Face the Nation responds to Media Matters data on show's GOP tilt: "We love [Lindsey] Graham. He's a great guy"
Although NBC and ABC have thus far refused to respond on the record to Media Matters for America's latest study -- "If It's Sunday, It's Still Conservative," which found that the imbalance in favor of Republicans and conservatives on the Sunday morning political shows continued in 2005 and 2006 -- Carin Pratt, the executive producer of CBS' Face the Nation, was quoted responding to the study in a McClatchy Newspapers article by James Rosen. But her response repeated the same problematic defense she offered a year ago to the previous Media Matters study on the topic.
Responding to Media Matters' finding that Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC) appeared on her show nine times in 2005 and 2006, Pratt said: "We love Graham. He's a great guy."
But more notably, Pratt suggested that ideology and balance are irrelevant when it comes to hosting administration officials, many of whom appear on Face the Nation without being countered by someone from the opposite side of the political aisle: "It doesn't matter whether Secretary [of State Condoleezza] Rice is a conservative or a liberal," Pratt said. "She's the secretary of state."
For viewers, the result of Pratt's position is to be denied the informed views of a guest countering the administration's message. Pratt's comments suggest that she believes it is appropriate for the program she produces to consistently offer the government, but not those who may disagree with it, access to the airwaves, and to host more Republicans than Democrats overall.
These comments echo those Pratt made in response to Media Matters' original study, "If It's Sunday, It's Conservative." This is the statement she made at the time:
"If you take everybody from the Bush administration and label them Republicans or partisans, we're a country at war, and when we can get someone from the administration, like the secretary of state, then we get them. Republicans are in power. I bet you'd find the same thing during Clinton's administration. Except during the Clinton [impeachment] scandal, it was hard to get people from the administration to come on. When you have an administration that is not in the midst of a scandal, more people from that administration, because they're the ones running the country. If you have an issue that you need to talk to the administration on, then you have to talk to them, whether they're Democrat or Republican. But when an administration has their backs against the wall, they tend not to put [members of their administration as guests on TV talk shows]."
First, we should dispense with the argument Pratt made about the Clinton impeachment scandal, which occurred mainly during 1998 (although the Senate trial took place early the next year, between January 7 and February 12, 1999). The truth is that Face the Nation hosted a higher proportion of Democrats in 1998 than during any other year in Clinton's second term.
But more importantly, as the graph below demonstrates, Face the Nation has not simply been a forum for the administration to get its views out without counter from the other side, no matter who is in power. The data show unmistakably that when Bill Clinton was president, Democratic officials enjoyed a small advantage overall on the program (although they enjoyed no advantage in 1997). The average margin during the second Clinton term was less than 8 percent in favor of Democrats. Yet when the Bush administration took office in 2001, the gap in favor of the party in power grew significantly, averaging over 22 percent in favor of the Republicans.
And Pratt's response does not address another critical finding in the new report. In November 2006, Democrats won both houses of Congress. Either the programs are hosting a debate between two sides, or they are simply interviewing those in power. Either way, the shift of Congress to Democratic control should have brought about a dramatic change in their guest lists.
But on Face the Nation, nothing changed. In 2005 and 2006, its total guest list included 43 percent Republicans and conservatives, and 28 percent Democrats and progressives (the rest were neutral or nonpartisan). Since the election, the results barely budged: Face the Nation hosted 42 percent Republicans and conservatives, and 29 percent Democrats and progressives. Looking only at Republican and Democratic officials, the change was similarly small: 61 percent Republicans compared with 38 percent Democrats in 2005 and 2006; 56 percent Republicans and 41 percent Democrats after the election.
It is also worth noting that from 2005 to 2006, Face the Nation became more imbalanced in every category we measured: Its guest listed tilted more right overall, it brought on more Republican officials, it gave a higher proportion of solo interviews to Republicans and conservatives, it hosted a higher proportion of conservative journalists, and it had more panels tilting right than tilting left.
"it doesn't matter whether condoleeza is a liberal or conservative. she's the secretary of state." no problem there. just provide a balance.
There's SOME substance to that idea -- that those in power are going to be the bigger newsmakers. But why did this shift to one side only happen after the Republicans took charge? Judging by the provided chart, while D's were more common on the Sunday shows in 2000 and before, it wasn't by such a huge margin.
All this speculation is only one side of the coin. Until this study can compare how many Republicans vs how many Democrats were actually asked to appear on these programs, the subsequent findings are worthless.
If these programs ask, for example, 5 Dems and 5 Reps to appear to discuss a relevant topic, and only 1 Dem agrees, but 4 Reps say yes.........and the final guest list then includes 2 Reps and 1 Dem - then on the face of it, it looks skewed, when in fact it was enacted with balance and fairness. These Sunday talk shows are under deadlines to book guests, they can't keep running around and trying to find a Dem or a Rep to always equal it out. Besides, half the time is spent with pundits from both sides giving their take anyway.
Until this information is provided by the networks, and I have not seen it - then this supposition of conservative bias, is just that.
horse manure. they can always find someone to give the democratic point of view. it's not like there are five elected democrats in the whole country. you're living in a fantasy world.
TOMMY
Interesting argument, but specious none the less.
The Sunday morning talk shows are probably the most coveted venues for every politician in Washington. They're free and they offer HUGE blocks of time for a politician to express his or her position. To base one's argument on the premise that politicians would routinely turn down this sort of opportunity is, quite frankly, ridiculous. It may in fact be - THE MOST RIDICULOUS ITEM OF THE DAY - here on MMFA.
Hope you're well.
Cajun,
It's also a very tough forum to spin your way through with talking points and partisan hackery. Some politicians don't like that type of grilled scrutiny, they prefer more controlled environments where they don't get caught off guard........both Republicans and Democrats.
And there are plenty of reasons why these people can't make it, scheduling conflicts, vacation, other committments, a variety of reasons I would imagine.
Unless we know the booking procedures and how these guests are contacted for appearances, threads accusing them of bias are not really fair.
While I see your point, I do not believe that Republicans are somehow more courageous and willing to go in front of the camera, nor do I believe that Republicans generally have less scheduling conflicts than Democrats. If this is your assertion, I'd really like to see some proof.
BLR, I have no proof, and neither do those making these accusations. As I said, unless the networks pony up their "who we've asked" log, then it's purely conjecture to say it's biased.
but logic would tell you there are hundreds of top democrats willing to go on these shows. wait.....logic....hmmmm
Well, no - actually the accusation of Sunday shows putting more Red than Blue on the air is proven. You're the one who's putting forth the claim that it could be an accident that is the reason for it, and it's up to you support that claim or admit that it's something else you're pulling out of a hat.
TOMMY
Point taken.
I'm basing my assertions purely on logic & common sense. For this type of trend to occur over an extended period of time is sufficient in my opinion.
I may be wrong but I have a feeling that the protocol followed by MMFA would fall within the accepted parameters for statistical analysis.
Tommy, I tend to agree with you on this one. I would hate to watch a sunday show that every week was mandated to have a Democratic and Republican politician on the show.
so who said anything was mandated? it's an overall balance.
I brought up mandated, that is my fear as lover of civil liberties and freedom of the press. Balance is different than mandated.
so why did you agree with tommy? he did not say anything about mandated. he said they couldn't get democratic guests.
Tommy, withholding judgment for further evidence is quite reasonable. However, I wonder if you're being honest with your requirement in this instance. I.e., isn't this a conveniently impossible burden of proof?
Consider that MMFA has no way to subpoena the evidence you demand. They can only examine the public record. Only CBS can provide the invitation lists.
Of course, there are many reasons why CBS may not have responded with such information. E.g., such information may not be maintained or be readily available. Another possibility is that invitation records exist, but are not helpful to the producer's argument.
MMFA offered an analysis based on the fact of the public record which indicates a bias. CBS responded. MMFA challenged the response as not fully explaining the record. This is a completely fair approach to challenging possible media bias.
Christian,
My point is if you can't prove your assertion, and MMFA is making this case, not the networks.........then it is important that your accusations are rock solid - not "most likely", or "probably". As long as the possibility exists of another reason these shows appear to be slanted, that should be enough to withhold such a charge.
but you are free to offer assertions that are not the least bit plausible.
What charge are you talking about? The charge that many more conservative guests appeared on Fact the Nation (which appears to be a fact)? Or what you feel is an implied charge of intentional bias (that you appear to now be offering as a straw man)? Should MMFA really withhold the former just because you might conclude the latter?
The "intentional conservative misinformation" charge.......that's what this entire thread is about, and the "If it's Sunday, it must be Conservative" assertion.
Look, you are more free to accept this as presented, if you want to believe there is proof positive that Democrats are being shunned in favor of Republicans on these shows out of some bias, which is the charge being made here, despite your ambivalence....be my guest.
I prefer to evaluate issues such as this when all factors, obvious or not, are considered.
I prefer to evaluate issues such as this when all factors, obvious or not, are considered.
Sometimes, we have to begin asking questions on lesser evidence, Tommy. Otherwise people do stupid things...like vote for an invasion of Iraq.
I agree that it's impossible to conclude that CBS actions have been intentional. In MMFA's report, I found once sentence that I would consider unsupportable. Redacting that one sentence, I think the rest raises some fair questions.
CBS can hide behind your burden of proof forever. So, I'm glad MMFA did not withhold their report, as you would have had it. In this case, I think the questions raised by an imperfect report are better than the alternative.
Tommy,
We are not in a Court of Law. Nobody is looking for a conviction.
MM collected data, pointed a trend, going back several years, and so far no reasonable explanation has been forthcoming from Fox, CBS, or NBC. If they had wanted a Democratic/progressive/liberal guest to appear, they could have gotten them easily - in fact we have a few here in CA of note: Barbara Lee, Henry Waxman, Lynn Woolsley. Most politicians relish a forum to appear in.
Your statement that somehow this is all attainable to things like not being able to find guests, while not statistically impossible, is quite unlikely. You have, of course, the right to remain a doubting Thomas... as I have the right to look at these news shows critically.
I believe Media Matters has proven the case in this well thought out study.
The straw you are after, because you are grasping for straws here today (just to be contrary? which is good, playing devils advocate, fighting to the last keystroke for the home team and all that) is going to snap off, so be carefull. Make sure you have your safety harness on.
Invitation Lists
Tommy, if that handy excuse was available, then surely the networks would have used it.
A similar thing happened a number of years ago on a religious program, wherein two groups were invited to debate the King James Only issue. Five people were invited from each group. All five from the side opposing KJV-Onlyism accepted; only three KJV-Only people accepted, and one was a substitute for an original invitee. The casual observer saw an imbalance, and sure enough, the KJV-Only crowd (who tend to be more than a little off balance, themselves) played to this, trying to claim that they were ganged up on. The organizers of the show were able to straighten that out by showing the actual invitation list.
In the same way, if CBS, et. al., wanted to put up a real excuse (other than, say, "We like Graham"), they could claim to do exactly as you are supposing, i.e., inviting equal numbers of those with opposing viewpoints. In this case, the proof is in what's lacking in the pudding. The networks haven't, therefore your point is null and void.
Also, real information doesn't come from the Democrat or Republican elected representatives anyway, sadly. It is incumbent upon the host to ask tough, pointed questions to try and illicit something other than regurgitated talking points. When I watch these programs I listen more closely to the questioners, than the slick politician being questioned.
uh, then why have guests at all? can't brit hume tell us all we need to know?
That is true, the lies that the Republicans told about the war for years on the sunday shows. Amazing
but you don't want someone else on to balance them.
When did I say that? Of course there should be balance, I just do not want them mandated to have a Republican on then a Democrat on. That would be Nazi like. I am glad Republicans have been given free reign on these shows, the lies they have told have exposed them.
the more lies the merrier?
This is an administration that four years ago lied to the American people, Dick Cheney the war criminal was always on the morning shows. Those lies have caught up with them, sadly 3300 dead Americans and thousands of innocent Iraqis. But I am not confident because of those lies we will never make the same mistake again in 2008 and elect someone as unqualified as Bush.
but you're glad they had "free reign" to tell those lies.
How else could they have been caught in the act? The 04 election did not work. The 02 election did not work.
maybe if they were not given your "free reign" to tell all those lies, those outcomes might have been different.
It is not my free reign, it is the Sunday Morning shows free reign. I do not make policy.
"i am glad republicans have been given free reign on these shows..."
Right, but I do not make policy. Do you make policy?
no, but you give opinons. yours endorsed an imbalance of guests.
No, I endorse Freedom of the Press.
sure. do you like apple pie too?
Freedom of the press and journalistic standards are not mutually exclusive, which is the premise that your argument is resting on.
"That would be Nazi like."
I couldn't agree more. If there was one thing that the Nazis fought to establish in European culture through propaganda and the sword, it was the importance of balanced news network coverage. No wonder we reject it so heartily here!
Anyone who makes comparisons to Nazi's needs a lesson in Nazi History.
If the information doesn't come from elected officials, and all you're watching for is what questions are asked... then where is the information?
There is no information.
You've probably heard of how the Courts will sometimes not admit the testimony of a wife against her husband (or anyone against their spouse).
It's an ancient custom of the Courts to limit or even prohibit such testimony.
Ever wonder why?
Because if the relationship of the one whose testimony is being sought (or offered)...
...is to the one being testified against (or being investigated)...
...a relationship of blood-bond, or a relationship of dependant to guardian (or a relationship of breadwinner to the one that then subsists on that bread)...
...then the testimony is to be naturally in doubt.
Because who is it that would utter the truth in such testimonies, and thereby perhaps ruin or send to jail, the one with whom they have a blood-bond, or on whom they depend as a guardian or breadwinner...
Who can be trusted to tell the truth, perhaps damaging and even incriminating, about the ones they love?
The merit of your general point notwithstanding, the particular common-law rule you reference was essentially rejected in Funk v. United States, 290 U.S. 371 (1933). Also, the related common-law rule that foreclosed one spouse from testifying except with permission from the other was rejected by TRAMMEL v. UNITED STATES, 445 U.S. 40 (1980). The decision to testify, whether adverse or supporting, is now completely left to the decision of the witness-spouse.
I guess you missed the operative word: love.
As in, the item cited CBS's professed 'love' of Sen. Graham....
And I, in return, cited the idiocy and conflict of interest, in making 'love' a condition of Journalism.
You either love CBS or Sen. Graham... I love neither.
But may you live happily ever after, you and CBS...
...or you and Sen. Graham, whichever and whoever it is, you love.
Only you know and care, I'm sure.
You either love CBS or Sen. Graham...
Don't project on me opinions which I've never stated or suggested, and which - quite frankly - are wrong. I understand that point you were trying to make and agree that the "love" comment of the producer was strange. However, I guess you missed the operative word in my response: notwithstanding; i.e., I wasn't arguing your general point at all.
I was pointing out that your legal reference is dated. Rather than allow misinformation to be sustained, I thought some may appreciate knowing the current situation. My purpose wasn't to offend, but if you were offended...deal with it.
While I think Tommy has a point..It dosen't make sense that the Dems were turning down offers to appear on these shows. These programs provide the news for Monday AM media. Also, from the graph I would expect the Dems would especially have been anxious to appear in the months before the 2004 elections, and immediately following their "victory". The blue line has been on a downward trend since 2003, and the red has been rising.
Geez all this unequal treatment and the Democrats still somehow managed to be victorious in 2006.
So what can we take away from this?
How about it doesn't really matter if on occasion there are 2 R's & only 1 D as guests on these Sunday programs.
Jeter
The reason the Democrats won in 06 had nothing to do with the Sunday shows. It had to to with a President and a Party that has lied to the American people and brought a horrible war to us.
Doris,
Exactly my point.
so you endorse an imbalance?
No I endorse Freedom of the Press and Republicans spewing more lies so that they never get into a position to damage our nation again like they have for the past 6 years .
let's follow that logic. the way to even more democratic success is to give the republicans more opportunity to lie.
I understand what your getting at Doris but during times of war, the lies can be quite effective. And sometimes when the lies are put out there, anyone who doesn't buy into the lie has their patriotism questioned.
So the lie becomes a sort of self fulfilling "truth" to a lot of people. The Bush Administration and the Republican Party have made a science of wrapping themselves in the flag and then hiding behind the sham of "patriotism'. unfortunately, too many voters are fooled by this.
so you endorse an imbalance?...by mefirst
Did I write that?
Nope.
All I said was in the long run if there is an imbalance it didn't seem to make a difference in the outcome of the election.
The Sunday Programs could have featured 5 R's to 1 D and because the current administration screwed up so bad it wouldn't have mattered. Voters made up their minds without the Sunday Shows influence. Or so it appears.
Equal representation is always best, but until it is required by law [hopefully not] then an imbalance will likely continue on occasion. The reason isn't necessarily BIAS...it might simply be whom is available on any given Sunday.
Until I hear Democratic lawmakers & pundits complaining that they are not receiving invitations then I'll withhold my opinion as to WHY the numbers play out the way they do.
Jeter- mefirst tends to put words in peoples mouths. My whole point is that I do not believe that the Republicans have gained anything by this so called "inbalance". If anything it has exposed them for what they are lying warmongers.
Doris,
Good point. I agree.
with???? if it's her point about putting things in people's mouths i have quoted both you and her.
Relax mefirst, I said "good point" and was agreeing with Doris on the following:
My whole point is that I do not believe that the Republicans have gained anything by this so called "inbalance". If anything it has exposed them for what they are lying warmongers.
Sorry I should have been more specific.
P.S. You did not quote me.
What? They've gained a war, they've gained control over American politics for years, they've gained laws passed with no oversight, they've gained the ability to break laws without risk of being prosecuted.
How can you say this lack of perspective has resulted in no gain for them?
To be fair, Mefirst asked a question. You cannot put people's words in their mouths while asking a question. Mefirst was indeed being fair. Jeter clarified his point. No harm done.
correct me if i'm wrong jeter, but did you not say what was the big deal since the democrats won. how about if they could have won a couple more senate seats? and no one is saying there needs to be a weekly balance, the trend is the problem.
No I didn't write "what was the big deal since the democrats won", that appears to be your translation of what I wrote.
Let me translate my own post [I'm figuring you're referring to my 1st post]
I wrote [paraphrasing here] that despite the unequal representation the Democrats were still victorious and that the # of appearances on any give Sunday hadn't seem to matter.
J,
Your original post and your subsequent ones made perfect sense. And you are exactly correct, and a damn good point. All this imbalance and media bias against Democrats and liberals, according to liberals, should have them languishing in a pathetic minority......but they just pummeled the other party in the last election.
Perhaps they have strategically figured out that appearing less and less on these talk shows actually helps them, instead of hurting them. Is it their candidates they want to hide, or the message??.......interesting. ;)
the imbalance worked against the democrats through three elections. finally the public figured it out.
I agree. As long as everyone is speculating as to the real effect, how does anyone know that the Democratic majority wouldn't be much greater or that Kerry might have won had the representation been more closely balanced on these influential shows.
No one knows either way. But I can't just ignore the likely negative effect on Democratic turnout here simply because they eventually gained some seats.
Here's a thought--maybe nobody watches those assinine shows.
More people watch the Sunday morning news shows each week (14,000,000) than watch O'Reilly's crapfest each week.
Just looking for an explanation for why the Hard Left vaporized the Hard Right in the election, despite the Hard Right monopoly of all media.
because even some of the dittoheads had to take off their rush colored glasses, and say "know what, everything the republicans told me is a crock".
The Hard Left didn't win the elections. The "We say we're left but vote right" crowd did. Again.
When I say that here, it is met with much denial. Thanks for backin' me up.
"And you are exactly correct, and a damn good point."
He makes a good point of debate, but it is not "exactly correct" by any means. Were it "exactly correct," we wouldn't be in Iraq right now despite the overwhelming majority of right wing megaphones on news programming, steps made by the administration would be discussed and debated openly because the people demand it, the Patriot Act may never have been passed the first time, much less renewed, and the GOP would have been forced to clean up its act far before the Fall of 2006.
There really are more important fish to fry in American politics than election cycles, and to categorize this as meaningless because through 12 years of lies, the Democrats won one majority is at best foolish (and that's being polite).
Hey Tommy,
I think far too much emphasis is placed on whom is appearing where and how many times vs the other side. IF someone ONLY gets their information from Sunday Programming then perhaps they are hearing one side more than the other. However, those that actually follow politics and news in general, likely glean information from numerous sources. If they don't, then shame on them.
I watch Olbermann every night and there is a obvious Left-Wing bias in play, but I counter that by watching other programs.
If MMFA's #'s are correct [and I've no reason to doubt they are] then the # of appearances by Republicans vs Democrats wasn't a factor in how the nation voted.
As I wrote to mefirst, until I start hearing/reading complaints from Democratic lawmakers & pundits about being shutout from public discourse on any one of these Sunday Programs, then we can only guess why fewer appear than their Republican counterparts.
Bias always seems to be the theme here. But I'm not convinced of that in this case. And BIAS plays out both ways in the MSM.
We just don't get the other side here ;-)
Well said J,
All this cherry picking media bias is just ridiculous. Depending on who you listen to at the moment, a left winger will give you twenty unrefutable, rock solid examples of conservative mainstream media bias - flip the dial a right winger will mirror that exactly.
Both sides whine incessantly about it, and it gets more tiring everyday. Just concentrate on getting your message out clearly and without spin in whatever venue will have you and be done with it. The public will be better served and sort through the nonsense.........if the screaming of "bias, bias, bias" ever dies down.
Tommy:
All this cherry picking media bias is just ridiculous.
This is not cherry picking; it's two comprehensive analyses of consistent imbalance.
Both sides whine incessantly about it, and it gets more tiring everyday.
Hey, liberal media bias has been the conservative mantra for 30 years. We liberals finally got tired of it and decided to show it is untrue. We're relative newcomers to this game. Also, if you find it so tiring, why do you read and post here every day?
I'm curious as to where the documented proof of "left wing" bias is , as opposed to a site like MediaMatters, which consistently documents right wing bias.
There is no left wing bias. That is a fraud that has been spewed to the American people for 30 plus years (Since Nixon).
Nixons enemy list included Dan Rather.
"There is no left wing bias. That is a fraud that has been spewed to the American people for 30 plus years (Since Nixon)."
My point precisely. I keep hearing accusations of "liberal bias" but when I ask to see documentation, like what MediaMatters provides, I either get flustered responses or accusations like "Your jes a gawddam librul!"
The first media person of stature who pointed out Leftwing bias in the media was anchorman Howard K. Smith, a lifelong Liberal.
But what the hell did he know? He'll be debunked here.
I would probably fall over from a heart attack if you just once provided a legitimate link to support whatever it is you are talking about.
Take three aspirin and Google it: Howard K. Smith re: Liberal Media Bias.
It floored ME that you were not aware of this fact. Fortunately, my aspirin was nearby...
I did google it... Got nothin'.
Your point... Your job to support it. Not mine. You obviously got it from somewhere (I hope), so it should be easier for you to find and paste a link. Why is it always such an apparent imposition to simply request that you back up your own assertion? I don't get it.
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/S/htmlS/smithhoward/smithhoward.htm
as is frequently the case, the link provided proves the opposite of the claim. one can very plainly read that smith was a hawk on the vietnam war, and supported spiro agnew's attacks on the "liberal media". try to look a little less foolish.
The "claim" was that Howard K. Smith pointed out Liberal media bias, not that he had a particular stance on the Vietnam War, drove a Volkswagen, liked Italian food, or felt sorry for people who can't read (as in your case).
Howard K. Smith was one of the "Murrow" guys who covered WWII, Neuremberg, the McCarthy hearings, etc. and had a career, as a Liberal, in which he was uncompromisingly independent. He wasn't known as reliably lockstep with anybody, and paid a price for it.
It appears Smith grew very conservative on both domestic and international issues as he aged. You portrayed him only as "a lifelong Liberal", which is apparently untrue as your link states:
'Unlike many other newsman, who became progressively disillusioned with the war, Smith became more and more hawkish as the war progressed. Among other things he advocated bombing North Vietnam's dike system, bombing Haiphong, and invading Laos and Cambodia. Indeed, in one of his commentaries shortly after the Tet Offensive Smith said "There exists only one real alternative: that is to escalate, but this time on an overwhelming scale."
Smith's conservative drift on foreign affairs was also reflected in his domestic views. He was vociferous in his support of Vice President Spiro T. Agnew's l969 "Des Moines speech," in which the vice president accused the TV networks producers, newscasters and commentators of a highly selective and often biased presentation of the news. Smith concurred and in salty language criticized network newsmen as, among other things, "conformist," adhering to a liberal "party line," for "stupidity," and, at least in some cases as lacking "the depth of a saucer."'
Thank you for helping me develop my point. He was not lockstep with Liberals. The fact he supported Agnew on something doesn't negate its validity. His stance on the war was his stance on the war. He was ONE who wondered what several million people were going to do about their lives after we chose lose that conflict.
Are you telling me that his being concerned about the consequences of pulling out of there (several million would die as a result) is not something a good Liberal would be thinking about?
Re: domestic issues, I'm not aware of Smith's becoming "mopre conservative", as you state. In what way, other than not joining Liberals to spit on returning troops?
Some may appreciate the context which you omitted. Mr Smith was a lifelong Liberal who staunchly supported the Vietnam War, even suggesting that the solution was an even more massive escalation. Mr. Smith's criticism of the media was an echoing of V.P. Agnew's own criticism of media coverage of the war. For his support, MR. Smith won an exclusive interview with Pres. Nixon.
Save your "debunking", Sojourner. Smith wasn't looking for Browny points from anybody, just showed some spine. Your throwing out words like NIXON and AGNEW doesn't negate anything.
Thanks for the context. Maybe that is why Lemoc never provides links. Even if we were to take Lemoc's statements on their face, it would have been describing the media 30 or 40 years ago.
The link is back there where ya asked for it. I AM amazed you didn't know that a Liberal once upon a time actually didn't sing in unison with the rest. I thought everybody knew it--it rarely happens.
Your link mentions that Smith wasn't a "lifelong liberal" as you had earlier claimed. Thanks for it.
It also describes Smith's view of the media more than 30 years ago.
A lifelong Liberal is observed not conforming with the Liberal majority on an issue. A lifelong Liberal is disgusted with many in the media (as you are today--that's what this site is supposedly about) and says so.
A lifelong Liberal is therefore banished. Some tolerance the Left shows. Some example of big tent, inclusive, open-mindedness. Be proud.
jeter i hate it when you guys do the "i didn't say what i said" deal. "geez all this unequal treatment and the democrats somehow managed to be victorious in 2006". if you're not sayinng what's the big deal, then we speak 2 different languages. and furthermore you bought into the ridiculous assertion that somehow democratic guests might not be available.
jeter i hate it when you guys do the "i didn't say what i said" deal.
Mefirst you wrote:
"correct me if i'm wrong jeter, but did you not say what was the big deal since the democrats won."
I did not say that.
Please go re-read my original & second posts [the one to you]
I in no way said or inferred that it's no big deal. I simply said that the # of guests did not seem to matter in the election results.
One sounds flippant, the other just matter of factly
jeter come off it. you're word parsing to the 50th degree. and how about the "they can't find enough democrats" argument? absurd.
mefirst,
Quoting me and translating my quote to fit what you want it to say are 2 entirely different things.
I know what I wrote, I know what it means and no twisting & turning or redefining my words to suit your fancy changes that.
Are Democrats complaining that they can't get on these shows? That they aren't invited? I haven't heard a word...and trust me MMFA would be on top of that.
So go ahead and assume there are nefarious reasons. I've seen no proof....
then what was your point? you must have had one. as for the democrats complaining, are you talking the elected officials or the rank and file. because you certainly hear it from the rank and file. if the elected officials do it, your side will say "crybaby". you are going to honestly tell me that they cannot find democrats to balance things out? i hope you are not going to make that assertion.
I simply said that the # of guests did not seem to matter in the election results.
I cut and pasted that. God knows if it'll be in a font big enough to read.
Did you mean the number of Democrratic or liberal guests doesn't seem to matter? Because I'm confused as to why it wouldn't. The graph above shows that on that one particular program, the guests for going on eight years have been overwhemingly conservative. And during that time, surprise, we've suffered through an overwhemingly conservative government.
Four months ago, things changed, and while the Democrats did make significant gains, they probably wouldn't have captured the Senate had not Foleygate angered all voters, causing a good bunch of "values voters" to probably stay home. (Hell, even Macaca man nearly won. The mind boggles.)
Had that not happened, given the closeness of some of those Senate races, we'd probably still be stuck with a Republican controlled Senate.
Had we liberals and antiwar guests been more prevelant during the run-up to the war, maybe more minds could have been changed.
But to say it "doesn't seem to matter" is just wishful thinking. I'd rather start from a position of fairness and see what happens, rather than crank up the volume on one side of the debate and hope that fairness wins out.
What's needed is analysis of why the imbalance exists. Speculation on it, per Tommy's "maybe Democrats didn't wanna go" argument is premature. (And probably totally bogus, given the worst place to for any human to be is between a television camera and a politician, because that gap closes at light speed.)
Jeter,
I don't see where mefirst misrepresented your argument at all. It means the same to me either way you put it. However, I agree with you that if it is important to you, it is not unreasonable to ask mefirst to quote you if you feel he is misrepresenting your argument somehow.
Jeter, I understood what you said. Do not let other posters misrepresent what you are saying. That happens alot with this guy. He twists and turns words more than a tornado.
Thank you Doris :-)
I've seen you go though it too. It can be maddening at times.
jeter you said i did not quote you. right there a 500 pm. miss it?
Its becomes strange how one person will continue to try and derail the subject of the board with personal attacks and innuendo. Keep up the good debate. All thoughts should be allowed and debated with on a respectable level, not one line sentences with sentences starting with lower cases.
Personal attacks like "He twists and turns words more than a tornado?"
You play the victim but tend to throw around your own attacks, particularly when backed into a corner.
I do not attack anyone unless someone questions my beliefs. I respect others opinions, I wish others would respect mine.
So you DO stoop to personal attacks. Just so we're clear. I wouldn't want to unjustly accuse you.
And you're really not one to be attacking the substance of others posts (as in criticizing one liners. You're pretty good at those, too. And your grammar isn't always spot on, so let that whole bit go, 'kay?
And finally, asking you to back up your opinions, or opinions stated as fact, or whatever, is not disrespecting your opinion. If you don't want your opinions debated, you really shouldn't oughta dump 'em out where, you know, people debate and stuff.
Ok Mr. Moderator.
Just reading from the Moderator Manual of Doris:
Doris is right about that. She is a fine poster. Stop the attacking and stick to the subject.
Sorry, this is not the hallmark of a "fine poster";
"I do not attack anyone unless someone questions my beliefs. I respect others opinions, I wish others would respect mine."
That is quite inconsistent with her quote that you agreed with. If someone questions her comments, she feels free to attack, then she talks about discourse on a respectable level. She flies off the handle whenever mefirst is involved because she twice (at least) grossly misinterpreted what he was saying when he was pointing out flaws in her arguments, even going as far as to say he must be a right-winger because he disagreed with her. It's somewhat funny to see her talking about anyone else twisting someone's words, honestly.
She acts as if her words are sacred, inherently unquestionable, and sees no need to defend her comments beyond that level. I agree with her often, but her tactics are not very respectable. Bittermarv is dead right - if she doesn't want her opinions questioned, then she shouldn't post here, period.
Personal attacks are the norm on this site. Posters attack others all the time.
yeah, that's tommy all right.
Jeter, you're being obtuse, surprisingly so. It's not a baseball game. It's not like whether they win by a little or a lot, it still counts the same. Your argument would apply to blind umpires who made bad calls in the favor of the losing team, but not to Congress. In Congress the difference between a 1-seat advantage in the Senate or 7 seats, or the difference between a 30-seat advantage in the House or an 80-seat advantage are significant. How do you know what the effects would be of a more balanced media? You know as well as anyone just how awful this administration and the 109th Congress were, so even with an imbalanced media people a lot of people picked up on it. A lot more people could have been aware of it, but weren't. Right? It's hard to imagine you can honestly suggest otherwise.
"All I said was in the long run if there is an imbalance it didn't seem to make a difference in the outcome of the election."
Lies and imbalance made a huge difference in 2002 and 2004. I would wager that lies and imbalance made a difference after the 2000 elections, simply because a barrage of "look at the little whiny babies who want their Democratic representation" stories probably and unfortunately bullied a great many people (including the man who won the Presidency) into thinking that maybe they're wrong and maybe Bush did win. Of course, they weren't wrong, and Bush didn't win, but guess who we've had the pleasure of seeing for the past six years?
Additionally, aside from elections, imbalance also directly impacts lives - imbalance in the media and a phalanx of right-wingers beating war drums and pointing fingers at countries who had nothing to do with 9/11 has led to the deaths of 3,000 soldiers and the maiming of far more. Truly equal representation and accurate, in-depth reporting and questioning may have prevented this mess.
If this were only about elections, you may have a point, but this is really about lives, livelihood, and the future of the American people. The renewed Patriot Act is a wonderful example of this, where the media didn't ask enough questions, the public didn't demand them to, politician puppets caved in to the administration, and now we have measures in place that the vast majority of us know nothing about until the brown matter hits the fan and we're all asking for reasons why it's happened.
...in the long run if there is an imbalance it didn't seem to make a difference in the outcome of the election.
You can't conclude from the election results that the imbalance didn't have an impact. As Mefirst implies, we don't know what the election results would have been with more balance. E.g., would the Democrats picked up more seats?
To be honest, there are really no conclusions I feel can be drawn as to the impact of guest bias on Face the Nation. (If someone wants to construct a study, knock yourself out.) However, I do believe that an informed public is important to a stable democracy. Therefore, I see no harm - and possible benefit - to pointing out the bias of the guests that have appeared on the show.
I agree with Dorris though...no madates for balance please, especially not legal. CBS can run the show they want, MMFA can comment as they want and I can watch what I want.
well there have been studies done on how informed fox viewers are, after a steady diet of right wing misinformation. the conclusion was they're ...... misinformed.
In all seriousness, is anyone asking for mandates? (I may have missed it in some long post way back.) One would think NBC and other networks would WANT balance.
No, I haven't seen anyone specifically call for mandates. However, Dorris raised the issue. I felt compelled to respond before anyone did equate calling for balance, or pointing out a lack thereof, with calling for mandates.
I raised the mandate question out of concern for the future of freedom of the press.
Ah, yeah. That's what's commonly referred to as a "straw man argument." Nobody raised the spectre of mandated fairness, so it's brought up in an attempt to derail the topic. Some people get a rush out of that.
Don't worry. The Fairness Doctrine is dead and buried. Rush lives on.
Rush is scum, but I am not sure what that has to do with the topic.
He pretty much came to "power" with the end of the Fairness Doctrine.
But the key point was, What does YOUR suggestion of mandates have to do with this debate, Ms. Moderator?
Can't imagine how you missed commenting on THAT in one of those one line posts you think so highly of.
Sorry, I have to disagree with you if I may? Rush came to power because of Americas tilt to the right in 1988. Especially after Bush Sr. and his smear campaign against Dukakis , remember using the word "Liberal" as if it were a dirty word? Rush then elevated himself to the Ultra rabid right in the Bush years and the Clinton years. I feel Rush has lost alot especially after the drugs and the racism.
Again just my opinion.
Ending the Fairness Doctrine made it possible for Rush to be Rush. With ratings paramount in programming decisions, the need to provide a counter point to a popular one-sided (and in a lot of ways unequaled) host like Rush made it uneconomical to provide both a Rush and someone else to fill three hours. The end of the Fairness Doctrine opened the door to three hour rants by guys like Limbaugh. (And I'm not advocating it be returned, either. I enjoy my own favorite hosts.)
OpinionJournal
The Fairness Doctrine was a federal regulation, dating to 1949, which mandated "contrasting viewpoints" from broadcasters. In reality, the Fairness Doctrine ensured that incumbents got "free" TV coverage across their terms while challengers got crumbs. The Fairness Doctrine was also an early nuclear option: If a local broadcaster's news operation made the local congressman or his party look bad, Washington could threaten to blow up his broadcast license.
Ronald Reagan tore down this wall in 1987 (maybe as spring training for Berlin) and Rush Limbaugh was the first man to proclaim himself liberated from the East Germany of liberal media domination.
Did you read this, Jeter?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703140003
Congress Challenges Network Execs: Bring Balance to Sunday Shows
They have complained, and the CBS producer basically blew them off.
if there is an imbalance...
Dude, look at the data presented in this article. For the show in question, there is NO DOUBT that there is an imbalance. Tommy raised the red herring of Democrats supposedly boycotting Sunday talk shows to create this imbalance. But even that doesn't deny the FACT of the imbalance.
Yes, he brought a horrible war upon us...with complete help from the Democrats.
If one values the pursuit of free exchange of ideas, true debate, the pursuit of Truth, it matters greatly whether or not two comparitive ideas can be juxtaposed and analyzed by an informed audience.
All 2006 proves, as Doris points out, is that the former party in the power was simply too corrupt to hang in any longer.
Thank you . I am glad someone is having a "honest" debate and not engaging in petty attacks. I think we can all agree that this administration is by far the most corrupt, untruthful administation in our lifetime.
but give em "free reign" to lie.
I agree Doris
Honestly I don't care how many dems or reps show up on these morning programs. It is in my opinion the HOST's duty to ask tough substantial questions to their guests. Overall I think George Stephenapolous, Tim Russert, and EVEN to an extent Chris Wallace do a pretty good job...
I have issues with Chris Wallace especially his attack on President Clinton but overall I believe Russert and Stephanaoplis are fair.
Yep Doris I agree.
Chris made a HUGE mistake by asking that loaded question to our former president, and in my view was rightfully criticized for it. I watch FOX NEWS SUNDAY every now and then, and compared to most Fox programs it is decent...Although I prefer THIS WEEK, which happens to be my favorite program on the news. I like all the guests...even George Will...lol
Jeter2: How about it doesn't really matter if on occasion there are 2 R's & only 1 D as guests on these Sunday programs.
Occasionally?
Related Note-
Paul Waldman is a great guest when I have seen him on Scarborough Country, I hope we see more of him on TV appearances.
Paul Waldman?
I am sorry, I never heard of him. Is he a Democratic Strategist? I think I may have seen him on MSNBC NEWS LIVE Sunday morning but I can not be sure...
He is the Senior Fellow from MMFA who has authored and researched this study.
Follow the money!! Who sits around the boob tube on sunday morning? Geezers for one, sick and injured maybe. Most people have a life and after working 50 - 60 hours are either sleeping in, playing hide the pickle or on the practice range loosening up for the sunday skins game. (obviously there are many more activities, just my top 3, not in any particular order). Apparently, this demographic likes to listen to these types of guests, so the owners of the media put on whoever get's the best ratings. I still say Al franken got it right, it's media bias towards profits. Not left or right. Maybe when I get old they will have to put on Vice President Chelsea Clinton to get me and my fellow geezers as viewers.
The consensus of the conservative posters here seems to be:
Who cares? Nobody watches these shows, anyway. This imbalance has no effect--just look at the 2006 election (But ignore all previous ones). It doesn't matter. Move along, nothing to see here.
How much you want to bet that if the studies had found the same imbalance in the opposite direction, they'd be the first to start "whining"?
Would be? Conservatives didn't even wait for an imbalance and started the bogus meme of a "liberal media" way back when.
Paligap,
We got so used to it over the years, it woulda seemed like the same old ****.
And I DON'T think anybody is swayed one way or another by what they see on those shows, do you?
Could you tell us what you think does sway people's opinions, whether on the left, right or center?
I'm curious, and not trying to be a smart ass.
I'm swayed more by the discussion and viewpoints of all of you on this site than by the tepid, predictable diet served up on those shows.
Y'all have passion, here.
Lemoc,
If you conservatives got so used to (the lie of) the liberal media, then why do most conservatives continue to "whine" about it to this day?
I'll agree with you on one thing: the lie of the liberal media is the same old ****.
Re: Left-leaning media, a more apt assessment for now as in the past is that of a media whose natural bent is just to float downstream, taking the easy way and taking lazy potshots at everything and everybody as they go. The Right has been their target disproportionately at times. I realize that the Left gets the same feeling on some days.
However, any headcount of journalists puts more on the Left than on the Right (by their own count). What are their objectivity scores?
MMFA's study has the potential to be excellent, but something is missing: A comparison of today's guest distribution with Clinton-era guest distribution.
Is it common for the media to invite members of the party in power more often?
We need a context, and my hunch is that if we go back to the Clinton era the media will still be found guilty of Republican bias; but I cannot say this with certainty, because again, no data has been analyzed pertaining Clinton-era media behavior in this regard.
You should include this comparison next time, or start working on an update to this study we are now discussing.
I think we all know that during the Clinton years the MSM was getting the talking points from the right wing think tanks that eventually led to the attempted coup against President Clinton.
Truthseeker,
MMFA did just that last year:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200602140002
That's why this year's report is titled "If It's Sunday, It's Still Conservative."
Even if they put more Democrats on the Sunday shows, it would still be dominated by conservatives since most Democrats ARE conservatives, too.
HOW THE REPUBLICANS OPERATE was demonstrated in the notorious "K Street Project", an effort of which Tom Delay was very proud:
"The K Street Project was a highly successful effort by the Republican Party to pressure Washington lobbying firms to hire Republicans in top positions, and to reward loyal GOP lobbyists with access to influential officials (denying that access to those firms who refused to comply with this demand).
It was launched in 1995 by Republican strategist Grover Norquist and then-House majority whip Tom DeLay. It institutionalized the "coziness" between the GOP and large corporations, and allowed business special interests to rewrite law (tax law, regulations, subsidies, etc.) affecting their own industries."
So, with this as their scorched-earth policy towards lobbiests who are not in lock-step with rightwing goals, it's easy to see how MEDIA could be intimidated and pressured into molding their guest list to please the rightwing partisan power brokers. Of course, it helps that these MEDIA outlets are OWNED by the same wealthy business interests ... they wouldn't take much convincing to be gleefully biased in favor of Republicans. And, of course, they demonstrably ARE so biased.
Do you want the truth?
I don't know if anyone has posted this before now (I got really sick of reading the name calling earlier so I skipped ahead).
1. The Bush Administration is Republican.
2. It is possibly the worst, if not one of the worst Administrations in U.S. history.
3. Republicans appear on these shows more, because they spend so much time, trying correct Bush's mistakes.
See plain and simple there. When the head of your party is a fake cowboy, ex-addict, etc, etc, you need a lot of PR time to craft a sane looking public image.
I think this article has completely missed it.... The graph that was presented clearly shows that Democrats dominated Face the Nation from 1998 to 2000. And who was in "control" of Congress then? So the relationship also seems to be the inverse of what the article states....the party in-power has less representation up till 2001, where 9/11 changed everything. I think it a point could be logically made that the party who is not in power is more "hungry" to get power and thus makes the extra effort to get out there...whereas the party in power is not as hungry. BTW...the Democrats do not have a huge majority in either house....in the Senate it's for show at best. It's kind of a stretch to say the Democrats have "control" of Congress.
how come there is no mention of the ratings?
the fact is ratings suffer when there are democratic messages on tv, and since these companies actually try to make money, they put content on the tv that gets ratings.
if there was larger viewing audiences for liberal messaging, there would be more shows.
period.