• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

George Soros & the Media

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
When liberal investor George Soros gave $1.8 million to National Public Radio , it became part of the firestorm of controversy that jeopardized NPR’s federal funding. But that gift only hints at the widespread influence the controversial billionaire has on the mainstream media. Soros, who spent $27 million trying to defeat President Bush in 2004, has ties to more than 30 mainstream news outlets – including The New York Times, Washington Post, the Associated Press, NBC and ABC.

Prominent journalists like ABC’s Christiane Amanpour and former Washington Post editor and now Vice President Len Downie serve on boards of operations that take Soros cash. This despite the Society of Professional Journalists' ethical code stating: “avoid all conflicts real or perceived.”

This information is part of an upcoming report by the Media Research Centers Business & Media Institute which has been looking into George Soros and his influence on the media.

The investigative reporting start-up ProPublica is a prime example. ProPublica, which recently won its second Pulitzer Prize, initially was given millions of dollars from the Sandler Foundation to “strengthen the progressive infrastructure” – “progressive” being the code word for very liberal. In 2010, it also received a two-year contribution of $125,000 each year from the Open Society Foundations. In case you wonder where that money comes from, the OSF website is Open Society Foundations. It is a network of more than 30 international foundations, mostly funded by Soros, who has contributed more than $8 billion to those efforts.


The ProPublica stories are thoroughly researched by top-notch staffers who used to work at some of the biggest news outlets in the nation. But the topics are almost laughably left-wing. The site’s proud list of *“Our Investigations” includes attacks on oil companies, gas companies, the health care industry, for-profit schools and more. More than 100 stories on the latest lefty cause: opposition to drilling for natural gas by hydraulic fracking. Another 100 on the evils of the foreclosure industry.

Throw in a couple investigations making the military look bad and another about prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and you have almost the perfect journalism fantasy – a huge budget, lots of major media partners and a liberal agenda unconstrained by advertising.

One more thing: a 14-person Journalism Advisory Board, stacked with CNN’s David Gergen and representatives from top newspapers, a former publisher of The Wall Street Journal and the editor-in-chief of Simon & Schuster. Several are working journalists, including:

• Jill Abramson, a managing editor of The New York Times;

• Kerry Smith, the senior vice president for editorial quality of ABC News;

• Cynthia A. Tucker, the editor of the editorial page of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

ProPublica is far from the only Soros-funded organization that is stacked with members of the supposedly neutral press.*

The Center for Public Integrity is another great example. Its board of directors is filled with working journalists like Amanpour from ABC, right along side blatant liberal media types like Arianna Huffington, of the Huffington Post and now AOL.

Like ProPublica, the CPI board is a veritable Who’s Who of journalism and top media organizations, including:

• Christiane Amanpour – Anchor of ABC’s Sunday morning political affairs program, “This Week with Christiane Amanpour.” A reliable lefty, she has called tax cuts “giveaways,” the Tea Party “extreme,” and Obama “very Reaganesque.”*

• Paula Madison – Executive vice president and chief diversity officer for NBC Universal, who leads NBC Universal’s corporate diversity initiatives, spanning all broadcast television, cable, digital, and film properties.

• Matt Thompson – Editorial product manager at National Public Radio and an adjunct faculty member at the prominent Poynter Institute.

The group's advisory board features:*

• Ben Sherwood, ABC News president and former "Good Morning America" executive producer

Once again, like ProPublica, the Center for Public Integrity’s investigations are mostly liberal – attacks on the coal industry, payday loans and conservatives like Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. The Center for Public Integrity is also more open about its politics, including a detailed investigation into conservative funders David and Charles Koch and their “web of influence.”According to the center’s own 990 tax forms, the Open Society Institute gave it $651,650 in 2009 alone.

The well-known Center for Investigative Reporting follows the same template – important journalists on the board and a liberal editorial agenda. Both the board of directors and the advisory board contain journalists from major news outlets. The board features:

• Phil Bronstein (President), San Francisco Chronicle;

• David Boardman, The Seattle Times;

• Len Downie, former Executive Editor of the Washington Post, now VP;

• George Osterkamp, CBS News producer.

Readers of the site are greeted with numerous stories on climate change, illegal immigration and the evils of big companies. It counts among its media partners The Washington Post, Salon, CNN and ABC News. CIR received close to $1 million from Open Society from 2003 to 2008.

Why does it all matter? Journalists, we are constantly told, are neutral in their reporting. In almost the same breath, many bemoan the influence of money in politics. It is a maxim of both the left and many in the media that conservatives are bought and paid for by business interests. Yet where are the concerns about where their money comes from?

Fred Brown, who recently revised the book “Journalism Ethics: A Casebook of Professional Conduct for News Media,” argues journalists need to be “transparent” about their connections and “be up front about your relationship” with those who fund you.

Unfortunately, that rarely happens. While the nonprofits list who sits on their boards, the news outlets they work for make little or no effort to connect those dots. Amanpour’s biography page, for instance, talks about her lengthy career, her time at CNN and her many awards. It makes no mention of her affiliation with the Center for Public Integrity.

If journalists were more up front, they would have to admit numerous uncomfortable connections with groups that push a liberal agenda, many of them funded by the stridently liberal George Soros. So don’t expect that transparency any time soon.

Dan Gainor is the Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center’s Vice President for Business and Culture.
I wonder why a libertarian businessman is scrutinized for donating money to promote free market economics by funding six positions at FSU but this Nazi collaborator has such a huge influence in our media and funds so many organizations dedicated to silencing conservative voices but gets a free pass.
 

qweerblue

Registered Member
I wonder why a libertarian businessman is scrutinized for donating money to promote free market economics by funding six positions at FSU but this Nazi collaborator has such a huge influence in our media and funds so many organizations dedicated to silencing conservative voices but gets a free pass.
Dude, he was 14-freakin'-years-old and his father paid a Christian, government official to take Soros in and to pose as his godfather so as to avoid Soros's being sent to a death camp. I would hardly call that "collaboration". That's not a cool word to thrown around so lightly.

I'll get to the rest of your post later, but, honestly SS--it's complete bullshit to call Soros a Nazi collaborator. Bad form, man.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
Soros was thirteen years old in March 1944 when Nazi Germany occupied Hungary.[19] Soros took a job with the Jewish Council,[11] which had been established during the Nazi occupation of Hungary to carry out Nazi and Hungarian government anti-Jewish measures.[20][21]
George Soros
Extended quotation from the 60 Minutes transcript follows:* ?When the Nazis occupied Budapest in 1944, George Soros' father was a successful lawyer. He lived on an island in the Danube and liked to commute to work in a rowboat. But knowing there were problems ahead for the Jews, he decided to split his family up. He bought them forged papers and he bribed a government official to take 14-year-old George Soros in and swear that he was his Christian godson. But survival carried a heavy price tag. While hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were being shipped off to the death camps, George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his appointed rounds, confiscating property from the Jews.

(Vintage footage of Jews walking in line; man dragging little boy in line)

KROFT: (Voiceover) These are pictures from 1944 of what happened to George Soros' friends and neighbors.

(Vintage footage of women and men with bags over their shoulders walking; crowd by a train)

KROFT: (Voiceover) You're a Hungarian Jew...

Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.

KROFT: (Voiceover) ...who escaped the Holocaust...

(Vintage footage of women walking by train)

Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.

(Vintage footage of people getting on train)

KROFT: (Voiceover) ...by--by posing as a Christian.

Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Right.

(Vintage footage of women helping each other get on train; train door closing with people in boxcar)

KROFT: (Voiceover) And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.

Mr. SOROS: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that's when my character was made.

KROFT: In what way?

Mr. SOROS: That one should think ahead. One should understand and--and anticipate events and when--when one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a--a very personal experience of evil.

KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.

KROFT: I mean, that's--that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

Mr. SOROS: Not--not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't--you don't see the connection. But it was--it created no--no problem at all.

KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

Mr. SOROS: No.

KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?

Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c--I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was--well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets--that if I weren't there--of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would--would--would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the--whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the--I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.?* (?George Soros,? 60 Minutes interview transcript, December 20, 1998)
------
So is my post any worse than Soros comparing Bush to Nazis?
 
Last edited:

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
Hmm, an article without citations. But why? We're discussing media bias it seems, surely this is not from some ridiculous source that would seem hypocritical-Oh wait. It is.

It's a Fox News Opinion piece. Surprise.


Any time we have discussions on the media, it always makes me laugh how the left is the only side criticized and how 'liberal' is tossed around like an insult. It makes me laugh because the right is just as corrupt and self-serving in the media, they just don't get the recognition. Mr. Murdoch has done plenty to encourage questions in terms of suspicious activity and has supported plenty of right wingers and continues to call his station fair and balanced, a lie most people have realized will never be properly addressed. Yet, I only bring him up since after all, you quoted a Fox article.

Soros fills the right wing's 'super villain' role like Palin does for the left. He gets made out to be a monster with tiny, vague or even completely made up facts and the right explodes with anger whenever he is hinted at anywhere. Aside from the fact that every sane person on the net has already pointed out (he was 14, if we could be prosecuted as adults and held accountable for things we've done as teenagers we'd all be in prison), there's really not much more to discuss here.

Let me ask you a question SS, why do you feel required personally to go after Soros? He seems to be your target of choice. And before you start squawking about me defending him, no I do not like him and I'm not playing to his favor. I'm playing the literal middle man here.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
This information is part of an upcoming report by the Media Research Centers Business & Media Institute which has been looking into George Soros and his influence on the media.
Thanks for asking Merc! Of course I intended to inflame with the nazi comment. And also to point out the hypocrisy of the outrage over the Koch brothers v. silence about a guy with obvious influence.

Libertarian funds and influences faculty decisions in a university Econ dept = outrage & vilification

Liberal uses questionably gotten wealth to fund a virtual army of influence = no big deal
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
See but your only complaints are "influence" which is just silly since that's the name of the media game: influence. If you're really just sitting here complaining about influence, why is Soros the only guy you talk about? Why not Murdoch? Maybe Trump?
 

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
Hmm, an article without citations. But why? We're discussing media bias it seems, surely this is not from some ridiculous source that would seem hypocritical-Oh wait. It is.

It's a Fox News Opinion piece. Surprise.


Any time we have discussions on the media, it always makes me laugh how the left is the only side criticized and how 'liberal' is tossed around like an insult. It makes me laugh because the right is just as corrupt and self-serving in the media, they just don't get the recognition. Mr. Murdoch has done plenty to encourage questions in terms of suspicious activity and has supported plenty of right wingers and continues to call his station fair and balanced, a lie most people have realized will never be properly addressed. Yet, I only bring him up since after all, you quoted a Fox article.

Soros fills the right wing's 'super villain' role like Palin does for the left. He gets made out to be a monster with tiny, vague or even completely made up facts and the right explodes with anger whenever he is hinted at anywhere. Aside from the fact that every sane person on the net has already pointed out (he was 14, if we could be prosecuted as adults and held accountable for things we've done as teenagers we'd all be in prison), there's really not much more to discuss here.

Let me ask you a question SS, why do you feel required personally to go after Soros? He seems to be your target of choice. And before you start squawking about me defending him, no I do not like him and I'm not playing to his favor. I'm playing the literal middle man here.
To me it's the exact opposite. All I read is "Fox News this" and "Fox News that" and "Murdoch is biased" but when things are pointed out about Soros, NPR, The New York Times, etc...suddenly people are going after him personally. Can we all just admit that there is bias in every news agency and quit the personal attacks and just debate substantively?
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
See but your only complaints are "influence" which is just silly since that's the name of the media game: influence. If you're really just sitting here complaining about influence, why is Soros the only guy you talk about? Why not Murdoch? Maybe Trump?
Again, to point out the hypocrisy.

Why use some half-baked example when Soros has more influence than the rest of them combined? And that is what I'm talking about, influence. Whether it is influence in choosing faculty or influence in shaping main stream media it is influence.
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
To me it's the exact opposite. All I read is "Fox News this" and "Fox News that" and "Murdoch is biased" but when things are pointed out about Soros, NPR, The New York Times, etc...suddenly people are going after him personally. Can we all just admit that there is bias in every news agency and quit the personal attacks and just debate substantively?
Of course you see that, it's because you're on the right! It seems in these paranoid, combative times we live in that people tend to have narrowed vision focused on their enemies to the point that they don't realize how many allies they have. Both sides are guilty of it as well as bias. You claim to only see hatred against Fox and support for Soros but in all honesty, I never heard of him until SS began complaining about him last year.

Also, I don't know how many times people have to point this out, but it's easily argued that Fox gets as much flak as it does because they're the only ones that claim they're completely without bias right in their own damn slogan when everyone knows what and where their bias is :lol:
 

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
Of course you see that, it's because you're on the right! It seems in these paranoid, combative times we live in that people tend to have narrowed vision focused on their enemies to the point that they don't realize how many allies they have. Both sides are guilty of it as well as bias. You claim to only see hatred against Fox and support for Soros but in all honesty, I never heard of him until SS began complaining about him last year.

Also, I don't know how many times people have to point this out, but it's easily argued that Fox gets as much flak as it does because they're the only ones that claim they're completely without bias right in their own damn slogan when everyone knows what and where their bias is :lol:
Um, no, I see that because other than SS, everyone including yourself only points to Fox News while ignoring everything else. You ask SS where are his complaints about Trump, etc...I could ask you the same thing. You complain about Fox News and "fair and balanced" where is your complaint about the New York Times and "all the news that is fit to print".

Everyone knows where their bias is? Or is it that you're biased against Fox News?...speaking of narrowly focused vision.
 
Last edited:
Top