If It's Sunday It's Conservative.

[His'nBeatYour'n]

I guess it wasn't just the Dolphins offense that had been so conservative on Sundays.

Link

If It's Sunday, It's Conservative: An analysis of the Sunday talk show guests on ABC, CBS, and NBC, 1997 - 2005

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.

Congressional opponents of the Iraq war were largely absent from the Sunday shows, particularly during the period just before the war began.

Countdown to Mark Twain 'lies, damn lies, and statistics,' quote starts now...

[Maynard the Hammer]

im not a big fan of the media matters agenda, but i cant argue with the data. plus its a good way to ruin a liberal's sunday morning

[His'nBeatYour'n]

Originally Posted by Maynard

im not a big fan of the media matters agenda, but i cant argue with the data. plus its a good way to ruin a liberal's sunday morning

They certainly have an agenda, but they do try to use facts to advance it.

What do you chalk this up to though?
Does the sunday morning media have a conservative agenda?
Or is this the result of overcompensation for the "Liberal Media" challenge?

[runtheball]

I'm biased of course, but I would chalk it up to the idea that conservatives have new ideas to talk about, not the same old defense of the status quo like the other party. That makes more interesting television.

[His'nBeatYour'n]

Originally Posted by runtheball

I'm biased of course, but I would chalk it up to the idea that conservatives have new ideas to talk about, not the same old defense of the status quo like the other party. That makes more interesting television.

Sounds like an excuse. I'd like to see you back something up once in while.

[The_Dark_Knight]

I heard about this a few weeks ago listening to the morning radio on the way into work. The guest on the show (can't remember his name) broke it down as to how the Sunday morning talks shows are even more conservative in nature now than during the Clinton adminstration (which didn't surprise me too much) but he also illustrated that how during the Clinton Sunday morning talk shows actually leaned more right of center than most would've thought.

I found that quite interesting...but since David Brinkley left, I don't really watch Sunday morning talk shows anymore. It interefers with Sportcenter and Sunday NFL Countdown...lol

[Jimmy James]

This makes a good amount of sense if you ask me. Shouldn't the composition of who comes on be reflective of who is in control of the various parts of government? At this point, Republicans control the White House, the two houses of Congress, and a majority of the states by way of the party affiliation of the Governor. During Clinton's second term, the Democrats held a slight edge in one method of accounting and the Republicans held a slight edge the other way. This reflected the split leadership of that time.

[runtheball]

Originally Posted by Hisn'WithYour'n

Sounds like an excuse. I'd like to see you back something up once in while.

No sweat:

1. Social Security Reform
2. School Vouchers
3. Bringing Democracy to the Middle East via regime change
4. Protecting the country via the Patriot Act


All of the above are ideas that conservatives have been talking about for years and all of these are opposed by Democrats in favor of the status quo.


Good enough for ya ?

[His'nBeatYour'n]

Originally Posted by runtheball

No sweat:

1. Social Security Reform
2. School Vouchers
3. Bringing Democracy to the Middle East via regime change
4. Protecting the country via the Patriot Act


All of the above are ideas that conservatives have been talking about for years and all of these are opposed by Democrats in favor of the status quo.

Good enough for ya ?

Good enough for me, thank you. I appreciate your detailed response. It gives the debate more substance.


1. Health Care
2. Election Reform
3. Environmental protection
4. Lobbyist Reform

All of the above are ideas that Democrats have been talking about for years and all of these are opposed by Republicans in favor of the status quo.

Or more fairly, all of the ideas from both sides have received legitimate objections from the other side of the aisle. And not all of the ideas stated above come from just one side of the aisle. Many if not most receive bipartisan support, the opposition is often just a matter of specific details.

The responsibility of objective journalism is not to reward one party over the other for coming up with more ideas. Especially when some of those ideas go nowhere.

All proposals and ideas should be debated with equal representation, so long as there is legitimate opposition. This is MOST important on panel discussions, where the number of voices speaking for or against a given issue can often sway the publics own conclusion.

At the very least this study should puncture a hole in the myth of liberal media bias.

[Maynard the Hammer]

one thing you have to realize is that these shows aren't platform shows. they are topical and news driven.

just as an example, if the show is covering the iraq war, they would be more likely to have tommy franks on then a democrat senator

[His'nBeatYour'n]

Originally Posted by Maynard

one thing you have to realize is that these shows aren't platform shows. they are topical and news driven.

just as an example, if the show is covering the iraq war, they would be more likely to have tommy franks on then a democrat senator

That is a fair point, and I'm surprised that it took that long to bring up. That point is why I don't have too much objection to the 1 on 1 interview discrepancy.

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.

Generally, 1 on 1 interviews with an administration official is more important to the public interest, than a 1 on 1 interview with any senator, when it comes to issues like the Iraq war.

What I have an issue with is stats like this.

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.

I don't know this as fact, I would guess that any member of the Military (ie; Tommy Franks) would fall into neither category. They would be part of the "other" or "neutral" stat.

[Wildbill3]

Originally Posted by Maynard

one thing you have to realize is that these shows aren't platform shows. they are topical and news driven.

just as an example, if the show is covering the iraq war, they would be more likely to have tommy franks on then a democrat senator

I think they would be more likely to WANT tommy franks because of his background, it adds to his crediability.

[Maynard the Hammer]

Originally Posted by Hisn'WithYour'n

I don't know this as fact, I would guess that any member of the Military (ie; Tommy Franks) would fall into neither category. They would be part of the "other" or "neutral" stat.

i dont really watch the shows for me to make my own judgement of who is on the shows, but that seems odd.

i thought the aim of these shows is to get 1 democrat and 1 republican to argue

[His'nBeatYour'n]

Originally Posted by Maynard

i dont really watch the shows for me to make my own judgement of who is on the shows, but that seems odd.

i thought the aim of these shows is to get 1 democrat and 1 republican to argue

Its mixed, and it varies, but generally there are multiple segments on say "Meet The Press"
One Segment is 1 Rep Vs. 1 Dem.
Another is a 1 on 1 interview with Russert (Slimy Buffalo Bills Fan).
And another is 3-5, journalists, Senators, DNC/GOP Chairman, Think Tank specialists. etc.

I'm also not clear on what you meant by "that seems odd"

[Maynard the Hammer]

Originally Posted by Hisn'WithYour'n

Its mixed, and it varies, but generally there are multiple segments on say "Meet The Press"
One Segment is 1 Rep Vs. 1 Dem.
Another is a 1 on 1 interview with Russert (Slimy Buffalo Bills Fan).
And another is 3-5, journalists, Senators, DNC/GOP Chairman, Think Tank specialists. etc.

I'm also not clear on what you meant by "that seems odd"

well it would seem odd that an established panel would be unbalanced, but if its new people every week then it is different and i dont know