Fogbuster

.


From MSNBC, no less, so you *know* it's the truth!!

---------------


THE GREAT DIVIDE: REPORTERS GIVE DEMS MONEY OVER REPUBLICANS 9 TO 1!


Journalists dole out cash to politicians (quietly)
News organizations diverge on handling of political activism by staff

In addition to giving $500 to Democratic congressional candidate Jim Esch, Omaha TV reporter Calvert Collins posted a photo of the two of them on her Facebook page, saying, "Vote for him Tuesday, Nov. 7!" She says her father wrote the check, and she was just building rapport with candidates.

By Bill Dedman
Investigative reporter
MSNBC
Updated: 8:22 a.m. ET June 21, 2007



BOSTON - A CNN reporter gave $500 to John Kerry's campaign the same month he was embedded with the U.S. Army in Iraq. An assistant managing editor at Forbes magazine not only sent $2,000 to Republicans, but also volunteers as a director of an ExxonMobil-funded group that questions global warming. A junior editor at Dow Jones Newswires gave $1,036 to the liberal group MoveOn.org and keeps a blog listing "people I don't like," starting with George Bush, Pat Robertson, the Christian Coalition, the NRA and corporate America ("these are the people who are really in charge").

Whether you sample your news feed from ABC or CBS (or, yes, even NBC and MSNBC), whether you prefer Fox News Channel or National Public Radio, The Wall Street Journal or The New Yorker, some of the journalists feeding you are also feeding cash to politicians, parties or political action committees.

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.

more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485
---------------

And with such a monopoly of domination over the news we get via the "mainstream" outlets, there is now ZERO wonder why more and more people simply DO NOT TRUST the news sources we could once depend upon for being mostly straight up, professional, and as unbiased as humanly possible.



//

BelichickFan

It's pitiful and largely explains why so many people "favor" Democrat issues - it's forced down their throat.

The amazing part is the lefty whining about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine regarding talk radio when this is what we get on TV.

Fogbuster

You're correct. And it is something to be concerned about. If the Left *expands* its influence by somehow muzzling the airwaves or other free speech venues (internet???!), America will become a very dark and desolate place. This is very serious, actually.


//

BelichickFan

Makes sense to me, keep the Liberals on TV and get rid of Hannity, Limbaugh, etc, from the radio. Perfect.

Patters

While I'll concede that more journalists people are Dems than are Repubs, the fact is that the majority of serioius journalists try to write objectively, whether they are right-wing or left wing. The news pages of the Globe, the NYT, the WSJ, the Washington Times are respected because they report their stories in a balanced way.

On the other hand, editorial policy is set by the board of a corporation, which chooses the top people, who in turn set editorial policy. The owners of most media companies are moderate or conservative from what I've read.

BelichickFan

Actually, they don't. But believe that slop that you just wrote if you like. Admittedly I don't read every one of those papers every day but using Bush's social security plan as an example (one of the few good things he's tried to do) I saw basically no support for him in any kind of media. Take all your liberal slop and see how many articles are written for the other side.

Taming down the rhetoric from overtly partisan to suggestively partisan does not make a reporter balanced.

QuiGon

Agreed... There are few things more pathetic than the incessant whining of the American liberal about Fox News. They can't stand the fact that of 8 major news outlets, one dares to be right-leaning.

Fogbuster

Well, people often say writers play the role of prophets, and we had Aldous Huxley (Brave New World) and George Orwell (1984, Animal Farm) who were both prescient about the age we are in right now.

We are in need of clear vision of who we are, how we got here, and where we need to go. We need RIGOROUS investigation, without bias, tin foil, or denigrating naysayers dominating the marketplace of ideas.


//

Harry Boy

Have you ever watched a liberal's eye twitch and their lips quiver when you say these words "the left wing media" they tremble and start stuttering and whining they become enraged and start bellowing "WHAT LEFT WING MEDIA, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LIBERAL BIASED MEDIA"

When Bernie Goldberg wrote his best seller book titled "Bias" CBS wanted him shot dead, the NY Times said he should go to jail for life, Dan Rather had to be sedated, he was banned from all the "Lefty Looney Kocktail Partys" Oh Jesus.

Read This:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

Fogbuster

While it may be true that *owners* tend to be more on the conservative side, almost all are also in the business to make money. So they will put into their papers/TV/magazine whatever they believe will give them a profitable return on their investment. Hence, the contents are often produced with a merely economic interest in mind, rather than a public-service interest. Thus quality often suffers for the sake of "expediency".

It should be noted that Rev. Moon has funded the Washington Time for more than 25 years, and it has ALWAYS operated at a loss; no profit. That's neither a brag nor a complaint; but it means he has done it as a public service rather than as a business venture. In the future, however, it definitely *should* make at working profit, to pay its own way if nothing else.

If the NYTimes or WashPast lost money the way the WashTimes does, they would have folded their tents decades ago because they have no solid ideology to offer. The WTimes publishes for the sake of giving the straight-up news, as best as humanly possible. And I'm very proud of being associated with that.



//