MRC's Bozell & Graham Lie About Democrats and Tough Debate Questions Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center just can't stop perpetuating the idea that the CNBC Republican presidential debate was filled with "liberal bias," despite the fact that it's unable to objectively prove it.
In thair Nov. 4 column, Tim Graham and Brent Bozell whined that "liberal journalists asked one too many deliberately snide and hostile “gotcha” questions attacking the GOP candidates and the candidates exploded in anger," declaring that "The RNC’s action to drop NBC and Telemundo and whole Comcast brand from debates is long, long overdue."
Then they write this:
You have to go back to April 2008 to find a debate where Democrats were faced with hostile questions, when ABC hosts George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson dared to ask Barack Obama one question about his ties to ex-terrorist Bill Ayers.
Actually, that's a complete lie -- Anderson Cooper asked tough questions at the Oct. 13 CNN-hosted Democratic presidential debate. How do we know? Because Bozell himself said so. And he even sent out a press release praising Cooper's "tough, probing questions":
During last night's Democratic debate, Anderson Cooper in large measure did exactly what a debate moderator is supposed to do. He asked tough, probing questions of all the candidates. Better yet, he did what most moderators won't do: when given an evasive or untrue answer, he pounced in a follow-up question, exposing the evasion or untruth. It was a breath of fresh air to see such professionalism. Give him an A- for a job well done.
Yeah, we know the "liberal bias" mantra is how the MRC makes its bread and butter, but are Graham and Bozell really so stupid as to forget a statement Bozell made just three weeks ago?
At The MRC, White People Pass Judgment On 'Black-ish' Topic: Media Research Center
ABC's show "Black-ish" is about a black father who questions whether his success has brought "too much assimilation," so he seeks to "establish a sense of cultural identity for his family that honors their past while embracing the future."
Who has the Media Research Center chosen to pass judgment on "Black-ish" for violations of right-wing orthodoxy? White people, of course, people who -- ideology aside -- are not the show's target audience.
The earliest mention of "Black-ish" at the MRC is a December 2014 piece by Tianna DiMartino (not black), who complained about the "racist jokes" in a Christmas-themed episode. In April, Scott Whitlock (not black) may have been amused by an episode with a "blink-and-you'll-miss-it Sarah Palin joke." In May, Kyle Drennen (not black) huffed that the show "treated Reublican African Americans as an abnormality that could not be tolerated."
This fall, "Black-ish" has gotten its own dedicated MRC show reviewer in the person of Dylan Gwinn, who in addition to not being black is actually more of a sports guy and, as we'vedocumented, not the sharpest knife in the right-wing-media-bias drawer. All of which, apparently, makes him the ideal critic of a black-oriented show for the MRC instead of someone who is predisposed to hate-watch the thing.
We've already noted Gwinn's rant about the season opener's use of the N-word and his inability to distinguish between a fictional character using it in a Quentin Tarantino movie and Paula Deen using it in real life about real people.
In an Oct. 10 episode, Gwinn critiques references to the Tuskegee Experiment in a episode about a doctor visit. Gwinn was upset that the characters suggested that the blacks who took part in the experiment were deliberately injected with syphillis, complaining that this "is exactly the impression activists want you to have."
He then weirdly soft-pedals the experiments: he avers that it "was clearly not a 'Blue Star' moment in the history of American medicine" and that it was not "cool" that blacks with syphillis were untreated and misled about their actual condition, and he makes sure we know that the experiment's victims "had syphillis prior to the study taking place." As if that somehow makes the government's behavior less atrocious and the victims somewhat deserved what they got.
In an Oct. 15 post, Gwinn grumbled that "Blackish is not the type of show to let a little thing like the pesky network programming schedule get in the way of taking a belated shot at Columbus Day," then ranted about the show calling Columbus Day racist, insisting that the holiday's origin as a way to counter prejudice against Italian-Americans is some kind of counter to that narrative to "the left" portraying the day as a "symbol of racial genocide."
he concludes by ranting: "So, in their pursuit of taking the one holiday Italian-Americans are allowed away because it’s “racist,” the supposedly immigration-friendly and anti-racist left is continuing the traditions of 20th century anti-immigrant groups by singling out a group of people who were trying to defend themselves against racism. Progress? Not so much."
I must admit, when it dawned on me that ABC’s Blackish was about to tackle the issue of religion on Wednesday night’s episode, fresh off of dealing with guns, the Tuskegee experiment, and generalized racism, part of me cried on the inside.
However, I’m happy to report that my internal sadness was quite out of order. Blackish actually did a great job dealing with not only racial differences between whites and blacks, and the different kinds of churches they attend, but also just the drama and guilt that surrounds normal people and prevents them from getting to church on Sunday.
The following week, however, Gwinn was back to hate-watching, ranting again about Columbus Day and sneering that a couple dressing up as the Obamas for Halloween was "the scariest couple I have ever seen in my life."
It's almost as if Gwinn and the MRC are deliberately trying to be as culturally clueless as possible.
MRC's Debate 'Study' Confirms Nothing, And Certainly Not The 'Bias' It Claims Occurred Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has been found beating the "liberal bias" drum following the CNBC Republican debate, even though CNBC, as a financial news network, is not a "liberal" outlet by any stretch of the imagination. MRC chief Brent Bozell even asserted that the debate was "an encyclopedic example of liberal media bias." But neither Bozell nor any of his MRC employees ever bothered to provide that "encyclopedia" in support of the claim.
Now, finally, the MRC has issued what it claims is a "study" on the subject. The unsubtle headline: "MRC Study Proves It: CNBC Agenda Was to Undermine GOP Candidates." The unbylined "study" asserts:
A Media Research Center analysis of the questions posed by moderators John Harwood, Carl Quintanilla and Becky Quick at CNBC's Republican presidential debate found nearly two-thirds (65%) hit the candidates with negative spin, personal insults or ad hominem attacks.
In contrast, all of the questions posed by CNBC personalities Jim Cramer, Rick Santelli and Sharon Epperson focused on policy matters and were phrased in a constructive, respectful tone.
The MRC analysis examined the 43 unique questions posed by one of the three moderators. Nearly two-thirds of those (28, or 65%) included negative spin, personal insult or attack, such as Harwood's question to Donald Trump asking if his was a "comic book version of a presidential campaign," or Quintanilla's question to Ted Cruz asking if his opposition to a just-passed spending bill showed he was "not the kind of problem-solver American voters want?"
What you won't find: anything that resembles an actual study. The MRC provides no methodology for making such a determination about the questions, or any objective definition of what it considered "negative spin."
The MRC did not even provide a list of the questions to show how it categorized them.
The "study" went on to complain:
The remaining moderator questions involved personal questions without a negative slant, or policy questions that were phrased in a non-insulting way. While not outright disrespectful, many of these policy questions, such as Quick's question to Cruz claiming a large pay gap between men and women, or Quintanilla's question to Kasich about legalizing marijuana, were framed from a liberal perspective.
Again, the MRC did not provide a methodology for determining political "perspective" or explain why a "liberal perspective" in a question is problematic.
The only supplemental material provided with this "study" is a video compilation of "the most insulting questions posed."
Let's face it: This is not a "study," it's a political statement pretending to be "research." The MRC's goal was partisan and it makes no attempt whatsoever to be objective. It seems that whatever personally offended MRC staffers was determined to be "negative" or an "insult."
The MRC hammered the partisan intent of its so-called "study" by replacing all that methodology stuff with a rant from Bozell:
The three main moderators, and in particular John Harwood, acted like petulant children trying to pick fights with the candidates. When nearly two-thirds of your questions are comprised of negative spin, personal insults or ad hominem attacks, your agenda is clear: undermine the Republican candidates at all costs. These CNBC "journalists" exposed themselves to the world as left-wing stooges jockeying for a position in Hillary Clinton’s campaign press shop. It was embarrassing.
Who's really being the petulant one? It looks like it's Bozell and the MRC for crying "bias" over questions it doesn't like and ginning up a bogus "study" as purported proof.
Contrary to the headline, the MRC's "study" does not prove an "agenda" -- or anything else it has been asserting about the debate. It does prove, however, that the MRC is little more than a group of hacks dedicated to churning out right-wing talking points without regard to the facts.
By contrast, the MRC did no such "study" on the questions regarding the GOP presidential debate hosted by Fox News, despite Donald Trump's loud complaining about their bias, nor does it make the effort to compare the questions in the CNBC debate with those of the Fox debate. Heck, even MRC friend Ann Coulter (whose anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic rantings the MRC is studiously ignoring) has argued that the questions in the debates were no different.
In fact, the MRC -- whose Bozell has a weekly spot on Sean Hannity's Fox News show -- ignored Trump's complaints of bias in the Fox debate.
We previously asked the MRC to do the "research" the organization's middle name suggests it's capable of. It still hasn't done any. This study has as much scientific legitimacy as Hannity's assertion that the debate was "the single worst example of media bias in a debate in like intergalactic history" -- a nonsensical assertion MRC "news" division CNSNews.com decided was worthy of repeating on its front page.
MRC Ignores Evidence, Denies NY Times Has A Grudge Against Hillary Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Scott Whitlock writes in an Oct. 15 NewsBusters post:
According to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, it’s shocking that the liberal New York Times would praise the liberal Hillary Clinton. While recapping the Democratic presidential debate, host Maddow seriously claimed, “... The New York Times has its knives out for Hillary Clinton more so than any other mainstream media outlet in the country.”
Speaking of the paper that hasn’t endorsed a Republican for president since 1956, the anchor accused the Times of having an “inclination to look for the worst in Hillary Clinton in every instance and to advance every negative story line they can get their hands on whether or not it's comporting with the facts, even so.”
Whitlock curiously edited out the part of Maddow's statement -- left intact in the video clip accompanying his post -- in which she conceded that the Times is "mostly liberal on its op-ed page" but the knives are out for Hillary "on its news pages." Which is very much true if one looks at the history of the Times' coverage of her.
Maddow is hardly alone in pointing this out. Media critic James Fallows observes that the Times has a "vendetta" out for Hillary, and a new book by David Brock (disclosure: my former employer) on the right-wing war against Hillary has an entire chapter on the New York Times' history of antagonistic coverage of Hillary and Bill Clinton.
Even Times public editor Margaret Sullivan concedes the Times has a particular obsession with Hillary:
Since 2013, a Times reporter has been assigned to cover the Clintons as a full-time beat. Other candidates were spared that particular blessing, and at times the whole thing has seemed excessive. For Mrs. Clinton, it has meant that her every move is tracked, often to a fault. Separately, readers objected last April to the way The Times, touting an “exclusive agreement” with the author, reported on aspects of a highly critical book, “Clinton Cash.”
Nevertheless, Whitlock chose to make an exceedingly narrow interpretration of Maddow's remarks:
Maddow’s complaints about the Times undoubtedly refer to the paper's decision to actually investigate Clinton’s e-mail scandal, though timidly. In July, the Times reported on a criminal inquiry into the controversy. After the Clinton campaign complained, the editors altered their reporting for the website.
Hardly a paper with the “knives” out for Hillary Clinton.
Again, Whitlock censors important information. There was, in fact, no "criminal inquiry," and the Times "altered their reporting" because their reporting was wrong.
We've previously noted that the MRC actually complained that the Hillary camp tried to correct this false story -- which, as the Times' Sullivan admitted, involved "too much speed in publishing the story, and too little transparency in correcting and revising it, and for the all-too-familiar reliance on anonymous government sources."
As Whitlock's post shows, the MRC is sticking with the false story and refusing to admit it's false. After all, it has a grudge against Hillary too.
Humorless MRC Writer Complains About 'Satire Smear' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Katie Yoder finds absolutely no humor, it seems, in anything even tangentally related to abortion. Yoder grumps in an Oct. 16 NewsBusters post:
Sometimes things aren’t as funny as they seem.
ClickHole, a satirical site owned by the Onion, joked in an Oct. 13 piece that “Dunkin’ Donuts Has Just Announced That It Will Perform One Abortion.” To support a woman’s “right to choose,” the chain would offer a “complimentary abortion” at one of their locations. While media outlets readily shared the piece, Dunkin’ Donuts and business site Entrepreneur responded to the claim seriously.
Owned by the Onion, the year-old site, “strive[s] to make sure that all of our content panders to and misleads our readers just enough to make it go viral.”
The site attempted to do just that on Monday – by joking about abortion and smearing a business in the process.
Yoder seems to miss that the entire point of the ClickHole satire was to mock the idea of corporate involvement in political causes, or that ClickHole itself is a parody of the clickbait-y BuzzFeed style.
Yoder also makes sure we know that "Dunkin’ Donuts is neutral on life issues." Well, duh, that's part of the joke -- there's no reason for Dunkin' Donuts to get involved in the issue, let alone perform an abortion in one of its stores, which should have been a pretty obvious sign that this was satire. Still, she fretted that "Some Twitter users appeared to take the story seriously," again ignoring that the story is absurd on its face, hence its existence as a satire.
But what's Yoder's complaint about "smearing a business," which she identifies in the headline as a "Satire Smear"? Including a real-life business (or person) in a satirical pice is a "smear"? Perhaps someone should remind Yoder that her employer engages in a "satire smear" on a regular basis called "NewsBusted" (a name the MRC totally stole from us).
The main difference between the two is that Clickhole has actual humor. But Yoder and "NewsBusted" could take a few lessons in funny from professionals.
Where's The Beef? MRC's 'Liberal Bias' Cry About GOP Debate Lacks Substance Topic: Media Research Center
Echoing the attacks by Republican presidential candidates on the moderators of the CNBC-hosted debate, Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell ranted: "The CNBC debate will go down in history as an encyclopedic example of liberal media bias on stage."
But there was one thing missing from Bozell's declaration: the encyclopedia.
Bozell's statement did not cite any specific examples of "liberal media bias" expressed at the debate. And in an appearace on Fox Business, Bozell denounced the CNBC moderators as "smarmy, condescending, arrogant" -- but he didn't cite a specific example. He did, however, creepily call the Republicans' ranting about bias "better than sex."
Thus, Bozell set the substance-free agenda for his MRC subordinates, who served as an echo chamber for the "liberal bias" charge while also not proving it:
Scott Whitlock complained about the debate's supposed "obnoxious, left-wing questions," but he cited no examples. Instead, he linked to an earlier NewsBusters clip from the debate of Marco Rubio complaining about media bias.
Kyle Drennen asserted the MSNBC moderators were "incredibly biased," but he too cited no examples.
Whitlock returned to assert that "the liberal bias of CNBC’s debate [was] so obvious that even Carl Bernstein and the left-wing Salon acknowledged the network’s failure."Actually, neither specifically criticized any "bias" in the debate; Bernstein was criticizing CNBC 's overall handling of the debate, and Salon did so as well, going on to assert that "Most damningly, the anchors frequently failed to call out the candidates on easily checkable misstatements.”
But who needs evidence when you have right-wing talking points to enforce? An MRC poll asked readers: "Who had the best media slam of the debate?"
Bozell finally got around to mentioning a couple of examples in another Fox Business interview. One of them: "Asking Ben Carson about his face on somebody's website." Bozell's fanciful rewording obscures the fact that the question was about Carson's relationship with nutritional-supplements maker Mannatech, which has a history of shady practices -- a relationship Carson dissembled about during the debate.
Bozell seems willing to give Carson a pass on an issue that goes straight to his character -- just like the MRC gave Carson a pass on his conducting research on fetal tissue, which is verboten under the right wing's new anti-Planned Parenthood crusade.
Bozell also denied that the Republicans' anti-media attack was planned in advance, despite Ted Cruz -- who issued the debate's first anti-media attack -- having a history of avoiding questions he doesn't want to answer by denouncing them as liberal.
Further, the candidates didn't really have to plan such an attack in advance; after all, people like Bozell have been inculcating this talking point into right-wing politics for decades. Bozell's mission is to destroy any media that doesn't uncritically repeat right-wing talking points, so he couldn't be happier with the debate, as his ewww-worthy "better than sex" remark demonstrates.
Still, it's interesting that the MRC is simply mouthing the anti-media rhetoric, making no effort whatsoever to back up the claim. To go all Clara Peller here, there's a distinct absence of beef.
It would be so simple for the MRC to post a list of all the questions asked by CNBC moderators at the debate (including Rick Santelli, who effectively inspired the tea party movement and is a good right-wing friend, but is bizarrely being lumped in as a liberal shill under this attack) and explain where in each of them the "liberal bias" resides. but it hasn't.
The middle name of the MRC is "research." It should try that sometime.
MRC's Bozell & Graham Put Words In Carville's Mouth Topic: Media Research Center
Right-wingers like those who run the Media Research Center hava a complicated relationship with Rupert Murdoch. They love him for creating Fox News, but they're unhappy with Fox's entertainment offerings, which commit the offense of trying to appeal to people who aren't right-wingers and who may be (gasp!) liberal.
So the MRC serves up things like this little screed that kicks off Tim Graham and Brent Bozell's Oct. 23 column:
When James Carville rants that Rep. Trey Gowdy is a super-villain spawned by Rupert Murdoch, conservatives could reply by noting that Murdoch has much less of a financial connection to Gowdy than he does to gay leftist TV producer Ryan Murphy, who had one hit with "Glee" and an ugly garbage barge of other TV programs.
In June 2012, Murphy hosted a $25,000-per-person event at his Beverly Hills home for Barack Obama's re-election that included celebrity attendees Julia Roberts, Reese Witherspoon and "Glee" star Jane Lynch. He threw his own Murdoch money into that cause.
Murdoch's Fox Entertainment Group is presently airing two Murphy shows, a new horror show called "Scream Queens" in what used to be called the "family hour" on Fox, and a fifth season of "American Horror Story" (subtitled "Hotel") on their FX channel, starring outlandish pop diva Lady Gaga.
Graham and Bozell are presumably referring to an appearance by Carville on MSNBC -- in which he said no such thing. He did say that Gowdy "is a creation of the Koch Brothers and the whole climate denial industry" and that the House Select Committee on Benghazi headed by Gowdy "was nothing but a creation of Rupert Murdoch and the Koch Brothers."
Graham and Bozell don't mention the evidence Carville cited to back up that last claim: Fox News has aired more than 1,000 segments on Benghazi before the select committee was created. Which is absolutely true.
They also don't mention that Carville dared anyone to fact-check him. Why? Perhaps because, given that invitation, the MRC chose not to take him up on it; it simply posted the clip, complete with unfulfilled fact-check dare. by contrast, liberal blog Crooks & Liars did the fact-check that the MRC wouldn't, noting that Carville is not entirely correct about Gowdy being a creation solely of Koch interests.
So, instead of telling the truth that Carville is mosly correct in his assertions about Gowdy, Graham and Bozell invent something Carville never said.
Notice also how Graham and Bozell abruptly pivot from the good Benghazi-creating Murdoch to the bad liberal-entertainment Murdoch by bringing up a "gay leftist" creator who purportedly has a greater "financial connection" to Murdoch than Gowdy. Graham and Bozell apparently never counted (or, more accurately, had their MRC employees count) the number of times Gowdy has appeared on Fox News or calculate the value of that free media to Gowdy, the Benghazi committee and Republicans in general.
Just keep clicking on the "Load More" button on Fox News Insider's page on Gowdy to get an idea of those appearances.
The rest of Graham and Bozell's column is whining about Ryan Murphy, huffing that "Every week, there's a political reference" on the shows he created. Which is to say, a political reference that isn't conservative. but the MRC boys would never devote an entire column to that.
MRC Blames The Victim For Bill O'Reilly Cutting Off His Mic Topic: Media Research Center
In an Oct. 25 NewsBusters post, Mark Finkelstein huffed over MSNBC's Al Sharpton having "shut ... down" a conservative guest, saying, "Don't know if we've ever witnessed such a blatant suppression of facts--even on MSNBC."
But just the day before, someone was being suppressed on Fox News -- and the MRC was blaming the person being suppressed, not the host.
Randy Hall summed it up in the headline of his Oct. 24 NewsBusters post: "BLM Advocate Provokes Bill O'Reilly Into Cutting Off His Microphone." To hear Hall tell it, O'Reilly was mad that :
During Thursday night's edition of The O'Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel, host Bill O'Reilly tried to demonstrate the bad judgment of the Democratic National Committee allying itself with the Black Lives Matter movement, which has members who have called for violence against police officers in protests all across the country.
However, Keith Boykin, an African-American who once served as a special assistant to president Bill Clinton, aggressively asserted that none of the BLM leaders agreed with that concept -- so much so that the anchor had to turn off his microphone so the host and another guest could take part in the discussion.
Hall then complained that Boykin "tried to filibuster," glosses over the fact that Boykin said O'Reilly mischaracterized his opinion on Black Lives Matter. Hall then claimed "Boykin then tried to slam the anchor" but curiously did not quote what Boykin said, and seemed to be angry that Boykin fought back against O'Reilly likening of the Black Lives Matter movement to Nazis.
So: if a liberal cuts off a conservative's microphone, it's the liberal's fault. If a conservative cuts off a liberal's microphone, it's the liberal's fault. That's "media research" at the MRC.
BLM Advocate Provokes Bill O'Reilly Into Cutting off His Microphone - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/randy-hall/2015/10/24/blm-advocate-provokes-bill-oreilly-cutting-his-microphone#sthash.m2WPs4gT.dpuf
BLM Advocate Provokes Bill O'Reilly Into Cutting off His Microphone - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/randy-hall/2015/10/24/blm-advocate-provokes-bill-oreilly-cutting-his-microphone#sthash.m2WPs4gT.dpuf
MRC Clinton Derangement Syndrome, Benghazi Edition Topic: Media Research Center
In keeping with the long, sordidhistory of Clinton derangement that animates the Media Research Center roared to life once again with Hillary Clinton's testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi.
TheMRC kicked things off with the Oct. 21 column by Tim Graham and Brent Bozel, which rather desperately tries to distract from the statements from Republicans -- not Democrats -- that the committee is designed to harm Hillary's presidential chances: "The Democrats have pushed heavily on the narrative that the House probe is transparently political — as if everything they say about Clinton is transparently ... nonpartisan?" See what they did there?
They even spun Republican Kevin McCarthy's statement to that effect by claiming he merely said Hillary was "untrustable," omitting the part about how he said it was the Benghazi committee that made her so.
The MRC displayed its full-derangement mode with the headline of this Oct. 22 post by Geoffrey Dickens: "Watch Hillary Gleefully Laugh As Andrea Mitchell Clip Played In Her Defense At Benghazi Hearing." That's right -- Hillary laughing is the only item of "media research" substance it could pull from the testimony.
Other items of MRC "media research" include complaining about commentary over the hearing that was insufficiently hateful of Hillary and a clip of MRC chief Brent Bozell whining on Fox Business that Republicans weren't asking Hillary tough enough questions.
Meanwhile, over at MRC "news" division CNSNews.com, here is what was considered "news" from the Benghazi hearing:
Watch Hillary Gleefully Laugh as Andrea Mitchell Clip Played in Her Defense at Benghazi Hearing - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/2015/10/22/watch-hillary-gleefully-laugh-andrea-mitchell-clip-played-her-hearing#sthash.uqnaw9rS.dpufWatch Hillary
Watch Hillary Gleefully Laugh as Andrea Mitchell Clip Played in Her Defense at Benghazi Hearing - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/2015/10/22/watch-hillary-gleefully-laugh-andrea-mitchell-clip-played-her-hearing#sthash.uqnaw9rS.dpuf
Watch Hillary Gleefully Laugh as Andrea Mitchell Clip Played in Her Defense at Benghazi Hearing - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/2015/10/22/watch-hillary-gleefully-laugh-andrea-mitchell-clip-played-her-hearing#sthash.uqnaw9rS.dpuf
An article by Melanie Hunder rehashing Rep. Trey Gowdy's assertion that his Benghazi committee is not about Clinton, but omitting the statements of two Republicans and a former committee staffer that the committee is designed to ruin Clinton's presidential campaign.
Another article by Hunter fowarding the amazing right-wing spin that "of the more than 600 security requests related to Libya and Benghazi that came in in 2012 before the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack none ever reached her desk" yet "[Sid] Blumenthal’s 150 emails reached her desk." hunter did not point out the difference between personal messages from Blumenthal and requests for security that went to State Department personnel whose job it was to review.
A lengthy rehash by Susan Jones of Republicn Rep. Jim Jordan's talking points for his questioning of Clinton, which is so skewed it reads like it was written by Jordan's congressional staffers.
An article by Jones repeating testimony by Clinton, in response to a Republican representative's questioning, that "I did not conduct most of my business that I did on behalf of our country on email."
A blog post featuring Adam Baldwin's take on the Benghazi hearings. CNS' Mark Judge did not explain what special insight the actor has into Benghazi that made his views worthy of a blog post.
No original CNS story on the hearing referenced questioning from Democratic members of the committee.
MRC Trolls CNN Anchor On Media Bias Topic: Media Research Center
Not content with trolling members of Congress to provoke them into saying something on camera it can use to further its right-wing agenda, the Media Research Center is now trolling the media figures whose existence it despises.
An Oct. 17 NewsBusters post by "NB Staff" (though listed in the post's URL as written by Tim Graham) touts how "new MRCTV correspondent Brittany M. Hughes asked CNN primetime host Don Lemon if the media tilts left. He made faces like the question was preposterous, and denied any such thing." NewsBusters then issued its apparent coup de grace:
So MRCTV followed up with a collection of CNN clips from our archives that demonstrate that left-wing opinion often bursts forth from CNN anchors and their very political contributors (ahem, Paul Begala):
but that clip package demonstrates how thoroughly deceptive the MRC's definition of "liberal bias" is. As stated, the clips do indeed show people expressing liberal opinions. But mere expression is not bias, as the MRC claims. A liberal like Begala or Sally Kohn (who's also in the clip package) invited onto CNN to express his opinion is expected to express one that's liberal. For the MRC to claim that this is bias is ridiculous.
The clip package also includes "CNN anchors" expressing opinions, but some like Piers Morgan -- who hasn't been on CNN in quite some time -- are not news anchors. So, again, the MRC fails in a logical definition of news bias.
Further, one of the clips of Morgan quotes him as saying, "Limbaugh's disgusting comments are the work of an archaic old dinosaur living in a warped, ugly swamp ... Shame on you, Rush Limbaugh." There's an edit there, one that removes the context of Morgan's remarks (and, again, Morgan hosted an opinion show, not a "news" show). Here's the full comment, with the portion the MRC deleted in italics (though we found it elsewhere at the MRC):
"Limbaugh's disgusting comments are the work of an archaic old dinosaur living in a warped, ugly swamp, who thinks it's okay to degrade decent young women for sport and ratings. Well, it isn't it. Shame on you, Rush Limbaugh."
And MRC boss Brent Bozell was kinda OK with that criticism, conceding it was "fair." Of course, Bozell then proceded to distract from Limbaugh by attacking Morgan for the entirely unrelated offense of having once nice things about Bill Maher. But last time we checked, neither Morgan nor anyone else at CNN set up an "I Stand With Bill Maher" website.
Meanwhile, on Fox News, news anchors joining their conservative guests in regularly serving up right-wing opinion, and the MRC says nary a peep about it. If it was genuinely concerned about news bias, it wouldn't keep quiet.
It seems what the MRC really wants is to censor opinion it doesn't agree with -- that is, it wants liberals off TV. Why else would it be making the ridiculous complaint the mere existence of a liberal commentator expressing a liberal opinion on TV to say is itself an act of "bias"?
Oh, and Lemon's answer to Hughes -- that "if you’re liberal, then there’s conservative bias, and if you’re conservative, you think there’s a liberal bias," and that "people are deliberately trying to skew things one way or the other" based on their own beliefs -- was accurate. The MRC is too busy trying to skew things to its own agenda to admit it.
MRC Doesn't Want You To Know Benghazi Committee Whistleblower Was An MRC Intern Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has been unusually quiet about the accusations from former House Select Committee on Benghazi investigator Bradley Podliska that the committee is a partisan witch hunt out to get Hillary Clinton. All it's done so far is a fewNewsBustersposts complaining that his story was being reported (a contrast to MRC "news" division CNSNews.com, which has devoted no original coverage to it).
There's a reason the MRC is downplaying Podliska's story: he used to be one of them.
Talking Points Memo reports that Podliska's conservative credentials are impeccable, and that they include a stint as an intern at the MRC. Indeed, a search of the MRC website reveals Podliska listed as an intern onseveralitems published in September and October of 1996.
Interestingly, none of those NewsBusters posts disclose the fact that Podliska once worked there. Why? Do they feel their association with him was so long ago they can claim no link to him now? Or do they want to distance themselves from the fact that his allegations are exposing something Clinton-hating MRC boss Brent Bozell doesn't want exposed, and are afraid that the MRC will be linked to it because it will undermine the legitimacy of the Benghazi probe?
Podliska has discovered bias the way the MRC taught him to do -- but unfortunately for him, it's bias the MRC endorses and doesn't want to do anything about.
The MRC's Weird Attempt At A Brent Bozell Cult of Personality Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's self-promotional efforts tend to feature the grim visage of founder and president Brent Bozell -- not unlike, say, how they do things in North Korea.
This no doubt feeds Bozell's ego -- it's obvious he has a large enough of one to insist on being the face of the MRC, though his photogenicity is up for debate. This is the guy, after all, who spent 15-plus years stealing the credit from the guy who actually wrote his syndicated column, so he clearly wants as much glory for himself as he can get.
So now the MRC is promoting its little dress-up "Gala" shindig devoted to mocking its political enemies, and here's the image it's using:
Hey, it's a smiling Bozell! In a fancy white dinner jacket! He likes us after all! (You know, just like North Korea.)
And what was Bozell so happy about in that photo? To read the description on the MRC page to which the happy-Bozell image links, it appears he was leading the Two Minutes Hate that the MRC Gala apparently is:
MRC President Brent Bozell asked the audience to show their derision, via jeers and noisemakers, of quotes from Lawrence O’Donnell, [Ayman] Mohyeldin and analysts on CNN led by Sally Kohn, who had won a news category earlier in the program. The audience’s very obvious preference was confirmed by Bozell and the presenters and acceptors brought on stage to judge the audience’s reaction.
And then there's this, in which Bozell makes sure his role is noted:
The MRC opened the post-dinner program with Bozell honoring Phyllis Schlafly with the MRC’s ninth annual “William F. Buckley Jr. Award for Media Excellence.” Schlafly accepted via remarks on video in which she praised the MRC for “playing a big role” in getting out “the proper, needed information.”
Note: Not necessarily accurate or truthful information, but the "proper" information. Again, just like North Korea.
It all comes off as a propaganda operation instead of any sort of "media research," with Bozell attempting to create a cult of personality around himself.
Funny thing is, it was just a few weeks ago that the MRC was accusing Stephen Colbert of leading a "cult of personality." All the better to distract attention from the boss, it seems.
MRC Returns to Bashing Catholic Critics Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's flip-flop rhetoric on who is allowed to criticize the Catholic Church and the pope (conservatives) and who isn't (non-conservatives) has flipped again.
In their Oct. 7 column, Brent Bozell and Tim Graham sneered at Nancy Pelosi for allegedly expressing "smarter-than-the-pontiff feminist arrogance" for pointing out that, as a mother, she might know a little more about having children than a celibate priest.
As we've noted, conservative columnist George Will wasn't attacked by Bozell and Co. for expressing "smarter-than-the-pontiff arrogance" by asserting that Pope Francis "stands against modernity, rationality, science and, ultimately, the spontaneous creativity of open societies" and that he embodies sanctity but comes trailing clouds of sanctimony," offers "shrill" social diagonses and "embraces ideas impeccably fashionable, demonstrably false and deeply reactionary." Rather, the MRC made Will's column an "Editor's Pick" at NewsBusters.
The gist of Bozell and Graham's column, though, is a defense of its CNSNews.com "reporter" Sam Dorman for asking a gotcha question of Pelosi. (The writers hide the fact that Dorman isn't an actual reporter but just an intern.) They insist that Dorman's question was "very simple and pertonent" and tout how Pelosi was made "clearly angry" by it.
Which, of course, was the whole point. Dorman said himself on a CNS website trying to profit off the confrontation how proud he was that "after Pelosi erupted with anger, I knew I had pushed the right button." Why should Pelosi apologize over an act deliberately designed to provoke her anger?
Bozell and Graham conclude by declaring that Pelosi isn't sufficiently Catholic, ranting, "She should be excommunicated." Now who's portraying themselves as smarter than the pope?
NEW ARTICLE: The Coulter Cowards at the MRC Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is buddies with Ann Coulter, so you know they won't criticize her, even at her most anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic. Heck, the MRC will let anyone bash Catholics -- but only if they're conservative. Read more >>
MRC's Defense of Fiorina Enters the 'Fake But Accurate' Phase Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center did not approve when the memos promoted by CBS as discussing George W. Bush's military service were described as "fake but accurate" and invoked the term repeatedly ever since.
Oddly, the MRC has been reduced to making a "fake but accurate" defense of Carly Fiorina's description of secretly recorded, dishonestly edited right-wing videos of Planned Parenthood.
Even though it's abundantly clear that the Center for Medical Reform doctored its Planned Parenthood footage by inserting video from elsewhere to spice it up, the MRC justwon't admit it.
This is taken to new lengths in a Sept. 30 NewsBusters post by Erin Aitcheson, who responds to claims that Fiorina is lying about the Planned Parenthood videos by huffing: "Except she’s not lying. The video she described exists. If differs from the CMP-shot hidden camera footage, but it exists and Fiorina saw it. She has stood unwavering behind her statements."
Actually, if Fiorina is describing the video that "differs" as being shot by CMP inside a Planned Parenthood clinic -- and it appears she is -- she's lying. And CMP is being dishonest by presenting that footage as such. The fact Fiorina may have seen something she is currently lying about and "has stood unwavering behind her statements" doesn't make it any less of a lie, as Aitcheson seems to be suggesting. Indeed, the amount of "unwavering" Fiorina has expended in defending her lie is utterly irrelevant to its veracity.
Aitcheson is simply privileging Fiorina's lie. She (and the MRC) wouldn't do such a thing if it was a Democratic presidential candidate making a similar statement about an undercover liberal sting operation that included outside footage.
Except she’s not lying. The video she described exists. If differs from the CMP-shot hidden camera footage, but it exists and Fiorina saw it. She has stood unwavering behind her statements. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/erin-aitcheson/2015/09/30/washington-post-calls-fiorina-anti-abortion-champion-wont#sthash.ftPhZ6Uw.dpuf
Except she’s not lying. The video she described exists. If differs from the CMP-shot hidden camera footage, but it exists and Fiorina saw it. She has stood unwavering behind her statements. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/erin-aitcheson/2015/09/30/washington-post-calls-fiorina-anti-abortion-champion-wont#sthash.ftPhZ6Uw.dpuf
The Media Research Center just can't stop perpetuating the idea that the CNBC Republican presidential debate was filled with "liberal bias," despite the fact that it's unable to objectively prove it.
ABC's show "Black-ish" is 
The Media Research Center has been found 
By contrast, the MRC did no such "study" on the questions regarding the GOP presidential debate hosted by Fox News, despite Donald Trump's loud complaining about their bias, nor does it make the effort to compare the questions in the CNBC debate with those of the Fox debate. Heck, even MRC friend Ann Coulter (whose anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic rantings the MRC is 
The Media Research Center's Scott Whitlock writes in an Oct. 15 NewsBusters 
The Media Research Center's Katie Yoder finds absolutely no humor, it seems, in anything even tangentally related to abortion. Yoder grumps in an Oct. 16 NewsBusters 
Right-wingers like those who run the Media Research Center hava a complicated relationship with Rupert Murdoch. They love him for creating Fox News, but they're unhappy with Fox's entertainment offerings, which commit the offense of trying to appeal to people who aren't right-wingers and who may be (gasp!) liberal.
Not content with 
The Media Research Center has been unusually quiet about the accusations from former House Select Committee on Benghazi investigator Bradley Podliska that the committee is a partisan witch hunt out to get Hillary Clinton. All it's done so far is a 
The Media Research Center 
