I think you mean "the latter."

I'd guess that in large part it has to do with conservative think tanks probably having better media relations departments. Also, the study does not break down by what they are talking about or explain why "think tank" is the important measure. It also doesn't state whether all the C-Spans are included. Do Book TV events count? Should the conservative count be increased because an author is talking about his book at a think tank rather than at Politics and Prose?

As someone who started watching C-Span in 1979 as a precocious 10-th grader (make something of THAT, Mark Penn), I'd argue it's not so muc right-leaning as it is undsicriminating in its coverage of virtually EVERY panel-cum-"lecture and cocktails" held on the Hill. Rightie tanks, however spurious their origin, are more numerous,have loads more money and can hold these gatherings with much more frequency. C-SPAN aspires to nothing so much as comprehensiveness, which means they're going to cover these things regardless of merit.

Message to progressive tanks: HOLD MORE EVENTS.

How many liberal thinktanks are there? All I know of is Brookings, and lets be honest, Brookings is more of an oldfashioned Liberal Republican kind of think-tank.

You cant blame Cspan for the lack of liberal think tanks.

Jimmy makes a good point about the think tanks being conservative. (See "Why we Fight" and follow the money.)

But there is no question that C-Span founder and CEO Brian Lamb (who worked in the Nixon administration) has a subtle conservative bias.

The reason most think tanks are conservative is they felt the need to fight back against liberal academia. I don't mind that conservatives get more think tank representation as long as the amount of "expert" representation remains even. My expectation is you can find more liberal expertise from our universities than think tanks.

Jimmy also makes a good point about gatherings.

I don't mind that studies like this are narrow (well, maybe a little), but they need to be understood within the big picture.

You know what's funny? Not a single one of you 'geniuses' even read the PDF. You're just yapping like little mutts and don't know nothin.

Pathetic.

I can't criticize C-SPAN. I remmeber them covering a gay rights march, in its entirety over about 8 hours (including a lot of eloquent speeches and some radical and edgy content from activists from the queer movement), at a time when most Americans knew nothing about that issue.

People who are looking for media bias in a network that just points a camera on things and doesn't interrupt the events are people who are WAY too concerned about media bias.

There are sufficient numbers of center-left and progressive thinktanks here in DC, each with sufficiently good relations with the media, so that doesn't strike me as a reason.

The issue in coverage is strictly related to television coverage. C-SPAN Radio and the website are not included. And none of the produced programs (Booknote, Washington Journal) are considered.

Lamb's individual bias might be conservative, and this might influence C-SPAN's coverage, but I think the issue goes more towards the organization's executives and especially its board, all of whom come from fairly conservative media organizations.

Mind-numbingly painful?

C-SPAN shows all House and Senate sessions, and many Committee and even subcommittee hearings. It's the only way to get around the media filter without living in Washington DC and running between sessions (I can flip channels when the Senate goes into Quorum call).

C-SPAN, obviously, should stop showing things that aren't live proceedings of the Congress, White House or recordings of the United States Supreme Court.

I have never met you, Kate Sheppard, but you haven't earned any respect from me.

I've always called mornings with Brian Lamb "Right Wing Fridays." I know some consider that blasphemy, but it's glaringly obvious to me. Very few truly progressive voices are ever heard on any given morning.

There's a prevailing thumb on the scale of political thought that defines right wing war hawks like Lieberman and McCain "centrist" despite the opinion of 70% of the nation. So that innate bias is used to tilt the yardstick right whenever issues of balance are measured by the media producers.

That thumb assures that there'll always be this bias: it's built into the standard by which positions are measured.

I love C-Span. Too bad my cable company (Comcast) took off C-Span2 for those not getting digital. I really miss it.

Actually, the Washington Journal show for over a decade has shown it's Right Wing bias very liberally.

How many times have they had a moderate Republican calling in on the Republican line just to get scolded for not calling the Democratic line?

On the flip side, if a radical Right Winger calls in on the Democratic line, they *ALWAYS* get away with it.

That crap has been going on since at least 1995....