Yes, the Media Research Center's Tim Graham really did tweet his pondering of whether "the average viewer" of MSNBC would be able to tell that newly minted MSNBC host Karen Finney is African-American and his suggestion that John Boehner may be darker:

(h/t Media Matters)

Posted by Terry K. at 10:13 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

The Media Reserarch Center's Culture & Media Institute weighed in on the silly controversy over Google marking Cesar Chavez's birthday over Easter by ... complaining about the price of groceries. A March 31 tweet stated of Chavez, "He isn't risen, but he did make sure the cost of our groceries have."

In early 1968, Chavez called for a national boycott of California table grape growers. Chavez's battle with the grape growers for improved compensation and labor conditions would last for years. At the end, Chavez and his union won several victories for the workers when many growers signed contracts with the union. He faced more challenges through the years from other growers and the Teamsters Union. All the while, he continued to oversee the union and work to advance his cause.

As a labor leader, Chavez employed nonviolent means to bring attention to the plight of farm workers. He led marches, called for boycotts and went on several hunger strikes. He also brought the national awareness to the dangers of pesticides to workers' health. 

Apparently, Philbin has no problem with farm workers being poorly paid and working in harsh and dangerous conditions just so he could pay a few cents less for a head of lettuce. How selfish and nearsighted.

Then again, Philbin happily joined Rush Limbaugh's campaign of misogyny against Sandra Fluke, so being a selfish jerk must come easy to him.

Posted by Terry K. at 11:31 PM EDT

Updated: Monday, April 1, 2013 11:31 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

On the heels of his freakout over a newspaper photo of two men kissing, Media Research Center vice president Dan Gainor ratchets up his anti-gay rhetoric at OneNewsNow's Instant Analysis site, in which he accuses the media of engaging in "full-blown fascist propaganda" on behalf of gays by airing shows in which gays aren't vilified:

Dan Gainor, vice president of business and culture for MRC, said from the Post to the big three broadcast networks, the mainstream media is actively lobbying the American public (see earlier related article).

“They even talk about the media component, how the media have propagandized our ‘media culture,’ in the words of [NBC news anchor] Brian Williams,” notes Gainor. “So they talk about it and they show Ellen DeGeneres, they show Modern Family clips, they show Will & Grace. They show a very tiny snippet The New Normal, which conveniently is NBC’s propaganda show.”

[...]

And Gainor tells American Family News that NBC has been the biggest violator of pushing its own gay agenda, citing its report that he says was “filled with images of TV’s gay icons.”

“That’s their strategy,” he remarks. “They’re going to have almost no voices [from the other side] because they don’t believe that anybody should have a right to think otherwise. It’s beyond bias; it’s actually I would even say beyond censorship. It is full-blown fascist propaganda.”

It's ironic that Gainor would complain about pro-gay "propaganda" to what is essentially a propaganda website. OneNewsNow is operated by the anti-gay American Family Association.

(h/t Right Wing Watch)

Posted by Terry K. at 8:23 AM EDT

Updated: Monday, April 1, 2013 8:24 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

The Media Research Center sure wanted people to know about allegations of underage prostitution involving Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez when they first surfaced:

• MRC chief Brent Bozell whined that ABC's Martha Raddatz didn't ask Menendez about the allegations during an interview: "If there were even a whisper that a Republican Senator had been sleeping with underage prostitutes, the very first question from Martha Raddatz would have been about those allegations. When it surfaces that a Democrat may have done something tawdry, the liberal media suddenly lose their journalistic curiosity."
• Scott Whitlock huffed that a CBS reporter "suggested the allegations have 'all the earmarks of an orchestrated smear campaign,'" adding that "when lewd details came out about Republican Congressman Mark Foley in 2006, the networks filed an amazing 152 stories in just the first 12 days."
• Kyle Drennen was upset that NBC accurately quoted Menendez calling the allegations a "false attack" by "political enemies."
• Jeffrey Meyer grumbled that one Washington Post story on Menendez "omitted that the FBI is also investigating allegations that Menendez paid for underage prostitutes with girls in the Dominican Republican [sic]" and that it was instead mentioned in another Post story in the style section.
• Geoffrey Dickens lamented the lack of coverage of Menendez's alleged "solicitation of prostitutes."
• Dickens further complained that when the "Big Three" networks (apparently, those are the only television outlets that the MRC tracks, all the better for not having Fox News screw up their metrics) reported on Menendez at all, they failed to label him as a Democrat.
• Bozell devoted a column to complaining that the media covered 'Marco Rubio taking a swig of water" but not that Menendez purportedly "enjoyed prostitutes."

Well, it seems that the media's caution was the correct decision, because the story has been falling apart for the past month, around the time the MRC stopped trying to hector the "liberal media" into covering it.

The collapse accelerated when it was reported that Dominican authorities have determined that three women who said they had sex with Menendez for money were actually paid to make the false accusations. This was followed by an allegation by one of the main sources for the right-wing Daily Caller's reports on the allegations -- which the MRC had been relying on -- asserted that he had been media outlets, including the Daily Caller, to fabricate the whole affair.

But not only has the MRC stopped hectoring the media, it's ignored the story completely -- not a peep about it has been mentioned at NewsBusters or any other MRC website since Feb. 21. That mean MRC readers haven't been told that the story has fallen apart like a cheap suit.

This kind of failure to update a story that no longer fits an outlet's ideological agenda is the kind of thing the MRC likes to call out others for. Now that it's guilty of doing the same thing, it's gone totally silent.

Is anyone surprised at the blatant double standard? We're not.

Posted by Terry K. at 10:18 PM EDT

Updated: Thursday, March 28, 2013 10:23 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Brent Bozell writes in a March 27 column railing at the alleged lack of national coverage of the trial of an abortion doctor:

You can also see the anti-Catholic animus determining which trials are newsworthy in Philadelphia. On May 23, 2012, the "CBS Evening News" began with the trial of Monsignor William Lynn, accused of covering up child sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Scott Pelley wasn't shy about letting the prosecutor speak as she compared the Catholic Church with the Nazis at Nuremberg.

But when a pro-lifer uses Holocaust metaphors for an abortion clinic, he is condemned.

Bozell provides no context for the Nuremberg reference. In fact,  Pelley did not "let" the prosecutor "compare the Catholic Church with the Nazis at Nuremberg" -- the prosecutor was labeling Lynn's I-was-just-following-orders defense the Nuremberg defense (as any such defense is typically labeled), and the statement appeared in a pretaped report, not live to Pelley.

In other words, Bozell is lying. To prove it, here's the transcript of the relevant segment from the May 23, 2012, CBS Evening News (via Nexis):

PELLEY: Good evening. In a Philadelphia courtroom today, the first catholic clergyman to face criminal charges for covering up child sex abuse said that he was following the orders of a cardinal. Monsignor William Lynn described a code of silence as priests suspected of child molestation were transferred from parish to parish in the hope that no one would notice. Elaine Quijano was in the courtroom.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELAINE QUIJANO, CBS CORRESPONDENT: Monsignor William Lynn testified he had no choice but to follow the directives of his superior, the late cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, including withholding information from parishioners about why predator priests were moved out of their churches.

"Did you or anybody you were associated with, or participate with, ever lie to parishioners about a priest going off into the sunset," prosecutors asked. "The Cardinal wouldn`t allow us to announce in those days why someone was leaving." Lynn said. Cardinals at a highest ranking clergy in the catholic church. They answer only to the pope. Lynn was in charge of recommending priest assignments and investigating child sex abuse allegations against clergy for 12 years. Today, Lynn testified he did not have the power to transfer priests from church to church, telling a Philadelphia jury he only had the authority to remove priests if they admitted to abusing someone. "Every time you put the victims first?" an assistant district attorney asked "I believe in my heart I was, yes," the monsignor replied.

(on camera): His argument is that he was just following orders. That he couldn`t do more than what he did.

LYNNE ABRAHAM: That`s what they said in the Nuremberg defense. I mean aren`t we tired of that defense "I was only following orders?"

QUIJANO (voice over): Former Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham first began investigating the archdiocese in 2002.

ABRAHAM: This is a jury`s decision to make. They`ll listen to it and decide whether Monsignor Lynn endangered children by not going to the authorities by telling the cardinal, look, if you`re going to continue on this path, I need to -- I need to leave here. I can`t do this anymore. You can do it, I`m not going to do it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

QUIJANO: Monsignor Lynn takes the stand again tomorrow morning when prosecutors resume their cross-examination. If he`s convicted he could face up to 21 years in prison.

PELLEY: Elaine, the monsignor took the stand today in his own defense. How risky was that for him?

QUIJANO: You know, it was a risk, legal analysts say, because prosecutors now have a chance to poke holes at Monsignor Lynn`s defense. Now, some here say this trial could go on for another two weeks and if that`s the case, that would then give his defense team an opportunity to repair any damage.

PELLEY: Elaine, thanks very much.

The MRC has a disturbing tendency to bury or whitewash Catholic sexual abuse scandals.

And Bozell wonders why nobody takes his "research" organization seriously.

Posted by Terry K. at 10:22 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

For someone whose job it is to be a watchdog of news coverage, the Media Research Center's Dan Gainor sure is clueless about how journalism works.

Gainor took to FoxNews.com to deliver a rant about the Denver Post putting a picture of Colorado House Speaker Mark Ferrandino kissing his partner after the passage of a bill permitting civil unions in the state. Apparently, Gainor not only considers such a thing to be offensive to community standards even though he does not live in the Post's circulation area -- he puts "partner" in scare quotes to denigrate their relationship -- he does not consider such a thing to be news:

The Post ran that photo as its main front-page picture, taking up 20-25 percent of the front page.

They were shocked that not everyone was amused by a typical example of media promoting the gay agenda. The debate went national with both Huffington Post and even the prominent journalism blog Jimromenesko.com chiming in.

Director of Newsroom Operations Linda Shapley naturally defended the decision to run the photo. Choosing editor cliché No. 7, Shapley told readers: “As editors, it’s often our job to make difficult decisions.” But a little analysis shows they knew the impact it would have. They just didn’t care.

The headline on her column first read: “Mark Ferrandino kiss photo shows truth, no matter how objectionable.” But that offended the pro-gay lobby, so the explanation of the offense … offended. The new headline became “Picture of Mark Ferrandino kissing partner shows the truth, even if it offends some.”

Note that both versions emphasized the “truth.” Journalists are constantly convinced their view of the world is truth. All others not so much.

Gainor doesn't explain why that unambiguously true picture is not "truth."

He goes on to accuse the editor of engaging in a "self-serving defense," but Gainor's manufactured outrage is just as self-serving. He's working in service of an organization that puts its anti-gay agenda ahead of news value considerations, and he's nothing if not a loyal apparatchik for whom right-wing ideology comes first, last and always. Gainor doesn't care that gay relationships are news -- he doesn't want gays reported on, period, unless they are denigrated.

But Gainor keeps ranting anyway:

Readers who disagree or are offended because they might not want to explain two men kissing to a 6-year-old child, well they don’t matter. In years past, when newspapers were still popular ways Americans received news, editors were concerned with delivering a “family newspaper.” Now they care more that they are giving readers the propaganda of a “Modern Family” newspaper.

And it’s exactly what the left wants. The pro-gay group GLAAD, which aims to ban traditional marriage supporters from TV, makes it clear it looks to the media to propagandize. “What people see in the media has a huge impact and GLAAD ensures images of LGBT people and allies grow acceptance, understanding and build support for equality.”

The Post is right in one way. A picture is worth a thousand words and not one of them says anything kind to readers who are not liberal.

Presumably, Gainor would have no problem with the Denver Post running a picture of a bloody fetus on the front page to illustrate a story about abortion -- something that seems to be less offensive and disgusting than a picture of two men kissing.

Posted by Terry K. at 9:57 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

The Media Research Center's Matt Philbin has a notable gay-bashing record: He turns a blind eye to anti-gay slurs, thinks a young boy with brightly painted toenails is "transgendered child propaganda," and he's opposed to gays or anyone who looks like they might be gay from being depicted in advertising.

Philbin takes his hatred and fear of gays to a new, silly level in a March 20 MRC Culture & Media Institute post, headlined "‘Glee’ on the Gridiron?" in which he fearmongers about the unmanly specter of openly gay athletes:

If liberals in the sports media have their way, your favorite sporting event will soon be a little more like an episode of “Glee.” Writers and talking heads at outlets from ESPN to NBC Sports are in a full-court press. They want to see openly gay athletes in American sports, no matter what it means for the games, the fans, or the athletes themselves.

Perhaps envious that their news colleagues get to cover – and advocate for – what a Washington Post reporter recently called “the civil rights issue of our time,” sports journalists have been long been obsessed with gay athletes. Commentator after commentator have taken to ESPN’s website to assure us “the issue of sports and homosexuality isn't going away,” to call a football player “intelligent and articulate athlete when he made a stand for gay rights,” and to wonder where the gay Jackie Robinson is.

Yes, it seems Philbin really thinks that, say, a single football player who makes his homosexuality public means the entire team will break out into show tunes on the field.

Philbin's level of thinking doesn't go far beyond that. He complains about how "CNN’s pro-gay bias is well established" -- actually, that's more about Philbin's fellow MRC employee Matt Hadro studiously documenting every time gays fail to be bashed on CNN -- then asserts that "bias is more like obsession when the network can’t do a sports interview one of the best pitchers in baseball (who lost the World Series in October) without bringing up – apropos of nothing – gay rights. But there was CNN’s Carol Costello asking Detroit Tigers pitcher Justin Verlander if he’d have problems playing with an openly gay teammate." But Philbin ignores that 1) the idea of gays in sports had been talked about in the media in previous months, and 2) Costello began the interview with an even more apropos-of-nothing question: Verlander's golf game.

It seems that the only person obsessed with homosexuality here is Philbin.

Posted by Terry K. at 11:05 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

The Media Research Center is taking the Colbert axiom that facts have a liberal bias to the next level: It's an expression of contempt to merely report facts.

Kyle Drennen wrote in a March 19 MRC item, headlined "Report on Iraq War Anniversary By NBC's Richard Engel Drips With Contempt" (boldface is his):

In a report on the tenth anniversary of the Iraq War for Tuesday's NBC Today, chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel was unable to conceal his contempt for the conflict: "Iraq's oil money was supposed to pay for the war. It didn't work out that way. From now on, the war set its own agenda, an insurgency erupted that became a religious civil war....Iraqis accuse the United States of invading to find weapons of mass destruction that were never there, and destroying a delicate religious balance."

Engel continued: "The [Bush] White House stopped claiming all was well in Iraq, and thousands more troops surged. The violence dropped, and Americans left. Nine years, almost 4,500 troops killed, 32,000 wounded, 130,000 Iraqi civilians killed. The cost, according to a new study, nearly $2 trillion."

How did Drennen read Engel's mind to confirm the "contempt" in his heart? He doesn't say. And Drennen never contradicts anything Engel reported.

That means Drennen is holding Engel in "contempt" for reporting the truth. That's what passes for "media research" at the MRC.

Posted by Terry K. at 4:52 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Brent Bozell's Heatheriffic speech at CPAC was introduced by right-wing "comedian" Steven Crowder, as the beginning of the video of the speech as posted on MRCTV shows.

But Crowder's remarks leading up to his introduction of Bozell included a joke about  actress Ashley Judd, who's thinking about running for Senate in Kentucky:

By the way, in breaking news, Ashley Judd just tweeted that buying Apple products, again, is akin to rape. From her iPhone. Rape—now she knows how my brain felt after Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood. Oh, she said it. What is this obsession with Ashley Judd and rape? It's pretty unnerving.

As Mother Jones points out, there' s a reason Judd talks about rape: She is, in her own words, "a three-time survivor of rape." And rape in Africa is a large part of what she does as a public health activist.

But rather than immediately denounce Crowder's crude remarks, Bozell started in immediately on his prepared remarks, which included the pompous declaration, "After three long days, they saved the best for last: me."

Given that Bozell's first instinct when Rush Limbaugh went on a three-day misogynistic tirade against Sandra Fluke was not to criticize Limbaugh for his vile remarks but to set up a "We Stand With Rush" website, it's not really a surprise that Bozell is similarly callous about rape jokes.

Posted by Terry K. at 5:06 PM EDT

Updated: Monday, March 18, 2013 5:13 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Last year, Brent Bozell pulled himself and his Media Research Center out of conservative confab CPAC in a huff because Bozell wasn't granted a prominent enough speaking slot -- which MRC's own news organization and blog failed to tell its readers.

This year, Bozell apparently got the speaking slot he demanded, and he used it to do some serious Heathering, continuing his expansion of his right-wing purity test to the entire Republican Party. Craig Bannister quoted from the speech in a March 16 CNSNews.com blog post:

"So what do we conservatives believe? What is a conservative?

"Throughout this wonderful conference so many very good leaders have discussed this so eloquently. Another discussion is unnecessary. Instead, let me tell you first what a conservative isn't.

"Paul Ryan, you're a good man and you mean well, and good for you for your courage trying to reform Medicare and rid us of Obamacare. But your proposed budget that has the federal government spending $41 TRILLION over the next ten years, with more and more and more spending increases every single year, and assumes all the oppressive Obamacare taxes.   Congressman, that's what liberal Democrats do, not us.

"This is not conservatism. It is, literally, Democrat Lite.

"Do you have national aspirations? Do yourself and your country a favor. Rip that budget up and come back with one that truly does reduce the size of government, which puts us on the path toward a balanced budget by reducing deficits, and one that puts us on the path of solvency by eradicating our debt.  Watch what happens to both your national aspirations, and your legacy.

"Haley Barbour, my friend, when you call for unity and on conservatives to "sing from the same hymnal" and then publicly trash good conservative groups like Club for Growth for supporting good conservatives, you're out of tune, and you're out of line. Do you want to be seen as a national conservative leader? Start supporting national conservative groups.

"John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Kevin McCarthy: You said all the right things to conservatives to propel the GOP back to the majority and you to the top three leadership positions in the House.

'You, like virtually every single other Republican elected to Congress solemnly vowed to rid us of Obamacare, which you can do simply by refusing to fund it. Why haven't you done so?

"While we're at it... when the Secretary of HHS decrees that we should be forced to pay for the murder of babies, why don't you decree that Americans are no longer going to pay for HHS?  What of all the other oppressive, and in the case of Planned Parenthood, evil organizations immorally funded by our tax dollars?  What of the utterly useless agencies like NPR, and PBS, and Legal Services, and the NEA and so many others you solemnly pledged to put out of our misery?

It looks like the war between establishment Republicans and right-wing agitators like Bozell will be continuing for some time.

Posted by Terry K. at 1:09 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

The Media Research Center has long engaged in political Heathering -- denigrating and dismissing any conservative who displays even the slightest deviance from right-wing dogma as not a "real" conservative. MRC chief Brent Bozell appears to be expanding his Heathering to the entire Republican Party.

Since President Obama won re-election in November, Bozell has been on one long temper tantrum, trying to intimidate Republicans into not straying from right-wing by threatening to stop raising money for Republicans. jhat's a little awkward, given that the MRC is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization that is not supposed to take partisan stands. Bozell has since expanded that to going after Karl Rove's operation to promote electable Republicans over right-wing extremists, which prompted a tussle over a Rove spokesman who (accurately) called Bozell a "hater."

Bozell has now unleashed some Heathering on Rove, in the form of a letter signed by him and other right-wing activists to donors to Rove's American Crossroads super PAC, declaring that Rove isn't a real conservative:

Karl Rove and others are attempting to blame conservatives and the tea party. But a simple analysis shows this to be simply untrue. In 2012, the only Senate Republican winners were Jeff Flake, Deb Fischer, and Ted Cruz—all of whom enjoyed significant tea party and conservative support. Meanwhile, more moderate candidates like Tommy Thompson, Heather Wilson, Rick Berg, and Denny Rehberg went down to defeat despite significant support from Crossroads.

It was firmly expected that Republicans would capture the Senate in 2012. It is inexcusable that they failed and, in fact, lost two seats.

[...]

Mr. Rove and his allies must stop blaming conservatives for his disastrous results. It is time for him to take ownership of his record. He must also stop posturing himself as a conservative: his record supporting wasteful government spending and moderate candidates over conservatives spans decades.

No matter how he positions himself in this attempt at damage control, Mr. Rove’s efforts will not elect the type of leaders who will come to Washington to fight for conservative principles. In fact, they are likely to stifle the emergence of candidates like Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey, and Rand Paul. Further, the model that will be employed by the Conservative Victory Project has proven to be ineffective and a waste of political resources.

Heathering hasn't exactly worked on the TV-talking-head level. Why does Bozell think it will work against an entire political party?

Posted by Terry K. at 5:43 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Brent Bozell writes in his March 13 column:

Our left-wing media's somber, mourning coverage of Venezuelan despot Hugo Chavez once again demonstrates the double standard journalists reserve for dictators.

Seven years ago, the left's greatest South American hate object, Augusto Pinochet, passed away. Never mind how he used free-market reforms to modernize Chile. Never mind that after 15 years of rule, he allowed a national plebiscite to vote against him, and he stepped down peacefully. The left-wing outrage pulsed on the front pages.

So "free-market reforms" are supposed to make upfor the fact that Pinochet's regime murdered and tortured its own people? Really, Brent? 

Bozell does note that others reported on Pinochet's "repressive 17-year rule" and huffed that "Both the [Washington] Post and the [New York] Times used post-Pinochet government estimates that more than 3,000 people were executed or disappeared during the Pinochet dictatorship." But at no point in his column does Bozell express any disapproval of Pinochet's atrocious human rights record.

Bozell's claim that "after 15 years of rule, [Pinochet] allowed a national plebiscite to vote against him, and he stepped down peacefully" also ignores history -- namely, that Pinochet took power in a military coup, overthrowing the democratically elected Salvador Allende, and that the plebecite was the only time during his regime that he put himself up for a public vote. (And since it was a plebecite, there were no other candidates, only an up-or-down vote on whether Pinochet should stay in power.)

Further, Bozell's assertion that Pinochet "stepped down peacefully" is not quite true -- he actually attempted to overthrow the plebecite results.

We're not defending Chavez -- just pointing out the disgusting absurdity of Bozell claiming a highly murderous right-wing dictator is no worse than a non-murderous left-wing dictator. And what person in his right mind thinks instituting "free-market reforms" offsets in any way the deaths of thousands and the torture of hundreds of thousands? Bozell, apparently.

Posted by Terry K. at 3:09 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

A March 8 MRCtv post from the right-wing blog Radio Equalizer features a caller to Ed Schultz's radio show pointing out that Schultz's "parent company" is "knee-deep in profiteering off drone manufacturing," suggesting that this is behind Schultz's support of President Obama's drone program.

The "parent company" Schultz's caller is referring to is General Electric. But GE has no connection whatsoever to Schultz's radio show -- his syndicator is Dial Global, which is owned by two private equity firms. (Dial Global does operate the NBC Radio Network, which NBC sold in 1987.)

Even if the caller was referring to Schultz's status as a host for MSNBC, that's not quite correct either. Comcast purchased a majority stake in NBC from GE in 2011, and  is currently in the process of buying the rest of the company from GE.

Posted by Terry K. at 11:05 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Liz Thatcher used a March 6 Media Research Center Business & Media Institute item to complain that USA Today highlighted a study claiming that gun violence costs $12 billion a year. Thatcher attacked the group funding the study as having "left-wing inclinations" as well as being "financially connected to left-wing donor George Soros."

At no point did Thatcher offer any evidence challenging the study's results.

Thatcher went on to complain that did not mention "how many lives have been saved because of guns," concluding:

Or, USA Today and other media outlets could heed the advice of economist and gun advocate John Lott. In an op-ed published on Mar. 5 for National Review, he charged that a little less media coverage of mass shooters could be helpful for public safety, something PIRE loves to talk about. “We should be trying to deprive these killers of what they crave: attention and easy targets,” he wrote.

Lott is a thoroughly discredited gun researcher. And Thatcher wants us to take the advice of him over that of a group whose research she can't even disprove? That's rich.

Posted by Terry K. at 11:31 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink