Monday, July 28, 2008

Journalists favor Democrats in donations 15-to1

Investor's Business Daily reports that the contributions of journalists to candidates in the current presidential election favors Democrats 15-to-1. Here is William Tate to explain:

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 .

Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.

But remember, the media are not liberal. They have assured us, remember. And if we say it over and over to ourselves, we'll believe it too.


Anonymous said...

I'm really, really tired of conservatives whining about liberal media bias. You have Fox News, conservative newspapers and news magazines, and a bunch of talk radio and tv commentators. So don't tell me conservatives can't get their message out.

Martin Cothran said...


I guess I'm supposed to conclude from the fact that you are tired of hearing it that it is therefore not true? If not, maybe you could explain why the fact that you are tired of hearing it should matter to anyone except yourself.

Of course the difference between conservatives is that they dominate in the editorial department, which is supposed to be biased, whereas the liberals dominate in the news departments, where they're supposed to be impartial.

Lee said...

I'm really, really tired of liberals trying to downplay the fact that, in the mainstream media, conservatives and conservatism cannot get an even break.

One of the strengths of liberal bias in the media, for example, is that it is never identified as such. When a conservative commentator comes on, he is identified as "conservative spokesman" etc. But when liberals talk, why, nobody here but us objective, impartial, unbiased, and completely ...uh, professional journalists.

One of my favorite exchages a few years back was on Aaron Brown's program. The conservative being interviewed was Shelby Steele, and the liberal... I mean, the other liberal... was the Washington Post's Richard Cohen. Brown introduced Cohen as "Washington post columnist Richard Cohen," unlabeled as to ideology, while Steele was introduced as "conservative Shelby Steele."

Steele was having none of it. He asked Brown, "Would you consider Cohen to be a liberal?"

Outed, Cohen responded, "On some issues."

Brown quipped irritatedly, "I guess we're all labeled now."

Steele responded, "If I'm going to be labeled, we're all going to be labeled."

Yes, thank the Lord for the fact that conservatives are still allowed to get their message out. However, coming to a station near you, look for liberals, soon, to revive the so-called "Fairness" Doctrine in an attempt to shut down conservative talk radio. It's a market that they can't compete in, and liberals don't like competition.

Anonymous said...

Interesting that the corporations that own most of the "Liberal Media" are rather wealthy and conservative. I wonder why they allow all this liberal stuff on the air and in print.

Anonymous said...

Martin and lee,

Does anyone believe Fox News is "fair and balanced"? Isn't it the #1 news channel? If Fox News isn't "mainstream", then what does that term mean, other than "people we don't like"?

Lee said...

Anonymous: Is Warren Buffett conservative? Is Bill Gates conservative? Are the Kennedies conservative? Is George Soros conservative? The corporations you speak of are "wealthy and conservative" only being wealthy is the same as being conservative.

kycobb: "Does anyone believe Fox News is 'fair and balanced'?" You might be surprised. A study was done by a political science professor at UCLA. Here's a link:

They found Fox New's Special Report with Brit Hume to be slightly to the right of center, but not as far to the right as most of the outlets are to the left.

Bottom line: to a liberal, if a media outlet is not liberal, it is therefore egregiously conservative.

I do know this: at the end of Mr. Hume's program, he discusses the issues with a panel which includes such liberals as Mara Liasson and Juan Williams. I can't remember a single Dan Rather broadcast, ever, in which William Buckley or George Will were ever allowed to question Big Dan.

Is Fox News "mainstream"? Not when you stack it against the liberal tide of its competition -- which your own reaction to it attests. (I.e., how can you single it out so readily if it somehow blends in with the rest?) Of course, when there are umpteen liberal outlets and one (relatively) conservative outlet, the conservatives are going to tend to choose it, which is what makes it popular. Fox News has, in other words, a market niche all to itself: news without the liberal bias, for all the people who don't like liberal bias. Forget about ideology for a second: that just makes good business sense -- a point that might be worth considering these days if you own tanking stock in the New York Times or CBS.

Anonymous said...

Who owns the three major TV networks?

Anonymous said...

Curious notion of "mainstream". The #1 news channel is conservative. The #2 newspaper in circulation is conservative. Talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative. Really, could anything be more mainstream than "The Wall Street Journal" or George Will? Conservatives don't have any trouble getting their message out-they will lose badly this November because of their policy failures.

Lee said...

c> kycobb: "Curious notion of 'mainstream.'"

Not so curious, actually. I predicted some quibbling to occur regarding that word's definition, so I looked it up to make sure that at least I would be using it correctly. Here's a link:

Dominant; principal; widely accepted. That's how I meant it. You on the other hand appear to be conflating the word "mainstream" with "most lucrative."

> The #1 news channel is conservative.

As I pointed out earlier, Fox News is serving a market niche, and is being rewarded for it. Conservatives are more united on a news channel than liberals are, who have many more to choose from. And not all of their programming is conservative. Greta? Ugh. Geraldo? Double ugh. Hannity & Colmes is half-liberal, and I'm not a big fan even of the conservative half. On the Saturday business program, liberal Wayne Rogers crashes the otherwise cozy Country Club Republican atmosphere. As for the Oh, Really? Factor, I don't like him either. He's no liberal, but he's no conservative, either. I like Fox News not because they're so conservative, but because conservatives and conservatism don't automatically get a raw deal, and because liberals are finally asked the tough questions.

> Talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative.

But talk radio is not mainstream; it too is a niche, created about twenty years ago by frustrated conservatives. Again, liberals don't need a niche. Personally, I would trade talk radio for AP, Reuters, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and NPR.

> Really, could anything be more mainstream than "The Wall Street Journal" or George Will?

The Wall Street Journal has a reasonably conservative editorial page, but with a traditional pro-big business Republican slant. Their news section, however, is as liberal as they come.

Regarding George Will, he is a conservative commentator, not a news anchor or a news reporter. One of the strengths of the liberal mainstream is their ability to pose as objective, impartial, unbiased reporters. We know where George Will is coming from, and he doesn't object to the labeling. Did Dan Rather ever once drop his objective pose, even as he was destroying CBS News' credibility by chasing the Bush/National Guard story into the land of falsified documents?

> Conservatives don't have any trouble getting their message out-

I disagree; it's a challenge.

> ...they will lose badly this November because of their policy failures.

I have some breaking news for you: conservatives have already lost. The choice awaiting us this November is between an ultra-liberal Democrat and a liberal Republican. We're hosed either way. A third party will get my vote, probably the Constitutional Party. As much as it pains me to stand by while the ultra-liberals take the field, my judgment is that America doesn't need two liberal parties, and voting for liberal Republicans sends the wrong message to the GOP.

As for the liberal policies to come, America will ultimately get to decide whether it wants immigration policy set in Mexico City rather than in the U.S., whether it wants liberals who ride in limousines and private jets to restrict the energy supply for everyone else, and whether it wants a president who puts more importance on getting along with Europe than safe-guarding our national defense. Most liberal policies sound great until the bill comes due.