It's got nothing to do with the topic? That's the new defense? It does have to do with the topic, because first for it to be a big conspiracy you have to prove this is an issue. So far the only thing you've done to this effect is to bring up his liberal views and the views of the media organizations he's donating to that hold roughly the same ideology(Gee I wonder why he gave them money). This is something that happens a lot. On both sides of the spectrum. That's why it matters. Because when you bring in the evidence of FOX's investors you can see it's a total non-issue at least in the sense that you presented the issue in this topic. It's the exact same media funding. Soros may disagree with you, but it doesn't make his money any more powerful.
So FOX never takes those wonderful state film subsidies, you should not try to defend things that are not true. Any company that is producing films will at some point or another use tax payer money, get over defending fox on this one, they are just as guilty as the next media outlet!
Yes FOX is a business as is NPR. But why are you changing the discussion so much? The topic as you presented it didn't even involve NPR. Go back to your OP and look for NPR. Your whole point was that he was funding media companies, and didn't even bring NPR into it until his contributions were relegated to that of any other media investor's. Then you changed your story and said it only matters because NPR gets a small portion of it budget from subsidies and then changed your story again saying that was your story the whole time. Now if you agree that funding a company isn't of any concern as that first sentence would imply what's so special about Soros besides his opposing ideologies.
My main concern is with NPR, but its good to know what other media organization Soros is giving his money too. Why are you so afraid of the information? NPR was part of the OP. No, you're just trolling and doing your best to try and trying to discredit me for some reason. I haven't changed any stories. Its always been about Soros, NPR and the other media outlets he's influencing through massive donations. Its special because nobody reports on it outside of right leaning internet sites and Fox News. Where as Fox's evil is known far and wide, because of the negative attention they're given by Soros funded media organizations. I know the information makes your butt ache in pain, but its a fact that people need to know.
Nope. Sure wasn't. NPR was mentioned in passing once on the first page whereas now it's your entire defense. LOL. I'm gonna have to give you rep on that one! The whole butt ache in pain literally made me shoot milk out my nose. I don't know why. Just the whole phrase was kinda corny and scatologically humorous. (Well I guess I can't rep you yet. I need to spread it around more) Anyway, what percentage of people would you guesstimate have heard of this issue?(It's High) And how many of those people that don't do you think would be persuaded to think differently of the left wing media if they did? (It's low) If you think you can answer those 2 questions you can probably see why I think it doesn't really matter that NBC, CNN or whatever "liberal" organization you want to insert there doesn't run the story.
My defense? I wasn't aware that I was defending myself. Why exactly would I need to do that? This thread has nothing at all to do with me. From my perspective, you're just whining and I'm trying to explain why I think the story is important.
... Where did I say you were defending yourself? Maybe I need one of those stupid brackets that contains the information most people would assume everyone's going to get. Let me try that again: Nope. Sure wasn't. NPR was mentioned in passing once on the first page whereas now it's your entire defense [of Fox's claims that Soros contributions are evident of a widespread media scandal]. Is that more satisfying? And is there a response btw? How is Soros' contributions to CNN any more disturbing than Murdoch's contributions to the Republican party? Neither of which are very concerning from my point of view by the way. And for future reference, I use the the word you most of the time as an indefinite 2nd person article and not as YOU. Don't take it personal.
The media makes a big issue of Fox News on a daily basis. It reflects on the internet where there is daily (mostly manufactured) outrage about one thing or another Fox has done. This story shows that those people are hypocrites and that most of this manufactured outrage is most being funded by Soros. I find that disturbing, because Fox isn't trying to shut down any media organizations. The rest of the media, Democrats AND the White House ARE and this Soros guy is funding it. This is important, seeing as how Fox is one of the lone outposts for criticizing of this President and Democrats. My question to you would be why do you feel the need to down play the story? Why do you feel the need to run defense?
I'd give you rep for that post if I could too. Finally an actual debatable post. Can we keep it like this now? The reason I feel the need to downplay that story is because I find that sentence false. I don't believe that Soros's funding is the reason FOX is being "attacked" or the reason the "liberal" media is "liberal" I believe that because they do these things Soros funds them because it runs with his belief system. And with that point of view this story's just a story of investment and not corruption. To me with that point of view it is a non story. To me this is like this: Man A likes Apples instead of MACs. Man A invests in Apple. Apple continues making Apples instead of MACS. Man B who invests in MACs claims the only reason Apple makes Apples is Man A's investment.