What??? Reporters are Democrats?
This would generally fall under the heading of "Top Ten Things We Already Knew."
MSNBC has published a list of reporters, TV anchors and others in the news business who have donated to Democratic or Liberal organizations, or to Republican or Conservative organizations.
It will not surprise you to find out that the D to R ratio is about 1,352,573 to 1 in favor of Democrats or Liberal causes.
I think reporters participating financially in the political process is an excellent thing
But here's what we need to think about before we go racing off into the streets in a projectile sweat:
Many of us have been opposed to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law on the grounds that a political donation is free speech and by limiting the amount and scope of donations it, effectively, limited otherwise lawful speech.
No Supreme Court Justice has ever ruled that free speech does not include the right to yell "Republican!" in a crowded Elks Club hall at an Iowa caucus.
You may also agree with me that the remedy for much of what is wrong with money in politics is ... disclosure - which is how NBC built the list of who has given what to whom.
When I write about something in which I have an interest - financial, family, whatever - I generally start out with what I call an Armstrong Williams Alert - Armstrong being the guy who was paid by the Departement of Education to say good things about the Department of Education while he was doing Conservative commentary.
Then, you can decided how to filter what I write or say.
Ok. So, we agree that we are opposed to McCain-Feingold on First Amendment grounds. We agree that disclosure solves a lot of this so the next question is: At what point does a journalist have to sign away his/her Constitutional rights a citizen to practice their craft?
If we agree political donations are guaranteed, then we have to agree they are guaranteed to everyone.
We have known for some time - through other polls - that reporters tend to be Liberals and they don't have to disclose that. We should encourage reporters to give to the political candidates and organizations of their choice - but disclose those donations which would give us a much clearer picture of which writers, producers and anchors stand where on the political spectrum.
MSNBC has published a list of reporters, TV anchors and others in the news business who have donated to Democratic or Liberal organizations, or to Republican or Conservative organizations.
It will not surprise you to find out that the D to R ratio is about 1,352,573 to 1 in favor of Democrats or Liberal causes.
I think reporters participating financially in the political process is an excellent thing
But here's what we need to think about before we go racing off into the streets in a projectile sweat:
Many of us have been opposed to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law on the grounds that a political donation is free speech and by limiting the amount and scope of donations it, effectively, limited otherwise lawful speech.
No Supreme Court Justice has ever ruled that free speech does not include the right to yell "Republican!" in a crowded Elks Club hall at an Iowa caucus.
You may also agree with me that the remedy for much of what is wrong with money in politics is ... disclosure - which is how NBC built the list of who has given what to whom.
When I write about something in which I have an interest - financial, family, whatever - I generally start out with what I call an Armstrong Williams Alert - Armstrong being the guy who was paid by the Departement of Education to say good things about the Department of Education while he was doing Conservative commentary.
Then, you can decided how to filter what I write or say.
Ok. So, we agree that we are opposed to McCain-Feingold on First Amendment grounds. We agree that disclosure solves a lot of this so the next question is: At what point does a journalist have to sign away his/her Constitutional rights a citizen to practice their craft?
If we agree political donations are guaranteed, then we have to agree they are guaranteed to everyone.
We have known for some time - through other polls - that reporters tend to be Liberals and they don't have to disclose that. We should encourage reporters to give to the political candidates and organizations of their choice - but disclose those donations which would give us a much clearer picture of which writers, producers and anchors stand where on the political spectrum.
9 Comments:
Your base conclusion that speech=money is where I differ with you. The impact of sufficient money is to drown out the speech of the opposition. Consider running against Mr. Bloomberg. Consider him spending a rather fictitious $2 billion. This is equivalent to him following you around and screaming into a bullhorn every time you try to speak.
This benefits Republicans because they have greater institutional fund raising -- absent the sort of corruption we've seen of late. But please acknowledge this for what it is, a Machivellian power grab rather than a principled position.
I'm reasonably convinced that Conservatives want an unlimited ability to spend money because they simply have more of it. The same holds for incumbents of either party.
Rich,
Money is not speech. Speech is speech, and that's why it's important that it's equally protected. Money isn't equally distributed. Speech is.
Your point about disclosure being the panacea to reporters prostituting themselves with political donations would be better taken if the disclosures were worth anything. Unfortunately, we all know how useless current disclosures are because they are so vague. The MSNBC article even said that its reporter only searched by certain occupations and that he left out a lot of broad categories that could include many other media officals. And, you only have to provide occupation information at all if your contribution is over a certain amount. So!! Disclosure means nothing to me.
But I do admire the consistency of your argument. You can't consistently scream about reporters being wrong to donate because of conservatives' position on campaign finance, but you make lemonade out of it with your disclosure position because it allows you to wave reports like this in the air and tell other conservatives that there is a liberal bias against them ... which is true. Well done! :)
Blue
Look at you blogging and everything! Congrats.
Hey Rich-
No more "Ask Mr. Mullings?"
Speech is not equally distributed. I give you, as an example or the inequality of distribution John Kennedy and George W. Bush.
Rich
I agree that it is completely and totally within every reporter's right to give $$ to whomsoever he or she wishes. I don't think disclosure is particularly helpful to the "average" person because they don't normally access that data. However, it is useful to the reporter who writes such summaries or the polling organization who does the same.
But despite the lack of specific awareness of reportorial political contributions, it's readily apparent from the low standing of the media and the significan erosion over the last year that the public is well aware of the bias.
The problem isn't the bias in their political contributions that's the problem -- it's the bias in the practice of their craft.
In a related commentary, Investors Business Daily today points out that a study by UCLA Prof Tim Gorseclose and U of Chicago Prof Jeff Milyo documented the SOURCES that reporters use for their postings. They found "very clear left-leaning bias among the mainstream outlets."
When reporters only use sources that present or agree with a particular opinion, that's slanting the news, and it violates a prime principle of objective journalism.
Speech equally distributed?
Huh?
Let's see here: Evan Coyne Maloney makes a documentary film, "Indoctrinate U", which is decidedly anti-Liberal-Establishment, and it gets no press. Michael Moore passes gas and it's a media event. Al Gore sneezes and it's worth 5,000 gushingly adoring words starting above the fold.
Which, if you think about it, is certainly salient to the topic under discussion. When the other guy has the megaphone, it's kinda hard to get your message out, particularly when, as others throughout history have not only theorized but quite thoroughly proven, the guy with the megaphone repeats his message ad nauseum to the point where it's generally accepted as received wisdom. Without regard to the truth or otherwise of the message, more's the pity.
I agree with Rich that it's okay for reporters and opinion columnists to donate to their preferred projects and candidates; I believe the point of the post is that if they choose to do so, they have a moral and ethical obligation -- though of course no legal one -- to disclose it to their readership as a matter of common courtesy.
Another assertion I find somewhat laughable is the one suggesting that Republicans have a better money mill or more at their disposal. While it's true that in general Republicans tend to raise more, it comes in smaller chunks. The R's don't have the Soros/Spielberg-type sugar daddies at their disposal -- those guys almost all belong to the Donks.
And incidentally, Scott, you did know that McCain-Feingold is also rather condescendingly referred to as "The Incumbent Protection Act", yes?
'Berg
If I go on CNBC, after I speak on a specific stock they ask me if I (my family, or my firm) own it. Then they put up a nice graphic spelling out the answer. Reporters, at a minimum, should do the same.
Blue and Scott: You may not think that speech and money are equated, but the Supreme Court disagrees with you both. In Buckley v. Valeo (1976) the majority held that spending limits "place substantial and direct restrictions on the ability of candidates, citizens, and associations to engage in protected political expression, restrictions that the First Amendment cannot tolerate."
Its very de rigueur for those of the liberal persuasion to wail and moan about the need for Justices (and nominees) of the high court to respect stare decisis in Roe v. Wade. But then they demand that the courts ignore it when it comes to campaign finance reform. You can't have it both ways.
Post a Comment
<< Home