colbertnation.com— ColbertNation.com video - Fox News and the Republican Party finally make it official -- their all-white wedding will be beautiful.
Aug 18, 2010View in Crawl 4
You must be one of those right wing wackos. "Every Other News Media Source" Since when is Fox News actually News. That is the point of this. Are you saying the BBC and Al Jazeera are married to the Dems? I mean you did use the word "EVERY." That is typical of right wingers. EVERYONE is out to get them. That is why they need guns. Maybe you forgot the /s.
I know! Trending is weird. Because there was a time not to long ago, that even if we knew DirtyFries was being sarcastic, the lack of an "/s" could get you burrrrrrrrieeeeedddd
General Electric and Time Warner together donated a million dollars to one politician (President Obama). Anyone who watches Fox News, CNN or MSNBC alone are tools. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Because it wasn't until a few months ago (post-Obama election) The Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the rights of individuals I.E. can donate as much money as they'd like to one candidate or party.
Why are you getting dugg down? This is proof that both Time Warner and GE (parent company of NBC [MSNBC]) have directly donated to Democrats, and only Democrats. Not a Republican association like News Corp, but direct candidates!
The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families.
Misleading to say the companies donated the money when it was actually employees and their families. HUGELY misleading.
"The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates. The state-level figures on this page are based on contributions to state candidates, parties and ballot measures during the same period, 2007-2008."
When you donate money to a political campaign, you have to state your employer. So though I donated on my own, somehow somewhere, some idiot thinks my company donated.
a few people already mentioned that the employees donated, not the corp. Also, MSNBC doesn't say it isn't biased, it straight up tells you they are progressive. NBC news plays it very 'neutral', even when neutral is wrong (ex: sometimes the right screams louder and it pushes the 'neutral' point further right). The issue is that Fox keeps promoting themselves as 'Fair and Balanced' when its obvious they are not fair (how many lies and hypocritical statements have come out of fox!) and they are anything but balanced. This $1M donation is just ANOTHER nail in the coffin.
Fox is about as fair and balanced as Digg. Digg is a mostly Left website which spends all it's time attacking Fox, and Fox is a mostly Republican news channel which spends all of it's time attacking Dems. One is the most watched news channel in the US, the other is a website falling out of the top 150 after being in the top 50 until early 2008 when the Left propaganda machine took it over.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
There is a HUGE difference. Digg has no journalistic responsibilities. Digg is a user-driven community. If it is left-leaning, then that is just a byproduct of the majority of people who visit this site. You can essentially chalk it up to, "Well, a lot of people here are liberals, therefore I would expect to see a lot of left-leaning articles."
It is not so harmless for Fox. They use their "news" (LOL) platform to lead conservative/republican voters to believe that they ARE fair and balanced. They purposely misconstrue facts/numbers/statistics/anything they can get their hands on to create an incredibly biased slant...AND THEY ARE A NEWS REPORTING NETWORK. They are SUPPOSED to have some sense of journalistic integrity, but they don't, and never will. They will shamelessly promote their often-ignorant viewpoints so long as it feeds into the conservative/republican mindset and gives a bad name to liberal/democrats. I mean, for gods sake, the other day every single one of their programs was dedicated to trying to find a connection between certain financial donations and the democratic party when, as you can see here, NewsCorp had donated $1M to the Republican party -- but you can bet your ass they didn't mention that.
The better idea is to compare CNN/MSNBC bias to Fox bias, since they are all TV news programs. Even so, no TV news station is as aggressively and shamelessly biased as Fox. Period.
except no other news network have even 1/2 the bias of fox. firstly they dont make up lies, change names, leave out party affiliations of politicians or change them to the other party.
It is nothing short of terrifying to sit down and watch fox news for a couple of hours. It is literally propaganda. They don't back ANYTHING up that they report. They are constantly making unsubstantiated comments. They literally take every single story and use it to condemn obama and the government and/or prop up the right wing/republicans. It is HEINOUS!!!! And worse, blatant!!!!
Their reporting on this new york mosque fiasco is especially troubling. My god, how can they on the one hand believe in freedom, and then turn around and tell muslims they can't build a mosque??? It doesn't even matter if some people are offended, or if the entire city doesn't want the mosque there, it doesn't matter. The constitution doesn't guarantee you won't be offended by things. It isn't an insult to 9/11 victims because "muslims" didn't attack America. Terrorists who happened to be muslims attacked.
They had some douche on fox and friends this morning trying to insinuate that the main imam behind the cultural centre was linked to hamas and iran etc etc. It's f**king ludicrous. And the worst part is, their viewers seem to think it is just a mirror to the so called "liberal main stream media". But that is BULLs**t!!!! There is no liberal main stream media!! Sure there is some bias in reporting, but there can be no truly objective reporting anyway, it's impossible. But what fox does is so far beyond mere bias. Seriously, sit down and watch fox for a few hours. It is unrelenting attacks and fear mongering.
That station is largely responsible for the hatred directed at Obama. Sean Hannity actually called Obama "the anointed one" the other day. It really does reach to the bottom of the barrel of society. It is a SIGNIFICANT obstacle to stability and unity in America.
Yes, I truly fear Fox news' "truth". Anyone claiming to know that truth should NOT be trusted. Circumstance and context is EVERYTHING. But a fox viewer wouldn't know anything about either of those concepts.
Most diggers are liberal and therefore prefer facts over empty rhetoric or lies. Any "news" organization that willfully spreads lies is an enemy of democracy. This was a common tactic in pre WWII Germany, the Fairness Doctrine was initiated to prevent such events from happening in the US. In 1987 the Fairness Doctrine was abolished by a president that was a willful enemy of the middle class. Later that year Rush Limbaugh setup shop, ushering the US Corporate Media takeover of honest news. Fox is the worst of the worst with propaganda, lies, spin, and more lies.
The core of Digg? WTF does that mean? Digg is a place to discuss everything, including news and politics. Why is discussing what a pathetic partisan sham of a news channel Fox is somehow outside that scope?
No different than the intolerant racist libtards, redneck this, racist that...go march in another parade on Mommy and Daddy's corporate earned dime...retards.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Liberals are too busy defending their mosque build out on ground zero (and it is ground zero since the building in question was damaged during attacks). November can't come soon enough. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Oh really? the process was fast tracked like nothing else. I bet you if a Christian church was trying to be built in the area, it would be still wrapped in red tape... oh wait it is!
@FJCruiser. The mosque is still raped in red tape. They do not even have the funding for it. Secondly there are Christian churches all over Manhatten. I have never heard of one being denied the right to be built there. Do you have any sources stating that they have refused to build christian churches in Manhattten.
The Greek Orthodox one, that was actually destroyed in the attacks. yes there are some disagreements, etc, but they were not fast tracked like this community center/mosque. Furthermore, the funding is there for the center. It is coming from Saudi and other 'friendly' countries. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Would you love a conservative with a mouth like this?
"What a racist joke of a Digg story, enjoy your little white upper middle class guilt ridden libtard echo chamber fap fest you assh**e douche bags."
I sure as hell don't. The more you speak like that, the less inclined I am to listen to anything you have to say. So much so that I would say you are an ignorant prick I wouldn't give the time of day.
the problem with mr.2time is that he doesnt understand that respect needs to be EARNED. it's not a right that comes from the most sacred constitution that is never wrong.
why do you hate the constitution and america so much mr. 2time?
@Dymo Who's trying to convince anyone of anything...it's a complete waste of time to try to convince a mindless loser libtard drone of anything (they think they know everything anyways).
@420 "it's not a right that comes from the most sacred constitution that is never wrong.
why do you hate the constitution and america so much mr. 2time?"
The proposed mosque is being built on private property. PRIVATE PROPERTY. Trying to prevent the mosque from being built shows that you people didn't learn a DAMNED thing from 9/11.
Sarah Palin made a hilarious comment about how all the other mosques in new york didn't bring any tolerance, so how will this one do it. Indeed, all those mosques and many Americans are still totally intolerant of muslims.
Look you can be offended all you want, but the bottom line is, those people have every right to build that mosque. Why are you talking about churches? This isn't a f**king contest. Yes the Greek orthodox church won't be rebuilt. I watched the same fox news show that you did. It's hilarious, you can literally predict exactly what a right winger will say based on what was on fox the previous day. You people really are nothing but parrots.
From the Port Authority:
"St. Nicholas Orthodox Church has always had and will continue to have the right to rebuild on its original location. The question was whether public money would be spent to build a much larger church at a separate location on the site and ensuring that construction wouldn't delay the World Trade Center further," spokesman Stephen Sigmund said in a written statement. "On that question, we worked for many years to reach an agreement and offered up to 60 million dollars of public money to build that much larger new church. After reaching what we believed was an agreement in 2008, representatives of the church wanted even more public commitments, including unacceptable approvals on the design of the Vehicle Security Center that threatened to further delay the construction on the World Trade Center and the potential for another $20 million of public funds."
Sigmund said the "final offer" was made last year, which again included $60 million.
"They rejected that offer," he said.
So what is your point? The church isn't being prevented from being built you dumb f**k half wit no nuts dick sucking cum guzzling douche nozzle. It is just encountering delays for various reasons. You stupid f**k wit. Way to start a discussion on a f**king non issue you handicapped ox turd.
enjoy your little white upper middle class guilt! Wait... your not upper middle class? Then you must be poor and envious of all those hard working americans with more money than you!
Apparently being rich and not giving a s**t about other people is the only correct way to live your life.
Apparently pretending to give a s**t about other people while really just being perpetually pissed off that other people are wealthier than you is the way to live yours.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
johnny2time: you're the ONLY person who pretended a person's wealth has anything to do with the discussion. Quit trying to project your own illogical bulls**t onto the people pointing out that it is illogical bulls**t.
Please step away from your computer, drink a nice cold glass of lemonade and take a walk outside, for at least an hour. It'll do you a world of good, I promise.
A drop of water after seven days stranded in the Mojave Desert won't taste as sweet as the refreshing tear drops of pain from millions of white libtards still suckling from mommy and daddy's financial teet watching the dreams of utopia as they scatter like ashes across America come November.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Generally, when people's dreams of utopia scatter like ashes, that doesn't mean good things happen to them. Nice disconnected logic and totally nonsensical word choice, as usual.
I wish I had the luxury of not knowing anyone who takes Rush seriously. I live in Texas, and there are thousands of people here in Austin (the only liberal town in the entire f**king state) who take everything Rush, O'Reilly, Beck, etc. say as gospel. They're not attempting to be funny or amusing; they're piling on anger and vitriol and trying to scare people. You have to be very naive, very stupid and/or on Fox's payroll to say you don't think they're trying to get people to take them seriously.
Until now, the News Corp./Fox political action committee had given 54 percent of its donations to Democrats and 46 percent to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics -- including $8,000 to Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid's campaign committee and $5,000 to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's organization. News Corp. also gave $45,000 each to GOP and Democratic campaign committees on Capitol Hill.
Viacom's Political Action Committee has so far this year contributed 62 percent of its money to Democrats and only 38 percent to Republicans (h/t Lachlan Markay):
Thank you for posting this. Here's more details on the political contributions of News Corp. It is as you say, about 50-50 between the Republican and Democrat.
Yeah, I was thinking about. I don't even know what to belief. f**k. Why the hell can't anyone just give the facts. All I want to know is the total political contributions of News Corp. How much and where did it go. Show me the records. Bah. If the contributions are 50-50 then who gives a s**t. If the contributions are out of wack... well then I suppose you could argue that there's a 'conflict of interest', but that's not necessarily the case. So I guess either way, who gives a s**t. There's no conclusive answers whichever way you go.
The difference between News Corp the COMPANY giving a donation, and the reporting of what INDIVIDUALS who happen to work for that company give as a donation is that before the supreme court's idiotic ruling, corporations couldn't donate from company funds.
I've worked at several companies that have sent out long letters stressing the importance of having the employees donate to republican candidates and all the benefits they can provide to the business (with a sentence acknowledging that the company couldn't legally compel employees to donate to a particular party or candidate).
"What a racist joke of a Digg story, enjoy your little white upper middle class guilt ridden libtard echo chamber fap fest you assh**e douche bags." -- johnny2time
We're the ones with irrational partisan hate, yet you post from an account named after making fun of a prominent liberal pundit and you felt the need to end your post blaming liberals for being petty about partisan politics with the term 'libtards.'
I would try to explain all the things that are wrong with that, but I'm not a certified special ed instructor and you clearly have some... special needs.
I love when notorious trolls call people stalkers for knowing who they are. You spend half your life posting deliberately offensive things to this website; no s**t, some people know you. It's not stalking if you're a blatant attention whore on a public site, dips**t.
"An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans."
"It’s perhaps not a surprise that those working for NBC Universal are the most eager givers to the Democrats, racking up $104,184 in contributions this cycle, compared to just $3,150 to Republican candidates. Maybe more surprising is that those at Fox broadcasting and the Fox News Channel combined to give $41,853 to the Democrats, with no listed donations going to the Republicans. (Only $1,280 was listed as coming from Fox News employees.)" Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Where can I buy what you are smoking and is it legal where you live? Reagan would not have supported one major policy issue that the Democrats support today. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Every single tax bracket that Obama has changed since the Bush years is now closer to Reagan tax levels than they were under Bush.
While Republican fawning admirers have retconned his foreign policy legacy to be all about bringing down the USSR, his primary focus during most of his presidency was working toward the abolition of nuclear weapons.
Reagan championed the idea of constructive engagement in his policy toward apartheid South Africa: the diplomatic principle that it's best to talk to unpopular or problematic foreign regimes rather than trying to isolate them with condemnations and sanctions. Bush moved about as far away from this principle as possible; Obama is a big advocate of Reagan's constructive engagement approach.
Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative was stalled for 8 long years under Bush because Dubya was afraid of pissing off Putin. Within a year of taking office, Obama moved forward on deploying missile defense systems to Poland.
He also increased the national debt threefold, ending decades of relatively balanced budgets with a debt that hadn't changed much since WW2 and beginning the modern era of massive runaway spending. Which is kinda funny, since his own Reaganomics economic 'theory' would reject such a policy while the more mainstream neo-Keynesian model that Obama ascribes to explains exactly why such a fiscal policy might actually be a good idea in some circumstances. Of course, the mid 80's were not those circumstances and the current recession is.... Ok, fine, this is a reason Reagan was an idiot, not a reason he'd approve of Obama's policies, but it's also a reason Republicans crying foul over deficit spending while also paying lip service to Papa Reagan are morons with no knowledge, understanding or memory of the 80's.
Remember how the Administration got a federal circuit judge to strike down Prop 8 in California? Guess who appointed the judge?
It's true, though; Reagan wouldn't have been big on fighting Islamic terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan since he was the one who funded and trained Islamic terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Got us there.
That's about individuals who work for news companies donating to campaigns. News Corp (Rupert Murdoch) runs an entire news conglomerate and dictates most, if not all, of the content.
Oh....I see. Ted Turner is to CNN as Rupert Murdoch is to Fox news. He gives 62% of his money to democrats, 8% to republicans and the remaining to non-partisan groups.
Holy s**t, that is some convoluted math that guy used to come up with his figures. Not that any one should be surprised about that in an article coming from American Thinker via News Busters (a right wing shill group and an outright propaganda machine respectively). Not to mention this article is two years old and came on the heels of a brutal primary season for the democrats which saw unprecedented amounts of money coming in with at least some of that being from right wingers trying stir the pot.
What exactly was the point you were trying to make here?
@ lioozher
"Giving to today's Democrats is basically still giving to people to the right of Ronald Reagan."
Interesting, not only do Democrats have misconceived notions of what conservatives believe, which they state and then attack, but they also are confused about their own party.
The modern American Democrat party has not taken one position to the Right of the Social Democratic Party in Britain.
The Social Democrats have no problem admitting their socialist goals, and in this country, Democrats think they are centrists or even right-leaning. Pure ignorance is all this can be.
There really is no hope for you guys until you educate yourselves in HISTORY and politics.
It's rather surprising that conservatives would tout a blatantly partisan and biased source such as NewsBusters and claim it's a legit source (it's called an appeal to authority-- too bad the authority is a false one).
The chart at the bottom of this page clearly shows that Fox News is biased. They are the only organization in the list who gave more money to McCain then they did to Obama. Clearly biased reporting.
So you don't have a problem that every organization listed contributes to democrats more than republicans by such a wide margin? We rely on most of these organizations for our news. Do you really think that they can be objective?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Considering how much airtime they give to Republicans and their fear mongering election strategies, like the NYC mosque, it seems as though they're going out of their way to be fair to the Republicans, almost biased toward them. When's the last time you saw a Republican rep/senator on any news channel being fact checked? The only one I can think of in recent memory is Anderson Cooper, who just asked from proof from a Texas state senator and a U.S. rep who were screaming about nonexistent terror babies.
You are so delusional. I almost wish I could be in the same room as you when the democrats get creamed this election to watch you have a total meltdown. After Bush beet Kerry there were news reports about people suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome and I always wondered who was f**ked up enough to suffer from this. Now that I have met you, I know.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Um. I'm confused NakedJedi. Do you tend to agree with some of the issues brought up by Fox News, or do you simply not notice the pattern of WHAT they bring up and how they pitch it?
CNN ran a front page article on this.. then 3 days later at the end of the small "disclosure" article pointed out they as well as the other liberal media donated just as much to democrats.
Buried for pure stupidity. Murdoch was also a huge donor to Hilary Clinton during the primary. Viacom, Colbert's employer, makes donations overwhelmingly in favor of the Democrats. GE CEO Immelt is a huge supporter of Obama and GE is a very large contributor to the Democrats and GE happens to own NBC/MSNBC.
You're right. GE contributes money to the Democrats ($1,443,422 since 1999). What your conveniently leaving out is that they contribute even more to Republicans ($1,642,364 since 1999).
As for Viacom, they seem to just follow the majority party. In 2004 & 2006 they gave overwhelmingly to Republicans (62%), and in 2008 & 2010 they gave overwhelmingly to Democrats (58% & 62%).
If you truly think any of those are "libjural" you are f**king insane. MSNBC and CNN have a couple liberal commentators--liberal in the sense that they present opinion based on facts. I can see how facts tend to f**k up the entirety of the conservative agenda, but to say they are liberal is just plain ignorant.
Because the Supreme Court says they have the right to. The Corporation, now has your individual rights. And FAUX NEWS is just for funny stuff, it is not serious.
Liberal media outlets have made it no secret they support liberal politicians. After all, Chris Matthews has a thrill run up his leg when he thinks about Obama.
What are they gonna tell us next? The NRA also gives money to the republicans? Oh noes!?!?!
If you watch Colbert's little segment, the first portion of this clip is demonstrating how many times The Republican party has called out the Democratic party for accepting monetary donations. The big deal is that now, thanks to News Corp/Fox News, the Republicans need to stick their collective feet in their collective mouth. Suck on that!
I don't have kids. I have been called a whore many times on Digg.
The supposed outrage about this would have you believe that Murdoch is doing something illegal. He's not. Also, no one is interested in the fact that he has donated to BOTH parties in the past.
He has made a statement about why he donated to the governors...
Quirk, you know a little about manipulating people to reach your own goals (DP), so Murdoch's behavior really probably wouldn't be that offensive to you. But given that you and your DiggPatriot cronies are reading, it's probably worth a shot explaining:
* Manipulating people is wrong.
* Manipulating a democracy is really wrong.
* Trying to force an election to go your way because you own a chunk of the media, and can push people at will, and play all kinds of Orwellian tricks and tactics is wrong.
* Operating a news outlet - specifically protected under the constitution - in a biased fashion is against every tenet of journalism. Then picking sides by sliding over $1,000,000 of your own cash? It's wrong.
Yes, I know, you're going to say "freedom of speech" and all that twaddle, but I'll tell you right now - it's still twaddle. Self-serving, self-righteous twaddle.
But seriously... You're one biased mofo who attempts to manipulate popular opinion on a supposedly democratic (as in the Greek word, not slant) news site.
Spec ... you're talking about one cable news network:
"* Manipulating people is wrong.
* Manipulating a democracy is really wrong.
* Trying to force an election to go your way because you own a chunk of the media, and can push people at will, and play all kinds of Orwellian tricks and tactics is wrong.
* Operating a news outlet - specifically protected under the constitution - in a biased fashion is against every tenet of journalism. Then picking sides by sliding over $1,000,000 of your own cash? It's wrong."
MSNBC. Just because it doesn't have Fox's ratings doesn't mean it's the same damned thing.
Actually, it's bigger, right ... I mean corporation-wise.
Thanks to a Supreme Court stocked with the most ultra-conservative Justices in 4 generations, no, it is not illegal. They have managed to twist the scribblings on the side of a page of a ruling from the mid 1800's to let their corporate masters have all the rights of human beings.
Murdoch, like any sleazy corporatist makes donations across the board, but those campaign contributions are ALWAYS heavily slanted towards the politicians (usually conservative) who will do their bidding the most.
Besides, that is a deflection anyways. The matter is News Corporation (the monster that owns Fox "News") donating, not the person Murdoch.
Oh geez....all these sleazy corporatists....having companies and giving people jobs...someone STOP them! The government has all of our interests at heart...they will SAVE us from the "corporations"!
Maybe you should fire off an angry missive to Digg and have them BAN the guilty? Or maybe you don't know s**t and you are persecuting innocent people?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
quirko,
People need things to survive, but those needs could almost always be better met with local, small businesses that pay their workers a living wage than by some amorphous corporate entity that usually only serves to impoverish workers and make the rich richer.
All wealth comes from labor, not from those "benevolent" corporations who give out jobs because they want to help people. Despite how worked up you get on Digg, you should know this, you're not dumb.
By your argument (If it's not illegal then it's okay), then Jim Crow and segregation (both legal) were perfectly correct, and Brown v. Board was a travesty of justice. By your argument, it would have been good and proper to prevent women and minorities from voting (also legal until overturned by Constitutional amendment).
Just because it's legal doesn't make it right-- you probably disagree with me on this, but take Prop 8. If we guarantee equal justice and rights under the law, then shoehorning something that arguably denies rights to a subset of citizens into state law is unconstitutional.
If you're merely asking if it would be right to sue News Corp (and that's up to the shareholders), then ask it. You're leaving us to speculate that you feel all this protest is "typical liberal panic" when the fate of your country can conceivably be decided by a corporation who infamously has secured by court order the right to lie and distort as a journalistic organization.
Murdoch has a right to donate to whomever he wants to donate to. This does not EQUATE to supporting slavery or racism....or anything else.
I support the right of gay people to marry....so frankly, just GET LOST with your argument that because Murdoch has a right to donate to Republicans...I must support racism and slavery.
and out come the DP s**theads. Watch as 20 users with 100 accounts bury comments that are pro Cobert or with common sense even a 5th grader can understand. Cobert FTW and f**k you DP dups!
I can't find the Canadian mirror (ok, I can't be bothered to wade through clips 1-4 on comedynetwork.ca to find this little piece), so here's the story for us Canadians:
Didn't NPR have a segment yesterday saying this wasn't unprecedented by other news corporations-- the only difference was the amount?? Nothing to see here, it's just business as usual..Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
When the amount is in the MILLIONS, instead of THOUSANDS, and the organization donating is supposed to be UNBIASED, then it creates a little alarm.
Wouldn't you want to know who is getting what money from which corporation anyway? I mean, that's practically your responsibility as a voter. Why would anyone NOT care to know this? I for one, am not into being mislead, and knowledge like this is what I call defense.
No, not really, because unlike you, I know both parties are full of s**t. I don't put my hopes in any Candidate...don't believe in Hope & Change, because in the end, they are all only looking out for themselves...
Buried for pure stupidity. Murdoch was also a huge donor to Hilary Clinton during the primary. Viacom, Colbert's employer, makes donations overwhelmingly in favor of the Democrats. GE CEO Immelt is a huge supporter of Obama and GE is a very large contributor to the Democrats and GE happens to own NBC/MSNBC.
Murdoch wasn't donating to Clinton to support her campaign...Fox and Limbaugh were spinning the Democratic primary toward Hillary specifically as an attempt to prevent Obama from taking office. They felt Hillary would have been an easier opponent.
You are an idiot. He hosted a personal fund-raiser for her long before Obama even gained any steam. Not everything is part of the "vast right wing conspiracy."
However, Yellin’s graphics are “exponentially” misleading. According to OpenSecrets.org, Time Warner gave $2.3 million to Democrats during the 2008 election cycle, and since 1990, 72 percent of Time Warner’s political donations went to Democrats. Essentially, in 2008, a year Yellin conveniently left out, Time Warner doubled News Corp.’s much maligned donation.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Yes, that open minded Liberalism is displayed every day on Digg, The Daily Show, Colbert Report, etc. You are all sooooooo tolerant of the right. Just look at how friendly you are to the Sarah Palins and Glenn Becks of the world.
"Until now, the News Corp./Fox political action committee had given 54 percent of its donations to Democrats and 46 percent to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics -- including $8,000 to Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid's campaign committee and $5,000 to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's organization. News Corp. also gave $45,000 each to GOP and Democratic campaign committees on Capitol Hill."
If you truly think Fox is "conservative" you are f**king insane. Fox has a couple conservative commentators--conservative in the sense that they present opinion based on facts. I can see how facts tend to f**k up the entirety of the liberal agenda, but to say they are Republican is just plain ignorant.
Hey Digg "patriots", remember that thing I told you a while back about what all the negative numbers and thumbs down mean about your comments? ...Yeah especially when you show your brainwashed blind hate by referring to anyone who disagrees as "libtards". Because anyone who disagrees with your opinions must be evil and/or retarded, right?
Totally agreed. I miss when Digg was mostly tech and gaming articles, comics, random news etc. and not so much political bickering. It was a much more entertaining sight back then. But controversy sells...
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
1 a : of, relating to, or concerned with rhetoric b : employed for rhetorical effect; especially : asked merely for effect with no answer expected <a rhetorical question>
2 a : given to rhetoric : grandiloquent b : verbal
How come nobody flips the f**k out about pharma companies, oil companies, car companies etc. all giving hundreds of thousands to candidates? This is really no different, not it's just the news.
but the news stopped being unbaised ages ago when someone figured out that sensationalism brought in higher ratings than unbaised reporting, and both sides have been busy fellating their party/candidates of choice since.
Simple, as the supreme court asserted; Money is speech.
So if money is speech, then Fox "News" is shouting it's support of Republicans. One can hardly be "Fair + Balanced" while shouting (metaphorically) the about the greatness of Republicans. Fox has always done this, now they have made it official.
It's the shameless hypocrisy that makes this stand out.
This is a perfect example for why i'm leaving this horrid country. Everyone fights about pointless stuff, meanwhile all of the politicians pass crazy unconstitutional legislation that takes away more and more rights. People seriously need to wake up!
Don't let the door hit ya. I've been all over the world and I can tell you that this "horrid country" is certainly the most comfortable. My guess is you live 100% on hypothesis and haven't traveled 100 miles away from where you grew up.
I agree with you that this country is one of the best, However the trend that I see in society and politics is leading to the ultimate demise of this country. We are too irreversibly in debt to become the great nation it once was. I have traveled to many countries including (from proximity): Mexico, Canada, Haiti, France, England, and Germany.
ya but rachel is cool... although she does tend to let a little bias slip though once in a while but meh,... if anything i think that the24/7news stations have taught us one thing and i think we all know what that is :) right?
If I was a Millionaire and wanted to donate a lot of money to a party could I? NO
If I was a Billionaire who decides to buy out a large corporation and then donate can I? Yes
So if your rich you can't donate much but if your really really rich its fine???
Do people realize that when they say 'Faux News', it's pronounced 'foe'? Therefore, when I read it, it's not a clever play on words, you're just saying fake news.
I believe there are people out there using that phrase because they think the pronunciation of Fox and Faux is the same. That was my complaint. I suppose I should have written "you're only saying fake news, Faux and Fox aren't said the same." I know that Fox News should really drop the news part of their company's name. It's not real news. I'm also not JUST NOW figuring this out. Finally bothered me enough to say that it's annoying and I wish people would stop using it. I put them in the same camp as people who still use M$ or any variation. It's not clever, just annoying and juvenile.
Did they think this wouldn't make news? Corporations backing a political party through the bribery of large scale campaign contributions is the very definition of fascism.
-
Just to make it clear, fascism is when big business (corporations) get in bed with big government through the use of corruption in order to break the laws of their nation.
If you look at the rest of the News Corp brands, Fox News is the odd one out. Last time I checked, Avatar and Glee weren't pushing right-wing policies. It just makes sense: big businesses like the republican party, and News Corp is a BIG business.
dirtyfriesAug 19, 2010
I wonder how many people dugg this on trending without seeing it's Colbert.
No matter, still awesome.
salsa1337Aug 20, 2010
Colbert kicks ass
emmeronAug 20, 2010
Heck, how many people commented on this before realizing this is Colbert?
kevitivityAug 20, 2010
Next weeks wedding?... The Democratic party AND EVERY OTHER NEWS MEDIA SOURCE make it official.
lmptkAug 20, 2010
You must be one of those right wing wackos. "Every Other News Media Source" Since when is Fox News actually News. That is the point of this. Are you saying the BBC and Al Jazeera are married to the Dems? I mean you did use the word "EVERY." That is typical of right wingers. EVERYONE is out to get them. That is why they need guns. Maybe you forgot the /s.
awtrippAug 19, 2010
It's still Fair and Balanced though. Just because you favor one side doesn't mean you'll favor one side.
sprucecabooseAug 19, 2010
I'm digging you in hopes you knowingly made that joke, and it wasn't just a mistake.
awtrippAug 19, 2010
Yeah, I would have thought the joke was obvious. I refuse to add the /s anymore.
hewhopoopsAug 19, 2010
It's tough to parody something that's already a parody of itself.
jamaphAug 19, 2010
@awtripp
I know! Trending is weird. Because there was a time not to long ago, that even if we knew DirtyFries was being sarcastic, the lack of an "/s" could get you burrrrrrrrieeeeedddd
elendrystAug 19, 2010
Probably going to get dugg down, but...
General Electric and Time Warner together donated a million dollars to one politician (President Obama). Anyone who watches Fox News, CNN or MSNBC alone are tools. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jamaphAug 19, 2010
Source this PLEASE.
Because it wasn't until a few months ago (post-Obama election) The Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the rights of individuals I.E. can donate as much money as they'd like to one candidate or party.
elendrystAug 20, 2010
Time Warner:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/all_recips.php?id=D000000094&type=C&filter=D&stfed=F&nid=2612
General Electric:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/all_recips.php?id=D000000125&cycle=2010&nid=1084Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tessmaAug 20, 2010
Why are you getting dugg down? This is proof that both Time Warner and GE (parent company of NBC [MSNBC]) have directly donated to Democrats, and only Democrats. Not a Republican association like News Corp, but direct candidates!
Oh, I remember why, because your proof is holding Democrats accountable.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ajajadudeAug 20, 2010
From your links:
The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families.
Misleading to say the companies donated the money when it was actually employees and their families. HUGELY misleading.
danr2c2Aug 20, 2010
Learn to read:
"The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates. The state-level figures on this page are based on contributions to state candidates, parties and ballot measures during the same period, 2007-2008."
Bottom of this page:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/all_summary.php?id=D000000125&cycle=2010&nid=1084
elendrystAug 20, 2010
Fair enough, didn't read the fine print.
hillsfarAug 20, 2010
When you donate money to a political campaign, you have to state your employer. So though I donated on my own, somehow somewhere, some idiot thinks my company donated.
daimposterAug 20, 2010
a few people already mentioned that the employees donated, not the corp. Also, MSNBC doesn't say it isn't biased, it straight up tells you they are progressive. NBC news plays it very 'neutral', even when neutral is wrong (ex: sometimes the right screams louder and it pushes the 'neutral' point further right). The issue is that Fox keeps promoting themselves as 'Fair and Balanced' when its obvious they are not fair (how many lies and hypocritical statements have come out of fox!) and they are anything but balanced. This $1M donation is just ANOTHER nail in the coffin.
magus_melchiorAug 20, 2010
@elendryst: Someone's been watching Beck and O'Reilly...
elendrystAug 20, 2010
Don't have a television, so can't say that I've watched Beck or O'Reilly.
archiesteelAug 20, 2010
Buried for not having a television. I mean, really.
originalmadmattAug 20, 2010
i dont have a tv ither elen :) high five you intelligence?
orbishAug 19, 2010
Anyone else having problems viewing video on TDS/Colbert with google chrome?
sonofabeAug 19, 2010
No problems here.
vegetablelambAug 19, 2010
thankfully not today. yet.
radekyAug 20, 2010
I've had various issues in the past. My favorite is when it duplicates. "The Dai-The Dai-ly Show-ly Show-ly Show"
ihkumichoAug 19, 2010
Nope.
bcronosAug 19, 2010
No audio with Firefox...
keggluneqAug 20, 2010
Yup. Had to switch to firefox.
poprocksandsodaAug 19, 2010
Fox is about as fair and balanced as Digg. Digg is a mostly Left website which spends all it's time attacking Fox, and Fox is a mostly Republican news channel which spends all of it's time attacking Dems. One is the most watched news channel in the US, the other is a website falling out of the top 150 after being in the top 50 until early 2008 when the Left propaganda machine took it over.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
marx2kAug 19, 2010
Digg is a current event article/opinion aggregation site. Digg doesn't portray itself as a news service.
poprocksandsodaAug 19, 2010
Yes. Your point sir?
adriaaanAug 20, 2010
I believe, though I could be wrong, that his point has something to do with the fact that FOX pretends to report news as well?
hetmanAug 19, 2010
You cannot really compare the two.
panicfan24Aug 19, 2010
There is a HUGE difference. Digg has no journalistic responsibilities. Digg is a user-driven community. If it is left-leaning, then that is just a byproduct of the majority of people who visit this site. You can essentially chalk it up to, "Well, a lot of people here are liberals, therefore I would expect to see a lot of left-leaning articles."
It is not so harmless for Fox. They use their "news" (LOL) platform to lead conservative/republican voters to believe that they ARE fair and balanced. They purposely misconstrue facts/numbers/statistics/anything they can get their hands on to create an incredibly biased slant...AND THEY ARE A NEWS REPORTING NETWORK. They are SUPPOSED to have some sense of journalistic integrity, but they don't, and never will. They will shamelessly promote their often-ignorant viewpoints so long as it feeds into the conservative/republican mindset and gives a bad name to liberal/democrats. I mean, for gods sake, the other day every single one of their programs was dedicated to trying to find a connection between certain financial donations and the democratic party when, as you can see here, NewsCorp had donated $1M to the Republican party -- but you can bet your ass they didn't mention that.
The better idea is to compare CNN/MSNBC bias to Fox bias, since they are all TV news programs. Even so, no TV news station is as aggressively and shamelessly biased as Fox. Period.
particleman420Aug 19, 2010
except no other news network have even 1/2 the bias of fox. firstly they dont make up lies, change names, leave out party affiliations of politicians or change them to the other party.
there's a difference between bias and propaganda
jamaphAug 19, 2010
Dude you must have started reading his post and then stopped lol because look,
"Even so, no TV news station is as aggressively and shamelessly biased as Fox. Period."
Last two sentences.. haha
panicfan24Aug 19, 2010
ParticleMan still makes a valid point. You could characterize CNN and MSNBC as being biased, and then Fox News as being pure propaganda.
Well played ParticleMan, well played.
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
It is nothing short of terrifying to sit down and watch fox news for a couple of hours. It is literally propaganda. They don't back ANYTHING up that they report. They are constantly making unsubstantiated comments. They literally take every single story and use it to condemn obama and the government and/or prop up the right wing/republicans. It is HEINOUS!!!! And worse, blatant!!!!
Their reporting on this new york mosque fiasco is especially troubling. My god, how can they on the one hand believe in freedom, and then turn around and tell muslims they can't build a mosque??? It doesn't even matter if some people are offended, or if the entire city doesn't want the mosque there, it doesn't matter. The constitution doesn't guarantee you won't be offended by things. It isn't an insult to 9/11 victims because "muslims" didn't attack America. Terrorists who happened to be muslims attacked.
They had some douche on fox and friends this morning trying to insinuate that the main imam behind the cultural centre was linked to hamas and iran etc etc. It's f**king ludicrous. And the worst part is, their viewers seem to think it is just a mirror to the so called "liberal main stream media". But that is BULLs**t!!!! There is no liberal main stream media!! Sure there is some bias in reporting, but there can be no truly objective reporting anyway, it's impossible. But what fox does is so far beyond mere bias. Seriously, sit down and watch fox for a few hours. It is unrelenting attacks and fear mongering.
That station is largely responsible for the hatred directed at Obama. Sean Hannity actually called Obama "the anointed one" the other day. It really does reach to the bottom of the barrel of society. It is a SIGNIFICANT obstacle to stability and unity in America.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
Diggers on average are politically liberals. Fox News is politically conservative.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
Sorry, most popular media is right-wing slanted as far as i can tell.
zenith251Aug 19, 2010
@diggbigwig: Care to address what Panicfan24 said?
mtjohnsonAug 19, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
seltaeb4Aug 19, 2010
To say nothing of its viewers
osko2052Aug 19, 2010
Fear of the truth.
homercles337Aug 19, 2010
You forgot your sarcasm tags. That, or you have a hole in your head the size of a fist.
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
Yes, I truly fear Fox news' "truth". Anyone claiming to know that truth should NOT be trusted. Circumstance and context is EVERYTHING. But a fox viewer wouldn't know anything about either of those concepts.
homercles337Aug 19, 2010
Most diggers are liberal and therefore prefer facts over empty rhetoric or lies. Any "news" organization that willfully spreads lies is an enemy of democracy. This was a common tactic in pre WWII Germany, the Fairness Doctrine was initiated to prevent such events from happening in the US. In 1987 the Fairness Doctrine was abolished by a president that was a willful enemy of the middle class. Later that year Rush Limbaugh setup shop, ushering the US Corporate Media takeover of honest news. Fox is the worst of the worst with propaganda, lies, spin, and more lies.
solistusAug 20, 2010
The core of Digg? WTF does that mean? Digg is a place to discuss everything, including news and politics. Why is discussing what a pathetic partisan sham of a news channel Fox is somehow outside that scope?
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
maybe cuz fox news is a load of s**t.
gurukidAug 19, 2010
lol @ all white wedding.
mysticaloneAug 20, 2010
"no black people allowed, we're still upset you have right to vote!"
originalmadmattAug 20, 2010
soooo is billy idol gonna be there? cuz i go.. o.o
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
What a racist joke of a Digg story, enjoy your little white upper middle class guilt ridden libtard echo chamber fap fest you assh**e douche bags.
hetmanAug 19, 2010
Yes the compassionate conservatives. So full of love and understanding.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
No different than the intolerant racist libtards, redneck this, racist that...go march in another parade on Mommy and Daddy's corporate earned dime...retards.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
"Compassionate conservative, sounds like a volvo with a gun rack"
hetmanAug 19, 2010
It is funny that you call liberals racist in one thread and in another you are denouncing muslims and the 1st admendment.
semisarcasticAug 19, 2010
I think you could use one of these sir:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbsSeVr5NSI&feature=player_embedded
trevorpaceAug 19, 2010
Wow. Someone raided the Incoherent Adjective drawer this morning.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
Glad to hear to you understood it.
particleman420Aug 19, 2010
his dad is going to be pissed when he gets home!
propethicAug 19, 2010
Enjoy you irrelevance.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
Enjoy watching the end of the latest loser libtard failure come November.
powderedtoastyAug 19, 2010
It's OK buddy, I'd be irrationally angry too if I was a simple minded idiot. It's not your fault.
It's not your fault.
fjcruiserAug 19, 2010
Liberals are too busy defending their mosque build out on ground zero (and it is ground zero since the building in question was damaged during attacks). November can't come soon enough. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hetmanAug 19, 2010
I know it is so sad. Liberals are busy protecting the 1st amendment. It would be horrible if conservatives also felt the same way. s/
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
fjcruiserAug 19, 2010
Hetman
Oh really? the process was fast tracked like nothing else. I bet you if a Christian church was trying to be built in the area, it would be still wrapped in red tape... oh wait it is!
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hetmanAug 19, 2010
@FJCruiser. The mosque is still raped in red tape. They do not even have the funding for it. Secondly there are Christian churches all over Manhatten. I have never heard of one being denied the right to be built there. Do you have any sources stating that they have refused to build christian churches in Manhattten.
fjcruiserAug 19, 2010
The Greek Orthodox one, that was actually destroyed in the attacks. yes there are some disagreements, etc, but they were not fast tracked like this community center/mosque. Furthermore, the funding is there for the center. It is coming from Saudi and other 'friendly' countries. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
danillumAug 19, 2010
The funding for the mosque is coming from Saudi Arabia? Is it the same Saudi that is part owner of Fox News?
seltaeb4Aug 19, 2010
Yes, the building was damaged . . .
. . . now it's the former Burlington Coat Factory . . . OF FREEDOM!!!
tenshenAug 19, 2010
FJCruiser
do you have any credible source of the claim you are making? or are you just repeating what you heard on fox?
powderedtoastyAug 19, 2010
or, "I hate how liberals don't hate everyone who's different from them".
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
"or, "I hate how liberals don't hate everyone who's different from them"."
Yeah, libtards really show love daily for Conservatives and Republicans.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dymoAug 19, 2010
Would you love a conservative with a mouth like this?
"What a racist joke of a Digg story, enjoy your little white upper middle class guilt ridden libtard echo chamber fap fest you assh**e douche bags."
I sure as hell don't. The more you speak like that, the less inclined I am to listen to anything you have to say. So much so that I would say you are an ignorant prick I wouldn't give the time of day.
particleman420Aug 19, 2010
the problem with mr.2time is that he doesnt understand that respect needs to be EARNED. it's not a right that comes from the most sacred constitution that is never wrong.
why do you hate the constitution and america so much mr. 2time?
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
@Dymo Who's trying to convince anyone of anything...it's a complete waste of time to try to convince a mindless loser libtard drone of anything (they think they know everything anyways).
@420 "it's not a right that comes from the most sacred constitution that is never wrong.
why do you hate the constitution and america so much mr. 2time?"
Are you even trying to form a coherent thought. The only thing that respects you is your bong.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
makeitloudAug 20, 2010
@johnny2time:
"The only thing that respects you is your bong."
Funny coming from you. You sure spend a lot of time getting buried.
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
The proposed mosque is being built on private property. PRIVATE PROPERTY. Trying to prevent the mosque from being built shows that you people didn't learn a DAMNED thing from 9/11.
Sarah Palin made a hilarious comment about how all the other mosques in new york didn't bring any tolerance, so how will this one do it. Indeed, all those mosques and many Americans are still totally intolerant of muslims.
Look you can be offended all you want, but the bottom line is, those people have every right to build that mosque. Why are you talking about churches? This isn't a f**king contest. Yes the Greek orthodox church won't be rebuilt. I watched the same fox news show that you did. It's hilarious, you can literally predict exactly what a right winger will say based on what was on fox the previous day. You people really are nothing but parrots.
From the Port Authority:
"St. Nicholas Orthodox Church has always had and will continue to have the right to rebuild on its original location. The question was whether public money would be spent to build a much larger church at a separate location on the site and ensuring that construction wouldn't delay the World Trade Center further," spokesman Stephen Sigmund said in a written statement. "On that question, we worked for many years to reach an agreement and offered up to 60 million dollars of public money to build that much larger new church. After reaching what we believed was an agreement in 2008, representatives of the church wanted even more public commitments, including unacceptable approvals on the design of the Vehicle Security Center that threatened to further delay the construction on the World Trade Center and the potential for another $20 million of public funds."
Sigmund said the "final offer" was made last year, which again included $60 million.
"They rejected that offer," he said.
So what is your point? The church isn't being prevented from being built you dumb f**k half wit no nuts dick sucking cum guzzling douche nozzle. It is just encountering delays for various reasons. You stupid f**k wit. Way to start a discussion on a f**king non issue you handicapped ox turd.
volsarAug 19, 2010
This guy deserves to get buried, but you have to admit that his comment is awesome.
sprucecabooseAug 19, 2010
How is it racist in any way? And I am far from upper middle class, and I am not really guilty for anything.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
Relative to the rest of the world I guarantee you're upper middle class.
sprucecabooseAug 19, 2010
Relative to the third world countries, sure. How about relative to the country and location I live in though?
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
Envy is the surest path to an unfulfilled life.
sprucecabooseAug 19, 2010
Who am I envious of? Where the heck did you pull that from?
hurricanebobsAug 20, 2010
enjoy your little white upper middle class guilt! Wait... your not upper middle class? Then you must be poor and envious of all those hard working americans with more money than you!
Apparently being rich and not giving a s**t about other people is the only correct way to live your life.
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
Apparently pretending to give a s**t about other people while really just being perpetually pissed off that other people are wealthier than you is the way to live yours.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
solistusAug 20, 2010
johnny2time: you're the ONLY person who pretended a person's wealth has anything to do with the discussion. Quit trying to project your own illogical bulls**t onto the people pointing out that it is illogical bulls**t.
vegetablelambAug 19, 2010
Please step away from your computer, drink a nice cold glass of lemonade and take a walk outside, for at least an hour. It'll do you a world of good, I promise.
ldrummeraxAug 19, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
Oh noes not the old dirt in the eye!
acidicjazzheadAug 19, 2010
http://nelsonhaha.com/
haberman13Aug 19, 2010
Epic sentence, I would digg, but its pointless now :)
lambecoAug 19, 2010
Oh my god your fury is delicious. It tastes like victory.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
A drop of water after seven days stranded in the Mojave Desert won't taste as sweet as the refreshing tear drops of pain from millions of white libtards still suckling from mommy and daddy's financial teet watching the dreams of utopia as they scatter like ashes across America come November.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lambecoAug 19, 2010
@johnny2time mmmm yesss morrrre
mweatherAug 20, 2010
"watch as the dreams of utopia scatter like ashes across America come November."
I like how he openly admits a Republican victory would be bad for the country.
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
"I like how he openly admits a Republican victory would be bad for the country."
You don't think the Russians thought they were going to create utopia, the Chinese, the Cubans, the Vietnamese etc.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
solistusAug 20, 2010
Generally, when people's dreams of utopia scatter like ashes, that doesn't mean good things happen to them. Nice disconnected logic and totally nonsensical word choice, as usual.
styroplankAug 20, 2010
good johnny2time, let the hate flow through you
mweatherAug 20, 2010
Aaw, lay off him. Not everyone is strong enough to not let others control them through fear.
crytekemployee3Aug 19, 2010
Gran Turismo 5
tomt127Aug 19, 2010
Colbert is turning into the liberal Rush Limbaugh more and more every day.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
Can't blame him, itt worked for Jon Stewart.
factorof13Aug 19, 2010
His show has always been a parody of O'Reilly, Rush, and Beck. What do you expect?
hewhopoopsAug 19, 2010
Rush's style is mean-spirited and brimming with vitriol. Colbert's is humerous yet smart parody. They are nothing alike.
jceezAug 19, 2010
Colbert is on Comedy Central. COMEDY central. Not NEWS.
dymoAug 19, 2010
and yet he seems more of a news source than fox.
bille3Aug 19, 2010
I think you just proved his point that Colbert is not news.
danj484Aug 19, 2010
Fair point, they're both clearly parodies of the viewpoint they're trying to portray.
haberman13Aug 19, 2010
I've never met anyone who takes Rush seriously, my hardcore republican grandparents think he is a joke.
Colbert is the left's Rush.
s73v3rAug 19, 2010
Except Colbert willingly and readily acknowledges that he's satire, and is not serious. Rush claims to be a serious source of news and opinion.
solistusAug 20, 2010
I wish I had the luxury of not knowing anyone who takes Rush seriously. I live in Texas, and there are thousands of people here in Austin (the only liberal town in the entire f**king state) who take everything Rush, O'Reilly, Beck, etc. say as gospel. They're not attempting to be funny or amusing; they're piling on anger and vitriol and trying to scare people. You have to be very naive, very stupid and/or on Fox's payroll to say you don't think they're trying to get people to take them seriously.
dankbuddzAug 19, 2010
Probably because you're not intelligent enough to understand anything he says.
harvestallAug 19, 2010
News Corp. Gives $1 Million to GOP
Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703824304575435922310302654.html
volsarAug 19, 2010
"The corporate donation has no impact on the reporting activities of our newsgathering organizations."
I guess he's right, it's the right-wing agenda that drives both the donations and the news reporting.
smaulzAug 19, 2010
Until now, the News Corp./Fox political action committee had given 54 percent of its donations to Democrats and 46 percent to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics -- including $8,000 to Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid's campaign committee and $5,000 to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's organization. News Corp. also gave $45,000 each to GOP and Democratic campaign committees on Capitol Hill.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/08/18/wapo-highlights-dem-outrage-fox-donations-gop-downplays-reality-50-50-co
Viacom's Political Action Committee has so far this year contributed 62 percent of its money to Democrats and only 38 percent to Republicans (h/t Lachlan Markay):
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/08/19/stewart-rips-foxs-gop-contribution-ignores-viacoms-dem-donations
Oops, sorry. Didn't mean to kill off your talking point. My bad.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
harvestallAug 19, 2010
Thank you for posting this. Here's more details on the political contributions of News Corp. It is as you say, about 50-50 between the Republican and Democrat.
http://www.campaignmoney.com/news_corporation.asp
harvestallAug 19, 2010
About FEC Records on Individual Contributors:
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/prguide1.shtml#IndividualContributors
appleofdischordAug 19, 2010
Uh... so From 1999, newscorp employees gave about 400k to democrats, and 300k to republicans.
That counteracts a 1 mil corporate donation to a republican association how?
harvestallAug 19, 2010
Yeah, I was thinking about. I don't even know what to belief. f**k. Why the hell can't anyone just give the facts. All I want to know is the total political contributions of News Corp. How much and where did it go. Show me the records. Bah. If the contributions are 50-50 then who gives a s**t. If the contributions are out of wack... well then I suppose you could argue that there's a 'conflict of interest', but that's not necessarily the case. So I guess either way, who gives a s**t. There's no conclusive answers whichever way you go.
jamaphAug 19, 2010
It's because they want those candidates to come on their television network.
bene0019Aug 20, 2010
The difference between News Corp the COMPANY giving a donation, and the reporting of what INDIVIDUALS who happen to work for that company give as a donation is that before the supreme court's idiotic ruling, corporations couldn't donate from company funds.
I've worked at several companies that have sent out long letters stressing the importance of having the employees donate to republican candidates and all the benefits they can provide to the business (with a sentence acknowledging that the company couldn't legally compel employees to donate to a particular party or candidate).
magus_melchiorAug 20, 2010
Target and Best Buy did the same thing, with the same lame excuse News Corp. gave: this is for "pro-business" reasons.
Uh, yeah, allowing hedge funds to merrily gamble away the stability of the economy is pro-business. Sure.
Methinks they're just buying into the Chamber of Commerce bulls**t.
keithlolbermannAug 19, 2010
When's Comedy Central and the DNC's wedding?
mtjohnsonAug 19, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
mgraves81Aug 19, 2010
Would be better stated as when is Viacom's and the DNC's wedding. Viacom donates plenty to the DNC and Viacom owns CBS/Comedy Central.
And can we please stop with the 'it's a comedy channel' argument when you all reference it for talking points? Morons.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mangalaiiiAug 20, 2010
EMPLOYEES, not out of the corporate account.
vegetablelambAug 19, 2010
hasn't it been obvious that Fox news is a comedy channel and comedy channel only?
lioozherAug 19, 2010
More like a (delusional) righteous anger channel...
john1066Aug 19, 2010
Comedy Central is doing it's job. Finding comedy and Fox "News" is a goldmine of comedy. Too bad some folks think Fox "News" is real news. It is not.
keithlolbermannAug 19, 2010
Embrace your hate. Bury away, libtards.
squ1shAug 19, 2010
Only because you deserve it.
zenith251Aug 19, 2010
Sooooo KeithLOLbermann, how is an entertainment channel comparable to a News network?
maliciousmoAug 19, 2010
You're an idiot
keithlolbermannAug 19, 2010
lol, u mad?
lambecoAug 19, 2010
"What a racist joke of a Digg story, enjoy your little white upper middle class guilt ridden libtard echo chamber fap fest you assh**e douche bags." -- johnny2time
bebop34Aug 19, 2010
KeithLOLbermann: Yet another who speaks as if he is overcompensating for having a micropenis, good luck.
keithlolbermannAug 20, 2010
bebop34,
Whatever you say, whistle dick.
solistusAug 20, 2010
We're the ones with irrational partisan hate, yet you post from an account named after making fun of a prominent liberal pundit and you felt the need to end your post blaming liberals for being petty about partisan politics with the term 'libtards.'
I would try to explain all the things that are wrong with that, but I'm not a certified special ed instructor and you clearly have some... special needs.
keithlolbermannAug 20, 2010
solistus,
Thanks for the pep talk. The difference between me and all the guys who posted above me is that I don't give a s**t and they clearly do.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
solistusAug 20, 2010
You said a bunch of stupid s**t, and a bunch of people are A) insulting you, B) mocking you or C) all of the above.
Yup, sounds like you're the winner in this scenario. Because they, um, care too much that you're an idiot whereas you're cool with that fact?
absurdistAug 19, 2010
No rebuttal, just ad hominem attacks from LOLbermann. It figures.
keithlolbermannAug 19, 2010
Oh look, another stalker. <3
absurdistAug 19, 2010
Don't flatter yourself, dimwit.
particleman420Aug 19, 2010
you'll have to wait until tomorrow when he checks in with his propaganda channel. they'll tell him how to reply tonight.
you just wait, he's going to totally burn you tomorrow!
solistusAug 20, 2010
I love when notorious trolls call people stalkers for knowing who they are. You spend half your life posting deliberately offensive things to this website; no s**t, some people know you. It's not stalking if you're a blatant attention whore on a public site, dips**t.
pantherreloadedAug 19, 2010
Obligatory Jon Stewart follow-up.
Starts around 0:35
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-18-2010/news-corp--gives-money-to-republicans
tyrghastAug 19, 2010
So glad he got rid of the goatee
zenith251Aug 19, 2010
That wasn't a goatee, that was scruff.
timmmmAug 19, 2010
Sorry, videos are not available in your count... f**k YOU COMEDY CENTRAL!
originalmadmattAug 20, 2010
sucks for you
factorof13Aug 19, 2010
The Daily Show did a great bit on this too:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-18-2010/news-corp--gives-money-to-republicans?xrs=share_copy
factorof13Aug 19, 2010
Whoops. The above post wasn't there when I posted this. Sorry.
nakedjediAug 19, 2010
From: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/07/24/medias-campaign-donations-tilt-100-1-favor-democrats#ixzz0x4i9xPNo
"An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans."
"It’s perhaps not a surprise that those working for NBC Universal are the most eager givers to the Democrats, racking up $104,184 in contributions this cycle, compared to just $3,150 to Republican candidates. Maybe more surprising is that those at Fox broadcasting and the Fox News Channel combined to give $41,853 to the Democrats, with no listed donations going to the Republicans. (Only $1,280 was listed as coming from Fox News employees.)"
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lioozherAug 19, 2010
Giving to today's Democrats is basically still giving to people to the right of Ronald Reagan.
hetmanAug 19, 2010
It is unfortunate but true.
nakedjediAug 19, 2010
Where can I buy what you are smoking and is it legal where you live? Reagan would not have supported one major policy issue that the Democrats support today. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mtjohnsonAug 19, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
johnrebAug 19, 2010
Reagan learned from that mistake, unlike current Democrats.
kasjogrenAug 19, 2010
Tax increases for the rich.
solistusAug 20, 2010
Every single tax bracket that Obama has changed since the Bush years is now closer to Reagan tax levels than they were under Bush.
While Republican fawning admirers have retconned his foreign policy legacy to be all about bringing down the USSR, his primary focus during most of his presidency was working toward the abolition of nuclear weapons.
Reagan championed the idea of constructive engagement in his policy toward apartheid South Africa: the diplomatic principle that it's best to talk to unpopular or problematic foreign regimes rather than trying to isolate them with condemnations and sanctions. Bush moved about as far away from this principle as possible; Obama is a big advocate of Reagan's constructive engagement approach.
Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative was stalled for 8 long years under Bush because Dubya was afraid of pissing off Putin. Within a year of taking office, Obama moved forward on deploying missile defense systems to Poland.
He also increased the national debt threefold, ending decades of relatively balanced budgets with a debt that hadn't changed much since WW2 and beginning the modern era of massive runaway spending. Which is kinda funny, since his own Reaganomics economic 'theory' would reject such a policy while the more mainstream neo-Keynesian model that Obama ascribes to explains exactly why such a fiscal policy might actually be a good idea in some circumstances. Of course, the mid 80's were not those circumstances and the current recession is.... Ok, fine, this is a reason Reagan was an idiot, not a reason he'd approve of Obama's policies, but it's also a reason Republicans crying foul over deficit spending while also paying lip service to Papa Reagan are morons with no knowledge, understanding or memory of the 80's.
Remember how the Administration got a federal circuit judge to strike down Prop 8 in California? Guess who appointed the judge?
It's true, though; Reagan wouldn't have been big on fighting Islamic terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan since he was the one who funded and trained Islamic terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Got us there.
awtrippAug 19, 2010
That's about individuals who work for news companies donating to campaigns. News Corp (Rupert Murdoch) runs an entire news conglomerate and dictates most, if not all, of the content.
It's a little different.
nakedjediAug 19, 2010
Oh....I see. Ted Turner is to CNN as Rupert Murdoch is to Fox news. He gives 62% of his money to democrats, 8% to republicans and the remaining to non-partisan groups.
Unrelated but as a Star Wars fan interesting, the site I got this from, http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/ also says George Lucus gives 100% of his money only to democrats.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
awtrippAug 19, 2010
Yes, but those are individual donations, not corporate donations.
News Corp is a Corporation and donated the corporations money.
In that list it shows Teddy and Rupes donated their own money.
mtjohnsonAug 19, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
lukeatronAug 19, 2010
Holy s**t, that is some convoluted math that guy used to come up with his figures. Not that any one should be surprised about that in an article coming from American Thinker via News Busters (a right wing shill group and an outright propaganda machine respectively). Not to mention this article is two years old and came on the heels of a brutal primary season for the democrats which saw unprecedented amounts of money coming in with at least some of that being from right wingers trying stir the pot.
What exactly was the point you were trying to make here?
tyhoAug 19, 2010
@ lioozher
"Giving to today's Democrats is basically still giving to people to the right of Ronald Reagan."
Interesting, not only do Democrats have misconceived notions of what conservatives believe, which they state and then attack, but they also are confused about their own party.
The modern American Democrat party has not taken one position to the Right of the Social Democratic Party in Britain.
The Social Democrats have no problem admitting their socialist goals, and in this country, Democrats think they are centrists or even right-leaning. Pure ignorance is all this can be.
There really is no hope for you guys until you educate yourselves in HISTORY and politics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
magus_melchiorAug 20, 2010
It's rather surprising that conservatives would tout a blatantly partisan and biased source such as NewsBusters and claim it's a legit source (it's called an appeal to authority-- too bad the authority is a false one).
krazygamerheadAug 19, 2010
The synopsis almost sounded like it could've been pulled straight from The Onion lol
magus_melchiorAug 20, 2010
As they say, the truth is often stranger than fiction.
nakedjediAug 19, 2010
The chart at the bottom of this page clearly shows that Fox News is biased. They are the only organization in the list who gave more money to McCain then they did to Obama. Clearly biased reporting.
http://www.theusreport.com/storage/mediadonations.JPGComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stavrogin2Aug 19, 2010
Those are employees, not the organizations that they work for.
nakedjediAug 19, 2010
So you don't have a problem that every organization listed contributes to democrats more than republicans by such a wide margin? We rely on most of these organizations for our news. Do you really think that they can be objective?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stavrogin2Aug 19, 2010
Considering how much airtime they give to Republicans and their fear mongering election strategies, like the NYC mosque, it seems as though they're going out of their way to be fair to the Republicans, almost biased toward them. When's the last time you saw a Republican rep/senator on any news channel being fact checked? The only one I can think of in recent memory is Anderson Cooper, who just asked from proof from a Texas state senator and a U.S. rep who were screaming about nonexistent terror babies.
nakedjediAug 19, 2010
@stavrogin2
You are so delusional. I almost wish I could be in the same room as you when the democrats get creamed this election to watch you have a total meltdown. After Bush beet Kerry there were news reports about people suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome and I always wondered who was f**ked up enough to suffer from this. Now that I have met you, I know.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
zenith251Aug 19, 2010
Um. I'm confused NakedJedi. Do you tend to agree with some of the issues brought up by Fox News, or do you simply not notice the pattern of WHAT they bring up and how they pitch it?
stavrogin2Aug 19, 2010
nakedjedi, I think it's time for your nap. You're a whittle mister cranky pants.
nakedjediAug 20, 2010
You guys are morons. I am taking my internet and going home. :)
taxmoreAug 19, 2010
CNN ran a front page article on this.. then 3 days later at the end of the small "disclosure" article pointed out they as well as the other liberal media donated just as much to democrats.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
digg4peaceAug 19, 2010
you wish!
treehugger87Aug 19, 2010
But since this only happened in taxmore's mind, he can't provide any actual evidence.
mgraves81Aug 19, 2010
Buried for pure stupidity. Murdoch was also a huge donor to Hilary Clinton during the primary. Viacom, Colbert's employer, makes donations overwhelmingly in favor of the Democrats. GE CEO Immelt is a huge supporter of Obama and GE is a very large contributor to the Democrats and GE happens to own NBC/MSNBC.
Useful idiots!
Edit:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/08 ...
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Aug 19, 2010
GE political contributions:
http://www.campaignmoney.com/general_electric.asp
You're right. GE contributes money to the Democrats ($1,443,422 since 1999). What your conveniently leaving out is that they contribute even more to Republicans ($1,642,364 since 1999).
As for Viacom, they seem to just follow the majority party. In 2004 & 2006 they gave overwhelmingly to Republicans (62%), and in 2008 & 2010 they gave overwhelmingly to Democrats (58% & 62%).
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00167759&cycle=2006
mcrorinAug 19, 2010
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0818/democratic-dislaimer-fox-news/
cwhite545Aug 19, 2010
In other news - CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC made it offical by tying the knot with the Democrats they had being seeing for years.
homercles337Aug 19, 2010
If you truly think any of those are "libjural" you are f**king insane. MSNBC and CNN have a couple liberal commentators--liberal in the sense that they present opinion based on facts. I can see how facts tend to f**k up the entirety of the conservative agenda, but to say they are liberal is just plain ignorant.
melikbilgeAug 20, 2010
cwhite545 is really saying, "Anything but my beautiful brainwashing Fox News must be libbrul, DERP DERP DERP!!"
john1066Aug 19, 2010
Thing that gets me is News Corp. owns mostly "news" organizations. What are they doing giving money to any political party?
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
Pro Tip: That's because Fox News isn't a news organization. It's the propaganda arm of the GOP.
u2canfailAug 20, 2010
Because the Supreme Court says they have the right to. The Corporation, now has your individual rights. And FAUX NEWS is just for funny stuff, it is not serious.
keithlolbermannAug 19, 2010
How many times is this story going to get frontpage'd? You libtards just can't help yourself when it comes to Newscorp and Palin, can you?
nakedjediAug 19, 2010
Palin, Rush and Fox News live in their heads rent free.
lambecoAug 19, 2010
Nothing like the sprawling ObamaLand in your head, right?
danj484Aug 19, 2010
The DP freeping isn't working?
jamaphAug 19, 2010
Libtards?
You would compare a set of political philosophies to MENTAL ILLNESS.
drmangrumAug 19, 2010
So what?
Liberal media outlets have made it no secret they support liberal politicians. After all, Chris Matthews has a thrill run up his leg when he thinks about Obama.
What are they gonna tell us next? The NRA also gives money to the republicans? Oh noes!?!?!
This is just stupid.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cdollarsAug 19, 2010
If you watch Colbert's little segment, the first portion of this clip is demonstrating how many times The Republican party has called out the Democratic party for accepting monetary donations. The big deal is that now, thanks to News Corp/Fox News, the Republicans need to stick their collective feet in their collective mouth. Suck on that!
magus_melchiorAug 20, 2010
@CDollars: They will never eat crow, because they are far too arrogant and blind.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
Was it illegal?
nugz85Aug 19, 2010
GO AWAY! NOBODY LIKES YOU!
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
neener neener boo boo?
kasjogrenAug 19, 2010
If I told your kids "I think your mom is a dirty whore and I am pretty sure she doesn't love you at all" it would be legal, but would it be right?
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
I don't have kids. I have been called a whore many times on Digg.
The supposed outrage about this would have you believe that Murdoch is doing something illegal. He's not. Also, no one is interested in the fact that he has donated to BOTH parties in the past.
He has made a statement about why he donated to the governors...
The outrage is so overblown.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spectecjrAug 19, 2010
Quirk, you know a little about manipulating people to reach your own goals (DP), so Murdoch's behavior really probably wouldn't be that offensive to you. But given that you and your DiggPatriot cronies are reading, it's probably worth a shot explaining:
* Manipulating people is wrong.
* Manipulating a democracy is really wrong.
* Trying to force an election to go your way because you own a chunk of the media, and can push people at will, and play all kinds of Orwellian tricks and tactics is wrong.
* Operating a news outlet - specifically protected under the constitution - in a biased fashion is against every tenet of journalism. Then picking sides by sliding over $1,000,000 of your own cash? It's wrong.
Yes, I know, you're going to say "freedom of speech" and all that twaddle, but I'll tell you right now - it's still twaddle. Self-serving, self-righteous twaddle.
But seriously... You're one biased mofo who attempts to manipulate popular opinion on a supposedly democratic (as in the Greek word, not slant) news site.
jamaphAug 19, 2010
Well, no one is talking about who Murdoch has donated to specifically, first off.
Second, News Corp is that, a corporation, meaning, not just Murdoch.
And third, over the last ten years they didn't give either party or candidate over $100,000. This year they give the GOP $1,000,000.
That's a lot of zeros, quirkopatra
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
Spec ... you're talking about one cable news network:
"* Manipulating people is wrong.
* Manipulating a democracy is really wrong.
* Trying to force an election to go your way because you own a chunk of the media, and can push people at will, and play all kinds of Orwellian tricks and tactics is wrong.
* Operating a news outlet - specifically protected under the constitution - in a biased fashion is against every tenet of journalism. Then picking sides by sliding over $1,000,000 of your own cash? It's wrong."
MSNBC. Just because it doesn't have Fox's ratings doesn't mean it's the same damned thing.
Actually, it's bigger, right ... I mean corporation-wise.
Everyone loves a drama. Bring it on.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
"Manipulating a democracy is really wrong."
You give far too little credit to your fellow human beings.
novenatorAug 19, 2010
Thanks to a Supreme Court stocked with the most ultra-conservative Justices in 4 generations, no, it is not illegal. They have managed to twist the scribblings on the side of a page of a ruling from the mid 1800's to let their corporate masters have all the rights of human beings.
If that isn't messed up, nothing is.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
"stocked with the most ultra-conservative Justices in 4 generations"
Hyperbole...less of it. Historical perspective....more of it.
nidstylesAug 19, 2010
Well I think it had more to do with the changes made to the Constitution on behalf of the effort's of the Liberal President's from then.
novenatorAug 19, 2010
Murdoch, like any sleazy corporatist makes donations across the board, but those campaign contributions are ALWAYS heavily slanted towards the politicians (usually conservative) who will do their bidding the most.
Besides, that is a deflection anyways. The matter is News Corporation (the monster that owns Fox "News") donating, not the person Murdoch.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
Oh geez....all these sleazy corporatists....having companies and giving people jobs...someone STOP them! The government has all of our interests at heart...they will SAVE us from the "corporations"!
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
I am sure you know a thing or two about sleazy self-serving practices. How the hell are you still on digg?
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
Maybe you should fire off an angry missive to Digg and have them BAN the guilty? Or maybe you don't know s**t and you are persecuting innocent people?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
magus_melchiorAug 20, 2010
@quirk: Not on this scale. It's a freakin' order of magnitude difference.
novenatorAug 20, 2010
quirko,
People need things to survive, but those needs could almost always be better met with local, small businesses that pay their workers a living wage than by some amorphous corporate entity that usually only serves to impoverish workers and make the rich richer.
All wealth comes from labor, not from those "benevolent" corporations who give out jobs because they want to help people. Despite how worked up you get on Digg, you should know this, you're not dumb.
apokalyps2547Aug 19, 2010
Illegal, no.
Dishonest, unethical, disgraceful, and contrary to basic journalistic integrity? Yes.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
http://www.slate.com/id/2264403
spectecjrAug 19, 2010
Hi Quirkopatra! I heard you were into DP! (Boy was THAT a mistake!)
afizzledbearAug 19, 2010
no but its not "fair and balanced"
enantiodromiaAug 19, 2010
Of course it's not illegal; the Conservatives have made sure news outlets are not expected to tell the truth.
magus_melchiorAug 20, 2010
Hey, quirk.
By your argument (If it's not illegal then it's okay), then Jim Crow and segregation (both legal) were perfectly correct, and Brown v. Board was a travesty of justice. By your argument, it would have been good and proper to prevent women and minorities from voting (also legal until overturned by Constitutional amendment).
Just because it's legal doesn't make it right-- you probably disagree with me on this, but take Prop 8. If we guarantee equal justice and rights under the law, then shoehorning something that arguably denies rights to a subset of citizens into state law is unconstitutional.
If you're merely asking if it would be right to sue News Corp (and that's up to the shareholders), then ask it. You're leaving us to speculate that you feel all this protest is "typical liberal panic" when the fate of your country can conceivably be decided by a corporation who infamously has secured by court order the right to lie and distort as a journalistic organization.
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
False equivalency....frankly, piss off.
Murdoch has a right to donate to whomever he wants to donate to. This does not EQUATE to supporting slavery or racism....or anything else.
I support the right of gay people to marry....so frankly, just GET LOST with your argument that because Murdoch has a right to donate to Republicans...I must support racism and slavery.
You folks are ridiculous.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
melikbilgeAug 20, 2010
@quirko "Piss off"
Looks who's talking. Getting a little sad your Digg "patriotism" didn't manage to bury this story?
kasjogrenAug 20, 2010
Since the activist Roberts court changed the laws of the land you right, now it is legal.
princetrunksAug 19, 2010
and out come the DP s**theads. Watch as 20 users with 100 accounts bury comments that are pro Cobert or with common sense even a 5th grader can understand. Cobert FTW and f**k you DP dups!
princetrunksAug 19, 2010
Colbert*
danr2c2Aug 20, 2010
Your "l" key was just not helping you today, now was it.
princetrunksAug 20, 2010
nope :-/
haberman13Aug 19, 2010
You crazy
thenorwegianAug 20, 2010
They will never win. Strike us down and we will come back stronger.
cubswillwinAug 19, 2010
Colbert is a funny motherf**ker. I expected this to be a Fox News Article.
serenity101Aug 19, 2010
I can't find the Canadian mirror (ok, I can't be bothered to wade through clips 1-4 on comedynetwork.ca to find this little piece), so here's the story for us Canadians:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/fox-news-comes-out-of-the_b_687829.html
alterliteAug 19, 2010
Didn't NPR have a segment yesterday saying this wasn't unprecedented by other news corporations-- the only difference was the amount?? Nothing to see here, it's just business as usual..Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jamaphAug 19, 2010
When the amount is in the MILLIONS, instead of THOUSANDS, and the organization donating is supposed to be UNBIASED, then it creates a little alarm.
Wouldn't you want to know who is getting what money from which corporation anyway? I mean, that's practically your responsibility as a voter. Why would anyone NOT care to know this? I for one, am not into being mislead, and knowledge like this is what I call defense.
You know?
alterliteAug 20, 2010
No, not really, because unlike you, I know both parties are full of s**t. I don't put my hopes in any Candidate...don't believe in Hope & Change, because in the end, they are all only looking out for themselves...
jamaphAug 20, 2010
I think you have a political chip on your shoulder.
alyxvanceAug 19, 2010
d
itsnickkAug 19, 2010
Hey remember when this comment you posted was irrelevant?
me1000Aug 20, 2010
no…
magus_melchiorAug 20, 2010
Hey, remember when AlyxVance made a claim that in no way validates or justifies News Corp's action?
ajajadudeAug 20, 2010
Hey, remember the time Breitbart was caught making s**t up?
Oh, and, hey, remember the time no one here defended that guy for that?
melikbilgeAug 20, 2010
In other words, Alyx says, "Oh s**t, my Fox masters are in trouble! Deflect blame on to MSNBC. GO GO GO GO!!"
mrtitoAug 19, 2010
I love these kind of stories. The comments always give me ample opportunity to add DPs and their numerous fake accounts to my block list.
mgraves81Aug 19, 2010
Buried for pure stupidity. Murdoch was also a huge donor to Hilary Clinton during the primary. Viacom, Colbert's employer, makes donations overwhelmingly in favor of the Democrats. GE CEO Immelt is a huge supporter of Obama and GE is a very large contributor to the Democrats and GE happens to own NBC/MSNBC.
Useful idiots!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pocketjacksAug 19, 2010
Murdoch wasn't donating to Clinton to support her campaign...Fox and Limbaugh were spinning the Democratic primary toward Hillary specifically as an attempt to prevent Obama from taking office. They felt Hillary would have been an easier opponent.
mgraves81Aug 20, 2010
You are an idiot. He hosted a personal fund-raiser for her long before Obama even gained any steam. Not everything is part of the "vast right wing conspiracy."
pocketjacksAug 20, 2010
lol... Personal attack to make up for hurt feelings, maybe?
And for the record, the only thing true in your edit is that I'm a Red Wings fan. Prejudice can be blinding.
mgraves81Aug 19, 2010
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2010/20100819153400.aspx
FTA:
However, Yellin’s graphics are “exponentially” misleading. According to OpenSecrets.org, Time Warner gave $2.3 million to Democrats during the 2008 election cycle, and since 1990, 72 percent of Time Warner’s political donations went to Democrats. Essentially, in 2008, a year Yellin conveniently left out, Time Warner doubled News Corp.’s much maligned donation.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jamaphAug 19, 2010
I'm pro choice, gay marriage, high taxes on the wealthy, expansive social programs, legalize drugs, etc.
Most Republicans, if political opinions floated above our heads, would hate me. Literally, be upset, angry, call me names.
Democrats on the other hand are more open minded, and accepting.
Liberalism. Be your self.
mgraves81Aug 20, 2010
Yes, that open minded Liberalism is displayed every day on Digg, The Daily Show, Colbert Report, etc. You are all sooooooo tolerant of the right. Just look at how friendly you are to the Sarah Palins and Glenn Becks of the world.
mgraves81Aug 19, 2010
FTA:
"Until now, the News Corp./Fox political action committee had given 54 percent of its donations to Democrats and 46 percent to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics -- including $8,000 to Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid's campaign committee and $5,000 to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's organization. News Corp. also gave $45,000 each to GOP and Democratic campaign committees on Capitol Hill."
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/08/18/wapo-highlights-dem-outrage-fox-donations-gop-downplays-reality-50-50-coComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mgraves81Aug 20, 2010
Oh looky looky everyone! I was buried by the Digg Patriots! *eye roll*
cwhite545Aug 19, 2010
If you truly think Fox is "conservative" you are f**king insane. Fox has a couple conservative commentators--conservative in the sense that they present opinion based on facts. I can see how facts tend to f**k up the entirety of the liberal agenda, but to say they are Republican is just plain ignorant.
Fixed it for you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
barcelonakizAug 19, 2010
...."they present opinion based on facts" hahaha You, "The Onion" writers, trick me every time!
melikbilgeAug 20, 2010
"... present opinion based on facts."
Fox? Facts? Are you high?
novenatorAug 19, 2010
Fox "News" is and has been little more than the propaganda arm of the Republican Party for a decade now. This just formalizes their arrangement.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
Hey Digg "patriots", remember that thing I told you a while back about what all the negative numbers and thumbs down mean about your comments? ...Yeah especially when you show your brainwashed blind hate by referring to anyone who disagrees as "libtards". Because anyone who disagrees with your opinions must be evil and/or retarded, right?
nidstylesAug 19, 2010
Self interest group's gaming Digg is nothing new. It's been like that since the political BS started on here.
IMHO I wish they would close down the political new's section, and aim the site back at it's original purpose.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
Totally agreed. I miss when Digg was mostly tech and gaming articles, comics, random news etc. and not so much political bickering. It was a much more entertaining sight back then. But controversy sells...
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
Edit: I meant site not sight.
chuckdeesAug 19, 2010
Didn't Rupert Murdoch say when asked about Fox supporting the tea party. That Fox shouldn't be supporting any party. Why yes, yes he did say that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WzM4ytF48g&feature=player_embedded
Ah Fox and right wingers are such liars.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
I am a one-legged orange Eskimo.
The fact I f**king say it doesn't make it true, you toddler.
chuckdeesAug 20, 2010
My post was rhetorical in nature.
Rhetorical
Main Entry: rhe·tor·i·cal
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
1 a : of, relating to, or concerned with rhetoric b : employed for rhetorical effect; especially : asked merely for effect with no answer expected <a rhetorical question>
2 a : given to rhetoric : grandiloquent b : verbal
u2canfailAug 20, 2010
But
alcimedesAug 20, 2010
How come nobody flips the f**k out about pharma companies, oil companies, car companies etc. all giving hundreds of thousands to candidates? This is really no different, not it's just the news.
but the news stopped being unbaised ages ago when someone figured out that sensationalism brought in higher ratings than unbaised reporting, and both sides have been busy fellating their party/candidates of choice since.
souldad57Aug 20, 2010
Simple, as the supreme court asserted; Money is speech.
So if money is speech, then Fox "News" is shouting it's support of Republicans. One can hardly be "Fair + Balanced" while shouting (metaphorically) the about the greatness of Republicans. Fox has always done this, now they have made it official.
It's the shameless hypocrisy that makes this stand out.
dizavinAug 20, 2010
Fox news is in bed with the US republican party? yeah. the day that happens is going to be like John Lennon coming out the closet.
"ooohh! .. oh.. wow.. I totally didn't.. uh.. know..."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
christianloritzAug 20, 2010
This is a perfect example for why i'm leaving this horrid country. Everyone fights about pointless stuff, meanwhile all of the politicians pass crazy unconstitutional legislation that takes away more and more rights. People seriously need to wake up!
boomchockalockaAug 20, 2010
Don't let the door hit ya. I've been all over the world and I can tell you that this "horrid country" is certainly the most comfortable. My guess is you live 100% on hypothesis and haven't traveled 100 miles away from where you grew up.
christianloritzAug 20, 2010
I agree with you that this country is one of the best, However the trend that I see in society and politics is leading to the ultimate demise of this country. We are too irreversibly in debt to become the great nation it once was. I have traveled to many countries including (from proximity): Mexico, Canada, Haiti, France, England, and Germany.
hiltonizerAug 20, 2010
FreeStateProject.org
austin2179Aug 20, 2010
Big deal, CNN and the democratic party have been married for years.
drinky72Aug 20, 2010
Source?
austin2179Aug 20, 2010
Time Warner, who owns CNN, has been donating millions of dollars to the Democratic party for years: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000094
hiltonizerAug 20, 2010
I miss Lou Dobbs... but really, CNN ain't extremely bad. MSNBC is the really communist network.
originalmadmattAug 20, 2010
ya but rachel is cool... although she does tend to let a little bias slip though once in a while but meh,... if anything i think that the24/7news stations have taught us one thing and i think we all know what that is :) right?
audioslaveryAug 20, 2010
^That dyke is an a f**king leftist!
melikbilgeAug 20, 2010
"Deflect! Deflect! Look, dirty libruls!!!"
FTFY
hockeyrwAug 20, 2010
Is Fox news owned by a American company? NO,,,,,,, scary.
austin2179Aug 20, 2010
If you ask me, it looks like NewsCorp is trying to catch up with Time Warner (they own CNN for those of you that don't know).
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000094
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
originalmadmattAug 20, 2010
buried for non relevant s**t
hiltonizerAug 20, 2010
What about us Libertarians who watch Andrew Napolitano? o... yah.. they bury his show in a s**tty timeslot.
Fine, whatever... there's always CNBC.
originalmadmattAug 20, 2010
>.>....
1fastdakAug 20, 2010
If I was a Millionaire and wanted to donate a lot of money to a party could I? NO
If I was a Billionaire who decides to buy out a large corporation and then donate can I? Yes
So if your rich you can't donate much but if your really really rich its fine???
chrisawesomeAug 20, 2010
Do people realize that when they say 'Faux News', it's pronounced 'foe'? Therefore, when I read it, it's not a clever play on words, you're just saying fake news.
originalmadmattAug 20, 2010
ohh! Did you just realize this? >.< republicans really, really need to stop breeding...
chrisawesomeAug 20, 2010
You're assuming I'm republican because I don't like when people say Faux News? Heavy assumption. It's also completely wrong.
seedypeteAug 20, 2010
That's the point, dumbass. It's fake news. How are you JUST NOW figuring this extremely obvious joke out?
chrisawesomeAug 20, 2010
I believe there are people out there using that phrase because they think the pronunciation of Fox and Faux is the same. That was my complaint. I suppose I should have written "you're only saying fake news, Faux and Fox aren't said the same." I know that Fox News should really drop the news part of their company's name. It's not real news. I'm also not JUST NOW figuring this out. Finally bothered me enough to say that it's annoying and I wish people would stop using it. I put them in the same camp as people who still use M$ or any variation. It's not clever, just annoying and juvenile.
dianasexyAug 20, 2010
makes your style
avangionqAug 20, 2010
Did they think this wouldn't make news? Corporations backing a political party through the bribery of large scale campaign contributions is the very definition of fascism.
-
Just to make it clear, fascism is when big business (corporations) get in bed with big government through the use of corruption in order to break the laws of their nation.
kevitivityAug 20, 2010
Next weeks wedding?... The Democratic party AND EVERY OTHER NEWS MEDIA SOURCE make it official.
pda131Aug 21, 2010
If you look at the rest of the News Corp brands, Fox News is the odd one out. Last time I checked, Avatar and Glee weren't pushing right-wing policies. It just makes sense: big businesses like the republican party, and News Corp is a BIG business.
MartinTaggartFeb 24, 2011
LMAO!