These two charts (here and here) by Media Matters deserve more attention, for they overwhelmingly refute the ridiculous notion of "liberal media" dominance on cable TV news. Here are the explosive findings:

During inauguration day coverage, Republicans and conservatives outnumbered progressives nineteen to seven on Fox, ten to one on CNN and thirteen to two on MSNBC. On prime-time, the trend continued. Conservatives outnumbered liberals twenty-five to four on Fox News, seven to one on CNN and nine to five on MSNBC. When the occasional Democrat did actually appear, he or she was usually paired against a rival Republican, whereas most conservatives appeared solo or with fellow ideologues. Even a panel discussion with CNN's Carlos Watson included four Republicans, and only one Democrat and one swing voter.

If John Kerry had been inaugurated, would Democrats have outnumbered conservatives by 10-1 margins? We think not. It says something very troubling about the state of the mainstream media when Fox News has a fairer guest ratio than CNN or MSNBC. Though the inauguration coverage ratcheted the partiality meter to unforeseen proportions, this type of skewed presentation has existed on the television news for years.

During the presidential debates, MSNBC's pre and post-debate panels consistently skewed right, featuring all-Republican panels and GOP guests who spoke before, and more often, than their fellow Democrats. Even the respected Sunday talk shows suffer from conservative coddling. Since the election, CBS's Face the Nation has featured eleven current or former Republican officials, compared to seven Democrats. Host Bob Schieffer even admitted his imbalance in an interview with, tellingly, Sean Hannity. "I had Senator Frist on for the entire show. We had Secretary of State Powell on for the entire broadcast. In one broadcast, we had three Republicans on and didn't have a Democrat."


Sad, but true. Schieffer's counterpart, the idolized Tim Russert, also stacks his Meet the Press panels, regularly pitting unabashed conservatives like The New York Times' William Safire and National Review's Kate O'Beirne against carefully non-aligned establishment journalists such as Newsweek's Evan Thomas or the Washington Post's David Broder, who refuses to even vote, lest it corrupt his non-partisan credentials.

As Bush bombs his way to freedom abroad, our own domestic institutions require closer inspection. With Republicans already controlling Washington, a one-party media is the last thing US democracy needs.


Link:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/outrage?bid=13&pid=2147



Catherine

To be perfectly honest, I am surprised there were that many Democrats. Of course, Democrats run from very liberal to very conservative--so at times having a Republican and a Democrat could be mistaken for two Republicans.

What angers me most though, is when there is a Democrat on and the host ALWAYS lets the Republican have the last word. Watch, it happens every time. It is as though Dems are not supposed to have a lasting thought, period!

You're right, dori...and that's been going on since Bush came to power, and the big corporations own him we all know.

I'm getting awfully frustrated backing a party that seems to be satisfied with the Good Sportsmanship Award.

What's happened to the spines of the Dem leaders? How many of them will actually vote NO on Rice and Gonzo?

Catherine

Very few, probably less than voted against giving Bush the power to go to war. I believe 23 voted against that.

But there are stirrings. I am frustrated too, but I also know what it is like to be in a bind--and the Dems are between a rock and a hard place. This country is so horribly divided, and every Senator and Representative hears from both sides of that divide.

I have been told more than once by the people in my Representative's office that my Rep Representative hears much more from people on my side than those on the right--but Tom Reynolds is Bush's right hand man to the end. He would not deviate from Bush's wishes for anything!

AND I have been told by my Senator's offices that they hear far more from the right--in much stronger terms to boot.

Why does the R vote his party line but the Dems try to find a middle ground? Because we are the peacemakers and they are the attackers.

I think if that vote for war in Iraq were to be taken today, more Dems would vote against it--at least I hope they would. I am disheartened too, but I am also subjected to as much of the media and it's bias as I can stomach and I hear why the Dems believe 'the people' are on Bush's side.

And many are.

All we can do is keep trying to communicate with our people, it does no good to get so discouraged you stop communicating. And thank them when they DO do something right--that is very important.

And keep thinking--hope springs eternal.......

I'm hoping Howard Dean can unite the party...and thus help to unite more Americans. Not all Republicans and right wingers are stupid, nor all of them completely bamboozled by the script and costumes Karl Rove has prepared for this charade of an administration.

I'm keeping the faith, avoiding telly news shows, and surfing the net to find many sources of information. It's hard, but I sometimes even go to right-wing sites for a few minutes...about all I can stand, though.

Somewhere, sometime this has to end...Bush will find himself a lame duck about two years from now....and things will only get worse for him up to that time because there's nothing like a group of power hungry politicians who see that the King is weak, and that an heir must soon be appointed.

Like rats from a sinking ship, Bush will be avoided at all costs as 2008 gets nearer. But I'm tired of Bush...we've had Bush for Reagan's VP, then Bush as Prez, then his son for 8 long, miserable years. that makes 20 frigging years that we will have had the Bush father and son near and/or at the top of the government.

No wonder we're in such a mess!

Catherine

I hope Dean gets the Dem chair. I do know there are a lot of people who are hoping otherwise, but with Dean in I think the DLC, source of much of our misery, would be hanging on the edge if not out altogether.

Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times.

We are living in interesting times!