Notice that the cable outfit with the highest percentage of Democratic lawmakers was Fox News. They are damn near "fair and balanced." CNN's producers should be ashamed of themselves. MSNBC, where the hell is that famous liberal bias?

My guess is the Republicans have an organized strategy to get on Cable. They have staff assigned to smooth the way. The Democrats, not so much.

The sad thing is we the American people need somebody to explain what is in the package. They really need Democratic lawmakers or people from the administration to give public briefings.

I wondered something similar when that fucker Eagleberger was on NPR this morning. My exact quote: "Why are they interviewing these Republican fuckers?"

cable news doesnt care squat about 'fair and balanced' or even 'good journalism' -- they want the howard beale reaction. they want viewers, and it will always be the emotionally unbalanced and neanderthal-perspective that brings in the eyeballs -- ka-ching! baby, just ka-ching!

This isn't anything new, only the excuses for it will be different. During the Bush years, the extremely lopsided bookings in favor of the GOP were because Democrats kept losing elections and the party in power always has the greater voice. Now that the party in power isn't Republican, the excuse will be that we need to give a fair hearing to a healthy opposition in a democracy, and what are you, some kind of elitist? They're called corporate media for a reason.

Maybe the explanation is that the Republicans have nothing to do the whole day but whine, while the Democrats are actually trying to get a stimulus bill in shape...

I've been watching CNN for the past hour and its totally infuriating. First it was some flack from CATO explaining how there is no way for the government to stimulate the economy beyond monetary policy. Next was a Lou Dobbs segment telling us about all the 'pork' in the stimulus bill. Apparently republicans are upset because there is some $$ in the bill for scientists and programs to study global warming. Lou also wondered how spending millions on an STD education program could stimulate the economy. Its as if nobody on the network or their guests have any idea of Keynes. Next was an interview with Ken Blackwell. I skipped paying attention to this segment for sanity reasons. New hour now, and they lead with clips of 3 republicans talking about the stim bill followed by a clip from Steney Hoyer. Next, a whole segment on 'GOP pushback'.

This is just from one hour of viewing! Nothing but republicans and a clip or two from a Robert Gibbs interview. The minority party is suddenly very important.

I'm with the 'TV prefers footage of trainwrecks, and the GOP is the best trainwreck around' faction. Until our members descend into chaotic madness, we'll never get the same eager coverage that producers will gladly hand Eric Cantor or John Boehner.

I mean really, you would ordinarily have to troll asylums to find a group of people so afflicted by paranoid chants (see: "9/11" and "Tax Cuts"). TV producers know where to find the crazies, and they love to give them airtime.

This question is easy to answer. The MSM is bought and paid for by big money. Did you miss how Bush got thru 8 years of raping the economy without a scratch?

What neill said. Bipartisanship doesn't sell soap as well as partisanship. So the cable networks are biased toward partisanship. And, for the moment, Republicans are far more willing to appear as partisan than Democrats. With Obama making overatures, it's easy to imagine many Democrats want to avoid the appearance of partisanship.

To add to SteveA's comment:

Look at WHO advertises on 24 HR News nets.
1) Drug Companies (boner pills mostly)
2) HMOs/Health Insurance
3) Financial institutions
4) Auto/Home/Life Insurance
5) Conglomerates like GE
6) Automakers

And who does not really stand to benefit from a majority Obama's policies?

See above.

So they, the newsies, will dance the dance of their advertisers.

It's not just the party affiliation that matters. If a Democrat appears on Fox, it's often to shake his or her head and lament how wrong Dems are on an issue. Now look at the Republicans who are on MSNBC, folks like Pat Buchanan or that creepy looking former McCain spokesman. These guys are permitted to spew the most ridiculous GOP talking points, regardless of how inaccurate or nasty. Try to imagine the Dem version of Pitchfork Pat of Scarborough on Fox. It's not going to happen. Even if the networks increase the number of Dems they host, I doubt the actual GOP tilt will change much.

The Republicans own the networks: they own the cable broadcasters; they own the satellite companies; they have "their people" in the top positions at NPR, and they own most of the big newspapers and national magazines.

This is what Democrats deserve when they always boast about taking the high road---they become Chamberlain with his "piece of paper" that "guarantees peace in out time", while the GOPers prepare for war.

Dems need to start thinking like a Churchill if they want to gain any meaningful traction....

matt lauer, this morning, on the nbc today show, sagely opined that house democrats should moderate their position to get republican cooperation on the stimulus bill.

what will it take for the conversation to change?

clearly, winning a presidential election isn't enough.

Jeez, you would think that with the advantage that the GOP has on camera time on cable news, that they would be a lot more powerful. Maybe, must maybe, the more people see of the GOP the less they like them. Maybe, just maybe, ordinary people don't like the bloviating politicians would preen and posture on TV. I hate all the Republicans I see on cable TV, but you know, I also don't like most of the Democrats either, and I am one.
Ordinary people are as distrusting and cynical and perceptive about what they see on TV as people who read blogs.

Dems need to start thinking like a Churchill if they want to gain any meaningful traction....

That's what I keep saying!

>"The MSM is bought and paid for by big money"

Bingo. Intregal part of a system that is structurally corrupt.

Who has the money and watches these stupid shows? Republicans, so that's who they market to. It's not rocket science, it's advertising.

The biggest scandal here is the failure of mainstream media to refute even the most absurd Republican positions. No need for fancy calculus, simply pointing out that "this is the ideology that got us into this mess in the first place" would be a good start. The entire foundation of the Republican program has become so patently dubious that it could fall appart as a house of card if it was properly and consistently challenged. But of course that outcome would be "unfair", a show of "bias", etc.

There should be laws passed about 'journalistic misconduct', and deliberate 'journalistic fraud'... if that were the case then all of these CORPORATE HEMMORIDS who hiss and spit like the CORPORATE FARTS that they are would be frogged marched out of the protection of their corporate studios and right into prison. Once there they should be turned into 'bitches' for the enjoyments of the inmates. THE CORPORATE MEDIA WILL BE THE DEATH OF OUR ONCE GREAT COUNTRY.

I agree with Buford that advertising has a lot to do with it. Who still gets their news from TV? Not younger, tech savvy, people with a college education. They have fled to the internet. It's the Depends crowd who still watches TV. This can be tiresome, but it is far worse news to the TV and cable stations than it is to the Democratic Party.

Some kind of "Fairness", one could say, is lacking.

Interesting - Fix News (FNC) has the highest proportion of Democratic lawmakers on air of all the channels.

ThinkProgress researched the issue and found that "the five cable news networks -- CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Fox Business and CNBC -- have hosted more Republican lawmakers to discuss the plan than Democrats by a 2 to 1 ratio this week."

Well, but this makes sense when you realize that Republicans have a 2 to 1 advantage over Democrats in Congres....oh, wait, what? Huh.

Steve Benen wrote: "... the on-air media kept talking about the stimulus debate from a decidedly Republican perspective."

It's not a "Republican perspective". It's the perspective of America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc. -- the giant corporations who own both the "on-air media" and the Republican Party. The "media" is their propaganda arm, and the Republican Party is their political arm, and both are used to further their ruthless, rapacious class warfare against everyone else.

The vapid "on-air personalities" and the vacuous "pundits" of the so-called "mainstream" media, and the corrupt, dishonest Republican politicians that they interview, both work for the same people.

You think the corporate media should feature more Democrats? Maybe you also think that GM's commercials should feature more Ford cars.

Why do "sensible liberals" forever whine so cluelessly about what's "wrong" with "the media"?

There is nothing wrong with "the media". America's corporate-owned media is working exactly as it is supposed to: making profits for, and propagandizing on behalf of, its corporate masters.

I was watching Matthews on MSNBC. He had three Republican lawmakers all agreeing with him that the stimilus package was Democrat pork and what we really need is more Bush style tax cuts. He did not have a single Democratic lawmaker to rebut. I turned it off. I won't be turning it back on.

First, on this specific short term issue of the stimulus, it is time for Obama to give his first prime-time national television address as President. No one would have the guts to not cover. He needs to make the argument to the public about what bipartisanship means and what he did, and how the Republicans responded.

Second, I know we keep making fun of the wingnuts obsession with the Fairness Doctrine, and the Dems keep denying an interest in reviving it, but if we keep seeing statistics like those above -- ones that are quite facially unfair -- perhaps we should make reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine a priority.

perhaps we should make reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine a priority

Ya think?

The real problem, as others have noted, is ownership. I've been saying for years that we ought to take dynamite to the media ownership structure. You could do it from a regulatory standpoint - mandate a maximum number of outlets owned, and put cable news into a mandatory a la carte tier (so dems don't have to keep paying for Fox News if they have satellite/cable). Also reimpose the Fairness Doctrine for broadcast.

What you are seeing is the natural result of allowing monied interests to buy up the media. It's way past time to do something about it.

This is why I don't watch or subscribe to *any* corporate media crapola - even MSNBC.

Every time Time Warner calls me and asks why I don't subscribe to cable I ask if Faux Spews is still part of their base cable package that I have to pay for. They say "yes" - and I say "that's why"!

I was wondering the same thing.

It's been very disturbing.

There's too much damn air-time to fill.
News is exploited, hyped and distorted.
It's really digressed to a circus side-show now.

I don't watch Chris Mathews at all anymore and I typically only tune in intermittently for headlines or to hear Obama speak or sign an important bill like the Lilly Ledbetter one he did this AM. :-)

I wait for the better shows like PBS News Hour, BBC World News--and then Olbermann and Maddow.

When Republicans were in the majority, and controlled the White House, Senate, and House, it was important to air the GOP perspective. Now that Democrats are in control, it's still apparently paramount to let Americans know what Republicans are thinking.

I wonder if it's force of habit combined with some laziness on the part of the producers of these shows. Let's assume the producer doesn't care one whit what the guest actually stands for. S/he just needs to fill some air time. His/her Rolodex is filled with names and contacts from the past 8 years, mostly Republicans. So what do they do? Keep on calling them!

give it a few months to see if the "complexion" of the guests starts to change. If not, then some good loud complaining is in order.

Ted Turner started CNN, what happened?

Secular Animist, Jimbob, many, many others have been trying to wake you guys up but you ain't listening. The huge corporate interests own the M$M almost completely.

So while you guys bitch & moan about its all about ratings, that the Dems don't have the right media strategy, the Fairness Doctrine (that never was, BTW), ad-nauseum, the corporations are going to keep their "advertising" in front of us all. They call it news or political commentary, but it is actually advertising that supports their interests & points of view. So MSNBC puts Rachel Maddow & Keith Olberman on the air, but they are outnumbered by the rest of the programing; Rachel & Keith are there to tell us, "See? We pay these guys to prove to you-all that we really, really are the liberal media."

I don't know what the answer is, but it has to begin with us liberals pulling our heads out of the sand (or out of our asses) & realizing that we are losing the propaganda war & why we are losing it.

Actually, it certainly would help if our bloggers like Steve, Hilzoy, Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, etc., figured this out & start talking about it in their blogs. Quit offering excuses & tell it like it is, please.

to Neil B:

Ted Turner started CNN, what happened?

He sold it.

This has been another simple answer...

He has expressed regrets at CNN's current incarnation.