Face it, there’s a liberal bias in mainstream media. The actions of the New York Times this week in publishing an editorial for their darling, Barack Obama, while initially refusing to do so for John McCain is just the latest evidence. In addition, McCain is getting the standard election-cycle treatment by the media, enjoying 1 minute of coverage for every 3 minutes for Obama… to say nothing of the fact that much of that single minute is negative coverage to boot.

Of course, the liberal media defends itself with claims that the “liberal” charge is merely an unsubstantiated rightwing talking point. They also casually dismiss the charges by claiming Obama is simply “more newsworthy“. They want us to think that Obama’s “historic” campaign is the bias-neutral reason for the slanted coverage, yet the coverage has been slanted for many campaign cycles, so there’s got to be another reason. Unfortunately for them, it’s the reason that undermines the credibility of their profession. Bias, plain and simple.

- 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.

- 235 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.

- 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-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.

- Discounting contributions to Paul and 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 (four individuals who donated to McCain) - a ratio of 100-to-1.

And it’s not even like the Democrat candidates need these overwhelmingly lopsided campaign contributions, because the very people making such donations are responsible for providing hours and hours of free, positive campaign coverage for the candidates anyway.

It’s not bias… it’s, it’s… deliverance!

1. A couple of years ago a study came out of UCLA(?) citing that 90% of the major news outlets had a left leaning bias, and the remaining 10% leaned right. Not a surprise to most people. CNN had a peice on the story, and guess what major media outlet they chose to highlight in the piece? Fox news. They chose the 10% as a demonstration of bias in the media, instead of choosing themselves, or any other member of the super-super-majority (near consensus).

   Comment by thegentlecricket — 6:51 am
   

2. […] UPDATE: A couple of our liberal friends have emailed with the usual (yet completely wrong) tripe about the MSM being completely unbiased and neutral. Sorry to disappoint you guys with the facts (again), but here’s what MSNBC President Phil Griffin had to say about the political ideology of his network last year (h/t Ed): Officials at MSNBC emphasize that they never set out to create a liberal version of Fox News. […]

   Pingback by Texas Rainmaker » Change is a Comin’… — 8:01 am
   

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

You must be logged in to post a comment.