(in comes the first and minority po*nst*r.. I mean poster to weigh in on this piece)<--------

Do cable-news producers view the guests added to the lineup during the Imus controversy as qualified to talk only about issues of race, and not other issues of national and political significance?

  Yes. Is it that hard to figure out? It's fairly obvious that some have no opinion on national issues until it directly affects them.

Unless you're subtly suggesting that this "white male preserve" indicates a conservative slant to these programs, thereby suggesting that women and minorites are being "locked out" because they represent the liberal point of view, when this study does not report specifically on any conservative misinformation, is puzzling and begs the question -  "why this is here"?

Oh, what a surprise. You completely ignore the substance of the article in order to play topic cop again. The better question is, why are you here?

I read the entire article, thank you.

Speaking of ignore, if you find my presence here so reprehensible, feel free to ignore me.  You offer nothing except rubberstamping every item here, and if that's the best you can do.......why are you here?

You read it and your only comment is, "Why is this here?" That's my point.

 But just to answer your question, it's here to show the lack of gender and ethnic diversity on cable news. But of course somebody who read the article would know that, and they might even have an opinion or some other on-topic comment of substance to make about those findings.

What is there to have an opinion on?  Are you looking for me or someone to say "No, we don't need anymore women or minorities on these shows!"  

I realize you can't think for yourself and come here to lap up every item without criticism, but some of us read and offer up varying opinions and viewpoints as an intellectual challenge.........not merely a puppet to parrot the same conclusions as the piece itself.  Try a little independent thinking if you're able - then you can wash it down with your kool-aid.

Interesting comment considering that you did nothing to actually address what the post was about. 

 If you actually think that trying to stifle conversation by arguing what MMFA can and cannot discuss makes you an independent thinker, continue deluding yourself.   

Interesting comment considering that you did nothing to actually address what the post was about. 

   You didn't read his first post? Since then, how many of the other posts are on topic? NONE! Tommy hit a bullseye and clams gives the topic the undeniable rubber stamp of approval without even reading it or offering an opinion on the subject. Clams clearly is only posting to denigrate those who offer an opinion that differs.

  PS, YOU are not on topic, either!

You could start by addressing the question posted at the end of the article: "The question, then, is why their guest lists are so overwhelmingly white and male the rest of the time."

See Bruce's "math equation" below.......that is exactly the impression that is being purported by this piece. 

Actually, that doesn't address the question at all. You're still playing the "meta-debate " game. Instead of giving your opinion, you (or rather, Bruce) is pretending to divine MMFA's "hidden message."

It most certainly addresses the meat of why this study is here, as it offers no misinformation whatsoever.  You want to engage in some debate over what?  It's truthfulness?  Nobody is suggesting this study is untruthful.  What exactly are you looking to discuss, exactly?  

"It most certainly addresses the meat of why this study is here, as it offers no misinformation whatsoever."

If that's what you think the meat of the topic is, then you clearly haven't figured out the meaning of "meta-debate" yet. The rest of us, who aren't concerned with how closely MMFA adheres to their mission statement, can see that there is something other than "Why is this here?" to discuss.

If you can't answer my question, what is it exactly about this topic that you wish to engage in, specifically?  What is this topic really saying about conservatives and white men, in your opinion?  

If you won't answer, then move on.

Again: 

"The question, then, is why their guest lists are so overwhelmingly white and male the rest of the time."

Again; 

Women and minorities would be a welcomed guest on any of these programs, nobody would argue the contrary.  

Why do you believe they are being "locked out"?

I believe they're being locked out because the people who make those decisions are, overwhelmingly, white males.

Interesting, so you're saying that Larry King and Keith Olbermann (both included in this study) among others, who are very involved in the booking of their guests, especially Olbermann who writes all of his material, purposely avoid booking women and minorities?  Why would that be?  

You seem to be the only one dividing this along partisan lines. What I said applies across the board, but you're putting words in my mouth when you claim that I said everyone does this intentionally or with malice. By the way, Olbermann's regular guest host is a black woman.

I am very glad to hear you finally admit that racism and sexism does not exist along partisan lines, and that one's ideological makeup is in no way indicative of any racist or sexist feelings, one way or the other.  That absolutely no correlation exists with those that exhibit racist or sexist feelings with their political or ideological affiliation.  

Oh and by the way, Michelle Malkin regularly subs for O'Reilly......what's your point about Olbermann's guest host?

"That absolutely no correlation exists with those that exhibit racist or sexist feelings with their political or ideological affiliation."

I agreed with you up until that point (although I don't know what you mean by "finally admit"). Obviously a correlation exists. Do you honestly think that liberals are just as likely to be racist or sexist as conservatives?

I don't believe that one's ideology has any bearing whatsoever on whether they exhibit racism or not.  There are liberal racists, there are conservative racists, there are decent liberals with no racist qualities, and there are decent conservatives with no racist qualitities. 

Obviously you disagree, and that really is what this whole thread is about, isn't it?  

"I don't believe that one's ideology has any bearing whatsoever on whether they exhibit racism or not."

That's absurd, and very plainly false. I don't know, maybe you just don't understand the definition of "ideology" or something, but your post is utter nonsense. You might as well say that one's beliefs don't have any bearing whatsoever on what one believes.

It should be obvious that conservatism attracts those with racist/sexist beliefs and/or fosters those racist/sexist beliefs. The same cannot be said for liberalism. Yes, there are racists and sexists on both sides of the fence, but the right wing has the monopoly.

I like how you score points, irrefutable ones, and Tommy shuts up and fails to acknowledge that he was bested.

...Yes, there are racists and sexists on both sides of the fence, but the right wing has the monopoly.

So that is what is considered an excellent point?  Sounds to me like somebody read "Animal Farm" and did not quite understand it.

Your implication being that left are just as racist/sexist as the right? Nonsense. Next you'll be telling me that there are just as many black Republicans as there are black Democrats.

To get into a serious racial discussion with you is futile, as I have already stated my opinions.  And for you to bring up Democrats and Republicans just shows your ignorance, this has nothing to do with some silly political affiliation - it is far broader than who votes one way or the other, how absurd.

Your blanket condemnation of conservatives as more inherently racist than liberals highlights your very own bigotry.  There is absolutely nothing racist about pure conservatism, or pure liberalism for that matter.  Anyone who believes otherwise is too steeped in their ideological hatred to realize how incredibly foolish and prejudicial that is. 

Believe what you want, but the anger and bitterness that cloud nearly all your posts when you engage in anyone who disagrees with you is quite revealing, and sad.  

Have a nice day.

"There is absolutely nothing racist about pure conservatism, or pure liberalism for that matter."

 Those are ideals, and they are ideals that don't address what I'm talking about. In the real world, most racists reside on the political right. It's as simple as that. And despite your transparent mischaracterizations, I'm not saying everyone on the right is a racist. I'm simply saying that there obviously is a correlation between one's politics and one's racial/sexual prejudices.

 Just to draw another parallel for you, what you're saying is akin to claiming that one's religion has nothing to do with one's opinion on gay marriage. There's no denying the connection.

You're full of it, Clams. Check this out and get back to me.  Also, since 75 percent of the U.S. population is white and only 12 percent black, the percentage of non-whites appearing on cable news does appear to fall in line with the percentage of the overall population. 

If I had a dollar for every time somebody linked to that page as "proof" of liberal racism...well, I wouldn't be rich, but it's funny how often I've seen people pulling out that link. Yeah, Robert Byrd was in the KKK and Jesse Jackson used a racial slur once, so therefore liberals are just as racist as conservatives. Got it.

It says a lot more than that...did you read the whole thing?  

Democrats brought up the rear on the civil rights movement and IMO only really got on board when they realized "Hey, these people can vote!!" They figured out they could give minorities freebies like welfare and other social programs and indirectly buy there votes. Many of those programs also made sure that the recipients could never get out of poverty and would therefore be a loyal democratic voter for a long, long time.

Prove it. How do social uplift programs create a dependent class?

And yes the Dems brought up the rear on the civil rights struggle but after social progressives took back the party all the southernDemocrats jumped ship and became Republicans.

It's a tired tale really and Clams was right on about conservatives retelling it and retelling it as if it has any relevance today.

According to most of the percentages demonstrated by MMFA above, whites are still largely over-represented on most of those shows most of the time...and that is not even taking into consideration that you are obviously avoiding mentioning gender completely.  White males comprise less than 40% of the general population, but you would never notice it from watching these shows.

because only those evil right wingers put merit ahead of fairness

Precisely.  That is why this administration apparently only made merit based appointments of Michael "You're doin' a great job, Browny!" Brown, Alberto "I know nothingk!" Gonzales and Dick "I choose myself!" Cheney.  Anyone who says loyalty is often the bigger consideration by "rightwingers" must simply a complete nutjob kook!

Tommy instead of asking why this is here why don't you address the substance of the item? 

If you don't think an item should be here then why don't you just refrain from posting "why is this here" to start with?   You can follow the advice you gave CC and just ignore it.   

he does a bit lower down, mostly in racist terms

Personally, I eat stuff like this up. This is the kind of stuff I would like to see more often from MMFA. It simply lays out the information and leaves it up to  us to decide how to take it.

One thing to also look at, and I don't have the data... but the racial and gender make-up of local network affiliates across the country. If it's comparable then, we have to ask ourselves: Why aren't more minorities getting into journalism?

The question may not be the proverbial "cultural barrier" or "glass ceiling", but rather reason why this profession does not make a better effort to attract minorities.

The same constrast can be made for the: Disappearing White Athlete, or why aren't there many African-American baseball players. If the interest isn't cultivated at the lowest levels — once it reaches the top, the dispairity will be shown. These reports just open up the floor for these type of questions.

"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

To back Tommy's statement of "what is this doing here" I'm just still looking where the "conservative misinformation" is in this article.  I feel people like Clams are so cought up in getting their regurgitation, they forget why tools like MMFA were actually created.  

 Tommy great statement.  Just because news media is mainly run or aired by white males has nothing to do with "conservative misinformation" especially since media tends to have a leftist slant.

Id like to see a follow up article of why Rap and hip hop is dominated by black males or why designer industries are dominated by homosexual males. 

My opinion is that they are the ones that actually WANT to be in those inustries or share interest.   

I think you and tommy are a little too hung up on the mission statement.  It seems that when MMFA is only attacking conservatives, you guys deride them for being hypocrites, when they point out something that apparently applies to all or most of the talk shows (regardless of ideology), you say "why is this here".  It is apparent that nothing MMFA could say or do will appease you or tommy to that degree, so you are relagating your arguments to a form of white noise.

You have made it quite clear that you do not care about gender or cultural diversity of opinions on the air.  You are welcome to that opinion.  It matters to me much more than that.  IMO, it would be nice to see a wider array of demographic groups' opinions represented in the hopes that more ideological or philosophical ideas could broaden the public discourse.

When a service such as what MMFA comes out, makes a declaration that they are for pointing out flaws in conservative media and that they are NOT propoganda driven, I do expect their posts to actually reflect that.  I find that most posts here have been more about conservative bashing with the occasional correction rather than the other way around.

 I am all for more demographic groups having their opinions heard, thats why I'll watch news just not on NBC, ABC, etc.  If you want to hear a latin perspective on things, look to your local spanish news, hell even BET and MTV offer some sort of news service.  Granted Manstream, highly funded media is dominated by caucasian males, but this IS AMERICA and the majority of people are still caucasian and speak English. 

I think one of the ''problems'' is that people who actually watch the news, trust professional white males rather than someone who is there just because they are popular i.e. Katie Couric or Jessie Jackson.

"Granted Manstream, highly funded media is dominated by caucasian males, but this IS AMERICA and the majority of people are still caucasian and speak English. " beanz

Is the majority population caucasian male? If no, why do they(white/male) dominate the media? Why is their(male/white) voice deemed more authoritative on race and gender issues like the Rutgers debacle?

This dynamic of white male opinionists weighing in more heavily on race/gender issues is akin to watching the Andy Griffith Show for its ethnic diversity.

Propaganda can be loosely defined as spreading information to help one side or injure another.  In that sense, nearly anything can be seen as propaganda, so the word loses its meaning when it is loosened up to the degree to include MMFA.

You are welcome to view MMFA as some sort of instrument of propaganda.  I choose to view is as a form of anti-propaganda.  I don't see where MMFA makes a claim to be either, so I regard your argument as a worthless strawman.

I must admit, I have not looked up the actual demographic numbers but I would bet that there are similar breakup of our government as there is in the news industry.  My main point of my argument was to suggest that yes it is dominatied by caucasian males but what is the point.  No matter how much anyone denies their own racism or prejudice, people of certain ethnicities are perceived in defferent manners. 

For instance a young well groomed caucasian male with eloquent speech is often associated as trustworthy, knowledgable and professional.  In contrast a young black male wearing fresh ''hip-hop'' inspired clothing and speaking ''ghetto slang'' is seen as untrustworthy and uneducated.  

 My point is that people tend to associate their interests with people they associate with similar interests.  How many times do you ask a high school kid for financial advice or an elderly person what the newest pop songs are.   I think that viewer's associations bring them to demand who they beleive to give them their news are actually able to.

-open_mind-

Propaganda is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people (definition by Wikipedia)

True it can be pretty genera, that is why I dont use it as a derrogotory term like many here do.  If you are not sure what MMFA stands for check out what they say about themselves [link to mediamatters.org] by their own words, they stand for propoganda AGAINST conservativism.  

Back to Tommy's original point.  This post is about an observation of the demographics in News Media.  Where is the conservative misinformation? none? then why is the post here? 

The suggestion is not that 'they' are locked out because 'they' are liberal... it is just a straight up comparison of hosts and guests by gender and race... and I can't speak for the other shows, but Shammity and Comely 'other' guests are either buffons propped up to give a dismal defense againgst something Shammity is for, or 'they' are on there to vigorously defend what he says...

Since when did the mission change to patrolling the airwaves for ethnic and gender diversity devoid of any conservative misinformation?

seeing that you have never been able to comprehend MMFA's mission statement, your comments are it are at best the flatulence of an idiot...

"your comments are it are at best the flatulence of an idiot"

And yet you call yourself a mutt and can't even write a coherent sentence. Go figure.

Could you post something other than the rantings of a troll for once?

I do wonder why so many fright-wing trolls do write like 2nd grad drop-outs...

Then you must be a first grade drop out, because most second graders at least know how to spell the word "grade."

Oh Rino, I've seen you drop letters, apostrophes, prepositions, even whole phrases from your comments. Let's not descend to typo-baiting. We all do it.

Oh Val, perhaps you should read mutts assertion that it's just "fright wing trolls" that write like 2nd grade drop outs.......considering the onslaught of name calling, childish, insulting posts he tosses out regularly, he deserved Rino's response.

I think you all are acting like a bunch of poopypants!

; )

ah, another off-topic troll from tommy...

Duh... cable news and politics are dominated by white males... so whats new? As far as this MMFA piece, Think of it as a special comment/Op-Ed. Why does MMFA HAVE to ALWAYS do mis-information/bias pieces to be valid to you, meta argument notwithstanding?

They can post whatever they want, even if it does stray far away from their "about us" mission.  And makes one wonder what the agenda really is?

So your saying that any entities actvities must ONLY be limited to the exact words in their mission statement. Ok so corporations that give to charity but don't explicitly say it in their mission statement should just stop? Do they have a hidden agenda? Thats absurd Tommy.

I wonder how many corporations have it in their mission statement to bribe politician ...

DTrain said

"Thats absurd Tommy."

I think what he meant was "That is absurd, Tommy", but what he said is also accurate.

That (poster right there) is "Absurd Tommy"!

makes one wonder what the agenda really is?

Their mission is to annoyingly confuse conservative automatons until smoke billows from their ears.

If this bothers you, don't donate to M...errr...never mind...I'm guessing you don't donate to MMFA now.  So, why are you complaining?  Are you the the mission statement policeman?

damn... you guys are speed demons.

Lefties, Take note of Olbermann's numbers. "Liberal" does not mean "diverse."

I didn't see Rick Sanchez, a Cuban American, mentioned anywhere in the article.  One of the now most prominent faces on CNN is, not only Latin, but someone previously strongly identified with Cuban American culture when he worked as a news anchor in Miami.  I'm not debating the article, but this has to count for something.

Rick Sanchez, as far as I know, does not have a show in his name at CNN, but I know what your saying. It means something, no doubt.

MMFA clearly laid out the way this was counted, prime time regularly schedualed shows that have guests. I am just guessing that that does not cover the gentleman you are speaking of.

These organizations make decisions I believe mainly for ratings.  Simply put the white males are home are too racist to watch a non-white doing the show.

My husband is black and we recently attended a funeral for his brother in Chicago. My in-laws had MSNBC on the TV at the house afterward. The juxtiposition of all white faces on the teevee and all the black faces in the room made me extemely aware of the obvious imbalance. I had an "aha" moment that day. But the one ray of sunshine is that we were talking about Barrack Obama.    

how about talking about Condi Rice?

Condi has no credibility left outside of Dick Morris, who is still desperately trying to sell his old book.

Media Matters poses a question at the end of this study:

"Why their guest lists are so overwhelmingly white and male the rest of the time."

Do any of the right-wingers want to try and answer that question? Do right-wingers approve of the current situation? Do they want to see more diversity, or are they content with white male domination, and if so--why?

Diversity will continue to come naturally to cable as it has to other forms of entertainment, sports & MSM news.

There are more minorities being represented today than even ten years ago on TV,  in movies and in various other venues. As there should be.

The conservatives who overwhelmingly own the major media outlets aren't naturally going to do anything. They do what's in their best interest. That frequently involves keeping the status quo. The market doesn't cure anything.     

Julia,

Are you seriously going to tell me you don't see more minorities on TV programming, commercials, movies, TV, movie & music award shows, MSM newscasts & morning shows, music, sports, and in many other venues?

Open your eyes, you're obviously got blinders on.

This will probably get me slammed here BUT, I would like to point out that there is little racial diversity in the NBA. Yet it remains popular among a large White audience. Should we bean count there too???

"This will probably get me slammed here BUT, I would like to point out that there is little racial diversity in the NBA. Yet it remains popular among a large White audience."

 Before you get slammed, I'm going to take a deep breath and give you a chance to explain yourself. So, what exactly are you trying to point out here? Are you actually trying to pull the "reverse discrimination" card by using the NBA as an example?

Clams, having seen your "games" with Tommy, you'll excuse me if I pass on getting embroiled in any long drawn out [and usually fruitless] discussion with you here.

Read my post to Dave from Chicago for your answer.

My games? You mean when he says something ignorant and racist, and then I call him on it? Yeah, I can see why you wouldn't want to play that game.

"...there is little racial diversity in the NBA. Yet it remains popular among a large White audience. Should we bean count there too???"

Whites still like basketball, in spite of most players being black. Is that what you are saying?

As for "bean counting": the MM study raises the question (note that I said question--not accusation) of whether there is a preference for white "beans", or if there is some other reason.

Whites still like basketball, in spite of most players being black. Is that what you are saying?

Of course not. What I'm saying is that no one cares about the racial makeup of the NBA, it isn't an issue, nor are there any complaints that I know of. So WHY just zero in on diversity ONLY when it's seemingly White dominated?

As I wrote to Julia, and you...things change naturally over the course of time.

As they already have over the past 10-20 years.

"So WHY just zero in on diversity ONLY when it's seemingly White dominated?"

Are you seriously asking that question? Have you ever looked at a history book?

Nice try attempting to twist my thoughts & words..

Tommy may have patience with you.

I don't.

Jeter,

My patience has run out, good idea not to engage any further.  You will probably just get called a racist, as I have many times by CC.....which is obviously where he likes to go with those that disagree with them.

You're smart.

I like my clams fried. Any other "forms" of mollusks doesn't interest me ;-)

Way to go Jeter2. Clams just won't come out and say what he really believes. It seems to me that Clams wants to force cable news to diverse itself. I guess the good ol' government should be the one to do this.

"Clams just won't come out and say what he really believes."

 Since when? What I believe is that racial/cultural/sexual diversity is a great thing. If you disagree, that's fine too. That's what Idaho is for.

Noone said that it wasn't a good thing. My question for you is what should be done about it? If you believe that cable news locks out people of color along with gender bias, how would you fix it sir?

Let me answer you this way. I am a hiring manager in a regional retail chain. Each manager at each outlet does his own hiring. All of them are white males. My store is the only one in the entire chain that employs minorities. The diversity of the population is nearly identical for each location, and I have to assume that the diversity of job applicants reflects this, so why is my store the only one with minority employees? It may also be worth noting that my store has the lowest employee turnover rate, and the highest profits in the chain.

It's an ugly fact that minorities are often unfairly overlooked when it comes to retail positions. It seems fair to say that the same goes for cable news broadcasting. So, what would I do to solve this problem? If I were in a position to do so, I would begin by booking qualified minorities to provide commentary on issues other than race. To see this in practice, just watch Bill Maher's show. He's had panels made up entirely of black people for shows where race was never even mentioned. That shouldn't be seen as unusual.

That's rather interesting. don't you think that you have a responsibility, as a hiring manager, to bring unfair hiring practices of the company you work for to the attention of the authorities? In any event, now that we know what you would do, it begs the question of what should be done in the present. How can these news organizations be persuaded to act in a fashion that you would? Obviously, we can sit and have mundane debates as to what the problem is. Wouldn't it be prgressive to not only identify the problem, but to fashion a means to rectify the inequality that you abhore? If so, what should be done?

Oh, so now you get to take me to task for not doing enough? Unbelievable. I'm done playing your tired "If you were really a progressive..." game. Why don't you go do something about it, you hypocritical scold?

I don't need to do anything about it. It is not an issue to me. It is your comments that reveal that you believe that this is an injustice. I never indicated that YOU don't do enough. I merely related that if you are working for a company who engages in such practices, by not reporting them you are nothing but a part of the problem. How can you sit and tout your own accomplishments but continue to work for an organization which obviously engages in unfair hiring practices based on race. That is against the law. Obviously you know that lawbreaking is occuring but are doing nothing about it. What does that say about you? And you call me a hypocritical scold, after you take Tommy and Jeter2 to task all the while knowing that you essentially look the other way when the people who sign your paycheck do the same thing as these news organizations cited in the study? Furthermore, you are conveniently side stepping the issue. I am asking you to specifically state what should be done to rectify this injustice (as you see it)? Should news organizations be forced to put more minorities on? Should there be penalities for those who don't? I am merely asking not what would you do personally, but what should and can be done now to make this right.

Typical Right-Wing Authoritarian self-righteousness. I wonder who exactly we're supposed to report institutionalized racism to? The cops? The white male CEOs? I never said my company's hiring practices were illegal, just as nobody has implied that the hiring practices of cable news networks is illega. But like a good little soldier, you immediately look for somebody to report to.

 I've already explained how I'm doing my part, and since you don't care about this issue one way or the other, it's pointless to discuss it with you any further.

The DOJ has 2 Black lawyer in their civil rights division out of ~100.  

Blah, Blah, Blah. Typical side stepping, issue dodging rhetoric that you seem to utilize all too often. You can't answer the question. You don't even try. How should this issue be confronted? Who should take the lead and persuade these news organizations to do the right thing? Those are simple questions. Obviously you want this conversation to become venomous. That is not my intent. I just want you to back your suppositions with some concrete solutions. By saying something along the lines of 'I would try to have more minorities come n to talk abut issues other than race' does nothing to further the solution aspect of this issue. You seem to be quite passionate about this as evidenced by your comments toward Tommy and Jeter. If that is the case, then stop jabbering about the problem and tell us some viable solutions that could be used to stop cable news organizations from not having enough women and minorities on. How hard is that?

Anyway, you directly indicated that you work for a retail chain in which your store was the only one that hired minorities. That's a problem bud, I'm sure the state and federal Dept. of Labor would be very interested in that. the fact is that you are probably talking out of your ass and when you got called on it you resort to calling me names. Unless of course, you like working for a company who does not hire minorities. Which is it Einstein?

You've already tipped your hand on this one in your first post. "It seems to me that Clams wants to force cable news to diverse [sic] itself. I guess the good ol' government should be the one to do this." That's obviously the argument that you're fishing for, but since I'm not saying that, you're just going to pretend that I haven't already answered your question. I've offered an obvious and a practical solution. But you've already admitted that you don't care about solutions, so quit pretending that you do.

"Anyway, you directly indicated that you work for a retail chain in which your store was the only one that hired minorities. That's a problem bud, I'm sure the state and federal Dept. of Labor would be very interested in that."

Oh, sweet irony! You attack me by pretending that I'm calling for governmental intrusion (an obvious strawman), and then you turn around and chide me for not contacting the "state and federal" authorities about the racial makeup of the company I work for.

"Unless of course, you like working for a company who does not hire minorities."

As I've already pointed out to you, I have done something about that. My company DOES hire minorities, because I'VE HIRED THEM. In case you haven't noticed, it's not just the rest of the stores in my chain and cable news. This lack of diversity occurs in all fields. You can't call your daddy at the Department of Labor everytime a white man hires another white man. And as you've already pointed out, you like it the way it is anyway.

I twisted your thoughts and words by quoting you directly? If you wish to correct what I wrote, then please go ahead. I asked you to elaborate, so if you choose not to, then don't get upset when your words are taken at face value. I think your meaning was clear, but you're more than welcome to explain if you like.

And I told you to read my post to Dave from Chicago.

My anwser to him should have satisfied your question.

If not Clams, then tough.

"And I told you to read my post to Dave from Chicago."

-----

So you believe you are in a position to issue orders now? 

isn't little jeter cute! stmaping his widdle feetsies and throwing a tantrum about his own words being examined! LOL widdle frighted-wing babies are funny :)

Jeter, you and your little yes man Tommy really have CC on the ropes (rolls eyes)

Just because you and Tommy state something doesn't make it so, we can all read the exchanges between Tommy and CC just fine without your interpretation or recap.   I really had to laugh at the part about the  "games" that CC plays as if Tommy doesn't engage in "games" on a regular basis.  I know you wouldn't want to bite the hand that periodically pats you on the head.  

Actually I get patted on the head here by quite a few Liberals as well. Guess I'm not afraid of biting their hands...Mmmmmm?

Tommy & Clams posts are legendary here...mostly for taking up an extraordinary amount of  bandwidth.

Column-width, too... by the time you get a chance to weigh in, you can only fit like one word per line.

Column-width, too

Ah so true Val. The last time I got involved in one of those posts-a-thons that became so skinny it could barely fit more than 2-3 words per sentence was a very long time ago. There used to be this really evil poster here [I'll refrain from mentioning HER name] but she fought with everybody, Libs & Cons, and it wasn't unusual to find these skinny posts on every thread.

"And I told you to read my post to Dave from Chicago. My anwser to him should have satisfied your question."

Well, no, your answer to him doesn't satisfy my question at all. In fact, it only reinforces my original take on what you wrote. So thanks for clarifying, I guess.

There has been talks in regards to the "Disappearing White Athlete", but you're correct these issues only come up when someone cares or they would like to draw some attention to the issue at hand. Other than that... no one cares. No one cares that there are less Caucasians playing pro basketball now, than in previous years, but there has been concern in regards to the lack of representation by African-Americans in the front office of professional sports teams.

If no one cares, it's not reported. 

"things change naturally over the course of time."

I could be wrong, but I don't believe that minority representation in the fields you mentioned happened "naturally".

I'm no historian, but I think it took a great deal of pushing by a great many people against a fair amount of resistance.

Dave the time period I mentioned [in my posts] dealt with the past 10-20 years. Of course there was a long struggle before that ...however, once changes began to take place, it did seem to flow more naturally.

Empirically, you are wrong, about both women's and minorities' entry into fields in which they are traditionally underrepresented. There is a huge body of research that shows that, while some progress has been made, much of this is attributable to legal changes (including affirmative action), hardly what most people would call a "natural" flow. More importantly, the research is largely consistent in showing that they continue to be grossly underrepresented in most prestigious occupations.  

Don't take my word for it--look up the research yourself.

I think this is a common theme among people who feel that racism is over-emphasised in our society (correct me Jeter if I am unfairly lumping you into that group).

Ther perception is that race struggles are something that happened in the 60s (or at latest into the 70s), and that they were resolved then. Since that time, in this formulation, racism has ceased to be a central issue in our society, though some retrograde elements may exist. By and large, as I understand the argument, those that claim they are victims of institutionalised racism are hustlers or at best lazy, looking for others to blame their problems on.

There is absolute disdain for the idea that racism largely just changed its face since the 60s - eschewing Jim Crow laws and the N word - but that it still plays a huge role in hiring and salary decisions, in the enforcement of certain laws and in the harshness of sentences.

Very good, a question.  So when MFMFA highlights a question posed by the media such as:  Are the Democrats weak on defense?, it's just a question.  Nothing leading or anything about that.  Sure they won't point it out, you wouldn't think twice about it.

"So when MFMFA highlights a question..."

Do correct me if I am wrong. But I believe they are almost always  assertions ---not questions--- that are highlighted by MM.

If you can point to MM griping all the time about questions being asked--rather than assertions-- please do list all the many examples here. 

As I recall--having read items here for three years---usually something on the order of Brit Hume's (paraphrasing here) flat-out statement, "Democrats have always been weak on defense". Or 'Democrats are not strong on national security', etc.

Those aren't questions. 

I don't personally think there's anything wrong with asking the question, "Are Dems weak?" or "Are Republicans weak?". So long as the answers present some facts in their arguments pro or con. 

I don't want to support the trolls, but I seem to recall an article on MMFA about the transformation of assertions into "questions" by FoxLies (primary offender) and others. The device involved only adding a "?" at the end of the assertion, as though it were truly a question, but performing the subsequent lying as though a clear-cut decision had been by God or Flying Spaghetti Monster, pre-ordained in favor of the Repugnants. So, yes and no.

I understand your point. However, we're not talking about the viewing habits of those that watch cable news. If all they watch is FOX News, then that's about as diverse as a Ku Klux Klan spring picnic in Harrison, Ark.

However, if you watch various shows across various networks (on cable I watch SPIKE, USA, TNT, FX, Comedy Central and SCI-FI), listen to various forms of music (I tend to gravitate towards British Pop, Norwegian Goth Metal, with some Billy Joel sprinkled in for good measure), and take in a wide variety of movies (I love Asian and French films), then yeah! I'm going to see a bunch of diversity.

At the same time, I have family members that all they watch is the Outdoors Channel, whatever soft porn that shows up on HBO, listen to Lynyrd Skynyrd and Willie Nelson (there's nothing wrong with Willie Nelson), and watch reruns of John Wayne films, then you'll see the difference.

I'm probably the one millionth to say this, but you can't properly compare profesional athletics to other fields.  In sports, achievement is much more based on skill level than other fields.  And in basketball specifically Blacks have on average a lot more quick twitch muscles which allows quicker and more explosive movement---better quickness to get around the defense and to stay with your man when on defense. Also higher vertical leaps.

"Quick twitch muscles" is straight out of The Bell Curve. It was proven false years ago. But racists still believe it.

I had thought this was fairly common knowlege.  I just googled it and found a ton of sites, and they refer to it as though it is common knowlege---accepted science. I would give links but can't copy/paste on my browser.  Also The Bell Curve is about intelligence not athletic ability.  

can't copy/paste on my browser

What are you using, Lynx? I couldn'r find anything. 

I'm using Mozilla-Firefox.  It doesn't allow copy/paste here.  I'll transcribe a couple sites for you.  But I suggest you google the following---- +("fast twitch" OR "quick twitch") +muscles +Blacks.

http://run-down.com/guests/je_black_athletes_p2.php

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.17190/article_detail.asp 

Try Google Scholar rather than a full-web search when you're looking for scientific studies...

Architectural characteristics of muscle in black and white college football players. 

Conclusions: It appears that although there may be race differences in anatomical stature, muscle architecture is likely independent of race.

Also: try ctrl-C / ctrl-V rather than the icons when using Firefox. 

I can't find a scientic study to back up or refute the quick-twitch assertion.   However the study you cite refers to the outward form of the muscles, not the differences in the fibers which make them up.

Jeter, we are talking about "news" media but I give ya credit for trying to change the subject. Are you seriously telling me that the people on TV news are not white and male for the lmost part? Maybe you have blinders on.

Me, I watch figure skating and nary a black face do I see. I see some women selling bathroom cleaner, etc. on the few commercials I watch. Maybe a more pertinent question would be why is there a paucity of minorities in sports management positions? That's if you want to change the subject.   

Julia,

Apparently you missed [or ignored] what I wrote to you in my other post . Here's an instant replay:

Diversity will continue to come naturally to cable as it has to other forms of entertainment, sports & MSM news.

It's happening in other venues, it will eventually happen in cable news.