It's not your imagination—the Sunday shows really do lean right.

what century do you live in?

us SIRIUS satellite radio people can get fox, stern, cnn, espn, right, left, spanish, nba, hip hop, techno, classic. and its crystal clear.

your problem is not with foxnews, its that fact you arent technically up to par. you need to step your game up. once again i prove to be superior than most here.

 

The numbers may be misleading. Here's a graph of the most booked guests.



Take McCain out of the list and I'd say it's fairly even (and McCain isn't exactly what I'd call an ultra conservative.

As far as those of you denying that the vast majority of journalists are liberal:

1 - Have you ever taken a class with journalism majors?
2 - Have you ever been to a journalism convention?
3 - Do you know anyone in the media?

It's undeniable that the vast majority are liberals. It's just a fact. The problem isn't that they're liberal though. The problem is those (on both sides) that let those biases into their reporting.

 

are you counting Lieberman as a liberal guest? I don't think many liberals would.

 

He's much like McCain, except McCain had double the number of appearances so it would still slant the results a bit. I'm not saying that these shows don't have a large number of Republican/conservative guests just that its nowhere near as bad as this study (which originates from a liberal think-tank) would have you believe.

I only bring up the ideology of the think tank because I know if we had an abortion thread, and some Pro-Life think tank came out with a study, it would be thrown out immediately by many.

 

Of the first 395 appearences, I would say only Biden's and Daschle's 139 come close to being liberal. So that is just under a 2:1 advantage for the cons. Maybe McCain's numbers could be split down the middle. Then the advantage is a little less. But it is far from the liberal media complaint that we hear all the time.

 

Also, the complaint has nothign to do with WHO is on the Sunday shows (which most normal Americans do not watch). The complaint is that the EVERYDAY news reports and reporters lean to the left.

That's also so funny that you split McCain's but erase all of Lieberman's. Why not split Lieberman's?

 

Because civil rights is the only area that I think Liberman is liberal on, and I doubt many if any of his appearences had to do with the civil rights movement.

 

Here is a great example of the media bending over backwards to try and be fair and balanced when there is no other side to the story.

This is an example of mathematical fact. The president's figures were wrong.

Initially the press reported them as if they were true. Then when some people began to question the numbers the press reported it as if it were a matter of two people arguing a point, and presented it as if it were two sides the public could then make up their mind about.

The truth is that there weren't two sides. Numbers and addition don't have two sides, they either add up or they don't. But the press kept on presenting the president's side as if it could possibly right.

 

McCain is WAY more conservative than most people think. Just because he doesn't always see eye-to-eye with the president doesn't make him a tree hugger.

Lieberman is a LOT closer to the right than McCain is to the left - it's not even close.

 

I agree. Some of us were more supportive of McCain in the past because he came across as a reformer, and he wasn't George W. Bush. He lost a lot of my respect when he campaigned for Dubya, considering how vilified he was by Rove/Bush and company in the past. In my opinion, what was done to McCain was unforgivable. His ambition has been clouding his judgement, as exhibited by his Obama BS.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

deck, i'm not stalking you but, you keep making the posts that i agree with to a certain extent. when mccain campaigned for dubya, his spine evaporated and he is now a newt. as team koolaid would say: zero cred

 

I'll take that as a compliment.

Hey, if liberals and Democrats (I consider myself both) agreed with each other, and had a leadership worth a damn, we'd be in control of the Presidency, and at least one branch of Congress. We need to work on that.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

You're letting your biases get the better of you (and demonstrating a fundamental lack of knowledge on the inner workings of the media). The conservative owners are generally hands off when it comes to HOW to cover things they determine more of WHAT gets covered (mainly just to prevent bad reports of their other companies). This is what you don't understand about us "conservatives who won't stop beating a dead horse." We don't complain about WHAT gets shown so much as HOW it gets shown.

EDIT: I just realized I fell back into the habit of capitalizing words for emphasis. I hope you guys don't take that the wrong way. I'm not trying to "yell" just falling into an old habit.

 

If you take Liebermann and Mcclain out, the concesus is a nearly even split...

 

Peter Dao has been writing a lot lately about this issue of media bias. Here's his latest on point post-

The Dao Report
by Peter Daou

So here's my challenge to rightwing bloggers who assail the media for liberal bias (and to journalists who think it's all a he-said-she-said pissing match): Back up your claims. With concrete examples of bias. And without the tautological crutch that any story critical of the administration is proof of liberal bias.

I'll back up mine:

++ ISSUE: Cheney shooting incident --- NARRATIVE: Bush and Cheney are infallible --- EXAMPLE: ABC News covered the Cheney hunting incident by downplaying the significance of the weapon itself. ABC reported that "the vice president accidentally shot prominent Texas lawyer Harry Whittington with a pellet gun while hunting for quail." Cheney used a shotgun, not a pellet gun. ABC later altered the story to read, "a shotgun loaded with birdshot." (Which is why we maintain screenshots of all print stories we reference.) This exemplifies a common tendency of the media, namely, to play defense for Bush and his team, downplaying negative news or polls.

++ ISSUE: Cheney shooting incident --- NARRATIVE: Bush strong, Dems weak --- EXAMPLE: CNN's Bruce Morton used the VP's shooting to repeat the tired GOP spin that Republicans are tougher than Democrats, and specifically tougher than war hero John Kerry. Morton commented that Bush and Cheney are avid hunters, and contrasted the observation with 2004 Bush campaign talking points by saying Sen. John Kerry "spent time posing with guns" two years ago, and that "voters probably saw more of him pursuing exotic sports, windsurfing and so on." The truth is Kerry has been hunting since the age of 12. As Media Matters points out, "Morton's jab echoed language Cheney used during the 2004 campaign to attack Kerry as effete and elitist."

++ ISSUE: Cheney shooting incident --- NARRATIVE: Bush and Cheney are infallible --- EXAMPLE: Jane Hamsher notes that CBS News ran a provocative news item on Monday, explaining that "Texas authorities are complaining that the Secret Service barred them from speaking to Cheney after the incident." For reasons that are still unexplained, CBS has scrubbed the report from its website without explanation.

++ ISSUE: Cheney shooting incident --- NARRATIVE: Bush and Cheney are infallible --- EXAMPLE: Shortly after the incident first made national news, MSNBC's Chris Matthews repeated White House spin without hesitation: "I can understand that in the urgency of the moment that the Vice President's concern was life and death and not [public relations]." The reality is, Cheney was deeply concerned about public relations and managed the controversy personally, overriding the suggestions of White House staff who urged public disclosure.

++ ISSUE: Cheney shooting incident --- NARRATIVE: Bush and Cheney are infallible --- EXAMPLE: NBC News quoted ranch owner Katharine Armstrong as saying Cheney's pre-hunt picnic may have included "a beer or two." The MSNBC website has since been scrubbed to remove the quote with no explanation for readers.

++ ISSUE: Abramoff scandal --- NARRATIVE: Dems do bad things too --- EXAMPLE: The Associated Press continues to help the Republicans' drive to make the Abramoff scandal bi-partisan with additional reporting that plays up a dubious link between the disgraced GOP lobbyist and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Despite widespread debunking of the original report, the AP ran a follow-up piece that suggests "further confirmation of such a link but, in fact, casts additional doubt on whether such a link exists."

++ ISSUE: Presidential politics/Hillary Clinton --- NARRATIVE: Dems are "angry" --- EXAMPLE: The New York Times' Elisabeth Bumiller pushed Ken Mehlman's latest meme -- Hillary is "angry" -- during an interview with DNC Chair Howard Dean. Bumiller asked Dean (twice) about Mehlman's charge that Hillary is "too angry and that Americans will not elect an angry candidate." Bumiller used a transparent media tactic to deliver the RNC talking point: the feigned interrogative. In other words, she used a question to get her point across, as though framing it as a question makes the parroting of anti-Hillary narratives any less repugnant.......

http://daoureport.salon.com/synopsis.aspx?synopsisId=e71b1310-cf02-4686-a7b5-c132f351e4ad