Shocker: MRC Finds Bias At Fox News! (Actually, Just Shep Smith Reporting Facts.)
Topic: Media Research Center

Fox News normally gets a pass from the bias-hunters at the Media Research Center because Fox's bias -- right-wing -- is something the MRC can get behind. (Also, it doesn't want to jeopardize Brent Bozell's appearance schedule on Fox News and Fox Business.) But there's one Fox host the MRC keeps an eye on for committing the offense of being the only one at the channel who won't play the right-wing-bias game and, thus, is considered a "liberal": Shepard Smith. To the MRC, it's the Stephen Colbert principle: Smith's truth-telling has a well-known liberal bias.

In an Aug. 25 post, P.J. Gladnick ranted:

Fox News' Shepard Smith strayed from the Fox News script today while interviewing Wall Street Journal reporter James Grimaldi following Hillary Clinton's Reno, Nevada speech. Actually that's putting it mildly. Smith crashed through the barrier of at least putting up the appearance of neutrality and broke into the realm of flat out bias of the worst sort by charging Donald Trump with racism. If you think I am exaggerating, watch the following video of the exchange for yourself and you be the judge.

Actually, Smith asked a guest if Trump "trades in racism" -- which he indisputably does. Gladnick will never admit it, of course, so he concludes by ranting, "And there you have it. A television news anchor flat out accusing Trump of racism. Sorry, Shep, but you owe a huge apology to your audience for your extreme unprofessionalism. Why? Because you trade in bias."

Curtis Houck followed in an Aug. 31 post complaining that Smith, in reporting that North Carolina's voter ID law was overturned, "showed his disdain for a simple means to preserve the electoral process that’s already under attack from hackers."

What did Smith say? "North Carolina put in one of those you-have-to-show-an-ID rules which, so often in Republican states, are designed to keep some minorities from coming out and being able to vote and they’ve tried to reach the number of voting days. The U.S. Court says that will not happen. Those rules will not go into effect in North Carolina this cycle."

Houck responded:

Longtime NewsBusters readers would recall how such asinine assertions about voter I.D. laws drove former managing editor and current Washington Times writer Ken Shepherd up a wall (see here, here, and here) as MSNBC pundits and writers bloviated about it being a coordinated “voter suppression” campaign against particularly African-Americans despite the lengths some states would go for forms of acceptable identification and allowing provisional balloting in the interim.

In fact, what happened in North Carolina is exactly what Smith reported -- North Carolina's voter ID law was found by a federal court to discourage minorities from voting.

The Washington Post reported that the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found that North Carolina lawmakers requested data on racial differences in voting behaviors in the state and then used that data to enact laws specifically designed to discourage minority voting. It prohibited the types of photo IDs African-Americans commonly use from being a valid voter ID, it reduced the number of early-voting days typically used by African-Americans and, in what judges called a "smoking gun," did away with Sunday voting after arguing in court that "counties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black" and "disproportionately Democratic."

Smith reported facts that the MRC didn't like, so he gets the "liberal bias" tag. That's going to become a meaningless attack if the MRC keeps abusing it like this.

MRC's Bozell Farts In Colin Kaepernick's General Direction
Topic: Media Research Center

The issue of NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick refusing to stand for the national anthem as a protest for how minorities are treated in the U.S. has nothing whatsoever to do with the Media Research Center's self-proclaimed mission of rooting out "liberal media bias." But the MRC knows a hot-button right-wing issue when it sees one, and its writers wasted no time in ignoring the point of Kaepernick's protest and instead hurling personal attacks at him and denouncing him as "anti-American."

You had to know MRC chief Brent Bozell wanted in on some of this sweet insult-hurling action. So he ran to Fox Business to spew: "I think this man is a disgraceful ingrate. I spit on him for what he has been saying."

Bozell left unspoken his taunt that he farts in Kaepernick's general direction and thinks his mother was a hamster.

Bozell cranked up the taunts in his and Tim Graham's Sept. 2 column in which they also attack anyone who dares to point out that Kaepernick is well within his first Amendment rights to engage in his protest:

Like so many leftists, this disgraceful ingrate is nowhere to be found when there are a thousand times more "bodies in the street" as casualties of drug dealers or gang-bangers. Almost 500 people have been killed this year in Chicago, Illinois, alone. Seventy-nine police officers have been killed in the line of duty this year. It's unclear if this means a thing to Kaepernick.

But what's even more disturbing is how so many Americans feel the need to express respect for his right to speak freely. On ABC, Sen. Tim Kaine lectured, saying, "You got to respect people's ability to act according to their conscience." No, you don't have to respect that. Nor should you, Sen. Kaine.

How dare this man dishonor all the men and women who gave their lives for that flag? How many men and women pine to throw a football, but are missing hands? Or want to run on the field, but are missing legs?

To many on the left, denouncing America and its flag is a precious right, even an act of courage, when they should not just object, but call that protester an ungrateful jerk. 

[...]

Since his team is from San Francisco, it's not surprising that it issued a mealy-mouthed statement. The anthem is a "special part" of the pre-game ceremony, the 49ers said, but "we recognize the right of an individual to choose and participate, or not, in our celebration of the national anthem." Blah, blah, cowardly blah.

We think the definition of "cowardly" applies much more to Bozell, who is too afraid to appear on TV with anyone who might disagree with him (hence the vast majority of his appearances being limited to the narrow world of Fox News and right-wing media) yet demands that the MRC's current target of rage, Jorge Ramos, engage in a debate with him, something he knows will never happen -- which is why he issued the dare in the first place.

What LGBT Stuff Is The MRC Freaking Out About Now?
Topic: Media Research Center

It's that time again -- to summarize all the LGBT stuff the gay-haters at the Media Research Center have been freaking out about over the few weeks.

Elliot Polsky somehow managed to mostly withhold his hostility when a Brazilian rugby player got engaged to her female manager during the Olympics, though he did huff "The online media, including CNN and ABC, saw the opportunity to resurrect the 'love wins' slogan" and complained that "CNN’s headline was followed by a picture of the couple kissing."

Sarah Stites sorta makes up for that, though, in freaking out over World Wrestling Entertainment choosing to incorporate gay themes into its pro-wrestling storylines. Her headline: "WWE Goes PC: No Fighting the Gay Agenda." Stites portrayed the move as a publicity stunt to promote a new book by pro-wrestling legend Pat Patterson, who recently came out as gay, and huffed:

GLAAD will act as the PC police in this new endeavor, ensuring that the WWE’s screenwriters get everything right. "We've had GLAAD come in and speak to our entire writing team and give a whole tutorial on sensitivities, the right words, the wrong words, why those words matter," [WWE chief brand officer Stephanie] McMahon explained.

Considering that wrestling is not known as a particularly PC area of interest, some might wonder at the pro-LGBT strides WWE has taken. However, the fact that several of its programs air on the liberal USA Network certainly clarifies things.  

Alexa Moutevelis Coombs is mad that the ABC show "Mistresses" tackled "the transgender issue":

Once again the transgender issue rears its ugly head on ABC’s Mistresses. Perhaps they feared we didn’t get the message last time because now they’re beating us over the head about what is considered offensive, bigoted, and intolerant.

[...]

April goes on and on about tolerance, but we all know that tolerance is never enough when it comes to LGBT issues, we all must be made to support and celebrate them. Anything less is “offensive,” “bigoted,” and “intolerant.”

Stites returned to express her upset at a claim that Gore Vidal had contributed a gay subplot, never explicitly used though remnants remain, to the 1959 movie version of "Ben-Hur." Stittes huffed: "Here’s my take on it: I’ll never be able to watch the Heston classic with the innocent eyes of youth again. Thanks for that, Mr. Vidal."

Meanwhile, Coombs, who has apparently never seen an episode of "Match Game" in her life until now, is shocked -- shocked! -- that the show's panelists would inject sexual innuendo into it:

Poor Bert and Ernie just got called gay on national television! On tonight's edition of The Match Game on ABC, contestants were asked to fill in the following question: "'Sesame Street' is being rocked by a tabloid scandal. Instead of a rubber ducky, Bert and Ernie were photographed in the bathtub playing with BLANK."

The contestant's answer was "each other," which Jerry O'Connell matched exactly. Niecy Nash's answer "Each other's pee-pee" and Natasha Lyonne's "Each other's ding-dongs" were also counted. Immediately, everyone went the gay route. Very mature!

Never mind the fact that "Match Game" pretty much exists as a not-very-mature delivery vehicle for sexual innuendo. But Coombs was still in rage mode: "Thoughts of Bert and Ernie playing with each other only exist in the minds of sick liberals, not behind closed doors on Sesame Street."

And Matt Philbin took offense at "self-professed bisexual Christian writer" Eliel Cruz, who claims, in Philbin's words, that "scripture says transgenderism is just ducky. Or at least, it doesn’t say “Thou Shalt Not Pretend Thou Art a Chick,” which is, to Cruz, the same thing. Commence the trans-hate:

Contemporary cultural liberalism is essentially a cult of narcissism. If you’re an acolyte, you need to see your self-image – no matter how aberrational – reflected everywhere. Even in the Bible.

[...]

Pointing to Genesis 1:27, Cruz writes that the “and” in “male and female he created them” is not intended to be “binary.” To support this assertion, he declares that when God is the “alpha and omega,” he is not just “those two letters” but the “entire alphabet.” (Including, we’re to assume, the LGBTQ and sometimes Y letters. How convenient!)

Cruz calls readers to be wary of individuals “claim[ing] religious freedom to discriminate against LGBT people, while lacking even a strong theological backing.”

He needn’t worry. These days, any social justice warrior worth his/her/ze’s salt can bully most civil institutions into acquiescence and secure the now-common diversity quotas, safe spaces and speech codes. With a little push from like-minded media, universities, government agencies, corporations and the more boneless varieties of Christianity can’t get in line fast enough.

True, churches that maintain doctrinal traditionalism or Biblical fidelity are a special problem. If they aspire to be anything more than book clubs with self-affirmation pot luck suppers they have this Truth thingy that supersedes “personal truth,” and is darned inconvenient to the self-and sex-obsessed crowd.

Just as it's darned inconvenient to people like Philbin that transgendered folks exist and want to be treated as human and not "aberrational."

MRC Trying To Get Univision Anchor Fired
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center has despised Univision anchor Jorge Ramos for quite some time, attacking him for purportedly going beyond his role as a news anchor (something that never seems to bother the MRC when Fox News anchors do it). The MRC's Jorge Bonilla actually complained that "Ramos had the audacity to complain that conservatives want to SILENCE him as a result of his biased coverage."

But it's abundantly clear the MRC wants to do exactly that by agitating for him to be fired.

The current wave of Ramos-hate at the MRC started when Ramos wrote an op-ed for a Mexican newspaper in July pointing out that Donald Tump "has put hatred and divisiveness up front in his presidential campaign" and expressed hope that "civility and rationality will prevail in America once again," which won't happen if Trump is elected president. Bonilla didn't dispute or rebut anything Ramos wrote -- perhaps because it's true -- but Bonilla declared that Ramos was "tacitly endorsing Hillary Clinton for President" (even though he offers no evidence Ramos even mentioned Clinton in his column) and ranting that "one can also look back and say that Ramos was always going to be in the tank for Clinton -- especially after vanishing while the FBI and the DOJ did their e-mail two-step."

In an Aug. 11 post, Bonilla took offense at another column Ramos wrote criticizing Trump,huffing that "no other national network news anchor has a weekly multinational opinion column. Likewise, no other broadcast network news anchor in recent memory has taken such an open stance in a presidential election before."

Bonilla then suddenly tries to pretend he's being a reasonable critic: "None of this should be construed so as to dismiss any legitimate concerns millions of Americans (including this author) may have about a potential Trump presidency. The problem is that Ramos appropriates those concerns for the purpose of promoting partisanship via the back door." First, again, thie MRC has no problem with "partisanship via the back door" when it's done by Fox News anchors. Second, the MRC has stopped criticizing those who criticize Trump when he clinched the GOP nomination -- gotta be on the GOP bandwagon, after all -- so it's officially MRC policy that no criticism of Trump is "reasonable," and it's silly for Bonilla to pretend that any such distinction exists.

On Aug. 25, Bonilla again pretends to be reasonable after more criticism of Trump by Ramos:

In Ramos' hand, legitimate concern over the possible perils of a Trump presidency (shared by this author, in fact) becomes a shield with which to wage partisan battle. Outrage over both Trump's harsh statements on immigration and Ramos' stage-crafted expulsion from Trump's Iowa press conference created a permission structure for Ramos to more overtly take to the soapbox- with little or no consequence.

The truth is that Ramos was always going to be adversarial towards the Republican nominee regardless of who that may have been, and Donald Trump is simply a target of convenience. Ramos' depictions of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio as race-traitors are a matter of record, and are reflective of the coverage they would have received had they won the nomination. Everyone else would have received varying degrees of his Generic Republican coverage.

Bonilla goes on to claim: "When contrasting Jorge Ramos' very public statements with his unwillingness to engage the Democratic candidate's own glaring failings, it is clear that there is a desire to tilt the scales in favor of one candidate over the other. " That's rather laughable given that his employer operates a "news" outlet that's doing the exact same thing -- only this time it's Trump's glaring failings that are being censored by CNSNews.com.

Bonilla is as likely to complain about CNS' blatant bias at his MRC forum as he is about his claimed reservations about a Trump presidency.

But when Ramos declared that "neutrality is not an option" regarding Trump and that journalists will be judged by how they covered him, the MRC pushed the button on something they've probably been waiting for an appropriate occasion to implement: a campaign to get Ramos fired. MRC chief Brent Bozell ranted:

By deciding to openly take sides and urging all journalists to be as unethical as he is in his coverage of this year’s U.S. presidential election, Univision anchor Jorge Ramos has rendered himself incapable of serving as a credible, impartial news anchor for Univision’s millions of viewers. At the very least, Univision should remove Ramos from the network’s national evening news anchor chair, from now through Election Day. If Jorge Ramos has any sense left of professional integrity, he should tender his resignation and pursue his new passion, as an anti-Trump, pro-Clinton political activist.

The irony that Bozell's CNS is at least as unbalanced as he claims Ramos is went unremarked upon.

Bozell followed up with a challenge to Ramos for a debate:

Ramos could not be more clearly invested in favoring one candidate over the other, and it should be clear to everyone that he is no longer capable of delivering election news to Univision's audience with even a modicum of fairness. At this point, Ramos is doing a great disservice to both his viewers and the field of journalism by continuing to parade himself as anything other than a political activist. I challenge Ramos to a debate at a venue of his convenience about the proper role of journalists and the media in our society.

In his TV appearances, Bozell rarely appears with a liberal counterpart; he's almost always solo and almost always appearing in the friendly confines of Fox News, where he knows he will get no challenging questions and his rant of the day will never be interrupted. He can't handle a debate with a random liberal; what makes him think he can take on Ramos?

After Ramos failed to immediately respond, Bozell, as he is wont to do, threw a tantrum: "So I challenge Mr. Ramos to debate me. Is he a reporter or a political hack? Is he practicing journalism, or political advocacy? A man confident in his position would have no problem participating in a debate, yet this man who questions everyone is nowhere to be found when questioned himself."

It's pretty clear which one -- reporter or political hack -- Bozell is.

Meanwhile, the MRC bought the domain RamosMustGo.com, where its anti-Ramos campaign is regurgitated.It's promoted on otherMRC websites with the promo boxes above, one of which ludicrously claims that Bozell is engaging in "a battle for truth" with Ramos.

And Bonilla returned to rant again in an Aug. 31 post, taking offense at an interview Ramos did with CNN's Anderson Cooper, about which Bonilla complained that "there was no acknowledgement of the MRC's call for Ramos to step down from Univision's anchor chair due to his extreme biases, nor any acknowledgement of MRC President Brent Bozell's challenge to debate Ramos." Bonilla huffed:

If Ramos insists on peddling these factual inaccuracies in order to bolster his narrative, promote his ongoing jihad against Donald Trump, and push out the edges of objective journalistic coverage, then he should also expect the increased scrutiny that comes with it.  

Judge not, and call not for judgment based on reaction to Donald Trump, lest ye be judged and found guilty by your own words.

Again, don't expect Bonilla to apply those same standards to the outlets his publisher operates.

Again! MRC Complains Historic Event Is Described As Historic
Topic: Media Research Center

Near as we can tell, base on our observations, this is the Media Research Center's thought process: If a historic event occurs that doesn't advance the MRC's right-wing political agenda, it's "liberal bias" to call it historic.

We see this again in Kyle Drennen's Aug. 31 post on a reporter taking the first commercial flight from the U.S. to Cuba in more than 50 years, something most non-agenda-driven observers would admit is historic:

On Wednesday’s NBC Today, correspondent Kerry Sanders once again acted like a representative from the Cuban board of tourism as he reported live from a plane set to take off for the Communist nation: “Well, good morning from the cockpit of Jetblue Flight 387....this is going to be a one hour and eight minute flight into history.”

The on-screen headline proclaimed: “U.S. Flights to Cuba Resume; Jetblue Makes History With First Flight in More Than 50 years.” Sanders gushed: “This morning, Americans can once again buy a commercial airline ticket and fly from the U.S. directly to Cuba. The last scheduled U.S. Flight was a Pan-Am DC-6 back in 1961. JFK was in the White House, hardly anyone had heard of the Beatles.”

[...]

Back in May, Sanders giddily boarded a cruise ship bound for the island. He celebrated the “historic” voyage as a “pinch-me moment.” 

Scott Whitlock similarly put "historic" regarding Cuba in scare quotes in a Sept.  1 post, huffing that "CBS isn’t the only network to be excited over the communist country. On July 21, 2015, as ABC thrilled over the 'historic' opening of a Cuban embassy in Washington D.C., the same network skipped coverage of the country’s human rights violations."

MRC Goes WND-Style Birther on Hillary's Health, Thanks to Jeffrey Lord
Topic: Media Research Center

Two recent trends -- the Media Research Center's embrace of WorldNetDaily-style far-right sensationalism and WND's obsession with maliciously portraying Hillary Clinton as suffering from myriad health issues as "diagnosed" by right-wing doctors who have never examined her -- come together in an Aug. 27 NewsBusters rant by factually challenged Trump-fluffer Jeffrey Lord.

Lord is upset that fact-checkers at the Washington Post pointed out that there isn't any actual evidence that Hillary has any serious health problems and gave Donald Trump's claim otherwise four Pinocchios. Lord responded by citing a Carl Bernstein book noting that Hillary had trouble keeping up with her husband in the early years of his presidency. Let the birther -- er, healther screed begin, Jeffrey:

And there it is. The flat out statement as fact that way back there in 1993 the then-46 year old First Lady of the United States was seen by her aides as being “physically exhausted” by her duties, that she “lacked” her husband’s stamina and in fact was so exhausted by simple Capital Hill appearances that she would “collapse in the car on the way back to the White House.”

Hmm. Did Mr. Kessler the “Fact Checker” ever bother checking the reporting of one of the best reporters in the history of his own paper? Did Mr. Borchers? Obviously, not. So what we get instead from them both is the assertion that Donald Trump has lied with an “unsubstantiated ‘stamina' argument” about Hillary Clinton when in fact it has been very much substantiated by Carl Bernstein who got the information from Hillary Clinton’s own staff members.

This is the kind of horse hockey that passes as “fact checking” today. It is called “fact checking” when in fact it is nothing more than one more set of factual misstatements coming from a virulently anti-Trump paper. A paper that has, no kidding, said this on its editorial page about Trump: “Mr. Trump is pathologically dishonest and morally bankrupt.”

Today, of course, Hillary Clinton is no longer 46 years old. She is about to turn 70. Logic dictates that a person who had stamina problems at 46, by the account of her own staff,  would have even more stamina problems a full 23 years later. Yet, with the fact of her stamina problems fully evident in a biography by one of the most respected and well-known journalists of the day - and, I might add, no conservative - the media not only totally ignores. 

And, thus, the WND-ization of the MRC, as well as the MRC's Jeffrey Lord problem, continues apace.

Brent Bozell Is Walking Hand In Hand With Trump
Topic: Media Research Center

In February, Media Research Center chief Bozell declared in an essay for National Review that Trump does not "walk with" conservatives, denouncing his proclaimed "allegiance to the Democratic party" and insising that "We conservatives should support the one candidate who walks with us.

How times change -- as if there was any doubt Bozell would eventually fall in GOP lockstep after Trump won the nomination. Despite all of his bluster, he is ultimately a loyal Republican.

Trump's Aug. 31 anti-immigrant speech brought a round of ecstatic tweeting from Bozell:

"1,000 times more detailed"? Really? Will his MRC minions quantify that for us, or is he using that fuzzy Trump math?

So Bozell is now not only walking with Trump, he's dancing to Trump's tune. Expect his MRC to be even more jiggy with Trump's tune.

MRC Personally Attacks Colin Kaepernick For His Protest
Topic: Media Research Center

San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick's refusal to stand for the national anthem in a preseason game, prompting the Media Research Center to lash out at Kaepernick personally for his protest and dismiss mock the reason he did it: a protest over the way blacks are treated in America.

NewsBusters' Dylan Gwinn was first to lash out, huffing that Kaepernick's Twitter account "basically reads like a Black Lives Matter site" and sneering, "Unclear as to whether or not Kaepernick considers our black President and black head of the Justice Department as in on the racist cabal. That story coming later, probably. Actually, probably not." Gwinn then dismissed Kaepernick completely because "he’s not good at football anymore."

Anonymous coward "Bruce Bookter" took umbrage at ESPN commenter Pablo S. Torre for suggesting only Trump supporters are angered by Kaepernick's protest:

Yeah, it’s not all about sports at all. It’s supposed to be a unifying moment that brings us together as one, before we all yell and scream and foam at the mouth at each other. This is a point understood by most people. These same “most people,” many of whom elected and then re-elected a black President, don’t believe the American flag represents bigotry or oppression.

The fact that it’s apparently not understood at all by the leftist sports media is…well…sadly not surprising. However, heed Torre’s words here, and expect a renewed push on the part of the sports media to eliminate the National Anthem as a quaint old custom that has nothing to do with sports and everything to do with oppression.

This from a guy who doesn't even have the courage of his convictions to put his own name on them.

Gwinn returns to attack NFL Players Association president DeMaurice Smith for defending Kaepernick (italics his):

Smith categorically rejects the idea of “shut up and play.” The notion that athletes should just do their jobs and leave their politics out of it. Smith claims that this turns the athlete into a two-dimensional person, and doesn’t allow for the athlete to express those attributes which make him “human.”

Of course, those critical of Kaepernick are not saying he doesn’t have a right to feel how he feels. They’re disputing what he says. Not his right to say it.

Actually, Dylan, if you're telling Kaepernick to "shut up and play" -- and it certainly appears you are -- you are, in fact, disputing his right to say it.

Also pretending he's not disputing Kaepernick's right to say it while actually doing do is "Bookter," who goes on a tirade against both him and ESPN’s Ian O’Connor for daring to defend him:

Someone needs to get ESPN and 49ers Quarterback Colin Kaepernick a room. Preferably a room in another country. Yet, a room nonetheless.

[...]

Rebranding disrespect to America and its flag as patriotism is, of course, verbatim from the leftist handbook. If people call Colin Kaepernick un-American, it’s not because they think he doesn’t have the right to speak. They say it in response to his actual words and actions.

Also funny is that O’Connor feels Kaepernick’s protest will remind the world that the United States is “still a pretty damn good place to live.” Really? How is telling the world that our nation oppresses black people and minorities a good thing? Upon reading Colin Kaepernick’s protest, will people in Africa or Central America more likely think, “Hmm, maybe I’ll go to America where I’m free to speak my mind?” Or, “Holy cow! American cops ruthlessly murder minorities with impunity, and nobody does anything about it!”

I’m guessing the latter.

O’Connor, honestly, likely has no idea himself what he meant when saying that whites forever ask blacks to overcome obstacles “that whites themselves created.” Just remember the important things here: a white family adopted Colin Kaepernick, who was drafted into the league by a white head coach and General Manager, paid millions of dollars by NFL owners who happened to be white, a majority white country has now twice elected a black President, and you’re all racists.

The end.

Gwinn piled on in yet another post, declaring that " in addition to being a moron, he’s also bad at football."

Kyle Drennen, meanwhile, declared Kaepernick to be "anti-American," according to the headline of his Aug. 29 post, upset that one reporter allegedly "treated Kaepernick like a martyr," while Brad Wilmouth asserted that Kaepernick's proest was an "expression of anti-U.S. sentiment." with his protest. 

Actually, what could be more American then protesting the actions of others? If that's "anti-American," than the MRC is anti-American too.

Gwinnn returned once again to slam Kaepernick's purported incompetence as a QB (never mind that he led the 49ers to the Super Bowl in 2012), sneering that he was merely "assuming the sitting position he’s likely to become very familiar with over the course of the next season." Gwinn also attacked Kaepernick for the alleged futility of his protest:

Has he started the Colin Kaepernick Fund for Underprivileged or At-Risk Youth? Has he spent hours and hours mentoring kids? Is he trying to improve police/community relations?

Even if every other player in the league followed Kaepernick’s lead, and sat during the anthem at every game for the rest of the season, the end result of that would be?...

I can think of a few outcomes. None of them would do anything to help the cause Kaepernick claims to want to fix.

Finally, Randy Hall calls in a lower-tier right-wing commentator to hurl insults at Kaepernick:

During Monday night's edition of the Tomi program on The Blaze, conservative host Tomi Lahren harshly criticized Colin Kaepernick -- quarterback of the San Francisco 49ers professional football team -- for refusing to stand during the performance of the National Anthem at the start of the preseason game against the Green Bay Packers the day before.

Lahren began her “Final Thoughts” segment by promising to “eviscerate” Kaepernick's “mouth diarrhea” before calling him a “whiny, indulgent, attention-seeking crybaby” and asserting that “if this country disgusts you so much, leave!”

[...]

Lahren then said she was going to “eviscerate” this “mouth diarrhea” sentence by sentence.

As with most of the MRC's nasty personal attacks on Kaepernick, this has nothing whatsoever to do with its claimed mission of rooting out "liberal media bias."

MRC Latino Spins Trump Stance on Deporting Undocumented Immigrants
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's MRC Latino researcher Edgard Portela goes into heavy spin mode for Donald Trump in an Aug. 24 post:

Following his recent meeting with his new Hispanic Advisory Council, speculation that Donald Trump is changing his stance on immigration has continued to dominate the news coverage on the nation’s top Hispanic television networks.

However, both Univision and Telemundo have continued their usual pattern of concealing Trump’s intention – articulated by the candidate himself since shortly after launching his presidential campaign last year – that as President he wants to allow most of the current unauthorized immigrant population in the country (individuals and families who are gainfully employed and who are not convicted felons) to quickly return to and resume their lives in the U.S. following their deportation.

Instead, both Univision and Telemundo routinely omit from their reports and panel discussions this important piece of information for their viewers, and parrot Democrat talking points that only mention the deportation part of Trump’s stance on immigration. 

It seems Portela is perfectly fine with the massive economic and personal disruption of deporting millions of people out of the country, since they will allegedly be allowed "to quickly return to and resume their lives in the U.S." and that this provision somehow negates the newsworthiness of the deportation angle. Ironically, as proof Portela links to a RedState post from December that is, in fact, upset that Trump will apparently allow them to return. (Trump's immigration has never been all that well defined, and it appears to be softening in the face of heightened scrutiny.)

Portela adds: "It’s also worth noting that for over a year now, the Trump campaign position paper on immigration only specifically mentions deportation for 'criminal aliens', a position consistent with his statement in July 2015 that the only people who should be worried are the 'bad dudes.'"

Portela curiously declines to use in his post the preferred right-wing terminology for undocumented immigrants, "illegal aliens" -- the MRC itself has dismissed "undocumented immigrant" as "liberal-preferred terminology" -- presumably to paper over the fact that his fellow right-wingers believe that undocumented immigrants are by definition "illegal" and, thus, "criminal," theoretically making them a Trump target for permanent depoartation and conflicting with his apparent pledge to let some return.

MRC Finds Joy in Huma Abedin's Marital Problems
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center couldn't disguise its glee at Anthony Weiner's latest sexting scandal and the decision of his wife, Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, to separate from him.

First, the MRC's NewsBusters Twitter account retweeted all the hate it had spewed in the past over every instance it could find of anyone saying nice things about Abedin. For instance, it retweeted a Tim Graham screed from 2013 about a People magazine article on "Why Huma Stayed" after the last sexting scandal, sneeringly adding, "ROFLMAO."

NewsBusters also ran a mocking post from Sarah Stites about how Weiner and Abedin's wedding was "doomed from the outset" because it "was officiated by champion philanderer Bill Clinton." Employing the sneering NewsBusters tone, she adds, "For your viewing pleasure (disgust?), here’s the photo you won’t find anywhere else."

Which is all kind of strange, because the conservatives at the MRC normally champion marriage and look askance ats eparation and divorce, and one would think Abedin deserves praise, not mocking, from the MRC for trying to save her marriage.

But Abedin and Weiner have committed the offense of being liberals, which makes their private life fair game for mocking by the MRC. It certainly didn't do so when the "pervert sleaze" (as Donald Trump, approvingly quoted by Stites, called Weiner) in question wasn't a liberal.

We documented how the MRC, particularly its CNSNews.com "news" division, largely avoided reporting on the creepy sexual escapdes of Josh Duggar -- which included molesting his own sisters -- waiting until the right-wing darlings' TV show, "19 Kids and Counting," was canceled over the controversy for devoting any original reporting to it, and even then treating it as perfunctory as possible and not straying from the Duggar family's PR plan.

Even Tim Graham took a different attitude toward the Duggars than Weiner and Abedin, lashing out at a reporter who noted that the Duggars' strict right-wing religiosity and "cult of purity" may have played a role in fostering Josh's unhealthy behavior, ranting about "feminists and libertines" who purportedly "have an unhealthy attitude toward sexual commitment, and are against educating children about preserving yourself for a committed relationship. Libertines insist virginity is impossible, unless you’re an indoctrinated robot...like they think of the Duggars."

This is the same guy who mocked Abedin for wanting to project the image of being a "normal family." 

We can only ROFLMAO at Graham's and the MRC's sick hypocrisy.

MRC Mad Media Didn't Bite on Bogus Right-Wing Attack Against Hillary Aide
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's Nicholas Fondacaro writes in an Aug. 22 post:

A major report broke in the New York Post on Sunday that laid out top Hillary Clinton Aide Huma Abedin’s past where she worked for a radical Muslim journal. “For a decade [Abedin] edited a radical Muslim publication that opposed women’s rights and blamed the US for 9/11,” wrote the Post’s Paul Sperry. But you would never know it if you watched the “Big Three” networks ABC, CBS, and NBC on Monday. They neither covered it in their morning shows nor their evening broadcasts.

“Clinton's long-time aide Huma Abedin is under scrutiny after the New York Post first reported she edited a publication, The Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, working under her mother for more than a decade,” reported Fox News’ Mike Emanuel as part of a longer report on Clinton’s latest scandals.

According to Sperry, Abedin’s mother who is the Editor-in-Chief of the journal once, “Wrote that Clinton and other speakers were advancing a “very aggressive and radically feminist” agenda that was un-Islamic and wrong because it focused on empowering women.”

Fondacaro didn't mention that the New York Post is a conservative outlet (owned by the conglomerate that used to employ Roger Ailes, who's helping Donald Trump out with debate prep) or that Paul Sperry used to work for the discredited conspiracy-mongers at WorldNetDaily. Plus, there's the whole thing about the report being rather bogus, as one might expect from someone who used to work for WND.

The Washington Post did the fact-checking that Fondacaro wouldn't, pointing out that the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs is not "radical" but, in fact, "a sober academic journal with a range of viewpoints on Muslim life around the world":

The New York Post described the journal as “a radical Muslim publication” but that’s ridiculous, according to experts on Islam and members of the advisory board. The New York Post report cherry-picked quotes and mischaracterized articles published over the years, including by Saleha Abedin, according to a review of the articles by the Fact Checker.

“I wouldn’t consider it ‘radical.’ Quite the contrary,” said Noah Feldman, director of the Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law at Harvard Law School. “That doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of articles expressing conservative viewpoints, of course. But I’ve never seen anything in any way radical.”

Dale F. Eickelman of Dartmouth College, who is a member of the journal’s advisory board, described it as a “fairly innocuous journal.” He said it was “anything but radical, within the golden mean of what academic journals do.” He said most of the articles are written by emerging scholars who are relatively early in their academic careers. “The authors can vary in quality, as is the case with most academic journals,” he said. “Some are more edgy than others, but you can learn some fresh things.” He added that no one works on the journal full time.

Of course, the mere fact that the claim was fact-checked is considered suspicious at the MRC, which has declared war on fact-checkers.

Meanwhile, religion blogger Richard Bartholomew adds:

It’s true that the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs has Saudi backing – indeed, it shares its London address in Goodge Street with the Muslim World League – but it can hardly be called a “Saudi journal”.  It is actually a standard academic journal, and publication is managed through the mainline academic publisher Taylor and Francis. Details of the editors and advisory board as of 1998 can be seen here – it is worth noting that the advisory board at that time included none other than Bernard Lewis, who is hardly known for his Islamist sympathies (here he is being praised at American Thinker). Huma Abedin is listed as one of two assistant editors, but given her studies in the US and work for Hillary Clinton from 1996 (when she was 20), it seems likely that her association with the journal over the years has been nominal.

Bartholomew also has details on how far out of context Sperry took quotes from the journal. adding that it's "characteristic of a man who once wrote a column for WND calling for US forces in Afghanistan to threaten to put pig blood in the water supply."

Don't expect Fondacaro or anyone else at the MRC to acknowledge this.

Even Other Conservatives Think Bozell's Column on Malia Obama Is Dumb
Topic: Media Research Center

In their Aug. 19 column, Tim Graham and Brent Bozell complained that "the press refused to touch" the story of "blurry pictures of 18-year-old Malia Obama puffing some sort of cigarette at the Lollapalooza music festival in Chicago," as well as "dancing suggestively to a rap song."

Graham and Bozell revealed that they're still butthurt 15 years -- 15 years! -- after the Bush twins were busted for underage drinking:

In the middle of 2001, the media pointed at and mocked Jenna and Barbara Bush, daughters of former President George W. Bush, when they were cited for underage margarita drinking in Austin, Texas, at age 19. The New York tabloids loved it. The story was headlined ''Double Trouble'' by the New York Daily News and ''Jenna and Tonic'' by the New York Post. The networks jumped all over it, underlining that this was the public's business because the twins had entered the police blotter, and because their father is a recovered alcoholic.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer also sounded the alarm: "Police in Austin, Texas today cited President Bush's twin daughters for violating state alcoholic beverage laws. Questions about the incident remain off limits at the White House. As CNN's Anne McDermott reminds us, all first families struggle to retain a little privacy." Apparently CNN believed the Bush family should be an exception.

As they continually have for, yes, the past 15 years, Graham and Bozell ignore the obvious: 19 -- techinally an adult -- is different than 18, Jenna Bush was on her second alcohol-related violation in five weeks, and they rather blatantly drank underage in a bar with their Secret Service detail in tow.

In promoting the column, Bozell tweeted: "The media leave Malia Obama alone. But not the Bush children, the Santorums, the Palins."

The stupidity of this was too much even for Bozell's fellow conservatives, like Betsy Rothstein of the Daily Caller, who, after citing numerous media references to Malia's escapades, called Bozell's tweet "the dumbest commentary of 2016" and responded: "Hey Bozell, Google is your friend."

MRC Tries (And Mostly Fails) To Defend Breitbart
Topic: Media Research Center

Because it's apparently in the contract it apparently signed with the Republican Party, the Media Reserarch Center must defend everyone and everything associated with the GOP. That now includes Breitbart News after its chief, Steve Bannon, was named CEO of Donald Trump's campaign.

In an Aug. 18 post, Brad Wilmouth fretted that CNN's David Gergen "managed to work in a Hitler reference as he picked up on Breitbart founder Andrew Breitbart supposedly comparing Bannon to film maker Leni Riefenstahl, who was a leading propagandist for the Nazi dictator."

But Breitbart's likening of Bannon to Riefenstahl is not a "supposed" reference, as Wilmouth claims in suggesting that it was made up; it appears in an October 2015 Bloomberg profile of Bannon, noting that Breitbart said it "with sincere admiration."

An Aug. 21 post by Wilmouth complains that Breitbart's anti-Semitic tendencies were cited:

In spite of Breitbart News having a pro-Israel history which champions the defense of the Jewish state from the dangers of radical Islam, [conservative Washington Post blogger Jennifer] Rubin presumably picked up on a recent attack not only from the Hillary Clinton campaign but also from the far-left Ha'aretz publication which, despite being stationed in Israel, has a history of criticizing the Jewish state and its treatment of Palestinian Arabs.

Ha'aretz dubiously cited as evidence an article by Jewish conservative activist David Horowitz which bitingly accused fellow Jewish conservative William Kristol of being a "renegade" who was endangering fellow Jews by refusing to support Trump, and thus aiding Clinton -- viewed by Horowitz as promoting policies dangerous for Israel. Therefore, Horowitz, rather than making an anti-Semitic attack, was actually making an accusation of abandoning Jewish interests.

But Wilmouth downplayed the main evidence of anti-Semitism on Breitbart's part: the words "RENEGADE JEW" in the headline of Horowitz's post. Further, as the Washington Post's Callum Borchers points out:

To summarize: Kristol’s opposition to the Republican standard-bearer is tantamount to a betrayal of his fellow Jews; therefore, he is a “renegade Jew.”

But Horowitz’s rationale, if you want to call it that, doesn’t arrive until the final paragraph of an 1,800-word story. The rest of the piece has nothing to do with Israel or religion. Unless you make it all the way to the end — and perhaps, even if you do — you’ll leave with the impression of an anti-Semitic attack.

And Matthew Balan, in an Aug. 22 post, complained that CNN's Alisyn Camerota "badger[ed] Trump's running mate, Mike Pence, about Bannon and "underlined past Breitbart headlines" that most sentient beings would consider inflammatory, whining that "The CNN anchor twice used the 'incendiary' term about the Breitbart headlines/'messaging' as she pressed her guest on the issue." Balan doesn't dispute the accuracy of the term as applied to Breitbart, though.

MRC Mocks Burkinis, Forgets Some Christians Like Modest Swimwear Too
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's Curtis Houck sneers in an Aug. 20 post:

The New York Times on Friday offered a one-two punch when it came to defending French Muslims and particularly women wearing “burkinis” that allow them to comply with Islamic laws of women staying completely covered and lambasting those raising concerns about women’s rights as “farcical” and downright “bigotry” preventing French women from “widen[ing] their sense of identity.”

Naturally, the paper’s editorial board was the most direct in Friday’s print edition with the title “France’s Burkini Bigotry” that bemoaned how “France’s perennial problem with Muslim women’s attire has taken its most farcical turn yet with a new controversy over the ‘burkini,’ body-covering swimwear whose name is an amalgam of burqa and bikini.”

Using the strawman argument that somehow “burkinis” are seen by some government officials as “a new weapon of war,” the paper also smeared Christians appeared suddenly concerned that “[t]his hysteria threatens to further stigmatize and marginalize France’s Muslims at a time when the country is listing to the Islamophobic right in the wake of a series of horrific terrorist attacks.”

It then argued that the designer of the suit didn’t particularly intend of this to happen but rather have something for “women who did not want to expose their bodies — for whatever reason — the freedom to enjoy water sports and the beach” (and not, you know, anger their overbearing husbands and imams). 

So the only reason a woman would wear modest swimwear is "anger their overbearing husbands and imams"? Would Houck tell the same thing to Christians who prefer similarly modest swimwear?

That does exist, by the way -- there are numerous purveyors of modest swimwear that cater to Christians. For instance, a company called Dressing For His Glory offers not just maximum-coverage swimwear but school uniforms and athletic wear geared to Christian women (and, maybe, their overbearing husbands and ministers?). The designer explains:

Soon after being saved, I received requests from our Christian School to create culottes and other garments. I was thankful that my experience in the garment industry had prepared me to create clothing that would glorify the Lord. I saw that there was a need for clothing that was both modest and tastefully styled. With the encouragement of my husband and church family, this site was created to offer these clothes to a wider audience.
It is my purpose to make it possible for Christian women to be a good testimony to our Lord Jesus Christ by dressing modestly yet fashionably. I hope that my garments will be a blessing to you and allow you to bring glory to God.

Another company, Lillies of the Field, makes a similar pitch for its modest swimwear and apparel (again, for ladies only): "This cottage industry began with the intent to help ladies dress in a way that honors the Lord and brings glory to His name."

Heck, even the Wall Street Journal has written about modest swimwear, noting that "devout Christian women" and Orthodox Jewish women favor them.

And Houck wants to mock burkinis? Please.

(Photo: Undercover Waterwear via WSJ)

Tim Graham's Hypocritical Bashing of NPR for Getting Rid of Comments
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's Tim Graham uses an Aug. 20 post to work up some faux indignation at National Public Radio decided to eliminate comments on its website because only a tiny fraction of its audience makes use of the comments and loses money. (Funny, we thought the MRC was all about fiscal responsibility.) After hurling the requisite "liberal media" potshots and declaring that "This could be seen as lessening the chance a conservative can actually protest their leftist content" -- this from a guy who likes to get into Twitter fights with NPR media critic David Folkenflik -- Graham concludes by saying:

From the conservative perspective, it seems quite obvious that the conservative point of view does not get a respectful hearing or anything approaching equal time on this taxpayer-subsidized network. So the scrubbing of comments merely add another insult, and leave a deeper impression that NPR is an insular network for like-minded liberals.

Of course, by making this criticism, Graham is suggesting that his own employer is an avatar of providing "equal time" that NPR won't by providing full and free access to its forums. He's wrong.

We can speak from experience. We've been banned from posting at both NewsBusters and CNSNews.com -- not because we violated any posted comment policy (there isn't one that we could find) or engaged in abusive language (the right-wing haters get a free pass on that) but because we expressed an opinion forum moderators disagreed with.

Additionally, Graham, MRC chief Brent Bozell and the main MRC feed have blocked us from the benign act of following them on Twitter. Why? We have no idea.Besides, it's not like we're prohibited from reading their tweets -- between alternative methods of following them and retweets from MRC-related accounts we are following, we can keep up with what they say just fine.

By aggressively blocking anyone who disagres with them, Graham, Bozell and the MRC are really the ones who are lessening the chance anyone can actually protest their fallacious right-wing content, and it reinforces the impression that the MRC is an insular network for like-minded right-wingers.

Sound familiar, Tim? It should. If you and the MRC can't take criticism and actively block and censor opinions you don't like, you have no moral standing to criticize NPR for doing something only slightly analogous to that.