But There's No Media Bias...

A recent article on MSN.com reveals what most of us already knew: the media tilts overwhelmingly to the Left and supports Liberal causes and Democrat candidates.

The surprising thing is how many of these "journalists" kept their donations a secret from their readers and their own bosses. If they were so proud of the way they're spending their own money, why the secrecy? Might it be because it could hurt their alleged "credibility" as supposedly objective journalists?

Bill Dedman, MSN.com's investigative reporter reveals that "a junior editor at Dow Jones Newswires gave $1,036 to the liberal group MoveOn.org and keeps a blog listing 'people I don't like,' starting with George Bush, Pat Robertson, the Christian Coalition, the NRA and corporate America..." Does anyone think that these people and groups will get even a speck of fair coverage from this editor?

MSNBC.com unearthed the political contributions of 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign. This donation information was accessed by the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Of the 144, a full 125 (86%!) gave to Democrats, with only 17 giving to the GOP and two giving to both parties. By any definition, this is a full bore tilt to one side from a group of people who are supposed to be objective in their job. Not even close.

Thankfully, outcry born at conservative websites and talk radio has exposed this injustice. In response, many news outlets are adopting policies banning employees from making any political contributions of any kind. Since these donations are a matter of public record, anyone breaking these policies will be easily exposed with pressure put to bear on their employers to act.

However, one needs to ask if the news media even cares. The level of trust Americans hold in their newspeople has sunk to the lowest level in the 20 years of surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Over 7 in 10 (actually, 72%) say news organizations tend to favor one side.

With the old Watergate expression "follow the money" coming into play, the money changing hands clearly goes to just one side. The coverage of the events is then slanted toward that side, with minor and major examples in reporting, headlines, story placement, etc. all adding up to confirm what the public long suspected and this MSN.com story clearly reveals.

The media has chosen sides and we are all much the worse for it.

And that's the view from the right. The way things ought to be.