Hardball for the left, softball for the right: Conservatives dominate on Hardball
SUMMARY: A Media Matters study of guests on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews shows that Republican and conservative guests have dominated Hardball during the first two months of 2006.
Since its CNBC debut as Politics with Chris Matthews in 1996*, MSNBC's long-running Hardball with Chris Matthews has consistently attracted criticism from the right wing. For example, in January 2006, Don Irvine, chairman of the conservative Accuracy in Media, described Matthews as "[o]ne member of the liberal media"; in April 2005, L. Brent Bozell III, founder and president of the conservative Media Research Center, suggested that Matthews rename Hardball to Cuddles with Chris for the show's "liberal or radical guests."
Notwithstanding Matthews's Democratic roots (former speechwriter to President Jimmy Carter, aide to several Democratic members of Congress), during a 2003 episode of Hardball, Matthews told Republican pollster Frank Luntz, "I'm more conservative than people think I am. ... By the way, I voted for [President George W.] Bush. ... I like to surprise people." Matthews's praise for Bush has at times been effusive; in 2005, he said that Bush "glimmers" with a "kind of sunny nobility"; that "[e]verybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs"; and that, if he succeeds in creating a democracy in Iraq, Bush "belongs on Mount Rushmore."
In December 2005, after documenting dozens of examples of Matthews proffering conservative misinformation on Hardball, Media Matters for America crowned him "Misinformer of the Year" -- succeeding Fox News Channel host Bill O'Reilly. And as this brief study documents, the views expressed on Hardball are "more conservative than people think": Republican/conservative guests have dominated Hardball panels since 2006 began.
In February 2006, Media Matters released "If It's Sunday, It's Conservative," a study of guest appearances on the Sunday-morning talk shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC. The methodology used in the study identified each guest's general partisan or ideological orientation, rather than the substance of their comments on a particular show. Every guest on the three Sunday shows was coded as Democrat, Republican, conservative, progressive, or neutral (nonpartisan, centrist, or having no political orientation).
Employing the same methodology, Media Matters tallied all guests who appeared on Hardball during the first two months of 2006 and coded them based on party affiliation and ideology. (A list of the guests is here.) The data reflected in these charts show that the number of Republican/conservative guests has been significantly higher than the number of Democratic/progressive guests. In January, Republicans/conservatives led Democrats/progressives 55 to 38 -- a difference of 59 percent to 41 percent. By February, that advantage had increased: Republican/conservatives outnumbered Democrats/progressives 55 to 34, or 62 percent to 38 percent.
Not only did the right dominate the left overall, but Republicans/conservatives also outnumbered Democrats/progressives in other key categories. During January and February, there were more Republican Party elected officials and Bush administration officials than those from the Democratic Party. In this category, Republicans outnumbered Democrats 22 to 18.
In addition, conservative journalists and pundits outnumbered progressive journalists and pundits by a considerable margin. While most journalists/pundits were neutral reporters or consistently presented a centrist point of view, the data show that those who spoke from an ideological perspective were conservative far more often than progressive. Conservatives in this category outnumbered progressives 42 to 13 -- a ratio of more than 3-to-1.
Another area in which the right dominated on Hardball was the coveted solo interview. During January and February, Hardball featured 24 solo interviews with Democrats/progressives, while Republicans/conservatives had nearly twice as many: 44 solo interviews. In addition, eight of the twelve guests who were given the honor of multiple solo interviews during this time period were Republican officials. Only one Democrat, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE), appeared in multiple solo interviews. The other centrist/neutral guests who were given multiple solo interviews on Hardball were Dick Sauber, attorney for Time magazine White House correspondent Matthew Cooper; Charlie Cook of The Cook Political Report; and New York Times reporter James Risen.
Hardball panels frequently demonstrate an ideological imbalance; when they do, that imbalance usually tilts to the right. While the majority of panels were balanced, the number of right-tilted panels was significantly greater than the number of left-tilted panels, at a ratio of nearly 3-to-1. During January and February, 22 panels tilted right, while only eight panels tilted left. This can largely be attributed to the presence of frequent panelists -- and conservative MSNBC hosts -- Tucker Carlson of The Situation with Tucker Carlson and former Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-FL) of Scarborough Country. Both MSNBC hosts are given prominence on Hardball's journalist panels without a progressive to counter with an opposing point of view.
On January 20, Matthews premiered a "special new feature," dubbed "Hardball Hot Shots." The "hot shots" are three MSNBC hosts: Carlson, Scarborough, and Rita Cosby, host of Rita Cosby Live & Direct. Matthews described the now-weekly "Hot Shots" as follows: "We'll nail the winners and the losers, the heroes and the villains, the brilliant and the buffoonery from the past week." Two of the three panelists -- Carlson and Scarborough -- are avowedly conservative; the third, Cosby, evinces no particular partisan or ideological affiliation. The composition of the three-member "Hot Shots" panel ensures that it remains a forum for conservative opinions -- with no identifiably progressive counterpoint.
Every weeknight, Matthews tells an audience of 330,000 Americans "what I really think." But is he really playing Hardball? Some might argue that a show whose host once worked for Democrats should feature more Republican and conservative guests. But as Media Matters has shown here and in numerous previous items, Chris Matthews is hardly a progressive -- indeed, there are few television hosts more enthusiastic in their support of President Bush. The dominance of Republicans and conservative guests on Hardball is certainly in the interest of conservatives, the Republican Party, and the Bush administration; it's not, however, in the public interest.
* According to a September 1999 article in the now-defunct Brill's Content, titled "Chris Matthews Won't Shut Up," Matthews began his career as a TV pundit in 1991 doing political commentary for ABC's Good Morning America. In 1994, Roger Ailes -- currently chairman of the board, CEO, and president of Fox News -- hired Matthews for a show called In Depth on NBC's newly launched cable network America's Talking. In 1996, MSNBC took over America's Talking, and Ailes moved Matthews to CNBC to host Politics with Chris Matthews. In 1997, the program moved to MSNBC and was renamed Hardball with Chris Matthews.
this doesn't even include matthews endless gushing over bush and the republicans.
the snide remarks he usually gets in right as a segment is ending.
But of course our guys play into his "liberal" roots (which has long since shriveled up and died): Bob Shrum played up his work for Tip once again.
Matthews gets it from both sides, so he can say he's fair.
Haven't you heard? Matthews has definitely chosen sides. Today's Huffington Post has this item: "Chris Matthews Calls "Good Night, And Good Luck" "Liberal Propaganda"; also available here: [link to www.pnionline.com]
about communists in the government. but mccarthy insisted there were "hundreds" of known communists in the state dept. he just never got around to naming them. he was censured by a republican senate and condemned by ike.
Here's the funny thing about that. When I heard that Matthews slammed "Good Night & Good Luck," it didnt make sense because he went on his syndicated Chris Matthews Show, praising it as one of the best of the year.
Now either he was pressured by the right to change his mind or he is one amnesiatic hypocrite.
I will look for the transcript, sometime around October.
Considering that the governorships, the Congress and the White House are controlled by Republicans, it probably makes sense that you will see more of them on these talk shows than Democrats. The mere quantities and numbers bear that out.
Also, maybe the Democrats don't want to appear on these shows as much as Republicans? Has anyone bothered to consider that as a possibility? For whatever reason, they may shy away from them - who knows?
The fact remains that it isn't the quantity anyway, it's the quality. If Hardball or any show has just one Democrat who articulates their position well and is smart and intelligent, then it wouldn't matter how many opposition guests are there - except maybe for airtime, but get your points across well and all is cool.
This all sounds a little whiny to me.
The mere quantities and numbers bear that out.
If they match the ratios of Republicans vs. Democrats in office. Do they?
Also, maybe the Democrats don't want to appear on these shows as much as Republicans?
Pure speculation. Maybe there is a Republican conspiracy to keep Democrats off these shows? That too is pure speculation.
The fact remains that it isn't the quantity anyway, it's the quality. If Hardball or any show has just one Democrat who articulates their position well and is smart and intelligent, ...
...and is not up against a stacked deck of shouting, arrogant, un-informed, misleading hosts and republican panel members?
You are taking -- as the shows and hosts being discussed here at MMFA -- one extreme view.
On how many issues have Republican leaning hosts and guest been caught lying?
How many hosts/guest have been seen shouting down their Democratic leaning guests?
Consider that "Democrats" and "Liberals" generally take intellecual stances, where there are no simple one sentence answers to issues. They generally advocate many sides, which is a Democratic value.
The hosts/shows many want RATINGS and not INTELLECTUAL conversation.
How do you find PBS's 'News Hour with Jim Lerher'?
Why is Charlie Rose not ever written about here at MMFA?
You failed to mention that Fox News has higher ratings.
You failed to mention that Fox News has higher ratings.
Why should I have? Ratings has nothing to do with reporting the news accurately or in a fair and balanced manner.
Ratings have only to do with a system to measure TV viewership. It does not measure how or why people view what they view.
And, obviously, shouting and controversy over guests or between guests and hosts increase ratings. Which is no measure whatsoever of properly discussing real issues.
I said: Why should I have?
He was not replying to me. So I may have posted completely out of context. My apologies.
I was responding to Tommy who uses Fox News Ratings to justify alot of his debate.
Tommy, I mean no disrespect when I say that your comments are pretty stupid. While you say that there would naturally be more Republicans than Democrats on Matthews' show because the GOP outnumbers the Dems in Congress and the White House, I wonder if you'd feel the same way if the situation was reversed. Now that Bush and the Republican congress is getting consistently low poll numbers, should the number of Republicans on Hardball go down? It's pretty funny to watch the reaction of conservatives when they're presented with the facts that show that their continual accusations that the media is liberal is nothing but right-wing propaganda. There's sputtering, muttering, and then the kind of dishonest nonsense you've presented here. If Hardball had a discussion about race in America, should there be one black man and ten white ones because that's the way the population breaks down? If your "theory" holds, you'd see the number of Hardball guests reflect the numeric breakdown of congress, but it does not. The over-representation by the GOP well exceeds the ratio of GOP to Dem. And that's if your theory wasn't the stupidest thing I've read today (no disrepect meant). And finally, when there was a Democratic White House and Congress, would you expect to see that reflected in the guests on Hardball? Guess what? It wasn't. The current lean to the right has existed long before George Bush was in the White House and the GOP owned congress. So, and I mean this in the nicest way possible, you are a dolt.
If Hardball or any show has just one Democrat who articulates their position well and is smart and intelligent, then it wouldn't matter how many opposition guests are there - except maybe for airtime, but get your points across well and all is cool. This all sounds a little whiny to me. - tommy --------------------------------------------------------- This is an uneducated statement. The discourse could quite easily be framed in such a way that it would not matter how articulate the Democrat may be. If crawling dog neocons could find a way for a stumbling mumbling stuttering moron like Dumbya "get his point across" despite the depth of his opposition (most of America), stifling a lone articulate Democrat in a den of thieves is child's play. There are various techniques. One obvious way is to control the agenda of topics to discuss, a second way is to control how the topics are constructed by manipulating language....wait, why am I teaching these bloviators any more stupid tricks!
What have the conservatives done for the last 50 years?
......... the vast majority of the American Media is owned by Corporations, and this explains why the vast majority of the Media has mostly Republican guests. A Democratic Corpration is an oxymoron..........
Thanks for the exhaustive study, Media Matters. Your analysis proves the suspicions about Hardball.
The fact that Republicans are "in power" (though "power" is used very loosely nowadays since, thanks to the incompetence of the "sunny and noble" (as Matthews terms him) Bush administration, it is dwindling daily) is no reason or excuse for the favoritism shown to them by Matthews, both in numbers and in attitude.
Even a casual viewing of the show is enough to see that Matthews is enabling right-wingers - giving them sufficient numerical advantages on his program to spin their partisan talking points and snuff-out Democratic or progressive arguments.
The people who will dismiss this study are those who are actually quite happy with its findings, and wish to keep the status quo.
That said, there are no RULES or LAWS concerning the "guest lists" on network/cable programming--owned I might add by PRIVATE corporations. Would it be better IF all programming was more fair&balanced? Of course. We should all want to be able to hear BOTH sides of any&all issues discussed so that we could draw our own conclusions.
Call or write the networks IF you're unhappy.
BTW there seems to be a great many "neutrals" according to the graphs, though MMFA only named a few as examples. Isn't THAT (large % of Neutrals) at least encouraging?
Those who are dismissive of the study's findings, which indicate a deliberate disregard for the progressive and Democratic point-of-view on the part of Matthews, are not unhappy with its results, and they will urge others to be equally as satisfied.
No one needs a lecture about how life isn't fair. Its unfairness, however, hasn't stopped some of us over the years -both right and left- from trying our best to make it as fair as we can, despite odds, and despite others' complacency.
If you are pleased with the imbalance, do nothing. Otherwise, your suggestion express unhappiness directly to MSNBC is a good one.
One more thing about "balance". It's true I would like to see more balance on these programs, I always think a good debate is more interesting than a one-sided presentation. MMFA has been diligent in pointing out these uneven splits in media representation recently.
But I wonder, how much this lack of airtime is really hurting the left? They started their own radio network in an attempt to counteract the Rush's and Hannity's of the world (you know, Air America Radio, where the left is right and the right is wrong"). Count me as one conservative who listens to AAR a LOT, probably in excess of ten hours per week.
I can tell you this: You put every American in this country in a chair, strap them in for six hours and have them listen to Rhodes, Garafalo and Malloy back to back to back, and the Dems wouldn't exceed 30% of the vote from now to infinity. The quality of those shows is beyond terrible. (Why do I listen ;-)) So, while I agree that the Dems should get some more airtime, they also need quality people making their cases with quality arguments.
Bruce, I'm actually getting a bit confused here, are Liberals and Progressives the SAME thing? ;-) Just wondering since MMFA is using "progressives" in their graphs as opposed to "Liberal" or "Democrats".
There must be PLENTY of Liberal-Progressive-Moderate Democrats that could appear on these programs so it is interesting that [according to the graph] it's so lopsided in favor of Republican/Conservatives. And I would think they'd be able to round up some "quality" players among them... Of course I would (if I were a Democrat) hope that it wouldn't be ANY of those "fringe" Left-wingers appearing on these programs. That, IMO, would turn off MOST of America.
I've only listened to AirAmerica once or twice...I do like Franken, always have...BUT Rhodes, Garafalo and Malloy wouldn't help their (Democrats) cause one bit. AND I think strapping every American to a chair and forcing them to listen MIGHT be classified as : Torture ;-)
MMFA has been carping about the lack of balance on these network/cable programs for quite awhile now. Guess it's falling on deaf ears?...
Yes, the liberals of the 90's are the progressives of the 2000's. Apparently, "liberal" wasn't playing well in the focus groups here in the bible belt. (Who knows). It's called language control, like when Mexicans became Hispanic and Negros became African-Americans and "warrantless wiretapping" suddenly became the "terrorist surveilance" program ;-). You really need a dictionary to keep up.
It looks to me like Media Matters described politicians by their political party, and journalists or activists by terms like progressive or conservative.
It does not appear to me that Media Matters was trying, in any way, to shy away from the word Liberal, or was misleading in the way they described these people.
Bruce, it's nice that you listen to Air America now and then, but if you do then you must live in one of the rare markets where the FCC gave Air America a station that can be heard more than 100 feet from the transmitter. Here in Chicago, which is one of the bluest cities in America, it is completely impossible to hear Air America anywhere within the city limits. Their station is wedged in between an extremely right-wing talk station and a right-wing Christian talk station. I'm a radio buff, and I know a little bit about this. I'm not kidding when I say Air America cannot be heard in Chicago even though it's one of their flagship stations. I use a Grundig portable worldband radio with perhaps the best reception of any pocket portable on the market, and it's just not possible to hear the station. There's a little bit of reception at the very edge of the city limits, but only within a band of about .5 mile. So, if you're obeying traffic laws and driving North or South, you will be able to hear Air America for less than 5 minutes. In most of the United States, you can go from one end of the AM band to the other and only hear right-wing talk. And please don't tell me it has anything to do with market forces, because recent elections have shown that the country is about half and half, but that's certainly not reflected in the opinions shown on the media. Really, when I hear people refer to the "liberal media", it's a sure sign that the speaker is dishonest or dumb. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not think you're dishonest.
I live in Minneapolis and Air America comes in loud and clear in my area of town, at least during daylight hours. My point was simply that if more airtime for Dems means more of the Air America scream fest, it won't get the left anywhere. Quality is more important than quantity.
I read that, and see that Media Matters quite clearly highlighted the fact that most journalists were centrist.
So I am not sure why you try to make the point that Media Matters somehow does not highlight that point. They very clearly did.
They would have had no problem, I suspect, if all of the panels were centrist or neutral.
The only thing to remark upon is the disparity between liberal panels and conservative panels, and they did that. They mentioned examples of those slanted panels, as makes sense!
Can you please explain why this seems so remarkable to you that they would highlight the panels that displayed a bias?
Hi ellie717, I think you may have read my remarks about "neutral" guests incorrectly, OR perhaps I didn't explain myself well...
I wrote: "BTW there seems to be a great many "neutrals" according to the graphs, though MMFA only named a few as examples. Isn't THAT (large % of Neutrals) at least encouraging?"
I wasn't being "negative" here. I was simply pointing out that the graphs showed a large% of neutral guests and I thought it was "encouraging", another words a GOOD trend. I'd personally prefer to hear UNBIASED, NON-PARTISAN voices whenever possible.
I can't see anything I wrote that made YOU think I had a problem with the graphs MMFA provided. I didn't.
You said that Media Matters didn't give many examples from the neutrals category.
That implies that there is something wrong with them not giving many examples from the neutrals category.
It's perfectly understandable why they would not have given many examples from the neutrals category.
You're the one that mentioned that they did not include many examples from that.
That's an unnecessary and unwarranted smear of Media Matters. You could have simply said "Media Matters noted that most panels were neutral. That's a good thing, right?"
Instead you added that part about them not showing many examples. That's the smear part. That's the part I objected to, and still object to. There's no reason to smear Media Matters on that, because it is totally reasonable to have not included many examples of centrist/neutral people or panels.
Smear MMFA?!? HOW?!?
Ellie, I think we're having a serious LACK of communication here. Two of MMFA's graphs showed that NEUTRALS made up 60% and 67% of the guests. MMFA gave only FIVE names for the EXAMPLES of those that represented those NEUTRALS...I simply would have liked to have had a few other examples. Why? Nothing nefarious...I WAS JUST CURIOUS who else fell into that NEUTRAL category.
Your accusations of SMEARING are unfounded and really off the wall.
Hope this post clears things up for you. IF not, well then think whatever you want. I'm done explaining the obvious.
Dave, we don't agree on too much but I agree with you on this one. I would like to see more Democratic representation on these programs (not that I watch them much). Hopefully as the midterms get closer, bith sides will get an opportunity to state their clear positions for the record.
I agree with you as well..........but the problem is many politicians will not go on programs where they may be challenged and cannot spout their talking points uninterrupted. They firmly plant themselves with softball, friendly interviewers for fear of being unprepared or getting their feathers ruffled. So the information we, as the voting public, get from these talk shows, sadly, is of little substance.
I go to many media outlets and gather as much information as I can - these shows illuminate little on important issues so whether they skew one way or another is mostly irrelevant.
but the problem is many politicians will not go on programs where they may be challenged and cannot spout their talking points uninterrupted. Tommy
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Until recently I was a regular Hardball viewer, I'd watched it from it’s inception, and although I found CM long winded but I thought he was fair although I thought he was tremendously angry with Clinton after the scandal and I thought he was a little over the top about that. He obviously had issues with Gore and Kerry during those campaigns, but I noticed a decided shift in the show after the 2004 presidential election. The man just praised and continues to praise George Bush and engaging in talking points is just what the Republican guest are usually allowed to do with little if any challenge from the host; and of late Chris joins in with them reiterating Republican talking points. I don't know if you watch this show but maybe after seeing a few of them you could make a non-partisan assessment for yourself. Chris's brother I understand is running for Lieutenant governor of PA on the Republican ticket. Maybe CM is courting the Republican hierarchy his brother’s behalf after all campaigns are costly. Now of course that's pure speculation on my part; but I'm searching for answers as to why this change in CM. Maybe it’s just a simple change in political beliefs for Chris and he is using his show to highlight his new beliefs. In his older shows CM hardballed everyone. He doesn't do that anymore. The man lavishly praises his favorite Republican politicos and I think he speaks very derisively to and of the Democrats. Now you may have a point that after a while of being subjected to that blatantly unfair treatment that the Democrats have decided to skip Chris' new format of praise the Republicans but challenge the Democrats. As I said before I now prefer the C-Span format of neutrality. I understand that the hosts of the C-Span shows don’t even know the political affiliations of each other.
Thanks, Bruce.
It's easy enough to find radio, tv, newspapers, magazines, and websites that present lopsided arguments from right or left, and we all listen and watch them. But I think most of us expect more from a show like Hardball that purports to be a non-partisan news analysis program. More-as in more balanced and more expressive of _both_sides, in equal measure, or at least as equally as possible. The study suggests that Matthews maybe hasn't done all he can to ensure the equality that we expect.
No, it's NOT easy to find TV and Radio with opinions from both the right and left. I defy you to tell me about TV or radio programs with left-of-center opinions from regular commercial TV or Radio. When you start counting, you'll get "Air America", and that's it. No number 2, and Number 1 can't be heard in most places because it's on the worst frequencies in any given market. In good old working class Rolla, Missouri for example, where I have a summer house, you will find on the radio dial 6 (!) conservative talk radio stations, 4 christian radio stations, and three country music stations that sometimes have conservative talk shows on them. NPR is given 1 (one) hour per day to play the news and then it's all classical music. No Air America. No middle of the road. It's all right-wing all the time. But the interesting thing is that this is not an all-rightwing town. It has nothing to do with the desires of the consumers. How do you explain this? The TV stations have approximately the same breakdown. MSNBC is probably the only cable news station where you'll hear an occasional middle of the road view and rarely a left of center view. Matthews is all wingnut now, and MSNBC has recently hired Bill Bennett. Bush has an approval rating in the low 30's. Do you think the opinions in the media reflect the views of the population of the US? If so, then with all due respect, you're a knucklehead.
I certainly agree with you that it's much easier to find lopsided partisan viewpoints on the right in general, particularly on radio and tv. If you'd read any of my other posts on this site, you'd have known I agree with your other comments (except for the "knucklehead").
The point I really was making is that we have different expectations from a Randi Rhodes (or a Limbaugh-not that I'd listen to him) than we do from a show like Hardball-a show that's supposed to be a non-partisan news analysis program.
In Chicago-a very blue city in a blue state- we have two, major AM radio powerhouses that deliver almost nothing but right-wing talk, 24/7. On our side we have one low-power AM station broadcasting Air America. That, unfortunately, is it. Until recently, we didn't even have that.
The main problem I see with the posts here is that they may not be reflective of the entire picture. Matthews may gush over Bush on occassion, but if you watch his program with any regularity you will see he holds many Republicans and Bush supporters to task, often. But to see it here, it would appear that never happens and he is wholly a Bush apologist and cheerleader......and that is not the case. I understand this site is to expose conservative misinformation, but to delute one's self into thinking there isn't more to the story is naive, indeed.
As I said, unless you know the booking ins and outs of Hardball and their efforts and inner workings of getting guests on their program, to say they favor Republicans, and that's that, is ridiculous.
The main problem I see with the posts here is that they may not be reflective of the entire picture. Matthews may gush over Bush on occassion, but if you watch his program with any regularity you will see he holds many Republicans and Bush supporters to task, often. But to see it here, it would appear that never happens and he is wholly a Bush apologist and cheerleader......and that is not the case.
The Big Picture hardly helps make your case, though. Matthews opposes Bush on Iraq, but that's really been the only major substantive point of disagreement, and even that is weak. He'll do programs about blatant lying and lawbreaking by the administration, but he never ties any of this to Bush himself, whom he continues to adore and over whom he ceaselessly gushes. To use but one example, all of his "opposition" to the Iraq war didn't stop him from devoting nearly an entire program to rapturously marvelling at Bush's pathetic aircraft-carrier publicity stunt at its alleged conclusion--the infamous "mission accomplished" speech. From the beginning, this has been the hallmark of his coverage of Bush (for whom he voted)--only a week or two ago, he was comparing Bush to Atticus Finch--and, in the bigger picture, he's been a mouthpiece for Bush's misrule. In the even bigger picture, Matthews is a vicious despiser of Democrats, routinely comparing them to mafia thugs, terrorists, and so on--quite a contrast to his treatment of Bush. The first four years of his program was devoted to politically annihilating, in any way possible, Bill Clinton and Al Gore, and his show was a nightly forum for every outlandish charge every half-literate reactionary cared to make against them. Matthews even made up a few himself! In the 2000 campaign, he may as well have been on the Bush tickets' payroll. Bob Somerby has been watching Matthews for a lot of years now--his Daily Howler arand hives are filled with this information. The Bigger Picture doesn't bolster your case, here
As I said, unless you know the booking ins and outs of Hardball and their efforts and inner workings of getting guests on their program, to say they favor Republicans, and that's that, is ridiculous.
Since you obviously know the inner workings, please elaborate.
Blaming the fact that more conservative/republican views are being heard on Hardball -- which can be readily seen by watching -- than liberal/democratic views on the Liberals and Democrats is ridiculous.
You imply that any imbalance is due to particular guests not wanting to be on the show. Can you in any way shape or form demonstrate that that is not simply an unimformed guess.
The point is neither you, nor I, know how the guests are booked on Hardball or any show. We don't know who accepts the invitations, and who does not. We don't know if 1o or 20 Democrats are asked to appear and none accept, we don't know if 10 or20 Republicans are asked and how many accept?
That is the point - we don't know. So to conclude that Hardball favors Republicans without knowing who or who isn't asked, is worthless.
The point is neither you, nor I, know how the guests are booked on Hardball or any show. ... So to conclude that Hardball favors Republicans without knowing who or who isn't asked, is worthless.
Perhaps, looking at one limited data point -- those numbers as summaried here.
However, one can COMPARE to all of the other related hosts/shows on TV.
One can COMPARE issue vs. issue, show vs. show, etc.
MMFA has simply put numbers to what people can see by watching these shows.
You state: "to say they favor Republicans ... is ridiculous." Well, certainly, one CAN say that they DO NOT FAVOR Democrats.
Now, shall we continue this discussion?
You state: "to say they favor Republicans ... is ridiculous." Well, certainly, one CAN say that they DO NOT FAVOR Democrats.
******************
You actually left out what I said and it's important to the context. I said "to say they favor Republicans, and that's that, is ridiculous. I purposely said, "that's that" meaning to consider nothing else, is ridiculous.
I stand by the statement and there is no real need to continue the discussion - you have your opinion, I have mine.
Yeah, to which you boiled down your thoughts into "we don't know" and you imply, "that's that." (i.e. "So to conclude that Hardball favors Republicans without knowing who or who isn't asked, is worthless.")
It's worthless, so that's that, eh?
I was trying to get you to consider other data beside your insistance on the lack of data. That you will not consider more data, and do not offer any of your own data, we can now say, that's that.
What a great way to spend the afternoon.
there are simply not enough democrats willing to go on these shows to express an opinion. they searched far and wide and darn it they just weren't there.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Maybe there isn't any concrete evidence that conservatives/Republicans are favored (except for the guest breakdown, which is pretty convincing to me). However, that doesn't mean the bias doesn't exist.
What a lot of time we spend picking nits, instead of discussing the real isses! Are the points of view being disseminated via these programs predominantly conservative as opposed to progressive? Yes. Does this mean that Americans are being shortchanged in terms of balance? Also yes.
It would be equally wrong to have a progressive bias. These people should either provide the balance their viewers/listeners deserve, or make their partisanship clear by stating it upfront.
The theory that Hardball and the Sunday shows feature fewer Democrats than Republicans because the producers can't find Democrats willing to appear on TV seems pretty far-fetched. Politicians aren't often thought of as shy people who avoid the spotlight and turn down the opportunity to appear on national television.
If it is the case that there simply are no Democrats willing to appear on television, I assume representatives of Hardball, Meet the Press, et al will say so. They haven't thus far.
Another theory as to why Republicans dominate the talk airwaves is an examination of the compelling topics of the day; in particular, CORRUPTION and LYING by politicians.
On these topics, Republicans SHOULD be on the "hot seat" disproportionately more, because they are INVOLVED disproportionately.
However, this would call for a more in-depth study than just the NUMBERS. If Republicans are on these shows to answer tough questions, because they are the ones "in trouble", that would seem a logical explanation.
Without a study, I observe that these Republicans are NOT being grilled, but instead are given the opportunity to deliver their talking points, which amount to half rationalizations (and mostly MINIMIZING) of Bush actions/inactions, and half attacking Democrats.
If their appearances amounted to their being held accountable, that would wash. Since they are NOT, then it's only evidence of bias towards having a singular message -- the rightwing view.
The point is neither you, nor I, know how the guests are booked on Hardball or any show. We don't know who accepts the invitations, and who does not. We don't know if 1o or 20 Democrats are asked to appear and none accept, we don't know if 10 or20 Republicans are asked and how many accept?
You're "point" is utterly irrelevant, and merely a poorly-managed attempt to sidetrack consideration of this matter by trying to make it depend upon an unknowable. The notion that some phantom producer may want to produce some entirely different show that what he in fact produces--a wild speculation, based on exactly nothing--is of no relevance. The fact is that the final product--the one that actually goes on the air--tilts to the right, and always has.
That is the point - we don't know. So to conclude that Hardball favors Republicans without knowing who or who isn asked, is worthless.
Your "point" is worthless. Hardball does, in fact, favor Republicans, as the numbers bear out (and, I would add, as is patently obvious to anyone who ever watched it for more than five minutes). What doesn't make it on the air is irrelevant
That was precisely what I was thinking. Matthews should be concerned with the final product of his show. He should be making a better attempt to book Democrats or even better --real Liberals.
If he is not booking enough liberals, it doesn't matter what unknown process is used to do that, the process is a failure from the viewpoint of fairness.
But to see it here, it would appear that never happens and he is wholly a Bush apologist and cheerleader......
Since You claim to watch the show (something which i have no longer been able to do), he is consistent in his support of -- specifically -- George W Bush. In essence, calling anyone that dislikes W as a leftwing nut. Matthews consistently comes up with reasons why Bush fails, and the excuses always fall away from Bush.
Matthews consistently labels "the left" as out of touch and Bush as a "man of the people" -- denigrates unions while pumping up hypernational corporations.
and, i do have to give You one "thread" -- apparently, "the rightwing nutters" hate him as well.
i don't fully understand the "Matthews" phenomenon when so many people of all political stripes hate him as much as he LOVES himself
Most schoolgirl crushes end with broken hearts. I'd hate to see this happen to you.
His contrarianism ("I like to surprise people") is a cheap version of the contrarianist attitude of someone like Chris Hitchens, who went from being a Trotskyist with roots in New Left Review to a neocon mouthpiece for the invasion of Iraq. Both are annoying and, above all, opportunistic.
Lenin: "Social-chauvinism is a consummated opportunism. "
When you speak of quality over quantity, it is not at all relevant to the study. What logical way would there be to analyse mountains of data for each guests quality? That kind of test would not translate.
Instead, Media Matters offers the mathematical information as we would naturally observe quality.
Are you more loyal to these people than ideals?
You missed the point.
If you had guests of quality who could articulate their positions clearly and confidently, then the quantity would be irrelevant. If you don't, then do not blame the media outlet, blame the messenger.
The whine continues, foolishly.
If you had guests of quality who could articulate their positions clearly and confidently, then the quantity would be irrelevant. If you don't, then do not blame the media outlet, blame the messenger.
Your argument is poor. Can one articulate and clear person overcome 3 or 4 stupid unclear people? Or can 3 or 4 confident loudmouths drown out one really smart person?
To understand what is articulate and clear and confident requires an understanding of the issue being discussed.
Would it really matter to you anyway how many Republicans or Democrats appear on these shows? Because if you're a hack partisan either way, you will dismiss the opposition's viewpoint and embrace your ideology regardless of the number of guests in either direction. And if you're in the middle and trying to educate yourself or become astute on the issues, then you will do much more than rely on these talkfests for information.
To answer your other question, I would much rather be represented by one smart, articulate politician than 50 screaming shouters.
Because if you're a hack partisan either way, you will dismiss the opposition's viewpoint and embrace your ideology regardless of the number of guests in either direction.
Or do the same in an Internet discussion forum?
To answer your other question, I would much rather be represented by one smart, articulate politician than 50 screaming shouters.
So, you are a Liberal Democrat at heart!
Oh, and you did not answer the question (which was rhetorical, BTW).
........ 3 0r 4 loudmouths drown out one intelligent guest daily on Fox News........ Just Shutup!
You missed the point.
If you had guests of quality who could articulate their positions clearly and confidently, then the quantity would be irrelevant. If you don't, then do not blame the media outlet, blame the messenger.
The whine continues, foolishly.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ You’re not being fair and you are using Republican talking points here yourself….the old Republican-Conseravtive mantra of the Democrats are whiners, their inarticulate, etc, etc. There are many Democrats that are quite articulate. I read and studied the Kerry platform when he ran for president. It was smart, detailed, it considered the greater good and I felt it would produce the best outcome for the greater majority of Americans. A person like you wouldn’t support it; not because it was inarticulate but because it went against your deeply held philosophy. So be honest don't just call them inarticulate just say because I adhere to these basic tenets I can't support the progressive agenda. I digress here a bit but if people would take the time to read and study their candidates and their policy statements they wouldn't have to rely on BS sound bites and talking points spouted on these Talking head shows, the Republicans are infamous for that. If we as a nation had done that during the last presidential election cycle we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. At that time we already were feeling the beginning effects of Bush's economic policy failures and the Iraqi situation whether you supported the war or not was already in a tail spin.
They count on the fact that people don't read and study candidates and politicians platforms.
That leaves the perfect opportunity for pundits to "fill in the gaps".
In this day and age, and I will say it's due in large part to conservative control of the media (through corporate ownership) it is imperative to them the dem/progressive agenda is squashed.
It's not due to the lack of people that can articulate and relate the ideas and policy suggestions...
You do notice any time a Dem suggests real policies that are counter to what the Repubs are doing, the first thing you hear is "Same old Democrats, no ideas..."
All the networks are like this, it seems... It would be nice if people were allowed to elaborate on positions without fear of being disrespected..
I too prefer C-SPAN
Last night Chris Matthews said that the reason for the 1994 Republican take over of Congress was because people were sick of Hillary Clinton.
As God is my witness, I am not making this up. For one thing, I couldn't because I am not that imaginative.
My take on it is that Matthews became very popular during the Clinton impeachment, and he has come to the conclusion that bashing Dems is good for business. More precisely he loves to hate Hillary, because, in his view, it makes for good ratings.
Visit "What we know so far ... at schapira.blogspot.com
“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”
My take on it is that Matthews became very popular during the Clinton impeachment, and he has come to the conclusion that bashing Dems is good for business. More precisely he loves to hate Hillary, because, in his view, it makes for good ratings.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This is probably the best assessment I've seen of CMs behavior. You should be a news analyst.
I didn't mean that YOU were a knucklehead. I meant that anybody who believed that you can find balanced political views anywhere in the media would be knuckleheaded for thinking that. Now Tommy, that's a knucklehead.
No, Matthews does NOT take conservatives to task. Ever. He drools all over the shoes of the most hateful and ignorant of the Right. I'm sure you heard his comments yesterday about Mr. Boehner's "greatness". Does that sound like "taking to task?"
In fact, Media Matters DOES know the bookings ins and outs of Hardball and they've published them here. Without a doubt, Hardball favors Republicans.
I meant that anybody who believed that you can find balanced political views anywhere in the media would be knuckleheaded for thinking that.
I think you are too limited in your statement. "Anywhere on the TV News Shows" perhaps, but C-SPAN, Charlie Rose, PBS' News Hour, Tavis Smiley... hmm.. what else? There you will find some balance, in that they provide for other voices.
C-SPAN is actually an extremely good source for all views.
One has to seek the truth.
In my mind is due in large part to media deregulation and the death of the fairness doctrine.
Just my observations..
Amazing how little intellectual honesty conservatives have.
Dear friends,... I about fell out of my chair when a congressman debating Matthews and Hayworth said " The UAE has assisted us in extending the frontier" or words to that effect. I can not believe that a republican would admit to imperialism and or colonialism. I hope someobody else cuaght that!!!
Just saw this last night, and it may be speculation but it appears to shed a little light on the Dubai deal.
"United Arab Emirates is located at the center of an oil-dependent world. This tiny state forms the promontory that juts out into the famed Straits of Hormuz through which 40% of the world’s oil passes every day. Across the narrow straights sits Iran, the next victim on the list of “axis of evil” nations. Any attack on Iran will require that military forces quickly deploy to Dubai to forestall the closing of the straits and the subsequent devastation that would occur to world oil supplies and financial markets.
This is the critical point that is being intentionally concealed by America’s diversionary media. This is the reason that President Bush continues to force the Dubai port plan even though 70% of the American people and Congress resoundingly oppose it."
from : Dubai and the Straits of Hormuz , by Mike Whitney, www.dissidentvoice.org , March 6, 2006
[link to www.dissidentvoice.org]
Notwithstanding the general ickiness of ANY foreign government (ally or not) having anything to do with our ports, the Dubai ports deal simply reeks.
This deal has "guarantee ourselves a jumping off point when we decide to mess with Iran" written all over it.
Scary stuff...
Hardball for the left, softball for the right: Conservatives dominate on Hardball
If Hardball or any show has just one Democrat who articulates their position well and is smart and intelligent, then it wouldn't matter how many opposition guests are there - except maybe for airtime, but get your points across well and all is cool. This all sounds a little whiny to me.
- tommy --------------------------------------------------------- Sorry, that was not an intelligent statement. The discourse could quite easily be framed in such a way that it would not matter how articulate the Democrat may be. If these neocon dogs could find a way for a stuttering moron like Dumbya to "get his point across" despite the depth of his opposition (most of America), stifling a lone Democrat in a den of thieves is child's play. There are various techniques. One obvious way is to control the agenda of topics to discuss, a second way is to control how the topics are constructed by manipulating language....wait, why am I teaching bloviators any more stupid tricks! Full stop.
Tommy is hard pressed to be intellectually honest, which is why he's a Tr... I mean, talk about vaccuous arguments.
I GET SO SICK AND TIRED OF CONSERVATIVES SAYING THAT THE MEDIA IS LIBERAL!!!! LOOK AT WHO YOU HAVE ON THESE SHOWS, MATTHEWS, JOE, TUCKER , WOLF, ED, RANDY, AMY, IMUS, BILL, ALEX, MILES, CANDY, TIM, KATIE, MATT, ALL OF FOX NEW. SO GIVE ME A BREAK WITH THE MEDIA IS LIBERAL AND OUT TO GET BUSH!!!!
See also this story: [link to rawstory.com]
What I don't understand is Mathews' apparent strong move to the right in the last 6 months or so.
Or have I just not been observant enough?
Well,
Just follow the money !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[link to rawstory.com]
I couldn't believe the purported "balance" on Hard Ball's Friday night program. The first words out Scarborough's mouth were attacks on the Democrats. Chris Matthews show should be retitled "GOP First, Last and Always."
Report posits that Chris Matthews has accepted hefty speaking fees from conservative groups
03/09/2006 by John Byrne RAWSTORY
A new report advanced to RAW STORY Thursday suggests that Chris Matthews, the star of the Sunday talk show circuit's Hardball, has accepted hefty speaking fees from an array of conservative trade associations.
Matthews has given speeches to at least ten major conservative trade associations since 2001. The report's author, Dave Johnson, who blogs at Seeing The Forest and is also a fellow at the progressive Commonweal Institute, could find no records indicating that Matthews has spoken before any Democratic-leaning organizations. The report is not a product of the Commonweal Institute.
"Why is Matthews speaking at so many events with Republican-associated trade organizations?" Johnson asks. "What is NBC policy on speaking engagements and why does NBC keep it hidden? Are these trade associations paying Matthews to purchase influence?"
Matthews is listed at a speaking bureau known to command hefty fees. While it can't be proven whether Matthews has taken money from the groups, speaking fees are a regular practice for large trade organizations who invite big-name media stars to speak to their memberships. Such fees typically run in the five-figure range, and occasionally exceed $50,000 a pop.
Among the groups include: the International Franchise Association; the National Association of Chain Drug Stories; the National Association of Convenience Stores; the American Hospital Association; the Consumer Healthcare Products Association; the National Venture Capitalists Association; the Mortgage Bankers Association; the Credit Union National Association; the American Society of Association Executives; and the International Health and Racquet & Sportsclub Association.
The report, available here, notes that these associations have given heavily to conservative candidates for public office.
Matthews also spoke at the 2002 Conservative Political Action Committee Conference, the 2003 Building Contractors Association, and the 2005 Log Cabin Republicans' National Convention.
The MSNBC icon has remained largely immune to liberal attacks because of his record of employment by Democratic politicians. According to the report, Matthews was a presidential speechwriter for Jimmy Carter and server as a top aide to the onetime Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill.
Howard Kurtz reported in 2002 that NBC had banned the practice of journalists accepting speaking fees but the report's author suggests otherwise.
A call placed to Matthew's publicist was not immediately returned. An NBC spokesperson could not confirm to RAW STORY whether the network had banned the acceptance of speaking fees. It seems unlikely that Matthews would have spoken to so many groups pro bono. Matthews is also listed at a second speakers bureau here.
Johnson says he made numerous calls to NBC inquiring about their speaking fee policy. He says his calls were not returned.
[link to rawstory.com]
fair and balanced in comparison. Every word that passes through his lips is analagous to bile and emulsifier fats.