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

[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Nevermind that I superceded the "worthless" comment in the very next sentence.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.