Friday, September 2, 2016

Greensboro's News and Record is owned by Warren Buffett, both of whom...

"...The media industry, which many claim is out to get Clinton, is actually made up mostly of donors to the Clinton Foundation. These donors are also actively supporting Clinton's campaign with donations and even fundraising.

Don't expect to read anything about this 
in Berkshire Hathaway's newspapers

...These close ties are especially unsettling on the heels of a primary season in which the corporate media attacked Bernie Sanders constantly, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) was caught manipulating the media on Clinton's behalf.

...Clinton Foundation's financial relationships being a major news story in recent weeks, most media seem entirely uninterested in disclosing -- let alone covering -- their own industry's donations to the foundation. The list of such donors, first reported by Politico (whose owner is a donor himself) is exhaustive and includes many of the most powerful media institutions in the country. Among the donors: Comcast (which owns NBC, and its cable sister channels, such as MSNBC); James Murdoch of News Corporation (owner of Fox News and its sister stations, among many other media holdings); Time Warner (CNN, HBO, scores of other channels); Bloomberg; Reuters; Viacom; Howard Stringer (of CBS News); AOL (owner of Huffington Post); Google; Twitter; The Washington Post Company; George Stephanopoulos (host of ABC News' flagship Sunday show); PBS; PRI; the Hearst Corporation and others.

Greensboro Mayor Nancy Vaughan 
endorsed and is actively supporting Hillary Clinton for President

...The Center for Responsive Politics' data on campaign donations shows that Clinton has been the media industry's chosen candidate since the primary. As of August 22, 2016, the TV/movie/music industry is the fourth-largest donor to the Clinton campaign, while printing/publishing is tenth. More specifically, Clinton is the largest recipient of donations (by far) from all of the following industries: cable television, print and periodicals, radio, telecom services, TV production and Internet companies.

All of the broadcast giants are on board. Clinton is the largest individual recipient of campaign donations from Comcast (NBC News, MSNBC), Time Warner (CNN), News Corp (Fox News), CBS Television and Walt Disney (ABC News). If the media outlets hate Clinton as much as Reid suggests, it is curious that they seem to be working so hard to make her president of the United States (and, dating back to her first election, a senator). Also worth noting is that the AP is, according to its own description, "owned by its American newspaper and broadcast members," which make up the corporate media.

...Most of the dominant media have amplified Clinton supporters' critique of the AP article; the media that help fund Clinton also helped her win the news cycle. But experts on money and politics did not dismiss the story. Vox's Jeff Stein spoke with four experts on the issue of money in politics, and they all expressed concern over the Clinton Foundation's role at the State Department. "Having the State Department opening its doors to foundation donors suggests that the people who are giving to this foundation will get consideration from the Clintons in the context of their work -- in her case, the US diplomatic process and possibly more," said Bob Biersack, a senior fellow at the Center for Responsive Politics.

...It only takes a modicum of critical thinking to understand why these relationships are problematic, though not illegal (which is, in many ways, the problem). ...While debating with Clinton, Sanders often remarked that large corporations do not donate to campaigns for fun -- "they expect something in return." Should President Clinton win, she will not only be in high demand from media outlets for access and content, but will also have a major role in dictating important media policies, such as media ownership restrictions, net neutrality and appointing an FCC commissioner. The corporate media industry won't merely seek to shape the national discourse but will also seek policy reforms that will benefit its bottom line at the expense of a plural and free media.

The corporate media lobby, which is spending increasing amounts of money nearly every year, will no doubt aggressively seek to influence policy on all of these issues, as it successfully did with President Bill Clinton 20 years ago when the disastrous Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed. This law hurt democracy by relaxing ownership restrictions to facilitate ever-increasing consolidation, which has led to 90 percent of the media being owned by six massive companies -- companies that now have a vested stake in a Clinton presidency.

If one truly believes that Clinton isn't influenced at all by the industries that fund her campaigns and her foundation, then there is nothing to worry about. But, of course, as we were told on the Sunday talk shows over the weekend, "This is Washington. People who write big checks get the things they want."

"If I told you that Democratic Party lobbyist Tony Podesta,
whose brother John Podesta chairs Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign,
is a registered foreign agent on the Saudi government's payroll,
you'd probably think I was a Trump-thumping conspiracy theorist. But it's true.

The lobby firm created by both Tony and John Podesta in 1988
receives $140,000 a month from the Saudi government,
a government that beheads nonviolent dissidents,
uses torture to extract forced confessions,
doesn't allow women to drive, and bombs schools,
hospitals and residential neighborhoods in neighboring Yemen.

The Podesta-Clinton-Saudi connection
should be seen in light of the recent media exposes
revealing the tawdry pay-to-play nature of the Clinton Foundation.

Top on the list of foreign donors to the foundation is Saudi Arabia,
which contributed between $10 million and $25 million.

WikiLeaks revealed a 2009 cable by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying:
"More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for Al Qaeda,
the Taliban, Lashkar e-Tayyiba and other terrorist groups."

Instead of sanctioning the Saudis, Clinton did the opposite:
She authorized enormous quantities of weapons to be sold to them."