13
edits
Changes
m
SW: Changed some language to help ensure neutrality. Removed first Salon reference that erroneously described letter by Joe Conason as reporting by or on behalf of the online magazine, when it was actuall
==History==
The Center for Media and Public Affairs was founded in the mid 1980s by [[S. Robert Lichter]] and [[Linda Lichter]].<ref name="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>
==Funding==
* Smith Richardson Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, [[Hudson Institute]]
According to Salon journalist Joe Conason, who wrote a letter to Salon.com criticizing the center, the availability of this information does not indicate an openness on the part of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. In a Jan 2003 exchange of views with Lichter, Conason said "The IRS form 990 returns filed by [Lichter's] center redacts the names of all the individuals and organizations that contribute to it, thereby concealing them from public scrutiny. But the watchdogs at Media Transparency have collated the 990 returns filed by the conservative foundations, which disclose their contributions to Lichter's outfit."<ref name="Conason"/>
As at February 2008, the CMPA website contains no information about the Center's sources of funding.
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>
==Attack on Criticism of PBS in 1992==
According to a [[Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting]] (FAIR) research memo, 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"/>
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"/>
==Attack on Criticism of Fahrenheit 9/11==
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>J. Malone, "New Michael Moore film fahrenheit 9/11 sparks controversy", ''Voice of America'', June 22, 2004. (No longer available online).</ref>