The "Liberal Media" Smoking Gun?

By: Brian Montopoli
Topics: 4th Estate Debate

(CBS)

If you're at all interested in the Great Media Bias Debate - and if you're here, there's a decent chance you are - you've probably seen MSNBC's report about journalists contributing to political campaigns. In a development that should shock precisely no one, 125 of the 144 journos identified gave to "Democrats and liberal causes," while only 17 gave to Republicans. (Two gave to both parties.)

There is a ton going on here, so let's get to it. First off: As is usually the case when trying to translate the messiness of life into easily digestible statistics, things aren't as cut-and-dry as they may seem. For starters, these aren't all political journalists - a quick review of the list reveals a travel writer, classical music critic, and sports statistician, among others. I'm not sure how the political beliefs of a sports statistician are particularly relevant to a discussion about ideological media bias - I'd be more concerned about him being a Yankee fan. Many of those listed also said that the contributions were made by family members, even though Federal Election Commission records listed their names as contributors.

Additionally, some of those mentioned work for media outlets that wear their political leanings on their sleeves - Salon.com, the Washington Times and the New Yorker, for example. I'm not sure I would necessarily lump them in with the "mainstream media." Another interesting inclusion is MTV's former correspondent Gideon Yago, who offered up the most amusing quote in the MSNBC piece: "I don't understand. Things that I do as a private citizen? I mean, what the f---, man?"

Still, there are plenty of journalists on this list who cover politics and/or military issues, and the report seems to confirm the worst fears of those who feel that the press corps is hopelessly liberal. CBS News had two folks identified in the piece, former "Sunday Morning" correspondent Serena Altschul and "Sunday Morning" producer Edward H. Forgotson Jr., both of whom gave to liberal politicians or causes.

Both contributions were made before Sept. 2006, when CBS News adopted a policy forbidding such contributions. (They had previously only been discouraged.) Here's the language of the present policy:

Avoid any active participation in politics and political campaigns. This prohibition includes wearing buttons or otherwise publicly identifying yourself on one side or the other in political campaigns. CBS News policy also forbids contributions to political campaigns.

The debate over whether there is a liberal bias in news coverage is an old and complicated one, and I can't come close to doing it justice in this post. My feelings on the issue tend to echo those of Jeff Greenfield, whom I spoke to last month.

"Most members of the so-called mainstream media undoubtedly, in the voting booth, vote Democratic," he said. "There's no way out of that, you can't ignore it. There are certain cultural, personal reasons - when I say personal I mean reasons of personality. Reasons of background. Why you go into journalism in the first place. You tend to have attitudes that tend to mark you more as a Democrat than a Republican. You tend to be more secular, you tend to be more skeptical, you tend to be disrespectful of authority. And those things tend - tend - to push to the left of the spectrum."

As for how that is reflected in coverage, that's a different question. Liberal media critics argue that members of the media are so concerned about being perceived as liberal that they overcompensate by shading their coverage to the right. For evidence, they point to the coverage of Al Gore and John Kerry's presidential runs.

On cultural issues, however, it may be a different story: Then-New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent concluded in 2004 that the "Times present[s] the social and cultural aspects of same-sex marriage in a tone that approaches cheerleading." If there is a tendency for ostensibly objective reporters to try to compensate for their liberal leanings in political coverage, it may be weaker - or nonexistent - when it comes to cultural issues.

Of course, "bias" isn't static. One can spend part of life as a liberal or conservative and end up somewhere else. (See: David Brock, David Horowitz.) Even though the donations detailed by MSNBC suggest that reporters lean liberal by nature, you can't discount the fact that they are citizens just like everyone else - and that their political views evolve, at least to some degree, as a result of their reaction to current events and the actions of politicians.

In the piece, Times "ethicist" Randy Cohen makes another point that underscores how this issue isn't as simple as a headline might suggest.

"We admire those colleagues who participate in their communities - help out at the local school, work with Little League, donate to charity," Cohen wrote, in an e-mail to MSNBC. "But no such activity is or can be non-ideological. Few papers would object to a journalist donating to the Boy Scouts or joining the Catholic Church. But the former has an official policy of discriminating against gay children; the latter has views on reproductive rights far more restrictive than those of most Americans. Should reporters be forbidden to support those groups? I'd say not."

Brian Montopoli
Brian Montopoli is the senior political reporter at CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

24 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 24 Comments


by sanfelz June 23, 2007 8:08 PM EDT: It takes a lot of travel writers to match the power and influence of Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch. Or Pat Buchanan or Diane Sawyer. Or Larry Kudlow and Tucker Carlson.

If MSNBC wanted to engage in true investigative reporting it might want to compare and contrast AEI and other think tanks as to their funding and impact on the Bush Administration.; Reply to this comment


by one_american June 22, 2007 10:02 PM EDT: "Is Senator Barbara Feinstein (Frankenstein) a proponent of our occupation in Iraq?"

Posted by Mattcat25 at 06:49 PM : Jun 22, 2007

No, she is safely in the opposition camp & against the President.

See the irony?

Or is it - hipocricy?

My point is that Democrats have too much "house cleaning" to worry about, instead of pointing fingers at Republicans.; Reply to this comment


by mattcat25 June 22, 2007 9:49 PM EDT: Is Senator Barbara Feinstein (Frankenstein) a proponent of our occupation in Iraq?
Her husband is WEALTHY, but did Feinstein start the war? or, vote in favor of Bush%u2019s invasion?
Maybe she did...; Reply to this comment


by one_american June 22, 2007 8:06 PM EDT: Mattcat25:

Or even better STILL - how many Democrats, because of their positions in Congress, are sitting on Military Appropriation Committees, who steer money to their spouses who benefit from those military contracts?

Need a hint?

(Talk to California DEMOCRAT Senator Barbara Feinstein for the answer); Reply to this comment


by mattcat25 June 22, 2007 6:35 PM EDT: I wonder how many Conservative Talk Radio employees donate to the RNC?
Or, better yet%u2026I would like to see a report on how many Iraq War Profiteering Contractors donate to the RNC???; Reply to this comment


by one_american June 22, 2007 5:52 PM EDT: ...and now Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer want to suppress free speech by passing legislation against conservative talk radio!

It's pretty obvious that Hillary would impose a leftist dictatorship upon this country if given the opportunity, and use the liberally-biased news media to make it happen...; Reply to this comment


by marichard-2009 June 22, 2007 3:22 PM EDT: When this issue arises, as it does periodically, the MSM gets all huffy and defensive, while the leftists indulge their hatred and invective toward 'the Right' - based on what I've read, about the only political emotion of which they are capable. It is true that many of the writers on the MSNBC list are covering politics, or write for explicitly partisan outlets, the list is fairly accurate in supporting other surveys that show journalists to be, as voters, among the most loyal Democratic Party constituencies. It also suggests a wider professional, institutional culture that has, as institutions do, its particular self-interest that is identified with a political party.

I mean, get real. Anyone who has been around journalism and academia who has a moderately-informed ear for the language of American politics knows that journalism professionals are overwhelmingly pro-Democratic. Whenever there is quantifiable evidence of this, MSM people question the methodology (holding themselves to a much higher standard of proof than other professions) and say it doesn't affect coverage. And when examples are offered of how left-leaning vocabulary, framing, and narrative has slanted coverage, the MSM inevitably responds that the evidence is 'anecdotal'.

Get over it. Antipathy between the Republican Party and the mainstream media has been part of the furniture of American politics at least since Eisenhower was cheered at the 1964 GOP convention for criticizing the press.; Reply to this comment


by wirro-2009 June 22, 2007 2:43 PM EDT: Once again, the conspiracy nut on the right immediately jump to the conclusion that this tiny number of donors, an insignificant sample, translates into a bias by the thousands of journalists in the US.

My take on it? I'm impressed by the fact that more than 99% of journalists take the issue of conflict of interest seriously and refrain from contributing.; Reply to this comment


by mattcat25 June 22, 2007 1:10 PM EDT: I guess we can all blame "the media" and people that donate to the Democratic Party for Vice President Richard Cheney's attempt to abolish the Federal Office in charge of investigating his secret Energy Policy Meetings and his part in promoting the occupation of Iraq.

The GOP needs to be held accountable for the odious actions they continually commit on the American People.; Reply to this comment


by ozonmojo June 22, 2007 12:20 PM EDT: American media today is a gross distortion of the First Amendment.This is reflected in the public's deep distrust of the media.Typically,instead of worrying about the lack of its own credibility the media talks about the lack of public trust in the President and the Congress.Pot calling...; Reply to this comment