MRC Denied Pro-Life Link To Tiller Murder, Blames Sharpton for NYC Police Deaths Topic: Media Research Center
Whenever anyone in the media sought to link the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller to the anti-abortion movement -- a link that's not unreasonble to make, given killer Scott Roeder's ties to mainstream anti-abortion activist group Operation Rescue -- the Media Research Center howled about it:
A report bashing public broadcasting cited a PBS segment in which abortion doctors called the Tiller murder terrorism as a reason public broadcasting should no longer receive federal funding.
Clay Waters complained that a New YorkTimes columnist linked Tiller's death to right-wing radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
The MRC declared that an NBC segment highlighting Fox News host Bill O'Reilly's anti-Tiller rhetoric was "fresh evidence" that NBC is biased.
MRC chief Brent Bozell called Roeder an "unhinged vigilante," insisting, "In the very heart of the pro-life community, there is nothing they wanted less than another shooting of an abortionist." Bozell also denied that "the mere act of denouncing Tiller as a killer of babies – as if he were instead removing tumors – is an invitation to terrorism and murder."
But when a man killed two New York City policemen then himself, the MRC knew who to blame: Al Sharpton, President Obama and New York City Mayr Bill de Blasio. This despite the fact that none of them have never directly called for violence against anyone, let alone policemen.
The MRC's Tim Graham mocked Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson for denying that Sharpton, de Blasio and Obama are to blame, insisting that the killer, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, "clearly identified himself with police 'accountability' movements for Brown and Garner and in dramatic hostility to the police in general." So holding police accountable for their actions is akin to endorsing violence?
NewsBusters' Jack Coleman penned another slobbering tribute to right-wing radio host Mark Levin that the MRC has become famous for, touting how "force of nature" Levin declared that Sharpton, Obama and Eric Holder have "blood on their hands" over the deaths. Needless to say, Coleman didn't mention the fact that Levin is employed as a spokesman for the MRC. Coleman went on to sneer that "golf is more important"to Obama than going to the funerals of the slain officers.
A Dec. 27 NewsBusters post by Jeffrey Lord demands that MSNBC fire Sharpton as a host because he is "a man with 'blood on his hands' -- the blood of two policemen -- to be showcased five nights a week on their airtime."
Lord engages in a dubious metaphor likening Sharpton to D.W. Griffith, director of the infamous Ku Klux Klan-lionizing silent film "Birth of a Nation," and Obama to Woodrow Wilson, who "happily showcased the film at the White House." In fact, while "Birth of a Nation" was the first film ever screen at the White House, there is no official record of Wilson expressing any view of the film, and the one that is generally attributed to Wilson -- "It is like writing history with lightning" -- was likely made up in order to promote the film.
Lord also highlights how former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik blamed Sharpton for "setting the tone" that resulted in the policemen's deaths. He doesn't mention that Kerik's credibilty is a little on the dubious side given that he recently spent time in prison on corruption charges.
Nevertheless, Lord insists that NBC "looks more and more every day like the home of the values portrayed in Birth of a Nation." Funny, we don't recall Lord ever saying that about the anti-abortion movement after Tiller's murder.
MRC's Graham Is Bitter About Colbert's Success Topic: Media Research Center
Tom Johnson complains in a Dec. 19 NewsBusters post:
If you’re tired of the tributes and homages to Stephen Colbert’s faux-conservative character, take heart: they’re just about over with. Probably.
One of the gushiest goodbyes came from Leslie Savan, who blogs about media/political issues for The Nation. In a Thursday post, Savan noted that on The Colbert Report, Colbert didn’t attack conservatives head-on, but rather “inhabit[ed] their heads via a character,” which enabled him to “demonstrate…how right-wing psychology works.”
Colbert, opined Savan, “show[ed] that beneath his character’s assertion of omnipotence and certitude, there’s a fragility, one that’s also buried in most of the real-life blowhards and their dittoheads…If they stop clapping, Tinker Bell will die. If they stop nodding in agreement, or step off the reservation of Tax Cuts, Guns, and Built It Myself, they could get Other-ed.”
Johnson won't tell you this, but Othering people who stray off the right-wing reservation is exactly how his NewsBusters boss, Media Research Center official Tim Graham, operates. As we've documented, just last week Graham lashed out at anyone who committed the offense of criticizing Ted Cruz, including solidly conservative Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin.
Indeed, such Othering -- or, as we call it, Heathering -- is Graham's and the MRC's chief method of enforcing right-wing ideological rigidity. It seems that the writer Johnson was highlighting has it correct.
Speaking of which, Graham was extremely bitter about the praise given to Colbert upon the retirement of his character. He huffed in a Dec. 18 post:
Liberals are going into deep mourning over the television death of Stephen Colbert, Very Badly Disguised Liberal. They think this is an "unparalleled achievement." In Wednesday's paper, TV writer Bill Carter of The New York Times lined up all of Colbert’s competitors to call him a genius for disparaging conservatives with so much panache.
“For nine years, Stephen Colbert has relentlessly maintained his pompous, deeply ridiculous but consistently appealing conservative blowhard character he has left an indelible mark on late-night television comedy,” Carter wrote. “Consistently appealing?” To whom? Liberals presume “why, everybody enjoys mocking conservatives as opposed to reading.”
It’s these cheap, repetitive insults that don’t deserve a Hall of Fame induction, but liberals love hating conservatives so preciously that anything that helps them demean their opponents as God-fearing, America-loving morons is an instant classic.
Graham turned even more bitter in a Dec. 21 post, ranting that "Washington Post TV writer Hank Stuever didn’t refrain from the goo over the end of Stephen Colbert’s tenure at Comedy Central. His "Critic's Notebook" might have been too soaked with tears to be legible, but it made it into print." Graham grumbled that the idea of Colbert's audience being divided between those who got his schtick and those who didn't was really about "the people who loved the joke, and the people who were the joke."
Such bitterness toward the success of the likes of Colbert and Jon Stewart goes a long way toward explaining why the MRC's own "comedy" show, "NewsBusted," is such a painfully unfunny failure and how the MRC's fundraising effort to upgrade its production values overlooks the fact that it doesn't matter how slick the show looks if it still isn't funny.
MRC's Double Standard on Reporting Contents of Stolen Emails Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell and Tim Graham fret in their Dec. 19 column:
The widespread reporting on hacked emails from Sony Pictures — spurred by the upcoming release of an allegedly funny movie about assassinating North Korean despot Kim Jong Un — might encourage some gloating from people who would like to bring Hollywood down a peg. But hold the schadenfreude. The media's ethics — or seeming lack of ethics — are troubling.
Take CNN "Reliable Sources" host Brian Stelter in an interview with the program "Access Hollywood." His ethical position? Anything goes, as long as the journalists aren't the hackers.
[...]
In other words, journalists have every right to exploit whatever the hackers steal. So much for all those lectures about compassion or ethics. Ends justify means. Juicy "scoops" trump any question about how the information was obtained.
When hackers for an evil entity procure private information through illegal means, isn't there a reason for the media to restrain itself?
That's quite a change from five years ago, when Bozell was demanding that the media cover the contents of stolen emails. Of course, those involved the so-called scandal involving stolen emails from climate scientists. Bozell huffed in a December 2009 press release:
"The networks' silence on ClimateGate is deafening. Scandal, cover-ups and conspiracy are the bread and butter of the media. Yet they have selectively and deliberately decided not to report this bombshell - or any of the incriminating details surrounding the scandal - because it goes against their left-wing agenda.
"To pretend this story simply doesn't exist is damning to journalism. The so-called 'news' media are protecting scientists because it exposes their underbelly. That's not journalism. That's a cover-up. And we will continue to call them out for ignoring these allegations and the mounting, inconvenient evidence against them."
Bozell did not fret about media ethics or the procurement of private information through illegal means back then. There's no reason -- other than craven partisan politics -- why he and Graham should care now.
For The MRC's Graham, Ted Cruz Is He Who Must Not Be Criticized Topic: Media Research Center
As we saw with his attempt to whitewash Scott Walker's "Molotov" gaffe, Media Research Center director of media analysis Tim Graham is not afraid to play defense for conservatives he deems sufficiently conservative. That extends to trashing anyone who dares criticize his sainted conservatives.
Which explains the Heathering job Graham unleased on conservative Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin in a Dec. 15 NewsBusters post for committing the offense of criticizing right-wing darling Ted Cruz. Graham's headline sneered that Rubin is a "So-Called WashPost 'Conservative' Blogger," and it just went from there:
The most dishonest advertising in The Washington Post isn’t selling soap or shoes or automobiles. It doesn’t come phonier than this: “Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective.”
Rubin spent 2012 insisting that every conservative presidential contender was unelectable except Mitt Romney, who was neither conservative nor electable, as it turned out. Rubin’s still at it, as in her latest screed from Sunday, headlined “Senate passes spending, GOP still despises Ted Cruz: The cromnibus passes despite Ted Cruz's ego trip.”
Which part of the GOP? The wing of the party that endorsed Barack Obama in 2008? Notice how Rubin sounds very much like your standard-issue liberal Post reporter, suggesting the "far right" is going to ruin the Republican Party. Just like she saw sweet victory in Romney, she was wrong in thinking Ted Cruz's Obamacare filibuster would kill GOP hopes in 2014:
[...]
An actual conservative blogger would point out that it’s a little odd for Republicans to take over the Senate and add seats to the House as they opposed amnesty and Obamacare, and then betrayed both campaign stands in the first spending bill after the electon. Jen Rubin’s blog should be called “Establishment Turn,” spinning the news from a “liberal Republican perspective.”
And that's not even the only defense of Cruz Graham mounted this past week. Graham and Brent Bozell's Dec. 17 column expressed dismay that anyone would dare criticize Cruz for traying to derail a Senate appropriations bill:
Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Elizabeth Warren are polar opposites, a Tea Party conservative and an Occupy Wall Street socialist. Then there are the similarities: Both were elected in 2012, both have Harvard on their resume and both are mentioned as presidential material. But the media's read of the two demonstrates an unquestionable slant.
Both senators have shaken up the Senate over heavy spending and regulation. When Warren does it, she's promoted as a profile in courage, standing up for fairness. When Cruz does it, he's a selfish brat causing meltdowns.
[...]
All this provides a precise GPS location for our liberal media. To them, Ted Cruz is a dangerous extremist, but Warren is their heroine — compassionate, professorial and politically and economically correct. Anyone who expects objectivity from the press is badly out of touch.
Graham and Bozell carefully omit the actual offenses that were caused: Warren merely gave a speech and didn't try to derail the bill-making process. Cruz, meanwhile, along with Sen. Mike Lee, did delay a vote on a massive appropriations bill, a delay Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took advantage of by advancing dozens of Obama appointees that Senate Republicans had delayed for months. Even solid conservatives like Charles Krauthammer were apoplectic at the move.
But as far as Graham is concerned, Cruz can do no wrong, and woe to anyone who dares criticize him. How does playing defense for a politican qualify under the "education" mission the MRC is supposed to have under its nonprofit tax status?
MRC's Graham Declares Walker 'Molotov' Gaffe To Be 'Tiny' Topic: Media Research Center
When it was revealed that Republican Wisconsin Go. Scott Walker had wished "Molotov" instead of "mazel tov" to a Jewish constituent, the Media Research Center's Tim Graham knew he had to spring into damage-control mode to tamp the controversy.
Thus, Graham wrote a Dec. 14 NewsBusters post whining that " the liberal media will reliably leap on any tiny gaffe that liberals can locate." Graham also quoted a writer for the right-wing Watchdog.org (whose ideology Graham failed to identify) saying basically the same thing.
By contrast, the MRC worked hard to get another tiny gaffe some media traction.
During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama said at one point that he had visited 57 states. Since then, the gaffe has been referenced dozens of times at NewsBusters alone, many of thosecomplaining that the "liberal media" didn't report it, which obviously means the media was protecting Obama.
It seems that Graham has a double standard on gaffes. After all, it's unlikely that any MRC outlet would have reported on Walker's gaffe for any other reason than to dismiss it.
Sharyl Attkisson Reciprocates The MRC's Love Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has been showing the love to former CBS correspondent Sharyl Attkisson for her anti-Obama reporting and general move to the right (which the MRC denies). Now Attkisson is showing some love right back.
A Dec. 13 NewsBusters post by Scott Whitlock highlights an interview Attkisson conducted with Rush Limbaugh's newsletter (her latest connection to right-wingers, which is more evidence of Attkisson's rightward shift, yet unremarked upon by Whitlock):
Regarding the selection of liberal vs. conservative watchdogs as sources, Attkisson noted, "In fact, I've never heard reporters treat the conservative media watchdogs as if they're providing neutral information that should be paid attention to. Only the liberal side."
Neither Whitlock nor Attkisson will admit it, but that's likely because conservative media watchdogs like the MRC have proven themselves incapable of providing neutral information. As we'vedocumented, the MRC's so-called "research" is so skewed and narrowly tailored to produce only results that reinforce its "liberal media" narrative that it simply can't be trusted.
By comparison, Media Matters (the liberal media watchdog to which Attkisson is surely referring) committed the offense of discrediting her shoddy reporting. Despite attacking Media Matters as partisan and inaccurate, Attkisson has never disproven the factual nature of what Media Matters has written about Attkisson's work.
Of course, Whitlock doesn't mention any of that either, chossing instead to rehash Attkisson's dubious claim of her computers being hacked.
MRC's Graham Shocked That Movie Reviewers Reviewed A Film They've Seen Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Tim Graham has been in the right-wing media outrage business for so long, it seems he's incapable of recognizing fair journalism for what it is instead of through his jaundiced partisan lens.
In a Dec. 13 NewsBusters post, Graham expresses surprise that "liberal papers" the Washington Post and the New York Times would pan the new film "Exodus: Gods and Kings" by criticizing the decision to have God portrayed by a "terrifying" child. His headline: "Even Liberal Papers Pan Bratty Pre-Teen God In New Moses Movie 'Exodus: Gods and Kings.'"
Graham seems to forget that genuine movie reviewers employed by legitimate news outlets generally try to review films based on their merits, not according to their rigid personal belief system.
We saw the latter at work earlier this year when the MRC's Katie Yoder attacked the film "Obvious Child" fior being a romantic comedy centered around abortion -- a film Yoder proudly proclaimed she never watched before trashing it.
Apparently, Graham favors Yoder's approach and would rather people write about films based on what they read on the Internet about them and spare themselves the effort of actually seeing it before offering an opinion.
Indeed, Graham provided no evidence that he has seen "Exodus." Are we surprised? Nope.
MRC Thinks 52% Supporting 'Gun Rights' Is 'Massive' Topic: Media Research Center
The headline on a Dec. 11 Media Research Center item by Scott Whitlock blared, "ABC, NBC Skip Poll Finding Massive Support for the Second Amendment." But the poll is dubious and didn't indicate "massive" support.
As Whitlock goes on to note, the Pew Research poll in question found that 52 percent of Americans support "gun rights," while 46 percent support "gun control." Two points over 50 percent is hardly an indicator of "massive" support.
Whitlock also fails to mention the issues with the poll itself, presumably because it fits the MRC's pro-gun narrative. As Media Matters pointed out, the poll's choice between "gun rights" and "gun control" ridiculously oversimplifies the national debate over guns, as if the two were mutually exclusive.
Whitlock also didn't mention that even the conservative Washington Times article about the poll upon which he based his item quotes "gun control supporters" pointing out that specific measures such as expansion of background checks have much wider public support than Pew's "gun rights" question -- around 90 percent. Wonder why he wouldn't report all the relevant facts?
MRC's Bozell & Graham Portray Broaddrick As A Credible Rape Accuser Topic: Media Research Center
In their newest column, Tim Graham and Brent Bozell lament that "the left" likes to believe that "the victim" in a rape accusation is the female accuser, going on to lament the treatment of their favorite alleged rape victim:
This is not the way these "watchdogs" handled Juanita Broaddrick's charge of rape against President Clinton in 1999. Even after NBC's Lisa Myers nailed down particulars establishing that Clinton and Broaddrick were in the same hotel on the same day in 1978, with witnesses who vouchsafed her tortured condition, the networks all but ignored the accuser and her story.
Bozell and Graham don't mention that there was a good reason for the media to discount Broaddrick's story: She changed it.
Prior to flipping in 1998, Broaddrick had repeatedly insisted that Clinton didn't rape her; she even said so under oath. It was not until she gave into the Clinton-haters -- and, more crucially, received a promise of immunity from independent counsel Kenneth Starr that she wouldn't be prosecuted for perjury -- that she changed her story.
Bozell and Graham don't mention that Broaddrick is a documented liar -- she either lied then or she's lying now.We don't recall the two ever telling that to their readers; indeed, a quick search of the MRC website mentions nothing about Broaddrick's contradictory claims or the immunity deal she received from Starr.
As we've also noted, there's enough evidence of the Broaddrick accusations being motivated by partisan politics and personal spite to cast further doubt on them. Indeed, according to Joe Conason's "The Hunting of the President," that's exactly what happened.
But Broaddrick made a sensational accusation against the hated Clinton, and that was good enough for the MRC.
Perhaps Bozell and Graham should have found a better example to use when it comes to the debating the veracity of rape allegations.
Obamas' Happy Relationship Nauseates MRC Writer Topic: Media Research Center
Katie Yoder makes her opinion clear with the headline of her Dec. 5 Media Research Center item: "Nausea Alert: Barack and Michelle Obama's Love Story Coming to Theaters." She writes:
It’s all about true love – not only for the Obamas, but also for the media.
“The White House legend that is Barack and Michelle Obama’s romance is heading to the screen,” reported Deadline’s Jen Yamato on Dec. 5. The drama, “Southside With You,” will detail the Obama couple’s “epic first date” the summer of 1989 – consisting of the Art Institute, a long walk, and Spike Lee’s “Do The Right Thing.”
In July 2015, the filming will begin where their romance blossomed: Chicago. “Get On Up” actress Tika Sumpter will star as Michelle Obama – but the real question is, as Yamato asked, “who will play young Barack?”
Allain’s Homegrown Pictures producer Tracey Bing gushed with excitement for the “smart and timeless film” on “one of the great love stories of our time.” She hyped how screenplay writer Richard Tanne “captures the essence of that romantic connection between Barack and Michelle that is so evident in the way that they look at each other.” Yuck.
Funny, we thought that the MRC approved of happy, stable, child-producing marriages. Apparently that's not the case when the couple in question isn't conservative.
Only someone so filled with petty hatred as Yoder can turn someone's happy marriage into a sick political attack -- to the point where she's apparently phsyically repulsed by the idea that her political enemies are happily married.
Melinda Gates is the ideal philanthropist in the eyes of the liberals at Time magazine – after all, she and her husband Bill Gates became Time’s Persons of the Year...about the same time they gave Time money for a health summit. Anyhow, Melinda was recently honored with the “Ten Questions” interview with Belinda Luscombe in Time’s December 1 and 8 issue.
They promoted “The philanthropist on the importance of contraceptives, her daughters and her growing optimism.” The contraceptive talk turned to....vagina mints? Then Mrs. Gates lied to (or at best, misled) Time about her foundation's support for abortion advocates.
How so? Gates said that her foundation "only funds contraceptives. We do not do the abortion piece." Graham's evidence:
That’s simply not true. While they declared this June that they would no longer fund abortion advocacy, Josh Craddock at Live Action News noted the Gates Foundation is a major funder of Planned Parenthood and other international abortion advocates -- to the tune of about $117 million over the last five years. The Gates Foundation explicitly states it's funding "Global Policy & Advocacy."
Actually, Graham appears to be the liar. Funding Planned Parenthood does not equal "funding abortion" -- after all, only 13 percent of its revenue comes from abortion.
The source for Graham's baseless accusation, Live Action, is notorious for its deceptive entrapment videos designed to smear Planned Parenthood, and Live action founder Lila Rose has repeatedly stated her intent to destroy the group. So it's hardly an objective source of information.
Beyond citing the highly biased and dubious extremist group Live Action, Graham provides no evidence whatsoever that any Gates money is funding abortion "advocacy," let alone actual abortions.
Don't expect Graham to apologize for his false accusation -- as long as he can link Gates with abortion, however fraudulently, that's good enough for him.
MRC's Graham Censors The Facts About Sharyl Attkisson's Shoddy Reporting Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's campaign of propping up Sharyl Attkisson continues in a Nov. 21 NewsBusters post by Tim Graham, in which he highlights how "former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson told Glenn Beck about the latest document release forced by Judicial Watch, which demonstrates Obama's Department of Justice was working to squash Attkisson's reporting on the Obama administration."
Graham omits the reason why the Obama administration would complain about Attkisson's reporting: it's inaccurate. Media Matters notes that the Attkisson report the Obama administration singled out is, in fact, wrong. Nevertheless, Attkisson repeats the false claim in her new book.
Graham also grumbles that the Obama administration allegedly worked with a reporter to criticize Republican Rep. Darrell Issa's investigation into Fast anmd Furious: "This is how journalism works. Reporters accept large chunks of information from friendly sources, in this case in writing an article against Issa." Graham didn't mention that Attkisson, the object of his adoration, does the same thing -- only in this case, her "friendly source" is Issa. Indeed, much of Attkisson's anti-Obama reporting depends on leaks from Issa's committee, and she repeatedly praises him in her book.
Graham also notes Attkisson talking about "the attempt to manipulate her work computer" -- omitting, of course, that the only solid evidence she has presented so far of this indicates her computer was suffering from a stuck backspace key.
If we were the MRC, we might say that Graham is censoring the facts from his readers.
MRC Unhappy Obama's Immigration Action Is Accurately Described Topic: Media Research Center
Kyle Drennen uses a Nov. 21 Media Research Center item to express his unhappiness that NBC's Andrea Mitchell accurately described Obama's action on immigration:
On her 12 p.m. ET hour MSNBC show on Friday, host Andrea Mitchell asserted that President Obama's executive order blocking deportation of millions of illegal immigrants was somehow "not amnesty": "...what this is not, as the President said, this is not amnesty. People have to apply, the applications won't be taken until the spring. There's a window where Republicans could act. So it's not what people are describing, the critics."
Even Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd couldn't quite swallow that spin: "It is a temporary amnesty as far as these people are concerned." Mitchell countered: "Well, it's a relaxation on deportations." Todd observed: "But obviously the definition of amnesty's been perverted so much in different ways." Mitchell declared: "It's not amnesty in the sense that you get citizenship and the past is forgiven." Todd agreed: "That's right."
Despite his unhappiness with Mitchell for pointing out that Obama's immigration action is "not amnesty," Drennen never explains why it purportedly is -- which must mean that Mitchell is correct.
As we'vedocumented, MRC writers love to ignore the actual definition of "amnesty" to use the word to describe any action that might be beneficial toward illegal immigrants.
The MRC's War On (And Jealousy Of) Jon Stewart Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has been focusing its ire on "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart in recent days.
MRC officials Brent Bozell and Tim Graham devoted their Nov. 21 column to bashing Stewart and sneering at the people who enjoy his brand of political satire -- or, as they call it, "his snarky conservative-trashing show" -- calling them "flatterers, sycophants, and every other synonym in the thesaurus for obsequious."
Bozell and Graham whined that Stewart responded to right-wing "mockery of Obama's patriotism" in the criticism of the president's salute with a coffee cup in his hand. But they don't mention is that President George W. Bush did the same thing while holding a dog, and not only did it not get held up for public ridicule at the time, the MRC complained that it was brought up as a way to "muddy the waters" over their criticism of Obama.
Bozell and Graham don't mention one reason why they are so upset at "The Daily Show" -- earlier this year, Stewart mocked Bozell for complaining that a Spanish-language channel was helping its viewers to comply with Obamacare.
Graham went off again in a Nov. 24 NewsBusters post, downplaying Stewart's influence because he "generally draws about 1 to 1.2 million viewers, less than ABC's Nightline draws at 12:30 in the morning. It typically gets beat by a second airing of The O'Reilly Factor." Graham, of course, doesn't mention that Stewart's audience is more desirable to advertisers than O'Reilly's: 65 percent of Stewart's audience is under 50, while 64 percent of O'Reilly's audience is over 50.
Graham also ranted that Stewart "makes more than $25 million a year," but doesn't explain what that has to do with anything.
An then there was Jeffrey Lord's Nov. 22 NewsBusters attack on Stewart. Lord takes offense at Stewart for arguing Fox News right-winger Sean Hannity is "acting" rather than pushing sincerely held beliefs, but rather than respond to Stewart's charges (other than to insist that Hannity "a deeply well-grounded, thoughtful man with boundless empathy"), he launched an ad hominem attack on Stewart, accusing him of being "loathsome, disingenuous, cynical and devious" because ... well, there are toomany white people on his show, and he once aired an edited video, which completely justifies Hannity doing the same.
Lord also cites economist Peter Schiff's complaint about how his "Daily Show" interview was edited, highlighting his statement that the "mentally retarded" would be happy to work for $2 an hour. Lord didn't mention that Schiff likes to engage in stunts like protesting a minimum wage hike in a Walmart parking lot.
Lord concludes: "Jon Stewart is a funny guy. A talented guy. But there are words for what comedy’s Jon Stewart and academia’s Jon Gruber are about. The words 'devious' and 'loathsome' are but two."
The truth is, however, that the MRC is totally jealous of Stewart's success, and it wants a piece of that action.
In September, the MRC sent to its mailing list accusing Stewart of being among the comedians who "advance a leftist agenda under the guise of comedy and brainwash America's young people each and every day. Is it any wonder that the youth of America are turning into leftist Obama zombies?"
The email went on to solicit donations to upgrade the MRC's sad little web comedy show, "NewsBusted" (a title, by the way, that the MRC stole from us):
When we started NewsBusted, we wanted to change that by creating at least one comedy show where socialism isn't worshiped and where American values aren't derided.
NewsBusted is the one comedy show where joke writers aren't afraid to serve up the ridicule that Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi so richly deserve.
Quality television audio & video production doesn’t come cheap. For nearly seven years, our production team has been using the SAME standard definition camera, the SAME microphones, the SAME lighting system, the SAME editing bay, the SAME graphics package, and the SAME sound mixing board… NewsBusted is long overdue for a high tech upgradeand 2015 is the year to do it!
How does investing thousands of dollars (well, other poeple's dollars) in a comedy show further the MRC's ostensible mission as an "educational" organization -- not to mention qualify under tax law as being tax-deductible? We don't know either.
We do know, however, that "NewsBusted" probably wouldn't survive if it was subjected to the free market where ratings and viewership matters -- the same place where Stewart and "The Daily Show" are thriving. Which makes the normally free-market MRC's jealousy of Stewart that much more ironic.
MRC Attacks 'Hippie-Hypocrite' Neil Young Topic: Media Research Center
It was apparently a slow day at the Media Research Center a couple weeks back, because Geoffrey Dickens decided to have a fit about Neil Young appearing on "The Charlie Rose Show" and featuring a clip of Young singing a song opposing fracking:
Within seconds after playing the clip the PBS host also asked Young about his new memoir in which the singer “covers everything from his love of cars and painting to his crusade for Mother Earth.” However, Rose never once asked the environmental activist if he felt guilty about all the fossil fuels he’s used in his cars or his painting. Rose also never mentioned all the fossil fuels used in the promotion of Young’s over 50 year-long career in the production and transport of his vinyl records, tapes, CDs. Rose also didn’t bring up the fossil fuels that were utilized in sending Young, his band and crew members on all those tours over the years.
Wow. Dickens is bashing Young for using "fossil fuels" in his painting? Really, Geoffrey? And Dickens seems to have overlooked the fact that he converted one of his beloved cars, a formerly gas-guzzing 1959 Lincoln Continental, to run on cellulosic ethanol.
Besides, Dickens is about a decade late in calling out Young's alleged hypocrisy. The Toronto Star reported:
A vocal champion of environmental issues for most of his career, Young nevertheless managed to conveniently ignore the dichotomy inherent in his fetish for gas-guzzling, fume-belching classic automobiles until he and Crazy Horse took their earth-conscious rock opera Greendale on the road in 2003.
One day after the accompanying movie was finished, Sarah White — a friend of Young’s daughter enlisted to play an activist protesting against oil companies and a “villainous, anti-environment, pollution-spreading corporation” called POWERCO in the Greendale film — cornered him and, “with all of the intensity of youth unbridled,” called him a hypocrite for going out on tour with a fleet of fossil fuel-reliant trucks, buses and airplanes immediately after making a stand against the very same sort of wastefulness onscreen and on record. It stung. And it stuck.
“She was absolutely right,” he writes in Special Deluxe. “Imagine a character in my own story telling me that I was hypocritical for not practising what I was preaching. That was a seminal moment.”
“Yeah, it made a big difference to me,” Young now says of that conversation. “I had the feeling already that we had to do something different, but this young lady made a very clear point. It’s just knowledge. You just accrue knowledge. If you’re interested in something, you gather knowledge.”
From that point on, as documented in Special Deluxe’s sharpened third act, Young set about dutifully reconfiguring his tour transportation to ensure that it ran on renewable, lower-emission biofuel whilst versing himself in the science of climate change and renewable energy to a customarily “obsessive” degree.
If Dickens had bothered to do any actual research before writing his item, he would have learned not only about the converted Lincoln but also that Young has been running his tour transportation on biofuel for years.
But then, the Media Research Center isn't really about "research," it's about promoting an ideology and trotting out tired old insults like "hippie" to smear anyone who opposes them.
Whenever anyone in the media sought to link the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller to the anti-abortion movement -- a link that's not unreasonble to make, given killer Scott Roeder's ties to mainstream anti-abortion activist group Operation Rescue -- the Media Research Center howled about it:
Tom Johnson complains in a Dec. 19 NewsBusters 
Brent Bozell and Tim Graham fret in their Dec. 19 
As we saw with his 
When it was revealed that Republican Wisconsin Go. Scott Walker had wished "Molotov" instead of "mazel tov" to a Jewish constituent, the Media Research Center's Tim Graham knew he had to spring into damage-control mode to tamp the controversy. 
The Media Research Center has been 
The Media Research Center's Tim Graham has been in the right-wing media outrage business for so long, it seems he's incapable of recognizing fair journalism for what it is instead of through his jaundiced partisan lens.
The headline on a Dec. 11 Media Research Center 
In their newest 
Katie Yoder makes her opinion clear with the headline of her Dec. 5 Media Research Center 
The Media Research Center's campaign of 
Kyle Drennen uses a Nov. 21 Media Research Center 
The Media Research Center has been focusing its ire on "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart in recent days.
It was apparently a slow day at the Media Research Center a couple weeks back, because Geoffrey Dickens decided to 
