Do journalists' political donations (mostly Democratic) = news bias?

Anyone perusing the media in recent days might have gotten the vague impression that someone named Barack Obama has been on some kind of foreign trip somewhere.

Funny how that information somehow seeped through despite all the other competing stories about the presumptive Democratic candidate for president visiting Iraq and Afghanistan.

And there were other distracting stories about a freshman senator from Illinois meeting with Israeli and Palestinian politicians. And a former state senator, also coincidentally from Illinois, speaking to a large crowd of Germans in Berlin for some reason.

And then an African American lawyer from Chicago had a real bon ami-bon ami moment with the shorter president of France before moving on to Britain today to smile and do that....

...walking out of the door of No. 10 Downing Street photo moment.

Oh, wait, those weren 't competing stories. They were all about the same guy. And in case you didn't get enough of him last week in a gazillion "Exclusive" TV interviews, there's at least one more coming Sunday morning, also somehow Exclusive. In that one on "Meet the Press" he'll probably tell Tom Brokaw that his mind wasn't changed by the trip from the pre-trip opinions he announced last week.

All of this prompted Investors Business Daily to publish a trenchant op-ed by William Tate that reported on his examination of Federal Election Commission records for donations by journalists.

You'll never guess what he says he found -- 235 journalists donating to Democrats while only 20 gave to Republicans for a total of $225,563 to Democrats and $16,298 to the the GOP-inclined.

That's small potatoes moneywise in terms of the nearly $1 billion collected so far in this election cycle. But Tate sees a valuable built-in bias among Democratic journalists for candidates of their party.

Last summer Bill Dedman at MSNBC did a massive research project, examining political donations by journalists over several years and found a similar overwhelming number of Democratic journalists (125 of 143 political donors while only 16 gave to Republican candidates and two others were bi-.

At these emotional times of presidential campaigns, certain to grow even more intense before Nov. 4, bias is often in the eyes of the beholder.

Those same donation figures could also be used to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Republican journalists are a whole lot stingier than their liberal colleagues.

--Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[Free iPhone Wallpapers]

I know that I for one am sick of hearing about this guy that you speak of in your article.

Like there is nothing better to write about (maybe the failing US economy or the enslavement of American people by the FED)

Real news! Get it now t a reputable news source near you!!!

[John Smith]

How about YOUR newsarticles you write. Everytime i read the LA times all i hear is Obama bashing. Ever think that if Mccain were in a foriegn country meeting foriegn officials and obama was just sitting on his a** at home then mccain would be the one all over tv. Does that stand to reason? Or would it stand to reason that the republicans have a conspiracy on the media to keep him in the limelight.

[Heather]

Why does the media act like this is news? I mean if your just figuring out there is a liberal media bias, maybe you need to get out of the journalism proffession!

I hope your not an investigavite reporter!

[Art Teal]

Journalists tend to donate more to Democratic candidates because they tend to be more intelligent than Republican supporters.

[ReignForrest]

As the article suggested, the imbalance in donations could suggest
(1) a Democratic bias among journalists, or
(2) Republican stinginss.

Or, possibly, one more thing:
(3) Journalists, being more aware in general than the average Joe, make better, more righteous decisions.

;-)

[George M. Kesselring, Major USAF Retired]

The news media is doing the same thing to Mcain and for Obama as they did to Hillary...This is the first time that I was aware that the media not only chose our candidates, but made sure that their choice was elected to office. We no longer have a situation where the voters make the choices

[Robert Reich]

Of course it equals media bias. I'm confused as to how this could even be considered a story. There is no secret that the media is, and has been for many years, overwhelmingly biased in favor of the democrats. Ask any republican political candidate that has won anything in the past 20 years; it's all the sweeter knowing they did it in spite of the media's free advertising for their opponent.

[Christopher]

On the flip side of this article all one has to do is look at the large media outlets, TV stations, news papers, and most importantly their parent companies. When one looks at whom these companies are donating to it is most likely to be the GOP. Moreover, their donation are bundled into the millions. That combined with favorable coverage of the GOP presumptive nominee’s news events, or non-coverage of his multiple gaffs, memory failures, or misinformation, we see who really holds the strings in the media.

[Max]

You would know a thing or two about news bias, Andrew.

[gabe]

yet they fail to mention the political preference of the onwers of all these media outlets. or what about the fact that there are like no democrat talk shows on the air. the jounalists are the libs the owners and editors are neocons. look it up

[Owl]

This is nonsense statistics. As a canvasser for non-profits I often here from reporters that they "cannot" contribute to any political cause. The truth is this: democrats make up a vastly larger majority of all citizens. Anyone who becomes educated,with a few exceptions, adopts democratic ideas. Republicans are, also, representative of the financial class, thus, they will use any excuse to not spend their money. What better excuse then "I can't, because i'm a journalist." Thus, Republican journalist spend most of their time tearing down democrats, giving nothing to anyone and and excuse it all as "being fair and balanced." Democrats, on the other hand, are strongly inclined to giving, give less thought to future finances as a party and individually, and thus are more inclined to give to any worthy cause, unlike Republicans who always "need to learn more." as if they haven't had the time up till now.

Some causes that "democrats/democratic ideology" supported and that "republicans/republican ideology" "needed to learn more about.":

Abolitionism
Female Suffrage
integration
environmentalism

Generally, as an advocate, its hard not to notice how ignorant republicans are at their homes. Often they "need to learn more." That's for sure!

[Andy]

Their dontations don't indicate their bias, their writing does. I haven't seen anything that could be called middle of the road or conservative in the Times for years.

[Ericmiami]

Maybe it's because most journalists have to have a degree, Malcolm. Educated and informed people tend to be Democrats.

[Henry Landis]

If there's a group of citizens more knowledgable and less likely to be bamboozled than journalists I've never heard of one. They don't vote do my voting me but they surely give me a clue as to who would be the better choice for the oval office. Outsized campaign coverage for Obama can be attributed to the business of market share in the media industry...he's just more newsworthy, but when these generally cynical news hawks dig into their own pockets we'd all better wake up and smell the coffee. It REALLY IS time for a change !

[lookngud]

Questioning the bias of the media? The pendulum may be swinging farther than you may hope. Now that NBC has sold out to Obama (especially Oberman on MSNBC) the public is getting a bit full of all the empty coverage. Wait until Obama actually has to speak on his own, say in a debate. Count the "uhs" and "ums"...

The media love the left because it is doom and gloom. No positive message anywhere.

[Annette Penland]

YES!!!! The liberal news commentators are enthralled with Obama and can speak of nothing else. They also think that the American public is so dumb that they cannot see through their bias.
I personally feel better when I do not watch or listen to the major networks. With the exception of Lou Dobbs, and Fox news all of the rest are a lost cause.
Not only do I refuse to listen to their gushing nonsense I am also boycotting their sponsors and making my disgust public. I am joined by millions.

[Bob Skinner]

Like all statistics it's how you work the numbers. The average for Democratic loving journalist was $960 while for the few journalists that donated an average of $815 to Republicans. It could be looked at as one group is more zealous in their efforts and the other is more conservative and chose to share more of their discretionary income with non-prophet charities as other studies have shown.

Is there a bias on reporting the news by some, you bet, human nature is hard to over come and that’s why there needs to be a greater emphases on ethics.

[Tom]

I read scientific reports on a regular basis and the scientists always have to disclose Conflicts of Interest.

Every Reporter should have to disclose the following:

Last 8 years of Political Donations in dollars to both candidates and parties

Last 8 years of political affiliations to both candidates and poltical groups

Number of hours volunteered to political parties, political candidates, or groups over the last 8 years

Any and all political offices they have held over the last 8 years.

A list of immediated family members who are either senior politcal members of political parties or who currently hold senior politcal office positions (i.e. Senator, Attorney General, Mayor, etc.) :.Spouse, Brothers, Sisters, Children, Aunts, Uncles, Paretns, Grandparents, Grandkids, nieces, nephews, but that's about it.

Everything EXCEPT who they voted for and what Party they belong to should be disclosed. Why not? It would be fascinating and helpful.

[Daniel, Louisiana]

The last line of the article is the most telling of them all. Obviously, there are more than 20 right-leaning journalists, so it seems that they just don't donate to political campaigns as often as their left-leaning peers.

[Andrew]

They make up for it by constantly undercutting Democrats and covering for Republican mistakes.

Where was their liberal bias when the dreamy cowboy from Texas was lying us into war?

[Lori Wagner]

Mr. Andrew thank you for writing this article.

[Freewave]

So Barrak goes on a world tour does a speech to tens of thousands pro-American Berlinners and his opponent McCain simultaenously bungles what the definition of the surge is in the sliced meat department of a supermarket and they complain about media bias?

If the McCain campaing wants to keep their campaign theme so small minded and meat and potatoes then why complain about a bias? Nobody likes a whiner and all Mccain has done recently is whine and complain about his opponent. If he keeps following the Hillary playbook then he will net the same results as her.

[Miguel Alvarez]

Sorry to hear that Mr. McCain is so sore with Obama´s coverage by the media. You just listen to him and he seems so sore. I wonder how he is going to recover after November 4. He´ll probably blame de media, again.

[Socrates]

The profession of Journalism tends to attract democrats because journalism demands liberal mindedness and questioning of the status quo in order to be effective and successful. And in general, democratic candidates are liberal candidates.

I don't think it is a bias - I think that the profession attracts the personalities that it needs, while at the same time certain personalities are attracted to the profession.

This same issue comes up in Higher Education. Why are most academics and professors democrats? Because that field also demands and attracts liberal-mindedness and questioning of the status quo.

These types of personalities are what make successful news organizations (or universities). But they always include a small percentage of republicans and/or conservative personalities, which helps to reign them in now and then. The nice thing about journalists and academics is that they believe everyone's voice should be heard.

[Betty]

Great Article. Good Point!

No candidate should have such the advantage that Mr. Obama has by being babied by the press.

The press in this cycle is corrupt and biased and is trying to select our next president. This must not continue!!

Also, how come Obama does not debate? Because he will loose and look bad? Are people really going to vote for someone without seeing for themselves what he's really made of?