Little tidbit thought we might find interesting with this particular media form.
MoveOn site is flooding ABC with hate mail and emails, petitions..My My, seems they have a campaign going on to denounce George S. and Charlie Gibson for daring to ask questions of Obama that all of us typical People might like to know the answers to what we deem unacceptable. How dare they to ask such questions.. it was about time he fessed up.. Oh well, he does not like to talk about such things..but then ya gotta remember you are in a war zone Obama..when you run for political office sorry but your private life (past and present) is up for grabs. So put on your Big Boy smile and charm us. Now if we could just get ole Soros to move on…The man behind MoveOn.
Excerpt below from Accuracy in Media
Soros may be the biggest political fat cat of all time. Convicted in France of insider trading, Soros specializes in weakening or collapsing the currencies of entire nations for his own selfish interests. He is known as the man who broke the Bank of England. His power is such that his statements alone can cause currencies to go up or down. Other people suffer so he can get rich. But journalists don’t want to examine the questionable means by which he achieved his wealth because they share his goal of electing Kerry and the Democrats. Curiously, once he made his fortune he became a global socialist, endorsing global taxes on the very means he employed to get rich – international currency speculation and manipulation.
The media consistently ignore the fact that this so-called “philanthropist” has had several brushes with the law as he has laid siege to national economies and currencies. Hard-working U.S. businessmen understand how Soros has made his money. In protesting a Soros appearance hosted by the University of Toledo, Edwin J. Nagle III, president and CEO of the Nagle Companies, highlighted “the immoral and unethical means by which he achieved his wealth.” He added, “I certainly didn’t see included in his bio the stories on how he collapsed whole country’s currencies for his own self interests so that many may suffer.”
I apologize for the looks of this post, having a real hard time getting it to behave..:)
Actual dollar contributions reveal that the U.S. is the world’s largest donor.The OECD calculates U.S. development assistance (based on bilateral assistance, humanitarian assistance, and contributions to multilateral institutions like the International Development Association of the World Bank) in 2003 at $16.2 billion—more than double the amount given by France, Germany, or any other European nation. Japan is second at $8.9 billion.
The United States is the world’s largest source of humanitarian aid. By nature, humanitarian aid must be tailored to individual crises: Every single famine, earthquake, flood, or other disaster is unique and requires different types of aid and different strategies. As death tolls climbed in the wake of the disaster in Southeast Asia and the needs of the survivors became clearer, the United States upped its humanitarian aid commitments to the region to $35 million, and expectations are that total U.S. contributions will continue to increase.
Criticisms of America’s generosity fly in the face of reality. International aid experts do their organizations no favors when they criticize American largess — especially since they would find it impossible to follow through on their good intentions without it.
Brett D. Schaefer is the Jay Kingham fellow in international regulatory affairs in the Center for International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org).
|By Tom Purcell Source: Pittsburghlive
Ah, the giving season — the best time of the year to be American. We’re the most charitable people on the planet, after all.
I learned this from John Stossel’s recent “20/20” report, “Are Americans Cheap?” Stossel explored the myths and facts about American charity and giving, and, as usual, his findings were mighty surprising.
Did you know, for instance, that the United States government gave out $20 billion in foreign aid in 2004? It sounds like a lot, but as a percentage of our wealth, we rank 21st out of the 22 major donor countries.
That statistic was enough to make Angelina Jolie go nuts. She’s the gorgeous actress who makes a lot of dough and, to her credit, gives a lot of it away. She complained that, considering how rich America is, our government should give away more.
But the key word is “government.” Stossel decided to investigate how much individual Americans, all 300 million of us, give through private charities. What did he find? According to the Hudson Institute, individual Americans, through private charities, gave $242 billion in 2004.
Stossel cited the tsunami tragedy that struck Indonesia a few years ago. Whereas the U.S. government gave $900 million to relief efforts, individual Americans gave $2 billion in food, clothing and cash.
The fact is, when you combine government and private giving, America is the most generous country on Earth. According to a professor Stossel interviewed, an expert on charitable giving, Americans give three and one-half times more per capita than the French, seven times more than the Germans and 14 times more than the Italians.
But not all Americans are generous.
One might assume that the more liberal folks in America — folks who voice their concerns about the poor — would be more likely to donate to charitable causes, but that turns out to be a myth.
Buckets of wisdom
Stossel set up a Salvation Army bucket in two places: Sioux Falls, S.D., and San Francisco, Calif. San Francisco has a lot more dough and a lot of people who classify themselves as politically liberal; only 14 percent of the people who live there attend church. Sioux Falls is a rural, middle-class community in which half the folks are churchgoers.
So which city gave more? The Sioux Falls folks won hands down. Stossel pointed out that liberal folks tend to believe the government should take care of the poor, whereas religious folks tend to be big believers in giving their own time and money.
Stossel found that almost all the people who donated to the Salvation Army in Sioux Falls were churchgoers. And churchgoers are four times more likely to give to charity than those who are not.
Another interesting finding was that the people who give the most, as a percentage of their wealth, aren’t the richest Americans or even middle-class Americans — they’re the folks on the lower end of the economic scale. They give almost 30 percent more of their income than anybody else.
In any event, the facts are what they are. We’re a generous people for a lot of reasons, but the chief one, in my humble opinion, is that our civilization was formed around Judeo-Christian values — values that include kindness and compassion and charity.
And it’s also worth noting that in a lot of places — Western Europe and many big cities in America, for instance — such simple values are being snuffed out by more secular ones. And secular values tend to favor government charity over the private kind. You got to wonder how charitable we’ll be in another 50 years.
But for the moment it’s good to know that during the holiday season, especially, we’ll be giving out billions to causes and charities of every kind.
It’s the best time of the year to be American. We’re the most generous people on the planet, after all.
This past week, the Wall Street Journal posted an interesting op-ed piece called American Generosity. They quote research from the Hudson Institute which seeks to quantify the true level of international giving to poor nations by Americans from all sources.
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper’s news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.
These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.
“I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican,” said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study’s lead author. “But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are.”
“Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left,” said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.
The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.
Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker’s support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where “100” is the most liberal and “0” is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.
Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.
Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S.lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo’s method assigned both a similar ADA score.
“A media person would have never done this study,” said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. “It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don’t think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches.”
Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS’ “Evening News,” The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.
Only Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume” and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.
The most centrist outlet proved to be the “NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.” CNN’s “NewsNight With Aaron Brown” and ABC’s “Good Morning America” were a close second and third.
“Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill,” Groseclose said. “If these newscasters weren’t centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators.”
The fourth most centrist outlet was “Special Report With Brit Hume” on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC’s “World News Tonight” and NBC’s “Nightly News” to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.
“If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox’s ‘Special Report’ as ABC’s ‘World News’ and NBC’s ‘Nightly News,’ then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news,” said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.
Five news outlets — “NewsHour With Jim Lehrer,” ABC’s “Good Morning America,” CNN’s “NewsNight With Aaron Brown,” Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume” and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.
Let’s throw in a local station.
Local Television Stations Become the New Arbiters of Political Fair Play
Television station managers in small communities across the nation are being forced this fall to adjudicate a barrage of demands from Democratic and Republican Party lawyers pressuring them to pull political advertisements in closely fought Congressional races — or face the risk of a defamation suit.
From West Virginia to Indiana to Mississippi to Iowa to Texas, the station managers and their lawyers have found themselves in the unlikely and unwanted role of acting as ”judge and jury,” as one put it, in sorting out highly charged and complicated claims from the political committees overseeing the Congressional elections this fall.