Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: COMCAST and NBC NEWS getting content from Pro Publica, (Sanders/Soros-funded organization)

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 11, 2011, 6:25 p.m. EST by theaveng (602)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I consider this yet more proof you can't trust the Corporate-owned TV media. - "All of the network's owned-and-operated stations will get early access to investigative reports from the nonprofit newsroom Pro Publica. The arrangement comes as Comcast moves to fulfill its commitment to federal regulators to strengthen local, public-interest programming." - ProPublica operates with a bounty of $10 million per year from married billionaires Herbert and Marion Sandler, who are the former chief executives of the Golden West Financial Corporation, formerly one of the largest mortgage lenders.

The Federal Election Commission database shows that they have donated hundreds of thousands to the Democratic Party and funded MoveOn.org to the tune of $2.5 million. They have also been involved with a host of other partisan organisations including ACORN, Media Matters, the Democracy Alliance, and the Center for American Progress (a Washington lobbyist group that has direct and weighty influence on Obama Administration policy).

Globalist stalwart George Soros also has his tentacles in ProPublica, having given $500,000 from Soros’ Open Society Foundations. In a revealing piece for The American Thinker, Ed Lasky comments that the Sandlers and their various organizations “are not merely out to elect Democrats, but to also permanently realign U.S. politics and shift our society and culture in a far-left wing direction.”

Boycott NBC.

ARTICLE 1 - http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/12/nbc-stations-will-share-content-from-non-profit-news-outlets.html

ARTICLE 2 - http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/how_allies_of_george_soros_hel.html

69 Comments

69 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by novadust (56) from East Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

with so many newspapers cutting back or even folding, non-profit news outfits hiring reporters and editors may be the model that saves independent journalism.

the sandlers founded propublica. why wouldn't they keep funding it? that list of groups they've donated to looks pretty good to me. i'd give them money too if i had any. but what's that about george soros having tentacles? do the words 'ad hominem' mean anything to you?

[-] -2 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

with so many newspapers cutting back or even folding, non-profit news outfits hiring reporters and editors may be the model that saves independent journalism.

Newspapers won't disappear. They are just being replaced with e-newspapers. My local paper is already transitioning from paper to electronic. First they put up the website. Then they cutback from 2 to 1 paper per day, but they compensated subscribers by giving free access to the web.

It's just like reading the paper except online. Next they'll probably cutback to 2 papers a week (like it used to be in the early 1900s) but locals can still up-to-date via the online newspaper. Journalism isn't dying but evolving, just like books are evolving toward e-books and music has moved from CD distribution to MP3 or AAC distribution.

.

do the words 'ad hominem' mean anything to you?

I'l remember that phrase the next time you or somebody else criticizes Heritage or Teaparty as a "Koch Brother operation"

.

[-] 2 points by novadust (56) from East Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

i'm pretty sure some newspapers have already gone under, and i'm even more sure some journalists have lost jobs. how many papers still have bureaus in other countries or in DC? very few. more and more just cut and paste from other sources, and their former writers become bloggers who have to scramble to survive. the number doing independent investigative reporting is bound to drop, and we'll all lose.

i don't criticize heritage n TP as koch ops, but even if i did, that's not an ad hominem, which it would be if i tried to discredit their positions by pointing to their character flaws. on the contrary, i attack them as RWNJs because their positions prove they are RWNJs.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

i'm pretty sure some newspapers have already gone under,

I never said they won't. I said "newspapers won't disappear" and that's true. They will certainly downsize but they won't ever completely disappear, since they will continue to live-on via the online newspapers.

their positions prove they are RWNJs

Likewise Pro Publica's positions show it is filled with LWNJs (yes I know it's hard to believe but their are nutjobs on the left end of the spectrum).

[-] 1 points by novadust (56) from East Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

oh, great. they won't disappear. online newspapers won't do many meaningful investigations. who will pay real reporters to do real journalism? papers keep cutting back.

of course your RW bias sees propublica as left biased. you're too far right to recognize the center.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

The same staff that does reporting for the local papers will continue doing reporting once they phase-out the paper & switch to websites.

Also I'm not right wing. I believe in gay marriage, legalized drugs (albeit restricted to prescription only), and so on. I simply don't believe that there can be personal freedom if the government is regulating every facets of our lives (as ProPublica supports).

.

[-] 1 points by novadust (56) from East Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

the same staff as AFTER the layoffs.

but forget that part. "regulating every facets of our lives"? gimme a break!

the govt does not regulate every facet of our lives.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

the foxes are about - beware

[-] 1 points by novadust (56) from East Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

you got it. one of them started this post.

[-] 3 points by Listof40 (233) 2 years ago

How exactly is this a problem? If members of society, rich or not, want to assist people or independent reporting, that is meant to bring awareness and improve society, then how is that really a conspiracy of the media? People who have money, should not be blocked from contributing to legitimate individuals or organizations that promote progress... They should only be blocked IF the agenda they support is to exploit the public or policy to the detriment of the public, not if it is well-meaning... All contribution is not 'automatically bad'... Do you have any specific information about pro publica intentionally trying to exploit the public?

Thanks, Dave

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

He doesn't have any. He just did the same type of thread the other day. He is ticked off that there are a lot of posters that hate Fox. That is his whole reason for attacking Pro Publica. He doesn't have a case.

[-] -1 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

You mean the one where I said CNN and Fox were caught airing with fake videos? Yeah I was really defending Fox there (not).

It would be more accurate to say I am "ticked off" that people can't see CNN and NBC are just as bad with the same wealthy billionaires perverting the news with propaganda. How you fail to see that is beyond my comprehension.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

No, it was more accurate to say that you were ticked off because there were posts against Fox. :/

Which is completely silly because you know there are lots of people that are on here posting that we as a society are up against media conglomerates.

[-] -1 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

Why would I give a damn about Fox?

[-] 1 points by lonespectator (106) 2 years ago

Listo40..>> Your are an idiot. You think your statement of bring awareness and improve society ..and promote progress are correct.. Dumb Ass!! The point is that the media is one -sided and if owned and contributed that way, only a small minority like yourself get all the say. Thats not freedom or equal access to the MSM. Please , stop writing. Your "flowery" diatribe proves your a fool.

[-] -3 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

How exactly is this a problem?

For the same reason people complain about the Koch Brothers funding the Tea Party, Heritage foundation, and other organizations.

.

[-] 4 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

If you can't see the difference between the billionaire industrialist Koch brothers and an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest, your head is even farther up your ass than we thought.

[-] -2 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

independent,

Hardly. Saying Pro Public is independent is like saying Heritage is independent. Both are funded by billionaires intent upon pushing forward their agendas.

[-] 1 points by novadust (56) from East Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

i have no doubt what you say of heritage is true. i take the word of propublica's editor that the sandlers and the board of directors don't know in advance what gets reported on.

[-] 2 points by novadust (56) from East Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

that's not why i complain about the koch bros, tea party, n heritage foundation. i complain about them because they're RWNJs.

[-] -1 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

Ditto Pro Publica (except on the left wing side of the nutjob spectrum)

.

[-] 2 points by novadust (56) from East Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

communists supported by billionaires? curiouser n curiouser! (don't look now, but your TP lingo just blew your cover, bub.)

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

communists supported by billionaires?

The Communist Party of Russia is supported by billionaires. I don't know why you find that so shocking.

[-] 1 points by novadust (56) from East Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

you deleted the part of your comment that i responded to. that's not kosher. if you're intellectually honest, you'll replace it.

the dominant wing of today's russian CP is nationalist rather than marxist-leninist, they're communist in name only.

propublica is not nutjob at all.

[-] 2 points by Listof40 (233) 2 years ago

Well, i understand you may have concern for how the media is influenced, however this is something we should still evaluate based on the merits of the circumstance... I'm not sure of the tea party agenda or the heritage agenda, but if there is an attempt at policies that are not helpful to the public, then we should evaluate each case... This is really about the merits of each organization... so it is important to discuss for example specifics about particular policies or actions...

Thanks, Dave

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20504) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

boycott nbc . . .

if you want to go ahead. I would point out the following:

and that is just Goldman

[-] -1 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

That's interesting. I wonder why it was then that 60% of Republicans voted against the TARP bill to bail-out Goldman and other banks, while 65% of Dems supported it. (I would have expected the opposite given the funding you pointed out.)

[-] 2 points by novadust (56) from East Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

just looked up tarp vote: house gop yea 91, nay 108; senate gop yea 34, nay 15. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00212

how do you figure 60% voted against it?

[-] -2 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

I was looking at the FIRST vote when the House defeated it. Approximately 60% of Republicans voted it down, while 65% of House Democrats voted for it.

They then wrote a second bill and had a second vote. That time it passed though again the majority of House Republicans rejected it, (while the Democrats wholeheartedly supported stealing money from the taxpayers to give to the bankers).

Inconvenient truths.

The Democrat Party who you think is "for the people" is really no different than the damn republicans. The Democrats serve their corporate masters just as faithfully. The Democrats are really no different than Benito Mussolini in politics (in other words: corporatism).

[-] 3 points by novadust (56) from East Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

so when you say "TARP" you mean the defeated bill, not the one that passed? not the one that passed the senate with gops approving it 34-15 and whose total gop vote in both houses adds up to 125 yea and 123 nay? i thought you meant the one everybody i know calls "TARP." my bad.

yes, dems are imperfect. they can get maneuvered by appeals to emotion, patriotism, etc, and wind up making bad choices. but they're not nearly as fascistic as gops, whose patriot act [3 gop nays, 60-some dem nays] and gramm-leach-bliley [6 house + 0 senate gop nays, 50 house + 44 senate dem nays] absolutely favor the 1% and harm the 99%. no different? i'm pretty damn sure we've got a better shot at making dems serve the people than gops.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

they're not nearly as fascistic as gops

  • forcing people to buy insurance they don't want (in direct viiolation of the 9th and 10th amendments) and thereby giving a huge gift (40 million new customers) to their corporate friends the insurance companies

  • launching bomb strikes against Libya that killed innocent children (graphic) http://youtu.be/vxN_ZHCfGOQ

  • giving flying drones to police to fly overhead and spy on us

  • Xraying us at airports (or groping us via patdowns)

  • Renewal of the Patriot Act thrice since the Dems won the Congress in 2006

  • Bailing-out their corporate friends at General Motors, Goldman Sachs, et cetera

  • Using bankers for White House staff. Using criminal banker Jon Corzine as an adviser.

  • passage of SOPA to make sharing copyrighted links (like linking to youtube music on your facebook) illegal

  • Starting a new "if you see something, say something" campaign by Big Brother Napolitano to encourage Americans to spy on one another and report it to the government

It appears to me the Dems are JUST as fascist as the damn Republicans.

Damn those inconvenient truths.

[-] 1 points by novadust (56) from East Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

oh. like to overwhelm me with so much i have no time to answer all your points? you win.

i'll just say (1) individual mandate is ill-advised (but you name wrong amendments: should say due process clause). dems were forced to prove they wouldn't put insurance companies out of business. like i said, they got maneuvered. majority of insurance industry political contributions go to gops, their actual friends. http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F09 law needs tweaking: instead of private plans with or without a public option, basic plan should be public (e.g., single payer) with a private option. (2) i don't rationalize horrors of war. video refers to NATO strikes, not dems. (3) far as i can tell, some police forces have bought drones. what's your source that dems are behind it? (4,5) terrorism hysteria makes strange bedfellows, and i don't like it either, but i still think most of the opposition to invasions of our privacy tends to come from dems. they're far from unanimous, unfortunately, so the gops win the votes with some dem help. (6) again, they're not dems' corporate friends. GM and goldman no doubt do what they think will do them the most good, and politicians take donations. if they let donations influence their votes, it's corrupt. it's not fascism. (7) bankers have to quit their jobs to join WH staff, so no longer bankers. i don't yet know if corzine's a criminal. gops sure would like to see him indicted. i think he's just stupid, as evidenced by riding up front with no seat belt at 90 mph, as well as letting his small firm get over-leveraged. (8) SOPA's not a dem bill, and it hasn't passed yet. (9) should've guessed you're a conspiracy theorist. there's a big difference between asking the public to report suspicious activity and brainwashing kids to spy on their parents, which is what real fascists do.

nope, i still think dems, imperfect as they are, are not as fascistic as gops, and if gops win we (the people) will have way more trouble getting govt to serve the people, as evidenced by this past year.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

i still think dems, imperfect as they are, are not as fascistic as gops

Really. So what have the "GOPs" done to make you think they are more evil than the Democrat president who ordered the killing of Libyans, met with insurance CEOs in the 2008 campaign and promised to mandate insurance purchases, announced he will sign a bill to allow Americans to be shipped-off to Guantanamo without a jury trial, and on and on?

When I compare Bush to Obama, do you know what I see? No difference. At least none that matters. Bush pursued an agenda of killing innocents overseas while spying on people with the PAtriot Act..... and so too is Obama.

there's a big difference between asking the public to report suspicious activity and brainwashing kids to spy on their parents,

One of the videos instructs schoolchildren to tattle on their moms and dads.

[-] 1 points by novadust (56) from East Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

wow! i'd love to see where you got your "facts."

was it from beck, by any chance?

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

I don't have CATV therefore don't see Beck's shows. I also notice YOU have provided zero facts to show the GOP is more fascist than the Dems. You gave an opinion but despite a week's passage provided no reasons to back-up your claim.

Therefore I will continue to think they are merely two halves of the same pro-Big Government/anti-freedom party. After all they BOTH voted near-unanimously to pass the bill that makes Americans subject to deportation to Guantanamo without trial.

[-] 1 points by novadust (56) from East Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

ok, i've decided to swallow my pride and give you a real answer.

americans for democratic action, a liberal activist organization, looks at 20 key votes in each house every year and rates them. the higher the total score, the more liberal the voting record. maybe you can cite a particular vote that shows little difference between parties, but ADA gives a broader picture. you can pick any year since 1947 and see the differences between parties and between individuals. you can read a description of each of the 40 votes and see how each member voted on each one. this is the kind of information that led me to form the opinion you challenge. here's the URL: http://www.adaction.org/pages/publications/voting-records.php

as for sending americans to gitmo, i'm not so sure the NDAA actually allows that, in spite of claims by ron and rand.

[-] 1 points by novadust (56) from East Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

fine. think what you want. i've wasted enough time with trolls.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20504) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

yup, that is an interesting point.

it has to do with conservative ideology and an inability on the part of repelicans to reconcile their ideology with that of reality - they didn't care what the consequence of the failure would be, or they had no idea what it would be

They all fell in line one day after Leman Bros collapsed. Then they knew.

In looking back, one could argue that the starvation across American might have been worth it, because it would have eliminated the ideology of deregulation of the financial industry, and we would have put something else in place.

But make no mistake - people would have starved.

[-] -2 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

they didn't care what the consequence of the failure would be

Oh yu're one of those that think giving bankers 700 billion of taxpayer dollars was a good idea. I think it was idiotic and those large banks should have been left to fail, as happened in Iceland.

That wise country let the bad banks fail, thereby cleaning-out all the dirty deals, and now they are on the road to recovery. Meanwhile the U.S. is headed towards yet anther recession. 2008's bailout didn't solve the problem but merely postponed the crash to a later date (2012 probably).

people would have starved.

People are starving NOW. The bailout didn't fix a damn thing. The level of bad debt and derivatives is higher now than it was in August 2008.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

http://www.lemon64.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14566&sid=b3822279dd3be8cf2ffb3930fd60f8aa

Theaveng has apparently been banned from every video game forum on the internet. He's just a child seeking attention, and his juvenile interest in conspiracy theories eventually led him to becoming a Fox News, and eventually a Glenn Beck fan.

This is the typical Glenn Beck conservative. Shocked by fear, and now with a flimsy, one-dimensional grasp at politics he attempts to gain attention by reposting nonsense.

Please ignore him and maybe he'll finally put down the video game controller and move out of his mom's basement.

[-] 0 points by fishb8 (62) 2 years ago

Unfortunately, I believe we are rounding a corner on "NEWS" as we used to know it. The Line between fact and fiction as been blurred so bad it is now meaningless. Accusations have power over facts traveling instantly to anyone with a "gadget" to receive and send. Everyone is a reporter and no one checks facts or before too long . . .no one will remember what "fact" means let alone how to sift through chaft prepared to obscure and digress from any real meaning. Maybe we are being shielded from KNOWING by the New Tower of Babble . . .social media. It certainly qualifies as Babble!

[-] 0 points by avery724 (60) 2 years ago

Soros funds ows. soros owns obama. soros has said he would gladly give his entire fortune ( double digit billions) to take down the USA.

[-] 1 points by novadust (56) from East Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

soros never said that. the source is glenn beck and richard poe.

[-] 0 points by avery724 (60) 2 years ago

www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8574

[-] 1 points by novadust (56) from East Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

canada free press is a RW birther site that posts all kinds of conspiracy claptrap. i notice a source given in the article is The Shadow Party by David Horowitz and Richard Poe.

a bunch of wackos!

[-] 0 points by avery724 (60) 2 years ago

Only "wackos" if you refuse to see the truth. Look up Agenda 21.

[-] 1 points by novadust (56) from East Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Agenda 21 is an action plan of the United Nations (UN) related to sustainable development and was an outcome of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. It is a comprehensive blueprint of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the UN, governments, and major groups in every area in which humans directly affect the environment.

ok. i looked it up. what's the problem?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by fandango (241) 2 years ago

don't leave out the Tides Foundation. soros has said the he would gladly give his entire fortune ( double digit billions) to take down the usa.

[-] 0 points by novadust (56) from East Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

i don't see anything wrong with the tides foundation, and soros never said that.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 2 years ago
[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

I wonder why two people subtracted 2 points off your message. I thought it was a good one.

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 2 years ago

Iam after the real point!

[-] -1 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

Al Jazeera? Really??? The English channel might be okay but the Arab version carries a lot of anti-american and anti-jew hate.

I prefer rt.com or france24.com

[-] 0 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 2 years ago

I gree but do you blam them??

[-] -1 points by Tinhorn (285) 2 years ago

So does anyone here think that anything that has George Soros' name attached to it is a good idea for our country?

[-] 2 points by novadust (56) from East Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

let's see, do you mean his "providing funds to help black students attend the University of Cape Town in apartheid South Africa,... funding dissident movements behind the iron curtain" and "...efforts to promote non-violent democratization in the post-Soviet states"? or how about his "$100 million toward Internet infrastructure for regional Russian universities,... $50 million for the Millennium Promise to eradicate extreme poverty in Africa..., $742 million to projects in the U.S.... [He's] given away a total of more than $7 billion"?

or — well, here. read about him yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros

[-] -1 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

The Koch Brothers do all of that too, and yet they are still demonized on this forum, and via movies shown at the Occupy protests

.

[-] 2 points by novadust (56) from East Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, Tea Party, AEI, Federalist Society, Manhattan Institute.... is mentioning those connections what you mean by "demonize"?

sure, they do some charitable giving, but saying they "do all of that too" is a bit of a stretch.

but why do you bring up the koch bros? tinhorn's question and my response had nothing to do with them. you've really got a thing for them, don't you? they wouldn't've been mentioned on this page if it weren't for you.

[-] -1 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

The people on this forum have compared the Koch Brothers to mass murderers. So, yeah, I consider that ":demonizing" them.

Plus the people on the forum automatically reject any organization that is funded by the Koch Brothers. Likewise, if they were being consistent, they should automatically reject any organization funded by the Sanders billionaires.

[-] 1 points by novadust (56) from East Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

mass murderers? interesting. i didn't see that. it's not on this page.

what you're saying about "people on the forum" is exactly opposite of people like me. i reject the koch bros for funding those RW orgs. i don't reject the sandlers. they appear to be good people.

btw, have you got a reading problem? you repeatedly misspell their name. but i admit you're not consistent.

[-] -1 points by Tinhorn (285) 2 years ago

I know about him all to well. I have studied him for years. How about the destruction of third world countries while reaping the financial benefits and then abandoning them into massive poverty?

[-] 1 points by novadust (56) from East Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

you get that from glenn beck or lyndon larouche?

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 2 years ago

None of the above. It is really common knowledge that if you did a little research and or attended one of his guest speaker appearances, you would know that he makes no bones about his intent to destroy the economic stability of countries.

[-] 2 points by novadust (56) from East Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

you still haven't cited any sources.

[-] -1 points by Tinhorn (285) 2 years ago

You mean other than from him himself?

[-] 3 points by novadust (56) from East Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

you're well-named, tinhorn. just post a link so we can see your "evidence."

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 2 years ago

It's not hard, do a google search and see what he did in Kenya. It is interesting though that he is attempting to move from his normal third world countries to spread his new world order philosiphy.

[-] 1 points by novadust (56) from East Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

i did a google search. media matters says "what he did in Kenya" was get folk involved in the political process and challenge questionable results of an election. national review reported turnout in some places was over 100%. the source of the anti-soros smear is richard poe and glenn beck.