I’m sure their political donations haven’t impacted their objective reporting:rolleyes:
I could see how Clinton giving journalists money might impact the journalist’s objective reporting, but I fail to see how the journalists giving Clinton money colors their reporting. If anything, their donations show a pre-existing preference for Clinton, not a preference that came into being by the act of making a donation to her campaign. The campaign contributions they make simply confirm their existing preference.
As for the statistics on donations by journalists to Trump vs Clinton, that could simply reflect the extent to which that demographic rejects Trump. There is no reason a priori to assume that donations to these very different candidates would necessarily be anywhere near equal among every demographic. And what is that demographic? It is college educated people, very aware of current events. No surprise there.
You’re post is a bit convoluted. Are you trying to say that just because journalists are expressing their preference for Clinton through the act of donating money to her doesn’t mean that their reporting would be likewise expressive of their preference? That they wouldn’t sit on, or at least downplay some information that might damage their preferred candidate while punching up information that would harm her opponent?
I think you are right. They would definitely have a tendency to do that. But that does not prove that they give in to that tendency to an exceptionally unethical degree.
Consider an analogous situation. Suppose you are a journalist for a Catholic publication, and you are reporting on an upcoming debate between G. K. Chesterton and Richard Dawkins. Your reporters on the street bring you two stories about these two men as they make their way to the debate hall. One story is about how Dawkins became angry at a homeless man begging on the street. The other story is about how Chesterton was stopped by the police for speeding. Think about how you would write about these stories, if at all. Now imagine the stories are reversed, and it is Dawkins who was stopped for speeding, and Chesterton who became angry at a beggar. Without speculating on how likely any of these four events might be, can you honestly say your reporting would not be influenced one little bit by who is the subject in the various stories?