I've blogged about the almost universal liberal/Democrat bias in the MSM before (here and here), but William Tate put out some new, more recent numbers that I thought were very illuminating to show just how in the tank they are. As always with politics, follow the money. Check it out:
And while the money totals pale in comparison to the $9 million+ that just one union's PACs have spent to get Barack Obama elected, they are more substantial than the amount that Obama has criticized John McCain for receiving from lobbyists: 96 lobbyists have contributed $95,850 to McCain, while Obama -- who says he won't take money from PACs or federal lobbyists -- has received $16,223 from 29 lobbyists.
Individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations made the following contributions:
The point of this story is that you should take literally everything you watch, hear, or read from any MSM outlet with a giant grain of salt. It is almost guaranteed that it will have been created, written, filmed, edited, and produced by people who are unapologetic Democrat supporters. Unless they're actually doing their jobs and reporting facts (which has become something of a lost art nowadays), can we really trust much of anything they say to be objective?
The answer is, unequivocally, no.
There's my two cents.
An analysis of federal election records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 margin over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .
235 journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans -- a margin greater than 10:1. An even greater disparity, 20:1, 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 10:1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14:1 ratio.
And while the money totals pale in comparison to the $9 million+ that just one union's PACs have spent to get Barack Obama elected, they are more substantial than the amount that Obama has criticized John McCain for receiving from lobbyists: 96 lobbyists have contributed $95,850 to McCain, while Obama -- who says he won't take money from PACs or federal lobbyists -- has received $16,223 from 29 lobbyists.
Individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations made the following contributions:
NBC, NBC Universal: $104,184 to Democrats / $3,150 to Republicans
CBS: $45,508 to Dems / $966 to Republicans
ABC: $17,320 / $4,717
Turner Broadcasting, TBS: $30,161 / $3,950
Fox: $40,573 / $0
Fox News/Fox News Channel: $1,280 / $0
MSNBC: $210 / $282
CNN: $2,286 / $1,250
Associated Press: $2,550 / $545
Reuters: $10,745 / $3,450
Washington Post, Newsweek: $4,268 / $0
New York Times, NYT Co: $8,143 / $0
Time, Inc: $40,988 / $4,850 ($2,300 to Republicans was from someone identified as a jeweler, so the total may actually be $2,550)
Time Magazine: $1,250 / $0
USA Today: $6,067 / $0
Totals for the above:
$315,533 to Democrats ; $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 above 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 (4 individuals who donated to McCain.)
Let me repeat that: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans.
A ratio of 100 : 1.
No bias there.
The answer is, unequivocally, no.
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment