Talk:Sunday morning talk show
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
United States prominence[edit]
This article should be rewritten or reorganised to give equal prominence to equivalent shows around the world. sparked 23:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, not necessarily rewritten as much as expanded on international programming fitting this same format, though the US part could probably be clipped down slightly with the added template removed. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 01:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Incomplete US List[edit]
While I agree that shows around the world need to be given more spotlight here; that may be craven self interest on the part of someone interested in international politics. For the US, I can say the CNN's Global Public Square hosted by Fareed Zakaria is missing from the Sunday morning roundup. Outcast95 (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Controversial advertiser influence[edit]
Seeking other media studies to support the observation that most of the shows seem to be sponsored by the oil and gas industry. This may explain the dearth of discussion on climate change or the impact of carbon emission. They seem to represent the interests of their chief advertisers. Seems to be the case for many years.
In a STUDY: How Broadcast News Covered Climate Change In The Last Five Years - one glaring conclusion:
NBC's Meet the Press broadcast the least amount of coverage, failing to offer a single substantial mention of climate change in all of 2013. Fox News Sunday even aired more about climate change than Meet The Press, with nearly 4 minutes of politically-driven coverage. http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/01/16/study-how-broadcast-news-covered-climate-change/197612
Ideology And Partisanship[edit]
REPORT: Ideology And Partisanship On The 2013 Broadcast Sunday Morning Political Talk Shows Research January 31, 2014 1:51 PM EST ››› ROB SAVILLO
Republicans and conservatives were hosted more often than Democrats and progressives on the four broadcast Sunday morning political talk shows. Fox News Sunday was particularly slanted toward the right while ABC's This Week was the only program to feature as many progressives as conservatives.
Throughout 2013, Media Matters has analyzed guest appearances on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, CBS' Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer, Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, NBC's Meet the Press with David Gregory, CNN's State of the Union with Candy Crowley, and MSNBC's Up with Steve Kornacki and Melissa Harris-Perry, political talk shows that often set the media and political agenda. Media Matters has previously released analyses of the first, second, and third quarters of the year and an overview analysis of the whole year.
This report examines the ideological and partisan breakdown of guests on the four broadcast Sunday shows in a more detailed manner. The Conservative Advantage On The Sunday Shows...
Beltway bias: white, conservative men[edit]
A study by Media Matters exposes the Beltway bias of white, conservative men dominating all the Sunday Talk Shows.
"We reviewed every edition of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, CBS' Face The Nation, NBC's Meet The Press, Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, CNN's State of the Union with Candy Crowley, and the Sunday editions of MSNBC's Up with Steve Kornacki (previously Up with Chris Hayes prior to April 13, 2013) and Melissa Harris-Perry during the first nine months of 2013. Guest appearances for all seven programs were coded for gender and ethnicity. Guests appearing on the four broadcast networks were also coded for whether they appeared in solo interviews or as part of a panel; whether they were journalists, administration officials, or elected officials; and for their partisanship or ideology."
"These classifications do not represent an analysis of what guests actually said when they appeared on a show on a given date. Coding each guest's comments for their ideological slant would have introduced enormous difficulties and opportunities for subjectivity. Instead, we simply classified guests based on their own ideological self-identification or public affiliation with an openly partisan or ideological organization or institution."
Following are some of the principal rules coders employed in classifying guests: The party designations (Democratic and Republican) are reserved for current and former officeholders, candidates, campaign staff, political consultants associated with one party or the other, and administration officials. All others are labeled conservative, progressive, or neutral.
The neutral category does not necessarily imply strict ideological neutrality but, rather, might better be understood as neutral/centrist/nonpartisan -- we use the term "neutral" for the sake of brevity.
When guests served in both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past, they were coded as neutral barring any compelling reason to do otherwise. In a few cases, however, a former official who had served under presidents from both parties became clearly identified with one ideology and were coded accordingly.
Our "Journalist" classification applies not only to daily reporters but also to opinion columnists, magazine writers, etc. In the case of foreign officials and journalists, we labeled all as neutral -- even though the political ideology of some might be identifiable -- to avoid the need to analyze the politics of other countries. Foreign nationals were also excluded from the diversity analysis. Active duty members of the armed forces were classified as members of the Obama administration. Retired officers were coded as neutral absent any other affiliation.
== Partisanship And Diversity
REPORT: Partisanship And Diversity On The Sunday Shows In 9 Charts Research April 5, 2013 9:21 AM EDT ››› ROB SAVILLO http://www.mediamatters.org/research/2013/04/05/report-partisanship-and-diversity-on-the-sunday/193482
The four broadcast networks' Sunday morning political talk shows guests skewed right during the first quarter of 2013. MSNBC's two Sunday programs featured far greater gender and ethnic diversity in its guests than the broadcast programs and CNN's Sunday morning political talk show.
== Poor Gender Diversity
REPORT: Gender Diversity On The 2013 Sunday Morning Political Talk Shows Research January 30, 2014 12:12 PM EST ››› ROB SAVILLO
Male guests vastly outnumbered female ones on the Sunday morning broadcast and CNN political talk shows in 2013, according to a Media Matters review. MSNBC's programs gave women a significantly greater opportunity to voice their opinions.
Throughout 2013, Media Matters has analyzed guest appearances on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, CBS' Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer, Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, NBC's Meet the Press with David Gregory, CNN's State of the Union with Candy Crowley, and MSNBC's Up with Steve Kornacki and Melissa Harris-Perry, political talk shows that often set the media and political agenda. Media Matters has previously released analyses of the first, second, and third quarters of the year and an overview analysis of the whole year.
This report examines the gender breakdown of guests in a more detailed manner. Men Overwhelmingly Outnumbered Women On Sunday Broadcast, CNN Shows In 2013...
== How Broadcast News Failed Climate Change Coverage
STUDY: How Broadcast News Covered Climate Change In The Last Five Years Research January 16, 2014 8:39 AM EST ››› LAURA SANTHANAM
A Media Matters analysis reveals that news coverage of climate change on ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX picked up in 2013 over the previous year, but remained lower than a 2009 high. Furthermore, while one Sunday show interviewed scientists about climate change, distinguishing itself as the first such program to do so in five years, these shows continued to rely largely on media figures and Republicans to dictate the conversation around global warming.
In 2013, Broadcast Networks Increased Coverage But Remained Below 2009 Highs...
See chart: at http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/01/16/study-how-broadcast-news-covered-climate-change/197612
==Coverage Of UN Climate Report STUDY: Media Sowed Doubt In Coverage Of UN Climate Report False Balance And "Pause" Dominated IPCC Coverage Research October 10, 2013 11:10 AM EDT ››› MAX GREENBERG, DENISE ROBBINS, & SHAUNA THEEL
http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/10/10/study-media-sowed-doubt-in-coverage-of-un-clima/196387
"A study of coverage of the recent United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report finds that many mainstream media outlets amplified the marginal viewpoints of those who doubt the role of human activity in warming the planet, even though the report itself reflects that the climate science community is more certain than ever that humans are the major driver of climate change. The media also covered how recent temperature trends have not warmed at as fast a rate as before in nearly half of their IPCC coverage, but this trend does not undermine long-term climate change. "
Climate change coverage down, and no scientists[edit]
Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 12:27 PM PDT Climate change coverage down 90% in 2011 on the Sunday talk shows. All Republicans, no scientists
by Meteor BladesFollow (Greenpeace)
Throughout the broadcast media where most people get their "news," coverage of climate change is not exactly what you'd call extensive. There are plenty of reasons why this should not be the case. For instance, Congress is now brimful of climate-change "skeptics," a euphemism for "deniers." These folks are either so ignorant they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near public office or so glued to the lies of their Koch-contributors that they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near public office. Then there is, of course, the reality of climate change itself. Which hasn't gone away.
The president himself won't use the term in speeches even on something as relevant to the climate-change discussion as energy policy. But he, at least, has reasons. No doubt his advisors argue against bringing the issue up in an election year given that the percentage of Americans who worry about global warming is well below what it was a dozen years ago.
But the media have no excuse other than that their bosses, both overt and behind the scenes, don't care to enlighten readers and viewers on the subject.
As Media Matters points out in a new study, coverage of climate change has plunged recently. Not that it was all that great to begin with. Nightly news coverage fell 72 percent between 2009 and 2011. That is, nightly news coverage on NBC, ABC, CBS went from two hours in 2009 to just 27 minutes in 2010 and 38 minutes in 2011. (Fox has no nightly news program.)
Think about that for a moment. Coverage of the most important issue of our era on the most-watched broadcast news programs for three years amounted to just 185 minutes. And if you think that this is made up for by MSNBC and CNN, who do a better job, think again. Four times as many Americans get their news from the three broadcast networks as they do the cable channels. Including Fox.
And the Sunday shows? Even worse. In three years, 98 minutes total for four networks, including Fox. Only nine minutes in 2011. Over the entire period, CBS's Face the Nation spent four minutes on climate change. In 2011, Donald Trump got more coverage than climate change on all four networks.
As if this pathetic showing wasn't bad enough, those invited to speak during the paltry time allotted helped frame the issue on the "skeptical" side:
In total, 68% of the political figures interviewed or quoted by the Sunday shows were Republicans, and 32% were Democrats. In 2011, the only people interviewed or quoted about climate change on the Sunday shows were Republican politicians. Fox News Sunday was the most skewed, featuring eight Republicans and only two Democrats over the three years. [...]
Our study finds that the Sunday shows consulted political and media figures on climate change, but left scientists out of the discussion. Of those hosted or interviewed on climate change, 50% were political figures—including elected officials, strategists and advisers—45% were media figures, and none were scientists. By comparison, 32% of those interviewed or quoted on the nightly news programs were political figures, and 20% were scientists.
The agenda here is dead clear. And it seems to be working. Just one problem. Whether you are the president, a network CEO or just a spoon-fed viewer, ignoring climate change won't make it go away.
Rpauli (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
The Full Ginsburg ????[edit]
This scrap of minutia or trivia seems like zircon bling from Ginsburg or his fan club. If this questionable term deserves mention at all, it should be in the minutia section, not it's own. If this term exists, please prove it. If this term is notable, please justify it. I'll delete it. Quote:
The Full Ginsburg[edit]
The shows are generally aired live or recorded in Washington, D.C., providing easy access to many political leaders. Many individuals appear via satellite or in studio for two or more of the programs on a given Sunday. Since Fox News Sunday's debut in 1996, several individuals appeared on all five programs on one day. William H. Ginsburg, attorney for Monica Lewinsky's family during the Lewinsky scandal, was the first to perform what would be named in his honor as the "Full Ginsburg." More common is an interviewee appearing on different shows in consecutive weeks; for instance, a Presidential candidate may appear on Meet the Press one week, This Week the next, and Fox News Sunday the week after that.
-- 71.128.255.226 (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford
- Somebody reverted my above deletion without even attempting to justify it nor to comment, which looks like kneejerk vandalism or self-defense from here. However, I've taken my arguments to Talk The Full Ginsburg, making my case that the topic does not meet Wiki notability standards and is in fact a self-referential (as a "wiki-neologism is) cheap writing gimmick that does not even qualify as reporter's jargon since it is never used without being defined. It's a cutsie non-term gimmick, and has no real standing in the language...not even a hint beyond a few grinning oh-so-hip newsie wannabees. I argue that that article too should be deleted.
--Doug Bashford
The Article Looks Censored & Biased[edit]
I Agree with the bulk of this Talk section: —the unfair biases of the Sunday morning talk shows is being suppressed and undervalued in the article. That continual and long-term editing effort looks just like censorship or even the vandalism one normally associates with vested interests, —financial, ideological, or emotional.
The interests here seemingly desire to maintain the illusion of Media fairness or non-bias in spite of the evidence. Notice the great volume of complaint (with references) here and above, yet overzealous "editors" keep the article void of these facts and observations, --which is also contrary to Wiki policy to include any prominent controversy regarding a topic.
example from Revision history:
12:12, 14 December 2011 JMyrleFuller (talk | contribs) . . (12,322 bytes) (-2,256). . (United States: again removing the media matters paragraph. if we're going to make allegations of bias, we should not be using sources that have open bias in them.)
Sorry, vague and faulty logic. Since all sources are biased, who gets to play King? Rush Limbaugh is on the record strongly against Media Matters and others. ...whose opinion gets to be God's? While Media Matters and others may also have biased opinions on certain topics, their specialty is Media Bias, and there are no credible unbiased sources that prove that in general their facts are unreliable. Nobody here suggests a better, less biased media critic organization that has contrary facts and conclusions. Media Matters (and the related professional Media critics ) are not spouting mere opinion when it tallies up the number of guests's party affiliation or what they do for a living: scientist, pundit, politician, government, etc and note that unbalanced perspective.(..as was again silently censored from the main article.)
Also, glibly removing somebody's effort expressing only vague, subjective objections without a Talk discussion and debate is rude and considered by some to be vandalism. I note again that the bulk of the Talk section are objections challenging the fairness of these talk shows....all complaints posted here with little or no rebuttal. A critical thinker might wonder why not; rebuttals?
See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)
"It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. "
Unless somebody can defend this broad biased censorship with facts or valid logic, I intend to repair the article as suggested.
--108.252.225.238 (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford