MSNBC just tried to end the careers of 144 journalists

[Newsjock]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455

The following 144 journalists made campaign contributions from 2004 through the first quarter of 2007, according to Federal Election Commission records studied by MSNBC.com.

excerpts -- names redacted by me
D) Star Tribune, Minneapolis, xxx, copy editor.
(D) Detroit Free Press, xxx, copy editor.
(R) The Miami Herald, xxx, copy editor/page designer.
(D) The San Diego Union-Tribune, xxx, copy editor.
(D) The Sun, Baltimore, xxx, copy editor.
(D) San Jose Mercury News, xxx, sports editor.
(D) Boston Herald, xxx, news librarian.
(D) Fort Worth Star-Telegram, xxx, sports copy editor.
(D) The Hartford Courant, xxx, copy editor.
(D) The Hartford Courant, xxx, copy editor.
(D) Richmond Times-Dispatch, xxx, copy editor.
(D) The Honolulu Advertiser, xxx, wire editor.
(D) The Blade, Toledo, xxx, copy editor.
(D) Lexington Herald-Leader, xxx, copy desk chief.
(D) The Lincoln, Neb., Journal Star, xxx, copy editor.
(R) The Macon, Ga., Telegraph, xxx, local government reporter.
(D) New Hampshire Union Leader, xxx, sports copy editor.
(D) York, Pa., Daily Record, xxx, copy editor.
(D) Fort Wayne, Ind., News-Sentinel, xxx, copy editor.
(D) Fort Wayne, Ind., News-Sentinel, xxx, copy editor.
(D) Martha's Vineyard, Mass., Times, xxx, copy editor.

Accompanying story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485

---

If ever there were a reason to get out of the business now, this witch hunt on the part of MSNBC is it. Reading this made me tingle with revulsion over how similar this is to a "communist" witch hunt. Even if such donations are "wrong" -- and, at most news organizations, they are -- spotlighting these very minor people in a national forum is hugely out of proportion to the alleged "crimes" they've committed. Most, if not all, of these people will find themselves unemployed because of this one article -- and, thanks to "the Google," chances are that their entire journalism careers have just ended forever, without so much as a whimper.

[atreides1]

1. Why Are their Jobs Threatened????

Unless they've done something wrong or unethical?

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. Some news organizations prohibit the political activity of their journalists

Something about appearing unbiased.

[MonkeyFunk]

14. well

if anybody on that list knew that such donations could cost them their jobs, they're idiots for contributing. Political campaign contributins are NOT secret, they're not personal, they're not private. They're a matter of public record.

[roguevalley]

71. anyone prohibiting the full franchise of any american regardless

of their 'job' is a nazi fuck. this is against the law. no one can fire them for this without the severest of penalties. dan rather told press once that he was a democrat and this was years ago. no problem.

[Morgana LaFey]

90. against what law?

sorry, but it ain't. You may be right in your sentiment (and I tend to agree with you), but people can be fired for almost any reason -- or no reason. Just not race, religion, gender, etc.

[Iris]

53. Do you have a source for that? Is it in the link of the OP?

Because in many professions (such as teaching), people need to appear unbiased in the workplace. You can learn to be unbiased when circumstances require it.

[EVDebs]

61. But the ownership can have all the 'free speech' it wants ? nt

[eridani]

92. Apparently nobody has problems with Murdoch raising big bux for Clinton n/t

[Cleita]

70. That actually makes me laugh considering how biased most

of them are while wearing their journalist hats. Also, I thought that they weren't supposed to show bias on the job, not that they couldn't support the politicians and political parties of their choice in their private lives.

Of course this goes back to my pique about employers being able to dictate what their employees could wear or do in their private lives. I hope those journalists band together for the biggest class action suit ever against them.

[tbyg52]

84. That's ridiculous

They should not give up their First Amendment rights AS PRIVATE CITIZENS because of their job. Ministers don't--they can say anything they want as long as they don't support candidates from the pulpit. I don't see any difference.

[fed-up]

39. witch hunt here-127 Dems on list---19 Repukes (2 had both D&R by name) nt

[MonkeyFunk]

76. Do you have evidence

that they left omitted some donations to Republicans? It's public information - do you think they skewed the numbers?

[OilemFirchen]

85. Do we know what criteria they used?

In a word, no.

They included contributions from staff at Rolling Stone, but not Investor's Business Daily (as far as we know).

RS doesn't hide their ideological slant, but IBD does.

Moreso, they mixed and matched reporters with opinion writers, for a start. Joe Scarborough donated to a puggie? Qu'ell surprise!

[MonkeyFunk]

86. well

it's public information.

I'm personally not surprised at the results. If you think they deliberately skewed the data, it's available for anyone to search.

[OilemFirchen]

87. Lemme try again.

Do you think that they scoured the FEC records for every single staff member of every single media outlet in the country? Did they not find anyone at Bean Soup Times who donated? What about the Washington Times? Weekly Standard? Howsabout the staff of The 700 Club?

You say the data are available? Really? What data?

[MonkeyFunk]

89. campaign contributions

are public.

http://www.opensecrets.org/


You're free to do your own research if you think MSNBC deliberately skewed theirs.

[OilemFirchen]

98. So what?

Part of the data is freely available. What about the rest?

Let's see if a simple analogy does the trick:

Fart Brothers issues a study stating that, according to Crayola experts, bleu cheese smells worse than Joe Montana's socks. And they publish the results, for anyone to see. Moreso, they link to the publicly accessible Olfactory Index, comprised of tens of thousands of contributions, to bolster their claim - with a representative sample of 144.

So what?

What methodology did they use to choose participants? How many participants? Who are Crayola experts? Manufacturers? Scientists? Toddlers? Graphic artists? And how do we know they included every Crayola expert? Did they omit crayon eaters out of sloth or intentionally?

There may well be a "liberal" "bias" in "the media" - in fact, I'd be surprised to find that, among the writers at least, there isn't one, insofar as news gathering and reporting require logic, open-mindedness, and nuance - all traits of "liberalism". Of course, that doesn't indicate anything "politically".

Of much more import, this "report" doesn't even begin to address what is, at best, a non-sequitur. It's crap reporting by a crap journalist, on crap data, meant to elicit crap opinions from people full of crap.

[aikoaiko]

2. News people hate being turned into news stories.

Sorry, but when do unto others, be prepared to be done to.

[qdemn7]

95. Bingo...

You hit the nail right on the head. Journalists don't mind turning every other living human being into a news story, but they think they themselves ought to be immune.

[RebelOne]

3. I am a copy editor and I do not consider myself a journalist.

Copy editors do not contribute stories to the papers. They just correct grammar, spelling, punctuation and do a bit of rewriting..

[aquart]

8. Anyone who can alter an adjective ...

Can alter the entire direction of a story. Stop being disingenuous.

[RebelOne]

36. Exactly, what is your point?

I will repeat -- a copy editor is not considered a journalist. We are glorified proofreaders.

[gatorboy]

47. The copy editors I know are more worried about the AP stories fitting the space they're given.

Considering that ads generally get more prerogative in most papers compared to national news stories. Plus, I don't think people realize how rough newspaper deadlines are. Copy editors wouldn't even have the time to be judgemental about stories even if they wanted to. ;)

[Oeditpus Rex]

78. If that's all you think your job is

you're in the wrong business.

(Said the former copy editor.)

[Iris]

54. Just as anyone can be trained to recognize bias in his or someone else's writing. n/t

[AngryOldDem]

69. And, they often fact-check

Seasoned copy editors are some of the most intelligent people I have ever met. Their recall for detail is amazing, as is their insistence on the truth, with no embellishment of said facts. During my copy desk years at a Midwestern newspaper, I saw many tugs-of-war between copy desk folks and other editors/reporters when the copy desk called them on their bullshit and made them (the reporters and editors) rewrite or completely take out stuff that was questionable. More often than not, the copy desk won.

And another poster is right. When you have a hard deadline breathing down your neck, you really don't have the time to play games. And I know, for a fact, that NONE of my former colleagues would ever do so.

[Oeditpus Rex]

79. Thank you (n/t)

[librechik]

72. exactly--they have nothing to do with content!

Imagine the scremas if a copy editor tried to insiert some ideology into a story she was editing!

THAT would get her fired!

Besides, it's not illegal (or even unethical, provided they keep their politics personal) for journalists to contribute to campaigns. Period.

[pearl]

4. MSNBC is up to it's neck in conflict of interest

Joe Scarborough's attendance and in background crowd at one of W's staged events.
Chris Matthews republican brother running for office as a repuke in PA.
Of course they are permanently filthy for their involvement and association with
Timmie Russert. Oh My God, They are covered in blood for their many failures and
complicity. :puke:

[Kerrytravelers]

45. ANd NBC is owned by GE, a major war profiteer in our current occupation.

[Lex]

48. Absolutely. Something the media NEVER brings up

and should, imho.

[OzarkDem]

50. Doing the GOP's dirty work

by putting pressure on the news media to stay in line.

[wtmusic]

68. And MS has had their monopolistic exploits kid-gloved

by the Justice Dept...it's a menahge ah twa!

:hi:

[rainbow4321]

81. They should have to do a disclaimer...

much like they do when MSNBC does report on Microsoft--they add "as a reminder, MSNBC is owned in part by Microsoft".
Ok, so the next report that NBC/MSNBC does on chimp's war "as a reminder, GE, our parent company, has a contract with the Pentagon".

This website needs to be shown more:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/pns/list.aspx?act=dir

Shows just how many of US corporations are in bed w/ chimp and his war.

Just a handful that one wouldn't think about:

Kellogg/Keebler
Nestle USA
PepsiCo Inc
Procter & Gamble
General Mills

[Kerrytravelers]

82. Thanks for that link. It came in very handy today.

There are still people who don't understand the connection between corporate owned media and the ability to receive fair and impartial information from journalists.

[gollygee]

5. They include sports copy editors in the list?

Do they think donating to a particular candidate makes them biased when they work on editing the copy of a sports story?

[Benhurst]

6. What about Tim Russert's on air contributions to the Republicans

and the Bush Crime Family?

Oh, well. As if this were still a free country anyway.

BushAmerica, goose-stepping its way into a brave new world.

[lonestarnot]

12. Yeah how bout that timmy.

[MonkeyFunk]

7. LOL

it's not a witch hunt. Campaign contributions are public knowledge, and rightly so. These journalists never had ANY expectation that their donations would be kept private.

There's nothing wrong whatsoever with reporting this.

[originalpckelly]

9. If you're going to be a political journalist, you have to accurately label yourself.

That's the problem here, Republicans and Democrats in news organizations have no right to present themselves as straight news reporters solely interested in the truth and not the truth which supports their political views.

Journalism must be objective, it must be as objective as science, as it and science are both the pursuit of truth, even politically inconvenient truth. Good journalists serve as society's bullshit-detection-meter, they check the slanted claims of either party.

The problem with American cable news journalism is that channels feel the need to always have on pundits with contradictory positions on a matter, when they're real job is to do investigations and research to find the truth, even when one side doesn't like it.

We the people must know the truth as best it can be found.

[Az]

16. Unfortunately today its the truth as best can be felt

Post modernism has turned on itself and blinded itself.

This is the failing of the post modern ethos. The idea of post modernism is that it gives everyone a say at the table of society. The idea being that everyone comes together to converse and exchange ideas in the hopes that everyone can learn from each other. But in practice what has happened is dialog at the table has fallen silent and everyone dropped back to their individual camps and fought over rights with everyone having a say. In the end the largest group will hold forth unchallenged because no one cares about pursuing the truth. Only about pursuing the truth they feel is the truth.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. Let's not confuse journalism with the journalist.

I think it's quite possible for a journalist with a bias (and they all humans have them - it's unreasonable to expect people not to) to provide unbiased JOURNALISM.

[originalpckelly]

22. True, but is it very likely?

[MonkeyFunk]

25. Yes

I think ALL journalists throughout history have had biases, and the good ones kept them unknown.

[marions ghost]

52. Right exactly

I know something about journalists, having 4 reporters in the family over the years. All of them are hardcore liberals. But you would be hard-pressed to find bias in their writing, so strong is the belief in the submerging of ones own perspective in favor of the truth about the story. People who are more openly opinionated find this professional distancing maddening at times. But a news reporter is receptive rather than active, has to make him/herself a weathervane.

I really see nothing wrong with journalists contributing to campaigns. They shouldn't participate in campaigns but small contributions should be allowed. Certainly nobody should lose their jobs. If many of those on the list do, I would call it a witch-hunt.

[BurtWorm]

10. I like this guy's reaction. It would be mine as well.

(D) MTV News, Gideon Yago, "Choose or Lose" presidential correspondent, $200 to Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark in January 2004; $500 to America Coming Together, which campaigned against President Bush, in September 2004; $250 to the Democratic National Committee in September 2004; $250 to VoteVets, which is running ads against the president's handling of the war, in March 2006, and $250 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in October 2006. He said he is no longer at MTV News.

Gideon Yago, raw:

"I don't understand. Things that I do as a private citizen?

"We're not a traditional news network in the sense of NBC or Fox or CBS.

"We're sensitive about equal time or fairness. We're non-biased.

"I mean, what the f---, man?

"I came back from doing coverage in Iraq and was very moved by what I saw. I was never told by my boss or anyone that we couldn't give to a campaign.

"I'm not a journalist now. Writing fiction.

"I would never qualify what we do as journalism. Ninety percent of what we did was simple identification, after 9/11: Who is Rumsfeld? Who is Colin Powell? Who is Al Qaeda?

"I try to call it as you see it.

"After my second trip to Iraq in 2004, I felt the conventional news media was not doing a good enough job of conveying the horrors and the failures of the war in Iraq.

"At 18 I was a registered Republican. At 24, I was a registered Democrat.

"I tried very hard — our job was not an indoctrination process — I tried to be as professional as possible whenever possible.

"We were a non-traditional news outlet. We were nonpartisan.

""OK, I've been rebuked. Thank you for spanking me in public.

"Do you hand in all your rights as a public citizen when you do this?

"I mean — who's your editor? I'm going to call him right now."


<Are we supposed to think this is a 60 minutes moment, with some sleazy crook caught red-handed? And the asshole who wrote this story worked at CJR?!>

[dkofos]

11. Is this even illegal?? Don't these people have a right to give money

to candidates they want elected?

Whats all the fuss??

[MonkeyFunk]

15. No

it's perfectly legal.

And it's public information, and MSNBC did a story on it.

Personally, I think it's rather foolish for a journalist to give partisan contributions, but they're certainly free to do so, and MSNBC is perfectly free to report it.

[BurtWorm]

17. Actually, some organizations prohibit reporters from making contributions

or engaging in political activity. It's not illegal, but it is, unfortunately and hypocritically enough, against corporate rules at some media orgs. (Fox News, interestingly enough, doesn't ban political contributions.)

[annabanana]

19. Of course not... Journalists are still citizens.. the trick is for them

keep their private proclivities from distorting their reporting of the facts..
(note: "REPORTING")
If the person in question is a pundit, or other opinionator, then it is vital to make sure that these proclivities are clearly announced.

It's too bad that there is no general understanding of the difference between the two jobs anymore.

[UTUSN]

18. You beat me to the thread. Just spent 20 min. copying & pasting

But just curious: Why redact the names?

And I wish this "investigative reporter" would investigate how to write a story that delivers the information forthrightly instead of dragging it out to three pages with teases and blind items (to be unblinded much later in the story). He can't even pick a format that makes The List easily readable. Heck, I'm going to paste my 20 min.

*******QUOTE*******

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/

Journalists dole out cash to politicians (quietly)
News organizations diverge on handling of political activism by staff

By Bill Dedman
Investigative reporter
MSNBC


BOSTON - A CNN reporter gave $500 to John Kerry's campaign the same month he was embedded with the U.S. Army in Iraq. An assistant managing editor at Forbes magazine not only sent $2,000 to Republicans, but also volunteers as a director of an ExxonMobil-funded group that questions global warming. A junior editor at Dow Jones Newswires gave $1,036 to the liberal group MoveOn.org and keeps a blog listing "people I don't like," starting with George Bush, Pat Robertson, the Christian Coalition, the NRA and corporate America ("these are the people who are really in charge"). ....

MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

The donors include CNN's Guy Raz, now covering the Pentagon for NPR, who gave to Kerry the same month he was embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq; New Yorker war correspondent George Packer; a producer for Bill O'Reilly at Fox; MSNBC TV host Joe Scarborough; political writers at Vanity Fair; the editor of The Wall Street Journal's weekend edition; local TV anchors in Washington, Minneapolis, Memphis and Wichita; the ethics columnist at The New York Times; and even MTV's former presidential campaign correspondent. ....

Giving to candidates is allowed at Fox, Forbes, Time, The New Yorker, Reuters — and at Bloomberg News, whose editor in chief, Matthew Winkler, set the tone by giving to Al Gore in 2000. Bloomberg has nine campaign donors on the list.

Donations and other political activity are strictly forbidden at The Washington Post, ABC, CBS, CNN and NPR. ....

One of the Springsteen fans appears to be a blogging editor at Dow Jones, Samuel J. Favate Jr., who gave $1,036 to America Coming Together in 2004. He didn't return phone calls. Favate rewrites press releases for Dow Jones Newswires in New Jersey, which may explain his views that corporate America is "really in charge." On his personal blog, Favate rails against the Iraq war, for gun control and for a tax audit of Christian psychologist James Dobson. After MSNBC.com left him a message asking about the blog and his donation, Favate's name disappeared from the blog. A previous blog listed Favate's "people I don't like," starting with George Bush. ("You can be sure that I will be adding to this list from time to time, so try not to piss me off.") That blog went dark the day after MSNBC.com called. ....



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455/

The list: Journalists who wrote political checks
And their explanations, from ‘Yikes!’ to ‘They’re all in somebody’s pocket’

The following 144 journalists made campaign contributions from 2004 through the first quarter of 2007, according to Federal Election Commission records studied by MSNBC.com.

Key:

(D) contributed to Democrats or liberal causes.

(R) to Republicans and conservative causes.

Click on "details" next to each name to see the amounts and what the journalists have to say.



.... (R) Fox News Channel, Ann Stewart Banker, producer for Bill O'Reilly's "The O'Reilly Factor." Click for details.

(D) Fox News Channel, Codie Brooks, researcher for Brit Hume's "Special Report." Click for details.

(D) Fox affiliate in Omaha, KPTM, Calvert Collins, reporter. Click for details.

(D) Fox affiliate in Minneapolis, KMSP, Alix Kendall, morning anchor. Click for details.

(D) Fox affiliate in Washington, D.C., WTTG, Laura Evans, anchor. Click for details.


(R) MSNBC, Joe Scarborough, host of "Morning Joe" and "Scarborough Country." Click for details. ....

********UNQUOTE*******

[BurtWorm]

24. Hendrik Hertzberg!

(D) The New Yorker, Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor, $2,000 to John Kerry in three payments in 2004. Hertzberg often writes the Comment in the front of the magazine, and was a speechwriter for Jimmy Carter.

Hertzberg, in answer to the question whether he made these donations, sent this reply: "Damn right."

:toast:

[BurtWorm]

20. This actually shocks me.

(R) PBS affiliate in New York, Thirteen/WNET, Rafael Roman, host of "New York Voices," $250 to President Bush in July 2004, and $300 to Republican Sen. John Thune of South Dakota the same month.

"I wouldn't do it again, quite frankly," said Roman, a former news anchor for WNET. "At that time it seemed to me that it wasn't part of a story that I was covering in the future. I would say, now, no. Even if you're not covering something, you might at some point. Citizenship is an important responsibility that's not taken away by the job you do, but I wouldn't do it again."


If you live in the NYC area, you know who he is and he does not seem like the kind of idiot who would have given money to Bush or John Thune in 2004.

:wtf:

PS: But who gives a shit what he does in his private life. He usually keeps up a convincingly noncommital front in his day job.

[Norquist Nemesis]

23. It's not illegal. HOWEVER, it promotes the idea that the media

is a bunch of biased Liberal socialists with an agenda. It wouldn't occur to me to do research into the copy editor for sports or the copy desk chief of any newspaper, find out their name and then plug them into opensecrets to find out who/how much they financially supported a politician. What's next? The teachers in schools? Here's an idea...let's plug in all of the preachers, priests, reverends, ministers AND the church secretaries, elders, youth leaders and see how they donated!

They've taken a group of people and are trying to paint them with a bias based on...nothing. What's the point of this research? What is MSNBC trying to say?

Shame on MSNBC.

On a side note, yesterday Wolfie (CNN) did the tease about Pres. Carter's comments by saying, "Is he siding with Hamas?" I'm not kidding!

[MonkeyFunk]

26. If the results had shown

all the donations going to republicans, I suspect many people here would be applauding the publication of this story.

There's nothing wrong with reporting the truth.

[Norquist Nemesis]

33. Oh, please. There is a point to this story

SOMETHING or someone proposed the idea, "Hey! How about if we look up the political contributions of people who work at newspapers. Wouldn't that be fun?"

There was a question or premise put forward to "the story" that cause them to spend time and money doing the research. Truth? Sure! But what was the "truth" they were trying to find?

They could have just as easily presented the findings of this research without publishing the names and donations. "We researched political donations of journalists from X newspapers from across the country. Of these X% donated to Democrats or known Liberal interest groups, X% to Republicans or known Conservative interest groups, and X% were mixed. Donations ranged from $XXX up to $XXX."

There was a point to publishing the individual names and donations.

[MonkeyFunk]

91. Yes, there was a point

it was to be accurate and complete.

Look, this is old news. Journalists have always given more to Dems than Republicans - this has been known for years. Journalists also know that their campaign contributions are a matter of public record.

I just can't get exercised over somebody reporting this.

[dogday]

27. It does show that a majority of these people are Democrats

and have donated to Democratic causes and Candidates....

[Norquist Nemesis]

34. Exactly. Was that just luck?

Or does it further the "Liberal media bias" meme.

[dogday]

40. Does it really matter what they are, because it is not

them, it is the MSM, the owners of the station that set the agenda for the news... Maybe they are just tired of their crap and are doing what they can as individuals to make things right?

[Norquist Nemesis]

46. No, it doesn't. Hmmm...maybe it was the station owners

that decided to put full disclosure on the internet instead of a summary of findings.

[RogueSpirit]

41. This can go both ways, no?

Didn't Rush get his start as a sports journalist that was allowed to opine?

[Norquist Nemesis]

44. Absolutely!

I'd be saying the same thing regardless of which way it came out (though, admittedly, I'd simultaneously be poking a stick at the Cons who tout the "Liberal Media"). The point isn't which way 'journalists' came down on their giving. The same information could have been provided in a form that did not publish the exact detals of the dataset.

Now, what do think think the Freepers and LGF maniacs are going to do with this information?

[RogueSpirit]

57. i agree, Everyone has an opinion...

And people are certainly free to donate to whoever supports their opinion. The real test of a good journalist is whether or not they can write an unbiased story without injecting their opinion into it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. Why would disclosing public records end anyone's career?

:shrug:

[KansDem]

29. Hmmm..."editors," "reporters," "critics," "writers,"...

Where are the CEO's names? Senor management? The owners? The people who make the decisions of what's news and what isn't...

As long as we're revealing the rank and file of American news journalism, let's include all members of the Fourth Estate.

[dkofos]

35. Indeed

[merh]

38. Good point.

Let's get all the information about donations to campaigns and financial support to parties.

It's about support from the top down and the support of agendas. It's not about the little guys pennies, they don't make or shape policy, they just follow the rules given.

[robinlynne]

65. right on.

[gkhouston]

77. but we're not trying to intimidate them.

Yet.

[Marr]

30. That's just wrong.

Food writer? Page designer? These people don't deserve to be punted around in the national media. I don't care what party or causes they're contributing to- it goes for Republicans and Democrats alike.

If they're some kind of political analyst, then sure- it's worth pointing out. And if they've broken the rules they agreed to upon accepting the job, then fire them- but printing their names like that is inappropriate.

[OHdem10]

31. What about all the Republican Owned Newspapers

and naturally the editorial pages support Republicsn
office holders and editors write positively about
Republican Office holers and Republican Presidents.

On the Local Level, many many newspapers across the
country are in this situation.

[Mz Pip]

32. Campaign contributions

are public knowledge. Blame the law, not MSNBC.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[EVDebs]

58. So, if Sumner Redstone, Rupert Murdoch et al donate $1M to GOP and these guys collectively donate

$100,000 to Dems mostly that's 'fair and balanced' in the media's eyes.

[Balbus]

37. Very enlightening article.

Who'd a thunk it was that one-sided.

[ellisonz]

88. Except it's not.

"Conservative-leaning journalists tended to greater generosity. Ann Stewart Banker, a producer for Bill O'Reilly at Fox News Channel, gave $5,000 to Republicans. Financial columnist Liz Peek at The New York Sun gave $90,000 to the Grand Old Party."

[blogslut]

42. I got a better "List" story

THE LIST

Judith Miller is on it, but she’s hardly alone.
Ahmad Chalabi’s defectors told stories to a lot of
reporters who now wish they’d kept their distance
How Chalabi Played the Press

BY DOUGLAS McCOLLAM

"Hanging out in bad bars waiting for sources to show up is a time-honored tradition in journalism. So I suppose I shouldn’t have been too worried by the non-arrival of Entifadh Qanbar, the spokesman for the Iraqi National Congress’s Washington office. Still, he had moved our meeting several times and I had a lot of questions to ask him, especially about a lengthy confidential memo he had submitted to Congress in June 2002. The memo outlined something called the Information Collection Program, an INC operation that now appears to have provided bogus information about Saddam Hussein’s weapons and terrorist connections to the American government and to the press in the run-up to the Iraq war.

I had never met Qanbar before and couldn’t raise him on his cell phone, so I began to worry that he might be, in classic sitcom fashion, in a booth on the other side of the bar. When he walked into the room, though, he wasn’t hard to spot. His glossy coif, well-cut blazer, and open-neck black shirt stood out among the khakis-and-cell-phone-holster crowd from the nearby Pentagon.

Qanbar apologized for being late, then ordered a beer and promptly got on his cell phone to Baghdad for an extended conversation in Arabic. I could only pick out a few words, including "Chalabi", "Aras", and "Bremer". The last name was followed by a rough laugh, as if a joke had been told on the other end of the line - and not a nice one. That impression was confirmed when Qanbar got off the phone and began an extended rant about the failings of Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, who Qanbar maintained was working with the CIA and State Department to crush the INC at the behest of Arab potentates fearing its political rise. With some difficulty, I managed to steer Qanbar’s attention to the memo he had sent to Congress, and to a list it contained of 108 news stories that, the INC said, included 'product' supplied by its Information Collection Program. "Yes, this memo has become quite famous", he said with a wry smile.

Yes it has. In fact, perhaps no list of reporters has commanded such attention in Washington since Richard Nixon compiled his enemies list more than thirty years ago. In the months since the INC list was made public in a story by Jonathan Landay, senior national correspondent for the Washington bureau of Knight Ridder, it has taken on an almost emblematic quality. Reporters appearing on the list rail against the injustice of their inclusion. Those who didn’t make the cut congratulate themselves anew for resisting the lure of the INC and revel in the schadenfreude of watching others’ once-envied scoops turn to ashes. What few have done, it would appear, is take the time to read all the stories..."

link: http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2004/4/mccollam-list.asp?printerfriendly=yes

[TwilightGardener]

43. I couldn't care less--they have a right to contribute--they ARE American citizens,

fer chrissakes--why can't they participate in the political process, as long as they strive for objectivity in their work? The next news story will be: "Journalists secretly have personal opinions!" or "Reporters vote!".

edit to add: before someone reminds me that contributions are of public record, that does NOT mean these journalists are publicly endorsing the candidate or party, as long as they don't broadcast this information in their work.

[Iris]

55. And one would assume that these are TRAINED journalists.

Trained to recognize bias in their writing as well as the writing of others. When they put their professional hats on, then they need to be unbiased. As private citizens, they should be able to do what they want.

[OzarkDem]

49. News media becoming a political battlefield

Sounds as though some are worried that the GOP may be losing control of its media mouthpiece. The drift of public opinion away from the POV of right wing news is hurting a lot of media owners where it hurts - in their pocketbooks.

The GOP must feel if newspapers are no longer catering to their right wing message because of declining readership and revenues, they'll have to start pressuring them in other ways.

[Clark2008]

51. It's public record and those journalists should have know that.

I never contributed a dime to a candidate when I was a reporter because I knew this.

I don't understand your post. If they knowingly contributed to a candidate when they knew they were supposed to by virtue of their employement contract, that's their fault. Any journalist worth their salt should have know this is public record - and, if they didn't, then they weren't much of a journalist, were they?

[Iris]

56. If it's in their contracts, then their employers should look up the info.

These people don't need to be outed by MSNBC.

[Clark2008]

62. Outed?

It's PUBLIC RECORD. It's not as though they expected a right to privacy on this issue.

Sorry - we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Iris]

63. I'm simply saying the employers should go to the public records and look it up themselves.

MSNBC chose to do this piece simply to be controversial. It's not like they run this information weekly and about various professions.

[onenote]

66. and some employers do

From the article: "The Times in 2003 banned all donations, with editors scouring the FEC records regularly to watch for in-house donors."

[EVDebs]

60. If reporters 'free speech' is denied by campaign contribution ban

why isn't media ownership under a similar ban ?

[Lerkfish]

59. journalists are citizens. as far as I know, citizens can donate to candidates

there is no law against journalists donating to candidates.
Some news organizations have requested that their employees not do so, or not do so publicly, but there is no legal standpoint for that.
They can only be subject to whatever work rules govern such topics, and those rules or guidelines vary from organization to organization.
Keep in mind, some journalism employees belong to unions, like many workers, and those unions donate and lobby politicians, just like every other union.

[Supersedeas]

74. MSNBC wants to expose the political affiliation of some citizens...wonder why?

[ellisonz]

93. Joe Scarborough.

He's the new Imus.

[mod mom]

64. Where are such names as Andrea "Libby Should be Pardoned" Mitchell? and the rest of the

NBC team?

[chimpymustgo]

67. The article is BULLSHIT. Where are the Rethugs?? Weekly Standard, National Review

The corporate owners???

Get outta here. Food writers? This is definitely a hit job aimed at Dems.

[KamaAina]

73. So far they have probably succeeded in ending at least one career

(D) Fox News Channel, (name redacted), researcher for Brit Hume's "Special Report," $300 to Senate campaign of Harold Ford Jr., Tennessee Democrat, in March 2006, $200 more in June, and $2,100 more in September.

(redacted), who said her family is friendly with Ford's, said she raised much of the $2,600 from friends — it wasn't her money alone.

Oh, man. Brit's rug is gonna fly all the way up to the ceiling when he sees this.

And the kicker:

"A lot of Fox employees have contributed to Democratic candidates. I know I'm not the only one."

Can you say "witch hunt"? Mr. KamaAina can!

edit: italics

[Rosemary2205]

75. What? No donations listed for Townhall "journalists" ???

And I'm shocked Salon looks to be leaning left - shocked I tell ya.

This list has obviously been manipulated to try and show a left wing bias in the media. Cherry picking info to reflect whatever "truth" they wanted in the first place..........shades of Fox.

[high density]

80. This is lame

Are the political feelings of these journalists/reporters/editors/whatever going to change based on whether or not they've contributed to political campaigns? I just don't get it.

What about Sinclair Broadcast Group, which during Election '04 forced their stations to air nightly commentary from a right-wing nutcase?

[UTUSN]

83. Brit HUME just read a summary of the story, bragged that one of his staff donated to Dems

He basically went over the numbers in the story. I didn't catch whether he credited MSNBC. When he got to the part that 2 worked for Faux Propaganda Network, he glowed that one donated to Rethugs and one (his staffer) to Dems. Fare UNbalanced.

[ellisonz]

94. Did he mention O'Lielly's $5000 to Bush in 2004?

[lostnfound]

96. But if you OWN a newspaper, feel free to donate millions..

to a PAC to push the country rightward, away from the Fairness Doctrine, towards further consolidation.

All the while prohibiting your reporters from giving one red cent.

Because OWNERS have no influence over editors or editorial decisions, right??

[Dinger]

97. scarborough Just Said He Should Be Fired

And by the way, speaking of joe, it seems he's bitching about Dems, and his on-air friend, a lot more, now that he's entrenched at the morning show. Seems like he's a "new joe" now, not in a good way either.
And likke someone else in this thread said, this article is BULLSHIT! Where are the repukes?

[Norquist Nemesis]

99. Just now, a caller into Ed Schultz used this survey to argue the Liberal Media

:eyes:

Smerconish did the same thing with him yesterday on Tucker..."91% of the journalists are Liberal and gave to Democratic organizations" (Well, at least they've given up on the 'Democrat' thing.)

[rodeodance]

100. copy editors and the like?---they are jounalists?

[RB TexLa]

101. I guess some fear this

DENVER (AP) -- The New York Yankees couldn't wait to get back to Coors Field Vote for Hillary after scoring a record 41 times on their first trip to the Colorado Rockies' ballpark DC Statehood Now five years ago.

This time, they End The War couldn't get out of town fast enough.

"I don't want to see them again, how's that?" manager Joe Torre Protect Roe v. Wade said Thursday after the Rockies denied Roger Clemens his 350th win and completed a three-game sweep of the suddenly stumbling Yankees with a 4-3 victory.

The humidor has taken full effect Protect The Enviroment and so has Colorado's retooled pitching staff since the Yankees' last visit to the ballpark on Blake Street, where they outscored the Rockies 41-29 in a three-game slugfest in 2002, setting a stadium record for runs scored by an opponent in a three-game series.

[KharmaTrain]

102. So This Is The List????

Yesterday I was reading some knuckle-dragger citing this article like the corporate media was just CRAWLING with "libruls" and surely this means media control. BULLSHIT...as usual! Now we get a closer look...these are "average Joes and Janes"...I didn't see the title "Owner" or "Publisher" associated with these names. Most are "desk jockeys"...and I say that in a good sense...they're covering the PTA meeting, the local basketball game or pancake breakfast...they write the reports from the blotter or about the new drug store that just opened up.

Now, if we found out who owned these papers and then do a run on their political contributions, ya wanna bet the ratio would be opposite???

I have worked for only one truly Progressive owner in my 30 plus years...most are Repugnicans and very, very conservative. These are the people who set the format, sign the checks and you are accountable to.