Bozell Defends Trump With Hot-Take Rants About Susan Rice
Topic: Media Research Center

Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell hasn't said a word about the Bill O'Reilly sexual harrassment scandal -- in fact, nobody at the MRC has beyond Randy Hall obliquely complaining about CNN's "obsessive Bill O'Reilly coverage," and Bozell certainly does not want to put his TV hits on Fox in jeopardy by mentioning it -- but he has suddenly become a veritable hot-take machine on the subject of former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice and the unmasking of .

Bozell issued a statement asserting that Rice engaged in "politically-motivated unmasking of Trump associates"-- never mind the fact that Bozell does not and cannot know, at this point, whether Rice's actions were " politically-motivated."

Bozell went on to rant: "We have a smoking gun that points to criminal activity by President Obama’s national security advisor and the media have shown an utter lack of interest in pursuing the story. If this story is not a top priority for every news outlet, they are aiding and abetting a cover-up. President Trump has every right to be furious with the press and the American people have every reason to be disgusted."

Bozell, meanwhile, doesn't want to talk about the "smoking gun" that is the $13 million in settlements O'Reilly and Fox News have paid to settle sexual harrassment complaints.

Bozell then ran to Fox News' sister network Fox Business (of course) to assert that "CNN has been on a jihad" against outlets that report on Rice, insisting that Rice was engaged in "parsing of words" by claiming that she did not unmask for political reasons.Bozell then whined that "there have been non-stop, countless, innumerable stories done about these allegations of a Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians. Not one single piece of evidence has come up to point to that allegation." He didn't mention that his own "news" outlet, CNSNews.com, has been desperate to spin away the Trump-Russia connection.

In a separate Fox Business appearance, Bozell was still ranting about Rice, this time invoking the tired right-wing Benghazi warhorse: "This is the same Susan Rice who went on five national news shows after Benghazi and lied and blamed it on a video and yet you have got Andrea Mitchell reporting her spin on it that this was the latest of a Trump administration series of attacks." In fact, the House report on Benghazi found that Rice was following White House talking points about the video, which were based on an editing error by the CIA, and that she was not deliberately lying.

Bozell also invoked his persecution narrative, insisting that the media "want [Trump] out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. So they're keeping a story alive that has absolutely no legs."

Bozell and Tim Graham's April 5 column rehashes all this hot-take spin -- calling her a "liar" on Benghazi, baselessly suggesting she leaked the unmasked names. They then laughably complain: "The media don't care first about "facts." They care first about liberal victory. Their hope now is to remove Trump from office. Keep that in mind when they speak."

Pretty rich coming from a couple of guys who didn't care about facts when applied to Trump and cared only about a Trump win and protecting Trump from his words and actions. Keep that in mind when Bozell and Graham speak. 

MRC Hides Conflict of Interest in Promoting Right-Wing Columnist's Crusade
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center has apparently signed onto a crusade by right-wing columnist Michelle Malkin to free Daniel Holtzclaw, an Oklahoma police officer convicted on multiple counts of rape and other sexual offenses.

A March 2 MRC post by Matt Philbin touted Malkin's investigation and how Rick Newcombe, head of Creators Syndicate, which syndicates Malkin's column, is calling for ABC's "20/20," which did a report on the Holtzclaw case last year, to do another report based on Malkin's investigation aimed at clearing Holtzclaw. The MRC's NewsBusters site also published Malkin columns on her investigation, including a March 22 column smearing the attorney for several of Holtzclaw's accusers, Benjamin Crump, as "the new Al Sharpton on steroids."

That nastiness is a red flag that Malkin is hardly a objective reporter and has an agenda to push.

The MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, has  joined the bandwagon as well, publishing a March 27 column by Newcombe promoting the work of "firebrand conservative columnist" Malkin on the case, which also quotes from Philbin's MRC post and includes family photos of Holtzclaw and a shot of Malkin with Holtzclaw family members (another sign that Malkin is not objective here).CNS also published Malkin's smear column on Crump, as well as Malkin's weekly column, in which she has promoted her investigation of the Holtzclaw case.

Which brings us to the question of conflict of interest. 

The MRC has a business arrangement with Newcombe and Creators Syndicate, and not just paying him for the privilege of running Malkin's column. Creators also syndicates the twice-weekly column by MRC bigwigs Brent Bozell and Tim Graham -- a fact not mentioned by Philbin or in CNS' publication of Newcombe's column.

Further, as we documented, when  it was revealed in 2014 that Bozell's columns (for which he was receiving sole credit) were actually ghostwritten by Graham, Newcombe ran to Bozell's defense insisting that "it is absolutely false to say that Brent Bozell does not write his column," adding that "I remember years ago when Brent suggested that he share the byline for his column with Tim, and I said it would be better for us to promote a single individual." After that imbroglio -- about which neither Bozell nor Graham has spoken publicly -- Graham got to share a byline with Bozell, but he was never given retroactive credit for the decade-plus of columns he wrote before that.

This suggests that the MRC has latched onto the Holtzclaw case less because of news value and more as a favor to a company it's doing business with.

MRC's Jeffrey Lord: Words Matter! (When They Might Make Trump Look Bad, That Is)
Topic: Media Research Center

Trump sycophant Jeffrey Lord writes in his March 18 Media Research Center column:

Words matter.

Fact: The administration of President Barack Obama surveilled the campaign associates of the President’s political opponent, Donald Trump. Then the classified information gained was leaked to the press - repeatedly. All of which furthered a liberal narrative that Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton.

How do we know? Because the New York Times says so.

Of course, the New York Times didn't actually say that. As the Times itself explains, the focus of the federal government's surveillance was Russian contacts, not Trump.

But in addition to that, Lord is also lying about how much words matter to him. A couple days later, Lord put in another appearance on CNN as its resident Trump sycohphant, where he was even more sycophantic than ever. Lord actually insisted that Trump wasn't lying when he claimed without evidence that Obama was wiretapping him. Wwe'll let the Washington Post take it from here:

Trump, he said, was speaking “Americanese” when he tweeted that Obama had orchestrated a “Nixon/Watergate” plot against him. The president’s supporters knew what he meant, but Washington insiders didn’t and blew it out of proportion.

Cooper and other guests seemed baffled.

“What you’re arguing then is the FBI and the Justice Department are mistaken for taking the president literally because they don’t speak Americanese?” Cooper asked.

Other guests continued to press the issue.

“The whole world had a chance to watch this unfold, and it was a direct test of his credibility. And the whole world now knows he lied about it,” former White House aide David Gergen said of Trump.

“We’ve seen it again and again,” Gergen continued. “When we have a president who is a congenital liar, it really matters.”

Lord tried to jump back in with an attack on Obama, but Cooper cut him off.

“Do you believe this president of the United States is a congenital liar,” the host asked.

“No,” Lord replied.

At that point, tensions boiled over, with the obviously frustrated guests gesticulating and talking over each other.

Again shifting gears, Lord brought up a tweet from Trump’s White House Twitter account saying the FBI and the National Security Agency had found Russia “did not influence electoral process.” Asked about the tweet, Comey said it didn’t reflect his congressional testimony. The Washington Post rated the tweet false.

Not a lie, Lord responded. The tweet, like his wiretapping allegations, had been misinterpreted.

“You’re smarter than that,” an exasperated Cooper told Lord as others chimed in. “Oh, come on Jeffrey.”

If Lord is spinning Trump's lies as "Americanese," that means words don't mean a damn thing to him.

Sorry, MRC, Whoopi's Right: Fox News Did Promote Birtherism
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's Brad Wilmouth complained in a March 29 post:

On Monday's The View on ABC, as the group discussed Ted Koppel's recent interview with Sean Hannity in which he accused the conservative FNC host of being bad for the country, liberal co-hosts Whoopi Goldberg, Sunny Hostin, and Joy Behar all wrongly accused Fox News of promoting birtherism conspiracy theories against President Barack Obama. Right-leaning co-host and former FNC contributor Jedediah Bila was alone in defending her former employer as she shared the stage with four liberals.

Ironically, a Nexis search reveals many examples of FNC anchors over the years disputing the conspiracy theories that Obama was born in Kenya, as they repeatedly made known their belief that he was born in Hawaii and that those who claimed otherwise were misguided. In fact, the news network's most high-profile host, Bill O'Reilly, debated Trump on the subject in March 2011, and on a number of other occasions derided birtherism, using such words as "nonsense," "nutty," "dopey," "bogus," and "patently absurd."

In fact, Whoopi's right. Media Matters counted 52 segments in which Fox News promoted birther claims, and in most of them, Fox News hosts either espoused birther conspiracies or failed to challenge or correct false claims about Obama's birth. Fox News was also Donald Trump's preferred outlet for spouting his WorldNetDaily-enhanced birther conspiracies.

And if we remember correctly, Fox News puts only transcripts from its prime-time shows into Nexis, not Fox & Friends or its other daytime shows, so Wilmouth's research was woefully incomplete.

Even by MRC standards, this is a shoddy "research" job.

MRC Suggests Nunes Has Goods on Obama Spying on Trump ... Then Admits It Doesn't
Topic: Media Research Center

Under the headline "Nets Demand Evidence 123 Times, Scold Nunes for Giving It," the Media Research Center's Mike Ciandella tried to live up to the headline in his March 23 post, but ... doesn't:

When President Trump made his claim that President Obama “wiretapped” Trump Tower during the presidential campaign, the media demanded evidence. Since Trump’s initial tweet on March 4, the evening news shows of ABC, CBS and NBC have called on the White House to provide more evidence a grand total of 123 times.

But when House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes briefed the President, and the press, revealing that Trump associates’ names hadn’t been redacted from intelligence reports, the networks changed their tone.

According to Nunes, the Trump associates hadn’t been the target of surveillance. However, their conversations were picked up in the process, and then their identities weren’t masked as is usually the protocol with American citizens.

Nunes’s revelation didn’t prove the President’s wiretapping claims, but it did change the network news’s tone on releasing evidence. Before Nunes, the evening news shows were full of examples of demands for evidence to be made public.

So even Ciandella admits Nunes did not offer evidence to support Trump's claim. But he's trying to change the subject -- and regurgitate the Trump White House's talking points -- by claiming it's really all about how the names of the Trump people who talked with monitored people leaked out.

Ciandella also glosses over thereal reason for the change in tone on the story. He's trying to portray it as because Nunes is also trying to make it about leaked names (and, though also trying to align with the Trump agenda), but as Ciandella also sorta concedes, the networks are actually focusing on how Nunes is briefing Trump onclaimed findings in the Russian contact investigation before even the members of his own committee, which is highly unusual behavior.

Of course, if Trump and Nunes were Democrats, Ciandella and the rest of the MRC would be clamoring for those names and wailing about collusion.

MRC's Graham & Bozell Mislead About ACLU, 'SNL'
Topic: Media Research Center

The March 24 column by Tim Graham and Brent Bozell carries the provocative headline "'Saturday Night Live' Supports 9/11 Killers." It begins:

In the stunned aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, America healed in part by tuning in to "Saturday Night Live," just a few miles from the wreckage of the twin towers of the World Trade Center. We all felt like New Yorkers and Pentagon employees after radical Islamic terrorists killed more than 3,000 Americans by hijacking four airplanes.

Now, many years later, the American Civil Liberties Union is demonstrating its bizarre definition of "civil liberties" by complaining that the 9/11 terrorists are not having their civil rights respected. One article on the website was headlined "Will the 9/11 Defendants Ever Get a Fair Trial?" Most Americans wonder why anyone responsible for 9/11 is still breathing.

But guess who supports that radical take? Stars of "Saturday Night Live."

The ACLU is now promoting a Facebook Live telethon on March 31 called "Stand for Rights," starring former "Saturday Night Live" stars Tina Fey and Amy Poehler and frequent "SNL" players like Alec Baldwin and Tom Hanks.

Now, the quicker-thinking among us will probably remember that "the 9/11 terrorists" all died in the attacks, which means they ACLU is probably talking about someone else. Graham and Bozell deliberately don't help by stating nothing from the ACLU column beyond its headline, which raises suspicions about deception even more.

Indeed, the ACLU column does talk about someone else: the people being held at Guantanamo Bay. The article points out that those remaining at Gitmo still haven't gone to trial after 15-plus years of confinement, and that the government is trying to withhold evidence of CIA "black sites" where torture is alleged to have taken place.

But because lazy right-wing rants about supposedly out-of-touch liberals are so much easier than a nuanced examination of what's happening in Gitmo, it's a lazy rant we get from Graham and Bozell:

You somehow "help people" and "stand for rights" by spitting on the graves of the 9/11 dead and championing the rights of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? The left doesn't care about the lost civil rights of people murdered by terrorists, only the civil rights of terrorist suspects. The prison for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay is somehow more historically heinous than the 9/11 attacks ever were.

Liberals are so arrogant they think conservatives are the oppressors and torturers, even as they support the rights of terrorists and abortionists who sell the body parts of dead babies. The ACLU has created a People Power project to fight President Trump's administration's "anti-civil rights agenda" of "deportation raids, the Muslim ban, Planned Parenthood defunding and other civil rights priorities." It's very selective about which rights are essential, including a so-called right to import yourself into America, especially if you're Muslim.

Of course, Graham and Bozell are no less selective, all too willing to go along with the idea that Muslims aren't allowed to live in America and that abortionists are murderers.

Never mind that they are deliberatly misleading about what exactly "SNL" supports in regard to the ACLU. The ACLU talks about justice for the Gitmo defendants, which includes a open trial instead of a military tribunal behind closed doors. Graham and Bozell don't explain why it's "spitting on the graves of the 9/11 dead" to make the justice the Gitmo folks face an open process so that everyone can see what they are accused of having done.

Graham and Bozell close by huffing that "The entertainment industry will never stop being egregiously out of touch with the American heartland," ignoring how out of touch they themselves are with American ideals of freedom and justice.

MRC Doesn't Back Up Claim That Judge Is 'Liberal'
Topic: Media Research Center

We've noted how the Media Research Center loves hurling labels at suspected liberals without regard to accuracy. We see that again in a March 17 MRC post headlined "ABC Touts Liberal Judge Shooting Down Trump’s Revised Travel Ban."

So what's the evidence that the judge is a "liberal'? Fondacaro provides none.

Are we supposed to assume the judge is "liberal" simply because he ruled against an order by a Republican president? Apparently so, according to Fondacaro's logic.

Fondacaro also claims that the judge's order was "championed by the liberal media" -- but he onl evidence he provides of that is an ABC report that, in fact, is a straightforward accounting of the judge's order.

Fondacaro went on to rant that "the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order is not in question, according to Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz," and that "The question of the constitutionality of the executive order was missing from" the ABC report.

Fondacaro further complained that "There was no mention that the countries selected in the order were observed by the Obama White House for needing additional screening because proper checks are lacking. All of which are very important facts to understanding the entire situation."But as Foreign Policy magazine explains, the immigration restrictions Obama had imposed on there countries was much more narrowly targeted and didn't ban nearly all immigration, as Trump's original order tried to do.

In other words, Fondacaro is once again putting right-wing rants ahead of facts.

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

The Media Research Center loves to freak out over transgenders -- as well as other LGBT-related things -- and it's having another of its continual fits of doing so.

A March 14 post by Jay Maxson won't identify Texas high school wrestler Mack Beggs as transgender but, rather, as "a girl in Texas who struggles with gender identity," and he laments that "Beggs never got any psychological attention for her gender confusion." He concluded by asserting: "According to Dr. Paul McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital, transgenderism is a 'mental disorder' that can be treated, sex change is 'biologically impossible' and the people promoting sexual reassignment surgery are promoting a mental disorder."

We've previously pointed out that McHugh's bigoted views are seen as out of the medical mainstream and ignores the current state of research on transgender issues.

On March 15, Karen Townsend ranted that the TV show "The Fosters" "continues to shove teen abortion and LGBT sex education on America, this time pushing the issues even further when it comes to parental knowledge -- or lack thereof." She added, "Parents are legally entitled to know about their children’s education."

Alex Nitzberg hopped over from Accuracy in Media to the MRC and debuted with a pair of anti-gay attacks on articles published at NBC News' LGBT portal, NBC Out. On March 13, Nitzberg complained of an article noting the vulernability of transgender students: "On that topic, what about the vulnerability and innocence of other students? All students should be protected from abuse, including those who identify as transgender, but their protection does not necessitate the normalization or accommodation of their lifestyle choice."

On March 17, Nitzberg ranted about another NBC Out article on transgender bathroom use:

The most “gender-appropriate” facility for biological boys, regardless of their self-declared gender-identity, is the men’s facility—and for biological girls, the women’s facility represents the most “gender-appropriate” option. The fact that this issue has degenerated into a societal debate illustrates the cultural chasm that has developed as the radical left and the media work to aggressively advance the revolution to redefine gender.

[...]

Liberals and the media inaccurately portray the LGBT agenda as a “civil rights” issue. But LGBT identities are behaviors, not immutable, inborn physical characteristics like skin color. In practice, LGBT “non-discrimination laws” would likely penalize social conservatives who fail to comply with the LGBT lobby’s radical demands for societal transformation. 

Sarah Stites, meanwhile, huffed that singer Kary Perry was given an award by the Human Rights Campaign, where she "spent ten minutes criticizing her Christian upbringing while championing 'sexual fluidity.' And, predictably, the feminist media loved it."  But curiously, Stites omitted the part where Perry said that as a teenager she "prayed the gay away at my Jesus camps" during her "unconscious adolescence," which utterly failed until she met people outside her "bubble."

Stites returned to serve up another freakout over a transgender couple on the wedding-dress show "Say Yes to the Dress." grumbling about "liberal media, fashion and Hollywood’s focused attempt to mainstream transgender and gender fluid content."

And Stites wasn't done, for even people who want no gender at all offend her as well:

Clothing. Makeup. Emojis. And now legal status?

The genderless movement is firing ahead, fast and furious, while those who cleave to traditional views are considered anachronistic at best, and bigoted at worst.

In June 2016, Oregon Judge Amy Hehn granted legal gender “non-binary” status to Portland resident Jamie Shupe. But this month, Hehn went a step further, granting video game designer “Patch” the right to be genderless.  

She concluded that post by asking, "Is there anything that will faze the left?" The better question: Is there any instance of non-heteronormative behavior that Stites and the rest of the MRC won't throw a fit about?

MRC Joins Anti-Immigrant Bandwagon, Exploits Alleged Rape Case
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center hasn't historically done much in the way of anti-immigrant activism, but apparently that's changing.

Last week, two students at a high school in suburban Washington, D.C., were arrested for allegedly sexually assaulting another student in a school restroom. One of the alleged assailants is an undocumented immigrant, however, and the second is a recent arrival to the U.S. So the MRC decided the story was ripe for a little right-wing political exploitation.

In a March 21 post, the MRC's Curtis Houck cheered that a reporter from the Fox affiliate in Washington, D.C., asked White House press secretary Sean Spicer about the incident, going on to complain: "As far as we can tell, no network or cable news coverage has been given to the rape that occurred last week at Rockville High School in Montgomery County, Maryland since it’s an inconvenient story for their liberal narrative."

Or, you know because it's a local story that doesn't merit national coverage. Not that the MRC will allow a little thing like that conflict with its political agenda.

Indeed, the next day, Kristine Marsh had already convicted the defendants without a trial -- and cheered that her favorite news outlet did latch onto the story:

Last Thursday, a young girl attending Rockville High School in Maryland was brutally gang raped in her school’s bathroom by two fellow students, at least one of which was in the country illegally. Jose O. Montano, 17, from El Salvador, and Henry E. Sanchez-Milian, 18, from Guatemala, were charged last week with raping their 14-year-old female classmate in the school’s men’s bathroom. Both had only been in Montgomery County for a few months before they were placed in the school’s 9th grade class. Sanchez-Milian is a confirmed illegal immigrant that is being detained by ICE officials while officials will not comment on Montano’s immigration status, as he is a minor.

Fox News’s Bret Baier was the first reporter to tell the story on national television on his show Monday.

Marsh asserted that the reason why "ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC, don’t want to report" the story is because "it makes their side look bad." Curiously, she doesn't ascribe any political motivation to Fox News' report, even though "it makes the other side look bad" is much more plausible than the mind-reading she imposes on those other outlets.

Later on March 22, Houck complained that "The 'big three' networks of ABC, CBS, and NBC continued their shameful blackout into Wednesday night of the horrifying alleged rape of a teenage girl in a Washington D.C. suburb high school bathroom by two men, including one here in the U.S. illegally.  Instead, the pathetic liberal media that’s shown no interest in the Rockville High School case complied with Rolling Stone in giving over 10 minutes of coverage in two days to the fake 2014 claim that a University of Virginia fraternity gang raped a female student."

Houck didn't mention that the networks did not know the story was fake at the time they reported it. He did concede, though, that it "can be a noble cause" to report on sexual assault at college fraternities. But he also touted how Fox News ran another story on the case; while he assailed those media outlets who didn't report the story as "pro-illegal immigrant," he refused to describe Fox news as "anti-illegal immigrant" for embracing it.

Then, the MRC was rewarded for politicizing the story: MRCTV ranter Brittany Hughes made an appearance on "Fox & Friends," where she "lambasted ABC, CBS, and NBC for their callous refusal to cover the alleged heinous rape of a female student in a Washington D.C. suburban high school by two men and one of which is here in the country illegally."

Hughes hit all her talking points -- even ranting that the networks would rather be "slamming President Donald Trump's agenda" -- as the MRC post praised her for doing: "As we often do here at NewsBusters, Hughes astutely pointed to examples of what ABC and CBS gave airtime to instead of another crime allegedly committed by an illegal alien."

It's so funny -- in a sad way -- who the MRC pretends it doesn't have an agenda in accusing others of having an agenda. But then, they're not getting paid to be honest.

MRC's Graham: 'You Have No Right To Tell Us What The Truth Is'
Topic: Media Research Center

We know that the Media Research Center's Tim Graham is a terrible media critic, but other mainstream media outlets haven't figured that out yet.

The Associated Press got a comment from Graham for a March 6 article regarding aggressive media questioning of Trump surrogates

Many of Trump's supporters are angered by aggressive questioning because they believe the media did not ask similar tough questions of the Obama administration, said Tim Graham of the Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog.

"You have no right to tell us what the truth is," Graham said.

Actually, telling you what the truth is is pretty much a reporter's job, Tim.

We know what Graham wants: uncritical, fawning coverage of Trump, the kind the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, provides in spades.

(Oh, and Graham is completely wrong that the media never offered tough coverage of the Obama administration.)

Graham pops up again in a March 22 Washington Post article on how thte presence of Shepard Smith on Fox News drives people like Graham crazy:

However, Tim Graham, director of media analysis for the conservative Media Research Center, buys the buzz that Smith is ready to bolt: “His aggressive defense of the liberal media suggests he’s looking at Greta Van Susteren and saying, ‘Yeah, I could do that.’ ” Van Susteren left Fox last summer and joined MSNBC.

Added Graham: “To me, it sounds like he’s advertising to other networks. It just seems bizarre for him to be sticking up for CNN and MSNBC. It’s like Jif peanut butter taking an ad sticking up for Skippy.”

But Graham's MRC praised CNN's Jake Tapper for that very same act of reporter defending in 2013, when the phone records of Fox News' James Rosen were seized in an investigation. It also touted that "Even very liberal journalists like Jonathan Alter have lashed out at Obama over the Rosen incident."

Did the MRC think these "liberal" reporters were advertising to Fox News? Probably not -- Graham and Co. just liked that its favorite news channel was being praised.

And that sort of rank double standard is just another reason why Graham is a terrible media critic that the "liberal media" shouldn't be taking seriously just to provide an alternate voice.

MRC's Heathering of Anti-Trump Conservative Continues
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center has been regularly targeting conservative Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin (a process we call Heathering), mainly because she didn't sell out her principles and blindly support Donald Trump (unlike the MRC). And the shots have continued:

• In a Jan. 14 post, Brad Wilmouth sneered that "allegedly conservative Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin sounded like just one more liberal analyst on top of the other four liberals already on the panel as she could only find negative things to say about Republican efforts to repeal ObamaCare, and even fretted over the move to defund Planned Parenthood."
• On Jan. 30, Wilmouth complained that Rubin "play[ed] the role of allegedly right-leaning MSNBC guest who mostly offers agreement to the liberal MSNBC host, and spends little time injecting the conservative point of view into the conversation."
• On March 8, Wilmouth called her a "supposedly right-leaning" columnist who was "appearing on MSNBC to mostly agree with a liberal host."
• The next day, Curtis Houck declared Rubin to be "shameless" for "touting federal bureaucracy as this marvelous institution that they (and not business, the people, and states) have been the impetus behind the country’s prosperity."

And on March  19, Wilmouth once again lamented that Rubin "has recently been a recurring MSNBC guest who has bolstered the network's anti-Republican commentaries" and grumbled that she "declared that she is not a Republican any longer" because of Trump. But he leaves relegated to transcript excerpts her explanation of what that is:

[Trumpism] has destroyed the Republican Party, which was based on a set of principles, frankly, that abhors discrimination, that is -- takes the Declaration seriously: "All men are created equal. All men are endowed with certain rights." Donald Trump and his sidekicks do not believe this. They have turned into this ethno-tribalism. It's contrary to American expressions of history of law from its founding.

[...]

He's a buffoon. He's insulting our British allies. He's insulting our German allies. Angela Merkel -- who has an election later this year -- you could see she wasn't too pleased at the press conference yesterday. I think there's going to be reaction against him with their far-right party in Germany as well.

It's telling that the MRC is burying this viewpoint instead of engaging with it. But then, the Mercers aren't giving the MRC millions of dollars a year to do that.

MRC Blogger's Fake-News Fail on Trump and Russia
Topic: Media Research Center

Media Research Center blogger P.J. Gladnick has been laboring quite hard to pretend there's nothing to see in regard to Donald Trump's links with Russia. For instance, he declared in a March 8 post:

Be very careful Democrats and your mainstream media allies. The fake news story about collusion between the Donald Trump campaign and Russia is a minefield that could destroy your credibility even beyond conservative skeptics who already don't believe you.

On March 9, Gladnick asserted that "the Trump-Russia fake news story is crumbling" and complained that an Associated Press writer talked to a few spy novelists for their take on this "fake news fiction."He added: "Newsflash! If you had been following the real, not fake, news recently, the premise has definitely returned to the far-fetched category. Not one intelligence agency has provided proof of collusion between Trump and Russia. In fact the former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, flat out denied it on Sunday."

But as the AP has stated elsewhere, Clapper not signaling any evidence of collusion does not mean that none exists, or that none was discovered after Clapper left office on Jan. 20.

The next day, Gladnick ranted about a Politico report on the subject:

When reading the series of charts containing a weird labyrinth of rather tenuous connections published in the March/April edition of Politico Magazine, it is hard not to channel Inspector Jacques Clouseau trying to connect the unrelated dots to make the case that was always far off the mark. The Politico dots on the series of seven elaborate charts are chock full of oligarchs, both Russian and Ukrainian, a beauty contest, a mixed martial artist, a dossier that no one has seen, a couple of Russian energy giants not to be confused with a regular Russian oil company, and, to top it off, a mystery person. This is the laughable evidence presented by reporter Michael Crowley to desperately give the Trump-Russia fake news story an aura of validity despite no proof.

The only things that seem to be missing from Crowley's charts are Boris Badinov and Natasha.

Gladnick went on to assert that "the only ones to be shaken by the Trump-Russia fake news story are the mainstream media and the Democrats," who are in a "futile search for the Trump-Russia collusion Holy Grail."

Gladnick hasn't written anything in a few days, so we don't know what he thinks about the news that the FBI is officially investigating allegations of coordination between the Trump campaign and Moscow while Russia was interfering in the presidential election.

He probably thinks that's "fake news" too.

The MRC-Mark Levin Cross-Promotion Spectacular
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center has a business relationship with Mark Levin, in which they promote each other. They both remind us of this once again, even as they fail to disclose this relationship to their respective readers and listeners.

On March 5, CNSNews.com blogger Craig Bannister touted how "Levin Uses Liberal Media’s OWN WORDS as 'Evidence' Obama Spied on Trump." (Though we doubt Levin spoke with the boldface and underlines and all-caps Bannister generously ascribes to him.) Except, well, that's not exactly what happened; Levin is desperately trying to pump up intelligence agencies' alleged monitoring of the Trump campaign's links to Russia into something he can maliciously speculate about but can't prove: that Obama personally ordered it or, at the very least, knew about it at the time. 

When CNN's Brian Stelter had the temerity to point out that Levin's conflation did not constitute actual evidence that Obama personally had Trump Tower wiretapped, as President Trump claimed in a tweet, Bannister was there to dutifully transcribe Levin's open-letter rant to Stelter sneering that he was being "thoroughly dishonest" for reporting the truth. A NewsBusters post pretty much did the same thing.

When ABC's Brian Ross called Levin "a conspiracy-loving talk show host" for pushing his conflated claims, the MRC complained about that too -- never mind that it's something he kinda does.

The MRC then gave even more space to Levin's rants on the subject.

Then Levin posted all these MRC links, and a couple more, to his Facebook page, under the headline "The week that was with our friends at MRC..."

Cross-promotion at its finest. How about behaving somewhat ethically for once and disclose that y'all are paying each other for this?

MRC Defends Gay Conversion Therapy
Topic: Media Research Center
A March 17 Media Research Center post by Dawn Slusher noting that an episode of the new TV series "Greenleaf" touches on the subject of "conversion therapy" intended to turn a gay person straight feels the need to speak up for the practice:

There has been much rancor over gay conversion therapy programs for decades, but the topic has again been hotly debated as of late with Vice President Mike Pence’s support for such programs as well as Ken Blackwell, Domestic Policy Advisor to the Trump Presidential Transition Team. ABC’s 20/20 revived the debate in an exposé last week, as well. Though judging by the reviews, the exposé leaned heavily in favor of those who demonize such programs.

Rarely will you find the Hollywood left giving facts, statistics and answers on those who have found success in conversion therapy, but the season premiere of the Oprah Winfrey Network's (OWN) Greenleaf, “A House Divided,” is providing an interesting look on the issue from the point-of-view of a married couple who are leaders in the family church facing a tumultuous time after the revelation that the husband is attracted to men.

For these "facts, statistics and answers," Slusher cites a pro-conversion therapy group that claims criticism of conversion therapyare "opinion, not science" and cites the virulently anti-gay group NARTH in support, and self-proclaimed ex-transgender woman Walt Heyer, a current fave of anti-gay activists who admits he was misdiagnosed as transgender.

Slusher goes on to rant:

If we are supposed to accept those who believe being gay isn’t a choice, why then are we not allowed to accept those who believe it is? If women in this country are allowed to take the life of their unborn child in the name of “freedom of choice,” why then can’t a gay man or woman have the right to choose conversion therapy without the threat of the government shutting down such programs?

Reparative therapist the late Dr. Joseph Nicolosi spoke to VirtueOnline.org about the left’s attempt to deny conversion therapy treatments to those who seek to change, saying, “The justification for denying the client's autonomy and self-determination is the arrogant assumption that ‘we know better what's good for you than you do.’ We will tell you what your problem is, which is to learn to enjoy gay sex. So drop your inhibitions, drop your archaic religious beliefs, forget your morality or ethic and join the gay parade.”

Yes, there have been horror stories and abuses of conversion therapy programs, but that can be said about any type of therapy. There will always be those who use it for selfish gain and profit, or for pure power and abuse. That doesn’t mean there are not good and successful programs out there for those who wish to pursue them.

Nicolosi was a founder of NARTH, which tells you all you need to know about him and his motivations. And if are "good and successful programs" for conversion therapy as Slusher claims there is, why have none surfaced during state hearings to ban the practice that use a scientifically valid, replicable method that does no harm to the client, and why did Slusher cite any in her post? Perhaps because one doesn't exist.

The MRC is being irresponsible in promoting a discredited therapy method, just as it was in promoting a certain strain of anti-vaxxer activism.

Maddow's Trump Tax Reveal Sends MRC Into Attack Mode
Topic: Media Research Center

After MSNBC's Rachel Maddow revealed a couple of pages of Donald Trump's 2005 tax returns, the Media Research Center went into overdrive trying to dismiss it as a "fail" and/or a "flop" and/or a "non-story":

• Maddow Wastes Our Time in Delaying Release of Trump Tax Returns; Internet Loses It
• CNN Mocks MSNBC’s Overhyped Trump-Taxes Exclusive: Not ‘Explosive’
• CNN's Malveaux: Trump Tax Returns Ask 'Whether He Skipped Out on Paying His Fair Share of Taxes' (in which Jackson Richman made the weird assertion that CNN "expose[d] its bias against President Donald Trump's 2005 tax returns")
• ‘What Is He Trying to Hide?’ GMA Eagerly Looks for Scandal in Trump's Tax Returns
• Nets Spend 20 Minutes on Trump Tax Return Non-Story ‘But What Is It He’s Trying to Hide?’
• Despite Mockery, MSNBC Spends Hours on Trump Tax Returns
• DUers Prematurely Celebrate Maddow Trump Tax 'Revelation'
• ‘They Got Schlonged!’ Limbaugh Goes to Town Mocking ‘Overrated’ Maddow, ‘Lunatic’ Johnston
• Howard Kurtz: Trump Tax Reveal 'Big-Time Blunder' by Rachel Maddow
• Okay, Sure: Maddow Blames Audience Expectations for Her Spectacular Fail on Trump’s Tax Return
• NYT Remains Faithful to 'Scoop' Maddow, Who Did It Her Way: Tax Fail Part of Successful Strategy
• Boom: Even Liberal Colbert Blasts Rachel Maddow’s Lame ‘Scoop’

The fact that the MRC devoted 12 posts to Maddow's tax-return reveal within 48 hours after the story aired would seem to indicate the opposite of what it's trying to tell us -- that it really wasn't the "fail" or "non-story" the MRC repeatedly insists it was.

The MRC is certainly not going to give Maddow credit for doing something no other media organization has done to date, as the Washington Post's Erik Wemple points out: get Trump to didsclose information about his taxes.

The MRC went even further into pro-Trump spin mode with a March 17 post by James Powers asserting that "Trump’s effective tax rate for 2005 was 79 percent" accounting for the $103 million in losses he took (on $151 million in income) and the alternative minimum tax he paid.

Sad, really.