When Journalists Donate

This effort at ginning up controversy by revealing political contributions made by employees of media organizations seems fundamentally misguided. For one thing, no effort is being made to see if the people named have any ability to impact coverage of national politics. They have, for example, a former copy editor here at The Atlantic on their list, but what nefarious influence is she supposed to have had on the magazine's coverage?

More to the point, for any given journalist, one either does or does not have legitimate complaints with the work. If you do, the complaint itself is sufficient. If you don't, the revelation that the author of some excellent piece of work also gave $250 to the DSCC in 2005 is neither here nor there. Meanwhile, to offer the standard liberal counter to this sort of thing, where's MSNBC's report on the political giving of executives at General Electric?

Well, I can tell you that in 2006, GE's PAC gave $807,282 to Republicans and just $474,118 to Democrats. In 2004 there was a similar division of funds, in 2002 "only" 60 percent of it went to the GOP. Indeed, as you can see here essentially every PAC in the media sector backed the GOP over the Democrats.

Comments

More to the point, for any given journalist, one either does or does not have legitimate complaints with the work.

No, this is not true. However, the concern is not with money donated by journalists, but money going in the other direction.

If I find out that a science reporter, say, received a $20,000 honorarium from the American Petroleum Institute, I would have legitimate grounds for concern regardless of any visible problems with their work.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | June 21, 2007 12:41 PM

Matt,

Is your point that headquarters execs at GE (when they aren't overseeing the conglomerates numerous other business units) are exerting more influence on NBC's political coverage than the journalists themselves? And you don't think political donations are relevant -- even if they demonstrate lopsided party affiliation among political journalists?

You know, on CNBC, whenever a money manager or securities analyst is interviewed talking about a stock, CNBC puts up a graphic indicating whether the analyst or his family own the stock, whether his firm owns it or is doing investment banking business with the company, etc. Why not a similar graphic for political reporters, indicating -- for starters -- where their political donations go?

Posted by Fred | June 21, 2007 12:49 PM

Exactly, "the media" (old media) is not a collection of individual journalists, it is a collection of corporations.

Journalists in general and as individuals may well have a "liberal bias", but like any floor level employee in any American corporation knows, neither they nor their middle management sets the corporate direction. And working for a corporation, the all-important measure of success is aligning your work to the corporate direction, if you want to stay employed and insured and pay the mortgage and the orthodontics.

Think structurally.

Posted by kvenlander | June 21, 2007 1:07 PM

This is an issue because of the journalists claim they are objective.

From Heisenberg, Dali, Thompson, Freud, etc., we know how difficult (impossible) it is for people to actually eliminate their innate biases. It is easier for them to hide biases, but the biases cannot be eliminated.

There really are only two groups of people that claim to be objective. Somehow the four year preparation in getting a J School degree renders Journalists objective while the rest of us were getting hammered, and partying. It's magic! It's a J School degree. You are now objective and unbiased. Curiously the other group are judges. After attending L School and partying and working for 20 years in the most partisan and biased manner, somehow as they are handed their gavel more magic occurs and judges are no longer biased and are purely objective.

This would not be an issue if journalists dropped their pretense they can be objective. It would probably aid the search for truth by eliminating the need to find a false balance.

More to the point, for any given journalist, one either does or does not have legitimate complaints with the work. If you do, the complaint itself is sufficient. This makes the assumption that journalists can be objective and unbiased. If you don't make that assumption then you can ask what is it you are not being told?

Matt, you are a very sophisticated reader of the news and you have access to many resources (nexis) the rest of us do not.

We cannot all determine the legitimate complaints with the work itself that you can by using lexis/nexis or the web resources you do.

So for many of us, the "legitimate complaints" will never be found. And we will never know about Rudy and the ISG and we will continue to be annoyed with Edwards and his haircuts.

Journalists need to drop their pretense of objectivity.

Posted by jerry | June 21, 2007 1:10 PM

I like Hendrik Hertzberg's response on being confronted:

Hertzberg, in answer to the question whether he made these donations, sent this reply: "Damn right."

Posted by talboito | June 21, 2007 1:11 PM

Not according to this link, which shows that Democrats receive the overwhelming amount of donations from Music/TV/Movies pacs

http://opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=B02

I have a socially conservative friend who often points out to me examples of liberal bias by journalists ... and even a liberal like me must admit that the reporting does show a bias due to the likely fact that the journalist covering the story appearantly has a liberal world view.

However, this bias -- because of higher up editorial decisions, because of the journalist's realization she's a liberal and her ham-handed efforts at providing balance (and a journalist, who is not trained as a spin-meister, "balancing" herself with someone giving smooth spin ends up in the net giving a conservative spin on the news) and because the journalist also comes accross as out of touch and thus the report makes the liberal point of view it adopts seem out of touch -- in the net oftentimes ironically results in reporting that makes liberals seem like out of touch effete elitists and conservatives look good.

Indeed, while many journalists are liberal, those with enough status to shape editorial content and to report about more than "just the facts", are self-proclaimed liberals keen (for whatever psychological reason ... it's almost bullying if you ask me) to portray themselves as the left edge of acceptable discourse. Thus, a journalist might donate to the Democrats and might inject his political biases into his coverage, but the result of the bias of "I'm a liberal and everone to the left of me is a loony moonbat" is that conservative views are given a voice equal to his centrist views while the views of even relatively moderate liberals are equated with those of truly nutty reactionaries.

So the Dems. get a bunch of donations from PACs ... that does not necessarily mean that any liberal bias in the organizations those PACs represent is necessarily good for liberalism as a movement.

And one wonders what the agenda is behind even pushing these sorts of conclusions (which get reported in the SCLM, btw) ... hmmm?

Posted by DAS | June 21, 2007 2:31 PM

They have, for example, a former copy editor here at The Atlantic on their list, but what nefarious influence is she supposed to have had on the magazine's coverage?

What have you done with Matt Yglesias? He saw through bullshit easily and that's why we read him.

Posted by Zagnut | June 21, 2007 2:38 PM

Is your point that headquarters execs at GE (when they aren't overseeing the conglomerates numerous other business units) are exerting more influence on NBC's political coverage than the journalists themselves?

Notoriously, during the 2000 presidential election, GE CEO Jack Welch intervened to order NBC to call Florida for Bush, even though the professional journalists thought (correctly) that it was still too close to call. That's just one example, although of course a very well-known one.

Posted by rea | June 21, 2007 2:47 PM

Journalists should not contribute to political campaigns.

People who work for news media outlets in non-journalistic capacities should not contribute to political campaigns.

If you want to contribute to political campaigns, then pursue another line of work - there are plenty.

If you are a journalist or an employee of a news media outlet and insist on contributing to a political campaign anyway, expect and accept the fact that your objectivity will be called into question and is a legitimate subject for reporting by other journalism and media outlets.

Obviously no one cares if someone from National Review gives to a Republican or someone from the Prospect gives to a Democrat, but for the supposedly non-partisan media, it is an issue, and it should be.

If reporters or editors or anyone else in news media is so supportive of a particular candidate in a particular party that they're willing to shell out their hard earned money, readers and the public have a right to know. That's not even taking into account the ethics of the situation.

Posted by SoCalJustice | June 21, 2007 2:55 PM

I work for a daily paper and found the list of contributors interesting in a gossipy, gee-I-didn't-know-that-about-so-and-so kind of way. But more context (because we're all about context) would have been helpful. Out of a profession that employs several thousand people nationally, is this list of dozens a sample, or the sum total of the reporter's findings?

If it's the latter - and I'm thinking it is, given how deeply it goes into the rank-and-file of copy editors, freelance movie critics, sports columnists and the like - there's not much of a case to be made that political giving, to Dems or Reps, is rampant among journalists. I'm betting most shun the practice, and for good reason. The point of not contributing is not to demonstrate objectivity (whatever that is). It's about detachment: staying as removed as possible from the people and processes that journalists are obliged to cover.

Yes, coverage itself is a form of attachment and interference. Covering a story alters the story. But if we can't avoid that dynamic, we can at least minimize our involvement in the other components of, say, a political campaign, a ballot measure or a voter-registration drive. This way we're less easily accused of trying to effect a particular outcome.

I wish I could subscribe to Yglesias' argument that you judge the journalist by the work, period, or you make a more concrete case that donations reflect a bias in coverage, end of story. The problem is, ideology shapes how most people judge a journalist, regardless of the quality of the work. We're suspect, if not dishonest, in someone's eyes no matter what we do. Other than the overall body of our work (and who's going to back-read all that stuff?), we don't have many ways to blunt suspicions about our motives and biases. So we should hang on to the ways we do have. And one way is to not contribute money, because if we keep our checkbooks closed we deprive our critics of ammunition, and it becomes that much harder to question our honesty. (And I think honesty is what people really mean when they say objectivity.) By staying out of the giving game, I'd argue that you are doing journalism a service: You are improving the likelihood that the work you produce will be considered accurate and truthful. Appearances matter.

Posted by csp | June 21, 2007 6:26 PM

This might sound absolutist to some, but this really goes beyond donating to candidates/parties.

Journalists should think twice about even registering for a political party - even if its for the purpose of voting in a primary that only allows registered members to vote.

Voting in and of itself - depending on the journalist/media outlet and the election - can be problematic.

Unless, of course, the journalist in question and their employer do not mind having his/her voting record publicly reported.

Maintaining independence - and yes, even the appearance of it - is really an ethical cornerstone of journalism.

But readers have a right to know if journalists at non-partisan media outlets are members of a political party and even who they've voted for in the past.

Posted by SoCalJustice | June 21, 2007 8:06 PM

Journalists aren't opinionated because they donate; They donate because they're opinionated, or they might be opinionated and not donate. Really, this is a sickening exercise--people who write about the news for a living should have opinions if they, you know, think. The key is intellectual honesty, which is not well served by pretending it's a scandal David Denby donates to Democrats and then liked "An Inconvenient Truth."

Stories like this, and the whole indifferent attitiude of so much of the press, are certainly aiding relativism. Debates and arguments do not shape reality; ideally it's the other way around. Evolution and Global Warming exist--deniers should be given the same respectability as holocaust deniers. Obviously, other truths are less clear cut, so reporters should present the best evidence on both sides and stay out of it. That sort of fairness is something anyone willing to think sceptically can easily do, regardless of their political views.

Posted by Robert Geilfuss | June 21, 2007 10:15 PM

In addition to what MattY says, I'll soon be posting to my DailyKos diary about this scandal. How dare they! Look, we expect this of an O'Reilly producer, but how dare non-biased MSM reporters donate to the RNC? Join me, MattY, and the rest of the progressive b-sphere as we drive these traitors and moles out of the public discourse area.

Posted by Traitors exposed! | June 21, 2007 11:22 PM

The article reported that 144 out of some 100,000 reporters donated. that is 0.14%, hardly significant.

the other way to look at this is that 99% of reporters do not contribute. That should be taken as strong evidence that the press is not bias -- exactly the opposite conclusion as the spin gives.

Posted by spencer | June 22, 2007 9:30 AM

I could see a media company having a policy forbidding journalists from making political contributions, so as to more easily maintain the veneer of objectivity. I don't think it's necessary. Only the naive think journalists have no biases. What we want is that they do their job as objectively as possible, not that they be opinionless reporterdroids. Making political donations merely exposes their underlying opinions. If anything, it causes a reader to be more critical of the reporter's work. The work is the same whether the donation is made or not.

Two qualifications:
If a media company had the bulk of its employees all giving the max to a candidate, and strangely receiving a bonus in the same amount, and that candidate just happened to favor a bill that the media company wanted passed, then hammer them all with conspiracy to violate campaaign contribution limits.
Politicians are known to trade access for donations. In other business, the access isn't necessarily of value. The access is to have an opportunity to lobby for something of value. For a reporter, the access itself is essentially a product. A politician who talks to a reporter because that reporter gave him a donation has completed a cash transaction for something of value. It is one step more unethical than donations by lobbyists.

Posted by Njorl | June 22, 2007 10:11 AM

If reporters or editors or anyone else in news media is so supportive of a particular candidate in a particular party that they're willing to shell out their hard earned money, readers and the public have a right to know. That's not even taking into account the ethics of the situation.

This comment cuts to the bone of the matter. While those here spin away at what it means or does not mean, the real answer is the public does, indeed, have a right to know and they will be interested because they believe it has relevance.

Posted by Fred Jones | June 22, 2007 12:18 PM

Matt,

It's not "a former copy editor" at The Atlantic who made the donation.

Martha Spaulding was deputy managing editor of the magazine when she gave $500 to the Democratic National Committee.

Bill

Posted by Bill Dedman | June 25, 2007 3:56 PM

i really do think dedman is in a logical bind here. he might have a few small samples of journos of various stripes giving to non-rightist candidates. (this would by the way put the journos squarely in the majoritarian stream that views the rightists as a failed fringe.) but he cannot ignore the GE money going heavily in the GOP corner. does he really think there is no corporate pressure on him and msnbc to gin up stories like this while leaving the corporate masters out of it? how could he do this ... stunt, in essence, without looking at his own corporate ownership in the same light? it's oddly sloppy work from a veteran who should know better,

Posted by eyeball | June 25, 2007 5:35 PM

I had several issues with this report:
1. No context. How many people contributed compared to how many did not? Is 144 1 percent? 10 percent?
2. Sorry, fashion writers, classical music critics, Scarborough? Who cares about the contributions of fashion writers or classical music critics? And would it be a surprise to anyone that Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, contributed to the Republican party? Now if he had contributed to the Democrats, that would be news!
3. One person was dinged for a "contribution" that actually was the purchase of a concert ticket that benefited Moveon.org. Are you really going to give someone a hard time for being a diehard Bruce Springsteen fan?

Posted by lou | June 26, 2007 10:17 AM

As Spencer said above, 99.86% of journalists have made no contribution, so I really have to wonder about the legitimacy of this piece.

Dedman creates an unending list of contributors, but fails to show a single instance of one of these people actually skewing coverage. Without that evidence, he provides no evidence to support his bold claim that this statistically insignificant group of journalists "appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms."

That claim and the structure of the piece - constructed by his harassment of people for comments after scouring public records - is insulting to the Pulitzer Prize on his mantle. Not to mention that Howard Kurtz wrote a very similar piece for the Washington Post in 2004.

I would think that a reporter - especially a self proclaimed "investigative reporter" - would put a little more elbow grease to build the story.

Maybe next time, he can find a subject of greater value and substance to report.... and actually back it up with reporting - not surfing the internet and writing emails.

Posted by TJG | June 26, 2007 12:35 PM

Who determines content of the publication anyway, the reporter/employees? Oh, pulleeze. Little Suzie Blue gets a lead on a hot story, she takes the idea to her editor, editor says uh-uh, we're running the story on blah, blah, blah instead. You know, the editors hear from the publishers, who hear from the CEOs, who always have an eye on the bottom line at corporate. That wee reporter may give $500.00 to a Democrat, but when Tom Griscom, the editor of the Chattanooga Times Free Press--a former RJR Tobacco lobbyist who headed up the propaganda machine to plant op-eds in papers in a spin campaign about the so-called dangers of tobacco--is giving billions via his front groups, doesn't it seem a little laughable to be worried about 144 reporters out of 10,000?!
Of course it does--because this is the old "shiny object" scam writ large. Look! Over Here! Liberal Media! See Proof! Meanwhile, we're paying hundreds of thousands to big names to plant those sly op-eds....

Posted by brighid_mcbride | July 1, 2007 1:51 PM