Skip to main content

View Diary: How to Debunk the "Liberal Media" Myth (136 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  follow the money---the best political advice ever (0+ / 0-)

    From a diary I did in 2010:

    It does seem to be a common myth among DKosers that the "mainstream media" (and especially the TV Cable industry) are solidly Republican.

    They are not.

    The (campaign contribution) numbers:

    Sector: Entertainment Industry as a Whole (TV, Movies, Music, Publishing)

    1994 Elections (Dems in power)
    percentage to Dems   71
    percentage to Repugs   29

    2004 elections (Repugs in power)
    percentage to Dems   69
    percentage to Repugs   30

    2010 elections (Dems in power)
    percentage to Dems   75
    percentage to Repugs   24

    Sector:  Cable TV/Satellite industry
    1994 Elections (Dems in power)
    percentage to Dems   45
    percentage to Repugs   55

    2004 elections (Repugs in power)
    percentage to Dems   56
    percentage to Repugs   44

    2010 elections (Dems in power)
    percentage to Dems   68
    percentage to Repugs   32

    Sector:  Commercial Radio/TV stations
    1994 Elections (Dems in power)
    percentage to Dems   59
    percentage to Repugs   41

    2004 elections (Repugs in power)
    percentage to Dems   42
    percentage to Repugs   57

    2010 elections (Dems in power)
    percentage to Dems   52
    percentage to Repugs   48

    Sector:  Television Production Companies
    1994 Elections (Dems in power)
    percentage to Dems   79
    percentage to Repugs   20

    2004 elections (Repugs in power)
    percentage to Dems   82
    percentage to Repugs   17

    2010 elections (Dems in power)
    percentage to Dems   80
    percentage to Repugs   20

    The entire media industry, as a whole, bucks the general corporate trend, and, as I pointed out earlier for the Hollywood movie industry, consistently supports Democrats every election.

    But there are some interesting sub-stories here.

    In newspaper/book publishing, the largest contributor, News Corp (Rupert Murdoch's company), gave over three times as much as the second-largest contributor, but split its donations almost evenly, with 54% to the Dems and 46% to the Repugs. All the rest of the top ten contributors, however, were fiercely partisan, with seven of them giving at least 70% of their money to Dems (and four of those giving 100% of their money to Dems), and the remaining 2 giving 93-100% of their money to Repugs. Of the top 20 Congressmen to receive money from the newspaper/book publishing industry, 19 were Democrats.

    In cable/satellite industry, 4 of the top 5 companies all split their donations, with Dems getting between 57 and 67%. Time-Warner, number four on the list, split 57-43 for the Dems. News Corp, Rupert Murdoch's company, ranked 14th on the list, and split its donations 55-45 for the Dems. Yes, that's right--the company that owns Fox News gave over half its political contributions in 2009-2010, to Democrats.

    Of the top 10 Congressional recipients of cable/satellite industry contributions, 8 are Dems; of the top 20, 13 are Dems.

    So, while lots of Kossacks like to yell about the "conservative manistream media", the fact remains that where it really matters--in the bank account--the media are solidly Democratic.

    •  If what you're saying is that (0+ / 0-)

      the media is solidly Democratic, therefore it's solidly liberal, then we must have so much liberal legislative victories the last 1/4 century or so.

      Oh, wait . . .

      liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

      by RockyMtnLib on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:04:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  what I am saying is crashingly simple----------- (0+ / 0-)

        the media in the US gives most of its campaign money to Democrats, and it does so consistently from election to election.  Period.

        We can all cry and weep about how the media hates us boo hoo hoo, but that simple unchallengable fact remains. When it comes to the money, even News Corp backs the Democrats.

        •  I respond with another fact (0+ / 0-)

          that shines more light on the subject and you reply by repeating yourself.

          I'll put this forth again: if you're saying that the media contributing to Democrats means the media is not conservative, then where is all of the liberal legislative victories in the last 1/4 century?

          And also, please address the diarists links which explains in detail mainstream media content.

          liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

          by RockyMtnLib on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:15:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  facts is facts is facts is facts (0+ / 0-)

            The media industry consistently, year after year after year, give most of their campaign money to Democrats.


            You can wave your arms, you can pee your pants, you can jump up and down, you can blither and bluther, but that simple fact remains true. Reality is a stubborn thing.

            •  Provide a source for those numbers please. (0+ / 0-)

              And your excuse that it's simply selling product, and nothing else is needed to explain it, is bullshit.

              When you said "I am happy to repeat" - that's all you seem capable of right now.


              liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

              by RockyMtnLib on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:28:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  They come from, which tracks all (0+ / 0-)

                campaign contributions using data from the FEC.

                I strongly strongly strongly encourage you to go there and poke around for a few hours, looking up the amount of corporate contributions from various industries that have gone to Dems over time.  WARNING: the idea that most of have here, that "the corporations give their money to Repugs every year", is just as wrong and demonstrably untrue. So you probably won't like that either.  (shrug)

                But here are the latest figures from for the 2012 elections:

                Company   total contributions  % to Dems  % to Repugs
                Comcast Corp    $4,386,506    61%           38%   
                Time Warner    $2,687,988    77%            13%   
                News Corp    $1,576,635    72%          29%


                See that last one there? Newscorp?  The owners of Fox News?  That's right--the owners of FOX NEWS, in the 2012 elecftion, gave 72% of their contributions to DEMOCRATS.

                Let that sink in for a second . . . . . . . Then let's look at the Top Five Recipients for Newscorp money in the 2012 election:

                Top Candidate Recipients, 2011-2012
                Barack Obama (D)     $150,150
                Howard L. Berman (D-CA)     $53,800
                Ben Cardin (D-MD)     $35,375
                Mitt Romney (R)     $29,950
                Henry A. Waxman (D-CA)     $21,500
                HEAVENS TO MERGATROID ---who is that I see at the top?  And what do all those "D's" after the recipient's names mean . . .?

                That's right, folks, Newscorp, the Rupert Murdoch cesspool of conservatism, gave more money to Barack Obama than any other candidate--five times as much as it gave to Mitt Romney---and four of the five tyop recipients of Newscorp money were Democrats.

                Let that sink in for a few seconds . . . . . . .

                The simple fact---"the media" as an industry, gives most of its money to Dems, in every election cycle, year after year after year. Period.

                And your excuse that it's simply selling product, and nothing else is needed to explain it, is bullshit
                Nonsense.  The media are corporations just like any other corporation---they sell product to make money. Their only task in life is to generate profits for their stockholders.  The media are no different.
                •  Newscorps complete list of recipients in 2011-2012 (0+ / 0-)

                  This is just too funny:

                  Obama, Barack (D)     Pres    $150,150
                  Berman, Howard L (D-CA)     House    $53,800
                  Cardin, Ben (D-MD)     Senate    $35,375
                  Romney, Mitt (R)     Pres    $29,950
                  Waxman, Henry A (D-CA)     House    $21,500
                  Whitehouse, Sheldon (D-RI)     Senate    $18,208
                  Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)     Senate    $16,125
                  Corker, Bob (R-TN)     Senate    $14,500
                  Klobuchar, Amy (D-MN)     Senate    $14,375
                  Menendez, Robert (D-NJ)     Senate    $12,500
                  Walden, Greg (R-OR)     House    $10,500
                  Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY)     Senate    $10,250
                  Cantor, Eric (R-VA)     House    $10,000
                  Upton, Fred (R-MI)     House    $10,000
                  McCaskill, Claire (D-MO)     Senate    $9,499
                  Smith, Lamar (R-TX)     House    $9,000
                  Brown, Scott (R-MA)     Senate    $8,500
                  Heller, Dean (R-NV)     Senate    $8,500
                  Warren, Elizabeth (D-MA)     Senate    $7,500
                  Hatch, Orrin G (R-UT)     Senate    $7,000
                  McIntyre, Mike (D-NC)     House    $7,000
                  Rubio, Marco (R-FL)     Senate    $7,000
                  Schiff, Adam (D-CA)     House    $7,000
                  Bono Mack, Mary (R-CA)     House    $6,500
                  Tester, Jon (D-MT)     Senate    $6,500
                  Kaine, Tim (D-VA)     Senate    $6,333
                  Allen, George (R-VA)     Senate    $6,000
                  Bilbray, Brian P (R-CA)     House    $6,000
                  Dold, Robert (R-IL)     House    $6,000
                  Gibson, Chris (R-NY)     House    $6,000
                  McMahon, Linda (R-CT)     Senate    $6,000
                  Nelson, Bill (D-FL)     Senate    $6,000
                  Conyers, John Jr (D-MI)     House    $5,500
                  Cicilline, David (D-RI)     House    $5,250
                  Clyburn, James E (D-SC)     House    $5,000
                  Franken, Al (D-MN)     Senate    $5,000
                  Goodlatte, Bob (R-VA)     House    $5,000
                  Markey, Edward J (D-MA)     House    $5,000
                  McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA)     House    $5,000
                  Murphy, Patrick (D-FL)     House    $5,000
                  Pelosi, Nancy (D-CA)     House    $5,000
                  Watt, Melvin L (D-NC)     House    $5,000
                  Heitkamp, Heidi (D-ND)     Senate    $4,999
                  Brown, Sherrod (D-OH)     Senate    $4,500
                  Dingell, John D (D-MI)     House    $4,500
                  Hoyer, Steny H (D-MD)     House    $4,500
                  Kerrey, Bob (D-NE)     Senate    $4,500
                  Wicker, Roger (R-MS)     Senate    $4,500
                  Baldwin, Tammy (D-WI)     House    $4,199
                  Becerra, Xavier (D-CA)     House    $4,000
                  Cardenas, Tony (D-CA)     House    $4,000
                  Cleaver, Emanuel (D-MO)     House    $4,000
                  Crowley, Joseph (D-NY)     House    $4,000
                  Gardner, Cory (R-CO)     House    $4,000
                  Guthrie, Brett (R-KY)     House    $4,000
                  Pompeo, Mike (R-KS)     House    $4,000
                  Sullivan, John (R-OK)     House    $4,000
                  Carmona, Richard (D-AZ)     Senate    $3,500
                  Hayworth, Nan (R-NY)     House    $3,500
                  Kennedy, Joe III (D-MA)     House    $3,500
                  Mourdock, Richard E (R-IN)     Senate    $3,500
                  Maffei, Dan (D-NY)     House    $3,250
                  Bachmann, Michele (R-MN)     House    $3,000
                  Benishek, Dan (R-MI)     House    $3,000
                  Biggert, Judy (R-IL)     House    $3,000
                  Blackburn, Marsha (R-TN)     House    $3,000
                  Blumenthal, Richard (D-CT)     Senate    $3,000
                  Gonzalez, Charlie A (D-TX)     House    $3,000
                  Graham, Lindsey (R-SC)     Senate    $3,000
                  Kinzinger, Adam (R-IL)     House    $3,000
                  Runyan, Jon (R-NJ)     House    $3,000
                  Schultz, Debbie Wasserman (D-FL)     House    $3,000
                  Paul, Ron (R-TX)     House    $2,504
                  Amodei, Mark (R-NV)     House    $2,500
                  Barrow, John (D-GA)     House    $2,500
                  Boehner, John (R-OH)     House    $2,500
                  Casey, Bob (D-PA)     Senate    $2,500
                  Cherny, Andrei (D-AZ)     House    $2,500
                  Chu, Judy (D-CA)     House    $2,500
                  Cravaack, Chip (R-MN)     House    $2,500
                  Larson, John B (D-CT)     House    $2,500
                  Pawlenty, Tim (R)     Pres    $2,500
                  Payne, Donald M (D-NJ)     House    $2,500
                  Perry, Rick (R)     Pres    $2,500
                  Ryan, Paul (R-WI)     House    $2,500
                  Bruning, Jon (R-NE)     Senate    $2,250
                  Thompson, Tommy G (R-WI)     Senate    $2,250
                  Adams, Sandy (R-FL)     House    $2,000
                  Berg, Rick (R-ND)     House    $2,000
                  Chabot, Steve (R-OH)     House    $2,000
                  Coble, Howard (R-NC)     House    $2,000
                  Deutch, Ted (D-FL)     House    $2,000
                  Gingrey, Phil (R-GA)     House    $2,000
                  Gowdy, Trey (R-SC)     House    $2,000
                  Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA)     Senate    $2,000
                  Manchin, Joe (D-WV)     Senate    $2,000
                  McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)     Senate    $2,000
                  Sanchez, Linda (D-CA)     House    $2,000
                  Schock, Aaron (R-IL)     House    $2,000
                  Shimkus, John M (R-IL)     House    $2,000
                  So Barack Obama was number one, and got more than the next four recipients combined--and five times as much as Mitt Rmoney.

                  Of the total list of Newscorp recipients, 50 were Republicans and 50 were Democrats.

                •  What Lenny's figures prove... (0+ / 0-)

                  is not that the media is liberal, but that the Democrats largely aren't. The mainstream of the Dem party is serving the same crony capitalist thugs that the GOP are.
                  That's why we need to evict the blue dogs and replace them with real progressives, whether they be Dem, Green, or other.

                  •  amen to that . . . (0+ / 0-)

                    The reason conservative ideas and frames dominate politics is because both parties are conservative.

                    But you are incorrect about one thing---I am not arguing that the media is liberal.  I am arguing that they are utterly amoral and sell us whatever we want to buy.  If we want to hear liberal views, they'll give them to us; if we want to hear conservative views, they'll give them to us--hell if we want to hear NAZI views, they'll give them to us. They don't give a rat's ass, as long as we watch the corn flake commercials they sell ad time for.

          •  I am happy to repeat: (0+ / 0-)
            And also, please address the diarists links which explains in detail mainstream media content.
            The media sell a product. And they sell the product they think most people want to buy. It's no different than selling soap or corn flakes. With the exception of the paid propaganda network (Fox), the media sell conservatism because it sells. If they thought a liberal-left viewpoint would sell as well, the media would be selling us DFH viewpoints and be just as happy (like MSNBC does after it made the business decision to become the opposite of Fox News)). Most of them don't care which ideology they sell, as long as people buy it.

            Me, I think the whole "the media is against us boo hoo hoo" thing is just a convenient excuse for losing caused by incompetent organizing and inability to find, stick to, and communicate a message that people agree with. When the Dems fight AGAINST positions that a majority of people want, then "the media" is not the Dem's problem--the Dems themselves are the problem. Blaming it on "the media hates us boo hoo hoo" may be a convenient excuse, but it doesn't solve the problem.

      •  ps--it wasn't "the media" that wrecked all the (0+ / 0-)

        liberal legislation in the past 10 years----it was the Dems in Congress who sold us all out.  "The media" didn't get to vote, and since some 90% of the public was on the liberal side of the issues (which the Dems voted against anyway), it appears that you pants-peeing over "the media tells everyone what to think oh noes !!!!" is just . . . well . . .  pants-peeing.

        The public knows what it wants.  It also knows that the Dems either can't or won't deliver what it wants. And that has nothing to do with the "conservative media !!!!"

    •  I've consolidated my comments here into a diary (0+ / 0-)


      If anyone would like to cite some campaign contribution figures showing that "the conservative media" actually gives most of its money to Republican candidates, please feel free to do so.

      But you won't.  You can't.  There are no such figures.  (shrug)

    •  So what? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RockyMtnLib, AndrewR9

      These dollar amounts look like big bucks to folks like us, but it's chickenfeed in a world where Sheldon Adelson can spend $4 million on a candidate. So Newscorp gave $150K to Obama - BFD! That's CYA money. They gave Romney perhaps 100 times that value in free advertising (when Romney gets numerous fawning "interviews" with Fox hosts and "reporters"), free support on both their "news" and opinion programming (when Republican policies and candidates are promoted and Dem policies and candidates are denigrated), and heavy promotion of GOP-friendly rallies and events.

      Another issue to be aware of is that news media employ people with a range of political beliefs, and the pyramid structure of corporations means that there will be a much larger number of lower-level workers than senior managers and executives. These lower-level workers may well be mostly Democrats - hence the oft-quoted stats about the high percentage of Dems and liberals in the media - and they may on their own donate to Dem candidates, but their opinions do not influence the stance of the media on the issues. That is the exclusive province of the senior management and owners.

      Democracy - Not Plutocracy!

      by vulcangrrl on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 10:38:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site