The Sunday roundtable shows: your right-center media at work

[tristano's ghost]

Nice piece in the new Washington Monthly on the ideological bias of the Sunday roundtable shows:

This ideological imbalance isn't only evident in the "official" sources that are interviewed: the elected officials, candidates, and administration officials who make up most of the shows' guests. It is even clearer in the roundtable discussions with featured journalists. (Although "Face the Nation" seldom uses a journalist roundtable to mull over the week's news, it is a staple on both "Meet the Press" and "This Week.") Though there has been some marginal improvement in the past year, it has been a frequent practice for a roundtable to consist of a right-wing columnist or two supposedly "balanced" by journalists from major newspapers. While these newspaper journalists may also be columnists, they don't operate with the same expectation of—or license for—partisanship that their conservative counterparts do. If David Broder or Ronald Brownstein express an openly partisan opinion, they know that their editors are likely to call them to task for it. By the same token, if Fred Barnes doesn't use his time to spout talking points, he knows his editors will be disappointed.

When liberals do appear, the balance is often stacked against them. For nearly three years in the late 1990s, the regular roundtable on "This Week" featured George Will and William Kristol double-teaming George Stephanopoulos. On five occasions, Stephanopoulos was absent, and Will's establishment conservatism had to provide "balance" to Kristol's triumphalist conservatism. But even when the former Clinton aide was in the studio, he was in the process of trying to shed his political reputation and become a "Journalist," he who expresses no personal views, making the debate even more lopsided than it otherwise would have been.

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.

What gets left behind, of course, is the real liberal. Not only do openly liberal columnists like Paul Krugman appear far less frequently than their conservative colleagues, writers, and editors from magazines like The Nation, The American Prospect, and The New Republic are seldom seen (forget about the Progressive, Mother Jones or In These Times), while the Weekly Standard and the National Review are regularly represented. Last year saw eleven appearances by writers from the two conservative magazines, but only two from liberal magazines. (There was one bright spot in the data: A December 1998 episode of "Meet the Press" featured none other than Charles Peters, this magazine's founder. Unfortunately, that was the last time anyone from The Washington Monthly graced the Sunday shows.)

Full article here.

[Scott Dolan]

Oh my!

It's all so disturbing.

[tristano's ghost]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Oh my!

It's all so disturbing.

It certainly is! SD, you're becoming a regular liberla...

[Scott Dolan]

Oh, it get's worse, my friend.

My favorite Sunday morning show is This Week.

[tristano's ghost]

Gasp!

Speaking of cars (the other thread), I've only heard one presidential candidate ever go on at length about them--fixing them up, that is, and such issues. Said candidate was Wes Clark

[Darryl G. Thomas]

I used to really be into these shows. I thought the McLaughlin Group was the greatest thing sinced sliced bread. Then it dawned on me what dog and pony shows these things were.

Basically you have this clique of Washington political elites who spend all their time going to each other's cocktail parties blowing smoke up each other asses. How in the hell are you going to honestly report on some politician you just spent a whole dinner party smacking on caviar with?

That's why all the outrage over Judy Miller cracked me up. All the punditocracy kisses power's ass all day long. Friggin' Andrea Mitchell's married to Alan Greenspan for Christ sake. It's just one huge, incestuous circle jerk.

[Steve Reynolds]

right on the money, Darryl

and besides the hard right guys, none of them want anyone to know what they really think about anything - because they all want to be known as "journalists"

and "incestuous" is the best description of the whole thing

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

Friggin' Andrea Mitchell's married to Alan Greenspan for Christ sake. It's just one huge, incestuous circle jerk.

Just for the record, that establishes incestuousness, but not being right of center; Greenspan served under Clinton, too.

[tristano's ghost]

The Sunday round-table shows, as the writer points out, have been trending conservative for some time. I think that's because the DC elite don't have any particular ideology--they just worship power. Since the GOP has, in one way or another, pretty much controlled DC for the past 12 years, they've been sucking up more and more. They're snobs, which is another reason why they've gone easier on Bush than they ever went on Clinton (David Broder a prime example). Bush comes from old money/old politics... Clinton was a poor boy from Arkansas. Hence Broder's "they came in and trashed the place" remark circa '98.

The roundtable shows also increasingly reflect (again, pointed out by the Washington Monthly piece) the GOP's goal to make "moderate" or "even-handed" the new equivalent of "liberal." It's all about establishing the ideological midpoint...and the GOP has been very effective in moving the 50-yard line about 15 yards closer to the opposition's goal-line.

[bluenoter]

I haven't watched the talking-head shows for a very long time, but the last time I did, they all seemed to be sponsored by the global agribusiness titan Archer Daniels Midland or a huge mutual funds brokerage.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by bluenoter

Just for the record, that establishes incestuousness, but not being right of center; Greenspan served under Clinton, too.

Too right. I don't think anyone in their right mind would accuse Andrea Mitchell of being "right of center".

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Too right. I don't think anyone in their right mind would accuse Andrea Mitchell of being "right of center".

Oh, I might. I barely remember her, though. My point was more about Greenspan, and it was strictly a "point of order."

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Mo

I don't think anyone in their right mind would accuse Andrea Mitchell of being "right of center".

Originally Posted by Rita

Oh, I might.

*ahem*

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

*ahem*

"They're coming to take me away, ha ha! To the funny farm . . . "

(No slight to sanity-challenged people intended.)

[Monte Smith]

I hardly ever see the Sunday panels. They're seldom interesting. In fact, the Sunday shows as a whole are showing their age. If I had to point a finger, I'd point that finger at Tim Russert. Tim Russert is a good guy, a fairly straight shooting interviewer, talented, informed. But when in the world did "Meet the Press" become "Meet Tim Russert?" I should probably point a finger at the earlier generation of news celebrities like David Brinkley and Walter Cronkite. Good men who confused their place in front of the television cameras with a position at the center of American life. In the older old days, "Meet the Press" was one politician faced with questions from a bench of fairly anonymous, at least non-celebrity newspaper reporters in front of the TV cameras. Nowadays, "Meet the Press" is a choreography of infotainment producers trying to milk the best ratings out of partisan spin offices trying to book their best spokespeople. It can be revealing, it can be important, it can even be spontaneous. But it sure as hell isn't these things with any regularity.

My favorite news panel is the weekday Fox show with Brit Hume. There you have the abysmal Barnes, good Kondracke, excellent Krauthammer, fair Mara Laiasen, and poor Juan Williams. These people are all commentators rather than reporters, but they're a better group than fielded by some of the other channels. I mean with a straight face Chris Matthews on MSNBC refers to Ron Reagan Jr as a political analyst.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

One thing to remember. Back in the day (like the '50s and '60s), the networks' news departments really didn't have to make a profit. Now they do. So now you have "infotainment". These shows have to attempt to draw viewers in the same manner as "24" or "Desperate Housewives". And let's face it. Unless you're a serious news junky (which I believe the majority of the folks here, left, right, or moderate are) then a hard core, just the facts maam news show would bore you.

Now as for the political leaning of these shows well let's face the facts. Conservatism is the dominant theme these days. Fox News kicks CNN's ass for a reason. Conservative talk radio basically revolutionized AM radio. Guys like Rush Limbaugh got ratings.

Entertainment companies could give a rat's ass about the content of news. They want ratings. Conservatives draw, liberals (or progressives) don't. The token "liberal" on these shows are just there to act as foils for the conservative star. Sort of like a straight man. Dean Martin with Jerry Lewis. Abbott with Costello.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by bluenoter

Just for the record, that establishes incestuousness, but not being right of center; Greenspan served under Clinton, too.

Greenspan was an acolyte of nut case Ayn Rand, who in addition to being a terrible, ham-fisted writer and a half baked philosopher, was a proponent of unregulated, unfettered capitalism, which is a right of center idea.

Greenspan was appointed by Ronald Reagan to be Fed Chairman and Reagan was right of center.

And Greenspan continued under the Democratic president, Clinton, in large part because he basically continued the monetarist-based course that was set by Paul Volker, who was named Fed Chairman by Democrat Jimmy Carter.

It was Volker's policies that helped to lower inflation from 13.5% in 1981 to 3.2 percent by 1983.

What Greenspan has done memorably other than using the term "irrational exuberance" I don't know.

The fact that Andrea Mitchell is sleeping with someone who for years has established himself to be a bona fide right winger, and there are a multitude of other examples where journalists screw, toady to, or otherwise try to ingratiate themselves to people of power doesn't suggest to me that they are either "liberal" or "conservatives," but it does suggest that they are willing to whore themselves to boost their careers, prestige or otherwise make room for the urgent expansion of their egos, which already have been pumped up to the point of explosion.

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by rollhead

Greenspan was an acolyte of nut case Ayn Rand, who in addition to being a terrible, ham-fisted writer and a half baked philosopher, was a proponent of unregulated, unfettered capitalism, which is a right of center idea.

So I read, but that was many years ago. Of necessity, he put on a nonpartisan face as Fed chair, and theoretically, I don't see how one can establish what his political views were in recent years. (I suppose that libertarians' left-of-center ideas about some international and societal issues are irrelevant.)

I was really just trying to make a point of order, and I'm playing devil's advocate a bit. I completely agree with your description of Ayn Rand.

[tristano's ghost]

I like Alterman's term for it--"the gasbag gap":

The Gasbag Gap
Eric Alterman

Mainstream reporters tend to see both liberal and right-wing critics as a bunch of whiners who "just don't get it." And in many cases, they're right. But being mainstream reporters, they tend to believe--nay, know--that they are always right. In fact, journalism is just about the only field whose practitioners routinely justify themselves on the basis of the fact that they receive criticism from "both sides." The possibility that they might be screwing up in two (or more) ways simultaneously appears to be beyond their imaginative capabilities.

During the past generation, these same mainstream journalists have lurched to the right, thanks in large measure to an extremely well-funded, well-organized and well-disciplined conservative political assault comprising, essentially, two tactics: a willingness (and ability) to make life miserable for those who don't go along, and a determination to shape the zeitgeist in such a way that those who do go along may not even know they're doing so. In other words, what Tony Soprano cannot accomplish, leave to Antonio Gramsci.

While most fair-minded observers ought to agree with the above, particularly in light of the rise of the far-right media empire of Rupert, Rush, O'Reilly and talk-radio, etc., it's still pretty difficult to prove. Most academic studies of media content are compromised because even with the best intentions, it's impossible to control for independent political variables. As for the decades-old studies purporting to show that reporters vote Democratic: When not biased in the first place, they tell us nothing about the content of the news. A number of Rupert Murdoch's top lieutenants claim to be liberal Democrats--a lot that matters!

All this is reason to welcome the new study by David Brock's Media Matters for America, titled If It's Sunday, It's Conservative. MMA conducted a content analysis of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, CBS's Face the Nation and NBC's Meet the Press, classifying each one of the nearly 7,000 guests from Bill Clinton's second term, George W. Bush's first term and 2005 as either Democrat, Republican, conservative, progressive or neutral. Its key finding: "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." And remember, this study doesn't include Fox!

In addition, "more panels tilted right (a greater number of Republicans/conservatives than Democrats/progressives) than tilted left" for every single year of the study. In some years the gap was as high as four to one. Moreover, Congressional opponents of the Iraq War were all but banished from the Sunday shows, particularly in the period just before it was launched.


When spokespeople for the shows were contacted to explain the disparity, they claimed that they go where the action is, and today the action is Republican/conservative. (Though it should be noted that Face the Nation was considerably fairer than Meet the Press or This Week.) But of course, were that true, then the Clinton years would have been just as tilted in favor of Democrats/progressives as the Bush years have been toward Republicans/conservatives. But of course they're not even close.

Think about it: These shows feel empowered to engage an agenda-setting discussion with a panel of mostly right-wing politicians, followed by a journalists' panel in which conservatives are paired almost exclusively with down-the-middle reporters, rather than a writer or thinker who might credibly represent the liberal side. Every week, a politically neutered George Stephanopoulos seeks the wisdom of the deeply right-wing George Will, and the "neutral" (though personally conservative) Fareed Zakaria, with no balance whatsoever. (Sam Donaldson, a liberal, was previously an exception to this rule, though no liberal I know would have picked him to represent our side.) The guest list for the far more influential Meet the Press tells a similar story. Why, asks the MMA study's author, Paul Waldman, "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)?"

What's more, despite its having been produced by a liberal think thank, the study's grading of the guests--where the rubber hits the road--is extremely generous to the right-wing side, and therefore precludes any credible complaints that it's a product of liberal bias. For instance, liberal-hater Joe Klein, together with war-supporters Peter Beinart and George Packer, are coded "progressive," and Cokie Roberts and David Broder, who openly detest both Clinton and Gore while frequently apologizing for Bush--together with former GE chairman Jack Welch and Mrs. Alan Greenspan, Andrea Mitchell--were classified as "neutral." (Remember how quick Mitchell was during the 2004 debates to accuse Kerry of "demagoguery" for daring to criticize her husband?)

Indeed, as far as critical commentary goes, with the occasional exception of E.J. Dionne, there's not a single unapologetic liberal on any of these shows, save perhaps an annual appearance as a kind of anthropological curiosity. Tune in to every show every week for a year, and you are unlikely to see Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, Rick Hertzberg, Harold Meyerson or anyone associated with The Nation, The American Prospect, The Washington Monthly, The New York Review of Books, Salon, In These Times, Mother Jones or even the liberal remnant inside The New Republic.

When you think about it, it is a tribute to the American people that they remain as receptive to liberal arguments as they do, given how infrequently they hear them.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by rollhead

And Greenspan continued under the Democratic president, Clinton, in large part because he basically continued the monetarist-based course that was set by Paul Volker, who was named Fed Chairman by Democrat Jimmy Carter.

It was Volker's policies that helped to lower inflation from 13.5% in 1981 to 3.2 percent by 1983.

You neglected to mention Carter's clueless first appointment to the Fed Chair, William Milller, who wasn't even an economist. Volcker, once Richard Nixon's appointment as under Secretary of the Treasury, was nominated by Carter under pressure as inflation ran amok.

Inflation, as measured by annual CPI in 1976, Ford's last year was 4.9%
1977 Carter 6.9
1978 Carter 9.0
1979 Carter 13.3
1980 Carter 12.5
1981 Reagan 8.9
1982 Reagan 3.2 (start of 18 year bull market).

Volcker and Reagan both deserve credit for killing the inflation bear. Reagan deregulated the price of oil, defeated the air traffic controllers, deregulated business, and supported Volcker's choking of the money supply.

In all fairness, it must be pointed out that the policies of a Republican President, Richard Nixon, and his crony appointment of Arthur Burns as Fed Chairman, was a major cause of the 1970's inflation, which got worse under Carter. Burns expanded the money supply in 1972, to aid Nixon's reelection campaign. Nixon's appointment of Burns was far worse than Bush's attempt to get Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court. At least the failed nomination of Miers put pressure on Bush to appoint an unassaible economist to the Fed, namely Ben Bernanke.

I'm not going to defend Bush's economic policies but nobody can hold a candle to Carter and Nixon for being economically awful Presidents.

[Gordon B]

Greenspan may have been a follower of Ayn Rand for a brief time, but Reagan was once a Democrat, Whittaker Chambers was a communist, most neo-Conservatives were socialists, etc. Greenspan is mostly despised by current Ayn Randers.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

Greenspan may have been a follower of Ayn Rand for a brief time, but Reagan was once a Democrat, Whittaker Chambers was a communist, most neo-Conservatives were socialists, etc.

Jeremiah was a bullfrog.

[Scott Dolan]

Maybe so.

But was he a conservative bullfrog?

I think we both know the answer to that one, my evil rightwing friend.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

But was he a conservative bullfrog?

I think he was Green.

Bwahahahaha! Bullfrog = green. Oh, I gotta a million of 'em. Nader '08!

[Scott Dolan]

[tristano's ghost]

This week's guests on Meet the Press:

Rep. Peter King (R-NY), Sen. John Warner (R-VA), and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA)

Do you suppose Arnie is providing the "balance"?

[Scott Dolan]

Warner gave a very balanced performance during the SASC hearing yesterday. He is certainly the level headed straight shooter of the three. King is a loon, and Arnie, is...........um, Arnie.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

King is a loon, and Arnie, is...........um, Arnie.

And Jeremiah is still a bullfrog. Was a good friend of mine. I never understood a single word that he said, but I helped him drink his wine. And he always had some mighty fine wine. Singing, "Joy to the World." All the boys and girls. Joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea and joy to you and me.