So here is the analysis of the stories run on "Family News In Focus" for the month of April 2009.
Not counting the days where stories were repeated from the previous day and Friday April 17th when the link to "Family News in Focus" was broken, the total number of stories commented on was 101.
The total number of comments, discounting those of reporters, was 169
The total number of comments from "Focus On The Family" stooges was 31.
I have lumped all the following together in the "stooge department" :-
1. Focus On The Family Action
2. Focus On The Family
3. Family Research Council ( because Doctor Dobson was involved in setting it up, pre-FoFA )
So 18.3% of all comments were from people who work directly or indirectly for James Dobson.
As I predicted, the winner for comments from FoFA was Jenny Tiree. Step forward Jenny and take your 2009 "Shilling for an Old Trout" award. You deserve it. Truly.
I ran into that pesky FoF vs FoFA thing. Gary Schneeberger was described one time as working for FoF and another as working for FoFA. Yes, that 501.c(3) status is pretty damn flexible it seems.
What surpised me most was the sheer number of FoFA "commentators".
Carrie Gordon Earll (2)
Bruce Hausknecht (2)
Daniel Weiss (4)
Dawn Vargo (2)
Candy Cushmann (1)
Ashley Horne (2)
Jenny Tirree (5)
Bill Spencer (1)
Chad Hills (1)
Gary Schneeberger (1)
Two other names jumped out as talking heads for sale :-
Wendy Wright of "Concerned Women for America" (4)
Professor John Kent (3) - a "gambling expert". Hint: He's against.
And the kicker......
How many people were actually heard who were AGAINST the
Focus On The Family slant to a story?
1. Perez Hilton ( in a clip lifted from the Today program - 4/22/09 )
2. Winston Blacksone - A PROPONENT FOR POLYGAMY ( 4/1/09 )
And these I would describe as "neutral" to a particular story.
1. Donald Trump on the Carrie Prejean "I believe in opposite marriage" debacle ( 4/22/09 )
2. Pam Young a spokeman for Eastern Michigan University ( 4/10/09 )
3. Andy Fell of UC Davis ( 4/6/09 )
Of course, that means that of the 169 commentators I listened to,
164 towed the Focus on the Family line.
That is 97%. I think I'll repeat that - it sounds kind of important. NINETY SEVEN PERCENT of the people heard on one month of Family News in Focus broadcasts agreed with James Dobson's bias on any particular "report".
How is Family News in Focus in any way "news" with this level of bias in its reporting?
As I stated at the beginning of this exercise, I am not in favor of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. It isn't coming back no matter how many times loons like James Dobson tells you it is.
All I am asking for is a little truth in advertising. Is that too much to ask?
How about rebranding "Family News in Focus" as "Doctor Dobson's Opinions in Focus"?
What it isn't is "News". With no context or even remote explantion of the contradictory arguments to a story, there is simply not enough infomation in a Family News in Focus broadcast to allow a rational person to take a rational position on the items covered.
Therefore I choose to dismiss Family News in Focus as just hot air from right wing gas bags.
It works for me.
