Steeles Royal

Journalists shower Hillary Clinton with campaign cash

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Nothing to see here folks, your media is unbiased..... only 96% of contributions went to Clinton.

Journalists shower Hillary Clinton with campaign cash

Far fewer making contributions to Donald Trump, analysis shows

By Dave LevinthalemailMichael Beckelemail 11 hours, 14 minutes ago Updated: 7 hours, 0 minutes ago

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks to members of the media on her campaign plane in September 2016.

Andrew Harnik/AP

New Yorker television critic Emily Nussbaum, a newly minted Pulitzer Prize winner, spent the Republican National Convention pen-pricking presidential nominee Donald Trump as a misogynist shyster running an “ugly and xenophobic campaign.”

What Nussbaum didn’t disclose in her dispatches: she contributed $250 to Democrat Hillary Clinton in April.

On the nation’s left coast, Les Waldron, an Emmy Award-winning assignment editor at television station KFMB, the CBS affiliate in San Diego, swung right in July, shooting $28 to Trump.

And Carole Simpson, a former ABC “World News Tonight” anchor who in 1992 became the first African-American woman to moderate a presidential debate, is not moderate about her personal politics: the current Emerson College distinguished journalist-in-residence and regular TV news guest has given Clinton $2,800.

Conventional journalistic wisdom holds that reporters and editors are referees on politics’ playing field — bastions of neutrality who mustn’t root for Team Red or Team Blue, either in word or deed.

But during this decidedly unconventional election season, during which “the media” has itself become a prominent storyline, several hundred news professionals have aligned themselves with Clinton or Trump by personally donating money to one or the other.

In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.

Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.

About 50 identifiable journalists have combined to give about $14,000 to Trump. (Talk radio ideologues, paid TV pundits and the like — think former Trump campaign manager-turned-CNN commentator Corey Lewandowski — are not included in the tally.)

Don't miss another investigation

Sign up for the Center for Public Integrity's Watchdog email and get the news you want from the Center when you want it.

New Yorker television critic Emily Nussbaum, left, interviews actor Mindy Kaling, right, at the 15th Annual New Yorker Festival in New York City in October 2014.
Christopher Lane/AP Images for the New Yorker
Generally, the law obligates federal candidates only to disclose the names of people making contributions of more than $200 during a single election cycle, along with their addresses and employer and occupation. That means it’s likely that many more journalists have given the Clinton or Trump campaigns cash, but in amounts too small to trigger reporting requirements.

Together, these journalist-donors work for news organizations great and small, from The New York Times to sleepy, small-town dailies. While many of them don’t primarily edit or report on political news, some do.

And each news professional offers his or her own unique take on a basic question: Why risk credibility — even one’s livelihood — to help pad a presidential candidate’s campaign account?

Simpson today describes herself as an “academic” and “former journalist.” Therefore, she says she’s “free to do many things I was prohibited from doing as a working journalist,” including giving money to Clinton.

“I have been waiting for the day our country would have a woman president,” Simpson said. “When Hillary decided to run, I was delighted because I couldn’t think of a more qualified woman to seek the high office.”

Waldron, of KFMB in San Diego, describes himself as a “lower case ‘l’ libertarian,” and believes journalists like him who both vote and make small-dollar political donations are within their rights to do so.

Why give money to Trump, a man who Forbes last month estimated is worth $3.7 billion? To fight against Clinton.

“I’m a big, big fan of the United States Constitution,” Waldron said, and Clinton “seems to care very little for the Constitution.”

Said The New Yorker’s Nussbaum: “I rarely write about politics, but it's true that the RNC-on-TV posts verged on punditry, and I can understand the concern about disclosure.”
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,486
11
38
Journalists mustn't have opinions. Especially not political ones. Only left-wing journos do. You know that
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
I don't think it's a conspiracy, I think it's an industry bias.....

The fact that it so quickly dismissed shows how intellectually shallow you are
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
I don't think it's a conspiracy, I think it's an industry bias.....

The fact that it so quickly dismissed shows how intellectually shallow you are
And here's the bias: the media runs the stories that appeal to Americans.

The bias is whatever sells the most ad eyeballs.

The media is a reflection of society.
 

MattRoxx

Call me anti-fascist
Nov 13, 2011
6,752
3
0
I get around.
Journalists, having done their research, realize that Trump must be defeated. Or maybe they are donating to balance out all the free publicity given to him by the mainstream media.
Back in May was this article:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-has-gotten-nearly-3-billion-in-free-advertising-2016-05-06

Trump has gotten nearly $3 billion in ‘free’ advertising

Donald Trump has gotten the equivalent of nearly $3 billion in free advertising since last May, according to the latest statistics from the firm mediaQuant, blowing away rivals in both parties.

Trump, who became the presumptive Republican presidential nominee when last rivals Sen. Ted Cruz and Gov. John Kasich exited the race, has received the equivalent of more than $2.8 billion in free ads through April. That’s based on media coverage and the equivalent advertising rates.

By comparison, Cruz, who dropped out on Tuesday, has received the equivalent of about $771 million since last May.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
You guys are either kidding yourself or ignorant. Does anyone really challenge that a VAST majority of main stream media reporters and execs are liberals?
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
Journalists, having done their research, realize that Trump must be defeated. Or maybe they are donating to balance out all the free publicity given to him by the mainstream media.
Back in May was this article:
This one made me laugh. Do you know any journalists? I do. They are lazy by disposition. They prefer to publish stories that are written for them and require zero research. Also they work in a world where they are relatively poorly paid compared to the people they have to regularly interview - people they often consider to be intellectually inferior. This fuels a certain bias in their analysis and in the editing of what they print.

Count on the press to bring issues to your attention. Don't count on them to arrive at your conclusions for you.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
You guys are either kidding yourself or ignorant. Does anyone really challenge that a VAST majority of main stream media reporters and execs are liberals?
Rush Limbaugh is a liberal? Breitbart is staffed by liberals? Fox News?

What's true is that liberals pay attention to the news more than Conservatives do, in general, and as a result form a larger market for news. Thus there's a greater opportunity. But that's just the media reflecting it's audience.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Rush Limbaugh is a liberal? Breitbart is staffed by liberals? Fox News?

What's true is that liberals pay attention to the news more than Conservatives do, in general, and as a result form a larger market for news. Thus there's a greater opportunity. But that's just the media reflecting it's audience.
This is a profoundly ignorant response and sadly you know it
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,486
11
38
You guys are either kidding yourself or ignorant. Does anyone really challenge that a VAST majority of main stream media reporters and execs are liberals?
If conservatives spent the same kinda money to inform themselves as liberals, the mainstream media would be VASTly right-wing.

Oddly enough, the conservatives do have, and enthusiastically follow many media outlets they find appealing, and their proprietors apparently make a living, as they have for years. If they still aren't mainstream, doesn't that tell you conservatism isn't mainstream either?

Meantime, are you suggesting someone should censor journalists for their expressing opinions? Or just for the opinions you don't think are politically correct?
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
This is a profoundly ignorant response and sadly you know it
It's a profoundly true statement: the media reflects it's audience. Whether or not you like it.

It's a well known fact that more Democrats than Republicans consume news media products and so there are more news media products competing for that market. The market for Republicans is smaller but vibrant comprised of Fox News, a number of business news channels, and talk radio.

Each news media product caters to a particular market niche and runs stories and opinion pieces that resonate with its own audience.

If you don't like the stories that MSNBC runs then the is odds are you don't watch it. Instead you likely watch Fox, which runs stories and opinions that resonate with you.

The size of the audience for each market segment doesn't correlate with voting because some market segments would rather watch a football game than a Presidential debate.

That's why post debate polls that only canvas people who watch the debate tend to bias in favor of Democrats: a lot of Republicans watched a sports game instead of the debate.

But none of this is a conspiracy, nor is it likely to influence the election. The people who think MSNBC resonates with their views were never going to vote for Trump and the people who prefer Fox were never going to vote Clinton.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
If conservatives spent the same kinda money to inform themselves as liberals, the mainstream media would be VASTly right-wing.

Oddly enough, the conservatives do have, and enthusiastically follow many media outlets they find appealing, and their proprietors apparently make a living, as they have for years. If they still aren't mainstream, doesn't that tell you conservatism isn't mainstream either?

Meantime, are you suggesting someone should censor journalists for their expressing opinions? Or just for the opinions you don't think are politically correct?
I'm saying liberals go into the news business and the business is hostile to non-liberals. Thus news coverage has a liberal bias.

Fuji's ridiculous statement that more liberals consume news has no basis in fact.

The news industry has shifted from facts ( Who what when where why) to analysis and opinion - the blatant bias has moved from omission of inconvenient facts to spin on facts.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,577
22,173
113
You guys are either kidding yourself or ignorant. Does anyone really challenge that a VAST majority of main stream media reporters and execs are liberals?
You are kidding yourself.
The vast majority of MSM is owned/controlled by six corporations run by right wingers.

That was apparent at during the nominations, where Trump received constant press and Sanders was ignored.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
51,493
10,006
113
Toronto
You guys are either kidding yourself or ignorant. Does anyone really challenge that a VAST majority of main stream media reporters and execs are liberals?
IMO, journalists were never as partisan as they are now, left and right.

I believe the shift began with the uber partisanship displayed when Fox News came on the air. The left is merely reacting to the right's attempt to disguise right wing policies as straight up news.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
51,493
10,006
113
Toronto
This one made me laugh. Do you know any journalists? I do. They are lazy by disposition. They prefer to publish stories that are written for them and require zero research. Also they work in a world where they are relatively poorly paid compared to the people they have to regularly interview - people they often consider to be intellectually inferior. This fuels a certain bias in their analysis and in the editing of what they print.

Count on the press to bring issues to your attention. Don't count on them to arrive at your conclusions for you.
Nice to see that you wouldn't make wide spread and unsubstantiated generalizations.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
51,493
10,006
113
Toronto
I'm saying liberals go into the news business and the business is hostile to non-liberals. Thus news coverage has a liberal bias.
Totally illogical premise.

You do realize most of the media is owned by mega-corporations and big business routinely skews to the right politically.

In light of this, it strengthens fuji's assertion as to explaining this incongruency.
 
Toronto Escorts