Failing at its "No. 1 goal"Lack of balance at C-SPAN’s Wash Journal

[kpete]

Washington Right Wing Journal


FAIR confirms what must of us long knew - WJ leans more than just a little bit right.

Out of the 205 partisan guests, Republicans outnumbered Democrats nearly two to one (134 to 70): Republicans accounted for 65 percent of Washington Journal’s partisan guests, while Democrats made up 34 percent. No representative of a third party appeared during the study period.


Elected officials who appeared on Washington Journal were slightly more balanced than overall partisan guests. Of the 97 elected officials appearing on the show (senators and House members), 58 were Republican and 39 were Democrat—a 60 to 40 percent imbalance in favor of the GOP.


Despite its declaration of balance, the Washington Journal hosted journalists from right-leaning opinion magazines more often than it did those from the left. For instance, the conservative Weekly Standard furnished three guests, as did the like-minded National Review (including National Review Online). Only two guests from the liberal American Prospect were invited on the Journal, and only one guest from the left-leaning Nation.
http://atrios.blogspot.com/
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2764

[Dinger]

1. Good Catch kpete - Let's Call In EVERY FUCKING DAY And Hit 'Em

with this - HARD!!!!!!!!!!! They have open phones - every day!!

[Dinger]

2. Oh Yeah - Kick & Nominate! (Please) (nt)

[calimary]

23. Done, both ways.

Good to see our verdict on this affirmed. OF COURSE it's biased toward the wrong wing.

[xchrom]

3. kick

and nominated.

[11 Bravo]

4. Nice catch!

Anyone who watches already suspected this, but it's nice to have hard numbers to argue with. (Kicked and nominated)

[stillcool]

5. No more televised news in America...

it's all bull. My reaction to hearing the contamination spewed got so bad ..I can't live with a consuming rage at things that aren't even real.

[TahitiNut]

6. There seems to be a similar bias on call screening as well.

The myth (i.e. LIE) of a "liberal media" is abominable.

[Dinger]

7. I'd Like To See The Same Analysis Of MTP

You know with "Clinton's Cock" Timmy?

[patdem]

8. We need to e-mail C-Span to have Steve Rendall on FRIDAY

any Friday with Brian Lamb..and let the bushbot Brian defend his stance! That I would LOVE to see!

[patdem]

11. The article suggests to 'e-mail to a friend' I sent to WJ producers

the e-mail address was journal @ c-span.org..then it had <journal @ c-span.org> so I had to delete the <journal @ c-span.org> before it would send.

[Al-CIAda]

9. K&R

[Dinger]

10. I'm Sending This To Media Matters

, and whoever else I want - while I still can!

[CatWoman]

12. SoCalDem hit it some time ago

when she referred to Fridays as "Fascist Fridays"

[MagickMuffin]

13. It so obvious

I noticed after * got in office they changed the call in info

Support Bush 202.---------
Support Dem's 202.---------
Support Others 202.---------

They gave a rather lame excuse why they were doing it this way. Although I can't remember what it was, I believe it was something along the lines of "Well we are only doing this because the callers are calling pretending to be Republicans, so we are switching it to keep other people from using this line to trick us." Again I'm ab-libbing(?)

Then I noticed during last years election, people were calling in complaining about it, and every time they would inform the callers that they were just doing it for the election.

The other day I happened to tune in and it seems to me they are still doing the phone lines the same way they have been doing since * took office. Of course they will continue to deny that they are leaning to the right.

It's unfortunate that they have shown their true colors (red), However I don't know if all the host are red or just some of them; out of all the host I like Susan the most, although I admit I haven't watched in quite a while since I lost my job.
And the Freepers who always called in are the most ill-informed bunch of people I have ever had to listen to, especially if the host started asking them questions, if they didn't have a polished answer from their talking points, they would always turn to their Clinton blah, blah, blah, Clinton, blah, blah, blah, Clinton, blah, blah, blah, Clinton!

[immoderate]

15. I'll defend C-SPAN on the phone lines question...

If they do Democrats vs. Republicans on the phone lines, then most of the Republican calls are in the form: "I'm a Republican but I disagree with the president on blah, blah...." The fact is that people with a beef heavily outnumber other callers. The set up the lines to have an even discussion. Whether they actually do or not remains to be seen.

As far as the other stats, that is upsetting, and they should be called on it. There should be parity in their guest selection.

--IMM

[itzamirakul]

18. Yes, people do seem to disagree with Bush, but what I noticed is that

Brian Lamb will get very arrogant and demanding when people say anything about Bush that is negative. In fact, ALL of the hosts seem to have their noses in the air in some sort of imperious manner.

Another thing is that no one is allowed to say ANYTHING about Israel.

Now that there is discussion about pulling out American troops, the hosts keep talking about "keeping order in the region" and protecting our "allies" but they are frightened to actually come out and say that one major reason we cannot leave is because Israel doesn't want us to go.

[immoderate]

20. I am mostly in agreement with you.

And I don't want to seem like an apologist for WJ. But you've hit upon some of the trickiest issues they come up against.

First, it's hard to be absolutely neutral, and there will always be complaints no matter what they do. When Bush was riding high, they got phone calls every day saying, (for instance) "Since Bush's approval ratings are 70%, then 70% of the phone calls should be pro-Bush. These people were dispatched. I note that the same people are NOT calling now saying 32% of the phone calls should be pro-Bush.

The Israel question is also tricky. They will allow discussion of Israel but want to weed out the standard anti-Semitic "Jews are in charge of everything" phone calls. This is difficult, and I say that as a person who is ethnically, but not religiously, Jewish and not Zionist. And while I don't support Israel to the extent that they are a theocracy and discriminatory, I also don't want people to be bulldozed into the sea. (It's tough being a Jewish atheist.)

I still think that WJ aims to be non-partisan and admire the extent to which they carry it off.

Bottom line though, they must be balanced with their guests.

--IMM

[julianer]

28. Well you have to be careful

what you say about Israel/Palestine on DU. I've been censored for suggesting that a certain party beginning with H was a legitimate representative of the P people - they vote them into office, anyway.

But this is unsayable. I remember the furore here about the association of the Washington anti-war protest with Israel/Palestine - an obvious and natural link to most in the world but very upsetting for some DU'ers.

It's a taboo subject.

[itzamirakul]

30. Yes, I think most of us have noticed the fact that Israeli affairs are off

table when it comes to discussing the Middle East...whether on C-Span or here on DU.

The awkward thing is that Israel is such a vital part of what is taking place in the world that it is impossible to come to some kind of peaceful accord without discussion of that nation's affairs, security, health, economy, etc.

Getting back to C-Span, I have watched Brian Lamb actually cut people off the phone for even mentioning Israel during their phone call. He often does not even give them a chance to say something that might even be beneficial for our understanding of that country's woes.

But more than anything, it is the supercilious arrogance in the demeanor of Lamb and the Pedro Rodriguez gentleman that turns me off. They speak to liberals in such a condescending manner. But of course, they claim to be fair.

[MagickMuffin]

19. I'll have to disagree about the labels

So, what if there are Repubs who are upset at their choice for president. They have to dance with the ones who brought them, and they should be allowed to voice their outrage if he keeps stepping on their toes because of his two right feet.

However how are we to judge the outrage that some Repubs have concerning their party's leader. C-Span didn't adopt that line of reasoning with the Clinton presidency.

There were a lot of Dems who didn't approve of some of Clinton's actions (not talking about ML), I am one of those people. I didn't think he was doing enough on domestic issues that have been democratic issues for decades.

But to imply that because you don't agree with the president who happens to be the leader of your party is disingenuous. It gives the illusion that everyone within the Repub party are all in favor of their leader.

But with this presidency it's all about illusions!

[immoderate]

21. Last thing I want to do is defend Bush.

Brian did a demonstration one morning showing that the vast majority of calls were from people with a complaint. This would certainly satisfy us now, because almost all calls would be bashing Bush if they were unrestricted. But their aim is not to represent the trends, but to balance the discussion.

Think about the Congress. They give 50% of time to each side of a bill, even when they know the vote may be stremely lopsided. Otherwise the minority view would not get a fair chance in the debate.

Again, I don't defend Bush, and I had my qualms with some Clinton policies too, but they are trying to balance the discussion. Many times our aims are promoted by this, because people who call to defend Bush only succeed in demonstrating how stupid they are.

--IMM

[MagickMuffin]

24. Well at least we agree on some things

<<because people who call to defend Bush only succeed in demonstrating how stupid they are.>>

Yes they tend to show their stupidity by usually spewing their RW talking points.
It doesn't take long to figure that out.

Because c-span chooses to have the Support Bush line, it is hard to gauge how many Repubs feel disenfranchised by their very own party.
The only way to know is if they call in on the Others line and state the fact that they are a Repub and that they do not support Bush.

[immoderate]

26. We agree on that too.

They are not trying to show how much support either way.

They are trying to allocate equal time to both sides of the issue. Even the unpopular side gets equal time to present it's argument.

--IMM

[ananda]

14. Yes, I've noticed..

It's made me wonder who owns C-SPAN.

Their rightwing guests are more frequent and get a lot more talk and callin time.

[LunaC]

16. It's the phone call ratio too

If only 33% of the population approves of Bush, why do the Repugs get 50% of the call-ins?

[1932]

17. Before 2000 election, they took calls by time zone, which produced way

more Democrats calling in.

To help Republicans get their calls on, they switched to taking calls by party (Republlican, Democrat, and Independent (which I'm sure they expected to be 50:50 liberal:conservative)).

It was the only way to make sure that a lot of conservatives got to talk (and to give them a voice that is disproportionate to the percentage of conservatives who actually call in).

[SoCalDem]

22. WJ's "neighbor" downstairs is FOX News

I'm sure Fox is only too happy to provide a last minute "guest" or to piggyback appearances for the guests they use regularly..ie. an appearance at C-span and an elevator ride downstairs for a videotaped guest shot there...

DC is loaded to the gills with right wing stink-tanks with hundreds of "experts", just chomping at the bit to go on tv and spout their latest "thoughts"..

Brian Lamb is a republican..

Whenever a partisan democrat is a guest, there is usually a counterpart. When republican partisans are invited, they have the whole timeframe to themselves..

When c-span had their 25th year celebration ...24 hr call in show.. Randi Rhodes was not an "in-studio guest, but that freakazoid Parsifal was sitting right there and did her usual interrupt- routine.

The other republican guests throughout that day were unopposed..

Brian also is famous for interrupting people on the phone, just as they are about to get to their most salient point..he interrupts them with a question, and then cuts them off as the try to answer his question..

This is why it's so important when we call to say the most important thing FIRST..never count on being able to say more than a few sentences.. Write out your thoughts and practice them while you hold.As soon as you hear your name, don't waste your precious time by thanking them for c-span or even saying good morning..

Have your sources ready in case he asks "where did you read that?"..

[MagickMuffin]

25. A well thought out message always gets the audience's attention

at least in my world. I could always tell who seemed the most informed.

And yes if you watch at how the host will always have their hands on the phone, ready to launch into action to cut someone off as soon as they start making a point.
Happens every time.

I didn't know that they were in the same building as Faux, now I have a better understanding of what has been happening at c-span.

Thanks for offering pointers/tips on how to approach the time restraints.

[Gregorian]

27. Dems get cut short, also.

In the beginning, so it has been said, Cspan was watched primarily by Republicans. They seemed to eat the channel up. I think we know why, now.
It's much easier to disguise bias in the form of a Republican than in the form of a Democrat. That's an off-the-top-of-my-head thought. And I think it's true. Just don't say anything. Just ignore something. And it seems nonbiased by virtue of silence.

Satan is a Republican.

[xchrom]

29. kick

[Dinger]

31. Heads Up: Call In This Morning And Rremind C-Span To Fess Up:

Call-In Numbers
Support Democrats:
[phone]
Support Pres. Bush:
(--- --- ----)
Support Others:
[phone]
Outside U.S.:
[phone]
Email:
[email protected]

[Donailin]

32. Point/Counterpoint

is what the Journal used to do, and callers are increasingly mentioning this. The way they set up the phone lines is also indicative of a bias. There are three lines:

Support Bush
Support Dems
Independants

Instead of taking calls in that order they take them like this:

Support Bush
Support Dems
Support Bush
Support Independants

and to be even more unbalanced they rarely say what line people are calling in on so that the inbalance is difficult to ascertain.

Brain Lamb is a political Hack, I notice his pencahnt for guests that constantly refer to "Islama-fascists" as the enemy we are at war with.
He apparwently buys into the theory that we are in some sort of holy war. Very simple-minded and very wrong and very dangerous because it is not the case, but it IS what these epeople would like to think so as to nullify any guilt and avoid critical thought of extremely complicated matters.

Just the fact that he has Richard Pearle on so often speaks volumes.