Under Michael Eisner's leadership, ABC News has faced charges that it has spiked or downplayed news stories that were critical or potentially embarassing to the Disney company. But ABC News has not demonstrated any obvious bias toward one political party, unlike its competitor Fox News, which is run by a former Republican party strategist and funded by Rupert Murdoch, one of the largest financial backers of conservative causes around the world.
Yet, like most corporate leaders, Eisner has been active in U.S. politics through individual campaign contributions. Eisner has contributed to political campaigns, but not taken on a significant, publicized leadership role in any national campaign. Eisner's individual contributions include many for Democrats, including U.S. Sens. Patrick Leahy and Christopher Dodd. But Eisner's hardly a Democratic partisan. Federal Election Commission data shows that Eisner's also given $5,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee and both Eisner and his wife gave to the campaign of Republican Rep. Bill Thomas of California.
But the individual whom many consider Comcast's man to run Disney, former Disney executive and current Comcast President Stephen Burke, is not nearly so bipartisan.
FEC records show a strong record of support for Republican candidates from Burke, including the maximum allowed contributions for the Bush-Cheney campaign and U.S. Rep. Tom Delay. In fact, FEC data for the current election cycle show no contributions from Burke to any Democrat.
And Burke's not merely a contributor for Bush. The campaign has designed him one of its handful of "Rangers," a designation given to campaign leaders who have raised at least $200,000 for Bush.
Burke once ran ABC under Eisner. And there is no suggestion that Burke's private partisanship in any way influenced ABC News's coverage during his time with the company. But political bias among broadcasters is a hot issue in the United States today. Many liberals are attacking former conventional wisdom that the press was controlled by liberals, pointing out the dominance of conservatives in talk radio, on newspaper editorial pages, on Fox News and in think tanks quoted by mainstream reporters.
The potential replacement of relatively nonpartisan CEO as the head of the company controlling ABC News with a Republican fundraising leader will surely cause concern among those who see a creeping conservative bias in U.S. broadcast news. And it will likely delight those who see ABC News as too liberal for their views.
Either way, campaign contribution data provides another point of contrast for Disney fans to compare Michael Eisner and Stephen Burke.
Data from Political Money Line was used to put together this report.
It’s rare when the major media admit to their liberal bias.
When CBS correspondent Bernard Goldberg revealed that his network – and all the others – were liberal, it came as a shock to his colleagues.
As Goldberg noted, the liberal press had been talking to themselves for so long, they all believed that every other sane person shared their views. Republicans, the NRA and pro-lifers were all wackos.
On Tuesday, ABCNews.com made some confessions of their own – confessions that are as profound as Goldberg’s.
On the ABC site's must-read "The Note" section, prepared by the network's "political unit," was the following, and we quote verbatim:
"Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections.
"They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are 'conservative positions.'
"They include a belief that government is a mechanism to solve the nation's problems; that more taxes on corporations and the wealthy are good ways to cut the deficit and raise money for social spending and don't have a negative affect on economic growth; and that emotional examples of suffering (provided by unions or consumer groups) are good ways to illustrate economic statistic stories. ...
"The press, by and large, does not accept President Bush's justifications for the Iraq war – in any of its WMD, imminent threat, or evil-doer formulations. It does not understand how educated, sensible people could possibly be wary of multilateral institutions or friendly, sophisticated European allies.
"It does not accept the proposition that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy by stimulating summer spending.
"It remains fixated on the unemployment rate.
"It believes President Bush is 'walking a fine line' with regards to the gay marriage issue, choosing between 'tolerance' and his 'right-wing base.'
"It still has a hard time understanding how, despite the drumbeat of conservative grass-top complaints about overspending and deficits, President Bush's base remains extremely and loyally devoted to him – and it looks for every opportunity to find cracks in that base.
"Of course, the swirling Joe Wilson and National Guard stories play right to the press's scandal bias – not to mention the bias towards process stories (grand juries produce ENDLESS process!).
"The worldview of the dominant media can be seen in every frame of video and every print word choice that is currently being produced about the presidential race."
Thank you, ABC News The Note, for your honesty. Also, please put a disclaimer at the bottom of "World News Tonight" declaring your bias – and put Bernard Goldberg back on your Christmas card list.
And of course these liberal bias's color what they consider to be news and how they report it, with no concern at all in being balanced!!
Personally, I've worked across the country in newspapers and radio. I've met journalists from every major newspaper and TV network. And among them, I've found many conservatives and moderates, as well as liberals. If there is a dominant ideology among journalists, it is the progressive ideal that all people -- including the poor, victimized, discriminated against and oppressed -- ought to have a shot at a better life. But if that is a purely "liberal" ideal, then conservatives must stand for its opposite -- for intolerance, bigotry and exploitation. I don't think all conservatives are like that. Conservatives can be progressive, too.
Sure, if your news is coming exclusively from Fox News, G. Gordon Liddy and Rush Limbaugh, the nonpartisan moderation of ABC News is going to look pretty liberal. That's because the impartial middle stands far to the left of the hard right. And conservative leaders have an admitted strategy of trying to incite their supporters to put pressure on impartial news organizations to make their coverage more conservative -- to ever move the goalposts to the right, marginalizing liberals, and even moderates.
Back to the larger issue of CEOs playing politics, however, Eisner's position is the traditional one: play both sides, hedge your bets and retain access to everyone. The Burke method is a gamble. If your party wins, you enjoy much greater access to the powers that be. But if your party loses, well... you've got all the political juice of a Theme Park Insider member.
A Democratic win in November, coupled with a Comcast takeover of Disney, would leave the Disney properties in a much more difficult position with lawmakers for the next four years than it would have had with Eisner still at the helm. Of course, flip side holds true, too. A Comcast takeover with a Republican win means the Disney properties can write their own legislation on Capitol Hill for the next four years.
You said, "And among them, I've found many conservatives and moderates, as well as liberals. If there is a dominant ideology among journalists, it is the progressive ideal that all people -- including the poor, victimized, discriminated against and oppressed -- ought to have a shot at a better life. But if that is a purely "liberal" ideal, then conservatives must stand for its opposite -- for intolerance, bigotry and exploitation. I don't think all conservatives are like that. Conservatives can be progressive, too."
This paragraph by itself is indicative of liberal bias. To say conservatives is the opposite is an exaggeration or (at worst) slander. As a conservative, I am also concerned about "the poor, victimized, discriminated against and oppressed." You can't see that in the media, in which conservative ideas are considered WRONG. That's not a debate. It's the liberal dogma. Liberals completely misunderstand the conservative viewpoint.
In policy and public life, conservatives have their own point of view of how those problems should be fixed. Maybe that's why Congress was won time and time again in recent history starting in 1994. Most Americans believe in the conservative approach.
There is not common agreement on what constitutes the poor and victimized. For example, the liberal will call anyone with a drug problem a victim. I think that's wrong. A victim is more like the drug babies (babies born to drug abusing mothers), not the common drug abuser (I will include Rush Limbaugh in this assessment).
You said, "Sure, if your news is coming exclusively from Fox News, G. Gordon Liddy and Rush Limbaugh, the nonpartisan moderation of ABC News is going to look pretty liberal. That's because the impartial middle stands far to the left of the hard right. And conservative leaders have an admitted strategy of trying to incite their supporters to put pressure on impartial news organizations to make their coverage more conservative -- to ever move the goalposts to the right, marginalizing liberals, and even moderates."
The problem with the mainstream media like ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSNBC is they are not reporting the news straight. They often slant with news with a "feel good" story. Why do they NEED to do this? They try to be activist with a liberal solution to the problem. They incite (your words) people to take action. That's ocassionally okay, but their motivations are clearly at odds with the conservative approach. There's no balance. The mainstream media needs to be straight with the public. JUST THE NEWS. They failed in this criteria.
I find your critism of FOX and Rush Limbaugh very extreme. Look, there is a channel dial. Just change the channel. There are more viewers who watch all the other media outlets than FOX. You can live a life without FOX.
Yet, liberal single out (well, is there another so-called conservative media outlet?) FOX and only FOX for conservative bias.
Where's the complaint about CNN and ABC and NBC and ... CBS aaaannnndddd MSNBC? There is no complaint by liberals for making those stations more impartial. Of course, conservatives complain about them so that makes the complaint lacking in credibility. RIGHT?
The mainstream media needs more balance. That's the fact.
If they ignore balance, at least try reporting the news straight. AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!!!
The PROVEN fact of the matter is... polls have been given to journalists all over our country and while most find themselves fairly liberal when it comes to social issues, most lean waaaaaay to the right on fiscal issues. Which would make them somewhere in the middle, correct?
NOOOOOOO! Of course not! If you hold one single solitary liberal opinion, then you are clearly a liberal in every single damn thing you believe! Heaven forbid anyone who isn't so &%$@ing moronic to actually LABEL themselves should have an opinion that doesn't fall into a black or white category.
Yes, I believe everyone should have equal rights, whether gay or poor or female or brown-skinned, so clearly I am liberal! At least to the nincompoops who like to label things. But I don't give a damn about gun control and I benefit greatly from a poor economy. But apparently there is no such thing as a moderate, so I must still be a liberal! Could you be more stupid?
And Bernie Goldberg is a frigging idiot too, as is anyone who listens to him. In case you whiners haven't noticed, ALL television stations and newspapers have been absolutely obsessed with Iraq. If they were actually liberal, like dipsh!ts believe they are, then they wouldn't be covering it at all, would they? This is a popular war, right, one that was started by Republicans? The oh-so-friggin-liberal news should be ignoring it, shouldn't they?
NOOOO! Why should something like FACTS get in the way? I mean, the FACT that Eisner gave to BOTH parties was ignored and only the parts where he gave to Democrats was paid attention to by a moron up there. Kinda like how certain parts of the intelligence leading up to 9/11 were ignored. Ignoring must be a Repukelican trait, I guess.
Especially since it goes on all the time. Four years ago, LIBERAL papers lied about alleged lies Gore told and they told them over and over and over. In fact, the "invented the Internet" lie came up AGAIN when Gore backed Dean. Yet Bush and many of his cronies have been caught in many lies, since before the election, and they are just now coming out. FOUR YEARS LATER. Yeah, that is so liberal.
The fact is, there is no liberal equivalent to Fox News. None. The Fox enablers like to point to NPR, but that's a stretch. It's probably because they have gay people on there. There is not a single station out there that has publicly trumpeted Democratic candidates the way Fox routinely trumpets Bush and trumpeted Schwarzenegger. O'Lielly actually allowed himself to be squished into a third of the screen so Ah-nold could have 2/3 of it! What is up with that?
It's time to wake up and stop being such whiny wusses. The world is not black or white. There are many shades out there. I can see them - O'Reilly is practically a moderate compared to the likes of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and that psycho McCarthy-loving Ann Coulter. Yeah, keep calling yourselves "conservative" and that bitch can be your idol!
You say "The PROVEN fact of the matter is... polls have been given to journalists all over our country and while most find themselves fairly liberal when it comes to social issues, most lean waaaaaay to the right on fiscal issues. Which would make them somewhere in the middle, correct?"
WRONG. It means journalists are liberals when coming to social issues and conservative on fiscal issues. GET IT!!!
Call it what it is.
You say "The world is not black or white."
Yes, but you really mean conservatives are CONSERVATIVE, while the mainstream press is MODERATE (when its not).
That said, for the record, here are the reported 2004 cycle contributions in question:
EISNER, MICHAEL
6/30/2003 $1,000.00
BURBANK, CA 91521
WALT DISNEY -[Contribution]
FRIENDS OF CHRIS DODD 2004
Eisner, Michael
1/30/2003 $5,000.00
Burbank, CA 91521
The Walt Disney Company/Chairman & -[Contribution]
WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS EMPLOYEES PAC (DISNEY EMPLOYEES POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE)
Eisner, Michael
2/28/2003 $1,000.00
Burbank, CA 91562
The Walt Disney Comapny/Business Ex -[Contribution]
MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
EISNER, MICHAEL
5/14/2003 $2,000.00
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
WALT DISNEY CORPORATION/CEO -[Contribution]
BILL THOMAS CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
EISNER, MICHAEL
7/23/2003 $1,000.00
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
WALT DISNEY CORPORATION/CEO -[Contribution]
BILL THOMAS CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
EISNER, MICHAEL
5/13/2003 $1,000.00
BURBANK, CA 91521
WALT DISNEY COMPANY -[Contribution]
LEAHY FOR U.S. SENATOR COMMITTEE
EISNER, MICHAEL
5/13/2003 $1,000.00
BURBANK, CA 91521
WALT DISNEY COMPANY -[Contribution]
LEAHY FOR U.S. SENATOR COMMITTEE
Eisner, Michael Mr.
9/17/2003 $5,000.00
Burbank, CA 91521
The Walt Disney Co./Chairman & C. E -[Contribution]
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
Burke, Stephen
8/4/2003 $2,000.00
Haverford, PA 19041
Comcast Cable Communications/Presid -[Contribution]
TOM DELAY CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
Burke, Stephen B. Mr.
9/30/2003 $1,000.00
Haverford, PA 19041
-[Contribution]
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
Burke, Stephen B. Mr.
9/26/2003 $2,000.00
Haverford, PA 19041
Comcast Cable -[Contribution]
BUSH-CHENEY '04 INC
Burke, Steve Mr.
1/13/2003 $5,000.00
Haverford, PA 19041
Comcast Cable/President -[Contribution]
COMCAST CORP. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
In case anyone's curious, Roy Disney's made no recorded contributions during the current election cycle. But his partner Stanley Gold's been active, with several contributions to Democratic candidates, save for one maximum contribution to Bush-Cheney on the Republican side.
Gold, Stanley
4/24/2003 $1,000.00
Burbank, CA 91505
Shamrock Holdings Inc/CEO -[Contribution]
DIANE E WATSON FOR CONGRESS (CA Dem.)
GOLD, STANLEY
5/6/2003 $2,000.00
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210
SHAMROCK HOLDINGS INC -[Contribution]
WYDEN FOR SENATE (OR Dem.)
Gold, Stanley
5/28/2003 $1,000.00
Burbank, CA 91505
Shamrock Holdings Inc./President -[Contribution]
TOM LANTOS FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE (CA Dem.)
Gold, Stanley P
2/25/2003 $1,000.00
Burbank, CA 91505
Shamrock Holdings/President CEO -[Contribution]
JOE LIEBERMAN FOR PRESIDENT INC (Dem.)
Gold, Stanley P
12/1/2003 $2,000.00
Burbank, CA 91505
Shamrock Holdings Inc./President -[Contribution]
FRIENDS OF JANE HARMAN (CA Dem.)
Gold, Stanley P.
3/4/2003 $1,000.00
Burbank, CA 91505
Shamrock Holdings/Executive -[Contribution]
CONGRESSMAN WAXMAN CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (CA Dem.)
Gold, Stanley P. Mr.
7/14/2003 $2,000.00
Burbank, CA 91505
Shamrock Holdings Inc. -[Contribution]
BUSH-CHENEY '04 INC (Rep.)
Here's why this is relevant to a theme park debate. Many news sources have pointed out that a Comcast/Disney merger would be subject to federal regulatory approval. But the political realist in me recognizes that if a Bush Ranger's company comes before a Bush Administration federal agency seeking regulatory approval for a merger -- it's gonna get it. Period, end of discussion, next issue, please.
I think fans should consider the political activities of the managers running their favorite companies. It's your government, too, that those managers seek to influence. (And, I hope our non-U.S. readers will please pardon this whole discussion.)
Take a moment to click over to the Political Money Line site sometime. It will tell you more -- that you need to know -- about the candidates running for office this fall than any allegedly liberal, conservative, moderate or other major news source out there.
(I'm done with the whole "Is the media liberal or conservative?" thing for this thread, by the way. I've said what I need to say.)
