Journalists shower Hillary Clinton with campaign cash

This will not come as a big shock to anyone who has been paying even the least bit of attention to the Presidential election - or to the MSM's coverage of it.

...people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.

Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.

About 50 identifiable journalists have combined to give about $14,000 to Trump.

Interestingly enough, though only anecdotal, it was reported that on one recent "evening news" cycle a combined total of over 27 minutes was taken up in sniping at Donald Trump about "the tape" and recent allegations of sexual misconduct going back (up to) 30 years...and less than 1 minute was spent (by ABC, NBC and CBS combined) mentioning the ongoing stream of revelations coming from Wikileaks.

That works out to about 96% anti-Trump reporting to 4% anti-Clinton. Hmmmm....

I suppose, from this Donations analysis, we could conclude:

1) The media, as Trump has been trying to say, is overwhelmingly biased against him...and this is reflected in the volume and type of coverage that he and his campaign is getting.
2) Liberal-leaning "journalists" have a stunning lack of journalist integrity, in comparison to their right-leaning colleagues, and have no compunction about publicly declaring their partisan affiliations by way of parting with cold hard cash in favour of one candidate, over the other.

Journalists Completely in the Bag for Hillary

As noted, this does not come as much of a surprise...but hopefully this will put to rest any and all pretence as to just how completely skewed the Press is as it relates to the two main candidates in this election.

a reply to: mobiusmale

Posted yesterday

originally posted by: mobiusmale
This will not come as a big shock to anyone who has been paying even the least bit of attention to the Presidential election - or to the MSM's coverage of it.

...people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.

Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.

About 50 identifiable journalists have combined to give about $14,000 to Trump.

Interestingly enough, though only anecdotal, it was reported that on one recent "evening news" cycle a combined total of over 27 minutes was taken up in sniping at Donald Trump about "the tape" and recent allegations of sexual misconduct going back (up to) 30 years...and less than 1 minute was spent (by ABC, NBC and CBS combined) mentioning the ongoing stream of revelations coming from Wikileaks.

That works out to about 96% anti-Trump reporting to 4% anti-Clinton. Hmmmm....

I suppose, from this Donations analysis, we could conclude:

1) The media, as Trump has been trying to say, is overwhelmingly biased against him...and this is reflected in the volume and type of coverage that he and his campaign is getting.
2) Liberal-leaning "journalists" have a stunning lack of journalist integrity, in comparison to their right-leaning colleagues, and have no compunction about publicly declaring their partisan affiliations by way of parting with cold hard cash in favour of one candidate, over the other.

Journalists Completely in the Bag for Hillary

As noted, this does not come as much of a surprise...but hopefully this will put to rest any and all pretence as to just how completely skewed the Press is as it relates to the two main candidates in this election.

Americans everywhere are legit scared of giving Trump the keys to the car. He is such a disaster it's just not worth the high risk, high reward dynamic and are begging for the status quo..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I think it is unwise to insist that the reason people do not want to vote for Trump is that they have a desire to see the status quo upheld. I think it is quite obvious, that those who want to see positive change as a result of this election, have no representative amongst the top two contenders for the White House.

On the one hand you have a murderous, underhanded, criminal, and on the other hand you have a mercenary, bigoted, misogynistic, greedy criminal. No one of sound mind and good conscience can claim that their candidate has the moral high ground, only that one candidate can, under certain lighting conditions and certain phases of the moon, appear more reasonable and inclusive than the other. However, even the unobservant supporter of Hilary must accept that she is two faced, and flip flops on the issues year by year for the sake of popularity.

The reality of the situation is that decent people, who want their work to pay them an adequate wage, want the wars for profit to stop, want their nation owned by its people, instead of faceless entities made of money and greed, and who want their future and the future of their children to be something they can be proud of, have NO voice, save for that which is offered them by third party candidates, and even then, there is not much to be utterly excited about in terms of choice.

The last thing people WANT is to maintain the status quo, but the options for making positive change via the electoral process are exactly NIL this time around, unfortunately.

a reply to: mobiusmale

396k? I would have thought that number larger, but whatever.

Ok, so what's the deal? Well, there are two things going on.

1) Trump HATES the press, and moreover, seems openly hostile to the first amendment. Journalists are in the first amendment business, and will never support a candidate who isn't. Pretty simple really.

2) Trump has largely run his campaign on bumper stickers slogans and emotional appeals. He is only loosely acquainted with facts or truth. He is more like a carnival barker or traveling vacuum cleaner salesperson than anything else. His platform is a mishmash even he can't agree on.

Clinton, by contrast, is a policy wonk. She knows policy inside and out and isn't afraid to get into the weeds and discuss the finer points and details. When I covered Darryl Glenn, who is running against Michael Bennet for US Senate in Colorado, I found him likable and charming, but I wouldn't vote for him. When I asked him what he would put in place of the Department of Education (which he wants to eliminate) he said that he had no idea, but transgender bathrooms were being "pushed down" on us by Obama. When I reminded him that 325 thousand voters in Colorado either received grants or loans through the DOE and would not be able to attend school next semester if he managed to "get rid of it," he recommended more financial counseling to let students know what they are "signing up for."

The problem: neither of those things are answers or solutions. Leadership is NOT telling me I should be afraid or showing me who is responsible for my fear. Leadership is actually having an idea of what you would do to replace ideas, laws or systems that do not work with something that actually does.

Journalists and media people are too savvy to support candidates that want to smash the existing system but have no actual plan what to replace it with. They are also unlikely to support candidates who are openly hostile to the 1st amendment. Neither of these things is surprising. If there is a bias against the right in the media, it is only because the job of journalist is to get at the truth using reason (facts) and the current crop of right-wingers is allergic to both.

What choice do we have?

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Americans everywhere are legit scared of giving Trump the keys to the car. He is such a disaster it's just not worth the high risk, high reward dynamic and are begging for the status quo..

Looking at the polls, a great number of other people are afraid of Hillary getting that job too.

Oops.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I think it is unwise to insist that the reason people do not want to vote for Trump is that they have a desire to see the status quo upheld. I think it is quite obvious, that those who want to see positive change as a result of this election, have no representative amongst the top two contenders for the White House.

On the one hand you have a murderous, underhanded, criminal, and on the other hand you have a mercenary, bigoted, misogynistic, greedy criminal. No one of sound mind and good conscience can claim that their candidate has the moral high ground, only that one candidate can, under certain lighting conditions and certain phases of the moon, appear more reasonable and inclusive than the other. However, even the unobservant supporter of Hilary must accept that she is two faced, and flip flops on the issues year by year for the sake of popularity.

The reality of the situation is that decent people, who want their work to pay them an adequate wage, want the wars for profit to stop, want their nation owned by its people, instead of faceless entities made of money and greed, and who want their future and the future of their children to be something they can be proud of, have NO voice, save for that which is offered them by third party candidates, and even then, there is not much to be utterly excited about in terms of choice.

The last thing people WANT is to maintain the status quo, but the options for making positive change via the electoral process are exactly NIL this time around, unfortunately.

No not that they have a desire for the status quo..that trump has been such a disaster that in relation. The status quo is looking better than ever before.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I think it has become apparent to the people that this election and the four years that will come after it, will basically be a waste, in so far as no progress will be made toward ending, or mitigating for the negative effects of being an owned state.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Trump's 5 point plan for ethics reform, in which he proposes attacking corruption and lobbying to congress, is big a start.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I think it is unwise to insist that the reason people do not want to vote for Trump is that they have a desire to see the status quo upheld. I think it is quite obvious, that those who want to see positive change as a result of this election, have no representative amongst the top two contenders for the White House.

On the one hand you have a murderous, underhanded, criminal, and on the other hand you have a mercenary, bigoted, misogynistic, greedy criminal. No one of sound mind and good conscience can claim that their candidate has the moral high ground, only that one candidate can, under certain lighting conditions and certain phases of the moon, appear more reasonable and inclusive than the other. However, even the unobservant supporter of Hilary must accept that she is two faced, and flip flops on the issues year by year for the sake of popularity.

The reality of the situation is that decent people, who want their work to pay them an adequate wage, want the wars for profit to stop, want their nation owned by its people, instead of faceless entities made of money and greed, and who want their future and the future of their children to be something they can be proud of, have NO voice, save for that which is offered them by third party candidates, and even then, there is not much to be utterly excited about in terms of choice.

The last thing people WANT is to maintain the status quo, but the options for making positive change via the electoral process are exactly NIL this time around, unfortunately.

I would urge you to look into the Clinton scandals. I started this election voting for trump and assumingthe clintons were crazy corrupt but as the mediA highlighted the scandals. I would go and research them...

Well IMHO they are all SUPER THIN..

The rape assault accusers are obviously lying...the bad Trump ones Are too, to be fair.

None of the emails from her server nor wiki leaks have actually shown wrong doing. If you notice they rarely quote them and when they do it takes 5 min to explain why we are supposed to be offended.

Plus none of the ones in question were to or from her..


Trump embarrassing us on the world stage by bringing 4 frauds to the debate was the most disgraceful act I have ever seen.

a reply to: TheTory

Yes, thats the sort of thing a man who relies on bribery and corruption to do business, would definitely follow through on, once he has what he wants.

...Oh wait. No it isn't.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I think it has become apparent to the people that this election and the four years that will come after it, will basically be a waste, in so far as no progress will be made toward ending, or mitigating for the negative effects of being an owned state.

That's fair. However burning it all down is only half the problem. Then you have to rebuild it afterward and trump is totally unqualified and unworthy to rebuild it.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

You seem to be under a misapprehension, which I will correct now.

My issue with Hilary Clinton has next door to nothing to do with e-mails, scandals regarding her husband, or any of that mumbo jumbo. My issue with Hilary Clinton is as follows:

She has been instrumental in the continuance of an illegal war, on terror groups manufactured by the US government as proxies and bogeymen, and knows it, yet has never done a damn thing to stop it. She knows exactly as well as you and I do, that the fight they have been fighting is not legitimate, that it has none the less claimed innocent lives by the million, and yet she has made no effort to promote peace by preventing the funding of terror by her own government and the intelligence services operating on its behalf. Why? Because she is already someones puppet. The puppets MUST burn, the playhouse be smashed asunder, and the puppeteers demolished too, and as long as puppets remain in positions of power, your country will have false liberty, freedom will be a lie, and the pantomime will continue.

A moral woman, a decent person, would have refused to work for an administration determined to dishonour its people, and paint their hands with blood that way. She did not refuse, and is therefore the worst kind of walking faeces, and not fit to lead.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I absolutely agree with you about Trump.

The man cannot even run a casino complex without it coming apart on him, so his rump upon the throne would only cause mayhem and destruction for innocent people all over the country, that is almost a certainty at this point, especially when we see how the mere electoral race affects his objectivity.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Americans everywhere are legit scared of giving Trump the keys to the car. He is such a disaster it's just not worth the high risk, high reward dynamic and are begging for the status quo..

Looking at the polls, a great number of other people are afraid of Hillary getting that job too.

But for good reason?? Or because of evidenceless speculation about her being a demonic murderess?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: JoshuaCox

You seem to be under a misapprehension, which I will correct now.

My issue with Hilary Clinton has next door to nothing to do with e-mails, scandals regarding her husband, or any of that mumbo jumbo. My issue with Hilary Clinton is as follows:

She has been instrumental in the continuance of an illegal war, on terror groups manufactured by the US government as proxies and bogeymen, and knows it, yet has never done a damn thing to stop it. She knows exactly as well as you and I do, that the fight they have been fighting is not legitimate, that it has none the less claimed innocent lives by the million, and yet she has made no effort to promote peace by preventing the funding of terror by her own government and the intelligence services operating on its behalf. Why? Because she is already someones puppet. The puppets MUST burn, the playhouse be smashed asunder, and the puppeteers demolished too, and as long as puppets remain in positions of power, your country will have false liberty, freedom will be a lie, and the pantomime will continue.

A moral woman, a decent person, would have refused to work for an administration determined to dishonour its people, and paint their hands with blood that way. She did not refuse, and is therefore the worst kind of walking faeces, and not fit to lead.

My point is that there is nothing about Hillary clinton that is not normal operating procedure for Washington.

She isn't some over the top evil entity.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

If she is normal operating procedure for Washington, then of course she is over the top evil! Thats the only thing that unites that den of bastards, is the fact that five hundred of them in a room together contains less moral solidarity than a prison full of murderers, rapists and violent street thugs!

These people are scum! They cannot continue to be in power, it will not stand, it will doom the future of the nation unless they are removed from their positions!

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: mobiusmale

1) Trump HATES the press, and moreover, seems openly hostile to the first amendment. Journalists are in the first amendment business, and will never support a candidate who isn't. Pretty simple really.

Absolutely. Many people have made this point -- that if you're going to deny the press access to you and threaten to sue them for what they print, they aren't going to be terribly friendly towards you.

2) Trump has largely run his campaign on bumper stickers slogans and emotional appeals.

And there's some really hinky things going on about where the money actually goes to.

Clinton, by contrast, is a policy wonk. She knows policy inside and out and isn't afraid to get into the weeds and discuss the finer points and details. When I covered Darryl Glenn, who is running against Michael Bennet for US Senate in Colorado, I found him likable and charming, but I wouldn't vote for him. When I asked him what he would put in place of the Department of Education (which he wants to eliminate) he said that he had no idea, but transgender bathrooms were being "pushed down" on us by Obama. When I reminded him that 325 thousand voters in Colorado either received grants or loans through the DOE and would not be able to attend school next semester if he managed to "get rid of it," he recommended more financial counseling to let students know what they are "signing up for."

Sadly, very like the things Trump has been saying.

The other point you don't bring up is that the "Benghazi and emails and Bill Clinton" is old news. Really old news. Most people click past it because they're tired of it. The accusations against Trump are things that have NOT been in the news for the past 10 years and so people are more interested in reading the details and reading more stories about them. The press obliges them by writing more about what people want to read and less about decades old news.

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: TrueBrit

Trump's 5 point plan for ethics reform, in which he proposes attacking corruption and lobbying to congress, is big a start.

None of that is actually within the power of the office of the President. Lobbying is considered free speech here in America and states don't always agree on what the rules are for lobbyists. The President can't actually enact an executive order that limits free speech and can't tell states how to define the actions of lobbyists.

Rules on who can lobby to Congress and on term limits are done by Congress itself