MRC: Believe Clinton's Accusers, Not Anita Hill
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center has long railed against Anita Hill for making  sexual harassment allegations against conservative Clarence Thomas. The MRC's Tim Graham has long insinuated that she's a money-grubbing liar motivated to cash in on Thomas and advance her career as a law professor.

Hill plays an MRC pinata again in an Oct. 12 post by Nicholas Fondacaro attacking CBS for interviewing Hill in the wake of Donald Trump's vile misogyny (which the MRC is trying to bury). Fondacarohuffs that the CBS reporter "spoke as if it was a known fact that Thomas had somehow weaseled his way out of a deserved punishment. The CBS report failed mention Hill’s evolving story, or the testimony of other women which contradicted Hill’s accusations."

A few hours earlier, as it so happens, Graham was complaining that Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan was responding to Trump's collaboration with Breitbart News to bring out various Clinton accusers by calling it part of the "truth-averse" nature of Trump's campaign. Graham huffed:

This is how liberals dismiss these accusers. "Someone granted you an interview on TV, the rest of us ignored it or called you trailer trash, and now you're yesterday's news." That's called "settled, in one way or another," in the kangaroo court of the liberal media. The media don't believe in justice or dignity when the accused is Bill Clinton. It's "hate theater" to even make us think about what they've suffered.

Yet that's the exact same way Graham treats Hill. Apparently, it's OK to denigrate a victim if the person being accused of being the victimizer is conservative.

Furthering the double standard, Graham says nothing about the, ahem, evolving stories the alleged Clinton victims have told. Juanita Broaddrick, if you'll recall, testified in a sworn affidavit that Clinton did not assault her -- completely opposite to what she's claiming now.

And Kathy Shelton -- who was allegedly sexually assaulted by a man Hillary Clinton represented as a defense lawyer but who got off with a light sentence after irregularities in the case surfaced -- is claiming Clinton forced her to undergo a psychiatric examination the court record shows never took place.

Funny how only Anita Hill's story gets challenged by the MRC. But then, her story doesn't advance the MRC's agenda.

MRC's War on Fact-Checking Continues
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center remains as anti-fact as ever. Witness Curtis Houck's whining about fact-checking after the Oct. 9 presidential debate:

NewsBusters has documented extensively over the past year Politifact's blatant bias and selective fact-checking of liberals, but the divide kicked into high gear on Sunday night in the second presidential debate as, using previous posts, it examined only six statements by Democrat Hillary Clinton versus 15 statements by Republican Donald Trump.

Not surprisingly, Politifact ruled that, of the five Clinton statements, all five were either “true,” “mostly true” or “half true” with a sixth about coal and her energy policy given no review but instead directed readers to a post about her thoughts on coal “in context.”

As for Trump, they looked at 15 claims and deemed one “full flop,” seven “false” or “mostly false” (with a ninth all but labeled so), one “half true,” two “mostly true,” one “true,” and two not given a ruling.

[...]

Diligent readers would notice that there was nothing examined about what Clinton said concerning her e-mail scandal, Wall Street speeches, or Trump supporters being a “basket of deplorables,” but then again, this is Politifact we’re dealing with.

Moving to Trump, the litany of statement Politifact sprinted to debunk was, to say the least, long and extensive. 

Diligent readers will also notice that Houck never does his own fact-checking of Clinton in order to prove PolitiFact wrong -- he simply rattles off a list of right-wing talking points. He's also pushing the claim that Clinton lied just as much as Trump during the debate -- which is simply not true. As the Washington Post noted, Clinton "on occasion made a factual misstep, but it didn’t even compare to Trump’s long list of exaggerations."

Yet Houck concludes his post by insisting he's not trying to draw false equivalence:

One can make the argument that Trump may say more things that are factually inaccurate, but a fact-checking site claiming to be dedicated to holding both sites accountable proved on Sunday night that they are either incapable of doing so or don’t care to.

Houck still doesn't want to concede that Trump tells significantly more falsehoods than Clinton does. When one side tells more falsehoods than the other, the record must reflect that. Houck insists that PolitiFact should be "holding both sites accountable," but in pointing out that Trump lies more, it's actually reflecting the record. Houck doesn't want to admit that -- or even the basic, indisputable premise that Trump does, indeed, tell more falsehoods. He must defend Trump, after all.

The MRC's war on fact-checkers continued with  Tom Blumer ranting about debate fact-checks that were too pedantic for his taste and stuck with facts rather than spinning things for Trump.

Blumer concludes by stating: "We can expect more 'Stupid Fact Checks' to appear on a nearly daily basis between now and Election Day. To echo the press's disingenuous whine, we can expect them to occur so quickly that no one can possibly keep up with all of them. " Of course, to Blumer, any fact-check that points out how much of a liar Trump is is, by definition, "stupid."

MRC Pretends Trump Didn't Actually Threaten to Jail Hillary
Topic: Media Research Center

Donald Trump made a highly problematic statement during Sunday night's presidential debate, asserting that if elected he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton's emails (despite the fact they have already been investigated). When Clinton noted that it's "awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law of our country," Trump retorted, "Because you'd be in jail."

To most observers, that looked like a plan for malicious prosecution and jailing of a political opponent, something usually seen in countries with authoritarian dictatorships. Which means the Media Research Center had to work extra hard to spin that away.

Nicholas Fondacaro went first, complaining that CNN 's Wolf Blitzer "falsely" said that Trump is "going to put her in jail if he’s elected president of the United States," even though it's not an unfair reading of Trump's words. Fondacaro tried to spin even more pedantically:

CNN’s Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger described Trump’s comment as Nixonian and falsely quoted Trump as saying ""I’d put her in jail."" Borger also took exception with Trump calling Clinton a liar and claimed that he called Clinton “the devil multiple times,” even though he only called her the devil once. Borger and the panel went on to argue that these statements about Clinton are turning Trump off to voters, even though people don’t think she’s trust worthy. 

Clay Waters followed by ranting in an Oct. 11 post that the New York Times "went way overboard fear-mongering over a quip Donald Trump made to Hillary Clinton during their debate Sunday night in “Pledge to Put Clinton in Jail Gets Experts Thinking of ‘Tin-Pot Dictators.’” Waters groused: " the media (and some Republicans as well as Democrats) aggressively misrepresented it to liken Trump to a dictator. One wonders where this concern about careful rhetoric and the rule of law was when the left howled for war crimes tribunals for President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney."

Waters then dismissed Trump's "jail" threat as merely "a throwaway line at a debate," then turned to right-wing writer Noth Rothman who insisted that Trump's threat was a "quip" that "was pretty unremarkable."

MRC, As Expected, Bashes 'Pushy' Debate Moderators
Topic: Media Research Center

It was all but guaranteed that the Media Research Center would not like the performance of the moderators at Sunday's presidential debate, because they do not work for Fox News. And so, the MRC commenced with the grim task of denouncing ABC's Martha Raddatz and CNN's Anderson Cooper.

Scott Whitlock kicked things off by going a little sexist, calling Raddatz "pushy" in the headline of his post-debate item. He complained that "Raddatz frequently interrupted Donald Trump and sparred with the businessman over media bias and fairness during Sunday’s debate.

In his friendly Fox Business appearance in which he also joined Trump in the mud, MRC chief Brent Bozell huffed of Raddatz: "She showed utter contempt for Donald Trump on a national stage. She dismissed his answers. She even argued with him about his answers. She actually entered into the debate Candy Crowley-style. So I don't blame Donald Trump at all for saying it was a one-on-three debate." Bozell didn't explain why a man who talked in such a vile manner about women that even Bozell himself conceded was "disgusting" did not deserved to be treated with the "utter contempt" he claims Raddatz showed him.

While this utterly predictable right-wing bashing of Raddatz was going on, the MRC's Kyle Drennen was unironically complaining that "the liberal media predictably celebrated the moderator’s biased performance."

Rich Noyes followed his boss to Fox Business for a softball appearance, where he similarly complained about Raddatz and Cooper: "Yeah, it was about 2-1. You know, about 20-something interruptions, you know some of those might be multiple interactions, to fewer than a dozen for Hillary Clinton. But it was more than interruptions. You know, they were challenging Donald Trump. They were pressing him in a very adversarial way. They asked her tough questions but not in that challenging adversarial way." He also expressed his anger at Cooper for pushing Trump to answer questions about the vile video: "Anderson Cooper's questions at the beginning of the debate about this inside-- Access Hollywood tape where he pressed him over and over and over again to get the answer he wanted."

Yes, how dare Cooper press Trump to answer a question about something Noyes would be praising Cooper for doing were the subject not a Republican.

Remember: The main goal of the MRC's criticism of debate moderators is not to advance the cause of journalism but to advance the agenda of the Republican Party -- no matter how vile the Republican presidential candidate is. That's why, as the Daily Beast's John Avlon memorably explained to the MRC's Tim Graham (in such a direct manner that the MRC won't let its readers sees it), the MRC has no credibility on such things.

MRC Joins Trump In The Mud: Handwaves Vile Remarks, Brings In The Clintons
Topic: Media Research Center

Like WorldNetDaily, the Trump supporters at the Media Research Center were loath to to acknowledge Donald Trump's taped vile misogyny. NewsBusters, which surrently serves as the front door to much of the MRC's content, didn't acknowledge it until more than a day after the remarks were made public -- and then only in a post by Matthew Balan complaining that "purported excerpts from some of Hillary Clinton's speeches to corporate audiences" didn't get as much news coverage.

And on cue, Rich Noyes trotted out an article complaining that "ABC, CBS and NBC offered relentless coverage of the just-disclosed audio of Donald Trump in 2005 talking about his attempted sexual conquests" while there was comparitively scant coverage of Clinton's "hacked e-mails" with the purported speech excerpts. Noyes didn't explain why he thought the two vastly different stories deserved the exact same amount of media coverage, but he did have a snazzy bar graph:

Then, Jack Coleman previewed the MRC's defense for Trump -- the Clinton Equivocation -- in a post criticizing NBO's Bill Maher for being vulgar about Trump's vulgar remarks:

That really happened -- the guy who was president grabbing them by the p****?! That it did -- and his name was Bill Clinton. By bizarre coincidence, he's married to the Democrats' nominee for president, Trump's opponent. And it was Hillary Clinton who led the pushback to destroy the reputations of women who accused her husband of grabbing them wherever and whenever the impulse seized him. One of the women was named Monica Lewinsky and she now devotes her life to a crusade against bullying. And back in the '90s, it was the Clintons and their hacks who bullied her the worst.

Curtis Houck tried to muddy the issue with the patented MRC "The liberal media reported on X but completely ignored [thing the MRC wants covered to advance its partisan agenda]" in a post complaining about the lack of coverage of some obscure Clinton campaign aide tweeting an F-bomb at Trump. Curiously, Houck censored all mention of the fact that said obscure aide apologized for his "inappropriate" language shortly afterwards.

But leave it to MRC chief Brent Bozell to simultaneously join Trump in the gutter and go on a conspiracy theory tear. In another friendly appearance on Fox Business, Bozell rants about the excess of coverage of Trump's remarks by echoing Trump and going there on 20-year-old tales about Bioll Clinton's sex life:

BOZELL: If you're going to object, let's object this way. We did a little bit of analysis, and what is more important: whatever Donald Trump said, which is disgusting, or the allegation, the eminently believable allegation, that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick and Hillary Clinton subsequently threatened Juanita Broaddrick?

You cannot argue Donald Trump is more important, yet in 17 years, you did not get as much coverage of Juanita Broaddrick as you got on Donald Trump in 48 hours. Here's another one, here's another number -- you're going to like this one. 103 minutes given about Donald Trump this weekend. How much time was given to Paula Jones when she filed a lawsuit that said that the President of the United States took his pants down in front of her and told her to kiss it? 103 minutes on Donald Trump, 16 seconds, Paula Jones. 

That little tidbit came from the end of Noyes' comparative-coverage item. The Jones coverage Bozell and Noyes is from February 1994 -- 22 years ago, making this the ultimate apples-and-oranges comparison. Tim Graham helpfully repeats the complaint in a post issued after Bozell's appearance, in which he also touches on his longtime obsession with potraying Anita Hill as a liar about Clarence Thomas and that she made her accusations only to advance her career: "Why was there no outburst of outrage [about Jones in 1994] from the same media which made the unsubstantiated Anita Hill a heroine in 1991 and turned sexual harassment into a grave political sin?"

The conspiracy theory came when Bozell asserted that NBC was sitting on the Trump tape to damage Trump just before the election:

BOZELL: It's an insult to the intelligence to suggest that they just found this. This is October surprise time, and this won't be last one. There will be more that will come out of it, and for them to say they just came across this when this has been in the record, when they've had access to it since the very beginning, really is an insulting statement. No, they've had it, they did it deliberately, the timing was deliberate, and this is -- by the way, I expected this, this was going to happen, and more will come out.

Bozell doesn't mention that, as the Washington Post explained, NBC's entertainment division, producer of "Access Hollywood," the show where Trump's remarks were uncovered, is separate from its news division. While NBC hasn't said when its news division first found out about the Trump clip, the news division did say it was in the midst of vetting the clip when a tipster alerted a Post reporter to its existence, which then forced NBC to release it.

Bozell's reference of more vulgar things from Trump to come out is an apparent reference to more off-color things Trump has allegedly said in outtakes from the NBC show "The Apprentice." But NBC doesn't own the rights to the show, which was produced by prolific reality TV producer Mark Burnett. He's married to Roma Downey, bets know for her acting role on conservative-fave show "Touched By an Angel," and they run a production company that specializes in religious-themed films. The MRC has defended Burnett and Downey and even touted the religious background of the actor who played Jesus in one Burnett-Downey production.

Variety reports that Burnett has been curiously silent about Trump throughout the campaign and notes that standard employment contracts for his shows include a $5 million fine for leaking material about them.

So, no, there does not appear to be a NBC-led conspiracy to destroy Trump. That won't keep Bozell from continuing to claim there is, however.

To The Lazy MRC, Rob Reiner Will Always Be 'Meathead'
Topic: Media Research Center

Rob Reiner has done a lot of things in the nearly 40 years since his acting stint on "All In the Family" -- namely, being the director of popular and acclaimed films -- but that doesn't matter to the Media Research Center. It's much easier for them to go for the cheap, lazy insult and call him "Meathead" every time he say something they don't like.

The latest to lazily insult Reiner is Callista Ring, who complains that Reiner accurately notes that there's a "serious strain of racism" that runs through the followers ot Donald Trump. Her headline references "Meathead Rob Reiner" and and huffs, "Like Hillary Clinton, Rob Reiner would toss an awful lot of Americans into a 'basket of deplorables.' Or in Meathead’s case a bunker of Archies."

Ring doesn't really bother to disprove Reiner, instead whining that Reiner was "reeking of liberal elitism" and writing things like "What a surprise, another liberal accusing people of racism simply for not agreeing with him."

That's kneejerk right-wing ranting that's just as lazy as insisting on calling Reiner by the name a character he hasn't played in 40 years.

MRC Research Too Thin to To A Proper Ref-Working on VP Debate Moderator
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center really wanted to do some serious ref-working on CBS' Elaine Quijano before the Oct. 4 vice presidential debate. When she was chosen as debate moderator, Tim Graham admitted that "the MRC doesn't have a thick file" on her; evidence of that lack of thickness was Graham trying to present as "classic anti-Tea Party tilt" a Quijano report that noted the indisuputable fact that there was "small but passionate minority" in the tea party movement that was "voicing what some see as racist rhetoric."

So bereft of material was the MRC that Graham had to resort to guilt by association, using a Sept. 29 post to attack Quijano because the husband of a CBSco-worker of Quijano's was prepping Tim Kaine for the debate. But even Graham had to concede that there was no there there, admitting that "There is no allegation of suspicious coordination between Quijano and the Barnett-Braver household. But the perception of what Dan Rather would call 'tick-tight' CBS associations creates a perception problem."

Funny, we don't recall Graham being concerned about the "perception problem" when Fox News' Greta Van Susteren had a husband who was working as Sarah Palin's lawyer.

After the debate, of course, MRC chief Brent Bozell trotted out yet another "the moderator is biased" press release that he probably drafted before the debate even began:

Elaine Quijano is given the honor of a lifetime and she can only muster one tough question for Sen. Tim Kaine, the Democrat? Miraculously, she was able to craft EIGHT challenging questions to Gov. Pike Pence, the Republican.

Once again, it's one standard for the Democrat, a different one for the Republican. This is a broken record. Softballs for Democrats, curve balls for Republicans.

Did no one inform Elaine Quijano that the role of a moderator is to ask questions and take a step back while the candidates DEBATE? Quijano and Virginia’s over-caffeinated senator repeatedly challenged and interrupted Gov. Pence. By the looks of it, he didn't mind the 2-1 disadvantage.

When are Republicans going to learn that the network media are just Democratic Party operatives with press credentials?

The idea that debate moderators should not correct false claims during a debate  is part of the MRC's war against facts, a tactic made necessary because Trump seemingly lies all the time.

Somebody should tell Bozell that partisan ranting is not "media research." (Oh, wait, somebody did, but the MRC censored it.)

Meanwhile, rest assured that the MRC is working the refs for the next debate: it has a new article up on "the worst examples" of the "liberal bias" of the next debate moderators, ABC's Martha Raddatz and CNN's Anderson Cooper.

MRC Complains That Yet Another Historic Event Is Described As Historic
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center continues to be mad that historic events are called historic in the media. Kyle Drennen grouses in a Sept. 22 post:

On Thursday’s NBC Today, co-host Matt Lauer proudly announced that the network had received an Emmy award for its biased coverage of the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling legalizing gay marriage across the country. Lauer told viewers: “By the way, the News and Documentary Emmy awards were held last night and NBC News and MSNBC picked up this one for our live coverage of the Supreme Court's landmark decision on same-sex marriage.”

He continued: “As always, we are very proud of the people who work here and the efforts that they put forward on a daily basis.” Co-host Savannah Guthrie chimed in: “Proud of the whole team.”

Lauer, Guthrie, as well as correspondents Chuck Todd, Peter Alexander, and Pete Williams were all named in the presentation of the award for “Outstanding Live Coverage of a Current News Story - Long Form.” In addition, MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts and legal correspondent Ari Melber were included for the cable channel’s reporting.

During a live NBC News special report on the day of the court decision – June 26, 2013 – the Today hosts, along with Todd, celebrated the ruling as one that “has potential to go down in the record books...[with] the significance of something like Brown versus Board of Education.” Later in that same one-sided coverage, Alexander gushed that the outcome of the case was “very personally satisfying” for President Obama.

That kind of liberal cheerleading helped guarantee the network’s Emmy win.

How, exactly, is it "liberal cheerleading" to acknowledge the historic nature of the same-sex marriage ruling or note that Obama supported the ruling? Or how that supposedly garnered NBC the Emmy? Drennen doesn't explain -- he's just speculating and imposing his own right-wing bias on news he doesn't like.

NEW ARTICLE: Working the Refs, MRC Style
Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is lobbying debate and forum moderators to get them to take it easy on Donald Trump -- and it complains that others are doing the same thing (with seemingly more success). Read more >>

MRC Excuses Trump's Misogyny By Invoking Clinton Equivocation
Topic: Media Research Center

Funny how the Media Research Center's defense of Donald Trump has little to do with actually defending him. Rather, it invokes the Clinton Equivocation -- the right-wing idea that Trump and other conservatives get a pass for a given offense because a Clinton is presumed to have done it first and worse.

The MRC does this again in a Sept. 30 post in which Sarah Stites gives Trump's long record of misogyny a pass because Clinton:

Sleazy and misogynistic men have roamed the halls of the Capitol Building and White House for years. However, the media tend to disproportionately target those on the political right.

Following Monday’s debate, the media went wild attacking Donald Trump for his fat-shaming of former Miss Universe Alicia Machado, devoting nearly 20 minutes to the scandal. In order to brand him a complete cad, some outlets went further, unearthing other damning examples from his past. Yet, although Trump has earned this evisceration, it’s clear to see that the media has often given a pass to worse behavior displayed by liberals or at least avoided noting their party affiliation.

In the following slides, you’ll find some of those liberal lions that the media has downplayed – from JFK to Bill Clinton to Anthony Weiner.  

Stites not only gives Bill Clinton's "scandalous sexual past" its own entry, he gets dinged again in a separate entry for officiating at Anthony Weiner's wedding.

MRC Censors Tim Graham Getting Schooled on CNN
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's Nicholas Fondacaro sure does what he can to make his boss, Tim Graham, look good in in writing about his appearance on the Oct. 2 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:

The Media Research Center’s Tim Graham appeared on CNN’s Reliable Sources Sunday to discuss The New York Times’ recent article featuring leaked information about Donald Trump’s taxes. Even though the information is striking, Graham took issue with the Times’ motives for writing the way they did, “They have the anonymous tax expert on the front page of the paper today say he benefited from his vast destruction, like he was Hurricane Donald.”

“This paper has all the restraint of a pack of flesh of eating zombies,” Graham joked, “The idea that anyone would take them seriously when they’ve announced on the front page that their job is to take him down, when they’ve done repeated editorials about how he needs to be defeated.”

Host Brian Stelter tried to claim that there was no connection between the Times’ editorial board and their newsroom. He backed up his claim by ridiculously pointing out that the departments are on different floors. “Having worked there in the past, the editorial page is produced way upstairs; the newsroom is downstairs,” Stelter argued.

Graham also point out how the network news outlets, parroted the Clinton Campaign, by glorifying the development as a “bombshell,” while not running with news damaging to Clinton:

[...]

Stelter tried to paint Graham’s position as being against anonymous sources as a way of getting critical information to the public. “Anonymous sources are for important information, when you have information, you cannot get any other way,” Graham explained, “What we see too often in political and news media today… is you use anonymous sources to say incredibly nasty things.” He went on to elaborate saying, “Often from political consultants who have clients they’re trying to be friends of, like, “I cannot say nasty things about other Republicans because they may hire me later this year.””

The two also spared over presidential debate moderator Lester Holt, with Stelter criticizing Trump’s disapproval of Holt’s biased approach. “Obviously the whole news media sent before the debate telling Lester, “Truth squad Trump. Truth squad Trump.” No truth squad Hillary,” Graham countered. Stelter claimed that the called were for the moderator to fact-check both candidates.

But the Sunday before the debate Stelter was arguing that Trump “require[s] a different kind of moderator.” Plus, Stelter seemed to back up Univision’s Jorge Ramos’ personal crusade against the GOP candidate, while he went after Associated Press reporters who examined Clinton’s calendars. Ironically, later on in the show, the Washington Post’s Margaret Sullivan said she believes there is a “way of thinking that many members of the media share” and that it creeps into their content. 

What you don't see in Fondacaro's writeup -- and he only appears briefly in the edited transcript of the segment -- is the other person appearing in the discussion with Stelter and Graham, the Daily Beast's John Avlon. The video clip accompanying Fondacaro's post is even more censored, using less than a minute from the pair of segments on "Reliable Sources" Graham took part in, which lasted more than 13 minutes.

Why? Because Avlon pretty much mopped the floor with Graham, sharply countering his kneejerk right-wing ranting about the "liberal media" with a dose of reality. And the MRC doesn't want you to know that.

In the first segment discussing the Times article, Fondacaro omits the fact that Graham's claim that the person in the Times articlewho said Trump "benefited from his vast destruction" was anonymous is false. In fact, that quote is on the record, attributed to Joel Rosenfeld, an assistant professor at New York University’s Schack Institute of Real Estate. When Stelter noted he couldn't find the anonymous quote Graham claims in the Times article, Graham continued to insist it was there.

When Avlon pointed out that the Times article is solidly backed up, which is "uncomfortable for people with partisan agendas," Graham huffed, "Oh, and you don't have one, John? You're about as Republican as Lester Holt. To come on here and say you're not ideological? Nobody buys that." Avlon pointed out he's "not a right-wing ideologue who profits from polarization."

Also omitted is Graham's petulant response to Avlon's claim that right-wing attacks on the well-sourced Times story are just "pure partisan spin": "The New York Times is pure partisan spin! ... This newspaper is trying to intimidate Trump into releaseing his tax returns." When Avlon pointed out that Trump has flip-flopped on releasing taxes, Graham played the Clinton Equivocation: "Oh, and Hillary Clinton have never violated a standard?" After more ranting from Graham about how "everybody's out to destroy Trump," Avlon retorted, "When did conservative start loving to play the victim so much? When did that happen?"

Another large chunk of the CNN discussion censored from Fondacaro's article is Avlon's response to Graham's rehearsed attack line on Holt (which curiously appears only in the transcript) that "If Lester Holt was referencing a football game, he would have gotten thrown out of the stadium" and his weird assertion that "the whole assumption of liberal media is Hillary somehow never lies."

The transcript cuts off before Graham falsely claims that "everybody cites PolitiFact and says Hillary never lies," then, as the full video shows, goes back to the '90s to claim Hillary Clinton lied about not knowing about her husband's affair with Monica Lewinsky. Avlon pointed out that Hillary's trustworthiness levels are low "in part because for 25 years she's been demonized by partisan media. And so it comes back to partisan media and the role it plays." Avlon added: "And those of you on the side of partisan media who say that the impicit bias of mainstream over the years can only be corrected by explicit bias, well, you carried the day for a while, but now people are hip to your tricks, and it's a fundamental problem that's undercutting trust in media, journalism and democracy writ large."

Graham, as he is wont to do, responds by mocking and sneering, only to get smacked down by Avlon again:

GRAHAM: Nobody buys this whole pretense that somehow John Avlon and the Daily Beast are the soul of objective media coverage when you sat in a studio and you all made fun of Dick Cheney's heart trouble and what wouldn't take his heart in a transplant --

AVLON: Go back and look at your own clip, because while you're exquisitely sensitive about things when there's perceived slights, you'll see actually I defended Cheney in --

GRAHAM: That's a perceived slight?

AVLON: -- the clip you're referring to, which is ancient history, but I'm happy to engage in it. Look, the bottom line is you guys have a real credibility problem, and there's a need for a place for you to call out whatever explicit and implicit bias exists on the left. But you sacrifice your real credibilty because you're only going to focus on one side of the problem, and that perpetuates the polarization. We try to be nonpartisan, we're not neutral at the Daily Beast --

GRAHAM: This is a show in which we're all focusing on Trump.

AVLON -- and what that means we will hit the left or the right as the facts indicate. We will report without fear or favor --

GRAHAM: The Daily Beast does not do that.

AVLON: -- and you have explicit favor -- your donors and your ideological agenda from day one, and that's why your credibility fails.

In short, Avlon outlined everything that's wrong with the MRC. Graham doesn't want to have to defend that on his own website, so he made sure the discussion never appears there.

MRC Mad At Samantha Bee For Making The Exact Same Anti-Trump Argument It Used To Make
Topic: Media Research Center

In a Sept. 20 post, the Media Research Center's Nicholas Fondacaro complains that "Full Frontal" host Samantha Bee "lashed out at NBC" for giving airtime for Donald Trump for years: "She claimed that by letting him on the air, 'NBC tacitly condoned a race-baiting demagogue.' Bee slammed NBC for allowing Trump to appear on their comedy shows, and insisted it was, 'because ratings matter more than brown people.' 'Sure, he's making life palpably dangerous for Muslims and immigrants, but hey! He's good entertainment,' she continued."

If that argument sounds familiar, it should: The MRC was saying the exact same thing just a few months ago.

The MRC's Sam Dorman was similarly lashing out at NBC for letting Trump appear on its airwaves in a post from May:

Donald Trump’s rise as a presidential candidate has prompted many political observers to blame TV outlets for giving him historic amounts of free air time. While it’s true the media have overwhelmingly focused on Trump in their coverage during the current election cycle, there is another media phenomenon at play. NBC has spent more than a decade building his brand as a successful businessman of almost mythic proportion.

The network’s coverage of Trump was overwhelmingly and consistently positive. MRC Business found only 15 stories (out of 335) on Trump’s business failures, and 320 stories promoting him as a businessman, his businesses and his shows. The vast majority of stories were about the network’s show The Apprentice, which featured Trump.

During the period of 2004-2015, NBC had two partnerships with The Donald -- his hit reality TV show and Miss Universe, which also included Miss USA and Miss Teen USA. NBC News’s Today served as a de facto PR machine for The Apprentice and its star. Today anchors interviewed fired contestants, presented Trump as “the ultimate businessman,” and even “fired” NBC interns on a mock Apprentice called The Intern. Today also made Trump into a career savior after his “divine intervention,” as host Matt Lauer put it, allowed a scandal-plagued Miss USA to retain her crown.

NBC’s relationship with Trump was mutually beneficial, and fraught with ethical problems. Even when the network covered The Donald’s business shortcomings, NBC failed to disclose its business partnerships with him. NBC also outright advertised (complete with prices) his and his daughter Ivanka’s businesses, and engaged in activities that jeopardized its credibility as an impartial news organization. For example, NBC donated more than $500,000 to Trump’s foundation, and filmed episodes of Today from Trump venues.

The MRC gave this the full "special report" treatment, complete with an "executive summary" (which Dorman's post repeats) and a high-minded recommendation that NBC "disclose its previous contractual relationships with him and be transparent about its ethical processes and choices in covering him."

How does the MRC's bashing of NBC's buildup of Trump differ from Bee's critique of it? Nowhere that we can see -- other than a certain flip-flop that means it's now official MRC policy not to criticize anything directly related to Trump.

MRC Falsely Claims GOP Didn't Speak to White Supremacist Group
Topic: Media Research Center

Media Research Center researcher Brad Wilmouth has turned into quite the Donald Trump toady. We just caught him through the conservative Cato Institute under the bus to protect Trump.

In a Sept. 21 post, Wilmouth is offended that CNN guest and college professor Jason Johnson asserted that Trump "continually associates himself with terrorist organizations like the Klan," complaining that "Johnson has a history of making incendiary accusations of racism." Johnson's claim about a Trump-KKK link was overstated but not without basis, so Wilmouth has something of a point.

But Wilmouth tried to go further, asserting that in a TV appearance earlier in the hear, Johnson "repeated a discredited claim that Louisiana Republican Rep. Steve Scalise spoke to a white supremacist group in Louisiana in 2002." Wilmouth links to one of his own posts on the subject from February that offers this defense for Scalise:

The story about Rep. Scalise speaking to a racist group originated in December 2014 with a liberal blogger who claimed that the Louisiana Republican spoke at a convention for the European-American Unity and Rights Organization -- founded by white supremacist and former KKK leader David Duke -- in the congressman's home state in 2002.

Even though the man who booked hotel space for the convention, Kenny Knight, has claimed the event Rep. Scalise spoke to was a separate event for his local community group which he held in the same hotel to take advantage of the available space, while a flyer for the convention shows no sign that Scalise was one of the scheduled speakers, the CNN guest still tried to use the story to connect Republicans to the KKK.

Wilmouth seems to have missed the fact that more than a year earlier, Scalise issued an apology for speaking to Duke's organization.

So Johnson's claim is not "discredited," and Wilmouth's defense of Scalise is dishonest and ignores the relevant fact that Scalise apologized for it, and he repeats his false defense in order to dishonestly bash a Trump critic.

That's "media research" these days at the MRC.

NEW ARTICLE: The MRC's War on Jorge Ramos
Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center wants the Univision anchorman to lose his job for committing the offense of being critical of Donald Trump. Read more >>

MRC Throws Right-Wing Think Tank Under the Bus to Defend Trump
Topic: Media Research Center

How important is it to the Media Research Center that Donald Trump get elected president? It's even throwing its fellow conservatives under the bus.

In a Sept. 20 post, the MRC's Brad Wilmouth wrote about the tweet by Donald Trump Jr. in which he "analogized accepting Syrian refugees, some of whom might be terrorist infiltrators, to eating from a bowl of Skittles in which a few pieces of the candy are poisoned." After first complaining that CNN's Chris Cuomo called Trump Jr. for dehumanizing refugees by using the analogy, Wilmouth then attacked the conservative Cato Institute, which coincidentally the week before released data pointing out that  the actual chance of American being killed in a terrorist attack perpetrated by a refugee is one in 3.64 billion per year. Wilmouth was having none of that factual undermining of Trump's anti-immigration agenda, insistsing that Cato used the wrong data:

Although it is true that Trump Jr.'s bowl full of Skittles analogy greatly inflates the numbers on what proportion of refugees are likely to be terrorist infiltrators, the CATO Institute numbers cited by Bump are themselves very misleading in trying to make the likelihood of violent problems seem very tiny.

Instead of trying to estimate how many acts of mass violence in public places might be perpetrated by a small number of terrorist infiltrators, the study focused on the odds that an individual person would die from being killed by a refugee, finding the chances to be less than one out of three billion.

[...]

The CATO study -- which examines refugees who entered the country between 1975 and 2015 -- found 20 refugees out of more than three million who turned out to be terrorists. The study did not address whether refugees from a particular region like Syria where the U.S. is in an active war with an enemy that is known for utilizing terrorist attacks in public places night manage to be infiltrated by a larger number of a more determined enemy, with the study leaning on refugees from the past who no doubt came from various regions.

The study also did not address the blatant difference between terrorists killing 10 or 50 or 100 people in a public place, drawing attention and having impact beyond those directly involved, versus the same number of people being killed spread out one a day in completely separate individual crime incidents. Terrorist attacks in public places deserve their own category of analysis because their impact is so much greater.

In other words, Wilmouth wants the data massaged to make the threat from refugees look bigger, even if it's not as big as Trump Jr.'s fraudulent Skittles analogy claims.

Wilmouth didn't mention that Alex Nowrasteh, the author of the Cato paper, explained the reasoning behind his study:

First, last weekend’s terrorists didn’t kill anyone in their attacks. During the time period I studied, 74 percent of all foreign-born terrorists did not murder anyone. We should be grateful that they are so incompetent.

Second, [Minnesota mall shooter Dahir] Adan was a two-year old child when he immigrated with his parents, long before he could harbor the desire to become a terrorist. That’s similar to the case of Shain Duka, Britan Duka and Eljvir Duka, all ethnic Albanians from Macedonia who illegally crossed the Mexican border as young children with their parents in 1984.

The Dukas were three of ten illegal immigrant terrorists in my report and the only three to have crossed the border with Mexico illegally. They were the three conspirators in the planned Fort Dix plot that was foiled by the FBI in 2007. Like Adan and possibly Rahami, they became terrorists at some point after immigrating here and nobody was killed in their failed attacks.

[...]

The U.S. government should devote resources to screening immigrants for the purpose of excluding terrorists. Foreign-born terrorists could become deadlier in the future but we should plan for the world we have and react to challenges when they arise rather than exaggerate hazards—especially when such exaggeration comes at a huge cost. The terrorist attacks in New York and Minnesota, which mercifully resulted in no deaths, fit the pattern of incompetent foreign-born lone wolves. Hopefully, Cato’s new report will put the danger from foreign-born terrorism into perspective in the wake of these two failed attacks.

Nowrasteh adds: "Foreign-born terrorists could become deadlier in the future but we should plan for the world we have and react to challenges when they arise rather than exaggerate hazards—especially when such exaggeration comes at a huge cost." But exaggerating hazards is Job 1 at the MRC, especially when the goal is getting Trump elected president -- and it will throw former allies like Cato under the bus to do it.