It’s not just the thrills racing up and down Chris Matthews’ leg. Writing in Thursday’s Investor’s Business Daily, author William Tate documents that campaign donations from employees of big media companies are tilting 100-to-1 in favor of the Democrats so far this election cycle.
That’s right, 100-to-1.
[UPDATE: FNC's Bret Baier, in the "Grapevine" segment on the Friday, July 25 Special Report with Brit Hume, read an item on the IBD numbers.]
It’s perhaps not a surprise that those working for NBC Universal are the most eager givers to the Democrats, racking up $104,184 in contributions this cycle, compared to just $3,150 to Republican candidates. Maybe more surprising is that those at Fox broadcasting and the Fox News Channel combined to give $41,853 to the Democrats, with no listed donations going to the Republicans. (Only $1,280 was listed as coming from Fox News employees.)
Here’s an excerpt from Tate’s analysis, which earlier appeared at the American Thinker:
The New York Times' refusal to publish John McCain's rebuttal to Barack Obama's Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen. But true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money....
An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans.
Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.
Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio....
The contributions of individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations are listed in the nearby table. [See link above to article.]
The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans — most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama.
What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain).
Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.
Because most news organizations ban contributions to political candidates, Tate warns, the numbers he presents are perhaps just the tip of the iceberg. But it’s just another indication of how the media elite are at odds with mainstream America.















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
NBC must be expecting
July 24, 2008 - 09:31 ET by benrandNBC must be expecting something from Barry to pull the kind of garbage they have been pulling.
We are such whinners -100-1 shows that we are at least
July 24, 2008 - 09:33 ET by Dee Bunkrepresented, thank goodness for the interns who are not brainwashed completely yet, if it weren't for them we'd probably have no showing.
What impact does this obvious bias have on the decisions....
July 24, 2008 - 09:54 ET by ThalpyWhat impact does this obvious bias have on the decisions we make? What part of these donations represent an "access payment or fee." What countervailing effects do the blogs provide for us?
MSNBC Article
July 24, 2008 - 10:04 ET by mbs6This post reminded me of this MSNBC article: http://www.msnbc.msn...
That may be the single best piece of honest journalism ever done at MSNBC. To readers of NewsBusters, this is nothing new, but still worthy of conintually pointing out. What's funny is yesterday I heard a caller to the Hannity show claiming the MSM is conservative and defending McCain!
This means that any
July 24, 2008 - 10:08 ET by SMGalbraithThis means that any unconscious or accidental liberal bias by a reporter who gave $500 to Obama or the Democrats will be edited out by an editor who gave $2,000 to Obama or the Democrats.
Y'know, my confidence in those editorials layers of fact checkers has dropped a notch or two.
SMG
July 25, 2008 - 02:13 ET by DoktorFrankenI loved your perspective. Succinct.
Fox
July 24, 2008 - 10:13 ET by Gothampc"Maybe more surprising is that those at Fox broadcasting and the Fox News Channel combined to give $41,853 to the Democrats, with no listed donations going to the Republicans. (Only $1,280 was listed as coming from Fox News employees.)"
This doesn't really surprise me. Rupert Murdoch hosted a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton and his daughter donated to Obama. Out of the Fox employees, I would guess that most who are not liberal are registered as Independent. I think Sean Hannity said he re-registered as a Conservative. So I doubt there are any Republican affiliated employees at Fox.
Related but slightly off topic:The Love Affair Continues
July 24, 2008 - 10:22 ET by ahusserOne of today's AOL headlines.
Germans Cheer
Obama's Arrival
Berlin Visit Heavy on Symbolism
Will Speech Be a JFK Moment?
Gee ya think they are in the tank for Obama?
Berlin Speech
July 24, 2008 - 11:03 ET by GothampcWill Speech Be a JFK Moment?
Do they mean will Obama mangle German and call himself a jelly donut like JFK did?
Look at the liberal slant of AOL's question. Totally ignoring that Ronald Reagan made a more recent (and in my opinion more important) speech in Berlin.
In other words, this is
July 24, 2008 - 10:27 ET by ConservativeRexIn other words, this is about the same ratio as it has been since democrats went completely Marxist. Which is to say, going on 75 years.
Double Post
July 24, 2008 - 10:59 ET by ConservativeRexRich. Thanks so much.
July 24, 2008 - 11:47 ET by Gary HallRich. Thanks so much. Should be eye-opening for the MSM - should be.
These are remarkable numbers. Without a doubt they certainly reflect the mood of what we hear and read from big media day in and day out. Will be interesting to see (if, first) how the media responds to such information. As they got pressed to respond to the recent and widespread analysis showing how much more coverage Obama was receiving than McCain, I heard at least one source rebut with," well, but back in the 2004 cycle, Bush was receiving more coverage than was Kerry." Well, yes, but it was all negative coverage trying to rip Bush apart; it served Kerry best just to keep it quiet, at the time.
Would be curious to see a summary of how the "big media companies tilted in favor of the Democrats" during the '96. 2000, and 2004 election cycles - if the numbers are handy. (;~> gary
Stating the obvious, but...
July 24, 2008 - 13:47 ET by Karma...donations in kind would tip the scales even further towards the dems.
...but there's no Liberal
July 24, 2008 - 14:35 ET by mattm...but there's no Liberal media bias...