Infinite Monkeys

I don't think these folks should have to excuse themselves. If anything, a political donation is an effective disclosure of bias which exists whether you engage in formal political activity or not.

Not that I encourage deliberate skewing of hard news, but disclosure of bias is going to be much better for public discourse than forbidding any activity that might tip the hand of the bias-holder.

I liked Rolling Stone editor Jann Wenner's response.

Well, wait a second Robb, there's a huge difference between those who claim to be unbiased and those involved in advocacy journalism. I agree with you that I much prefer to read magazines that present both sides, but make it clear what their position is (for example, the London Economist,), but that's not what most of the mainstream media does.

I agree. What I'm saying is that I believe it is unrealistic to expect "unbiased" as a general principle. What you're more likely to get is bias masquerading as objectivity. Transparency about bias is, I believe, a more realistic way of dealing with this problem than forbidding political donations and other "political activity."

News organizations should strive for what Wikipedia calls a NPOV or "Neutral Point of View" in their reporting, but achieving that style of research and presentation is not (in my opinion) aided by restricting political activity outside of the newsroom. Rather, allowing a politically opinionated person to engage in such activity (again, OUTSIDE of the newsroom) will be more likely to shed light on any biases that person is bringing INTO the newsroom, and it will allow the consumer of such news to make an informed decision about the viewpoint and perspective of the person delivering the news. It will also allow editors, fact checkers, and other staff to be more acutely aware of what biases to "watch out for" in their journalists.

In short, disclosure beats obfuscation more often than not.

Robb is wrong about a lot of things, but he's pretty much right about this. Disclosure is a beautiful thing and everyone knows that objectivity is a sham and liberal do-gooderism is pervasive in the news business. I may have to post something about this separately, but I rather liked this response from a Detroit Free-Press staffer who wasted his hard-earned money on the Democrats:

(D) Detroit Free Press, Joel Thurtell, reporter, $500 to the Michigan Democratic State Central Committee in September 2004.

"Whatever the Free Press policy is," Thurtell said, "I actually have my own policy about that: I'm a citizen of the United States. I have a right to support whatever candidate I like."

Thurtell said his political views don't influence his reporting, as demonstrated by his role as a reporter on the stories disclosing the ways that Democratic Rep. John Conyers used his congressional staff to run personal errands and do campaign business.

"I got tons of e-mail from liberal-type people who likened me to Karl Rove. I have tried to be as honest as I possibly can as a reporter."

What really surprised me about the story is that these newspaper people have money to give to anyone besides their creditors!

This guy, however, is a first-rate cowardly weasel:

(D) Lexington Herald-Leader, Brian Throckmorton, copy desk chief, $250 to John Kerry in June 2004. His staff edits local news articles, selects wire stories and writes headlines.

"The thing that we try to avoid is the appearance of partiality," Throckmorton said. "And for me that means bumper stickers and yard signs and things that might lead the public to easily but falsely suspect that there's a problem with our impartiality. But something as private as a donation which they might have to work to find out...."

Besides, he said, "the fact of a political donation doesn't imply lack of impartiality or bad news judgment to begin with, and one person making a donation doesn't imply that there's a bias throughout the newsroom."

Then Throckmorton said, "I'm not comfortable being included in the story. Do not publish my name."

The paper's managing editor, Tom Eblen, said in an e-mail, "Herald-Leader newsroom employees are not allowed to actively or publicly participate in politics. Our policies strongly discourage, but do not prohibit, this type of donation."

What makes this a story — and what continues to give John Stossel, the Media Research Center and Bernie Goldberg careers — is the constant denials of liberals in the media that their biases don't enter their coverage. Tell that to Newt Gingrich, portrayed as "The Gingrich Who Stole Christmas" on the cover of Time Magazine in December 1994. Meanwhile, Pelosi — an ideological hack who is well -known, even (quietly) among Hill Democrats, as among the dimmest bulbs to ever hold high power — is given a glowing Time profile before she took the gavel.

Liberal media bias is an issue that is very close to me. I spent years covering Congress, the White House and national politics inside the Beltway. And all the liberals just unconsciously portray left-leaning positions as right and true — and any challenge to that position as a threat to the republic.

Fox News, which they decry as biased (without admitting their own bias) merely portrays conservative/right positions with respect — and gives both sides of the story. The MSM's head is so far up its ass, and its bias so ingrained, they call that bias.

I know all that. But the bias is so obvious -- like, Pravda obvious -- that it's hard to get worked up about anymore. Who doesn't know by now that the Wall Street Journal's news side is lousy with communists? The interesting part is the lame justifications, I guess. But they're lame! That's the point!

I guess. But you give the public too much credit. We Monkeys, and those smart enough to hand out with us, are savvy enough to know that the media is always trying to pull something over on us. But the great mass of the public is not.

How else to explain polls that show that a good majority of the people think the economy is getting "worse and worse." There are other examples of the general public being convinced by a liberal media that things are a certain way, when they aren't.

A biased media I can take — and in fact, prefer. But the danger comes when the general public thinks 20/20 and 60 Minutes and Brian Williams and The New York Times are playing it straight (just because those outlets say so and have earned the public's trust over the decades), when they are not.