Print Email

REPORT: On Supreme Court, cable news turns to Republicans for comment

May 11, 2009 6:45 pm ET

SUMMARY: A Media Matters analysis found that in the week following Justice David Souter's retirement announcement, significantly more Republican members of Congress, especially on Fox News, participated in daytime cable news discussions about or touching on the Supreme Court than did Democratic members of Congress and Obama administration officials.

43 Comments

A Media Matters for America analysis of daytime cable news shows in the week following Justice David Souter's May 1 retirement announcement found that significantly more Republican members of Congress, especially on Fox News, participated in discussions about or touching on the Supreme Court than did Democratic members of Congress and Obama administration officials.

During daytime programming (9 a.m.-5 p.m. ET) on CNN, Fox News Channel, and MSNBC last week from May 4 to May 8, nine Republican members of Congress made guest appearances in segments during which the Supreme Court was either discussed or mentioned. By contrast, only two Democratic members of Congress -- and no members of the Obama administration -- appeared as guests in such segments over that time period.

Fox News had the most imbalanced breakdown of guests, with five Republicans and no Democrats in discussions involving the Supreme Court. MSNBC had three Republicans and two Democrats, while CNN had one Republican and no Democrats.

graph01

As Media Matters has noted, media coverage of the Supreme Court in the wake of Souter's announcement has been marked by falsehoods and misinformation.

Below is a list of all the daytime cable programming segments from May 4 to May 8 that featured members of Congress or administration officials as guests and during which the Supreme Court was either discussed or mentioned:

Date	Time (ET)	Network	Program	Guest	Position/Organization
5/4/2009	1 p.m.	MSNBC	MSNBC Live	Gregg, Judd	Senator, New Hampshire [R]
5/4/2009	1 p.m.	FNC	The Live Desk	Graham, Lindsey	Senator, South Carolina [R]
5/5/2009	3 p.m.	MSNBC	MSNBC Live	Grassley, Chuck	Senator, Iowa [R]
5/6/2009	1 p.m.	MSNBC	MSNBC Live	Reid, Harry	Senator, Nevada [D]
5/6/2009	1 p.m.	MSNBC	MSNBC Live	Collins, Susan	Senator, Maine [R]
5/6/2009	4 p.m.	FNC	Your World with Neil Cavuto	Sessions, Jeff	Senator, Alabama [R]
5/7/2009	9 a.m.	FNC	America's Newsroom	Hatch, Orrin	Senator, Utah [R]
5/7/2009	12 p.m.	FNC	Happening Now	Sessions, Jeff	Senator, Alabama [R]
5/7/2009	1 p.m.	FNC	The Live Desk	Cornyn, John	Senator, Texas [R]
5/7/2009	3 p.m.	MSNBC	MSNBC Live	Cardin, Ben	Senator, Maryland [D]
5/8/2009	10 a.m.	CNN	CNN Newsroom	Hatch, Orrin	Senator, Utah [R]

Methodology

Media Matters coded every guest appearance by members of Congress and administration officials in cable news discussions about or touching on the Supreme Court. We coded all programming from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET, May 4 to May 8, on CNN, Fox News Channel, and MSNBC. Fox News Channel and MSNBC shows were reviewed on digital video. CNN shows were reviewed via transcripts available on CNN's website and Nexis. Only guest discussion segments in which the Supreme Court was discussed or touched upon were included. Packaged reports, news clips, and news events in progress (press conferences, breaking news reports, etc.) were not coded.

— L.K.A., T.A., S.P., C.S., R.S., & E.V.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All

- by carlileb5935 (May 11, 2009 7:22 pm ET)
  3
  
  Good work.
  
  This is classic MSM material-- they do this all the time. Something happens, and they immediately run to the Republicans for their reactions.
  
  It's a rigged game and sadly, it's never going to change. The explanation for it all lies more in the works of C. Wright Mills and others than in the personalities of the current characters involved.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by bullwinkle (May 11, 2009 8:57 pm ET)
    
    There is one part of this equation which I am not clear on, and that is the mechanics by which individuals are "signed up" to make an appearance. Is there any way to determine what percentage of those appearing come in response to a call from the outlet's producer(s) and what percent come as the result of an initiative on the part of the individual or organizations like the White House, the GOP and/or Democrats offering to come on the show or suggesting individuals who could be available.
    
    I guess one of the questions is, do Democrats and the White House now actively pursue speaking opportunities or are they waiting to be called and not getting the calls because the outlets have them all listed under the Z section of their Rolodex files? How much of it is their fault, and how much of it is ours? I'd really like to know what the logistics are for slotting folks on Sunday Shows and talk shows
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by mefirst (May 12, 2009 7:55 am ET)
      1
      
      that's ridiculous. there are tons of democrats available to comment.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
      - by NiceguyEddie (May 12, 2009 8:46 am ET)
        1
        
        Swing... and a completely missed the point.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by political_left-religious_right (May 12, 2009 9:17 am ET)
        
        No, mefirst made the point perfectly well. If Fox actually wanted to interview Democrats, they could have done so. It isn't incumbent upon any politician to jump up and wave and say, "I'd like to be interviewed!" News organizations have to go to the newsmakers, not vice versa.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by mefirst (May 12, 2009 9:54 am ET)
        
        eddie, you can't be suggesting that i missed the point?
        
        Reply Report Abuse
- by mjh (May 11, 2009 8:12 pm ET)
  2
  
  Darn that liberal media!!!
  
  Reply Report Abuse
- by Snowball (May 11, 2009 8:46 pm ET)
  
  Gee, remember how during the Bush regime the Corporate Media kept telling us they had to have more Republicans guests than Democratic ones because Republicans were in power? What's their excuse now?
  
  Reply Report Abuse
- by mary59 (May 11, 2009 8:56 pm ET)
  2
  
  I'll play right-wing poster:
  There's a perfectly great explanation for this: some of the Republicans are liberals, like Judd Gregg and Charles Grassley. Everyone is a liberal except Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney and a couple of tea party guys.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
- by DAWUSS (May 11, 2009 8:58 pm ET)
  1
  
  What about prime time?
  
  Reply Report Abuse
- by pointofview (May 11, 2009 10:11 pm ET)
  
  This is based on a sample of 11? Come on.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by steeve (May 12, 2009 7:59 am ET)
    
    Note that the subject of this article isn't "Conservative media bias proven". They did that last year.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
  - by political_left-religious_right (May 12, 2009 9:23 am ET)
    2
    
    If it had gone the other way, with nine Democrats and two Republicans interviewed, would you have accepted that as evidence that the media are liberal? A lot of people would have, including a few unbalanced cases on this board, to say nothing of the entire readership of NewsMax.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
- by tman418 (May 12, 2009 12:06 am ET)
  
  I noticed that the MSM seems to only be interested in what Republicans think about the potential Supreme Court nominee. I was actually going to say something to MMFA about it. But they are as usual on top of things.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by Limit Corp. Ownership (May 12, 2009 12:46 am ET)
    1
    
    Great work by Media Matters...
    
    God bless this very special website. It is here that the tide is beginning to turn.
    
    The corporate media is beginning to be exposed. It's going to take time--a long time--to bust up this corporate media crap, but we're on the way.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by BISHAMON (May 12, 2009 11:39 am ET)
      2 1
      
      I can't help noticing a) how few mentions there have been in the media of Bush's disastrous decision to pick someone who was so clearly unqualified (Harriet Miers), and b) how few times the media have quoted Obama's clear statements about what he is looking for in a nominee to the Supreme Court.
      
      For example:
      
      "I will look for those judges who have an outstanding judicial record, who have the intellect, and who hopefully have a sense of what real-world folks are going through." (Barack Obama at 3rd presidential debate in Hempstead, N.Y., Oct. 15,
      2008)
      
      Source: CQ Politics
      
      Reply Report Abuse
- by DougD (May 12, 2009 3:33 am ET)
  
  This kind of quantitative report is a real advance.
  
  The only problem is that they need to the study going and collect more data. As it stands, there's not enough data to render much of anything statistically "significant". If you look at the graph, the only network likely to show a significant (reliable) difference is Fox News (of course). Nothing can be said about CNN and MSNBC because the the one person differences are way too small to be significant.
  
  Still, this is an excellent approach, and it definitely suggests a strong bias for Fox.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by steeve (May 12, 2009 7:55 am ET)
    
    One could argue that "balance" would be 2/1 democrats. Republicans have little power and are proven to have no opinions of value.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
- by ProgLib (May 12, 2009 4:19 am ET)
  1
  
  damn that far-left liberal msnbc... how could they bring on 3 republicans and 2 democrats?! some pro-obama network they are... pshhh! back to fox news for "fair and balanced" coverage with only republicans on... just between us, thats where the "truth" is at!
  
  /sarcasm
  
  Reply Report Abuse
- by hikermick (May 12, 2009 7:08 am ET)
  3
  
  Of course they would invite more Republicans on. That way the media would have a better chance of ensnaring them in thier "gotcha traps" and making them look foolish.
  Nice try liberal media!
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by solon (May 12, 2009 2:17 pm ET)
    1
    
    Are you serious? That wasnt even a good try. You could at least have shown several examples where that DID happen among these examples. It still wouldnt have made your point but it would have been a better try.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
- by steeve (May 12, 2009 7:51 am ET)
  
  Eleven guests total on three networks in a week? What the heck do they do with their time?
  
  The media being joined at the hip with republicans can be a good thing, because when the republicans go under they'll drag the media with them. It'd be as if CNN reacts to breaking news with wall-to-wall coverage of how it affects the Constitution Party.
  
  I just hope that the public retains their memory when the media tries to break with republicans at the last possible second.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by e=mc^(2) (May 12, 2009 8:27 am ET)
    1
    
    This "statistic" proves and/or shows nothing. If everyone wants to use statistics and numbers then the "experiment" needs to be put in the full perspective i.e. we need to see the pool of potential guests that we asked to participate in the program but refused, or asked to participate but were unable to attend, only then can the conclusions be drawn.
    If you had 50 potential participants out of which 35 were Dems and 15 Repubs, then that 9/2 ratio is telling a different story, on the other hand if the reverse were to be true, then this would validate MMFA argument vaguely .
    It is not prudent to show the end result histogram to the viewers without the full picture, it is somewhat misleading.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by friedbergboy1422 (May 12, 2009 9:43 am ET)
      1
      
      Are you insinuating that the pool of potential guests to be interviewed about SC openings contains 450% more Republicans than Dems? That is the only way MMFA doesn't have a point here.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
      - by e=mc^(2) (May 12, 2009 10:43 am ET)
        
        How did you come up with 450%? My example gives sample space of 50 out of which 35 are Democrats and 15 are Republicans, i.e. 70% Dems and 30% Republicans, that was only an example.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by friedbergboy1422 (May 12, 2009 10:54 am ET)
        1
        
        In the brief study by MMFA, cable networks used 9 Republicans and 2 Dems or 450% more Republicans. The only way the MMFA is wrong is if that's the ration of potential interviewees.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by e=mc^(2) (May 12, 2009 11:10 am ET)
        
        Not trying to nit pick your numbers too much but if the sample space is 11 with 9 Republicans and 2 Democrats then there are 81.82% Republicans and 18.18% Democrats in the sample of 11 participants. The difference between those two is 63.64%, that is, there are 63.64% more Republicans in the sample than Democrats, and yes, if the media only asked 11 people to participate and there were roughly 63.64% more Republicans that were asked to join than Democrats, then MMFA has a valid point.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by friedbergboy1422 (May 12, 2009 12:41 pm ET)
        
        Exactly wrong :). 81.82% Republicans and 18.18% Dems, there are 4 times the amount of Republicans, not 63% more.
        
        Let's use another example, if I make $10 an hour and you make $45, do you only make 71 more than I do? No, because if you did, you'd be making $17.10 an hour. You can't subtract percentages to get the difference in percentage.
        
        Another example, if I have $100,000 and you have $20,000, do you have 80% more? No, you have 500% more. Your operations are backwards. To figure this, you have to base your math on the lower number.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by e=mc^(2) (May 13, 2009 9:47 am ET)
        
        Fried my friend you are doing some serious fantasy math. If you have 11 people total in the sample, 9 of which are Republicans and 2 which are Democrats, then the percentage of Republicans is 9/11=.818181*100=81.8181% and the percentage of Democrats is 2/11=.181818*100=18.1818%. There are 7 more Republican in the sample then Democrats i.e. the percentage of the difference between the Dems and Republicans is 7/11=.636363*100=63.6363%. If you cannot understand that then I can't help you there anymore.
        Also, if you make $10 per hour and I make $45 per hour, then I make $45-$10=$35 per hour more then you do. Math is a law that doesn't change just because you feel that it is wrong.
        Furthermore, if you have $100,000 and I have $20,000 then I have $80,000 less than you and not 500% more<<<<<(again, where the heck did this come from???).
        Alpha is Alpha.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by friedbergboy1422 (May 13, 2009 10:33 am ET)
        
        You really think that if you have an investment that goes up, in your math, from 10,000 to 20,000 you are not doubling your money, but just making a return of 50%? Doubling your money equals a return of 200%, not 50%.
        
        For this example, the Republicans outnumber the democrats 9 to 2. Thus, the ratio of Republicans to Dems is 4.5 to 1. If that is a fraction, its 4.5/1, converted to a percentage, 450%
        
        If you want to do it another way, in our sample, 9/11 commentators are Republicans or 81.18%. The Dems made up 2/11 or 18.18%. The ratio, not difference in percentage, is 81.18% to 18.18%. Are you seriously saying that 18 is 63% of 81?
        
        Here is a handy link:
        
        http://www.mathwizz.com/fractions/help/help8.htm
        
        The fraction or ratio in our case is 9 Republicans to 2 Democrats or 9/2, correct? To get a percentage, you multiply the top number by 100 and divide by the bottom number to get your percent.
        
        You are subtracting percentages instead of comparing the ratio of Republicans to Dems.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by friedbergboy1422 (May 13, 2009 11:10 am ET)
        
        Sorry, typo, doubling your money is a return of 100%, not 200%.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by mikehuck1976 (May 13, 2009 1:08 pm ET)
        
        e=mc, "the difference between those two is 63%"? I hope you're joking. You would certainly never be hired to work in my finance department.
        
        Let me guess...you work on Wall Street?
        
        Reply Report Abuse
      - by pointofview (May 12, 2009 11:21 am ET)
        1
        
        Fried
        
        No matter how you slice it, we are looking at 11 people. You cant tell anything from that.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by mary59 (May 12, 2009 12:36 pm ET)
        
        It's a continuing trend. Even though the sample is small, it's the contination of a longstanding practice and has it's effect in a big way. This is how the right-wing talking points are carried over into what's called the mainstream press.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by friedbergboy1422 (May 12, 2009 12:42 pm ET)
        
        POV,
        I think you can since 11 are all they asked. I think its fair to say that this is, at the very least, the start of a trend. Let's see if it holds up.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by mefirst (May 12, 2009 1:04 pm ET)
        1
        
        what we can "tell" is that republicans outnumbered democrats by an unacceptable margin.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
    - by mefirst (May 12, 2009 10:08 am ET)
      
      the "potential pool" does not matter. you don't determine the news by how many people are available out of one pool. if they wanted to get democrats to comment, they could have found them. easily.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
      - by e=mc^(2) (May 12, 2009 10:39 am ET)
        
        Guys, the report states "On Supreme Court, cable news turns to Republicans for comment," this statement is misleading; It implies that the media somehow left the Democrats out of the loop while giving the Republicans the platform to speak.
        This might be true if the Republican number of guests that were asked to participate in the debate outweighs the number of Democrats who were asked to participate. Again, we would need more information to make that call.
        All too often members of both sides of the isle use deceptive arguments and skewed statistics riddled with outliers to make their arguments valid.
        Again, this analysis does not provide the curious reader with the full picture, it merely gives the outcome without the path leading to it.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by mefirst (May 12, 2009 11:06 am ET)
        1
        
        are you seriously suggesting that they've done their job if they call 5 republicans and 5 democrats, but only 2 republicans and none of the democrats are available. again, if they wanted to find democrats, they could have, easily. if they wanted.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by friedbergboy1422 (May 12, 2009 7:12 pm ET)
        1
        
        Are you insinuating that Republicans, by a ratio of 4.5 to 1, were more willing to talk to the media about the SC?
        
        Reply Report Abuse
    - by pointofview (May 12, 2009 11:20 am ET)
      1
      
      You are right It is very misleading.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
      - by mefirst (May 12, 2009 12:08 pm ET)
        1
        
        only if it were some major effort to find a democrat to comment. it's not. you have hundreds of major democratic politicians, pundits, and spokesmen. you have to be deliberately not trying to get one to come on to produce these results.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
      - by solon (May 12, 2009 2:20 pm ET)
        
        No it isnt
        
        Reply Report Abuse

REPORT: On Supreme Court, cable news turns to Republicans for comment

Most Popular Tags

RSS Feeds


	Username or Email Password Forgot your password? or Create An Account Email Username (required, for posting on forums) Zip Code Click here to subscribe to Media Matters action alerts and newsletters. or Log in to an existing account

REPORT: On Supreme Court, cable news turns to Republicans for comment

Most Popular Tags

RSS Feeds

Connect & Share