If It's Sunday, It's Still Conservative
SUMMARY: Following up on Media Matters' in-depth study showing that Republican and conservative guests outnumbered Democratic and progressive guests on ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, and NBC's Meet the Press over a nine-year period, an examination of the guest lists for those programs during the first three months of 2006 showed that Republican and conservative dominance continued unabated.
Six weeks ago, Media Matters for America published an in-depth study of guests on ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, and NBC's Meet the Press in which we demonstrated that the shows' Republican and conservative guests outnumbered Democratic and progressive guests over a nine-year period. The study, titled "If It's Sunday, It's Conservative: An analysis of the Sunday talk show guests on ABC, CBS, and NBC, 1997-2005," received a spate of media coverage from outlets across the nation and around the world, including The Nation, CBS Public Eye, Broadcasting & Cable, CNN Radio, and NPR's On the Media.
Yet despite the media attention focused on our findings, Meet the Press host Tim Russert, Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer, and This Week host George Stephanopoulos continued to play host to a preponderance of Republican and conservative guests during the first three months of 2006. On Sunday mornings during the first quarter of this year, Republican and conservative dominance continued unabated, as those from the right outnumbered Democrats and their progressive compatriots.
Overall, there were 75 appearances by Republicans/conservatives during this time period, but only 50 by Democrats/progressives. If we remove the neutrals (a category that includes guests who are centrist or nonpartisan) to examine only those with a clearly identifiable ideology, we see that the imbalance has been, if anything, slightly more acute in 2006 than it was in the years 1997 through 2005.
In fact, all of the major imbalances identified in "If It's Sunday, It's Conservative" continued in 2006: Republicans outnumbered Democrats; journalists who appeared were more likely to be conservative than progressive; and more panels tilted right than tilted left.
The journalists
One of the key findings we reported in our initial study was that, of the journalists invited on the Sunday-morning talk shows to offer their insight into the previous week's news, conservative journalists outnumbered progressive journalists. All too often, the Sunday shows feature panel discussions comprising conservative journalists and opinion writers "balanced" by reporters for mainstream news outlets -- with no progressive journalist. As a result, conservative journalists consistently outnumber progressive journalists. This was true for the years 1997 through 2005, and it remains true in 2006.
Partly as a result, the shows are more likely to feature a panel tilted to the right than to the left. While the majority of the panels on all the shows were balanced, when a panel is imbalanced, it more likely favors the right -- a conclusion that is consistent with previous findings.
Going solo
Nor should it come as much of a surprise that all three Sunday-morning shows granted more solo interviews to Republicans than Democrats. In this respect, Meet the Press was particularly extreme. While This Week and Face the Nation both gave slightly more solo interviews to Republicans than Democrats, the disparity on Meet the Press was striking: nine solo interviews with Republicans over the three-month period, but only two solo interviews with Democrats.
A persistent problem
There are moments when the imbalance between the left and the right becomes particularly notable. To take a recent example, consider the journalist panel on Meet the Press on February 19. NBC chief White House correspondent David Gregory appeared along with New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who, while a harsh critic of President Bush, pulled no punches with Bill Clinton. These two were accompanied by strongly conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Paul A. Gigot and Republican strategist Mary Matalin, who is nothing if not a fierce spinner on the White House's behalf. The next week's Meet the Press featured a lineup consisting of Republican Sen. John Warner (VA), Republican Rep. Peter King (NY), and Republican California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. It is little wonder that one commentator quipped that the show should be renamed Meet the Republicans.
As we noted in our original study, we do not assert that every show must be precisely balanced between the left and the right. Over time, however, one would expect something like parity between the two sides to emerge. While the failure to balance the right and the left is particularly acute on NBC's Meet the Press, it persists on all three networks.
In 2006, Sunday mornings on network television have been dominated by conservatives to the same extent as they had been in the preceding nine years. Media Matters for America once again asks the producers of ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, and NBC's Meet the Press to consider whether this pattern of conservative domination serves the public interest.
Can someone tell me how the "liberal media" could be less liberal?
It was refreshing to see General Zinni on Meet the Press. He pretty much said that the intelligence he saw prior to the Iraq war DID NOT back up what the Bush Administration was claiming. Add this to previous testimony and the latest Bush/Blair memo, and it seems irrefutable that the bastards intentionally misled the country into war. This should be the NUMBER ONE STORY from now until the next election. Unfortunately, the press is either too lazy, corrupt or inept to give this matter the attention it demands.
I'm a UK citizen who spent four years in the States studying for my degree and I was always amazed by claims that the media in the US was liberal. I found that the so-called liberal press were often slightly right of centre at best, whilst media outlets such as Fox were riduculously right-wing. Even so called right-wing press in the UK, such as the Daily Telegraph, would probably be considered 'liberal' at times by Fox and 'Friends'. Liberal papers like the Guardian and the Independent would probably be labelled communist rags by the likes of O'Reilly. During the course of my time there I also found it interesting that younger people who were politically apathetic seemed to think that 'liberal' was a dirty word. I doubt that mindset would have come about with a liberal media.
MediaMogul posted:
"I'm a UK citizen who spent four years in the States studying for my degree and I was always amazed by claims that the media in the US was liberal. I found that the so-called liberal press were often slightly right of centre at best, whilst media outlets such as Fox were riduculously right-wing....... During the course of my time there I also found it interesting that younger people who were politically apathetic seemed to think that 'liberal' was a dirty word. I doubt that mindset would have come about with a liberal media."
_______________________________________________
I think it's safe to say that the term "liberal" has a different meaning on both sides of the pond. When I lived in the old country it was hard to find a conservative point of view I thought. Yet my German friends would tell me the magazine I was reading was considered right wing there. I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder!
It's not just the politically apathetic that think liberal is a dirty word. Just look around this forum and you will find that the more "enlightened" among us are running from the term "liberal" like rats from a sinking ship. The new term is "progressive". I guess it is the next stage of evolution for them. FDR brought the term liberal in with his New Deal policies. He was being referred to as a socialist and knew that was the kiss of death politically here. He started using the term liberal making it a unique moniker for the US left. Now it has dropped out of fashion and is slowly being replaced.
I don't know if a tiger can change his stripes though!
"I guess it is the next stage of evolution for them."
Or more realistically it's because Republicans have been using the term "liberal" as if it was something to be ashamed of for forty-plus years. There's nothing wrong with being liberal, and no need to change any stripes.
" There's nothing wrong with being liberal, and no need to change any stripes." _______________________________________________
I don't have a problem with this, but someone on the left does. If you're liberal then by God stand up and be counted. I think you are putting your head in the sand if you say there is no stripe changing going on though. Brab, why do you think the term is changing or not being changed?
"I think you are putting your head in the sand if you say there is no stripe changing going on though. Brab, why do you think the term is changing or not being changed?"
Let me repeat..."because Republicans have been using the term "liberal" as if it was something to be ashamed of for forty-plus years". "Liberal" and "progressive" are, as far as I can tell, interchangable terms. There is no discernable difference between the two. And perhaps I'm misnunderstanding, but generally "change your stripes" and similar phrasing refers to a change of inherent or at least very firmly-rooted behavior. I don't see the change in behavior, what I see is the abandonment of a term in exchange for another one. That's why I said there's nothing wrong with being liberal, because those stripes don't need to be changed - the term "progressive" is around simply because right-wingers have successfully tainted the liberal labell through years of maneuvering.
So sorry if I misunderstood, but it very much came across that because people were using "progressive" that people were abandoning liberalism, and that's simply not the case as far as I see. People on the left don't think "liberal" is a dirty word, they are just reacting to public perception.
Brab posted:
"So sorry if I misunderstood, but it very much came across that because people were using "progressive" that people were abandoning liberalism, and that's simply not the case as far as I see. People on the left don't think "liberal" is a dirty word, they are just reacting to public perception. - brabantio / Tuesday April 4, 2006 01:21:37 PM "
What I meant to get across was that people are not abandoning anything but the term as you correctly pointed out. You say though that the term is accepted, but public perception is it's a dirty word? What are your feelings on why that is? Why should you abandon your party's moniker? Why hasn't the left been able to do the same with the term conservative?
"What are your feelings on why that is?"
Read. He said it twice. Because the cons have been effective in changing the connotation.
"Why should you abandon your party's moniker?"
We haven't. And it's not a moniker. A moniker is a name.
" Why hasn't the left been able to do the same with the term conservative?"
Because until recently we haven't tried. Personally, I use the shortened term con because it connotes convict or confidence man, or a sham. All apt descriptions of the Republicans.
"You say though that the term is accepted, but public perception is it's a dirty word? What are your feelings on why that is?"
This is the third time for you..."because Republicans have been using the term "liberal" as if it was something to be ashamed of for forty-plus years". Perhaps I'm exaggerating with the actual amount of time but it's been going on for quite some time.
"Why should you abandon your party's moniker? Why hasn't the left been able to do the same with the term conservative?"
We shouldn't have to, and we shouldn't even have to consider it. But then, we shouldn't be dealing with intellectually dishonest people who play games like that. That isn't what the system should be about, but it is, like it or not. The left hasn't been done the same in reverse for two reasons. First, it's a form of intellectual dishonesty that I don't often see liberals engaging in. As far as I've seen, we don't say or suggest conservatism is destructive or evil or a mental disease the way the right does about liberalism (neoconservativism is a different matter, of course!). I don't agree with most of their positions, but the criticism I make is based purely on the principles and results of policies, not some tribalistic "we good they bad" mentality. We just don't play the game that way, generally speaking. We haven't spent years and years trying to taint the term, because honestly I don't think many people think there's anything wrong with being conservative and don't want to pretend like they do. The second reason is that even if we did try to play that game, the right wing controls the message. While a majority of reporters might lean left, the majority of the editors/publishers/producers lean right, and they act as a filter. For an example of how this might work, imagine that a publisher who made 200,000 off Reagan's tax cuts might not be quite so concerned about constant quotes denigrating liberals but would probably raise holy hell if someone did the same for conservatives.
Also, we liberals have held on to the idea that you could present to differing ideas on how to run the country and let the people decide what they like at that moment in time. We thought, naively, that the right would similarly prize the chance to lay their ideas out on the table and let the public pick which they liked best. In short, we didn't think the cons would start cheating by abusing the media and finding a new avenue for their slander in talk radio. Only recently have liberals woke up to the fact that though we were playing the game fairly, the other side had no such compunction. It's a sad state. But better late than never, I say.
I've been hammering this point for years now, and I'm not the only one, either. For some reason, the Democratic party didn't take the talk radio factor seriously in 2000 or 2004. I even sent e-mails to Gore's and Kerry's campaign directors, telling them not to let the slanders go unanswered. I'm sure my letters were lost in the thousands they recieved every day, but surely I wasn't the only one warning them about this.
Gore and Kerry both were crucified daily on talk radio, and these lies went largely unrefuted. In essence, Bush got wall-to-wall free advertising on thousands of radio stations across the country. How could this not have an effect on the outcome?
Liberal radio still has a long way to go, but, with any luck, they can level the playing field in a few years.
I got it for the third time, just wanted you to expound on it a little more. Like I posted somewhere else in this thread, I'm not making a case for or against, just want to see where people come down on it. I responded above to a UK poster that brought up some good points and just think it is interesting topic. Thanks for being patient! :)
That "liberal" is now considered a dirty word. This fact is the direct result of a concerted effort on the part of the GOP propaganda machine in general, Rush Limbaugh in particular. They have fabricated a caricature of "liberals" that is comical, at best. I used to listen to Rush throughout the 90's, and he denegrated liberals and liberalism on a daily basis. It was all B.S., of course, but his gullible listeners lapped it up, because he made bigotry, xenophobia, jingoism, paranoia and selfishness fashionable again. He didn't start it, of course, but continued the proud Republican tradition of lying like a rug which goes back at least to Nixon.
P.S. I'm proud to be a liberal; I wear Conservative contempt like a badge of honor.
I have been and always will be a Liberal. I've never hid the fact from anyone and have never been ashamed of it. I wear the title as a badge of honor.
I am a Liberal and have always been one and will likely always will be one. Liberalism is a proud tradition just look at the Liberal historic figures and their contributions to society, Jesus, Ben Franklin (most of the founding fathers by measure of the times would be considered progressive ), Abe Lincoln, M. Ghandi, MLK... . People like the Bos Bos that you're always defending have mischaracterized the word Liberal. Liberals won't allow them to define what being a Liberal is. You know there is a distinct difference between being a conservative (one that adheres to traditional conservative philosophy) and being far right wingnut. I don't apply the wing-nut lable to all conservatives. Now I'll accept your apology .
As Barb said the term Liberal and Progressive are used interchangeably much like I use the terms Black and African American interchangeably. It's the same thing.
This is kind of a continuation of a theme on another thread from this weekend about Modern/Classical Liberalism. It's in the Media matters topic first thread under that heading if you didn't get a chance to read it. NavyGuy, Tex and Solon had some interesting posts. Not trying to disparage anyone, just like to see where people are coming from.
I have alwasys been proud to call myself a liberal. Only bias could have you claiming to be more enlightened than I am. I certainly see no evidence of any such thing from our perspective postings. The word liberal has been deliberatly sullied by the right. Used perjoratively since Reagan. I still know plenty of people who dont buy into the framing though it has worked to the extent few politicians want to be associated with it.
That's not what I meant. What I am saying is that the thinker bee's in the democratic party have decided that the term liberal will not advance the party and changing that term will. Why doesn't MMfA refer to any of the left leaning guests in the title of this thread as liberal? There has to be reason. I'm not making the case that it's good or bad, just that it's a fact.
Actually solon I think the belittling of the term "Liberal" began farther back than Reagan. IF I could pinpoint it I'd guess it BEGAN in the 1970's with the sitcom--"All in the Family"...IF you remember Archie Bunker constantly referred to his son-in-law Mike Stivic as a "pinko commie liberal" thus lumping "Liberal" in with TWO more derogatory terms.
Archie Bunker was, of course, the creation of Norman Lear, who is quite the legendary liberal. I would say that it almost has to have gone back further than that, because Bunker was a parody character - his behavior was an embodiment of the behavior that Lear found so repulsive (I really haven't seen a lot of episodes, but that's my understanding).
If not, it's sad and ironic that a fictional portrayal of a reactionary bigot served as a model for conservative behavior. He was supposed to be a character to be mocked, not to serve as a mentor for Rush Limbaugh.
I probably should have said that the Archie Bunker character "popularized" the demeaning of the term "Liberal"...ironic indeed considering Lear's political affiliation. Where&when it actually began MIGHT be really hard to determine. Maybe it's origins were the mid to late 1960's when the growing anti-war movement and hippies were considered Anti-Establishment and ALSO "Liberals".
"Maybe it's origins were the mid to late 1960's when the growing anti-war movement and hippies were considered Anti-Establishment and ALSO "Liberals"."
At the very latest I think that's when it started, yes. The "peaceniks" and the like, that's what I based my 40+ year estimate on earlier. It's also possible that there was some conflation between liberal and communist during the McCarthy era, and much of the derision of the label started during that period. Since many Democrats and liberals objected to his methods, I'm sure he tried to paint them as communist sympathizers, creating the "pinko liberal" combination you mentioned.
In corporate media, there is a distinct fear of looking as they are "anti" American if they look as though they are trying to counter the imperialistic nature of this administration (and the profits they have tied to it). They are desperate to find someone, anyone who will provide the bromides that will justify the escalating failures of the war. Thus the imbalance.
Media Matters for America once again asks the producers of ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, and NBC's Meet the Press to consider whether this pattern of conservative domination serves the public interest.
=====
Posing THAT question here on the MMFA website isn't very likely to get a response...Has David Brock fired off a letter to any of these producers or hosts of the programs cited here ASKING this question? In the past Brock has contacted various news organization (most recently--if memory serves me--to the Washington Post concerning their websites Right-Wing blogger)
IF this hasn't been done, then it's time to do it. ASK who is in charge of booking guests, and WHAT criteria is being used. Do the hosts of these programs have ANY input as to WHOM will appear?
While it's easy to sit back and SUGGEST that NBC [for example] has a "Conservative" agenda because of General Electric (as posters here often do)...wouldn't it make more sense for MMFA to write to these networks and see IF they get a response EXPLAINING the disparity?
*IF David Brock has ALREADY done this [and gotten some kind of explanation], I must have missed it--or my middle-age "senility" has wiped it from my memory....IF not--WHY not?*
Instead of showing us graphs every few weeks--PLEASE WRITE to the "culprits" and SEE IF YOU CAN GET AN ANSWER.
"While it's easy to sit back and SUGGEST that NBC [for example] has a "Conservative" agenda because of General Electric (as posters here often do)...wouldn't it make more sense for MMFA to write to these networks and see IF they get a response EXPLAINING the disparity?"
Excellent point. I think MMFA has a very big stick with David and it should rap the networks on the knuckles with it -- repeatedly, and without mercy.
Good job, MMFA -- it's important to not let this disparity be forgotten.
One of the dirtier little not-so-secret secrets about the "liberal media" straw man is the severe rightward tilt of media owners and editors.
These are the people who really control the MSM because they determine what gets printed, broadcast and posted to their web sites.
MMFA's great work on quantifying the bias is vital because it creates a body of evidence that is hard to refute and there are signs that MMFA is right on target:
- the failure of the MSM to pick up the drum beat of this story
- the kill-the-messenger attacks on MMFA by MSM mouthpieces
At least I have finally heard someone say what I have been saying since Regan promoted the rediculous idea and it was swollowed, hook, line and stinker by the gullible voters.
FREE ELECTIONS DO NOT A DEMOCRACY MAKE!
I finally heard someone say that on "Meet The Press" Sunday. And he went on to note how elections in evangelical world, (people under the infulence of God, born again reformed acid heads) work. In Iraq it's the Islamic candidate. In America recently it's been who God picked according to His number one representative, Pat Robertson. Is the mess in Iraq all that different from the knuckleheaded mess in Washington?
Vote the abortion issue and get an abortion for a government. Congratulations America. You have the best government God's representatives with their tax free real estate and tax deductible "gifts to God" could buy. Do they actually represent God or themselves?
I can't help but notice that their God, the God that Pat Robertson talks to is the same one Moses also conversed with, that Almighty God lives in fire. I thought that was the Devil that lived in fire, "the fire that burns but does not consume." Could it be that Pat Robertson actually gets his directions from the Devil and not God at all?
We all know that "sale of soul to the Devil" brings the big bucks. Let us also note that the Devil pays a lot more to those who lead others to hell. Are the evangelicals leading us to heaven or hell? Is there any money to speak of or the things money will buy like the best government possible in religion? Could it be that hell is actually a gold mine operated successfully by millions using the threat of eternal damnation to garner the wealth of earth?
We have to consider that the Republican Noise Machine, as David so accurately calls them, are hot news when they are sited for campaign irregularities, supporting a President who has sent us into a quagmire with no plan to escape, a vice-President who shoots people, a deficit that is ever expanding. The list of blunders is non-ending. I totally agree that we need to have firm balance to refute all the lies they tell on these shows. Great site, never stop, Tim
So when more Republicans are in power, more Republicans appear on the news shows?
Don't get me wrong, a balanced view is always to be preferred, but it seems to me that the survey just shows the guests are reflective of the balance of power in the government.
Is it really that shocking that a slight majority of guests on Sunday morning talk shows would be from the right side of the aisle?
After all, we do have a Republican president, right?
Not to mention a Republican-led U.S. Senate and House, am I correct?
The Supreme Court is slanting to right, is it not?
And correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe 28 out of 50 State Governors are Republicans?
Now, I'm not saying I like it, but with all of this in mind, wouldn't it make sense that if there are more conservative elected officials in general than there would also be more conservative elected officials on TV?
Maybe the key to better TV programming is new leadership in Washginton.
Of course, electing people to office is difficult, where as sitting around and complaining to CBS tends to be fairly easy.
"After all, we do have a Republican president, right? Not to mention a Republican-led U.S. Senate and House, am I correct? "
This is a specious argument. If anything, the opposite effect should occur. With the cons in control, you'd want people who oppose that power on the show, not more of the propaganda parrots spouting the same tired talking points.