Earlier today, Julia A. Seymour of the Media Research Center's Business & Media Institute (BMI) pointed to a fact-check done by her group showing that "from January 20 to June 16 those quoted in health care stories on ABC's morning and evening news shows favored ObamaCare by a 3-to-1 margin (55 supporters to 18 critics)."
You think that margin is bad; wait until you see the ratio at ABC of Obama vs. McCain campaign contributions.
At its blog, Conservatives for Patients' Rights (CPR) did the dirty work. The results are below the fold.
The McCain list (PDF) is pretty brief, and doesn't amount to much:
The list of ABC employees' contributions to Obama is, well, a bit longer.
The Obama (PDF) list has roughly 210 line items, much too long to be presented here, with contributions totaling $160,813.
For those keeping score, that's a 35-to-1 ratio.
A not well-formatted downloadable Excel version for posterity is here.
Great job by CPR keeping the debate about media bias alive, so to speak. What doesn't have much life is ABC's claim to be handling the heath care debate fairly.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
FO.............
June 19, 2009 - 04:07 ET by old cro35 to 1 is about the right ratio of the sycophants that like to call themselves newsmen and newswomen.
Math
June 19, 2009 - 15:35 ET by FranksamIf you use the math that is taught in journalism school, somewhat more than half of the contributions went to Obama.
If they wish to ever have
June 19, 2009 - 07:17 ET by spmcintyresome kind of legitamacy in the future, ABC and all the other MSM's will make an announcment that they will no longer be donating to any candidate. This may start the process of the MSM's correcting their justified bias stigma.
It is not their job to endorse, but to tell the truth. Anything reported on by a self described 'journalist', that is anything but the simple truth, is hypocrisy.
there is no spoon...
A Cynical View
June 19, 2009 - 09:07 ET by ecnirPCall me a cynic, but I would bet stories like this will drive these donations underground much sooner than they would eliminate them.
In the future, we'll have to look for George Stephanopolous as employed by "Wendy's" when he takes a temporary afternoon shift to cover his tracks, or Diane Sawyer listing "eBay" as her employer because she derives an income from selling her old shoes on there, or when Charlie Gibson lists the "White House" as his employer because, well, who could argue with that?
You’re a cynic. Seriously
June 19, 2009 - 10:26 ET by ReaverYou’re a cynic. Seriously I would call you a realist.
If stupidity got us into this mess,
then why can't it get us out?
--Will Rogers
Move along, No bias here, Move along
June 19, 2009 - 07:29 ET by Mr_PriestComplain to the FCC about ABC’s bias, use the facts against them. They are required to promote what’s best in the public interest. ABC employees' contributions to Obama at 35 to 1, unfair and unbalanced coverage is running at 3 to 1. The state run media broadcasting out of the White House won’t allow the RNC to buy air time to give opposing viewpoints, yet ABC says they are covering all sides and view points? (ABC's morning and evening news shows favored ObamaCare by a 3-to-1 margin (55 supporters to 18 critics).
The plan.. So we’ll put money in the economy by taking money out of the economy then putting it back into the economy and taxing it as it passes through… Yeah, that should work.
jessieH Who
June 19, 2009 - 12:20 ET by jessieHjessieH Who said you can't buy the presidency.
ABC
June 19, 2009 - 13:40 ET by east tennessee johnSince these state run media types are losing money hand over fist anyway, and their audience is shrinking, why don't we just notify their sponsors and boycott them whenever possible and just tighten the noose alittl tighter? Bithching about their obvious bias is beating a dead horse. It's like the boy who cried wolf. They know it, we know it, and the only thing we can do is vote with our pocketbooks.
Full Disclosure
June 19, 2009 - 15:46 ET by deerjerkydaveIt's always fair and accurate for a journalist who is covering stocks to give full disclosure as to which stocks they themselves have purchased.
When "journalists" invest heavily in the Democrat party, shouldn't that too be disclosed with every political news report?
Example:
"Live from the Obama White House, this is the ABC Obamacare infomercial. My name is Nancy Carell reporting on the benefits of socialist healthcare. For full disclosure I'm required to reveal that I donated $10,000 to the Obama campaign and I've voted Democrat my entire adult life."