The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms ”” at least among the donors, who are a tiny fraction of the roughly 100,000 staffers in newsrooms across the nation.
The donors said they try to be fair in reporting and editing the news. One of the recurring themes in the responses is that it’s better for journalists to be transparent about their beliefs, and that editors who insist on manufacturing an appearance of impartiality are being deceptive to a public that already knows journalists aren’t without biases.
“Our writers are citizens, and they’re free to do what they want to do,” said New Yorker editor David Remnick, who has 10 political donors at his magazine. “If what they write is fair, and they respond to editing and counter-arguments with an open mind, that to me is the way we work.”
The openness didn’t extend, however, to telling the public about the donations. Apparently none of the journalists disclosed the donations to readers, viewers or listeners. Few told their bosses, either.
I cannot fathom why journalists engage in the irrational behavior of cash contributions to candidates and political parties. First, political contributions (when disclosed publicly, which is required in most jurisdictions) seriously undermine their credibility. Second, most journalists–even the ones appearing on your local news broadcast–do not make much money, so every penny is valuable. Third, journalists already make an enormously valuable in-kind contribution to their favoraite candidates and causes through slanted and selective coverage.
If the journalist was acting like a private citizen giving a contribution that was under the limits and not trying to ‘buy access’ than I see nothing unethical about it. Journalist do not stop being people because of their job, just as clergy should be free to support a candidate if they choose. Where this line is crosses is when person life begins to interfere with the professional one.
If a clergy friendship to one in the congregation impacts pastoral needs of another who may have conflict with said friend, that’s unjust and unethical, the same principle carries over to the journalist. Can the journalist give fair treatment to one they don’t like or maybe just not their favorite?
Only nine out of ten?
KAR – I agree that they have the right to financially support a candidate. And I have a right to know that they have, so I can decide how “impartial” they really are. If we need full financial disclosure for politicians, we should also demand it of journalists and the companies they work for.
As a fellow who’s spent some time writing the news, I think it’s important to remember two things:
1. Journalism is a business. A business in which the Product sold often has to be created out of disparate facts and figures. But when you are considering terms like “impartiality”, “bias”, “political positions”, and “slant”, you will need to view them through the lens of profitability.
2. The domination of conservative values is very bad for business.
Let me explain: The News, by definition, is that which is unexpected or unusual. As I tell my kids every time they see some horrible tragedy on the news “The odds are that nothing like that will ever happen to you or anybody you know.” If an occurrence was very common, it would cease to be reported as the news. This is a result of the audience’s declining attention span, notice how quickly a news story “ages” today compared with 50 or 70 years ago. This is a constant source of frustration to news editors, especially in this 24-hour continuous coverage era of the news, where product loses its value VERY quickly.
Now, by definition, Conservative Values have in the past been the traditional center of belief for most Americans. Liberalism began its march to the mainstream at exactly the same time television news became mainstream, so the two immediately became associated. Liberalism, by intention, rails against Conservatism, and therefore is more likely to produce radical ideas, whether innovative or plain ridiculous. These new and unusual ideas, in the process of being put into action, become MANIFESTLY newsworthy, and attract the kind of odd attention required to become news. Conflict is almost always newsworthy.
So when you see a reporter contributing to Democratic Candidates, don’t get all wrapped up in believing that he’s some kind of dyed in the wool liberal, he may just be protecting his job.
My 2 cents….
KTF!….mrb
I’m shocked, shocked to lear that 9 out of 10 journalists contribute to liberal and Democratic causes! This piece must be part of some sort of vast, right-wing conspiracy.
Oops! Make that “hear,” not “lear!”
I like RETIRED NY Times editor Abe Rosenthal’s comment: “I don’t care if you sleep with elephants as long as you don’t cover the circus.”
Abe shouldn’t have retired. In the past year or two the NY Times has been caught regularly doing that. The worst example is their reporter who gets assigned abortion news stories and court cases. She is a pro-abortion activist, has spoken at pro-abortion events, and has virtually bragged about the situation. When it became a scandal both the Times and her basically took a “damn the public” attitude and as far as I know she is still writing pro-abortion propaganda that is supposed to be news. (Like many disgusted with the liberal bias in newspapers I finally cancelled out both the NY Times and its Boston Globe wholly owned facsimile.)
In re-reading the article I found another quote that further advertises the fact the flagship newspaper of the liberal media has a serious ethical problem. According to the Times policy on donations the problem is caused by “the ease of Internet access to public records of campaign contributors…”
So, staff, we can’t let people know how “Lefty” we are by people looking up our campaign contributions. Gotta keep the people from learning the dirty little secret that we don’t hire (except for a token or two) those who have conservative or religious leanings.
When the issue is race, just about every liberal publication has claimed any racial imbalance in unions, schools, businesses, etc. must be caused by conscious, deliberate discrimination. Well, Gee, how did the media get to be 90% liberal and–according to many surveys– 90% non-religious. Any hiring discrimination here??? According to past media accusations–most certainly:: Like hires like even more so in the media.