Cable news networks like MSNBC, CNN, CNBC and Fox News routinely use commentators who have financial conflicts of interest that are undisclosed to viewers. Former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge, for example, appeared on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, to discuss the economic crisis. There he said the real answer would be for the president to "take his green agenda and blow it out of a box," and that the U.S. needed to "create nuclear power plants." Ridge seemed like an objective commentator, but what viewers weren't told was that he had pocketed $530,659 for serving on the board of Exelon, the country's largest nuclear power company. He also held an estimated $248,299 in Exelon stock. Another frequent commentator, "NBC Military Analyst" Barry McCaffrey, told viewers that the war in Afghanistan would require a "three to ten year effort" and "a lot of money." The network failed to reveal that the military contractor DynCorp had paid McCaffrey $182,309 that year alone, and that DynCorp had just won a $5.9 billion contract to aid American forces in Afghanistan. Dick Gephardt, who viewers were only told was a congressman during the Clinton-era health care reform effort in 1993, appeared on MSNBC's "Morning Meeting" to discuss health care reform, where he labeled the public option "not essential." Unmentioned was his work advising pharmaceutical interests through his lobbying firm, Gephardt Government Affairs. These types of blatant, undisclosed conflicts are rife on cable news and information shows. Lobbyists, PR flacks and corporate officials regularly appear promoting their clients' interests, introduced only with titles like "Former governor," "Republican strategist" and "Retired U.S. Military," without disclosing their true lobbying connections.

After progressive historian Howard Zinn died on January 27, 2010, National Public Radio ran an unusual obituary on its January 28 All Things Considered news program. Noam Chomsky and Julian Bond, two of Zinn's well-known friends, offered overviews of his life and legacy. But NPR's remembrance also included darkly insulting comments from conservative pundit David Horowitz: "There is absolutely nothing in Howard Zinn's intellectual output that is worthy of any kind of respect," Horowitz said. "Zinn represents a fringe mentality which has unfortunately seduced millions of people at this point in time. So he did certainly alter the consciousness of millions of younger people for the worse." Horowitz called Zinn's famous book, A People's History of the United States, "a travesty." While NPR arguably tries to balance news reports with views from opposing sides of issues, it has not consistently adhered to this principle in its radio obituaries. When NPR covered the death of William F. Buckley, Jr., a figure as strongly admired on the right as Zinn was on the left, NPR aired fully six different segments about his life and legacy -- none of which included denigrating comments from critics who opposed him. Buckely left no shortage of things to criticize, either. He supported white supremacism in South Africa and the American south, nuclear war against China and even supported the tatooing of AIDS patients' buttocks. So far, NPR has not explained why it featured David Horowitz's harsh trashing of the late Howard Zinn in its commemorative piece, when its extensive eulogizing of William F. Buckley included no critical guests.

Trudy Lieberman of the Columbia Journalism Review writes, "Jonathan Gruber is an economist from MIT. Jonathan Oberlander is a political scientist from the University of North Carolina. Both are health policy experts and, from what we can tell, both know their stuff. But the press has counted on Gruber rather than Oberlander to give gravitas to their stories. ...[T]he media relies way too much on the same sources, who utter the same thing again and again to different news outlets. The problem with this, of course, is that a particular view of the world spreads widely, perhaps reinforcing that view as the correct one -- which it may or may not be, depending on the facts and on which side of the river you call home. Gruber has been the cheerleader-in-chief for the Massachusetts health care plan, which is the model for federal reform. He sits on the board of the Connector, the state’s policy brokerage service, and thus has something of a vested interest in positively spinning the reform efforts there. Last year on the PBS NewsHour, he told how premiums for individuals buying their own coverage in Massachusetts had dropped dramatically. But he didn’t mention how premiums for workers in small businesses had risen to sky-high levels in order to make that possible."

Mark Greenbaum of the Christian Science Monitor looks at Sarah Palin's new job being a celebrity pundit on Fox News Channel: "Palin is a true, Hollywood-type celebrity with a bestselling book and millions of adoring fans. She may have designs on the presidency, but she evidently wants to soak up the perks and adulation of her celebrity first, and she has done that with gusto. ... But Palin’s strident, conservative manner, her deep Republican stripes, and her penchant for publicity make her a superb fit for television and a natural fit for Fox News. This is not a novel idea, but in light of Palin’s lasting hold on the national stage, it appears a match perfectly suited to both parties commercially and ideologically. A regular slot on Fox News would be an immediate sensation and it would expand Palin’s imprint on the national stage, giving her a place to build and shape her public persona. ... She could easily be paid millions there to do what she does best: delighting Republicans and infuriating Democrats. She could also use the new job to strengthen her public conversational and oratorical skills. And therein lies why Fox News Channel is bringing on Palin. Her star power would be an immediate ratings bonanza. ... At Fox, Palin could sit in a comfy studio in stylish clothing, holding court before America and dispensing sharp political observations and nuggets of stinging disdain for Democratic initiatives. No other major guests or political pundits would be necessary; Palin would be the unquestioned star."

"Telecommunications analyst Scott Cleland, whose work is bankrolled by companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, also signed on as a hired gun for Microsoft earlier this year," reports National Journal. Cleland is "a frequent critic of Google" who "runs Precursor, an industry research and consulting firm, and chairs NetCompetition.org, which he describes as 'a pro-competition e-forum funded by broadband companies.'" Last year, Cleland released a controversial report "alleging that Google 'is by far the largest user of Internet bandwidth,' the company's share of bandwidth usage is rising rapidly, and its bandwidth use 'is orders of magnitude greater than its payment for its cost.'" Not surprisingly, Google disputed the report, but independent voices like Free Press' Tim Karr also faulted Cleland's "payola punditry."

The National Organization for Marriage, "a national organization that opposes same-sex marriage is targeting New Jersey in a $1.5 million advertising campaign." The group is also running ads in Iowa, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont. The television spots warn that supporters of same-sex marriage "want to change the way I live. ... That means wedding photographers and marriage counselors could be labeled bigots and sued if they oppose working with same-sex couples," they claim. "It's obviously going to happen if gay marriage is the law of the land," remarked National Organization for Marriage president Maggie Gallagher. In 2005, Gallagher was exposed as a payola pundit (as was Armstrong Williams), for receiving tens of thousands of dollars from the Bush administration to write favorably about its "marriage promotion" initiatives. Gallagher failed to disclose the payments, even as she praised government marriage promotion programs in her syndicated columns, op/ed pieces and interviews. She later claimed that she "had no special obligation to disclose this information," but would have done so, "if I had remembered."

NPR notes that "times could hardly be better at the Fox News Channel, the cable channel liberals love to hate. ... Ratings estimates from Nielsen Media Research indicate audience levels are up significantly -- to extremely high levels for cable news -- making Fox News among the highest rated of all basic cable channels. (MSNBC has had some of its best ratings in its existence since veering to the ideological left in primetime last year, but both it and CNN lag well behind.)" Driving the ratings are Fox's "trio of pundits, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck." The Los Angeles Times noted, "After CNN scored key victories with its election coverage last year, Fox News has now regained its wide lead. ... So much for the predictions that Fox News, reportedly the favorite channel of former Vice President Dick Cheney, wouldn't fare well in an Obama administration."