MRC's Double Standard on Exploiting A Parent's Grief Topic: Media Research Center
An anonymously written post credited only to "MRC Latino Staff" states:
Once again, Univision anchor Jorge Ramos proves that no argument is off limits so long as it advances the network’s gun control agenda, not even a conspiracy theory with no basis in fact.
A recent edition of Sunday political affairs talker Al Punto featured an interview with Manuel Oliver, father of Joaquín, who perished in the horrific school shooting in Parkland, Florida.
Watch as Ramos goads Oliver into indicting the National Rifle Association as a conspirator in the Parkland shooting, as aired on Univision's Al Punto on Sunday, May 13, 2018:
To be crystal clear: we have no issue whatsoever with Mr. Oliver, who has an absolute right to process his grief as he and his family see fit as they continue to process this tragedy. To suddenly and senselessly lose a child under those circumstances is a parent’s absolute worst nightmare. The parents of those lost to school shootings our fullest measure of love, empathy, and understanding. To that end, Mr. Oliver has nothing but our prayerful support.
We do take exception, however, with the manner in which Ramos chooses to publicly exploit this grief in furtherance of a long-standing gun control agenda.
But when Republicans and Donald Trump exploited the grief of Pat Smith, whose son was killed in the attack on Benghazi, in the furtherance of an agenda by having her spew her raw hatred at the 2016 Republican National convention, the MRC took exception to said exploitation being called out. Curtis Houck ranted:
From the moment that Pat Smith concluded her Monday night speech at the Republican National Convention (RNC) about how her son was murdered in the 2012 Benghazi terror attack, MSNBC had their marching orders to annihilate, demean, and smear Smith for her attacks on Hillary Clinton that left the assembled cast of liberals confused at the “gross accusation” that’s “ruined” the entire night.
"Annihilate, demean, and smear"? How is that different from what Smith did during her speech?
The MRC then whined that the media wouldn't play along with Smith's exploitation, then exploited her grief some more by giving her space to hate even further.
The MRC should stop its own exploitation of people's grief for political purposes before criticizing others for it.
MRC's Graham Finally Finds A Fact-Check He Likes -- When It Goes After Bill Clinton Topic: Media Research Center
The point of the Media Research Center's "fact-checking the fact-checkers" campaign, as we'vedocumented, is nothing more than a politically motivated attack on fact-checkers for pointing the falsehoods and outright lies of President Trump and his administration.
The MRC's Tim Graham demonstrates that grudge once again in a June 5 post, which begins by huffing that "Washington Post 'Fact Checker' Glenn Kessler has concentrated most of his firepower on Donald Trump. A June 1 blog posttouted 'President Trump has made 3,251 false or misleading claims in 497 days.'" Graham doesn't dispute this; he's simply complaining that this particular truth has been made public.
Graham then changed his tune, cheering "a tiny nod toward balance" because the Post fact-checked Bill Clinton about his claims of deep debt upon leaving the presidency and finding them wanting. For no other apparently reason than that it engages in some right-wing-friendly Clinton-bashing, Graham proclaims that "We have rated this Washington Post 'fact check' as The Real Deal."
Which further exposes the agenda of Graham's fact-check-bashing enterprise. Only facts that support the MRC's right-wing, pro-Trump agenda are accepted; any media outlet who writes something negative about Trump -- no matter how true it is -- cannot be trusted.
As we've said before: Real journalists check facts; partisan activists attack the fact-checkers.
MRC Desperate To Tar New Facebook Shows As 'Left-Wing' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Ashley Rae Goldenberg spent an entire June 8 post lashing out at programming Facebook plans to air: "This summer, Facebook is debuting its own slate of original programming, funded by the tech giant. Out of the seven original shows announced, five have clear left-wing agendas." But Goldenberg's definition of "left-wing agenda" is dubious at best.
For instance, among the evidence she cited to claim that an ABC News program would be "left-wing" is ... JoyBehar's comments about "accusing Vice President Mike Pence of being mentally ill for hearing the voice of G-d." Behar is on "The View," which for most of its history was a product of the entertainment side of ABC but moved to a production company under the ABC News umbrella in 2014. Goldenberg also attacked an ABC News reporter as "explicitly political" for reporting that Democratic women were running for office.
Goldenberg then complained that a CNN-related show will 'explicitly feature liberal anchor Anderson Cooper." Among her evidence to back that up: that Cooper "praised former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for her yoga routine."No, reallly.
Goldenberg went on to grouse about a show to be made by viral video producer ATTN:, huffing that "ATTN: has an entire series dedicated to “America Vs,” which is intended to show how much worse off America is than other places around the world" and "even just bluntly 'America should do more to protect its children.'" So protecting children is a "left-wing" position now?
Goldenberg did, however, find a couple shows she didn't find abhorrently "left-wing":
There are only two channels slated to appear on the new Facebook-funded Facebook Watch feature that do not necessarily promote liberal politics. Fox News’ show will be hosted by Carley Shimkus during the weekday morning, Shepard Smith during the weekday afternoon, and Abby Huntsman on the weekends.
Advance Local’s show will be led by the Alabama Media Group, which has brands such as AL.com and It’s a Southern Thing. John Archibald, a writer for AL.com, won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary for writing about the U.S. Senate race between Democrat Doug Jones and Roy Moore.
Goldenberg couldn't quite bring herself to admit that Fox News is reflexively conservative (at least when Shep isn't on, anyway). And she doesn't seem aware that Alabama Media Group publishes three major newspapers in Alabama, which under MRC rules makes it hopelessly "liberal" by definition.
MRC's Graham Seems OK With Jon Stewart Calling Out The MRC's M.O. Topic: Media Research Center
Jon Stewart called out the right-wing outrage machine as best personified by the Media Research Center, and the MRC's Tim Graham is, surprisingly, only mildly annoyed at the exposure.
In a June 4 post, Graham quotes from a Daily Beast article on Stewart reacting to Samantha Bee's vulgar criticism of Ivanka Trump:
“Please understand that a lot of what the right does, and it’s maybe their greatest genius, is they’ve created a code of conduct that they police, that they themselves don’t have to, in any way, abide,” Stewart said.
The right described him as a “tool of the Obama presidency,” because he made two visits to the White House. Meanwhile, Trump “spoke to the head of Fox [News] and strategized with him on a weekly basis and uses their on-air talent as advisers.” He told liberals, “Don’t get caught in a trap of thinking you can live up to a code of integrity that will be enough for the propagandist right. There isn’t. And so, create your own moral code to live by, but don’t be fooled into trying to make concessions that you think will mollify them.”
Seeming to imply that Bee shouldn’t have apologized, Stewart said there is nothing anyone can do to “make them give up this ‘We’re the real victims’ game,” because, “it’s a game, it’s a strategy, and it’s working.”
Interestingly, Graham responded only to the last comment with only lame whataboutism: "So if someone insulted Jon Stewart's wife as a feckless (fill in the blank), it would be a 'game' or a 'strategy' for him to object?"
Graham says nothing about Stewart's statement that the right holds liberals to standards they can't be bothered to follow themselves -- perhaps because he knows it's true. After all, the MRC's "news" division CNSNews.com would be much more than a pro-Trump stenographyservice and PR agency for Mark Levin and Judicial Watch if it was forced to follow the same standards regarding bias that the MRC demands from the so-called "liberal media."
MRC Goes All Out To Game The Vote For Mark Levin Topic: Media Research Center
The love affair between Mark Levin and the Media Research Center is starting to get donwright embarrassing, as the MRC is devoting its nonprofit resources to getting Levin nominated to doing a personal favor for the right-wing radio host.
On Juen 4, the MRC sent to its mailing list a plea to readers to get Levin nominated to the National Radio Hall of Fame. The amount of suck-up here is truly astounding (overenthusiastic italics and bolding in original):
The Great One himself — Mark Levin — has been nominated for induction into the National Radio Hall of Fame.
We can think of no one more deserving of such a tremendous honor than Mark, a true conservative stalwart, a defender of liberty, and a fearless friend of the Media Research Center. His service to the conservative movement is immeasurable and his stance against liberal media bias is unwavering.
Mark’s voice over the airwaves has brought common sense, humor, and hard hitting analysis to millions of Americans and has been a constant thorn in the side of the Left.
Mark is nominated in the “Spoken Word On-Air Personality” category and he needs your vote to win. Not only will it honor this great man but it will also show the world what kind of media personalities the American public really admire.
Help secure Mark Levin’s spot in the National Radio Hall of Fame. Not only is this a well earned honor for an amazing broadcaster but it will drive the liberals crazy when he wins.
Thanks for your support! Let’s do this!
No mention of the fact that Levin and the MRC have a longstanding cross-promotional business deal, or whether this bit of sycophantic cheerleading is a part of that.
Meanwhile, at the MRC's "news" division CNSNews.com, Craig Bannister told readers how to game the vote to run up the numbers for Levin (again, bolding and underline in original):
Fans of Mark Levin can vote twice for his induction into radio’s hall of fame – but, they have to do it before midnight tonight, Monday, June 18, 2018.
This is your chance to vote Mark Levin into the National Radio Hall of Fame!
The contest closes Monday, June 18th @ 11:59pm ET. Mark Levin has been a fearless friend of the Media Research Center for years and his insights are a hugely popular with our readers. The Mark Levin show airs on more than 300 stations nationally, as well as on satellite radio, with millions of listeners each week. It has the third-largest audience of any nationally-syndicated radio program.
The contest allows you to vote two times:once by text AND once by email.
It's almost as if Levin is paying the MRC to do all this.
What LGBT Stuff Is The MRC Freaking Out About Now? Topic: Media Research Center
Apparently, the LGBT freakouts will continue at the Media Research Center until morale improves. Or not.
Gabriel Hays whined that gay representation in movies, while not enough for some, is way too much for him:
Did you notice an awful lot of gay characters in movies during 2017? If so, you’re an ignorant bigot. According to the analysts at GLAAD, all major Hollywood studios performed poorly in terms of forwarding the gay agenda on the big screen. Oh sure, there were two movies entirely dedicated to gay themes, but “Love, Simon” and “Call Me By Your Name” are not enough.
For most Americans, it seemed like last year was filled with all sorts of in-your-face gayness, but for a group that’s hell-bent on mainstreaming LGBT behavior, getting a representative of 3% of the populations into 13% of movies is underperformance. GLAAD gave all the major Hollywood studios’ LGBT efforts a low grade, with both Lionsgate and Warner Bros. rated as “failing.” Granted, in the six years that the media’s gay lobby has done these reviews, no one has received apositive review.
Variety< stated that “The annual report is intended to pressure top movie studios to feature more LGBTQ characters and in more meaningful ways. This year, GLAAD issued a call to studios to ensure that at least 20% of major studio releases include LGBTQ characters by 2021 and 50% by 2024.”
Half of movies with gay characters? That’ll play in Peoria.
Ashley Rae Goldenberg was put out that "Facebook unveiled new features on Friday in order to commemorate Pride Month, which is dedicated to celebrating gay pride," complaining that "Facebook abstains from mentioning religious holidays or very many holidays at all in its news releases."
Gabriel Hays went into freakout mode over a Huffington Post article arguing that Christians shouldn't hate gays so much:
Don’t you love it when lefties lecture you about your own Christian faith, twisting the words of Christ in an attempt to guilt you out of your own morals and standards? Granted, everyone, especially Christians, should be aware of proper charity to marginalized individuals, but when liberals preach that it’s not so much about loving the sinner as it is blindly accepting the tenets of an anti-Christian gay agenda, it becomes clear that it’s not about leveling the playing field.
So the gays are gonna lead us to Christ? No matter how charitable people, especially Christians, are to factions of marginalized communities, the liberal narrative won’t settle for anything less than complete capitulation to their brand of victimhood politics. At what point will the LGBTQ community stop seeing themselves as the punished caste?
But until conservative Christians let the progressives and pro-gay advocates take complete control of American culture and politics, they will be characterized as promoting a “culture of death,” and then some. It’s interesting that they would say this about Christianity, and not condemn other cultures that are murderously anti-gay, like Islam? But then again, why would you condemn your biggest ally in the war on Christianity? Because it’s obvious that’s all this is anyways.
Perhaps Fondacaro should look down the hall at MRC headquarters at CNSNews.com's homophobic managing editor, Michael W. Chapman, to see why the LGBTQ community might have an issue with some Christians and why they feel like a "punished caste."
Jay Maxson complained that "CNN's feature on a jockey engaged in so-called "transitioning from male to female" is part of a larger and ongoing agenda by the network to push the LGBT transgender agenda," huffing further about "CNN promoting the big T in LGBT, many concerning President Trump's ban on transgenders in the military." If Maxson knows that the T in LGBT stands for transgender, why did he redundanly write about the "LGBT transgender agenda" earlier?
Maxson concluded by sneering: "Because when it comes to gender bias, CNN is the Confused News Network."
The MRC's Clinton Derangement Syndrome, Book Review Division Topic: Media Research Center
There really is no end to the depths fo the Clinton derangement at the Media Research Center. Even a review of a book written by a Clinton sets them off.
The MRC is determined to hate -- regardless of its actual merits -- the novel Bill Clinton wrote with James Patterson, "The President Is Missing." So Corinne Weaver took offense when conservative-leaning MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace wrote a positive review of it for the New York Times -- taking particular offense to Wallace calling the book "wildly readable" -- and used the review to launch a personal attack on Clinton:
For the record, deeming something “wildly readable” makes about as much sense as categorizing water as “wildly drinkable.” There are many books out there that could be termed “wildly readable,” including Twilight and The Princess Diaries. Was the book really that bland that the best thing about it was its sheer readability?
No, apparently it also resembles a well-constructed ball of yarn. “I can report that the novel unspools smoothly,” writes Wallace. She also called it "satisfying," (good grief, is this a whiskey ad?) and hyped certain sections of the book that blatantly addressed politics (or even could have been tongue in cheek references to Clinton’s own past.) She quoted a passage from the end, “We’d learn to listen to one another more and defame one another less.” This from the guy that had a “bimbo eruption” squad ready to smear any woman that accused him of sexual harassment.
Weaver concluded by sneering of Wallace: "I bet she thinks Twilight was a good book too." Weaver did not indicated that she read the book so she could offer an informed opinion that went beyond juvenile mocking.
Speaking of juvenile, P.J. Gladnick was positively giddy that the New Yorker wrote a bad review of the book:
Fortunately a devastatingly funny review of the book was written by Anthony Lane of The New Yorker, “Bill Clinton and James Patterson’s Concussive Collaboration.” No matter what you think of the novel itself, you are sure to be entertained by the review whose subtitle reveals what else is also missing:The President Is Missing contains most of what you’d expect from this duo: politico-historical ramblings, mixed metaphors, saving the world. But why is there no sex:
Even if your opinion of the Clinton-Patterson novel is not very high, the fringe benefit is that at least it has inspired one of the funniest book reviews in a long time.
This is what's being presented as "media research" at the MRC.
Double Standards Galore in MRC's Outrage Over Samantha Bee Topic: Media Research Center
There were a lot of double standards flying about when the Media Research Center wenty after Samantha Bee for tagging a vulgar expression on Ivanka Trump.
Kyle Drennen complained that one reporter pointed out that Bee is a comedian: "When Roseanne crossed the line, the press rightfully criticized her. But when Bee hurled her invective at the First Family, Soboroff’s first instinct was to claim she’s just 'a comedian.' The hypocrisy is stunning."
As is the MRC's. We remember when Hank Williams Jr. likened President Obama to Hitler, the MRC's first instinct was to dismiss it as a "bad joke."
Peter Sifre declared: "It is absolutely wrong to call a woman the 'C' word. However, the moral relativism of the left naturally leads to the conclusion that it is allowed if the correct intersectional categories are checked off by the offender and if they agree with the offender’s politics. It would be wrong if it was a random woman on the street but it is okay if it is the president’s daughter. It would be wrong if a man said it but it is okay because Samantha Bee said it. This is the antithesis of individual responsibility."
Meanwhile, we don't remember the MRC getting offended by anything Ted Nugent -- a current board member of the National Rifle Association and a visitor to the White House under Donald Trump -- has done, which include calling Hillary Clinton a "toxic cunt."
MRC's Graham Doesn't Like Fact-Check That Fits His Interpretation Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center continues its politically motivated and desperate "fact-checking the fact-checkers" campaign -- which might be more meaningful if MRC was concerned about fact-checking itself first -- with a May 29 post by Tim Graham ranting about a New York Times fact-check that accurately pointed out that Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats were not defending the violent gang MS-13 by pointing out that they are humans and not animals,as President Trump apparently claimed.
Graham grumbled that the Times fact-checker "sounded like Pelosi's press secretary on the MS-13 charge. Pelosi says murderous gang members have a 'spark of divinity, dignity and worth,' but somehow that's not to be interpreted as defending gangsters?"Well, no, Tim. Pelosi did not deny that MS-13 are a bunch of violent thugs and did not defend or justify any MS-13 crime -- the textbook definition of "defending" a group.
Graham then complained that the fact-check accurately pointed out that because Trump phrased his "animals" comment ambiguously "he left room for interpretation," huffing:
This is why people criticize "fact checks." This is an interpretation check. You suggest that it's fair for Pelosi to "interpret broadly," and "FALSE" when Trump "interprets broadly" in return. To claim "Democrats have been precise" in exaggerating Trump's comments beyond MS-13 to all "immigrants" is to sound like a paid spokesman for the Democrats.
Here, Graham gives away his biased game. He's the one don't an "interpretation check" -- he has decided that Trump's words are unambiguous despite the evidence to the contrary, and that an after-the-fact CYA statement by the White House press office is the final word on what Trump allegedly meant to say. In Graham's eyes, anyone who accurately points out that what he said is different from what he may have meant is somehow lying.
Because the Times fact-check sticks to facts and doesn't bend to Graham's biased, reflexive defense of Trump, he rates it "deeply distorted." He's really talking about himself.
MRC: Mocking Someone's Looks Is Off Limits -- Unless It's A Liberal Topic: Media Research Center
When Michelle Wolf made a joke about White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders burning facts to make a "perfect smoky eye" at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, the Media Research Center did its best to make it about Sanders' looks: Scott Whitlock, for instance, asserted that Wolf "Wolf made jokes at the expense of Sarah Sanders's looks," and "made jokes many saw as attacks on the physical appearance of Sarah Huckabee Sanders," and P.J. Gladnick declared that it "sure sounds like a slam on her appearance."
OK, so attacks on the looks of the people you're attacking are out of bounds. So how does the MRC explain this May 27 tweet from its NewsBusters Twtter account which unambiguously mocks commentator Mark Shields as having "JOWLS A FLAPPING!"?
Must be nice to never have to live up to the standards you demand others follow.
MRC Backs Away From Bogus Claim Federal Money To Planned Parenthood Pays For Abortion Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Katie Yoder has been among the mostegregious offenders in pushing the never-proven anti-abortion canard that federal funding to Planned Parenthood pays for abortion because money is "fungible" -- never mind that the money is specifically earmarked for other purposes and is prohibited by law from paying for abortion. Now it seems Yoder is edging away from her falsehood.
The Hyde Amendment generally bars federal funding (aka taxpayer funding) for abortion, but pro-life politicians note that money is fungible. The argument that Planned Parenthood could offset costs with public funds to free up other resources for abortion, is a point made by pro-life groups.
Yoder has ceased presenting the "fungible" claim as a fact, just something promoted by "pro-life" groups and politicians. That tells us she knows the argument is bogus.
Of course, since Yoder sympathizes with the anti-abortion activists, she'll never come right out and admit the talking point is false -- that wouldn't look good for her side. But, hey, it's a baby step toward honesty.
When The MRC Loved Roseanne Topic: Media Research Center
Roseanne Barr's tweeted remarks about Valerie Jarrett were so unambiguously racist that even the Media Research Center couldn't defend them. All it could do was go straight to whataboutism -- for instance, this post by Corinne Weaver headlined "Nets Link Roseanne to Trump 31 Times, Ignore Weinstein’s Ties to Clinton, Obama."
This post by Gabriel Hays further typifies the MRC's whataboutism:
Good for ABC. What Barr tweeted was vile, and the network has every right to give her the axe. Still, it’s hard to be consistent with ABC’s values because they appear to be situational. There is no shortage of people at ABC and its sister network ESPN that have said or tweeted hateful, bigoted things. Could it be that this is another example of the heinous double standard against conservatives that the mainstream media has become famous for?
What Roseanne said was horrible. Canning her show is justified. But the evidence suggests ABC has different standards of decency depending on one’s politics. Rosanne is a Trump supporter (though not a conservative), and her show was the only one on TV that didn’t go out of its way to insult Trump and his voters. Progressives hated the idea that Roseanne could exist on mainstream television. She handed them an excuse to tear it down. Fine. But ABC talking about consistent values is funnier than anything Rosanne ever said.
The MRC would probably like to forget that it was a champion of the newly Trump-loving Roseanne. But we won't. Let's take a look back, shall we?
A March post by Kyle Drennen touted the "huge ratings" of the "Roseanne" revival, claiming that network executives have "suddenly discovered the value of shows set in red states with pro-Trump characters," then sneering: "If there’s a chance to make money, the liberal media become quite eager to hear from red state America."
Jeffrey Lord gushed that "Roseanne's" success illustrated the "mammoth battle - some might even call it a war - between the elites Rush [Limbaugh] has correctly described and the rest of us."
Karen Townsend cheered an episode of the reboot in which Roseanne's new neighbors are Muslims, relieved that the show "wasn’t all so heavy-handed that Americans should feel guilty for feeling cautious around strangers from countries in the Middle East." Yes, Roseanne made Townsend feel secure in her dubious fear of Muslims.
Nevertheless, the MRC couldn't stop deflecting. A column by Tim Graham and Brent Bozell blamed ABC for bringing back the show because "Barr has always been a loose cannon, and her politics have zigzagged from running on the presidential ticket of the nutty-left Green Party all the way over to backing Trump." They then resorted to more whataboutism.
MRC's Graham Goes On Heathering Rant Against George Will Topic: Media Research Center
A column sharply critical of Vice President Mike Pence -- for overall toadyism and, in particular, sucking up to the likes of Joe Arpaio -- was all that it took for the Media Research Center's Tim Graham to go on a Heathering rant against Washington Post columnist George Will.
At no point in his May 10 post does Graham dispute anything Will wrote about Graham -- he's upset it was written at all, and he's even moremad that CNN's Jake Tapper featured it. Let the rant begin:
Tapper put a different quote on screen in the 4 pm hour, including the headline “Trump Is No Longer the Worst Person in Government” and the line “Mike Pence, with his talent for toadyism and appetite for obsequiousness, could, Trump knew, become America’s most repulsive public figure.”
Tapper at least noted that flattering presidents is what vice presidents do. So why didn’t CNN explore whether George Will wrote a column like this about oh, Vice President Biden? Here’s what they would find: “conservative” Will has never written a critical column about Biden over the last ten years. In fact, he’s never written about Biden at all in that period.
This raises a different question, as Tapper protested he wouldn’t read this column if Will wasn’t a “conservative.” Has anti-“lickspittle” George Will ever written a column criticizing his bosses at The Washington Post? Or any of his TV-network paymasters over the years? Good luck finding one.
As far as not criticizing TV paymasters goes, Graham might want to check with his boss, Brent Bozell, who set the pace for that by oozing upon the death of Roger Ailes -- longtime operator of the MRC's preferred media outlet, Fox News -- that "The good Roger did for America is immeasurable" and staying silent about the fact that Ailes lost his job for serial sexual harassment, which we would argue was not good for America.
MRC's Utterly Lame 'Reality Check' On CNN's Acosta Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Rich Noyes writes in a May 17 post:
In the past 18 months, CNN White House reporter Jim Acosta has suggested President Trump is a “racist,” while whining that Trump’s complaints about press bias were doing “real damage to the First Amendment,” speculating that some day we might see “a dead journalist on the side of the highway, because of the rhetoric coming out of the White House.”
Then on Wednesday’s Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Acosta said this about his Trump coverage: “Listen, when I covered Barack Obama, I was just as tough on him. People might not believe that.”
As tough on Obama as he’s been on Trump? Let’s investigate.
OK. For most legitimate researchers an "investigation" being presented as a "reality check" (per Noyes' headline) woudl involve some sort of comprehensive analysis of eight years of Acosta's reporting.
But this is the MRC we're talking about here, where shoddy, biased research is the norm. Instead, Noyes cherry-picks a handful of cherry-picked, Acosta-bashing posts out the MRC's own archive and baselessly presents them as fully represenatative of Acosta's work during the Obama years. Of course, the MRC never clipped anything from Acosta that didn't reinforce its anti-media agenda, so any Acosta work that was critical of Obama never made it into the MRC's archive.
In other words, this is the laziest "reality check" ever, designed only to further the MRC's agenda and not to enlighten anyone with facts.
MRC's Graham Decrees Mueller Must Obtain Convictions To Avoid 'Witch Hunt' Label Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Tim Graham huffs in a May 17 post:
On Thursday's The View, the liberal majority fulminated against Rudy Giuliani suggesting on Fox's The Ingraham Angle that the Mueller probe has accomplished nothing and should wrap it up. Sunny Hostin lamented "He says this is a witch hunt, and it's caught a lot of witches and warlocks! There’s been 75 charges already, 22 people have been indicted so, the suggestion somehow that the Mueller investigation isn't finding anything is nonsense." So Mueller doesn't actually have to convict anyone of anything?
Gotta love the goalpost-moving Graham is doing here. Apparently, all those indictments aren't an accomplishment, yet he wants to shut down the whole thing before convictions can actually be obtained. Oh, and Graham forgets that there have been five guilty pleas so far, so Mueller is definitely finding something.
Graham then tried a bit of very lame whataboutism, whining: "It's like this panel never heard of Fusion GPS and how the Clinton campaign paid them to hire a British spy to dig up dirt from the Russians." Needless to say, Graham didn't explain how any of that is illegal, and he conveniently fails to mention that his fellow conservatives were the first to hire Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Trump.