SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
A couple of Time Warner shareholders went after CNN CEO Jeff Bewkes Thursday in LA at a Time Warner shareholders meeting [...] David Almasi, the Veep of the National Center for Public Policy Research1, a conservative communications and research foundation, is in LA to question Bewkes. Both Almasi and President David Ridenour are Time Warner shareholders.
[...] “Mr. Bewkes, we have urged you many times to make CNN more objective,” Almasi said in his statement. “You have admitted to us in 2014 the need for more balance. We praised you last year after CNN President Jeffrey Zucker also acknowledged this and acted on the need for more diverse views. But bias is apparently worse than ever. As shareholders, we are concerned about the repetitional risk to our investment in Time Warner as CNN appears to be a key player in the war against the Trump presidency.”
Almasi cited a Media Research Center2 study of CNN programing for 14 hours and 27 minutes of news coverage back on May 12. The report concluded that all but 68 minutes were devoted to Trump with 96 guests out of 123 being negative.
[...] “I’m inquiring about CNN’s bias and our return on investment,” Almasi continued in his statement. “Half of the American public – which includes potential and current CNN viewers – voted for Trump last November and supports his agenda. CNN acts as if it is part of the anti-Trump resistance. Are you willing to lose viewers, possibly forever, because of the bias?”
Almasi even threatened Bewkes, saying that Media Research Center plans to alert advertisers about news programs that “peddle smear, hate and political extremism.”
He asked Bewkes, “Are you concerned about advertisers leaving CNN? Will you continue to ignore our appeals for objectivity at the risk to our investment in Time Warner?”
Source: The Daily Caller
1The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a self-described conservative think tank in the United States. In February 2014, at Apple Inc.'s annual shareholder meeting, NCPPR proposed Apple "disclose the costs of its sustainability programs" was rejected by 97% vote. The NCPPR representative argued that Apple's decision to have all of its power come from greens sources would lower shareholders' profits.
2The Media Research Center (MRC) is a politically conservative content analysis organization based in Reston, Virginia, founded in 1987 by activist L. Brent Bozell III. Its stated mission is to "prove—through sound scientific research—that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values."
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday June 20 2017, @03:35PM (9 children)
Are you saying that Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, and the National Review are actually staffed 100% by democrats? That's so devious.
How have they fooled millions of conservatives for so long?
What's a genuine source of conservative news, StormFront?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @03:59PM
My folks were fans of Mark Koernke [wikipedia.org]. Maybe Liberty Tree Radio [4mg.com] is conservative news?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday June 20 2017, @06:27PM (4 children)
It's not that hard, they are not too bright.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday June 20 2017, @07:37PM (3 children)
That then begs the question, if it is the case that all journalists and reporters and editors are Democrats and the ones working for Fox, the Wall Street Journal, etc. were only pretending to push a conservative narrative, then why were they doing that? If in fact they're all on the same Democratic team, why would they work at cross purposes by pushing a "liberal" narrative at MSNBC while pushing a "conservative" narrative at Fox? Unless...team red vs. team blue is not their agenda at all but something else, right?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday June 20 2017, @08:14PM (2 children)
First, Phoenix, never use "begs the question" for "raises the question", or you will get curmudgeons like myself falling all over their selves to straighten you out.
Why? What better way to get rid of the so-called conservative movement in America than to let them win? We might call it the "Kansas strategy". But I prefer to think of it along the lines of what the American economist, Thorstein Veblen, said was the Chinese approach to national defense. Veblen was proposing a similar approach to the Kaiser in WWI, "Let the Germans win." No better way to destroy imperial ambition than to allow, or even abet, its success!
China, being the Central Kingdom 中国 , had to deal with all sorts of barbarians that would raid its borders and generally cause mischief. But much like with the "Ethics of Parasites", if you want to be a raider, it is in your best interest not to threaten the health, and certainly not the existence of your host. Thus China would often buy off barbarians, or co-opt them into being frontier guards against other barbarians.
Of course, the reason this worked was that if a nation of barbarians were to conquer China, they would lose. And certainly this did happen once, with the Yuan dynasty and Kublai Khan, the grandson of Ghengis. But the thing is, once you conquer China, and make yourself the emperor, you really can't be a Mongol anymore. No more hunting on the steppes, there are affairs of state to tend to. And you cannot be emperor of China if you do not both speak and write Chinese! And the Emperor must dress appropriately for mandatory ritual. So the Mongols took over China. But what happened to them? Within two generations, they were just Chinese.
.
So we let the Republicans win. In fact, even force them to elect Trumpf the Khan, a real estate pillager from the North! And then we let them try to govern. Now they actually can repeal and replace Obamacare, and in fact they will have to. But it will destroy them. In the future, only old people will say, "Read my lips, no new taxes." Then we will know they are the ones who used to be Republican.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 21 2017, @04:56PM (1 child)
once you have paid him the Danegeld/ You never get rid of the Dane [wikipedia.org]
Power begets power, especially in politics. It shifts cultural norms, and allows entrenchment. Why do you think there are only 2 major political parties, despite so many people begging for a 3rd or 4th choice?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday June 21 2017, @06:02PM
Um, because in China, there is only one party? And no Danes, except Matt Damon, and I am pretty sure that was fiction.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @08:25PM (2 children)
There has long been an internal battle at Fox over the message.
Fox is in New York. They hire journalists. Nearly all of them are liberal.
Fox leadership, until just recently (due to death), was conservative. Leadership sort of runs the show of course, but underlings subvert the desired message. Fox was slightly conservative as a result.
The new leadership at Fox is at best uninterested in fighting that fight. We now see Fox rapidly moving left.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 21 2017, @01:53AM (1 child)
So instead of Hitler we'll get Carter. I'm OK with this.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday June 21 2017, @02:44AM
Me too!
https://www.planetclaire.tv/quotes/stargate-sg1/samantha-carter/season-two/ [planetclaire.tv]
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---