Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charlatan
Wow. That was some interview. If the entire clip is found, please post it.
That should just about wrap it up for the "but Clinton" crowd.
To answer, the OP... I don't get the impression that Fox news, and the media in general, are anywhere near as harsh to Bush as they are to Clinton.
|
Media Matters had a study of Sunday talk show guests on the three major networks (Fox was not included) from 1997-2005:
Quote:
Among the study's key findings:
* The balance between Democrats/progressives and Republicans/conservatives was roughly equal during Clinton's second term, with a slight edge toward Republicans/conservatives: 52 percent of the ideologically identifiable guests were from the right, and 48 percent were from the left. But in Bush's first term, Republicans/ conservatives held a dramatic advantage, outnumbering Democrats/progressives by 58 percent to 42 percent. In 2005, the figures were an identical 58 percent to 42 percent.
* Counting only elected officials and administration representatives, Democrats had a small advantage during Clinton's second term: 53 percent to 45 percent. In Bush's first term, however, the Republican advantage was 61 percent to 39 percent -- nearly three times as large.
* 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.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200602140002
|
A more recent update through the first half of 2006:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200607200006
Of course, since Media Matters is considered by some to be a "left wing" propaganda machine and the study doesnt necessarily address how the guests were treated by the moderators, I'm sure many will deny it has any credibility.
Maybe they other studies?