Inquiring minds want to know

I suppose you did not read the links I posted as the thread went on. explains why you are so ignorant of the facts.


Where are results from Fox news, Brietbart, WSJ, etc… two can play that game.

fun I just replied to a post using Hannity and Piro as examples of media advocacy. You really should start to read a little.



Sean Hannity and Judge Janine take a very strong pro Trump stance as to the point of being ridiculously transparent.
Cnn took a very strong Pro Hillary and anti trump stance,
Those are examples not definitions.
by definition I would say promoting a position where you want government to act in a way that supports an interest group.
for instance if the media promoted threats of war and violence in order to promote support for defense spending or invasion of another country.

:tumbler_glass: :man_cartwheeling: :cyclone:

CNN, for example

I noticed when you did this you ignored this Google result.

Free speech is all inclusive and it is a guaranteed right. Politically motivated speech in the case of a PAC has FEC requirements. A PAC can be formed and managed by a corporation, however salaried employees that donate must report the donations. Campaigning is direct activity at the ground level I believe. The key similarity here is political advocacy versus reporting.

reporters suspended for donating to parties

That was my search as it addressed another posters response.

there was one article on reporter suspended for Tweeting.

but we all remember Kathy Gifford

And and if you took the time to read as I did you would have seen the criteria used .

That would seem to be more the result of labeling it a pac instead of media, not the other way around.

It is all part of the problem once you get into controlling what people can say politically.

I posted three links you did not read, liberal sources

actually it was from the legal requirements for Pacs that I posted.


Yes I read and most used the one link to build on for references.

it is interesting how you want to change the context, all the articles were posted in a response to one person saying media people were fired for donating. all three articles say they gave to Clinton and Trump. All of them mention they tradition of scorekeeper not activist.

The OP is about activist journalism and the comparison to a PAC. so I fail to grasp your point. Are you saying that no media people are activist?

No they are activists. But most serious news outlets tend to frown upon on air hosts or those embedded with politicians who donate. They get suspended or moved.

For instance is a tv critic for the times to be seen as a news anchor with the ability to shape the narrative?

As in going to the local news stand and buying a newspaper? I would have to say that simple act would have no impact one way or the other.

If a news organization promotes a political agenda, they are simply a biased news organization. There are more than a few of those already.


of course then I was not referring to an issue of a newspaper, I was referring to something like the Washington post,

A Pac has an announced platform, media bias may be in dispute, should they announce their agenda?

If Bezos hires Kearney to run news outlets what then is Bezos?

is that true of CNN and Fox?

CNN apparently has a policy about newsroom people and donations.

FOX actual news people I don’t know.