Reporters give $$$ to Democrats 9 to 1 over the GOP

[ChicosBailBonds]

Nothing to see here....move along...giving money certainly wouldn't overtly or in the back of their minds cause them to promote the very candidates and causes they are giving their hard earned money to.  Nope, that wouldn't happen.  Super human professionals.   


"The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms...”

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

[nathanziarek]

Three Questions:

1) Why start a new thread when we are already discussing this in another one (which I haven't finished digesting yet, but still promise I will finish)?

2) Do you really believe it to be impossible for someone to report objectively about something they do not personally take stock in? I ask this with complete sincerity.

3) I wonder if this sort of study has ever been done news organization wide? Except for the big names, reporters are rarely in charge of what they report.

n

[nathanziarek]

Now that I've taken the time to read the article, I don't see it nearly as black and white as your disingenuous title states. So much for honest discourse. It is all about sensationalism, right?

 - Can we look at the 144 reporters in this sample as representative of what everyone else *might* do (but haven't)? At .1% of the reporters in the country, that's a pretty small sample size.

 - Do we care at all that some of these contributions most definitely came from reporters that have nothing to do with political reporting?

...and the nail i the coffin for me: Are we at all concerned that the liberal media is producing pieces about possible liberal bias in newsrooms? Seems like self-destructive behavior to me.

[StillAWarrior]

2) Do you really believe it to be impossible for someone to report objectively about something they do not personally take stock in? I ask this with complete sincerity.

I guess I'll jump in again because this is the same issue that I raised in the other thread.

No, I don't think it's impossible for someone to report objectively.  But, I do think it is impossible for everyone to report objectively.  And, when liberals outnumber conservatives 9:1 (or 4:1 in other studies that have been cited, and lots of ratios in between), the people who are unable to control their bias will naturally create the appearance of bias.  If there are nine left-biased reporters for every one right-biased reporter, I don't think it is surprising that there would be a perceptible over all bias in reporting.

A couple questions for you (like yours, asked with sincerity):

1)  Do you believe all reporters are able to put their biases aside when doing their job?

2)  If not, do you think liberal reporters are inherently more capable of putting their biases aside than conservative reporters?


If there is no inherent difference in the ability of conservative and liberal reporters (or other media professionals) to control their bias, it seems perfectly reasonable to think that the sheer number of liberals in the media, as compared to conservatives, would necessarily result in some bias.  I think we can quibble about the extent of the bias if you want, but if the individual reporters are truly overwhelmingly liberal (as many studies and self-identification seem to support), then the only way the media could be unbiased is if either all the professionals are able to remain completely objective or if liberals are somehow more capable of objectivity than conservatives.  I don't think either is likely.  I think a certain percentage of reporters from both sides of the political spectrum are going to be biased, and I don't think the percentage is likely to differ all that much based upon ideology.  If anything, my experience in other contexts would suggest that the majority is more likely to reveal its bias because there is safety in numbers, but I have no data to support that.

[nathanziarek]

Awesome! A real discussion!

1) Absolutely not. I would expect there to be some bias from some people sometimes. I don't know how to quantify it, but yes, there will be bias.

2) No. Everyone would have the same trouble maintaining equality with 1 big caveat (that Chico's article mentions). A liberal reporter has to fight the notion (real or make-believe) that the media is liberal and *might* try harder to work a conservative angle into his piece, even if it doesn't have any place there. A conservative reporter wouldn't have that hanging over his head.

Just for the sake of argument, I've not finished the articles Chico's posted, but I do not buy into the 4:1 theory, especially if it was arrived at the same way the 9:1 was.

Once again, would a liberal media company rat itself out for being liberal or would it just hide those findings? What about every other finding Chico's pointed to? How are those articles making their way past the liberal editors through the pens of liberal reporters? I'm being a little sarcastic, but not completely...

n

[ChicosBailBonds]

Three Questions:

1) Why start a new thread when we are already discussing this in another one (which I haven't finished digesting yet, but still promise I will finish)?

2) Do you really believe it to be impossible for someone to report objectively about something they do not personally take stock in? I ask this with complete sincerity.

3) I wonder if this sort of study has ever been done news organization wide? Except for the big names, reporters are rarely in charge of what they report.

n

1)  Donations had nothing to do with the other thread

2)  Do I think it's impossible...no, not impossible.  Do I value when reporters, producers, etc say that they can't be objective...yes.  Do I think these people are human...yes.  Do I think if you sink $2500 into a cause (liberal or conservative) via donation are you going to try to angle your stories to promote that cause...yes.  Do I think liberals defend the media more than conservatives....yes...by a mile.  I always ask why to that last question.   

[Pakuni]

2)  Do I think it's impossible...no, not impossible.  Do I value when reporters, producers, etc say that they can't be objective...yes.  Do I think these people are human...yes.  Do I think if you sink $2500 into a cause (liberal or conservative) via donation are you going to try to angle your stories to promote that cause...yes.  Do I think liberals defend the media more than conservatives....yes...by a mile.  I always ask why to that last question.   

Once again, I ask, why do you believe a human being cannot act professionally?
When did did professionalism become a trait only possessed by superheroes?

Regarding the story linked above, one little factoid Chico's failed to mention is that many, if not most, of the journalists on that list do not cover politics. Which leads me to ask, "So what?"

I mean who cares that the Chicago Tribune's classical music critic gave $200 to the DNC in 2004. Does that mean he writes liberally biased reviews of the latest Chicago Symphony Orchestra's performances?
Is it really all that troubling that a Boston Globe sports statistician gave money to Howard Dean?
Or that a South Florida Sun-Sentinel sports columnist donated money to the Kerry campaign? Does he bash Dwyane Wade for his conservative pro-family lifestyle because of this?

Anyone involved in covering politics  - and most of the reporters listed here do not - should not be contributing to political causes or taking any other actions that publicize their personal leanings (i.e. planting campaign signs, voting in primaries, etc.) But if you're not involved in covering politics, then who cares? Why is it relevant whether a TV critic gives money to some political cause?

Also, it's worth noting that they found a whopping 144 donors at 91 news organizations. That's hardly a telling sample of the media in general, wouldn't you agree? Most those media organizations employee dozens, if not hundreds, in their editorial departments. That they uncovered 144 donors out out a group of thousands is kind of insignificant, don't you think? In fact, it actually shows that the vast majority of media members don't engage in such behavior. And, again, of those who do, a large portion don't cover politics.

Edit: FYI, your subject heading is kind of misleading. The majority of donors identified in that study are not reporters.

[nathanziarek]

(This thread is not about donations, it is about reporter bias...just like the other thread.)

I don't think I am defending the media. Biased or not, it is mostly worthless. When's the last hard hitting news segment you saw? When is the last time the media took the time to examine and break down an issue for us ordinary folk that don't have time to investigate ourselves?

What I am fighting is this idea that conservatives are somehow persecuted by the mainstream media and have to continually lash out.

n

[mviale]

Why do republicans rule the spoken word or radio waves and democrats rule the written press and online blogs?

[spiral97]

cuz you don't have to have smarts to look good on tv or good looks to appear smart in print.

[Murffieus]

144 media members polled may not be an adequate size----but 90% is 90%----and furthermore very consistent with every other poll of this type I've seen over the past 30 years or so. Every poll I've seen idenitfies national media people as 85-90% liberal!

[Pakuni]

144 media members polled may not be an adequate size----but 90% is 90%----and furthermore very consistent with every other poll of this type I've seen over the past 30 years or so. Every poll I've seen idenitfies national media people as 85-90% liberal!

It wasn't a poll, Murff.
MSNBC researched campaign disclosure files searching for media members who donated to campaigns and came up with 144 of them.
And which poll identifies 85-90 percent of media people as liberal?

[Murffieus]

A poll is a sampling----this was a "sampling" I suppose we can split hairs.

Over the years, I have seen such samplings (polls or otherwise) and as I say they consisrently show members of the media as 85-90% liberal-----shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I asked a rather simple question that no one answered....why SHOULDN'T I believe or take the word of Walter Kronkite, Bernard Goldberg, producers from CBS, ABC, CNN, Peter Jennings, Andy Rooney, why shouldn't I believe the very people doing the reporting or putting the reporting together that claim a bias?

Seems entirely straight forward to me.

[ChicosBailBonds]

A poll is a sampling----this was a "sampling" I suppose we can split hairs.

Over the years, I have seen such samplings (polls or otherwise) and as I say they consisrently show members of the media as 85-90% liberal-----shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

One poll that is out right now...Congressional Approval at 14%....lowest ever for Gallup since they started taking that poll. 

Americans are damn pissed right now, that is for sure.  Good!!  I can think of 30 GOP Senators and about 42 Donkeys that should be cleaned out right now...unfortunately only about 25 of those 72 are up for election.  But all of the reps are up and there are several hundred that should be run out of town.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Why do republicans rule the spoken word or radio waves and democrats rule the written press and online blogs?

Simple, because it's market driven.  Talk radio lives on one thing...advertisers.  If they don't perform with ratings, they go bye bye.  Newspaper print and news divisions also operate on advertisers, but they also aren't going away if ratings tank.  There will a CBS News each night whether or not they have a 20 rating or a 5 rating.

Progressive radio has died many times over and will continue to die.  The ratings stink because there are already liberal outlets espousing their views...mainly CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc.

Conservative radio flourishes because where else are conservatives going to hear their point of view on things?  From the mainstream press?  Please.  This is why Fox and talk radio do so well becuase they are the only two modes that provide another point of view.

Market economics...simple.

[mu03eng]

I think we will use Einstien here, its all relative.

Since I'm an engineer I'm going to throw out some numbers to prove the point.


Lets imagine a scare -5 -4 -3 -2 -1  0  1  2  3  4  5, with -5 being far left( sorry someone had to be negative ) and 5 being far right.

Now lets assume that Chico's is right and the majority of media is somewhat liberal in their reporting.  We will give them a -2.

Now Chico's is maybe a 3 or a 4 on the scale, while someone like Nathan is a -3 or a -2.  A completely unbiased person (0) might report the media as being slightly liberal.  Chico's would observe it to be very liberal with a difference of 5 on the scale.  Nathan would most likely regard is as even handed.


Basically I am trying to explain that it is a double bias......potential media bias, plus viewer bias, means great differences in perception.

[spiral97]

reminds me of something a girl once told me about girls in general:

Let's say you can rate a girl's "upsetness" on a scale of 0 through 10 where 0 means she is not upset at all and 10 is the mother of all "upsetnesses" holy cow you better be somewhere else and don't come within 300 miles until it blows over... and then lets say that something happens that pushes a her "upsetness" from 0 to say 6.. and then lets say you come along and do something that pushes her "upsetness" up one notch to 7.  When that happens, you don't get "credit" for just the one notch.. no.. you get "credit" for the entire 7 notches.

[mu03eng]

Outstanding work Spiral.    I'm going to have to use that in the future.


Once had a physics teacher explain relativity this way:  Putting your hand on a hot stove for a few seconds feels like a few hours, while putting your hand on a hot girl for a few hours feels like a few seconds.  Thank god for public schools!

[ChicosBailBonds]

Outstanding work Spiral.    I'm going to have to use that in the future.


Once had a physics teacher explain relativity this way:  Putting your hand on a hot stove for a few seconds feels like a few hours, while putting your hand on a hot girl for a few hours feels like a few seconds.  Thank god for public schools!

MU Eng, you may be right.  However, if you are then it must be that most of America agrees with me.

POLLS of MEDIA PERCEPTION (How the Public Views the Media)

  Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet/Zogby Survey, 2007

In a February 20-26, 2007 survey conducted for the Politics Online Conference 2007, the George Washington University's Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet paired with Zogby Interactive to question 1,757 likely voters about their perceptions of media bias. The pollsters found "the vast majority of American voters believe media bias is alive and well," with only a tiny 11 percent of the public saying they don't think the media take political sides. And by a huge margin, the public suggested the media's bias tilts in favor of liberals, not conservatives.

KEY FINDINGS:
# The vast majority of American voters detected media bias: "83 percent of likely voters said the media is biased in one direction or another, while just 11 percent believe the media doesn't take political sides," Zogby reported.
 
# By a huge margin, most of those who saw media bias thought it favored liberals: "Nearly two-thirds of those online respondents who detected bias in the media (64 percent) said the media leans left, while slightly more than a quarter of respondents (28 percent) said they see a conservative bias."
 
# Republicans and independents both saw the media as dominated by liberals, and even some Democratic voters agreed: "While 97 percent of Republicans surveyed said the media are liberal, two-thirds of political independents feel the same....Just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed right — and 17 percent said the bias favored the left."

[Phi Iota Gamma 84]

Now that I've taken the time to read the article, I don't see it nearly as black and white as your disingenuous title states. So much for honest discourse. It is all about sensationalism, right?

 - Can we look at the 144 reporters in this sample as representative of what everyone else *might* do (but haven't)? At .1% of the reporters in the country, that's a pretty small sample size.

 - Do we care at all that some of these contributions most definitely came from reporters that have nothing to do with political reporting?

...and the nail i the coffin for me: Are we at all concerned that the liberal media is producing pieces about possible liberal bias in newsrooms? Seems like self-destructive behavior to me.

Presidential polls that represent the entire population of over 18 "likely voters routinely use around 5000 as a sample.  5000/~100,000,000 which is .005%. which by the 0.1% seems even less significant except that all of the politicians seem to take it seriously and all of the uh oh REPORTERS.  Pretty obvious your major did not require statistics

[Pakuni]

Presidential polls that represent the entire population of over 18 "likely voters routinely use around 5000 as a sample.  5000/~100,000,000 which is .005%. which by the 0.1% seems even less significant except that all of the politicians seem to take it seriously and all of the uh oh REPORTERS.  Pretty obvious your major did not require statistics

Except, once again, this was not a poll. MSNBC did not pick out 144 random journalists and study their giving habits as a sampling of the press at large. Rather, they scoured FEC disclosure reports for media workers (you can search the FEC database by employer/occupation) and out of the thousands and thousands who have given to political campaigns, they came up with 144 in the media. That's 144 out of the thousands of press workers out there. As Nathan correctly noted, that's a tiny fraction of the press that gives to political causes. And, as I said earlier, the great majority of those that have made political contributions aren't in the business of covering politics.
What was your major?

[nathanziarek]

Pretty obvious your major did not require statistics

Bit harsh!

I phrased it poorly, but Pakuni got my back. The problem is less about the sample size than about how that sample was arrived at. Even if only 144 reporters gave money to political causes, the fact that that criteria was used makes the result worthless. Or, rather, it doesn't show liberal bias in the media...it shows that of 144 reporters researched, conservative reporters are much less likely to put their money where their mouth is.

Also, there are like 300,000,000 folks in this country, which is not within the acceptable range of "~"

Pretty obvious your major didn't require Google

[ChicosBailBonds]

Pretty obvious your major did not require statistics

Bit harsh!

I phrased it poorly, but Pakuni got my back. The problem is less about the sample size than about how that sample was arrived at. Even if only 144 reporters gave money to political causes, the fact that that criteria was used makes the result worthless. Or, rather, it doesn't show liberal bias in the media...it shows that of 144 reporters researched, conservative reporters are much less likely to put their money where their mouth is.

Also, there are like 300,000,000 folks in this country, which is not within the acceptable range of "~"

Pretty obvious your major didn't require Google

Makes the results "worthless".  Good Lord....how much empirical evidence is required...how many polls are required...how many studies are required...how many direct comments from Titans like Walter Kronkite, Peter Jennings, producers at CBS, CNN, reporters like Bernard Goldberg, etc does it take? 

If reporters are putting money behind candidates and causes that should send MAJOR alarms off.  I find it hilarious that the left gets all hot and bothered about scientists that are skeptics of Global Warming and the left immediately goes into "they're funded by big oil or whatever" arguments, but when reporters are putting their own money toward liberal causes this apparently is no big deal?  Are you crapping me?  I'm sorry Nathan, but if a reporter is willing to throw $2500 toward a candidate or cause, you better bet your ass that reporter is going to make sure his money went for something that reporter believes in and something that reporter will try to sell to other voters.  The power of the pen...the power of the microphone...the power of setting the agenda.  To think otherwise shows no common sense or complete blindness to reality.  These reporters aren't giving money out and just sitting around hoping it does some good.

[Pakuni]

If reporters are putting money behind candidates and causes that should send MAJOR alarms off.  I find it hilarious that the left gets all hot and bothered about scientists that are skeptics of Global Warming and the left immediately goes into "they're funded by big oil or whatever" arguments, but when reporters are putting their own money toward liberal causes this apparently is no big deal?  Are you crapping me?  I'm sorry Nathan, but if a reporter is willing to throw $2500 toward a candidate or cause, you better bet your ass that reporter is going to make sure his money went for something that reporter believes in and something that reporter will try to sell to other voters.  The power of the pen...the power of the microphone...the power of setting the agenda.  To think otherwise shows no common sense or complete blindness to reality.  These reporters aren't giving money out and just sitting around hoping it does some good.

Chico's,

Why is it that you continue to ignore the fact that the vast majority of these "reporters" are not reporters at all? And of those that are reporters, a miniscule number cover politics?
Call me crazy, but I tend to believe that's pretty relevant when discussing this story. Why do you feel otherwise?

[nathanziarek]

Makes the results "worthless".  Good Lord....how much empirical evidence is required...

Nevermind that I superceded the "worthless" comment in the very next sentence. You may still disagree, but quit with the sensationalism already. I stopped listening to anything you say -- rational or not -- simply because you have no sense of balance. You aren't interested in expressing your view. You want to be the Rush Limbaugh of MUScoops...all anger and no sense.

[mviale]

Pakuni - chicos is searching the internet for a response to your question. Pls hold

[tonyreeder]

spell the man's name right.  Walter Cronkite

[ChicosBailBonds]

Pakuni - chicos is searching the internet for a response to your question. Pls hold

Chicos was on vacation Jet Skiing and camping for the last 4 days without a computer, cell phone, etc....you will have to forgive me for being so tardy.   

But thanks....I'll catch up to everyone's posts and respond accordingly.


Wednesday Night's Sunset from camp

[ChicosBailBonds]

If reporters are putting money behind candidates and causes that should send MAJOR alarms off.  I find it hilarious that the left gets all hot and bothered about scientists that are skeptics of Global Warming and the left immediately goes into "they're funded by big oil or whatever" arguments, but when reporters are putting their own money toward liberal causes this apparently is no big deal?  Are you crapping me?  I'm sorry Nathan, but if a reporter is willing to throw $2500 toward a candidate or cause, you better bet your ass that reporter is going to make sure his money went for something that reporter believes in and something that reporter will try to sell to other voters.  The power of the pen...the power of the microphone...the power of setting the agenda.  To think otherwise shows no common sense or complete blindness to reality.  These reporters aren't giving money out and just sitting around hoping it does some good.

Chico's,

Why is it that you continue to ignore the fact that the vast majority of these "reporters" are not reporters at all? And of those that are reporters, a miniscule number cover politics?
Call me crazy, but I tend to believe that's pretty relevant when discussing this story. Why do you feel otherwise?

#1 Not reporters at all?  Do they not still influence the news as producers, writers, etc?  Of course they do

#2 Not writers of politics....so what.  Come on Pakuni, don't be so naive because I know you're not.  Politics is everywhere, whether it's in the metro section, the business section, the cartoons or the politics pages.   If someone in the Entertainment section decides to write a story about Sean Penn, Barbara Streisand and Rosie O'Donnell about "entertainment" but then has a few paragraphs in there about their absolute hatred for conservatives or President Bush, etc, etc...are they not still influencing people despite not "writing about politics"?

Of course they are.  Come on...let's get real.  It doesn't have to be in the political section to make a political point.  I believe we see entertainers doing this all the damn time as a case in point.  We see it in the business section all the time.

Why the hell do you think the Wall Street Journal "journalists" walked out today in protest of Rupert Murdoch potentially buying the paper.  It wasn't a "political" story...but yet it sure as hell was in reality.  They don't want him to impinge on their editorial views with his...so a "business story" has a major political undertone, just as so many things do.  To deny it would be foolish.

[ChicosBailBonds]

My apologies on the spelling Tony.  Cronkite or Kronkite, he's admitted what we all already know...the media is largely liberal and leans that way.  Why people deny it is astounding.

Prevent Offense....why the change?

[Pakuni]

#1 Not reporters at all?  Do they not still influence the news as producers, writers, etc?  Of course they do

#2 Not writers of politics....so what.  Come on Pakuni, don't be so naive because I know you're not.  Politics is everywhere, whether it's in the metro section, the business section, the cartoons or the politics pages.   If someone in the Entertainment section decides to write a story about Sean Penn, Barbara Streisand and Rosie O'Donnell about "entertainment" but then has a few paragraphs in there about their absolute hatred for conservatives or President Bush, etc, etc...are they not still influencing people despite not "writing about politics"?

Of course they are.  Come on...let's get real.  It doesn't have to be in the political section to make a political point.  I believe we see entertainers doing this all the damn time as a case in point.  We see it in the business section all the time.

Why the hell do you think the Wall Street Journal "journalists" walked out today in protest of Rupert Murdoch potentially buying the paper.  It wasn't a "political" story...but yet it sure as hell was in reality.  They don't want him to impinge on their editorial views with his...so a "business story" has a major political undertone, just as so many things do.  To deny it would be foolish.

#1 -- the vast majority were not new writers either (I include news writers as reporters). Most were copy editors, features editors, critics, news anchors, etc. ... people who have almost zero influence over the content of the news sections.

#2 -- Do you really believe that an entertainment story on Sean Penn that mentions his dislike for President Bush is intended to influence the readers' politics? Now who's being naive?
The fact is, most people fortunately aren't so obsessed with politics. The vast majority of people out there don't care about Sean Penn's views of Bush. They just want to know whether his latest movie is worth a $9 admission.

#3 -- The WSJ walkout had nothing to do with Murdoch's politics. Hell, if anything the Journal is more conservative than Murdoch. What the staff at the WSJ was protesting is Murdoch's tabloid-style of journalism and their opinion that attaching his name to their publication would damage its well-earned reputation.

[Phi Iota Gamma 84]

More important than whether reporters, copy writers, etc have the ability to be impartial is that they decide what is news.  That is why Global Warming is reported on with regularity but the fact that Social Security will run out of money and will cause enormous hardship and upheaval gets scant attention. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

#1 Not reporters at all?  Do they not still influence the news as producers, writers, etc?  Of course they do

#2 Not writers of politics....so what.  Come on Pakuni, don't be so naive because I know you're not.  Politics is everywhere, whether it's in the metro section, the business section, the cartoons or the politics pages.   If someone in the Entertainment section decides to write a story about Sean Penn, Barbara Streisand and Rosie O'Donnell about "entertainment" but then has a few paragraphs in there about their absolute hatred for conservatives or President Bush, etc, etc...are they not still influencing people despite not "writing about politics"?

Of course they are.  Come on...let's get real.  It doesn't have to be in the political section to make a political point.  I believe we see entertainers doing this all the damn time as a case in point.  We see it in the business section all the time.

Why the hell do you think the Wall Street Journal "journalists" walked out today in protest of Rupert Murdoch potentially buying the paper.  It wasn't a "political" story...but yet it sure as hell was in reality.  They don't want him to impinge on their editorial views with his...so a "business story" has a major political undertone, just as so many things do.  To deny it would be foolish.

#1 -- the vast majority were not new writers either (I include news writers as reporters). Most were copy editors, features editors, critics, news anchors, etc. ... people who have almost zero influence over the content of the news sections.

#2 -- Do you really believe that an entertainment story on Sean Penn that mentions his dislike for President Bush is intended to influence the readers' politics? Now who's being naive?
The fact is, most people fortunately aren't so obsessed with politics. The vast majority of people out there don't care about Sean Penn's views of Bush. They just want to know whether his latest movie is worth a $9 admission.

#3 -- The WSJ walkout had nothing to do with Murdoch's politics. Hell, if anything the Journal is more conservative than Murdoch. What the staff at the WSJ was protesting is Murdoch's tabloid-style of journalism and their opinion that attaching his name to their publication would damage its well-earned reputation.

#1  As a former Executive Producer myself, I wholeheartedly disagree with you on so many levels.  And copy writers absolutely have influence in how they write, what to write.  Just as producers decide what makes the cutting room floor and what doesn't.  Mary Mapes anyone.

#2  Do I think is has influence...yes...that's why it's done.  Lots of America is pretty dumb.  People buy products all the time based on what star told them to buy it, to think otherwise is completely naive.  If "star power" didn't matter, then why do campaigns go to the hilt to show the endorsements of stars or use them to help their cause?  Timothy Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Michael J. Fox, etc.    It's also the steady drum beat approach of constantly pounding and pounding and pounding.

#3  Again, we will have to disagree.  The editorial side of the WSJ is fairly liberal the non-editorial side is conservative so it depends on what aspect of the paper you are talking about.  I work for a Murdoch owned company, we get the scuttlebutt daily on why organizations are doing what....this is largely about politics and control on the editorial side.


Now, back to the point....why are all of these people donating at a 90% clip to the left when the American public does so at a 42% clip....hmmm.  And why are news organizations letting them?  And why, when news organizations have a policy against it are they doing so anyway?

[ChicosBailBonds]

More important than whether reporters, copy writers, etc have the ability to be impartial is that they decide what is news.  That is why Global Warming is reported on with regularity but the fact that Social Security will run out of money and will cause enormous hardship and upheaval gets scant attention. 

DING DING DING.  We have a winner.  It's closet bias.  They decide "what is newsworthy" and how it will be portrayed and that is one of the inherent dangers with the power these people have.  Why is it that if I want information on what is going on in Iraq that I have to go to the soldiers themselves to get it rather than a one sided version coming from people that overwhelming lean in one direction?  Because they control what is reported.

[Pakuni]

#1  As a former Executive Producer myself, I wholeheartedly disagree with you on so many levels.  And copy writers absolutely have influence in how they write, what to write.  Just as producers decide what makes the cutting room floor and what doesn't.  Mary Mapes anyone.

#2  Do I think is has influence...yes...that's why it's done.  Lots of America is pretty dumb.  People buy products all the time based on what star told them to buy it, to think otherwise is completely naive.  If "star power" didn't matter, then why do campaigns go to the hilt to show the endorsements of stars or use them to help their cause?  Timothy Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Michael J. Fox, etc.    It's also the steady drum beat approach of constantly pounding and pounding and pounding.

#3  Again, we will have to disagree.  The editorial side of the WSJ is fairly liberal the non-editorial side is conservative so it depends on what aspect of the paper you are talking about.  I work for a Murdoch owned company, we get the scuttlebutt daily on why organizations are doing what....this is largely about politics and control on the editorial side.


Now, back to the point....why are all of these people donating at a 90% clip to the left when the American public does so at a 42% clip....hmmm.  And why are news organizations letting them?  And why, when news organizations have a policy against it are they doing so anyway?

#1 - Copy writers and copy editors are not the same thing. Copy writers create adverstising and brochures. Copy editors read news copy for errors and format stories to fit on a page design. Copy editors who arbitrarily remove things from or change stories do not remain employed very long.

#2 - You are confusing the issues. But let's deal with them one at a time.
First, while the presence of a celebrity at a political event can raise money/interest, there's no evidence to suggest it sways voters. This is why politicians use them -- to make money. In terms of actually winning votes, many smart people suggest it hurts candidates to have Barbara Streisand out front on your behalf far more than it helps.
Secondly, mentioning that Sean Penn visited Iraq and disagrees with President Bush for a star profile piece is not a political statement. It's a statement of who he is. No voter is going to switch parties because of Sean Penn.

#3 You're crazy if you believe the editorial side of the WSJ is remotely liberal. Nuts. Cuckoo. When is the last time you actually read a WSJ editorial?
Today's editorial page includes:
- praise of Supreme Court's school diversity ruling.
- a column by Peggy Noonan.
- a column urging the GOP to come up with a health-care plan to counter the Dems'.

Yesterday's:
- a piece critical of Canada's health-care system
- a column saying the Supreme Court's "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" ruling didn't go far enough in curbing students' speech rights
- an arts piece critical of a human-rights film festival

Pray tell, which of these qualify as liberal? I'd suggest none, which is odd for a supposedly liberal-leaning publication.

p.s. As for most of America being pretty dumb, I agree. After all, look who we elected president. Twice. Perhaps the Daily Mirror was right.

[nathanziarek]

More important than whether reporters, copy writers, etc have the ability to be impartial is that they decide what is news.  That is why Global Warming is reported on with regularity but the fact that Social Security will run out of money and will cause enormous hardship and upheaval gets scant attention. 

How is it possible that Congress, OMB, SSA, and the President's Office all have varying ideas of where SS is headed but you know without a doubt that it is running out of money? And there are have been tons of articles about SS prior to now. How long would you like the same information rehashed over and over again? Global warming is the "sexy" topic du jour, but that doesn't make it unimportant. Heck, if what the global warming folks say is right (we can start a new thread for that), it'll cause much worse hardship than only being able to pay 80% of SS benefits. That's probably why it is in the news now...

[Phi Iota Gamma 84]

A simple math lesson. 

When SS started it was only for men and the average man died in his 60's or roughly when he started to collect. 

Now everyone who paid in is eligible it has been expanded to include medical care and last year expanded again to included  prescription drugs.  (with no increases on the revenue side) You start collecting when with 20,30, or more years of life left. 

People used to regularly have large families resulting in more people paying in, it has gone from over twenty payees to collectees to a three to one ratio in the near future.

All of the parties that you reference are talking to their constituencies (re: donors) and I would not give any of the a credible rating.

You can beleive whatever makes you feel better and obviously do.

I refuse to put my head in the sand because I have a child that will be stuck with the bill.

[nathanziarek]

- There was no math in that post

- If global warming affects the entire world the way some scientists think, social security will be the least of your problems. since you aren't afraid of thinking like a doomsayer, why is it that you latch onto the awfulness that is social security but ignore any possibility of global warming?

- the SSA says that interest pays off benefits until 2017 and by 2041 the trust is broke, at which point 75-80% of benefits can still be paid through SS income. Not too mention, most folks can't live on SS income alone regardless (and since few corporation offer pensions anymore, you'll want a nice fat 401k/403b and some good investing to maintain any quality of life).

I'm not even arguing that SS isn't in trouble, but it is far from crisis. I'm also not arguing all the doomsayers on global warming are right. Both seem pretty easy to help (increase fuel efficiency standards on cars, raise the limit on SS Taxes to $200,000 for starters). But it seems silly to call the SS one a real crysis by downplaying global warming...

[Phi Iota Gamma 84]

I do not think that I was downplaying Global Warming just giving an example of how reporters choose what is news.

[nathanziarek]

fair enough -- sorry for putting words in your mouth.

Yes, someone (I still argue not reporters, but its immaterial here) chooses what is news. But they have to...they surely can't report on every thing with equal weight and time, can they? The question before us is "By what measure?". This thread implies that it is entirely by liberal agenda. I was trying to say that, in response to your SS v GWarming examle and in my limited view, global warming is the current greater threat and is being reported with an appropriate gravity, as it should be. It carries the same news weight whether it is Al Gore or Rupert Murdoch as the head spokesperson.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Simple Pakuni....look who Bush was running against.  America wasn't dumb, they chose the better of two bad candidates.

That's why America voted for Bush...twice.  If the Democrats could put someone up there didn't scare the $hit out of them every 4 years you would have a case, but they don't.  They keep going to the MoveOn, CodePink, candidates and that doesn't sit well with people.

Look, the last 3 elections the Communist Party of America, the Socialist Party of America, the ACLU, etc have all endorsed the Democratic candidate.  I'm sorry, but many people are going to be saying "anything but that".

If the Dems put up a Harry Truman, JFK, Sam Nunn type of Democrat, they would win in a landslide....do any of those Democrats exist anymore without being killed by their own party like Lieberman was?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Pakuni...I transposed my sentence about the WSJ...my apologies...the editorial is conservative and news leans liberal.

So no, I'm not crazy just typing too fast at the time and thinking faster then typing.


"One surprise is the Wall Street Journal, which we find as the most liberal of all 20 news outlets [studied]. We should first remind readers that this estimate (as well as all other newspaper estimates) refers only to the news of the Wall Street Journal; we omitted all data that came from its editorial page. If we included data from the editorial page, surely it would appear more conservative. Second, some anecdotal evidence agrees with our result. For instance, Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid (2001) note that "The Journal has had a long-standing separation between its conservative editorial pages and its liberal news pages." Paul Sperry, in an article titled the "Myth of the Conservative Wall Street Journal," notes that the news division of the Journal sometimes calls the editorial division "Nazis." "Fact is," Sperry writes, "the Journal's news and editorial departments are as politically polarized as North and South Korea."


As for the celebrity, I just totally disagree.  Yes, they are their to secure money which is a no brainer.  But there are people out there that follow these folks to ends of the earth and whatever comes out of their mouths they will do their bidding.  If they say vote for X, then these people will vote for X.  Look at some of the polling on this very topic when they ask if celebrity endorsements mean anything...it usually comes out to about 80% that say no it doesn't....guess what, for 20% it does.  That's scary but that's why they are used.  Deny it all you want, you're a smart guy as are most on this board, we don't let those endorsements influence us one way or another but for many others, it does.

And no, the UNION at the WSJ (UNION = left usually) is against Murdoch taking over the WSJ.  Do a little research.  It was the unionized journalists that walked out.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Pakuni...I was referring to electronic broadcast media (radio and television) where copy writers, producers, etc have a lot of influence.