Triggered: MRC Dumps Over Journalists Receiving Awards Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center hates journalism so much, it get triggered if a journalist receives an award.
In a July 10 post, Randy Hall dumped on NBC's Lester holt over an award
Even though many individuals in the “mainstream media” get annoyed when they’re accused of producing “fake news” and are called “the enemy of the people” by President Trump, their fellow liberals have no problem showering them with praise and honors for their “caring, fact-based journalism.”
The latest person to benefit from this practice is Lester Holt, anchor for the weekday NBC Nightly News program, who is set to receive the 2019 Walter Cronkite School Award for Excellence in Journalism at Arizona State University in Phoenix on November 4, the late newsman’s birthday.
[...]
A study by the Media Research Center’s Rich Noyes found that the Democratic debates, which Holt co-hosted, were essentially a two-night donation to liberal goals. Noyes wrote, “A Media Research Center analysis finds 70 of the 102 distinct questions at the two debates echoed liberal talking points or were framed around a liberal world view, vs. only 13 that challenged liberal/Democratic assumptions.”
Holt’s Nightly News has also started a series called “ My Big Idea.” Essentially, it’s Democrats getting softball questions about whatever far-left agenda they want to put in place.
We can only hope that the graduates will be more “insightful” and “fact-based” than the NBC newsman getting this year’s award.
As we've documented, the MRC's tally of "liberal" questions is biased and meaningless because no methodology is shown as to how it assigned ideology to questions.
This was followed five days later by a little hyperventilating by Kyle Drennen, under the not-biased-at-all headlline "NBC’s Andrea Mitchell Getting Award for Lifetime of Bias":
On Monday, the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences announced that longtime liberal NBC News journalist Andrea Mitchell would be receiving a lifetime achievement award during the News & Documentary Emmys in September.
In a statement announcing the decision, Academy president and CEO Adam Sharp hailed: “Andrea Mitchell's groundbreaking career has earned the respect of journalists around the world who aspire to match her standard of excellence. She is an icon.” He particularly applauded her for “building esteem and trust with colleagues, world leaders, and most importantly, the viewers she informs.”
[...]
A write-up on NBCNews.comtouted past liberal media winners of the honor: “The award’s previous recipients include media mogul Ted Turner, television personality Larry King, veteran broadcast journalist Barbara Walters, and former ‘Nightline’ anchor Ted Koppel.”
Given Mitchell’s long track record of biased reporting, she’ll fit right in with that group.
Drennen then stated that "When Mitchell marked 35 years at the network in 2013, the Media Research Center compiled an extensive look back at some of her most partisan promotions of liberals and nastiest attacks on conservatives." It should go without saying that a few dozen short, out-of-context excerpts of reporting and commentary cherry-picked from a 35-year career is evidence of nothing beyond the MRC pushing its anti-media narrative.
This is how petty the MRC is -- that merely being given an award is just another excuse to unload its partisan attacks.
Going back a little earlier, Gabriel Hays was severely triggered in May by CNN's Don Lemon receiving an award from GLAAD:
Following the GLAAD Media L.A. awards show in March, the gay entertainment lobby hosted another evening in New York City to ensure that several other of the culture’s most putrid influencers wouldn’t go without their LGBTQ advocacy trophies.
Hosted by drag queen Shangela, the New York event awarded entertainers and “news” people for their work in flattering LGBTQ sensibilities. Award recipients included Samantha Bee, Madonna, and CNN host Don Lemon.
[...]
CNN host Don Lemon was awarded with “Outstanding Journalism Segment” for his reporting on “Same Sex Couple Reacts to Supreme Court Ruling.” If you recall, this was the infamous case where the Christian baker was demonized for declining to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Though SCOTUS ruled in favor of the baker, progressive media, including Lemon, took the side of the LGBTQ victims, the gay couple who cried, “Homophobia!” Lemon adds this bauble for helping slime the business owner to his trophy case full of GLAAD awards.
Hays didn't even bother to examine the content of the Lemon segment -- he attacked him simply for reporting on it because persecuted anti-gay Christians is a narrative right-wingers -- and, thus, the MRC -- must perpetuate.
In April, Kristine Marsh caught a case of Acosta Derangement Syndrome that's flowing through the MRC headquarters, having a meltdown over the "obnoxious" Jim Acosta receiving an awardfor the "unprofessional behavior" of standing up to the journalism-hating occupants of the White House.
Marsh then accused Acosta of "bullying, over-inflated ego, and petty meltdowns," apparently unaware that those words can also be used to describe her and the MRC's nasty, petty war against Acosta for refusing to be a pro-Trump shill (like the MRC itself).
MRC Doesn't Understand Google Is Not A Store Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Corinne Weaver misleadingly rants in a July 16 post:
Google users can’t buy and sell guns on the platform. But they can buy and sell violent propaganda from the dangerous street thugs known as “Antifa.”
Fox News reported that an armed member of Antifa, specifically, the Puget Sound John Brown Club, threw “fire bombs” on July 15 at an immigration center in Tacoma, Washington. Willem von Spronsen opened fire on police officers and shot “several times,” and was shot down by the officers.
Disturbingly, the search query “antifa bomber” results in merchandise geared toward the violent far-left movement. Among the hats and flags marked with the international Antifa symbol, a bag and a phone case were being sold with the product description, “Riot Fuck Cops Tattoo Freedom Antifa Hooligan Nato Bombing Acab Blood Hardcore.”
Simply type in the word “antifa” in the search bar, and the first result is a T-shirt with the description, “LeftFist John Brown LEFTISTS Own Guns Too Shirt | Socialist Rifle Gun Club Communist Anarchist Antifa AntiFascist.”
Google also sells, under the same search result, a T-shirt that has a guillotine on it. The product description states: “LeftFist Guillotine Shirt | Eat The Rich, anticapitalist, Antifa AntiFascist Action T-Shirt Tee Shirt Leftist Leftism Marxist Socialist Communist.
In addition, under the search results for the query, “milkshake antifa,” Google provides T-shirts and hats with the labels, “Auntie Fa’s finest milkshakes,” “join the milkshake revolution,” or a hand-stitched embroidered item with a molotov cocktail.
Weaver is falsely claiming that Google "sells" or "provides" these items. It does not. For instance, the link she provides for the "LeftFist" item goes to someone's Etsy shop, not to Google, while the "Riot" link goes to a store called Tops Tee -- again, not Google.
This is all under the headline "Google Shopping Sells Antifa ‘Riot F**k Cops’ Merchandise." To repeat: Google "sells" none of this, nor does it play any role in providing these goods that offend Weaver so much -- it provides links to them sold at other places that show up in Google searches.
Weaver also seems to have failed to see if Google "sells" similar far-right-friendly goods, so she could offer a balanced view of the issue instead of a partisan hit piece.
Either this is very sloppy and badly edited writing, or Weaver doesn't know how tech works, despite her job being "staff writer for MRC TechWatch."
Rapinoe Derangement Syndrome At The MRC Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center took a vacation from freaking out about journalists on TV (Jim Acosta, Norah O'Donnell) to go into freakout mode over an athlete: soccer star Megan Rapinoe. And who better to lead said freakouts than the MRC's very own mysterious, gay-hating sports blogger, Jay Maxson.
Maxson was already on the attack back in May, well before the World Cup started, complaining that Rapinoe was the first out lesbian to pose in Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue and then sneering: "The folks at ESPN can say big deal. Rapinoe posed naked with WNBA star Sue Bird in our Body Issue last year." (Maxson has irrational hatred for the Body Issue.)
Maxson became unhinged a few days later, saying that Rapinoe's declaration that her World Cupplay would serve as an F-you to the Trump administration meant that she "is taking the SJW baton from Colin Kaepernick and giving President Donald Trump an ongoing middle finger," going on to call her "a far-left activist and Hillary Clinton supporter." (Maxson irrationally hates Kaepernick too.) After the U.S. team's 13-0 crushing of Thailand in thefirst round of the Women's World Cup, Maxson raged that Rapinoe "refused to honor America during the pre-game national anthem" as "the only American player without her hand over her heart, eyes focused on the flag and singing the Star Spangled Banner," huffing that "Rapinoe's defiance drew little media disapproval." Maxson then aimed his/her attacks againstanyone who defended Rapinoe (while making sure his readers know she's a "lesbian," or, more specifically, "the undisputed lesbian queen and social justice warrior of pro women's soccer" while accusing one writer of offering a "defense of Rapinoe's sexual orientation").
Over the weekend, USA Today's coverage of the U.S. women's national soccer team's play in the World Cup in France could have easily been thought of as a well-coordinated attack on President Donald Trump. Saturday's online edition carried three politically charged stories on the soccer team — one-fourth of the day's "Top Stories" list — paying little attention to the team's actual play on the field.
Maxson also huffed that Rapinoe has been expressing "defiance" by "waging an anti-Trump campaign for several weeks and who stands silently without her hand over her heart during the pre-match national anthem."
Maxson also ranted that Rapinoe "is being hailed as the new version of the symbol she detests" by likeniner her to the American flag. Maxson offered no evidence that Rapinoe's failure to offer the meaningless salutes to the flag that he/she demands equates to "detesting" it.
The rant baton then got passed to Matt Philbin, who immediately denounced Rapinoe as an "angry, outspoken lesbian" and was apoplectic that a writer called her "her generation’s Muhammad Ali" and praised her self-expression, huffing that "the self-expression fetishists weren't so thrilled when a devoutly Christian prospect for the World Cup team didn't want to wear a rainbow 'Pride' jersey." (Hating gays -- as said soccer player Jaelene Hinkle does, with MRCapproval -- is the only acceptable form of self-expression as far as the MRC is concerned.)
Maxson returned to go on an anti-gay tear with a bonus sneer at a "trans" writer:
SBNation trans writer Kim McCauley waved off all objectivity in her first sentence, admitting she's "an unabashed fan" of the World Cup champion U.S. women's soccer team. Her post, "Why the USWNT's open queerness matters", confirms what's been obvious throughout the duration of the World Cup, by the team and its media friends: the U.S. team is a bastion for queer hope and a vehicle for LGBT+ pride.
Maxson was further put out that previously "American lesbian soccer stars kept their sexual orientation secret to retain endorsement opportunities" but "Now, with the media's encouragement, they flaunt it for all it's worth."
Maxson then whined again at USA Today for being "obsessed beyond obsession with this team and its gay rights and anti-Trump crusades," further huffing that "Media are positively enamored with the outrageous Rapinoe, a wild-eyed supporter of Colin Kaepernick." Maxson also complained that adding Hinkle could have added diversity to the team, but "tolerant-lite team, at the urging of tolerant-lite LGBT fans and media, had a fit over the mere thought of allowing someone like her to occupy a position on the team." Maxson didn't mention that the team has several team players who consider themselves Christian and, unlike Hinkle, are not afraid to associate with people slightly different from them.
Gabriel Hays followed by complaining that Rapinoe "slammed President Donald Trump ... blasting his 'Make America Great Again' slogan as a message that’s 'excluding people'" (though he didn't factually dispute her claim). He also groused that Rapinoe would reject any invitation from Trump to visit the White House, it "doesn’t mean that Rapinoe isn’t interested in taking a victory lap around D.C. The U.S. women’s captain has accepted invites to visit Democratic lawmakers at the Capitol, agreeing to visit Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Democratic senator Chuck Schumer."
That was followed by Scott Whitlock making a lame media attack, complaining that after Rapinoe "dropped the F-bomb during a championship parade in New York City," MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell "praised the 'eloquence' of the soccer star." Kyle Drennen then bashed MSNBC's Rachel Maddow for conducting a "predictably fawning" interview with Rapinoe, further sneering, "Move over Colin Kaepernick, the liberal media have found their new champion."
Indeed, any media praise of Rapinoe set the MRC into throes of anger. Curtis Houck contributed a sneer of his own: "Despite the fact that the 2019 FIFA Women’s World Cup ended on Sunday, the liberal media’s infatuation with not so much the U.S. Women’s National Team’s play on the pitch but their wokeness off it has continued." The MRC's chief Acosta Derangement Syndrome sufferer then groused that praise for Rapinoe standing up to Trump were somehow "great reminders that TDS was real and idolatry was a sin!" Tim Graham joined the fun by complaining that "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd "gushed like a geyser" over guest Rapinoe.
Maxson then wrested back his MRC-provided soapbox to tout a right-wing writer calling Rapinoe "a foul-mouthed stage hog" whose "all-about-me diva pose" should have been reined in (something no MRC employee has ever said about Donald Trump), and that her team's achievement in winning the world Cup means nothing because"It was the Women's World Cup!'
MRC Lies About Chris Hayes' Criticism of Trump Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center usually just limns the truth to justify attacks on non-conservative journalists and media figures. It does outright lie on occasion, however, and it did so in a July 19 post by intern Emma Fantuzzo.
"MSNBC’s Chris Hayes: Trump Supporters Must Be ‘Confronted and Destroyed’" was the headline on Fantuzzo's post, and she claimed that Hayes was "denouncing all Republicans and Trump supporters, and calling for a revolution of sorts against the Trump administration. She went on to write:
According to Hayes, the conservative movement has been hiding some maniacal plan and it had nothing to do with their ideology: “They realize that no one actually cared about deficits or small government. That was never the fuel that fired the engine of Republican politics. It was always roiling rage against them that was on full display in the ‘Send her back’ chants last night.” For a movement that prides itself on being thinkers and valuing common sense over being guided by feelings, Hayes sentiments seem unlikely.
Nevertheless, Hayes continued to insist on the eminent danger posed by millions of peaceful Americans and implored: “It must be peacefully, nonviolently, politically destroyed with love, compassion and determination, but utterly confronted and destroyed. That is the only way to break the coalition apart.”
The existence of the word "it" instead of "they" before the "peacefully, nonviolently, politically destroyed" is abig clue to the fact that Hayes was not talking about individual Trump supporters. Indeed, the full quote from Hayes, which exists in the video clip that accompanies Fantuzzo's post, exposes that he was talking about the Trump-driven conservative ideology, as epitomized by the "send her back" chants at the Trump rally, and he's clearly referring to "that sentiment" rather than individual supporters (emphasis added):
Without that rage and that passion, that enthusiasm and fire in that room, this entire project falls apart. That sentiment at the core of the coalition cannot be pried loose and it cannot be negotiated with and it cannot be appeased. It must be peacefully, nonviolently, politically destroyed with love, compassion and determination, but utterly confronted and destroyed. That is the only way to break the coalition apart.
When Ryan Saavedra of the right-wing Daily Wire tweeted out the MRC's headline, Hayes called them out: "I said very clearly that Trumpism, the ideology must be destroyed. That the bigotry must be confronted and destroyed. Not his supporters. The headline is wrong. There's no way you will agree with the monologue but that's a garbage mischaracterization."
The fact that the false headline is still live on Fantuzzo's piece nearly two weeks later tells us how much the MRC really cares about truth and accuracy.
Norah O'Donnell Derangement Syndrome At The MRC Topic: Media Research Center
We knew the Media Research Center suffered from Acosta Derangement Syndrome, but we weren't aware that O'Donnell Derangement Syndrome was a thing until Norah O'Donnell debuted as the new anchor for the CBS Evening News.
On the day of her debut, Geoffrey Dickens ranted about she purportedly decided to act "liberal" in order to get the job:
Norah O’Donnell has risen through the ranks of TV jobs from MSNBC correspondent to CBS This Morning co-host. On Monday she begins her stint in the CBS Evening News anchor chair previously occupied by the likes of Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather and Katie Couric. And much like those liberal bias legends before her, O’Donnell realized one of the best ways to climb the ladder was to lean left in her reporting and hosting duties.
Dickens then provided examples of O'Donnell allegedly "adoring Democrats and liberals and attacking Republicans and conservatives, one of which was described as "Slapping a Republican for Failing to Follow Liberal Playbook." Of course, Dickens is slapping a journalist for failing to follow the conservative playbook.
So theMRC minions were clearly looking for something -- anything -- to be offended by in O'Donnell's debut so it could fill out its narrative against her. And boy, were they.
Under a sneering "We TOLD You So" headline, Curtis Houck declared that Dickens' post "struck gold" because "the debut episode of O’Donnell’s CBS Evening News made it apparent that the newscast will return to being virulently anti-Trump, waging war against the President after his 'racist' 'tweets.'" But all Houck could actually identify was O'Donnell letting the targets of Trump's tweets (why did Houck put scare quotes around "tweets"?) to respond.
Houck also found O'Donnell guilty of reporting the news in an order he didn't like: More odiously, O’Donnell sandwiched between coverage of Trump’s tweets and more pro-illegal immigration coverage a news brief about the latest life sentence for the white supremacist convicted in the Charlottesville murder of Heather Heyer, as if to link him to Trump and the GOP."
Houck ended his post with more deranged sneering, responding to O'Donnell's closing declaration that journalism should fight against "ignorance, intolerance, and indifference" with unironic smugness: "Look out, Scott Pelley. Because you might have some competition at CBS in the smug department." Houck simply linked to the MRC archive on Pelley and identified nothing whatsoever from him that could be described as "smug."
After Monday’s debut of the CBS Evening News with Norah O’Donnell established that it would be an unquestionable home for liberal bias, night two cemented that as O’Donnell and her team provided more liberal bias, whether it be the President’s “racist tweets,” letting a Democratic donor interview “The Squad,” or blaming an upcoming heat wave to climate change.
O’Donnell teased their coverage from the Kennedy Space Center on the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11's launch before stating that “we’re going to begin with that breaking news here on Earth” about the House “resolution to condemn” Trump’s “racist tweets” even though it wasn’t a full-blown censure.
(Houck put "racist tweets" in scare quotes because it's the right-wing narrative never to admit that Trump's tweets were racist.)
Houck then expressed faux concern for the "great journalism" at CBS purportedly being hurt by letting Gayle King interview people:
Showing how not only biased but ethically challenged some at CBS are (thus hurting many there who do great journalism), the newscast then aired an except ofn CBS This Morning co-host Gayle King’s “exclusive” interview with Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI).
For some reason, the higher-ups thought letting a Democratic donor, Corey Booker friend, and Obama family friend in King would work. Based on the released excerpt, King lived up to her partisan streak by lobbing softballs[.]
Houck also put words in O'Donnell's mouth claiming that she "blamed" a heat wave on climate change -- followed by a quote in which she accurately said that it's something "scientists link to climate change." He then lectured: "Now, this writer doesn’t have a degree in climatology or meteorology, but climate looks at matters over periods of time while the weather concerns things happening in now or near future. Sure, one can discuss climate change, but a singular weather pattern being emblematic isn’t ideal." Houck seems to have forgotten that his employer loves to portray the existence of cold weather as evidence that global warming isn't real.
The following day, Houck snarkily claimed that O'Donnell served up "a rare reprieve with substantive, snark-free coverage of the illegal immigration crisis at the border (compared to what we usually see) and another example of how, even in the liberal media, broken clocks can occasionally be right.
In antoher post, Houck cheered that O'Donnell reported on the "legal victory" for Trump in the form of the closing of an investigation into Trump's hush-money payments to a porn star, but offered up more snark by climing that the program "offered a tinge of disappointment there were no new charges."
The outrage baton was then handed to Scott Whitlock, who attacked O'Donnell's appearance on Stephen Colbert's late-night CBS, huffing that O'Donnell's declaration that journalism is what "makes democracies work" was an example of she "continued to announce just how pleased she is with herself and fellow journalists." He linked to Dickens' post again as evidence that O'Donnell "has a long history of liberal bias."
Houck concluded O'Donnell's debut week with more ranting that her show "has showcased a CNN-like penchant for liberal bias and punditry masquerading as reporting." He didn't explain why CBS is forbidden from doing that while his employer's own "news" division does so with impunity.
Houck then groused that the program had done a "covert" interview with "someone with far-left, hate-Trump mindset already predisposed to oppose him." Meanwhile, Houck and his MRC colleagues have firmly established themselves as people with far-right, hate-O'Donnell mindsets who were already predisposed to oppose her.
Which, of course, makes this kind of prefabricated, agenda-driven and outrage-obsessed "media research" difficult to take seriously.
MRC Bashes Critic For Criticizing Comedian's Unfunny Transgender Jokes Topic: Media Research Center
We've noted how the Media Research Center berlieves that the LGBT community is a preferred target for comedy, as exemplified by its defense of Steven Crowder's homophobic attacks on gay journalist Carlos Maza as being OK because it comes from a "comedian." Now the MRC has defended more bad LGBT-mocking humor.
In a July 11 post, Clay Waters bashed New York Times critic Jason Zinoman for criticizing comedian Dave Chappelle for maikng "lukewarm jokes" about transgenders, claiming that Chappelle committed the offense of "telling jokes about people that Zinoman doesn’t think he should be telling jokes about." Waters chortled later in thepost that "Zinoman was getting his own 'comedy roast' on Twitter for being such a censorious scold and advising comedian Chappelle what he can and cannot joke about."
Needless to say, the MRC loves to tell people who they can and cannot joke about. Indeed, the very next day, MRC leaders Tim Graham and Brent Bozell attacked a cartoon for making jokes about President Trump:
CBS-owned Showtime has created a Trump-blasting animated series called "Our Cartoon President," reminiscent of that George W. Bush-bashing "Lil' Bush" series that Comedy Central made while Bush was in office. Can you imagine Showtime having aired a president-mocking cartoon while Bill Clinton or Barack Obama were in office? How about one about President Hillary? They wouldn't dare.
Showtime thinks it's funny to claim that conservatives say they are "oppressed" and need a "safe space." The network says its "cutting-edge comedy presents the truish adventures of Trump ... and his family."
"Truish." That word gives you a clue. It's like the truth. The executive producer is CBS late-night star Stephen Colbert, so the "truish" part is fascinating.
[...]
"Truthiness" perfectly defines this nasty cartoon, made by a nasty man who announced on national television that this president's mouth is a holster for Russian President Vladimir Putin's penis. He presents Trump and conservatives as the worst kind of loathsome idiots, because that's the truth he wants to exist. It's "his truth," as the left so illogically tries to explain these things. It's just another dose of ongoing therapy for liberals who feel oppressed because Trump is president.
Of course, Waters never explained why jokes about transgenders are inherently and perpetually funny and immune from criticism.
Waters would never dare to call his bosses out for complaining that "Our Cartoon President" was "telling jokes about people that" Graham and Bozell don’t "think he should be telling jokes about," though they're acting exactly the same as the Times critic he attacks. We assume he values his paycheck too much.
MRC Leader Graham's War on Fact-Checkers Grinds Dishonestly Forward Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center -- mostly in the person of Tim Graham -- has longwagedwar on media fact-checkers for purported bias (though really just for pointing out that conservatives in general, and President Trump in particular, lie on a depressingly regular basis). Let's take a quick look at how that war has ranged from the nitpicky to the dishonest in recent months.
In January, Graham once more denounced the very act of Trump being fact-checked, complaining about fact-checkers' "one-sided aggression toward Trump" -- seemingly oblivious to the idea that perhaps the president of the United States should be held to a higher factual standard than the "liberal Senators" he thinks should be fact-checked a lot more. Of course, nobody's stopping Graham and the MRC from setting up their own fact-checking operation; it seems complaining makes for a more exploitable narrative than actually doing something about it.
In April, Graham complained that Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler hasn't denounced Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg for claiming that Vice President Mike Pence supported anti-gay conversion therapy -- only to admit that "Buttigieg hasn't expressly attacked him for it." He then complained that Kessler said that "Pence could certainly settle this conundrum if he has rejected such therapies in his own words, rather than through a spokesman. Then there would no longer be any question," adding that "It's especially weird for Kessler to diss [Pence spokesperson Alyssa] Farah like this. ... Those aides are good enough for him to make a ruling (or avoid a ruling)."
That might be a good argument had the MRC not done the same exact thing. In 2016, disgraced NewsBusters blogger Tom Blumer insisted that Bill Clinton's denial that he raped Juanita Braoddrick isn't real because the denial came from spokesmen and not directly from Clinton's mouth.
In May, Graham tried to justify Trump's statement at a rally abpout laws protecting the right to abortion that "The baby is born and you wrap the baby beautifully and you talk to the mother about the possible execution of the baby" was somehow true because the statement was "borrowing from what Gov. Northam said in an awkward radio interview about how a baby 'unsuccessfully' aborted would be treated." But Northam's spokesperson pointed out later that the governor misspoke and was not endorsing infanticide but, ratrher, "the tragic and extremely rare case in which a woman with a nonviable pregnancy or severe fetal abnormalities went into labor." Shouldn't Graham have given Northam the benefit of the doubt here because of the spokesman's statement, just like he demanded Pence's spokesperson be treated as the real thing?
In a June post, Graham stuck the right-wing narrative while grousing that a fact-checker pointed out that there's "little evidence" to support Trump's claim that the real Russian collusion was done by Democrats and not with the Trump campaign, further whining that "he won't explicitly acknowledge the Russian cooperation in the Steele dossier, where an ex-British spy dug up salacious dirt on Trump from Russian sources. He only mentioned it to deny it had any importance (and forget the fact of the FISA warrants spawned by it)." But as others have pointed out, the Steele dossier was not the basis for the FISA warrant to invesitgate onetime Trump campaign official Carter Page.
Graham joined (read:ghostwrote) with his boss, Brent Bozell for a July 2 column complaoining that Democratic presidential candidates aren't fact-checked as much as they demand:
PolitiFact actually boasted on Twitter during the debate: "We've been fact-checking @ewarren since 2014. She has never received a rating lower than Half True." How is that possible? Easy. For one, PolitiFact has never issued a Truth-O-Meter ruling on Warren's claim of being part Cherokee Indian.
Perhaps because there's no evidence that Warren ever deliberately lied about her heritage -- she was simply repeating family stories about it that were ultimately found not to be true. Graham and Bozell presented no evidence whatsoever of deliberate deception.
That kind of partisan pettiness permeates the column; at one point they grouse that "Our favorite whopper of the night was when Julian Castro asserted that a 'trans female' should have a right to an abortion, when a 'trans female' is someone who is born male, born without a uterus." As leaders of a partisan political operation that sneers at transgenders, they would say this.
MRC Does Damage Control For Border Patrol Topic: Media Research Center
After ProPublica broke a story about a secret Facebook group for former Border Patrol agents filled with racist and sexist comments and jokes about dead migrants, the Media Research Center did something that had nothing whatsoever to do with "media research" -- it rushed to the Border Patrol's defense by throwing out what might be generously described as alternative facts.
In a July 5 post, Corinne Weaver asserted that "Facebook’s past policies may have implicated innocent users in some controversial activities" -- even though she admitted that ProPublica double-checked names in the group against that of known Border Patrol agents. She continued:
A Facebook spokesperson confirmed that before December 2018, users could be added to a group without agreeing to be added. They would receive an invitation to the group, but the invite automatically added the user. Now, the new policy makes users “accept invitations” before they are added to a group.
The border patrol group is 3 years old, according to ProPublica. For two years, some members of the group could have been added without realizing it. Only brand-new group members are guaranteed to have joined voluntarily.
In addition, many members in the group might have missed some or all of those posts. If a member of a group does not interact with a group for a certain period of time, the latest posts float down to the bottom of the newsfeed. So very active members of the group would have been able to see most of the posts, while less active members would not have seen as much.
Just because someone was a member of a group does not mean they were active members who commented, posted, or even saw all of the content.
Weaver is simply making excuses. The facts remain that this Facebook group does exist, and these agents did belong to it -- even Border Patrol chief Carla Provost was forced to admit she belonged to it (though she denied being an active member).
It's highly unlikely that Weaver or anyone else at the MRC would give the same benefit of the doubt to anyone who belonged to a Facebook group that published offensive content that could be considered liberal-leaning -- recall its incessantwhining about the "Journolist" listserv because non-conservative journalists were involved (and its complete silence about Groundswell, the secret listserv for conservative journalists and activists, not even to discuss whether any MRC employee took part in it).
Weaver's defense of the Border Patrol is nothing but political damage control that's little more than just another MRC double standard.
MRC Goes Into Full Deflection Mode on Trump-Epstein Ties Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center and its NewsBusters division (looking at you, Mark Finkelstein) have a problemacknowledging that Donald Trump has a connection to accused pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, which typically manifests itself in labored attempts to complain that Bill Clinton had dealings with Epstein too (ignoring the inconvenient fact that Trump is the current president while Clinton hasn't been president for nearly 20 years now). With Epstein's latest arrest on charges of sex trafficking and with exposure of Trump labor secretary Alexander Acosta's role in working out a sweet plea deal for Epstein when he was a federal prosecutor, the MRC was compelled to deflect and defend anew.
A July 8 post by Kristine Marsh set the page, huffing that one ABC news show failed to report on "Epstein’s highly controversial connection to former President Bill Clinton" or that Epstein was "a major Democrat [sic] donor," referencing a Fox News report (of course) claiming that "Clinton was a frequent flier on Epstein’s private jet full of underage girls." Marsh further complained that other news reports "tried to connect Epstein to Trump" and one of those reports "didn’t mention that after Epstein had been convicted of assaulting an underage girl, Trump had barred him from Mar-a-Lago." Marsh didn't address the issue of why Trump allowed Epstein into Mar-a-Lago in the first place.
ABC finally broke its silence, finally mentioning Bill Clinton’s connection to registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a man now accused of new charges of sex trafficking. But the combined mentions on Monday night and Tuesday morning only amounted to 38 seconds. In comparison, the total amount of Epstein coverage since Sunday has been 21 minutes and 3 seconds.
Whitlock failed to acknowledge Trump's links to Epstein, though he did reference the Acosta controversy.
Marsh got all huffy again in another deflection-filled post, complaining that "The View" co-host Joy Behar "tried desperately to connect the longtime Democrat donor to President Trump" though "Epstein was a major donor to the Clinton Foundation and President Bill Clinton reportedly took over two dozen trips with the sexual predator on his private jet nicknamed the 'Lolita Express'."
Ryan Foley, meanwhile, simply engaged in stenography, touting how Fox News' Sean Hannity was "scorching the media’s attempt to make President Trump such an outsized force in coverage of the Jeffrey Epstein case," making sure to repeat the talking point that Trump "banned him from Mar-a-Lago years ago."
Emma Fantuzzo groused that MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell and guest Tim O’Brien made over-the-top claims and speculations into the relationship between recently indicted Jeffery Epstein and President Donald Trump," further complaining that a "17-year-old quote" from Trump calling Epstein a "terrific guy" and complementing his taste in younger women "was supposedly evidence that Epstein still stands in the President’s good graces, despite accounts that Trump banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago years ago for inappropriate behavior." She added, per the MRC's narrative: "Incredibly, the only mention of Bill Clinton was in his defense, citing the statement written by Clinton that he hadn’t known about Epstein’s crimes."
Alex Christy complained about "insistence on Wednesday's Deadline: White House comparing President Trump to alleged serial child sex abuser and trafficker Jeffrey Epstein," while Gabriel Hays gave a big "YAWN" to "lefty" John Lithgow "read[ing] an excerpt from his poetry on Trump’s relationship with now-resigned Department of Labour Secretary Alexander Acosta, a man Lithgow believes covered for sex trafficker, billionaire Jeffrey Epstein," sneering "Clearly Lithgow wants us to know he’s a Renaissance man … Please clap?"
On Sunday, CNN’s Brian Stelter and Phil Mattingly warped the recent sentencing of child abuser and Democratic mega-donor Jeffrey Epstein into a story about (who else?) Donald Trump. Following the resignation of Labor Secretary Alex Acosta — who had come under scrutiny for a shockingly favorable plea deal he had previously granted Epstein as a federal prosecutor — both Stelter and Mattingly brandished Acosta’s resignation as the latest example of instability and high turnover within the White House.
[...]
Given how heavily news networks like CNN have focused on Acosta and the Trump administration throughout this scandal, it’s worth asking how much of the media’s renewed interest in Epstein was driven by a desire to paint the saga as the latest black mark on the President’s record.
So in denial is the MRC over Trump and Epstein that when a video surfaced of the two together at a 1992 party, Gregory Price insisted there was no news value whatsoever:
If there is one thing that is sure to end the presidency of Donald Trump, it is a video of him at a party in 1992 surrounded by NFL cheerleaders and having a conversation with Jeffrey Epstein long before anyone knew he was guilty of sex trafficking. On Wednesday, NBC News went through its archives to find a segment from Faith Daniels’ NBC talk show that captured Trump at one of his Mar-a-Lago parties (something common in the ‘80s and ‘90s).
MSNBC’s Morning Joe and NBC’s Today each dedicated at least 10 minute segments to an extraordinary achievement in investigative journalism: Trump was active in the wealthy New York/Florida party scene during his career as a real-estate mogul. This is neither new information, nor relevant to Epstein’s case because many millionaires were friends with him at the time.
[...]
If NBC was serious about actually doing hard-hitting journalism about the Epstein case, they would focus less on videos of parties from 1992 and more on President Bill Clinton’s sketchy relationship with Epstein. Not only did Clinton lie about the number of times he flew on Epstein’s private jet according to flight logs, but investigative journalists also found that Clinton was on his plane at the same time as underage girls.
In another attempt to go after President Trump, NBC once again falls flat on its face.
But if the current president's link to a convicted pedophile is not newsworthy, why is a long-former president's link somehow totally newsworthy? Unsurprisingly, Price never explained the difference.
MRC's Double Standard On Calling A Conservative Journalist A 'Conservative Journalist' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Kristine Marsh gets all huffy in a July 2 post:
When you’re a liberal and you fabricate a ludicrous story painting conservatives as the violent aggressors with absolutely zero evidence, your story gets nationwide media coverage for weeks on end with little scrutiny. If you’re a conservative clearly attacked on video by leftists, with corroborating witnesses however, you story is given scarce attention and cast with doubt by the media. We saw that this week with Quillette journalist Andy Ngo, whose assault by Antifa members was captured on video, yet CNN repeatedly qualified the incident as just “his word.”
[...]
“Conservative journalist assaulted says Antifa behind attack,” the chryon read on screen (emphasis mine). First off, anyone with two eyes can see clearly what happened, it’s not a matter of he said or she said. Second, why the “conservative” qualifier? Would CNN have called Ngo a “liberal” journalist who “says” he was attacked, if this had happened at a Trump rally?
We'd take Marsh's outrage at face value, but for the fact that the day before, the MRC identified Ngo as ... a conservative journalist.
"Conservative Journalist Andy Ngo Recounts Vicious Assault By Antifa" was the headline of Nicholas Fondacaro's July 1 post, adding: "On Saturday, conservative journalist Andy Ngo, who reports for Quillette, was brutally beaten with fists and weapons and doused with milkshakes laced with quick-dry cement by the left-wing, domestic terrorist group Antifa." Foncacaro's post even carries the "Conservatives and Republicans" tag (curiously missing frpm Marsh's post).
Of course, if Ngo wasn't a "conservative journalist," the MRC wouldn't be working so hard to exploit the incident (it helps that Ngo himself is eager to exploit it to boost his media profile). It crankedout a slew of its patented "a narrow slice of media didn't cover X, so that proves it's biased" post whining that Ngo's attack wasn't covered. Curtis Houck huffed that a CNN story "was spun with Ngo being dubbed a 'conservative blogger' and mentioned alongside white nationalist groups like the Proud Boys."
It's OK for the MRC to identify Ngo as a "conservative" but it's somehow bias and spin for a non-conservative outlet to do the same thing? We're confused.
(Houck didn't mention thaty the Proud Boys was founded by Gavin McInnes, who was at the time a host for CRTV, run by close friend of the MRC Mark Levin.)
MRC Seems To Be Making Things Up In Assigning Ideology To Debate Questions Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center did its best to try and work the refs ahead of the Democratic presidential debate in June -- but, as usual it refuses to complete show its work in assigning ideology to the questions asked at the debate.
Geoffrey Dickens kicked things off in a June 24 item by demanding that NBC and affiliated networks ask questions with a right-wing bias: "If they are to match what their colleagues did with Republican candidates in 2015, they should ask questions designed to humiliate, badger and paint them as not ready for prime time, cartoonish, out-of-touch extremists." Dickens refused to acknowledge that the questions asked of the Republicans were legitimate even though they put the candidates on the spot.
After the first night of the debate, the MRC was quick to frame anything non-conservative as a pejorative. Scott Whitlock declared that "the NBC and MSNBC hosts" asking questions "catered to the party's far-left base, offering questions about just how to take guns away from Americans, the need for aggressive action on climate change and repeated questions about how the nominee would fight the looming threat of Mitch McConnell."
Rich Noyes followed up by falsely conflating "left-wing," hard-edged leftism" and "liberal," asserting: "A Media Research Center analysis finds 39 of the questions at the debate echoed liberal talking points or were framed around a liberal world view, vs. only five that challenged liberal/Democratic assumptions. Another 15 questions were framed in a neutral fashion, or were neutral follow-ups to previous questions.?" Noyes never explained how the MRC made these decisions, though he linked to Whitlock's post containing a complete list of questions.
Noyes followed up after the second night of the debatye with more of the same:
After two nights, NBC/MSNBC has proved that they deserve the nickname “MSDNC.” The twenty Democrats who made the presidential debate stage were treated to questions that were wildly skewed (69%) to the left, with only a scant 13% challenging the candidates to defend their outside-the-mainstream views, a five-to-one disparity.
A Media Research Center analysis finds 70 of the 102 distinct questions at the two debates echoed liberal talking points or were framed around a liberal world view, vs. only 13 that challenged liberal/Democratic assumptions. Another 19 questions were framed in a neutral fashion, or were neutral follow-ups to previous questions.
[...]
here’s a reason why these debates are moderated by (supposedly) independent journalists, who are supposed to challenge the candidates, rather than party insiders who would want to present both the candidates and the party’s platform in as favorable a light as possible.
But it’s hard to see how NBC/MSNBC/Telemundo’s approach was at all different than a debate moderated by Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and other liberal Democratic bigwigs. Real journalists should gag at the two-night display of bias.
Noyes again failed to explain the MRC's alleged methodology, nor did he provide evidence that any view of any Democratic candidate -- let alone all of them, as he seems to be claiming -- is "outside-the-mainstream." Its standards here are purely subjective: a question was deemed "liberal" seemingly because it needed a big number of "liberal" questions to make the so-called analysis exploitable for politial purposes.
If Noyes can't offer a sound, scientifically valid methodology for determining "bias," we have to come to the conclusion that the MRC is simply making things up, letting their own right-wing opinions color their judgment and are motivated only by partisan politics designed to advance its anti-media agenda.
Now That Carl Cameron's No Longer At Fox News, MRC Goes On The Attack Topic: Media Research Center
When longtime Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron announced he had joined a website operation that declared it would be the liberal answer to the right-wing Drudge Report, we knew the Media Research Center would lash out at him following the decades of protection that was afforded him as a Fox News employee. Tim Graham does the deed in a June 25 post:
For decades, Carl Cameron was a top political reporter for Fox News. But now he says he left because "right-wing hosts drowned out straight journalism with partisan misinformation."
He said this in a promotional video for a new left-wing website called Front Page Live, which hopes to be the "antidote" to the Drudge Report. "What’s a former Fox guy doing here on Front Page Live partnering with progressives? Well, it’s about facts, not partisanship." But Cameron sounds a lot like partisan networks like CNN and MSNBC in this video.
[...]
Anyone glancing at this website sees sections on "#Climate Crisis" and "#RadicalRight." It's an attempt at Drudge for liberals. Except Cameron promised there would be "ACT NOW" buttons for people to get involved in campaigns. They link to articles pushing concepts like "The Green New Deal is surprisingly popular."
When Cameron pointed ot that Trump did, in fact, "collude and coordinate with Russia to get elected" and is endangering democracy, Graham couldn't offer any facts in response but instead just sneered, "Riiiight."
Prior to this, the only time we could find that the MRC ever criticized Cameron was in a 2008 post claiming that he "took the low road" by "repeating rumors and gossip from unnamed staffers in the McCain camp about Sarah Palin: her knowledge, temperament, being a shopoholic, etc." in a "somewhat fevered manner." Funny how one becomes an MRC target once you veer from right-wing orthodoxy or, as Cameron has ultimately done, escape the right-wing Fox News media bubble completely.
Consider this yet another reminder that the MRC doesn't give a damn about journalism and cares only about forcing the media to embrace only right-wing narratives.
What LGBT Stuff Is The MRC Freaking Out About Now? Topic: Media Research Center
How is the Media Research Center going into LGBT freakouts these days? Let us count the ways.
Alexander Hall insisted that Google CEO Sundar Pichai was "pandering" to his LGBT employees and cared only about "maintaining politically correct status" by saying in a memo that he would consult "many groups, including people who have themselves experienced harassment" in setting future company policy in the wake of right-winger Steven Crowder's rampant homophobia against gay journalist Carlos Maza. Hall didn't frame if that way, of course; to him, Crowder is just a "conservative comedian" who was merely "making jokes at [Maza's] expense." Hall went on to sneer: "The memo didn’t mention how conservative employees feel excluded after their favorite YouTubers were banned from the platform or demonetized. " Hall did not name any YouTuber who was banned or deplatformed merely for expressing conservative views (unless he's counting homophobia as a conservativ value).
Jorge Plaza complained that author Nicholas Sparks was being unfairly attacked after a lawsuit by the former headmaster of a Christian academy Sparks co-founded exposed communications in which Sparks was trying to shut down diversity efforts at the school, including forbidding the formation of an LGBT club. Plaza lamented that the lawsuit "fit too perfectly into the media’s narrative: Christian organizations are racist, sexist, bigotted, and homophobic."
Alexis Moutevalis Coombs furthered the MRC's Taylor Swift-bashing by complaining about the video for Swift's song "You Need To Calm Down," which featured "dozens of (mostly) LGBT celebrity cameos" and "virtue-signals with shots of angry, illiterate, toothless hicks protesting and holding signs that say, 'Get A Brain Morans!' and 'Homasekualty Is Sin!'" Coombs did take pleasure, however, in some people on "the left" criticizing the video.
Karen Townsend was hate-watching Freefom's "Good Trouble" when she came across a transgender Hispanic character named Jazmin being given a quinceanera-type ceremony:
The episode is a vehicle for the LGBTQ activists in Hollywood to promote their social agenda. Jazmin’s family is having difficulty dealing with her transition and the father is cast in a poor light. The far left still doesn’t get it – transgenderism is not normal behavior. Most Americans feel as the Martinez family does – it is a struggle to come to grips with this situation from a loved one.
The storyline is also a chance to virtue-shame over the ban on transsexuals in the military. Many Americans disagree with transsexuals serving openly in the military, including President Trump. Jazmin tells the party-goers that her quinceañera is an opportunity to fundraise for The Center for Transgender Veterans. She says there are 134,000 trans military veterans, including 15,000 currently serving. The fundraiser raises $10,000 for the fight to end the military ban. And the young people watching this show are further indoctrinated.
As if Townsend isn't attempting anti-transgender indoctrination here.
Gabriel Hays lost it when current "Spider-Man" Tom Holland said he would be open to the superhero being gay, going on to attack Marvel Studios' "inclusive" vision for its superhero franchises, complaining that a "very minor gay character" in "Avengers: Endgame" was "a giant leap for the homosexual agenda being uploaded into the psyches of young comic book fans. Who knows? We may well soon be privy to seeing Spidey in some new rainbow colored digs. And we’re all just going to love it."
The mysterious Jay Maxson whined in a rant against "Big LGBT":
"The story" of Wimbledon so far has been 15-year-old Floridian Coco Gauff. Ranked 313th in the world, she is a wildcard entry who stunned her idol Venus Williams and also made an amazing comeback to defeat Polona Hercog. So who is Timemagazine's Wimbledon coverage focusing on? Why, it's the history-making first lesbian couple playing together in the famed tournament!
And you thought you could escape from the LGBT-in-your-face media frenzy by switching the channel from the lesbian-dominated World Cup women's soccer tournament to Wimbledon tennis. No dice!
Hays returned to grouse that "RuPaul's Drag Race" was nominted for an Emmy, mocking: "No one can outdo RuPaul when it comes making crossdressing fun for the whole family, that’s for sure."
MRC Writer's Rant: There Isn't Enough Islamphobia In The Media! Topic: Media Research Center
Actor Riz Ahmed's complaint about "Islamophobic sentiment in the media" making it "really scary to be a Muslim right now" seriously set off Media Research Center writer Alexis Moutevelis Coombs -- to the point that she devoted a June 28 post to adding more Islamophobia to the media in a screed dedicated to shouting down Ahmed by insisting that, if anything, there isn't enough Islamphobia in the media and that Christians are the real victims:
Do you know where it is really, super scary to be a Muslim right now? In a Muslim nation where women aren’t allowed to work or go to school, where women face the threat of getting acid thrown in their faces or honor killings, and where everyone fears terrorism and persecution from their own government or another Islamic sect.
[...]
Did he seriously compare the U.S. wanting travel restrictions for a few Muslim-majority countries that have problems with terrorism and the U.K. voting to leave the European Union to Communist China’s human rights abuse of Uighur Muslims in real concentration camps?! The moral equivalence is astounding!
Ahmed encouraged the audience “to research how Muslims are represented on television and in movies in a data-driven, targeted, systemic way, so that ultimately Muslims aren’t only portrayed as terrorists or bogeymen.”
Having run MRC Culture’s On TV Blog for the last 4 years, I can tell you it is 100 percent false to claim Muslims are “only” portrayed as terrorists or bogeymen. In fact, Hollywood often bends over backwards to turn this stereotype on its head with storylines featuring positive Muslim characters in key roles – including a Muslim superhero, and innocent Muslims framed by white terrorists or victimized by evil racists -- including an innocent Guantanamo Bay detainee.
But Ahmed wasn’t done. “I think lives are quite literally at stake here,” he went on. “The representation of Muslims on screen — that feeds the policies that get enacted, the people that get killed, the countries that get invaded.”
In what world does he think decisions about policies and war are made because of how Hollywood portrays Muslims? The only representation of Muslims on screen that ever did that was the tv footage of 19 Islamist terrorist hijackers crashing planes in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania on 9/11.
Meanwhile, Christians are the most persecuted religious in the world. With how hateful they are towards Christianity, maybe it’s time Hollywood reconsiders its representation of Christians on screen.
Coombs has pulled a fine combination of outrage and victimization. The MRC must be proud.
MRC's Graham, Bozell Also Try To Discredit Trump Sexual Assault Accuser Topic: Media Research Center
We've documented how the Media Research Center worked to assail the credibility of E. Jean Carroll, who accused President Trump of a sexual assault against her in 1994. That comes from the top, as demonstrated by the June 26 column by Tim Graham and Brent Bozell.
They sneered that Carroll "vaguely guesses" when the assault took place then, after a noncommittal disavowal of the incident, played the Clinton Equivocation card:
That sounds horrible. We should all agree we want to have a president who is not a rapist. The liberals and the Trump haters turned the page back to when Juanita Broaddrick accused Bill Clinton 20 years ago, insisting that conservatives made her a cause celebre.
Yes, that's true. But there's at least one important difference: the speed of the journalism.
[...]
Myers thoroughly investigated the allegation and had placed both Broaddrick and Clinton at the alleged location on that day — April 25, 1978, at the Camelot Hotel. Three female friends said Broaddrick had told them of this assault, and that she had a black and swollen lip. Liberals energetically attempted to ignore or knock Broaddrick's story in 1999.
But Graham and Bozell forget one key piece of evidence: Not only did Broaddrick spend 20 years denying that any such "rape" occured, she made a sworn affidavit to that effect to the Ken Starr independent counsel investigation of Clinton. As George Conway points out, Carroll's allegation sits on a much more solid foundation that Broaddrick's because of that sworn affidavit, as well as "the sheer number of claims that have now surfaced against Trump — claims in which women have accused Trump of engaging in unwelcome or forcible sexual conduct or assault against them."
Graham and Bozell didn't mention Conway's analysis, Broaddrick's sworn affidavit or the fact that at least 24 women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct -- much more than the accusations against Clinton, whom they would like to assure you is the supposed gold standard for presidential misconduct.Instead, they whine that this story somehow proves that "most Americans think the 'news' media are partisan hacks who define what is "news" and what is not 'news' based on how it can advance (or inhibit) the left's crusade to fundamentally transform America."
Of course, they did not think that the things that discredit Broaddrick were "news" worth telling their readers.
Graham followed up the next day with a post bashing a newspaper article for asking why Carroll's accusation had little impact, complaining that it "made absolutely no reference to Carroll's strange interviews, like her insisting to Anderson Cooper that "most people" thought the concept of rape was 'sexy.' That kooky outburst seemed to cool the media's ardor for the story."
Needless to say, Graham did not mention Broaddrick or her credibility issues. Instead, he whined that the paper didn't initially publish "even though Clinton ended up settling with Jones for $850,000." Does this mean Graham is conceding that Trump committed adultery with a porn star because he paid her hush money?
Graham played the Clinton Equivocation further in a July 1 post complaining about CNN's Brian Stelter discussing Carroll's accusations: "Stelter set up Carroll with a very negative tweet from Donald Trump Jr called her a "nut job" -- instead of asking her skeptical questions about her wildly controversial claims. (He didn't recall that poor, patriarchy-oppressed Hillary called Monica Lewinsky a 'narcissistic Looney Tunes.')" Of course, if Lewinsky was to be believed, shouldn't Graham also beleive Carroll?
Nah -- that would require him putting the truth ahead of politics.
The Media Research Center hates journalism so much, it get triggered if a journalist receives an award.
The Media Research Center's Corinne Weaver misleadingly rants in a July 16 
The Media Research Center took a vacation from freaking out about journalists on TV (
The Media Research Center usually just limns the truth to justify attacks on non-conservative journalists and media figures. It does outright lie on occasion, however, and it did so in a July 19 
We knew the Media Research Center suffered from Acosta Derangement Syndrome, but we weren't aware that O'Donnell Derangement Syndrome was a thing until Norah O'Donnell debuted as the new anchor for the CBS Evening News.
In a July 11 
The Media Research Center -- mostly in the person of Tim Graham -- has 
After ProPublica 
The Media Research Center and its NewsBusters division (looking at you, Mark Finkelstein) have a 
The Media Research Center's Kristine Marsh gets all huffy in a July 2 
The Media Research Center did its best to try and work the refs ahead of the Democratic presidential debate in June -- but, as usual it refuses to complete show its work in assigning ideology to the questions asked at the debate.
When longtime Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron 
How is the Media Research Center going into LGBT freakouts these days? Let us count the ways.
Actor Riz Ahmed's complaint about "Islamophobic sentiment in the media" making it "really scary to be a Muslim right now" seriously set off Media Research Center writer Alexis Moutevelis Coombs -- to the point that she devoted a June 28 
We've 
