What is Digg?206 Comments
- bhowell, on 10/10/2007, -7/+44Here are Wikipedia links for current lists of assets owned by the companies mentioned in the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_General_Electric
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_CBS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Viacom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Disney
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Time_Warner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corporation - dukeeeey, on 10/10/2007, -10/+30The media all work together to ***** over you, the american people.
People think that fox news is a front for the republican party. Well on the surface that is how it appears, however Murdoch is helping fund Hitlery Clinton. What does that tell you ?
Murdoch to host fundraiser for Hillary Clinton
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/61faabde-deb8-11da-acee-0000779e2340.html
Just goes on and on. Murdoch loves Hilary.
If you want to find out what's going on. Read alternative media. - suxmonkey, on 10/10/2007, -38/+58They certainly do. I can only scratch my head and drop my jaw so many times at people accusing the media of having a liberal bias ... the only instance I can think of is NPR, and I'd hesitate to call it 'bias' - more like 'intelligence'
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+22Ted Turner sold CNN a long time ago.
- nixfu, on 10/10/2007, -18/+33BZzztt Wong.
Media companies board rooms... maybe not so liberal.
Media Companies ON AIR TALENT, WRITERS, EDITORS, and PRODUCERS..... **VERY LIBERAL** - airiox, on 10/10/2007, -11/+26There are prominent newscasters that are very liberal. Have you ever heard of Katie Couric? She nearly cried when John Kerry lost the election. It was hilarious to see the depressed faces of Matt Lauer and Katie Couric the morning after the election. George Stephanopolous is ABC's head political analyst and he was on Clinton's staff. He does a very good job, but he does sometimes let his personal feelings get in the way of the truth. Not gonna waste my time naming everyone that has a clear liberal bias, but to deny that newscasters slant and distort the news to their own liking would be the most naive thing you could do.
- jdfalk, on 10/10/2007, -8/+16God I hate digg. Between the yuppies screaming "Ron Paul" (of which I am a supporter) or the idiots screaming "Impeach Bush!" or the always wonderful "The media lies to us and the sheeple believe it" you just want to bash your head in. What happened to the days of true objectiveness. What happened to the days when digg wasn't full of ***** who only want to push their own agenda. Most of you are as bad as the big bad biased media.
- thescimitar, on 10/10/2007, -8/+16Why are you so angry? I think you need to relax and recognize that news outlets are neither liberal nor conservative... they're businesses. Businesses are responsible only to their shareholders; to maximize their profits. Therefore, successful businesses market products that people consume. It doesn't matter whether people like the product or not, only that they consume it.
If you believe for a second that any... ANY new outlet shares your beliefs: liberal, conservative, space-ghost, then you are seriously deluding yourself. If Fox sudden found its viewership severely trending towards its competitors, it would drop the conservative act faster than you can say "boo." - Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Cue the guy about to cue in conspiracy theorists using it as an unbacked insult against them in 3...oh wait, too late.
- AwesomeAndy, on 10/10/2007, -10/+18So of the six companies listed, exactly one (GE) has anything to do with the military, and another builds and designs nuclear equipment (you know, that power source that could significantly reduce dependence on fossil fuels?), while the rest own some radio and TV stations. Can someone explain to me how this makes them part of the military-industrial complex? Buried down.
- MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9I think they should be biased toward the truth. The truth is seldom in the center of the extremes.
- AzBats, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Going by that evidence then they are also controlled by Walmart and the Gates Foundation and listeners like you (if you join up).
- LowRentDiggs, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Because Clinton has a fair shot at being the next president. Don't be too distracted by brown nosing or herring of any color.
- orpheum, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Indeed, the list is quite old and certainly inaccurate now.
For instance, WCW doesn't exist anymore. It was purchased by WWE and dissolved.
Viacom now owns CBS and all it's prior assets.
Rupert Murdoch/News Corp. owns far more properties than are on the list right now. MySpace for instance, which News Corp bought not too long ago. - ScienceDoc, on 10/10/2007, -28/+34The liberal bias thing was careful branding by the neocons to control the message. Sadly, the sheeple feel for it.
- thescimitar, on 10/10/2007, -7/+13Do you just not understand capitalism, or do you really think that there is a super-secret-liberal-agenda-club waiting to bash you over the head with their crazy "multiculturalism?" Christ on a cracker, there are a lot of left-right trolls on digg now. These companies are BUSINESSES. BUSINESSES. Get it through your heads. They exist for one purpose, to make their share-holders money. They don't give a crap whether you're liberal or conservative, only that their programming draws viewers, and therein, advertisers. I would think that conservatives would understand this simple reality better than liberals, ffs.
- sodade, on 10/10/2007, -8/+14"They are the ones pushing political correctness and multiculturalism and gay & lesbian issues down our throats all day."
Are you ***** kidding me? It seems to me that the right is the ones who keep babbling on about gays and how they are destroying the fabric of their "perfect" little families. - mithrasinvictus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7FTA: "General Electric donated 1.1 million to GW Bush for his 2000 election campaign"
Your document accounts for only $302.750 and that was spent spent on "congress members serving on defense related committees". Or were you trying to prove your own point? (didn't work on me) - mtekk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Both GE and Westinghouse are designers of nuclear equipment (turbines, reactor facilities, etc.).
- amg503, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8This is something many people seem to forget, or just leave out intentionally. He no longer even sits on the Board. He has no control over CNN... at all.
- OrigamiRonin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9This UCLA report has been pretty thoroughly discredited. Just read the methodology that they used and it is amazing that anyone could claim any kind of conclusion from it, much less hold it up as proof of anything. They compare the number of references to various think-tanks and hold it up as proof of bias. They labeled the RAND corporation as liberal even. It's like comparing the amount of water in two glasses and then saying that it proves something about the sea level.
- Pfhreak, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9"You think maybe there is a connection between these two facts and the liberal media bias that conservatives have complained about since the 80's?" No. The "liberal media" lie has been around at least since Nixon, who accused the media of liberal bias as a way to explain away all the negative press he was getting during Watergate.
- wendelgee2, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8I've listened to them for 10 years now and they aren't shifting anywhere. They give you every facet of the issue, period.
- GroundLifter, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11Agreed...NPR is one of the few out there trying to report the news and paint an honest picture of American life. That's what you get when your money doesn't come almost entirely from advertisers. Otherwise in one way or another you are beholden to the people who pay your bills.
- mtekk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I thought Microsoft sold their assets in MSNBC.
- MindFork, on 10/10/2007, -7/+12Sorry, but NPR barely scratches the surface. They are basically financed by the Rockefellers. "This programming made possible by donations from The Rockefeller Foundation." They're better than Fox Noise Channel, but they are still controlled by big money.
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5ever heard of talking points memos? perhaps you remember the msnbc brass canceling the donohue show because he dared to have guests who questioned the reasons for the iraq war. his show was canceled right before we went to war, despite being one of msnbc's highest viewed shows.
- WNW3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I'm happy to see you refer to Matt Lauer and Katie Couric as newscasters and not journalists. The Today show is not a news program. It is news entertainment. Frankly it fails at both.
Whoever the jackhole at CBS was who decided Couric could be a hard hitting reporter was on crack. She asked Connie Rice if she had a boyfriend on 60 minutes! WTF is that?!?!? - rowlodge, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6meh, news is lights and fireworks period.
- wiggles, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10Journalists donate money to democratic candidates more than republican candidates by an obscenely large margin. According to this article at MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/), "MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties."
- OrigamiRonin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Well, here's one example: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001169.html
Many more are available if you do a general web search. A lot of them are naturally from sites on the other side of the spectrum, which doesn't necessarily make them wrong, just be aware and read them with an equally critical eye. By all means, read the UCLA report. Just be sure to read the section about how they came up with the numbers. - jdibiase, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4And TV news ratings have been declining for years, as has the subscription rates for most newspapers. Sounds to me like the viewers and readers are voting with their pocketbooks and TV remote controls.
- Retsep, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9Judy Woodruff on CNN DID cry when Kerry lost. It was quite amusing.
- kaykfrink, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Murdoch is a businessman, pure and simple. As an individual he has conservative views, but as far as his empire goes he just does what ever he thinks gives him the best chance to make money.
In his political contributions this means making sizable donations to any candidate with a decent chance of winning, form any party, for almost any position. This way, no matter who wins, Murdoch has a 'friends' in powerful positions (Presidency, Congress) who can do almost anything he asks despite the political climate at the time.
In his business decisions this usually means finding a market with a few key players and establishing himself at the opposite end of the market. The three big TV networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) were mainly airing warm and fuzzy family centered sitcoms in the 70s and 80s, so Murdock created the Fox network and ran shows that were on the opposite end, namely Married with Children and The Simpsons. Cable news (namely CNN) was/is perceived as having a liberal bias, so Murdock created the Fox News network and made it obvious that the station would skew to the right. - Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Why the ***** is it that if you think the right is trying to take over the world, you're a conspiracy theorist, but if you think the left is NOT trying to take over the world, it's propaganda?
Sounds like the right can do no wrong, and the left are Big Brother... Wow, have you had your objectivity raped. - Shelter22, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If you think the producers and writers have the final say as far as what goes on the air, you don't know ***** about the US media.
- nixfu, on 10/10/2007, -7/+10They have money so they are evil...they should give all their money to us whiners who dont want to work for a living and want free health care, free school, and free pot.
- Mesmorize, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5The media is worthless, they lean left right and every which way and never present the real story.
http://therealnews.com - reed311, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Remember back in 2003 when the media was reporting that invading Iraq would be a bad idea,etc? Oh wait, neither do I because the media hung on every word Bush had to say and scooped it up for truth without any investigative reporting. A "liberal" media would have questioned Bush every step of the way in his build-up to war. Occasionally airing a factual story that makes Bush look bad does not make you a liberal outlet.
- BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"What good fortune it is that men do not think." --Adolph Hitler
"Truth is the enemy of the State." --Joseph Goebbels - BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Ironic that Nixon would have said that, considering he has been quoted as saying that he himself was liberal, and that people around him should strive to be that way. But on the other hand, back then the liberal tag did not have the same connotation as it does now.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"All anyone has to do is watch or read any mainstream media outlet to see that they are left-leaning. It's not a big secret, nor do they generally deny it."
HAHAHAAAA!
/naive - busterbros, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Blockbuster split from Viacom 3 or 4 years ago.
- jbmcb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3So it looks like all these huge companies have only donated to George W. Bush, and, besides owning television stations, build nuclear reactors.
There's some thorough reporting right there. - BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Actually, in the end, it's the producers/editors who choose what gets on air and in print. If they don't want to show something, they don't show it.
- Eljefedeath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It was an honest concern, when your writing is so unreadable that it forces me to stop and re-read your comment, then chances are good everyone else is either ignoring you or judging you to be a moron and moving on. I'm honestly trying to help you.
- JAVandiver, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3No, we need a true Republic. The uneducated masses are not fit for true self rule. Repeal the 17th Amendment! The upper house of Congress "was to be a more deliberate forum of elite wisdom where six year terms insulated the Senators from public opinion". Now all that they try to do is keep their jobs by catering to the proletariat.
- HypocriteDigg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The day you joined.
- reed311, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Great, and the kids behind the counter at McDonalds are probably more liberal than conservative; that doesn't make McDonalds a liberal institution. It comes down to the shareholders.
- gosha83, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This list looks to be quite outdated. News Corps owning Ansett Australia and Ansett New Zealand? These haven't existed since right after the Sydney Olympic Games.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 204 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is