MRC Tries To Make 'MSNBC Conservative' A Thing Topic: Media Research Center
Back in 2012 or so, the Media Research Center triedtofloat the idea of the "MSNBC conservative" -- an attempt to bash conservatives (in this case, the target was Joe Scarborough) who failed to be conservative enough for the MRC that was really just another form of Heathering.
Now, it looks like the MRC is trying to make "MSNBC conservative" happen again.
Brad Wilmouth tries to define the term in the midst of tagging someone as one in an Aug. 1 post:
The caricature of an MSNBC conservative is a commentator with a right-leaning background who -- when appearing as a panel member on the liberal news network -- either agrees with the liberal guests or fails to rebut liberal analysis while offering little actual right-leaning analysis to the discussion. Washington Post columnist and regular MSNBC guest Jennifer Rubin may have gone beyond caricature on Monday's Hardball as she actually seemed to enjoy reporting that "social conservatives" are "dying off."
In an Aug. 22 post, the person getting the "MSNBC conservative" tag from Scott Whitlock is P.J. O'Rourke, for mocking President Trump -- as if Trump had ever exhibited conservative tendencies before the 2016 election. (Remember, MRC chief Brent Bozell declared that Trump didn't "walk with" conservatives like him until a little Mercer money apparently changed his mind and he turned the MRC into a total Trump tool.)
Wilmouth took another shot at Rubin in a Sept. 4 post, calling her not only an "MSNBC conservative" but also "allegedly right-leaning."
This attempt at nomenclature comes with no acknowledgement whatsoever of its inspiration: the "Fox News Democrat," who actually lives up to the description Wilmouth ascribes to people like Rubin, who merely holds the same views on Trump Bozell did until mid-2016.
Did Mercer Money Make MRC Bury Bannon's Catholic-Bashing? Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Reserarch Center is usually quick to pounce on any real or perceived slight of Catholics made in the media. After all, the MRC's leaders, Brent Bozell and Tim Graham, are Catholic, and Bozell is a member of the advisory board of Bill Donohue's right-wing Catholic League.
But when that anti-Catholic slight comes from a trusted adviser to a Republican president, the MRC decided to look the other way.
In an excerpt from a "60 Minutes" interview released before its airing, recently departed Trump White House adviser Steve Bannon -- who claims to be a Catholic -- said that the Catholic Church has been "terrible" on the subject of undocumented immigrants, adding: "You know why? Because unable to really to come to grips with the problems in the church, they need illegal aliens, they need illegal aliens to fill the churches. That's -- it's obvious on the face of it. ... They have an economic interest. They have an economic interest in unlimited immigration, unlimited illegal immigration."
Now, that's the kind of anti-Catholic insult that normally gets people like Bozell and Graham in a froth. But the MRC did everything it could to distract from it.
In a Sept. 7 post, Scott Whitlock didn't criticize Bannon's Catholic-bashing -- the remark was noted only in the transcript and written around in the body of the item, in which Whitlock stated only that "Bannon shot back that the 'Catholic Church has been terrible about this' issue" -- but instead attacked Bannon's interviewer, Charlie Rose, for questioning if Bannon was being a "good Catholic" since even influential Cardinal Dolan opposes the Trump administration's stance in trying to end DACA. Whitlock huffed: "Apparently, the CBS position is that a 'good Catholic' supports the liberal agenda and conservative Catholic positions are to be ignored or dismissed." He didn't mention that it could be argued that CBS and Cardinal Dolan are on the same side.
A Sept. 8 post by Kristine Marsh bashed late-night comedians for mocking Bannon, but she would concede only that "Bannon admitted he disagreed with the Catholic Church’s stance on DACA" and not offer a direct, full quote of Bannon's remarks. Rather, she actually complained that Stephen Colbert "bashed Bannon for implying the church had ulterior motives for wanting to help 'strangers who desperately need help'" -- the same thing the MRC would be bashing Bannon for if he wasn't a key Trump adviser.
A Sept. 11 post by Nicholas Fondacaro complains that Rose "lectured and berated Bannon about America and his worldview." Fondacaro is careful to edit out Bannon's Catholic-bashing from the transcript, replacing it with ellipses:
ROSE: Can I remind you, a good Catholic, that Cardinal Dolan is opposed to what's happened with DACA. Cardinal Dolan!
BANNON: The Catholic Church has been terrible about this.
ROSE: OK.
BANNON: The bishops have been terrible about this.
(…)
ROSE: Boy, that's a tough thing to say about your church.
(…)
ROSE: You will not be attacking Donald Trump?
Meanwhile, over at the MRC's "news" division CNSNews.com, no stories were published about Bannon's remarks. CNS did, however find the time and space to highlight twoother alleged Catholic slights, plus a column by David Limbaugh attacking one of those slights.
The Catholic League's Donohue even wrote an article critical of Bannon -- but neither the MRC nor CNS published it despite both having no problem givingspace to Donohue in the past.
Why did the MRC give Bannon a pass? One possible, if not likely, explanation: Mercer money. We've already noted how Mercer family interests are the single largest donor to the MRC; likewise, Bannon is heavily tied to the Mercer empire, which began when Bannon worked for the Mercer-owned data analytics firm Cambridge Analytica and continues through Mercer's part-ownership of the Bannon-headed Breitbart.com.
As with their stance on Donald Trump, Bozell and the MRC have proven they're not afraid to flip-flop and put money ahead of previously declared principles.
MRC Rushes to Limbaugh's Defense (Again) Topic: Media Research Center
Is there anything Rush Limbaugh can do that the Media Research Center won't defend? It seems not.
The headline of a Sept. 7 MRC item by Tim Graham declares: "Al Roker Uncorks False Charge That Rush Limbaugh Said Irma Was 'Fake,' Not 'Dangerous'." Actually, it's Graham who's making the false charge: The Roker tweets Graham includes in his post makes it clear that he was saying that Limbaugh was downplaying warnings about Hurricane Irma, not that the entire hurricane was "fake." Nevertheless, Graham goes on to rant:
Neither of these tweets stand up to an actual reading of the Tuesday Limbaugh transcript. Read it. Nowhere did Limbaugh say Hurricane Irma was "fake" or "not a dangerous storm." He never told anyone to "ignore" the forecasts. No one should expect the liberals at PolitiFact/PunditFact to award Roker with a big "FALSE" on the "Truth-o-Meter." But he deserves one.
Actually, as the Washington Post's Callum Borchers summarizes:
Limbaugh, a fellow Trump booster, didn't say the deep state causesstorms, but he did say “you have people in all of these government areas who believe man is causing climate change, and they’re hellbent on proving it, they’re hellbent on demonstrating it, they’re hellbent on persuading people of it.”
Limbaugh didn't say the deep state directsstorms toward major cities, but he did say “hurricanes are always forecast to hit major population centers because, after all, major population centers is where the major damage will take place and where we can demonstrate that these things are getting bigger and they’re getting more frequent and they’re getting worse — all because of climate change.
Thus we have two of the president's biggest promoters in the media [Limbaugh and Alex Jones] telling people that news about a storm — or perhaps even the storm itself — is fake. There could be serious consequences to Trump's ceaseless effort to lower trust in institutions such as the government and the press — consequences that the president and his team might not have fully considered.
But tell that to Graham, who was too far into full Limbaugh defense mode -- with an added healthy dose of mindless media-bashing -- to be concerned by the facts:
As for the "profit" part, Limbaugh also drew media ire for suggesting the local media and local advertisers profit from driving panic about an incoming storm: "the TV stations begin reporting this and the panic begins to increase. And then people end up going to various stores to stock up on water and whatever they might need for home repairs and batteries and all this that they’re advised to get, and a vicious circle is created. You have these various retail outlets who spend a lot of advertising dollars with the local media."
Limbaugh told listeners that you can't find any bottled water in his Palm Beach area, days before an accurate storm track. He talked about his experience of living in Florida since 1997 and he wasn't just talking about Irma, or Harvey, but about both the storm forecasts that are real, and those that turned out to be overhyped, because the hurricane track moved or the storm weakened.
But the media always take offense when someone says they profit from tragedy. Broadcasting before a hurricane or a snowstorm is a public service....and it naturally causes a big ratings increase. It naturally also causes a run on the stores for supplies. All of that is true. It's just....insensitive to suggest anyone consciously benefits from tragedy -- or the fear of tragedy. As the old Don Henley song "Dirty Laundry" implied, the media thrive daily on the worst news...because it's much more interesting than planes landing safely on time.
The Left certainly accused the major media of putting profit ahead of stopping the election of President Trump. Was that a bizarre conspiracy theory, that the media's dramatic and heavy coverage of Trump meant profit came ahead of public service?
Of course, Graham and the MRC repeatedly complained that the media wasn't publishing enough bad news about Democrats, real or fake. (Graham and the MRC never did apologize or correct the record after enthusiastically promoting Fox News' fake-news story before the election taht Hillary Clinton's indictment was imminent.)
Meanwhile, Limbaugh didn't have the courage of his own words to ride out the hurricane whose threat he downplayed; he evacuated from Florida before Irma hit.
MRC's Graham Loves Fox News Poll Question Equating Media, White Supremacists Topic: Media Research Center
You could almost hear the Media Research Center's Tim Graham grinning as he wrote in a Sept. 3 post:
Allahpundit at Hot Air pointed out Fox News did a poll asking a question liberal journalists would surely find revolting: Who's the bigger threat to America? White supremacists, or the news media? Overall, white supremacists won, 47 to 40 percent, but as usual, there's a dramatic partisan split. Democrats went with white supremacists, 76 to 12 percent, while Republicans picked the news media, 69 percent to 18. Independents were almost evenly split, 43 percent racists to 39 percent media (people could also pick that the threat was equal).
This from a guy who helps run an organization that is incredibly quick to whine about any slight to the reputation of conservatives -- i.e., calling them "far right" and pointing out that they're hostile to facts.
Then again, Graham thinks the mere act of a journalist asking questions is inherently liberal and he basically cheered a GOP candidate's physical assault of a reporter -- and employs a researcher who is incapable of telling the difference between journalists and "the left" -- so equating the media to white supremacists is only a tiny mental leap for him.
MRC Tries to Put Words In Trump's Mouth Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Nicholas Fondacaro complained in an Aug. 27 item:
With the remains of Hurricane Harvey still threatening the communities and lives of the people living along the coast of Texas, the liberal media still couldn’t put their obsession with President Trump aside. In a segment of CNN’s Reliable Sources on Sunday, host Brian Stelter wanted to talk about Trump’s description of political journalists as “sick people” from earlier in the week. But his panel twisted Trump’s words to connect them to those reporters covering the hurricane and those in war zones.
Wait a minute. Trump never specifically said he was singling out "political journalists" in his Phoenix speech, nor did he specifically exclude non-political journalists; he repeatedly refers to "the media" throughout the speech. Trump's reference to "sick people" was arguably framed as an attack on journalists who criticize his tweets, but even that did not specifically single out "political journalists."
Which means Fondacaro is putting words in Trump's mouth, insisting that his criticism of "the media" is limited to only national political journalists when he has never specifically made that distinction.
He went on to complain about the "conflation between the national political reporters and local news people" when, again, Trump has never specifically excluded "local news people" from his repeated attacks on "the media," concluding that the "Reliable Sources" panelists "politicized a natural disaster, which had taken lives, for political gain." How so? By defending the honor of journalists from a critic who's using a broad-brush smear?
Fondacaro went on to complain that one "Reliable Sources" panelist pointed out that Sean Hannity wasn't on the ground in Houston, "while ignoring the fact that Sean Hannity was just a political commentator and not a journalist." But Hannity has, in fact, called himself an "advocacy journalist" earlier this year, and he said he was a "journalist" in 2008 when he was relentlessly attacking Barack Obama.
MRC Curiously Leaves Megyn Kelly Alone Despite Working for 'Liberal Media' Topic: Media Research Center
We've noted that when then-Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly asked pointed questions of Donald Trump at a 2015 presidential debate -- which caused Trump to complain about Fox News' bias -- the Media Research Center refused to take a side in the matter, presumably because it neither wanted to offend the network on which its employees appear most often or admit that Trump was right about Fox News' bias (though it eagerly signed on to Trump's "fake news" rants). The MRC effectively let Kelly twist in the wind.
When Kelly bolted Fox News for NBC after the 2016 election, you think the MRC -- freed from having to defend her as a Fox employee -- would take the opportunity to bash her work for the purportedly "liberal" NBC. But it mostly hasn't, even with Kelly providing ample ammunition in the form of low ratings and a controversial interview with Alex Jones, the kind of fringe figure the MRC loves to excoriate the "liberal media" for "mainstreaming" for simply doing stories about.
The lone piece the MRC did on the entire eight-episode summer run of Kelly's NBC was indeed about the Jones segment. A June 18 post by Melissa Mullins, posted before the interview, noted that Kelly "completely reconfigured her Sunday night show by bringing on the families of Sandy Hook and editing her interview to seem tougher on Jones." Mullins wrote at the end of her tepid post, "But I guess we will have to wait and see, when Kelly’s interview airs tonight. Or in most cases, wait to hear."
The only follow-up the MRC did on the interview was not about the interview itself, but bashing former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw, who appeared at the end of Kelly's show, for issuing a "liberal lecture" calling conspiracy theorists like Jones a "common threat" against the country. The MRC's Curtis Houck ranted that "Brokaw’s two-minute-plus commentary wasn’t used to make a broader argument against far-left rhetoric that nearly did the same to Republican congressmen," referring to the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise.
It seems Kelly has done enough for the conservative movement and the MRC -- remember, the MRC cheered how Kelly insisted against all evidence that Fox News wasn't biased and perpetuated the notion of a "left-leaning bias in news" -- that it will apparently give her a pass on her NBC work.
MRC Likens Jorge Ramos To A White Supremacist Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has long despised Univision news anchor Jorge Ramos, mainly for daring to be critical of President Trump. This is taken to a new level in an Aug. 24 post by Ken Oliver (bolding his):
As President Trump recently stated, many media outlets are currently having a field day giving platforms to hate groups, on both ends of the country’s political spectrum.
At Univision, activist anchor Jorge Ramos decided to replay on his weekly Al Punto show his 2016 interview with white nationalist leader Jared Taylor.
In the segment, one of the central exchanges between Ramos and Taylor reveals how both men actually share a similar, race-based view of American politics that is inherently divisive (not to mention un-American).
JARED TAYLOR, WHITE NATIONALIST:You want more power for Latinos.
JORGE RAMOS, HOST, AL PUNTO, UNIVISION: Exactly.
TAYLOR: That comes at the expense of my people’s power.
RAMOS: We are 17% of the population.
TAYLOR: Correct.
RAMOS: Andwe only have three senators. Therefore, we do not have the political representation we deserve.
TAYLOR: And you want more and more.
RAMOS: Of course, because we only have three senators.
RAMOS: Right now,14 more senators.
As MRC Latino pointed out when the segment originally aired as part of Ramos’ pre-election horror film, titled Hate Rising, both Ramos and Taylor exhibit a race-based logic that is inimical to the core, color-blind ethos of the American political project.
It is, at both extremes, an identity politics gone mad, that only serves to divide Americans, rather than heal and unite them as President Trump has urged. In other words, in Jared Taylor’s America, as a white man he evidently cannot be adequately politically represented by a non-white, nor in Jorge Ramos’ America can Ramos be adequately politically represented by a non-Hispanic.
It is a race-based logic that the vast majority of Americans roundly reject.
The fact that Oliver invokes Trump twice in an item that has nothing whatsoever to do with Trump tells us the level of bias he's going to serve up. Oliver also fundamentally misunderstands the concept of identity politics -- and, thus, the difference between Taylor and Ramos.
Taylor wants all power to be kept in the hands of whites and no other races to have a voice -- he is a white supremacist after all (which Oliver strangely softens as being a "white nationalist"). Ramos is arguing for Hispanic political representation proportional to their portion of the U.S. population, which is not the same thing. Oliver doesn't explain how it's racially divisive to include more Hispanics or any other minority in politics.
That's important because history has shown that minority legislators represent the concerns of minority constituencies better than non-minority legislators, which suggests that those concerns are not adequately addressed by non-minority legislators. And rightly or wrongly, voters use a candidate's race as a proxy for ideology.
No, Mr. Oliver, Ramos is not a Hispanic supremacist, and wanting proportional political representation doesn't make him one. Ramos wants Hispanics to have a meaningful voice; Taylor wants Hispanics to have no political voice at all. Taylor wants supremacy for his race; Ramos just wants a proportional voice. In other words, Ramos and Taylor couldn't be more different in their "race-based view of American politics."
Portraying Ramos as no different from a white supremacist is nothing but a lazy, hateful slur.
MRC Plays the Reagan Hagiography Card Topic: Media Research Center
In the middle of an Aug. 23 post comlplaining that CNN's Don Lemon had a "deranged reaction to President Trump's Arizona rally," the Media Research Center's Curtis Houck took a little time to complain that "Lemon falsely claimed that Ronald Reagan already had Alzheimer’s Disease while President," later restating that "Lemon promoted fake news about Reagan."
How does Houck know that this is "false" and "fake news"? The only evidence he cites is from conservative columnist George Will and a review of a book by conservative Craig Shirley on Reagan done by "conservative scholar Lee Edwards."
Meanwhile, Reagan's son, Ron Reagan Jr. -- who likely had a closer, more realistic view of the situation than a couple of Reagan hagiogrphers -- argued that his father may have shown some early signs of Alzheimer's during his presidency, such as the occasional bout of forgetfulness.
So it appears that, at best, the jury is out on the issue. Perhaps Houck shouldn't be making such a definitive claim without examining evidence from people not predisposed to default to polishing Reagan's legacy.
MRC Researcher Plays Trump Protector Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center shows they're all about protecting President Trump and not so much about "media research" in an Aug. 22 post by Nicholas Fondacaro, who's trying way too hard.
Fondacaro is very concerned that an Instagram post by Louise Linton, wife of Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, bragging about her designer duds while traveling on a government plane would be used to make Trump look bad.Fondacaro complained that CNN's Jake Tapper "tried to link someone else’s Instagram controversy to the President" and was claiming that Linton's comments were "somehow Trump’s responsibility because of his 2016 campaign messaging.Finally, Fondacaro huffed:
It’s one thing to discuss Linton’s Instagram post and her relation to the Treasury Secretary. But it’s another to try and rope the President into it. Trump appointed her husband, not her, to a position in the government. So her actions bear little or no weight on Trump’s shoulders.
We suspect Fondacaro would not be so eager to distance Linton from Trump if the president was a Democrat.
MRC Gives Right-Wing Catholic Activist A Platform to Misdirect Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center regularlygives Catholic League leader Bill Donohue a platform to lie and mislead about untoward sexual matters regarding Catholic priests. It does so again in an Aug. 18 post in which Donohue desperately tries to distract from a Boston Globe story about children fathered by priests.
After trying to reframe the issue by claiming it's really only "as little as one percent or less of priests having fathered a child," Donohue really lets the spin fly:
So the question arises: Is the phenomenon of priests fathering children, then neglecting or abandoning them—while clearly sinful and morally wrong—so singularly egregious as to warrant such an exclusive exposé?
How do these speculative numbers and percentages compare with Protestant, Jewish or Muslim clergy illegitimately fathering children, then neglecting or abandoning them? We don't know, because Rezendes and the Globe show no inclination to investigate any clergy other than Catholic priests. To do so might undermine what is clearly part of the agenda here: to attack the Catholic Church's rule on priestly celibacy. Neglected children of priests, Rezendes writes, "are the unfortunate victims of a church that has, for nearly 900 years, forbidden priests to marry...."
And what of our secular culture? Citing the U.S. Census Bureau, the National Fatherhood Initiative reported recently that "24 million children, 1 out of 3, live without their biological father in the home." And "millions more," notes the National Center for Fathering, "have dads who are physically present, but emotionally absent."
"If it were classified as a disease," the National Center for Fathering observes, "fatherlessness would be an epidemic worthy of attention as a national emergency."
But that is apparently not worthy of the attention of the Boston Globe's "Spotlight" team. They would rather focus on the apparently tiny minority of Catholic priests worldwide who have fathered and neglected their children, than on the epidemic in our own country that has left fully one-third of American children growing up without fathers.
Donohue conveniently fails to mention that most of the religions he cites, unlike Catholicism, permit their priests to marry and do not make them take a vow of celibacy. And Donohue's attempt to grouse about "secular culture" is simply an attempt to put up a smokescreen to hide the fact that Catholic priests are not supposed to be fathering children.
Meanwhile, the MRC once again failed to disclose an important confict of interest: MRC chief Brent Bozell is on the board of advisers for Donohue's Catholic League. Which just makes Donohue's rant even more dishonest.
MRC Defending 'Patriot Prayer' Rally, Hides Its Alt-Right Roots Topic: Media Research Center
In an Aug. 18 CNSNews.com post, Craig Bannister was eager to serve as stenographer for "Patriot Prayer" organizer Joey Gibson when he appeared on Fox News (of course) to defend an upcoming rally in San Francisco from allegations of white supremacist ties:
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is calling for the National Park Service to revoke the permit for a Patriot Prayer event because she says it’s a “white supremacist rally” – even though the organizer and all but one speaker are not white.
“The National Park Service’s decision to permit a white supremacist rally at Crissy Field raises grave and ongoing concerns about public safety,” House Minority Leader Pelosi declared in a statement calling for cancellation of the conservative event scheduled for Aug. 26 in San Francisco, California.
[...]
But, Patriot Prayer rally organizer Joey Gibson calls Pelosi’s claim a “ridiculous lie” intended to gin up violence, not stop it.
Speaking to Fox News Host Tucker Carlson on Wednesday, Gibson explains that he’s not even white – and has scheduled an extremely diverse group of speakers:
“I’m not white.We have about eight speakers and only one speaker is white. You know, we have a couple of black speakers, a Hispanic, we have a transsexual speaker; we have a woman speaker. It’s very diverse. It’s really just about what’s on the inside – what you believe, what’s in your heart, your soul – it has nothing to do with skin color.”
[...]
Gibson not only promises to keep Nazis and white supremacists out of the event, he also says they won’t even want to attend - because all, but one, speaker is non-white[.]
Similarly, Corinne Weaver rushes to Patriot Prayer's defense in an Aug. 25 MRC NewsBusters post attacking counter-protester Terrence Ryan for calling the rally "alt-right" in an article on the website Bustle:
One has to wonder: did Ryan read the Patriot Prayer announcement on Facebook? The group specifically stated that they are bringing in minorities to speak at the rally. It said, “Before you accuse Patriot Prayer as being hateful, please find specific examples. You will not find any hate speech, you are being lied to by corrupt politicians. SF is supposed to be a safe haven for minorities. If this is true then please be respectful to the speakers we are bringing in. 3 black, 2 hispanic, 1 asian, 1 Samoan, 1 muslim, 2 woman, and 1 white male. There will also be an opportunity for an open mic for moderate Americans.”
There is also a transexual who will be leading a prayer group at the rally. But all the people saw was that it was organized by a Trump supporter. While Bustle begrudgingly admitted that the group had stated that it was not a “hate group,” it also gleefully reported that the rally has less than half of the pledged attendees that the “poop protest” has.
Why is Bustle encouraging this kind of passive-aggressive childish behavior? The Patriot Prayer Rally isn’t illegal, while a rally to have dogs defecate on public property is an act of civil disobedience.
Are these people--and Bustle--guilty of the same kind of hatred that they accuse Neo-Nazis of harboring?
Well, Bannister and Weaver are definitely guilty of trying to whitewash the fact that Patriot Prayer does indeed have alt-right origins.
David Neiwert explains at the Southern Poverty Law Center that a previous Patriot Prayer rally featured members of the white-nationalist Identify Evropa group, and the right-wing "III Percenter" militia provides security at all of Gibson's events. The SPLC adds that a typical Gibson "prayer" event "clearly appears more an attempt to troll the left than a sincere effort at dialogue."
In other words, there are legitimate concerns about the intent of Gibson's rally. Too bad the MRC doesn't feel like telling its readers the whole truth, instead gullibly taking Gibson at his word when he claims there's no alt-right ties.
UPDATE: Matthew Balan insisted that NPR "improperly" labeled Patriot Prayer as "alt-right"; his only defense is that "the controversial liberal Southern Poverty Law Center "does not list Patriot Prayer as such, nor is [founder Joey] Gibson considered an extremist," acccording to a Wednesday report from The Mercury News."
Oh, suddenly the MRC considers the SPLC to be authoritative when it's in the MRC's interest to do so? Balan didn't mention that the SPLC considers Gibson to be a troll.
MRC's Bozell Hypocritically Complains About Media Giving Platform to Radicals Topic: Media Research Center
When NBC's Chuck Todd had Mark Bray, "a prominent voice in the radical left-wing Antifa movement," on his MSNBC show, Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell was in high dudgeon:
Chuck Todd and MSNBC are providing a platform for radical leftists who use violence as a means to intimidate political opponents and suppress free speech. Allowing Antifa supporters to promote violence unchallenged is not only repugnant, but irresponsible. MSNBC and their sponsors must be held accountable for providing a platform for any violence and destruction perpetrated by these hateful groups.
When Todd had Bray on his "Meet The Press " a few days later, Bozell cranked theh dudgeon even higher:
“Violent leftists have broken into the mainstream and Chuck Todd is guilty of aiding and abetting. It is abhorrent that NBC and Todd believe it acceptable to normalize extremist groups like Antifa which use terror to silence their opposition.
“After last Wednesday's softball interview, Chuck Todd had the opportunity to correct his mistake but instead chose to again allow a radical to promote domestic terrorism with little pushback. Can you imagine Chuck Todd inviting a member of a militant right-wing group on his show to rationalize violence against the left? NBC must cease giving legitimacy to supporters of this violent left-wing movement immediately.”
And in his and Tim Graham's (which is to say, Tim Graham's) Aug. 23 column, Bozell rants that "Todd & Co. are ushering antifa's extreme into polite society."
Needless to say, Bozell is being an utter hypocrite, because his operation gives an uncritical platform to radicals as well.
As we've documented, Michael W. Chapman, managing editor of the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, routinelygives legitimacy to radical, virulently anti-gay activists who believe homosexuals are literally the spawn of Satan. Chapman is an employee of Bozell, which means Bozell is ultimately responsible for this extreme rhetoric.
Bozell (and Graham) close out their column by huffing: "One arm of the far left believes violence is necessary. NBC thinks it's worth discussing." Meanwhile, one arm of the right wing believe gays are literal evil just for existing. Bozell's MRC thinks it's worth discussing.
'Far Left' Hurlers At MRC Complain About Purportedly Indiscriminate Use of 'Far Right' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Scott Whitlock grumbles in an Aug. 15 post (boldface his):
Get it? The vile racists who promoted violence in Charlottesvile, Virginia over the weekend, groups that include the KKK and Nazis, are part of the “far right” and “hard line conservatives.” That’s according to the New York Times in a front page story on Tuesday. The paper used the phrase “far right” or “conservative” six times to connect racist thugs to the political right.
The headline trumpeted, “Far Right Plans Its Next Moves With a New Energy.” Writer Alan Feuer began, “The white supremacists and right-wing extremists who came together over the weekend in Charlottesville, Va., are now headed home.” He later underlined, “The far right, which has returned to prominence in the past year or so, has always been an amalgam of factions and causes.”
First, Whitlock doesn't explain why he's defending the honor of the "far right" by trying to disassociate it from neo-Nazis. Despite his complaining, Whitlock offers no evidence that "racist thugs" are not on the far right.
Second, Whitlock seems to have forgotten that he works for an organization that uses the term "far left" even moreindiscriminately than he's accusing the Times of using "far right." The MRC was quick to label violent Antifa protesters as "far left," which by Whitlock's standards equates them with, among others, Stephen Colbert and sports blog Deadspin.
The MRC is clearly never going to apologize for equating violent protesters with people and publications who merely said something it didn't like. Therefore, it has no moral standing to complain when it thinks others are doing the same (though we still don't understand why Whitlock is so desperate to claim that white supremacists are not "far riight").
MRC's Gainor Admits Conservative Media Will Put Truth Over Reason to Back Trump Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Aly Nielsen sums up an appearance by MRC VP and right-wing apparachik Dan Gainor on Fox Business:
According to MRC Vice President of Business and Culture Dan Gainor, Steve Bannon’s White House exit will not “alienate the conservative media.”
“Donald Trump is a smart guy. He can never go left enough to satisfy the media and the left,” Gainor toldIntelligence Reporthost Trish Regan, “So he’s not going to alienate the conservative media. He will make nice in some way.”
Gainor seems to be inadvertently admitting what we knew all along: the conservative media -- which includes all the MRC's various outlets, including "news" division CNSNews.com -- is putting loyalty to Trump over truth and reason. While Gainor seems to couch this in reflexive media-bashing in complaining about a hostile "left" media, he's also admitting that his conservative media will always give Trump the benefit of the doubt, and if Trump does something that appalls the rest of the nation, CNS and their ilk will contort themselves to excuse it.
Gainor demonstrates this further in his interview, as Nielsen writes:
Bannon, The Chief White House strategist, is leaving his position two days after talking to a liberal journalist at Soros-fundedAmerican Prospect.
“I don’t understand why conservatives consistently feel like they’re gonna -- they, they can go and out themselves to any sort of liberal outlet,” Gainor said on the Aug. 18Intelligence Report,“You know you’re never going to get good treatment, you know the results’ always going to be bad.”
“This also emboldens conservative outlets to be more of a check and a balance on the people who are seen as more liberal on the--in the White House,” Gainor concluded.
Note that Nielsen and Gainor don't blame Bannon for doing the interview; they blame a "liberal journalist" at a "Soros-funded" publication for running it. Talk about attacking the messenger.
Ah, but holding Bannon accountable for his own actions would have meant he alienated the MRC and the conservative media , and Gainor already said that will never happen. Gotta keep that Mercer money rolling in, after all.
MRC Turns Trump Tweet Into An Item Topic: Media Research Center
On Aug. 14, after reluctantly expanding his condemnation of the violent events in Charlottesville, Va., to specifically call out neo-Nazis and white supremacists, President Trump tweeted: "Made additional remarks on Charlottesville and realize once again that the #Fake News Media will never be satisfied...truly bad people!"
Three hours later, the Media Research Center turned it into a media-bashing item. Nicholas Fondacaro wrote (excessive boldface his):
On Monday, President Trump called out the racist hate groups involved in Saturday’s chaos in Charlottesville, Virginia. In addition to calling them “evil” and “repugnant,” Trump said: “Those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups.” This full throated denouncement was exactly what the Big Three Networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) craved from the President, but now that they had it, they shifted their attacks to: “What took him so long?”
“President Trump finally finds the words to condemn white supremacists two days after facing an intense bipartisan backlash for blaming quote “all sides” for the violent unrest in Charlottesville,” sneered Anchor Lester Holt during the opening tease ofNBC Nightly News. Soon thereafter, Holt called Trump’s first remarks “tone deaf” and then mocked him for trying “today to find the right notes.”
[...]
During CBS Evening News, White House Correspondent Major Garrett turned the snark up to 11 when he chastised Trump. “The leader of the free world, President Trump, was behind his daughter, Attorney General and Vice President in denouncing white supremacists and neo-Nazis by name,” he chided.
Garrett also pretended that leftist counter protesters didn’t do anything violent during Saturday’s clashes, not that it justified the car attack. “On Saturday, the President implied counter-protesters and armed shield-wielding white supremacists were equally to blame,” he said.
“That initial equivocation echoed ways in which Mr. Trump has played to racially motivated segments of American politics,” Garrett added.
Trump’s latest and most refined condemnation of the violence in Charlottesville was exactly what they had been begging for him to do. But not that they got it from him, they moved the goal post and bemoaned how it wasn’t good enough.
Fondacaro didn't mention the tweet from Trump or that he was effectively writing on orders from the president.
Back in 2012 or so, the Media Research Center tried to float the idea of the "MSNBC conservative" -- an attempt to bash conservatives (in this case, the target was Joe Scarborough) who failed to be conservative enough for the MRC that was really just another form of Heathering.
The Media Reserarch Center is usually quick to pounce on any real or perceived slight of Catholics made in the media. After all, the MRC's leaders, Brent Bozell and Tim Graham, 
Is there anything Rush Limbaugh can do that the Media Research Center won't defend? It seems not.
You could almost hear the Media Research Center's Tim Graham grinning as he wrote in a Sept. 3 
The Media Research Center's Nicholas Fondacaro complained in an Aug. 27 
The Media Research Center has 
In the middle of an Aug. 23 
The Media Research Center 
In an Aug. 18 CNSNews.com 
When NBC's Chuck Todd had Mark Bray, "a prominent voice in the radical left-wing Antifa movement," on his MSNBC show, Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell 
The Media Research Center's Scott Whitlock grumbles in an Aug. 15 
The Media Research Center's Aly Nielsen 
On Aug. 14, after reluctantly expanding his condemnation of the violent events in Charlottesville, Va., to specifically call out neo-Nazis and white supremacists, President Trump 
