Broadcaster's Bias Against Liberal Hosts and Guests

[fred flintstone]

The righties keep trying to sell The Big Lie of liberal media bias. They keep repeating it and people who don't know any better believe it. This is an apparent tactic to invalidate criticism or unfavorable coverage. However, liberal media bias is a lie.

An AP article points out Obermann's time slot was occupied by liberal host Phil Donahue and NBC tried to squelch liberal viewpoints. The article quotes former Donahue producer Jeff Cohen as observing that less than four years ago Donahue's show imploded primarily because MSNBC and its corporate owners were afraid to have a show seen as liberal or anti-Bush at a time those opinions were less popular. Cohen says NBC News forced Donahue to book more conservatives than liberals and eventually wanted one of the nation's best-known liberal media figures to imitate Bill O'Reilly. The AP says Cohen made these observations in the book "Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media."

The AP story also reports MSNBC's Keith Obermann's ratings are going up the more he adopts a Bush-critical stance on his broadcast. In contrast, his right-wing Fox competitor, Bill O'Reilly, an administration and war supporter is in a "ratings slump." NBC is a division of General Electric, a major military and government contractor.

GE, Disney, Viacom and News Corp [irony mode on] all hotbeds of liberal activism and liberal bias [irony mode off].

 

[Radio_Realist]

An AP article points out Obermann's time slot was occupied by liberal host Phil Donahue and NBC tried to squelch liberal viewpoints. The article quotes former Donahue producer Jeff Cohen as observing that less than four years ago Donahue's show imploded primarily because MSNBC and its corporate owners were afraid to have a show seen as liberal or anti-Bush at a time those opinions were less popular.

Just because the AP prints it, that doesn't mean it's accurate. The real reason why Donahue's show was cancelled was that it was boring, and it had far too few viewers to justify continuing it.

"Cohen says NBC News forced Donahue to book more conservatives than liberals and eventually wanted one of the nation's best-known liberal media figures to imitate Bill O'Reilly."

That's because the liberals that Donahue had been booking were also boring.

Your posts in here are proof that liberals tend to be boring.

 

[evnlee]

The righties keep trying to sell The Big Lie of liberal media bias. They keep repeating it and people who don't know any better believe it. This is an apparent tactic to invalidate criticism or unfavorable coverage. However, liberal media bias is a lie.

An AP article points out Obermann's time slot was occupied by liberal host Phil Donahue and NBC tried to squelch liberal viewpoints. The article quotes former Donahue producer Jeff Cohen as observing that less than four years ago Donahue's show imploded primarily because MSNBC and its corporate owners were afraid to have a show seen as liberal or anti-Bush at a time those opinions were less popular. Cohen says NBC News forced Donahue to book more conservatives than liberals and eventually wanted one of the nation's best-known liberal media figures to imitate Bill O'Reilly. The AP says Cohen made these observations in the book "Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media."

The AP story also reports MSNBC's Keith Obermann's ratings are going up the more he adopts a Bush-critical stance on his broadcast. In contrast, his right-wing Fox competitor, Bill O'Reilly, an administration and war supporter is in a "ratings slump." NBC is a division of General Electric, a major military and government contractor.

GE, Disney, Viacom and News Corp [irony mode on] all hotbeds of liberal activism and liberal bias [irony mode off].

another post that should be moved OTB. Why bother Fred? You have your mind made up and your always right, so why do you want to keep this debate going? :

Fred, Jeff Cohen in the founder or 'FAIR' which is an self admitted progressive media watchdog ( ala media matters ), so don't you think his 'objectivity' is at risk?

It sounds like Donahue's former producer is making excuses for Donahue stinking up the joint. He was good in his day,but those 3 shows he did in 2003 were just bad. I mean, c'mon, admit it. He's too old and he's lost it.

 

[fred flintstone]

Evn, I don't disagree with your assessment of Donahue in latter years. Even in the latter years on his syndicated talk show, he was coming off (IMHO) as preachy and predictable - not the genuinely curious "everyman" who once did a show from Dayton.

Even so, apparently NBC News' solution to "fix" Donahue was to make him conservative and to book conservatives. Corporate suits tend to be establishment Republicans and therefore are much more comfortable with conservative programming. Nothing unusual in that: Old time radio guys (and the stations they ran) did not do well managing or programming Top 40 radio because they just didn't get it. Most broadcast owners, operators and managers are conservative; so are most workers in the trenches. So it's understandable for them to think the key to audience acceptance is conservative programming. Most are also imitators rather than creators so they try to copy what they think works (nothing succeeds like excess). MSNBC wants to copy O'Reilly. AAR tries to copy Rush (with a liberal spin); so do all the right wing talkers. FreeFM copies Howard.

Phil failed because NBC tried to make him into something he wasn't, instead of doing a better job at playing to his strengths. Best way known to destroy talent. But it illustrates broadcasters have one mold into which all talk programming must fit and that mold is conservative (and bombastic and argumentative).

 

[evnlee]

Phil failed because NBC tried to make him into something he wasn't, instead of doing a better job at playing to his strengths.

Again, your taking the 'word' of the guy who founded FAIR for that perspective.

Fred, if I came to you with an argument for 'bias' in media from Rush's website, or the Media Research Center, you would be the first one to point that out.

How can you , in fairness, point to Jeff Cohen's weak (at best) theory for why Donahue failed as some sort of proof of a 'right wing' bias?

When you asked me for 'proof' of some liberal bias, I specifically avoided using the MRC, and instead provided NPR's own ombudsman and an accredited, funded study done by UCLA. When you asked for a more personal example, I showed how many stories NPR ran supporting a 'liberal' protestor vs an established historical southern athletic club. But even that was not good enough.

I think Keys nailed it : he would not provide proof because no matter what is presented, if it does not fit into the 'progressive' mindset, it's not going to be accepted.

I think bias exists, on both sides, and it doesn't really matter because in this country the other side gets to put it out there. The success of Rush and conservative talk in radio was filling a void that other media entities were lacking. Now that there's more competition, and that the success of Fox, bloggers,and talk radio is influencing hardline news media ( that is indisputable, 'Rathergate was a prime example ), I expect to see Rush' ratings start to decline.

Donahue got canned becuase he couldn;t control his own show. 4 talking heads yelling at each other at the same time and Phil trying to make sense of himself simultanoesly did not work. That's the dirty secret Jeff Cohen does not want you to know

 

[fred flintstone]

If Cohen wrote as a media "observer," I'd agree with you.
He wrote as Donahue's producer and this is what he said happened.
What gives it credibility as an honest account ofwhat he experienced is his account is consistent with what I experienced in broadcasting. I don't know about you, but in my time in radio most of the people with whom I worked and for whom I worked were strongly and consistently predisposed to right-wing positions.

 

[RBA]

The fact of the matter is that Donohue's ratings were the highest on MSNBC at the time. Even higher than bi-polar Chris Matthews. After the firing MSNBC hires gay basher and racist Mike Weiner who immediately tanks (even by MSNBC standards).

 

[evnlee]

If Cohen wrote as a media "observer," I'd agree with you.
He wrote as Donahue's producer and this is what he said happened.
What gives it credibility as an honest account ofwhat he experienced is his account is consistent with what I experienced in broadcasting. I don't know about you, but in my time in radio most of the people with whom I worked and for whom I worked were strongly and consistently predisposed to right-wing positions.

Fred, Donahue could have hired any number of people to 'produce' his MSNBC show. Who did he choose as his producer? ( and according to Cohen's book there was some problems bringing him in as producer, MSNBC wanted someone with more TV production experience.)

Donahue hires the 'progressive' founder of FAIR.

Lets see if I have this right, and let's use an analogy( please folks, just an anaolgy, don;t get all worked up here).

Rush Limbaugh gets offered an hour show to be syndicated on NPR.

He hires as his radio 'producer' , Brent Bozell, the founder of the media research center.

NPR initially balks at the idea, because Bozell doesn't have much radio experience.

Bozell starts working for NPR with a chip on his shoulder, becuase he knows they did not want him for the gig.

After awhile, the ratings come and and it's not pretty. The work relationship was strained from the start.

Fingers start pointing, and eventually Rush get's the hatchet.

Years later, Bozell writes a book about his 'experience', and claims NPR didn't want Rush to succeed because they did not like his politics.

Now, are you going to tell me you would find Bozell's position 'credible'? :

I wouldn't even though I'm pretty convinced NPR has somewhat of a liberal slant.

That's the difference between you and me!

 

[RBA]

evnlee,

You wrote the ratings were tanking in your Rush scenario. But the fact of the matter, Donahue ratings were the highest on MSNBC. Why would a network cancel their number 1 show?

 

[evnlee]

evnlee,

You wrote the ratings were tanking in your Rush scenario. But the fact of the matter, Donahue ratings were the highest on MSNBC. Why would a network cancel their number 1 show?

the highest on MSNBC circa 2003 is not considered 'high ratings' According to CNN, Donahue was brought in to counter the success of BOR. At his highest ratings peak he was 446,000 viewers, vs. BOR's 2.7 million viewers. But that was still up 28% from where he started. That's how Cohen can try to justify Donahue's show as a 'success'.

Donahue was a ratings bomb. Hell, Connie Chung's show that debuted shortly before "Donahue" averaged 985,000 viewers. Phil had 6 months of poor ratings, and he was a 9 time emmy winner!! They tried putting him in front of a 'live' audience, because they thought he performed better that way. It backfired, only adding to the confusion.

They brought in Donahue because they thought with his name recognition and proven track record, he was worth the $$$$. But he could not compete ( kinda like the Yankees;-). Don't believe me?

"We're proud of the program and we're disappointed that the show was not able to attract the viewership we had hoped for and expected," said Erik Sorenson, MSNBC president. "

 

[RBA]

You admit his ratings were trending upward. However, you ignore the fact that Donahue was the number 1 show on MSNBC at the time he was canceled. It take time to build an audience. So, MSNBC looks at the numbers going up and they decide to cancel. Very strange, indeed.

 

[evnlee]

You admit his ratings were trending upward. However, you ignore the fact that Donahue was the number 1 show on MSNBC at the time he was canceled. It take time to build an audience. So, MSNBC looks at the numbers going up and they decide to cancel. Very strange, indeed.

Again, what's so strange? They hire Donahue to do one thing: beat or hurt BOR. This is exactly the same thing CNN hired Connie Chung for. They gave him almost 9 months, and he didn't dent BOR ( ugh ). Connie did better, she pulled almost a million viewers on CNN the month they canned Phil. That's why she lasted longer on CNN. But even on CNN that wasn't enough.If Chung could have pulled 1,500,000+, she would still be on CNN.If Donahue could have pulled 1,000,000 viewers vs BOR he would still be on MSNBC today.

When you pull the trigger, and spend $$ to bring in a 'name' to compete, you expect big results,fast.
Donahue is no stranger to the game, he knew this going in~ so did Connie. His show may have been 'trending' up, but when your pulling 400,000 viewers and you add 80,000 viewers, you can honestly say ' my ratings increased 20%! '.

But if the guy your hired to beat is still beating you 3-1, you are not doing what they hired you to do.Plus, you have to stop the bleeding. Maybe the reason they fired Donahue isn't that they felt he was doing a bad job, just that it wasn't worth what they were paying him.

What I find strange are these vast conspiracies that happen everytime a 'progressive' gets fired.

In Atlanta, when AAR wen't off the air, it's because the new owner hated them. In Dallas, it's because some 'christian entity' wanted to silence them. Bunk.

Now, when they yank AAR off the air in Portland, where they do compete, and replace them with Rusty Humphries, then I'll believe these crazy tales.

Again, beware the messenger. Cohen is a died in the wool progressive that had his feelings hurt going in. The reason Donahue was fired was becuase he couldn't compete.

 

[RBA]

This explains in a nutshell why MSNBC has failed up until now to find an audience. They see a shows numbers going up, but they don't have the balls to see it through, so they cut and run and try another show. Poor management, if they continue down this path, they will continue to bomb.

 

[fred flintstone]

Even, your scenarios are possible.

Question is: Did NBC News management tell Cohen and Donahue that Donahue should take more conservative/less liberal positions and book more conservative/less liberal guests?

The closer parallel I think is not a hypothetical Rush at NPR but Rush at ESPN. They hired Rush to be Rush and Rush made a very Rush-like comment about Donovan McNabb (who does get kid glove treatment from sports writers). ESPN got what they had bought and paid for and decided they didn't like it. MSNBC wanted Phil to come on and be a liberal antidote to O'Reilly and then the decided they wanted him to out O'Reilly O'Reilly.

I say broadcast management is inherently conservative and not really comfortable with the idea of liberal talk shows. Further they have had the ingrained assumption all along that the public does not want liberal talk shows and that liberal talk shows won't work and this becomes self-fulfilling prophecy.

People have written books and articles, gone on talk shows, and posted here that the culture of NPR and of the TV network news divisions is one of elite-Ivy League college-Manhattan/Georgetown liberalism. I'm not arguing that and they make a convincing case. I am saying the culture of radio (and TV) at the local level is overwhelmingly Main Street conservatism and radio station managers (and employees) are inherently receptive to shows like Rush and immediately skeptical of progressive talk as a programming concept. There may be other factors to account for the success of conservative talk radio (and for the sputtering growth of progressive talk), but the culture of local radio is (Paul Harvey pause here) a part of the story. This same culture appears to have carried over to management at NBC's cable channels (where Roger Ailes worked before jumping to Fox).

The issue is not why Phil's show failed or the reasons for audience response to it. That's a whole other discussion. The issue. once again, is did NBC push for or demand a more conservative show? Cohen testifies they did. Do you have evidence his testimony is not true?

 

[RBA]

MSNBC tried a turn to the right and it failed. MSNBC went out and hired their new ratings kings, Tucker Carlson from CNN, Rita Cosby from Fox, and Joe Scarborough. Rita is no longer in prime time. Tucker is hanging on by a thread. Joe Scarborough seems to be reshaping his image going from hard-lined conservative to moderately right leaning. As Joe has changed his image and he is benefiting from the surge in ratings of his lead-in, Kieth Olbermann, Joe's ratings are starting to trend upward to. Abhrams is doing a much better job than previous management of MSNBC.

 

[evnlee]

This explains in a nutshell why MSNBC has failed up until now to find an audience. They see a shows numbers going up, but they don't have the balls to see it through, so they cut and run and try another show. Poor management, if they continue down this path, they will continue to bomb.

Hey, don't blame 'management' for Donahue's inability to get the ratings.

Here are Olbermann's rating vs O Reilly for a year:

FOX - Aug 2005 -- 2,093,000 -- Aug 2006 -- 1,511,000 - 28% drop

MSNBC - Aug 2005 -- 349,000 -- Aug 2006 -- 371,000 - 6% increase

By your philosophy, MSNBC should give Keith Olbermann 3 more years or pull the plug.

The important thing to extrapolate isn't how well KO is doing, but how little KO is gaining when BOR is down 28%!


Because here is CNN's ratings from the same period:

CNN - Aug 2005 -- 748,000 -- Aug 2006 -- 902,000 - 21% increase

www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/aug_s_total_viewers_vs_aug_2005_42895.asp

This is Neilsen, not Arbitron. There is no 'subjectivity', it's hardline data.

Now, if MSNBC could get Cooper from CNN, and ditch Olbermann, it would appear to be a good move, right? Andersen Cooper has made a name for himself, gets decent ratings ( comparatively) and if they had to axe KO to do this, would it be a good decision?

I think putting Cooper vs O Reilly is a no-brainer. But, in my analogy, the minute that Olbermann gets his walking papers, it will be all over the blogs that he got fired because the suits didn't like him. And that assumption would be incorrect.

(And before any of the porgressive apologists get thier thongs in a bunch, I'm talking 2+ total viewers here. Spare me the " Keith Olbermann kills in the 25-54 male tattoed pygmie demo', ok?)

 

[RBA]

You need to get some new data. Oblermann's ratings are up, up, up.

Olbermann's nightly audience has increased 69 percent, according to Nielsen Media Research. This past Monday 834,000 people tuned in, virtually double his season average and more than CNN competitors Paula Zahn and Nancy Grace. Cable kingpin and Olbermann nemesis Bill O'Reilly (two million viewers that night) stands in his way.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061008/ap_en_tv/tv_keith_olbermann_2

Of couse this is from "Nielsen Media Research". The Gold Standard in ratings as you have confirmed.

 

[evnlee]

The issue is not why Phil's show failed or the reasons for audience response to it. That's a whole other discussion. The issue. once again, is did NBC push for or demand a more conservative show? Cohen testifies they did. Do you have evidence his testimony is not true?

Where is this 'testimony'? In a court of law? If he 'testifies' that he got squelched while trying to sell his book, I take that with a grain of salt.

Again, you take his word for it, based on your own experiences, but also because you believe him. You agree with his politics. He is a founder of a progressive watchdog group.

The difference between us, is that in my analogy, I also view Bozell's 'testimony' with skepticism. I would especially be more cynical if he was out there on the circuit trying to sell a book about how he got screwed because of his 'beliefs'.

Look, TV ( and talk radio ) is a performance business. We all know this. Here are some facts that cannot be disputed.

A: while Donahue ratings were 'trending up' he wasn't pulling a quarter share of his principal competitor.
B: in the last year, Donahue's replacement is up 6% while his principal competitor is down 28%.
C: CNN is up 21%

Given this, I would say learn more from what CNN is doing right and less from what BOR is doing wrong.

 

[evnlee]

You need to get some new data. Oblermann's ratings are up, up, up.

Olbermann's nightly audience has increased 69 percent, according to Nielsen Media Research. This past Monday 834,000 people tuned in, virtually double his season average and more than CNN competitors Paula Zahn and Nancy Grace. Cable kingpin and Olbermann nemesis Bill O'Reilly (two million viewers that night) stands in his way.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061008/ap_en_tv/tv_keith_olbermann_2

Of couse this is from "Nielsen Media Research". The Gold Standard in ratings as you have confirmed.

fair enough. I stand corrected.

but,you are giving me 'one night' and I used data from a year.

Now, if KO keeps going up, and they fire him, then you have an argument.

If he drops back down to 400,000 and below, don't get mad if he get's canned.

 

[evnlee]

You need to get some new data. Oblermann's ratings are up, up, up.

RBA, you might try reading some of the links you provide. I found this little gem in your story:


"While it's true a different political atmosphere has helped Olbermann, NBC News senior vice president Phil Griffin disputed Cohen's interpretation that politics doomed Donahue. While MSNBC could be faulted for giving up on Donahue too fast, the show never caught its rhythm and was extremely expensive, he said.

"People try to ascribe motives to us, that somehow we're trying to keep liberals off the air and it's all about ideology," Griffin said. "If you get ratings, there's no issue."