Topic: Media Research Center
Following in the footsteps of other right-wingers, the Media Research Center has declared that Michelle Obama's cameo appearance at the Academy Awards to present the award for best picture was horrible.
Jeffrey Meyer grumbled in a Feb. 26 NewsBusters post that "the Washington Post’s Sally Quinn admitted that Michelle Obama’s Oscar appearance was, in Bill O’Reilly’s words, 'Hollywood Left boosterism,' but gushed that it was a 'brilliant idea.'"
The headline for Meyer's post, however, read: "WashPo’s Sally Quinn Admits Michelle Obama’s Oscar Appearance Was Propaganda; But Thinks It Was Brilliant." Since when does "Hollywood Left boosterism" equal "propaganda"? Meyer doesn't explain, perhaps because it's something axiomatic among right-wingers or something.
Meanwhile, Clay Waters grumbles in a Feb. 26 TmesWatch post that Obama's appearance was "intrusive" and "politicized" and whined that a New York Times didn't read his mind and complain about the appearance like he wanted:
The question isn't whether the first family can lower themselves to the level of popular culture; that was settled the night then-candidate Bill Clinton played saxophone on the Arsenio Hall show in 1992. It's the question of the vastly different ways Hollywood treats those political figures, depending on their party.
Steinhauer continued missing the point by insisting the question of Michelle Obama's appearance was one of "propriety," as opposed to a question of blunt and intrusive liberal political boosterism.
But Waters never identifies what, exactly, was "political" about her appearance.