Editors, writers and Google employees load Obama up with campaign donations
By KBDay Posted in Elections — Comments (26) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Popular opinion holds that mainstream media and Web content lean Democratic, and a cursory look at campaign donations by professionals lends weight to that opinion. Even without figures, it’s easy to compare story lines for the candidates. Sen. Barack Obama spends 20 years in a church led by a pastor who damns America from the pulpit and media accepts the senator’s explanation he didn’t hear words of hate during the whole time he attended the church. But former senator Phil Gramm mentions whining, and the media not only takes his comments out of context, they make it sound like he stomped on a puppy. Media overwhelmingly want sunshine in government, even on classified military situations. But media is not so accommodating when it comes to in-house sunshine.
I spent part of this morning using an interactive tool at The Orlando Sentinel. The tool allows you to look up campaign donations by profession, by name, by employer and by just about any other search term applicable. I admit this isn't a scientific study, but I used identical search terms for each candidate. I posted the full chart showing my findings at The US Report, but I’m new at the Red State blog and I’m not quite sure how to incorporate a graphic (or even if I am permitted to) here. But there are some comparisons worth noting, based on figures from the Federal Election Commission for donations during the first 3 quarters of 2007. The figures reflect donations from professionals who either work as employees or are self-employed in each field. Figures cited here are a snapshot of all the figures on the chart.
Writers love Obama. They gave him almost a million dollars—$932,885. McCain got some writerly love—he received $84, 376 from this group.
Journalists are also fond of Obama, donating $63,460 to him. McCain got $2,800 from journalists. That’s the most troubling figure for me, because journalists shape the story narrative the public hears, sees or reads.
Editors, like journalists, also heart Obama. Editors gave the Illinois junior senator $147,871. To McCain editors donated $14,665.
Even marketing types prefer to send their bucks to Obama, with public relations professionals sending him $92,983. McCain received $35,105.
One of the most astonishing search results related to the Web. Google employees appear to be wild about Obama, donating $135,230 to his campaign. They donated $4,350 to McCain. Yahoo employees followed their Google brethren, bestowing $29,459 on Obama and $2,300 on McCain. Those of us who have a tendency to distrust may wonder why conservative sites sometimes take so long to locate.
Last year I spoke to a group of college students about writing. One young woman asked me about ethics. My exact words were, “Journalism has no ethics at present.”
When I decided to go public with my support for McCain, I deliberately stopped writing straight news for two clients. I posted a disclosure at my blog. Anyone presenting news as straight news should do the same so the reader understands exactly where a writer or journalist’s sentiments fall. Not a single professional organization is addressing this issue right now and I can make that statement because I belong to many, including those that require vetting.
Next time you see Obama get a pass for something like calling regular Americans bitter and projecting them as gun-toting religious nuts, or next time you see McCain taken to task over something as minute as an out-of-context, hyperbolic statement by an economic adviser, remember these figures, and I’ll throw a few more in from another source as well.
In October, 2007, the Committee for Concerned Journalists called attention to a study undertaken by The Project for Excellence in Journalism. The study compared campaign coverage of each candidate. At that time, results indicated of all stories related to Obama, 46.7 percent were positive and 15.8 percent were negative. Of all stories run on Sen. John McCain, 12.4 percent were positive and 47.9 percent were negative.
Media truly does heart Obama, not only with ink and pixels but with dollars as well.
Surely that is out of a question scenario.
That's why it's better for the Republicans and Conservatives to talk and discuss with the communities and directly explain to them the issues - something that the Obamabots and MSM will not have any chance to distort.
Low-cost flyers and "not streamers" the expose who Obama really is especially in the rural America should be disseminated.
That's what we should do.
All these scumbag so called 'journalists', 'googlers' need to be put in jail.
Yes, let's jail people for donating to political candidates.
That'll go over REALLY well.....
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.85
Da** the Bill of Rights and full steam ahead!
Seriously, you're either asking for the Fairness Doctrine, or limits on personal campaign financing. Not sure how much support you're gonna get for that.
Faux news!
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.85
I remember when there was NO Fox, NO internet, and NO talk radio. Conservatives and libertarians had exactly nothing in the mainstream media.
zero, zilch, NADA/
How did you get our message out? Books, flyers(who remembers the TRIM report?), direct mail, and we were the first to use office fax machines as a way to get out our little newsletters.
compared to the old days we are living in the lap of luxury.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
No Internet?
No INTERNET?
*starts trembling* I thought I had repressed those memories...
...
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.85
I hope the McCain camp shall consider flyers (inexpensive ones) to be distributed during townhall meetings.
I'd rather think the faux news comin' from the other camp, considering the data. :)
I am absolutely not asking for the Fairness Doctrine--that is a completely different issue. I am simply asking for disclosure. If you write straight news and you're covering a candidate, how can you possibly be objective if you've donated to a campaign, an act that not only requires commitment but opening your wallet?
Right now media is shaping a narrative and it is amazingly one-sided. Even Harvard's study reflected that media leans left.
Despite what they say in journalism school, there is no such thing as an unbiased report.
There will ALWAYS be bias. As the majority of journalists are liberals, the bias will be to the left. If the majority were conservatives, it'd be to the right.
100 years from now, people will look back and see this rabidly leftist media and they'll write history based off of it.
However, that makes me wonder... when we look back 100 or so years, what history have we written based off of journalistic bias?
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.85
to pieces. Historians are not kind to the biased and yellow journalists of yesteryear. Even one of their own, the once influential Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. has been attacked for his slavish devotion to the Kennedy administration.
Especially modern history which has become very critical of every minute detail.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I don't know.
The Civil War comes to mind.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.85
type of history. For years it was taught one way, pretty much just from the point of view of the Northern States with a small nod to Confederate tenacity and war prowess.
But in the last thirty years the much more complex view has emerged which shows that much of the war sentiment in the North was naked greed and aggression. And the little known and glossed over events like the Draft Riots and the suspension of Habeas Corpus are now explored in detail. As is the roll of the press in both the North and South in stirring up war sentiment.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I'm going through a US history course right now.
On the section regarding the Civil War, it sometimes referred to "North" and "South" though it said that those are not accurate terms, given the geogrphy of the United States today and refered to them as "Slave" and "Free" states.
I do give the book this credit though. They at least noted that 7 states left firest, then 4 left months later. Though, it didn't say why.
I've read worse history books, but I wouldn't call this one fair and balanced.
The problem is, it has taken nearly 150 years for the other side to come out. How long will it take before President Bush is vindicated?
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.85
I am not saying all these books are good, I am saying that now there are arguments and good scholarship. Before, there was very little room for argument with the "accepted narrative".
If you really want to read some good stuff on the civil war, read Shelby Foote
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
we wholly agree.
Unfortunately, students do not get to pick their history book of choice.
ESPECIALLY true in grade school.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.85
that nasty, devisive "yellow journalism" died. Afterall, it was all the news that was "fit to print."
Support libertarian Republicans here and here.
www.rlc.org
www.fairtax.org
My reply was to the criminalization of the donation.
But I'll respond anyway. Disclosure? Like that campaign contributions are public record? Or do you suggest something like:
"And now, this story from Bob Smith, who contributed to the campaign of Hillary Clinton."
"Thanks Cheryl, who contributed to the campaign of Barack Obama."
Many news organizations already require that their reporters do not contribute to campaigns. The ones that don't, stop watching/reading them and let others know. I don't think this requires government intervention (but what do I know, I think very little requires government intervention).
Still new here. Just realized thread setup. Reply below. And note, I don't see this as criminalization--that's way overkill. I see it as simple ethics.
The last thing I want is government intervention. The less gov the better. What I want is some nod to ethics by media and Web conglomerates. It's so easy. One option is for a writer to tag your article the way I do with a disclosure you've donated to a campaign. Another less intrusive and less personal option is to simply have a running tally on site (for Web concern or media concern) with total dollars donated by employees under each candidate's name. That latter would actually constitute very attractive content in my opinion.
With some concerns and publications, it's obvious where the politics fall. With others it's not.
I don't see this as a government issue. I see it as an issue of conscience.
It's really quite simple. Why make it complicated?
I think your findings are worthwhile. They seem to support the surveys that show nine out of ten "journalists" (of all kinds) are Liberal--one in ten is Conservative.
To keep this going, re-post it on the new site.
Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!
Um. I thought this was new site? Explain? Thanks--Kay
We wonder why nothing sticks to Obama.