• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

If It's Sunday, It's Conservative

H

hipsterdufus

sundayreport.jpg


Media Matters has published a new report showing that conservative guests far outnumber progressive guests on the Sunday talk shows. The study is significant for several reasons. For years, I have sensed that these shows were skewed to the left, and now there is proof to back it up.

These shows are supposed to be neutral , journalistic shows, compared to opinion shows like O'Reilly or Scarborough. Clearly they are not. These shows give credibility to issues, and shape the opinions of very influental political thinkers.

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

Executive Summary

The Sunday-morning talk shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC are where the prevailing opinions are aired and tested, policymakers state their cases, and the left and right in American politics debate the pressing issues of the day on equal ground. Both sides have their say and face probing questions. Or so you would think.

In fact, as this study reveals, conservative voices significantly outnumber progressive voices on the Sunday talk shows. Media Matters for America conducted a content analysis of ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, and NBC's Meet the Press, classifying each one of the nearly 7,000 guest appearances during President Bill Clinton's second term, President George W. Bush's first term, and the year 2005 as either Democrat, Republican, conservative, progressive, or neutral. The conclusion is clear: Republicans and conservatives have been offered more opportunities to appear on the Sunday shows - in some cases, dramatically so.

Among the study's key findings:

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.

In both the Clinton and Bush administrations, conservative journalists were far more likely to appear on the Sunday shows than were progressive journalists. In Clinton's second term, 61 percent of the ideologically identifiable journalists were conservative; in Bush's first term, that figure rose to 69 percent.

/snip

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

In short, the Sunday talk shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC are dominated by conservative voices, from newsmakers to commentators. The data from the Clinton years indicate that the disparity cannot be explained simply by the fact that Republicans currently control the government.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602140002

Full report here:
http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/MMFA_Sunday_Show_Report.pdf
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The report only explains that the Presidency has gone from Clinton to Bush...

Every sentence had legitimacy until the last one...

The data from the Clinton years indicate that the disparity cannot be explained simply by the fact that Republicans currently control the government.
Noooo...The fact that the Congress was majority Republican during the Clinton Administration IS the exact reason for this...

The Senate turned to a Republican majority in that timeframe and the House of Representatives have been Republican leaning for quite awhile...

These are more representative of the people than just one President, so it sems logical that the shows that want answers should go to where the majority lies...

Why would these shows try to get answers from people who aren't in the majority?...:confused:
 
Last edited:
H

hipsterdufus

cnredd said:
These are more representative of the people than just one President, so it sems logical that the shows that want answers should go to where the majority lies...

Why would these shows try to get answers from people who aren't in the majority?...:confused:

So you agree that these shows have a conservative bias. Good.
You also seem to insinuate that the party in power should have all of the allotted time the Sunday morning shows?

You seem to forget that Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and that Kerry's loss was only by a few % points. If the bias was slanted 52% conservative- 48% progressive that would be one thing, it's much more slanted than that. For the first 5 years of Bush the numbers were 58% to 42% without Fox.

Here are a few other good points about the study from Eric Alterman.

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."

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.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060306/alterman
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
So you agree that these shows have a conservative bias. Good.

They seem to have John McCain bias.

And I note most "journalist" claim no bias when in fact 80% are libera. GTW why does the report so deperately avoids using the word "liberal"?


You seem to forget that Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and that Kerry's loss was only by a few % points.

Which is an absolutely specious arguement and tells us nothing.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
So you agree that these shows have a conservative bias. Good.
Not once did I say this...For you to think I did is weak debating and spin...

It's quite the opposite actually...

If O'Reilly spent all day bringing in people with the same values as he holds, there'd be no debate, and the show would be droll...So he brings in people with OPPOSING viewpoints to whip up the discussions...

The same with these shows...If the Sunday network shows did this with the Liberals they worship, the show would be molasses...

Liberal - "Wah wah wah wah"
Interviewer - "I agree with everything you've said"
Liberal - "Thank you"

2 minutes of dead air silence...

Interviewer - "Ummm....back to the studio"...

So these shows NEED to bring in people from the opposite side of the aisle to create discussion...If controversy isn't created, the public won't listen...

hipsterdufus said:
You also seem to insinuate that the party in power should have all of the allotted time the Sunday morning shows?
Once again, you put words in my mouth which I did not say or insinuate...

Your report shows that without Fox the numbers are 58% to 42%...That is not only fair considering the current power one party holds, but it is FAR from the extreme of "all" that you speak of...

Instead of trying to manipulate what people mean, why not just read the words and take them as they're written?...
 
H

hipsterdufus

cnredd said:
Not once did I say this...For you to think I did is weak debating and spin...

You certainly implied it when you said that the party in power should have the main say.


cnredd said:
If O'Reilly spent all day bringing in people with the same values as he holds, there'd be no debate, and the show would be droll...So he brings in people with OPPOSING viewpoints to whip up the discussions...

I'm talking about shows that are supposed to be neutral - O'Reilly's is an opinion show. That said, I've yet to see a liberal on his show to debate the issues with O'Reilly.

cnredd said:
The same with these shows...If the Sunday network shows did this with the Liberals they worship, the show would be molasses...

That's absurd.

Let the moderators moderate - and have a panel that debates both sides of the issues. What's so hard about that?

If Russert, Stephanopolous and Sheiffer "worship" liberals, you would think they would have some true progressives on their show like Joe Conason, Thom Hartmann, Eric Alterman, George Lakoff, Calvin Trillin, Nat Hentoff, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Jim Dean, David Brock, Howard Zinn, Paul Krugman, David Corn, Molly Ivans, Amy Goodman or a host of others.

As I stated before, the only liberal that is a regular is the Washington Post's EJ Dionne. Usually Russert asks tough, probing questions to his guests, no matter what side of the isle they're on.

cnredd said:
Liberal - "Wah wah wah wah"
Interviewer - "I agree with everything you've said"
Liberal - "Thank you"
2 minutes of dead air silence...Interviewer -
"Ummm....back to the studio"...

How about an example rather than pure conjecture. Have you ever seen such a thing? I've been watching these shows for years and haven't seen anything close to this.

cnredd said:
So these shows NEED to bring in people from the opposite side of the aisle to create discussion...If controversy isn't created, the public won't listen...

I agree. Wouldn't it be better then, to actually have debate from both sides, rather than right and center, which is usually the case.

cnredd said:
Your report shows that without Fox the numbers are 58% to 42%...That is not only fair considering the current power one party holds, but it is FAR from the extreme of "all" that you speak of...

Maybe in your mind a 16% difference in guests is fair. To me it's extremely biased to the right. If you look closer at the data and note the people MMA actually descibed as progressive and/or neutral - it's even more skewed to the right.

If Bush won by 16%, or if 58% of registered voters were republican - different story.
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
cnredd said:
The report only explains that the Presidency has gone from Clinton to Bush...

Every sentence had legitimacy until the last one...

Noooo...The fact that the Congress was majority Republican during the Clinton Administration IS the exact reason for this...

The Senate turned to a Republican majority in that timeframe and the House of Representatives have been Republican leaning for quite awhile...

These are more representative of the people than just one President, so it sems logical that the shows that want answers should go to where the majority lies...

Why would these shows try to get answers from people who aren't in the majority?...:confused:

"Control of the government" does not just mean "control of the presidency."

If the idea was to get answers from those who "are the majority" why then didn't the same ratios occur when Dems had the presidency and Senate? What's more, the US government is the platform for the ruling power, media should show "the other side" since the ruling "side" has official documents.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
You certainly implied it when you said that the party in power should have the main say.
Which I NEVER SAID!!!!!!!!!!

This is EXACTLY what I said...

These are more representative of the people than just one President, so it sems logical that the shows that want answers should go to where the majority lies...

Why would these shows try to get answers from people who aren't in the majority?...
I never said "they should" about anything...I'm saying I understand why News shows would have more representatives from one side of the aisle than the other...If you remember correctly, I AGREED with the data...I DISAGREED with what the indication was, as per the last sentence you've shown from the article...

hipsterdufus said:
I'm talking about shows that are supposed to be neutral - O'Reilly's is an opinion show. That said, I've yet to see a liberal on his show to debate the issues with O'Reilly.
Then why are there continued accusations of turning down mics on guests and O'Reilly constantly shouting people down?...

Are you saying he does this to Conservatives since you've "yet to see a liberal on his show to debate the issues"?....:confused:

hipsterdufus said:
That's absurd.

Let the moderators moderate - and have a panel that debates both sides of the issues. What's so hard about that?
Take that up with th producers of these shows...I said I understand what they're doing...I haven't said it is or it's not the best way...Only that what they do sounds logical...

hipsterdufus said:
If Russert, Stephanopolous and Sheiffer "worship" liberals, you would think they would have some true progressives on their show like Joe Conason, Thom Hartmann, Eric Alterman, George Lakoff, Calvin Trillin, Nat Hentoff, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Jim Dean, David Brock, Howard Zinn, Paul Krugman, David Corn, Molly Ivans, Amy Goodman or a host of others.
IF the plan was to have a circlejerk, you'd be correct...But their intentions are to get answers...

You can't have people from the "opposition" come on and explain why they are opposing UNTIL you have the other side come in first and explain their position...That is why they get better dibs...

hipsterdufus said:
As I stated before, the only liberal that is a regular is the Washington Post's EJ Dionne. Usually Russert asks tough, probing questions to his guests, no matter what side of the isle they're on.
Once again. direct that at the shows, not me...I'm sure there are plenty of people who want to be part of these shows from both sides...It's up to these shows to get them...

Maybe their green room doughnuts suck...:2wave:

hipsterdufus said:
How about an example rather than pure conjecture. Have you ever seen such a thing? I've been watching these shows for years and haven't seen anything close to this.
Who's posts are you responding to?...They sure as heck aren't mine!...:(

The conversation I made up was showing you why they DON'T have interviews as such...because it would be boring as all get out and there would be nothing debatable...Why on earth are you asking for an example of something that I've stated DOESN'T HAPPEN?!?!?!?....

hipsterdufus said:
I agree. Wouldn't it be better then, to actually have debate from both sides, rather than right and center, which is usually the case.
If it would improve their ratings, which is the ultimate concern, then they would go that route...

Write a letter...:shrug:

hipsterdufus said:
Maybe in your mind a 16% difference in guests is fair. To me it's extremely biased to the right. If you look closer at the data and note the people MMA actually descibed as progressive and/or neutral - it's even more skewed to the right.

If Bush won by 16%, or if 58% of registered voters were republican - different story.
Currently, The House is 232-202-1...That's approx. 54%-46% advantage...

Currently the Senate is 55-44-1...That's approx. 56%-44% advantage...

58%/42% as the article states is not out of the realm of logic consistancy...
 
H

hipsterdufus

cnredd said:
Then why are there continued accusations of turning down mics on guests and O'Reilly constantly shouting people down?...

Are you saying he does this to Conservatives since you've "yet to see a liberal on his show to debate the issues"?....:confused:

Most talk show hosts have there finger on the "kill switch", and their mics are louder than the guests.

cnredd said:
Take that up with th producers of these shows...I said I understand what they're doing...I haven't said it is or it's not the best way...Only that what they do sounds logical...

Done.

cnredd said:
IF the plan was to have a circlejerk, you'd be correct...But their intentions are to get answers... You can't have people from the "opposition" come on and explain why they are opposing UNTIL you have the other side come in first and explain their position...That is why they get better dibs...

Again, that's absurd. How is having a balanced panel of intelligent conservatives and progressives debating the issues a circle jerk?

If you want the GOP to go first and Dems to respond fine. Using your line of reasoning you would have the GOP spin the Cheney shooting today (more than a week after the shooting) and let Dem's respond on the 26th of Feb?

The news cycle isn't that long.


cnredd said:
Once again. direct that at the shows, not me...I'm sure there are plenty of people who want to be part of these shows from both sides...It's up to these shows to get them...

Done.





cnredd said:
The conversation I made up was showing you why they DON'T have interviews as such...because it would be boring as all get out and there would be nothing debatable...Why on earth are you asking for an example of something that I've stated DOESN'T HAPPEN?!?!?!?....
You must have misunderstood me. I'm not suggesting in the least that a one sided diatribe from the left take place. I am suggesting that the panels represent both sides of the issue.


cnredd said:
Currently, The House is 232-202-1...That's approx. 54%-46% advantage...

Currently the Senate is 55-44-1...That's approx. 56%-44% advantage...

58%/42% as the article states is not out of the realm of logic consistancy...

That would be valid if the data showed the same bias when Dems where in charge. It didn't.

If the Dem's take back the House and Senate and the corporate media's Sunday shows skew their guests to the left, I'll eat my hat.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
Most talk show hosts have there finger on the "kill switch", and their mics are louder than the guests.
You didn't answer the question...You said this verbatum...

I've yet to see a liberal on his show to debate the issues with O'Reilly.
here was my response...

Are you saying he does this to Conservatives since you've "yet to see a liberal on his show to debate the issues"?....


hipsterdufus said:
Again, that's absurd. How is having a balanced panel of intelligent conservatives and progressives debating the issues a circle jerk?

If you want the GOP to go first and Dems to respond fine. Using your line of reasoning you would have the GOP spin the Cheney shooting today (more than a week after the shooting) and let Dem's respond on the 26th of Feb?

The news cycle isn't that long.
Once again...That's a production issue...I doubt anyone here can do anything about it...

hipsterdufus said:
You must have misunderstood me. I'm not suggesting in the least that a one sided diatribe from the left take place. I am suggesting that the panels represent both sides of the issue.
There was no misunderstanding whatsoever...you wanted me to give an example of something I said never happens...Here is your exact words...

hipsterdufus said:
How about an example rather than pure conjecture. Have you ever seen such a thing? I've been watching these shows for years and haven't seen anything close to this.

hipsterdufus said:
That would be valid if the data showed the same bias when Dems where in charge. It didn't.

If the Dem's take back the House and Senate and the corporate media's Sunday shows skew their guests to the left, I'll eat my hat.
That would only be true if these shows were down the middle...If/when the Dem's take back the House and/or Senate, these shows will STILL be in their pockets...they would still NEED the Conservatives to fight with...They wouldn't go to the Liberals to argue...

They agree with them...
 
H

hipsterdufus

cnredd said:
If/when the Dem's take back the House and/or Senate, these shows will STILL be in their pockets...they would still NEED the Conservatives to fight with...They wouldn't go to the Liberals to argue...

They agree with them...

We're splitting some hairs here so I'm going to move one. But yesterday's "This Week" was a perfect example of bias. The panel consited of Katrina vanden Heuvel, George Will and Cokie Roberts.

All Stephanopolous did was throw out some questions, while Will and Cokie tag-teamed vanden Heuvel. Katrina held her own quite nicely, but it's not like Stephanopoulos was agreeing with her, or anyone for that matter. He was serving as a moderator.

To presume that all of the hosts - Stephanopoulos, Russert and Sheiffer show a liberal bias on these shows is just not telling it like it is.

A good journalist tries to be as fair as he/she can and the viewer should be hard-pressed to know what side of the political fence they are on if they're doing their job right.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
We're splitting some hairs here so I'm going to move one. But yesterday's "This Week" was a perfect example of bias. The panel consited of Katrina vanden Heuvel, George Will and Cokie Roberts.

Two liberals and a conservative

All Stephanopolous

another liberal

did was throw out some questions, while Will and Cokie tag-teamed vanden Heuvel. Katrina held her own quite nicely, but it's not like Stephanopoulos was agreeing with her, or anyone for that matter. He was serving as a moderator.

But he does direct the encounter and decide which issues will or will not be discussed.

To presume that all of the hosts - Stephanopoulos, Russert and Sheiffer show a liberal bias on these shows is just not telling it like it is.

Well Russert and Sheidffer sure do.

A good journalist tries to be as fair as he/she can and the viewer should be hard-pressed to know what side of the political fence they are on if they're doing their job right.

None of the three make any attempt to hide it.
 
H

hipsterdufus

Stinger said:
Two liberals and a conservative

I used to consider Cokie a voice for reason during the Reagan administration. Now she's a shill for Bush 90% of the time now. If you listened to her, you would know that. It's just like saying Chris Mathews is a liberal.


Stinger said:
But he does direct the encounter and decide which issues will or will not be discussed.

The news drives the issues of the day more than the moderator. The topics were the Katrina investigations, the Cheney shooting. Pretty much the same issues on all 3.

Stinger said:
Well Russert and Sheidffer sure do.
None of the three make any attempt to hide it.

How about some evidence, quotes or news items to back that claim up rather than just idle koolaid speculation. This isn't Fox.

story.jpg
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
Why did you insert this photoshopped image which has nothing to add to your post?

Is this your way of saying, "I don't care if certain members still have dialup...I'm more than happy to slow down their system!"?...:roll:
 
H

hipsterdufus

cnredd said:
Why did you insert this photoshopped image which has nothing to add to your post?

Is this your way of saying, "I don't care if certain members still have dialup...I'm more than happy to slow down their system!"?...:roll:

Chap Buddies Geraldo & O'Reilly:

chap_buddies.thumb.jpg

http://www.stephaniemiller.com/wrapper/Itemid,93/

Ah - so that's why you don't like graphics? :2wave:
 
Last edited:

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
sundayreport.jpg


Media Matters has published a new report showing that conservative guests far outnumber progressive guests on the Sunday talk shows. The study is significant for several reasons. For years, I have sensed that these shows were skewed to the left, and now there is proof to back it up.

These shows are supposed to be neutral , journalistic shows, compared to opinion shows like O'Reilly or Scarborough. Clearly they are not. These shows give credibility to issues, and shape the opinions of very influental political thinkers.



http://mediamatters.org/items/200602140002

Full report here:
http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/MMFA_Sunday_Show_Report.pdf

God I love how you cite media matters as if it's a reputable source, media matters is run by left wing contributaries to the DNC dedicated to slander and character assasinations of conservative pundits.

From their own cite, this is just laughable:

The "project was developed with help from the newly formed Center for American Progress, the policy group headed by John D. Podesta," Bill Clinton's former chief of staff. "Brock said he hoped it could help provide fodder for fledgling liberal radio talk shows being started across the country, including those of the comedians Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo." [4] (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/03/b...00&en=c842f1f28d9a99fc&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE)

"Mr. Brock, who has also spoken with Senator Clinton, Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota and former Vice President Al Gore about his project, said he was ready to face skepticism. 'I think all ideological converts face a reality on that question,' he said. But, he added, 'I've found people very open to the idea that people can change.'"

MMFA has apparently retained Aman & Associates to promote their first book.

And for the record the Center for American Progress should be called center for liberal whack jobs, socialists, and left wing extremists.
 
Last edited:

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
Ah - so that's why you don't like graphics? :2wave:

So you do it again?...:confused: :roll: :(
 
H

hipsterdufus

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
God I love how you cite media matters as if it's a reputable source, media matters is run by left wing contributaries to the DNC dedicated to slander and character assasinations of conservative pundits.

From their own cite, this is just laughable:

And for the record the Center for American Progress should be called center for liberal whack jobs, socialists, and left wing extremists.

Ahh... the old "Shoot the messanger." argument Trajan.
Classic.

If you go to Media Matters, there is usually video of the conservatives saying the fallacies Media Matters is refuting. If you want to debate an issue.
Bring it on.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
Ahh... the old "Shoot the messanger." argument Trajan.
Classic.

If you go to Media Matters, there is usually video of the conservatives saying the fallacies Media Matters is refuting. If you want to debate an issue.
Bring it on.

I'm not shooting the messenger I'm just stating a fact that media matters is in the DNC's pocket.
 
H

hipsterdufus

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I'm not shooting the messenger I'm just stating a fact that media matters is in the DNC's pocket.

Ah.. ok... well, if you ever have a point, let me know. :yawn:

We could get into the political funding of Scaife, Murdoch, The CATO Institute etc. It takes money to run things. If it makes you happy, I gave Media Matter $100.00.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
Ah.. ok... well, if you ever have a point, let me know. :yawn:

We could get into the political funding of Scaife, Murdoch, The CATO Institute etc. It takes money to run things. If it makes you happy, I gave Media Matter $100.00.

Ya but not through personel donations buddy, just like Air America it's bought and paid for by the DNC, ..........Fox News, Limbaugh et al. generate their own profit and revenue.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Two of those three pictures on the intro are of liberal operatives who use to work for Democrats in office. The other was a just liberal activist before being a journalist.

Their producers and news directors are all even more liberal than they are.

Liberal bias is evident the staffing alone.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
H

hipsterdufus

Here are Sunday's guests on MTP - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA), Sen. John Warner (R-VA), and Rep. Peter King (R-NY)

If it's Sunday, It's Conservative.
 
Top Bottom