MRC Promotes Misleading Claim About Redskins Name Topic: Media Research Center
Last November, the Media Research Center's Dan Joseph interviewed M. Andre Billeaudeaux, author of a children's book purporting to explain how the Washington Redskins got their name. Billeaudeaux explained that the name was picked in 1933 (at the time, the team was located in Boston and called the Braves) in part to honor "Lone Star" Dietz, the Redskins coach at the time, and other Native Americans who played for the team. On April 8, Joseph posted an interview Billeaudeaux with the right-wing network One America News.
Just one problem: That's not quite true.
As the Washington Post detailed, team owner George Preston Marshall admitted another reason for changing the name. A 1933 Associated Press article quoted Marshall saying the motivation was not to honor Dietz but to differentiate itself from a baseball team also known as the Boston Braves.
In his interview, Joseph and Billeaudeaux gloss over the racism of Marshall -- under him, the Redskins were the last NFL team to integrate, and a foundation was created after his death thatincluded the provisio that no money should go toward “any purpose which supports or employs the principle of racial integration in any form.”
In neither interview is it mention that Billeaudeaux's book has been promoted at RedskinsFacts.com, a website operated by the Redskins in support of the team's name.
In both interviews, the unsubstantiated point is brought up that people who are complaining about the Redskins name being racist were not complaining about Andrew Jackson -- who famously persecuted Native Americans during his presidency -- being on the $20 bill. But a campaign begun earlier this year to replace Jackson with a woman drew howls of protest from the MRCwhen one of the proposed candidates was Margaret Sanger. NewsBusters blogger P.J. Gladnick whined that the campaign is being "headed by a former Hillary Clinton political operative."
So it appears the MRC is not eager to get rid of Jackson on the $20 bill either. But then, the MRC is fully on board in support of the Redskins name too.
WND's Farah: Ethics, Schmetics, We Have Ben Carson As 'Exclusive' Columnist! Topic: WorldNetDaily
It's almost cute to watch WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah pretend he's a fair and responsible journalist.
Here is Farah in an April 14 WND article about snagging Ben Carson as an "exclusive" columnist:
When Dr. Ben Carson’s weekly column was dropped by his syndicate last month because of his possible candidacy for the presidency in 2016, WND’s Joseph Farah scratched his head in bewilderment.
“Why should the American people be denied the opportunity to hear from Dr. Carson in his own unadulterated words every week at the very moment they are expected to evaluate their options for new leadership?” he wondered.
There’s no legal reason, said Farah. There’s no ethical reason, he suggested.
“There’s no hideous ‘Fairness Doctrine’ affecting print media on the Internet – not yet, at least,” said Farah. “Why should pure political speech, protected by the First Amendment so the people can be informed, be buried at the very time it is most important? Why should candidates be forced to buy snippets of time to get their views before the public?”
So Farah contacted Dr. Carson and offered him an exclusive forum for his views in WND every week. He gratefully accepted the opportunity, and his new weekly column begins today and will be published each Wednesday.
Of course, there is an ethical reason why a news outlet should not give an active candidate a forum in the form of an "unadulterated" weekly column: it demonstrates lack of objectivity and shows bias.
Given that Farah has never been troubled by such ethical concerns, it's no surprise that he would do such a thing -- and, by extension, taint Carson with an "exclusive" association to a "news" organization known for its lies and hate.
Farah tries to play off his bias later in the article:
Will some accuse Dr. Carson of getting a free ride for his views at WND at the expense of other presidential candidates – Republicans and Democrats? Farah has an answer to such a charge.
“I invite every serious, bona fide presidential candidate – Democrat and Republican, Libertarian and others associated with smaller parties – the same opportunity,” said Farah. “Our commitment to Dr. Carson does not imply an endorsement of his candidacy. It’s a commitment by WND to create a wide-ranging forum for the views of all serious presidential candidates – the more the merrier. Let a thousand flowers bloom.”
Presidential candidate interested in taking advantage of this unique opportunity to reach millions of voters with their ideas, views and values are encouraged to contact firstname.lastname@example.org for more information about submitting both regular columns or occasional special commentaries.
Does Farah really think Hillary Clinton, the only declared candidate so far -- whom Farah has smeared as "a shrew, a harpy, a battle-ax" and earlier this week called "a monster, a predator, a serial victimizer" -- believes WND will give her the same "unadulterated" treatment Carson will get? How about Republican Marco Rubio, who WND accused of not being eligible to run for president while glossing over similar concerns regarding a candidate Farah loooooves, Ted Cruz?
Farah is making such an offer because he knows nobody except conservative Republicans and right-wing fringe candidates will take him up on it -- after all, they can count on WND treating them with kid gloves editorially and not neutralize that "unadulterated" message.
Farah simply has no interest in fair and ethical journalism. There's no reason for presidential candidates who don't hold the same right-wing views as Carson and Cruz to believe WND will actually give them the same "unadulterated" forum he has promised to Carson.
WND is damaged goods, but Farah and Carson don't seem to be aware of that fact.
MRC Unhappy With Attacks on GOP Presidential Candidate (Unless The MRC Makes Them) Topic: Media Research Center
As you'd expect, the Media Research Center really doesn't like how Rand Paul has been treated in the media. An April 7 post by Geoffrey Dickens detailed "The Media’s Worst Attacks on the Kentucky Senator," and the next day Jeffrey Meyer complained that the media wouldn't label Paul a conservative despitte his high marks from the American Conservative Union.
But if the MRC itself bashes Paul or ignores his alleged conservative credentials, that's a different matter.
Indeed, the same day Dickens posted the "worst" attacks on Paul, the MRC-run CNSNews.com published its own attack on Paul:
One day before Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) formally announced his intention to run for president in 2016, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) criticized him for being "to the left of Barack Obama" on foreign policy.
"As to Rand Paul, I like Rand a lot," Sen. Graham told Fox News's Greta Van Susteren on Monday. "But at the end of the day, his foreign policy is to the left of Barack Obama."
Graham noted that Rand Paul was the only senator in September 2012 to vote against Graham's resolution saying that containment would not be the policy of the United States -- that the U.S. would not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. The resolution passed 90-1, with Paul providing the only no vote.
Oddly, the MRC did the same thing regarding Marco Rubio. Two days after Dickens compiled the "worst" attacks on Rubio, a CNS article by Susan Jones issued her own attack under the headline "Rubio Doesn't Rule Out Amnesty, Gay Marriage, or Military Action in Iran." Jones made sure readers knew that Rubio avdocates immigration reform -- the "amnesty" to which the headline misleadingly refers -- and thinks "it should be up to the states, not the federal government or the courts, to define marriage as they see fit."
Apparently, if Republican candidates are to be criticized, only the MRC is allowed to do it.
NEW ARTICLE: The Two Sides of Phil Elmore Topic: WorldNetDaily
The WorldNetDaily columnist will debunk some of WND's most cherished conspiracy theories, but he'll also write screeds attacking liberals, feminists and (of course) President Obama. Read more >>
MRC's Bozell Doesn't Want Any Gay Content on TV Topic: Media Research Center
For the past few weeks, the Media Research Center has been leading a campaign to get ABC to strangle before it happens -- to abort, if you will -- a planned show based on the early life of activist and sex advice columnist Dan Savage.
The MRC has misled in its campaign, claiming that ABC "plans to air" the Savage based show when it has only ordered a pilot episode and has not green-lighted the series. While the MRC claims it's only concerned about Savage's "unspeakably vile statements" -- which, by the way, have nothing to do with the content of the proposed ABC show, which is about a teenage boy coming out as gay -- its hidden agenda runs much deeper.
MRC chief Brent Bozell inadvertently revealed the engame in an April 9 Associated Press article:
Even without Savage's involvement, Bozell said his group would probably oppose the show.
"Would a show like this bother me?" he said. "Sure. It makes a political statement. Where is the market demand for this? You might even resign yourself that this is the way that it is, but when I heard it was Savage, I gasped in disbelief."
In other words, Bozell is opposed to the fact that gays would be depicted on TV -- that is, if they aren't being denigrated. Apparenlty, any gay person on TV is a "political statement," despite the fact that Bozell can't identify any actual politics in a sitcom pilot.
Bozell has had a lot of anti-gay freakouts over the years. For example, his reaction to CNN's Anderson Cooper coming out as gay was to sneer that Cooper can "give us his expert opinion on teabagging now," and he declared that gay characters on TV mean "indoctrination" of viewers and that the characters "never face any real opposition to the gay agenda."
Bozell should stop pretending his crusade isn't only about Savage.
WND Questions Rubio's Eligibility -- But Not Cruz's Topic: WorldNetDaily
Remember a few weeks back, when WorldNetDaily's Cheryl Chumley finally got around to addressing Ted Cruz's eligibility issues (only after Donald Trump brought it up first)? She didn't reference any of WND's past work on eligibility -- even though by the strict definition of "natural born citizen" it has pushed over the years, Cruz does not qualify as one -- and portrayed Cruz as eligible.
A different Republican announcing his presidential bid, however, got a much different treatment.
Chumley's April 13 article on Marco Rubio's presidential bid made a point of noting that "Tea-party types from his home state say they’ve moved beyond the Rubio wagon" and that "Rubio’s not popular with hard-core immigration activists, either."
Then Chumley played the eligibility card:
Meanwhile, others contend Rubio’s not even a natural-born citizen and therefore, ineligible to seek the presidency. Rubio’s parents, as WND previously reported on at least two occasions, were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.
Rubio was born in Miami, Florida, on May 28, 1971, to Mario and Oriales Rubio, who were born in Cuba, though the senator has not released his birth certificate for the world to scrutinize.
As WND reported in 2011, Rubio press secretary Alex Burgos said the senator’s parents “were permanent legal residents of the U.S.” at the time Marco was born in 1971.
Then four years after Marco was born, “Mario and Oriales Rubio became naturalized U.S. citizens on Nov. 5, 1975,” Burgos told WND.
When asked specifically if Rubio considered himself to be a natural-born citizen, Burgos responded, “Yes.”
This time, Chumley linked back to a 2012 WND article featuring how "Larry Klayman argued today before Florida Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis in the presidential eligibility case brought by Democrat voter Michael Voeltz that Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution requires a person eligible to be president to be born to parents who are each U.S. citizens at the time of the birth. That definition of natural-born citizen would clearly disqualify Rubio from running either for president or vice president."
Chumley doesn't mention that this definition also excludes Cruz. In fact, Chumley mentions Cruz only once in her Rubio article but only as a member of the "crowded" field of candidates Rubio would be joining.
So, yeah, it seems WND is actively censoring any discussion of Cruz's eligibility -- presumably because it knows he doesn't qualify under its own definition.
Chapman is silent about the elder Cruz's history of saying incendiary and hateful things. Instead, Chapman touts how Cruz "fought against the Communists in Cuba, was arrested there and tortured," as if that was an excuse.
As with Graham's utterings, how any of this qualifies as "news" in Chapman's eyes is anyone's guess. Plus, note that both of these Cruz posts appeared after his son announced his presidential bid; it could be argued that Chapman is engaging in a little bit of unethical electioneering for Ted Cruz by promoting his father.
Not only is what Chapman doing unethical in a journalistic context, it may also be illegal, given the nonprofit status of CNS' parent, the Media Research Center, and the restriction on political activities that status confers. The "brink of destruction" post can be read as an implicit endorsement of Ted Cruz's campaign, given how Chapman dutifully quotes how the elder Cruz complains that "We have the most lawless administration we have ever had, where the rule of law, the Constitution is trampled every day."
CNS, it seems, is merely an arm of the MRC's political operation and not any sort of independent "news" organization, and Chapman appears determined to keep it that way.
More Irony: Another WND Columnist Laments Dishonesty In Media Topic: WorldNetDaily
Laura Hollis laments in her April 9 WorldNetDaily column:
There seems to be a collective shrug of helpless resignation when politicians or policymakers lie. But we should be appalled when journalists facilitate those lies (or create their own) because they share the liars’ social objectives.
When politicians can lie with impunity and “journalists” are more enamored with a “narrative” than with facts, we are in grave peril, indeed. It is hard to know which is more damaging: believing the lies we are being told or sinking into a state of cynical resignation, assuming that no one tells the truth anymore. Either result rewards the liars and corrodes the culture.
We deserve better. But we will not get it unless we demand it. From deceitful politicians, we can withhold our vote. From deceitful media, we can withhold our money. Those are – apparently – the primary currencies they understand.
Like fellow WND columnist Michael Brown a week before, she overlooks the inconvenient fact that her laments about honesty in media appear on the website of perhaps the most dishonest "news" organization operating today.
We offer the same recommendation to Hollis that we offered to Brown: Hold the organization that publishes you responsible for its lies and misinformation before complaining about others.
NewsBusters Runs Hoax Picture of Smoking Obama Topic: NewsBusters
Tom Blumer uses an April 12 NewsBusters post to promote a USA Today columnist's claim that President Obama's daughter faces more of an asthma risk from his smoking than from global warming. The image used to promote the post on NewsBusters' front page is one of Obama with a cigarette in his mouth (shown at right). The image appears again inside the post.
But that image is a fake. As the Museum of Hoaxes details, a cigarette was Photoshopped into a reversed 2004 photo of Obama.
Nowhere in the post does NewsBusters identify the photo as a faked image.
It seems that running hoax photos would keep NewsBusters from being taken seriously as a media watchdog, but apparently being taken seriously is not an issue.
WND's Corsi Hints At Secret (And Probably Nonexistent) Tape To Destroy Hillary Topic: WorldNetDaily
Remember the "whitey tape"? You know the purported recording of Michelle Obama railing against "whitey"? It was touted by extremists such as Larry Johnson and embraced by WND columnist Mychal Massie -- never mind the fact that no such recording has ever surfaced and probably never existed in the first place.
Jerome Corsi hints at a "whitey tape" equivalent for Hillary Clinton in an April 12 WND article listing the "tough questions" she'll have to face now that she's running for president:
One source close to the entertainment industry is shopping what are described as hours of telephone conversations allegedly recorded by a jilted lesbian lover in which an inebriated Mrs. Clinton supposedly trashes politicians and celebrities, including her husband. The opening bid for the recordings is $10 million. Whether their actual content will ever see the light of day is an open question. But would Clinton, already under fire for her erasing most of her emails as secretary of state, be able to handle the dropping of a bomb like that?
Corsi provides no further details, and his description is so vaguely written that it's almost meaningless. His lack of sourcing for this claim indicates that he may very well be making some of this up.
It certainly sounds like something Corsi wants to exist. But remember, Corsi also promoted clearly fraudulent documents purporting to link Barack Obama to a Kenyan political campaign as legitimate, and he wrote an article about a ring Obama wears that was so divergent from the truth that his fellow birthers were compelled to correct him.
Corsi is not a guy who lets the facts get in the way of a good story, or at least of a sleazy political attack. This is not the last you will hear about this purported tape, and you will likely hear about it from Corsi.
The MRC's Foolish Fail Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center recently started a website called "Liberal Media Fools," which claims: "Inside the liberal media echo chamber is a fools’ school churning out pathetic, biased reporting disguised as journalism. It’s as if each media personality is in the running for the dumbest quote of the year!" adding that "the stupid is strong."
Well, yes, it is -- on this website. The first entry highlights MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell calling Barack Obama's book "Dreams From My Father" "the finest literary work ever authored by a President of the United States," sneering: "Move over Federalist Papers, the Monroe Doctrine, and the Gettysburg Address, because according to MSNBC’s O’Donnell, these historical works have been overshadowed by Barack Obama’s Dreams From My Father."
The MRC ignores the fact that none of those documents were intended as literature. The Federalist Papers are a series of essays written in support of ratification of the Constitution (and only one of the three writers became president). The Monroe Doctrine was an statement of U.S. foreign policy. The Gettysburg Address was a speech. While they may be shining examples of political expression and speechmaking, they are not literature. By contrast, Obama's book was not a political manifesto but, rather, an examination of race and his upbringing.
The MRC also forgets the fact that O'Donnell was not acting as a journalist when he said that; he was the host of an opinion show. IN other words, O'Donnell's statement was never "disguised as journalism," as the MRC claims.
What does it say about the quality of the list that the first one is such a mess?
Needless to say, there's no benign purpose behind the website; it's an email-harvesting operation with the promise of a copy of the MRC's latest compilation of "the most outrageous quotes in the liberal media."
Joseph Farah Anti-Gay Rant Watch Topic: WorldNetDaily
In yet another anti-gay rant dismissing sexual orientation as a "lifestyle choice," Joseph Farah throws this into his April 9 WorldNetDaily column:
Health is a big issue for government these days. Anti-smoking proclamations are all the rage. Cities are banning transfats and Big Gulps. The first lady is telling kids what kind of foods they can and cannot eat. No one, however, is talking about the health effects of homosexuality, sodomy, promiscuity and adultery any more. Those topics, once understood by anyone and everyone, are not even open for discussion for fear of being called a bigot or a prude. But I’m going to risk the barbs by doing just that.
It was a big news story throughout the world 18 months ago when actor Michael Douglas explained his throat cancer did not come from smoking, but rather from a sexually transmitted disease associated with oral sex. Do you remember that? Nobody, by the way, disputed the diagnosis. Everyone seemingly therefore understands there are indeed health risks associated uniquely with sodomy and, presumably, to other types of sexual behavior.
Farah, as usual, is hiding a pertinent detail. Douglas' cancer was caused by the HPV virus; CBS notes that HPV can be blocked by a vaccine like Gardasil.
But, in addition to hating gays, Farah opposes the HPV vaccine as well.
WND has regularly fearmongered about Gardasil. Farah himself wrote an incredibly dishonest column in 2012 declaring that people "will die and get seriously ill as a result of the vaccine." He wrote that "There are more than 100 strains of HPV; Gardasil and Cervarix, the most commonly prescribed vaccines, offer protection against two of them." In fact, according to the article he cites to back him up, those two strains cause 70 percent of cervical cancers, and Gardasil also prevents two other HPV strains that cause 90 percent of genital wart cases.
Farah went on to cite Dr. Joseph Mercola as an expert in fearmongering about HPV. As we've documented, Mercola is a fringe seller of health supplements who has been twice ordered by the Food and Drug Administration to stop making claims about his supplements that go beyond their intended uses.
It seems Farah has no problem with letting people suffer and die of preventable diseases if he disapproves of how those diseases were contracted.
Tim Graham Transgender Freakout Watch Topic: Media Research Center
Tim Graham is apparently the Media Research Center's designated person to freak out that anyone but straight white people get portrayed in the media, and he's particularly sensitive to transgenders not being treated negatively, as they apparently should be.
Graham's latest transgender freakout actually involves cross-dressing, not transgenderism, but Graham is still upset:
In their constant celebration of gender-bending, NPR still has time for old-fashioned transvestites. On the April 3 Morning Edition, their headline was “Longtime Couple Found That Clothes Didn't Make The Man.” The producer, Liyna Anwar, tweeted “He's a Vietnam vet who teaches electric power tech. He just does it all in a dress.”
Naturally, this is a story of violent disapproval and bigotry in need of relief from NPR and other compassionate media outlets.
This report was part of the “StoryCorps” project dedicated to preserving the stories of American lives. As NPR explained, "These conversations are archived at the American Folklife Center at the Library of Congress, allowing participants to leave a legacy for future generations."
This narrative form cozily omits any questioning, especially critical questioning. That's simply not allowed when making America safe for "gender fluidity" is the morning subject.
Graham doesn't answer what purpose the "critical questioning" he seeks would fill, except to denigrate the subject -- which would seem to be the entire point as far as Graham is concerned.
I want to express sincere apologies to any country or people across the world who consider the United States their ally and friend – people who believe they could trust the U.S. to keep a secret, to support treaties, to encourage freedom, to be a peacemaker yet lead the free world, to maintain the military strength to support freedom.
I apologize because since the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama as president, all that has changed, and we are all at risk.
So a cornerstone of Obama’s agenda is to create an authority higher than the Supreme Court – secret, unelected U.N. tribunals with the power to overrule American lawmakers and courts. What part of this is consistent with the oath he swore to preserve protect and defend the Constitution?
This is a clear attack on our national sovereignty and our Constitution. Is this what Obama meant when he promised to fundamentally transform America?
Is he Andreas Lubitz in the Oval Office, setting the nation on a steady, gradual yet deliberate path to oblivion?
The silence from the U.S. government regarding the above atrocities is shameful. Barack Hussein Obama has long ago chosen his side. His quick condemnation of any alleged persecution of Muslims, and utter silence as Christians are slaughtered like animals, tells us all what we need to know. And his outrageous sellout of Israel both before and after its recent elections should have awakened every Jewish person.
We as Christians need to adjust to a new reality – our “leaders” will not save us. A new era of self-reliance must begin, and it must start now!
Liberals point out that Fox News is always looking for trouble in the Obama administration. Liberals fail to add how good Fox is at finding it! Only Fox, that I know of, emblazoned in a headline position in its coverage the story of Obama snubbing the secretary-general of NATO.
With something like a dozen different political parties fighting for supremacy in Israel, there is very little that Israelis ever agree about, but one thing they know for certain is that Obama hates Jews and has a soft spot for Islamics, even for the demented likes of the Ayatollah Khamenei.
President Obama has announced a “deal” with the government of Iran that allows the mullahs openly dedicated to our destruction to proceed on their path to develop nuclear weapons. No one is really surprised by the sellout, as it follows a long train of pro-Islamic policies and a willful blindness to Iran’s jihadist activities and ambitions.
The jihadist gun is loaded and pointed at our head, and soon those bullets will be nuclear warheads. Yet, none dare call it treason.
The alliance between leftists and Muslims against Christians may be more apparent in Britain than it is in America, since the process has advanced much further in the U.K. – but not to worry; President Barack Hussein Obama has been moving the course of Islamist infiltration handily along.
What if Obama isn’t looking to his “legacy”? What if the threat of nuclear devastation he helps to arm with this agreement (an America-hating Iran with nuclear bombs) is to be brandished, along with a related threat from ongoing terrorist uprisings on U.S. soil, to create the exigent circumstances needed to justify imposing martial law throughout the United States and a plausible excuse for demanding that Obama remain in office until the emergency passes?
There it is. The unthinkable scenario predicated upon the thought that Barack Obama and those who lifted him to power are precisely what they appear to be – the enemies of America’s power, its prosperity, its constitutional liberty, its moral strength, indeed of everything about America except their own boundless ambition. Why is it at all inconceivable that people willing to collude with and arm our boldest enemies may be doing so for the sake of their own power? Why should we be unwilling to ponder the possibility that the Obama faction has agreed to help Iran achieve hegemony in the Middle East in order to help themselves to dictatorial control over the United States? What certainty do we have that, in some secret, back-channel codicil, this agreement is not already in place?
You may believe a coup d’état “could never happen here.” But the danger we face is not some beer hall putsch. It’s is more like the consolidation of tyrannical power Hitler’s faction completed after he was appointed chancellor of Germany. But if such a denouement is already in view for the United States, isn’t it urgently necessary to begin doing what must be done to prevent its completion? As food for urgent thought, I will propose such a strategy in the next article to be published on my blog. Are you willing to think about it yet?
MRC Takes A Dump On Bob Schieffer Topic: Media Research Center
It seems that the Media Research Center doesn't believe anyone who isn't in lockstep with its right-wing agenda has any right to be treated with anything remotely resembling. It's true of the conservatives who fail to toe the right-wing line, and it's even more true of the news media the MRC despises.
MRC researcher Jeffrey Meyer's reaction to CBS "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer retiring after 46 years at the network -- a feat in itself that should earn maybe a little respect -- was to take a figurative dump on Schieffer, devoting an April 9 NewsBusters post to sneering at the network giving Schieffer a nice sendoff, under the disrespectful headline "CBS Oozes ‘Giant of Journalism,’ 'Amazing' Bob Schieffer Retiring":
At most companies, when someone who's worked for the company for 46 years retires, they get a nice speech and a nice watch. But at a TV news network, the audience is subjected to the most extreme fawning, complete with the bizarre notion that no one has ever criticized the retiring journalist.
Following CBS reporter Bob Schieffer announcing his retirement this summer, Charlie Rose deemed Schieffer a “giant of journalism” who had a “legendary career” at CBS News. While Rose claimed that he “never heard anyone at CBS or anywhere else say a bad word about Bob Schieffer” longtime CBS anchor was known for saying “bad things” things about Republicans.
We here at NewsBusters have compiled a list of Scheiffer’s worst quotes at CBS, from trashing Conservatives to cheering on Democrats to more recently praising Obama’s Lincolnesque speeches[.]
What Jeffrey calls the "worst" of Schieffer is mostly just Schieffer not blindly repeating the right-wing talking points the way the MRC wants them. Is Schieffer saying that Franklin Roosevelt was a great president or that Sarah Palin served as an attack dog for John McCain during their 2008 presidential campaign really the "worst" things he said? It is if you're offended by anyone who won't spout conservative dogma, as Meyer apparently is.
We suspect that when Brent Bozell or Tim Graham retire from the MRC, Meyer will be oozing profusely. Which makes him a hypocrite as well as disrespectful.