Won't be hearing about this on Rush, Hannity etc...

[chrisncate]

Clear Channel Communications, Inc. is an American media conglomerate company headquartered in San Antonio, Texas.[3] It was founded in 1972 by Lowry Mays and Red McCombs, and was taken private by Bain Capital LLC and Thomas H. Lee Partners LP in a leveraged buyout in 2008...

Clear Channel Communications - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting insight...

Wouldn't it be great if a Republican presidential candidate could just buy the support of just about every major conservative talk show host in America? Well, it may not be as far-fetched as you may think.

Clear Channel owns more radio stations (850) than anyone else in the United States. They also own Premiere Radio Networks, the company that syndicates the radio shows of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck, among others.

Needless to say, Clear Channel basically owns conservative talk radio in the United States. So who owns Clear Channel?

Well, it turns out that Bain Capital is one of the primary owners of Clear Channel. Yes, you read that correctly. The company that Mitt Romney ran for so long is one of the "big bosses" over virtually all conservative talk radio in America.

Of course Mitt Romney is not running Bain Capital anymore. He is a "retired partner", but he still has a huge financial stake in Bain Capital. We're talking about millions upon millions of dollars. If you doubt this, just check out page 34 of this public financial disclosure report - http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2..._2006_Pres.pdf. So if you have been wondering why so many conservative talk show hosts are being so incredibly kind to Mitt Romney, this just might be the answer.

[poopdeckpappy]

Well, at least you didn't jump on the dog abuse bandwagon

[chrisncate]

Originally Posted by poopdeckpappy

Well, at least you didn't jump on the dog abuse bandwagon

Any thoughts on Bain and their ownership of so much influential media, and the obvious conflict of interest?

Shouldn't any media conglomerate which a presidential candidate owns and profits from, either recuse themselves from covering said candidate at all, or at the very least run a disclaimer before any given segment letting it's viewers/listeners know who their daddy is?

[kd3pc]

Originally Posted by chrisncate

Shouldn't any media conglomerate which a presidential candidate owns and profits from, either recuse themselves from covering said candidate at all, or at the very least run a disclaimer before any given segment letting it's viewers/listeners know who their daddy is?

Why, when Soros "owns" more of the other guy?

Follow the money is still a viable way to examine things...truth or fact no longer as anything to do with it.

You can forget "fair" or equitable or just, too.

Sad that this is now the way we elect our leaders, and then seemed surprised with the outcome.

[Tempest]

I don't have a dog in this hunt, from a political perspective. But, from the documents presented here, it appears that Romney retired from Bain Capital in 1999 to run the olympics.

The Clear Channel deal was struck in 2006. Since 2003 his assets have been in a Blind Trust... I don't know if that makes him anyone's daddy. He certainly isn't mine.

[jzk]

Originally Posted by chrisncate

Shouldn't any media conglomerate which a presidential candidate owns and profits from, either recuse themselves from covering said candidate at all, or at the very least run a disclaimer before any given segment letting it's viewers/listeners know who their daddy is?

No. But you are free to take that information into account in selecting and evaluating your media services.

[kd3pc]

I don't like clear channel, because it appears that someone (or no-one with a brain) makes their playlist up from some obscure web search and then you hear the same 57 songs, ad nauseum, across the nation, no matter what station you pick. Sirius - about the same...

life is too short to listen to bad music...especially with an ipod on the boat.

[PBzeer]

Obama’s fundraising advantage is clear in the case of Bain Capital, the Boston-based private-equity firm that was co-founded by Romney, and where the Republican made his fortune. Not surprisingly, Romney has strong support at the firm, raking in $34,000 from 18 Bain employees, according to the analysis of data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

But Obama has outdone Romney on his own turf, collecting $76,600 from Bain Capital employees through September — and he needed only three donors to do it. - Obama still flush with cash from financial sector despite frosty relations - The Washington Post

Overall, Bain executives have donated nearly $3 million dollars to political causes since 1990, according to data provided by the non-profit Center for Public Integrity.

Only about one-quarter of that sum went to GOP groups, mostly to party committees that allocate funding to candidates favored by the donor. During the period when Romney served as Bain’s home-state governor, only 52 of his former partners donated directly to his campaigns, totaling just $130,000.

Bain’s partners donated only $20,000 to two-term president George W. Bush.

Read more: Mitt Romney | Bain Capital | Democratic Colleagues | The Daily Caller

Might want to re-think the premise.

[chrisncate]

Soros isn't on any ballot that I am aware of.

Does Romney still draw money from Bain/Clear Channel? He does. Is Obama just as bad regarding being a corporate banker shill? Yes, but two wrongs don't make a right (as is so often the right wings counter argument).

How anyone here can defend this joke of a media complex we have here in america is beyond me, but some here are doing it.

[mdbee]

I suggest you listen to some conservative radio before you start criticizing it. Romney isn't exactly getting a free ride. The general feeling that he isn't a conservative.