Why Wall Street execs want to silence their shareholders
Last year, the Securities and Exchange Commission approved a new “say on pay” policy that allows shareholders to vote on the pay package for a company’s top executives.
You wouldn’t think that would be a particularly controversial measure. For one thing, the vote isn’t even binding; it is advisory only. And shouldn’t shareholders — the people who actually own a company — be allowed to at least voice an opinion about how their own top employees are paid? Surely that is consistent with free-enterprise market principles, right?
Republicans, however, have fought the measure tooth and nail. It was approved by the SEC by a party-line 3-2 vote, with Republican appointees to the panel trying vainly to delay, weaken or kill it. They also fought it in Congress, voting against “say on pay” in party-line votes in 2009, back when Democrats still had enough votes to pass it.
As the Chicago Tribune reported back then:
“Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), in a comment echoed by fellow Republicans, assailed the (say-on-pay) measure as “unprecedented government intervention in the free enterprise system.”
“This bill is an invitation for political meddling at its worst in the private confines of companies that are trying to work hard to create jobs,” complained Rep. Peter J. Roskam (R-Ill.)
I find those complaints hard to fathom. It is government interference to give the owners of a company a voice — a non-binding voice! — in what its executives are paid?
This week, we got a chance to see the rule in action, and also to see why Republicans continue to fight it so hard. Shareholders at Citigroup, one of the 10 largest banks in the world, voted 55-45 percent on Tuesday to object to the pay packages granted to CEO Vikram Pandit, as well as to bonus and compensation packages for other top executives. By one count, Pandit collected as much as $49 million in pay, stock options, retention bonuses and other compensation last year, even though the company’s performance has lagged.
The Citigroup investor rebellion came after the nation’s largest corporate-governance experts, Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis & Co., both recommended against approval of the pay package on grounds that it was too generous and wasn’t linked to company performance.
Glass Lewis, for example, gave the company’s executive pay plan an “F”, explaining:
“Having repaid its TARP funds in 2010, the Company was not subject to restrictions governing the structure of compensation paid to its highest-paid executives during 2011. In turn, the Company has implemented incentive plans rampant with significant issues that, in our opinion, warrant shareholder attention. It is clear to us that the Company has squandered the opportunity to form well-designed, objective incentive plans at the lifting of TARP restrictions, opting instead for often discretionary awards that may qualify as a misuse of company capital.”
In other words, the executives were paying themselves more than they were worth and more than they had earned. (When Pandit became CEO in December 2007, Citigroup was selling at a little over $300 a share. Yesterday it closed at $35.08 a share.)
It’s going to be interesting to see what happens now. According to ISS, only 2 percent of executive pay packages were rejected by shareholders last year, so the action by Citigroup investors is pretty noteworthy, suggesting it’s an egregious case. On the other hand, because the Tuesday vote was non-binding, Pandit and Citigroup’s board of directors are under no legal obligation to honor it.
In addition, pay packages for other major Wall Street firms are also coming up for shareholder review, and those companies are also probably nervous about a shareholder revolt.
All of this strikes me as a very good thing. This is not government interference in free markets; this is stockholders regaining just the slightest bit of control over their own property. And it is almost inexplicable to me that Republicans view it as a bad thing.
I say “almost inexplicable,” because blind loyalty to the top 0.001 percent is the only explanation I can offer. If you have a better one, please, let’s hear it.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
946 comments Add your comment
barking frog
April 19th, 2012
12:26 pm
F.
Bo is now three-legged,
you don’t eat a dog that
expensive all at one time.
Joe Hussein Mama
April 19th, 2012
12:26 pm
F. Sinkiewicz — “I guess Joe H. doesn’t do math well. If for example you own 10% of a company’s shares before a split, you’ll still own 10% afterwards. Duh.”
I guess Fishy doesn’t pay attention well. If your new shares are NON-VOTING shares, you actually *lose* voting power.
D’oh! (laughing, pointing)
Mary Elizabeth
April 19th, 2012
12:27 pm
Dirty Dawg, excellent points at 11:26 am, and I would add that through those stealthy manueverings, among others, this nation’s “Age of Greed” consciousness has been extended. It’s past time for the dawn to break and to shine its light on this avarice, which is not what our nation was designed to perpetuate.
Also, I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your very kind remarks regarding my post of a few days ago.
Paul
April 19th, 2012
12:28 pm
Doggone/GA
“See, here’s how it’s not a lie: all those “other so-called Christian Universities aren’t really run by TRUE Christians””
Excellent point. By their reckoning, they’re probably the ONLY Christian university -
Doggone/GA
April 19th, 2012
12:29 pm
“By their reckoning, they’re probably the ONLY Christian university”
Exactly!
Fred ™
April 19th, 2012
12:29 pm
Yo getalife: Is this some of your kin? (watch at least until the fish cuts her leg lol).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrX7q-a9b2M&feature=related
Paul
April 19th, 2012
12:29 pm
getalife
“Swamp People eats all of them.”
I guess that answers the question, “Whatever happened to Adrienne Barbeau?”
Adam
April 19th, 2012
12:32 pm
MiltonMan: Please point out where my definitions are “made-up”.
You haven’t given any definitions at all, yet you expect others to. I await your own definitions, at which point I will point out if you made them up or not based on the merits.
Oscar
April 19th, 2012
12:32 pm
The shareholders vote and elect the members of the Board. Time to start getting organized and run some candidates who will vote to reduce saleries. Considering the number of shareholders in large corporations, that would take a lot of money and organiztion, with little payoff. Only alternative is for voters to vote for candidates for congress that will pass more effective laws to give shareholders more say.
In order words, vote democrat, not GOP.
Adam
April 19th, 2012
12:35 pm
Of course you will not hear – nicely swept under the carpet by our friendly liberal media.
Sorry dude, the media is mostly conservative, not liberal. I have pointed out previous studies on the matter, but a new one out yesterday reinforces the point:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4519
Now go ahead and tell me you don’t trust the source, defining it as liberal, because you have no REAL defense against this.
You guys should be happy, you’re getting your way and everyone is listening to you more than the liberals. But noooooo, it has to be all 100% conservative or else there’s no “balance.” The irony is not lost on the rest of the world.
stands for decibels
April 19th, 2012
12:36 pm
By their reckoning, they’re probably the ONLY Christian university
I know your tongue is in cheek, but when you hear some folks going on about criticism that is “anti-Christian”, generally what they really mean is “anti-MY BRAND OF Christianity, which is the only real version worthy of mention.”
And not to sound like a broken record, but I’ve yet to find anyone among our regular commenters, who claims to be pro-religious liberty, who is willing to denounce the states that either have passed, or are in the process of passing, blatantly discriminatory laws aimed at Muslims.
Oscar
April 19th, 2012
12:37 pm
barking frog
April 19th, 2012
11:51 am
let them use CAPS..
________
No, not caps. Anything but caps.
getalife
April 19th, 2012
12:37 pm
Fred,
She is a good shot but does not hold on to the gars and got her tore up.
The gars have sharp teeth so don’t swim in the swamp.
There is another show about rednecks in Monroe that made millions on duck calls.
That family is hilarious.
‘
Adam
April 19th, 2012
12:38 pm
stands: so for the record, it’s taken the Team Mittens Rapid-Response sub-committee five years to get around to read a political opponent’s memoirs, to see if there might be something in there worth using.
By comparison, liberal outlets only took 3-4 days to find a clip of Romney equating work to employment and contrasting it with being a stay at home mom, after the phony outrage over the “she never worked a day in her life” comment.
getalife
April 19th, 2012
12:38 pm
Oops her leg.
Adam
April 19th, 2012
12:39 pm
stands: Apparently 9 lines = “dissertation” at Winger U.
And apparently a bill can’t be 2700 pages if you expect a Supreme Court justice to actually READ IT before rendering a decision to strike the whole thing down.
Paul
April 19th, 2012
12:40 pm
sfd
Okay…
I do denounce all those self-serving bigots who don’t understand the Constitution who are trying to impose anything other than live-and-let-live policies for all our citizens.
Why not
April 19th, 2012
12:42 pm
let them make all the business decisions, then?
Becky
April 19th, 2012
12:42 pm
Fess up people-anyone know any graduates of Liberty U? I do not. Are they banished to the everafter if they don’t graduate and enter the preaching and passing the plate field?
Adam
April 19th, 2012
12:43 pm
Butch: Well, since Cox is a privately held company,I would say it’s you who needs to learn the difference between apples and oranges.
Not a new thing for RB. He makes many leaps that have no sound logical basis to anyone except himself and maybe some other simple minded and easily persuaded individuals.
I suspect when I furnish my study results he will have at least one excuse why he’s still right about all his workers just wanting to be lazy, and THAT is the only reason why they won’t stay.
RB from Gwinnett
April 19th, 2012
12:44 pm
“Sorry dude, the media is mostly conservative, not liberal”
Earth to Adam, come in please….
Fred ™
April 19th, 2012
12:44 pm
I miss your point dB (12:36). From what I read, the States you refer to passed laws thta clarify that OUR laws and OUR Constitution supercede Sharia law. What’s so horrible about that? You might be a freaking Celtic Druid, but that exempt you from United States murder laws if you try to engage in human sacrifice.
You are making a mountain out of a mole hill as are the hard line extremist Muslims who wish to live by 3rd century laws. Citing the Koran is NOT an acceptable defense for hacking off the right hand of a thief anymore than using the Bible strictures that it’s ok to beat your wife as long as the stick is no bigger around than your thumb.
Better pick a better hill to die on or to put your fainting couch on……..
barking frog
April 19th, 2012
12:45 pm
If 40 million can’t afford
health insurance, how
is ordering them to
buy it going to help?
Fred ™
April 19th, 2012
12:46 pm
RB from Gwinnett
April 19th, 2012
12:44 pm
“Sorry dude, the media is mostly conservative, not liberal”
Earth to Adam, come in please….
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RB don’t waste your breath. Adam himself is merely “moderately” democratic, not a flaming liberal lol.
Adam
April 19th, 2012
12:47 pm
RB: Earth to Adam, come in please…
You are one of the very last people to talk about coming from a position of being in any small way “grounded” in reality.
stands for decibels
April 19th, 2012
12:47 pm
I do denounce all those self-serving bigots who don’t understand the Constitution who are trying to impose anything other than live-and-let-live policies for all our citizens.
heh. somehow I don’t think of you when I think of those who whinge about the “religious liberty” at inopportune times, but thanks.
They BOTH suck
April 19th, 2012
12:47 pm
Becky
I know two graduates of Liberty
One is surely right wing and the other is more of a moderate
USinUK - ex-pat thug
April 19th, 2012
12:48 pm
““By their reckoning, they’re probably the ONLY Christian university””
well that would DEFINITELY clear up the “no, we won’t cover BC pills because we’re a Christian university” issue …
Adam
April 19th, 2012
12:48 pm
Those who think the media is liberal are just thinking that because they’ve been trained to. Actual recent data shows otherwise. I have lots of proof, but if you’re just going to sit there and not believe it no matter what proof I give you, there’s no point. Personally, I expect better of you, Fred.
Paul
April 19th, 2012
12:51 pm
sfd
Just trying to get the ball rolling.
But… I think it already stopped.
barking frog
April 19th, 2012
12:52 pm
Fred™
please stop disappointing
Adam.
RB from Gwinnett
April 19th, 2012
12:56 pm
Adam, “You are one of the very last people to talk about coming from a position of being in any small way “grounded” in reality.”
Coming from you, Adam, that is totally meaningless to me.
Mick
April 19th, 2012
12:56 pm
The liberal media is a myth…
paulo 977
April 19th, 2012
12:58 pm
jay…….This is not government interference in free markets; this is stockholders regaining just the slightest bit of control over their own property. And it is almost inexplicable to me that Republicans view it as a bad thing.
__________________________________________
Sure it is a bad thing for them…. they still hold themselves ‘ masters’ in a master/ worker relationship!….. The unfortunate part is that the large base of the republican party has a large segment that is oblivious to the fact that they support a party that has no interest in serving them by catering to their needs and interests !!!
Fred ™
April 19th, 2012
12:59 pm
Let’s see this “proof” there Adam lol. And while you are at it, show me where the AJC has given their endorsement to a Republican candidate for any MAJOR State or federal office (where a Democrat is running, it doesn’t count if there are two pubs and no Dem).
I’ll wait.
getalife
April 19th, 2012
12:59 pm
corporate media give the gop a free pass on their unpatriotic behavior.
Oscar
April 19th, 2012
12:59 pm
Adam
April 19th, 2012
12:48 pm
Those who think the media is liberal are just thinking that because they’ve been trained to. Actual recent data shows otherwise. I have lots of proof, but if you’re just going to sit there and not believe it no matter what proof I give you, there’s no point. Personally, I expect better of you, Fred
___
I spent a few minutes on google looking at recent studies and could not find a single one that said that media had a conservative biase. All the ones I could find reported a liberal bias.
Would like to know about the studies you found.
barking frog
April 19th, 2012
1:00 pm
The Constitution prohibits
the Congress from
establishing a religion or
stopping the practice of
religion which is also
binding on all governments.
Doggone/GA
April 19th, 2012
1:01 pm
“show me where the AJC has given their endorsement to a Republican candidate ”
That is not a NEWS function, that is an EDITORIAL function.
stands for decibels
April 19th, 2012
1:01 pm
From what I read, the States you refer to passed laws thta clarify that OUR laws and OUR Constitution supercede Sharia law. What’s so horrible about that?
well at best, it’s utterly superfluous–we don’t need local laws piling on what’s already clearly in our constitution.
but there are two other issues that should be seriously considered.
1) it is clearly aimed directly at Muslims; it sends a pretty nasty message to millions of American citizens. but beyond that
2) consider any number of legal agreements private citizens might work out between one another. Wills, property settlement disputes, etc. Such state laws open the doors for these otherwise legal documents to be challenged because they may have been composed with the assistance of islamic tribunals, or simply in accordance with islamic principals.
They BOTH suck
April 19th, 2012
1:02 pm
Fred
Better yet.. why don’t you show Adam the “liberal bias” in an non editorial AJC article from today?
That will settle it for sure
Adam
April 19th, 2012
1:02 pm
Fred™
please stop disappointing
Adam.
Yeah follow the RULES Fred
Fred, Oscar, I already posted one such study. Did you really just miss it?
Fred: And what does the AJC endorsing a Republican candidate have to do with the media, as a whole, being mostly conservative or mostly liberal? You do realize I am speaking of more than one outlet right?
Hold on while I go and get the studies.
Doggone/GA
April 19th, 2012
1:03 pm
“All the ones I could find reported a liberal bias.”
And did they give examples of NEWS stories that were slanted liberal?
paulo 977
April 19th, 2012
1:04 pm
Adam….Sorry dude, the media is mostly conservative, not liberal. I have pointed out previous studies on the matter, but a new one out yesterday reinforces the point:
__________________________________________
Absolutely …. MSNBC is the only reporter of facts
They BOTH suck
April 19th, 2012
1:04 pm
Adam
And you show Fred and RB a non editorial article from Fox or the Moonie Times that has “conservative bias”
Maybe that will stop the crying all around
Or will it?
Thulsa Doom
April 19th, 2012
1:05 pm
I see no issue here. What’s wrong with giving shareholders the right to vote on runaway executive compensation? I don’t like govt getting involved but govt isn’t getting involved. They are just making it easier for shareholders to have more say and influence- you know, the folks who actually own the company.
I also wonder if all the interlocking directorates has just created a big ole good ole boy network that is allowing boards to just pass off on ridiculous pay packages for ridiculously poor performance. This just evens things up a bit.
And how and why the hell is this man being rewarded an exorbitant amount of money for presiding over a company’s stock value declining from $300 to $35. Jeez. Doomy could do that for a cool 1 million. Some of this executive compensation for pi$$ poor performance is getting just plain ridiculous. Nothing wrong with empowering shareholders a little more to rein it in a bit.
Fred ™
April 19th, 2012
1:06 pm
dB: I’ll give you that part 2 could be tricky, but part 1? I dunno. Europe has recently had a TON of problems cropping up over Sharia law. As to sending a nasty message to millins of Americans? I’m not so concerned, these same “millions of Americans” you are refering to if you are refering to Muslims, sent US a nasty message by refusing to publicly condemn the attack on the world trade center. Either one, the planes OR the bomb. They have refused to condemn ANY terrorist acts commited against the United States to the best of my knowledge. It’s hard to get worked up about folks who by their silence seem accepting of attacks against my nation and my freedoms.
But that’s just how I see it. I don’t like Baptists either lol.
Adam
April 19th, 2012
1:06 pm
Ocsar, Fred, you are free to click through any of these to their sources:
http://www.internetcampus.com/bias.htm
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/17/news/la-pn-obama-press-study-20111017
and my previous one
I only get 2 links per post. Let me know if you absolutely need more proof.
Oscar
April 19th, 2012
1:06 pm
Adam
Yes, I missed it, but went back and found it. pasted below. I vaguelyI remember hearing about this when it came out.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4519
RB from Gwinnett
April 19th, 2012
1:08 pm
Can we also give the people actually paying taxes a little more say in how it’s spent too? That seems fair.
They BOTH suck
April 19th, 2012
1:08 pm
TD
I’m with you……… I have no issue with what a CEO makes, however it should be transparent to all shareholders and hopefully the board ties a huge portion to company performance
Fred ™
April 19th, 2012
1:08 pm
Studies like this Adam? Granted it’s from 2005, but it WAS the first one that popped up when I googled Media Bias. Noe I did not specify bias to the left or the right………
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
stands for decibels
April 19th, 2012
1:09 pm
I’m not so concerned, these same “millions of Americans” you are refering to if you are refering to Muslims, sent US a nasty message by refusing to publicly condemn the attack on the world trade center
Fred, you pretty much lost me there.
Oscar
April 19th, 2012
1:09 pm
Doggone/GA
April 19th, 2012
1:03 pm
“All the ones I could find reported a liberal bias.”
And did they give examples of NEWS stories that were slanted liberal?
__________
Google news bias or news bias study and look at them yourself.
the articles i looked at gave only the results, no examples.
Adam
April 19th, 2012
1:10 pm
Fred, Oscar: There’s also THIS little piece of propaganda masquerading as a fact check:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/25/facebook-posts/blog-post-says-gop-has-sponsored-zero-job-creation/
Doggone/GA
April 19th, 2012
1:11 pm
“the articles i looked at gave only the results, no examples”
then how can you be certain they were judging NEWS bias and not editorial bias? They are not one and the same. NEWS media…get it?
Lyman Hall
April 19th, 2012
1:12 pm
“Why Wall Street execs want to silence their shareholders”
.
As do the Federalies want to silence its dissadents.(not a word about NDAA 2012 from the civil right loving progs)………………but the states are fighting back!
RICHMOND, Va. – On Wednesday, the Virginia legislature overwhelmingly passed a law that forbids state agencies from cooperating with any federal attempt to exercise the indefinite detention without due process provisions written into sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act.
.
Go Virginny.
Georgia should be next.
They BOTH suck
April 19th, 2012
1:12 pm
“Can we also give the people actually paying taxes a little more say in how it’s spent too? ”
It is called voting………. Problem is that too many people will vote the same goons in….. over and over and over………..
Party 1st is not a winning ticket regardless of which party
ragnar danneskjold
April 19th, 2012
1:13 pm
From the twitterverse:
Loved that old Obama commercial “My bologne has a first name, It’s B-E-N-J-I. ”
Barack Obama walks into a bar. Bartender brings his drink, and Obama says: “Hey, I ordered a greyhound, not a vodka and grapefruit!”
“I bet President Obama would never put Bo on top of a car.” Roast him on the engine instead!
stands for decibels
April 19th, 2012
1:13 pm
putting my post @ 1.09 another way–
Fred, your tender feefees being hurted because not enough Muslims were vocal enough on your TeeVee or your radio or your intertubes, post-9/11?
Really bad basis for determining the constitutionality of a state law.
They BOTH suck
April 19th, 2012
1:14 pm
I did I know that RB, Fred or Adam would not be running to pick a non editorial article to validate their stance on “bias”?
Somethings are just too easy
But keep up the pillow fight
Fred ™
April 19th, 2012
1:15 pm
stands for decibels
April 19th, 2012
1:09 pm
I’m not so concerned, these same “millions of Americans” you are refering to if you are refering to Muslims, sent US a nasty message by refusing to publicly condemn the attack on the world trade center
Fred, you pretty much lost me there.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why? Did they in fact speak out against the senseless violence? Did I miss it?
Do you have love in YOUR heart for the idiots who act like Trayvon Martin deserved to be shot down like a dog in an old western street? I don’t. They disgust me.
Oscar
April 19th, 2012
1:15 pm
Doggone/GA
April 19th, 2012
1:11 pm
“the articles i looked at gave only the results, no examples”
then how can you be certain they were judging NEWS bias and not editorial bias? They are not one and the same. NEWS media…get it?
________
Well, I can’t be certain, and didn’t say I was. By your logic, one can never rely on the posted results of any study without checking out all the research. Don’t have time for that .
jj
April 19th, 2012
1:18 pm
Jay please publish your salary and benefits and let the readers decide if you are over or under paid. We will then decide if we keep you or vote you off the island.
Doggone/GA
April 19th, 2012
1:20 pm
“By your logic, one can never rely on the posted results of any study without checking out all the research.”
Nope, but you could make the elementary determination that the study actually says what you claim it says. If the study IS claiming NEWS bias they ought to be capable of, at a minimum, linking to some examples of slanted NEWS reports.
Doggone/GA
April 19th, 2012
1:20 pm
“We will then decide if we keep you or vote you off the island.”
Do you own stock in Cox Enterprises?
stands for decibels
April 19th, 2012
1:21 pm
Did they in fact speak out against the senseless violence? Did I miss it?
Who are the “they” you speak of? Do I really need to link you to Muslims who denounced the attacks?
Jeez Louise, are thousands of Iranians Muslim-y enough for you?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5377914.stm
In Iran, vast crowds turned out on the streets and held candlelit vigils for the victims. Sixty-thousand spectators respected a minute’s silence at Tehran’s football stadium.
Seriously, dude, what kind of a crap-hole media diet have you been gorging, that you’re unaware of such things?
Thulsa Doom
April 19th, 2012
1:21 pm
Good God, Adam actually thinks the news media has a conservative bias. What is that kid smoking today? Then again what is he smoking today as opposed to any other day? The link at the bottom of the page details survey after survey after survey after survey of the media going back decades showing a ridiculous tilt towards Dem candidates that aint even close. These are numerous surveys conducted across Washington correspondents, national major newspapers, the major networks and television meda, etc. Its not even close. What manner of an abject fool actually believes the media has a conservative bias?
In March and April 2005, the University of Connecticut’s Department of Public Policy surveyed 300 journalists nationwide — 120 who worked in the television industry and 180 who worked at newspapers and asked for whom they voted in the 2004 presidential election. In a report released May 16, 2005, the researchers disclosed that the journalists they surveyed selected Democratic challenger John Kerry over incumbent Republican President George W. Bush by a wide margin, 52 percent to 19 percent (with 1 percent choosing far-left independent candidate Ralph Nader). One out of five journalists (21 percent) refused to disclose their vote, while another six percent either didn’t vote or said they did not know for whom they voted.
More than half of the journalists surveyed (52%) said they voted for Democrat John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election, while fewer than one-fifth (19%) said they voted for Republican George W. Bush. The public chose Bush, 51 to 48 percent.
When asked “generally speaking, do you consider yourself a Democrat, Republican, an Independent, or something else?” more than three times as many journalists (33%) said they were Democrats than said they were Republicans (10%).
While about half of the journalists said they were “moderate,” 28 percent said they thought of themselves as liberals, compared to just 10 percent who said they were conservative.
One out of eight journalists (13%) said they considered themselves “strongly liberal,” compared to just three percent who reported being “strongly conservative,” a four-to-one disparity.
When asked about the Bill of Rights, nearly all journalists deemed “essential” the right of a fair trial (97%), a free press (96%), freedom of religion (95%) and free speech (92%), and 80 percent called “essential” the judicially-derived “right to privacy.” But only 25 percent of the journalists termed the “right to own firearms” essential, while 42 percent called that right “important but not essential,” and 31 percent of journalists rejected the Second Amendment as “not important.”
http://archive.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
They BOTH suck
April 19th, 2012
1:21 pm
meant to say “How did I know…………..”
My bad
Mick
April 19th, 2012
1:22 pm
ragnar
Those dog jokes were rather weak…if you are gonna go there at least try to throw us a good bone…
stands for decibels
April 19th, 2012
1:23 pm
Fred, is your wiki broken, I wonder?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_September_11_attacks
Muslim Americans
In a Joint Statement by American Muslim Alliance, American Muslim Council, Association of Muslim Scientists and Engineers, Association of Muslim Social Scientists, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Islamic Medical Association of North America, Islamic Circle of North America, Islamic Society of North America, Ministry of Imam W. Deen Mohammed, Muslim American Society and Muslim Public Affairs Council, stated:[5]
“American Muslims utterly condemn the vicious and cowardly acts of terrorism against innocent civilians. We join with all Americans in calling for the swift apprehension and punishment of the perpetrators. No political cause could ever be assisted by such immoral acts.”
Doggone/GA
April 19th, 2012
1:25 pm
“One out of eight journalists (13%) said they considered themselves “strongly liberal,” compared to just three percent who reported being “strongly conservative,” a four-to-one disparity”
Yep, that’s the one that gets quoted every time this subject comes up…again. That does not prove NEWS bias. Only slanted NEWS stories would prove NEWS bias…and I have yet to see anyone come up with a study that found slanted NEWS stories.
Oscar
April 19th, 2012
1:25 pm
Doggone/GA
April 19th, 2012
1:20 pm
______
What’s your point. My statement said that most of the articles I looked at reported a liberal bias.
What does your research show.
stands for decibels
April 19th, 2012
1:26 pm
Adam, should I point out to TD that a majority of assembly line workers votin’ Democrat don’t make the plant “librully biased”, or do you want to have some fun with that?
Mick
April 19th, 2012
1:26 pm
ragnar
Errr….make that a funny bone…
Fred ™
April 19th, 2012
1:27 pm
dB: The “constitutionality” of the laws has already been proven. I cited you two very good and very specific examples. Nor will females be forced into the barbaric Sharia law practice of genital mutilation.
Again, all I see is a reaffirmation of US law over Sharia law. I’m sorry you feel the Muslims have the “right” to do as they please and piss all over US law. I don’t see it that way. It’s no more an issue of “religious freedom” than is the case of making “christian” employers follow American laws on birth control and such.
How do you see it as a difference? Because one is Muslim and one is Christian?
stands for decibels
April 19th, 2012
1:28 pm
you feel the Muslims have the “right” to do as they please and piss all over US law.
Kindly cite where I’ve asserted such a thing.
Doggone/GA
April 19th, 2012
1:28 pm
“What does your research show”
That when asked, NO ONE has been able to give even one example of a slanted NEWS story.
Fred ™
April 19th, 2012
1:29 pm
jj
April 19th, 2012
1:18 pm
Jay please publish your salary and benefits and let the readers decide if you are over or under paid. We will then decide if we keep you or vote you off the island.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now THAT was particularly insipid. But sadly, that illogical blather is typical of today’s ‘Republican.”
And jj actually THINKS he/she said something clever, insightful, AND witty.
Just damn.
Jimmy62
April 19th, 2012
1:31 pm
I’d be willing to bet that most of the GOP members who are against this haven’t been up for election since the Tea Party got started.
ragnar danneskjold
April 19th, 2012
1:33 pm
Dear Mick @ 1:22, ha.
Throw the Bookman at 'em
April 19th, 2012
1:34 pm
Jay, you should get double the pay for having to deal with the misguided, mental-midget and mean-spirited masses that come to this space. Bravo, brother!
ragnar danneskjold
April 19th, 2012
1:34 pm
Dear Mick, speaking of lame jokes, Why did Michelle Obama buy a three-legged dog? She wanted Barack to eat lean meat!
TiredOfIt
April 19th, 2012
1:36 pm
Put all of their pay on a W2.
Recon 0311 2533
April 19th, 2012
1:38 pm
“and I have yet to see anyone come up with a study that found slanted NEWS stories.”
Bernard Goldberg who has worked in the MSM and several years at CBS has written books on the subject one simply entitled ‘Bias”. BTW…he identified himself as a liberal for several years but became disenchanted with the news media because of the pervasive left wing slanted reporting.
Union
April 19th, 2012
1:38 pm
news IS biased.. just depends on which side of the fence youre on as to the slant of the bias. case in point… the media has it in for suv’s.. they always cause wrecks, kill people, etc. cars never seem to.
Doggone/GA
April 19th, 2012
1:38 pm
“he identified himself as a liberal for several years but became disenchanted with the news media because of the pervasive left wing slanted reporting.”
Got an example?
stands for decibels
April 19th, 2012
1:40 pm
Fred, one last thing–I’ll let a guy who is a whole lot more eloquent than I am explain some of this…
On the movement to ban Shariah law in America
“It’s crazy, basically. It’s this idea that Shariah is some kind of movement to take over the United States or a conspiracy to overturn American freedoms. That isn’t what Shariah is. There are certainly hard-line interpretations of Islamic law. But these measures don’t even claim to restrict themselves to that. They claim to prevent the courts from taking any account at all of the Shariah, which potentially means that a court can’t, for example, take account of someone’s will. If someone says they want to be buried according to Muslim rituals laid down in the Shariah, a court would theoretically not be able to take account of that. And, of course, it’s possible to say, ‘That’s not what the law’s aimed at. The law’s aimed at something very different.’ But as everyone should know by now, liberties begin to erode when you have laws that are too widely drawn.
“And laws which say that under no circumstances can a court take any account of the Shariah are necessarily discriminatory. They’re necessarily over-broad. And they necessarily create communal dissension for no good purpose. Because it’s perceived by Muslims as an attack on Islam. … I am absolutely sure that many of the people who support the laws and their sponsors are genuinely motivated by fear of Islamic extremism. Islamic extremism is something which I’m fearful of. I was around on Sept. 11 and July 7 here in London when Islamic extremists blew lots of people up. I’m no fan of violent extremism from Muslims, but these laws don’t target that. They simply target the body of beliefs that Muslims call the Shariah.”
Fred ™
April 19th, 2012
1:41 pm
dB: Your whole “stand” on the issue screams to me that you think it’s perfectly acceptable for Sharia Law to supersede US law. What other conclusion is there to draw? I have already explained how I don’t see these new “laws” as anything evil. Redundant? Maybe, but so often in today’s thinking if something isn’t specifically “prohibited” it’s allowed. People go to weird extremes to try to “prove” their abhorrent behavior is “protected” by the bill of rights or Constitution.
Just the other day on the new liberal talk radio station (thanks for reminding me about that even though you did it indirectly and without knowledge lol) I heard one of the hosts justifying universal healthcare by stating “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” How can you have LIFE without proper healthcare. How can you pursue HAPPINESS if you are sick blah blah……………
Whatever man. I don’t see the conflict on that one anymore than I saw the big deal on some city denying a Mosque due to zoning laws. My buddy had a Christian church be denied for the same reason. It happens.
Sharia law IS a big issue to Muslims and they HAVE been trying to use it to circumvent laws and Gov’t through out the world. A little preventive measures here are peachy keen to me. I don’t want to follow Sharia law anymore than I want to follow Baptist or Catholic law……….
Fred ™
April 19th, 2012
1:42 pm
LOL dB; We keep posting at roughly the same time…….
Recon 0311 2533
April 19th, 2012
1:42 pm
“Got an example?”
Read his book it’s filled with them.
Oscar
April 19th, 2012
1:42 pm
Doggone/GA
April 19th, 2012
1:28 pm
“What does your research show”
That when asked, NO ONE has been able to give even one example of a slanted NEWS story
_________
Knock yourself out reading these.
http://www.akdart.com/med6.html
Adam
April 19th, 2012
1:44 pm
Thulsa: Your post has two flaws. One, it cites the same 2005 study that has already been presented, which is contradicted by the more recent studies that I posted. 2) It fails to recognize the difference between news bias and editorial bias.
They BOTH suck: Two of the links I posted may be editorial articles, but the studies which they base their editorial on are not.
Mick
April 19th, 2012
1:46 pm
Bernie goldberg = hack, enough said…
stands for decibels
April 19th, 2012
1:46 pm
We keep posting at roughly the same time…
yeah.
I don’t want to follow Sharia law anymore than I want to follow Baptist or Catholic law…
also yeah.
Look, I loathe hard-line religious extremism and would never argue on behalf of their perceived right to stone adulterers, or to discriminate against gays or whatnot. That’s not the point I was making against these backwater a-holes’ legislation, not at all.
Doggone/GA
April 19th, 2012
1:46 pm
“Knock yourself out reading these.”
Sorry, that link won’t open from where I’m logged in. But I’ve never heard of “akdart” – are they a news media organization? If the news is SO slanted “liberal” is should SURELY be supremely easy to find examples in the NEWS media. Give it a try, see what you can find.
Oscar
April 19th, 2012
1:47 pm
ggone/GA
More reading for you:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/top-50-examples-liberal-media-bias/
Recon 0311 2533
April 19th, 2012
1:48 pm
“Bernie goldberg = hack, enough said…”
mick, I would wager you never read his book.
Adam
April 19th, 2012
1:49 pm
And if you guys are seriously looking for books on the subject, this one is a good one, full of examples and cites for your reading pleasure:
http://www.amazon.com/What-Liberal-Media-Truth-about/dp/0465001777
Now, granted, it’s a 2003 book. But that’s why I cite more recent studies. Another thing to note is you are not likely to find many sources claiming outright conservative media bias, because of the fact that conservative media bias likes to clamp down on dissent hard and fast. Plus, there’s just no money in claiming that the media is conservative. There is PLENTY of dollars for anyone who publishes claiming the media is liberal, even if it’s a flawed analysis.
Adam
April 19th, 2012
1:50 pm
And btw, I’ve made this case at least twice before. It seems some of you have collective amnesia about that. I’m not talking about Oscar and Fred, as they do not seem to have been around when I did this before.