Time Warner owns CNN (Hillary Clinton's 8th largest donor)

[blueintelligentsia]

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

[bravenak]

1. Ridiculous

Regular people do not care. If you know, it must be public knowledge. If anybody cares, they can search.

[bravenak]

3. What is your problem?

[pantsonfire]

6. Are you against spreading awareness of this? Why...

...do you think "regular" people don't care?

[ucrdem]

14. I think the problem is, what does "disclose" mean that they're not already doing?

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]

20. Public knowledge that most "regular" folk don't know...

Watching a news station that donates to a candidate and not the other, makes you wonder...

[FarPoint]

42. The public at large understand you need all resources legal to win.

It's most evident in the Sports Industry for example.

[SusanCalvin]

72. Public knowledge in the sense that it can be Googled, I guess.

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]

27. Spread whatever you want. I can have an opinion.

[pantsonfire]

28. Apparently blue can't, but you can. nt

[bravenak]

29. Whatever that means

[pantsonfire]

31. He expressed an opinion and it was blocked....

[bravenak]

34. He resorted to personal insults rather than discussing the subject at hand.

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]

36. "Regular people do not care"....that's not personal?

I think his insults were over-the-top, but I agree with his sentiment.

[bravenak]

37. That is an opinion

I am entitled to mine whether you agree or not. Not liking my opinion is not a reason to alert or hide.

[pantsonfire]

38. You said people need to avoid getting personal....anyway he was spot on.

[bravenak]

40. This is getting very personal

[Agschmid]

81. You have no idea...

[Agschmid]

80. Not blocked, hidden.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

8. Alert results 0-7

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]

9. I can see you voted no (in the poll)...that makes you a biased juror. nt

[Spacedog1973]

11. I'm reasonably certain

That the poll question and the alerted post have nothing in common.

[pantsonfire]

12. Except the post is a direct response to the poll....

Also, can we post jury results, I will do that in the future if so.

[Spacedog1973]

13. No

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]

16. Offensive is one of the reasons....do you agree with his sentiment? nt

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

15. This would be worth looking into, ...

... if the jury results were 3-4 or 4-3.

I don't think my juror response was a deciding vote.

[pantsonfire]

17. Well you're right on that point, but still....I think the comment...

Was inappropriate, speaking like the DU member knows the opinions of all regular people.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

22. It was just an opinion expressed. Ok, bravenak claimed to speak for all regular people...

... and maybe that's true. I can't speak to most people's regularity.

[SwampG8r]

48. Just ignore her she isnt worth tbe agita

We all know what shes doing here she hasnt even tried to hide it.

[pantsonfire]

18. So even though you don't dismiss bias, it only matters if its a deciding vote?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

25. I don't know what bias you're talking about, in this jury vote.

Bravenak expressed an opinion, and it didn't seem over the top, didn't attack anyone. It didn't deserve a "hide".

[pantsonfire]

26. The opinion clearly was expressing a NO vote, you also voted NO.

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]

43. Ya think someone is bias on a jury?

You may need to clarify that claim.

[pantsonfire]

24. Couldn't of said it better myself +1 nt

[FarPoint]

30. Until we change Citizens United.... Candidates must use all legal resources.

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]

32. I want it addressed too

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]

39. You understand..

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]

41. Really, though

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]

77. Mmmmm....., edited upon being more awake.

Yeah, I know corporations can't technically (note I said "technically&quot 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:

Political and charitable donations: If a reporter donates to a politician running for office (say, the mayor) he shouldn't also cover the election -- that includes not only the mayor but also her opponents. Be forewarned: If you donate money to a politically active organization (Planned Parenthood or the National Rifle Association) your objectivity may be called into question if you write about issues of interest to these organizations.

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]

82. This was just trying to make something seem like a big secret scandal

I do not find it to be serious.

[SusanCalvin]

87. I don't either, after the early-morning knee jerk.

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]

33. I'm happy to see that most people seem to disagree with you :) nt

[bravenak]

35. There are barely any people in this thread

[FarPoint]

57. You got that right.

...

[RedCappedBandit]

45. If nobody cares, why oppose disclosure?

[bravenak]

47. It is obviously disclosed

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]

50. If they already do, what's ridiculous about it?

[bravenak]

52. The idea that it is some secret scandal

Is what is ridiculous.

[RedCappedBandit]

53. Ah, so you weren't replying to the OP.

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]

54. The people who are concerned, look for answers

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]

55. Don't really know who you're responding to.

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]

49. THIS IS A Matter of Credibility And Most Certainly Represents A CONFLICT OF INTEREST!

This is as ... BASIC AS IT GETS!

Why not let the people decide IF they care or not about such a close and very significant relationship from multiple perspectives?

There needs to be an entire expose on this matter alone!!!

[bravenak]

51. I don't think so

If 'the people' want to read your expose, they will. The information is available to any who look for it

[FarPoint]

84. False Drama Outrage....

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. Conflict of interest is not ridicolous

MSNBC should also disclose the conflict of interest they have

[pantsonfire]

4. Blue doesn't have a problem...you cannot speak for all Americans.

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]

7. CNN/Time Warner shouldn't need to disclose donations.

And I shouldn't need to disclose who I donate to, either.

[pantsonfire]

10. Citizens United was clearly a victory for you then...

...you realize big money is further corrupting our democracy and threatening the equality of our nation.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

19. What's the limit on reporting donations?

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]

21. I'm talking 100's of thousands from corporations....

She won't report it, it would make CNN seem nonobjective.

[FarPoint]

44. Citizen United is in play.

One will use all resources to equal the playing field. The stand off rules come into play. You knew that didn't you.

[choie]

60. Media, like CNN uses the public airwaves

they are members of the press and should disclose their donations. Then the viewer can decide how "objective" they truly are.

[FarPoint]

61. Anyone can look it up if they want to.

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]

79. Legal doesn't mean ethical

as in journalistic ethics?

[FarPoint]

83. Then you must be an activist for changing Citizens United and Campaign Finance Reform.

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]

46. You spelled shareholder wrong

[Bread and Circus]

56. The people who voted no should be ashamed of themselves.

[RedCappedBandit]

58. More media transparency would be a good thing. Anyone that thinks otherwise is a fool.

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]

59. Yes (nt)

[DanTex]

62. This nonsense again? Time Warner has donated nothing to Hillary.

Corporations can't donate to campaigns.

[Scuba]

63. Except that they have. Nice try at muddying the waters though ...

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career

Contributor Amount
_______________________
Time Warner $591,524

[DanTex]

64. Those are from Time Warner employees. Have you guys still not figured that out?

[Scuba]

65. Yeah we get it. Time Warner linemen coughing up hundreds of thousands. Yeah, that's it.

[DanTex]

66. Conspiracy!

[Scuba]

68. You need a tin foil hat. All we're asking is that TW make a disclaimer ...

... 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]

70. Time Warner has contributed no money to either campaign.

[Scuba]

71. No, but the guy who owns TW has, and TW has donated to Hillary's PAC.

That's a conflict of interest for CNN and they ought to be open about it.

[DanTex]

73. Time Warner is a publicly traded company. A lot of people own shares.

https://www.nyse.com/quote/XNYS:TWX

[Scuba]

74. Again, you're just trying to muddy the waters. Fail.

[DanTex]

75. I'm stating facts. TWX is a publicly traded company. And it has not contributed any

money to any campaign. You have nothing but a conspiracy theory.

[redstateblues]

76. What happened to the poster? Kind of disappeared when the smear

Was exposed

[FarPoint]

85. Thank you Dan

Excellent way to deflate the balloon conspiracy.

[JoePhilly]

67. So corporations ARE people ... is that your point?

People who work for a corporation ARE the corporation ... that's what you are saying.

That's also what Romney said.

[Armstead]

69. Time Warner is also p[ushing for permission to merge with Charter Cable

Form a horrid telecommunications monopoly.

And watch out for the Net Neutrality thing is she gets elected.

[SusanCalvin]

78. Please be more specific

As to who exactly you mean by "owners."