TED TURNER DOES NOT OWN CNN! So stop saying he is bitter over his "ass" getting kicked in the ratings, he doesn't own CNN, Time-Warner does.

Also, FoxNews, as I have told you people time and time again is OWNED, RAN, PRODUCED, HOSTED, and CONTROLLED by REGISTERED REPUBLICANS! The "Dark Knight" of the republican party was hired to fire every democrat, from host to clerk to janitor.(Yes, totally serious) The balanced part is 10 people on the right, 4 in the middle, and one off center to the left. At least CNN has more then one republican and one democrat, think they have a 4 rep to a 5 dem.

James, I find it hard to believe that republicans rule any network and look to fire every dem. I think that rings of conspiracy theory stuff.

But hey, I love your signature on sticks and stones.....it is great.

Originally posted by Seekerof
"Your," as in reference to Dr. Horacid creating the topic, is not apart of the equation here, thirddensity. Seems to me that if you hit the link provided, your beef is with the "disinformational" title that Drudge Report has so named the article. Correct?

Correct. The sentance should read, This articles headline, which you use as your thread subject heading, is a form of disinformation from the Drudge Report.

My apologies Dr. and Seekerof. Feel free to edit it if you'd like, as I no longer have the ability.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
TED TURNER DOES NOT OWN CNN! So stop saying he is bitter over his "ass" getting kicked in the ratings, he doesn't own CNN, Time-Warner does.

You (James the Losser) can stop posting that he doesn't own CNN any more. When Ted sold (merged is a better word) CNN, he ended up with 9% of the shares in Time-Warner. Ted claims that left him with a lot of clout in the resulting company.

[edit on 1/26/2005 by centurion1211]

I have watched all of the major news outlets and they all were like a bunch of cheerleaders cheering for the war. They still don't give adequate coverage at all like the protester in D.C. for the inauguration most of the networks barely reported and said there were few protesters there when it was approximately 10,000 protesters there. They don't report on the numbers of civilian casulties in Iraq. But my question is this what else does the major corporations that owns our media outlets own? Do they own companies that also make anything for the military? How much money are they making off of this war? I know GE owns NBC, don't they own companies that also make stuff for the war?

There is a level of journalistic responsibility that should be commensurate with the label "news".

It is certainly not present in the Fox Channel.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
There is a level of journalistic responsibility that should be commensurate with the label "news".

It is certainly not present in the Fox Channel.

But you find it on CBS, no doubt?

Democracy Now is a one hour news program with Amy Goodman as anchor. It is run entirely on donations and is on FSTV channel 9415 on dish I think and also it on link at 6pm est. Also INN is world wide news, again entirely funded by donations, it comes on one of these channels. Once you watch this for awhile and then watch the networks news and finally see how much they leave out of their stories or don't report on at all you do see how we are being manipulated by the media.
But again my question the corporations that own the networks; what else do they own? Are they making money off of this war?

If you would like to see the website for democracy now go to democracynow.org

[edit on 26-1-2005 by goose]

Personally i find Ted Turner one of those rare individuals who, possessing a not so small fortune happens to empathize with the people who have nothing.

Even though i heard him speak (directly, without commentaries) and without previously hearing or reading any opinion of him , i immediatly thought he was a pretty rare individual.

It is obvious that his remark, which gave birth to this thread, was aimed at the widespread use of propaganda by Hitler's party. It just means that it is a really bad sign if Fox has such similarities, doesn't mean anything but that. Of course some less honest souls will want to stretch and twist Turner's words to an extreme to make the comparison look far fetched or meaningless, but this isn't surprising, it has been non-stop lately.

I am also of the opinion that Older Americans (the ones who actually went through the wars) speak a lot more wiser and are amazingly a lot more tolerant and mature than these recent yuppie generations born in the 60's. In fact, it is strange to hear 40, 30 year olds talk more about WW2 and Vietnam, than the people who FELT it on their skin themselvs.

Originally posted by goose

But again my question the corporations that own the networks; what else do they own? Are they making money off of this war?

in reply to your question, of course they are making money!

war coverage=bigger rattings=better advertisement money per second

war, natural disasters, anything disturbing, shocking... its not about the news its about the money in the news, if it doesnt pay up, dont cover it. I belive there are journalists with ethics out there, but they are just drops in the sea, the machine revolves around money.

Originally posted by nukunuku

Originally posted by goose

But again my question the corporations that own the networks; what else do they own? Are they making money off of this war?

in reply to your question, of course they are making money!

war coverage=bigger rattings=better advertisement money per second

war, natural disasters, anything disturbing, shocking... its not about the news its about the money in the news, if it doesnt pay up, dont cover it. I belive there are journalists with ethics out there, but they are just drops in the sea, the machine revolves around money.

I realize all of that but are they these corporations that owns our media also owns companies that are making money off of this war in the form of selling ammo, military weaponry, goods of any kinds that is needed by the military? G.E. owns NBC and also owns a company that makes something that is being used in the war. thats is what I am asking?

Ted turner donated 1 billon dollars to the freaking UN for goddness sake. I think that says everything about old ted I need to know.
What a waste of capital that could have been put to good use.

Originally posted by mwm1331
Ted turner donated 1 billon dollars to the freaking UN for goddness sake. I think that says everything about old ted I need to know.
What a waste of capital that could have been put to good use.

Ted marries Jane, Jane become "born again", Ted divorces Jane.

Ted Turner has acknowledged that he has a bipolar affective disorder.

For those of you whom missed that class.......

"Manic depression, with its two principal sub-types, bipolar disorder and major depression, was first clinically described near the end of the 19th century by psychiatrist Emil Kraepelin, who published his account of the disease in his Textbook of Psychiatry.

As categorized by the DSM-IV, bipolar disorder is a form of mood disorder characterised by a variation of mood between a phase of manic or hypomanic elation, hyperactivity and hyper imagination, and a depressive phase of inhibition, slowness to conceive ideas and move, and anxiety or sadness. As described below, there are several forms of bipolar disorder.

It should be noted that this disorder does not consist of mere "ups and downs". Ups and downs are experienced by virtually everyone and do not constitute a disorder. The mood swings of bipolar disorder are far more extreme than those experienced by most people. See cyclothymia for a milder version of this disorder.

A note on usage: Bipolar disorder is also commonly called "manic depression" by laymen, following the twentieth-century usage by some psychiatrists; this usage is now unpopular with psychiatrists, who have again adopted Kraepelin's original use of the term manic depression to describe the whole bipolar spectrum that includes both bipolar disorder and unipolar depression."


In short he's nuts.............

Originally posted by Seekerof
Hey RANT.
You certainly have no problem with CBS and Dan Rather do you? Just asking since your listing references for "corporate media sucking", huh?

Honestly, I'm no fan of the networks. I watch the news magazine stuff for the big "hyped" stories, but for the most part consider even those "shocking exposes" (like the Bush-guard fiasco) mere distractions from the news.

So using the example of say a real story on healthcare in this country, I don't think there's a single broadcast or cable network one could turn to, not already in the bag.

Pardon my shorthand, but why do I say this favors Republicans?

Did you ever hear a single news source cover the real deal with Kerry's healthplan (which was merely a targeted tax cut) or expose (not parrot) Bush's lies about it being some state run, psuedo-socialist, limiting program?

In my estimation, Dan Rather hating Bush does not mean the CBS business entity (for example) isn't corporate media or doesn't suck. Nor would that be the reason it does suck. His Bush hating presence is/was just a marketing tool (much like the one's employed by Fox) to target certain individuals, though in the end, we all get sold the same narrative.

That speech of Turner's I linked is worth the read if you didn't delve into it the first time. CNN is no better (as he admits). The corporate angle is just a monopoly thing. Less "voices" on the (formerly) public airwaves than ever despite more options than one could possibly use.

Does it really matter if I get my pro-war/pro-Viagra slant from Bush-hating Dan Rather or Bush-loving E.D. Hill?

Not one iota.

Well, someone needs to tell "Ted" he's right.

But wrong also.

Wrong if he thinks that ONLY Fox News is a propaganda machine.

All mainstream press hold the government line.

Any big issue is handled similar by each.

Real news is not found on those stations.

Reality isn't found on the television screen.

X

Coperate media by definition has to be bias when they care more about ratings and advertising $$ then reporting news.

I stopped watching news and only get it from the newspaper or internet. At least they admit to being bias

Turner and the luny left remind me of Bobby Boucher's mother in the movie "Waterboy". Anything Bobby liked was "the devil". In Turner's and the left's case it's Hitler.