87% of journalists supporting the democratic party

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

And here Dan and croutons keep claiming the press is really conservative. WTF?

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


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").

Whether you sample your news feed from ABC or CBS (or, yes, even NBC and MSNBC), whether you prefer Fox News Channel or National Public Radio, The Wall Street Journal or The New Yorker, some of the journalists feeding you are also feeding cash to politicians, parties or political action committees.

MSNBC.com identified 143 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 16 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 section; 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.

‘If someone had murdered Hitler ...’
There's a longstanding tradition that journalists don't cheer in the press box. They have opinions, like anyone else, but they are expected to keep those opinions out of their work. Because appearing to be fair is part of being fair, most mainstream news organizations discourage marching for causes, displaying political bumper stickers or giving cash to candidates.....

More of the story at the link.

[Wild Cobra]

Nice find Aggie. This is something I have claimed conservatively as over 80% for years now.

Not long ago, a university study rated news sources. They did a nice in-depth study and their numbers were in the mid 80's for left bias. I wish I could find it again. If I recall right, it was from USC.

[Nbadan]

hmmm.....I'd like to see a study by MSNBC of whom M$M owners and major-editors donate too...

[Wild Cobra]

Did anyone click on the link naming the people?

link:

The list: Journalists who wrote political checks (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455/)

Anyway, I figured out why the libs say Fox is conservative biased. Fox had one person donate republican... The rest donated democrat. The libs just say it's not fair that anyone donated republican I bet! Fox list:

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

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

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

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

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

[Nbadan]

Those amounts are dwarfed by what Rupert Murdoch gives in face-time on FAUX News and other news affiliates he owns, including now the WSJ, and $$$$ to Republican candidates and RNC operatives....

[boutons_]

STFU, dickless, link where I claim the press is really conservative, or liberal.

Some of the press is conservative/retrogressive, some is liberal/progressive.

If 87% support Dems, it may be because the Dems are "anything but the Repugs" rather than true love for the Dems, probably too fine a point for twerps to appreciate.

[johnsmith]

STFU, dickless, link where I claim the press is really conservative, or liberal.

Some of the press is conservative/retrogressive, some is liberal/progressive.

If 87% support Dems, it may be because the Dems are "anything but the Repugs" rather than true love for the Dems, probably too fine a point for twerps to appreciate.


"twerps", "dickless", etc.......your insults read like an angry third grader's diary.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

He is an angry third grader.

[boutons_]

dickless, no link? of course not.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

dickless, no link? of course not.

To you being an angry third grader? Here:

www.boutonsisanangrythirdgrader.com

Happy? :lol

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

BTW, it cracks me up that you are whining for a link in a thread where

1) the link is clearly stated in post #1 of this thread

and

2) half the shit you post doesn't have a link

Just man up and admit you got punked on this one.

[boutons_]

dickless: RIF "link where I claim the press is really conservative, or liberal."

[xrayzebra]

How does boutons know he is dickless? An inquiring mind wants
to know. And do you have a link to that? :dramaquee :king :drunk :dizzy :lol

[gtownspur]

boutons loves links, especially long meaty links. That's why he hates dickless people.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Ok, tell me if I'm stupid, but where is the number 87 in this entire thread? (besides the title that is?)

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Oh and btw, study after study has shown a correlation between education levels and progressive politics.

Thus xray= staunch conservative.

[Wild Cobra]

Ok, tell me if I'm stupid, but where is the number 87 in this entire thread? (besides the title that is?)
It only takes simple math from the linked article. Out of 143 lournalists, 125 donated democrat. That is 87.4%.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

dickless: RIF "link where I claim the press is really conservative, or liberal."

You have said it off and on here for the last several years. I don't need a link.

If you want to be a pussy and try and change the topic to something about links, show me:

1. Link to where George W. Bush is a shrub, as you call him.
2. Link to scientific evidence Cheney is a dickhead, as you call him
3. Link to your proof that I'm dickless, as you call me.

[Holt's Cat]

Oh and btw, study after study has shown a correlation between education levels and progressive politics.

Thus xray= staunch conservative.

Stuwdy after stuwdy also shows a cowwelation between taking dick up the ass and pwogwessive powitics.

[boutons_]

"You have said it off and on here for the last several years. I don't need a link."

Ladies and genlemen, I give our very own version of Alberto Gonzalez.

"If you want to be a pussy and try and change the topic to something about links, show me:"

Obsessed with me, you start YOUR thread with

"Dan and croutons keep claiming the press is really conservative."

and when I ask for a link where I made any such claim, I'M changing the topic? That's proof that you are dickless.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Here's your link. Start reading, douche.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=8

Congrats on still attempting to change the topic though, maybe if you hold your breathe long enough your mommy will buy you that Snickers bar too.

[boutons_]

"Here's your link."

... the top of the politics forum, NOT to a boutons msg where I said the press was conservative/liberal.

Asking you to back up your slime is not changing the topic.

I love bitch slapping you loser conervatives into incoherent babbling and weak shit.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

"Here's your link."

... the top of the politics forum, NOT to a boutons msg where I said the press was conservative/liberal.

Asking you to back up your slime is not changing the topic.

I love bitch slapping you loser conervatives into

You are one stupid son of a bitch. It's comical that you ask for links in something when half your posts are copy and paste jobs without a fucking link.

The only thing you bitch slap is your two inch dick when you're through with your blow up doll.


incoherent babbling and weak shit.

Dude, you just summarized every post you have ever made on this forum.

Oh, and as a reminder, 87% of the press who donated to political campaigns did so to the democraptic party.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

It only takes simple math from the linked article. Out of 143 lournalists, 125 donated democrat. That is 87.4%.


oh so there really is no basis for the claim that 87% of journalists support the democratic party, the truth is that 87% of the journalists that gave money in an election year gave money to democrats.

This says nothing of the thousands of journalists that did not give money (and generally speaking, it would make more sense if democrats were more motivated to give political contributions of late, if you haven't noticed, the easiest time to get money is when you're party is out of power, it mobilizes the base)

and as for Holt's cat-- thanks for proving my point, due to the fact that you are most likely a conservative, and therefore stupid, the best you could do to discredit my claim was to create what you felt was an ad hominem attack (thankfully, most liberals don't get very offended when people throw homosexuality around as an insult, it just shows a lack of intelligence and bigotry)


another great example George W. Bush= least intelligent president in US history, he is also a conservative.

[Holt's Cat]

I guess you love the cock.


another great example George W. Bush= least intelligent president in US history, he is also a conservative.

What a profound and insightful statement. Anyways, intellect has nothing to do with one's political choices. Claims such as those are tailor made for partisans with an inferiority complex, such as yourself.

[Wild Cobra]

oh so there really is no basis for the claim that 87% of journalists support the democratic party, the truth is that 87% of the journalists that gave money in an election year gave money to democrats.

Actually, the number is credible within statistical error for the small sample size. There have been two credible studies I have heard of breaking down various aspects of news. One of them I read when it came out a few years back, the second on, I only heard of. Both had more than 80% in the field left of center. Don't ask me for the link, it's been a long time. I'm not looking for it. Find any study related to the issue if you can. To my knowledge, the two are all that have ever been done.

[Wild Cobra]

Anyways, intellect has nothing to do with one's political choices. Claims such as those are tailor made for partisans with an inferiority complex, such as yourself.
Reminds me of the grade school bullies who had such low self esteem, they had to pick on others....

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Reminds me of the grade school bullies who had such low self esteem, they had to pick on others....


You two amuse me.


Stuwdy after stuwdy also shows a cowwelation between taking dick up the ass and pwogwessive powitics.



I guess you love the cock.

And I'm not picking on anyone, no one has ever accused Bush of being exceptionally bright, and even thinking logically, it isn't exactly difficult to prove my point.

Jimmy Carter= Nuclear Engineer
Ronald Regan= Actor (and was also a lot smarter than Bush)
HW Bush= Director of CIA
Clinton = Rhodes scolar, phd economics


you think Bush jr. is more intelligent than any of these gentlemen?

and i'm not lying, people with PhDs and professionals (doctor's, lawyers, et.) are far more likely to be progressive.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Actually, the number is credible within statistical error for the small sample size. There have been two credible studies I have heard of breaking down various aspects of news. One of them I read when it came out a few years back, the second on, I only heard of. Both had more than 80% in the field left of center. Don't ask me for the link, it's been a long time. I'm not looking for it. Find any study related to the issue if you can. To my knowledge, the two are all that have ever been done.

67% of all statistics are made up

[Yonivore]

You two amuse me.
Look who's amusing.



Jimmy Carter= Nuclear Engineer
Ronald Regan= Actor (and was also a lot smarter than Bush)
HW Bush= Director of CIA
Clinton = Rhodes scolar, phd economics
Jimmy Carter used his education by quitting the Navy to take over the family Peanut farm.

Ronald Reagan was, indeed, a brilliant man and -- as you say -- maybe more intelligent than George Bush.

Clinton has been in public employ damn near his entire adult life. Way to use that education.

George H. W. Bush is a decorated war veteran who dedicated much of his life to public service and the diplomatic corps before seeking elected office.

Our Current President has been tremendously successful in business and was probably the wealthiest of the five, you mentioned, to ever ascend to the presidency.

Some people are intelligent. Some are just plain smart.


and i'm not lying, people with PhDs and professionals (doctor's, lawyers, et.) are far more likely to be progressive.
You say that is if it's something of which to be proud or that is admirable.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Look who's amusing.
Our Current President has been tremendously successful in business and was probably the wealthiest of the five, you mentioned, to ever ascend to the presidency.

Some people are intelligent. Some are just plain smart.


You say that is if it's something of which to be proud or that is admirable.

you're on crack, bush has never had a successful business in his life (excluding the money he made on the Texas rangers by screwing the people of Arlington out of millions of dollars for a new ballpark.)

and generally speaking, i would think having a PhD or JD or MD would be something to be proud of, not sure how you would discount that save to say it's a product of the "liberal education conspiracy" or whatever you nutters say these days.

hmmmm...might be a reason the most educated people in america (college professors) are such big liberals (quick it's logic, duck before yoni explodes)

and you act like bill Clinton's devotion to public service is a bad thing, but i guess that makes sense seeing as you have shown a pronounced appreciation for politicians that use public service only as a means for furthering their interests and the interests of their wealthiest supporters

[Yonivore]

you're on crack, bush has never had a successful business in his life (excluding the money he made on the Texas rangers by screwing the people of Arlington out of millions of dollars for a new ballpark.)
I think he walked away from his investments a much wealthier man. I'm not sure how you define success but, in my book, business success is generally defined by your ability to accumulate wealth.


and generally speaking, i would think having a PhD or JD or MD would be something to be proud of, not sure how you would discount that save to say it's a product of the "liberal education conspiracy" or whatever you nutters say these days.
It was your connection to liberalism that I was mocking. I think it has more to do with the majority of PhD's being located in academia, JD's vested in liberal ideals, and MD's dealing with human misery than it does with them holding the degrees in the first place.


hmmmm...might be a reason the most educated people in america (college professors) are such big liberals (quick it's logic, duck before yoni explodes)
Yeah, idealism combined with a healthy dose of no real-world experience and immature charges they can indoctrinate.


and you act like bill Clinton's devotion to public service is a bad thing, but i guess that makes sense seeing as you have shown a pronounced appreciation for politicians that use public service only as a means for furthering their interests and the interests of their wealthiest supporters
devotion? :lmao

And, speaking of Reagan, which we were...sort of:

The Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070728/NATION/107280050/1001) reports on a new Rasmussen survey that reinforces the idea that Republicans shouldn't give up on 2008. Rasmussen tested five descriptions of a Presidential candidate; the one that came out on top, with a 44% positive rating, was "like Reagan."

Most Republicans have been pretty confident that last year's election wasn't a repudiation of conservatism. This is borne out by the fact that "conservative" outpolls "liberal" by 32% to 20%. In some polls over the years, of course, the disparity has been even wider. But "progressive" scored 35%, which can only mean that many Americans haven't figured out yet that "progressive" means "even more liberal than they used to be." No doubt some still associate it with Teddy Roosevelt.

"Moderate" polled only 29%, which suggests that most Americans want a Presidential candidate to stand for something, as long as it isn't liberalism. But what people really want, apparently, is another Reagan. And they're much more likely to see a Republican in that role than a Democrat.

[Wild Cobra]

67% of all statistics are made up
Maybe, but statistics are derrived from obtaianable facts. Statistics do not make something factual. 33% is a reasonable amount of area to be correct still.