Changes

The Center for Media and Public Affairs was founded in the mid 1980s by [[S. Robert Lichter]] and [[Linda Lichter]].<refname="Naureckas">Jim Naureckas, [http://www.fair.org/reports/lichter-memo.html Study of Bias or Biased Study?: The Lichter Method and the Attack on PBS Documentaries"], Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, May 14, 1992.</ref> According to ''Salon.com'', "the seed money for [the] center was solicited by the likes of [[Pat Buchanan]] and [[Pat Robertson]]".<ref name="Conason">Joe Conason, [http://www.salon.com/news/letters/2003/01/15/letter/ "Letter: A question of bias"], ''Salon'', January 15, 2003.</ref>

On February 1, 2008, CMPA issued a news release lauding the election coverage of [[Fox News]]. A CMPA concluded "FOX stands out for having the heaviest and most issue-oriented election coverage. ... FOX was also twice as substantive as the broadcast networks. Almost one-third of all stories on FOX (30%) dealt with policy issues, nearly double the proportion (16%) on the networks. FOX also carried less coverage of the horse race and candidate tactics than any of broadcast networks." <ref>Center for Media and Public Affairs, [http://www.cmpa.com/election%20news%202_1_08.htm"Media Boost Obama, Bash "Billary": NBC Is Toughest on Hillary; FOX Has Heaviest Coverage"], Media Release, February 1, 2008.</ref>

According to a [[Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting]] (FAIR) research memo [http://www.fair.org/reports/lichter-memo.html], a 1992 study of [[PBS]] by the Center for Media and Public Affairs concluded: "On the social and political controversies addressed by PBS documentaries across a full year of programs, the balance of opinion tilted consistently in a [[liberal]] direction."<ref name="Naureckas"/>

However, FAIR points out that the study excluded, on rather vague grounds, some of PBS's most conservative output. This included "talkshows such as [[William F. Buckley, Jr.]]'s '''Firing Line''' and Morton Kondracke's '''American Interests''', news reports like the '''MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour''', and business programs like Louis Rukeyser's '''Wall $treet Week'''. The Center claims this is to ensure 'a group of programs that were similar in style and content, to maximize the comparability of judgments.'"

According to the FAIR memo, these shows were the ones "most often criticized for having a conservative slant - programming that takes up more of the PBS schedule than the documentaries that the Center's study is limited to. '''Firing Line''' and '''American Interests''' - programs underwritten by the Center's biggest funders--provided approximately 50 hours of programming a year between them."<ref name="Naureckas"/>

In June 2004, the CMPA's media director, [[Matthew Felling]], waded into the debate on [[Michael Moore]]'s [[Fahrenheit 9/11]] with the following comments: "Of course, this movie is going to be Michael Moore's version of what he thinks President Bush is up to and what he thinks his capabilities are," he said. "We already know that he does not think that he is really cut out for the job. So Michael Moore will pick out everything he can to support that argument and we can only hope that Americans are well-versed enough in the successes of the Bush administration that they can balance it out on their own." <ref>[http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=665EA476-7B80-452D-BF4419E48BF87AE3] ==Support for 'The Reagans' miniseries== Despite the fact that the funding for the Center for Media and Public Affairs comes overwhelmingly from conservative foundations, and that its president has strong conservative connections, CMPA employees do manage to express some liberal-leaning viewpoints in media interviews. Matthew Felling criticised [[CBS]]' refusal to run "The Reagans" miniseries back in the fall. In the Denver Post, he said 'The conservative movement wanted to spin one for the Gipper and succeeded. Then the paper continued, saying "Matthew Felling of the liberal [[think tank]] Center for Media and Public Affairs in Washington says 'Without a doubt, I think CBS mishandled this by succumbing to the pressure instead of spinning it into 'Watch the movie that some don't want you to see,' Felling said. "They could have sexed it up. At the end of the day, the dollar spoke and advertisers pulling their support made the decision for them."