| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14892
Location: on earth
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:51 am Post subject: |
 |
|
right wing media
| Quote: | • Obscene profits. Comcast is already raking it in. The company made $3 billion in profits in 2009.
• Overpaid CEO. Comcast CEO Brian Roberts is one of America's most overpaid CEOs, taking home more than $40 million in compensation last year.
• Bad behavior. Comcast has a long history of blocking union organizing, blocking Web traffic, and even blocking the public from hearings held to investigate its own Internet blocking.
• Tons of lobbying. In the first nine months of 2009, Comcast spent a whopping $13.4 million on 98 lobbyists in Washington. |
here is what Rummys Bain owns...
Clear channel owed by Rummys Bain Capital.
wiki
| Quote: | Radio
With 850 stations, Clear Channel is the largest radio station group owner in the United States, both by number of stations and by revenue. The 850 stations reach more than 110 million listeners every week, and 237 million every month. According to BIA Financial Network, Clear Channel Media & Entertainment recorded more than $3.5 billion in revenues in as of 2005, $1 billion more than the number-two group owner, CBS Radio.[22]
News talk stations owned by Clear Channel usually have a standard slate of hosts. The morning show is usually local, with other timeslots filled by local and syndicated hosts. Programs that appear on many Clear Channel talk stations include theGlenn Beck Program -- getting his talk show start at Clear Channel owned WFLA (AM) in Tampa, The Rush Limbaugh Show, The Sean Hannity Show, America Now with Andy Dean and Coast to Coast AMwith George Noory, all of which are affiliated with Premiere Radio Networks in some fashion. The Savage Nation (which was until September 2009 flagshipped at Clear Channel's KNEW-910), The Mark Levin Show and The Dave Ramsey Show are non-Premiere shows who air on many (if not most) Clear Channel stations. Limbaugh is almost universally carried on Clear Channel stations in markets where the company has a news talk station (there were some exceptions, although the last was eliminated in late 2011). New Clear Channel talk radio stations have typically been using the branding "Rush Radio," while most older ones use a more generic "News Radio" or "News Talk."
While most of Clear Channel's news/talk stations carry some combination of Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage and Noory (of Coast to Coast AM), this is not always the case. Many stations (particularly in the larger markets) like KFI, KFYI, KOA,WZZR and WLW broadcast a lineup with significant local programming.
Clear Channel does not operate any all-news radio stations. For a brief time in the late 2000s, KFXR in Dallas ran a direct feed of HLN under the on-air name CNN 1190, but KFXR dropped that format in 2009. Almost all of Clear Channel's primary talk stations are affiliated with Fox News Radio for national news, part of a multi-year deal between Clear Channel and Fox.
Liberal talk radio is heard on a few of Clear Channel's stations, primarily secondary to its main news talk stations, and usually feature at least one local host with Dial Global programming; Air America Radio also aired on these stations. Clear Channel has shown a tendency to drop liberal talk affiliations whenever possible and replace it with satellite Fox Sports talk (see, for instance, WCKY, WARF, KLSD, WXKS [which currently runs the Clear Channel conservative talk format instead], and WINZ); this has, in a few rare circumstances, caused protests, such as those involved when Clear Channel wanted to make the same move with WXXM in Madison, Wisconsin (WXXM was eventually allowed to keep its liberal format).
|
in a right wingers mind he is the so called victim of the liberal media... again clear channel the largest radio owner put on fox news and not one national show of a liberal, but soooooooooooooo many right wing ones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14892
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
wiki
| Quote: | Politico is an American political journalism organization based in Arlington, Virginia, that distributes its content via television, the Internet, newspaper, and radio. Its coverage of Washington, D.C., includes the U.S. Congress, lobbying, media and the Presidency.[2] It was a sponsor of the 2008 Republican Presidential candidates debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library on May 3, 2007, the 2008 Democratic Presidential candidates debate at the Kodak Theater on January 31, 2008, and the 2012 Republican Presidential candidates debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library on September 7, 2011.
John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei left The Washington Post to become Politico's editor-in-chief and executive editor, respectively, launching the newspaper on January 23, 2007. Frederick J. Ryan Jr., former assistant to President Ronald Reagan,[3] is president and chief executive officer.[4] |
| Quote: | Politico is owned by Allbritton Communications, which owns television stations in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere, all affiliated with the Disney-owned ABC network.
The newspaper has a circulation of approximately 32,000,[5] distributed for free on Capitol Hill and elsewhere in Washington, D.C.[2] The newspaper prints up to five issues a week while Congress is in session, and sometimes publishes one issue a week when Congress is in recess.[6] It carries advertising, including full-page ads from trade associations and a large help-wanted section listing Washington political jobs.
Politico is a partner with several news outlets that co-report and distribute its video, print, and audio content. Partners include CBS News,[7] Allbritton Communications's ABC station WJLA and cable channel NewsChannel 8,[8] radio station WTOP-FM,[9] and Yahoo! News election coverage. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14892
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
libeals are all for disclosure and such but the ownership of the media is blocking it. NAB represents the owners of the media. Just as the right wing backed and took to the supreme court that corporations are people and that corporations should be able to put in as much money as they want into elections including foreign money. No liberal brought that to the supreme court, and it was a political 5 right wing supreme idiots to 4 supreme court justices that rejected this. Not one on the right disagreed.
NAB Sues FCC Over Political Ad Reporting
| Quote: | The National Association of Broadcasters wants to stop the Federal Communications Commission's proposed rules around political advertising disclosure -- and it is taking the regulatory group to court.
The new FCC proposal would require TV stations to reveal the advertising rates they charge to political candidates and political issue advertisers on a special Web site.
The NAB says the new rules would directly and “adversely” impact the NAB and TV stations -- but not that of its other local video competitors in the marketplace, presumably local cable operators and other local TV sales groups
|
Read more: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/175314/nab-sues-fcc-over-political-ad-reporting.html#ixzz1vtDjYepQ
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-greene/post-denver-post_b_813474.html
| Quote: | In my own experience, staying true to the Denver Post brand required a certain type of Stockholm syndrome. It meant internalizing what you figure your boss and your boss's boss might deem inconvenient to print, say, before they hop on the train to Frontier Days with a posse of politicians and advertisers.
Their directives were loud and clear. No mas with the undocumented immigrants, one editor told me. Enough already about police brutality and mental illness, winced another. Ixnay the grit, they warned. And for God's sake, they said, give it a rest about the baby Jesus on the steps of City Hall.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14892
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart
Who Owns the Media?
Massive corporations dominate the U.S. media landscape. Through a history of mergers and acquisitions, these companies have concentrated their control over what we see, hear and read. In many cases, these companies are vertically integrated, controlling everything from initial production to final distribution. In the interactive charts below we reveal who owns what.
http://act.freepress.net/sign/journatic/?source=website_topic_feature
| Quote: | Is there any job that can't be outsourced?
Now even the local news is being sent overseas. Media giants including Tribune Company and Hearst Corporation have outsourced local news — to content farms in the Philippines.
According to a major report from This American Life,1 several prominent media corporations have outsourced local news production in cities like Chicago, San Francisco and Houston to Journatic, a company that hires underpaid workers in the Philippines to create local news stories for newspapers in the United States. |
are journaists allowed to ask their own questions even in a debate?
http://www.freepress.net/blog/2012/09/05/election-2012-year-man
| Quote: |
Ross Perot was a candidate the last time a woman anchored a presidential debate. This was in 1992, when ABC’s Carole Simpson moderated the first-ever town hall-style debate. Unfortunately, she wasn’t given much to do. "I was told in my earpiece by a producer, 'Go interview the lady in the green dress on the left, and now the man in the red sweater,” Simpson recently told the Huffington Post. I had no control over the questions that were asked, or who asked, or in what order. I was like a traffic cop." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This ties into this subject quite well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mitt Romney would lead eight in unskewed data from newest CNN/ORC poll
September 10, 2012
By: Dean Chambers
The latest CNN/ORC poll released today shows a wider lead for President Obama than the previous CNN/ORC poll but it is doubly skewed. It massively under-samples independents while it also over-samples Democratic voters. The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll official reports Obama at 52 to percent and Mitt Romney at 46 percent. Unskewed, the data reveals a 53 percent to 45 percent lead for Romney.
This new CNN/ORC survey, unlike many other analyzed, not only over-samples Democratic voters, but also massively under-samples independent voters, to produce a result more favorable to Barack Obama. This survey's sample includes 397 registered Republicans and 441 registered Democrats. But the survey included a total of 822 registered voters, leaving only 37 independent voters at most. The survey clearly under-sampled independent and Republican voters.
Among the Democrats survey, 97 percent favored Obama while three percent support Romney. The Republicans surveys chose Romney by a 96 percent to two percent margin. Those margins display a high degree of party loyalty in each party for its candidate, which is plausible in a campaign like this one where both sides are focusing heavily on boosting turnout among their base. Independents, who are massively under-sampled in this survey, support Romney by a 54 percent to 40 percent margin.
The sample for the CNN/ORC poll includes 50.4 percent Democrats and 45.4 percent Republicans and appears to have only 4.2 percent independents. This means independents are under-sampled 25 percent while Democrats are over-sampled 12.1 percent. Both of those are larger variations in sampling than seen in most polls that are likewise skewed by such sampling variations.
Rasmussen Reports recent reporting of partisan trends among voters, based on tens of thousands of voters surveyed, showed the voting electorate made up of 35.4 percent Republicans, 34.0 percent Democrats and 30.5 percent “Unaffiliated” or independent voters. Clearly 6.5 percent of a sample as independents is a large under-sampling of those voters compared to 30.5 percent.
Unskewing this data to make up for the likely 25 percent under-sampling of independent voters shows the results are quite different. With the weightings of independents, Democrats and Republicans conducted by the Rasmussen numbers, this poll's data would indicate a Romney lead over Obama of 53 percent to 45 percent. That is almost exactly the reverse of the 52 percent to 46 percent lead it reports in favor of Obama. The sampling skew of this poll actually reverses the result that should be shown by the data.
http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt-romney-would-lead-eight-unskewed-data-from-newest-cnn-orc-poll |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14892
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
but maybe you should check the rommney website for what they think. Here is what the top pollstrer of romney thinks..
http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2012/09/memorandum-state-race
| Quote: | | Don't get too worked up about the latest polling. While some voters will feel a bit of a sugar-high from the conventions, the basic structure of the race has not changed significantly. |
you really should get in touch with him because he seems so out of touch with the alternate reality that your source thinks they know.
now lets look at the worst polling company the one used by Fox...
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/
Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly
| Quote: | | Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen’s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued. |
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-09-07/news/bs-ed-media-bias-20120907_1_liberal-bias-conservatives-mainstream-media
Despite what conservatives say, there's no 'liberal bias' in the mainstream media
| Quote: |
So which argument has the grain of truth to support it? While it is hardly the last word on the subject, another recent Pew study found that "an examination of the dominant or master narratives in the press about the character and record of presidential contenders finds that 72 percent of this coverage has been negative for Barack Obama and 71 percent has been negative for Mitt Romney." |
| Quote: | | Despite much evidence to the contrary, conservatives continue their tired victimization diatribe simply because it suits their purposes. But it only proves what has historically been an important indoctrination tool for authoritarian political regimes: Tell a lie often enough and loudly enough, and eventually people will accept it as the truth. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
And then there's this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The List: Which presidential polls were most accurate?
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The Pew Research Center and Rasmussen Reports were the most accurate in predicting the results of the 2008 election, according to a new analysis by Fordham University political scientist Costas Panagopoulos.
The Fordham analysis ranks 23 survey research organizations on their final, national pre-election polls, as reported on pollster.com.
On average, the polls slightly overestimated Obama’s strength. The final polls showed the Democratic ahead by an average of 7.52 percentage points — 1.37 percentage points above his current 6.15-point popular vote lead. Seventeen of the 23 surveys overstated Obama’s final victory level, while four underestimated it. Only two — Rasmussen and Pew — were spot on.
Here is the list –
1T. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
1T. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
3. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
4. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
5. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*
6T. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
6T. ARG (10/25-27)*
8T. CNN (10/30-11/1)
8T. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
10. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
11. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
12. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
13. FOX (11/1-2)
14. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
15. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
16. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
17. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
18. Marist College (11/3)
19. CBS (10/31-11/2)
20. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
21. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
22. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
23. Newsweek (10/22-23)
http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2008/11/the-list-which-presidential-polls-were-most-accurate/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14892
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think you can see a clear bias when you understand what you just posted here. That the Fox organization right wing polling company could not get it close all year but miraculously gets it correct the first time the day or so before the election. WOW how does that happen....
apples to oranges.... you need to look into what is being said here. do you understand the diffidence in the poll the day before the election vs ones 1-6 months before. do you understand what is meant by the last poll? and when taking into account this was for only one poll vs the other was for a season of polls. How is your math ability?
your link to the data
http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/poll%20accuracy%20in%20the%202008%20presidential%20election.pdf
Note how some of those others did in their last poll; one other companies was done 2 weeks before the election and man were they close.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/pollster_accuracy_and_the_nati.php?nr=1
here is a better view as it SHOEW the MoE
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/pollster_accuracy_and_the_nati.php?nr=1
now here is a very good detailed art.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1266/polling-challenges-election-08-success-in-dealing-with
and here is an analysis of the polls not the next day like the one provided by the right wing sites to promote Rasmussen. this one is after the hand counted and mailed in ballots are counted. and it turns out by all practical purposes 6 were off by only one half percent. another 4 by 1.5% and the 2.5% and only one was 4.5% off for the last poll. but again the issue is the Rasmussen being so off the months before favoring republicans and yet the last poll they are the same as the others.
http://electoralmap.net/2012/2008_election.php
Poll Obama McCain Spread (actual=6.5) Off by
Rasmussen Reports 52 46 6 0.5
Pew 52 46 6 0.5
GWU/Battleground 50 44 6 0.5
Ipsos/McClatchy 53 46 7 0.5
CNN/Opinion Research 53 46 7 0.5
Fox News 50 43 7 0.5
Diageo/Hotline 50 45 5 1.5
NBC News / Wall St. Journal 51 43 8 1.5
Gallup Traditional 51 43 8 1.5
IBD/TIPP 52 44 8 1.5
Marist 52 43 9 2.5
ABC News / Wash Post 53 44 9 2.5
Gallup Expanded 52 43 9 2.5
CBS News / NYT 51 42 9 2.5
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby 54 43 11 4.5
[/img] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14892
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From the NYT there was the cheerleader of going to war. Judith Miller, I wonder how much the CIA was paying her. As I noted the CIA at one point had over 400 reporters on their payroll.
the liberals were yelling there was no proof, which as we know was true. yet the so called liberal media did what during the lead up to the illegal war in Iraq.
wiki
| Quote: | Suggestions of insufficiently critical media coverage
A FAIR study found that in the lead up to the Iraq War, most sources were overwhelmingly in favor of the invasion.
In 2003, a study released by Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting stated the network news disproportionately focused on pro-war sources and left out many anti-war sources. According to the study, 64% of total sources were in favor of the Iraq War while total anti-war sources made up 10% of the media (only 3% of US sources were anti-war). The study stated that "viewers were more than six times as likely to see a pro-war source as one who was anti-war; with U.S. guests alone, the ratio increases to 25 to 1."[100]
In February 2004, a study was released by the liberal national media watchdog group FAIR. According to the study, which took place during October 2003, current or former government or military officials accounted for 76 percent of all 319 sources for news stories about Iraq which aired on network news channels.[101] |
here is a real glaring example.
remember when the media played the Dr. Dean yell about 100k times in a several week period. What Liberal would think that is news? I would not have even played it 2 times. But more importantly it was taken out of context, the scums of the media removed all the background noise that caused him to yell so loud. Again they used an isolation mic. Can anyone think of any liberal media that would do that to him. again not one shred of journalistic value. and unfair out of context.
here is a link to hear the actual audio and what the right wing media did to it.
http://www.ithaca.edu/looksharp/deanscream.pdf
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1176
| Quote: | | The press corps' essentially political objections to Dean's anti-establishment approach (on view most clearly in his call to break up big media conglomerates—Hardball, 12/1/03) |
http://www.baylorfans.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-50872.html
| Quote: |
NEW YORK (Feb.  - It probably means little now to Howard Dean, but CNN's top executive believes his network overplayed the infamous clip of Dean's ''scream'' after the Iowa caucuses.
Instead, the cable and broadcast news networks aired Dean's Iowa exclamation 633 times - and that doesn't include local news or talk shows - in the four days after it was made, according to the Hotline, a Washington-based newsletter. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3598
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They played it in the belief folks would listen and buy their soap powder, not for politics.
Media outlets do anything for money.
Want Gingrich to read liberal news in a clown suit while Karl Rove dances in the background in an American flag speedo?
They are willing and the networks are too, if we would watch it. |
|
| 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
