Captain's Quarters -

I have always said that if FOX news wants to stay "fair and balanced", they are going to have to relocate out of NYC. Probably out of a blue state as well. (I suspect that red state headquarters would be balanced, at a minimum, by the leftist labor pool of experienced staff available to hire).

While I back the journalists right to free expression as much as the next guy, it appears that the NewsCorpse is again missing the target when they clamp down on the poltical activism of they employees.

They need to look over what and how they report things, the political affiliation of the reporter shouldn't matter much. But poltical biases have bled into the foundation of the Press.

They are doomed unless they do something more drastic

But, are they truly supportive of 1st Amendment rights or even just the portion regarding free speach? In my opinion, no, they are not unless it is their right to bloviate that is in jeapordy.

Well, the only reason they might want to clamp down on reporters' donations is to simply remove some of the "evidence" that reporters are left leaning in their politics.

But we all know that anyway. All of us, that is, except the reporters themselves. Why not let them donate?

What would the opposite to Vietnam be?

We've got a GOP president in the White House, now. And, back then? Following LBJ, in 1968, you had the Nixon run. And, then his "run in."

We know the press couldn't take out CLinton. So some Impeachments work FOR a party; and the man is OUT. Or like DeLay says. His decision to go ahead with Clinton's impeachment was bad for the GOP. (Of course, the excuse is that it was holy. And, moral. But it booted GOP kiesters out the door, back in '98.)

Shows ya. History doesn't repeat itself.

Now, Woodward and Bernstein? Famous. And, rich.

Today? Journalists hanging onto their jobs, desperately.

Our war in Baghdad, now that we're finally fighting, again, after a 3-year-Saudi-pause? Looking better.

If I had to guess; and I'll use InstaPundit's link to the current polling data on Congress ... The people in trouble are BOTH PARTIES. But the military rolls in with an American 69% approval rating.

Just because it seems Bush tracks things in slow motion; doesn't mean he's gonna have much to give to the Saudi's by January 20, 2009.

As a matter of fact, what's building is a search for a GOP candidate not currently affiliated with congress; who will come out and win the primaries in February 2008.

My opinion of Hillary? She may have George Soros' money. She may get to the top. Heck, Kerry did.

But we've watched candidates get to the top that puzzle the heck out of ya. I mean. How do you explain Bob Dole in 1996? Was a survey done and there was no way Bill Clinton was gonna lose his re-election bid? So the GOP ran a turkey? In exchange for IOU slips? Where did Dole get those slips from?

One reason Tom DeLay is not running, is that after being in Congress from 1980 to 2006; he saw that the GOP was in trouble INSIDE THE HOUSE. (Like a home owner who knows there's damage, inside, and the edifice needs to be fixed.) It's an expensive operation.

Back in 1945, or so, Harry Truman discovered that the White House was a mess. His bed, with him and his wife, Bess, in it. broke. The floor gave way. And, both of them almost went from the 2nd story,down.

Americans were fooled by the pictures shown as the White House underwent renovation. But basically, everything was stripped away. The Truman's moved to the Blair House, across the street. And, the White House was rebuilt.

That's the kinds of renovations both parties have to undertake. And, at least the GOP has TALENT up there, now! We all have our favorites. I'd like to see Guiliani/Thompson as a ticket. But ya just never know what the fates have in store.

Meanwhile, because the GOP has really talented men, you can tune in and watch the debates without getting bored. And, even if you don't watch, like me, you can follow them on the Internet. And, then the Internet keeps refreshing.

Journalists, like Iowa and New Hampshire, were once the biggest players in America's primaries. ANd, the selection game of getting nominated.

Heck, today, it probably sounds funny. But every politician would trek to the New York Times to be interviewed, and that piece of crap would then come out and "back someone."

In today's world that "backing" isn't worth much.

Add to this the Internet.

And, the sites that give you the latest.

Including the latest in polling data. (Something which Dick Morris turned into a livelihood back in 1992. Talking to Clinton. Today? Even the Clinton's can read what Dick Morris says, for free.)

Our world's changed. And, we are NOT in vietnam's mentality anymore.

But the journalists come from only one part of the total whole. They are, in fact, elites. And, like the Bonkey Party they love seeing governments expand inneficiently.

However, their skills fell off. Because without being able to convince you of anything, it doesn't matter. They're just foils, now, for Internet discussion. And, topics. Can't fool me.

Does put an interesting perspective on the push to impose "fairness" on talk radio - the ONLY part of the media that tilts right.

Instapundit: "Sounds like they've got a diversity problem. "

The self-appointed protectors of "our right to know" are actually protecting us from knowing the right.

Instapundit: "Sounds like they've got a diversity problem. "

The self-appointed protectors of "our right to know" are actually protecting us from knowing the right.

Of course journalists should not be legally restricted from political activity. That's not the issue. Rather, the issue is (or should be) to borrow a phrase from the canon of judical ethics, the "avoidance of impropriety or the appearance of impropriety." This should be a matter of self-regulation. As is clear from several journalists' response to the ABC story, even where employers stipulate no contributions, the prohibition is simply unenforced. The public understands this full well, a major reason for the steady erosion in journalists' credibility since the high water mark of Cronkhite-Watergate, '68-'75. Frankly, as a self-regulated matter of ethics, journalists ought to disclose either in their reporting or in web-published bios, their political contributions, political affiliations and spousal politcal affiliations, as well as the more self-serving information about educations and professional awards. This kind of disclosure is now required of industry-funded doctors writing research papers and politicians seeking office. Why not, as a matter of self-regulation, ask journos to do the same?

An interesting conundrum. I oppose any rule that prohibits anyone from exercising their right to choose and support their particular candidate for public office. By the same token, I don't appreciate what passes for 'balanced' reporiting by the MSM, which is nothing more than an advocacy hit piece for a particular point of view. There is a place for that, it's called the editorial page. Unfortunately, for the MSM,
every page is an editorial page.

Somebody scolded me some time ago for using a phrase "Biased, leftists MSM".
So here I repeat:
BIASED, LEFTISTS MAIN STREAM MEDIA.
Now you can bite me!!

Well, if they're all actively trying to overthrow the current sitting government, then I would question whether or not they *are* Americans, yes.

Of course journalists should be allowed political activity. The disturbing point about the huge imbalance in favor of left-liberal journalists is that it creates what sociologists call a "plausibility structure" in newsrooms. With so few around to raise another point of view, their own viewpoint seems less like a viewpoint than simple common sense. More intellectual diversity in newsrooms!

The problem is 'journalism', which attracts smug liberal elitists.

Whatever happened to working-stiff reporters and editors?

/Mr Lynn

What happened to working-stiff reporters and editors? I thought they all turned out to be card-carrying Communists.

I have no trouble whatsoever with supposed 'mainstream' journalists donating to MoveOn et al as long as those rags where their mugs or bylines appear aren't going to argue they're unbiased.

And, I think, by and large this story puts a pretty conclusive 'fin' to any claim thereto.

Instead of being prohibited from donating, why shouldn't they be required to disclose if they are a registered Democrat/Republican and who they voted for in the last several elections? Financial reporters generally have to disclose if they own stock in any companies they write about--which isn't too different from this situation. This was done to avoid any "appearance of impropriety". This should probably also apply to talk radio and blogs, by the way.

Note one thing though: only 144 journalists were identified as having made contributions. My guess is that there have to be 30,000 journalists in the US. Does this mean that 29,856 didn't make any contributions based on the public record? (If so, doesn't that blow a big hole through the 90% figure?)

It's an interesting article Ed and I share your dismay that employers would curb the political activity of their staff in just about any industry. I would disagree that this is evidence of bias however. If anything, the paucity of financial contributors seems to suggest that the industry is not as partisan as yourself and others here would suggest. 144 out of how large a population gave at all? I'd be curious to see the entire list... the parties should probably be chasing some of the more obviously partisan hacks down for donations.

Is there an unfair aspect to the employment contract of these journalists? Yes. What is really unfair is the Hatch Act, which prevents the military from making public political statements. But I would rather see full disclosure and still read their comments, and decide for myself.

jim said

"Note one thing though: only 144 journalists were identified as having made contributions. My guess is that there have to be 30,000 journalists in the US. Does this mean that 29,856 didn't make any contributions based on the public record? (If so, doesn't that blow a big hole through the 90% figure?)"

You need to read the entire story, which included a separate page showing how the data was collected and analyzed:

Direct Quote:

"There are more who gave
Not every donor is identified
There appear to be far more than 144 donating journalists, but MSNBC.com limited its search to:

— Federal candidates, PACs and parties in the records of the Federal Election Commission, not the separate state campaign records.
— The period January 2004 through the first quarter of this year.
— Donors in news jobs, not corporate executives or publishers, who are allowed by nearly every news organization to donate.
Campaigns are spotty about reporting the occupation and employer of donors. The law requires only that campaigns make a good-faith effort to request the information from donors.

Our first search of the records used job titles: "editor," "anchor" and so on. Because often no job title is reported, we also searched using the names of news companies. Smaller companies were not checked; for example, we checked only the company names of the 200 largest newspapers, out of more than 1,400 dailies in the nation.

Small donations may not be in the records. Many candidates report only donations of $200 or more. Reporting of smaller donations is optional but is becoming more common with electronic filing of campaign reports to the FEC.

Then, with a list of about 300 apparent journalists, we tried to contact them all. The list published here includes only those who either confirmed that they made the donation or did not respond. Many journalists who changed jobs since the donations were not contacted and are not included here.

The final list represents a tiny percentage of the working journalists in the nation. Daily newspapers alone employ about 60,000 full-time journalists. Approximately 30,000 work in television news jobs and 10,000 in radio news.

Click here to see the full list of donors and what they had to say.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455/

One last observation

The list of people who donated includes 5 people connected with Fox News. But guess what? 4 of the 5 Fox folks donated to (gasp) DEMOCRATS.

Let's see the "Faux News" crowd spin that result LOL.

I have to disagree with Ed. Certain functions within our society require not only impartial judgment or reporting but also a concerted effort to avoid the appearance of impropriety. All those working within the Judicial branch agree, at least passively, to avoid all appearances of impropriety in their work and in their personal lives. It is simply that important to the judicial branch of government. Accordingly, if a reporting agency honestly holds impartiality to be an important element in its work, it needs to require its employees to affirmatively attempt to avoid even the perception of personal bias in their reporting. This would include documented donations to any campaign. While a news media outlet has the right to not attempt to be impartial (i.e. Fox News), those that do should require their employees to forego certain free speech rights.

Sure, a reporter has the right to be an American and express all of her civic rights, but if she takes her impartiality seriously, she should avoid the appearance of being partisan in her personal, professional, and civic life.

I think the concept of "Free Speech" is set to be tested even more of the next few years as offline media starts to savvy up to the fact that in order to survice they need to hold up a mirror to the readers face.

I'm afraid we'll see more and more comment passed of as news.

It used to be that a newspaper would report the news not comment on it.

Nowadays that concept is almost laughable.

Drudge said "9 to 1" and others are following him on this. But it appears to be 7 to 1 (which is still hugely Dem).

My program counted 250 instances of "(D)" & 34 instances of "(R)" in list in the MSNBC article containing the list. Since there are two entries for each case, that comes to 125 (D) and 17 (R) which = 142. Then there are two (D & R) so that makes 144. So say its 126:18 = 63:9 = 7:1.

Taranto at Opinion Journal has arrived at the same 125 to 17 to 2 break-down.

126 out of 144 is 87.5%.

Let them donate to any party they wish------ should be the right of any journalist. The more it is recorded, the more obvious the bias. Keeping the bias on the editorial pages left the MSM years ago shamefully.

Between the professors in higher education and the daily deluge of biased reporting by the mainstream media, it's a wonder that conservative points of view get any opportunity to be heard. I prefer to call this the "gutting" or reasonable thought when only one side of an argument is presented with little or no recourse.

It's been an uphill battle, but while we (conservatives) have made inroads, it may be another generation before any balance arrives.

Here's another list of journalists and who they donated to, for your dining and dancing pleasure:

http://www.campaignmoney.com/journalists.asp

This one has a ratio of 63% D, 15% R

Here's another list of journalists and who they donated to, for your dining and dancing pleasure:

http://www.campaignmoney.com/journalists.asp

This one has a ratio of 63% D, 15% R

CNBC restricts its on-air reporters from owning stock in any companies. link

The General Electric-owned (GE) cable channel laid down restrictions this week considered among the toughest in the industry, barring news staff and managers, as well as their spouses and dependents, from owning individual stocks or corporate bonds. Other employees such as receptionists and hairstylists can hang onto their stocks, but not buy more.

Other networks either restrict their business reporters from owning stock or require public disclosure. Why should political reporters be any different?

Rob,

I think the high minded notion of avoiding the appearance of bias by hiding the political affiliation of reporters really benefit’s the news organization, not the news consumer.

If the newsroom is staffed by ninety percent leftists, they can still put out a fair news product, but if they disclosed their political affiliation, they would have to work at it more since readers would have their antennas up alert for bias. If they hide their affiliations they can be more sloppy in their reporting since a lot of their readers won’t notice when biases slip into stories. If someone does notice, they have plausible deniability.

Better for our society if news consumers are aware of the biases of reporters.

The owners of the media skew largely Republican, don't they?

So we have a small sample of worker bees donating D and the owners donating R.

Who has more power to set the agenda?

The whole media bias claim is bogus because of this: Everyone has their own biases. It's impossible for someone to be 100% impartial. Journalists know this. Those who run journalism schools know this. That's why journalism, at its heart, is about reporting facts. And in America, it's also about keeping the government in check.

You can report news, you can keep our government accountable while at the same time holding personal opinions. One's never going to be able seperate personal opinion 100% from their profession, but good journalists do a pretty damn good job of it.

It's not the guy who work's at the New Yorker who donated to Kerry's fault that most other reporters donated to democrats. He's not working with the others to paint republicans in a bad light. It just so happens that most people in journalism lean left.

My fear is that those who lean right will see this, think all those reporters are putting an agenda in their work, so they become journalists and actually do skew things in favor of republicans. an overcompensation for a problem that's really not there. See Fox News for a perfect example.

One reason conservatives believe there's a media bias is that reporters by nature question the government. You'll notice that this whole media bias thing took off after Bush took office and republicans controlled congress for 6 years. Newspapers and the media always give to those in power. If Obama is elected, he'll have to deal with the press. Pelosi, Reid and others are having critical stories written of their service.

Bush does have to deal with a pretty relentless press crew, but he's also done some VERY controversial things... like start a pre-emptive war on a premise that turned out to be false. And illegally bypass the courts for domestic surviellance.

Yes, most media members lean left, but I think most are far closer to the middle than most realize. They don't have an "agenda" aside from keeping government open and reporting news to readers. Really, that's about all the agenda most journalists have.

LOL! Tom, Tom, Tom...do you have any actual journalistic training, or any actual work experience gathering and reporting news?

I started out reading news on the radio at age 14 at my prep school station, then became News Director of said station a year later. I then went to college, and took newswriting for radio courses and did the noontime news show on a station that actually got ratings.

I immediately noticed your statement saying that it's the inherent "responsibility" of journalists to keep the government "in check". That's horse manure. It's the responsibilty of an objective media to relay all of the news to the people-not just some of it. And please show me where it says that it's an obligation for the press to automatically be biased against who is in power at any given time.

The fact that the media these days totally ignores what your party was saying about the dangers of Iraq in 1998 proves that the media is in the tank for your side.

In addition, this media that you claim should go after everyone in government has in fact never asked Hillary a serious question, has totally ignored the stories about Harry Reid's real estate, don't report how Jack Murtha is in bed with all sorts of government contractors, ignored how rich Nancy Pelosi and her husband are, has conveniently forgotten that Lyndon Johnson was in bed with Halliburton from 1936 until today (his widow still sits on their Board of Directors), and so on.

Methinks you've been watching too many episodes of the PBS kid's brainwashing show, "Liberty's Kids". That show also said that the primary responsibility of a "reporter" was to question whatever government was in power at the time. Fittingly enough, one of the major characters, Ben Franklin, was voiced by Uncle Walter Cronkite.

Case closed.

I agree with the Caption on this...

Every American has a Constitutionally protected right to exercise his/her freedom of speech, even Ozzie Guillen. But the Constitution has nothing to say about riding motorcycles without a helmet or ownership of company stocks...even if work contracts do.

However the simple solution is to have each reporter add (D), (R), (I) behind their name, whether onscreen or in print, and let the "now better informed" reader make their own assessment of the story...this would apply to all political stories only, no need for the ESPN guys to do so, even if they are all (D)s...

In general, I think Ed makes a very good point. Why should journalists- a majority do not earn impressive salaries and often find themselves in dangerous parts of the world to serve us- be asked to abandon rights guaranteed by the constitution?

The analogy to professional athletes is inane. How does an agreement to avoid illegal drugs or to wear a helmet- required by law in most states- represent an abandonment of constitutional rights? I don't see a meaningful point of comparison.

Anyway, the act of contributing to a political party is an expression of a previously formed opinion, not an act that influences future opinion. As a result, how does a campaign contribution inject bias into reporting? This argument has no merit. One note: an exception is the scenario where a reporter is concurrently working for a political campaign, clearly placing the reporter in a position where his incentive and duty involves helping one candidate defeat another (a Fox reporter covering Bush was caught doing this in the 2000 campaign).

Finally, the timeframe of this study is somewhat problematic. The impressions and knowledge of journalists are usually ahead of the general public, which consumes news at a varying rate and depends on multiple intermediaries to receive news information. Based on Bush's standings in the polls by 2006, it appears that the Democratic donation rate - or the anti-Bush donation rate- is largely in line with the nation's mood and perception of Bush. As a result, I don't think that the survey's results are statistically meaningful. It may, in fact, be the case that journalists lean to the left, but based on its timeframe, this survey does not prove it.

well, it seems their reporting is terrible, so perhaps the fact that we receive deceit, fake memos, slant, misinformation because of the Liberal Democrat bias is not healthy for society.

not interested in censorship, or banning the ability for those in the Media to support their political interest, but people should know they are not getting news (or journalism).

is something wrong with revealing the partisan alliance when reporting?

Russert, Matthews, Moran, Kouric, Gregory, etc., could easily state their partisan lean for the public.

but honesty is not a Democrat Liberal strength these days.

70% in the US believe the economy is bad or getting worse?

that is a major problem, and the MSM is intentionally trying to slant the reality, and have been for 6 years.

this is not healthy for a Nation, World, etc...

the Country once broke up some ugly Monopolies years ago for the good of all, because of their corruption and control, was hurting the American Public.

think of even further beyond Ma Bell and remember the old Standard Oil and Tammany Hall.

right now, if a Conservative tries to get a job at the NY TIMES, they are being treated unfairly.

the Libs made this agenda a mainstay in the US Workplace, and they should be tested within their own cartel.

Competition is essential, and Conservatives could get more involved with challenging the deceit of the biased MSM, like buying one of the big three tv channels.

or maybe a court order should break up the monopoly.

sure, the guise of free speech is one thing, and some will say we can get some voice on Radio or the Net, but it isn't the same.

the product the so called journalists are providing is 90% push, in the Democrat Party direction, with many big whoppers being peddled.

this is probably as big as immigration, almost as big as the GWOT.

America is being swindled.

show me where it says that it's an obligation for the press to automatically be biased against who is in power at any given time.

Del, journalists typically address abuse of power by focusing on those in power, not the bums sleeping in the streets. Keeping a close eye on those in power doesn't equate to a bias against those in power.

When Chris Matthews, cited repeatedly in these blog comments as one of those liberals, pushed the Clinton-Lewinsky story into the limelight (Matthews is broadly credited for making the story big), you can assume that the story would have had no legs if Clinton had held a smaller or no office.

That donation ban is going to work just fine,.

Block them from donating money, they can make it up with slanted stories.

Ho hum... It's the Clinton syndrome all over again. 1) Deny you ever do those sorts of things. 2) When caught red-handed doing them, keep denying until the proof is aired, then say there was "no controlling legal authority," so it isn't illegal. 3) When the heat gets worse, say it's a personal matter that doesn't have any effect on your work, and besides, everyone else does it, too. I'm waiting for the hired PIs and thugs to come up with the evidence that lets the so-called journalists to trash the accusers and intimidate them back "into the shadows."

Aren't Journalists Allowed To Be Americans?

Is this a trick question? I thought they were "citizens of the world" or some such. The evidence that they are "Americans" is pretty damned thin.

News agencies sell a product - news. If a news agency was a brokerage house - it would have very strict rules concerning conflict of interest. There are many other businesses that are bound by such rules.

Reporters, who write this news that is sold, slant their product (after all news is just a product) to either hid, misdirect, or just slant the meaning of their product to fit an agenda (their biases). The agency that in turns sells this product to us - does so knowing that their product is not 100% accurate. At times it's not even 50% accurate.

The media is in denial now. Readers cancel subscriptions, stop watching TV, stop going to movies (two other sources of mass biases). And yet, the fix is simple - fair and balanced news reporting. Stop distorting the news - stop trying to invent conspiracies when none exist. Just present the true facts and let the reader/viewer decide, which we seem to be doing, hence the decline in readership.

I don't see anything wrong with a reporter giving money to a political party - but make it open. However, do not try to cover it up and then distort your product based on that agenda. That's what must be stopped.

King Banaian wrote,"...the journalist usually in fact DOES know more about a particular story than the readers..." I don't think so. In my experience, the journalist only "knows" what someone else tells him/her.

Bayam: “Anyway, the act of contributing to a political party is an expression of a previously formed opinion, not an act that influences future opinion. As a result, how does a campaign contribution inject bias into reporting”

Most people form world views that they hold for long periods of their life. The donation by a reporter to a political cause is a proxy for their world view.

For example, suppose a reporter is assigned a story on rising gasoline prices. If that reporter has donated to Democratic candidates in the past, one can assume that she views oil companies as greedy corporations who pay their CEO’s obscene salaries, make excessive profits, gouge consumers, and are probably engaged in some kind of price fixing.

She must make a special effort to set that view aside in order to report on supply and demand issues, regulatory issues, and other factors determining gasoline prices. Her default position, if she gets lazy is to report on oil company abuses as she sees them and down play any exculpatory facts. If she works in an environment where ninety percent of her colleagues share her world view, she may not even realize she is getting sloppy.

That is why the reader should know the default position of the reporter.

Donating to a political party does not cause bias. It's just an indicator of the already existing bias.

The news organizations are implementing this rule to hide the truth, not to protect the public.

TomB,

Shame on you for using a phrase like "Biased, leftists MSM". It's doubly redundant.
First leftist already iplies biased, and then MSM equates to leftist.

One of the reasons, in my opinion, that talk radio has become so popular is the distrust with which Americans view the news cartel. Given that Senators Clinton and Boxer want to regulate talk radio is proof of its effectiveness in getting out the "real" news to the American people. Let the marketplace sort out this trash about reporter's biases. Disclosure about donations is a red herring. You judge about the healthiness of fish before you consume it by the way it smells - the same way you should "sniff out" the news cartel.

Thank God for the blogosphere

The 144 were only the ones that were found and positively identified. Of the 30,000 active journalists, the authors of the search probably had no idea of the names and other identifying details for the vast, vast majority of them.

To get to 30,000, you would have to add in every cub reporter at every small town daily in the country.

The owners of newsmedia skew largely Republican?

Not that I have ever noticed?
Ted Turner, far left wing nut case.
Ann Cox Chamber, major Democratic activist.
The nutcase who owns the NYT, another leftwing Democrat.

brooklyn,

The govt never broke up any monopolies (other than AT&T, which was created by the govt in the first place.)

What govt did do was punish some very successfull companies at the behest of major campaign contributors. (Who were competitors of said broken up companies.)

Tom, Tom, Tom...do you have any actual journalistic training, or any actual work experience gathering and reporting news?

Yes, I have a degree in journalism. And it's not horse sh*t. Part of any newsroom is a city desk. Their job is to cover the goings on of city hall. In doing so, they keep an eye on -- keep open -- what the people "in charge" are doing. And I'm impressed that you were news director of your high school radio station, but that's an essential role of the press.

And I did not say the press is biased against those in power, I said:

They don't have an "agenda" aside from keeping government open and reporting news to readers. Really, that's about all the agenda most journalists have.

Which is true (at least for those covering any sort of government beat). And if you don't that, you don't know journalism -- I don't care if you broke the story on the spring formal being canceled.

And Del, if you won't listen to me, maybe you'll listen to another Tom:

"No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues to truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is, therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804. ME 11:33

Tom,

It's the Democrats who are trying to silence talk radio...

I'm with the Captain. Full disclosure, and let them donate to whom they will.

The NY Times is in financial free fall. If it were a real business, owned by shareholders whose votes mattered, there would be change. Since it's the Sulzberger's toy, they will continue to push the same agenda. Since they have no monopoly on the "news", the market is voting. Circulation and ad revenues are dropping.

People are looking to other sources for the truth. The NYT is Chinese Toothpaste to me.

MarkD,

The NYTimes struggles have to do more with the entire medium of newspapers going through a rather large period of change. In April ad revenues went down 3% while online ad revenues increased 15%.

Its Web site is doing quite well.

Impartial reporting is a myth. One's bias is exposed by the stories they deem worthy to print, the sources for the stories, and how they inject their political views into the text. While the MSNBC report told of 144 reporters who gave money to political candidates (overwhelmingly Democrats, but that's no surprise), it didn't even mention the "in kind" services they give by effectively doing the Democrat's work for them. After all, what's the value of countless favorable stories for the Democrats and countless unfavorable ones for the Republicans? It'd cost the Democrats millions to buy that kind of advertising.

If the survey results showed a donation pattern that was fairly close to the political makeup of the country, there would be no story. The MSM rush to ban their employees from donations, and cover up their massive and monolithic bias, indicates that the MSM is perfectly happy to be and remain biased. The MSM just doesn't want the public to know just how biased they are.

I would be much more impressed if the head of an MSM outlet stepped forward and said "this shows that we have become diverse only in skin color, and that our AA program must be recrafted to give us diversity of political philosophy as well."

Larry J.

You seem to be implying some sort of conspiracy. I doubt that that exists for the most part. More likely reporters exist in an environment where the leftist world view is the conventional wisdom. That allows them to produce biased stories without consciously realizing they are doing so.

I hope someone has called ED out on this, but the report identified 144 out of about 122,000 journalists in the U.S.

144 --- that's nothing!!!!

This study proves nothing because it doesn't even have an adequate sample. This is a complete B.S.

Not to mention, nobody checked to see if the reporting was factually challenged, they just merely assumed at 250 dollar donation made it so.

Also, I fail to see a study of the corporations themselves giving money to political figures. If you look at that, you will see something completely different.

This is a sham. A complete failure of a study. Unfortunately Ed has taken a turn for the worse lately and seems to be pushing out more and more false stories or non-logical conclusions to stories.

And btw - talk radio is dominated by conservatives because conservatives are corporate friendly. And only a few corporations own most of the radio you hear. You hear one viewpoint because that's what they want you to hear.

You say: No way - Air America went bankrupt so that proves it.

But you fail to see the other progressive talk radio that has done very well yet has not been broadcast like the people on the right get broadcast. The corporate owners simply don't want progressive talk on the radio. Talk radio is the way to lead you guys around on a leash.

I mean seriously - What other party favors the dumbest people in their party? Seriously! You can't get much dumber than Hannity, O'Reilly, Bush, Barnes, Kondracke et al. Combined IQ of maybe 400 - The dumber they are, the more listeners they seem to get. amazing - somebody should do a study on you guys and why you follow so readily.

--sorry-- bad day

The owners of the media skew largely Republican, don't they?

So we have a small sample of worker bees donating D and the owners donating R ...

Posted by: Mark at June 21, 2007 8:52 PM

No, Mark. And I think we all would be grateful if you could show us where you got the "fact" that MSM owners donate to Republicans.

Liberals who scoff at the idea that the American mainstream news media is biased to the Left invariably make this argument; the media is "corporate" and owned by rich industrialists who are all Republicans, they say, how could it possibly be liberal?

As soon as I hear something like that; a few names pop into my head, Sumner Redstone (Chairman: CBS Corporation), Katherine Graham (Publisher & CEO: Washington Post), Arthur Sulzberger (Publisher: New York Times), Robert Iger (Chairman: Disney (ABC)) and Ted Turner (Founder: CNN). Granted, Mrs. Graham is late and her son is now the publisher, but all the evidence supports the proposition that Donald Graham shares his mother's political leanings.

That said, what we do know about these folks is that they are/were the "owners" (for lack of a better term) of the "corporate" mainstream news media. Here's another thing we know about them; they are all liberal. Very liberal. Take a look at Iger's political contributions here. How about Sumner Redstone's - here? And here is Ted Turner's own contributions history.

Either way, it would seem that the notion that the owners and chief executives of the mainstream news media are all rich "corporate" conservative Republicans who make sure the news is always slanted to the Right may actually not be entirely accurate. Perhaps ... even wrong. At least when it comes to ABC, CBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post (and Newsweek).

That got me thinking - what are the political inclinations of the owners, board members and chief executives of the mainstream media? People like Jay R. Smith (President: Cox Newspapers), David Westin (President: ABC News), Gary Pruitt (Chairman & CEO: The McClatchy Company), Dennis FitzSimons (Chairman & CEO: Tribune Company), George Irish (President: Hearst Newspapers), Joe Hladky (President & Publisher: The Gazette Company), Douglas McCorkindale (Chairman: Gannett), etc.?

Why don't we find out?

In the well-loved (by the Left) words of "Deep Throat" in "All The President's Men"; maybe we should just "follow the money ...." After all, money talks and bull[expletive deleted] walks, or so the saying goes.

...

Also, I fail to see a study of the corporations themselves giving money to political figures. If you look at that, you will see something completely different.

...

Posted by: ck at June 22, 2007 9:53 PM

According to the Center for Public Integrity for example, CBS gave 87.4% of its corporate donations to the Democrats and a whopping 12.5% to Republicans. The New York Times Company likewise gave a humongous 12.3% to the GOP and a miniscule 86.6% to Democrats.

No, ck ... I kinda think what we're seeing after examining corporate contributions is scarily similar to the picture this study is showing us. 125/143 is 87.4% (exactly identical to CBS's corporate contributions numbers). Apparently the sample of 144 happens to be very representative of the MSM.

Sorry ck - reality seems not to agree with you.

PS: Either way, I simply do not see how corporate contributions indicate the bias or political leanings of a news outlet. All corporate entities in America donate significantly to both parties, they're simply hedging their bets, so it's not indicative of anything, anyway.

Although if you look at the fact that CBS gives almost 90% of its money to Democrats (that's not all over the map), it's obviously a lot more partisan than FOX News, since NewsCorp gives nearly 40% of its money to Democrats.

Either way, who to cover, what to cover, how to cover it, what words to use, what to emphasize, what to downplay, what images to use, etc. are decisions all made by individuals. Which is why this MSNBC "study" is so much more useful.

Martin Knight's reality is not my reality.

Please check out this list that shows media Political Action Committees give more to Republicans (56% to 44% in 2006).

> Sorry ck - reality seems not to agree with you.
>Posted by: Martin A. Knight

Another reality is that media industry PACs give to Republicans more than Democrats (56% to 44% in the 2006 election cycle).

I tried to post this about a day ago with a link, but it got held for moderation (I assume because of the link). If that post ever makes it through, you can look at the statistics if you are interested.

Please check out this list that shows media Political Action Committees give more to Republicans (56% to 44% in 2006).

This is why arguing with Leftists is so much fun ... you have to be on alert for all sorts of "Look over there!" (and other) tricks.

MarkT's comments are much like having someone answering your observation that violets are blue with the observation that grass is green and then going on ahead as if he just rebutted your argument.

Er MarkT? Were we not talking about individual contributions in the first place? And when ck and "Mark" (you?) brought up the canards about owners and corporations, I responded. So exactly how does your reply about industry PACs contradict me?

I've already noted that industry PAC contributions tend to be on both sides and would tend to go more to the Majority Party. They're indicative of nothing unlike individual contributions. I assure you all that at the end of this (2008) cycle, the Democrats are going to collect more contributions from media PACs than Republicans.

So MarkT's reality doesn't really conflict with mine, contrary to what he obviously believes.
[1] MSM owners are not all Republicans as Lefty legend has it - from their campaign contributions history, which I so helpfully posted links to, they tend to lean pretty much to the Left i.e. they contribute very heavily to the Democrats.

[2] Contrary to Lefty (ck's) belief, many media corporations including giants like CBS and the New York Times, not necessarily through their PACs contribute very heavily to Democrats and a lot less to Republicans. This is something a lot of Lefties seem to have a hard time understanding; "corporate" != conservative.

Please check out this list that shows media Political Action Committees give more to Republicans (56% to 44% in 2006).

This is why arguing with Leftists is so much fun ... you have to be on alert for all sorts of "Look over there!" (and other) tricks.

MarkT's comments are much like having someone answering your observation that violets are blue with the observation that grass is green and then going on ahead as if he just rebutted your argument.

Er MarkT? Were we not talking about individual contributions in the first place? And when ck and "Mark" (you?) brought up the canards about owners and corporations, I responded. So exactly how does your reply about industry PACs contradict me?

I've already noted that industry PAC contributions tend to be on both sides and would tend to go more to the Majority Party. They're indicative of nothing unlike individual contributions. I assure you all that at the end of this (2008) cycle, the Democrats are going to collect more contributions from media PACs than Republicans.

So MarkT's reality doesn't really conflict with mine, contrary to what he obviously believes.
[1] MSM owners are not all Republicans as Lefty legend has it - from their campaign contributions history, which I so helpfully posted links to, they tend to lean pretty much to the Left i.e. they contribute very heavily to the Democrats.

[2] Contrary to Lefty (ck's) belief, many media corporations including giants like CBS and the New York Times, not necessarily through their PACs contribute very heavily to Democrats and a lot less to Republicans. This is something a lot of Lefties seem to have a hard time understanding; "corporate" != conservative.