Fox News afternoon anchor Shepard Smith boasted to Time magazine a few weeks ago “I think we have to make the wall between news and opinion as high and as thick and as impenetrable as possible. And I try to do that.”
Then he goes on television daily and makes a mockery of his own pledge not to spew opinions.
On Wednesday, the Internet lit up when Smith accused his own network of a conspiracy to put a group of voices on television counseling President Trump to avoid an interview with special counsel Robert Mueller, now that potential Mueller questions to the president were leaked to the newspapers.
Graham doesn't mention that there is truth to Smith's claim -- Fox News host Sean Hannity, for one, has denounced the questions as "crap,"and Fox News as a whole is all but begging Trump to fire Mueller and shut down the investigation (therefore precluding an interview).
Instead, Graham huffed that "Smith isn't relaying facts on a Fox News Channel. Like the other cable 'news' operations, he's sitting in a political playground he could call the Fox Imagination Channel. " Of course, if Graham doesn't think Fox's hosts are trying to influence Trump's behavior regarding the Mueller investigation, he's the one living in fantasy land.
Fox News anchor Bret Baier appeared on ABC's The View on Thursday to promote his new book Three Days in Moscow about Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. But the ABC crew peppered him with questions about their favorite topic -- the White House aide who insulted John McCain -- and whether Fox News is the "administration's mouthpiece," since it's reported Sean Hannity talks to the president nightly after his show. Baier replied "There may be opinion shows that have a direct relationship with the president, and Sean is not calling me and giving me a download of the call."
[...]
But then Sunny Hostin, who routinely reminds viewers of her days as a legal analyst at CNN, threw shade at Fox, as CNN people do: "People do see Fox News as the administration’s mouthpiece. I don’t know if it helped that it’s been reported that your colleague Sean Hannity talks to the president nightly before bed, about the day’s musings. Do you think that’s appropriate? I understand Sean is on the opinion side of the network. But as a representative of the network, that Sean is, is that appropriate?”
“First of all, the network overall is not a mouthpiece,” Baier responded. “There may be opinion shows that have a direct relationship with the president, and Sean is not calling me and giving me a download of the call.”
He added “I was on his show the other night, and he said to me, how much problem do I cause the news division, scale of one to 10? And I said, you know, a solid six. But it depends on the day.” He said he tries to do it straight: "I have horse blinders on from six to seven."
Graham ignored another salient fact -- that in reality, blinders really aren't Baier's thing. Certainly he remembers the bogus story Baier reported -- and the MRC heravily promoted -- before the 2016 election claiming that Hillary Clinton's indictment was imminent. Baier had to retract that story a few days later, but Graham and the rest of the MRC never told their readers that, despite Brent Boizell declaring that "We will report developments on this continuing cover-up every hour from here on out." Apparently, the fact that the story was fake news wasn't a development worth reporting.
And then there's that book Baier was on "The View" to promote. Judging by the promotion for it on Baier's personal website, it's on the hagiographic side, touting how the book "reveals as never before President Ronald Reagan’s battle to end the Cold War" and lovingly recounts how "In 1980, Reagan represented a new spirit of optimism—a remedy for the sense of malaise the nation was experiencing."
Does this sound like a guy who's wearing ideological blinders? To Graham, it does, apparently.
To sum up: Graham is gashing the straight-news Fox guy for saying something he can't be bothered to disprove, and he defends the Fox guy who's on record as promoting fake news. That's the way things work at the MRC these days.
MRC Demands Trump's 'Animal' Insult Be Put Into Context -- But It Mocked CNN Reporter for Demanding Context Of His Words Topic: Media Research Center
Following President Trump's remarks that appeared to smear at least some undocumented immigrants as "animals," the Media Research Center does what it's paid to do and rushed to Trump's defense, insisting despite his vague linking that Trump was referring only to the gang MS-13. Scott Whitlock complained Trump's words were "distorted," Nicholas Fondacaro called it "totally false," Curtis Houck bizarrely claimed that the media was defending MS-13 by merely acknowledging that they are human beings, and Fondacaro returned to claim that the media thought it was fair to allegedly take Trump out of context "given his past comments about immigrants."
The MRC might have a point if it wasn't so eager to take the peiople it despises out of context -- something, in fact, it did just a few weeks before.
In an April 24 post, Houck (pictured) insisted that CNN correspondent Jim Acosta was "attacking the intelligence of the American people" by saying that some people don't know that Trump's attacks on the media are an "act" and that "their elevators might not hit all floors."But Houck plucked those words out of context, editing out the fact that Acosta immediately said afterward that "My concern is that a journalist is going to be hurt one of these days. Somebody's going to get hurt." In other words, he was worried about the safety of himself and other journalists.
Houck merely paraphrased this important context as saying that "Acosta reiterated prior predictions that Trump’s criticism of the press will result in someone getting hurt" and hid the fact that it's directly related to the "elevator" comment. The MRC loves to dismiss how some reporters on the Trump beat feel threatened.
The next day, Houck mocked Acosta for demanding that the right-wing media put his words in context, cheering how "conservative Twitter unloaded" on Acosta for demanding context "and, in a brief moment of indulgence, it was glorious."
Houck then included a fuller quote of Acosta "since he claims he’s being unfairly attacked" (though he didn't mention that he was one of those who had previously published only a selective quoting of Acosta), then baselessly decided "there's no ambiguity there" -- again ignoring that Acosta was talking about threats to journalists.
Houck's hatred for Acosta is so personal and so unhinged (to use a favorite MRC term) that nothing he writes about Acosta should be taken as anything other than vindictiveness.
MRC Complains Oliver North Accurately Labeled As 'Controversial' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has been protecting Oliver North since his ascension to president of the National Rifle Association. We've already documented how the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, failed to mention North's central (and criminal) role in the Iran-contra scandal -- the one thing he's most famous -- the MRC itself complained that it was accurately reported.
A May 8 MRC post by Scott Whitlock huffed that media reports called North "controversial." Whitlock can't dispute the accuracy of that claim, so he takes a stab at whataboutism in the form of a Clinton Equivocation: "How often was Bill Clinton referred to as a 'controversial' Whitewater figure or Hillary Clinton a 'controversial' person connected to having a secret e-mail server?"
Whitlock might have a point if Bill Clinton was ever charged, let alone convicted of anything regarding Whitewater -- which he wasn't. Similarly, Hillary Clinton's email server may have been "controversial" -- though that's been mostly due to the Republican obsession over it. But despite an FBI investigation, Hillary has never been charged with criminal wrongdoing regarding it.
By contrast, North was convicted on destroying documents, obstructing Congress and taking a bribe in relation to the Iran-contra scandal, which were ultimately dismissed only because of having been granted immunity for his congressional testimony.
Whitlock also tried to dismiss the scandal as old news not worth bringing up, variously calling it a "scandal from 30 yerars ago" and "a scandal from 1987." Whitlock failed to mention that Whitewater was 25 years ago.
MRC Denounces 'Insane' Trump-Hitler Comparison, Never Questioned Sanity of Obama-Hitler Comparisons Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Julia Seymour grumbled in a May 14 post:
When a conservative says something crazy, it makes headlines. When a liberal does you can hear the crickets.
Liberal mega-donor Tom Steyer recently entertained comparisons between President Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler at one of his impeachment rallies. But his absurd conversation was not reported by the broadcast networks or major newspapers, according to Nexis. Steyer has spent or pledged at least $236 million to help liberal candidates, or oppose Republicans since the 2014 election cycle.
Only Twitchy and several conservative media outlets took Steyer to task for not pushing back enough when a rally attendee from Iowa asked him, “I just keep thinking, what’s the difference between him and Hitler?”The exchange took place at a May 10, Need to Impeach rally where Steyer was stumping against Trump and Republicans.
Rather than immediately say, WHOA! That’s going way too far, Steyer began with comparisons to Hitler — before reminding everyone of a huge difference: Hitler killed people.
Seymour's headline called the Trump-Hitler comparison "insane."
Seymour even squeezed a second post out of this two days later, claiming that Steyer "is still digging out from under his response to a question about whether President Donald Trump is like 'Hitler.'"
By comparison, when various extremists likened President Obama to Hitler, the MRC never denounced the comparison as insane -- or at all, mostly:
A 2009 post by Seton Motley was more offended that conservatives were blamed for an Obama-Hitler likening -- it was actually coming from the "leftist" and "Communist" Lyndon LaRouche -- than by the likening itself.
Another 2009 post by Motley did concede that an Obama-Hitler comparison is "a bit over the top" -- still, far short of "insane" -- then played whataboutism by complaining that a few years earlier a reporter "did not chastise the porter of the giant BusHitler cranium for being so offensively hard on the President. Quite the contrary; she obviously saw him/her/It as furthering the story she wished to tell."
Mark Finkelstein played whataboutism in a 2010 post: "Ed Schultz brags that he would have the "courage" to confront anyone putting a Hitler mustache on Barack Obama . . . So what of the innumerable occasions on which George W. was portrayed as a Nazi? Did Ed ever utter a peep of protest?" Finkelstein himself made no peep regarding the appropriateness of the the Obama-Hitler comparison.
A 2013 post by Scott Whitlock attacked MSNBC's Chris Matthews for having "indignantly objected to a North Carolina state senator comparing ObamaCare to Nazism."
And as we've documented, when conservative country singer Hank Williams Jr. appeared on "Fox & Friends" in 2011 to claim that then-Speaker of the House John Boehner's recent golf game with President Obama was "one of the biggest political mistakes ever," adding, "It's like Hitler playing golf with [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu" -- Obama, of course, is the Hitler in that analogy -- the MRC raced to dismiss the comparison as nothing more than "intemperate" and a "bad joke."There was no questioning Williams' sanity as Seymour did Steyer's.
MRC Heathers Fox News Over Segment That Failed to Advance Right-Wing Anti-Abortion Agenda Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center loves to Heather conservatives who stray from right-wing orthodoxy. It's also not afraid to give the Heathering treatment to its buddies at Fox News. The MRC's Brad Wilmouth complains in a May 7 post:
For a news network that is often caricatured as right wing, Fox News Channel peppered a pro-life guest with an awful lot of questions that were skeptical of Iowa's new law that bans abortion at about six weeks pregnancy.
In fact, Fox and Friends Sunday host Abby Huntsman (a veteran of MSNBC) even cited one poll alleging a majority of Americans want most abortions to be legal, and did not mention that other polling has claimed the opposite.
At 7:25 a.m. Eastern, after recalling that Iowa Republican Governor Kim Reynolds signed the law a few days ago, which bans abortion after a baby's heartbeat can be detected, Huntsman introduced Iowa Republican State Senator Rick Bertrand and immediately brought up a survey suggesting most Americans would oppose such a law:
You know this is one of the most controversial issues that we debate in this country, so, looking at recent polls and survey done on just how the country is feeling about abortion, there's a recent Pew survey that shows that 57 percent of the country supports legal abortion. That's compared to 40 percent who support illegal. So the question off the top is: Is this bill the most -- the strictest bill on abortion -- is this what the American people American people are wanting?
The polling she was referring to was a survey released by the Pew Research Center in June 2017. Not mentioned was that, in May 2017, by contrast, Gallup reported that 54 percent of respondents believe abortion should be illegal in most or all circumstances, while 42 percent supported abortion being legal in most or all cases.
For the rest of the interview, the FNC host did not ask a single question that was sympathetic to the effort to protect unborn babies.
Note Wilmouth's dig at Huntsman for having once worked at MSNBC -- pure Heathering at its finest.
And it's particularly hilarious to hear Wilmouth's complaint that Fox News is "caricatured as right wing" when -- in huffing that Huntsman failed to advance the "effort to protect unborn babies" -- he's demanding that it live up to that supposed caricature.
MR Latino Piece Tries Pushes Bogus Attack on Calif. Bill to Ban Conversion Therapy Topic: Media Research Center
We've already noted how WorldNetDaily is distorting the facts around AB 2943, the proposed California bill that would ban effectively ban anti-gay conversion therapy in the state. Nnow, the Media Research Center has joined the party with a May 8 MRC Latino piece by Morela Scull, which repeats only anti-gay sources in attacking the bill. For instance, the gay-bashers at the Alliance Defending Freedom:
In an interview with the MRC, attorney Matt Sharp from the Alliance Defending Freedom explained that “AB 2943 infringes upon the First Amendment right of counselors, religious organizations and so many others to speak freely on the ability of people to find hope and to explore all options as it relates to their sexual orientation and gender identity. This bill, if passed, would restrict that freedom of speech, telling people that certain viewpoints like the idea that people can change is now off limits and declared fraudulent in the state of California.”
Sharp added that “the idea that people can change and find true joy in embracing and living out their faith is at the heart of many religions. California should not be telling people that such faith is fraudulent”.
Actually, what's fraudulent is conversion therapy -- which is the whole issue. You generally don't have the right n America to peddle fraudulent things. Sharp is not quoted as explaining how a fraudulent process furthers the "true joy" of religion, and Scull offers no evidence to bolster the implication she's peddling that conversion therapy is safe and effective.
Scull also plays the First Amendment card, quoting someone named "René Scull, from the free-market champion Atlas Network" (Morela Scull does not disclose what her connection is, if any, to this person with whom she shares a last name, though she really should have), asserting that “it is absurd to try to interfere with the commercialization of goods related with ideological postures or postures against social attitudes because the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. Violating the rules of the market converts these measures that are trying to be implemented in something not only illegal, but also interferes with a healthy process of supply and demand.”
Again, this misses the point. Conversion therapy has been largely proven to be ineffective and even damaging to clients. There is no First Amendment right to provide an ineffective and damaging service, regardless of the processes of supply and demand. It's also not a restriction on religious liberty to stop a fraudulent practice.
Scull concluded by huffing: "The ramifications of the legislation go far beyond considerations about being heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or transgender; or about being a Christian or an atheist: it is mainly about the prohibition of freedom." No, it's pretty much limited to the former; people like Scull and the people she quotes don't believe being "homosexual, bisexual or transgender" deserves any consideration and that it should be stamped out. And that's where the real rights issue resides.
MRC's Double Standard on TV Hosts' Alleged Conflicts of Interest Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center likes to take potshots at NBC "Meet The Press" host Chuck Todd's wife works as a Democratic communications strategist and once donated to Tim Kaine, at the time the governor of Virginia. The MRC recently brought it up again in an attempt to deflect from Fox News' Sean Hannity defending Trump lawyer Michael Cohen on TV without disclosing he's a Cohen client.
Clay Waters complained that the New York Times "shamelessly quoted NBC News political director and Meet the Press host Chuck Todd, excoriating Fox News’ ethical standards, without mentioning Todd’s own lack of disclosure." Jeffrey Lord also highlighted Todd's "conflict" as scrutiny into Hannity intensified.
But the MRC was much more defensive when it came to a Todd-like conflict involving another Fox News host.
A 2009 NewsBusters post by Noel Sheppard hyped how "Greta Van Susteren is clearly sick and tired of people accusing her of advising Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin." But he never bothered to explain the source of the accusation, as outlined by the Politico article to which he linked: Van Susteren's husband, John Coale, was among Palin's political advisers; the Washington Post further described Coale as among the "protecters of the Palin brand." The Huffington Post noted that "Van Susteren has enjoyed unparalleled access to Palin and her family, conducting several interviews from Alaska — most recently with new mom Bristol Palin," though Van Susteren insisted her husband's link to Palin was not responsible for that.
Two months later, Sheppard complained that "Politico on Saturday accused Greta Van Susteren of being Todd Palin's 'host AND handler' at a pre-White House Correspondents' dinner brunch, and the Fox News host is none too pleased. Sheppard gave Van Susteren space to point out that Palin was a guest of hers at a "social brunch" and intervened when another reporter tried to interview him by pointing out the brunch was off the record. Sounds more than a little like a handler's job, doesn't it?
The capper? In 2010 and 2011, Sheppard touted Palin appearances on Van Susteren's show without mentioning her familial links to Palin. And in 2013, NewsBusters' Randy Hall devoted a post to Van Susteren gushing over Palin's return to Fox News after a yearlong absence -- without any mention whatsoever that her husband served as a Palin adviser or that Van Susteren herself played media handler for Palin's husband.
It appears that, as far as the MRC is concerned, these sorts of conflicts of interests are conflicts at all when you work for a conservative "news" organization.
What LGBT Stuff Is The MRC Freaking Out About Now? Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center keeps freaking out about LGBT stuff, so we have no choice but to document those freakouts.
Gabriel Hays complains that Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos is using his publication to push an "LGBT agenda" by its publishing a story about how communities in the hunt for Bezos-run Amazon's second headquarters should show consideration of the "rights for and acceptance of gay and transgender people." Hays doesn't explain how treating all people the same is an "agenda."
Dawn Slusher is unhappy about gay and transgender storylines in the "ultra-liberal" TV show "Rise," lamenting that "Catholic student Simon (Ted Sutherland) appears to finally give in to his feelings for his male castmate in the school’s controversial play." Slusher later whined: "Too bad we can't see all the tears from conservative viewers, if there are any watching. This will, God willing, get canceled."
Slusher continued her hate-watching of "Rise," huffing that a later episode "heavily implied that Catholic father Robert, who opposes the controversial school play and his son's role as a gay character, is really just “afraid” of the play because Robert is secretly gay himself."
Jay Maxson attacks a writer who calls for more openly gay pro athletes, complaining that the writer is "really psyched about two homosexual college football players" and thus believes that "the sexual confusion of high school and college athletes is encouraging."
Hays showed up once again to bash actor Jim Parsons:
Jim Parsons, the nerdy face of CBS’ Big Bang Theory desperately wants Hollywood to ratchet up the gay propaganda, and demands that audiences digest every bit of LGBT representation thrown their way. Even though it seems like every media production these days has that token gay or sexually ambiguous character -- far more than real-life representation -- we need to see way more, damn it!
When Parsons said he wanted to be "sick of too many gay rom-coms," Hays sneered, "We beat you to that, Jim."
Maxson adds a freakout over a news outlet merely covering something LGBT-related -- in this case, Yahoo News reporting on an LGBT summit hosted by the Minnesota Vikings. Maxson raged at former Vikings player Chris Kluwe for hosting the event, snidely dismissing him as a "has-been former punter" and "a nobody punter for the Vikes until he gained notoriety for his same-sex marriage activism," then ranted that the Vikings are "kissing up to Kluwe and his LGBTQ friends."
Finally, Slusher returns one more time to gleefully dance on the grave of "Rise" following its cancellation. She rehashed all the plot points she hate-watched, then concluded by sneering, "I, for one, have a big smile on my face knowing this liberal garbage is over for good, never to 'rise' again." Apparently, hate is more important than professional writing when you hate-watch something for the MRC.
The Worst Hot Take Ever on Michelle Wolf, Courtesy of the MRC Topic: Media Research Center
Needless to say, the Media Research Center was incensed by Michelle Wolf's comedy routine at the White House Press Association Dinner, crankingoutpostafteroutragedpost about it. But it was even more incensed at the the idea forwarded by some commentators that Wolf's provocative language was no different than that of President Trump -- which led to a ridiculous hot take that didn't even make it to the MRC.
The MRC works with conservative, Trump-fluffing Washington Examiner writer Paul Bedard to produce a weekly "Mainstream Media Scream" that gives Bedard a way to fill space and a way for the MRC to promote its latest "liberal media" outrage. For the one about Wolf, Bedard highlighted those likening Wolf's language to Trump, then quoted the MRC's Brent Baker retorting: "When has Trump ever disparaged someone’s physical appearance in front of them? Wolf displayed a new low for public discourse, yet after three years of decrying Trump’s caustic comments, these journalists rationalize bad behavior by their profession’s chosen dinner entertainer by reflexively lashing out at Trump instead of holding accountable those who chose Wolf. That illustrates so well why Trump supporters have such disdain for journalists."
Yes, Baker is actually suggesting that Trump is better than Wolf because he doesn't insult people to their faces (that we know of, anyway, though Kirstjen Nielsen might beg to differ).
When you're resorting to that level of sycophancy and whataboutism to try to make Trump look good, you know the MRC are made Trump men.
NEW ARTICLE -- Out There, Exhibit 70: Denial of Reality Attack, Trump Propaganda Division Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Brad Wilmouth doggedly defends President Trump over a muddled message regarding whether he supported the death penalty for the later-exonerated Central Park Five. Read more >>
MRC Is Unhappy That A TV Show Insufficiently Retracted A Story It Never Aired Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Kyle Drennen grouses in a May 4 post:
After MSNBC spent four hours on Thursday breathlessly promoting what turned out to be a false story that federal investigators had been “wiretapping” President Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen for months, NBC’s Today show on Friday only managed 41 seconds of air time to correct the phony bombshell.
First: This is a strange complaint to make given that the original claim never appeared on the "Today" show and, indeed, was made on a completely different channel. "Today" was not obligated to correct reporting that was never made on the show.
Second: We would remind Drennen that his employer breathlessly promoted a false story by Fox News before the 2016 election claiming that an indictment of Hillary Clinton was imminent -- so much so that MRC chief Brent Bozell declared that "We will report developments on this continuing cover-up every hour from here on out." None of those hours, though, were devoted to telling MRC readers that Fox News retracted the story.
If the MRC can't be bothered to tell its readers that a story it heavily promoted has been retracted, it has no moral authority whatsoever to demand that a TV show retract a story that it never aired.
MRC's Double Standard on 'Bitter 'Complaints About Anonymous Sources Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Kyle Drennen writes in an April 27 post that "In a statement to The Washington Post on Thursday, disgraced former Today show anchor Matt Lauer bitterly went after his sexual harassment accusers, dismissing the “many false stories” about his behavior “from anonymous or biased sources.” The comments came amid a lengthy Post report on NBC’s poor handling of such allegations, which also detailed new accusations of harassment against former NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw."
So you're "bitter" if you complain about anonymously sourced reporting? In that case, the MRC is very bitter.
Tim Graham and Brent Bozell complained in a Martch 2017 column that "It’s beyond irony that the press that champions transparency also advocates relying on completely opaque sources on a daily basis," adding, "wouldn’t it help to know if these liberal newspapers are relying on Obama holdovers and granting them all the benefits of anonymity?" They also grumbled: "But we never know the donation records of 'senior U.S. officials' placed anonymously on the front page, do we? The liberal media merely insist 'Trust us.'"
Graham and Bozell bashed anonymous sources again in a May 2017 column attacking the Washington Post: "How many times must we attend the same movie? As we've seen so many times since Trump became president, these are anonymous leaks coming from nameless, faceless people whose motives might be pure, or could be poisonous." They added:
Earth to the Post: your new motto is “Democracy dies in darkness,” but anonymous sourcing is darkness. Every source who hides behind a wall as he tries to ruin other people’s careers is a self-serving coward with a personal or political axe to grind. Without knowing an identity, the public has no way of telling... anything. It’s idiotic for the press to demand transparency in government at the exact same time it rewards government officials who refuse to be transparent themselves.
Journalists pat themselves on the back that they would never be “stenographers to power,” but they’re worse than that now. In their zeal to destroy Trump, they've become stenographers to anonymous power.
Graham reinforced his bitter argument in a TV appearance that same month (on Fox News, natch), grousing that "the news media today gets to use these anonymous sources, and the anonymous sources can say all sorts of terrible things about Trump" and repeating the "stenographers to anonymous power" talking point.
This bitterness is doubly hypocritical, given that just before the 2016 election, the MRC expended lots of time and energy promoting an anonymously sourced Fox News story suggesting that Hillary Clinton's indictment was imminent. But Fox News later had to retract that story -- something the MRC never told its readers about.
So it seems the MRC is bitter about anonymous sources only when they fail to advance its right-wing agenda.
Reminder: MRC's Tally of Trump's 'Negative' Media Coverage Is Bogus Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is at it again, as Rich Noyes writes:
The liberal media’s war against President Trump was as fierce as ever during the first four months of 2018, but the onslaught appears to be for naught: In the face of massive and hostile coverage from ABC, CBS and NBC, Trump’s overall job approval rating actually rose, from 37 percent in mid-December to roughly 43 percent at the end of April.
The Media Research Center studied all broadcast evening news coverage of the President from January 1 through April 30, and found 90 percent of the evaluative comments about Trump were negative — precisely the same hostile tone we documented in 2017.
But unlike last year, when the RealClearPolitics average depicted a slow but steady erosion in the President’s job approval numbers, the public has apparently warmed to Trump in 2018, even as the networks are as frosty as ever.
But as we've pointed out everytime the MRC promotes this so-called study, it's utterly bogus and meaningless, and here's why:
It focuses only on a tiny sliver of news -- the evening newscasts on the three networks -- and suggests it's indicative of all media.
It pretends there was never any neutral coverage of Trump. Indeed, the study explicitly rejects neutral coverage -- even though that's arguable the bulk of news coverage -- dishonestly counting "only explicitly evaluative statements."
It fails to take into account the stories themselves and whether negative coverage is deserved or admit that negative coverage is the most accurate way to cover a given story.
It again fails to provide the raw data or the actual statements it evaluated so its work could be evaluated by others. If the MRC's work was genuine and rigorous, wouldn't it be happy to provide the data to back it up?
Noyes even manages to mislead about Trump's poll numbers. As FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver points out, the 43 percent approval that Noyes cites is close to Trump's ceiling; his approval rating has never ventured out of the range of 36 percent to 44 percent -- the narrowest range in the first 500 days of a presidency in the history of modern polling.
But then, providing an accurate record of media coverage of Trump is not the MRC's goal -- promoting a pro-Trump, anti-media agenda is. Which means that MRC chief Brent Bozell couldn't be prouder that Trump referenced his bogus "research" in a tweet.
MRC Gushes Over Bret Baier (Who Fed The MRC Fake News) Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Curtis Houck did some serious fanboying over Fosx News' Bret Baier in an April 26 post:
Former FBI Director and new author James Comey has spent the past 12 days on his book tour promoting A Higher Loyalty, the supposed greatness of Comey himself and the lack thereof on the part of President Trump.
However, no prior interview compared to his Thursday hit on the Fox News Channel’s Special Report as host Bret Baier offered a masterfully tough tour de force akin to interviews of yesteryear by the late Tim Russert.
[...]
Comey denied that despite having written a memo exonerating her and emphasized that it’s crucial for investigators to have an idea of where a probe that ended up lasting almost a year.
It was soon after that Baier showed his mettle, telling Comey that “you already knew that she had been telling, whatever you want to say, lies, mistruths about this investigation of what — and how she handled those emails” and played a clip of Comey stating just that in congressional testimony in July 2016.
[...]
What made Baier’s interview successful but damaging for Comey was his short but pointed questions that didn’t come across as attitudinal or snarky. One such moment was when Baier broached the subject of the Steele dossier.
[...]
Baier then held Comey’s feet to the fire over the leak of the Trump Tower meeting between Comey and Trump over the dossier. The FNC host ran through the gambit of possible leakers and Comey denied all of them. Comey added that he made no attempt to find out who did it because the dossier was an “unclassified, public document.”
Without a doubt, the most devastating exchange focused on Comey’s leaking of his memos to friend, former FBI employee, and law professor Daniel Richman. The FNC host marvelously exposed Comey’s refusal to inform lawmakers that Richman was anything but a private citizen and instead a former “FBI special government employee.”
[...]
This was far from the first instance in which Baier grilled high-profile figures in the news. In March and August 2016, he grilled Hillary Clinton during the height of the campaign in ways that put his competitors to shame. He also hammered then-Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon on Mary 25, 2016 in a similar fashion that you can read about here.
That's some serious gushing. Note that Houck doesn't cite any examples of Baier asking tough questions of a Republican or conservative.
Houck also doesn't mention that Baier is also responsible for a fake-news story the MRC heavily promoted just before the 2016 election -- the anonymously sourced claim that Hillary Clinton was facing imminent indictment. The MRC ranted that media outlets who didn't report the story in a manner to its liking were engaging in a "cover-up," and MRC chief Brent Bozell declared that "We will report developments on this continuing cover-up every hour from here on out."
None of those hours, however, were devoted to the fact that the story turned out to be false, and Baier retracted it. The MRC never told its readers the story was bogus.
But then, Houck and the MRC never holds conservatives to the same journalistic and ethical standards it holds reporters who aren't conservative -- and Houck will never praise a "liberal media" reporter for asking tough questions of a conservative the way he gushed over the Baier-Comey interview.
NEW ARTICLE: Keeping the Hagiography Alive Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center aggressively pushes back against anyone who suggests Ronald Reagan may have had symptoms of Alzheimer's disease while president -- even the president's own son. Read more >>
Just one of the many reasons the Media Research Center's Tim Graham is such a terrible media critic is his funhouse-mirror view of Fox News.
Following President Trump's remarks that appeared to smear at least some undocumented immigrants as "animals," the Media Research Center does what it's paid to do and rushed to Trump's defense, insisting despite his 
The Media Research Center has been protecting Oliver North since his ascension to president of the National Rifle Association. We've already 
The Media Research Center's Julia Seymour grumbled in a May 14 
The Media Research Center 
We've already 
The Media Research Center likes to 
The Media Research Center keeps freaking out about LGBT stuff, so we have no choice but to document those freakouts.
Needless to say, the Media Research Center was incensed by Michelle Wolf's comedy routine at the White House Press Association Dinner, 
The Media Research Center's Kyle Drennen grouses in a May 4 
The Media Research Center's Kyle Drennen writes in an April 27 
The Media Research Center is at it again, as Rich Noyes 
The Media Research Center's Curtis Houck did some serious fanboying over Fosx News' Bret Baier in an April 26 
