Gwen Awful (Sic) dodges question about Media Matters Study of Network

[JohnWxy]

bias to the Right.
HEre is the study by Media Matters

an excerpt (emphasis my own):

In both the Clinton and Bush administrations, conservative journalists were far more likely to appear on the Sunday shows than were progressive journalists. In Clinton's second term, 61 percent of the ideologically identifiable journalists were conservative; in Bush's first term, that figure rose to 69 percent.

HEre is the link to the discussion forum with Gwen Ifill of PBS Washington Week:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/02/01/DI2006020101356.html

Below is an excerpt of the questions to GI and her answers, just concerning the Media Matters Study.

Brooklyn, N.Y.: Hi Gwen:

I just read about the Media Matters report that shows that the Sunday Talk shows on ABC, NBC and CBS tilt strongly to the right. The lack of diversity is also appalling Why is it so hard for these shows to have balance? Are you really the only black female journalist out there? Thanks.

Gwen Ifill: There are a couple of different issues you raise.

One is about political tilt on Sunday talk shows. I find it hard to see how a newsmaker program could exist without bringing on the people most likely to make the news -- which, when Republicans control the White House, Senate and House -- are likely to be Republicans.
(She is claiming that journalists only select participants to talk shows by counting up the number of Reps and Dems in Government and then invite participants based on that proportion. This is patent bullshit (okay, nonsense). This is just a very transparent 'cop-out'(no doubt thought up by Kenneth Tomlinson, resident minister of propaganda at PBS). If Ms. Awful is so in the thrall of political demographics I am at pains to point out that the number of individuals in Government by political persuasion is not as important as the distribution of the ELECTORATE by political persuasion - which is much closer to 50:50 given that most elections, presidential and congressional, are usually decided by only a few percentage points). Additionally, does "those most likely to make the news" include all those well represented Republican pundits who do not (formally at least ) occupy postions in the Government?

But this is all beside the point. On Sunday Talk Shows the media are supposed to be presenting the range of positions on policy and issues and that basically includes two general groups: those for a policy and those who disagree with a policy. There is no journalistic reason to vary from an approximate 50:50 split (of committed attendees) basically representing the two alternatives: "for" and "against" on the issues. Loading up the panel with partisans for or against a position is counter to journalistic principle of not becoming a participant in the event you are covering or presenting. __JW)

.....

Philadlephia, Pa.: Not to be disrespectful but your answer to why there are more Reps than Dems on the Sunday talk shows was bogus. When Clinton was in office and the Dems were "making news" that's when stars like Coulter, Barbara Olsen, Kelly Fitzpatrick, etc., were born.

Gwen Ifill: Certainly, we can agree to disagree. But I would argue that the personalities you name came to prominence because of the rise of cable television and talk radio, not because they were showcased on Sunday talk shows.
(This is of course a complete non sequiter. The point being made is that during the Clinton years the Conservative pundits were roughly equally represented on the Sunday talk shows even though the Clinton Government types were, by Ms. Awful's definiition, the ones "likely to make the news". NOt having a satisfactory answer to this embarrassing observation, Ms. Awful resorts to feigned senility.__JW)

....

Simpsonville, SC: I just read the Media Matters report and checked them out on Wiki. It seems that they are a watchdog group that specifically targets the right wing media and is funded by liberals. (By right wing media, are you referring to NBC, ABC, CBS et al, where the Talk Shows studied air?__JW)

Which just makes me want to say thanks to Ms. Ifill, for promoting honest disicussion in a world of truthiness.

Gwen Ifill: Bless you for pointing that out.

(Pointing out what, Gwen? ... that the study was done with questionable methodology or that the conclusions were not valid? Concurring with a criticism of a study based upon who funded it instead of whether or not it's findings were valid now that's what I call 'objective journalism'. One thing we can be sure of we'll never see anybody from Media Matters on either the Sunday MSM talk shows or on PBS. These people are just to heretical!!__JW)

go to PBS.org and the Washington Week section to send your comments to Ms. Ifill.

At the bottom of the questions answers forum it states: "If you want more, or didn't get your question in, send your comments to [e-mail], and we'll try to pose them to our panel on our weekly Webcast".

[FrenchieCat]

1. Thanks!

Sometimes you've got to flung it their face as they try to deny the bias that's there.

I was amused by a thread here from yesterday called "the media" in where several posters were swearing that both the right and left claim bias...therefore there must be none. I said...WTF?

Anyhow, I will give Gwen a piece of my mind. She really should know better....but probably just "forgot"! :hi:

[chaumont58]

2. The (sic) tag is not appropriate. She is awful, all the time

Oreo, maybe?