Tim T
06-25-2007, 07:22 AM
check this out:
No Bias Indeed
A piece of solid journalistic work has ruffled feathers across the mainstream media this weekend. While it may come as no surprise to most of us who are regularly on the receiving end of the "unbiased coverages" offered up by today's media, many are surprised by a report documenting the not-quite-so unbiased activities of many "mainstream" journalists.
Normally, I don't watch or pay much attention to MSNBC. But it seems their investigative correspondent Bill Dedman stirred a hornet's nest with a report on 144 reporters, editors and producers from nationwide media organizations that have made what amounts to significant political contributions to national and other political campaigns since 2004.
Under Federal Election Commission rules, candidates are required to report the names of their donors and their employers. That gave Dedman the base from which he assembled his report.
Having worked for three of the companies named in the report, I have to admit, even knowing the "predispositions" of many of my former colleagues, the results shocked me. Most news organizations have stringent rules against affiliation with political parties. In business news, virtually all organizations require correspondents, editors, anchors and assignment editors refrain from actively trading stocks. After all, the news media is regularly privy to what could be confidential information - all in the daily performance of their duties.
Apparently, many feel those rules don't apply to them. Of the 144 surveyed, only five of the 144 had no network regulation either discouraging or barring altogether from political activities.
That was controversy enough, but Dedman's breakout on where they put their money is what has rankled feathers. These supposedly unbiased communicators overwhelmingly contributed to either Democratic or liberal causes (125 of them or 87 percent). Only 17 gave to Republicans and only two gave to both.
Red faces are aplenty at ABC, CBS and NBC, but there's one pair of cheeks at the venerable New York Times that has caused more than a bit of consternation with his bosses. Randy Cohen, author of "The Ethicist" a nationally syndicated column dealing with -you guessed it - ethics, donated to MoveOn.org in 2004. At that time, the group wa described as "rabidly left-leaning" and dedicated to ousting President Bush, ending the Iraq war and defeating virtually every Republican candidate running for office or sitting for reelection.
Cohen's response may be the source of the majority of the consternation. In a response to MSNBC, Cohen compared the donation to MoveOn.org to the Boy Scouts or the Catholic Church. After all, Cohen wrote, "Few papers would object to a journalist donating to the Boy Scouts or the Catholic Church. But the former has a policy of discriminating against gay children; the latter has views on reproductive rights far more restrictive than those of most Americans. Should reporters be forbidden to support those groups? I say not."
After this liberally-reasoned response, Cohen then followed up with a second email. Apparently having read his employee's manual, wrote: "That said, the Times forbid my making such donations, and I will not do so in the future."
These same organizations - from which a vast majority of Americans get their news and information each day - would be raising absolute hell were these obvious breaches of corporate policy committed elsewhere. Instead, they seem to be treating it as another "so-what" type of event. After all, they're only contributing to candidates opposing conservatives and Republicans. There can't be that many of them still "out there" can there?
Despite their constant pounding of positions that would indicate a conservative-minded American is extinct, I hope it's not too-late to prove them wrong. We are still battling for our Second Amendment rights, and will continue to do so.
But we're battling on two fronts. The frontal combat with anti-gun opposition is a pretty simple battle. Facts can normally overcome emotion. The second, however, is more insidious: dealing with opponents who are hiding behind a code of ethics that appear to be situational.
No Bias Indeed
A piece of solid journalistic work has ruffled feathers across the mainstream media this weekend. While it may come as no surprise to most of us who are regularly on the receiving end of the "unbiased coverages" offered up by today's media, many are surprised by a report documenting the not-quite-so unbiased activities of many "mainstream" journalists.
Normally, I don't watch or pay much attention to MSNBC. But it seems their investigative correspondent Bill Dedman stirred a hornet's nest with a report on 144 reporters, editors and producers from nationwide media organizations that have made what amounts to significant political contributions to national and other political campaigns since 2004.
Under Federal Election Commission rules, candidates are required to report the names of their donors and their employers. That gave Dedman the base from which he assembled his report.
Having worked for three of the companies named in the report, I have to admit, even knowing the "predispositions" of many of my former colleagues, the results shocked me. Most news organizations have stringent rules against affiliation with political parties. In business news, virtually all organizations require correspondents, editors, anchors and assignment editors refrain from actively trading stocks. After all, the news media is regularly privy to what could be confidential information - all in the daily performance of their duties.
Apparently, many feel those rules don't apply to them. Of the 144 surveyed, only five of the 144 had no network regulation either discouraging or barring altogether from political activities.
That was controversy enough, but Dedman's breakout on where they put their money is what has rankled feathers. These supposedly unbiased communicators overwhelmingly contributed to either Democratic or liberal causes (125 of them or 87 percent). Only 17 gave to Republicans and only two gave to both.
Red faces are aplenty at ABC, CBS and NBC, but there's one pair of cheeks at the venerable New York Times that has caused more than a bit of consternation with his bosses. Randy Cohen, author of "The Ethicist" a nationally syndicated column dealing with -you guessed it - ethics, donated to MoveOn.org in 2004. At that time, the group wa described as "rabidly left-leaning" and dedicated to ousting President Bush, ending the Iraq war and defeating virtually every Republican candidate running for office or sitting for reelection.
Cohen's response may be the source of the majority of the consternation. In a response to MSNBC, Cohen compared the donation to MoveOn.org to the Boy Scouts or the Catholic Church. After all, Cohen wrote, "Few papers would object to a journalist donating to the Boy Scouts or the Catholic Church. But the former has a policy of discriminating against gay children; the latter has views on reproductive rights far more restrictive than those of most Americans. Should reporters be forbidden to support those groups? I say not."
After this liberally-reasoned response, Cohen then followed up with a second email. Apparently having read his employee's manual, wrote: "That said, the Times forbid my making such donations, and I will not do so in the future."
These same organizations - from which a vast majority of Americans get their news and information each day - would be raising absolute hell were these obvious breaches of corporate policy committed elsewhere. Instead, they seem to be treating it as another "so-what" type of event. After all, they're only contributing to candidates opposing conservatives and Republicans. There can't be that many of them still "out there" can there?
Despite their constant pounding of positions that would indicate a conservative-minded American is extinct, I hope it's not too-late to prove them wrong. We are still battling for our Second Amendment rights, and will continue to do so.
But we're battling on two fronts. The frontal combat with anti-gun opposition is a pretty simple battle. Facts can normally overcome emotion. The second, however, is more insidious: dealing with opponents who are hiding behind a code of ethics that appear to be situational.