San Francisco blogger Michael Petrelis apparently wasn't satisfied with just being a Nader backer this year. He apparently felt the need to demonstrate his ignorance on a massive scale. So he posted an incredibly deception and very poorly researched rant about how all the media publications that he researched have supposedly given vastly more donations to Democratic candidates than to Republican candidates. Apparently this is supposed to prove the lack of ethics and objectivity in the mainstream media. Petrelis claims that he "pored over recent donations by journalists, reporters, publishers and others who work at print media outlets" by searching Tray.com.

To prove his profound ignorance Petrelis leads off his list with Rupert Murdoch! If his research findings weren't so pathetically off-base it would be a hysterically funny blog post! He goes on to claim, "I limited my searching to the two most recent election cycles, except forTime and Newsweek, and Rupert Murdoch, because of the influence each wields." Clearly he's convinced himself that Rupert Murdoch is the financial Sugar Daddy behind the evil Democratic scheme to defraud Ralph Nader or some such nonsense.

Suspecting that what I was reading from Petrelis wasn't the whole truth I immediately opened opensecrets.org and did a quick search on Rupert Murdoch. Here's what I found: Rupert Murdoch, 2000 thru 2004.

In that time period Murdoch has give a grand total of $6,000 to three Democrats. While he gave $53,044 to 13 Republican candidate or Republican groups.

Clearly Michael Petrelis has a beef with Democrats. I don't begrudge him that in any way. I'm not a big fan of Democrats, myself. But, to try to fabricate a case for the mainstream media giving exclusively to Democrats... which isn't what Petrelis said, but he implies it (IMO)... is just plain silly.