As published in FAIR:
Sunday Mornings Lurch to the Right
06/02/2011 by Jim Naureckas.
"Of the 24 members of Congress who have appeared three or more times in 2011 on any of the five Sunday morning shows (i.e., CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox or CNN), according to Roll Call's ongoing tally, 16, or two-thirds, have been Republicans. Just seven, or 29 percent, have been Democrats. (The other one was Sen. Joe Lieberman.)
We've looked at the right-wing slant on Sunday morning before (Extra!, 9-10/01, 12/10), but this more-than-2-to-1 bias is extreme. For the record, Democrats control one of the two houses of Congress.
You can probably guess who the Sunday shows' favorite congressional guest is."
Â
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 62
SOME of the outlets have left leaning biases, and some lean to the right. Most genuinely try to be mostly journalistic, just analyzing without too much editorializing.
Vast majority of the time, the people who are invited on shows are the ones who are putting the most energy into getting onto them, by saying controversial things, or getting in front of major legislation. The GOP has been doing more of that lately. And Both of the men mentioned in the article you linked to WERE NOMINATED FOR PRESIDENT. If Clinton asked to be on a show, or Dubya, or daddy Bush, do you think shows would say no? Give me a break.
So funny that both sides try to paint themselves the victim. You're all a bunch of crybabies. Not towing YOUR sides' line does not mean they're towing the other sides' line.
I'd like to buy your standards for what they are worth and sell them for what you think they're worth.
~M
What? "One time" or "two times or more" just didn't fit into the outcomes you wanted? Pleeeez.
I strongly urge this reading:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979403779
But I think what really pisses them off is that it's reality, as Colbert pointed out, that "has a well-known liberal bias".
Dingdingdingdingding... We has a WINNAH!
Hey cool, I wanna be Jonny Quest!
Instead they go with the same old, same old because they have established access and it's easier for them to book 'em.
Unfortunately, that means we are constantly subjected to those who are past their political prime and not in the presidential administrative loop and/or the extremes.
I'm not so sure about TV media but when I was in print journalism the best way to get a story in the newspaper was to write one and add photos and hand it to them as a done deal -- then they would follow up with a few questions and create a "story." Lazy!
I don't think bias is this issue.
And, as I said, based on what I've observed, I see no liberal bias in a MSM that books out-of the loop has-beens and/or extremists.
I would question liberal bias if I saw an Obama Admin line-up all the time.
But my hope is that they are a bit too upfront about their plan to dismantle all social services and return large parts of the population -- ya listening, seniors? -- to poverty. There's some evidence that Americans are getting a good look at them and going, "ewwwwwwww!".
As Harry alluded to above, MSM "News" shows have become entertainment venues that are expected to make advertising dollars for the networks. Thus all of the "Fluff" on network news.
It seems like forever ago, but there was a time in network news, during the time of Walter Cronkite, et al, that the news departments of networks were considered to be a public service function as part of their public liscense to broadcast, & were expected to LOSE money.