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: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday June 20 2017, @05:07PM
The statement is demonstrably false.
Two aspects of the claim: (1) "half of the American public... voted for Trump" and (2) "half of the American public... supports his agenda."
Actual statistics from the 2016 vote: 60.2% of the eligible American population to vote actually voted. 46% voted for Trump. Therefore 27.7% of the "American public" (excluding those who would be ineligible to vote like kids) voted for Trump last November.
If he had said "half of voters" instead of "half of the American public," his claim might be closer to reality. But he didn't. Whether we accept that the 46% of voters showed up and approved of Trump is a statistically accurate sample of "the American public" is a separate question. And no, I'm not claiming turnout was bad this election compared to others (it wasn't), but it's important to note that roughly 40% of the "American public" did not voice a clear opinion.
As for the second claim, only one recent poll (Rasmussen) has shown Trump to have a ~50% approval, which Trump himself touted this weekend, but that's cherry picking. Other recent approval ratings seem to be in the 35-40% range.
To be clear: I haven't watched CNN at any point recently, so I have no idea how fair or unfair their coverage is. And there certainly should be opportunities for the administration to present its view, as well as giving Trump supporters a voice. On the other hand, after Trump's post election "bump" and the inauguration, the trendlines have been steadily moving against him. Polls after the inauguration gave him at least mid to upper 40s approval and maybe higher, with only ~40% disapproval. That's now changed to high 30s approval and ~55% disapproval.
A few months ago it may have been reasonable to claim "half of the American public" supports him -- at least those who chose to express an opinion -- but that's not really true anymore.