Here’s a headline for the ages:
Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1
What a surprise!
As William Tate goes on to note in his story in Investor’s Business Daily, the statistics are “overwhelming.” Nevertheless, and “true to form,” the media rankles at the natural conclusion–that there is deep and pervasive left-wing bias in the media. Their response is that “one candidate, Obama, is more newsworthy than the other. In other words, there is no media bias. It is we, the hoi polloi, who reveal our bias by questioning the neutrality of these learned professionals in their ivory-towered newsrooms.”
Right. And if you believe that, . . . But wait, before making me an offer, ponder some more of Tate’s story:
Given the pack mentality among journalists and, just like any pack, the tendency to follow the leader — in this case, Big Media — and since Big Media are centered in some of the bluest of blue parts of the country, it is highly likely that the media elite reflect the same, or an even greater, liberal bias.
A second is to analyze contributions from folks in the same corporate cultures. That analysis provides some surprising results. The contributions of individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations are listed in the nearby table.
The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans — most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama.
What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain).
Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.
The amazing thing is that anyone not part of the media clique pays any attention whatsoever to the hosannas directed at St. Obama.
Now that I think of it, though, perhaps no one who is not part of that rancid fraternity actually does pay attention to their pious bleatings. “Americans Distrust the Media“: an old story with new traction.
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
The New Criterion
The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art
Lives of the Mind: The Use and Abuse of Intelligence from Hegel to Wodehouse
Art’s Prospect: The Challenge of Tradition in an Age of Celebrity
Experiments Against Reality: The Fate of Culture in the Postmodern Age
Tenured Radicals, Revised: How Politics has Corrupted our Higher Education
Counterpoints: 25 Years of The New Criterion on Culture and the Arts
The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America
Against the Idols of the Age
Lengthened Shadows: America and Its Institutions in the Twenty-First Century
The Survival of Culture: Permanent Values in a Virtual Age
Physics and Politics, by Walter Bagehot, edited with an
Introduction by Roger Kimball
6 Comments
srlucado:“In other words, there is no media bias.”
I have to wonder whether members of the media actually believe this. Can they possibly be so blind to their own prejudices?
I’ve often said that I don’t expect media rats to be purely objective - no one is - but they should at least have the intellectual integrity to acknowledge their biases.
Scott
Jul 25, 2008 - 8:21 am Roy M:It’s worse than you think Roger.
On the measure of money donated Americans living in Europe are also biased 10:1 for Obama. In fact even Americans living at home are biased towards Obama by nearly 3:1. (I’m not sure why I said ‘even’). Using your preferred measure of political opinion America is solidly pro-Obama.
Of course though this is all nonsense.
Tate looked at donations made by a few hundred media types, subtracted donations to two republicans for no good reason and then came up with the magic number of 100:1. Wait, THAT was the good reason for dicounting donations to two Replublicans, so he could get the magic number.
How many people work in newsrooms anyway? Tens of thousands surely. So this is built on the freakish 1% of journalists who donate to political parties. A better headline for this piece would be “99% journalists display no bias through political donations.” Actually thats a terrible headline, but more accurate and less biased.
Jul 25, 2008 - 3:43 pm Steve Skubinna:When media types are confronted with their overwhelming tilt left, their response is often along the lines of “We care so much more about the world, which is why we got into this business in the first place, therefore it’s no surprise that our personal politics tend towards the Democratic Party, since they’re the only ones who care about making things better. But it doesn’t mean we shortchange the Republicans at all.”
Say Roy M., you’re not actually Pinch Sulzberger posting under a pseudonym, are you?
Jul 26, 2008 - 7:41 pm Howard:The media’s continual bias in favor of Obama is not only disgusing, it’s against everything that America,
Oct 5, 2008 - 6:59 pma Free Press, and Freedom of Speech stands for. To suggest that there is no media bias in favor of Obama not only robs Americans of the truth, it insults the intelligence of the American people.
TALK IS CHEAP … CHECK OBAMA’S RECORD !!!
A candidate’s track record, and associations are always a legitimate issue when running for President. Let’s take a look at the qualifications, judgement, and experience of Obama, who is running for President. Obama had 25 years to fulfill the potential he displayed as a rising start at Harvard Law School … and, how did he live up to that potential? … He chose to align himself with anti-American racist, Jeremiah Wright for TWENTY YEARS … along with Ferrahkan, Rezko, Ayers, and others. As a community organizer, he registered thousands of voters in Chicago … then, when he ran for the state legislature, he took away their votes, by disqualifying his opponent (a black woman) on a technicality. As a U.S. Senator, he voted present 160 times … he never called a meeting on the Afghanistan committee he chaired (although he NOW says we must shift all our military from Iraq to Afghanistan). He claimed Foreign Policy experience from a 9 day whirlwind photo op to 6 countries. And, he spent almost half of his tenure neglecting his responsibilities as a U.S. Senator, so he could run for President. Senator McCain served America honorably for 22 years in the military. He proved his love for America, as well as his honor, integrity and character, by refusing early release as a P.O.W., even while being tortured. He served America as a ‘contributing’ U.S. Senator, working across the aisle, for 20 years. If Obama’s Twentyfive year track record shows he lacks judgement, and can’t be trusted, who cares what he says about Health Care and the Economy! What Obama never learned is Character. He simply can’t be trusted … ask Jeremiah Wright, a friend of 20 years, who Obama betrayed for personal ambition … and, you Obama supporters really think he won’t betray you If he gets elected??? If he gets elected, you Obama supporters will be facing a HUGE disillusionment !!!