Who Had the Fairer Panel: Meet the Press or Fox News Sunday?

Photo of Mark Finkelstein.
By Mark Finkelstein | April 27, 2008 - 14:43 ET

For a moment, let's step away from the commentary, per se, and focus on the commentators. Liberals love to chide Fox News for its alleged conservative bias. So why don't we see, when it comes to being fair and balanced, how this morning's Fox News Sunday panel stacked up against that of its main competitor, Meet the Press?

Here are the line-ups—you be the judge.

MEET THE PRESS

Host–Tim Russert

Panel

  • David Broder–Washington Post columnist
  • John Dickerson–Slate
  • Gwen Ifill–PBS
  • Andrea Mitchell–NBC
  • Richard Wolffe–Newsweek

FOX NEWS SUNDAY

Host–Chris Wallace

Panel

  • Brit Hume–FNC
  • Bill Kristol– Weekly Standard; NY Times columnist
  • Mara Liasson–NPR
  • Juan Williams–NPR

I'd say it isn't even close—let's hear what readers think.

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.

You're right, it's not even

You're right, it's not even close. Fox News Sunday is THE best, and the fairest.

What you guys don't realize

What you guys don't realize is the MTP doesn't have to "balance" left and right, because they make it a point to have all "centrists."

Ask them, they'll tell you!

<sarc>

an idea

Okay, Fox is great and I'm happy they're doing their fair and balanced approach but since everything out there is so far left leaning and seeming to be diving into the deep end for Obama and radical ideals (MSNBC, CNN, etc, etc) how about someone starting a straight right-wing channel.  Maybe I'm in the dark on this one and don't know of one but I'd love to keep in on all day.  I could watch reruns of Reagan, Rush's tv show, John Wayne, whoever.  Good wholesome tv without the left-wing agenda.  Some tv I could trust - know what I mean?  I just fear that Fox tries to be a little bit too fair sometimes but still gets hammered by everyone for being right-wing and a new channel could be unapologetic.

crt.... Hear! Hear! A

crt....

Hear! Hear!

A few of us over the past have written the same thing...especially about the right side network, a real one and unapologetic...Paul Weyrich tied to start one years ago, money was the problem...unfortunately...

I loved the network NET...I was heart-broken when it left the screen.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

different landscape

Bigtimer, I think the landscape has changed just a tad so I'd like to see someone give it another try.  If funding is a problem, I'd throw my 2 cents in!  I have to peak in on CNN/MSNBC, although not the later anymore because it's so outrageous, but I like to see how far off to the left they are and I'm amazed just how far they've gone.  They're nuts!  I'm getting to be an old man and I don't think I've changed that much.  They've responded to Fox by getting more and more kooky.  There's got to be a response to it and the more RIGHT the better.

Wallace is

the only legitimate reporter at Fox..THe rest are all fluff..Fair and balanced is a farce.

This is a no-brainer... I

This is a no-brainer...

I flipped it over to Russert to see what was going on, then I saw the panel as Ifill was squawking about race....I immediately turned it, I have long had my fill of Wolffe by the way (one of Olbie's fav's)...yeah it was real balanced alright, if it was a teeter-totter we all know whose guests on the two different shows would of already been sunk deep in the ground.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

My first comment muttered

My first comment muttered outloud when watching Fat Head's Meet The Press was "Stacked Deck!"

I was a bit surprised to hear Andrea Mitchell give some criticism to both Hillary and Barry.  She at least attempted some responsible commentary versus most of the rest.  Broder was his usual midling self.  He's as fascinating as your first colonoscopy.  The rest were as expected.

Also, how special of Fat Head to have THREE Washington Post Company employees on the panel - Broder from WaPo, Dickerson from Slate, and Wolffe from Newsweek.  Talk about product placement!

The entire hour of Fat Head was an unpaid endorsement of the DNC and their candidates.

RRAM Tough! 

I don't think a single

I don't think a single panel on Meet The Press is worth getting too worked up over.  This was hardly a collection of far-left ideologues, but, rather, essentially a group of Democratic-leaning politcal centrists.  In any event, the line-up changes weekly and has featured prominent conservatives such as William Safire, Mike Murphy, David Brooks, Mary Matalin, etc.

The FNS panel is more static consisting of conservatives Hume and Kristol [occasionally Fred Barnes and Charles Krauthammer], the bland centrist Democrat Mara Liasson, and liberal Juan Williams.

Jer

Afternoon Jer.... So they

Afternoon Jer....

So they have those guests on that you mentioned above...have you ever seen all four on one panel posing as fair and balanced according to what fair and balanced should be on Tim's show?

They usually stick one of those you mentioned in along with the other three guests being leftists...and claim they are fair and balanced...if you know what I mean.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

bt...Being a regular viewer

bt...Being a regular viewer of FNS, which until recently was telecast in  the same time slot as Meet The Press, I rarely watched the latter program.  However, the last time I caught the roundtable portion of the show, there were two conservatives [Murphy and Matalin] and two liberals.

Jer

Jer... Well there's the

Jer...

Well there's the rub, I was meaning over years and years...

Btw...I now have the two on at the same time, I go back and forth, I hate it that I now have the time slot I do, but if I really wanted to I could catch either one again at four here....

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

bt....Jer

bt....Jer says

essentially a group of Democratic-leaning politcal centrists

See? Told ya they'd be called "centrists"!! ( See my comment at the top).

Didn't even have to ask MTP!! ;-)

mb...I saw your comment

mb...I saw your comment after I had posted mine.  Very astute of you.

Jer

Howdy mb...I saw your

Howdy mb...

I saw your post above...saying that, I thought of inserting that on my own in my post...but heck, I don't want to argue the points on who we think is so-called centrist and such....because I could mention Brooks just to name one, or Friedman...in fact I could go on and on, but the talking head shows present these guys on their shows and say conservative....heheheee...conservative my arse....

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

bt...Both had always been

bt...Both had always been telecast at 10 a.m. until a month or so ago when FNS was switched to 9 a.m.

I think both are reshown at other times, and I could aways record the one I didn't watch.  But, The McLaughlin Group, FNS, and This Week are about all I can handle of the Sunday morning talk shows.

Jer

Jer: Let's look at MTP

Jer:

Let's look at MTP roundtable participants the past few weeks:

  • April 27 - David Broder, John Dickerson, Gwen Ifill, Andrea Mitchell & Richard Wolffe.  Nary a Conservative let alone a right of center journalist.

  • April 20 - David Brooks of the New York Times, E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post & Michele Norris of NPR.  One right of center participant vs. two liberals.

  • April 13 - Democratic strategists James Carville and Bob Shrum, and Republican strategists Mary Matalin and Mike Murphy.  This is a novelty circus act Fat Head Russert likes to display more often than needed.  Seeming parity.  Group usually useless for data mining.

  • April 6 - The legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., with Tom Brokaw, Michael Eric Dyson and Amb. Andrew Young.  Uh, oh.  Rightward-leaning people discriminated against at this table.

  • March 30 - A political roundtable on Decision 2008 with Peter Beinart and David Brooks.  Seeming parity, though centrists hardly constitute a neutralizing of divides.  (Some doubt Brooks is Rightward at all)

  • March 23 - Eugene Robinson, Peggy Noonan, Jon Meacham & Chuck Todd.  Heavily weighted Liberal panel with Noonan as sole Conservative. 

  • March 16 - Washington Post's David Broder, NBC's David Gregory, and PBS's Michele Norris.  Nary a Rightward individual in site.

  • March 9 - Dan Balz, Ron Brownstein, John Harwood and Gwen Ifill.  Liberal Lovefest.

  • March 2 - Democrats James Carville & Bob Shrum and Republicans Mary Matalin & Mike Murphy.  Parity and a circus again - two great tastes in one!

  • February 24 - David Brooks, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Michele Norris and Chuck Todd.  Brooks again?  When Brooks is the MTP Poster Child for Republicans/Conservatives, I question if Fat Head is purposefully preventing true Conservatives from speaking at the roundtable.  Otherwise, a typical stacked deck of Liberals.

This list would keep going for some space with similar results.  IMO, MTP has long stacked the deck in favor of Liberal attitudes, at least since Russert has been skippering the scow.

RRAM Tough! 

Wow strat... Job well

Wow strat...

Job well done.

*I'm grinning from ear to ear*

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

Thank you bigtimer.  The

Thank you bigtimer. 

The roll call is undeniable, though a player or two may hide their politics better than others.

For completeness, all info gleaned from MSNBC.

RRAM Tough! 

OK, so you give MSNBC a

OK, so you give MSNBC a h/t....but thanks for doing the heavy lifting. It really shows up when you see it all right there like that.

Wipe that smile off your face, bt...

Wipe that smile off your face, bt...I haven't responded yet. <wink>

Jer

...ROFL Jer... I'm

...ROFL Jer...

I'm waiting with such anticipation, this is all I was thinking about in my life at the moment Jer.

Please carry on....

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

OK, strat...I'll take a

OK, strat...I'll take a look:

--April 27:  My point was that these individuals are essentially centrists.  Democrats, probably...but no liberals or conservatives [although I'm not that familiar with Richard Wolfe since I stopped reading Newsweek--at least the print version]  Broder at one time was considered left of center, but has nudged to the right in recent years.  Progressives now consider him firmly right of center.  I don't.

--April 20:  Brooks is a conservative, but certainly not a far-right ideologue.  Dionne is about the same distance left of center that Brooks is right.  The times I've heard Michele Norris, she seemed to be pehaps slighly left of center.

--April 13:  Parity is correct.  And "Fat Head" Russert has Democratic roots, but he is definitely centrist, and is viewed with as much suspicion by the left as by the right.

--April 6:  MLK panel...I'm not familiar with Dyson, but there should have been conservative viewpoints

--Mar 30:  Brooks and Beinart and Brooks = parity

--Mar 23:  I saw Jon Meacham interviewed on O'Reilly.  He did not come across as a doctrinaire liberal by any stretch.  But I'll concede the panel was tilted left, despite Noonan

--Mar 16:  Refer to my previous comments on these individuals

--Mar 9:  Not familiar with Balz; Brownstein is a liberal, Ifill seems centrist to me.  I thought Harwood was a conservative...I'll have to check on him.

--Mar 2:  Parity again

--Feb 24:  Brooks, conservative.  Kearns Goodwin, liberal historian. Norris, see above.  Todd, I've heard of him, but I'm drawing a blank.  But, I'll take your word that the deck was somewhat stacked on this show.

So, yes, there has definitely been an overall liberal--or at least a center/left--tilt on these episodes of MTP.  But, conservatives have by no means excluded.  Also, since the Obama/Clinton slugfest is the only real story left in the primary season, I suspect we will be seeing Obama strategists and Clinton strategists--although Democrats--bashing each other on the political opinion shows.

Jer

"...I suspect we will be

"...I suspect we will be seeing Obama strategists and Clinton strategists--although Democrats--bashing each other on the political opinion shows."

Is that what NBC refers to as "Must See TV" - Who can out-Liberal the other?  I believe you're correct.

I wasn't only speaking figuratively about Mutton Chop Russert - he really has an enormous, lipid-laden head.

Yet, I will watch the show every chance I get.  Without cable/satellite, my opportunities are rather slim for televised political discourse.  Besides, MTP is part of my weekly audiovisual Rolfing session where they talk and I yell back.  ;-)

RRAM Tough! 

Yes, strat...his head is

Yes, strat...his head is rather voluminous, but I would submit that in the universe of noggins, O'Reilly and Gingrich are the Jupiter and Saturn of our media solar system, while Russert is merely...Ur-anus?

Jer

Now Jer...that is

Now Jer...that is hilarious...I am laughing so hard out loud you wouldn't believe it!

Gold Star for you!

Hope you're laughing too strat, we feel the same about matters here obviously, but Jer did make a funny...or whatever the appropriate word is here...

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

Jer: An

Jer:

An otherworld-ly comment!  :-)

While O'Reilly may have a metaphysical ginormous ego, and hence "big head", he pales in noggin numerics compared to either Newt or Tim.

IMO, Medicine Ball Russert's lardaceous Dome of the Rock pate is the largest on TV since Orson Welles and Dom DeLuise and bests Newt by more than what statistics might suggest.

 

Bigtimer:

Had me laughing too.  There's plenty of "Fat Heads" in politics and the MSM to go around.

It's nice when we can find common ground!

RRAM Tough! 

strat...

I am going to work on a veritable Rushmore of colossal talking heads...scaled and sculpted to actual size.

Jer

Jer

You'll run out of medium on Al Franken.

... and Worker's

... and Worker's Comp insurance and humor too.

RRAM Tough! 

Jer: Not enough clay in

Jer:

Not enough clay in North Carolina for that project.

How about a diorama instead.

Extra points if you include a baking soda and vinegar volcano which erupts and wipes out the mini-me's.

RRAM Tough! 

The baking soda and vinegar

The baking soda and vinegar volcano....I can do it!  My brother and I made one years ago after watching Mr. Wizard.

Jer

It was a fun project back

It was a fun project back in the day.

Mom wasn't too thrilled about the mess, but I liked it!

Did you get a chemistry set?  That was the best - dangerous chemicals, a bunsen burner and little parental supervision. 

They just don't make toys like that anymore.

RRAM Tough! 

Yep...I recall my brother

Yep...I recall my brother "The Brain" who was around twelve years old--seven years older than me--mixing some sort of concoction in a beaker, and then as it begain fizzing, solemnly announced:  You are now witnessing a very small explosion.  At which point, a geyser erupted from the top of the beaker and drenched the kitchen walls and ceiling.  Mom was not particularly impressed.

Jer

→ Jer

That was the Science Fair project all us back row kids gravitated to.

I got my butt busted for dropping a small chunk of Potassium down the drain.

Great explosion.

♣ a seal

Cool...LOL...see my post

Cool...LOL...see my post immediately above yours.

Jer

I know nothing about your

I know nothing about your anus, but Russert is definitely some sort of anus.  He makes brief attempts at fairness and "centralism", but there are too many times I hear him ask softball questions of liberals, and when he is with conservatives, he takes the gloves off.

....he takes the gloves

....he takes the gloves off.....

....ROFL! 

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

I'd say

just by looking at the line-ups posted, Fox News has the murderer's row on matters of fair and balanced. Meet The Press is in the Bush Leagues with all their token lefties--pun intended

Token lefties????? Care to

Token lefties????? Care to clarify???

ONE OTHER SOMEWHAT BALANCED

Don't know which station it's affiliated with but the McLaughlin group seems pretty evenly matched.

"Don't let the bastards grind you down"

Red

Redr... PBS is the

Redr...

PBS is the station.

I usually catch it most of time too.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

What's the Relevance Anymore?

I'm not sure why this is even relevant anymore.  The networks are so lost in their liberal leanings, it'll be a cold day in hell before any of them ratchet it back a notch or two to the right.  Fox News Sunday has had this balanced panel for years and it works extremely well.   You get a good exchange on most issues.  The networks, on the other hand, have had their typical liberal lineups for years as well, and apparently don't want a balanced dialog except on occasion.  It's not going to change.  More specifically, it's laughable to have even included NBC in this comparison since they have gone so far left with the likes of Matthews, Olberman, Russert and others, a comparison is meaningless.  It still burns me that Democrats shun Fox for debates due to their right leaning reputation, yet George Stephanopolous is given a seat at an ABC debate involving a Clinton, and no one, in the media, utters a word of disapprval.

Where's Waldo the Conservative?

ok, I'll bite: which one is the conservative on the Meet the Depressed?

sitting on a cornflake

Bourbeau, you said something there that started me to thinking.  You're very correct in your statements.  What does it matter?  The nets ARE too far gone to ever even approach an equally balanced newscast which would feature a conservative.  I also realized I haven't watched a network news program in going on three years.  I've never seen Couric, for example.  I meant to watch her debut on CBS but forgot to.  I guess it would be easy to juxtapose the ideas.  i've forgotten about the networks and the networks have forgotten about me.  I see them as irrelevant and they see me as hopeless.  They are the Eggmen, I am the Walrus.

Who had the fairer panel.

In defending Fox News as fair and balanced, I would challange the other to pick their 'balanced' network. I would name a Liberal on Fox then challange them to name a Conservative on their network. They always ran out of Conservatives before I even got warmed up.

Of course, being true Libs, they would then announce that it was a silly game.

Peacola...I would play the

Peacola...I would play the same game with my conservative buddies back in the 90's when they would constantly claim there were virtually no conservative voices on the major networks or cable stations.  They would soon be reduced to incoherent babbling, and the game really was no contest.

For a number of reasons, the dynamics have changed in the past decade [cancellation of shows, movement of pundits to Fox, etc] and the game is now more difficult from the liberal perspective.  That said, conservatives still get plenty of airtime on the broadcast media.

Jer

Jer... Your conservative

Jer...

Your conservative buddies must not have had as much time as you did to know the answer to that, or they didn't watch politics enough to notice....I for one sure beg to differ with you...the networks were biased then as they are now with leftists...talking heads included...only difference now is Fox, so we can't include that here if we are talking around ten years ago...unless you were actually trying to be cute by half when they said virtually no conservatives meaning in comparison to liberals....so just how did you reduce them to incoherency? 

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

This was how, bt...

so just how did you reduce them to incoherency?

When they would say "Oh yeah...name one!" [in response to my pointing out that there were a number of conservative voices on television].  After rattling off about fifteen names, their eyes would start glazing over and the babbling would commence.

Jer

they would constantly claim

they would constantly claim there were virtually no conservative voices on the major networks or cable stations. -Jer

Care to name some names of this legion of conservatives on the networks in the 90's?

Naming the legion of conservatives...

My pleasure, mb....William F. Buckley, Jr., Pat Buchanan, John McLaughlin, Fred Barnes, John Stossel, Louis Ruykeyser, Paul Gigot, William Kristol, George Will, David Brinkley, Robert Novak, Mona Charen, Kate O'Beirne, John Sununu, Tucker Carlson, William Safire, Joe DeGeneva, Victoria Toensing, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Bill Bennett...and frequent guest appearances by Barbara Olson, Peggy Noonan, Ann Coulter, Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Mark Levin, etc.

Touche...that's a good

Touche...that's a good list. But a lot of them weren't "regulars"...only guest appearances. DeGenova and Toensing came on during the Lewinsky thing and were not seen much afterward. Mona Charen and Kate Obeirne were specifically the "conservative side" of the McLaughlin group..a show that was meant to have both sides. And those "frequent guest appearance" by Coulter and the others very often consisted of them being the "token" conservative against 3 liberals. I don't think Thomas Sowell or Larry Elder were "frequent" guests anywhere; not in the 90's and not now. But I could be wrong; memories are not always accurate.

 

 

mb

...and no matter what they were always talked over mb...rarely did you get to hear one little sentence out of any conservative when it wasn't attack often, attack loudly.

It was infuriating...this still goes on, just not as rampant. 

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

mb...I didn't mean to

mb...I didn't mean to suggest that each of the guests I listed in closing made multiple and repeated appearances on the political talk circuit.  But, they and others, to varying degrees [some more frequently and others less so] would appear from time to time to present the "conservative" view. 

A slight clarification:  O'Beirne and Charen were regulars or semi-regulars on CNN's Capitol Gang representing the conservative side. 

I think there was actually more balance in the 90's than there is now, and that disappoints me.

Jer

Jer, you did say "frequent

Jer, you did say "frequent guest appearances." Now you say you meant to varying degrees, from time to time.

This is one of those discussions that can go around and around, on people's different perception of things like "frequent" and "balance."

Of course, they had to try to be fair and have both sides represented for purposes of discussion, so of course they had a "stable" of covservatives who they would call for that, but as I said, it was generally a "token" conservative for the rest to gang up on. Also, Falwell and Robertson represented the "Religious Right", a unique subset; not conservatives in general.

Of course, if you add up all appearances of conservatives everywhere in the the entire decade, you will come up with quite a list. However, my guess is that it would pale in comparison to the number of appearances by liberals.

I stand corrected on the "Capitol Gang" thing...had my panel shows mixed up.

Motherbelt:  I didn't keep

Motherbelt:  I didn't keep a running tally of the times each of the guest contributors appeared.  Obviously some did more than others.  Maybe it would have been better to say that there were frequent appearances by the likes of etc.  Would that have been more satisfactory?

By the way, I could have added to the main list the names  Charles Krauthammer who was a regular on PBS and Brit Hume who was a correspondent on ABC.  Even Rush Limbaugh had his own show for awhile.  Tony Snow was also a frequent substitute on The McGlaughlin Report.  I'm not sure about the timing of Lucianne and Jonah Goldberg and Delroy Murdock for example...they may have come along sometime after 2000.  Same for Lou Dobbs.  There were probably others.  This is just my recollection.

Jer

I don't like the expression

I don't like the expression "by the likes of"...seems demeaning, but that's just my opinion.

That wasn't my point. My point was using "frequent guest appearances" and then modifying it to varying, from time to time.

It would have been better if you started with the latter. 

 

Whatever...by the way, with

Whatever...by the way, with respect to your comment on Robertson and Falwell...both were using their television platform to also promote distinctly conservative as opposed to merely religious views.  Falwell, for example was known for his incessant peddling of the odius "Clinton Chronicles" smear video.  Robertson's news commentary would cover a whole range of pro-conservative, pro-Republican issues.

Jer

If you're going to say

If you're going to say "whatever" to the answer...don't bother asking the question.

mb...you're right.  I

mb...you're right.  I think I was getting a little exasperated.  I apologize.

Jer

motherbelt...conservatives weren't just "tokens"

...it was a "token" conservative for the rest to gang up on.

Not necessarily.  That wasn't true of The McGlaughlin Group [which by the way was followed by McGlaughlin's own one-on-one show], or Firing Line, or This Week with David Brinkley, or Cross Fire or the Evans/Novak Report.  And Capitol Gang was generally reasonably balanced, although it later was mostly 3-2 in favor of the liberals.  I'm not sure, but I believe Meet The Press had Broder (center-left) and Safire (right) as regular panelists.  And I don't recall any debate allowed by Falwell or Robertson.   

Jer

 

 

What I said was: so of

What I said was:

so of course they had a "stable" of covservatives who they would call
for that, but as I said, it was generally a "token" conservative for
the rest to gang up on.

I wasn't talking about regular panels..I was talking about invited guests.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't disputing the makeup of McLaughlin Group etc.

Thanks for the

Thanks for the clarification.  I understand your point.

Jer

It's the ignorance of a group...

Watching a panel discussion on any of the traditional networks reminds me of what it was like when I lived for a short time near Berkeley, CA. You could enter into a restaurant or gym and listen to locals having a discussion and be astounded at how the group dynamic can be so incredibly ignorant of any possible alternative viewpoints. Criticizing them for stacking their news discussion panels exclusively with liberals is lost on them because they live in enclaves of like thought and doubt anything that contradicts their assumptions.

Same as it ever was,

Same as it ever was, Pewah.

My husband and I stopped talking politics with long-time friends years and years and years ago.  Liberals in this California neighborhood are not prepared to present arguments to support a point of view.  The last thing they expect is political disagreement, and they can be embarrassed by a lack of readiness to substantiate their views. 

Of the 42 votes cast in the

Of the 42 votes cast in the presidential general election since 1980 by the six members of the Meet the Press panel, not a single one of those 42 votes has gone to a candidate who has won a majority of the vote (i.e., the Republican candidate).  Tim Russert is soooo stupid that he, no doubt, considers that collection of leftist fools to be "non-partisan".  Russert's evidence?  The six of them are registered independents.  Years ago, I saw Russert on C-SPAN, and he actually used that claim as "evidence" of his "non-partisanship".

Poltical Center

Politics is a little like the expanding universe. No matter where you are located it always appears from your frame of reference that you are in the center.

I remember people from "The Nation" Magazine characterizing the Socialist Workers Party front groups who were sponsering anti-war demonstations as extremests and at other times accsuing the NYT and the networks of being right wing.

Funny, but all I noticed in both panels

Was the media's usual TOTAL lack of any libertarians whatsoever among the assorted lefties, neocons, etc. on their "balanced" panels. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence, and not a result of the pervasive antilibertarian media bias I've been talking about here on NB for years...
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Tim Russert sees

Tim Russert sees conservative-thought as an oxymoron. Most of the liberal media do. ABC gives a seat at the table to George Will because until recently he wore nothing but funny bow ties; his ideas were easily dismissed by the nine or so liberals on the panel.

David Brooks also gets to sit in some weeks; he's the New York Times' house Republican. David Gergen is another. He used to be the voice of the GOP on PBS until he took a job in the CLINTON White House.

Wonder why they are losing viewers?

Fox News Sunday Balance

No contest.  With that lineup meet the press looks more like a DNC pow-wow than a balance of political opinion.

I watched both and there's

I watched both and there's no comparison between the two. I didn't see Mark's blog until this a.m., but while I was watching Meet the Press, I thought, "All liberals, where's the balance?".

Thanks for bringing this to the forefront, Mark. :o)

In Marxist thought,

In Marxist thought, everything's balanced if you just become a liberal!

The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy

ABC HAS GEORGE WILL & JOHN STOSSEL

I can't stand ABC news, but at least they have George Will and John Stossel on every week.  Who does NBC or CBS have?

Snuffing out major alternative views turns news programs into propaganda machines.  If I wanted propaganda I'd move to China.