Television News Network Lobbyists Are Fundraising for Hillary Clinton

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ham n' Eggs

Member
Sep 22, 2015
181
0
0
Found this story on The Intercept today.

Here's some of the story:
Television News Network Lobbyists Are Fundraising for Hillary Clinton

Over the last two presidential debates, both Democratic and Republican candidates have asserted that the television news media is biased and has done a poor job informing voters of the most pressing issues in the election.


And while their focus is on things like the type of questions asked by debate moderators, they are overlooking much clearer signs of potential conflicts of interest. Fundraising disclosures released this month and in July reveal that lobbyists for media companies are raising big money for establishment presidential candidates, particularly Hillary Clinton.


The giant media companies that shape much of the coverage of the presidential campaign have a vested stake in the outcome. From campaign finance laws that govern how money is spent on advertising to the regulators who oversee consolidation rules, the media industry has a distinct policy agenda, and with it, a political team to influence the result.


The top fundraisers for Clinton include lobbyists who serve the parent companies of CNN and MSNBC.


The National Association of Broadcasters, a trade group that represents the television station industry, has lobbyists who are fundraising for both Clinton and Republican candidate Marco Rubio.


Presidential campaigns are obligated by law to send the Federal Election Commission a list of lobbyists who serve as “bundlers,” collecting hundreds of individual checks on behalf of a candidate’s campaign.
CNN’s parent company, Time Warner, is represented on Capitol Hill by Steve Elmendorf, an adviser to Clinton during her 2008 campaign, who is also known as “one of Washington’s top lobbyists.” He’s lobbied on a number of issues important for media companies like CNN, including direct-to-consumer advertising policy.


Elmendorf, according to disclosures, has raised at least $141,815 for Clinton’s 2016 bid for the presidency.


Comcast, the parent company of NBC Universal, which includes cable networks NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC, has a number of lobbyists on retainer who are working to raise cash for the Clinton campaign, including Justin Gray, Alfred Mottur, Ingrid Duran and Catherine Pino.


Much of the $5 billion expected to be spent over the course of the 2016 presidential election cycle will be on cable and network news advertisements. The election-related spending bonanza is singularly boosting the profit margins of many media companies, as we’ve reported.


“Super PACs may be bad for America, but they’re very good for CBS,” Les Moonves, president and chief executive of CBS, memorably said.
If there’s spillover between the corporate media political agenda and what you see on TV, the most likely place for it is in the lack of reporting on campaign finance reform. Though networks have focused great attention on the amount of money raised by the candidates, there is very little discussion of how to reduce the influence of money in politics.


For instance, campaign finance reform advocates have repeatedly offered proposals to give candidates free airtime, a solution sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats in the past that would negate some of the need for constant fundraising. But media lobby groups, including the National Association of Broadcasters, have crushed such attempts, and cable news networks rarely if ever discuss the reforms on air.


... link to rest of story

Frankly this isn't that surprising as the US media is usually pretty atrocious to watch, however lately it's been downright absurd. The agenda pushing is so crystal clear that the major networks should be embarrassed and strike any mention of
news
from their 'product'.
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
Is it at all surprising that those whose careers are about sifting through rhetoric to find underlying facts have a particular political leaning these days? Since media coverage has drifted away from fact based analysis and into opinion, people expect the media to always present 2 arguments as having equal merit, and debate them as such, regardless of how factually absurd one argument is. The planned parenthood videos are a perfect example. What they represent, or dont represent, is a matter of fact, yet because it is a political football, the media is expected to adopt a dose of cognitive dissonance about what it actually is and present two sides for the sake of "balance".

Just for another example, I guess after the CBO is done analyzing the disastrous budgetary consequences of all the tax slashing budgets that were discussed in yesterdays debate, they will be considered biased as well when they publish the estimated trillions in resulting deficits, right? It's no wonder Republicans have pushed them to adopt changes to their analysis criteria to factor in the magical growth they always assume will come to make themselves look fiscally responsible.
 

DrDoug

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2014
3,579
1,629
136
And Fox News is the political propaganda and fundraising outlet for the RNC. There, both sides do it.

Next?
 

Ham n' Eggs

Member
Sep 22, 2015
181
0
0
And Fox News is the political propaganda and fundraising outlet for the RNC. There, both sides do it.

Next?
that's pretty clear as well, however I find that having any 'news' network actually spending corporate funds on lobbyists for a particular candidate to be a significant jump upwards on the scale of absurdity.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
It was disgusting how media universally claimed Hillary Clinton won the last debate, but every poll showed Bernie Sanders winning by a landslide.

Mainstream media can't die fast enough. They're an obstruction to democracy.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
that's pretty clear as well, however I find that having any 'news' network actually spending corporate funds on lobbyists for a particular candidate to be a significant jump upwards on the scale of absurdity.

Lobbyists are independent contractors. Just because they're raising money for Dems doesn't mean that the news networks are paying them to do it.

They have the same rights as everybody else to raise money for the candidates of their choice.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
that's pretty clear as well, however I find that having any 'news' network actually spending corporate funds on lobbyists for a particular candidate to be a significant jump upwards on the scale of absurdity.

They're both operating in the way that's best for business and that's the extent of their bias.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,051
27,782
136
Hey OP is that all u got? Companies that work for CNN and MSNBC fundraise for Hillary??

How about Roger Ailes/Rupert Murdock donating directly to the RNC and Republicans?

Waaaaaaay more of a conflict on interest.
 

Ham n' Eggs

Member
Sep 22, 2015
181
0
0
Hey OP is that all u got? Companies that work for CNN and MSNBC fundraise for Hillary??

How about Roger Ailes/Rupert Murdock donating directly to the RNC and Republicans?

Waaaaaaay more of a conflict on interest.
well that doesn't surprise me if true. I'm not sure I agree that it is a greater conflict however. Let's just agree that it's all so screwed up that anything "mainstream news" is going to be totally tainted.

How were things 50-60 years ago? Sure there must have been bias but nothing like being directly financially tied to a particular candidate's success.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.