Originally Posted by Chukpike

Actually, that is not the topic.

The article is about possible Presidential candidates not being available on an equal access basis to networks other than Fox. Because they have contracts with FOX and must get permission to talk to other media.

It is not the big deal this article tries to paint. When they announce their candidacy the will have to end their connection to Fox, as the article says:

"Fox, in an e-mail to POLITICO, indicated that once any of the candidates declares for the presidency he or she will have to sever the deal with the network."

It should also be noted that the article is an opinion piece and not straight news. While the article was linked to Yahoo News it came from POLITICO.

http://www.politico.com/

Actually, the moderator has it right. The topic is the bias of Fox News, a statement supported by the facts presented in the article. While the candidate who announces his or her intentions to run for the office, they will have to sever the deal, the fact that in the time leading up to that decision they are forbidden from appearing on any other news program shows that Fox News has EXTREME bias towards the GOP. Reiterated again by the million dollar donation Fox gave to the GOP not too long ago.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

Actually, the moderator has it right. The topic is the bias of Fox News, a statement supported by the facts presented in the article. While the candidate who announces his or her intentions to run for the office, they will have to sever the deal, the fact that in the time leading up to that decision they are forbidden from appearing on any other news program shows that Fox News has EXTREME bias towards the GOP. Reiterated again by the million dollar donation Fox gave to the GOP not too long ago.

Rob, I have no problem with what Foxnews is doing. Just like I would have no problem if CNN or MSNBC or ANY OTHER network did the smae thing.
When you are hired by a company you are expected to work for them only and if you want to work for another company (especially a competitor) you have to get permission.
I find it surprising that you have a problem with this.

Can you provide a source for this million dollar donation to the GOP?

FYI Rob, in
Time Warner owns CNN, News Corp owns Fox News
2008 Time Warner contributed a total of $2,493,229 (82% to Dems, 18% to Reps)
2008 News Corp contributed a total of $1,070,786 (88% Dem, 12% Rep)
2010 Time Warner has contributed $631,480 (86% Dem, 14% Rep)
2010 News Corp has contributed $223,258 (71% Dem, 26% Rep)
http://www.opensecrets.org/industrie...B02&cycle=2010


Find that interesting that this supposed "Conservative" company contributed more to the Dems than the Republicans.

I'm sorry. I've always been under the impression that the politicians worked for the people. NOT JUST their party.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

I'm sorry. I've always been under the impression that the politicians worked for the people. NOT JUST their party.

Again I go back to my issue with elected officials running for another office while still holding the office they were elected to. They cannot serve their constituents while campaigning.

Since the individuals working for Foxnews have not declared and are not currently holding office, they are not yet working for the people. Once they declare their intention to run, their contracts are terminated.
I cannot see a conflict of interest here.

BTW politicians should work for their people irrespective of the parties wishes.

Still waiting on the source you referred to earlier.

Apologies. I'm in class on my phone. Will reply more thoroughly later.

Originally Posted by HokieMSG

Rob, I have no problem with what Foxnews is doing. Just like I would have no problem if CNN or MSNBC or ANY OTHER network did the smae thing.
When you are hired by a company you are expected to work for them only and if you want to work for another company (especially a competitor) you have to get permission.
I find it surprising that you have a problem with this.

I have a problem with Fox News having written contracts with every major Republican hopeful candidate for president (note the distinct absence of anything close to a Democratic hopeful, another instance of bias, but who's counting?). I have a problem with current political players only playing on one side. Quite frankly, if it wasn't for the fact that most of the sheeple who actually adhere to Fox News as "news," I'd say they were stupid for not putting themselves out on as many networks as possible. If they are unable to appear on other news shows without expressed permission from Fox, how will they get the word out to those ever important swing voters? I guarantee you they're not going to take anything said on Fox seriously. Better to find a more widespread broadcast.

Originally Posted by HokieMSG

Can you provide a source for this million dollar donation to the GOP?

Why certainly.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...hits-peak.html

Interesting... He also mentions a donation by the largest health insurance company to the Republican party... I wonder why Republicans are digging in their heels for universal coverage... Oh, maybe it's because they would lose their biggest piggy bank! Yet another example of how selfish they are.

Originally Posted by HokieMSG

FYI Rob, in
Time Warner owns CNN, News Corp owns Fox News
2008 Time Warner contributed a total of $2,493,229 (82% to Dems, 18% to Reps)
2008 News Corp contributed a total of $1,070,786 (88% Dem, 12% Rep)
2010 Time Warner has contributed $631,480 (86% Dem, 14% Rep)
2010 News Corp has contributed $223,258 (71% Dem, 26% Rep)
http://www.opensecrets.org/industrie...B02&cycle=2010


Find that interesting that this supposed "Conservative" company contributed more to the Dems than the Republicans.

That is interesting. Funny how Republicans seem to not need as much money as Democrats. But, aren't Democrats the ones who have been feed with the silver spoon for their entire lives? Aren't DEMOCRATS supposed to be the spoiled, undeserving brats who have never had to really work a day in their lives? Aren't REPUBLICANS supposed to be the blue collar, hard working, hands on types of people? This breakdown would seem to prove otherwise. Thanks for posting, Hokie.

Maybe? Possibly?

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

Apologies. I'm in class on my phone. Will reply more thoroughly later.
I have a problem with Fox News having written contracts with every major Republican hopeful candidate for president (note the distinct absence of anything close to a Democratic hopeful, another instance of bias, but who's counting?). I have a problem with current political players only playing on one side. Quite frankly, if it wasn't for the fact that most of the sheeple who actually adhere to Fox News as "news," I'd say they were stupid for not putting themselves out on as many networks as possible. If they are unable to appear on other news shows without expressed permission from Fox, how will they get the word out to those ever important swing voters? I guarantee you they're not going to take anything said on Fox seriously. Better to find a more widespread broadcast.

It's business Rob. Just business. Are you saying that the fairness doctrine should be applied? Rob, maybe we should revisit this discussion after you have graduated and worked for a little while. Your perspective might change.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

Why certainly.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...hits-peak.html

You seem to have missed that labor contributed $4.4 million to the Dems. About 3 times what was contributed to the Republicans.
You are also misleading folks. These contributions are for the governors races NOT the presidential campaigns as you implied.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

Interesting... He also mentions a donation by the largest health insurance company to the Republican party... I wonder why Republicans are digging in their heels for universal coverage... Oh, maybe it's because they would lose their biggest piggy bank! Yet another example of how selfish they are.
That is interesting. Funny how Republicans seem to not need as much money as Democrats. But, aren't Democrats the ones who have been feed with the silver spoon for their entire lives? Aren't DEMOCRATS supposed to be the spoiled, undeserving brats who have never had to really work a day in their lives? Aren't REPUBLICANS supposed to be the blue collar, hard working, hands on types of people? This breakdown would seem to prove otherwise. Thanks for posting, Hokie.

I think since according to the source you provided, Republicans have more money in the bank, that Republicans are more frugal with their money than the Dems. Yet another example that the Dems generally have NO fiscal discipline. So it would seem that your point has been disproven by the source you yourself provided. Interesting. If you are following the Dem's playbook (as I suspect you are), now is the time to call me a Racist or a Nazi.

Originally Posted by HokieMSG

It's business Rob. Just business. Are you saying that the fairness doctrine should be applied? Rob, maybe we should revisit this discussion after you have graduated and worked for a little while. Your perspective might change.

Ah, so now the people IN the government participate in a business, but the government itself is NOT business? I'm confuzzled. But I'm not entering the traditional workforce. I'm going into music. It's a whole nother ball game there.

Originally Posted by HokieMSG

You seem to have missed that labor contributed $4.4 million to the Dems. About 3 times what was contributed to the Republicans.
You are also misleading folks. These contributions are for the governors races NOT the presidential campaigns as you implied.

Excuse me? Exactly where did I differentiate between Republicans running for governor and Republicans running for president? The GOP is the GOP, whether it is at the city, state, or national level.

The fact still remains that News Corporation donated $1,000,000 to the Republican Governors Association. Now, when a news corporation wishes to be "fair and balanced," wouldn't one hope that that would mean NOT donating significant amounts to ONE party over the other? Or am I too young and naïve to understand that, as well?

Originally Posted by HokieMSG

I think since according to the source you provided, Republicans have more money in the bank, that Republicans are more frugal with their money than the Dems. Yet another example that the Dems generally have NO fiscal discipline. So it would seem that your point has been disproven by the source you yourself provided. Interesting. If you are following the Dem's playbook (as I suspect you are), now is the time to call me a Racist or a Nazi.

Or I could say that Republicans are the more wealthy, upper crust of society that doesn't want to lose it's hard earned (read: inherited) money to the folks on "the other side of the tracks."


Just out of sheer morbid curiosity, what exactly was "my point" that was disproven by my source? That News Corporation somehow DIDN'T donate 1 million dollars to the GOP? I'm fairly certain that is no longer up for contention, and you are simply attempting to twist the topic away from your precious "news channel" looking like less and less of a source for unbiased information and more like a source for radical right wing diatribe spewing 24/7.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

Ah, so now the people IN the government participate in a business, but the government itself is NOT business? I'm confuzzled. But I'm not entering the traditional workforce. I'm going into music. It's a whole nother ball game there.

You're confuzzled? You are entering one of the most corrupt industries there is. Music industry where record producers shoot each other. Cheating on royalties is common place, and entertainment politics gets you work, or gets you black balled.

The music industry makes politicians look like (pardon the pun) choir boys.

The entertainment industry does look like a good fit for you, although it looks like comedy would be a better choice.

I almost always find your posts entertaining.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

Or I could say that Republicans are the more wealthy, upper crust of society that doesn't want to lose it's hard earned (read: inherited) money to the folks on "the other side of the tracks."

Ever here of Franklin D Roosevelt? Theodore Roosevelt?

Nixon, born into wealth. no.
Reagan, born into wealth. no.

You need to learn to rely less on propaganda and more on verifiable information.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

Ah, so now the people IN the government participate in a business, but the government itself is NOT business? I'm confuzzled. But I'm not entering the traditional workforce. I'm going into music. It's a whole nother ball game there.
Excuse me? Exactly where did I differentiate between Republicans running for governor and Republicans running for president? The GOP is the GOP, whether it is at the city, state, or national level.

Rob, That is the point I'm trying to make here. Elected officials ARE working for the government and should not run for another office while holding an elected office. The contributors for Fox are not yet part of the government. They are private citizens. Once they declare their contracts are terminated. This has all been gone over before. You have a complete lack of understanding of this distinction and I will not revisit this as I am having better luck talking to a brick wall.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

The fact still remains that News Corporation donated $1,000,000 to the Republican Governors Association. Now, when a news corporation wishes to be "fair and balanced," wouldn't one hope that that would mean NOT donating significant amounts to ONE party over the other? Or am I too young and naïve to understand that, as well?

What about organized labor? What about Time Warner? They own CNN and Time magazine. You have no problem with them contributing to the Dems in greater amounts than News Corp did? So yes I do consider you naive because Time Warner gave greater than 80% of its contributions to Dems in both 2008 and 2010.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

Or I could say that Republicans are the more wealthy, upper crust of society that doesn't want to lose it's hard earned (read: inherited) money to the folks on "the other side of the tracks."

Ahhh. Here we go. Pretty soon you will be advocating wealth redistibution.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

Just out of sheer morbid curiosity, what exactly was "my point" that was disproven by my source? That News Corporation somehow DIDN'T donate 1 million dollars to the GOP? I'm fairly certain that is no longer up for contention, and you are simply attempting to twist the topic away from your precious "news channel" looking like less and less of a source for unbiased information and more like a source for radical right wing diatribe spewing 24/7.

Rob, In the article you quoted, as I pointed out, the Dems got almost 3x as much money in the same period.

Big Democratic givers for the governors’ races include two Washington-based labor groups, the Service Employees International Union, which donated $1.1 million, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which contributed $3.3 million.

Rob you are obviously taking this a lot more personally than I am. I'm just trying to point out that your arguments don't hold water. I'll bet you watch foxnews more than I do.