It took multilateral stupidity and hypocrisy to do it, but at least the issue is out in the open. The issue is whether media companies who cover politics under the guise of being objective should be giving large campaign checks to the political parties, especially when they give more to one party than another. Does the arm’s length relationship essential to objective reporting survive six and seven-figure donations? At very least, should media companies be required to make their political contribution choices very public?

This issue was raised in the wake of the parent corporation of Fox News, News Corporation, foolishly giving a whopping $1 million to the Republican Governors Association. This over-shadowed any amount the company has contributed though its political action committee to Democratic groups or causes, so the Democratic National Committee pounced, saying snidely:

“‘Fair and Balanced’ has been rendered utterly meaningless. Any pretense that may have existed about the ties between Fox News and the Republican Party has been ripped violently away. No Republican who appears on Fox can be seen as answering to an independent press and all should appear with a disclaimer for who they truly are – the favored candidate of the corporate-friendly network. No Fox News political coverage can be seen as impartial and all of it should have a disclaimer for what it truly is – partisan propaganda.”

Uh-huh. Except for this inconvenient fact: Fox’s parent company is the only parent of a news network that doesn’t give the bulk of its contributions to the Democrats. Before this one gift to the Association, in fact, even Fox gave more money to Democrats: it has given  over $105,500 to Democratic candidates in the 2010 election cycle, while donating $74,700 to Republicans during the same time period, prior to the mega-gift to the governors. Oddly, the DNC didn’t complain then, apparently because the definition of “objective” adopted by the Democratic Party is that if a media company gives money to the Republicans, then it is an unreliable, propaganda-spewing fraud. If it gives to the Democrats, though, that’s just being reasonable.

To paraphrase a memorable line in “City Slickers,” if hypocrisy were people, the D.N.C would be China.

Just for the record:

• General Electric, which owns NBC and (the left-obsessed MSNBC), donated $688,900 to Democrats through its PAC this election cycle compared to $410,100 to Republicans.in the 2010 election cycle. G.E. has also donated $237,000 to the Democratic Governors Association and $205,000 to the Republican Governors Association.(But it wasn’t a million to the Democrats. Maybe there’s a secret rule that you don’t become an official mouthpiece for a party until you give it a million dollars. I’ll have to investigate. )

• The political action committee for Viacom, the parent company of CBS, contributed $108,700 to Democratic candidates this election cycle and $64,000 to Republicans. The PAC has also contributed $22,000 to Democratic-affiliated leadership PACs and $21,500 Republican-affiliated leadership PACs, and donated $4,000 to the Pennsylvania Democratic Party last April.

• The House of Mouse, Disney, which owns ABC, is the most balanced of all by this standard: the company has given $110,500 to Democratic candidates and $95,000 to Republicans through its PAC.

• Meanwhile,the PAC of Time Warner, the parent company of CNN, gives pocket change:  $70,500 to Democratic candidates in the 2010 election cycle compared with $41,500 to Republicans. Time Warner also donated $5,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Still, it gives more than 75% more to Democrats—not that there’s anything wrong with that, if giving anything at all is acceptable.

I’m not at all convinced it is, though. Foolishly and naively, I always assumed that media companies avoided these kinds of contributions, since they would be covering political candidates they supported. When the Democrats blew the whistle on Fox, they also blew the whistle on the other networks, and themselves.