(Not So) Liberal Media
Sunday Talk Shows Lean Right
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0603.waldman.html
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
I hear a lot of references to "The Liberal Media" around here and elsewhere. While I concede that many in mainstream media would probably be considered by most as liberals, I don't think it's such an overwhelming majority any more. In my opinion, television news has become much less liberal lately, while it seems newspapers have become more and more liberal and confrontational to the GOP and the Bush administration.
CNN, widely considered by many to be the closest to the middle of the news networks, has even shown signs lately of leaning to the right. It seems appearances by Ann Coulter are becoming more and more frequent these days. CNN also recently hired conservative Bill Bennett as an analyst, and has enlisted conservative radio talker Glenn Beck and given him his own show on Headline News. The overwhelming popularity of Fox News Channel is undoubtedly a major influence on television networks growing more and more conservative. As we know, TV News has become big business, and the conservative FOX has been enjoying the largest slice of the pie for several years now.
The progressive web site Media Matters for America has become a very popular site in the last two years. Media Matters describes itself as;
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
A recent article in Washington Monthly by Paul Waldman, who also writes for Media Matters, details a recent study of the Sunday morning talk shows;
No, liberals, it's not your imagination. "Meet the Press" and the other Sunday political talk shows really have leaned more to the right in recent years. At Media Matters for America, we looked at every one of the 7,000 guests who appeared on the three major Sunday shows from 1997 through 2005—Bill Clinton's second term, George W. Bush's first term, and the last year. We found that the left has of late found itself outnumbered, in some ways substantially, on the television shows that define the Washington conventional wisdom. Liberals are already a disturbingly rare species among what Calvin Trillin refers to as the "Sabbath Gasbags." And in some debates—the war in Iraq, for example—they are in danger of becoming extinct.
The consequence of all this is that in every year since 1997, conservative journalists have dramatically outnumbered liberal journalists, in some years by two-to-one or more. Why would the producers of the shows believe that a William Safire (56 appearances since 1997) or Bob Novak (37 appearances) is somehow "balanced" by a Gwen Ifill (27) or Dan Balz (22)? It suggests that some may have internalized the conservative critique of the media, which assumes that daily journalists are "liberal" almost by definition, and thus can provide a counterpoint to highly partisan conservative pundits.
Waldman goes on to speculate whether the imbalance has anything to do with the GOP controlling the Congress and the Executive Branch. To a degree, that seems reasonable, as it would appear the networks are giving the people what they want. That could explain why things appeared to be more balanced when the Executive branch and Congress were represented by different parties. The people have spoken with their selection of so many Republican politicians in the last several elections. They have also spoken with the enormous ratings they've given Fox News.
So does the media truly have an obligation to remain "fair & balanced", or should they give people what they want?
CNN, widely considered by many to be the closest to the middle of the news networks, has even shown signs lately of leaning to the right. It seems appearances by Ann Coulter are becoming more and more frequent these days. CNN also recently hired conservative Bill Bennett as an analyst, and has enlisted conservative radio talker Glenn Beck and given him his own show on Headline News. The overwhelming popularity of Fox News Channel is undoubtedly a major influence on television networks growing more and more conservative. As we know, TV News has become big business, and the conservative FOX has been enjoying the largest slice of the pie for several years now.
The progressive web site Media Matters for America has become a very popular site in the last two years. Media Matters describes itself as;
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
A recent article in Washington Monthly by Paul Waldman, who also writes for Media Matters, details a recent study of the Sunday morning talk shows;
No, liberals, it's not your imagination. "Meet the Press" and the other Sunday political talk shows really have leaned more to the right in recent years. At Media Matters for America, we looked at every one of the 7,000 guests who appeared on the three major Sunday shows from 1997 through 2005—Bill Clinton's second term, George W. Bush's first term, and the last year. We found that the left has of late found itself outnumbered, in some ways substantially, on the television shows that define the Washington conventional wisdom. Liberals are already a disturbingly rare species among what Calvin Trillin refers to as the "Sabbath Gasbags." And in some debates—the war in Iraq, for example—they are in danger of becoming extinct.
The consequence of all this is that in every year since 1997, conservative journalists have dramatically outnumbered liberal journalists, in some years by two-to-one or more. Why would the producers of the shows believe that a William Safire (56 appearances since 1997) or Bob Novak (37 appearances) is somehow "balanced" by a Gwen Ifill (27) or Dan Balz (22)? It suggests that some may have internalized the conservative critique of the media, which assumes that daily journalists are "liberal" almost by definition, and thus can provide a counterpoint to highly partisan conservative pundits.
Waldman goes on to speculate whether the imbalance has anything to do with the GOP controlling the Congress and the Executive Branch. To a degree, that seems reasonable, as it would appear the networks are giving the people what they want. That could explain why things appeared to be more balanced when the Executive branch and Congress were represented by different parties. The people have spoken with their selection of so many Republican politicians in the last several elections. They have also spoken with the enormous ratings they've given Fox News.
So does the media truly have an obligation to remain "fair & balanced", or should they give people what they want?
