Analysis: The Liberal Media

Recent studies last year revealed the major news networks, CBS, ABC, and MSNBC, all had decidedly pro-Obama biases, with only Fox News having a pro-McCain bias - and MSNBC was pro-Obama even when compared to its fellow liberally biased networks.

Thanks to OpenSecrets.org, a new way is available to check the status of the media - their campaign contributions to political parties. This is, I am persuaded, the reason the liberal media have become so prominent. The media giants have allowed to form veritable monopolies across the entire entertainment industry, and, unchecked, can easily force their very narrow viewpoints on the entire American populace at will.

The following is an examination of the media corporations who control the major news outlets, and where their campaign contributions go. The intent is not even to see which give the most, so much as to discern their political leanings and potential biases.

Disclaimer - I realize one can give primarily to Democrats and that does not mean they are 'liberal'. By 'liberal' or 'conservative' I am just referring to how the company and its news agency fund Democrats as opposed to Republicans. As a Conservative Democrat, I recognize Democrats are not necessarily liberal, but it is easier to simply show which party's members are being funded most than to break down which politicians are liberal as opposed to conservative.

============================

Time Warner (Owner of CNN News) - Liberal

Description: One of the largest media/entertainment conglomerations with a focus on TV Stations, Print Media, and the Internet.
Politics: 77% of campaign contributions have gone to Democrats for the 2010 cycle. 81% went to Democrats in the 2008 cycle. Historically 71% have gone to Democrats. Has donated a total of $19.7 million to campaigns.
When counting Time Warner affiliates, 77% has been given historically to Democrats (a total of $9.62 million). Those bearing the CNN name specifically gave 66% to Democrats (a total of just $22,460).
Major Organizations Owned:
TV Stations: CNN, TNT, The CW (50% ownership), HLN, HBO, TBS, TCM, Cinemax, Cartoon Network, Airport Network, Adult Swim, truTV, The Kids WB
Movies: Warner Bros., New Line Cinema, Hanna Barbera, Looney Tunes
Print: Time Magazine, Sports Illustrated, People Magazine, DC Comics, Entertainment Weekly, Fortune, Homes & Gardens, Life Magazine, In Style, Health Magazine, Golf Magazine, Money magazine
Internet: AOL, NetScape, MapQuest, ICQ, WinAmp, GameTap, Bebo, Advertising.com, Games.com, Compuserve, Truveo, Weblogs
Radio: AOL Radio, CNN Radio
Finances: AOL Investments

============================

The Walt Disney Company (Owner of ABC News) - Liberal

Description: One of the largest media/entertainment conglomerations with a focus on TV Stations, Movies, and resorts/cruise lines.
Politics: 71% of campaign contributions have gone to Democrats for the 2010 cycle. 75% went to Democrats in the 2008 cycle. Historically 68% have gone to Democrats.
When counting The Walt Disney Company affiliates, 81% has been given historically to Democrats (a total of $9.62 million). Those bearing the ABC name specifically gave 82% to Democrats (a total of just $408,399).
Major Organizations Owned:
TV Stations: ABC, ESPN (80% ownership), Disney Channel, ESPN2, Lifetime (50% ownership), A&E (37.5% ownership), The History Channel (37.5% ownership)
Movies: Walt Disney Pictures, Dreamworks, Pixar, Touchstone Pictures, Miramax, Buena Vista, Miravista Films, Hollywood Pictures
Music: Hollywood Records, Mammoth Records, Walt Disney Records, Buena Vista Music Group, Lyric Street Records
Print: ESPN The Magazine, Disney Hyperion
Internet: ESPN.com, Go.com, Disney Online, Avalanche Software, Hulu (27%)
Radio: Radio Disney, ESPN Radio, ABC Radio Networks
Other: Walt Disney World theme parks, resorts, and cruise lines

============================

News Corporation (Owner of Fox News) - Conservative?

Description: One of the largest media/entertainment conglomerations with a focus on TV Stations, Print Media, and the Internet.
Politics: Unfortunately OpenSecrets.org has yet to make a main page for News Corporation. However, by doing a search for News Corp and looking at the contributions to members and candidates, I found News Corp itself to have definitively contributed $531,523 to Democrats but just $241,250 to Republicans. Those interested can read more about how this was collected at the bottom of the article.
When counting The Walt Disney Company affiliates, 81% has been given historically to Democrats (a total of $9.62 million). Those bearing the ABC name specifically gave 82% to Democrats (a total of just $408,399).
Major Organizations Owned:
TV Stations: Fox News, FX, National Geographic Channel (50% ownership), Speed Channel
Movies: Twentieth Century Fox
Music: InsideOut Music
Print: New York Post, Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones Indexes, Zondervan Publishing, Marketwatch, Barrons, HarperCollins, The Sunday Times (UK), The Times (UK)
Internet: MySpace, PhotoBucket, BeliefNet, GameSpy, Hulu, IGN, AmericanIdol.com, AskMen.com, Scout.com, Rotten Tomatoes, WhatIfSports

============================

General Electric (Owner of NBC News) - Evenly Split, but NBC Liberal

Description: This diverse, multinational company with a focus on TV Stations, Movies, Finances, Transportation, and of course the energy industry. All NBC and NBC Affiliates are 80% owned by General Electric, and 20% owned by Viacom.
Politics: 69% of General Electric's campaign contributions have gone to Democrats for the 2010 cycle. 55% went to Democrats in the 2008 cycle. Historically 50% have gone to Democrats.
When counting General Electric affiliates, 61% has been given historically to Democrats (a total of $2.42 million). Those bearing the NBC name specifically gave 76% to Democrats (a total of $1.32 million).
Major Organizations Owned:
TV Stations: NBC, MSNBC, The Weather Channel, The Today Show, USA Network, Bravo, Oxygen, Sci Fi Channel, A&E (25% ownership), History Channel (25% ownership), Lifetime (25% ownership), Universal HD, qubo (?% ownership), The Sundance Channel, Sleuth, Chiller
Movies: Universal Studios, Focus Features , Working Title Films, United International Pictures (?% ownership)
Music:
Internet: ivillage.com, Hulu (27% ownership)
Finances: Genworth Financial, Heller Financial, Client Business Services Inc, GE Capital Card Services, GE Capital Investment Advisors, GE Commercial Finance, Ge Consumer Finance, GE Credit Corp, GE Equity Capital, GE Financial Assurance, GE Financial Services
Transportation: GE Aerospace, GE Aviation, Greenwich Air Services, GE Aircraft Engines, GE Capital Fleet Service
Other: General Electric, Tivo (?% ownership), Universal Interactive (gaming), First Colony Life Insurance

============================



Other:

============================

Viacom

Description: From 1999-2005, also included the below-mentioned CBS Corporation and a major news network. The media giant has now split with the holding however, forming different organizations.
Politics: % of campaign contributions have gone to Democrats for the 2010 cycle. % went to Democrats in the 2008 cycle. Historically % have gone to Democrats.

Major Organizations Owned:
TV Stations:
Movies:
Music:
Print:
Internet:
Radio:

============================





============================

ADDITIONAL NOTES

-In trying to determine the amounts for News Corporation, I ran a search on News Corp at OpenCongress and then recorded all info as follows. Because each records only the top 20 donors, if a candidate was recorded as receiving a donation from News Corp but the donation wasn't listed, I wrote the maximum amount it could be, or 20th ranked amount. Furthermore, I tried running a search on Fox but got no definite results.

Republicans
Bill Jenkins $2,000
Don Nickles $13,250
John Sullivan $11,500
Chris Cannon Uncertain, below $8000
F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. $10,000
John E. Sununu $32,250
Vito Fossela $7,600
John E. Sununu $48,700
Barbara Cubin $1,000
Ted Stevens $39,850
Mel Martinez $10,500
Kevin Brady $1,000
Cliff Stearns $2,000
F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. $1,000
Mitch McConnell $38,100
Bill Jones $18,500
Paul Van Dam $2,000
Kevin Triplett Uncertain, below $5000
Jeff Beatty $1,000
William Russell $1,000

Certain Amounts: $241,250
Uncertain Amounts: Possibly as much as $13,000

Democrats
Fritz Hollings $28,224
Henry Waxman Uncertain, below $6000
Gregory Meeks $6,000
Fritz Hollings $9,000
Xavier Becerra $15,500
Hilda Solis Uncertain, below $8000
Howard Berman $15,000
Rick Boucher $10,000
Edward J. Markey $8,000
Anthony Weiner $12,500
Charles Schumer Uncertain, below $54,999
Charles Schumer $46,250
Hillary Clinton $265,125
Howard Berman $19,100
Jane Harman $9,600
Adam Schiff $2,500
Al Franken $22,612
Chris Murphy $4,800
Barbara Boxer $24,800
Edward J. Markey Uncertain, below $2500
Jim Simon $2,000
Steve Young $8,400
Mike Lumpkin Uncertain, below $2500
Al Franken $22,112

Certain Amounts: $531,523
Uncertain Amounts: Possibly as much as $73,999

In trying to verify whether News Corp, despite its ownership of the clearly conservative news station, Fox News, might have a liberal bias, I turned to other sources. CampaignMoney, another site, shows that News Corp is giving 42% to Democrats and 35% to Republicans since 1999. However, NewsMeat shows that Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corp, is giving far more to Republicans than Democrats at a 61%-22% clip (though that data is tracked since 1987, which may explain the disparity; that or Murdoch may make more even contributions for News Corp than he does individually).

Obama V. Obama on Abortion in Health Care Bill

With the majority of the United States now referring to themselves as pro-life according to a recent Gallup poll, Barack Obama is fast on the retreat while facing accusations that his health care bill, H.R. 3200, would establish abortion as a mandate for all hospitals under his proposed government health care system. Stating Wednesday to the faith community that, "You've heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion. Not true", Obama seems adamant in persuading conservatives that his pro-choice views have not clouded the health care bill's agenda... Contrary to what he stated July of 2007 before Planned Parenthood.

"Essentially, what we are doing is to say that we're gonna set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don't have health insurance. It will be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services. We also will subsidize those who prefer to stay in the private insurance market, except the insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care including reproductive care."

When questioned afterwards, Obama's campaign confirmed that by 'reproductive health services' Obama was referring to abortions as well.



You see, Obama seemingly avoided placing the words 'abortion' and 'reproductive' in the bill's language. However, H.R. 3200 states in Section 101 that all health care will be provided by a government system and a 'public option' which includes hospitals who, as he stated before Planned Parenthood, must provide 'essential services' - including abortion funding, beginning in the year 2013.

(b) REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS.—On or after the first day of Y1, a health benefits plan shall not be a qualified health benefits plan under this division unless the plan meets the applicable requirements of the following subtitles for the type of plan and plan year involved:

(1) Subtitle B (relating to affordable coverage).

(2) Subtitle C (relating to essential benefits).

(3) Subtitle D (relating to consumer protection).

As stated in Section 102, 'Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage', all public option plans must meet the same requirements set for the government plan.

(1) GRACE PERIOD.—

(A) IN GENERAL.— The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1 [Year 2013 as defined in General Definitions 25], an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.

Now, what do these 'essential benefits' include that Obama was so certain could legislate abortion for all medical organizations?

As stated in Section 122, 'Essential Benefits Package Defined', they require:

(b) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED.—The items and services described in this subsection are the following:


(8) Preventive services, including those services recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task 13

Force on Clinical Preventive Services and those vaccines recommended for use by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

(9) Maternity care.

(10) Well baby and well child care and oral health, vision, and hearing services, equipment, and 19

supplies at least for children under 21 years of age.

(c) REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO COST-SHARING

AND MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE.—

(1) NO COST-SHARING FOR PREVENTIVE SERVICES.—There shall be no cost-sharing under the essential benefits package for preventive items and services (as specified under the benefit standards),

including well baby and well child care.

As you can see, the key words used by the legislation are 'preventive services'. What is more, the end clause even mandates that 'cost-sharing' can not exist for these 'preventive services'!

Now, what is cost-sharing? According to the website of the Massachusetts Institute for Technology, "Cost sharing or matching means that portion of project or program costs not borne by the Federal Government."

In other words, should these 'preventive services' include abortion, there will be no cost to individuals for them - meaning, the government will pay ALL costs for Planned Parenthood or other abortion providers.

It is further curious that while decrying claims of abortion language in his bill as 'fabrications', Obama has seemingly sent with his actions a much different message to abortionists, by reversing the international ban which prevented U.S. government funds from supporting overseas abortion services. Even as he states he is not using his legislation for pro-abortion motivations, he is doing the exact opposite to subliminally let his pro-choice friends know that he is still supporting their cause.

Obama has a long and controversial record of supporting not merely abortion, but a practice known as 'live birth abortion' that some pro-life activists have termed 'infanticide'. He spoke out against the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act on the senate floor, and opposed other bills to stop the practice as well.

In a senate transcript (pgs. 85-88), Obama referred to the dilemma confronted by the Born Alive Infants Protection Act as, "the fetus or child as - as some might describe it - is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during the brief period of time that they were still living." After having this affirmed to him on the senate floor in the aforementioned transcript, Obama opposed it by voting present, or effectively no, and even stated this was his way of disapproval, a strategy later affirmed to have been proposed by Planned Parenthood to avoid public criticism.

Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality.

Obama's miry path to the presidency has included the unhalting criticism of his 2004 opponent for the Senate, former U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes, and Congressional witness concerning born alive infants, nurse Jill Stanek.

Will the American people buy into the misrepresentations of Obama about his pro-abortion agendas? And more importantly, will they side with him even if they accept that he is lying about them? Only time will tell.