MRC's Graham Twists Evidence To Perpetuate 'Liberal Media' Conspiracy Topic: Media Research Center
Here's the genius of the Media Research Center's anti-media agenda: Any evidence that disproves their claims of "liberal bias" can be portrayed as evidence of bias.
On March 8, the MRC's Tim Graham helped feed right-wing speculation that the New York Times deliberately cropped former President George W. Bush and his wife out of a photo of a march in Selma, Alabama.
This manufactured outrage was enough for Times public editor Margaret Sullivan to investigate. Her finding: The Times itself never cropped the photo; the photographer stated that in the photo he took, "Bush is super-overexposed because he was in the sun and Obama and the others are in the shade" and that the photo is a bad photo technically.
How did Graham respond to this reasoned investigation? By reframing it as more evidence of the conspiracy:
The paper didn’t alter a photograph. But the Bushes were “cropped” out – metaphorically. Their presence didn’t have “impact.”
[...]
Obviously, conservatives disagree there’s “no evidence of politics” here. Announcing the photo the Times used “has impact” is code for “makes Obama look good on a notable day in U.S. racial history.”
By contrast, consider the Times on January 12, 2015. They had two large color photos with “impact” on the front page from the unity march after the Charlie Hedbo murders by Islamists. Obviously, there was no Obama in that picture to “crop” out. But the front-page news account by Liz Alderman never used the name “Obama” and waited to mention Attorney General Eric Holder being in Paris until paragraph eight.
In fact, a review of front pages from that Monday through Friday showed no focus on Obama on the Times front page that week. This story ended up on page A-12: “White House Acknowledges Error in Not Sending a Top Official to March in Paris.”
Everything the Times decides is “news” seems very carefully reviewed for its “impact” on Obama.
See? Lack of proof of any actual cropping becomes proof of "metaphorical" cropping. Any evidence that disproves Graham's conspiracy can be twisted to mean the opposite.
Even if the Times had run that bad photo with the Bushes in it, Graham would have, in all likelihood, complained that the Times ran a poor image of the Bushes to make them look bad.
The Times just can't win -- which, presumably, is the way Graham and the MRC like it.
MRC Rushes To Defend Ben Carson Over His Anti-Gay Comments Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's philosophy: If a journalist dares to question a conservative about his views, you are clearly a liberal or, even worse, an "activist."
The headline on Matthew Balan's March 4 NewsBusters post sums up that philosophy nicely: "LGBT Activist in CNN Anchor's Clothing Cuomo Hounds Carson on Marriage." Balan is appalled that CNN host Chris Cuomo would dare to question conservative darling Ben Carson about his views on homosexuality:
On Wednesday's New Day, CNN's Chris Cuomo likened traditional marriage legislation to legalizing slavery as he interviewed Dr. Ben Carson. When the conservative personality suggested, on the issue of same-sex "marriage," that "civil issues of that nature should be determined at the state level," Cuomo retorted, "What if people of a state vote for a law...that winds up infringing on the rights of a minority – like happened very often with slavery; like, many would argue, is happening now with people who are gay?"
The anchor acted as a left-wing activist on the subject, as he has done in the past, as he and Dr. Carson sparred for the remainder of the interview segment:
Balan buried Carson's bizarre claim that being gay is a choice because "a lot of people who go into prison – go into prison straight – and when they come out, they're gay."
Apparently, Balan believes any claim made by a conservative is never to be challenged by the media.
When Carson's claim proved to be too toxic for even him to defend, he walked it back in a Facebook post.
But that's not the lead of Kristine Marsh's March 5 NewsBusters post. Instead, Marsh helps Carson play the victim by hyping his assertion -- made to Sean Hannity, whom Carson knows will never challenge his anti-gay views -- that CNN "prodded" him to answer a question about the nature of homosexuality, then "spun his comments."
Marsh simply pasted a screenshot of Carson's Facebook walkback of his comments, declining to comment on the complete nature of his capitulation. Carson also declared he supports civil unions for gays and anti-discrimination laws that cover gays -- both positions that right-wingers like the MRC abhor.
LGBT writers have questioned the sincerity of Carson's apology given his victim-playing on Hannity's radio show. But Marsh didn't mention that, either.
MRC Upset That CPAC (Where MRC's Bozell Spoke) Is Accurately Painted As 'Hardcore' Extremist Topic: Media Research Center
Jeffrey Meyer is shocked -- shocked! -- that anyone would identify the Conservative Political Actuion Conference for what it is. From his March 1 NewsBusters post:
On Friday’s PBS NewsHour, New York Times columnists David Brooks and Mark Shields used their weekly appearance to trash the attendees of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) as representing the extreme far right of the Republican Party.
So-called conservative columnist David Brooks opined that “[t]here’s conservatives, and then there’s conservatives, and then conservatives, and then way over on the other side of the room is CPAC...So this is like the hardest of the hardcore.”
The anti-CPAC discussion began with Mark Shields smearing the conference as promoting “the kind of language of no consensus, no compromise, compromise is capitulation, compromise is surrender.”
Meyer didn't identify how any of that is incorrect. He also didn't disclose that his boss Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell -- who has feuded with CPAC for years -- spoke at this year's gathering, a sign that the group has moved sufficiently rightward for Bozell's tastes.
Bozell and the MRC have boycotted CPAC in previous years for letting gay and atheist groups take part; Bozell also pulled the MRC out CPAC mid-gathering over a snit about getting a sufficiently prominent speaking spot.
And can Meyer plausibly argue that "no consensus, no compromise, compromise is capitulation, compromise is surrender" is not the core message of the majority of CPAC speakers, including Bozell himself?
The MRC talked trash about CPAC when it allowed a group Bozell opposed to take part. This year, the MRC is hiding the extremism of CPAC's speakers.
MRC Attacks The Messenger, Won't Admit O'Reilly Is A Liar Topic: Media Research Center
In promoting the Brian Williams controversy, the Media Research Center wanted to make sure you knew that Williams was a liar. With Bill O'Reilly, not only does the MRC refuse to concede he has lied, it's attacking anyone who dares to point out that inconvenient fact.
Jeffrey Lord made the MRC's O'Reilly agenda clear in a Feb. 28 NewsBusters post declaring that O'Reilly lies are irrelevant:
There is a lesson from all of this O'Reilly story, a reminder of exactly how the American Left works. Make no mistake. This story of what Bill O'Reilly did or did not say or do decades ago during the Falklands War is not what this latest dust-up is really all about.
The first objective here was to try and ruin Bill O'Reilly's career. To get him off of Fox News and shut him up. Not coincidentally sending a torpedo into Fox News itself - and more. Much more.
The disturbing fact is that Bill O'Reilly is but the latest figure in what is called "conservative media" to have this experience. And worse? This obsessive drive to destroy - not disagree with, but destroy - conservatives or even those like Bill O'Reilly who do not self-identify as a conservative, (O'Reilly sees himself as a traditionalist or "T-Warrior" as in "traditionalist warrior" and is well out there, as here saying that "I vote all over the map") has spread well beyond conservative media.
Lord makes no mention of Williams -- probably because he cannot plausibly claim that the right-wingers who glommed onto that controversy were not motivated by an "obsessive drive to destroy" Williams. Indeed, as we noted, the MRC was fundraising off it.
The MRC's hypocritical strategy was made even more clear in a March 2 MRC item by Mike Ciandella huffing that "liberal groups attacking Fox News host Bill O’Reilly about his past reporting got more than $15 million from left-wing billionaire George Soros." It's so insidious, according to Ciandella, that "Even some outlets pushing this story that are not funded by Soros have Soros connections."
At no point does Ciandella dispute the accuracy of what this outlets are saying about O'Reilly -- he's just trying to kill the messenger.
And that's the MRC's agenda. Conservatives never lie and anyone who point out that they do obviously has a nefarious puprose. It's easier than admitting the truth.
MRC Not Interested In Correcting False Anti-Gay Post Topic: Media Research Center
WorldNetDaily wasn't the only one to fall for a false anti-gay story peddled by a right-wing legal group.
In a Feb. 6 MRC TV post, Kristine Marsh uncritically repeated the Pacific Justice Institute's claim that "a Bay Area high school’s freshman English classrooms were taken hostage by the school’s “Queer Straight Alliance” group and grilled about each student’s opinions on gender and sexuality."
Marsh quotes only from a PJI press release, adding that PI and its leader, Brad Dacus, "have good reason to complain. This isn’t the first incident of sexual propaganda and intimidation students have undergone at Acalanes High School."'
But as Media Matters reported, the story is bogus. Unlike Marsh, Media Matters contacted the school district, which confirmed that PJI's biased version of events "does not reflect what actually took place."
Will Marsh correct her blog post? It appears unlikely -- it's been nearly two weeks since PJI's deception was exposed, and her post remains uncorrected.
MRC Still Won't Call Out O'Reilly's Lies, Instead Attacks His Accusers Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center went nuclear on the exaggerations of NBC's Brian Williams, despite the fact that MRC chief Brent Bozell is guilty of much more serious falsehoods. But the MRC won't call out Fox News' Bill O'Reilly for making similar exaggerations, and as they continue to pile up, the MRC has now taken to sniping at O'Reilly's accusers.
Bozell has been utterly silent on O'Reilly -- after all, liars stick together. Thus, the role as chief sniper has fallen to Tim Graham, despite his role in helping Bozell hide the fact that he ghost-wrote Bozell's syndicated columns for years. (If Graham didn't speak out on the issue, he helped conceal it.)
Graham grumbled in a Feb. 24 NewsBusters post: "The left is trying to knock off O’Reilly after the Brian Williams scandal." As if the MRC's attack on Williams wasn't motivated much more by partisan hatred than concern for journalistic integrity.
The fact that Graham's post is mostly about an irrelevant side issue of whether a Washington Post blogger should have disclosed his wife's employment with Mother Jones, the magazine that first disclosed O'Reilly's exaggerations, shows that the MRC will be playing blame-the-messenger on O'Reilly in a way it didn't regarding Williams.
Indeed, Graham attacked another messenger in a Feb. 25 post, bashing GQ for daring to opine on O'Reilly:
No one looks to GQ for political analysis. It would be like looking to Rolling Stone for religion coverage. But they can still ape the rest of the liberal media and mock Fox News. As the Fox haters campaign to get Bill O’Reilly canned, GQ (not an abbreviation for Genius Quotient) has come up with a mocking list of “18 Things That Actually Would Get Bill O'Reilly Fired.”
Graham took it even farther promoting his post on Twitter, seemingly questioning the sexuality of anyone who questions O'Reilly by sneering that GQ is "Foppishly against Fox":
In a response to ConWebWatch, Graham denied he was questioning the sexuality of O'Reilly's critics: "'Foppish' doesn't mean gay, you doof."
Graham's not alone in aggressively ignoring the substance of the charges against O'Reilly. In a Feb. 25 NewsBusters post, Randy Hall similarly borrowed from the kill-the-messenger playbook: "Could this assault on the most popular person in cable news for 15 years be an attempt to balance the scales after the liberals recently lost former NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams? Only time -- and ratings -- will tell."
At no point does Hall acknowledge the factual basis behind the accusations against O'Reilly.
MRC Deflects '50 Shades' By Bring Up 'Passion of the Christ' Topic: Media Research Center
While WorldNetDaily went into full freakout mode over the "50 Shades of Grey" film, the Media Research Center took a different appoach: unfavorably comparing it to the film "The Passion of the Christ."
A Feb. 16 CNSNews.com article by Brittany Hughes tried to spin hard against "50 Shades'" huge opening weekend:
During its opening weekend at the box office, ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ came close to being the top grossing R-rated movie with a February opening in history, raking in $81.67 million during its first weekend in theaters – Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Feb. 13-15 -- but it still fell short of the $83.85 million record set by ‘The Passion of the Christ’ in 2004.
According to a weekend box office report from Universal Pictures, ‘Fifty Shades” easily dominated movie theaters on Valentine’s Day weekend, but failed to top Mel Gibson’s hit depicting the death of Christ released more than a decade ago on Feb. 25, 2004, the Ash Wednesday of that year.
Hughes was apparently citing an estimate of "50 Shades'" weekend take; the link she provides as evidence currently shows that "50 Shades" took in $85.1 million that weekend, topping "Passion" for best February opening.
MRC officials Brent Bozell and Tim Graham spent their Feb. 21 column harrumphing that "50 Shades" "debuted to far less controversy than The Passion of the Christ in 2004." They continued:
Before and after The Passion's release, there was great derision about its supposed anti-Semitism. CBS called it an "ecumenical suicide bomb." The New York Daily News ridiculously claimed it was "the most virulently anti-Semitic movie made since the German propaganda films of World War II."
Actually, far from "ridiculous," there is a very solid case to be made for "Passion" containing anti-Semitism. As the National Catholic Reporter notes:
[Director Mel] Gibson made a film that confirmed many stereotypes of the Jews, such as depicting the moment when the bag of silver was tossed to Judas in slow motion and Judas looked at it lovingly; the "bad" Jewish men with fang-like teeth and the "good guys" with nice teeth; the sneering hatred from the high priest when he questions Jesus; and Pilate calling the Jews "filthy rabble." Certainly not the first to do so, Gibson uses stereotypes, some more subtle than others, to create a group of "bad" Jews to confront the "good" Jews consisting of Jesus, Mary and their followers who would be thought of as aligned with Christians today.
That Gibson was making a conscious choice to reject and negate Judaism is indisputable when we see the sign on the cross. "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" is written only in ecclesial Latin and Aramaic. He rejects the Greek as detailed in John 19:20, and Greek was the common language of the Roman Empire at that time. Thus, according to Adlerstein, Gibson creates "a tension between Aramaic/Hebrew; he does not create a bond but severs it."
Further, the fact that Gibson has since revealed himself to hold anti-Semitic sentiments would seem to bolster the case that "Passion" includes anti-Semitism.
Perhaps Bozell and Graham might want to find a better example to counter "50 Shades."
MRC, Which Hammered Brian Williams, Brushes Aside O'Reilly's Falsehoods Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center went ballistic on Brian Williams' exaggerations -- not because it cares about journalistic integrity so much, but because it saw an opportunity to futher the personal destruction of a despised target.
But now that questions have been raised about beloved conservative-leaning personality Bill O'Reilly's exaggerations about being in a war zone during the Falklands conflict, what do we hear from the MRC now?
Crickets, essentially.
The story has been out for a good three days now, and the the only thing to appear on any MRC outlet about O'Reilly is a Feb. 20 NewsBusters post by Matthew Balan promoting former CNN newsman Frank Sesno's claim that O'Reilly's exaggerations aren't as severe as Williams'.
Well, right-wing liars have to stick together -- after all, MRC chief Brent Bozell spent 15 years lying that he wrote his syndicated column.
MRC Promotes Discredited Study Smearing Same-Sex Parents Topic: Media Research Center
Kristine Marsh is very excited to use a Feb. 12 Media Research Center item to promote a study that conforms with the anti-gay agenda of her and her employer (boldface is hers):
Now a new larger-scale and more scientific study in the U.S. has been published with contrary results, and all we get from the media is embarrassed silence.
The study titled "Emotional Problems among Children with Same-Sex Parents: Difference by Definition," was conducted by sociologist and priest Donald Sullins of the Catholic University of America and published in “The British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioral Science” this month.
Sullins set out to discover whether the Australian study’s findings could be replicated using more reliable methodology. So he took a larger representative sample from the general population: 207,007 children, including 512 with same-sex parents, from the U.S. National Health Interview Survey.
The results of the study were not good for children of same-sex parents:
Eight of 12 psychometric measures used in the study showed that children with same-sex parents experienced more distress than children of opposite-sex parents. The results were "clear, statistically significant," and "of substantial magnitude," after controlling for age, sex, race, education and income. For four of the measures of emotional and behavioral problems, children raised by same-sex parents were at least twice as likely to experience difficulties compared to children raised by opposite-sex parents.
While Marsh was quick to attack as "flawed" an earlier study showing that children of gay parents, in her words, "were healthier and happier than children of hetero parents" (parroting the anti-gay Family Research Center) she exhibited no interest in hesitating to promote Sullins' study before others whose political agenda is less invested in its results could take a look at it.
And it appears to be even more flawed than Marsh claims the earlier study is. Steve Williams at Care2 outlines the numerous problems with the study, starting with the fact that Sullins has conducted research for the FRC's Marriage and Religion Research Institute and, thus, his objectivity on the issue is in question.
Williams points out that the "207,007 children" Marsh touts as being studied by Sullins as lacking significant research controls:
If we are studying same-sex parents and comparing them to opposite-sex parents, it logically follows that, given marriage offers a raft of benefits that support child-rearing, we should control for whether the same-sex parents were married like (presumably) most of the heterosexuals in this study were, or at least inquire as to the marriage status of all involved. This is not controlled for in the study.
Secondly, we would also take into account one key fact: if the same-sex attracted parents had a child as the result of a previous heterosexual relationship, this obviously will have a bearing on the child’s emotional well being because they will most probably have had to endure a break-up and divorce. The study does not adequately account for this fact either.
Third, the study should also have controlled for whether the same-sex parents were in stable longterm relationships that specifically included the cohabiting partners each taking on a parenting role. By the study’s own admission, same-sex parents were classed only as “those persons whose reported spouse or cohabiting partner was of the same sex as themselves.” Again, there appears to be no adjustment for this meaningful variable.
Williams also notes that Sullins' framework is designed to produce unfavorable results for same-sex parents, he makes assertions that his own study doesn't support, and that the study's results appear to have been rushed with an eye toward influencing court cases on same-sex marriage.
Don't expect Marsh to go back and update her article with Sullins' flaws -- after all, only his initial conclusions matter. Such further research at the MRC is only for studies that don't advance the MRC's agenda.
A new poll commissioned by the Media Research Center reveals that the tales Brian Williams told – which led to his eventual suspension without pay – have severely undermined his credibility with the American people. In a survey of 1,007 respondents: -
- 66.1 percent said Brian Williams should have been fired after he was caught in numerous lies. Williams famously lied about being in a helicopter that was shot down over Iraq and seeing a dead body float by his New Orleans hotel during Hurricane Katrina.
-- An overwhelming 71.6 percent of respondents said that despite the anchorman's apology and suspension, he should still resign.
-- In the same poll, 61.6 percent said they are less likely to trust NBC News if Brian Williams is allowed to return as anchor of NBC Nightly News.
But the post omitted a couple of important things: the full results of the poll -- which most pollsters provide -- and the specific wording of the questions (which would be stated in the full poll results). That raises questions about exactly how fair the poll was.
One bit of information was noted that points us toward the answer: the poll was conducted by McLaughlin & Associates. NewsBusters doesn't disclose it, but McLaughlin & Associates primarily works for Republican and conservative causesand candidates, which tells us that McLaughlin likely crafted the poll's questions to get the result the MRC wanted.
The article on the poll by Barbara Hollingsworth at CNSNews.com also failed to provide the full poll results or disclose that the MRC's pollster is a conservative operation, but she did include the wording of questions:
“NBC suspended ‘Nightly News’ anchor Brian Williams for six months after he was caught in numerous lies, including fabricating a story about being shot down in a helicopter over Iraq and seeing a dead body float by his hotel in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. In your opinion, should he have been fired?” pollsters asked.
[...]
“[If] Brian Williams is allowed to return as NBC’s anchor, reporting the nightly news after being caught in numerous lies, are you more or less likely to trust NBC News?” respondents were asked.
The MRC and McLaughlin are overstating the facts -- deliberately so, one must assume. It hasn't been definitively proven that Williams "lied" about what he saw in New Orleans; others in New Orleans have expressed doubt that Williams could have seen what he claim he did.
And even Williams' story of "being shot down in a helicopter over Iraq" is not the "fabrication" the MRC wants you to believe it is. The pilot of Williams' helicopter admits that it was struck by small-arms fire during the incident in question (but not the rocket-propelled grenade that actually struck another copter in the convoy in which Williams was embedded).
The fact that the questions emphasize the "numerous lies" Williams allegedly told demonstrates the slanted nature of the poll. The MRC must be pleased that it got the results it paid for.
Of course, the MRC presentation of its slanted poll would not be complete without MRC chief Brent Bozell ranting against Williams:
“This poll confirms that the American people no longer trust Brian Williams to report the news. When the American people believe by such wide margins that your lead anchor is a liar, you have no other option but to fire him if he will not do the honorable thing and resign. Any effort by NBC News to rehabilitate its tarnished brand can only begin under new leadership for its flagship nightly news program. This is no longer about Brian Williams’ reputation. This is about NBC News having any chance of being a credible source of news.”
We can probably assume that the poll never asked a question about whether a syndicated columnist who passed off the work of others as his own -- as Bozell did for 15 years -- should also be fired. But since the MRC has refused to make the full results of the poll public, we may never know.
MRC's Bozell Still Won't Resign For His Lies, Now Tries To Rewrite History Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell and Tim Graham write in their Feb. 14 column:
That Brian Williams six-month suspension has fallen flat. His critics aren't mollified. His supporters are clearly dispirited. Everyone knows this one is not over -- though his tenure at NBC may very well be done.
The suspension isn't going to work for the same reason his apology went nowhere. It resolves nothing.
Hubris. So many celebrities -- be they politicians, journalists, artists -- refuse to accept that the cover-up and obfuscation is always worse than the crime. Time and again, when honesty and humility beckon, they are nowhere to be found.
Bozell might as well be writing about himself. As we've documented, Bozell has yet to face any punishment for years of presenting Graham's work ghostwriting his column as his own -- only when it was exposed last year did Bozell consent to adding Graham's byline to his, and he still won't retroactively credit Graham for his earlier work.
Yet he has the hubris for attack Williams for exaggerations that led to the suspension. Ofcourse, Bozell and Graham don't care about journalism -- they care about having Williams as a scalp on the walls of the MRC's spacious new headquarters in suburban Washington, D.C.
But Bozell and Graham not content to wallow in hypocrisy -- they also want to rewrite history as well, setting up St. Ronnie as an example of how to handle a scandal:
Ronald Reagan did address Iran-Contra immediately, personally taking responsibility and firing staff responsible. But the body language of his administration and supporters (we were in that number) was different: The Contra cause was noble (and it was), therefore the funding was, well, clever. Except it was illegal.
When the Lebanese newspaper "Al-Shiraa" printed an exposé on the clandestine activities in November 1986, Reagan went on television and vehemently denied that any such operation had occurred. He retracted the statement a week later, insisting that the sale of weapons had not been an arms-for-hostages deal. Despite the fact that Reagan defended the actions by virtue of their good intentions, his honesty was doubted. Polls showed that only 14 percent of Americans believed the president when he said he had not traded arms for hostages.
Bozell and Graham conclude by lecturing:
Brian Williams lied. The honorable thing was to apologize honestly and completely, and resign. His career would have been resurrected immediately. If he refused to, the honorable decision from Comcast/NBC was termination and a corporate apology (which they owed anyway). Neither happened. Instead it was a bizarre long-term suspension, and another self-inflicted wound, and more bleeding as the Peacock Network's credibility disintegrates.
We'll believe their sincerity about this when Bozell does the honorable thing by apologizing for his years of deception and resign as MRC president. But Bozell simply doesn't have the guts to live up to his own self-proclaimed standards.
Again, everything appearing under Bozell's name about Williams may as well be writing about Bozell himself. Is that perhaps Graham's revenge for years of unsung ghostwriting?
MRC Puts Univision Host Jorge Ramos In Its Crosshairs Topic: Media Research Center
Jorge Bonilla -- the current face, near as we can tell, of the Media Research Center's MRC Latino operation -- starts his Jan. 30 NewsBusters post rather boldly:
The central premise of a recent New York Times article is simple enough: If only Republicans were to submit to Univision (and, by extension, anchor Jorge Ramos) on immigration, then they may receive more favorable coverage that does not depict them to the network’s Hispanic viewership as hateful, racist, anti-immigrant monsters, and then they may have a chance to garner more of the Hispanic vote, with the blessing of the community’s self-appointed gatekeeper.
Bonilla, however, couldn't be bothered to actually quote from the Times article he's attacking, so apparently he wants us to take his word for it.
Thus, unambitious NewsBusters readers will miss the part of the Times article pointing that Ramos, in addition to being critical of Republicans' anti-immigration stance, has called out President Obama for "breaking his 2008 campaign promise — made directly to Mr. Ramos — that he would propose an overhaul of the nation’s immigration system in his first year in office, and for deporting two million people since."
Bonilla quickly ratchets up the rhetoric, accusing the Times (and, by extension, Ramos) of figuratively (or maybe literally) wanting to kill interview subjects:
The first thing that comes to mind with the Times’ take on the subject is a sense of (with apologies to Yogi Berra) déja vu all over again. What we are witnessing here is the return of the nasty plata o plomo tactics (literally "silver or lead" - the Spanish phrase that means you either cooperate by giving a bribe, or you get a bullet) previously deployed during Univision’s 2011 war on Senator Marco Rubio.
Apparently, holding Republicans accountable on immigration is much worse than, say, suggesting that those doing so are engaging in violence, figuratively or otherwise.
In case it isn't clear, Bonilla and the MRC have Ramos in their (figurative) crosshairs for the sin of not spouting conservative rhetoric on immigration. Indeed, five of Bonilla's last seven NewsBusters posts are focused on Ramos.
Bonilla takes another shot at Ramos in a Feb. 16 post, sneering that Ramos "is fond of reading his own press" and that conservative attacks on him are "legitimate." Then Bonilla -- who accused Ramos of "plata o plomo tactics" -- complained that Ramos "had the audacity to complain that conservatives want to SILENCE him as a result of his biased coverage."
Bonilla then complains that "No journalist that encourages activism, abandons neutrality, and routinely spits out partisan talking points should expect to go unchallenged." If Bonilla is really serious about challenging biased journalists, he doesn't even have to leave the MRC headquarters to do so -- he can readthebias at CNSNews.com.
MRC Gives Fox News A Pass On Airing Terrorist Video Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center normally frowns on media outlets airing videos made by terrorists. MRC chief Brent Bozell (well, to be perfectly accurate, his deputy Tim Graham) has denounced al-Jazeera as "a video jukebox for Osama bin Laden and other Arab terrorist fanatics."
But when Fox News was the only major media outlet to air graphic footage from an ISIS video showing a Jordanian pilot being buried alive -- then posted the full, unedited video on the Fox News website -- Bozell and his MRC crew had nothing to say about it.
A search of the MRC and NewsBusters websites found no statements whatsoever on Fox News serving as the PR agent for terrorists as numerous media and terrorism analysts condemned it --hen Fox's in-house media critic, Howard Kurtz, said he disagreed with the corporate decision to air the video because "we are helping spread the fear that ISIS so badly wants to spread."
This is another example of the MRC refusing to apply its own standards against those with whom it ideologically agrees. We've detailed how the MRC wouldn't criticize "60 Minutes" reporter Lara Logan for bungling a story on the Benghazi attack because her distortions and falsehoods furthered the right-wing agenda to exploit Benghazi against President Obama.
MRC Disappears Sharyl Attkisson From Criticism Of CBS' Anti-Vaccine Coverage Topic: Media Research Center
Joseph Rossell huffs in a Feb. 11 Media Research Center item:
CBS “Evening News” attempted to show that there is no link between vaccines and autism on Feb. 10, but seemed confused that anti-vaccination views got “traction at all.”
CBS News National Correspondent Jim Axelrod did a good job of showing how a “discredited” study by Dr. Andrew Wakefield scared parents away from the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, but he failed to acknowledge that his own network played a part in that fearmongering.
He failed to criticize CBS’s role in publicizing the false claims of a link between autism and MMR vaccinations, even as he aired earlier “60 Minutes” footage of parents who blamed their son’s autism on the shot. Axelrod also ignored the fact that the three broadcast news networks combined helped sustain anti-vaccination views by airing 171 stories that mentioned vaccines and autism over 15 years.
Rossell doesn't mention that one of the chief promulgators of anti-vaxxer sympathy at CBS was Sharyl Attkisson, now a right-wing darling for her factually challenged anti-Obama reporting.
As we've documented, the MRC criticized Attkisson's anti-vaxxer reporting at the time but has been virtually silent about it since she became a conservative cause celebre.
By ignoring Attkisson, Rossell avoids having to confront the uncomfortable question of why Attkisson couldn't be trusted then but is unimpeachable now.
NEW ARTICLE: Lies And The Lying Liars Who Attack Others About Their Lies Topic: Media Research Center
Perhaps Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell -- who lied for years about writing his own column -- is not the person who should be calling for NBC anchor Brian Williams' resignation over a falsehood. Read more >>
Here's the genius of the Media Research Center's anti-media agenda: Any evidence that disproves their claims of "liberal bias" can be portrayed as evidence of bias.
The Media Research Center's philosophy: If a journalist dares to question a conservative about his views, you are clearly a liberal or, even worse, an "activist."
Jeffrey Meyer is shocked -- shocked! -- that anyone would identify the Conservative Political Actuion Conference for what it is. From his March 1 NewsBusters 
In promoting the Brian Williams controversy, the Media Research Center 
WorldNetDaily
The Media Research Center 
While WorldNetDaily went into full freakout mode over the "50 Shades of Grey" film, the Media Research Center took a different appoach: unfavorably comparing it to the film "The Passion of the Christ."
Kristine Marsh is very excited to use a Feb. 12 Media Research Center 
Jorge Bonilla -- the current face, near as we can tell, of the Media Research Center's 
The Media Research Center normally frowns on media outlets airing videos made by terrorists. MRC chief Brent Bozell (well, to be 
Joseph Rossell huffs in a Feb. 11 Media Research Center 
