Again, you are wrong. Soros is an active supporter of the Open Society Foundations who are media based. They say they "work to protect freedom of the press, expand public access to information, and promote high-quality, independent journalism." Fox news is now owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns more than 7 percent of Rupert Murdoch's News group. The sale happened earlier this year, shortly after Alwaleed bin Tala met with them and proposed a buy out plan. The tie to Soros is with Open Society Foundation who has shares in the Murdoch's Group and also does work for the prince. Now, go do some homework for yourself, do the research and look carefully at funding and not just with ownership.

ginnyt, GE is the biggest sponsor of MSNBC, who have run stories that do not put this corporation in the best of light. When I was a kid and going into my thirties, the NYPost was pretty much considered pinko at best, along with the defunct Journal American. (I am a Bronxite.) Now it is hardline Right, under Murdock. Follow the editorial policies of every media outlet he purchased: right, right, far far right. His thumb is in every pie. The Wall Street Journal had been one of those media outlets that were considered and shown to be assiduously objective and needed to be that way. Look at it now.

Murdock is part of "the media." A big part. When those on the right say "media" it is like spitting or. to some, vomitting: it is believed to be all left wing manipulated or controlled. Silly. Not only that, analysis has shown that the media in the 60s was pathetically left wing biased. The result, which took a few years, was a movement by the major networks to improve their image as true "news sources" and yield more to the Right. Nearly impossible to convince a conservative this is the actual case.

Ideofactoids trump actual facts on this site with fair consistency. When something is repeated a few thousand times, always with what seems like convincing details from good friends and trusted sources, it becomes real and solid and immutable. "Everybody knows" this is the t***h. Why challenge something that "everybody knows" is true? Why look for ourselves? A lot would be called into question about our loyalties even to ask for a little more info.

For me, I trust the passion of many on the Right here: they want with all their hearts what is best for America. I would have to say that the many insults I get (and I do not consider myself a "prog," a "democrap," or a "libertard" or a Leftie at all) give me some hope for change; we need such all out caring for our democracy. But then the adament d******eness negates that.

There are many problems with George Soros, but they seemed unrelated to the question asked. I try to only answer the question and try hard not to muddy the waters with unrelated issues. The Prince in question is not a Conservative. He is an interesting individual without considering what he owns. He has some interesting views.

I will do as you recommend and do a relook at Mr. Soros. I am sure that I must have missed something. I respect your opinion and find that the majority of your responses are thorough.

Soros made a contribution to Media Matters AFTER Glen Beck stated 14 times that Media Matters was owned by Soros (untrue, it is an independent body that just gets the facts out about unt***hs told by the media) Media Matters had been asking contributions from Soros's foundation, but had never gotten them. After the perp who tried to blow up the ACLU office had a jailhouse interview, and said that Glen Beck was a great teacher, and the reason for blowing up the ACLU office, Soros felt that getting the t***h out about lies in the media, like Glen Becks, was important to help prevent violence, he finally donated to Media Matters. OK, question here. WHERE do you get unbiased FACTS, not opinion. It can't be Fox, they have been called out for presenting unt***hs as news-Soros owning the Diebold machines and magically affecting the e******n, Sadam had weapons of mass destruction, had something to do with 9/11, etc. Media Matters and Politicfact were created to present facts, not spin. People need a place to go for FACTS. Politifact is run by the Tampa newspaper-and they take all the political statements and run them through a meter-true, half true, false, and pants on fire. Media Matters does the same, but for "news" programs. There is some overlap when politicians appear on news programs.

Both were created to make some sense out of this divided political scene in US-so that there was one set of facts, amoung the divergent opinion

Soros made a contribution to Media Matters AFTER Glen Beck stated 14 times that Media Matters was owned by Soros (untrue, it is an independent body that just gets the facts out about unt***hs told by the media) Media Matters had been asking contributions from Soros's foundation, but had never gotten them. After the perp who tried to blow up the ACLU office had a jailhouse interview, and said that Glen Beck was a great teacher, and the reason for blowing up the ACLU office, Soros felt that getting the t***h out about lies in the media, like Glen Becks, was important to help prevent violence, he finally donated to Media Matters. OK, question here. WHERE do you get unbiased FACTS, not opinion. It can't be Fox, they have been called out for presenting unt***hs as news-Soros owning the Diebold machines and magically affecting the e******n, Sadam had weapons of mass destruction, had something to do with 9/11, etc. Media Matters and Politicfact were created to present facts, not spin. People need a place to go for FACTS. Politifact is run by the Tampa newspaper-and they take all the political statements and run them through a meter-true, half true, false, and pants on fire. Media Matters does the same, but for "news" programs. There is some overlap when politicians appear on news programs.

Both were created to make some sense out of this divided political scene in US-so that there was one set of facts, amoung the divergent opinion