An analysis of FEC filings by the Center for Responsive Politics found that 235 people who “identified themselves on government documents as journalists, or as working for news organizations…together have donated more than $469,900 to federal political candidates, committees and parties during the 2010 election cycle.”
Among those willing to discuss their contributions:
Paul Tharp, a business reporter for the New York Post, last year donated $750 to Rep. Michael McMahon (D-N.Y.), the Center’s analysis of Federal Election Commission records show. Tharp said his two donations represent a “satisfaction with [McMahon’s] public service” and his work with the arts.
“Just because I am a reporter doesn’t mean I give up my rights,” Tharp said. “I have an interest in public service, but not politics. I cover business.”
Chris Hayes of the Nation noted that his $250 donation went to the congressional campaign of a good friend, Alabama Democrat Josh Segall, and Vanity Fair’s Bethany McLean said her donations, totaling $2,000, were to her husband’s “close personal friend,” lllinois Senate candidate David Hoffman (D). Here’s Seymour Hersh on his $1,000 donation to Rep. Walt Minnick (D-Idaho):
Hersh said the two met while Minnick worked in the Nixon administration.“I’ve always respected him,” said Hersh…
Hersh said it’s “great” that journalists are giving money.
“A: It’s nobody’s business. B: It’s not like I’m giving money to a presidential candidate or a party,” he added, saying that he’s also given money to a Washington state senatorial candidate, who is Republican. “I’m giving money to people I think are good people.”
Among the “six media professionals who have contributed more than five figures since January 2009?” Anna Wintour, the editor-in-chief of Vogue, “maxed out contribution limits last year, giving $30,400 to the DNC.” Ditto ESPN Executive Producer Maura Mandt. And Richard Mellon Scaife, owner and publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has contributed $14,400 to the RNC and Pennsylvania Republican candidates.
Have a look at the the downloadable spreadsheet with all the details (Teaser: there are more donations to D’s than to R’s.)
Hmm. A couple of years ago, Esquire ran endorsements in every single House race in the country. About 75% of the endorsed were Democrats. It got me to thinking. In these surveys, the percentage of donations to Democrats vs. Republicans by professional journalism/media figures runs between 2-1 and 8-1 for the former. Surveys of party identification produce similar figures. Before these surveys and studies started being highlighted on the Internet, I'd had an intuition that the 'differential', quantitatively speaking, between journalists and the public along a political continuum was about 25%. In other words, if politician had, let us say, a 75% approval rating from the Americans for Democratic Action, that politician was a 'centrist'. Ratings of less than 75% were 'conservative'. Ratings under 25% were 'very conservative'. On the other hand, a politician with a 100% ADA rating might occasionally be classified as 'liberal', but terms like 'very liberal' or 'ultra liberal' are rare in the MSM vocabulary. By a coincidence, NPR did a little research a couple of months ago and found that its reporters and commentators were about five times more likely to label a politician as an 'ultra-conservative' vs. a label of 'ultra-liberal'.
In a country which produced votes that seldom go out of the 55%-45% range year in and year out, nationwide, I believe that I have discovered an almost quantifiable rule here. There has never yet been a survey that does not show a landslide for the Democrats among established journalists. This is not exactly hard to comprehend - journalists are, culturally and demographically, part of the urban middle class, and the Democrats are the party of the urban middle class. It's not a conspiracy, and I doubt if there is much a well-intentioned editor or publisher can do about it. But it is a fairly obvious (except to huffy, defensive journalists and to ideological leftists) recurrent feature of American politics, and it would be nice if outlets like CJR could acknowledge it and deal with it. Thomas Edsall is about the only left-leaning writer who will admit that journalists skew decidedly toward the Left and the Democrats, and he was pilloried in some circles for doing so. (Shh! Maybe if we concede nothing, people will believe us!) Admitting that most people who go into and rise in MSM journalism are the kinds of bumper-sticker liberals one knew in college presents a credibility problem with conservative consumers - but the credibility problem is worse for an industry in denial.
Let me hasten to say again, before the non-sequitors start pouring in, that this is not a conspiracy or anything. Most journalists really think they are in 'the middle' politically. It's just that the vocabulary I mention above is reflexive, part of the urban air that information-content people breathe.
#1 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 15 Sep 2010 at 12:32 PM