http://corporate.disney.go.com/corporate/overview.html

BOYCOTT

6/19/2009 10:33:13 AM

Quote :

"Last I heard from Obama, the economy was down. Why would ABC refuse advertising dollars--especially since there have been several special requests to include opposing viewpoints? "

Do you honestly think they're going to have trouble selling advertising time for this?

6/19/2009 10:49:21 AM

Quote :

"So you're telling me a private organization is allowed to refuse advertisers time on their network?"

Wait now. I thought we can't trust these evil corporations to think for themselves. If the gov't can set pay, why can't it decide who can advertise?

6/19/2009 10:52:08 AM

Look, I said that I think this is a sticky situation, but a conservative trying to argue that ABC should be required to allow the RNC to buy advertising time would be arguing against what I thought was supposed to be a conservative principle.

6/19/2009 10:58:29 AM

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/18/hannity-unprecedented-access/

This week:

Quote :

" HANNITY: Karl, it seems rather unprecedented. You were there in the White House for the better part of eight years. Did this ever happened while George W. Bush was president? ROVE: You know, look, it’s normal for the networks to want to come in and do an interview inside the White House or to get a glimpse behind the curtain as to what goes on there. This is an unprecedented access to the White House and more importantly an unprecedented use of the White House. I can’t remember a time when the network came in and was going to devote a significant block of time to covering an issue that was on the president’s agenda."

But...

Quote :

"As Media Matters first noted, when Fox News’ Bret Baier was granted “unprecedented access” to the White House in Feb. 2008, the network billed it as a “documentary,” not an “infomercial.” Further, Fox was not only welcomed into the White House, but aboard Air Force One, to Bush’s ranch in Texas, and into the Oval Office. Baier introduced the “documentary” saying, “Fox News has been granted unprecedented access inside the President’s world. … It’s a President Bush you’ve never seen before.” Watch a compilation of Hannity last night and Baier’s special:"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cFvJR1u3mk

And

Quote :

"Prior to airing the Bush special, Baier hosted a special on the famously-reclusive vice president entitled “Dick Cheney: No Retreat.” Fox billed it as “a rare glimpse into the life of the vice president” and aired the program Oct. 13, 2007. Similarly, on Oct. 30, 2007, Fox’s Greta Van Susteren was granted what she called “unprecedented access” to First Lady Laura Bush’s tour of the Middle East. "

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2009/6/18/16147/3094/9#c9

Quote :

"Fox televised a McCain Town Hall last June -- in which McCain handpicked the audience. They are the GOP Network indeed. That's fine...as long as they are treated like any other opinion or advocacy group."

[Edited on June 19, 2009 at 11:10 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on June 19, 2009 at 11:11 AM. Reason : ,]

6/19/2009 11:09:02 AM

^^ I hope you're not referring to me.

^ Did opposition groups request equal time? If not, their loss.

[Edited on June 19, 2009 at 11:17 AM. Reason : .]

6/19/2009 11:15:52 AM

ABC reserves the right to deny opposition ads if it likes. I believe it was Republicans freaking out recently about the possibility of Obama wanting "equal time" rules to be put back in place. Fox has consistently stifled opposition views over the course of its existence.

It is not the administration who is disallowing opposition. Now, I'm sure they probably like it, but I doubt ABC needs them to say "don't allow opposition." They're probably happy to do it anyway.

[Edited on June 19, 2009 at 11:25 AM. Reason : .]

6/19/2009 11:23:02 AM

Can any of you show me where conservatives here (or even elsewhere) have said that ABC should be forced to broadcast opposing viewpoints?

^ 1. There's a bit of a difference in a cable news outlet and a Big Three broadcast network.

2. In any event, nice tu quoque fallacy.

6/19/2009 11:28:45 AM

It's not tu quoque, because I'm not saying "it's ok because you guys did it." What I'm saying is, you guys have your panties in a bunch, even though your side did it and you (presumably) didn't care. Hannity and Rove and Bush surely were happy with it when Fox did it.

See, I'm definitely not happy with this idea, and I didn't know about the Fox thing, but I wouldn't have liked it either. I'm just saying it's hardly as bad as you, hannity, and rove are making it sound. It's hardly "state controlled media," any more than it was when Fox was doing it.

Quote :

"There's a bit of a difference in a cable news outlet and a Big Three broadcast network."

Only if you want there to be.

Quote :

"Can any of you show me where conservatives here (or even elsewhere) have said that ABC should be forced to broadcast opposing viewpoints? "

I never said anyone did. Part of the hubbub here is that ABC is refusing to air opposing views during this broadcast, and I'm saying that there's no reason why they should or should have to.

6/19/2009 11:35:18 AM

Objectivity? As opposed to a "slobbering love affair."

The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics

Seek Truth and Report It

Quote :

"— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant."

Quote :

"— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context."

Act Independently

Quote :

"—Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived."

Be Accountable

Quote :

"— Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct. — Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media."

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

These are a few principles and standards that should apply.

[Edited on June 19, 2009 at 11:47 AM. Reason : .]

6/19/2009 11:40:29 AM

Again, I agree that there are literally NO objective news agencies. Not one. I highly doubt such a thing is possible at all anymore, and I actually doubt that it ever was. I think it's like when old people talk about "the good old days," since really, their "good old days" were during the Jim Crow era.

6/19/2009 11:47:34 AM

^ WTF?

6/19/2009 11:48:27 AM

I think NPR comes about as close as it gets to objective reporting. After 5 years of listening to their broadcasts, I've found they will use neutral adjectives for each party. Also, when they mention both the right and the left in a story, they either use "conservative" and "liberal" exclusively, or "republican" and "democrat" exclusively; whereas other news agencies will mix the terms to add a slight favor to one side. They've also spent equal amounts of time on Dem and GOP scandals. They have guest experts from both sides of the aisle; neither gets preferential treatment on air, and neither appears far smarter than the other.

That said, their editorial and non-news programming swings strongly left, ie Diane Rehm. Also, I'm sure most of their non-government funding comes from liberals.

6/19/2009 12:36:05 PM

^ I've never once heard NPR announce a guest as liberal commentator So-and-So--or any other news outlet, for that matter. But I routinely hear "conservative" commentator/writer/talk show host/and so on. If you have a clip, I'd love to hear it.

6/19/2009 12:45:11 PM

Hmm, I think you have a point. However, I personally believe the Right is more receptive to being labeled, where the Left has a tendency towards eschewing labels altogether. Far more people will claim to be a proud "Conservative" or "Republican", than claim to be a proud "Liberal" or "Democrat".

And while NPR may be sometimes adding unnecesary labels to conservative commentators, they still treat their conservative guests with far more civility than CNN or MSNBC.

[Edited on June 19, 2009 at 1:48 PM. Reason : not saying they're perfect, but they're more neutral than others IMO]

6/19/2009 1:47:46 PM

this is too funny:
http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001852/

6/19/2009 3:35:39 PM

^ Did the Democrats ask for equal time?

[Edited on June 19, 2009 at 3:37 PM. Reason : Or some representation or to purchase ad space?]

6/19/2009 3:37:19 PM

I don't know... I think NPR is more liberal, but less obviously so. They do a great job of saying things in a more objective way while still saying things I *usually* agree with. They're publicly funded, though, which I think has some sort of effect. It's hard to say what that effect is, but not being beholden to a corporate entity obviously makes a difference.

6/19/2009 3:43:44 PM

they're beholden to their largest donators. although lately they've been hurting for money so they're pretty much selling ad space to regular companies.

Most of npr is worthless human intrest crap that no one cares about. The only news thats really worth listening to is the BBC. tbqh i wish i could get the full on BBC news service on my radio dial.

[Edited on June 19, 2009 at 3:53 PM. Reason : .]

6/19/2009 3:53:20 PM

NPR also does a better job of differentiating between news and commentary

6/19/2009 3:56:40 PM

Quote :

"Most of npr is worthless human intrest crap that no one cares about"

Maybe not you. I'm a huge npr fan

surprise!

6/19/2009 4:39:02 PM

Quote :

"It's not tu quoque, because I'm not saying "it's ok because you guys did it." What I'm saying is, you guys have your panties in a bunch, even though your side did it and you (presumably) didn't care."

Umm, that is tu quoque. tu quoque pretty much means " you did it too..."

6/19/2009 5:00:05 PM

it implies that its ok because...

he is saying, "where was the outrage then? why wasn't glen beck crying about the death of journalism then?."

6/19/2009 6:01:58 PM

Quote :

"As Media Matters first noted, when Fox News’ Bret Baier was granted “unprecedented access” to the White House in Feb. 2008, the network billed it as a “documentary,” not an “infomercial.” Further, Fox was not only welcomed into the White House, but aboard Air Force One, to Bush’s ranch in Texas, and into the Oval Office. Baier introduced the “documentary” saying, “Fox News has been granted unprecedented access inside the President’s world. … It’s a President Bush you’ve never seen before.” Watch a compilation of Hannity last night and Baier’s special:""

Wow, George, those are all great quotes (that one from dailykos is especially grabbing let me tell you), but the thing about all of those instances is that the network was not pushing the administration's agenda. The Bush access was late 2007 and 2008, when the administration had nothing it was "fighting for" other than fair news coverage.

You make a very weak argument trying to compare what ABC is doing with pushing the health care driven agenda of the White House to how Fox News had access to the White House for interviews with a President who was stepping down in less than a year.

And the John McCain Town Hall? Do you really think ABC/MSNBC/CBS was going to show something like that? And the reason he did it "solo" was because Obama declined his invitation.

6/20/2009 2:00:47 AM

^that's pretty much what I was gonna say. Pushing an agenda is different than getting an "inside look" at the lives of Bush et al.

It's no secret that ABC is left leaning (since Disney is their parent company). I'd say I'll boycott ABC programming, but the only show I watch on there now is "Lost" so its not like it matters either way.

[Edited on June 22, 2009 at 2:09 PM. Reason : k]

6/22/2009 2:08:17 PM

Since when is Disney left-leaning?

6/22/2009 2:12:58 PM

^^

do you watch any of the espn channels? Pixar Films? Miramax Movies?

It's all suckling from the same teet.

lol "left-leaning"

disney will lean to whoever will get them straight bank-note paid

6/22/2009 2:24:48 PM

but all the cartoons, and Mickey Mouse - they're all so..... gay.
Disney has to be left-leaning!

6/22/2009 2:26:23 PM

[Edited on June 22, 2009 at 2:26 PM. Reason : .]

6/22/2009 2:26:23 PM

^^lol, forgot about all that

I'm not talking about cartoons asshat. I'm taking about Michael Eisner, who led Disney for a long time.

6/22/2009 8:49:27 PM

ABC employees donated heavily to Obama

Quote :

"As indignation turned to outrage Thursday among critics of an ABC News prime-time special on President Obama's health care policy, The Washington Times has learned that ABC employees gave 80 times as much money to Mr. Obama's 2008 campaign for president than to his rival's. According to an analysis of campaign donations by the Center for Responsive Politics, conducted at The Times' request, ABC employees in several divisions donated $124,421 to the Obama campaign, compared with $1,550 to the presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain."

Quote :

"A study released Thursday by the Business & Media Institute (BMI) found that since Inauguration Day, ABC has aired news stories with positive reviews of Mr. Obama's health care policy 55 times, compared with 18 times when the network highlighted negative reviews. Citing Census Bureau figures, the BMI analyses also accused ABC of 'exaggerating the breadth of the uninsured problem,' saying the network's claim that up to 50 million Americans are uninsured is false."

http://tinyurl.com/mkk9d6

Oh, yeah, everything's totally unbiased at ABC.

[Edited on June 23, 2009 at 5:36 AM. Reason : PS: ]

6/23/2009 5:33:08 AM

Do you expect ABC employees not to have personal political preferences? Do you expect those individuals not to donate to the campaign of their choice? That's not bias. If you want to demonstrate that ABC is biased, the evidence will come from ABC's output, not who ABC's employees pull out their checkbooks for.

6/23/2009 7:59:51 AM

Quote :

"A study released Thursday by the Business & Media Institute (BMI) found that since Inauguration Day, ABC has aired news stories with positive reviews of Mr. Obama's health care policy 55 times, compared with 18 times when the network highlighted negative reviews. "

that looks like output to me

6/23/2009 8:19:59 AM

^^ Incorrect. Political donations are but one indicator of the leanings of an organization. When taken with, I don't know, say, an admission of liberal bias by the then-political director of ABC News, one can form an educated opinion.

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=569452

[Edited on June 23, 2009 at 8:26 AM. Reason : ^]

6/23/2009 8:25:55 AM

Sure, but I'm talking about hooksaw's emphasis on employee contributions. See the bolded parts of his post. It's "ABC employees donated heavily to Obama," not "ABC reviews Obama's health care policy more favorably than not."

6/23/2009 8:26:27 AM

Quote :

"Political donations are but one indicator of the leanings of an organization."

6/23/2009 8:27:53 AM

NEWS FLASH

MEDIA OUTLETS DONATE MORE TO LIBERALS THAN CONSERVATIVES


I'm glad someone figured that out for us

6/23/2009 8:29:04 AM

I'm pretty sure employee voting records would be even better indicators of collective personal bias, but a) that ain't germane, either, and b) it ain't nobody's goddamn business, either.

6/23/2009 8:33:40 AM

The question is, how many of these employees were actually jornalists, and how many were rank and file.

Are we really caring how the receptionist or the mail boy donated or voted. Well, hooksaw probably cares.

6/23/2009 8:35:01 AM

^^^ You've pinpointed the problem, genius. Now, are you saying that this has no effect concerning bias at all?

^^ Well, here are a few polls about the media in general:









http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

[Edited on June 23, 2009 at 8:38 AM. Reason : ^]

6/23/2009 8:35:24 AM

[Edited on June 23, 2009 at 8:44 AM. Reason : Sorry, misread the carets.]

6/23/2009 8:42:34 AM

Quote :

"Now, are you saying that this has no effect concerning bias at all?"

SO FUCKING TUNE OUT

You're a conservative, you should well know you're free to choose whichever fucking media outlet you want.

Debating the biases of the various news outlets has been going on for years in this forum. We know they exist, we know they won't change, what is the damn point in talking about it? You're not going to go out into America and convince some ardent conservative that FNC isn't biased no more than you're going to convince a star struck liberal that every other news organization isn't biased. The people in the middle are going to be skeptical regardless, so you're just wasting you're time all over the place.

6/23/2009 8:44:23 AM

Quote :

"We know they exist. . . ."

Thank you. QED.

6/23/2009 9:04:44 AM

The only thing you QEDd was just how sad your old pathetic life really is.

6/23/2009 9:13:40 AM

^ Incorrect. And since you decided to make an intialism a verb, which I don't recommend, it should have been QED-ed.

6/23/2009 9:20:59 AM

I had almost forgotten that I wasn't gonna watch this til just now!

6/24/2009 9:25:18 PM

Wipeout >> I Survived a Japanese Game Show >> Obama hour

looks like ABC really needed this

6/24/2009 10:01:49 PM

I don't remember the day that ABC became the only media outlet in the United States and the world. If you think that the media has ever been objective, EVER, then you are kidding yourself. Get over it, watch, listen read all you can, like a grown up, and formulate an opinion. All the information in the world doesn't come out of the TV.

6/24/2009 10:57:04 PM

Where people go wrong is failing to realize that abc is just reporting the presidents plan. This is no time for a debate between parties, thats what the pre election period was for. If Mccain was the president, Obama wouldn't be on ABC. The people have spoken.

6/24/2009 11:37:28 PM

Did anybody watch this?

6/25/2009 8:57:05 AM