News Liberal Media Attempting to Understand Conservatives

[ibnsos]

Perhaps I misunderstood Chomsky's point (which is entirely plausible), but it seems to me he was arguing that strictly speaking, it isn't evidence that the information put out by the media itself has a liberal bias. Now, it would seem to suggest that the media has a liberal bias, but then a number of other factors also need to be taken into consideration. First, not all people who vote for the Democrats are necessarily liberal (in fact, some people I know who vote Democrat are mostly moderates)*. Next, consider that the journalists don't really have control over what's published; the journalists’ articles need to satisfy the publishers. So if the publishers have a right-wing bias as Chomsky suggests, then this bias is potentially reflected in the journalists’ work (a lot of this would depend upon the specific publisher). Therefore, all-in-all, the media is a lot less liberal than you might think based on the statistics.

This is how I interpreted Chomsky's argument, which (assuming that some of his assertions are correct) seems plausible to me. However, I'll concede that I didn't listen too closely and well could have misunderstood him. But I'll agree with you that the 80% figure does mean something. I just don't think that it means quite as much as it leads people to believe.

*I just wanted to add that a number of people I know who vote Republican are also mostly moderate. I'm not trying to argue that one political party is closer to the center than the other.

I'm not following the logic here. If the editors and big wigs are conservatives, why create more work editing material to your personal slant? Wouldn't it make more sense to employ writers that already slant your way?

 

[aquitaine]

This whole "liberal media conspiracy"　and "us vs. them" attitude highlights exactly what's wrong with american politics and why no one seems capable of doing anything to solve any of our problems. Shame.

 

[jgens]

That some irrelevant crackpot says something else is not of importance.

That's a value statement. I don't think that you've ever really addressed Chomsky's argument; on the other hand, you've had plenty to say about him being a crackpot. From my perspective, this looks like the logical fallacy ad hominem. And providing a specific example or two of a liberal bias in the media doesn't really refute Chomsky's argument, particularly regarding the role that publishers have in the media.

By the way, there are respectable people in academia who view Chomsky as a credible source on a number of issues.

 

[jgens]

I'm not following the logic here. If the editors and big wigs are conservatives, why create more work editing material to your personal slant? Wouldn't it make more sense to employ writers that already slant your way?

There's no need for the conservative bigwigs* to edit any material. They can continue to reject articles until they deem them satisfactory; this amounts to very little work on their end. As to why there's an abundance of supposedly** liberal journalists, perhaps people with liberal political views are more attracted to that particular career. Moreover, not everyone with liberal views is going to write with that bias.

*Note that this isn't my argument or assertion, it's my interpretation/understanding of Chomsky's argument which may well be flawed (as I've already acknowledged).

**I say supposedly because someone who votes Democratic is not necessarily liberal.

 

[ibnsos]

I do not think mainstream society has a response of "Aww, how cute" regarding two people of the same sex together. I'm not saying people think gays are evil or anything like that, but mainstream America is a pretty conservative country, look at what happened when Janet Jackson revealed her breast on TV for a few seconds or so. BIG MISTAKE. Then when there was an issue of some baby magazine, and on the cover they put a picture of a baby sucking a mother's breast. Again, BIG MISTAKE. A picture of two gays, outside of San Francisco or California overall, I think most people would just see it as someone trying to ram homosexuality down their throat, even if they have no problem with them (that's how I would interpret it).

As for media bias, IMO just look at how the mainstream media treated Barack Obama versus Sarah Palin and you pretty much have a basis.

I saw an interesting segment earlier on O'Reilly where he said much of the mainstream media consider Fox News to be veeery far to the right, and as such, see it as their job to be the leftwing counter to what they see as the extreme right-wing Fox News.

Of Fox News itself, I think the hard news aspect is center to center-right, and the infotainers, like Glenn Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly (the first two in particular!), are very far to the right.

Or more importantly, Sarah Palin vs. Joe Biden since that was her counterpart in the election. Of course watching the media it was hard to tell that Palin was running for VP and not President.

Of course the counterpoint to Fox' mouthpieces is MSNBC's Olbermann, Maddow, Ed and Matthews.

I think the divide between conservative and liberal thought process on some issues just may be to large for one group not to see the other group's beliefs as anything but crackpottery. (Speaking generally of course, there are exceptions.)

 

[ibnsos]

There's no need for the conservative bigwigs* to edit any material. They can continue to reject articles until they deem them satisfactory; this amounts to very little work on their end. As to why there's an abundance of supposedly** liberal journalists, perhaps people with liberal political views are more attracted to that particular career. Moreover, not everyone with liberal views is going to write with that bias.

*Note that this isn't my argument or assertion, it's my interpretation/understanding of Chomsky's argument which may well be flawed (as I've already acknowledged).

**I say supposedly because someone who votes Democratic is not necessarily liberal.

I find that to be difficult to believe. However, I suppose it could explain the horrible state of journalism and broadcast news.

ETA
I will say that, at least in my college, most of the social science and humanities students and teachers tend towards the left. While most of us in the engineering and natural sciences (except biology) tend towards the right.

 

[jgens]

I find that to be difficult to believe. However, I suppose it could explain the horrible state of journalism and broadcast news.

There are also laws preventing employers from discriminating against people on the basis of their political beliefs. That probably impacts it. It's also not always apparent what someone's political views are when you're hiring them, and once you have hired them, you can't just terminate them because you don't like their political ideology. I would guess that this has an impact too.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

To take another case:
There was an embarassed silence from the MSM when Anita Dunn hailed chairman Mao as one of her heroes.

... But that was a joke?

"My favourite political philosophers are Mao Tse-tung and Mother Theresa."

 

[arildno]

That's a value statement. I don't think that you've ever really addressed Chomsky's argument;

Incorrect.
He presents absolutely no evidence for his web of assertions. Thus, there is no need to "address" his argument further than just that. It is sufficient, due to the lack of evidence from his side.

on the other hand, you've had plenty to say about him being a crackpot.

Indeed. Precisely because he, throughout his entire life, has been incapable of producing evidence. That's WHY he is a crackpot.

From my perspective, this looks like the logical fallacy ad hominem.

Incorrect. Dismissing him as a crackpot is the highest rational assessment of him.

And providing a specific example or two of a liberal bias in the media doesn't really refute Chomsky's argument,

It certainly does, because he never has any evidence whatsoever for his assertions.

particularly regarding the role that publishers have in the media.

And again, he doesn't produce evidence for this, just whinings about that such is the case, and that journalists, gripped in the terrifying fear of getting hungry, are will-less mouthpieces of such evil people.

By the way, there are respectable people in academia who view Chomsky as a credible source on a number of issues.

Respectable?
Who? His students?

 

[Jack21222]

After reading the article, I would say it argues against your point. If acceptance was main stream, I wouldn't expect to see such outrage. One could even argue it's a perfect example of journalists activley participating in social engineering (of course that's right wing, racist crackpotery.)

I refuse to believe that bigotry is the norm in the year 2010 in the United States. That you call this picture "social engineering" proves my point about conservatives pointing at normal reporting in the media and calling it, to use a term endemic to this thread, "liberal crackpottery."

Would you call it social engineering if a newspaper shows a black man and a white woman kissing like that?

 

[arildno]

But unless you sew in every different type of example, all you have is a bunch of gaping holes. =D

Holes are in the eyes of the beholders. In particular when they are blind

Examples are meaningless when used to support statements of a statistical nature.

Well, in addition, deductions are permissible.
Terrorist-adulators like Nasr would never have achieved positions of responsibility like that of senior editor without her views being largely shared by members of the CNN elite.

That she somehow, through 20 years of intimate professional collaboration would not have disclosed her vileness to others in her profession is simply, unthinkable.

Thus, the revelation of her words speaks volumes about the acceptance of such horrid political biases within the top echelons in CNN than anything else.

 

[madness]

Holes are in the eyes of the beholders. In particular when they are blind



Well, in addition, deductions are permissible.
Terrorist-adulators like Nasr would never have achieved positions of responsibility like that of senior editor without her views being largely shared by members of the CNN elite.

That she somehow, through 20 years of intimate professional collaboration would not have disclosed her vileness to others in her profession is simply, unthinkable.

Thus, the revelation of her words speaks volumes about the acceptance of such horrid political biases within the top echelons in CNN than anything else.

Her views are in agreement with the majority of the world. Only a few countries list Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. Even the European Union doesn't list them as a terrorist organisation. They have overwhelming support in Lebanon and provide extensive social services like schools and hospitals.
The fact that she was kicked out for this is very clear evidence for a right-wing bias.

 

[mheslep]

Since it is two males, people went berserk.

Relevance? What people?

Some conservatives may say that the Washington Post was promoting liberal "crackpottery" by running the photo.

That's a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man" assertion.

I argue that a photo of a gay couple touching lips is accepted in the mainstream.

No, you assert that it is, without argument.

 

[mheslep]

Her views are in agreement with the majority of the world. Only a few countries list Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. Even the European Union doesn't list them as a terrorist organisation. They have overwhelming support in Lebanon and provide extensive social services like schools and hospitals.
The fact that she was kicked out for this is very clear evidence for a right-wing bias.

Incredible. I retract my doubts about Gokul's damned if they do comment in the other thread.

 

[jgens]

Incorrect.
He presents absolutely no evidence for his web of assertions. Thus, there is no need to "address" his argument further than just that. It is sufficient, due to the lack of evidence from his side.

Granted, he doesn't provide any real evidence in the web clip. However, given the nature of that clip, I would argue that it would be inappropriate to really do more than articulate his point of view. If he wrote a book on it (which I'm sure he did), that would be the place I would look for real evidence.

As it stands, many large corporations and conglomerates overwhelmingly support the Republican Party. Most main stream news outlets are owned by large corporations or conglomerates. Therefore, it seems that it would be in the interests of news outlets to support the particular interests of whatever corporations own them and these corporate interest are most likely conservative.

You also have the problem with advertising, something which is necessary for any major news outlet. In 2003, a Fox News executive said, "The problem with being associated as liberal is that [it] wouldn't be going in a direction that advertisers are really interested in... If you go out and say that you are a liberal network, you are cutting your potential audience, and certainly your potential advertising pool, right off the bat." Granted, this is a Fox News executive and I didn't get the quote from the best source*.

I realize that none of this proves Chomsky's argument, all of it is really speculation. But I think that it suggests that Chomsky might be able to produce some evidence to support (at least some of) his claims.

*http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2595

Indeed. Precisely because he, throughout his entire life, has been incapable of producing evidence.

Evidence? If you keep making claims and declaring them as absolutes without any real evidence whatsoever, are you any better than Chomsky?

Incorrect. Dismissing him as a crackpot is the highest rational assessment of him.

It does nothing to directly address the argument, so it's a logical fallacy. If you happen to address his argument and point out that he's a crackpot, then sure, that would actually help your argument (assuming you can establish that he is one). But as of this moment, all you've really done is call him a crackpot and provide maybe two or three examples of a liberal bias in the media. Not only do those examples not even remotely prove a systematic liberal media bias, they don't address Chomsky's argument.

It certainly does, because he never has any evidence whatsoever for his assertions.

Again, evidence? An example or two does nothing to show a systematic liberal bias and does nothing to address the role of the publisher.

Respectable?
Who? His students?

Howard Zinn and a number of other historians who regularly cite some of his work.

 

[arildno]

I realize that none of this proves Chomsky's argument, all of it is really speculation.

Quite so.

 

[jgens]

Quite so.

And you would argue that your claim concerning liberal dominance in the media isn't speculation? Again, you can't use a few examples to demonstrate a systematic bias.

 

[Vanadium 50]

At the risk of injecting facts, I would encourage people to read "A Measure of Media Bias" by Groseclose and Milyo.

 

[Gokul43201]

Link, rebuttal, and response to rebuttal: http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/the_problems_wi.html

 

[mheslep]

Link, rebuttal, and response to rebuttal: http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/the_problems_wi.html

Fairly weak rebuttal. Makes a valid point that a possible flaw in Measure of Bias could be the difference in quality between left and right wing think tanks, then asserts that the left leaning tanks are indeed better by means of citing his own blog post (spinsanity blog).

 

[mheslep]

As it stands, many large corporations and conglomerates overwhelmingly support the Republican Party.

As it stands, many large corporations and conglomerates overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party. The richest residential areas of the US overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party; it has indeed become the party of the rich.

 

[jgens]

As it stands, many large corporations and conglomerates overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party. The richest residential areas of the US overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party; it has indeed become the party of the rich.

According to Howard Zinn, the large corporations and conglomerates donate many millions more to the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. If this has changed significantly in the last election, it would be the first time in several years that a Democratic candidate received more corporate donations than a Republican candidate.

But beside the point, it doesn't make sense that corporations would continue to support a party that is hostile to their interests. Unless of course the Democratic Party doesn't push for more regulation, government involvement, etc. in which case it could hardly be considered liberal from an economic viewpoint.

Edit: I'm withdrawing myself from the discussion after this post.

 

[mheslep]

But beside the point, it doesn't make sense that corporations would continue to support a party that is hostile to their interests.

Ask government owned General Motors, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and semi-owned Chrysler which US political party is hostile to their interests.

See the 2008 Presidential contributions by commercial industry below. Of the 13 sectors, Democrats collected more money in all but 4 of them, with several - lawyers and electronics (e.g. Apple, Google ) going overwhelmingly to the Democrats.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectorall.php?cycle=2008

 

[Mgt3]

There is no "liberal dominance" in the media. Hamilton's "All the News That's Fit to Sell" presents good quantitative evidence that market forces are the primary determinants of whether a story or editorial appears in a news medium. News outlets target their market to appeal to reader's/viewers. Content analysis of news services such as AP, Reuters, etc. has time and again shown that these particular sources show no bias in their reporting. This "liberal media" whining was old ten years ago.

 

[Evo]

There is no "liberal dominance" in the media. Hamilton's "All the News That's Fit to Sell" presents good quantitative evidence that market forces are the primary determinants of whether a story or editorial appears in a news medium. News outlets target their market to appeal to reader's/viewers. Content analysis of news services such as AP, Reuters, etc. has time and again shown that these particular sources show no bias in their reporting. This "liberal media" whining was old ten years ago.

Isn't his critique of news media from 1969 to 1998? That's ancient by today's standards. Was there anything more recent in his book?

 

[Evo]

Here is an interesting study.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

By Meg Sullivan December 14, 2005 Category: Research

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.

continued...

 

[CRGreathouse]

I read that study. It was interesting, but seemed methodologically flawed to me. I don't dispute its broad conclusions, but I would hesitate to draw much more from that -- and I would understand if a person rejected it outright.

 

[Gokul43201]

Fairly weak rebuttal. Makes a valid point that a possible flaw in Measure of Bias could be the difference in quality between left and right wing think tanks, then asserts that the left leaning tanks are indeed better by means of citing his own blog post (spinsanity blog).

Even without a demonstration of the difference in quality, this exposes a flaw in the methodology, since that methodology implicitly assumes no difference. The onus is upon G & M to show that any such difference is negligible.

 

[Gokul43201]

The richest residential areas of the US overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party; it has indeed become the party of the rich.

Not even close:

1. 2008 Presidential Election exit polls: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

2. Some randomly selected Senate exit polls (picking every 5th state, alphabetically ordered):

a. GA: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=GAS01p1
b. KY: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=KYS01p1
c. MN: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=MNS01p2
d. NH: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=NHS01p2
e. OR: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=NHS01p2

... ran out of patience here, having yet to find a single case where the richer segment of the population voted in greater numbers for the Dems than the poorer segment.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is an interesting study.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

continued...

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

How many times have I recommended the PBS News Hour as the best? I have also been defending CNN.

Meet the Press [esp under Russert] should easily be at the top of any qualified list.

 

[Gokul43201]

I recall when CNN fired Aaron Brown for Anderson Cooper, replacing journalism with pizazz. A sad day was that.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I recall when CNN fired Aaron Brown for Anderson Cooper, replacing journalism with pizazz. A sad day was that.

Agreed. They are getting fluffier and fluffier. King and Brown both seem to do a pretty good job, most of the time.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How many times have I recommended the PBS News Hour as the best? I have also been defending CNN.

A quick google suggests that the answer is, dozens of times.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...physicsforums.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

So much for the closet liberal theory, eh? You know who you are.

 

[Gokul43201]

Ask government owned General Motors, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae, and semi-owned Chrysler which US political party is hostile to their interests.

Selective sampling. Ask Walmart, Exxon, Chevron, GE and BoA (the 5 largest).

See the 2008 Presidential contributions by commercial industry below. Of the 13 sectors, Democrats collected more money in all but 4 of them, with several - lawyers and electronics (e.g. Apple, Google ) going overwhelmingly to the Democrats.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectorall.php?cycle=2008

1. Not all sectors are created equal.
2. This could be as much related to the quality of the candidates (and the odds of their winning) than any particular polarity in government-industry coziness.

 

[Vanadium 50]

1. Not all sectors are created equal.

Then look at the totals: 36% Republican and 64% Democratic.

This could be as much related to the quality of the candidates (and the odds of their winning) than any particular polarity in government-industry coziness.

It could be. But that theory would predict that the contributions be independent of sector. Why then is labor 95% Democratic?

I understand this is a particular fact that goes against the "conventional wisdom".

 

[Gokul43201]

Then look at the totals: 36% Republican and 64% Democratic.

I agree that the totals are a better metric than the number of sectors (hence, my objection to the latter).

It could be. But that theory would predict that the contributions be independent of sector. Why then is labor 95% Democratic?

No it would not. If the theory was that the only thing that mattered was the quality of the candidates, then one might be able to argue some independence (even then, I can't see the validity of such an argument; there could be so many gazillions of sector-to-sector differences in priorities, style or whims that make some spend more than others), but I didn't even go as far as saying that candidate differences were the dominant factor (let along the only one).

I understand this is a particular fact that goes against the "conventional wisdom".

I'm not arguing for the conventional wisdom. I am merely pointing out inadequacies in the provided argument. My squabble is with the methodology, not the result.

 

[aquitaine]

Isn't his critique of news media from 1969 to 1998? That's ancient by today's standards. Was there anything more recent in his book?

12 years ago was right before "the fox effect" took hold of the media. It was around that time that fox was turned into a republican propaganda station. Then the other media outlets, msnbc and cnn in particular, decided to stop trying to be objective and imitate fox, just by spouting democratic propoganda. The result is the vast wasteland that our media has become, full of shouting heads and deeply slanted reporting. cnn used to be a respectable news organization, but those days are gone. Unfortunately one of effects of this has been to further polarize and divide our political system, making is very hard to actually look for real solutions to our problems.

 

[russ_watters]

I realize this thread has moved fast, but a quick point about the argument looking for evidence of a liberal bias: Why nitpick the evidence, when some major players in the liberal media itself acknowledge the bias? There is no need to prove a fact that has already been acknowledged. Indeed, that was my main point in posting the thread in the first place!

The NYT did not need to do a study to prove to itself that it had a liberal bias: it knew and it made an attempt to deal with it.

 

[mheslep]

Not even close:

1. 2008 Presidential Election exit polls: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

2. Some randomly selected Senate exit polls (picking every 5th state, alphabetically ordered):
[...]
... ran out of patience here, having yet to find a single case where the richer segment of the population voted in greater numbers for the Dems than the poorer segment.

Ok, I'll have to qualify. The rich now live in the Democratic party, whether the poorer segment does or not.
From your link:
CNN 2008 Presidential, by income: $200,000 or More (6%) - Obama 52% McCain 46%
Moreover, the super rich overwhelmingly live the D. party; it is not even close as you say. Of the 20 richest zip codes in the US, 19 of them overwhelmingly contribute to the D. party.
[PLAIN]http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/WELL.15-32.Caldwell.jpg

I.e. mainly Wall Street, Hollywood, and DC, which I think should be unsurprising.

 

[mheslep]

I'm not arguing for the conventional wisdom. I am merely pointing out inadequacies in the provided argument. My squabble is with the methodology, not the result.

Well, on the subtopic of industry, keep in mind the thesis in debate at the moment is only:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2793875&postcount=71"

As it stands, many large corporations and conglomerates overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party.

which I made as a counter to the reverse statement from jgens - not that all or a majority of them do (I don't know). And my limited statement was called into question.

 

[mheslep]

Selective sampling. Ask Walmart, Exxon, Chevron, GE and BoA (the 5 largest)...

Without looking, I'd wager that at least GE (&MSNBC) CEO - Immelt in 2008 was a big Democratic pay day.

 

[madness]

I realize this thread has moved fast, but a quick point about the argument looking for evidence of a liberal bias: Why nitpick the evidence, when some major players in the liberal media itself acknowledge the bias? There is no need to prove a fact that has already been acknowledged. Indeed, that was my main point in posting the thread in the first place!

The NYT did not need to do a study to prove to itself that it had a liberal bias: it knew and it made an attempt to deal with it.

Andrew Marr is a top journalist in the UK and he has said "...the press is relatively right-wing (with some exceptions) because it is owned by big business, which is a truism and is well known".

 

[aquitaine]

I realize this thread has moved fast, but a quick point about the argument looking for evidence of a liberal bias: Why nitpick the evidence, when some major players in the liberal media itself acknowledge the bias? There is no need to prove a fact that has already been acknowledged. Indeed, that was my main point in posting the thread in the first place!

The NYT did not need to do a study to prove to itself that it had a liberal bias: it knew and it made an attempt to deal with it.

So the NYT made an attempt to deal with, what more could you want? That's a lot more than can be said for any so called right wing media outlet. There's always going to be bias in some form or another because it is humans who are running the show, but they should try to be concerned with one thing: the truth, no matter where it takes them. Unfortunately, that is not what they are concerned with.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Andrew Marr is a top journalist in the UK and he has said "...the press is relatively right-wing (with some exceptions) because it is owned by big business, which is a truism and is well known".

Is he talking about the UK media here?

 

[Gokul43201]

Without looking, I'd wager that at least GE (&MSNBC) CEO - Immelt in 2008 was a big Democratic pay day.

I do not contest that. I'm just pointing out what would be closer to an unbiased sample. If that sampling supports your thesis over someone else's, so be it.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Of the 20 richest zip codes in the US, 19 of them overwhelmingly contribute to the D. party.
[PLAIN]http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/WELL.15-32.Caldwell.jpg[/QUOTE]

No, 19 out of 20 (according to your data) contribute a _majority_ to the Democratic party. I wouldn't call 52% "overwhelming".

I'm actually rather surprised that the one giving a minority to the Democrats is McLean, which is in a strongly Democratic area.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I'm not convinced. Using campaign contributions as a way to measure support in an area is sort of indirect, compared to the obvious measure of seeing who won in the voting in that district. Also, these numbers came in a year when Obama and the Democrats destroyed every fundraising record in existence, and the Republicans were in a slump.


http://www.physorg.com/news64503916.html
Research indicates that rich people tend to vote Republican

Research tends to indicate that rich people vote for Republicans, but the tie is tenuous

 

[mheslep]

No, 19 out of 20 (according to your data) contribute a _majority_ to the Democratic party. I wouldn't call 52% "overwhelming".

<shrug>. 72%, 76, 86, 84, 73, 80, 65, 75, 79, 78, 81, 64, 83, 84, 48, 77, 70, 57, 59, 52%. Taken as a whole, then, the richest US zip codes contributed overwhelmingly to the D's as of 2008.

I'm actually rather surprised that the one giving a minority to the Democrats is McLean, which is in a strongly Democratic area.

I don't think so. The adjacent areas are indeed strongly D' (i.e. counties of Fairfax and esp Arlington), but I doubt McLean itself, a part of http://wolf.house.gov/images/user_images/va10map_modified_smaller(2).gif" , if my observation of the campaign yard signs in 2008, and the fact that Speaker Newt Gingrich and VP Dick Cheney live there (or used to) are any evidence at all.

 

[mheslep]

I'm not convinced. Using campaign contributions as a way to measure support in an area is sort of indirect, compared to the obvious measure of seeing who won in the voting in that district.

Not convinced of what? My thesis is not about popular support, but about the politics of the wealthy, and especially the uber wealthy in the US.

Also, these numbers came in a year when Obama and the Democrats destroyed every fundraising record in existence, and the Republicans were in a slump

Your point?

http://www.physorg.com/news64503916.html
Research indicates that rich people tend to vote Republican

Research tends to indicate that rich people vote for Republicans, but the tie is tenuous

1. That link reflects 2000, not 2008 data. 2. You might consider rereading your link and qualifying your summary:

Higher-income states, which used to favor Republicans, are voting for Democrats; yet overall, Republicans remain the favorite among the wealthy. For decades, Democrats have been viewed as the party of the poor, with Republicans representing the rich. Recent presidential elections, however, have shown a reverse pattern, with Democrats performing well in the richer "blue" states in the northeast and on the West Coast, and Republicans dominating in the "red" states in the middle of the country

.

 

[j93]

Ok, I'll have to qualify. The rich now live in the Democratic party, whether the poorer segment does or not.
From your link:
CNN 2008 Presidential, by income: $200,000 or More (6%) - Obama 52% McCain 46%
Moreover, the super rich overwhelmingly live the D. party; it is not even close as you say. Of the 20 richest zip codes in the US, 19 of them overwhelmingly contribute to the D. party.
[PLAIN]http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/WELL.15-32.Caldwell.jpg

I.e. mainly Wall Street, Hollywood, and DC, which I think should be unsurprising.

This is just 2007-2008 election. Could it be that this was a good year for the democrats. I don't think its possible to post one election year and interpret it as bias. Thats like if tuesday was 50 degrees and wednesday was 80 degrees and you decide to interpret this as thursday being 80 friday 110 and so on.

I don't think you could extrapolate anything from how journalists vote in real life since that may not be in agreement with the side they wish to give the news public. Take Gretchen Carlson who graduated from Standford with honors yet takes on a character of a country joe housewife who doesn't know what a czar is. People may play characters in the news that may contrast with their personal beliefs therefore how they vote in their personal life may not be relevant.