Well done MMFA

Studies and analysis like these are outstanding. MMFA deserves major thanks and job well done. The lack of diversity on the entire MSM is a major concern.  Why no African American anchors on Sunday morning? Why no women ? It is becoming so obvious that in an era where token women like Condi Rice are placed in powerful positions in government, our media is going backwords to the days before the 1990s. 

The networks are oblivious to this, they put the dudes on that they want and if the ratings bear them out, then no change will occur.

Doris did you apply for a job with any of the networks?

"Apply"?  The article above was about "guests" on these programs.  You don't "apply" for the show, you are "invited" to go on.

These shows are obviously not making the effort necessary to get a diversity of viewpoints on their programs.

I ignore Duncan, he is not serious and just someone who likes to take us off topic with flame throwing rhetoric.

I ignore Duncan, he is not serious and just someone who likes to take us off topic with flame throwing rhetoric.

   If you read your own post, it was YOU who attempted to take everyone "off topic". Don't blame someone who just responds to your off topic rant.

   The problem with a study like this is...'who cares'? Are you interested in what the shows offer? Or, do you just want to have diversified guests, no matter how boring or uninformed they are? If you just want uninformed guests and boring shows then this topic is very important to you. If you want to watch what you want and you change the channel when you are bored by something, then this topic means absolutely nothing to you.

   Is this another facet the left is going to use to force their ideals into our homes? If the left could draw viewers and listeners like the right does, then they would stop complaining about how unfair the airwaves are. However, everyone finds the shows by the left boring and uninformed, so no one watches or listens to those shows. Now, the left is trying to force their opinion onto airwaves because NO ONE voluntarily WANTS or CARES to listen to or watch them. Is this 'step one' in the lefts plan to take over the television?

    Accepting that the left has no interesting people or shows is the first step to healing. Get over the fact that the people in charge of radio and tv stations know what sells and it ISN'T diversity! If diversity was important to the nation it would have a financial base that producers would draw on, but it doesn't....so they don't.

This study deals solely with the under representation of anyone non-white and non-male on these opinion shows, not left or right opinions themselves.

Having said that you make some ridiculous assumptions. You assume what shows offer now is interesting and that a different offering would be boring. As if you have any idea of what interesting even means.

You also assume that somehow liberal opinions are being forced on you if white guys no longer enjoy a huge margin of representation. I guess from that we can figure out, at least according to your mental constructs of what is interesting, what type of constituents should populate the GOP.

But the biggest flaw in your whole tirade is that the market facilitates competition. It does not. The market is manipulated by political interests, politcally motivated fringe groups and even collusion among companies to impose a self interested status quo. There are examples of advertising blacklists of lib radio and religious groups buying local affiliates to shut down lib radio broadcasts.

But that doesn't really get me down. I listen to lefty radio on iTunes as do many people I know. As far as I know there aren't any reliable methods of measuring internet ratings. In short, lefty radio is alive and healthy and making inroads because people want the truth. You just can't get the truth from rightwing radio.

But the biggest flaw in your whole tirade is that the market facilitates competition. It does not. The market is manipulated by political interests, politcally motivated fringe groups

   You are saying I am wrong by saying that no one is interested in seeing diverse guests, yet say 'fringe groups' manipulate what is happening. Which is it? You say I am wrong then make a statement that indicates I am right.

   Is that an example of your brilliant left wing mind in action?

Your statement only makes sense if you equate diversity to manipulative fringe groups. That's absurd and ignores the context of what is meant by fringe groups.

It's not suprising that you ignored the point of my post given the fact that you cropped my sentence midstream to redirect its drift. It's understandable though, that to some opening up participation on these shows to representatives of diverse groups could be seen as manipulation. But understand this, that to others, especially those locked out, it's a matter of fairness.

 It does not. The market is manipulated by political interests, politcally motivated fringe groups and even collusion among companies to impose a self interested status quo. There are examples of advertising blacklists of lib radio and religious groups buying local affiliates to shut down lib radio broadcasts.

   That's absurd! I'll complete your quote for you, but you still claim special interests and fringe groups control a large portion of the media market while mentioning collusion and blacklisting as an afterbreath. You cannot be real when you say that liberal view points are not being broadcast because conservatives won't let it happen. That is borderline paranoia. NOBODY believes that liberals can't get their opinion broadcast, you just want to force your beliefs into conservative shows because you're jealous that conservative shows are successful and yours are not.

But understand this, that to others, especially those locked out, it's a matter of fairness.

   Fairness is NOT what liberals are after. They never have been and never will be. They seek solely to benefit their own selves and no one else. The ONLY reason you use that as an excuse to attack free speach is because of jealousy. Face it, you hate that America does NOT want to listen to the liberal mantra 24/7. If it did then air america would not be going bankrupt, and now you do what you can to FORCE America to listen to your views.

   Michael Savage asked a caller a question about this the other day (the caller was scared to answer this question), he asked; if the fairness bill gets enacted, does that mean networks like CBS, ABC would be forced to allow Savage onto their shows to promote the conservative viewpoint after they spew their liberal viewpoint? Needless to say the caller changed subjects. That shows what the liberal is after....and it ISN'T fairness!! You want to force your way onto the airwaves because no one voluntarily will listen to you.

"If you read your own post, it was YOU who attempted to take everyone "off topic". Don't blame someone who just responds to your off topic rant." --autopsych

I think you have some reading comprehension issues.  The post that Doris wrote wasn't off-topic at all and Duncan's response didn't make any sense as I (and others) pointed out.

The post that Doris wrote wasn't off-topic at all and Duncan's response didn't make any sense

   Doris talked about "anchors", that IS NOT the topic. Doris complained why there is discrimination within anchors on Sunday morning shows..not guests (which is the topic). Duncan's response makes perfect sense concerning Doris's off topic statement.

Well Done MMFA!

I appreciate the enormous service you are doing for America. The above story is another undeniable illustration of the ongoing role of perception management being performed by the corporate mainstream media. An additional illustration that your work is effective are the growing number of dedicated operatives sent here to post complete nonsense as a lame rebuttal.

Is it easier to believe that those who disagree with you (sometimes) are "operatives", rather than people who disagree with you on a given topic? Just curious.

If the "operatives" actually made sense, had valid points, addressed and responded to the points made by others, addressed the topics covered by Media Matters, then they wouldn't be "operatives" who seem hellbent on distracting us, minimizing the issues covered, and making derogatory comments.

So, if someone doesn't make sense to you they are an 'operative'. Sounds a little paranoid to me. If they bring up a tangent off the main subject, they are derailing on purpose? Last I checked that was part of the natural ebb and flow of any conversation.

It is not only paranoid but how the culture is on this site. If you have a different opinion than most of these people you are an "Operative". 1984 , thoughts other than what MMFA tells us wanted only. 

Thank you for balancing the leftwing paranoia with an equally excellent example from the right.

: )

It's not that it doesn't make "sense" to me.

It's that they don't make sense.

And it's not that they derail the conversation. It's that they don't address the subject, and when they get called on their derailment, they deny it.

And it's not that I have anything against you, but I have not seen you add anything valuable to any discussion you have participated in. You have continued to derail the conversations and have failed to make sense. So, I'm not surprised that you would object to someone calling out that very behavior, since you only seem to be able to behave like that! 

And it's not that they derail the conversation. It's that they don't address the subject, and when they get called on their derailment, they deny it.  .....  I have not seen you add anything valuable to any discussion you have participated in. You have continued to derail the conversations and have failed to make sense.

    Ummm, what have YOU added that is "on topic"?? Aren't you just doing what you complain the "operatives" do?? You started out off topic then denied it when called on it. Then to top it off you finish with a derogatory comment (another complaint about operatives).  If you reply to this post, perhaps you should consider saying something ON TOPIC!!

Well when you have guys like Bill O'Reilly openly discussing ways to counter the massive impact of MMFA, it seems likely that there are, in fact, people being paid to post nonsense as rebuttal on this site. IN addition, if one takes a look at the time stamps of some of the more prolific wing nut posters, it seems that they are working "shifts".

I will grant you that most of the wingers here are just your garden variety morons.  

--yawn--

 Who cares? Really. It's about supply and demand. It's about interest. What is the number of minorities that have applied for positions on these shows? TV is all about ratings... if the black opinion is really wanted, viewers can go to BET and watch there. If the homosexual agenda is wanted, they can go to, well, any major network.

If you want quotas, just say so. Then I'll start asking for proper racial segmentation of the entertainment and sports industries. There are far too few whites playing basketball, far too few blacks and hispanics playing hockety, far too few asians in football, far too few whites on R&B radio. Where are all of the blacks in tennis and golf? Where are all of the eskimos in the surfing industry?

C'mon people.. quotas are stupid.

 If the homosexual agenda is wanted, they can go to, well, any major network. - cann0nba11

OK, I wasn't that intrigued by this item , and I did make a comment about HGTV, but I do have to ask;

What is the Homosexual Agenda, and how is it manifested on the major networks?

My brother is gay, maybe the Homosexual Agenda is his Day-Timer.

...if the black opinion is really wanted, viewers can go to BET and watch there.

Sadly, black folks can't go to BET for "black opinion" either since the majority of programing is music videos. Ever since Viacom bought BET it has been the sister (or is it "sistha"?) network to MTV. It's hard to tell the difference between MTV and BET nowadays since their shows are pretty much the same.

Despite the fact I think the program is horrible, Paula Zahn Now is the only place that you can get a minority perspective, even though the host is white. Zahn was smart and recognized that there's an audience of people that are being looked over, and she capitalized on that by focusing her program about racial intolerance and discrimination against minorities, women and religion. 

   So, why don't minorities and diversified people start their own shows? It doesn't cost that much, there seems to be a ton of infomercials on. Why are the complaints against the shows that have already succeeded? If you have such a large audience that NEEDS diversification to the extent that mmfa creates this article, then you should have NO problem succeeding where others are afraid to venture.

   Perhaps the main point of mmfa's article is 'do you actually want to work for your own success, or would you rather leach off of others success'?

Yeah, and while they're at it they should start their own oil companies too. I mean, how expensive could it be? Why should we let minorities leech off the hard work that white people put into all the big successful oil companies?

You use a strawman arguement by comparing to ownership of oil companies. Are you insinuating that there are no minorities with enough money to start a radio station? I seem to see a lot of minorities start lots of different business's. You seem to say they cannot start a radio station because they don't have the finances available that others do. Why would you say that?

That's not a "strawman argument." You're simply misusing that term. I was pointing out the absurdity of your idea that starting a television network or a radio station is somehow within everyone's financial. And need I even point out that you were saying this in response to someone who brought up BET, a black owned network? Basically, you have no point. On the one hand, we have you saying that minorities should start their own networks as if it's like starting a lemonade stand, and on the other hand we have multiple people in this thread crying reverse racism because BET and Telemundo don't have enough white people.

   Nowhere did I say 'everyone' can afford to start their own radio/tv show. I said there are some who can. But, apparantly, liberals don't feel a need for that, they will just force consvatives to let liberals on thier "personally" owned business's. The airwaves may be free, but it costs money to pay the people who send the signal out. And owners don't usually follow money-losing practices when they venture into a business. Just because liberals don't know how to make money on tv/radio don't whine to the government to force conservatives to lose money the same way you do!

and on the other hand we have multiple people in this thread crying reverse racism because BET and Telemundo don't have enough white people.

   Oh? Who cried 'reverse racism'? Perhaps I missed those(but I haven't read all 300 posts yet). Bring proof to the table!

Unbelievable. You admit that you didn't bother to read the thread, and then you turn around and demand that I give you proof of something that other people have written in the thread?! READ THE THREAD! I'm not going to do your work for you. Is this how you get through life?

ok, went through all 308 messages. didn't see any crying about reverse discrimination. you must be making it up...again. quit your whining and get back to the topic, or have you 'lost' and changed subject matter, which is common for liberals.

"How many whites are on Telemundo truthseeker?" - Sebastion Shaw

 Keep going...you claimed "multiple". I know it's difficult for you to back up your claims, but go ahead and do it.

"So, why don't minorities and diversified people start their own shows?"

-----

Yes, because "Separate but Equal" has such a shining history od success... 

I agree Cannon

I am not sure if this study REALLY proves anything. Lets talk stats. There are obviously more caucasian people in the U.S. then minority groups(well duh). The chances of finding a person of color(or a minority) who is involved in politics and is willing to provide commentary on these programs is much less then a caucasian contributor. I do see legitimacy to the extreme difference of women-to-men on these programs however, and believe these programs should work harder to show more diversity to the extreme gender difference...

That's not a good argument. You say let's talk stats yet provide none.

Aside from that, white males do not even out number white females in our country let alone every other race combined. So why do white males dominate the broadcast shows at a rate of 3 or 4 to 1?

The answer must be in that Pat Buchanon school of thought that says diversity is killing our culture.

Aside from that, white males do not even out number white females in our country let alone every other race combined. So why do white males dominate the broadcast shows at a rate of 3 or 4 to 1?

The answer must be in that Pat Buchanon school of thought that says diversity is killing our culture.

   That is not a good arguement. How can you blame Pat Buchanon without proof of what he teaches? The fact remains, no matter how often you deny it, the diverse guests are not there because they have no credible audience. If they brought something interesting to the show they would be on. To blame Buchanon is simply a cop-out because you live in a world of delusion. Instead, "popular" lefty shows seem to offer nothing for the masses and the new plan is to "force" right wing radio to allow equal time to lefties. Great way to get an audience mr zedong! Wonder if lefty shows will be forced to allow equal time to righties? Forcing us to watch what we don't want to watch and listen to what we don't want to listen to is a great culture builder, mr zedong! I'm looking forward to the freedoms you want to force on me.

That's cool. Strike the Buchanon part, it was a dig at folks like you anyway. Consider instead the fact that white males are actually in the minority of the total population of our country yet they dominate the talk shows at about 4 to 1.

But once again you are conflating liberal opinion with diverse guest represention on these shows. If you want to play it that way which you won't because you know your argument is lame and you are only trying to score some kind of win here. But if you want to play it like that, think about it this way; if diversity on these shows equals liberal opinion on a on to one basis, as you most definitely believe it to be, then white male representation equals conservative opinion. In which case conservative opinion is in the minority in this country, as white males are a minority, and as such, you and your types are forcing your freedoms on the rest of us.

And you are equating one dominance over another without taking into account the financial interests of the ownership of the company at question. If special interest groups are in such demand why can't they start their own programing and invite who will financially improve their own conditions/concerns? You seem to forget that you are NOT being forced to listen to or watch any program you don't want to. You are free to listen to whatever turns you on. It seems to me that financial success for those in that type of business require certain people to draw in the majority of the listeners/watchers that benefit their business. Is there a problem with that? This is America and we are free to do whatever we want (within legal limits). If I choose to listen/watch diverse programing then I will. If I choose not to then I will not. If I start a business that promotes usage of helium balloons and my customer base prefers helium, you cannot demand that I promote usage of hydrogen balloons just because that's what you want to use. Is that a viable comparison?

"Is that a viable comparison?"

No, obviously not. Because hydrogen has not been enslaved and/or oppressed by helium for the past half a century.

  Aha ha ha ha ha ah ha haah ha snort ha ah hahha ha! Classic! You must be kidding, hydrogen has been "oppressed" ever since the Hindenburg exploded! In fact the zeppelin exploded BECAUSE of oppression of helium by the US government!

  :)

I am free to watch what I want, so long as it's actually on.

You keep talking about force this and force that while I'm simply talking about inclusion. If someone is on a show that you don't want to hear you too are welcome to turn it off for the short time they are on. Nobody is forcing you to watch either, get it?

See, this is an example of the tyranny of the majority, as it were. And a damn good indication of why the market should not be relied upon in instances where the public interests are at stake. The rights of the minority must be respected while not infringing upon the rights of the majority.

There is a compromise to be made. I'm willing why aren't you? I suspect because you know the truth. You know that the market is severly slanted to favor the powerful at the expense of the weak. But it just so happens that you side with the powerful because they adhere to a conservative worldview of wealth equals discipline equals morality. So you hide behind the fallacy of market competition knowing all the while that markets are manipulated by dishonest players who have no intention of allowing a progressive peep.

There is a compromise to be made. I'm willing why aren't you? I suspect because you know the truth.

   I'm willing to compromise. I'm not willing to force radio/tv stations to broadcast money-losing opinions if they are in the business to make money. Example: station A airs a conservative show (say Michael Savage for 3 hours). Is that station then required to air opposing opinions? How many? How long? The owner of station A makes a lot of money by airing Michael Savage and loses a lot of money airing the liberal point of view (in accordance to the future law). Is that the "truth" you think I know?

 You know that the market is severly slanted to favor the powerful at the expense of the weak. But it just so happens that you side with the powerful because they adhere to a conservative worldview of wealth equals discipline equals morality. So you hide behind the fallacy of market competition knowing all the while that markets are manipulated by dishonest players who have no intention of allowing a progressive peep.

   You are definately paranoid. Do you believe the illuminati controls all world events, too?

Yes.  Quotas are stupid.  How amazingly inciteful.  Thank you, Mr. Strawman.

inciteful

Intentional or not, that was an awesome typo... 

Good catch.  It was originally a typo.  I thought of making a correction, but decided the Freudian Slip (or is it a Spoonerism) was more apt.

: )

Besides the stupidity and bigotry of your post the entire thing is based on a strawman argument since the article is about GUESTS. Not positions APPLIED FOR. Adult education, look into it.

  Instead of trolling and calling other poster's names, how about talking about the problem with no diverse anchors on Sunday morning tv shows. We ALL realize your specialty is derogatory remarks and blazingly complicated name calling, however the topic is not that. AND, no one called you a name or called liberalism a name, so why are you getting all bent out of shape this time??? You do have a job, don't you? God, I pray you don't have control of anyones life in your hands.

  So, the subject is forcing Sunday tv shows to bring on guests that are not wanted by the populance. Similar to the left's desire to force right wing radio to play lefty rants, now we have a desire to force diverse guests onto shows that do well without them. If diverse guests want to be on a show, get your own show! You have no right to force your way onto shows that don't want you and that they'll lose money when they bring you on.

"So, the subject is forcing Sunday tv shows to bring on guests that are not wanted by the populance[sic]." --autopsych

Who said anything about the use of "force" in the thread you are replying to?  Why do you engage in strawman arguments?

the whole problem with your "rant" is that it ignores who actually owns the public airwaves.  that would be the public.  companies apply for the exclusive right to those airways by agreeing to serve the public good.  sure, we know they want to make money, but that is not what they say when they apply for the license.  and i have pointed out before that some conservative radio shows like o'reilly and hannity get fractional shares in some radio markets, while a guy like ed schultz, who has shown some decent ratings, can't get on the air in a lot of markets.  why can't a radio station playing 24 hrs a day of conservative talk, and is the only talk station in a certain area, be required to give a little balance?

companies apply for the exclusive right to those airways by agreeing to serve the public good.  sure, we know they want to make money, but that is not what they say when they apply for the license

   "Serve the public good"?. And what "public good" did air america serve?? Airwaves are free, it costs money to broadcast on them and owners are not to be forced to lose money just because of some fringe groups and a bunch of whiners. If you want the government to force equal airtime, force the government to pay for your radio/tv station! In fact force the government to do that for EVERY opinionated idiot who comes along...including the conservative idiots!

some conservative radio shows like o'reilly and hannity get fractional shares in some radio markets, while a guy like ed schultz, who has shown some decent ratings, can't get on the air in a lot of markets.

  Oh, so some markets DO broadcast your views? But, you want ALL markets to broadcast your views? Talk to air america about why Schultz isn't on the air in places. Perhaps if they had hired some conservative hosts to balance the broadcast they wouldn't have gone bankrupt! But, since liberal points of view do not pay the bills, you are seeking to force your way into markets that do make money and you want to force them into bankruptcy to give air america some company at the unemployment line. BTW, I don't listen to BOR, Hannity or Schultz.

The real diversity, the important diversity, would be in allowing free thinkers on as analysts. Or if that's just too much to hope for,  just having all new people every week would be refreshing {no more George Will, for example} ---  no cocktail hour pals or dog-walking buddies.

That would be a good idea. Recycling the same old pundits and politicians is boring to say the least.

I can agree with that.  It sounds like a better idea than to listen to the same old boring pundits on the left and the right each week.  I would also propose that the guests have a moderate amount of expertise about the subject as well.

"Token women"?  You apply this to Condi Rice?  She is brilliant and gutsy.  What does ethnicity have to do with her position as SOC.  For that matter, what did Colin Powell's ethnicity have to do with his holding the same position.  Or, for that matter, what did ethnicity have to do with the nomination of Clarence Thomas or Gonzalez?

Don't you liberals get tired of pushing the race issue.  How about: they were nominated and/or selected on MERIT!

The fact is you don't know on what basis those people were appointed. Race actually could have been a factor. We simply don't know. For instance, race most likely played no part in Gonzalez's appointment, but he certainly didn't get there on merit alone. But he's sure doin' a heckuva job now, isn't he?

Wrong. The shows could care less about gender or ethicity. Anyone that can offer an interesting viewpoint is selected as a guest. Who did you have in mind? I bet if you come up with someone, they have either already been on a show or they are uninteresting. Geez, everything is a racial or gender thing with liberals. Stop using the excuse of racism or sexism as a replacement for talent and interest.

This is sort of depressing to me. As a White male, I've yet to be called to appear on any of these shows, though it seems statistically likely that I would have.

It would make me wonder if I'm Gay, except that HGTV hasn't called me either. 

 And, as out of proportion as the guest lists of these shows are, I think this is even more important;

"more than 69% of the appearances by black guests on these programs have been by three people -- Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and Juan Williams."

I think that's a good representative group.

Who else is there? Sinbad? Gimme a break.

To get on HGTV you'll need a beard. There are more beards on that channel than at a Civil War Reeanactor Convention.

Oh wait a minute!  Now I get it!

The "homosexual agenda" is to make our homes and gardens look nice!

That's what makes it so...uh....evil? 

In a country controlled primarily by rich old white guys, I guess this is to be expected.

We're also fat.

You forgot bald.

A quick look at the mmfa staff shows that men outnumber women by about 2-1...44 males to 15 females.

Diversity of race and ethnicity on the mmfa staff...don't know.

How about it mmfa...care to show us the results of your own staff? 

Are you just intellectually lazy? Look at the top of the page, there's a tab called "about us"...

http://mediamatters.org/about_us/staff_advisors even gave you the direct link.

Why don't you share your analytical ability to determine race/ethnicity from someones name.

mmfa is overwhelmingly male...that much is clear. 

I'd prefer you stop throwing out strawmen all the time and demanding MMFA "come clean". No one's buying your "your just as biased" approach to argument dismissal.

This is Wesley's M.O.  Most of this thread will now be spent debating MMFA's alleged "hypocrisy".  Why do you think the conservative posters are so fond of the "Why is this here" argument?

 - How about it mmfa...care to show us the results of your own staff? -wesley

First of all, asking the question is hardly a demand. Second of all, asking to see the same study applied to mma is not a strawman...it's perfectly legitimate.

You, though, have thrown in the strawman that tries to shift the question to "you're just as biased". I haven't made any such claim...but I would like to see if mmfa is "walking the walk" when is comes to diversity. 

If MMFA is wrong, then they should attempt to hire on a more balanced level.  Of course, that in no way invalidates their argument here.  Two wrongs don't make a right.

 - If MMFA is wrong - openmind

By their own standards? Then of course they are wrong.

Preaching about gender diversity and then failing to adhere to those same standards makes their argument nothing more than pandering.

C'mon mmfa...hold up the mirror and let us see the results. 

I think you are making some assumptions that may not be true and may also be a bit hasty.

MMFA's study in the article above is in regards to guest appearances on these shows and not necessarily the personnel (multiple guest appearances were by the same people).  Conversely, your argument is apparently entirely based on employee personnel ratios at MMFA (which may be incomplete and/or inaccurate in other ways). 

I don't know the ratio male to female/ white to non-white of authors of MMFA articles.  That might be a more germaine comparison.  Please get back to me with your study.

MMFA could indeed be wrong here.  I simply haven't seen an entirely germaine and convincing argument made to that effect at this point.  Moreover, it does not appear to make MMFA's point invalid either as it seems you and others are trying to suggest.

I'm not suggesting anything...I have simply pointed out that mmfa's staff is hugely male.

Taking a quick look at the last 18 threads...11 1/2 were written by males...3 1/2 were written by females...3 I could not identify.

Good ole boys at mmfa...preaching at others about gender diversity. 

18 threads is pretty skimpy sample size, but that is a more germaine argument than the previous personnel based one, IMO.

MMFA definitely should have more gender (don't know about ethnic) diversity from their last 18 articles.

I would like to see what MMFA has to say about your point.

What many people forget about the "pot calling the kettle black" argument is that the kettle is still black.

That being said, the parallel between who a small website hires for their back office people and who a major network puts on the air is a hard one to make.

  But a parallel just the same. Are you saying that discrimination/diversity only counts when the employee count reaches a certain level?? So, if radio/tv stations kept the employee count low enough then they can continue their conservative viewpoints without being forced to allow opposing opinions?

MMFA's gender equity is a joke.

Also, let's count how many liberals or African-Americans MMFA calls a racist.

I do think you could have a point; when people wag the finger they open themselves up for charges of hypocrisy, so it's certainly worthy of investigation. It is possible that MMFA is being too passive in recruitment and possibly discriminatory in hiring, but it is not fair to accuse them without more data.

But one key difference is that if I am a woman or a minority, I can apply for a job at MMFA but I can't invite myself onto any of the morning shows as a guest, no matter how qualified I am.  Therefore a key contrast is that there can be NO DOUBT as to who is responsible for the gross underrepresentation of women on the morning shows--the inviters.

And, i don't know why MMFA didn't remind people that women are 51% of the population and relate that to the invitations to the Sunday morning shows, when they certainly understand that comparing %'s on the shows relative to %'s in the population is relevant with regard to minorities. It is all too easy for people to read the numbers and think that the record is OK for women since there are more of them on the air than minorities, but that ignores the large differences in the population. And while obviously every person in every group (including white males) is not qualified to appear on the shows, there are obviously many more qualified people regardless of race, gender, etc., out there to fill the tiny number of guest slots, and a lot of them would be far better than many of the yammerers they have tended to invite. Active efforts to find people in underrepresented groups would certainly succeed. 

oops--in the 2nd paragraph, I meant to refer to "gross underrepresentation of women AND minorities." Wish there was an edit function.

"You, though, have thrown in the strawman that tries to shift the question to "you're just as biased". I haven't made any such claim..."

You just did. Again.

wesley,

When Liberals toss out their old & very predictable "strawman" accusation, here's what it really means:

You've pointed out something we don't want to hear because it holds us up to a standard we only set for others and do not apply to ourselves.

If MMFA is going to point out a lack of diversity elsewhere, they should be held accountable for explaining their own.

People who live in glass houses...

"When Liberals toss out their old & very predictable "strawman" accusation, here's what it really means:

You've pointed out something we don't want to hear because it holds us up to a standard we only set for others and do not apply to ourselves."

That's baloney, to put it politely. When someone accurately calls a distraction from the point a strawman argument, that's exactly what it means, that it's a distraction from the point.

Any one company (or non-profit) is irrelevant to the industry's record, and may have skewed results.

Media Matters is one non-profit. That's different than the MSM's overall industry.

Media Matters may need to do a better job of being a diversified non-profit, but that in no way affects their totally accurate portrayal of the MSM as lacking in diversity. And that was their point. Bringing up Media Matters employment history is a strawman.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks because they are apt to get their own house smashed to bits....

If MMFA is going to bean-count, then let them start with their own staff.

Don't preach diversity unless you practice it. Don't point out where PRIVATELY owned networks are failing in that area if your own organization hasn't done much better.

It goes to credibility.

MMFA can point out whatever they'd like. And we can point out they may need to address their own lack of diversity as well.

That is not a strawman. It's a legitimate point.

No, it's a strawman. You want to shift the arguement to say MMFA has no point because.

Al Gore has no right to preach about being green because he has a big house.

Barbara Streisand has no right to give advice about conserving energy by air drying laundry because she has a maid doing her laundry.

John Edwards has no right saying he speaks for the lower classes because he gets a $400 haircut.

If you think that's a valid argument, then I suggest the following: the right has no right accusing liberals of hypocracy because they are hypocrites.

Thanks for reminding us all of more liberal "Do as I say, not as I do" tantrums.

As opposed to the conservatives "do as I say...or else!"

What was I thinking? Of course the tantrum by the right isn't the tantrum, it's the left's response to the right's temper tantrum that is the tantrum. Thanks for clearing that up, Tommy.

"Thanks for reminding us all of more liberal "Do as I say, not as I do" tantrums." --tommy

Do you believe these sorts of "tantrums" are limited to liberals?  Isn't this the kind of broad brush statement, you have often chided some liberal posters for saying about conservatives in the past?

Or are you trying to ironically demonstrate your own example of the conservative "Do as I say, not as I do" tantrum?

The hypocrisy I was responding to was from well known liberals.  There was no broad brushstrokes condemning all liberals, and no irony involved.  

If you're somehow defensive on the topic of liberal hypocrisy, perhaps that is where the irony lies.

Nice to see you can admit to making a mistake.  Just try to be a bit more precise next time. 

; )

Al Gore has no right to preach about being green because he has a big house.

Barbara Streisand has no right to give advice about conserving energy by air drying laundry because she has a maid doing her laundry.

John Edwards has no right saying he speaks for the lower classes because he gets a $400 haircut.

And a fat doctor with a pack of cigarettes in his pocket has no right to lecture a patient to quit smoking & go on a diet. Well actually he does have the right [just like those you named above do] BUT it's still a:

Do As I Say Not As I Do moment.

So you feel the same about FDR and SS? His life fits right into that description. What I am hearing is that you are saying it's not enough to be an expert, you have to change your whole lifestyle to be taken seriously. Or is this just for liberals because you are using a wide brush to paint all liberals with your "do as I say and not as I do" strawman?

what jitter, tommy-boy and the wesley-drone are trying to say is that anyone who says the truth they do not like must abide by their exaggerations and assupmtions of what they believe others should believe. Just more whining from the professional distractors with non-existant debate skills.

You are describing a logical fallacy.  MMFA's point isn't necessarily invalidated by their real or imagined hypocrisy.  Either what MMFA says about gender/ethnic diversity on Sunday talk-shows is true or it isn't.

The post is not about who the networks hire, but who they put on television. That seems so clear as to be laughable.

But if you can't see the difference, I certainly can't make you...

Val,

I don't know if you were addressing that post to mine.  I am a bit puzzled by it.

I made a similar point to yours above to Wesley. 

In my post above, I was merely pointing out to Jeter, that regardless as to whether MMFA is hypocritical or not, does not invalidate MMFA's argument. 

Either MMFA's argument is true or it isn't.  This side debate about MMFA is irrelevant to the point of the article itself.

Sorry, I wasn't addressing that to you.

So to be consistent, you would defend GW Bush if he were to give a speech, to say, a political science class, condemning starting unnecessary wars?  And you would further defend him by saying his hypocrisy is irrelevant, even though his speech was perfectly appropriate.

As long as he stuck to facts, and did a post correction on what he said wrong, I'd not only have nothing bad to say, I'd support him - on that subject.

It is called argumentum ad hominem tu quoque.  Wikipedia defines it as:

an argument that asserts or implies that a certain position is false and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to consistently act in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It can be considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the opposite party itself, rather than its positions.

For instance, "Reverend Bob claims that theft is wrong, but how can theft be wrong if Bob himself admits he stole objects when he was a child?"

Whether Bush, in your analogy or MMFA is adhering to their own practices is a seperate argument that does not necessarily invalidate their stated arguments.

In other words, talking about someone's credibility is a fine diversion, but it is not really addressing the merits of the main argument and none should be mistaken about that.

I should clarify a bit.  If credibility is the main support for the argument, then attacking it, may be a part of attacking the argument itself.  Such as an unverifiable claim by a person, etc.

That said, I don't see where credibility has anything to do with whether MMFA's argument that the Sunday talk shows lack gender and ethnic diversity is true or not.  It would seem to be quite obvious from the argument presented regardless of anyone's credibility on the issue.

Why is it when the progressives on this board get proven wrong, they admit it and apologize, but when the rightwingers on this site get proven wrong, they never admit it, and never then continue the debate from that point?

Oh, never mind, I know why that happens. It's because their actions here are not sincere.

Before you go crying "hypocrisy", two points:

    1) The presumable purpose of having guests on talk shows is to represent a broad range of views. (I certainly don't hear of any of these shows bragging about representing only the perspective of rich white Republican males). Lack of ethnic/gender diversity is quite a serious weakness if you're purporting to have a round-table discussion. 

     MMFA's purpose is to point out what they see as conservative misinformation (and general conservative tomfoolery) in the media. Ethnic/gender diversity, while it might help a bit, isn't nearly as important. Whether you're a man or a woman, or black or Hispanic, doesn't have much to do with your ability to check whether John Cavuto is lying about global warming for the thousandth time.

    2) Having guests on for a five-minute interview on a talk show is much less of a commitment than hiring someone for a permanent job. If a guest turns out not to be so hot, the show's producers can easily cut their losses. It's much harder to ensure diversity when one also have to find someone who is qualified for the job, who can get along with other employees, etc. Employers don't want to have to look for a new person to fill the job every few months, so they're naturally much more cautious. Diversity becomes less important in this context, and rightly so. (Aren't conservatives the ones who insist that affirmative action results in jobs going to less-qualified people?)

    Furthermore talk shows book six or seven guests each week. At that rate, assuming they're on thirty weeks a year, they book 180 guests. MMFA lists about 59 employees, about a third as much. A smaller sample size will often show much less diversity, percentagewise. (Here's where I wished MMFA had published the actual numbers of guests, rather than just percentages). 

In short, to compare MMFA's purported lack of diversity to that of the talk shows is to compare apples and bowling balls. One has nothing to do with the other.

I'd applaud your passionate calls for diversity, were I for a minute convinced of your sincerity. But you're just a little too quick to shoot the messenger and accuse liberals of hypocrisy. 

Jeter, I would take your comments seriously if it applied to ANYONE other than Wes. His only rant has and will always be MMFS=Hate.

I can understand why you wouldn't want MMFA's shortcomings in this area pointed out to you, but that doesn't make it irrelevent.  If anything, it shows how difficult it can be to have "balance" even if you are consciously striving for it. 

And if anything, it puts to bed this silly and baseless notion that floats around here that conservatism is inherently more racist and sexist than any other ideology, i.e. liberalism......for if one accepts this study, then it clearly shows that Fox News, the most right leaning network involved, is the most diverse on Sunday morning regarding race and sex.

::claps::

Tommy, you are forgetting, however, that if you're a conservative (or at least not a lib), you're not really a minority.  

It would be a little easier to take the 3 of you seriously on this issue if you stated what your feelings are on this issue are in the first place.  Are you saying this is a problem in the MSM or not?  Your posts make it seem like your more interested in pointing the finger at MMFA and not the substance of the actual issue.     

I agree that MMFA should be as diverse as possible and it would be interesting to see the break down in their organization.  I also agree that it can be difficult to have a "perfect" break down on race and gender in the work place. 

I think the real issue is when an organization has an blatant lack of diversity with little to no effort to represent other groups.  The MSM appears as if it is barley trying to show equal representation.  Do you really think it's that difficult to find quality minority guests, hosts, experts for these types of shows and if so what does that say about our society at large?

I think the shows highlited should be as diverse as possible and will wait to see if they respond with a reason why they are lacking.  I try not to jump to conclusions other than diversity is a process that is happening more slowly than it would in a perfect world.

Thanks for the answer Bruce!

I agree that we shouldn't  jump to conclusions on this topic or immediately get defensive when discussing diversity.  I think its important to have an open dialog about this issue and part of having that dialog is for the all of the participants to actually state what their opinions are. 

Tommy?  Wesley?  Do you think the lack of diversity in the MSM is a problem?

Striving for diversity and various points of view in all venues, media or otherwise, is a laudable and commendable goal.

Of course.