$315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.
Posted on 07/23/2008 6:40:23 PM PDT by Zakeet
The New York Times' refusal to publish John McCain's rebuttal to Barack Obama's Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen. But true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money.
Even the Associated Press — no bastion of conservatism — has considered, at least superficially, the media's favoritism for Barack Obama. It's time to revisit media bias.
True to form, journalists are defending their bias by saying that one candidate, Obama, is more newsworthy than the other. In other words, there is no media bias. It is we, the hoi polloi, who reveal our bias by questioning the neutrality of these learned professionals in their ivory-towered newsrooms.
Big Media applies this rationalization to every argument used to point out bias. "It's not a result of bias," they say. "It's a matter of news judgment."
And, like the man who knows his wallet was pickpocketed but can't prove it, the public is left to futilely rage against the injustice of it all.
The "newsworthy" argument can be applied to every metric — one-sided imbalances in airtime, story placement, column inches, number of stories, etc. — save one. An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money 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 Barack Obama and John McCain.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
$315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.
Fair and Balanced my booty.
Faux News has gone to the dark side.
What’s up with MSNBC? Now a bunch of conservatives?
In Related News: Water is Wet!
Pray for W and Our Troops
NewsCorp execs endorsed Kerry in 2004.
In my mind I thought it was an order of magnitude smaller, more like 10:1 and this is eye opening.
What’s the source for your chart?
Why don’t you right-click on the picture and find out
It came from the original article.
But of course, media isn’t ‘biased’. If they are outspending 100:1 to dems, they are doing it at a higher rate than what they voted last time (89% dem, 11% repub) - by about a factor of 10...
"89% Voted"( for Clinton...)--
Public disclosure: Media are finally admitting their biases.
D.C. journalists favor Kerry 12 to 1: N.Y. Times informal poll confirms media lean left
Creator of 'Mr. Sterling' Admits: We TV Writers Are '99% Leftist'
Professor's Study Shows Liberal Bias in News Media
No Bias in Media, ha ha, tee hee
Just saw this on IBD; glad to see it’s already posted on FR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.