Study Underscores Right Wing Bias of C-SPAN

Iposted about this a few days ago and someone else here was trying to tell me how even they felt C-SPAN coverage was. I wondered at the time what planet that DUer was getting her/his cable from because they clearly weren't watching the same C-SPAN I was. Here's the data to back it up.*Left of center* think tank coverage is less than 20%. I believe that mindset carries through in all of C-SPANS programming, particularly Book-TV.
--###--

original-cepr

Tilting Rightward: C-SPAN's Coverage of Think Tanks

December 2007, Juan Antonio Montecino and Mark Weisbrot

This study’s main finding is that C-SPAN coverage of think tanks overwhelmingly favors conservative think tanks while left-of-center think tanks are under-represented. In 2006, conservative think tanks received 43.76 percent of total think tank coverage. Conservative/ libertarian and centrist think tanks received 6.94 percent and 31.76 percent respectively. Center-left and progressive think tanks, on the other hand, only received 12.73 percent and 4.86 percent respectively. Thus, the combined conservative and conservative/libertarian think tanks got an absolute majority of 50.7 percent representation on C-SPAN. Everything left of center got only 17.59 percent, just one third of the coverage received by the Right.

C-SPAN’s coverage of think tanks suggests it has failed to fulfill its mission to provide “a balanced presentation of points of view.” A review of recent polls also suggests that C-SPAN’s coverage of think tanks is not only off-balance in absolute numerical terms but also relative to public opinion in a wide range of political issues.

















complete article including links to the full study in PDF and a short brief here

choose what I watch at other times. I do have one question though that may play into this. How many RW think tanks are there compared to those center or left? The reason I ask is if there are many more RW think tanks (which I think there are), for cspan to give them all coverage would account for the reason why so many more W are aired.

theyre about as fair and balanced as a Democratic debate.

:shrug:

Or do you mean when the live House and Senate sessions are playing???

:shrug:

I know of at least 2 hour long interviews she got to herself. Granted I will give you the Janet Parshell incident.

The same cannot be said of CNN.

"Liberal facists" FOUR times. FOUR TIMES when they have tons of other material they could air.

There is a definite bias.

Are they biased?

Please, this is ridiculous.

If Randi Rhodes says she loves CSPAN, I trust her judgement that it is NOT BIASED.

Failing at Its "No. 1 Goal"
Lack of balance at C-SPAN’s Washington Journal

By Steve Rendall

Since 1979, C-SPAN has provided an invaluable service to viewers with its no-frills coverage of congressional hearings, press briefings, demonstrations, book readings and other political events. By presenting public affairs with a minimal intrusion by hosts or reporters, C-SPAN has gained a reputation as a frictionless conveyer of raw political information to the public.

In 2005, C-SPAN celebrated the 25th anniversary of the first-ever nationally televised viewer call-in shows, a format that it introduced in October 1980. By January 1995, it launched Washington Journal, a political talkshow that C-SPAN now describes as its “flagship viewer call-in program.”

Airing seven mornings a week, usually three hours per day, Washington Journal generally features a host, guests and viewer calls. Guests usually appear one at a time, though they are occasionally paired. C-SPAN’s “open phone” segments also allow callers a chance to voice a broad spectrum of opinions with no guests present.

Washington Journal’s reputation for maintaining a low-key atmosphere for serious discussion is matched by its image of fairness. The New York Times (12/15/96) once described C-SPAN as “the politically neutral public-affairs cable channel,” and NPR’s Mike Pesca (On the Media, 4/6/02) declared that balance was the key to the network’s success: “This bare-bones, aggressively evenhanded format is why C-SPAN was founded and probably why 8 million people a week watch Washington Journal.”

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2764

...that belongs in the same category along with military intelligence, compassionate conservative, and hamburger steak.

lol

I watched them long enough to judge over the last 18 years. They used to be much better. Now its just not even funny how they play it.

than to conservative hacks.

It's embarrassing already.

:shrug:

PFAW,ACLU,SPLC,EWG,HUMAN Rights coalition,Institute on Poverty Research, the list goes on and on. Maybe if C-SPAN picked up the phone and called somebody besides the Heritage foundation, the CATO Institute or the AEI it be common knowledge that there are, in fact, liberal and leftish think tanks out there and not just the GOPosse pseudo-intellectuals that Brian Lamb is so fond of giving rim jobs to.

I don't believe they are! I've seen the ACLU support the likes of Limbaugh when they felt he was being wronged! You are just throwing names out there and expecting me to believe you!

still perform many of the functions of a thinktank. They issue Opinions and briefs on subjects and make available to the public publications and materials that support a particular point of view. But if you don't like them on the list remove them, there's plenty more, and I didn't even begin to list the local tanks, the state, regional or city specific tanks.I'm not attempting to say that the liberal think tanks aren't out numbered, but it isn't as if they're non-existent which one could easily be forgiven for thinking so by watching C-SPAN coverage.And they have a mandate to provide equal coverage.That was part of the whole deal of how the cable companies got the use of public right-of-way.

and the right wing think tanks have a lot of influence


i cherish c-span for letting me see many of the meetings of the whackos (nice to know what youre up against)

There is no doubt about it if you are a regular watcher. They are better than everyone else, but they are not at all blameless.

centrist handholders having polite conversations with warmongering racists?
No. For every drooling pundit pushing a Malkin style agenda they would need
violent Marxist terrorists. For every Washington Times hack they would need
an Indymedia type independant reporter.
Is that what happens? Ever?
No. No matter how comforting you find some smooth name brand non-boat rocking columnist,
those people are worthless in terms of balance. They may be more of the actual problem
than the cartoon whack jobs like Coulter.

hucksters on BookTV in the same way they present works by laureates.

I'll never forget this one segment by a RW snake oil salesman that pretended to critique our school systems ("government schools") when he really wanted to sell software to school districts. His solution to everything was to have school children sit in front of computers with untrained monitors and deal with his low rent software. It was enough to make you :puke:

back when I got my thrills dialing C-SPAN, it was pretty obvious that republican callers were
on script, usually with the old reliable "I used to be a Democrat, but..."
and in such numbers it was nearly frightening. As I continued to rant against their bias, media manipulation by domestic diplomats, and C-SPAN's support for the top 2% of our nation, eventually I never got through again. Yeah, the phone would ring on their end, and the phone company eventually cuts you off. Try, try again. Never. Never.
"We dont screen caller ID" they would say.
Then we moved and got a new number.
Got on the first time I called.
And eventually the process repeated.
I had a tremendous stroke of luck when I got through to a threesome, Armstrong Williams, a reporter from Washington Times (go figure) who used to work for fabled blowback distributors Scripps Howard (go figure), and someone else of relevance to my three points. I crucified them all, and basically by blind luck. Williams of course, was a fish in a barrel. If only Id known he was a sexually harrasing gay male govt paid operative.
Someday I'll try to upload some clips to You Tube.
Particularly my call in to Larry King the night before the 92 Republican Convention, his guest being
"those Bush boys" Jeb and Junior. Guess who called me a conspiracy theorist, after I dumped a bucket of blood in their laps live on Larry King? I just found that tape after it went missing for years. What a catharsis that was.
oh, the good old days.
Yeah C-SPAN, so fair. so balanced.

the Senate was vetting Torquemada. I called in as a Latina against him which they didn't much like because every time someone brought us his record, a Republican would counter with "but, he's Latino! This is HISTORIC!"

camo.

Another obvious move they made to keep things fair in their call ins. Aside from having their callins at 4AM left coast time, they eventually changed from different phone lines for different regions (East Coast, Central, and West Coast-correct me if Im wrong about that) to
Republicans, Democrats and Others. Guess who usually pops up on the "other" line...
"I used to be a Democrat but..."
Even without the third party line, this move was not exactly in the interests of fair access, and Im sure wasnt just a response to the Republican phone bank effect.
A really cool way they shut down discussion was by limiting the callers to "headline stories"
Very slick way to keep the topics where "they" want them. Who counts the votes? Who chooses the headlines? same deal, same losers. Its called collusion, (which couldnt be clearer than in the identical simultaneous stilted coverage of stories at the national and local level) and its against the rules as they were originally written.