For those who thought that mainstream media were unbiased about this year’s election, I’d say check this out: it seems that the interim host of MSNBC’s “Meet the Press, Tom Brokaw, sits on the board of a very liberal, left-wing organization which… funnels money from George Soros, the liberal billionaire, to other left-wing organizations such as… ACORN.

“As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Robin Hood Foundation had assets of $288,520,098 and income of $159,688,394 (source: guidestar.org). Brokaw has given at least $75,000 to the foundation,” Newsbusters, a conservative media watchdog, reported Friday.

Brokaw became a member of the Robin Hood Foundation in 2005. That is one year after the foundation gave $365,000 to ACORN, and two years after it gave ACORN a $456,000 grant.

It is important to point these dates out, because it means that Brokaw was not directly involved in the grants himself. However, the organization he works for is clearly quite liberal, and has ties to ACORN in one way or another. 

The problem with the above is not that Brokaw works for the Robin Hood Foundation and, thus, with other left-wing organizations as such. Rather, it is that he presents himself as an unbiased journalist nonetheless. One could very well argue that this is not the case.

Does this mean, some may ask, that I believe that journalists should not serve on boards of ideological organizations? Well, yes, that’s exactly what I say. Journalists should prevent any possible suspicion of bias. This means that they can, indeed, not do some of the things others can do. That is part of the job, and it has always been part of the job – until recently, when journalists were suddenly allowed to become partisan ‘next to their job,’ in their private life. 

This was always considered not acceptable, because earlier generations of journalists understood that if they would do this, they would hurt their own reputation and the confidence and trust people had in them.

The above reasoning would be solid, and fair, were the Robin Hood Foundation a political one. But it is not, at least not as I understand it. It may certainly give money to liberal organizations such as ACORN, but its goal seems to be to simply help needy New Yorkers. The organization describes its goal as targeting poverty in New York City by applying “sound investment principles to philanthropy.”

Although it may very well turn out that the tools the Robin Hood Foundation uses to do so are liberal, that the organizations it works with are all liberal as well, etc., the Newsbusters article does not convince me that to be the case. In fact, the only other organization the article mentions is ACORN.

In other words, there does not seem to be anything wrong with the Robin Hood Foundation, despite its less than original name, that is.