Friday, July 25

Bias and the Money Trail

The refusal of the New York Times to publish a McCain rebuttal to Obama’s recent bombastic Iraq op-ed piece and his showboating photo-op of a world tour may be disappointing, but it is by no means surprising. Liberal media bias is certainly not new news. But just when it seemed as if it couldn’t get any worse, it has. As American’s for Tax Reform analyst William Tate has said, “True proof of an ever-expanding media bias merely requires one to acknowledge an old journalism maxim: follow the money.

An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money mainstream 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 Obama and McCain.

Searches for other newsroom categories (digital media publishers, freelance reporters, internet correspondents, news editors, on-line anchors, web editors, photographers, syndicated bloggers, feed podcasters, and cartoonists) produces even greater disparity. Among these, donations totaled $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans--a ratio of 100-to-1.

Surprised? Hardly.


jackmooring said...

very sad indeed.

gileskirk said...

Boomer (whose anonymous criticisms were deleted): Several things you should know:

1. This is not a public forum for misinformed and anonymous rants; it is a ministry blog.

2. Your opinions about the corporatization of the media (well-founded) do not negate the facts that my original blog detailed.

3. Your opinions about the mortgage scandal (also well founded) are only relevant to the current discussion in so far as they reinforce my point.

4. Your opinions about economic history (apparently very narrow) should have enabled you to understand that the Liberal bias displayed in the media actually benefits the Mercantilist economic system that both major political parties support.

5. Your opinions about my own political views (wildly inaccurate) fail to take into account the fact that I am not a Republican nor am I a "Conservative" in the contemporary sense of the term. Indeed, while I have only voted for three Democratic candidates for any office through the years (each of them for either state house or congressional seats), I have voted for third-party candidates for president nearly as often as I have Republican candidates. And while in this upcoming presidential election I know beyond any shadow of a doubt I cannot vote for the radical pro-abort Obama, I remain skeptical and uncommitted regarding McCain. Depending on who he picks for a VP and how the third-party nomination processes go, there is a very good likelihood that I will once again depart ways with the GOP.

Austin Bob said...

1. After reading the comments, I'm almost sorry I missed boomer's rant. :-)

2. Looking at the data you post, one of the surprising things (to me) is the level of Republican support (sic) from Fox. My liberal friends would be encouraged.