I can’t believe these media folks are this stupid, or that media companies don’t transfer reporters who do this.

But that shows how naive I am.

The Washington Free Beacon did some basic reporting–you know, actually gathering data to discover facts–and uncovered the rather startling reality that MSM “fact checkers” give 99.5% of their political donations to Democrats or Leftist causes.

Of course, the fact that political reporters and “fact checkers” are liberal shills is not exactly shocking news. I could have told you that, having dealt with a lot of political reporters over the years. Even the most casual reading of the news makes it clear that most reporters despise conservatives and assume we are all violent rubes who would kill and eat babies if we could get away with it.

No, what is surprising to me is any reporter is stupid enough to reveal his bias by actually cutting checks to political candidates in amounts that have to be reported. Once you cut a large enough check, that becomes public information.

Who would risk their job for the simple pleasure of donating to Elizabeth Warren?

I guess if you are a Native American activist or something. You know she likes her Pow Wow Chow.

Nearly 100 percent of political donations from self-identified fact checkers—including those whose employers claim journalistic neutrality—go to Democrats, a Washington Free Beacon analysis of federal campaign finance disclosures found.

The Free Beacon reviewed political donations over the past four election cycles from those who identified their occupation as “fact checker.” $22,580 of the $22,683 in political donations that came from self-identified fact checkers during that time—a whopping 99.5 percent—went to Democrats and liberal groups. Only three of the fact checker donations made during that period went to Republicans. Top recipients include socialist Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, who during the seven-year period received ten times more fact checker money than every Republican combined.

The findings contradict claims of neutrality from top fact-checking operations. Fact checkers for the New York Times and Reuters, for example, contributed to President Joe Biden, failed South Carolina Democratic Senate candidate Jaime Harrison, and liberal Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign. The Times fact checker, Cecilia Nowell, contributed three times to Warren’s failed presidential bid from 2019 to 2020 and still accepts “fact-checking assignments” from the outlet on a freelance basis, according to her LinkedIn. Reuters, meanwhile, from 2020 to 2021 employed Carrie Monahan, daughter of veteran journalist Katie Couric, as a “fact check producer.” Monahan during that time contributed to Biden, Harrison, and Georgia Democratic senator Jon Ossoff.

Elizabeth Warren. Geez. I get Bernie Sanders, who is not my cup of tea, but at least he inspires a bit of loyalty in those to whom he appeals.

There are reporters who famously refuse to vote, which seems a bit extreme to me, based on their belief that developing attachments to candidates and causes will influence their reporting.

My own sense is that having opinions is a part of being human and that the best we can do is try to be fair. Having a diversity of views around you and a sense that at least some people have good faith disagreements gets you a long way down the road to being a decent reporter. And if you have enough reporters with diverse opinions (yeah, right!) something approaching the full story can be told.

We are a long way from that ideal, and reporters these days are a long way from trying to be fair.

Still, even the most internally partisan news organization in the world would be expected to at least hide how biased they are outside the opinion section. When your supposed “fact checkers” are so partisan that they can’t even hold back their passions enough to not whip out the checkbook and support their favorite candidate, the editors need to step in and move those reporters to the crime or food beat.

Are liberals so anesthetized that they don’t even care that the people who report the news are open partisans?

Apparently yes.