnists.
...
Both Will and Shearer said they believe that Media Matters is right, that conservative columnists have a wider reach than liberals. It may partly be because publishers lean conservative, and editorial page editors often report to them, Shearer said. |
I have many more links and sources should you like more verification....
But I would like to see some of what you have is anything... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 2154
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fox is the Rights mouthpiece because there is money in it.
Money.
Newspaper are mostly centrist because their reader base is shrinking and that is perceived as bringing the widest audience to buy advertisers products.
Fox will hire either Lester Maddoxs zombie or Rachel Maddox at any moment if they thought there was money in it.
Same for every money losing media outlet, which is why there is Talk Radio.
Excuse me. I meant -The same for ANY media outlet.
Murdoch himself runs many mainstrean news outlets and uses the same stories but tells them different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bajaDean
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 289
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
here is the most disturbing analogy over the entire thing that i clearly see because of the defense contractor and right wing ownership of the media with not one partisan liberal controlling any radio or tv media.
Liberals raise whatever they can to get the message out in the form of commercials. And who do we give our money too but right wing owned media. And these right wing owned companies take it and spend it on more right wing propaganda.
As a side note, ever see those Hi I am doctor deep and I get this oil out of the ground so my mother can drive to buy her food. Or the hi I Dr so and so researcher am researching the next cure for my mothers big toe disease. Note they will flood us with these ads about election time, even more than political ads. These ads by the oil and healthcare pharma drug companies do not count as political ads. Same with the drug company one, nothing there to make you switch, just right wing political propaganda. But I say hogwash. These ads are not to get you to switch from shell oil to BP. they are politically motivated but do not count because they are not mentioning a candidate. They spend huge sums on these. Remember the one against the clintons the year they were elected, Ozzie and harriet saying they do not want government in their decisions,. This was pidley money for the healthcare industry but just in those adds they spent almost as much as it cost to get elected for president in that election cycle. a drop in the bucket to them for that. Again not counted as political.
as we have heard just one righty person in the upcoming election cycle is saying he is going to put in more than half of the total that the dems will raise. Again that is just one guy with oil interests. That is how much money these corporations have and have always used in more discrete ways. it is just now the citizens united has made it possible that corps can do unlimited and name a candidate.
Last edited by bajaDean on Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:31 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 3361
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This didn't quite ring true when it was posted, but it took me a while to remember how we got there:
In keeping with his general pattern of being thoughtful, techno did a little research that turned up the 1996 Act--well before Obama, you think?---but that really wasn't the genesis of this program. The idea of subsidizing one group of users with another was in fact a business practice of AT &T, and the genesis of phone programs was the settlement agreement of the anti-trust litigation which resulted in the break-up of AT &T--in 1982. At that time, we all had land lines. A little background:
| Quote: | In 1982, AT&T and the Department of Justice settled the antitrust case against AT&T. AT&T agreed to break itself up into several firms in 1984. One firm, AT&T, provided long-distance service, and seven other firms ("Baby Bells") provided local telephone service in different regions. The Department of Justice apparently felt that a vertically integrated telephone company, one that provided local and long-distance service, was not required for productive efficiency, or that there were other offsetting gains from the divestiture.
According to the Department of Justice, the vertical structure of the company provided an opportunity for unfair competition against other providers of long-distance service. For example, by charging high local rates or by providing poor local service to other providers of long-distance service (which require local service), AT&T could harm long-distance competitors. Another concern of the Department of Justice was the difficulty of monitoring cost-shifting among AT&T's regulated (telephone) and other relatively unregulated businesses (such as the manufacture of telephones and other equipment). The resulting breakup of the telephone company presumably mitigated the government's concerns. |
A nice pithy quote from http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id310.htm captures the magnitude of the stakes at the time:
| Quote: | | It was a battle of giants, with the federal government taking on American Telephone & Telegraph, the world's largest corporation with assets valued at $125 billion, which made it bigger than U.S. Steel, General Motors and Exxon combined. The second largest employer in the nation -- the federal government was the first -- AT&T employed over one million people. It had three million stockholders, the most of any American company. It made a daily profit of $15 million, using 1.7 million miles of wires, cable and circuitry to handle 600 million calls a day. AT&T was a federally regulated "authorized" monopoly, providing 80 percent of U.S. telephone service, but in 1974 the Justice Department filed an antitrust suit against Ma Bell, accusing it of forcing operating companies to purchase equipment from its Western Electric subsidiary, of undercutting competitors' prices, and of obstructing a 1968 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruling that customers could connect non-Bell equipment to phone lines. |
Now there are legitimate criticisms of settling anti-trust concerns (during the Reagan administration, to be sure) with an agreement that is not dynamic, when the communications industry was just on the cusp of a dramatic transformation. There are equally valid conservative concerns about the FCC and Congress trying to fix these concerns with the 1996 legislation--still in the middle of a dramatic period of change in communications. I tend to favor economic incentives and disincentives in-lieu of regulation where such an approach would be more flexible and equally or more effective. But I don't get to make these decisions--and Obama did not either.
So you have a 1996 legislative requirement, stemming from at 1982 anti-trust settlement blamed on Obama. It is not a surprise that such blame comes from a commentor quick to think the worst of those who disagree with him politically, and inept at fact finding. Such is the anger that drives the conservatives--anger over the wrong things, fed by organizations like Crossroads and passed on by those who think the worst of all to the left of them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
