A new study of the guest lists for the Sunday morning chat shows finds that the networks prefer lawmaker guests who are white, male, older and Republican. The study was publishedby the George Mason University School of Law’s Green Bag Journal, and got a brief write-up in the New York Times today (9/13/10).
And that means we got to hear excuses from the shows about why this is the case. Meet the Press executive producer Betsy Fischer spoke about how they are “committed to having a diverse group of voices on the program whose opinions and expertise reflect the cultural, economic and political landscape of our country.” (The war in Afghanistan is just one area where they seem less interested in diverse voices.)
ABC‘s This Week offered another defense:
“We are always looking to represent diverse views on our program, but This Week is a news program and so our bookings are dictated by the news and newsmakers,” said Ian Cameron, the executive producer of This Week on ABC.
The period covered by the study in 2009 was “dominated by three issues in Congress: healthcare, the economy and Afghanistan,” Mr. Cameron said. “If you take a look at the committees who were most involved in these issues, most of the members both in the House and the Senate with the most seniority were white and mostly men.”
At the risk ofcompletely questioning the premise ofthe Sunday show format, maybe hosting weekly chats with prominent politicians is nota particularly great way of illuminating the vital issues of the day. It does give the major parties a platform from which to spout their talking points, which is really what the the producers are defending here as their way of doing journalism.
Speaking of Sunday shows, don’t miss FAIR’s study of the partisan guests on these programs, which appears in the new issue of Extra!. Using the VoteView scores of lawmaker guests, FAIR found that the Republicans who most frequently appear on the networks tend to be from the conservative wing of their party; the Democrats invited on the same shows are closer the middle.
Baloney! You better believe the guests on the left are just as liberal as the conservatives on the same shows. But that’s not the real problem. The REAL problem is network producers who search out the most polarizing figures when, in reality, most Americans fall in the middle of their absurd partisan arguments.
you got that correct,jared, they are just as liberal as the right wingers, hardly any more than that!
Jared. I am on Left, and I can tell you: The real Left is left out. Those you think are the liberals are in the middle. For example, I was shocked when I heard Scott Simon, on PBS and what the Right touts as the “Liberal Media” on a discussion say something like, “well, now that both parties have moved to their extremes…blah, blah, blah.” How can anyone with any real sense of the political spectrum make such a stupid statement? The media gives us centrist Democrats and far Right Republicans, and the same goes for all the pundits, particularly the ones who pretend to be Left, all the airtime. You get no Left perspective on the corporate/mainstream media. 15 to 20,000 left organizers show up in Detroit for the Social Forum and get no coverage, while 600 show up with Palin the same weekend, and all the major news outlets have an orgy talking about it. The Left perspective is ignored completely.
Michael is right: There is no left to speak of in this country, at least not in the media. We have the center and the right, and that’s about it.
George Wallace may have been a racist hatemonger, but he was correct in observing that there is “not a nickel’s worth of difference” between the two parties when it comes to substantive issues. And that is as true today as it was in 1968. All the fake issues we are presented with, such as moral values, gay marriage, immigration, etc., have little or nothing to do with real politics, which remains business as usual–on both sides.
Par for the course, I say. The ideas of white male supremacy in the western world (despite a black president) leave a long trail. But as my son says, it won’t be long now.
It would be interesting to see similar stats for Democracy Now’s guests as Amy Goodman does actually strive to present diverse views.
Michael is right.The real ultra left is left out.You wont see the hard core libs because America would recoil.it would hurt Dem chances.They try their best to keep themselves hidden.Im a conservatve.And it is funny the outcry against the strong voice that has risen on the right.The Limbughs…Hannity’s ect.Where was this outcry against the bought and paid for mainstream press both print news and Tv- during the election cycle?They did NOTHING to bring any truth forward regarding negative facts concerning you know who.The drive by media.Now you see a more so called archetypical “conservative”face being shown and resounding n the public eye and you whine?It is a reaction to what is happening to this country.It is fueled by those of us who were conservative and knew……what an Obama presidency would be.It is fueled by independents who have buyers remorse.And by some Dems who realize that when Vp Bite me says he will create 500 thou jobs per month and falls flat….they realize something is wrong.So maybe they click on FOX.Then their are those hard core types sitting in their basements taping every word of 4 hours of conservative talk radio to catch a mistake.Any mistake.
THe media is open for a good show, any show.There are no libs need not apply signs.It is the product in the arena of ideas that sucks.DEmocracy NOW is lets face it…painful to watch.Kieth Oberface as well.Stewart and his ilk are very funny.But maybe that is a point as well. Satire is well and good, but we are in a hell of a mess.And this socialist regime is not gonna sell anymore.Mainstream…..Centrist?Where do you see that in this leadership?This country is being led by a very small percentage of people who believe as they do.Did you not see this revolt across all spectrums coming?
there is no left to speak of on corporate television…fair nails it: the spectrum is centrist to far right…
Corporate Tv?I would wager 100 % of Tv stations/shows/owners have the term incorporated somewhere in their names.I would think 100%, or near a bout- are in it for a profit motive on some level.So Lets nail down exactly who and what we are speaking of.Woodward and Bernstein I will leave it in your capable hands to list what shows have been taken over by by the corporate money bags.And what “left”you speak of.Who …..or whom is being refused air time on the left?I think this may be a window, into how far left some bloggers are- in saying who they believe is being left out.
Does Democracy now work free of charge and salary?I would say from my side of the coin that for a time the conservative view was ignored as hard as little faces could strain to ignore it.Now it has made great inroads and is a general alternative to the status quo.Especially in news and opinion shows.Not due to corporate money but could it be….due to winning in the arena of ideas, and putting on a good show?O’rielly vs Kieth Obermann is an easy call.Kieth looks cheap and weird.Im a huge fan butI thought Rush sucked on Tv.Great on radio but strange on TV .Beck is exploding.THe game is still ratings guys.So have they ( the right) really taken over?Im turning through station after station and I still am seeing 90% center left in attitude.
Jesus Mikey E. You read like a Sarah Plain Tweet.
What is your political mindset natural Dave.You can write it out(your manifesto) or just claim a party.Step up to the plate.Remember the George Thurgood song ‘WHO DO YOU LOVE”?So who do you love?Who would you see in office?
And Dave you atheist you….you started the sentence with Jesus.Two demerits from the school of Godless heathens.Oh an Sara is KICKING YO ASS BOY.