FYI--I've heard David Brock acknowledge your point more than once that the MSM is basically beholden to the party in power and is trying to maintain a high degree of access. That's some of it, but that's not ALL of it. If anything, they should be weighing against the party in power, thereby serving as a watchdog, but that would make too much damned sense. (I also find it interesting that you simply cannot prove your point about Democratic partisans being over-represented on talk shows during the Clinton administration.)

And your assertion that MM unfairly characterizes certain pundits as "progressive" or "Conservative is ridiculous given the you are doing the same thing. And I'm not saying Juan Williams is a leftist OR a rightist. What's important is that he's a typical MSM lapdog.

All that being said, let's get back to Glenn's initial question. I'd like to know why YOU think Brit Hume is taken seriously as a journalist.

Clinton took actual effective action against terrorists, jailing the first WTC bombers, and coming damn close to blowing Osama'a ass off the map. Your hero, Mr. Mission Accomplished, has now killed more Americans than Bin Hidin'. Ain't you proud? Oh, and Big Bill stopped the ethnic cleansing and fratricide in Bosnia without the loss of one American life. But he got a blow job, which, of course, cancels it all and turn it into wagging the dog. Beats screwing the pooch like you fascists do, and continue to do, with more death every day and no end in sight. Now, let's hear your chickenshit chickenhawk whine about cut and run.

"Sorta like in the late '90s, when Bill Clinton started launching cruise missiles every time Monica started talking."

You mean when he was firing missiles at Iraq and al Qaida in Afghanistan? One day you guys accuse him of wagging the dog, the next you accuse him of ignoring terrorists. Get your story straight one way or the other, okay? You'll seem more believable that way.

Dan D., my point is still valid because MM chooses to define who is a "conservative journalist" and who is a "progressive." In short, they make the rules that govern the rest of the study. They find what they want to find.

You go on to make the MRC out to be the ideological equivalent of MM.

You're making these assertions with no empirical evidence. It's certainly possible that MM manipulated the definitions of "conservative" or "progressive" to slant their numbers, why don't you dig into their research and find out?

My point is your mere say-so is not sufficient grounds to rebut this study. Similarly, the assertion that whomever is in power will make up the balance of the guests, is too hand-wavy and just dismisses all bias criticism forever.

Here's from the report, page 19, under "Methodology":

We understand that because we are a progressive organization, some on the right will seek to undercut the credibility of our findings, perhaps charging that we have stacked the deck by classifying too many guests as conservative. Partly for that reason, when a guest’s ideology or partisan affiliation was ambiguous, we erred on the side of identifying a guest to the left. Consequently, one can assume that, if anything, our figures underestimate the conservative slant to the Sunday shows.

So, clearly you need to read the study and find actual flaws in it rather than plausible methodological flaws which allow you to continue to believe what you clearly want to believe: namely that the media just goes with the flow and has guests on from the ruling party, absent any proof of that claim other than the seeming logical consistency of it.

Also, from the very first page of the study, it turns out they did analyze what happened under Clinton and:

The balance between Democrats/progressives and Republicans/conservatives was roughly equal during Clinton's second term, with a slight edge toward Republicans/conservatives: 52 percent of the ideologically identifiable guests were from the right, and 48 percent were from the left. But in Bush's first term, Republicans/ conservatives held a dramatic advantage, outnumbering Democrats/progressives by 58 percent to 42 percent. In 2005, the figures were an identical 58 percent to 42 percent.

I agree entirely that John Stossel is a libertarian, and an iconoclast, and is by no means a classic conservative. And that just goes to show you how out-of-whack NPR is. I'd never expect Stossel to balance out the oceans of left-wing opinion on NPR. My personal nomination of Stossel was merely to co-host the interesting program "On The Media," currently hosted by Bob Garfield who is usually, but not always, leftist, and Brooke Gladstone, who is also usually, but not exclusively, leftist. Brooke Gladstone's husband, by the way, writes the "War Stories" column for Slate. He hates -- HATES -- the Bush administration, and thanks to Slate's public presidential polling of its writing staff, we know how they all vote. (Not unlike Michelle Norris, also of NPR, whose husband was a full-time paid senior staffer to the Kerry campaign.) The NPR/liberal elite/Democrat orgainization web is tighter than any other network I can think of.

Yes, because Fox News is a tremendously successful commercial endeavor, lots of its personalities would never leave to go to public broadcasting and take the pay cut. Stossel, with a good deal at ABC is in the same category. I wasn't doing any career coaching for people who don't need it. I was just proposing some eye-opening shifts that NPR could make as hyptheticals.

NPR isn't anything close to being balanced. It is a left-wing mouthpiece, except when they play Beethoven. (That is, for the few stations that still play Beethoven and haven't instead elected to go to 24 hours of Amy Goodman, Tavis Smiley & Co.)

Nobody can point to one single voice of conservatism as a host or even a regular contributor on NPR.

I agree entirely that John Stossel is a libertarian, and an iconoclast, and is by no means a classic conservative. And that just goes to show you how out-of-whack NPR is.

Oh, certainly, I see how the one follows from the other. [rolling eyes]

I don't listen to NPR, but based on what I've heard and know of its contributors I'm quite prepared to believe they have a tilt to then left. The only thing that bothers me about that is that it is tax-payer funded. But NPR doesn't remotely begin to drown out the baleful influence of right-wing radio and Fox News.

Moreover, hating Bush is not coterminous with being a leftist. I hate the Bush Administration and the current GOP passionately, which is why I voted a straight Democratic ticket in the last election. There is nothing about Bush and his GOP that is characterized by a conservatism of the sort that once found common cause with libertarians. Quite the opposite; the Bush movement is far more powerful and dangerous than anything on the left at the moment or in recent memory.

In fact, you seem to think conservative = Bush follower, and leftist/liberal = Bush opponent. That is a false, 90s-era dichotomy that does not obtain in today's political landscape. Any anti-statist who believes in the rule of law and sane foreign policy would be in revolt against Bush and his GOP.