On 10/15/2014 10:24 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 21:59:19 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On 10/15/2014 12:08 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 12:55:58 -0400, Chimaera wrote:

On 10/15/2014 11:32 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 10/15/2014 4:45 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:


http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/caught-re...ion-uncovered/


WND simply is not a credible site. They are part and parcel of the
right-wing lunatic fringe. When you offer WND as a source for anything,
you are declaring yourself not to be a serious participant in any
political discussion - you are declaring your own membership in the
lunatic fringe. Of course, you set up camp there decades ago.




Daily Kos, ThinkProgress, Media Matters, MSNBC, NPR.org and Democracy
Now! are so much more believable, don't you think?

Yeah, pretty much. "... Farah [CEO and editor of WND] acknowledged
that WND publishes “some misinformation by columnists,”...

If that's what he'll admit,....

An Honest guy you mean ?

He was a trapped guy. The interviewer had him nailed to the wall.

They, the print/all, media distributes their
way of thinking and not the facts.

Nonsense.

The whole purpose of media empire
is just for that. Once it was radio stations. Now TV and the Web.

No, it was newspapers. Until roughly WWII, all but a few of the
biggest ones were highly partisan. In many cases, that's why they were
founded in the first place.

Most radio stations were not founded that way. They had no circulation
revenue. They were mostly straight commercial ventures from the start,
depending entirely on advertising, which depended entirely on
listernership. They didn't want to offend anyone.

TV, even more so. Until FOX came along, the entire strategy of TV
networks was to grab the biggest share they could of the *mass*
audience. They were not after political or cultural segments. Roger
Ailes changed all that, on purpose, when he started FOX News. He was
after an underserved market segment -- something that was almost never
done in TV before.

Now, on the Web, it's a mixed bag. The old mass-audience media are
still there, but most of the newcomers are after a really narrow slice
of the audience. If they're political, they're going to be slanted as
hell at their market segment. Many of them rely entirely on partisan
sensationalism and to hell with the facts.

Southern Television chain - TV stations aligned with the thinking of the
owners.

LBJ owned dozens of stations and when he became PRESIDENT (not Senator)
he gave the station chain to his daughter. He owned some TV.

There are all sorts of owned TV and Radio chains that are of one party
or another. It is a form of control of the air waves...

Slant news and talk.

Martin

Martin Eastburn wrote:

LBJ owned dozens of stations and when he became PRESIDENT (not Senator)
he gave the station chain to his daughter. He owned some TV.


Dozens? That would have been in violation of the rules at that time.
I beleive the 7(AM)-7(FM)-7(TV) rule was still in place.

--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

On Friday, October 17, 2014 12:35:05 AM UTC-4, Martin Eastburn wrote:
On 10/15/2014 10:24 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 21:59:19 -0500, Martin Eastburn

wrote:

On 10/15/2014 12:08 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 12:55:58 -0400, Chimaera wrote:

On 10/15/2014 11:32 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:

On 10/15/2014 4:45 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/caught-re...ion-uncovered/

WND simply is not a credible site. They are part and parcel of the

right-wing lunatic fringe. When you offer WND as a source for anything,

you are declaring yourself not to be a serious participant in any

political discussion - you are declaring your own membership in the

lunatic fringe. Of course, you set up camp there decades ago.

Daily Kos, ThinkProgress, Media Matters, MSNBC, NPR.org and Democracy

Now! are so much more believable, don't you think?

Yeah, pretty much. "... Farah [CEO and editor of WND] acknowledged

that WND publishes "some misinformation by columnists,"...

If that's what he'll admit,....

An Honest guy you mean ?

He was a trapped guy. The interviewer had him nailed to the wall.

They, the print/all, media distributes their

way of thinking and not the facts.

Nonsense.

The whole purpose of media empire

is just for that. Once it was radio stations. Now TV and the Web.

No, it was newspapers. Until roughly WWII, all but a few of the

biggest ones were highly partisan. In many cases, that's why they were

founded in the first place.

Most radio stations were not founded that way. They had no circulation

revenue. They were mostly straight commercial ventures from the start,

depending entirely on advertising, which depended entirely on

listernership. They didn't want to offend anyone.

TV, even more so. Until FOX came along, the entire strategy of TV

networks was to grab the biggest share they could of the *mass*

audience. They were not after political or cultural segments. Roger

Ailes changed all that, on purpose, when he started FOX News. He was

after an underserved market segment -- something that was almost never

done in TV before.

Now, on the Web, it's a mixed bag. The old mass-audience media are

still there, but most of the newcomers are after a really narrow slice

of the audience. If they're political, they're going to be slanted as

hell at their market segment. Many of them rely entirely on partisan

sensationalism and to hell with the facts.

Southern Television chain - TV stations aligned with the thinking of the

owners.

LBJ owned dozens of stations and when he became PRESIDENT (not Senator)

he gave the station chain to his daughter. He owned some TV.

Lyndon Johnson's WIFE'S family owned the radio stations before they were married.