2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumTime Warner owns CNN (Hillary Clinton's 8th largest donor)
Should CNN disclose their owners are Hillary Clinton's eight highest donor?
42 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
Yes | |
40 (95%) |
|
No | |
2 (5%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Regular people do not care. If you know, it must be public knowledge. If anybody cares, they can search.
Response to bravenak (Reply #1)
Post removed
bravenak
(34,648 posts)pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)...do you think "regular" people don't care?
ucrdem
(15,700 posts)In other words if it's public knowledge, it's been disclosed already so what's the issue?
ps I was on a jury for this ...
pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)Watching a news station that donates to a candidate and not the other, makes you wonder...
FarPoint
(13,201 posts)It's most evident in the Sports Industry for example.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)However, since they call themselves a news organization, I think they should specifically disclose it every time they run a story on the Democratic primary.
But then I remember the old days, before news was a profit center, and before government and corporations became virtually indistinguishable....
***************
Well, I undid my vote upon being more awake, but I still stand by my general principles. And I do think the M$M is biased, and not just on this issue.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)The jury hid his post. I have no idea what control you think I have over this system. If one call people names, one takes ones chances with the jury. People need to avoid getting personal.
pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)I think his insults were over-the-top, but I agree with his sentiment.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I am entitled to mine whether you agree or not. Not liking my opinion is not a reason to alert or hide.
pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Response to Post removed (Reply #2)
pantsonfire This message was self-deleted by its author.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,651 posts)On Fri Mar 25, 2016, 05:22 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Ridiculous
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1571905
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Off-topic, speaking for all Americans like he knows, spreading the notion that people don't care, when he doesn't know. Look at the poll.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Mar 25, 2016, 05:26 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not understanding why this was alerted on? Members are allowed to express their opinions.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is getting old
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Transparently baseless attempt at alert-stalking. Alerter should be ashamed.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)Spacedog1973
(221 posts)That the poll question and the alerted post have nothing in common.
pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)Also, can we post jury results, I will do that in the future if so.
Spacedog1973
(221 posts)Two things;
The post was alerted for being offensive. It was not. The poster is allowed to express an opinion.
The poll is a question soliciting an answer.
They are two different things. The sole reason why it was a ridiculous alert.
I. E you can't alert because someone doesn't like an answer.
pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,651 posts)... if the jury results were 3-4 or 4-3.
I don't think my juror response was a deciding vote.
pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)Was inappropriate, speaking like the DU member knows the opinions of all regular people.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,651 posts)... and maybe that's true. I can't speak to most people's regularity.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)We all know what shes doing here she hasnt even tried to hide it.
pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,651 posts)Bravenak expressed an opinion, and it didn't seem over the top, didn't attack anyone. It didn't deserve a "hide".
pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)Think about it this way....I've been asked to vote if someone is guilty, I decide Yes or No, based on my opinion (to the poll in this case). Then I'm asked to serve on a jury to decide if another opinion, that is clearly a No, should be hidden, well you already decided No before the jury started. If this makes no sense, no need to respond, we can leave the discussion here. I'm glad most folks are voting yes thus far.
FarPoint
(13,201 posts)You may need to clarify that claim.
Response to bravenak (Reply #1)
imari362 This message was self-deleted by its author.
pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)FarPoint
(13,201 posts)I have no problem with corporate donors since it is legal. I do want Finance Reform addressed if we can take over Congress. I image candidates also want such reform....must be highly stressful when the priority is money for campaign sucsess. The past few repugs, Romney and Trump, both billionaire candidates.... Reform of Campaign Finance and Campaign spending parameters need to be fixed.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)But we know that takes time and power, we should be using every resource we can to beat republicans. I just do not understand why the op think this info is not available. They found it. I'm not sure what they want people to do, maybe send out letters to all voters telling how much they donate?
FarPoint
(13,201 posts)You can't bring a fork to a gun fight. I think the OP is just a flaimbait manoeuvre. The tone of fake outrage and assuming we should shun the candidate for using all legal resources.
I had a thought, maybe NASCAR should have an Amish buggy in their race system and Dale Earnhardt can lead with the buggy .. .... Based on the OP concept.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)No need to harm our own candidates by not allowing them to raise money. I am still trying to figure out what the point of this op is.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Yeah, I know corporations can't technically (note I said "technically" donate to campaigns. And SuperPACs don't have to disclose. This country, especially elections, is so messed up....
*******************
CNN disclosing those contributions each time they report on the Democratic primary would not directly prevent Hillary from raising money. But it would be doing what a so-called news organization should do (disclosing any conflicts of interest), if you ask this old codger.
Of course, things in this area have changed greatly over the years, not for the better, IMHO. I'm old enough to remember when news was regarded as a public service in part payment for your broadcast license, not as a profit center. And when corporations and government were not virtually indistinguishable.
Actually, I just Googled the topic of ethics/conflict of interest in journalism, and according to at least one source mere disclosure doesn't do it:
http://journalism.nyu.edu/publishing/ethics-handbook/potential-conflicts-of-interest/
Granted, this is talking about individual reporters. I Googled a little about the ethics of news organizations donating money, but that will take a bit more time that I don't have right now.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I do not find it to be serious.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)But I do think the M$M has many biases and things it ought to disclose, on both the individual and the corporate level.
pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)FarPoint
(13,201 posts)![](/emoticons/rofl.gif)
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)![](/emoticons/shrug.gif)
bravenak
(34,648 posts)What do you want them to do? Send out mailers? Ad buys proclaiming their donations? Anybody who wants to know can find the information easily. As evidenced by the op finding it so easily.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Is what is ridiculous.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)I wonder how many people do know how few companies own the majority of media outlets, what their contributions look like, and how that influences behavior.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Many others simply do not care very much and many would ignore it. Many people do not even care enough to vote. Why I am expected to be up in arms about it is a mystery. I gave an opinion. Nothing wrong with posting an opinion on an op. This outrage over me having an opinion is very interesting.
I mean, I have no idea why people are so interested in every post I make anywhere on the internet. It really is too much attention.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)That's a good point though. People who want information look for answers. Wonder why we should have giant media corporations to begin with, in that case. Brings up some good questions!
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)There needs to be an entire expose on this matter alone!!!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)If 'the people' want to read your expose, they will. The information is available to any who look for it
FarPoint
(13,201 posts)![](/emoticons/rofl.gif)
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)MSNBC should also disclose the conflict of interest they have
pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)Saying people don't care is idiotic. Most people probably don't know. Use your noggin before you continue to spout ignorant jargon.
And just look at the poll....
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,651 posts)And I shouldn't need to disclose who I donate to, either.
pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)...you realize big money is further corrupting our democracy and threatening the equality of our nation.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,651 posts)I don't want my donations to be public knowledge. That would just increase the number of phone calls I get. If all donations over ten thousand get reported, I'm all for that. I'm unlikely to donate that much.
But as far as reportiing: I think it's the recipient's (Clinton, in the case of this poll) responsibility to report, not the donor's. That would simplify the accounting.
pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)She won't report it, it would make CNN seem nonobjective.
FarPoint
(13,201 posts)One will use all resources to equal the playing field. The stand off rules come into play. You knew that didn't you.
choie
(4,380 posts)they are members of the press and should disclose their donations. Then the viewer can decide how "objective" they truly are.
FarPoint
(13,201 posts)This is a moot issue. This had no legs.... We here at DU understand the campaign dynamics in play, it's legal....so why beat a dead horse?
choie
(4,380 posts)as in journalistic ethics?
FarPoint
(13,201 posts)I support the efforts too. Hope we can gain control of Congress again to make the needed changes. We don't yet have it today.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)Generally, we expect our journalists to be as non-biased as possible. It only makes sense to expect them to disclose what their biases are. Sure, we can quibble about what that disclosure would look like, but that's not the question in the OP.
It would be incredibly naive to believe that the media conglomerates, some of the largest and most powerful entities across the globe, don't use political contributions for their own gain. Of course that influences their coverage.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Corporations can't donate to campaigns.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)_______________________
Time Warner $591,524
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)... on CNN before every piece on Hillary or Bernie. They have a conflict of interest and if they were ethical, they would not be afraid to admit that conflict.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)That's a conflict of interest for CNN and they ought to be open about it.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)money to any campaign. You have nothing but a conspiracy theory.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Was exposed
FarPoint
(13,201 posts)![](/emoticons/clap.gif)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)People who work for a corporation ARE the corporation ... that's what you are saying.
That's also what Romney said.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Form a horrid telecommunications monopoly.
And watch out for the Net Neutrality thing is she gets elected.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)As to who exactly you mean by "owners."