Matthew Yglesias » Who Gets Televised

Jan 29th, 2009 at 8:35 am

Who Gets Televised

New report from the ThinkProgress team shows Republicans outnumbered Democrats 2-1 on television discussing the stimulus plan, even though the House GOP minority is essentially powerless and irrelevant:

I think the basic way to understand TV booking practices is this. When the GOP is in power, it’s important to have more Republican guests because they’re the influential newsmakers. And when the GOP is out of power, it’s important to have more Republican guests to provide an alternative point-of-view to that presented by the powers that be.

Comments
45

45 Responses to “Who Gets Televised”

El Cid Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 8:47 am
You forget that one single appearance by Nancy Pelosi warps the space-time continuum so badly that they just have to pile on more Republicans, including the pleasant and friendly and sober legions of the Dick Armey, in order to prevent the Seventh Seal from breaking. Or barking. Whatever Seventh Seals do.
endless Ike Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 8:49 am
The networks figure they have enough democrats on TV…almost every talking head, journalist and “regular” on the program

ZING
Jake Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Matt:

Let’s take as a given your assertion that conservatives are way overrepresented on TV and in media coverage in general. Beyond the rationalizations given (and mocked in this post), why do you think this really happens? Is it another symptom of liberal media members overcompensating for potential bias? That doesn’t ring true for me here, because it’s not the reporters and low-level staffers, for the most part, who “cast” these people. It’s the higher-ups, who tend to be more conservative (so maybe we’re looking at straight-up media bias, but going in the opposite direction?).

Would like to hear your thoughts (and anyone else’s).
KJ Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 9:11 am
For all of its supposed liberal bias, the media does a fantastic job of hiding that fact.
Skeptic Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Jake,

Truth of the matter is that the ‘Liberal Media’ is a myth. Sure, a lot of journalists may self identify as liberal, but that’s only on and through meaningless ‘comfort’ issues, on practical policies they score center right to extreme right. Thus, ‘liberal journalists’ will support Martin Luther King day, but will oppose bussing, various forms of affirmative action, pay equity, etc. They’re all for social justice, as long as there’s no cost to the status quo. It’s the same down the line, they sympathize with the poor, but they oppose social programs, government spending, etc. They believe in Women’s rights, but are ambivalent about the right to choose, etc.

The truth of the matter is that journalists as a whole are part of a comfortable and privileged class, and the more important and influential they become, the more comfortable and privileged. Which explains why Bob Woodward’s tongue was so far up the Bush Administration’s ass.

What’s truly remarkable about American journalism is how ineffectual it has become and how it so slavishly serves the interests of money and power. Remember Iran/Contra? A story that happened in the central halls of Washington, a secret government run by bumbling amateurs and keystone kops… yet, it was a newspaper in Lebanon that broke the story. The most recent atrocity: The fact that a newspaper had *actual proof that the government was engaged in a lawbreaking campaign to spy on American citizens* and then decided to cover it up for a year so as to avoid influencing an election.

The truth is that American Journalists are servants of wealth, and they’re dedicated to not rocking that boat. Their causes and underlying ideology are fundamentally reactionary. That’s your grass roots.

The further up the chain of command it goes, the further into corporate power structures, the more pronounced and naked it is. At this point, we might as well just write off the media as an adjunct to the Republican party.
Adrock Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Let’s take as a given your assertion that conservatives are way overrepresented on TV and in media coverage in general.

Uh, its not an assertion, its a fact. Did you see the graph and follow the link?

I watch PBS Newhour mostly and the report about the crafting of the stimulus bill and the impending vote was strictly about support of Republicans members. There were at least 6-8 different Rethugs and the only response in the story was a video statement from Pelosi saying those allegations are false. That’s it. Newshour then went on to analyze whether the Democrats should compromise and how brilliant Obama is for attempting to do so. Come fricking on. There was little mentioned about whether compromises were even the right thing to do economically.
Jake Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Adrock, I just wanted to skip the part where some contrarian comes along and argues the point. I’m not saying I disagree with the assertion–in fact, just for the sake of clarity, I think the assertion is accurate.

My point is, having established that the GOP is overrepresented in media, I want to know why it works that way.
Mark Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 9:23 am
One implicit assumption in all of these media bias reports is that the network bookers, whomever they may be, are gate keepers and are responsible for the lopsided numbers.

There is an alternative checkpoint that we are overlooking – the interest democratic representatives and senators have for going on cable news shows. Maybe, in general, Democrats don’t have any interest in appearing on these shows? Colbert gets a lot more Democrats than Republicans to take part in his “Better Know A District” series. Is this because he is bias, or because Republicans are, in general, would prefer not to be asked to say things like, “I enjoy the company of prostitutes for the following reasons: …oh, because it’s a fun thing to do. Much like cocaine. If you combine the two together, it’s probably even more fun.”

Perhaps Democrats, in general, prefer not to appear on the cable news shows because they don’t want to be asked the typical inane questions.

I’m not sure how likely this possibility is, but it should be considered.
Mark Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Correction: It is not an implicit assumption in the reports themselves, but in all of the above interpretations.
The Fool Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 9:31 am
You gotta love that SCLM:

Heads the liberals lose, tails the conservatives win.
NSinNY Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 9:43 am
I think the main cause is that conservative. moneyed corporate institutions can be expected to favor conservative, moneyed media, even if individual employees of those institutions are not conservative or moneyed.

But these numbers are skewed far beyond what I would normally expect. How much of this is a decision by House and Senate Democrats to let Obama take on the burden of selling the stimulus, while Republicans are all trying to outdo each other by demagoguing it (a la the 1993-94 healthcare debacle).
An Outhouse Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Isn’t possible that no Democrats were willing to appear?
Don Williams Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Re the News Media’s “liberal bias” I expect to see our multi-millionaire TV news anchors leading a Bolshevik mob any day now.
Joined by their multi-millionaire CEO bosses.

All demanding that Obama raise taxes on the rich.
Stuck Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 9:48 am
New report from the ThinkProgress team shows Republicans outnumbered Democrats 2-1 on television discussing the stimulus plan, even though the House GOP minority is essentially powerless and irrelevant:

I can’t remember a buildup to a big vote being more one sided in partisan punditry. It’s only surprising that the ratio was just 2 to 1 more repubs, with all of them sounding like freshly, or not so freshly, programmed bots crowing in unison. “More tax cuts”. It looks like dems are getting a good jump on PR complacency this congress.
mark f Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Perhaps Democrats, in general, prefer not to appear on the cable news shows because they don’t want to be asked the typical inane questions.

Who gives a shit? It’s their job to get out there and present their case.

I don’t have an iPod, so I drive to work listening to the radio. Today I heard Imus talking about how Barney Frank is responsible “for this whole mess.” So I switched to the shitty rock station, which has a “wacky” shock-jock morning program. Obama wants to apologize to al-Qaeda, apparently. On AM sports talk, they were talking about how the stimulus package is a give away to left-wing rich kids that get NEA grants and $4 billion to ACORN. And that’s before Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Graham, and Jay Severin take over.

If Democrats aren’t all over the media available to them, the right-wing spin is all anyone hears.
Skeptic Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Jake, you might as well take a look at corporate concentration in the media. It is the great unreported story.

The only politician in the last few decades who has ever dared to even broach the matter was Howard Dean, back in 2004, when his campaign was an unstoppable force. Within two weeks of that, the ‘Dean scream’ played 1800 times in five days. Draw your own conclusion.
Nathan Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Makes sense, most liberal policies are undefendable in a real debate.

I wonder if they averaged it for total air times also. There’s about 100 ways these statistic can be mislabeled.
Ted Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 10:07 am
I think Josh Marshall has got the right approach to this — and has solved a puzzle that’s been bothering me forever.

“Bias” is the wrong way to think about it. News is an entertainment business, so the problem is caused less by conscious opinions than by assumptions about “what counts as surprising.” In any case, the upshot is that Republicans get graded “on a curve,” as JMM puts it. Everyone realizes that Republicans peddle spin and throw stinky red herrings. That’s just what they do! On some level, they’re not even taken seriously as civil servants, because their ideology is not to govern but to mock government — see Dick Armey’s clownish appearance yesterday. And the media is happy to collude in this, because it’s a lot more fun to have clownish arguments over stinky red herrings than it is to grapple with the details of investment replacement ratios or what have you. Instead of talking about “bias,” we really need to dig into this unconscious synergy between the entertainment-orientation of the media and a the cynicism of the Republican party.

Josh says Republicans “get graded on a curve.” The phrase I would apply is “the soft bigotry of low expectations.”
JimboSlice Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 10:09 am
The reason for this is simple: staff members for Dem Congressmen spend their time helping constituents and preparing their boss for legislation. Staff members for Repug Congressmen spend their time booking their boss on shows and preparing their boss for going on air.
Tyro Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 10:13 am
most liberal policies are undefendable in a real debate

Are you calling cable news programs a source of “real debate”? The last “real debates” we had on policies resulted in the election of Barack Obama.

cable selects for talking heads of the rather unusual/bizarre variety, which is why people like Dick Morris get a lot of airtime: there’s more entertainment value there.
mister man Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 10:17 am
This is silly and paranoid. Obama was the democratic spokesman for this package. He dominated the news. It makes sense to give the republicans congress-people time for their side.
Jeff S. Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 10:18 am
A few commenters have hit on a part of the answer, which is that Dems in general are less available and more media-shy than their Rep counterparts. I mean, look at Chuck Schumer.

Bwah-hahahaha.

Actually, Ted more or less nails it. Too many Dems want to talk policy and what not. From a cable news perspective: BOORING! Reps, OTOH, tend to fling poo. Dittoheads love it! Liberals get agitated and write blog posts! Ratings go up! Everybody wins!
Nathan Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Populist grandstanding is not really a real policy per se.

Yes, John McCain’s “war” policy lost out to Barrack Obama’s infantile “change” policy, but I’m not sure that is what can be described as a debate.
Jeff S. Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 10:20 am
This is silly and paranoid. Obama was the democratic spokesman for this package. He dominated the news. It makes sense to give the republicans congress-people time for their side.

Then why did Republicans dominate the talk shows during the 8 years of Bush, both when they controlled congress and when they didn’t?
Duh Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 10:23 am
its because they want to make the republicans look stupid.
Ben Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Artificially limiting the categories of those talking to the press to Congressmen is a bit silly. Especially since the Democratic Party is led by the White House on this. I would also note that though the left has pushed ahead on the internet, the Republicans probably still totally own them in getting the message out in most older media. The Democratic Party still contains a lot of the elements that led to its craptacular 2000 and 2004 performances.
Tyro Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Nathan, you miss the point entirely, blinded by your literacy problems.

(a) cable is not anyplace for formal debate

(b) the one time we had formal debates where the candidates presented their policies in a debate forum, the more liberal one came out on top. So, yes, liberal policies do seem defensible in a way that conservative policies are not when forced into a formal side-by-side comparison.

Conservatism is the domain of the loudmouths and those willing to say any old crazy crap without shame. Liberals get obsessed with policy details. Republicans make better TV and are convinced of the importance of making good TV and don’t have any shame about saying stupid stuff. As Nathan shows, they even have infantile admirers for being that way.
Tyro Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Ben, the question is why the TV stations are choosing to have a policy of almost complete republican dominance of spokespeople on their news forums, regardless of who’s in charge at any given time.
Ben Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Tyro, why do you assume that a) a Democratic Congressman would be more interesting and informative than our current, incredibly talented President or another administration official or, say, Paul Krugman; and b) that the Democratic Party, for the most part, is not just as bad as it always has been when it comes to old media. The Democrats are traditionally really, really bad at getting their idea out. Obama is really good at it, but he isn’t the whole party.

Also, Democratic politicians tend to be really dull and pull punches. Most of them don’t make for such good TV.
Njorl Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Then why did Republicans dominate the talk shows during the 8 years of Bush, both when they controlled congress and when they didn’t?

After Bush spoke, they needed Republican spokesmen to say what the hell he meant.
Jeff S. Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 10:45 am
After Bush spoke, they needed Republican spokesmen to say what the hell he meant.
Jeff S. Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 10:49 am
After Bush spoke, they needed Republican spokesmen to say what the hell he meant.

Now, that’s a valid point! However, more often than not, it wasn’t the Oracle of Crawford who proclaimed the WH line but rather one of his toadies.
Adrock Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Ben, as I referenced in my anecdote above, the Democratic Congress just didn’t come off all that well, regardless of whether Obama was pushing it or not. Frankly, all I saw of Obama was capitulation to Republican wishes. Congress is ultimately responsible for crafting this thing and the Democrats must – MUST – be careful to win the public relations war of this in order to preserve progressive values for the future. There is just too much at stake.
cleek Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Democrats must – MUST – be careful to win the public relations war

then we need a plan-B. because:

a) the media doesn’t care what Dems have to say
b) which might be for the better since Dems are absolutely terrible at saying anything
c) the media wants more than anything to write about how Obama is failing to win GOP support, and knowing this, the GOP is more than happy to craft that story for them.
pseudonymous in nc Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
What Jeff S. said. Republicans have mastered the art of giving cablenewsers the equivalent to live high-speed car-chase footage during the dull daytime hours.

Should the Dems play that game? I’m not convinced, other than the extent to which that kind of amateur dramatics works the refs, and leads to journalists framing the day’s news in stupid ways, because they’ve become dependent upon writing up the cable soap opera as if it were news.
pseudonymous in nc Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
a show that had a Republican Congressman debating an Obama Administration official would appear on the chart to be solely Republican, when that is simply not the case.

That is, however, completely hypothetical: administration officials have not been debating GOP members of Congress, because they have more important things to do. The Congressional GOP, on the other hand, considers it the ‘people’s work’ to stage media theatre twice daily for the benefit of the cablenewsers.
Tyro Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Should the Dems play that game?

It certainly is possible that what is considered “adult” and “responsible” opinion is influenced by who are flooding the zone with narratives for the rest of the media to pick up on. I can think of instances where this didn’t work when it came to public opinion (eg, impeachment, when public opinion was heavily on clinton’s side even when the punditocracy wasn’t).

The Republicans are working the refs, and I can’t help but worry that they’re normalizing certain fringe points of view and giving free reign to do so. That’s why I think the Dems might want to play that game. They can’t always could on the public being out of step with the media narratives being constructed.
Stuck Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
But of course this does not take into account television appearances by members of the Obama Administration – who are 100% Democratic.

All I know is that every time I turned on a cable news channel there was a wingnut congress person of one stripe or another, saying we need mo’ tax cuts. But your point is taken Al. It would be a great service to mankind if you got right on the case and make your own study. I didn’t see that many actual members of the Obama Administration, say versus GOP congressfolks, but your sleuthing will uncover the truth I’m sure.
free movies Says:
February 11th, 2009 at 8:12 am
a show that had a Republican Congressman debating an Obama Administration official would appear on the chart to be solely Republican, when that is simply not the case.

Matt Yglesias

Who Gets Televised

45 Responses to “Who Gets Televised”

Blogroll