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?

[Tony Chester]

Bias? Possibly there is bias in the journalist... I travel extensively and as I move around the country, I find that almost all of the radio journalist are so far to the right that they come across as fascist. The right wing radio media is overwhelmingly biased toward the republicans that it is sickening. Did the investigations into the bias of the media include these hundreds of radio journalist, both national and local in their investigation? Did they include the talking heads on Fox news? How about CBS. They do everything they can to put Obama in a nasty light while glossing over the gaffs of McCain.

I have decided to listen to NPR as much as possible when I am on the road. They are the most balanced reporting In have found and their commentates are fair.

[Tony]

I wonder about education levels and world awareness of those in the media -- might they lean towards the democratic side because they are both better educated and more exposed to the world? Yes, yes... taboo for suggesting that people who are more aware of the world in which we live -- things like the environment and the oft-forgotten little fact that their are lots of other countries who want similar things to us (like not being blown up or attacked by other nations) -- might THAT be the reason that more in the media toward to support democrats?

[Perspective]

Hummm. Are you saying that journalists actualy are aware that there is another party or point of view other than Democrat? Wow. Now that is NEWS to me. For all the preaching of being liberal and tolerant, journalist have very little tolerance for any view other than their own.

[TJ]

The media showed media bias in the last 2 presidential elections, showcasing the neat guy they would like to have a beer with and glossing over his lack of record, accomplishment, and employment history, as well as his record as Texas Gov. Some got fired for talking about his Texas Natl Guard record. See what they chose for us?

They have a huge podium and are misusing their powers. The will be our downfall, already in the making. They are enamoured most of all, with themselves.

[oneStarman]

JOURNALIST BIAS - Why is it that so many journalists seem to have Democratic leanings? What is it about the Democratic Party that makes it more compatible with Freedom of the Press and Human Interest stories that display an interest in Social Concerns? Or on the other hand what is it about the Republican Party that would cause these same people to NOT to want to support its candidates and have the same interest in the goals that it pursues? Perhaps it is because the Republican Party has placed in the Whitehouse the AntiChrist and the Beast of the Apocalypse. Just a thought.

[reason]

Journalists usually come from that group of people who couldn't do well in any other subject. You know the type.. the ones that got that deer in the headlights look to them whenever math was mentioned. History, math, logic, etc, were too tough for their little brains.

So they were forced to whine for a living since that's all they are good at. Journalists never grew out of the terrible twos and never learned a more grown up way of getting attention.

[RonTn]

Perhaps Mr. Malcolm failed to see Andrea Mitchell, aka Mrs. Alan Greenspan, blast Barack Obama daily on the overseas trip. My guess is that Mr. Malcolm did observe this reporter, but he only did so through right wing bias.

The MSNBC link is informative mainly in that the overwhelming majority of "reporters" didn't donate to any candidate. Corporate executives who pull the strings of the news department also weren't surveyed. If you want to discover where news bias exists, this would be the first group surveyed.

We have a twenty-four hour a day propaganda "news" outlet at Fox. Where is Mr. Malcolm's outrage at such bias?

[plaasjaapie]

All this pattern shows is something that most people have known for a long time, viz, journalism schools were taken over by the left forty years ago and serve as a ideological filter to who is allowed into the profession.

Before 30 years ago, relatively few of the big names in journalism held a degree of that name. Now, virtually everybody does. The danger of professionalising a vocation like journalism is that the faculties of the professional schools make damned sure that only students who agree with their professors' ideology get their degree.

The same thing has happened in most of the liberal arts and not a few of the "professional" vocations like architecture.

On the brighter side, journalism as a salary paying profession is going down the toilet thanks to the internet opening up of magnitudes more sources of information. Most of the people who use television news are over fifty and most who still read newspapers are over sixty. Young people, whether in physical age or attitude get their information elsewhere.

[David Rooney]

The ONLY positive comment about this election that I can muster...

McCain = Less Pain That's it. There are no presidential candidates running for office.

In the Age of Malfeasence we have emerged America The Gullible. And to what extent this gullibility has infected American politics can only be measured parabollically.

Blame speculators they say. WHAT IS MEDIA ANYMORE? HYPERSPECULATION. But "journalists" wouldn't be inclined by their personal views would they?

Gullible Gullible Gullible.

[Justin]

Sorry Mr. Malcolm, Obama is a FAR more interesting nominee than McCain will ever be. So get over it.

I'm looking at those stats.. so FOX news only gave money to the democrats? Riiggghhht! Real reliable stats you have there! (That or the Republicans just aren't donating money to their lackluster nominee.)

[CAC]

Journalists tend to have much more information about the candidates than the general public (and that they ever publish). And they also tend to know the issues much better. Perhaps their donating to Dems says something about the candidates.

Interesting, though, that despite this "liberal bias," many of McCain's mistakes are still under-reported. I suspect that it's a combination of journalists "self-correcting" (maybe to the point of over-correction) and that some have simply become too close to the campaign.

[Mark]

The liberal/Al-Queda alliance controls 90% of the media.

They support HUSSEIN Obama to the maximum.

They support HUSSEIN Obama and his Islamic ghetto thugs to get control of American's nuclear arsenal.

[dolly]

Bias is not the word- sold out is more like it! the media is sold out to democrats. where is the deomcratic way of life? opps its the democrats'-way of life. I am fed up with the liberal press's spin on the presumptive democratic nomiee with the silver tongue. gve me a break... the guy's record in Congress is not to be admired at all... which ever way the wind blows so goes the democrats' policies and their waffing hopeful one... opps ,I forgot they want people like me to pay more for the little we get...yuck! just to give them more bucks for their bang!! we do not want to be impinged by them as we were eight years prior... Oh, on honesty- liberal media, try that on for size... too tight? not enough for your ratings ?? oh, I forgot, you really don't care about us...just like to hear yourselves!!! got to get going to feed my dog, Sweetness. bye ya'll

[michael the conservative]

Funny, most of the news articles I've seen about the Obama tour have been prompted by Republicans: 'McCain criticizes Obama tour', 'The Media is Biased!', 'OMG-Obama Snubbed the Troops!1!'

When was the last time McCain offered something new, different, or newsworthy that didn't directly involve him speaking the name 'Obama'?

With a PR team composed of the entire Republican party, Obama should have no trouble coasting to victory in November.

[Lowry Martin, II]

I have been perplexed and astounded by the rampant bias in the media for Senator Obama. The justifications used by jouranlist's that he is "new", "exciting", "newsworthy" does not hold water. Those are not the only consideration for a journalistic production. I have watched this presidential season with an avid and assiduous interest, and Obama is often the headline regardless of the subject. Only if it is an unsavory, hot-button subject, like the war in Iraq will McCain maybe get the headline--a not so subtle message to reinforce the idea that McCain is unmediated Hawk. It is not about just being faire in time and space to both candidates, it is also about the obvious lack of journalistic ethics that these subtle gestures would illustrate how in favor they are of Obama. How can we be truly free when those who allegedly are giving us the "facts" are actually not objective/non-partisan?

[mj]

As others have pointed out, this is a rapidly aging meme. "Liberal Bias", that explains the corporate (L.A. Times for instance) relentless cheerleading of GW's illegal invasion of Iraq. Cute.

[Richard P. McDonough]

Of course it does not prove bias. It simply suggests that most journalists can read, write, and think critically.

Having those talents might suggest that a smart, well tempered, well educated, and thoughtful man under 70 with well thought out positions on most of the critical issues of the present and future, might make a better president than a muddled chap who insists on visiting Czechoslovakia.

[steve]

Only 225 joiurnalists gave money to campaigns? They really are cheap.

[captbilly]

I can't stand it any more, liberal news bias!? You have got to be kidding me. I saw side by side stories on CNN this week about Obama giving a speach to 200,000 Germans, and McCain going to a German restaurant. I think the media is trying so hard to give equal time to McCain that they cover things that are clearly not news worthy. Is there something unusually newsworthy about a black man with the name Obama, with a real shot at being President of the United States, let me think about that?

Obama consitently draws crouds many many times larger than anyone else running for president, isn't that the definition of newsworthy? What about covering Nader and the other people running for President? Of course the author would say that those people don't have a real chance of winning, but isn't that circular reasoning? If McCain weren't on the news for things as uninteresting as taking a ride in a golf cart with Bush senior, he wouldn't have a real chance of winning.

The "media" is run by a few huge companies, that have a clear Republican bias. Fox news has a conservative bias that is so far out there that I actually can't watch them any more. I think the only consistent bias that I see in main stream media (besides the aforementioned Fox conservative bias) is that they will do and say anything to get ratings. The media loves to make contriversies out of nothing so that they can have their commentators talk endlessly about those contriversies. How much actual on the ground coverage do we get from Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the biggest stories of the decade, but we see endless hours of Brittany, Paris Hilton, polygamists, etc. To argue that the biggest problem we have in the media is that Obama is getting too much coverage is to turn the problem on it's head.

[Scene From The Center]

The numbers quoted too low to support a defendable argument. Taken at face value they seem to support the "conventional wisdom" about reporters in America, but the argument is fatally flawed.

The Associated Press alone employs about 7000 or so reporters in the US. Add all the regional sized papers (Chattanooga, Sacramento, St. Petersburg, Memphis etc), then the monoliths like the NY Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, Reuters, Bloomberg, CNN, etc. etc. it becomes clear that there is just not enough data to support a reasonable conclusion, since 99% or more of reporters apparently obey their vocation's ethical guidelines and refrain from donating to any political party.

Therefore it would seem that those few who do donate to political parties are the most "hardcore" in their political opinions and are NOT indicative of any bias or lack thereof, in whichever direction, among the ranks of the fourth estate.

This is not a well-reasoned post. It is sensationalist and attention-grubbing. You're just adding to the noise, and that's disappointing to see in a respectable publication such as the LA Times.

[Herodotus]

What if a journalist donated to Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman: that shouldn't count as 'liberal'.

Investors Business Daily complaining the media is too liberal based on an examination of journalist donations is a red herring - what gets printed or broadcast must pass the editors, who work for the *owners*. And who do the *owners* of these mega-media companies donate to ?
*They* are the 800 pound gorillas in the room - as Rupert Murdoch once said "I don't *influence* what goes into my newspapers and TV news. I *determine* what goes in. If I don't like the story, it is out."

Who has more influence over your McDonalds burger - the kid paid minimum wage to make it, or corporate headquarters, who planned every second of preparation, every ingredient, every detail.

I'll believe US media is 'liberal' when they start having Nightly Labor News as well as Nightly Business News.

[Michele Ramsey]

What this blog doesn't understand is that while lowly reporters may be Democrats, the editors, managers and owners of Big Media are, by and large, quite conservative. BIG media is BIG business...period. Why do you think the media sat silently while Bush led us to war under obvious lies? The answer is that the editors, managers and owners will not allow reporters to go "too negative" on the powers that be for fear that they won't get favorable laws that allow for more media deregulation and/or access to major public figures. What the person writing and those reading this blog need to do is look into the academic, peer-reviewed research on media bias. You'll find that the bias is overwhelmingly conservative.

Also, reporters go where their bosses (the RICH people who own and manage the media) TELL THEM TO GO and report on what these folks TELL THEM to report on. Listen to reporters from major news outlets talking about all of the stories that they write that AREN'T published because they're censored and you'll learn alot.

Finally, all week we've heard McCain complain about media bias in favor of Obama--yet blogs and news reports are reporting his whining as if it's actually NEWS--WHAT BIAS? You've all just turned McCain's whining into journalism that SUPPORTS him and his views?

Give me a break and quit oversimplifying complex issues!

[Ron Garret]

This is sort of like cruising up some place and telling the inhabitants that you've 'discovered' them. The folks there already knew where they were.

And while the article was entertaining, nothing beats the collection of responses. We're not voting for president, we're taking an IQ test. Because only dumb uneducated idiots would /dare/ vote for a Republican.

Whoops, I've exceeded my carbon footprint limit for the day, so I must revert to a non-technological zero impact lifestyle until tomorrow when my carbon exchange is back in the postive from that little wind turbine that just chopped apart an endangered condor.

[Erick]

Hilarious. Democrats are Democrats because they're smarter than everyone else? Yeah right, that's what the Nazis said. Same deal. Hate and intolerance by close minded selfish people peddled as truth.

[Joseph]

From William Tate's Op-ed: "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 ."

But of course not a single word from William Tate in the entire op-ed about what that "analysis" involved. Not a word about the methodology used. Not one word about how Tate identified his 235 Democrat-donating "journalists" or his Republican leaning 20. And not a word from Andrew Malcom suggesting he asked a single question to Tate about the "analysis" before putting out this story. I guess all you need is a chart with an catchy title, a list of news organizations, some dollar amounts, and an agenda, and the LA Times will act as your echo chamber to give you some fake legitimacy.

So next time how about asking a few questions first before you set about "reporting" Mr. Malcom? Or when the LA Times puts the word "blog" at the top of the page, does journalism go out the window?

In related news, has anyone heard the media report on McCain's giant flip flop on Iraq? In less than 2 weeks, he's flopped from adamant opposition to a timetable to a 16 month timetable? Haven't seen the story? No, me neither. Those liberal journalists sure have an odd way of showing their bias.