CNN and MSNBC, owned by two of the largest media companies, guess which candidate they donated to?

[pantsonfire]

TimeWarner owns CNN:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Time_Warner

Comcast owns MSNBC (through NBCUniversal):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Comcast

Comcast is not listed, but the CEO held a fundraiser, $2,700 a plate dinner for HRC's campaign. And I bet they have a vested interest (percentage ownership of at least one of the top ten companies).

And the largest media corporation in New York, Cablevision, has close ties with HRC (they also own the New York Post).

Some will say this doesn't matter, that doesn't mean they are automatically biased towards HRC, but most of us know this is a House of Cards argument, waiting to be blown down with the slightest gust of independent reasoning. The media should not be allowed to donate towards any candidate for the sake of simple objectivity, it's an obvious conflict of interest.
Without the internet and the freedom we have, now, Bernie Sander's would not have made it this far. And if he does not win the primary and election, you can bet that those media companies, which largely also provide internet to most of us, will work harder to restrict our freedom and ability to come to our own conclusions rather than being told by "experts" and "objective" journalists on TV.

[arcane1]

1. They're just masochists, paying her big bucks to fight back at them.

Or something

[Land of Enchantment]

2. Umm, I believe Lehman Bros. went under in 2008

might wanna check that. Still--quite the impressive list of donors, eh? God help us.

[pantsonfire]

4. It's a list of donors over her career....

....it's too hard to link, TimeWarner and Comcast because of superPAC's and non-profits that donate to her campaign. They are extremely non-transparent.

[LuvLoogie]

3. Not this meme again...

Although 98% of Clinton's total was contributed by individuals, Open Secrets listed the amounts under the name of their employers. It’s an important point because it implies that the donations were directed by bank and corporation entities which would have been illegal.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/6/1409515/-Setting-the-Record-Straight-Hillary-Clinton-s-Campaign-Donors


Edit to add, also from the article:

Clinton has always had strong support from labor unions. Open Secrets omitted their contributions entirely.
The Federal Election Commission website is the best source for campaign donation data which is available free to the public.

Easily retrievable records show labor union PAC donations that exceed the amounts listed by Open Secrets.

For example, the report at the link lists several independent expenditures over a million dollars for Clinton’s 2008 campaign.

$2,300,759.31 by the American Federation of State County & Municipal Employees
$1,784,808.59 by the American Federation of Teachers
$1,303,971.54 by Emily's List

[pantsonfire]

5. They have those listed on their site....

.....this post was targeted at the media companies.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Hmm, that one is a hard one to guess.

[Impedimentus]

7. Damn, I guess my cable rates are going up yet again !

"Comcast is not listed, but the CEO held a fundraiser, $2,700 a plate dinner for HRC's campaign"

FEEL THE BERN - 2016