Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Tuesday June 20 2017, @02:01PM   Printer-friendly
from the make-media-great-again dept.

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."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @05:23PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @05:23PM (#528598)

    You are so fucking CRAZY VLM. I really REALLY wish we could have a SoylentNation Meetup just so we can find out who everyone actually is.

    From the various times I've actually seen some TV news the "experts" are 99.9% of the time supportive of whatever bias the channel is pushing. There are conservative, liberal, and anarcho/libertarian types all the time! Fox news is almost 100% conservative, along with a bunch of other outlets.

    "Roughly 100% of" lololol, come ON. Given the last sentence I actually wonder if you're just trolling, but you say crazy shit so often it is impossible to say.

  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday June 20 2017, @08:44PM (1 child)

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 20 2017, @08:44PM (#528707)

    (expression of Love deleted). I really REALLY wish we could have a SoylentNation Meetup just so we can find out who everyone actually is.

    We do every day, right here!

    "Roughly 100% of" lololol, come ON. Given the last sentence I actually wonder if you're just trolling, but you say crazy shit so often it is impossible to say.

    I say crazy shit but usually because its true. I'm not so much crazy, as really really good at finding the craziest shit. I've been a human google-bot for half a century. Some people don't think it thru and think that I can find crazy facts means I'm crazy; not so, its all the worlds fault. I couldn't cut and paste this much craziness without a hell of a lot of help from the world. I'm actually boring as hell rational when I'm talking hard engineering, probably because your average transistor engineering datasheet isn't as batshit crazy as, say, the world, or politics, or journalism, or religion, etc.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/05/06/just-7-percent-of-journalists-are-republicans-thats-far-less-than-even-a-decade-ago/ [washingtonpost.com]

    journalists who said they were Republicans in 2013 (7.1 percent) than in 2002 (18 percent)

    OK I call "about zero" what in 2013 was 7%. Of course if you extend trend plots and cut about 1% annually then 2017 would be about 3% predicted.

    I'm not even going to listen to outrage posts that I dare call 3% "about zero". Spare me.

    http://www.mrc.org/special-reports/liberal-mediaevery-poll-shows-journalists-are-more-liberal-american-public-%E2%80%94-and [mrc.org]

    (admittedly maybe not the most unbiased source)

    Of those who say they voted for major party candidates, the proportion of leading journalists who supported the Democratic candidate never drops below 80 percent.

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/scathing-report-shows-just-how-many-journalists-have-contributed-to-clintons-campaign/ [mediaite.com]

    In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism ... blah blah ... Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton

    https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/report-journalists-are-miserable-over-educated-under-paid-middle-aged-men-mostly/361891/ [theatlantic.com]

    No copy and paste, darn near the entire article. The change over time is amazing.

    I will admit this is pretty much a grumpy old man issue. People today accept that journalists are staggeringly overwhelmingly left wing. But when I was a kid (a long time ago) it was actually kinda balanced. I suspect some of the people who disagreed with me without having done any research of their own, are also "older" and relying on life experiences in the 80s or something. Even as late as 1980 you were only twice as likely to find a "D" than a "R" unlike now where its nearly impossible to find an "R" journalist other than specialty venues (like fox news or the economist or whatever).

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @11:01PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @11:01PM (#528763)

      Thanks for actual links, as usual your reporting of "the truth" is quite skewed as to sound very crazy. Stop with the crazy huh? Then you won't get so many "expressions of love".

      So, the truth: Republicans lost a lot of journalists over time, Democrats lost a good chunk, while independents and other rose sharply. To me this doesn't scream "all journalists are liberals" it simply shows that party affiliation has rapidly dropped. I am NOT shocked to see that republicans fell faster than democrats, because the GOP is a cesspool of snakes and liars. The democrats still pretend occasionally to take the high road.

      So, you're narrative is false and doesn't even mention the sizable drop in Democrat journalists. #FAKENEWS #SAD #OLDMANWALKING

  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 21 2017, @02:29PM (1 child)

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday June 21 2017, @02:29PM (#529033) Journal

    Oh that's easy. VLM would be the one with the toothbrush moustache. Then jmorris would show up with one, too, and they'd joyfully, reflexively salute each other with an 'ave' before self-consciously checking the gesture and morphing it into a motion to slick back their hair. Aristarchus and takyon would generally resemble Radagast the Brown, and azuma and kurenai would be dressed all in rainbows cross-cut with aggressive punk touches like spiked collars. Buzzard would show up in a fishing vest. I would be the one in the corner, snarling at everyone.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday June 22 2017, @03:49AM

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday June 22 2017, @03:49AM (#529358) Journal

      I'd actually be wearing what I normally wear, which is black jeans, a black top, steel-toed boots, and some lacy black things under it. Black looks good on me. Trust me, at six feet and with almost knee-length hair I don't need to dress weird to stand out.

      I'm almost painfully shy in meatspace. No one would guess I was gay looking at me either. I don't wear pride buttons or anything. Mostly I just want to be left the hell alone, so might not even show up to said meetup. That said, you *might* see me with a handful of Uzzard's teeth and some fragments of that fishing vest of his if he gets uppity.

      Ever watch a weird little anime called Azumanga Daiou? Think "early-30s Sakaki, but with a way less privileged upbringing and a grudge against the world."

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...