Media Matters has published a report that documents the conservative bias of some of the most prominent political programs on television. Their extensive research shows that…

“During the 109th Congress (2005 and 2006), Republicans and conservatives held the advantage on every show, in every category measured. All four shows interviewed more Republicans and conservatives than Democrats and progressives overall, interviewed more Republican elected and administration officials than Democratic officials, hosted more conservative journalists than progressive journalists, held more panels that tilted right than tilted left, and gave more solo interviews to Republicans and conservatives.”

This report comes at a time when conservatives are still complaining that the media is unabashedly liberal. Bruce Bartlett at the National Review concedes that, while there is still an overall liberal slant, the press is becoming more neutral:

“In my view, the media did have a strong left-wing tilt for many years. But over the last 20 years or so, I think that has mostly disappeared. Major newspapers like the Post and New York Times are now fairly evenhanded in their news coverage. Their editorial pages are still pretty liberal, of course, but the Post in particular is far less liberal in its editorial positions than it was in the 1970s.” […and…] “If, as I believe, the major media tilted left and have moved toward the center, then this means they moved to the right. It is this movement that the left has picked up on and is complaining about. But the idea that the media now tilt toward conservatives is absurd.”

It makes for an interesting contrast to juxtapose Bartlett’s personal recollections with Media Matters’ scholarly documentation. The Media Matters project clearly demonstrates that the press has been deferential to conservatives for some time. If, as Bartlett believes, the media has moved to the right of late, then that would just compound the imbalance. It is also interesting to compare their conclusions:

Bartlett: “I would advise my liberal friends to stop whining about media bias. You had a free ride for a long time, and now it’s over. Get used to it, and learn how to use the media.”

Media Matters: “As ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox make decisions about their coverage of political affairs in the coming days, they should consider how they could better serve their viewers and the public.”

Bartlett takes the more cynical view that the press is just there to be exploited and spun. Media Matters hopes to nudge the press and its subjects to aspire to higher journalistic ethics and integrity. Which conclusion sounds better to you?

The Project for Excellence in Journalism, an affiliate of the Pew Research Center, has released its annual report on the health and status of American journalism. It is a comprehensive look at some of the most signifcant measures of the media’s place in contemporary society, including major trends, audience, economics, and ownership. In the overview, they describe the modern press as being slow on the uptake with regard to the changing landscape, and lacking in the vision that will be required of the industry’s leaders:

“The recent history of the news industry is marked by caution and continuity more than innovation. The character of the next era, far from inevitable, will likely depend heavily on the quality of leadership in the newsroom and boardroom. If history is a guide…it will require renegades and risk-takers to break from the conventional path and create new directions.” […and…] “practicing journalism has become far more difficult and demands new vision. Journalism is becoming a smaller part of people’s information mix. The press is no longer gatekeeper over what the public knows.”

I’m inclined to agree. It has been apparrent for some time that the conventional media has been struggling to cobble together an effective response to the rise of the Internet. And their failure to do so is partially the result of not having the foresight to recognize the approaching risk early enough to counter it. Thank goodness for that.

I’ll be reading and digesting the contents of this study over the next few days and commenting on any notable revelations I encounter.

The Radio and Television News Directors Foundation has announced that its 2007 First Amendment Leadership Award has gone to that paragon of fairness and balance, Roger Ailes, chairman and CEO of FOX News. In other news, vampires are devouring the brains of babies across America.

The award is given to “a business or government leader who has made a significant contribution to the protection of the First Amendment and freedom of the press.” So far as I’m able to discern, Ailes earned this recognition because he “made [Fox] the ratings leader among cable news channels.” At least that’s all the press release mentions. In his acceptance speech, Ailes extolled the virtues of the diversity of ideas, a virtue that Fox News honors by always presenting a wide range of opinions – from the right, all the way to the far right:

“The greatest danger to journalism is a newsroom or a profession where everyone thinks alike. Because then one wrong turn can cause an entire news division to implode. We must respect and encourage diversity of thought and speech in the newsroom.”

Just imagine the atomic implosion that’s awaiting Fox News given their maze of wrong turns.

Ailes went on to demonstrate his commitment to diversity with humor that cut across the ideological landscape. There was a joke dismissing global warming; another demeaning the French; a swat at the Clintons’ marriage; and the always hilarious conflation of Osama and Obama.

But it wasn’t all fun and games. Ailes departed from the levity to address a serious and timely matter – the controversy surrounding Fox News and the Democratic candidates’ debate in Nevada:

“Recently pressure groups are forcing candidates to conclude that the best strategy for journalists is divide and conquer, to only appear on those networks and venues that give them favorable coverage…If you are afraid of journalists, how will you face the real dangers in the world?”

Since Roger has resolved to be serious, so will I. Nobody is proposing that candidates only appear in venues that give them favorable coverage. They just don’t want to be exploited by venues that are openly antagonistic. And none of Fox’ critics are afraid of journalists. They just refuse to bestow legitimacy on the partisan agents of their opponents.

Congratulations Mr. Ailes, on managing to weasel an award from your buddies in the mainstream media that Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Brit Hume, et al, so often disparage. But don’t expect valentines from the targets of your political bile. And don’t be surprised when guests don’t show up at your televised lynchings.

A little background on the RTNDA: This is an organization whose President, Barbara Cochran, claimed that regulating “video news releases” amounts to government intrusion into the affairs of news broadcasters.

YouTube Video of Ailes at the RTNDF awards gala.