It's How You're Labeled, Not What You Say That Counts in Media Bias Study

Sunday morning public affairs shows on CBS, ABC and NBC are responsible for the fact that "our national debate – with all its consequences for policy and public opinion – has been pulled unmistakably to the right." At least that's the conclusion made in a new study released by Media Matters, which has found that the nearly 7,000 guests that appeared on those three networks' Sunday morning interview programs skew heavily toward the right-side of the political spectrum.

Media Matters – the media watchdog organization "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media" -- looked at each guest on CBS' "Face The Nation," ABC's "This Week" and NBC's "Meet The Press" for the years of 1997 through 2005 and classified each with one of the following designations: Democrat, Republican, Progressive, Conservative or Neutral. Among the 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.

You can read the entire report and its findings here (Adobe Acrobat required), but I want to focus on the methodology for the moment, particularly this part:

Our goal in designing the methodology for this study was to ensure that the classifications would be as unambiguous and defensible as possible, even to those who profoundly disagree with the goals of our organization.

Readers should be clear on what we did not do: These classifications do not represent an analysis of what each person actually said when she/he appeared on a show on a given date. Coding each guest's comments for their ideological slant would have introduced enormous difficulties and opportunities for subjectivity. Instead, we simply classified each guest based on her/his general partisan or ideological orientation.

While the study acknowledges many of the difficulties in relying on this cataloguing of guests, the most obvious and troubling goes unaddressed – the intra-party dynamic. For example, while Media Matters says it classified former Democratic Senator Zell Miller as a "conservative" for his role as an outspoken critic of his own party, the study also makes much of the fact that Republican Senator John McCain has appeared 174 times in the period covered. There's no doubt whatsoever that Miller supported President Bush's re-election and appeared on these programs as an advocate of his policies, particularly on the war. There's also no doubt that John McCain has built his career largely on being a "maverick" within his own party and someone the media traditionally turns to for Republican-on-Republican criticism.

Let's not forget that such was the tension between the Bush and McCain camps that John Kerry tried to woo the Arizona Senator onto the Democratic ticket. Now, McCain is certainly very conservative, depending on how you want to define that, on a great many issues important to most Republicans, but he has also been at odds with them on many occasions. Remember his speech criticizing the religious right during his 2000 presidential campaign? While his support of the war in Iraq has never wavered, he has served as a frequent critic of the implementation of the war and has been particularly critical of the number of troops in Iraq, which he's long called for an increase in.

The same is true of many of the other guests interviewed on these programs. Democrats Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman appeared 80 times and 64 times respectively between 1997 and 2005. And while they may both belong to the same party, it's fair to say that Lieberman has been out of step with his from time to time. Republican Chuck Hagel has been on 48 times, often as a critic of his own party – a sort of McCain in the making.

And when it comes to categorizing journalists on the panels, I'm not sure how that works. I'll certainly buy columnist Bob Novak as a conservative, but I think you'd get some real arguments from Republicans by classifying David Broder as a "centrist." Even commentators like David Brooks, the "conservative" columnist for The New York Times, don't always march in ideological lockstep with any particular party (remember when he said conservatives should "insist" on having gay marriages as the moral thing to do?).

The question is, what real conclusions can be drawn from a study examining labels rather than what was actually said? Are all public officials, commentators and even journalists simple automatons, spitting out the party line without independent thoughts of their own? Are we to strip them all of independent thought? If not, what are the percentages we should apply? Is David Brooks 90% conservative, 10% independent? What about the others? True, all too often the Sunday Shows devolve into party-line bickering but that is not always the case. Indeed, political news thrives on conflict, but there is no conflict better or more newsy than when someone criticizes their own party.

There are those who have and will continue to argue that the results of this study reflect the fact that Republicans have controlled Congress for the entire duration included in it and the White House for half of it. Because of that fact, Republicans have largely set the policy agenda in Washington and have appeared more often both to promote and defend that agenda (not to mention to address troubling questions that come with power, such as the federal response to Hurricane Katrina or answering questions about weapons of mass destruction or grand jury investigations). And the report addresses that issue as well.

I'll let them make those arguments, as they surely will, and we'll look in on the argument as it unfolds, as it surely will. But in order to really get a clear picture of content of the "national debate" that takes place on these Sunday shows, it seems to me important to know what that content is, not simply who the guests are.

[peterbaldwin-2009]

I figured out why the White House doctors came out with the bogus story of a silent heart attack, while admiting that his coronary arteries were also (impossibly) fine. If the victim was to die, then Chaney's contrived defense will be that the guy died of a heart attack only indirectly related to the gunshot wound (the only migration of pellets that occured was from the muzzle of the shotgun to the victims heart in less than a second. See Times story.) rather than from being shot in the heart. Very clever and very Rovian.

[feckless1]

Mr. Ververs, Are you saying that both parties are ideologically indistinguishable? Leaving out the question of progressive and conservative classification, shouldn't an equal representation of the two political parties be your program's goal? By population the country is split roughly 50-50, even if the GOP controls the government, shouldn't your guests reflect your audience? PS DJMAN1142- the study you cite as demonstrating left wing media bias classified the Wall Street Journal as a liberal newspaper. Need I say more?

[richardmathews]

McCain has been labeled as a "maverick" and even as a "moderate," yet the American Conservative Union still gives him a lifetime rating of 83%. The John Birch Society have him 90% in 2004. He got 0% in 2005 from NARAL versus 82% in 2003-2004 from the National Right to Life Committee. He received 90% from the Americans for Tax Reform in 2004. The Christian Coalition gave him 83% that year. NAACP gave him 5% in 2005. There are a few areas such as guns and environment where he scores in the middle, but nowhere does he get any good liberal scores. McCain is a conservative Republican who has managed through his personal hatred of Bush to build an undeserved reputation for being a little bit moderate. His voting record reveals his true conservative credentials.

[dayton1959]

For a though smack down VV belly aching. http://mediamatters.org/items/200602150009 Is he even serious about complaining about Zell Miller being a conservative? This shows how one sided his thinking is. How about instead of arguing you try to have some parity in your shows?

[hs_nc]

Did anyone see this? Should be interesting for both sides of the bias debate. Interested to see what info comes out of it: anyone have a link to the Sun article on it? Secret audiotapes of Saddam Hussein discussing ways to attack America with weapons of mass destruction will be the subject of an ABC "Nightline" program Wednesday night. The tapes are being called the "smoking gun" of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. The New York Sun reported that the tapes have been authenticated and currently are being reviewed by the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. "Saddam's tapes confirm he had active CW [chemical weapons] and BW [biological weapons] programs that were hidden from the UN." ABC's "Nightline" will air an "extensive report" on the tapes Wednesday night. The tapes are scheduled to be revealed to the public Saturday morning at the opening session of The Intelligence Summit, a conference which brings together intelligence professionals from around the world.

[brazucany]

Why is CBS being so defensive. There isn't much of an attempt to address these concerns, just to dismiss them. I read the MM study and found it compelling and fair. As in any study, you are free to disagree with the methodology and recommend a different one. But be sure that it will also have problems. In the balance, I think that MM did a good and fair job. Now, given the immediate reaction against it, I'm very suspicious of any study that CBS presents on this. After all, the "liberal" and "conservative" labels are subjective to a certain degree, so I would question their motives here. CBS, if you want to get to the bottom of this, why not hail the study as a good, but flawed initial step and address the issues. And, by the way, if both sides are complaining against bias, it just means that everyone thinks you are biased and your credibility is, by definition, zero. The goal is to be credible and focused on the facts.

[pjh_az]

One_American says: "What it attempts to explain, although it masks the truth, is the pendulum beginning to swing to the right, after 40 years of swinging much too far to the left." I disagree. As far as I can tell, the study attempts to EXPLAIN nothing. What it does do is attempt to DOCUMENT the shift which so many want to either deny, or with Orwellian or Naziesque hubris, claim the exact opposite i.e. that the media has a liberal bias. Interestingly, One_American doesn't seem to have any issue with the FACT of conservative trends. As for the trend towards correcting the swing to the left that happened 40 years ago... Wouldn't this be around the time of the Civil Rights era? Get over it. Minorities have and deserve rights. Stop daydreaming about the good old days when whites could expect blacks to sit at the back of the bus.

[memekiller]

Okay, Vince. Let's break it down by what your guests say. Now name some guests who have unapologetically opposed the war who get regular gigs on the Sunday shows. And how do those numbers stack up against those who support the war? How many unapologetic progressives and critics of Bush do you put on your show vs. those who unapologetically support the President on your show? Many of the times McCain is on, it's to support Bush's policy. Most of the time Leiberman and Biden are on, it's to support Bush policy but to do it "better". Using your criteria doesn't make you look any better. It just muddies the waters and makes it more difficult to quantify, which I'm guessing is the point.

[one_american]

This study means nothing. What it attempts to explain, although it masks the truth, is the pendulum beginning to swing to the right, after 40 years of swinging much too far to the left. The truth is that the people of this country are simply getting fed up with the dishonest policies and dirty, deceptive crybaby politics of the liberals, who have heavy support from the MSM, and who truly do not want to accomplish any good, but instead will say anything to anyone if it brings them power, money, or votes. This study is merely an attempt to stop the pendulum from swinging to the right, but much of the public is smart enough to see right through the deception.

[rainbowusa]

When are todays so called journalist going to stop being lazy and do some real investigating on theire own instead of just waiting for karl Rove to fax his talkging points? Mccain is a Neo-cons neo-Con and John kerry and All of his staff have said over and over again Kerry never considered Mcain for a running mate it was made up by the Likes Of Tim Russert and chris Matthews two REAL right wing media ???&*#