Enron and the Clinton administration

[-dead-]

Did I say either party was clean? I don't seem to recall saying that. I mean what do you people expect!?! They're politicians for crying out loud!
I was merely noting that the Republicans seem to have received a lot more cash off Enron than the Democrats: make of that what you will.

This from the same site:
1997-98 election cycle
Enron Corp  Total:$691,950  To Dems:$112,200  To Reps:$579,750
1999-2000 election cycle
Enron Corp  Total:$1,671,555  To Dems:$532,565  To Reps:$1,138,990
2001-2002 election cycle
Enron Corp  Total:$424,409  To Dems:$102,050  To Reps:$322,359
Total to Dems 97-02: $746,815   Total to Reps 97-02: $2,041,099

As to the '96 Election (which is what the article deals with):
In the Oil & Gas sector, the 2nd highest contributor was Enron Corp with $1,154,266 in this ratio - Dems 19%, Reps 81%
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=E01&Cycle=1996
cycling through...
The 94 election cycle
Ranked 4th in the Oil & Gas sector:
Enron Corp  $541,676  Dems 41%  Reps 59%
The 92 election cycle
Ranked 11th in the Oil & Gas sector:
Enron Corp $305,509 Dems 39%  Reps 61%
The 90 election cycle
Ranked 15th in the Oil & Gas sector:
Enron Corp $162,250 Dems 41%  Reps 59%

It almost looks like the Democrats fell into disfavour with Enron after '94, which runs somewhat counter to the article. But there it is - roughly 40% dem 60% rep contributions up to '94 then round about 20% dem 80% rep after that... then the dems go up to about 30% dem 70% rep in 2000 & 2002. And this is supposedly Enron "showing its gratitude the democrats" - go figure.

[Edit to add the 70:30 rise 00&02- it was late & I was tired]

[whgates3]

Yossarian Ro0|z

[GRUNHERZ]

Boy the lefties sure are quiet on this one...

[Lance]

They're losing subscribers along with alot of newspapers across the country, one tends to be less bias when the pocket book is affected

Or, more likely, your perception of them being liberally biased or a viable news source worth quoting is based mostly on whether or not they are saying something you like hearing;)

[Ripsnort]

Not really Lance, the delivery, body language, the way it is worded(Reported Clinton was "Trimming" medicare, and Bush is "Gutting" medicare as an static example)... will say alot of whether that news reporter or station is bias.  I'm not saying EVERY new outlet is bias, just saying overall, if you found a neutral agency that studied it, you'd find it leaning left.
http://www.gargaro.com/bias.html
http://www.mediaresearch.org/
http://www.honestreporting.com/

Most reporters aren't liberal or biased - right?
     Let's see....
     - 9 white house correspondents survey voted for Clinton in 1992, while 2 voted for Bush
     - 12 voted for Dukakis in 1988 - one for Bush
     - 10 voted for Mondale in 1984 - zero for Reagan
     - 8 voted for Jimmy Carter in 1980 - 2 for Reagan
     Of course, none of these reporters could be biased at all in their reporting.......
     Source: US News and World Report White House Reporter Kenneth Walsh

     Another survey...
     Of the 1400 members of the national media who were surveyed:


          44% considered themselves Democrats
          16% Repubs
          34% independents
          89% voted for Clinton in 1992
          7% voted for Bush in 1992

[Charon]

You should check the validity of all of your your sources Rip. A common practice in Propaganda (as differentiated from ethical PR) is to set up stealth organizations as "objective third parties" that are not objective at all.

Honestreporting and its parent, Media Watch International, are Jewish organizations developed entirely to shape unfavorable coverage of Israel though pressure tactics. If there is any question of bias in the media, there is absolutely no question that both of these "watchdog" organizations are highly biased and operating with a set agenda. They count on people not paying any attention beyond the headline, or the fact that their messages supports preconceived notions in the target audience so there is no incentive to see if it is the truth or not. Here is some information on those two groups.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4140042,00.html

Media Research is a decidedly conservative organization that is the polar opposite of the liberal Fair.org. I�m not sure I would take anything at face value from either organization. Here a link to a Columbia Journalism Review of both organizations: http://www.cjr.org/year/96/6/watchdog.asp

As for Gargaro.com, I respect her opinions on Marvin the Martian, http://www.gargaro.com/marvin.html but, you would probably have to go though each of her media examples with a fine-tooth comb to sort the urban legends from the facts, qualify all the �unbiased sources� etc. For a �Rightgrrl,� she�s not bad on the eyes though: http://www.gargaro.com/images/2001/work/

Now, as for your statistics... Just how many White House reporters are there? It looks like he interviewed 44 during a 22-year span. No information on how he selected this minute sampling. As for the survey, it seems most considered themselves Independent, which means they would vote for someone from any party that met their needs. I consider myself an independent, and would have voted for Republican McCain if I had the chance.

Is the media really biased, or is that just an easy way to explain away the unpleasant, to people who don't want to look at any negative side of their political focus? Probably both to some extent. Dan Rather has a lot more in common with Bush than I do (or most anybody on this board). IMO the broadcast media is too focused on pop issues and idle speculation, with selling ads being more important than quality journalism at the end of the day.

Here�s a guy that thinks the media has too much conservative bias. A real member of the looney left , but he makes a few interesting points and there is some pretty funny stuff: http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/myths.html

Here is a fairly level-headed analysis I came across (at least it fits with my view of the world, making it automatically correct ) http://www.cybercollege.com/bias.htm

Generally speaking�and there many exceptions�people in business tend to be conservative and people who have a background in the social sciences�through education or working with people�tend to be more liberal. (We'll avoid trying to define the terms liberal and conservative at this point and go with the rather fuzzy, widely held definitions of what the terms seem to imply.)
People in the hard sciences also tend to be more conservative than people in the social sciences. The latter group includes many news people and actors, and some writers and artists�people whose ideas often surface in the media. Their views also tend to "push the envelope" of social change.

So, if we can keep speaking in generalities, we seem to have a split between the basically conservative philosophies held by many of business-minded media owners and top executives, and the people who shape the messages.

Here�s something from Fair.org: http://www.fair.org/activism/cnn-gop.html

Charges about liberal media bias are nothing new: Republicans have long complained about the supposed left-wing bias of the mainstream media, and CNN has been one of the targets of this criticism over the years. At times, Republican strategists have explained the tactical wisdom of accusing media of liberal bias. As Republican Party chair Rich Bond said, "There is some strategy to it. I'm a coach of kids' basketball and Little League teams. If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one." (Washington Post, 8/20/92)

My take on the media, for what little its worth.

CNN: Good in a breaking story, but even then filled with too much idle commentary from the �experts.�

Fox: Targeted programming that presents 1.5 sides of the story.

MSNBC: Not sure yet. I�m tired of CNN and only watch Fox for the amusement factor, so I�ll have to start checking these guys out.

Network: So So. They don�t have the presence anymore to be really effective on the ground.

Dateline/60 Mins/etc. - Tabloid operations. They can do some good stuff but they also provide a reason for legitimate, ethical PR.

Newspapers: The Chicago Tribune is my favorite. It is considered the Republican paper of Chicago, and it provides good international coverage. Newspapers in general are a must to get good information on anything in the world (or local).

Newsmagazines: The worst reporting I ever encountered during my PR days was Time Magazine. They think they know everything (at least the 23 year, Manhattan, Sex in the City type swells that actually conduct most of the �grunt� interviews), won�t listen, start with a pre-conceived position and pump out a lot of crap mixed with some good coverage. Good photos though.

There is a lot of unbiased truth out there. It just requires a little work.

Charon

[midnight Target]

I think it is safe to say I have never made an anti-Bush post with regard to Enron. I will continue on this tack for the following reason:

What is the big freakin surprise when one of the biggest energy companies in the world has close ties with whatever the current administration happens to be? I mean ... DUH!

[Ripsnort]

Charon, the tactic of trying to belittle "sources" is as old as history itself.

Edit, grammar.

[Charon]

Charon, the tactic of trying to belittle "sources" is as old as history itself.

My point exactly with all the "Liberal Bias in the media" accusations that get thrown around. Please Rip, provide your specific analysis as to how those sources you listed could be considered fair, reasonable and reliable. Not all sources are created equal, and some deserve belittling. To me they look decidedly biased, just like Fair.org at the opposite end of the spectrum. They might contain some truth, but more likely it's only half the truth like the urban legends that pop up on this board and are so easily accepted by some as gospel fact.

I wouldn�t be surprised if the media is more socially liberal but fiscally conservative, at least in broadcast news. I rather think most �working� reporters are centrists, which would tend to make them liberal compared to the current Republican party. I would disagree that most are closer to Nader than say a MOR Republican or Democrat. Many probably see Washington for its true colors (shades of green) and probably lack the idealism to be a �true� Republican or Democrat.

I might, as a libertarian-leaning centrist, be receptive to the messages put out by Fair.org, but I wouldn't take them at face value. I've spun people and been spun, so I tend to always look for the angle behind the message and who exactly is funding the messenger. Sources like the ones you listed don�t make the cut. In fact, they are probably too biased to be worth the effort of using cross comparison of highly divergent sources to arrive at some central truth. Of course, tabloid news uses such sources so that there is a lot of yelling and flustered faces on the screen.

Charon

[AKDejaVu]

Originally posted by midnight Target
What is the big freakin surprise when one of the biggest energy companies in the world has close ties with whatever the current administration happens to be? I mean ... DUH!

BINGO!

[whgates3]

right on Charon - dont trust `dem Jo0z, although, if you're looking for a good knich, a Gew is hard to beat.  In a pinch, a  perogi from a Russian is a not bad 2nd choice...

[Charon]

right on Charon - dont trust `dem Jo0z, although, if you're looking for a good knich, a Gew is hard to beat. In a pinch, a perogi from a Russian is a not bad 2nd choice...

I trusted one enough to marry her, by a rabbi no less. I just don't particularly trust ultra orthadox Israelis (such as those that run honestreporting), and [freely admitted] zionists like Sharon [where the Israeli perspective on the West Bank and palestinians are concerend].

And when he is not working for HonestReporting, Mr Simmons is to be found employed at another organisation altogether - Aish HaTora. This is an international group promoting orthodox Judaism. "I do some work for Aish," Mr Simmons says, from Israel. And Jonathan, the web-designer who started it all in London, also concedes: "I go to the odd class at Aish."

Aish verge on the colourful in their antics. Founded by Rabbi Noah Weinberg, who complains that "20,000 kids a year" are being lost to Judaism by marrying out, Aish invented speed-dating - eight-minute sessions in cafes to help New Yorkers find compatible Jewish partners. They're widely regarded as rightwing extremists. And they're certainly not people entitled to harass the media into what they would call "objectivity".

I suppose I'm more intune with jews like these:http://www.gush-shalom.org/english/index.html

I assume (oh, and I know the danger there) that you are aware that not all Jews support Sharon and his policies.

Charon

[btw, about the only traditional dish my wife prepares is Koogle, which I find rather boring compared to good, old fashioned kraft mac n cheese. I do most of the cooking, which is a frightening thought past grill season]

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Charon
I trusted one enough to marry her, by a rabbi no less.

ka-BLAMO!!!!

[Lance]

if you found a neutral agency that studied it, you'd find it leaning left.

That is an advertisement on one of those neutral agency's website, Rip.  You'll have to pardon me if I don't share your sentiment that they are themselves unbiased critics of the media;)

[Thrawn]

LOL!

I just wanted to say that this tread is HILARIOUS!