5 of 6 Major News Corporation Are Either Heavily Federally Funded or Have Made Contributions to The Clinton Foundation
63 2016-11-07 by lkoz590
I originally researched this topic in response to a comment in a separate thread, but I felt like it could use its own post.
Well yes, technically speaking it (Telecommunications Act of 1996, signed by WJC) deregulated the media. Its goal was to
let anyone enter any communications business -- to let any communications business compete in any market against any other.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
However, it allowed for media cross ownership, which allowss any one person or corporation to own multiple media sources. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, until it got abused by the political machine. Now 90% of media outlets are controlled by 6 corporations
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6
GE, Newscorp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, and CBS.
Simply put, 6 companies decide the national news stories. All of which (minus CBS which I was unable to find anything on) are funded heavily by the federal government or have made notable contributions to the Clinton Foundation
Disney: http://watchdog.org/65366/subsidy-nation-mickey-mouse-in-bed-with-uncle-sam/
GE: http://www.governing.com/topics/finance/gov-companies-receiving-largest-federal-subsidies.html
Newscorp, Time Warner, and Viacom: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundation-donors-include-dozens-of-media-organizations-individuals-207228
I feel like this is already well known, but I did some research and found sources supporting the notion, so I felt like posting here.
Any discussion is welcome.
EDIT: I encourage discussion against the grain of my post. That's what I love about this sub, and is what sets it apart from subs like T_D. It's open-minded discussion, not one-sided rhetoric. My posts are about the conversation. I gain no pleasure from making claims that everybody agrees with. That being said, feel free to agree with me too :)
11 comments
2 jeffinRTP 2016-11-07
Don't forget that Donald J Trump also donated to the Clinton Foundation. he's must be on it too.
1 lkoz590 2016-11-07
Correct. Trump is not a journalist though. If he were campaigning for Clinton there might be evidence to p2p here, but all of his reporting has been anti-Clinton thus far so he is clearly not influenced by their foundation. I could be wrong though. It is entirely possible that he is a plant meant to commit political suicide in order to get HRC elected. If that's the case, plans have gone horribly wrong and we are now in the shit situation we're in.
1 THE_LORD_HERESY 2016-11-07
How many of those companies donated to the GOP or have dealings with them?
1 lkoz590 2016-11-07
You're making the argument friend, you provide the evidence. I would assume most have.
1 THE_LORD_HERESY 2016-11-07
I'm not making any argument. You said you did the research, found sources supporting it and I'm asking if any of those companies donated to the GOP or have dealings with them.
So, in your research, did you find anything about them donating to the GOP or having dealings with them?
1 lkoz590 2016-11-07
Sorry, I misinterpreted your comment.
No I didn't find anything about the GOP. I did find a few different sites that talk more about federal funding and lobbying that I didn't include in my post. Generally all of these companies have their hands deep inside the Fed.
Edit: Here is a PDF of Time Warner's PAC Contributions
http://www.timewarner.com/sites/timewarner.com/files/ckeditor/public/files/2015_PAC.pdf
and here is a site that tracks federal subsidies:
http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/subsidy-tracker
Idk how helpful these will be to you
1 jeffinRTP 2016-11-07
Not sure how you can say what's the correct amount of positive or negative stories that each candidate should get. A lot will depend on what they say or do.
http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-national-conventions/
1 lkoz590 2016-11-07
From my perspective, it's been overwhelmingly positive for Clinton and negative for Trump. Almost all of the negative publicity against Clinton has come from independent journalists and alternative media outlets. When these independent stories become popular enough, then MSM picks up on it. I feel like if not for these journalists, the entire campaign would've been pro-Clinton negative-Trump
1 jeffinRTP 2016-11-07
That's the problem it's your personal view. I might feel differently because you tend to pay more attention to what you feel is important then what you don't care about.
1 lkoz590 2016-11-07
I still think the majority of pro-Trump stories are from alternative media sources. Not including Fox because it's a partisan news network, the narrative has been mainly pro-Clinton
2 d3rr 2016-11-07
When PBS has to censor Jill Stein, you know you are in trouble.