The New York Times' David Kirkpatrick delivers the shocking and troubling news that Wall Street bankers are so disappointed in Barack Obama that they've started giving money to Republicans. Bankers! To Republicans!

Apparently Wall Street has long been a bastion of support for Democratic political candidates, but now that Obama has launched a campaign — unprecedented for a Democrat — to enact policies that may cut into corporate profits, some bankers are holding their noses and cutting checks to Republicans:

But this year Chase's political action committee is sending the Democrats a pointed message. While it has contributed to some individual Democrats and state organizations, it has rebuffed solicitations from the national Democratic House and Senate campaign committees. Instead, it gave $30,000 to their Republican counterparts.

The shift reflects the hard political edge to the industry's campaign to thwart Mr. Obama's proposals for tighter financial regulations.

Here's a chart illustrating that "shift" in giving, from the Center for Responsive Politics. It shows political giving from political action committees and individuals associated with commercial banking, going back to 1990. In every year since 1994, Republicans got more money than Democrats.

To make his case, Kirkpatrick cites CRP figures showing that individuals and PACs from the securities and investment business gave $89 million to Democrats in 2008, a 57% to 43% edge over Republicans. That's true. It's also true that, according to the CRP, the securities and investment sector favored Republicans over Democrats in the 2006, 2004, 2002, 2000, 1998, and 1996 election cycles. It's also true that, overall, the wider finance, insurance, and real estate industry has favored Republicans 55% to 45% since 1990. This is because people who care about money want Republicans to win elections, and always have.

But what about Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase and Obama's Chicago pal? Kirkpatrick makes much of the fact that JPMorgan Chase's PAC has "rebuffed solicitations from the national Democratic House and Senate campaign committees" and given "$30,000 to their Republican counterparts."

He calls this a "shift." JPMorgan Chase has two PACs. One of them, it is true, gave 58% of its $130,427 in disbursements in 2008 to Democrats. But the other one, which handed out $797,977 in 2008, gave 53% of it to Republicans. In fact, both PACs have favored Republicans in all but two of the last six election cycles—one being the aforementioned 2008 cycle, and the other being 2002, when one of the PACs split its money 50-50. So Chase's shift to the GOP is more of a return to the way it's always behaved and should always be expected to behave, since "Wealthy Bankers Give Money to Republicans" is sort of axiomatic.

In your Byzantine Monday media column: searching for a rich media savior, a recipe duplication scandal, the future of robot media is $1 per hour, and STEPHEN A. SMITH is back in your area code.

Simon Dumenco points out the impolite fact that "much of the best of contemporary journalism has been produced, and continues to get produced, simply because of the largess — and the emotional needs — of a small group of rich people." And where is the next crop of generous, fabulously wealthy media patrons, he wonders? Hmm. Well nothing will dissuade Jared Kushner for at least a few more months, so that's one.


Recipe scandal: Health magazine re-used some recipes from fellow Time Inc. title Real Simple! If consumers cannot be absolutely sure that no subscribers to semi-related magazines have ever prepared this particular chicken dish before us, how are we to live?


David Carr takes a look at robot "journalism" word factory Demand Media, which pays poor freelancers paltry wages to write up stories on computer-generate Google-trending topics like, oh, I don't know, "How to pick the lock of the Jersey Shore house with a Swiss Army brand pocketknife." Carr notes that after spending 20 hours on his story, "At Demand's current pay rate, I'd be making almost a buck an hour." Oh, does the New York Times pay more than that? ZING.


TERRIBLE, DECLARATIVE SPORTS COLUMNIST STEPHEN A. SMITH IS BACK TO WRITING FOR THE PHILLY ENQUIRER. HOLLER AT STEVE—IF YOU MAKE THE CUT.

The Observer's John Koblin heard the New York Times is supposedly working on a major story on our wacky governor. The guy's admitted to drugs and adultery, what else could there be? (We're all ears!) Update: More sex, looks like.

The New York Daily News' Liz Benjamin points to a weird letter to the editor of the Post from the State Superintendent, who flatly denies the recent Page Six story on Paterson dining (and nuzzling) with a lady who is not his wife. And supposedly the bombshell story will make the earlier adultery revelations look tame in comparison.

For what it's worth, there is a rumor that the governor and his wife are swingers. And if that is what the Times is working on, all we can say is we look forward to reading them attempt to describe the practice in the house style.

The National Enquirer has thrown its hat in the ring for a 2010 Pulitzer Prize, seeking official recognition from the media Brahmins for its ownership of the John Edwards sex scandal. Said Brahmins are harrumphing, and here's why they're wrong.

There's no question that the Enquirer humiliated the institutional political press with its revelations about Edwards' infidelity, Rielle Hunter's pregnancy, the potentially illegal use of campaign cash for hush money, and the existence of a federal grand jury investigation into the matter. The Enquirer may traffic in "tabloid trash," but the facts of the Edwards story are squarely and profoundly in-bounds when it comes to the sort of newsgathering that we expect from America's vaunted political press corps, and they didn't do it. While the Enquirer may have blown the Anderson Cooper Haitian baby story, the exposure of Edwards' pathological lies and frantic corruption is precisely the sort of journalistic behavior that the Pulitzer Prizes were designed to encourage.

To get a sense of just how exclusive the Enquirer's coverage was, it's worth reviewing the timeline. The Enquirer's first story on the affair—confirming whiffs of what Mickey Kaus calls "undernews" that were first raised by the Huffington Post's Sam Stein in September 2007—appeared in October 2007. Two months later, in December, the Enquirer followed up with news that Rielle Hunter was pregnant with Edwards' love child. A month after that, he came in second in the Iowa caucuses. Here's the New York Times' coverage of Edwards' endorsement of Barack Obama in May 2008—a full seven months after the Enquirer's first scoop:

John Edwards gave his long-awaited endorsement to Senator Barack Obama, bolstering Obama's efforts to rally the Democratic Party around his candidacy and offering potential help in his attempts to win over working-class white voters in the general election this autumn.

Needless to say, it made no mention of the scandal. Indeed, throughout the entire closely fought 2008 primary season, the Times and every other newspaper that thinks itself worthy of a Pulitzer treated Edwards as a viable political force and not the soon-to-implode liability that any reader of the Enquirer knew him to be. The Times wouldn't print the name "Rielle Hunter" until August 9, 2008, almost a full year after the Enquirer's first story.

By that point, the Enquirer had brutally established that Edwards is a liar by publishing a photograph of him holding his daughter in a Beverly Hills hotel room, caught him red-handed hiding in the hotel bathroom to avoid a reporter, broken the news that Hunter was paid $15,000 a month for her silence by a wealthy Edwards campaign donor, and reported exclusively that a federal grand jury was probing Edwards' use of campaign funds to keep Hunter happy.

Confronted with the notion that this work merits consideration for a Pulitzer, terrified establishment gatekeepers have scurried to throw up various procedural or circumstantial roadblocks in order to avoid having to admit the truth, which is that they don't believe purveyors of "tabloid trash" deserve entry into the tweedy confines of Pulitzer-dom—irrespective of whether that trash is a) true and b) of central importance in determining the character and honesty of a man who was a hair over 3 million votes from the vice presidency. We'll take them in turn:

1) The National Enquirer Is a Magazine, Not a Newspaper
"We checked the Enquirer Web site, and it apparently calls itself a magazine. Under our rules, magazines (both print and Web versions) and broadcast entities are ineligible," Pulitzer administrator Sig Gissler told ABC News. Aw, too bad kids—so close! That the National Enquirer is quite plainly a weekly newspaper is beyond doubt to anyone who has actually seen a copy, and the Pulitzer has been awarded in the past to weekly newspapers—Portland, Oregon's Willamette Week won for investigative reporting in 2005. But it is true that the Pulitzer's rather spare eligibility criteria [pdf] make clear that "magazines...are not eligible." And it is also true that the Enquirer's parent company AMI used to describe the paper as "the ORIGINAL celebrity entertainment magazine" in its media kit (though it has since upgraded it to a "newspaper"). But if periodicals that describe themselves as magazines are ineligible for the Pulitzer Prize, someone should tell that to Gregory L. Vistica, who was named a Pulitzer finalist in 2002 for "his enterprising and nuanced reporting that disclosed Senator Bob Kerrey's role in a massacre during the Vietnam War." That nuanced reporting appeared in the New York Times Magazine, a weekly magazine that describes itself as a magazine on a weekly basis, on the cover, right after "New York Times."

2) If the Enquirer Did Publish Any Pulitzer-Worthy Reporting, It Was in 2007 and 2008, Not 2009, Which the Next Pulitzer Covers
According to the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz, the Enquirer's "most significant disclosures came in 2007 and 2008, and this year's Pulitzers will honor material published in 2009." It's true that the Enquirer's initial revelations should have been honored by previous Pulitzers. But in 2009, the paper broke the story of the grand jury investigation and offered repeated scoops on the testimony of Hunter and Edwards aide Andrew Young. The involvement of federal law enforcement is arguably more Pulitzer-worthy than the tawdry-but-legal stuff about affairs and a love child. And the Pulitzer committee has been forgiving of temporal anomalies in the past: In 1989, Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele of the Philadelphia Inquirer won "for their 15-month investigation [into] the Tax Reform Act of 1986." If it was a fifteen-month investigation, it follows that three months of it fell outside the scope of the 1989 Pulitzers.

3) No One Wins a Pulitzer for Something So Vulgar as a "Scoop"
Arizona State University journalism professor Tim McGuire argues that "the Pulitzer is never awarded for 'newsbreaks' or scoops. Even in the breaking news category, writing, depth, texture and context are all rewarded.... I contend there is no precedent for 'good scoops' winning the big prize." It's hard to argue against the notion that the Enquirer lacks "texture," by which McGuire means an Ivy League pedigree and editors who toss back scotch at ASNE every year. Still, when the New York Times won last year for breaking the news of Elliot Spitzer's hooker-love—Hey look! A newspaper won a Pulitzer for reporting on a politician's infidelity!—it was for "authoritative, rapid-fire reports," not "depth" or "texture." Likewise, when the Times' James Risen and Eric Lichtblau won in 2006 for their stories on the Bush domestic wiretapping scheme, it wasn't for the writing or the context—it was for the breathtaking revelation that Bush had initiated a domestic wiretapping scheme. Same thing with the Washington Post's Dana Priest, who won that year for exposing the CIA's "black sites" in Europe. Those were enormous "scoops," and that's why they won. McGuire's invocation of the "breaking news category" should be a tip-off that he's struggling to come up with a rational non-clubby justification to blackball the Enquirer—that category is almost exclusively reserved to reward coverage of major public events like blizzards and mass shootings. It almost never goes to exclusive stories.

4) The Enquirer Practices Checkbook Journalism
So what? The Pulitzer rules have nothing to say on paying sources. The merits of the practice can and should be debated, but we'd submit that if news outlets that don't pay for news miss stories about presidential candidates who father children out of wedlock and make sex tapes of themselves fucking their pregnant mistresses while news outlets that do pay for news don't miss them—well, maybe there's something to it. Checkbook journalism certainly helped the New York Times scoop the competition in 1912, when it paid a Titanic survivor $1,000 for his story. The Times won its first Pulitzer six years later.

5) Sex Scandals Aren't Pulitzer-Worthy
Ask Elliot Spitzer. Or Maureen Dowd.

6) The National Enquirer Is Gross and We Hate It and Over Our Dead Bodies Will It Disgrace the Hallowed Name of Joseph Pulitzer
At least McGuire is honest: "I am convinced there will be bias in the jury room and on the board against that particular publication." Also, it's worth pointing out that Joseph Pulitzer was a master of "tabloid trash" and would have leapt all over the Edwards story.

This last argument is the only real reason to deny the Enquirer a Pulitzer Prize this year. The test is whether the cloistered, priestly caste that hands them out will be shameless and blind enough to adopt it. They had the goods. They deserve the prize.

In your foreboding Thursday media column: Jared Kushner has a bright idea, Howard Zinn's reputation impugned, David Letterman plays a funny joke, and Janice Min somehow survives being rich as fuck.

Look what dashing young man-about-town and charitable New York Observer owner Jared Kushner is doing now: he's starting a free newspaper in Las Vegas! Because he already has New York in his pocket. (No idea.)


NPR's memorial report on dearly departed lefty historian Howard Zinn included a quote from conservadork David Horowitz saying "There is absolutely nothing in Howard Zinn's intellectual output that is worthy of any kind of respect." People complained that he should not have been quoted! But as much as he is wrong, we are in favor of dissenters being included in obits, because otherwise obits get so mawkish, god.


News of the Weird: David Letterman's television show has hired its very first lady, to write jokes? So I guess it's either just a stunt for some kind of " bit," or another, more powerful joke about ladies aren't funny? David Letterman, you're America's favorite cad!


Former US Weekly editor Janice Min reveals for the first time: It was totally stressful how she earned so much fucking money that one of her paychecks dwarfed her emasculated husband's entire tiny, unsatisfying yearly salary. How did she survive this nightmare situation? She will tell you in the New York Post.

In your slushy Wednesday media column: Keith Olbermann sniffs out media bias whether it exists or not, a way to save magazines in fantasyland, PARADE's editor leaves, and Air America totally owes media people money.

Keith Olbermann called DailyFinance.com a "right wing site" because it criticized his ratings, prompting a harsh retort from Jeff Bercovici. Look, everyone knows that Bercovici's a fascist, we are gay leftists, and Romenesko subscribes to a disturbing political perversion of Nietzsche's "Superman" theories. But we're all professionals, and our personal feelings on who should or should not be forcibly euthanized by the government does not effect our media analysis. Let's just move on.


There seems to be, hilariously, some debate over whether it would be a good idea for a magazine publisher like Time Inc. (which is not dying so quickly now, btw) to give away free iPads with two-year subscriptions. Why not free Rolls-Royces?


Newspaper insert mag PARADE, which could be accurately characterized as "Reader's Digest Digest," has apparently canned its top editor, Janice Kaplan. Although she was just as polite as can be in her farewell note.


When Air America folded, several notable media people were screwed out of some money, the NYT reports. AA owes Rachel Maddow $4k, and Ana Marie Cox $1,100. Having your bankrupt former employer fail to pay you is just the worst!

He's in an abandoned movie theater in Flatbush! Previously in "Lowly places the New York Times has sent its future publisher:" A lightbulb-changing tour, a playground, the Puerto Rican Day parade, a Nazi rally, a tree, and a boat. You'll look back fondly on these crappy assignments one day, A.G. Pay those dues!

Don't forget to email us about getting that drink! (I think we missed your last email?)

Washington Post conventional wisdom repeater Howie "Howard" Kurtz wrote a column about Jon Stewart yesterday and—OMG—Jon Stewart totally mentioned it on TV last night. So Howie Kurtz wrote a story about that fact, for the newspaper. Real journalism.

In your staggering Tuesday media column: Marcus Brauchli is far richer than a newspaper editor should be (especially considering the new classified ad numbers), the future of Harper's debated, and Julia Allison overcomes media haters (like Richard Lawson).

An upcoming book says that former WSJ editor Marcus Brauchli (now editor of the Washington Post) left the WSJ with a severance package worth $6.4 million. Goodness. Does that make Brauchli the richest newspaper editor in history? Quite possibly! It also explains why you didn't hear a lot of "Rupert Murdoch will destroy the WSJ" objections from Mr. Marcus Brauchli.


Gazonga: Newspaper classified ad revenue declined by 70% in the past decade. And that's the story, folks.


Should Harper's Magazine go online-only? Since it's already supported largely by charity, it could be a good candidate—it doesn't have to worry as much about losing ad revenue, and it would save a bundle on printing and distribution costs. The downside: the magazine would surely lose some of its older readers. And, worse, it's hard as hell to impress that girl on the subway with The Strand bag by reading Harper's on your Iphone.


Famous media person Julia Allison declaims on the perils of haters such as trashy blogs, and gives advice on how to persevere on your path to becoming a famous media person, an example of which would be Julia Allison. Taking the other side in this debate is an email from Richard Lawson, who explains why he's always so mean to Julia Allison, and why he hates her, and her media fame, and why he does not want Julia Allison to earn a living of any sort. Watch this fascinating media item from beginning to end right this very minute!

Here, the original turnstile from the old New York Times cafeteria can be yours for only $1,350. For the same price you could hire Tom Friedman to speak for just over one minute. [Olde Good Things]