<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=unicode" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.7600.16722"></HEAD>
<BODY style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px"
id=MailContainerBody leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area"><FONT color=#000000 face=Calibri>I
see.<BR><BR> CMPA can not be trusted because it is funded in part by
corporations.<BR><BR>ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, Can be trusted even though they ARE
corporations,<BR>and receive ALL of their revenue from other corporations. The
Huffington<BR>Post and the Daily Beast are totally reliable sources for news
even though<BR>they too are owned and financed by corporations.<BR><BR>In other
words, corporations are evil and untrustworthy unless they are <BR>sponsoring
your point of
view.<BR><BR>g<BR><BR></FONT>--------------------------------------------------<BR>From:
"Tom Hansen" <thansen@moscow.com><BR>Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 8:02
PM<BR>To: "Gary Crabtree" <jampot@roadrunner.com>; "Kai Eiselein"
<fotopro63@hotmail.com>; "Moscow Vision 2020"
<vision2020@moscow.com><BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Journalist my
ass<BR><BR>> You really ought to check out your "sources" there a bit once in
a while,<BR>> Mr. Crabtree . . .<BR>> <BR>> Courtesy of SourceWatch
at:<BR>> <BR>>
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service<BR>>
<BR>> ---------------------------------------------------------<BR>>
<BR>> "The Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) touts itself as a
"non-profit,<BR>> non-partisan organization" but its funders are not
transparent. It is an<BR>> arm, or "sister organization," of the Center for
Media and Public Affairs<BR>> (CMPA).<BR>> <BR>> STATS promotes itself
as a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of<BR>> scientific and statistical
integrity to often unsuspecting media outlets.<BR>> It has been surprisingly
successful in this guise, with other<BR>> organizations citing STATS.
[1]"<BR>> <BR>> GMU's major corporate funders include:<BR>> <BR>>
ExxonMobil Corporation<BR>> Lilly Endowment, Inc.<BR>> Lockheed Martin
Corporation<BR>> <BR>> Here are some of GMU's major foundation
funders:<BR>> <BR>> $1,000,000 to $4,999,999<BR>> <BR>> Charles G.
Koch Charitable Foundation (funded by one of the billionaires<BR>> of Koch
Industries, which is funding an array of Republican and right-wing<BR>>
ideological interests, including the Tea Party via front groups like<BR>>
Freedomworks)<BR>> <BR>> Searle Freedom Trust (Daniel Seale was the
largest funder of the<BR>> right-wing think tank, the American Enterprise
Institute)<BR>> <BR>> GMU does have other smaller funders that have
donated $499,999 or less,<BR>> including some funding from other conservative
funders."<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
---------------------------------------------------------<BR>> <BR>> So,
what you have here is the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA)<BR>>
receiving top-end contributions from right-wing billionaires and think<BR>>
tanks while its sister organization STATS "promotes itself as a<BR>>
disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical<BR>>
integrity".<BR>> <BR>> Things that make you go, "Hmmm."<BR>> <BR>>
FYI, Mr. Crabtree: RachellMaddow has sought out many right-wingers
to<BR>> debate points with her. A few (Rand Paul, to name one) have
appeared on<BR>> her show.<BR>> <BR>> Tom Hansen<BR>> Moscow,
Idaho<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> On
Tue, February 22, 2011 7:12 pm, Gary Crabtree wrote:<BR>>> "Fox News does
not employ "real<BR>>> journalists" by your
definition."<BR>>><BR>>> "What do you call Shepard Smith, Adam
Housely, Greg Kelly, Steve Harrigan,<BR>>> William La Jeunesse, Gregg
Jarrett, Wendell Goler, Trace Gallager, Rick<BR>>> Leventhal, Brian
Wilson, and last but far from the least, Greg Palkot to<BR>>> name but a
few? Seasoned, professional journalists by any
definition.<BR>>><BR>>> You may wish to review what the non-partisan
Center For Media And Public<BR>>> Affairs has to say about Fox News
Channels objectivity. Fox only looks<BR>>> conservative when placed in a
apples to apples comparison with ABC, CBS,<BR>>> NBC, and most especially
MSNBC.<BR>>><BR>>> Yes, the Op/Ed shows run to the right just like
the ones on the other<BR>>> networks<BR>>> run to the left. The news
runs primarily down the middle.<BR>>><BR>>> Even on the conservative
analysis shows it would be extremely rare for<BR>>> there<BR>>> not
to be several spokesmen invited on to express and defend the
opposing<BR>>> view.<BR>>> This almost never happens on the programs
fronted by Maddow, Olbermann,<BR>>> Schultz,
etc.<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> g<BR>></BODY></HTML>