MSNBC took a look at 144 journalists who donated political contributions from 2004 to the start of the 2008 campaign:
...according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.
The donors include CNN's Guy Raz, now covering the Pentagon for NPR, who gave to Kerry the same month he was embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq; New Yorker war correspondent George Packer; a producer for Bill O'Reilly at Fox; MSNBC TV host Joe Scarborough; political writers at Vanity Fair; the editor of The Wall Street Journal's weekend edition; local TV anchors in Washington, Minneapolis, Memphis and Wichita; the ethics columnist at The New York Times; and even MTV's former presidential campaign correspondent.
That number can be rounded off to 87% of those journalists on the list giving to causes and politicians on the left side of the aisle.
The article cites that 72% of Americans believe that news organizations have a tendency to favor one side. And as of this posting: 42% of respondents to a live poll linked at the end of the article do not believe journalists should make political contributions, while 38% think it's okay only if the journalists disclose the donations to their audiences. A mere 20% believe it's okay for them to make those donations as private citizens. (This number will likely change throughout the day.)
This bit jumped out at me:
Besides, there's the magazine's famously rigorous editing. The last bulwark against bias’s slipping into The New Yorker is the copy department, whose chief editor, Ann Goldstein, gave $500 in October to MoveOn.org, which campaigns for Democrats and against President Bush. "That's just me as a private citizen," she said. As for whether donations are allowed, Goldstein said she hadn't considered it. "I've never thought of myself as working for a news organization."
Emphasis mine. I wonder if Seymour Hersh, one of The New Yorker's most celebrated contributors, would agree with that assessment?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
These are NOT Journalists
June 21, 2007 - 10:10 ET by Lame CherryI take great exception to these propganda hacks being called journalists. There are in this world among the elite about 12 Journalists. The rest are hacks venting their hatred on being born on Americans like Seymour Hersch, paid for shills like Bob Woodward who works for the CFR and the rest are propagandists of a literal demonic influence like Don Shelby of WCCO in Minneapolis with his "sheroe" assessments.
The only real Journalist story I saw besides the fine work done here in the past year by a MSM worker was Ed Bradley on exposing the Duke players were being railroaded........of course he was dying, so perhaps the fear of God moves people to do the right thing.
Journalists are in hugely short supply and most are like Mark Twain said, nothing but drunks and as General Sherman said, nothing but spies.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
If you were to read the comme
June 21, 2007 - 10:27 ET by FastEdIf you were to read the comments of the "journalists" who have made donations, mostly to the left side of the aisle, you will see a common thread that should be disturbing to the employers of these so called seekers of truth - and that thread is "I didn't know", or a sub-set of that thought. We don't have to wonder if these "reporters, editoralists" or whatever their new titles are, have an agenda, or if they are just stupid. I'm thinking both - If, as an employee, you don't have a clue about your employers policies regarding donations to political parties, agencies, or organizations, then the question needs to be asked, what else are you clueless about?
Yes, simple minds of the so-called news gatherers, you are a citizen - and you can contribute your "hard" earned(?) cash to whoever you'd like, but you need to question your motives - is your largess agenda driven, or is it bias driven?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Fascinating!
June 21, 2007 - 11:02 ET by Joe4CoulterI did a search on the FEC URL that was listed in the article. Plugged in 'Levin' in Michigan (in honor of our senator for life). The results brought back a very interesting list. There seems to be a Charles Levin from Detroit and a Charles L. Levin from Ferndale (a local suburb). These 2 gentlemen (if in fact it is 2 separate persons) have a combined contribution to Democrats and Democrat groups, from 1998 to 2004 of over 5.5 million dollars. The most interesting thing is that the '2' gentlemen are both listed as retired!
I have to say, I'm very envious of their retirement investments.
Good Orderly Direction
Sorry
June 21, 2007 - 11:27 ET by Joe4CoulterMy post is a little off-topic but I just wanted to share what I think is a new found (for me) tool for some real 'investigative reporting'. If in fact there happens to be any real 'journalists' from my neck-of-the-woods that's interested in doing their job. Sadly, I'm not holding out hope.
But I do wonder if the MSM will cover this original story. With the latest BBC internal report on bias, I think sites such as NB is beginning to have an impact and I'll be interested to see if momentum for this backlash against bias builds.
Good Orderly Direction
"The Ethicist" gave to Moveon.org - oh my
June 21, 2007 - 11:23 ET by Gary HallAslo disclosed:
(D) The New York Times, Randy Cohen, ethics columnist, $585 in three donations in August 2004 to MoveOn.org, which conducted get-out-the-vote drives to defeat President Bush. In addition to the syndicated column "The Ethicist" for the Times Magazine, Cohen answers ethics questions for listeners of NPR.
Just for the record, Tim Graham and Brent Baker have covered the non-ethical bias of "The Ethicist," Randy Cohen, in the past.
Any of you bias doubters have
June 21, 2007 - 11:28 ET by mattmAny of you bias doubters have any more idiotic B.S. to say?
Anyone who denies the Left-Wing bias of the MSM is either stupid, ignorant, or deceitful.
I'll go out on a limb here an
June 21, 2007 - 11:33 ET by Joe4CoulterI'll go out on a limb here and say 9 to 1 : deceitful.
Good Orderly Direction
Don't go confusing the issue
June 21, 2007 - 11:37 ET by vrwc13Don't go confusing the issue of bias with facts now...
Yeah, logic, reason, facts play less of a role now in the way we make decisions in America. – Al Gore
I wonder how an employee of B
June 21, 2007 - 12:18 ET by Roger the ShrubberI wonder how an employee of Bill O'Reilly and Joe Scarborough get lumped in with "hard news" people? I thought BoR and Scarborough were political commentators, not reporters/editors?
This skews the ratio even more...
}}----> You would be right Shrub
June 21, 2007 - 12:24 ET by Cool ArrowExcept there then would be no category for any of the big 3 anchors.
Of course perky tarty Katie is in a class of her own.
Kudos To MSNBC
June 21, 2007 - 13:47 ET by deerjerkydaveKudos to MSNBC for doing this story, although they do their best to spin it as a problem not primarily effecting liberal journalists. For example, my favorite spin was this one from the article:
"MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties."
I'm sorry but that isn't a "lean the the left" it's a landslide! The article talks about how some organizations want to ban political donations as if that somehow will stop their bias. In reality it will only cover up their bias. I call for transparancy in reporting!
The Press Donations
June 21, 2007 - 19:41 ET by pbthinkerPersonally, I have no problem with people in the media giving cash to candidates. At least, by doing that, they're open to criticism, on their commentary, and we can watch them closer.
Realistically, are we better off if someone, like Dan Rather for instance, doesn't donate to campaigns, but gives them much more by doing bogus stories. Had he been allowed to donate, and did the bogus story, there would be more to base our opinion on. Now, he says the story wasn't bogus, he just can't prove it, and he's independent, although he supports the Democratic Party in his heart.
The hypocrisy of the media is really showing through.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.