The MRC's Trump-Media Conspiracy
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center has been obsessing over the amount of time network news (but never the cable news channels) devote to covering Donald Trump. The endgame of that obsession is clear: a conspiracy theory that the "liberal media" is plotting to get Trump the Republican nomination so that he will be trounced by the likely Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, in November.

The MRC's Curtis Houck  expresses the conspiracy clearly in a Feb. 29 post:

By essentially deleting his opponents from their airwaves, the networks (and cable outlets) have been employing a visible strategy to force the billionaire on GOP primary voters and through to the general election against Clinton or Sanders.

My colleague Rich Noyes brilliantly highlighted this very problem as it was evident for months with the month of January seeing Trump be bequeathed 60 percent of the total GOP race airtime on the network evening newscasts (with Cruz well behind at 30 percent and Rubio at four percent).

The Media Research Center’s Bias the Minute writer Mike Ciandella outlined the same pattern on CNN in an even shorter window as between August 24, 2015 and September 4, 2015, Trump was the topic of discussion in over 77 percent of their primetime election segments. For reference, Jeb Bush came in second for this study but only attracted roughly 12 percent. 

MRC chief Brent Bozell and right-hand man Tim Graham echoed the conspiracy in their March 2 column:

These supposed opponents of "Big Money" dominating our democracy have spent month after month giving the lion's share of their political coverage to the billionaire reality TV host. Through Feb. 25, Trump's presidential campaign has received 923 minutes of coverage on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts, nearly five times given to Ted Cruz (205 minutes) and seven times the amount of coverage provided to Marco Rubio (139 minutes).

The tone of Trump coverage is routinely negative. But it still plays into Trump's strategy of saying outrageous things to starve the other candidates of any oxygen from the establishment press. The billionaire pledged to self-fund his campaign but has spent little. It's being fueled almost entirely by free TV airtime.

But there's one thing Trump doesn't want covered, and again the networks are complying. In that overflowing tank of news hours, only a small amount (14 minutes, or 1.5 percent of Trump's total) were spent talking about Trump's past record of support for liberal positions and liberal politicians. Put that number in this perspective: Twice as much time was devoted to Trump's negative comments about Fox News host Megyn Kelly. Almost an hour was dedicated to Trump's proposed (temporary) ban on Muslim immigration.

[...]

It used to be said that when the GOP field is winnowed from 17 to about six, Trump would no longer dominate. Wrong. On the night before Super Tuesday voting, the networks obsessed over Trump with more than 15 minutes of coverage, compared to just two for Rubio and less than a minute for Cruz.

The accusation should be made. The liberal media want this vulnerable, blabby billionaire with the high unfavorable numbers to be the Republican nominee.

Employing the Occam's Razor approach to the issue -- which the MRC is steadfastly refusing to do --  most objective media analysts would argue that Trump is being covered because he is, in fact, the most popular Republican running and has been for months. Trump dominated Super Tuesday coverage because he won the most states.

The idea that Trump is being "forced" onto voters is belied by the fact that the voters don't seem to mind. And Bozell and Graham would be screaming about "negative" coverage of any other Republican, so their claim that "negative" coverage of Trump is part of the conspiracy is ridiculous.

Further, the entire MRC conspiracy coterie has been silent about the one media outlet that has done more to promote Trump than any other: Fox News, which effectively established his campaign by giving him more than $30 million in free airtime in 2015. And the night before Super Tuesday, Sean Hannity devoted half his show to an interview with Trump.

The MRC's absolute refusal to scrutinize Trump's symbiosis with Fox News is not just a huge blind spot in its so-called media research, it's also self-serving. As they've shown in their selective outrage over how various media outlets have conducted GOP debates -- slobbering all over Fox-hosted debates and bashing everyone else -- Bozell and Co. don't want to go after Fox because it's their main TV outlet. Bozell has a weekly spot on Hannity's show, and he and others pop up regularly on Fox News and Fox Business.

One of the things the rise of Trump has exposed is the hollowness and shoddiness of the MRC's "media research." So Bozell and crew must continue to blow smoke about the "liberal media" so his fellow conservatives don't figure that out.

MRC Lets Bill Donohue Peddle Lie Linking Catholic Priest Sex Scandal To Gays
Topic: Media Research Center

Last time we saw the Catholic League's Bill Donohue writing for the Media Research Center, it was a NewsBusters post complaining about the film "Spotlight," which focuses on how the Boston Globe exposed sex scandals among Catholic priests and whining that other random sex scandals weren't getting the same media attention.

Now that "Spotlight" has won an Oscar for best picture, Donohue is back in distraction mode. NewsBusters published a Feb. 26 post by Donohue complaining that "Hollywood has no interest in turning its cameras on itself, which is why the public's eyes have been shut tight from seeing a movie that documents child rape in Tinseltown." Donohue doesn't even mention "Spotlight" after the second paragraph.

After the film's Oscar win, an updated version of Donohue's rant appeared at CNSNews.com, with a new beginning:

The politicization of "Spotlight" began even before it won the Oscar for Best Picture. Actor Mark Ruffalo held a rally outside the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels; 20 persons showed up. He said he stood by victims of priestly sexual abuse. On stage, screenwriter Josh Singer exclaimed, "Pope Francis, it's time to protect the children and restore the faith."

Apparently, these men are unaware of the fact that the homosexual scandal occurred mostly between 1965 and 1985, and that no institution in the United States has less of a problem with this issue today than the Catholic Church. That's because Pope Benedict XVI made it hard for practicing homosexuals to enter the priesthood. But no matter, the propaganda experts cannot resist trying to keep the scandal alive.

Donoue is lying when he claims that the priest sex scandal was exclusively "homosexual." As we've documented, a report by John Jay College  commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops explains that "there is no causative relationship between either celibacy or homosexuality and the sexual victimization of children in the Church. Therefore, being celibate or being gay did not increase the risk of violating children. So, blaming the clergy abuse crisis in the Catholic Church on gay men or celibacy is unfounded."

Donohue is simply engaging in homophobia, which suits the anti-gay MRC just fine.

The CNS version of Donohue's column omits an important disclosure included on the NewsBusters version: that MRC chief Brent Bozell serves on the board of advisors for the Donohue's Catholic League. You can thank us for guilting the MRC -- parts of it, anyway -- into finally admitting that.

MRC Blogger: Chris Rock Brings 'Racism' To Oscars
Topic: Media Research Center

Only at the Media Research Center could Chris Rock's monologue at the Oscars hitting on how no black actors were nominated for major awards and Hollywood's genteel racism could be nothing but "racism" and "race jokes." Behold Alexa Moutevelis Coombs' NewsBusters rant on the subject:

Comedian Chris Rock was under a lot of pressure to "speak truth to power" in his second turn as host of the 88th Annual Academy Awards. The lack of black actors and actresses nominated has dominated Oscar coverage again this year, with pledges from Will and Jada Pinkett Smith and Spike Lee to boycott and the Academy to change the racial makeup of its members. Rock reportedly even rewrote his opening monologue after the Oscar nominations were revealed in mid-January and the #OscarsSoWhite hashtag started trending. So you pretty much knew Chris Rock would be out with some hard-hitting racial jokes he’s known for. But who knew that pretty much the entire 10 minute monologue would be solely dedicated to race jokes?

Update: Chris Rock ended the Oscars broadcast by shouting, "Black Lives Matter!" Racism from beginning to end.

Yeah, she really wrote that.

MRC Demands Media Bias Against Trump, Then Complains When It Happens
Topic: Media Research Center

Nicholas Fondacaro devoted a Feb. 24 NewsBusters post to ranting about what he declared was NBC's Chuck Todd's claim that it's the job of opposing campaigns, not the media, to vet Donald Trump -- and get it completely wrong:

MSNBC’s Chuck Todd washed the media's collective hands on Wednesday evening by claiming the other campaigns could use all the previous media coverage to cobble together into attack ads:

 “A common criticism you’ve heard is that Trump's rise is the media's fault, because we have enabled his rise. But, folks, you could argue that the media has also provided all the material that normally a campaign would want to put together an attack against Trump.”

[...]

Todd’s analysis feigned objectivity while barely scratching the surface. This kind of coverage of Trump is nothing new. A recent MRC study found that most coverage of Trump has little to do with his old, self-admitted, liberal positions or any vetting of his past of any kind.

A proper vetting is probably something they are waiting to do until after Trump is the GOP presidential nominee – all the better to assist the Democratic nominee – a technique that was unitized against past GOP nominees John McCain and Mitt Romney. During the 2012 presidential campaign the media dug into every corner of Romney’s past. They ran story after story about the Romney family dog being caged on the roof of their car during a road trip. The media even dug up a story about a bullying incident from when Romney was in high school.

For Chuck Todd to insinuate that it’s not the media’s job to dig into a candidate’s past or fully vet a candidate for the public is just plain ridiculous. Todd laid the this duty at the feet of the other candidates stating “Folks, those are all inconsistencies that a normal campaign that was running against Donald Trump would probably put together, into TV ads and try to see if it would leave a mark with voters.”

For a member of the media to advocate for campaigns alone to do the vetting is an abdication of journalistic duty.

Fondacaro's interpretation is wrong -- so wrong, in fact, that Todd himself complained to the Media Research Center, resulting in a editor's note added to the top stating that the post's headline had been changed from "Chuck Todd: It's not the media's job to vet Trump's past," agreeing with Todd that "it wasn't an accurate sense of his statements."

What Todd said is that the media has put critical information about Trump out there -- contrary to Fondacaro's assertion -- and the campaigns of Trump's opponents have plenty of ammuntion should they decide to use it. He's right; for instance, the Washington Post reported on the scammy nature of Trump University way back last September -- CNN was reporting on it as far back as 2013 -- but it was not until the most recent GOP presidential debate that any of his opponents called him out on it.

(Not that you'll see that mentioned at the MRC, which apparently thinks "the media" is just the evening news on the three broadcast networks, and put out a piece by Mike Ciandella following that debate whining about the lack of coverage there.)

Fondacaro is effectively demanding that the media be biased against Trump. So why is the MRC so mad when there's anti-Trump bias in the media?

Two days later, Tim Graham complained that a Washington Post editorial pointed out that Trump's campaign declaration to deport all illegal immigrants would be " a forced movement on a scale not attempted since Stalin or perhaps Pol Pot." You'd think that would be the kind of comparison Graham would favor since his boss, Brent Bozell, is avowedly anti-Trump.

But Graham instead laments the Post's "unhinged comparisons that make no historical sense," then quickly changed the subject to Clinton-bashing, perhaps remembering that it's not really company policy to be defending Trump at all.

MRC Uses Man-In-Women's-Restroom Incident To Freak Out About Transgenders
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center has a habit of freaking out about transgenders in general, as well as pushing the right-wing "bathroom myth" -- in which allowing transgenders to use the restroom or locker room of their gender identity will somehow create perversion and danger to women -- regardless of the facts.

Mairead McArdle gives the myth another go in a Feb. 19 NewsBusters post, derisively referring to the issue as "confused commodes." She howled about how "a cisgender man invaded a women’s locker room last week" in Seattle. But the article McArdle cites about the incident does not describe the culprit as "cisgender" -- indeed, McArdle later flip-flops and admits that "this particular man seemed only to be making a clumsy statement about the new rule and did not try to identify himself as a woman."

McArdle goes on to baselessly claim that the incident -- even though it had nothing to do with gender identity and may, for all we know, been perpetrated by a right-wing activist protesting the idea of using the bathroom of one's gender identity -- as a "dangerous precedent" and "The man could just as easily have been a predator pretending to identify as a woman."

Well, no. McArdle refuses to acknowledge that there's simply no evidence to support the right-wing claim that allowing transgenders to use facilities consistent with their gender identity opens the door to predators.

But, apparently, hating transgenders gets clicks at the MRC, so expect McArdle and others to keep forwarding their factually deficient propaganda.

MRC's Baker Unhappy Scalia's Questionable Ethical Behavior Is Reported
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's Brent Baker whines in a Feb. 19 NewsBusters post:

A story topic so enticing, they ran it twice. Apparently, not even dying is enough to deter media hostility – if you’re a conservative. Headline on page A6 in Thursday’s Washington Post: “Justice Scalia’s free stay at luxury ranch highlights judicial ethics questions.” Subhead: “Should judges socialize with people who could have cases before them?” (Online version: “Why Justice Scalia was staying for free at a Texas resort”).

Page A2 of Friday’s paper: “Justices travel often, but it’s not always clear who pays.” Subhead: “Scalia was staying free at the resort in Texas where he died.”

Both stories led with plenty of innuendo about Scalia, only getting to other justices deep in the articles.

Baker offered no evidence to contradict the claims made in the article, which means he's upset those claims were made at all. That seems to make him a would-be censor.

And it's quite hilarious that the the MRC, which can't stop bringing up Chappaquiddick even though Ted Kennedy's been dead for years, has now declared any mention of possible ethical breaches by Scalia to be verboten because he just died.

MRC Loves That Spanish-Language Channel Is Spreading Anti-Clinton Sleaze
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center couldn't be more psyched that a news program on the Spanish-language network MegaTV spread a sleazy report about Hillary Clinton. From a Feb. 22 post credited only to "MRC Latino Staff":

A few days ago, we covered a one-sided pro-sanctuary cities story on Mega Noticiero and wondered aloud whether this new national Spanish-language newscast was going to do anything to differentiate itself from the rest of the market. Boy, were we wrong.

Interesting things happen when your network is not partially owned by a top Clinton Foundation donor who has pledged his “full might” to electing Hillary Clinton to the presidency. Case in point: Mega Noticiero actually went there and covered a fresh story regarding Hillary Clinton’s alleged lesbian proclivities:

MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, ANCHOR, MEGA NEWS: Now, the supposed ex-lover of former President Bill Clinton is assuring that Hillary is a lesbian. Miss Sally Miller, who was once Miss Arkansas, says she had a romance with Bill in 1983, and that the then Governor of that state told her that Hillary didn't like having sex with him, because she preferred sex with women.

The story aired during the newscast’s new “Political Circus” segment, a daily roundup of the varied goings-on of the campaign trail and highlight, per Salazar, “what goes on under the tent.”

The story has yet to air on any other major national television newscast, in English or Spanish. Mega Noticiero was evidently willing to take the risk involved, trust its viewers to watch the reporting and let them decide for themselves.

The item signals the beginning of what appears to be real market differentiation in the national Spanish-language media space.

So it's good that a media outlet is expressing "real market differentiation" by acting like the obsessive Clinton-haters at WorldNetDaily -- which, unsurprisingly, promoted the same claim -- by promoting a woman who's widely considered to have no credibility? Apparently it is at MRC Latino.

When we pointed it out to MRC Latino on Twitter, he/she/they responded, "the post simply observes, takes note of the dynamics of the coverage out there." They later added: "focus is not promotion or endorsement, but analysis of what's already out there and going on in media segment."

That's a disingenous defense. MRC Latino could have distanced itself from the content of the smear it was promoting has it talked about "market differentiation," but it didn't. And MRC Latino is not afraid to judge content, at least when it comes to content that doesn't mesh with its ideology: Five days earlier, "MRC Latino Staff" dedicated a post to attacking the very same news show for a story on sanctuary cities, declaring that it was "breathtaking, to say the least, in the scope of its bias."

MRC Latino, meanwhile, chearly has no problem with the breathtaking bias of the Hillary smear promulgated by the very same people.

That's some very shoddy "media research" there. But that's what you get when people who aren't very fond of Latinos monitor Latino media.

MRC-Mark Levin Business Arrangement/Love Affair Watch
Topic: Media Research Center

It says something about the business relationship the Media Research Center has with right-wing radio host Mark Levin that the lead story on MRC's "news" website CNSNews.com yesterday was Levin starting a TV channel, with the giant patriotic handout shot of Levin that being the lead story entails (screen shot above). And CNS managing editor Michael W. Chapman has all the fawning details:

Best selling author, talk-radio giant, and conservative leader Mark Levin is branching out further in the digital media world by launching LevinTV, through the media company CRTV. The first episode of LevinTV will air on March 7.

Levin, who reaches millions of people daily through his radio program, The Mark Levin Show, will expand his audience through this digital based television platform, which is described as “America’s new televised Town Hall meeting,” in a statement from CRC Public Relations.

“I have the greatest audience in the world and I give them my best every night,” said Mark Levin. “I am thrilled we are expanding our Town Hall meeting place for patriots, by taking TV broadcasting to a new level on multiple platforms where I will speak directly to my audience -- uncensored, without middlemen, and commercial free.”

Chapman didn't mention that the MRC is apparently one of those platforms where Levin can speak  "uncensored, without middlemen, and commercial free." Nor did he mention that Levin's PR firm, CRC Public Relations, also does work for the MRC.

But that wasn't enough Levin boosterism for CNS. It followed up with an article by Susan Jones that's nothing more than a transcription of a speech by Levin.

MRC Anti-Gay Watch
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center -- which doesn't exactly like gays in the first place -- has been on a bit of a tear with anti-gay sniping the past few days.

In a Feb. 14 post, Dylan Gwinn cheered an episode of "Family Guy" in which cartoon protagonist Peter Griffin being glad his son sent sent a picture of his gential to a girl instead of a guy: "So how about that, huh? An expression of relief and joy that your son isn’t gay on major network television? Not necessarily something you see every day. So that would be good."

A couple days later, Gwinn was distressed that boxer Manny Pacquiao, a candidate for political office in the Philippines, was being held accountable for likening gays to animals, lamenting that "Predictably, Pacquiao apologized for causing any offense in a Facebook video."

Gwinn sarcastically groused that "Pacquiao’s comments were greeted with warmth and understanding by the media and LGBT activists."But he quoted only Filipinos commenting on it, not Americans.

Meanwhile, Mairead McArdle picked Gwinn's anti-gay baton for a Feb. 15 rant attacking Adidas:

Adidas has jumped on the politically correct bandwagon with a Valentine’s Day Instagram post showing a same sex couple.

The picture of what looks like two women in a romantic embrace is captioned with the old Beatles line, “The love you take is equal to the love you make.” By Monday it had over 96,000 comments and counting.

Adidas responded to some of the displeased comments, “No, this is a day for love. Happy Valentine’s Day.”

Business Insider, Buzzfeed, Mic.com, and other news outlets rushed to lionize the company for standing up for LGBT people.

Adidas has been a vigilant promoter of the LGBT agenda.

[...]

Adidas and the other companies should keep in mind that the LGBT lifestyle is still hotly debated in psychological circles.

Note that McArdle is ranting over something that she says merely "looks like two women in a romantic embrace." The Adidas Instagram post in question shows only legs and is arguably ambiguous as to the sex of the people involved. Adidas never explicitly confirmed that it's a same-sex couple, and McArdle seems angry that Adidas would invoke "love" in defending it.

The screenshot of the Instagram post accompanying McArdle's post is weirdly and needlessly cropped, as if the upper thighs of what might be a same-sex couple were somehow offensive.

And McArdle's proof that "the LGBT lifestyle is still hotly debated in psychological circles" is of an article at the conservative National Review -- which convolutedly asks, "Is it possible to to avoid 'homophobia' (a deliberately imprecise term) while preserving 'heteronormativity' (which at least sounds more scientific)?" -- not the first place one would go to find a fair "debate" on the subject. 

MRC-Mark Levin Business Arrangement/Love Affair Watch
Topic: Media Research Center

Last month, the Media Research Center was rushing to the defense of right-wing radio host (and friend of MRC chief Brent Bozell) Mark Levin over a mild swipe by a TV host. This month -- presumably brought on at least in part by the fact the MRC and Levin have a business arrangement to promote each other -- it's back to full-fledged drool mode.

Michael Morris devotes an entire Feb. 11 CNSNews.com blog post to telling us how "Westwood One just announced a 'lifetime extension' for 'The Mark Levin Show' hosted by nationally syndicated radio talk show host Mark Levin." Morris' only source is the press release issued by Levin and Westwood One, andhe makes sure to include the slobbering declaration that Levin is "one of the most important, popular, and trusted voices in radio."

But given that the MRC pretty much forbids criticism of Levin on his websites and aggressively attacks anyone else to dares to do so, rewriting a press release -- and the complete censorship of the MRC-Levin business arrangement -- was all one could hope for here.

Confused Bozell Is Unhappy Trump Voters Got Criticized
Topic: Media Research Center

Media Reseatch Center chief Brent Bozell hates Donald Trump. So why is he mad that Trump's voters got mocked?

In a Feb. 10 appearance on Fox Business (where he gets to continue to appear in part because of how he has sucked up to them so well), Bozell complained about a New York Daily News cover after the New Hampshire primary depicting Trump as a column and calling his voters "mindless zombies." But Bozell has somehow decided that the cover was calling all Republican voters "mindless zombies" despite the context being clear, ranting that this was "character assassination."

Bozell then went further, insisting that "These left-wingers are always pontificating about right-wing haters" but "there's no conservative type of newspaper that does this sort of thing and is this hate-filled toward liberals."

Apparently Bozell has never heard of the New York Post.

MRC: It's 'Politics' To Show A Gay Couple In Love
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center continues to be mad that gays are permitted to be gay in public.

In a Feb. 2 NewsBusters post, Katie Yoder notes that "To advertise greeting cards for Valentine’s Day this year, Hallmark released multiple videos of couples sharing their love stories. Among them: a gay and a lesbian couple." But first she asserts: "Hallmark is using politics to sell cards this Valentine’s Day."

Gosh, we thought that showing loving gay couples was a way to, you know, sell more greeting cards. We thought Yoder and the MRC supported the free market in which goods can be sold to anyone.

And wouldn't be more obviously "using politics" if Hallmark refused to acknowledge gay couples as Yoder wants?

Yoder doesn't answer that. Instead she complains that "In 2011, NPR pushed Hallmark to start creating Valentine’s Day cards for the LGBT community," citing a post by the MRC's Tim Graham whining that NPR once did a story on a company that made them that also quoted a Hallmark spokesperson stating that the company was moving in that direction. So it seems Hallmark hardly needed the "push" NPR supposedly gave them.

Cruz Supporters At MRC Give Cruz A Pass On CNN And Ben Carson
Topic: Media Research Center

It's no secret that Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell is a supporter of Ted Cruz (and a hater of Donald Trump), and that attitude is bleeding into his organization as the MRC is working hard to shield Cruz from media criticism.

During the Iowa caucuses, Cruz's campaign spread a false claim that CNN reported Ben Carson had dropped out of the caucuses, encouraging Carson supporters to cast their votes for Cruz instead. While Cruz apologized to Carson, he also insisted that CNN reported that Carson was quitting the campaign -- which CNN did not do.

But don't expect to read about Cruz's blunder at the MRC, though. It has, however, complained that the media reported it, though -- Curtis Houck groused that news outlets reported on Donald Trump "accusing Ted Cruz of “stealing” the Iowa caucuses" through the false Carson claim.

A Feb. 4 post by Scott Whitlock touted how Cruz "school[ed]" an ABC reporter who asked him about it by retorting, "Is it a dirty trick to pass on your news stories?" Whitlock didn't mention that the information Cruz passed on was wrong.

And when Cruz falsely claimed again during the Feb. 6 GOP debate that it was CNN, not his campaign that got the Carson information wrong, the MRC remained silent on the issue, and Bozell didn't even highlight it on his Twitter feed.

By contrast, the MRC has published numberous posts defending Cruz. These include a couple apparently done to hide the controversy over his false statements about CNN's reporting on Carson -- a Feb. 4 post detailing what Geoffrey Dickens calls "the Worst Media Attacks on Ted Cruz (so far)" -- which misleadingly conflates news reporting with statements by opinion commentators -- and a Feb. 6 post by Tim Graham complaining that the Washington Post did an article about what Canadians think of Cruz, given that he was born there.

At one point Graham writes, "Birtherism is a viciously racist mental disorder when used against Barack Obama, but it’s an amusing exercise in needling when it’s used against a conservative." If that's what Graham really thinks about Obama birtherism, that's a change from the MRC's normal policy of letting the president twist in the wind on the issue by refusing to aggressively denounce it (at least until it became an issue for Cruz).

The MRC's Deliberately Incomplete Trump-Coverage Analysis
Topic: Media Research Center

Rich Noyes trumpets in a Feb. 1 Media Research Center "Media Reality Check":

For months, one of GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump’s major advantages has been the establishment media’s decision to cover his candidacy to the near-exclusion of his Republican competitors. A new analysis by the Media Research Center finds Trump continued to receive the vast majority of TV news coverage throughout the month of January, leading up to tonight’s crucial Iowa caucuses.

Actually, Noyes' analysis is deliberately incomplete -- and, thus meaningless. His definiton of "TV news" is very tiny -- just "the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts." He has apparently forgotten there are three major and several minor cable news channels that also qualify as "TV news."

Of course, Noyes' job is a lot easier if all he has to do is monitor three half-hour network newscasts instead of the approximately 18 hours of original coverage cable news networks typically generate per day. But there seems to be more than lazineess going on here.

The MRC has long been buddies with Fox News -- Brent Bozell and his minions make regular appearances on it and sister channel Fox Business, almost always in solo interviews, not panels where someone from a different ideological viewpoint might challenge their opinions -- and it regularly plays apologist for acts by Fox News that would receive vicious condemnation were they conducted by a channel with which the MRC is not ideologically aligned.

The MRC's historic exclusion of cable news channels may stem from a simple refusal to hold Fox News to its own standards. And in this particular case, there's a goldmine of evidence to support denouncing Fox News as a promoter of Trump.

As Media Matters points out, Fox News loves Trump -- for instance, he spent a total of 24 hours on Fox from May 2015, whenhe announced his candidacy, thorugh the end of 2015, which added up to about $30 million of free airtime for Trump. Fox is so dependent on Trump, in fact, that when Trump pulled out of last week's Fox-hosted GOP debate, Fox host Bill O'Reilly devoted much of an interview with Trump to begging him to reconsider.

But you won't see the MRC pointing this out, and you won't see Bozell aggressively calling Fox News out for its fealty to Trump -- he wants to keep that weekly "Hannity" segment, after all. The closest he got was an appearance last week on Fox Business, in which Bozell meekly averred that Fox, "with all due respect, is slightly responsible" for the Trump frenzy "because I think it's catered to this man."

Only "slightly responsible"? That's what happens when he refuses to let his employees do actual media research. He knows what side of his media-appearance bread is buttered, after all, and he's not going to jeopardize things by pushing the issue any farther than that.

MRC Silent On Ted Cruz's Compaints of Bias In Fox News Debate
Topic: Media Research Center

We've already seen that the Media Research Center ignoring Donald Trump's complaints about bias at Fox News-hosted debates -- after all, MRC chief Brent Bozell hates Trump and would like to keep appearing on Fox.

In an email sent out before the Jan. 28 Republican presidential debate hosted and moderated by Fox News, the MRC declared that it "will be on high alert for media bias surrounding tonight’s debate, as it's yet another opportunity for the media to openly attack conservative candidates and their proposals, instead of reporting on them fairly and letting voters decide."

Well, actually, not so much. Ted Cruz -- who Bozell and the MRC crew like much better than Trump, and who has parroted right-wing media-bias complaints, much to the pleasure of the MRC -- actually threatened to quit mid-debate over the Fox News moderators' bias: "The last four questions have been 'Rand, please attack Ted,' 'Jeb, please attack Ted' ...Gosh, if you guys ask one more mean question, I may have to leave the stage." He then added, "I would suggest let's stay focused on those issues rather than just attacks directed at each other."

What was the response from the MRC to Cruz's media bias accusations? Crickets.

Bozell mentioned nothing about Cruz's complaint on his Twitter feed, and his MRC ignored it entirely. The only bias-related complaint the MRC lodged about the debate carefully avoided directly criticizing Fox News debate moderators like Megyn Kelly; it huffed that "Fox News allowed a Bernie Sanders supporter to grill GOP candidates on anti-Islamic “hate” within the United States."

Randy Hall did write a NewsBusters post on Megyn Kelly referring to Trump, who refused to take part in the debate, as "He Who Must Not Be Named," but given that the boss has publicly rejected Trump -- Bozell has since called Trump a "petulant brat" for skipping the debate -- that was likely intended as a compliment.

Bozell, by the way, made that attack on Trump in an appaearance on Fox Business, where he frequently appears. It seems Bozell knows exactly on which side his bread is buttered, and would clearly like to continue appearing on Fox.