MRC Whines That Fringe Climate Deniers Are Being Ignored Topic: Media Research Center
Julia Seymour writes in an Oct. 2 MRC Business & Media Institute item:
The UN’s climate panel (IPCC) released its latest warning about "catastrophic" climate change on Sept. 27, garnering the frantic attention of all three broadcast networks that night. CBS even aired a claim about temperatures rising “more than 200 degrees."
Predictably, the evening news shows on ABC, CBS and NBC Sept. 27 repeated the IPCC’s dire warnings without including any skeptics and without mentioning past failures such as their inability to accurately predict warming or sea level rise.
ABC’s “World News with Diane Sawyer,” NBC “Nightly News” and CBS “Evening News” all failed to include criticism of the IPCC with the exception of a swipe against “skeptics” on ABC. NBC continued to link weather events like Hurricane Sandy to climate change while CBS aired a statistic that one scientist called “meaningless.”
With the words “big warning” onscreen, ABC announced the “landmark” report from “top scientists.” Dan Harris went on to mention weather events including “superstorm Sandy,” and ominously warned that the “UN report says we will be seeing much more of these kinds of things in the coming decades as a result of climate change ...” Of course, that’s what the IPCC has been saying for years.
Harris acknowledged the existence of other viewpoints, but immediately tore them down saying, “skeptics have predictably accused the UN panel of being alarmist, but Princeton climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer, who is on the panel, says this is a major wake up call.” Yet Oppenheimer himself has been accused of activist junk science by other scientists, according to meteorologist Anthony Watts’ website. Harris didn’t happen to mention that.
Seymour didn't mention that these "other viewpoints" are considered fringe within the scientific community. One recent review of 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on "global warming" and "global climate change" showed that 97 percent of the papers that took a position on the cause said humans were causing it.
Seymour quotes deniers like Roy Spencer to attack the IPCC report. In fact, Spencer has a lengthy record of misleading on climate change.
WND: Gay Rights Are A 'Trojan Horse for Totalitarianism' Topic: WorldNetDaily
The latest issue of WorldNetDaily's Whistleblower magazine is heavy on the gay-bashing:
When it started, who could possibly have known it would turn out like this?
After all, it emerged right after the historic ’60s Civil Rights movement, which nobly outlawed racial segregation in America. And in the warm glow of the Martin Luther King era, many people came to believe “gays” were simply the next group needing protection from discrimination.
Of course, being an overwhelmingly Christian nation meant millions of Americans strongly objected to homosexuality on moral and religious grounds. But Americans are also the most pluralistic, tolerant and open-minded people on earth, and were increasingly inclined to give “gay rights” activists the benefit of the doubt.
Eventually warming up to a growing “gay-friendly” culture (promoted at every turn by the news and entertainment media), Americans abandoned their previous caution, flung their doors wide open and heartily welcomed the “gay rights” agenda with open arms.
However, it was a Trojan Horse. And most people had no idea what lay in waiting.
Today – as documented in October’s groundbreaking Whistleblower issue, titled “THE NEW SEXUAL REVOLUTION” – a new totalitarian order is sweeping the land.
Among the gay-bashing articles in this issue include anti-gay activist Scott Lively's rant that the rainbow belongs to God, not gays, and that Russians at the upcoming Sochi Olympics should take the rainbow back to prevent it from being used as a protest against Russia's law banning homosexual "propaganda."
Apparently, Lively and WND don't think that a Russian law censoring free speech is totalitarian at all.
MRC Doesn't Like That Its Shutdown-Blame Study Is Being Mocked Topic: Media Research Center
Remember how the Media Research Center complained because Republicans were accurately being blamed for the government shutdown? Now the MRC is complaining because it's being mocked for coming to that conclusion.
Jon Stewart “stooped” to publicizing a Media Research Center study last night on “The Daily Show.” Actually, he mocked an MRC study by Rich Noyes as adding a bucket to Fox’s “Bull[bleep] Mountain.”
Ah, yes, Jon Stewart, the man who said “Crossfire” was ruining America with its harsh partisan talk and held a “Rally for Sanity” with his keynote address announcing “We can have animus and not be enemies.” Apparently, blaming Republicans for the shutdown is like blaming floods on water[.]
Like MRC "study" author Rich Noyes before him, Graham doesn't address why it's wrong to blame Republicans for the shutdown -- he's just complaining that it's being done, because defending Republicans is his job.
WND Treats Logrolling Review As 'News' Topic: WorldNetDaily
An unidentified WorldNetDaily writer breathlessly gushes in an Oct. 6 article:
According to a top Christian film-rating organization, “Disinformation,” the acclaimed new documentary from WND Films, is “a brilliant exposé of the communist strategy to destroy the West” which showcases a “very strong moral worldview” and “every minute of this two-part documentary is worth watching.”
That’s the assessment of MOVIEGUIDE, founded by Ted Baehr, chairman of the Christian Film & Television Commission and a well-known movie critic.
After reprinting much of the review, WND states:
“Disinformation,” concluded the review, which gave the production a four-star (highest possible) rating, “is a massive work, but well edited and keeps your attention throughout its running time. Although it could have been trimmed a little and tweaked in certain places, overall it is a must-see video exposé of communism. With time running out on faith and freedom, “Disinformation” is highly recommended viewing for every concerned American.”
Unmentioned by this anonymous WND writer:
Ted Baehr is a friend of WND editor Joseph Farah. In 2011, Farah touted his 23-year friendship with Baehr, adding that "I consider Ted Baehr a hero" and urging readers to donate to his "wonderful ministry."
WND published Baehr's 2011 book “How to Succeed in Hollywood (Without Losing Your Soul).”
Bill Donohue At Newsmax: De Blasio Has 'Problem With the Truth' Because He Changed His Name Topic: Newsmax
Bill Donohue huffs in an Oct. 1 Newsmax column about Democratic New York City mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio:
Quite frankly, Bill de Blasio has a problem with the truth. He was born Warren Wilhelm, Jr. in 1961. When he graduated from New York University in 1983 (where he was heavily involved in leftist causes), he changed his name to Warren de Blasio-Wilhelm. In 2002, he changed his name again, settling on Bill de Blasio. The only reason we know this is because the media put the spotlight on him, forcing the issue.
Donohue, of course, didn't mention why de Blasio changed his name, which has been explained:
"I came from a pretty broken family and my father was not around for much of my upbringing. And the side of my family that really brought me up was my mom's side, which is the de Blasio side," he said in an interview that aired on Hot 97-FM Wednesday morning.
De Blasio was asked about a Daily News story this week chronicling the evolution of his name.
"Over time I did make two changes," he said. "First I hyphenated my last names, and then I decided that really my mom's last name was the one that represented who I was and I ultimately made that change. But I am the same person throughout."
The candidate said he had always been called "Bill" or "Billy" by his family.
"I was given the formal name Warren when I was born, but for reasons I still don't understand was never called it. I was always called Bill or Billy my whole life. It's a mystery in my family but that's how it happened," he said.
That's not the only sleaziness Donohue engaged in. He also sneers that maybe de Blasio will "honeymoon in North Korea" if he wins.
WND's Ellis Washington Again Pretends He's Not Likening Obama to Hitler Topic: WorldNetDaily
For a guy who insists he's not likening President Obama to Hitler, Ellis Washington sure spends a lot of time likening Obama to Hitler.
Washington does so again in his Oct. 4 WorldNetDaily column, while of course denying he's doing any such thing:
One aspect of Hitler’s socialist universal health-care model was “racial hygiene,” the removal of certain “undesirable” segments of society who are judged beneath the Aryan ideal, thus “life unworthy of existence,” as Hitler would repeatedly say. Using his brutal panzer divisions, Hitler literally rolled out his universal health care throughout occupied France, Belgium and the Netherlands – those nations with mainly “Aryan” populations. Hitler used his military thugs of the Gestapo and SS Stormtroopers to implement universal health care in those very countries that he desired to Aryanize and perfect by sanitizing the populations through sterilization and medical murder of all persons unfortunate to have physical or mental defects.
Of course, I do not contend that Obama is Hitler, but if America foolishly adopt policies of national socialism, then we fail to learn from history the innumerable grotesqueries, inhumanity and genocide of previous nations who tried universal health care. To grant governments this god-like power over birth, life and death issues will be misused, not exactly as it was in Nazi Germany, nevertheless a tragedy for society.
Pro tip: If you've written a column titled "Hitlercare vs. Obamacare," if you've included the above Hitler-Obama image with your column, and if you've stated that "Obama is using his Gestapo and SS Stormtroppers or so-called “navigators” (e.g., the youth, the unions, Planned Parenthood, NAACP, ACORN, La Raza, etc.) to propagandize the poor, the miseducated and minorities who are being exploited to lead this final blitzkrieg toward forcing universal health care," you are, in fact, contending that Obama is Hitler.
Stop lying to us, Ellis. Especially stop telling us lies that are so transparently false.
MRC Runs With Distortion Of Harry Reid's Words on Cancer Research Topic: Media Research Center
Last week, it came to light that members of the conservative media are working to coordinate messaging on the government shutdown with the office of Sen. Ted Cruz. The Media Research Center has not mentioned this development to its readers (just like it has yet to mention the existence of another right-wing message coordination effort, Groundswell, despite its outrage ofer a liberal-leaning listserv, Journolist).
Whether or not anyone at the MRC is actually involved in Groundswell or Cruz's office, it's certainly trying to reinforce right-wing talking points. That was made even more clear with its effort to distort something Sen. Harry Reid said.
Susan Jones writes in an Oct. 3 CNSNews.com article about an exchange between Reid and CNN reporter Dana Bash about a Republican attempt to fund the government on a piecemeal basis by, for instance, funding cancer research at the National Institutes for Health:
Bash tried again: "But if you can help one child with cancer, why won't you do it?"
"Listen," Reid said. "What -- why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force Base that are sitting home. They have -- they have a few problems of their own. To have someone of your intelligence suggest such a thing maybe means you're as irresponsible and reckless."
Jones conveniently left out the fact that Reid's statement "why would we want to do that?" wasn't a response to Bash. As the video accompanying Jones' article shows, after Bash answered her question, Sen. Charles Schumer said, "Why pit one against the other?" and Reid picked up on that.
The rest of the MRC ran with the distortion:
NewsBusters' Tom Blumer got angry with responsible reporters putting Reid's words in their proper context, insisting that Politico's Dylan Byers "pretended that an interjected remark by New York Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer meant something, when it didn't."
NewsBusters' Randy Hall also edited out Schumer's statement in recounting how Reid's response was "loaded with venom."
The MRC's Matthew Balan wrote that "Nancy Cordes stood out on Wednesday's CBS Evening News for pointing out Senator Harry Reid's eyebrow-raising "why would I want to do that" answer to a question about approving funding for cancer research for children."
NewsBusters' Blumer later huffed in response to a claim that Republican outrage over Reid is "manufactred": "As to what Harry Reid said on Wednesday, it was self-evidently outrageous. CNN reporter and virtual card-carrying liberal Dana Bash, the person who questioned Reid, certainly felt that way. As if that wasn't enough, Reid, attacked Bash for having the nerve to ask a reasonable question."
WND Pretends Australian Aborigines Are "Black Mobs" In North Carolina Topic: WorldNetDaily
The picture WorldNetDaily used to promote Colin Flaherty's latest attempt at race-baiting -- under the headline "Pack of black youth terrorize city" -- sure looks scary enough:
The picture was used again with Flaherty's article:
Just one little problem: The picture does not illustrate what Flaherty is writing about, which is "black mob violence" in Raleigh, N.C. In fact, the people in the picture aren't American, nor are they technically black.
The picture is, in fact, of gang members in an indigenous Aborigine community in Australia, and it apparently first appeared in a 2006 Sydney Morning Herald article:
WND's photo does not include a credit that would accurately identify where the photo came from, or of what is actually of. WND apparently stole the photo from the Sydney newspaper's website, believing that they looked scary enough to illustrate a race-baiting article about "black mobs."
This is how far Flaherty and WND will go in its race-baiting -- pretending that scary-looking dark-skinned foreigners are really "black mobs" in the U.S.
CNS Promotes Views of Suspected Murderer Topic: CNSNews.com
Matt Vespa writes in an Oct. 4 CNSNews.com blog post:
An Obamacare exchange site has been hacked. And, there may be more to come.
John McAfee, founder of McAfee,Inc., noted on Your World with Neil Cavuto on October 2 that the exchanges' health care sign-up system is a "hacker's wet dream."
He noted that any person could set up a fake site, make it look "competitive," and - because it's health care - these hackers can ask very personal questions.
An old woman can have her life savings wiped out and "This is going to happen millions of time," McAfee warned.
In promoting views that conform to right-wing talking points, Vespa fails to mention the, shall we say, colorful history of McAfee that makes him less than trustworthy.
At the top of the list is the fact that he's wanted in Belize for questioning in the death of one of McAfee's neighbors there. McAfee fled the country for Guatemala, then faked a heart attack and made his way to America. McAfee has proclaimed his innocence, but he has no intention of returning to Belize.
The New Yorker has described McAfee's life as "an odyssey of drugs, guns, young women, corruption, the promise of a miracle antibiotic, a secret laboratory, a government raid, a murder, a manhunt, and a healthy dose of paranoia." Wired reported that McAfee's success "was due in part to his ability to spread his own paranoia, the fear that there was always somebody about to attack."
But McAfee's paranoia makes Obama look bad, so Vespa seems willing to overlook the fact that McAfee may have killed someone.
Yes, Larry Klayman really did write this in his Oct. 4 WorldNetDaily column:
An African-American woman with her 1-year-old child crashes her car into the White House gate, is pursued by President Obama’s henchmen and is shot dead in the streets of Washington, D.C., while another African-American, the black “Muslim in chief” safely parties on with our nation’s future, as the government is shut down over his refusal to negotiate a budget compromise with Republicans.
So Klayman thinks that protecting the president from an apparent threat makes the Secret Service and the Capitol Police (the two law enforcement agencies that responded to the incident) Obama's "henchmen." Klayman also left out the fact that the woman led police on a car chase from the White House to the Capitol, and that the woman also hit a Secret Service officer with her car.
How utterly consumed with Obama Derangement Sydrome has Klayman become? One only needs to read the rest of his column, in which he encourages to engage in "revolution" against the government. Klayman claims he wants to do so with "well thought out civil disobedience," but his inflammatory, increasingly deranged rhetoric doesn't exactly create an atmosphere for reasoned thought.
MRC's Chief Heatherer Hates It When Heathering Is Called Out Topic: NewsBusters
Tim Graham is perhaps the chief Heatherer at the Media Research Center, taking to task anyone who dares deviate from right-wing dogma and branding them as insufficiently conservative.
So what does Graham do when a conservative calls out said Heathering? Why, he goes into Heathering mode, of course.
Conservative Bernard Goldberg has gotten tired of being bashed by conservatives who get offended when he "falls out of lock step" with right-wing ideology:
This is a letter to you, the conservative American ayatollahs who demand purity, just like the ones over there. I’m not talking about all of you, of course. But this open letter is for many of you; maybe even most of you – the ones who say you agree with what I write on this Web site and what I say on the O’Reilly Factor almost all of the time, but as soon as I fall out of lock step with you … you vow to never listen or read another word I say or write. You are the ayatollahs this letter is aimed at.
When I wrote about liberal bias while I was still a CBS News correspondent, conservatives applauded me. But some of my liberal CBS News colleagues called me a “traitor” because I didn’t toe the party line. They were afraid of dissent. Dissent would force them to consider another point of view, and that’s the last thing they wanted to do. Now I’m called a traitor again – this time by you conservative ayatollahs, for expressing a few opinions you don’t want to hear. Once again, you are what you condemn in liberals.
There is little difference between the authoritarians on the hard left and those of you ayatollahs on the hard right. You’re both closed-minded. You both demand ideological purity.
Graham used an Oct. 3 NewsBusters post to bash Goldberg, apparently oblivious to the fact that it's people like him Goldberg was calling out:
Former CBS News vet and O’Reilly Factor regular Bernard Goldberg is hopping mad at conservatives who’ve written him to tell him they will no longer watch him or read him. Goldberg even stooped to suggesting his critics “don’t want to even hear the other guy. You want the other guy dead (in some cases, I suspect, literally dead!)”
At what point does this kind of rage at the audience start hurting Fox’s ratings? Comparing American conservatives to Islamist Iranian dictators? He unleashed on them in a column called “An Open Letter to the Ayatollahs.”
Of course, Graham will never admit that he is one of those "ayatollahs" Goldberg is calling out -- if, indeed, he picked up on that at all.
What WND Didn't Report About Esquire Lawsuit Hearing Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've already reported on what WorldNetDaily's Garth Kant didn't report about what happened in a hearing on WND's defamation lawsuit against Esquire magazine. Now you can listen for yourself.
Via Fogbow, we've learned that the federal appeals court where the hearing took place has posted audio of the hearing, so you can hear Larry Klayman's incompetent lawyering in real time.
One Fogbow poster who listened to the hearing pointed out that despite WND and Kant making a big deal out of the claim that Esquire "lied" about its blog post about WND pulping Jerome Corsi's anti-Obama birth certificate book being tagged as humor (in fact, it's Joseph Farah and WND who are lying by submitting a screen shot of the post that cut off the tags), Klayman didn't bring up the issue in his arguments:
I've listened to the oral argument at the cadc site listed above. KKKlayman says that firstly, this case has nothing to do with eligibility issues, that Esquire's exhibits are not 'authenticated' (though the judge pointed out that Klayman had not challenged the documents' authenticity, Klayman said that this was "not relevant"), and that the case is about commercial injury and Farah's 1st amendment rights. Unfortunately though the attorneys are easy to hear, the judges are not, so it's hard to get a sense of what the judges are asking, particularly as Klayman seems to find it difficult to stick to answering the questions without saying things like [paraphrase] anyone calling us birthers are mean poopyheads, and that the previous judge was biased for making a ruling that Obama was born in the USA.
Klayman touches on eligibility issues more than once, asserting that 25% of the population have doubts about Obama's eligibility, calling the birth certificate the "alleged" birth certificate. He didn't argue about the fake screenshots.
squire's lawyer who seemed more focused on the issue of whether this was satire, and thus protected by the first amendment, or whether, as Klayman argued, the Esquire blog was designed to defraud the public. He pointed out that any commercial injuries that the plaintiffs claim would have had to be suffered only within the first 90 minutes after the blog was posted, before the clarification that it was satire was added. He stated political debate is protected speech, that satire and rhetorical hyperbole are accepted to be part of political commentary. He made a point of the 'humour' tag, which Klayman didn't address either in his argument or in rebuttal. One judge asked about the font size of the humour tag on the screen. Klayman in his argument, in response to a question, accepted that if the blog piece is satire then it is protected speech and Esquire's lawyer underlined this. However, Klayman seemed to resile from this in rebuttal. Both lawyers cited to the Falwell (?) case and another one which I couldn't hear properly.
Esquire's lawyer argued that the reasonable reader would think that it was satire; especially given the improbable quotes, and that the book was published three weeks after the release of the birth certificate and it is therefore unlikely that the publisher would do nothing to withdraw the book during those three weeks but ship the book to bookstores and then recall it the next day. He also stated that even if some people didn't recognise it was satire, it should be obvious to the 'reasonable reader', and therefore the case should not go ahead.
Another Fogbow poster notes that the hearing included one subject WND has yet to mention to its readers -- the fact that, according to the judge who dismissed the lawsuit, WND editor Joseph Farah had admitted the Esquire blog post was satire before it became "inconvenient" for him to do so:
At one point (around 7:45), Klayman said that Mr. Farah's statement to the Daily Caller shortly after Esquire posted the article--where Farah said that the Esquire post was poorly done satire--was evidence that the article wasn't satire at all. That got an outburst of laughter from one judge and a giggle from another.
Kant is not being paid by WND to tell the truth about his employer -- he's being paid to make his employer look as good as possible, even if that is at odds with documented facts. Of course, when have documented facts ever gotten in the way of WND's right-wing agenda?
Newsmax Regurgitates Hannity's Lie About Reid Topic: Newsmax
Sandy Fitzgerald writes in an Oct. 3 Newsmax article:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a "sick, twisted old man" for making comments about refusing to pass a funding bill that would allow young cancer patients to continue with clinical trials during the government shutdown, Fox News anchor Sean Hannity charged.
On Wednesday, the Nevada Democrat questioned why funding should be provided to the National Institutes of Health to "help one child who has cancer," and then attacked CNN reporter Dana Bash, calling her "irresponsible and reckless" for asking him about it during a Capitol Hill news conference.
"What a sick twisted old man to say, 'Why would we want to do that?'" Hannity said on his Fox show later Wednesday. "To help a kid with cancer? Pretty heartless . . . pretty sick. I mean, if you want to talk about cold, callous, heartless, mean-spirited, hateful, all the rhetoric that Harry Reid recklessly throws around about Republicans, it fits him.”
"I have a question for Harry Reid: How would you feel if it was your grandson or granddaughter? Or your child?” Hannity asked. “Maybe that’s why you’d want to fund the NIH as the House is passing the bill, and put aside your bitter, angry partisanship.”
Fitzgerald doesn't mention that Hannity is lying by ignoring the context of Reid's remarks -- specifically, the fact that he was dismissing the notion that that funding the NIH should be accomplished via a lone spending bill when it could instead be achieved with the passage of a "clean" continuing resolution that would fund the entire government. As Media Matters points out, Hannity's false smear of Reid is particularly callous given the fact that Reid's wife is a cancer survivor.
Will Fitzgerald and Newsmax provide its readers with the full context of Reid's remarks? Don't count on it.
WND Is Still Misleading Readers About His Lawsuit Against Esquire Topic: WorldNetDaily
Given that WorldNetDaily has been utterly dishonest about how it has presented its defamation lawsuit against Esquire magazine to its readers, it's no surprise that WND's article about a court proceeding in the case would be similarly dishonest.
Garth Kant does his best in an Oct. 3 article to frame it as a great First Amendment battle:
Federal Judge Stephen F. Williams asked the attorney for Esquire magazine what in the First Amendment permitted his client to accuse someone of making money off of gullible readers?
That question suggested the crux of the matter in the lawsuit brought by WND against Esquire: If a political attack is called satire, is any message permissible, even if it cause damages?
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral arguments Thursday in Joseph Farah v. Esquire Magazine. Farah is the founder and CEO of WND.com.
In fact, as Kant concedes later in the article, WND is appealing the dismissal of the lawsuit, which was granted last year. Unsurprisingly, Kant is heavy on telling WND's side of the case and very light on Esquire's response to WND's claims.
Therefore, there's no mention of the fact that one key reason the lawsuit was dismissed is becuase, according to the judge, WND editor Joseph Farah had admitted the Esquire blog post was satire before it became "inconvenient" for him to do so.
Kant also repeats failed lawyer Larry Klayman's claims that "Esquire and Hearst lied to federal courts in their defense of the article" by claiming that the article had been tagged as "humor" on the website. In fact, as we've documented, it's Farah and Klayman who appear to be lying -- the screenshots WND submitted to the court cut off the part of the post where the tags normally appear.
Considering that Farah had submitted an affidavit "under penalty of perjury" stating that there were no tags, there may be a case to be made that Farah has committed perjury.
Kant certainly isn't going to tell his readers that the man who signs his paycheck may be guilty of perjury.
UPDATE: An alert reader caught that Kant referred to Larry Flynt as "the late publisher of Hustler." Last we checked, Flynt is still very much alive.
MRC Study Complains That GOP Is Accurately Blamed For Shutdown Topic: Media Research Center
Rich Noyes complains in an Oct. 2 Media Research Center "study":
On Monday morning, Time/MSNBC political analyst Mark Halperin explained an obvious political reality to his fellow Morning Joe panelists: “The White House does not have much incentive” to negotiate on the government shutdown, because Democrats expect the liberal news media to hand them a public relations victory. As Halperin put it: “The press is largely sympathetic to their arguments that it’s the House Republicans’ fault.”
In fact, as a new Media Research Center analysis of broadcast network evening news coverage shows, ABC, CBS and NBC spent the two weeks prior to the shutdown almost universally pinning the blame on congressional Republicans, especially conservative/Tea Party House Republicans. By the time the shutdown actually took place on October 1, news audiences had been repeatedly instructed to think about it as a GOP-generated crisis.
That couldn't possibly be because it IS a GOP-generated crisis, could it? That's a point Noyes has no intention of exploring, since his job is to defend Republicans.
Noyes goes on to whine:
If Democratic congressmen, or a Democratic Speaker of the House, pursuing a liberal policy objective, was subjected to similar ridicule or insults from a Republican President or a Republican Senate Majority Leader, you can bet that the networks would have made such language the centerpiece of their coverage.
Instead, the media have chosen to foist all of the blame on conservatives for sticking to their promise to oppose ObamaCare.
Given that conservatives have chosen to force a shutdown of much of the government in order to thwart a law that was duly passed by Congress, signed by the president and upheld by the Supreme Court, why shouldn't conservatives be blamed? Noyes never addresses that question.
And as Media Matters pointed out when MRC chief Brent Bozell rehashed the results of this "study" on his weekly Fox News appearance, Fox News -- which has worked long and hard to shift blame from Republicans toward Obama and the Democrats -- is curiously absent from the MRC's work.
Further, according to Media Matters, tbhe "study" confirms that network news is providing reality-based coverage of the shutdown, which persists because of a Republican refusal to extricate its opposition to the ACA from the nation's budget. Bozell fails to acknowledge this fact, and his complaints amount to little more than an argument in favor of journalistic "false equivalence."