Big Media has given more to Democrats than GOP since 1999

[Armstead]

We complain about the media's role in politics, and its subservience to George Bush. But it is a bi-partisan problem, which the Democtrats have helped to create.

According to this interesting table on the website of Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the Big Media companies have given substantially more to Democrats than to Republicans since 1999, by a margin of 59 percent to Democrats and 41 percent to Repubs.

For example, 81 percent of Viacom's contributions went to Democrats during this period. Just something to think about.

I can't reproduce the table here, but you can get to it by the link below.


http://bernie.house.gov/documents/corporate_media/donars_chart.htm

[mmonk]

1. Don't mess up

everyone's thesis :)

[BlueEyedSon]

2. Because of democrats' high principles

and desire to keep democracy workable
they need MORE "incentive".

Rebuplicans would destroy the journalism for FREE.

[JanMichael]

3. That doesn't explain their actions at all.

The actual news programs are sensationalist at best, intentionally obtuse at their worse.

Generally speaking the Media will harp the ruling party's line regardless of the party, mainly because the Presidency literally has a bully pulpet. When a President says something, you pretty much have to air it.

Toss in the fact that Investigative Journalism is being cut due to it's cost and all you've got left is a mouthpiece.

Money is an issue but I just don't see the corellation.

[Armstead]

5. The correlation is....

that Democrats are just as responsible for the mess the media is in, by toadying to Big Media Monopolies, and the conditions that you cited. Much of this money, no doubt, was a "thank you" for 1996 media deregulaiton.

Unless the Democrats stop sleeping with the corporate status quo, it won't ultimately make a difference which party is in power in terms of the overall slide towards a Corporate Oligarchy.

[otohara]

4. Don't Forget The Millions They Threw

at Michael Powell and company to change the rules. They spent tons of dough sending these folks to Europe, Mexico and other lovely places - , hotel accomodations, limos, you name it - first class all the way.

[K-W]

6. Yes, the system is inherently bad

money buys votes, corporations have money.

I am, however not sure of your point here. Are you arguing that the media is not conservative, because if so you arent proving your point. Most companies give close to evenly to both parties. Its the diverse investment approach to politics. The issue with the media isnt parent company donations, but that the right wing has changed the media culture in America.

[Armstead]

7. My point is....

that through lobbying and donations, the media has purchased the acquiescence and cooperation of the Democratic establishment in their objectives to maintain absolute control and lack of accountability to the public interest.

That also creates the conditions that have allowed for the changes that the right wing has imposed on the media.

As long as the Democratic Party stays in bed with the Corporate Oligarchy, there is no way the system will be reformed. And no way the right-wing can be challenged in a fair fight.

[K-W]

9. You have a big chicken and egg problem

As long as the Democratic Party stays in bed with corporations, the system will not be reformed, but as long as elections can be bought, the democrats cant afford to not be in bed with corporations.

If the dems suddenly stopped getting corporate money, the republicans would have such an incredible advantage in all elections that wed have a one party country before we knew it.

This is not to say that the current situation doesnt need to change, it does, but we need to free the dem party from corporate money by either forcing campaign finance reform or building a strong enough grass roots organization on the left that democrats could still win elections without massive advertisement. Both are pretty tall orders, and in the mean time we really cant blame the democrats for thier partial sell out. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place with the current apethetic nation that votes off image and perceptions.

I think your post is simply a little confusing. What that data shows is that business is tied up in both parties, a sad fact, but that is politics today. I dont see how it relates to issues of media bias anymore than the pharmacutical industry doing the same thing.

[library_max]

12. You are exactly correct.

Unless and until Buckley vs. Valeo is overturned, we will have to cope with one-dollar-one-vote. And that means fighting fire with fire, like it or not.

[Armstead]

15. No you get the point

Your post merely explained what the chart illustrates. Both parties are in bed with the media giants. The GOPO currently has a leg upo because they are in power, but the Democratic policies reflected media interests when they had the White House.

[AP]

8. They give to Republicans all day long on TV and radio.

I'd like to see a breakdown of which Dems get all their money. Obviously, Republicans don't need much convincing to help busines, so they must have to ply committee chairpeople with money.

[HFishbine]

10. Selective data

The data is of a group of hand-picked companies. Looking at the industries as a whole (publishing, newspapers, TV, and radio), it's quite clear that a large majority of contributions from these groups go to republicans:

2002 election cycle: http://www.tray.com/cgi-win/x_ee.exe?DoFn=02C

Current election cycle: http://www.tray.com/cgi-win/x_ee.exe?DoFn=04C

[Armstead]

13. The 25 biggest

It was selective because it covered the 25 largest media companies, i.e. the definition of Big Media.

And in the figures you cited, many industries that are not relevent to the issue of media control are included, like equipoment manufacturers.

Also, note under radio boradcasting, they only list two conservative chains, Clear Channel and Salem Media, which greatly skews the total towards Republicans.

This is beside the basic point though. The corruption of the political process in terms of media has prevented both parties from really addresssing the core issue of media reform.

[papau]

21. It is selective data - by the "unbiased" FEC - with "soft money" estimates

that are not real (which is why they are "soft money") and which ignores the value of "paid ads" that pretend to be news programs and talking head discussions.

I just called the Tribune (Chicago) and confirmed with a friend that the Trib gives more to GOP than Dem -- conclusion - these numbers by the unbiased Federal Election Commission are as trust worthy as any economic or dollar number coming out of the Bush administration.

God I get tired on Lies - and I love Bernie and his "I am an Independent Socialist" attitude, but he need not republish Bush lies about Dem media contributions. Where the hell is his brain!???!

:-)

[Armstead]

23. The bigger point is true

I realize stats can be twisted any number of ways.

But the basic point is that the Denmocrats have been just as much in bed with Big Media as the GOP. That helped the present situation.

Unless Democrats get ouit of that bed, and start taking on the issue of Media Reform directly, we will continue in this direction.

[Maeve]

11. I'd like to see that broken down more

By blending the 2000 and 2002 elections, we are left with too many questions--did the companies back the supposed front runner each time? Did money given to Gore for a presidential election skew the balance, for example? And did they back Dems in local but Repubs in national elections? Too many questions, not enough specifics.

I would also note that the editorial support from some of these companies far out-weighs the financial support.

[Armstead]

14. This chart vwas about big media

It was not broken down more specifically because it gives an overvioew of the fact that both parties have benefitted from Big Media, and both curry favor with them.

[Maeve]

19. Gee, political parties curry favor with media

Who would ever guess that might be true? Shocking.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but the chart demonstrates that the chart maker can make a chart to illustrate a point. It does not follow that the point is thereby proven. Other points could be made with other manipulation of the same data. I find it as meaningless as the charges that Agnew made against the "liberal press" when something like 80% of newspaper editorials favored Nixon.

[truizm]

24. Opensecrets.org

opensecrets.org has a lot of info, though not everything you're looking for. From what I've seen the GOP is far more corrupted by corporate influence.

[Cheswick2.0]

16. this is very misleading and frankly the same old "the parties are the same

meme is not going to help anything get better in this country. Bernie is of course part of the third party party and prone to "bbbbut the democrats do it too" arguments.

[Armstead]

37. Bbbbbut they are the same in many respects

The Media bought the Democrats with their lobbying and contributions. Therefore the Democrats also bought into and promoted the Big Media Deregulation agenda.

That's just a fact, and it has to be acknowledged.

[kentuck]

17. Then how do we explain this?

This was posted earlier today...
http://makethemaccountable.com/podvin/media/031208_TheLiarOfRecord.htm

<snip>
Bush earned this vital assistance at the start of the campaign when he became the only competitive candidate in either major party who pledged to completely deregulate the broadcasting industry. Such a change in government policy offered a financial bonanza to the media companies, because their profit margins would increase as mergers resulted in less competition. Gore had supported the partial deregulation of the telecommunications industry in 1996, but prior to the 2000 campaign announced that he opposed the changes advocated by the New York Times Company and the other major communications conglomerates. The vice president claimed that further consolidation of media ownership would deprive Americans of much-needed diversity in reporting.

Gore’s principled decision to oppose media deregulation was the most decisive factor in the presidential election. For most of his career, The New York Times had portrayed Gore as a “boy scout” - a man of “personal rectitude” - but those descriptions were nowhere to be found in 2000. The Times and the other news subsidiaries of America’s media businesses methodically applied a journalistic makeover to the vice president; by the time they were finished, Al Gore’s reputation had been stained with unsubstantiated allegations of duplicity. The Times aggressively promoted the Bush candidacy for the purpose of gaining the deregulation necessary to achieve corporate profit objectives. Without the distorted coverage that presented an honorable candidate as a liar and vice versa, the election would not have been close enough to steal.

Just months after Bush was installed in the Oval Office, the New York Times Company filed documents with the Federal Communications Commission urging the elimination of several long time regulations, including the one that prevented a corporation from owning a newspaper and a television station in the same community. The company owns nineteen newspapers, eight network-affiliated television stations, two New York City radio stations and more than forty websites. Print revenues have stagnated in recent years, so the company was determined to expand its holdings in the lucrative broadcasting industry. It was a goal that could be achieved only if the FCC agreed to alter its policies.
...much more

[Armstead]

20. NY Times endorsed Gore

>From Sunday October 29th. NY Times editorial
http://quarterdeck.mma.mass.edu/pipermail/alumnitalk/2000-November/000541.html

Having listened to their debate, we today firmly
endorse Al Gore as the man best equipped for the
presidency by virtue of his knowledge of government,
his experience at the top levels of federal and
diplomatic decision-making, and his devotion to the
general welfare. We offer this endorsement knowing
that Mr. Bush is not without his strong points and
that Mr. Gore has his weaknesses. But the vice
president has struggled impressively and successfully
to escape the shadow of the Clinton administration's
ethical lapses, and we believe that he would never
follow Bill Clinton's example of reckless conduct that
cheapens the presidency. Like Senator John McCain, Mr.
Gore has been chastened by personal experience with
sleazy fund-raising. He has promised to make campaign
finance reform his first legislative priority, whereas
Mr. Bush is unwilling to endorse the elimination of
special-interest money from American politics.

<snip>

Mr. Gore does have a tendency to be patronizing and
to exaggerate. But he has a career of accomplishment
that can stand on its own without exaggeration.
Despite his uneven performance in the debates, the
content of his campaign in these final days
demonstrates how much he has grown in the last year.
Voting for him is not a gamble on unknown potential.

We support Albert Gore Jr. with the firm belief that
he will go just as far in bringing "honor and dignity"
back to the White House as Mr. Bush, and that he will
bring an extra measure of talent and conviction as
well. His seriousness of purpose, his commitment to
American leadership in the world and his concern for
those less fortunate in American society convince us
that he will lead the country into a creative,
productive and progressive era at the beginning of the
21st century.

[kentuck]

22. But as the article pointed out....

NYTimes endorsed even local candidates that lost. It's not the endorsement that is important - it is the coverage leading up to the endorsement.

[blm]

18. That works for the GOP, though.

They can label the media liberal when it serves their purpose by throwing those numbers around while controlling most of the content from within...like well-placed producers of political shows.

[arewethereyet]

25. as usual when confronted with truth not liked here, spin, divert, dodge

the media is, by and large, liberal. You don't have to like it and you can believe thet it is not liberal enough, but its useless to pretend that it is what it is clearly not.

[truizm]

26. .....

Prove it's liberal.

[Ksec]

29. LOL

I just turned on my TV and there were three far right shows on. Clicked on my radio and found four stations preaching hatred of Liberals , all the while not being able to find one left leaning program. Yea its liberal. What a load of cowdung.

[arewethereyet]

30. three shows out of how many being aired ?

on my cable thats like 100. I have 2-3 radio stations out of 15 that run right-wing. Papers about the same percentage 3-1 liberal in my area.

I don't expect to change anyone's mind on this but it does not make it untrue.

[Ksec]

32. You cant change minds because its not true. Im very open minded

3 channels spewing right wing drivel vs 0 spewing even tame leftist veiws. Thats 100% in my math book.

[arewethereyet]

35. CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS

and at least three of which attains higher ratings than the others combined, are aired via brodcast that all may recieve vs cable.

I hope you are open mnded enough to look at this objectively and come to your own conclusion as opposed to believeing what other suggest.

The facts presented by the original post would be a fine starting point.

[Ksec]

40. Youve shown me not one Liberal site

If you think those are Liberal sites you are in worse shape than I originally thought. Youve been done in by the likes of Rush and Hannity and have actually started believing that stuff they spew.

Look I dont want to start any problems, but those networks are Not Liberal. If they are please point to ONE half hour Liberal show/ One is all I ask. Well Im waiting.........

[arewethereyet]

42. I understand that you are not objective on this subject

not many here are.

I don't listen to the radio at work when Rush is on, I've never seen Hannity or Colmes. I see the news, some special events and the odd entertainment offering.

I don't ask that you alter your opinions, just accept that there are many who do not share them. And I'm leaving out all those who watch nothing but Fox.

[Ksec]

43. Thats cool . I can accept that .

And I dont watch Fox unless I need to throw up.

[arewethereyet]

44. my dog eats grass for that, might be less objectionable

just a suggestion

[Ksec]

46. hehe.. Ill remember that if I ever decide to take up Bulimia.

[Dr Fate]

45. I'd like to know of a Liberal TV show too- what is it called???

I would love to watch this show you are talking about- what is this Liberal show where they expose all of Bush's scandals like they did Clinton???

You mentioned CBS,-the RNC told them not to show the Regan movie, and they obeyed. Even if Dan Rather was a Liberal (Can you name one single "Liberal" postition he has advocated?), well, that is only 30 minutes out of the day- the other News channels are on 24 hours.

That's 30 minutes vs. 23 & 1/2- even if CBS was Liberal, which they are not.

You mentioned CNN- who is the "Liberal O'Reilly" on CNN? Why did Walter Issacson of CNN court Congressional Republicans for suggestions for his network?

You mentioned NBC- owned by Jack Welch- hardly a Democrat. How much did Welch give to the GOP vs. DEMS?

What was NBC's postion on Iraq? Did they report the facts behind the deception, surely known to them as they were to DUers, or did they report Bush's lies as facts?

How much did Clearchannel give to DEMS???

Please guide me to this Liberal TV show so I can watch it- what is it called again?

[Dr Fate]

51. None of the stations you named are reporting the following stories:

1) Cheney's $20 Million dollar technology transfer to Sadddam Hussien, despite sanctions making it illegal

2) Powell's fraudulent Iraq War UN speech that was actually forged documents...

3) Bush's forged documents concerning nuclear materials from Africa...

4) The fact that No Weapons of Mass Desctruction have been found, and that almost all evidence that Bush gave has beeen proven to be lies...

5)Serious Allegations of voting machine quid pro quo & possible fraud...

6) Bush's CIA "Leakgate" Scandal"

7) Ken Lay

etc. etc...Why did we hear all about Gary Condit's (D) dead intern, but nothing about Joey Scarbough's (R) mysterious dead intern in his OFFICE? I could go on and on with actual examples all night...

You say that we dont want to admit that the media is Liberal- but I say if it was really Liberal, they would be reporting these scandals "Monica Style"

If the media is Liberal, then why are we not getting "MOnica Style" coverage of these serious Bush scandals???

[Dr Fate]

53. KICK- I'd like an answer & further debate about this. n/t

n/t

[Armstead]

54. My answer...

I'm not the person you were debating about the "liberal media" but here's my response.

Real journalists do tend to be liberal. The nature of the job is liberal, in that one hopes by exposing problems and telling the truth, people will respond.

There has always been a tension between the newsroom and the business office in media. That's one reason for the famous "wall of seperation" that used to exist.

However, as the media has become more corporate, journalists have been stiufled. The upper echlons are the ones who really determine content nowadays. And they are tending to hire airheads and bimbos, rather than journalists for the front lines.

THere's not necessarily a "political agenda" in terms of promoting one party over the owther. A lot of the lack of initiative is a function of the corporate setup of newsrooms. And the chasing of the Almighty Dollar.

Where the real hanky-panky is in the executive suites. They want to protect and expand their monopolies, and they'll support whoever helps them do that. They'll also support with money the party that is in power.

The problem, related to my original post" is that the Democrats played the same game. They allowed the corporate media to become so large and unaccountable.

[Dr Fate]

55. I wish someone who thought the media was liberal would answer...

...my specific examples. You adressed the issue in general- but when I talk about the "Liberal Media"- I insist we draw on SPECIFIC examples- its not enough to say "most Reporters are Liberal"

If the media was Liberal, then Dick Cheney's business deals with Saddam would be a front page scandal, as would W's specific WMD lies. I could go on and on with specific examples of how the media refuses to report undisputed facts about Bush.

If they are so Liberal, then why are they not reporting & investigating my examples "Monica Style"? These "liberal" reporters had no problem doing this when it was a anti- Clinton or Gore accusation.

[Armstead]

56. "The media" isn't liberal -- Reporters are

I can give you one word why the media got so hot and heavy over Clinton's scandal. SEX. The media bosses wanted ratings and attention....Compare how little play Whitewater got to that.

AS good reporter can try to good work, but it won't go anywhere if she or he doesn't have the support of the higher-ups in the editorial and corporate food chjain.

And as I noted above,honest conscientious reporters are kept out these days. That's why people like Greg Palast have to work in Britan. These days, they hire entertainers and yuppie careerists, usually clueless about the real issues or the gutsier side of journalism.

[Silverhair]

50. Liberal talk radio has already been tried. The trouble is that

no one listens to it.

[truizm]

33. ...

You do realize the same few companies control all those channels, radio stations, newspapers, movie studios, etc. right? I think it's down to 6 companies that control 85% of the media right now or so...General Electric might sell NBC soon and it's gonna start getting even more concentrated.

Radio is notoriously right wring. Clear Channel anyone?

What are the stations that you perceive to be liberal? And why? It's seems a centrist view is considered liberal these days because of the ultra-republicans that dominate the airwaves.

[arewethereyet]

36. Clear Channel owns the alternative stations where I live

as well as the talk radio as well as urban contemporary.

They don't chat up Rush in between raps and marylin manson. (forgive me if I am hopelessly out of touch on the alternative stuff. don't listen unless daughter insists.)

I DO realize that those very six companies want to make money and will air whatever they can sell ads for.

[BootinUp]

38. Have you read Franken's take on this

"Lies and the Lying Liars that tell them."

His point which is very convincing to me, is that the media is driven by money. It can cut both ways. In recent times the republicans seem to have the best use of the media to me.

Liberal positions are generally more time consuming to make, hence the tv coverage sucks.

How many liberal political pundit shows are on tv nowadays?

I think there are plenty of sources to get liberal viewpoints, but you have to know where to look.

[arewethereyet]

39. the media IS driven by money. They are a business like any other.

And cable has raised the competition bar considerably.

I find that "pundit" shows of all stripes tend to represent a relatively tiny percentage of airtime. Those generally tied to broadcast news are left leaning (not aggressively leftist ala Kucinich as that would see no ads at all but left leaning) as their traditional network news people are generally liberal. On cable who have been trying to make some ratings inroads and coming from the disadvantage of not being broadcast they followed the lead of the talk radio and have managed to attract that audience with sensationalism. But in tiny numbers.

However Monday night football dwarfs the lot of them.

I would argue that conservative positions are equally time consuming. This explains the relative lack of success of both.

For a more telling sign, look at primetime which enjoys the lion's share of viewership (and most of the rest of the savannah and jungle for that matter) and note the generally liberal tone, subject matter and even, at times, preaching that occurs.

My work and ten year old leave me little enough time for reading but thanks for the suggestion.

[ModerateSwingVoter]

27. Anyone know which industries give the Democrats more money?

Media, what else? Entertainment companies? The oil companies give more money to the Republicans I think?

[BootinUp]

28. This is interesting but doesn't surprise me.

Any more its just about winning...maybe thats the way it always was.

But occasionally a truly different candidate comes along.

Wesley Clark for President!

[SahaleArm]

31. Not surprising the DMCA got ramrodded in during the Clinton era *nm*

[BootinUp]

34. Don't know the whole story on that

but I think we need serious reform on patent protection, copyrights, and also should take that opportunity to eliminate the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

[NashVegas]

49. DMCA Battle

At the time it was happening, there was a big brew-ha-ha over rap lyrics. You may remember on of the LA area congressional reps making a big stink over it, especially the Interscope label.

Warner Bros. dropped Interscope and let them spin off independent. Bill passed. No doubt there were other things being negotiated over, but that was a big one.

[Dr Fate]

41. How much did Jack Welch & Rupert Murdoch give to DEMS?

Walter Issacson? Clearchannel?

[Armstead]

47. Look at the chart

It lists both.

[Dr Fate]

48. It lists Clear Channels' (75% GOP) but not Jack Welch's contributions...

He owns a hell of a lot more than NBC- he also owns GE and God knows what else. Over all, I'll bet he donates more to Repugs than DEMS.

The chart does not list Walter Issacson's or Rupert Murdoch's overall contributions to Conservative causes either...

I keep this fact in mind whenever I watch (And it is rare) one of these stations, which have no totally Liberal news shows the way they showcase republicans...

[Jacobin]

52. Just bribing congresscritters for deregulation

nothing to see here. Move on