Again-the so-called "liberal media" is as liberal as the usually conservative corporations that own them (in MSNBC's case, GE) allow them to be. No more, no less.
This was a personnel issue, and a conflict with the corporation's interest.
I see why you italicized conservative.
2008 Democrats: $2.3 M
2008 Republicans: $1.2 M
2010 Democrats: $1.3 M
2010 Republicans: $ .8 M
Corporations for the most part are either neutral in their politics or they lean to the left. The reason for leaning to the left is that corporations like big government, especially when it comes to giving them tax dollars or destroying their enemies or giving them tax advantages. Look at Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Ben and Jerry's, Steve Jobs, Oprah Winfrey and so many other really rich people. They are all lefties who support democrats and their causes.
If you look at donations from corporations you will see as you did above with G.E. that they gave more to democrats.
The notion of the democrat party being the party of the "little guy" or the "working man" is sadly outdated.
Most of the wealthiest people in congress are democrats. If you look at the top ten wealthiest people in congress you will see that they are democrats and that they either inherited their money or married it.
What part is patently untrue. 8 of the top 10 wealthiest members of congress are democrats and of the top 50, 28 are democrats and 22 are republicans.
And if you look back further, you'll see that they typically give more to the party that's perceived as being "in power." Both parties are "corporate owned," lock, stock, and barrel.
Billcihak, corporations don't give a damn about big government or small government. What they care about is profits. That means less regulation (less government) and control over legislation. If they happen to have government contracts, then more government spending is okay too.
Oh look! Unfounded allegations, and lions and tigers and slander, oh my...
Olbermann averaged 1,059,000 viewers in 2Q2010 (March 29-June 27), down slightly from 1,159,000 during the same period a year earlier, but up slightly from the first quarter of this year (1,000,7000).
His ratings in the advertiser-friendly 25-54 demographic, however, have been declining rather sharply every quarter since 1Q2009, when he averaged 452,000. He's now down to 263,000 in that demo
Rather convenient that a hotly partisan talent is taken off the air quickly after election day, eh?
This wasn't done because of Olbermann's politics, or MSNBC's dutifully following their own rules. It was done because he is losing the audience that brings in the biggest chunk of ad revenue.
From June 2010:
MSNBC started looking for a reason to replace him with a talent that will presumably bring in better ad revenue. They found it.
Of the top 10 richest congressmen, 8 are democrats of those 8, two married wealth and the other two inherited it. The two republicans made their money in private enterprise.
billcihak said:If you look at the top ten wealthiest people in congress you will see that they are democrats and that they either inherited their money or married it.