Right wingers: Why would mega-corporations that own our media favor the Democratic Party that supports unions?

Media Conglomerates are Big Business. What's funny is that FOX News is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who had a cozy business relationship with Mao Zedong and was able to create one of China's largest TV Networks. On top of that, he's cheated on his wife and married a Chinese Woman.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycl...

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D00...

Seems Time Warner is a big donor to Obama, who happens to be democrat.

It seems the FCC has stopped accepting applications for new media stations within the same year. The process hasn't been opened since.

If you do not believe me, you can call them up and ask them your self.

Not good enough for you?

Check out http://www.prometheusradio.org/

This is a non-profit media reform advocacy organization. And they are very liberal and it seems they are fighting a "liberal" government who doesn't care about helping them.

Can I prove the three are related?

No. Yet the idea Obama may be helping Time Warner out by preventing new competition entering the market because they donated to his campaign isn't far fetched. The whole reason they would want more regulation is to prevent more competition. Big guys can afford high priced lawyers to navigate complex regulations. Small time community radio stations can't. Less competition means more profit. To me, preventing who is allowed to build a station is a violation of free speech despite the motivation.

Oh by the way, Obama wasn't the only one bought and sold.

If you began to follow the money concerning donations in elections, you would end up hating the Democrats just as much as you hate the Republicans. Why? Because the Mega Media and other Mega Corps buy out candidates of both parties. This is corruption. Corruption is disgusting. Then you would become an independent like me.

Ultimately, the media corporations all sell product.

Some do "appear" to be left-leaning and liberal. But, this is more in the nature of selling product.

Behind the scenes the key companies that own them are all very friendly with the GOP.

Losing a few seats here and there as a result of selling their manufactured dissent to the libs is all part of doing business.

And, just to be safe, they contribute heavily to the Dems as well, making certain they have as many politicians as possible in their back pocket.

It's just that with the GOP, this relationship can be a bit more blatant than with the Dems.

You can't use logic on these guys - they have a handy, back-pocket excuse for everything from Fox News.

But it's true - these companies owe nothing to Democrats, and everything to gain from Republican tax cuts.

I worked at NBC during Monica Lewinsky, and everybody there was just like the general public - split about 50/50 between supporters and people who thought it was wrong.

These big corporations want a monopoly, and that's why they want the unions. Union management is communist and American elites use unions to take control of assests. (like GM) and soon the healthcare system. They are monopolizing the market

Unions have control over hollywood and use influential actors as propaganda, same with education, media, writers unions control print media, scripts and textbooks. They have even invaded churches.

What nomenclatures are used today to mask Communism? Why are so-called evangelical leaders endorsing masked forms of Communism? In the past Communists have been equated with atheists.

But today, many Communists are embracing pagan spirituality. How does the Emergent Church promote Communism and under what name? How should Christians respond to the ongoing worldview war with Communism?

Download the MP3

http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-radio/ep...

Independent Voters are the true backbone of this great nation because they don't get too caught up in either wing. We are the beak, the digestive system and the poop hole of the bird and that bird is a bald eagle perched atop the jiggly bits of Lady Liberty herself!

... You're 100% correct. Yes, of course there are some folks on the media who are pro-left, but they're outnumbered about 10-1 by those who are pro-right.

This is about the six companies that dominate our media: http://www.thinkandask.com/news/mediagiants.html

If I am a billionaire I honestly couldn't care less who ran your government and as long as I can convince you that I am one of you, I can teach you that you need socialism for all your needs. This shifts the burden of your health care, entitlements, perks and retirement onto the taxpayers and off my bottom line.

In addition I can use your taxes to finance my businesses by borrowing it from your representatives and repay the loan with your own sales taxes. You are cattle to me. All I care about is one world governance led by myself and a few chosen individuals to do my bidding and Socialism for you because you are not smart enough to decide who leads you, and this in turn allows me to prevent you from becoming my competition.

TYVM, Suckers.

Only a freaking idiot would deny the liberal bias of the print and TV news media

You really have set this one up for anyone to look stupid who disagrees with you. It is not, however, up to any of us to explain the behavior of any particular organization.

How about I just give you the facts, compiled by the Center for Excellence in Journalism. The Center was started at Columbia School of Journalism and is now part of the Pew Charitable Trust. Here are its data on coverage of the 2008 election. For fun, see if you can determine which news organizations are biased and which appears to be quite fair and balanced.

FOX News:

Negative Coverage of Obama: 40%

Negative Coverage of McCain: 40%

Positive Coverage of Obama: 25%

Positive Coverage of McCain: 22%

MSNBC:

Negative Coverage of Obama: 14%

Negative Coverage of McCain: 73%

Positive Coverage of Obama: 43%

Positive Coverage of McCain: 10%

CNN:

Negative Coverage of Obama: 39%

Negative Coverage of McCain: 61%

Positive Coverage of Obama: 36%

Positive Coverage of McCain: 13%

NBC:

Negative Coverage of Obama: 31%

Negative Coverage of McCain: 54%

Positive Coverage of Obama: 42%

Positive Coverage of McCain: 17%

Media Overall:

Negative Coverage of Obama: 29%

Negative Coverage of McCain: 57%

Positive Coverage of Obama: 36%

Positive Coverage of McCain: 14%

Newspaper Coverage:

Negative Coverage of Obama: 27%

Negative Coverage of McCain: 69%

Positive Coverage of Obama: 45%

Positive Coverage of McCain: 6%

Right from the source: http://www.journalism.org/node/13437

EDIT: Maybe you are right. But only one of us has provided any evidence whatsoever.