Hmmm, looks like MSNBC has improved a bit, but other networks are taking up the slack.

Why isn't anyone reporting on how these decisions are being made? Do these insane Republicans like Kit Bond and Jim DeMint'ed just wander over to the Capitol mike, or what?

Do you think that Nielsen families are skewed Republican, and networks are tailoring their guests to the "viewing public?"

I'd be interested to see that graph if they created Blue Dogs as a third category, or lumped them in with Reps. I'd bet the results would be far more significant with even fewer people out there actually defending the Dem position.

Yes, sooner the better--because it's horrifying to tune in--even the way the questions are worded is so slanted and distorted that the spokesperson has to spend half the time just debunking the suggestion and the mis-information--Krugman did a great job with this today.

Just a thought, but don't you think that amazing organization Obama created during the campaign might be able to fix that "getting badly outworked" problem?

Uggg,

Just now Kent Conrad (Democrat) is pushing a transfer of stimulus funds from STDs and smoking cessations funds to a plan to keep 1.5 million foreclosures.

He went on to slam the stimulus bill overall.

Very sad.

Could if be that this is a result of better and more assertive PR on the part of the Republicans? If so, then the Democrats can maybe influence this.

But if so, this also show pretty irresponsible scheduling on the part of the networks (well, except for Fox Nooz (sic), which is supposed to do this).

I think the Mainstream Media outlets are still scared of that old phony "Liberal Media Bias" nonsense. Apart from being owned by wingnuts and staffed by buffoons.

While this study only looks at the cable infotainment channels, National Public Radio is just as bad. I listen to much of Morning Edition every day, and it is almost comical how their "news" coverage of the stimulus bill focuses almost entirely on what Republicans have to say about it. And then they bring on their "news analysts" like Fox News Commentator Juan Williams to elaborate even further on what the Republicans think.

NPR's target audience is of course different from Rush Limbaugh's target audience, so their messaging strategy is tuned differently. But the underlying message is the same: to undermine public support for Obama and the Congressional Democrats and thwart their efforts to govern in the public interest rather than in the corporate interest.

The corporate media -- which most certainly includes National "Public" Radio, as surely as the cable infotainment networks -- is owned by, answers to, and propagandizes on behalf of the ultra-rich corporate elites. Just like the Republican Party. To expect anything other than corporate propaganda from the corporate media is foolish.

I wonder how they propose to do this when all of the MSM is owned by a handful of hard core republican corporate rapists?

We have been blaming the media, but I bet the party is at least partly to blame. I have wondered about the Democrats failure to work the media for years. Somebody or some group in the Democratic congressional leadership just doesn't get the importance of winning over the public.

Who are the Democratic leaders who could sell this on T.V.? Surely not Harry Reid who spends most of his time with his finger in the wind or making declarative statements that he backs off on in an hour or two. I just don't believe that you have to be crazy like the Republicans are to say quotable, appealing things to the American people.

I don't know where Jim Webb stands on this bill, but he has the talent to be smart, quotable and easily comprehensible to & credible with mainstream America. Are there any Dems up on the Hill who can demonstrate a sense of urgency? Trouble is, I don't think they themselves have it. Reid, Feinstein, Conrad, Nelson???? I feel very sorry for President Obama. Can't we see more of Feingold, Leahy, Durbin, Brown? Although I am usually for "light" over "heat", the Dems need to bring a little more "heat" to this debate.

If you subtract out the Maddow and Olbermann shows, you'll find that MSNBC-at-other-times is just as heavily tilted toward the Republicans, and Maddow would probably book 50-50 if the Republicans weren't boycotting her.

Y'know, a kick-ass media operation is the sort of thing that parties really should build when they're out of power. Has no one ever told leading Democrats that, or are they just willfully obtuse?

I used to listen to NPR exclusively while driving (the only time I have the radio on). Now it's a part-time thing because I can't stand what has happened to their political reporting. Michael Moore got it right a few years back with his observation, something to the effect, "Balanced reporting has become balancing 15 minutes of truth with 15 minutes of lies."

leading Democrats

An oxymoron like "compassionate conservative."

Seriously, the problem isn't so much that there aren't Democrats with leadership talent. The problem is that the current anointed leaders don't seem to have it.

Honestly, the Senate acts like they want to leave Obama hanging out there for all the abuse he can take hoping he can counter any criticism and then safely support the package once they are assured they won't be called nancy boys by the press.

Interesting that MSNBC is now in balance (IMO, and the point about Blue Dogs is well made) while Fox, which was closest, has reverted to form. CNN looks like it's given up almost completely, obsessed with babies and airplanes. Let's hear it for Olbermaddow and the blogosphere, particularly WMPA.

The Dems have an easy solution here. Every time they appear on a show, they should point out the imbalance on air. And they should ask the moderator why the imbalance exists. Repeat this twenty times and the moderators will get tired of answering the question.

More than everything else, the Beltway is a social club with a strict hierarchy. Forty years ago it was moderates on top, then liberals, then conservatives, then reporters. Now its conservatives on top, then media personalities, then moderates, and liberals on the bottom. Of course, people had better manners forty years ago, so the social ranking wasn't so apparent. Nowadays, when snipping, snarling, and "in your face" obnoxiousness is considered a social norm, the people on the bottom are routinely ignored, belittled, or otherwise insulted.

Even twenty years ago, I noticed that NPR and the news networks tended to give the Republicans the last word on their political segments. Nowadays, its blatant. Republicans get air time, and Democrats don't, or Democrats get air time, and a Republican is put on for "balance," that is negate him and put out the proper talking point.

What is missing, most of all, as any interest in "true" or "false." The Republicans know they can lie all they want, and do so. The Democrats . . . well, social inferiors don't get that kind of deference, do they?

Steve Benen noted that Josh Marshall noted the "continuing Republican tilt of much of the capital press corps. Not in ideological terms perhaps, but in terms of whose opinions carry weight, whose matter and whose do not."

But that's exactly how the "Republican tilt of much of the capital press corps" is expressed: not by the press corps themselves openly expressing an "ideological" point of view, but by the press corps ensuring that the opinions that the American people are subjected to will be overwhelmingly those of the Republicans, and that pro-corporate views are "serious" and "matter" and that anyone who questions government of, by and for the ultra-rich corporate elites is marginalized, excluded, demonized and ridiculed.

Democrats and liberals need to realize that the so-called "mainstream" mass media is entirely owned and controlled by a handful of giant corporations who use it to propagandize the American people in furtherance of their greed-driven corporate class warfare agenda, not to impartially inform and educate the American people as a public service out of the goodness of their hearts.

Democrats need to realize that the corporate media is not a neutral party. It is part of the opposition.

Sadly, even NPR hasn't provided equal time lately. Why has no one said that bipartisanship doesn't appear to be reciprocated by the GOP? Is it solely upon the Democrats to provide it? What has the GOP said they are willing to give?

"...[Dems] are privately conceding that they are getting badly outworked by the GOP on the airwaves..."

Outworked? Pathetic. There's no excuse for this.

Ron Byers wrote: "I have wondered about the Democrats failure to work the media for years."

The Democrats have to contend with the fact that the media is owned by the same people who own the Republican Party. I have wondered for years about the Democrats' failure to recognize and deal with that reality.

If the Democratic leadership thought there was a real problem, they'd have done something about it already. That the situation remains the same shows us where the truth is.

I've met with lawmakers from my state and my house district. They're smart people (though you wouldn't know it from their TV appearances).

I'm sorry, folks, but at some point I think we have to acknowledge it. Dems aren't on the air supporting the stimulus package because the leadership doesn't support it, not really. The leadership isn't effective in opposing the GOP because they basically agree with the other party.

This has gone on too long for there to be any other answer.

We need new leaders, in the House and in the Senate.

Not even counting CNBC - I have yet to wake up in the past 2 weeks without seeing a republican on CNBC shilling the spending bad/tax cuts good mantra. Dick Armey, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Steve Forbes, John Kyle, Kit Bond, numerous types from Heritage and Cato type foundations, etc., etc., any democrats are very few and far between. And the anchors really do very little to hide behind their disdain for socialism, and class warfare while endlessly repeating the discredited "CBO report" that claimed that most spending wouldn't occur for several years - it's really quite disgusting

Just think about those words and there implications: 'SO THE MEDIA CAN ATTACK' ... this would be the same CORPORATE MEDIA that Scott McClellan said was 'ACTIVELY COMPLICIT' IN NOT ONLY PROMOTING BUSH'S=CORPORATIONS IRAQ WAR, but the same corporate media that is now pretending that Obama has 'lost control' of the message relative to the stimulus plan. And how did he loose control ? The Corporate Media stacked the decks with wall to wall REPIGLICAN TAKING HEADS on their TV stations. They alone via their 'political directors' decide who and who not is on to say what. Then after stacking the decks they sit back and with a straight face say that Obama has 'lost control' of the message. This is how these Corporate pigs operate. And now, via the REPIGLICAN POLITICO, they are setting the stage to 'ATTACK' Obama when and if we get attacked again by way of setting that stage with MR EVIL HIMSELF, CHENEY. The Corporate Media are simply millionaire 'journalists' who are nothing more than dancing monkeys at the end of a tether that is attached to a hand held organ, dancing to the tunes of the Organ Master: The very corporations that have hired these cum sluts to do their bidding. And then they sit there looking at you thru the TV screen and purposefully 'catapalt' the propaganda with their million dollar dresses and ties on, issued thru straight face. And now these same CORPORATE CRIMINALS are 'setting the stage' to attack Obama ? All of these corporate criminals should be frog marched out of the protection of their corporate studios and directly into prison. Once their they should be turned into 'bitches' for the enjoyment of the inmates.

The unkindest cut of all was Chuck Todd yesterday, arguing that the Obama administration "need[s] to remember what got them here and never stop learning those "little things" lessons, like dispatching more surrogates to TV."
In other words, the networks have just put on whoever showed up to comment. And it's OBAMA'S fault that he didn't dispatch surrogates to TV shows.
Pardon me, but I don't think so.

MSM, bought and paid for by big money. You do have to blame Clinton as he put thru the Communications Act that caused this.

The Newshour sucks too. Last night, meek Jeffrey Brown was a bulldog interviewing Budget Director Peter Orszag while Ray Suarez gave Sen. Arlen Specter pretty much a pass. A viewer easily could get the impression that the President overreached and made a number of mistakes and that the Repub's were moderate, reasonable and bipartisan. Clearly, an invisible hand was pulling the strings. Very sad.

There is no such thing as a free press, not even the one you own because you had to pay for it. The corporate elite now own the media, they are Republicans, and thus the media will reflect the Rethug talking points.

Unless Obama and the Dems begin to dismantle the right-wing noise machine, starting with NPR, and play hard ball through the FCC we will be exposed to endless right wing propaganda. This crowd doesn't care about the country. They care about the party and money. Obama has to kick some ass. If he doesn't, he's toast.

::I wonder how they propose to do this when all of the MSM is owned by a handful of hard core republican corporate rapists?::

2 words.

Fairness. Doctrine.

Its obvious! More entertainment value from Republicans, just ask Jon Stewart . How would he fill a half hour without those self parody Faux and CNN nooze clips

I think fostert has a good point, but the underlying problem is that Dems are not ON POINT about anything.

How to get them onpoint? The answer to that will be the solution to this problem.

PR Camp? Daily talking points would help. It would also be good if people could work their way UP through party leadership by becoming effective spokespeople on TV.

Here's one person I want to see more: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Hardhead Tweety used to have her on occasionally, and she can talk over the ReThugs pretty well. Why is she not on every day?

Keep Harry Reid OFF TV. Better yet, get him OUT of leadership. He's been a total failure.

Fairness Doctrine anyone?

Republicans have a lot more time to appear on TV because (as you can see from their previous governing and current hot air during the stimulus debate) their not actually doing really work.

Any person doing real work (in maybe only a button up shirt and tie, sans jacket.) might not have the time to whore himself on TV.

The only way I see this getting better is if the Democrats pull a Dan Rather: they have to kill a journalist's career. Find a mainstream journalist whom everyone believes (incorrectly) to be impartial like David Gregory or John King. Then they need to continually go after that person for every single bit of bias that he or she exhibits. The public has to believe that he/she is as bad as Rush Limbaugh. Every time a Democrat goes on the air they have to say something like "the partisan republican David Gregory". And this has to continue until the journalist is forced to leave TV and join Dan Rather on no-name internet/cable networks.

Anything else, and the press will always fear (and give in) to the Republicans more than they do the Democrats.

[threats of violence, actual or implied, are automatically deleted and the user banned -- mod.]

I'd like to apologize for my compliment to Fox News last time.

Obviously, it brought their less-skewed coverage to their attention because they've "fixed" their mistake in spades.

Maybe the partial boycott during the election should be put in place full force for a month or so. Don't say anything... just postpone/cancel/"have a schedule conflict"...

See if anyone even notices.

Someone will have to tie up Carville in a basement somewhere if this is going to work. Volunteers?

We should ask the cable talent whether they were willing to take the consequences of the GOPs contracting to a couple of states. Would they want to compete, say, for the five on-air slots at Poccatelo Idaho's Radio Free Donkeyland (a hypothetical multimegawatt right wing talk station, the last of the sort in the US.)?