Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-Democrats-got-88-percent-of-TV-network-employee-campaign-contributions-101668063.html

Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
08/27/10 3:45 PM EDT
Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880.

By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744.

Disclosure of the heavily Democratic contributions by influential employees of the three major broadcast networks follows on the heels of controversy last week when it was learned that media baron Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. contributed $1 million to the Republican Governors Association.

The News Corp. donation prompted Nathan Daschle, executive director of the Democratic Governors Association and son of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, to demand in a letter to Fox News chairman Roger Ailes that the cable news outlet include a disclaimer in its coverage of gubernatorial campaigns. Fox News is owned by News Corp., which also owns The Wall Street Journal.

The data on contributions by broadcast network employees was compiled by CRP at the request of The Examiner and included all 2008 contributions by individuals who identified their employer as one of the three networks or subsidiaries. The data does not include contributions by employees of the three networks who did not identify their employer.

The CRP is the organization behind OpenSecrets.org, the web site that for more than a decade has put campaign finance data within reach of anybody with an Internet connection.

President Obama received 710 such contributions worth a total of $461,898, for an average contribution of $651 from the network employees. Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain received only 39 contributions totaling $26,926, for an average donation of $709.

Ninety-six contributions by broadcast network employees to the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Senate and House campaign committees totaled $217,881.

Thirty-eight contributions by broadcast network employees to the Republican National Committee and the Republican Senate and House campaign committees totaled $23,805.

Among the individuals in the data are ABC News president Lloyd Braun, who contributed $1,000 to the Our Common Values PAC, which is associated with White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, and ABC Radio Networks president Jim Robinson, who gave $250 to GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson.

Other individual givers found in the data include ABC reporters Sarah Amos, who gave $1,285 to Democratic presidential aspirant Bill Richardson, Clarisa Ward, who gave $500 to President Obama, and Kristina Wong, who gave $400 to the Democratic Party of Virginia.

Notable contributors found in the CBS data include "journalist" Seth Davis, who gave $2,750 to Obama, CBS Corporation vice president and editor-in-chief Jane Goldman, who contributed $250 to Obama, CBS Radio "host" Mike Omeara, who gave $1,471 to Obama, and "journalist" Beverly Williams, who donated $200 to Obama.

Among NBC contributors were Saturday Night Live producer Jeffrey Ross, who contributed $500 to Sen. Chris Dodd, D-CN, former NBC Today Show weatherman Willard Scott. who gave $500 to the Republican National Committee, NBC Universal CFO Jennifer Cabalquinto, whose donations to Obama totaled $1,200, and NBC Universal "editor" David Mack, with $250 to Obama and $2,300 McCain.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-Democrats-got-88-percent-of-TV-network-employee-campaign-contributions-101668063.html#ixzz0y7GiFiVD

**Polonius**

Well, yeah. Educated people interested in the truth are always going to favor the Democrats.

**Frazzled**

Polonius wrote:Well, yeah. Educated people interested in their version of the truth are always going to favor the Democrats.

corrected your typo:

**Kanluwen**

And Fox Network gets funded by a Hamas backer, what's your point?

**djones520**

Polonius wrote:Well, yeah. Educated people interested in the truth are always going to favor the Democrats.

Were you able to type that with a straight face?

**Khornholio**

What?! Most of the Op-ed pieces in the New York Times refer to the media as being "Right Wing". Frazzled, are you saying that the New York Times and its subsidiaries, like the Boston Globe, are wrong?

P'shawwww.

**Frazzled**

Hard to believe, I know.

**Khornholio**

^^ Not really.

**AbaddonFidelis**

Frazzled
Its your guys on the supreme court who decided we werent going to have meaningful campaign finance laws in this country anymore.
AF

**Frazzled**

My guys? I didn't know Perot won and installed a new SCOTUS. teach me for not paying a mind to current events.

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:
Polonius wrote:Well, yeah. Educated people interested in their version of the truth are always going to favor the Democrats.

corrected your typo:

Yeah, the assumption in there that it's all just about points of view, that all politics is relative to the point of view of the contributor... that's a big part of why political debate is so stupid.

This idea that proper political reporting should be just about repeating whatever politicians said as neutrally as possible needs to die.

**AbaddonFidelis**

Frazzled wrote:My guys? I didn't know Perot won and installed a new SCOTUS. teach me for not paying a mind to current events.

Roberts Scalia Thomas etc. your guys.

**Monster Rain**

Wait... I thought Fox News was the only biased news source in America. /sarcasm

**Gailbraithe**

Perhaps the lesson to be learned here is that those who know what is actually going on, regardless of whether they are reporting their own version of the truth, support the Democrats.

Either the media elites are suicidal, or perhaps the Democrats really are the more informed choice.

**Phryxis**

This reminds me of a debate I had with my dad...

I told him that the media had a Democrat bias. He was appalled at the suggestion, resisted, resisted, argued and scoffed.

I kept presenting them facts that supported it. Finally, he realized I was right...

And then he said: "Well, ok, sure they're Democrats. It's because they're RIGHT."

The whole "bias in the media" debate is funny, because people will fight it tooth and nail, get REALLY angry that anybody would suggest there's a bias...

Then this sort of fact comes along, which makes it totally transparent that there's a bias...

And then the guys that were arguing with passion, suddenly go, "well, of course, but that's because they're just educated."

Just shows, people like to argue for the sake of it.

**sebster**

Phryxis wrote:This reminds me of a debate I had with my dad...

I told him that the media had a Democrat bias. He was appalled at the suggestion, resisted, resisted, argued and scoffed.

I kept presenting them facts that supported it. Finally, he realized I was right...

And then he said: "Well, ok, sure they're Democrats. It's because they're RIGHT."

The whole "bias in the media" debate is funny, because people will fight it tooth and nail, get REALLY angry that anybody would suggest there's a bias...

Then this sort of fact comes along, which makes it totally transparent that there's a bias...

And then the guys that were arguing with passion, suddenly go, "well, of course, but that's because they're just educated."

Just shows, people like to argue for the sake of it.

Meh, it's a bit like pointing out that people with bachelor's are more likely to vote GOP, only to hear the response that's that because they're smarter and know what's best for the economy. It's all crap rhetorical games.

Pointing out that the media significantly trends to the left doesn't mean media coverage automatically trends left. That'd be an incredible assumption, because media persons don't just get into work and decide what stories they'd like to talk about to further their political agendas. They follow the new of the day, identify what will rate and run with that, regardless of what it is. There's no grand poltical bias in the news against bees, yet we got all those stupid European bees will come here and kill you because that's what rated.

Nor is a person's own political beliefs going to be part of their professional life. It's how Rupert Murdoch can personally hold fairly liberal political views while running an organisation like FOX News - FOX News is business and spouting wingnut right wing nonsense is good business.

So please, just look at content of a news report. Listen to what's being said, verify the facts, follow the logic and come to your own conclusion. Complaining is just an easy way to stop listening to news that might threaten your world view.

**mattyrm**

Here's a good idea lads. Read a wide range of both right and left wing publications then make a decision based upo......

Ah screw it, just read bbc news.

**Frazzled**

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Frazzled wrote:My guys? I didn't know Perot won and installed a new SCOTUS. teach me for not paying a mind to current events.

Genghis Khan, the Barber of Seville etc. your guys.

Corrected your typo.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gailbraithe wrote:Perhaps the lesson to be learned here is that those who run the mainstream media regardless of whether they are reporting their own version of the truth, support the Democrats.

Corrected your typo. Lots of typos in this thread.

**Phryxis**

That'd be an incredible assumption

I wouldn't call it "incredible" at all. I'd call it more of a "logical progression that follows, but is not guaranteed."

I mean, sure, it's possible that the media is run by Democrats, but maintains objectivity. It's possible. I just don't think it's especially likely, and I certainly don't think it's so likely that it'd be "incredible" if there was bias.

yet we got all those stupid European bees will come here and kill you because that's what rated.

Well, sure, there's a LOT going on all the time... I'm not suggesting that every single story is "Obama - Great President or Greatest?" Clearly there's lots of filler, and then even orgs like FOX, that are the exact opposite of the trend...

So there will be lots of stories about, say, sports. Ok, great, no politics. And stories about consumer electronics. And home repair and improvement... And lots of stuff. And the people writing those articles are writing them because they're interested in that sorta thing, not in politics.

But the guy who writes the political articles isn't doing it because he doesn't care about politics. And if you DO care about politics, you've probably picked an angle along the way, because being indifferent about something you care about is impossible.

The simple fact is that what a story is "about" is determined by your political outlook. One person might see a story about crazy lunatics questioning a President's birth certificate. Another person might see a President who refuses to prove he's an American by birth. We can all have opinions on which view is "correct," but there will always be people who see it one way or the other.

It doesn't make much sense to suggest that a "Birther" is going to "know his own view is crazy" and report it from the other side. He thinks his story is real, so that's the story he's going to tell. People don't spend their time thinking their own thoughts are stupid.

**Frazzled**

Its not just political. If your world view is idential to everyone around you, what you think is important or material is going to be covered, and opposite of course won't be. As the old saying goes "I can't believe Nixon was elected. No one I know voted for him." means a lot.

If everyone has a certain focus, they may not think that the executive branch has effectively destroyed the GOM offshore industry is a big deal, whereas other viewpoints might.

**AbaddonFidelis**

Frazzled wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Frazzled wrote:My guys? I didn't know Perot won and installed a new SCOTUS. teach me for not paying a mind to current events.

Genghis Khan, the Barber of Seville etc. your guys.

Corrected your typo.

you're losing me.....

**Orkeosaurus**

mattyrm wrote:Here's a good idea lads. Read a wide range of both right and left wing publications then make a decision based upo......

Ah screw it, just read the Dakka Dakka Off Topic Forum.

Typos everywhere!

**Frazzled**

yep DNN, your choice for news.

**Mr Mystery**

Oh look! The Media tampering in Politics.

Still say their shouldn't be laws against it? Though it would be interesting to see how many of the donatees(?) were actually media 'personalities'. After all, if I'm a Janitor and I donate to the fund of my choice, and also work for CBS, NBC or ABC?

Seriously, time we kicked the media out of politics.

**Frazzled**

The best antidote for one voice is many voices MM, if I can call you...MM

**Polonius**

Mr Mystery wrote:Oh look! The Media tampering in Politics.

Still say their shouldn't be laws against it? Though it would be interesting to see how many of the donatees(?) were actually media 'personalities'. After all, if I'm a Janitor and I donate to the fund of my choice, and also work for CBS, NBC or ABC?

Seriously, time we kicked the media out of politics.

yes, because having the government prevent the media from discussing politics has always been great for the people.

**Monster Rain**

Polonius wrote:
Mr Mystery wrote:Oh look! The Media tampering in Politics.

Still say their shouldn't be laws against it? Though it would be interesting to see how many of the donatees(?) were actually media 'personalities'. After all, if I'm a Janitor and I donate to the fund of my choice, and also work for CBS, NBC or ABC?

Seriously, time we kicked the media out of politics.

yes, because having the government prevent the media from discussing politics has always been great for the people.

Discussing is one thing. Interfering is another.

**Polonius**

Define "interfering" in such a way that a law allowing government to stop media "interference" couldn't be used for blanket censorship. I'll wait.

Spoiler:

That's not even arguing that interfering in politics is the birthright of every resident of the United States.

**Nurglitch**

Fox News strike again!

**djones520**

Mr Mystery wrote:Oh look! The Media tampering in Politics.

Still say their shouldn't be laws against it? Though it would be interesting to see how many of the donatees(?) were actually media 'personalities'. After all, if I'm a Janitor and I donate to the fund of my choice, and also work for CBS, NBC or ABC?

Seriously, time we kicked the media out of politics.

How about..... no. 1st Amendment is the most sacred. Even if the message isn't what I like, I still want it to be there. Something I've given 9 years of my life to help secure, and something I'm willing to give my life to protect.

I just want the media types to be honest, and actually admit their in the bag for the dems.