CNN's Cafferty and MSNBC's Scarborough Highlight MRC Campaign Bias Study

Photo of Brent Baker.
  • Bookmark and Share

Thanks to a Wednesday night AP story by David Bauder (Breitbart, WashPost.com) CNN's Jack Cafferty and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough on Thursday highlighted the Media Research Center's new study, “Rise and Shine on Democrats: How the ABC, CBS and NBC Morning Shows Are Promoting Democrats on the Road to the White House” (Executive Summary). It found that, from January through July, the ABC, CBS and NBC morning shows devoted nearly twice the time to stories about, and interviews with, Democratic over Republican presidential candidates, avoided placing liberal labels on Democrats and also overwhelmingly posed questions which pressed candidates of both parties from the left.

NewsBusters and the MRC's CyberAlert regularly criticize Cafferty for his left-wing rants and attacks on conservatives, but we can't complain about his straight-forward summary Thursday night of the MRC's study: “The network morning news shows have given a lot more air time to the Democratic presidential candidates than to the Republican ones. That's according to a conservative media watchdog outfit called the Media Research Center.” Reading replies later in the hour, Cafferty included one which asserted “the media are overwhelmingly biased in favor of the Democrats. 90 percent of the media voted for Kerry.” But Cafferty couldn't resist ending with this one: “All are being fair except for the F-word network!”

Video clip of the August 30 “Cafferty File” segment in the 7pm EDT hour (1:10): Real (2 MB) or Windows Media (2.4 MB), plus MP3 audio (400 KB)

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

(NB's Thursday night posting of video of MRC President Brent Bozell discussing the study Thursday night on FNC's Hannity & Colmes.)

Full transcript of the August 30 “Cafferty File” segment in the third hour of CNN's The Situation Room:

JACK CAFFERTY: The network morning news shows have given a lot more air time to the Democratic presidential candidates than to the Republican ones. That's according to a conservative media watchdog outfit called the Media Research Center. They claim that through last month the ABC, CBS and NBC morning news programs devoted 284 segments to Democrats compared to just 152 for Republicans. The network news executives say there's no bias and that they've had a harder time getting the Republican White House hopefuls to appear on their programs. They say they strive to present [a] fair picture of the campaign, but that the news drives their decisions and that's why, for example, the Clinton/Obama campaign, which you'll recall began way back in January, that rivalry started heating up, that meant more coverage for the Democrats -- especially that month.

But morning news aside, it does point to a larger issue of whether or not the Republican and Democratic candidates for the White House are getting equal coverage and that's our question tonight. “Are the media being fair to both sides in the 2008 presidential race?” E-mail your thoughts to CaffertyFile@CNN.com or go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile -- Wolf.

WOLF BLITZER: We're asking all the candidates to come and appear here in The Situation Room. The Democratic candidates, the Republican candidates and a lot of the front-runners, they're simply declining, Jack, at this point.

CAFFERTY: Yes, there is a point to be made that it's hard to get some of these people. And with all you know appearances they have scheduled and stuff, but I don't know, we'll see what the viewers think.

BLITZER: Good idea -- Jack, thanks very much.

Near the end of the 7pm EDT hour, Cafferty returned with some replies sent by e-mail:

JACK CAFFERTY: The question this hour is, are the media being fair to both sides in the 2008 presidential race?

Robert in California, "Heck no! Of course the media aren't being fair. The Republicans are getting a free ride. Nobody's looking at the dirt and blood on the hands of the Republican candidates. Everyone's too busy looking at haircuts and blouses."

Paul writes, "Come on. Just state the truth. The media are overwhelmingly biased in favor of the Democrats. 90 percent of the media voted for Kerry. Can't you just admit it on TV or are you in a state of denial?"

Albert in Las Cruces, New Mexico, "It would only be fair if you were to give equal time to that write-in candidate (None of the Above). Will any of these people respect us the morning after the election?"

Mary in New York, "The media aren't looking to be fair to either side or to the audience either. What we hear and see is just so much junk: Hillary's cleavage, Edwards' haircut, Rudy's wives. Please, where's the time allotted to hear what these people have to say? One minute answers, three minutes? The debates are political pinball. Tilt, anyone?"

Jim in Florida writes, "For more years than I can count, the Democrats couldn't buy any air time. Now that the networks smell a change in the White House next year, they want to be on the side of power when it happens. Thus, the Democrats get the biggest share of exposure and the Republicans are shunned. Poetic justice after the opposite was true for far too long."

Harrison in Maryland writes, "No, they're not being fair at all. Legitimate candidates like Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, Ron Paul and others are only ever mentioned in the passing, not because they're not appealing candidates, but because they have not raised a tremendous amount of money. The reason they're unable to raise money is because they're not covered. It is a very sad circle."

And Nancy in Massachusetts says, "All are being fair except for the F-word network!" If you didn't see your e-mail here, go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile. We post more of them online along with video clips of the Cafferty File. She actually said Fox. I changed it.

BLITZER: I know you always do. Thanks, Jack, very much.

NewsBuster Mark Finkelstein alerted us to how on Thursday's Morning Joe, at about 6:10am EDT, Joe Scarborough read from a sheet of paper with the AP dispatch:

An AP article here: “Conservative media watchdog organization charged Wednesday that network morning news shows have spent a lot more time covering Democrats” -- running for President -- “than Republicans. 284 campaign segments to the Democratic candidates and 152 to Republicans.” Jim Bell said though, who is EP of the Today show, “you've got a former First Lady and a black Senator fighting for the nomination. That's historic. We're not going to make apologies for covering that.” That's interesting too.

The study, released Wednesday, was coordinated and written by MRC Research Director Rich Noyes, with research assistance from MRC news analysts/NewsBusters bloggers Geoffrey Dickens, Scott Whitlock and Justin McCarthy.

The PDF, which matches the hard copy, of the entire 18-page Special Report.

The HTML version of the full Special Report study, with a couple of video clips.

The text of the Executive Summary for the August 29 Special Report study:

Rise and Shine on Democrats
How the ABC, CBS and NBC Morning Shows Are Promoting Democrats On the Road to the White House

As the 2008 presidential campaign season gets underway, wide-open primary races in both the Republican and Democratic parties are competing for the media's attention. So are the broadcast networks covering both sides equally, or are they tilting the campaign playing field in favor of liberal Democratic candidates?

To find out, Media Research Center analysts reviewed all 517 campaign segments on ABC's Good Morning America, CBS's The Early Show and NBC's Today from January 1 through July 31. Those three broadcast morning shows draw nine times the audience of their cable news competitors, and are geared toward everyday voters, not political junkies. These programs are therefore a prime battleground in each campaign's quest for positive media attention.

The results are astonishing: Not only are the network morning shows overwhelmingly focused on Democrats, they are actively promoting the Democrats' liberal agenda.

Among the major findings:

# The networks offered nearly twice as much coverage of the Democrats. More than half of all campaign segments (284, or 55%) focused on the Democratic contest, compared with just 152 (29%) devoted to the Republicans. The remaining stories either offered roughly equal discussion of both parties or did not focus on the major parties.

# All three Democratic frontrunners received more attention than any of the top Republican candidates, with New York Senator Hillary Clinton receiving the most coverage of all.

# Undeclared liberal candidates such as former Vice President Al Gore and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg received more network TV attention than many of the declared Republican candidates.

# The network morning shows doled out nearly three times as much airtime (4 hours, 35 minutes) to interviews with the various Democratic campaigns. In contrast, the Republicans received just 1 hour and 44 minutes of interview airtime.

# In their interviews with the candidates, the network hosts emphasized a liberal agenda. Of the substantive questions that could be categorized as reflecting a political agenda, more than two-thirds (69%) of the questions to Democrats reflected a liberal premise, and more than four-fifths (82%) of the questions to Republicans came from the same perspective.

# The top Democratic candidates received much more favorable coverage than their GOP counterparts, with Senator Clinton cast as "unbeatable" and Illinois Senator Barack Obama tagged as a "rock star." The most prominent Republican, Arizona Senator John McCain, was portrayed as a loser because of his support for staying the course in Iraq.

# Not once did network reporters describe Senator Clinton and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards as "liberal," while ABC only once labeled Obama as "liberal." Yet the networks showed no hesitation in attaching the "liberal" label to Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani, who was so branded 12 times.

These early returns suggest that ABC, CBS and NBC are skewing their news in ways that will benefit the Democratic candidates in 2008. The broadcast networks have a responsibility to cover both parties in a fair and even-handed manner -- not for the sake of the candidates, but for the voters. That means giving viewers a chance to hear from all of the major candidates in interviews, asking them similar questions, and balancing the day-to-day news coverage to keep both Democratic and Republican primary voters equally well-informed.

—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

SAY WHAT!Cafferty

SAY WHAT!

Cafferty reported like this?

Surely you jest....

Must be the one yearly mostly fair and balance report he is allowed to do...the evil little slime-ball.

Of course that is just my opinion.

Btw...I could care less what Joe S. has to say about anything ...he sold his soul long ago...plus the nit-wit Anna Marie on does nothing but giggle and laugh...a real brain, but hey, she got where she herself said she wanted...to be in the DC inner-circle.

All are pathetic.

...I dug the ignorant

...I dug the ignorant slut's comment about the unfair "F-word network:)"

Yeah what is Fox doing to get the DEMS ON THEIR NETWORK!? Aren't they reaching out at all?

The F-word network is just so damned unfair!

Cafferty is in denial

And he's an idiot. Neither is anything new however.

Rally online Paul/Kucinich '09

  I love this quote -

 

I love this quote - "“you've got a former First Lady and a black Senator fighting for the
nomination. That's historic. We're not going to make apologies for
covering that.”

Who's asking you to make an apology?! Cover'em all you want... I'm just asking the networks to bring balance to the coverage. Is that so frickin' hard to do?

Typical idiotic leftista logic ... sigh

Too difficult

Yes, it's incredibly difficult when you can't keep your bias in check. 

Rally online Paul/Kucinich '09

And, they keep pointing out:

Have you noticed how the MSM keeps mentioning that the Republicans have no black or female candidates? Yup, just another insidious way they perpetuate the stereotypical myth of Republicans as racists and bigots.

 

Cheers

Always an exception...

"...New York Senator Hillary Clinton receiving the most coverage of all," except when it comes to her continuing campaign finance law violations.

In the tool department...

Harrison in Maryland writes, "No, they're not being fair at all.
Legitimate candidates like Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, Ron Paul..."

I believe this sentence constitutes an oxymoron.

Careful

don't let sarcasmo see that comment ;-)

Struggling

Why would they be taking this position unless drive by media was starting to see vacant roads?

JDW

CFR: Chung, Riady, Hsia, Trie, Huang, Hsu, Paw... Who's looking?

 

JDW - good point, how much

JDW - good point, how much of that news coverage so earned by the Hillary (and Obama) camp, as Cafferty noted (hedged) touched on Hillary's (and Bill's) real and now, ongoing scandals. If Jack is right, then the network mornign shows will be all over this latest Hsu finance scandal. Oh yea. You bet cha.

Alos, noted was, "but we can't complain about his straight-forward summary." Tis true, for Cafferty - it was farily straight - but I noticed he hedged by favoring the excuses given by the Networks, and seemed rather comfortable with that. I did not notice any interest in the Republican candidates point of view. Also it's the "infomercial" stage and softball format given to the Democrats that really add to the bias here.

Would this be the same

Would this be the same F-Word network that tried to host a DNC debate earlier this year? How biased of them......Phhtttt!

Begrudgingly reading the

Begrudgingly reading the news on this one huh Caffy?!? Man how you can tell he did not want to read that one, especially the f-word as others have pointed out.

heee heee heee

"All are being fair except

"All are being fair except the F-word network."  ???  How is 90% dim and biased being fair, nut? 

Liberalism is a convenient lie.

 There is an upside to

 There is an upside to biased reporting toward the dems, since the MSM goes out of their way to kiss the butts of most dems durings interviews & debates, they tend to perform poorly when they actually have to talk about the issues. There is a big difference between getting your @$$ kissed by Chris Mathews & being questioned by Brit Hume, I'm just saying.

 

"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise"  Mark Levin

dany... Good point for

dany...

Good point for sure...

Just too bad the dem candidates refused to debate on Fox with Hume eh?

Says it all as far as I am concerned.

It will be their loss in the end.

Foolish leftists.

Never, NEVER ever forget .

jack started his career as a weatherman, and not a good one at that - he must still have his head in those strato-numbass-nimbi. Come to think of it, all of the GW talk started about the time he left the local NY stations, humm.

There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V

What I sent Jack.

Subject line: "Do you honestly think"

The news media is (not "are," in this case...) being fair to Dr. Ron Paul considering all his supporters have done on both the
'net and in meatspace?? If so, get real.

If Dr. Paul were Mike Gravell, you'd be groveling at his feet and screaming "grassroots! grassroots!" but because this particular Republican wants drastically-smaller government and the BIG government loving (notice I didn't say "liberal!") media hate that there's silence.


There's your bias, whether or not you'll choose to read this.

"The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt." Cicero, circa 63 B.C.

=====

 

Anyway, I'm sure Jack won't read my letter, but it's ok. Keep in mind, Dr. Paul was ahead of Dr. Dean Meetup-wise in 2 months, and now the graph looks like this. The growth is quite remarkable, and for example this morning I'm going out to feed/coffee the members of a nearby RP meetup, who are helping out at a local gun show.

The Meetup-campaign's main work over the past week or two seems to have been getting around the anti-spam systems set up by Meetup to legitimately protect their members from unwanted mass emails. This entire evolution, of course, is not controlled by the central Ron Paul campaign in any way. These things tend to cost the campaign something like $0.00 when they "magically" appear on the 'net. :)
JMR