Thursday, February 23, 2006



















The Sunday-morning talk shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC are where the prevailing opinions are aired and tested, policymakers state their cases, and the left and right in American politics debate the pressing issues of the day on equal ground. Both sides have their say and face probing questions. Or so you would think.

In fact, as this study reveals, conservative voices significantly outnumber progressive voices on the Sunday talk shows. Media Matters for America conducted a content analysis of ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, and NBC's Meet the Press, classifying each one of the nearly 7,000 guest appearances during President Bill Clinton's second term, President George W. Bush's first term, and the year 2005 as either Democrat, Republican, conservative, progressive, or neutral. The conclusion is clear: Republicans and conservatives have been offered more opportunities to appear on the Sunday shows - in some cases, dramatically so.
Among the study's key findings:

The balance between Democrats/progressives and Republicans/conservatives was roughly equal during Clinton's second term, with a slight edge toward Republicans/conservatives: 52 percent of the ideologically identifiable guests were from the right, and 48 percent were from the left. But in Bush's first term, Republicans/ conservatives held a dramatic advantage, outnumbering Democrats/progressives by 58 percent to 42 percent. In 2005, the figures were an identical 58 percent to 42 percent.
Counting only elected officials and administration representatives, Democrats had a small advantage during Clinton's second term: 53 percent to 45 percent. In Bush's first term, however, the Republican advantage was 61 percent to 39 percent -- nearly three times as large.
In both the Clinton and Bush administrations, conservative journalists were far more likely to appear on the Sunday shows than were progressive journalists. In Clinton's second term, 61 percent of the ideologically identifiable journalists were conservative; in Bush's first term, that figure rose to 69 percent.
In 1997 and 1998, the shows conducted more solo interviews with Democrats/progressives than with Republicans/conservatives. But in every year since, there have been more solo interviews with Republicans/conservatives.

The most frequent Sunday show guest during this nine-year period is Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who has appeared 124 times. Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) has been the most frequent guest since 2003.
In every year examined by the study -- 1997 - 2005 -- more panels tilted right (a greater number of Republicans/conservatives than Democrats/progressives) than tilted left. In some years, there were two, three, or even four times as many righttitled panels as left-tilted panels.
Congressional opponents of the Iraq war were largely absent from the Sunday shows, particularly during the period just before the war began.
In short, the Sunday talk shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC are dominated by conservative voices, from newsmakers to commentators. The data from the Clinton years indicate that the disparity cannot be explained simply by the fact that Republicans currently control the government.
Click here to read the full report.

(This article was not penned by Gulf Coast Progressive, the souce can be found at the Media Matters Website.)

11 Comments:

Blogger MDConservative said...

I am still reading through the piece. I was browsing but decided to start over again, as to fully read the entire report. Until I finish, I guess I just wonder about your reasoning for posting this. I assume to combat the "media is left biased." Which so far, it would appear that for 3 hour one morning a week it isn't. But I will save my full opinion for after I fully read the entire pdf, that is the responsible thing to do.

The real question I have is:
Are you saying it is the Republican/conservatives fault they appear more? As opposed to putting it at the feet of the hosts and/or producers.

8:28 AM  
Blogger Van said...

MD-
You wrote:
"I assume to combat the "media is left biased."

The purpose is to show that the liberal bias is not nearly as pronounced as some would suggest. Yes, there is a libeal bias, but it's not nearly as bad as I hear from the right wing guys.

I'm attempting to provide some clarity.


You wrote:
"Are you saying it is the Republican/conservatives fault they appear more? As opposed to putting it at the feet of the hosts and/or producers. "

Well, you can't really fault the right wing folks, it's the producers most likely.
The only news program that sees to be balanced is The News Hour on PBS.

I watch these Sunday morning shows. I record them and watch them all, some I download to my Ipod. I find them moving to the right, more and more. I don't think that this solves the problem of liberal bias, it just creates another bias.

I plan to present a post on the liberal bias in the media, specifically the The Journal of Economics report which attempts to provide some balance to the common perception of the liberal bias.

I would perfer no bias in reporting, and a bias editoral outlet.

However, when news outlets attempt this, they fail at reporting what is happening, they just attempt to report from both sides. It's a thorney issue, but if the News Hour can do it(report with little bias), so can CNN, right?

9:45 AM  
Blogger MDConservative said...

Very fair reply. I continued reading and did find it interesting. I guess I disagree with the study and feel that the media interviews the people in power or the ones making the most noise.

***
One annoying thing now, on both sides, is the rounds authors are making on their books. It has gotten a little out of control.
***

I think McCain is a hog and practically will pay to get on TV, so if it were up to me I would like his numbers out of the stats.

Afterwards, I went to look through the website of the author of the piece. I lost pretty much all credit I had put in to the 27 pages I read. This group seems so far left. There is a part where they talk about Katie Couric being too tough on Howard Dean? Come on, Couric? That has got to raise a flag.

When I looked at the number of pieces done it is a little lopsided.

NBC, 141.
ABC & CBS ~100 (a piece).
NYT, ~180.
FOX, 933.

Now on FOX it is always against the host or the network. The other networks it regards the host being too tough on a liberal guest. I was forced to throw out much in the study because it was put off by a declared biased organization.

I did my best (while noting the .org only started at the time of the incident) but could not find a single time where they criticized Dan Rather. Instead they went after anyone that made comment about him, the story, or Mapes. Now fine, if you want to focus on the right...fine. But it is a little hypocritical when you are tax-exempt, monitor media, and don't mention it. But since they are looking for "right misinformation" I can only think they would do anything and everything to make any statistic favor their side.

I don't know Van, you had me really thinking at the start of this document; the more I learned the less I believed.

4:15 PM  
Blogger Van said...

MD- you may be interested in knowing that the guy who started this watch dog group is David Brock.

Brock was the author of The Real Annita Hill and a writer for the American Spectator for several years. He was a hardline conservative, more than I was, but he had a crisis of conscience.

According to his own account, at the spectator the attitude which prevailed was "Win at all costs, no matter what the truth is"
I guess that he couldn't continue writing that way (I am in no way suggesting that the extreme left media is more virtuous in this regard)
He usually goes after the people that have the same attitude (win at all costs). You'll notice he never goes after The New Republic, or The National Review, or Lou Dobbs. If you visit the site with any frequency, you'll see that his targets are Rush, O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, etc.

I happen to agree with him, the folks listed above do have the win at all costs attitude.

4:24 AM  
Blogger MDConservative said...

I would assume he would go after the "Rush's." It was interesting reading, I found it pretty amazing actually. But factually I am wondering.

I will continue to go to the site and see what comes up, but it will take one hell of a story to trigger a "crisis of conscience." (I actually see a shrink to make sure that never happens. lol)

It is interesting, I doubt I will agree, but I appreciate you bringing it to my attention and will continue to check it out every few days.

4:40 PM  
Blogger MDConservative said...

You honestly believe that just because you have conservative guests means the media is not liberal?

You are telling me that Chris Matthews is conservative?

I can give you statistic after statistic that shows the members of the media overwhelming votes for democrats. And don't tell me people can separate where they vote completely from how they report.

I think Van realized I gave it an effort and will continue to look at it but also realized with that one source he is not going to change my opinion. Just as I wouldn't expect to be able to change your opinion even if I provided 3 sources.

These types of facts are not in stone. They are very subjective. I don't think by the ratio of your guests means you are one way or another. That would mean the majority of shows on FOXNews are 100% not-biased. They tend to do a good job of one Dem and one Rep. Why wouldn't journalists openly publish if they consider themselves liberal or conservative?

I don't agree with the idea of it would not be professional. Well the public DEMANDS to know where candidates stand, shouldn't we know where the people giving us this information stand?

4:58 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Md - thanks for the lively comments. There is one thing that you said however which I take issue with. You said,
"Well the public DEMANDS to know where candidates stand, shouldn't we know where the people giving us this information stand?"

I suspect that this is tongue and cheek. In a perfect world we should not know where the news media stands, unless the show, article, podcast, etc. is intentionally editorial. The root of the problem is that we are guessing where the news media stands.
Again, NPR and The News Hours are doing a better job at not being bias than most others, if they can do it, why can't Fox and CNN?

The Journal of Economics and the Media Matters reports only scratched the surface. There will likely be more information forthcoming.

4:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When a media outlet purports to be balanced and/or unbiased, they should make every effort to include all sides of the story.

Otherwise, it's just a left-wing or a right-wing talk show. Which is fine. Just be honest.

6:23 AM  
Blogger MDConservative said...

Semi tongue and cheek. At the same time Don't you think it would be interesting to have a Media-Open-House for a week.

Next to every journalist on TV or in print we do the (x) next to their name. We can let them pick from (L)iberal, (C)onservative, (R)epublican, or (D)emocrat. Yes I left one out. The independent should be forbidden because 98% of the names would be Joe Smith (I). You and I can both agree, I think, that there is no majority of independents in the media. If so then you have to trust O'Reilly.

I understand the reasons for not knowing. But really why not? What is wrong with knowing where someone is politically if they are disseminating information?

Obviously, we live in a society with freedom and secret ballot so there is no way to demand this of people.

I am sure a massive % of talk radio is right... But it does worry me, having the journalists not ever letting people know… in an effort to be non-partisan. I don't think anything could really be done.

But to think they put aside their politics when writing? Come on Van, you know that isn't so. Do you think I would write an unbiased account of events at the DNC Convention? If I went really saying to myself "this is news not opinion." It would still impact my writing, in the end it is just to what degree. No that has no impact on its face, but if the majority of journalists are tingeing then you end up having the majority of news stained.

I may be wrong, but as always Van I appreciate the fact that you are willing to have an adult debate!

KATE:
Do you feel that NBC, CBS, ABC give all sides of the story?

I think the right.. is right, but agree that if you are news you MUST give both sides.

7:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't watch those stations enough to say for sure so I'd go with a balanced report from media matters.

10:45 AM  
Blogger MDConservative said...

You cannot evalute everything from that one source. If you want to only use sources and not your own eyes I just recommend you look at:

www.mrc.org

I would say counting the Media Matters reports as 100% balanced is, in my opinion, a mistake.

7:44 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home