host

MSNBC is out with an investigative story, based on info from the FEC pertaining to political donations by people employed by news media outlets.
It seems that, <b>out of 143 of these people it identified, MSNBC found that less than 20 donated to republicans.</b> I'm wondering....knowing what we know, why the number supporting republicans is still so high.....

Can any journalist or editor donate to republicans and still be considered a news professional, this late in the current cycle of republican scandals, lawbreaking, and obstruction of justice?

I believe that it is ethical to do so...albeit while displaying poor judgment and flying in the face of the facts that would deem such donations as "fringe" behavior, as long as the journalism professionals publicly disclose their donations. The majority of those who voted in an MSNBC poll that asked this question, seem to agree.

Is anyone else surprised that there are still so many of these folks donating to republicans?

I think that the donations are skewed so far towards democrats because republicans have migrated to an alternate, parallel universe to obtain the news and talking points that shape their points of views, and these "sources" are not credible and noticeably warp the POV of those who take in the information that they disseminate....a journalist or editor cannot be taken seriously by the majority if they work in a fact gathering and reporting capacity, but have a preference for the republican "take" on news events and political messages....so they don't, in order to maintain credibility.

To embrace the republican POV, would have put any journalist on the wrong side of all of the major current events since.....Dec. 12, 2000....the FLA 2000 vote....WMD....the invasion and occupation of Iraq....the actual threat to the US from "terrorism".....the actual need for the Patriot acts to maintain US security....the justification for Gitmo prison....for not cooperating with the rest of the world to mitigate the threat from global warming....the fallacy that the Bush tax cuts were just or in the best interest of most Americans, evolution vs. intelligent design.....or the notion that christians are not freely allowed by government to worship as they please....or that it is beneficial to most of us to "privatize" SSI....or that the "free market" should be left unfettered by government to "handle" the issues of excessive US petroleum consumption or the best use of natural resources on protected, federally owned land, and workplace safety and environmental protection.....and on and on and on.......so the journalism profession obviously shuns all of it.

The message from republicans is so unified and narrow that, to embrace it and repeat it, a journalist would sound very similar to Rush or to Brett Bozell III.....like....uhhhh.....Drudge does. The corporate ownership....reflected in the editorial pages of publications like WAPO, WSJ, and NY Times.....often reads much like Rush and Bozell....and the difference between what comes from the editorial page....vs. actual news reporting would come as a shock, if editorial opinion...like, for example...."Richard Armitage was the leaker of Valerie Plame's identity, so it is unfair and not necessary to prosecute "Scoot", was taken seriously by most of us....and "Scoot" was prosecuted, convicted, and sent to prison, anyway.....

Journalists are savvy....just like most of the public has become....otherwise, it wouldn't be possible to explain "the decider's" 26 percent job approval rating, while the stock market makes new record highs, almost weekly....would it?