Terry Jeffrey, editor-in-chief of Media Research Center subsidiary CNSNews, takes the right's war on public school teachers a few steps further:
What Wisconsin ought to be debating is whether these public school teachers should keep their jobs at all.
Then every state ought to follow Wisconsin in the same debate.
It is time to drive public schools out of business by driving them into an open marketplace where they must directly compete with schools not run by the government or staffed by members of parasitic public employees' unions.
In addition to being less expensive and better than public schools at teaching math and reading, Catholic schools -- like any private schools -- can also teach students that there is a God, that the Ten Commandments are true and must be followed, that the Founding Fathers believed in both and that, ultimately, American freedom depends on fidelity to our Judeo-Christian heritage even more than it depends on proficiency in reading and math.
That's what at least some conservatives want to get out of their attacks on unions: The complete elimination of public schools. And Jeffrey is adamant that private schools not be regulated by states in any way: "the state shall not regulate the private schools, period." That means no oversight to make sure private schools are successfully educating children. Or to make sure they're providing safe conditions and sanitary facilities. Nothing. What could possibly go wrong?
All I want to know is what took Brent Bozell so long?
Sure, the right-wing warrior sounded the alarm about a gay-themed art exhibit at the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery. And yes, Bozell, with the help of top House Republican leaders, Fox News and the rest of the GOP Noise Machine, was able to get one piece of the exhibit pulled; a four-minute video that featured, for symbolic reasons, 11 seconds worth of footage showing ants crawling across a crucifix.
But c'mon, that crucial Smithsonian concession came on December 2, days after rabble rousers at the Media Research Center started airing concerns about the suddenly objectionable, privately funded exhibit, "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture."
When did "Hide/Seek" and its more than 100 piece of art actually open to the public? October 30. That's right, the gallery was able to showcase the exhibit unfettered for nearly an entire month. (Doesn't anyone at the MRC read the Washington Post?)
How come Bozell didn't protect unsuspecting art patrons from traveling to a gallery that was hosting an mature-themed exhibit about gay artists and stop them from being exposed to….gay art? (And "displays of Male genitals"!) If Bozell and teammates at Fox News are truly going to defend traditional values and protect us from "blasphemous" art, they can't sit on their hands for nearly 30 days while these types of crimes against the taxpayers play out in broad daylight. Nay, while they're flaunted in broad daylight.
Bozell is calling for Congressional hearings to find out who okayed "Hide/Seek" and who led the "direct assault on Christianity." (Heads must roll!) But I think that misses the real stumble here, which is why I'm calling for Congressional hearings to find out why Bozell and his arts patrol team missed the Smithsonian blockbuster for nearly an entire month.
Because honestly, if Bozell and his buddies aren't going to be vigilant about this kind of "hate speech," who is? Did you know that on November 21, the Smithsonian sponsored Family and Friends Day? Who knows how many innocent friends and family were subjected to objectionable art while Bozell's team was asleep at the cultural war switch?
And during the Christmas season!!
Hint: MRC has very little to do with media or media criticism. It's just a right-wing hate organization that happens to hate the press almost as much as it hates Democrats and liberals and gays and scores of other favorite targets. It's just that now with the Smithsonian crusade, Brent Bozell's MRC operation isn't even pretending its mission is to police the press.
Oh, I realize that's what it still says on its website:
The mission of the Media Research Center, "America's Media Watchdog," is to bring balance to the news media.
But that's not what the group really does. In terms of the media, all it does is whine incessantly about some far-flung conspiracy among working journalists who have taken a supposed oath of loyalty to the Democratic Party. Meaning, its media analysis has always been a joke.
But hating the media only takes up part of MRC's time. It also launches smear campaigns against great American institutions, such as the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery. (See here, here and here.)
What does today's manufactured controversy have to do with the media? Nothing. Zero. As in, zilch. There is no connection. Instead, the story is about how Bozell and others in the angry, far-right spectrum hate government-funded art.
Bozell's ringmaster role in the Smithsonian witch hunt would be like if the head of Media Matters started writing letters to senators and went on TV demanding the START nuclear treaty be ratified, while all the time lying about the facts in play.
The MRC's attack on the Smithsonian is a misguided one, but at least it helps reveal what the right-wing group is really all about: Hating all things liberal, real or imagined.
Media Research Center president Brent Bozell took to CNN last night to make the outrageous accusation that the Smithsonian Institution has put on an art exhibit that would be appealing if "you are into religious bigotry." In doing so, Bozell ignored reporting from his own organization and used a series of contentious descriptions of the works in the exhibit to incite anti-gay sentiment.
Bozell also has sent letters to Congress that purport to speak "on behalf" of "the overwhelming majority of Americans who call themselves Christian." In the letters, Bozell demanded "Congressional hearings to investigate the Smithsonian Institution for its attack on Christian values and common decency." The letters repeatedly reference the federal tax dollars that the Smithsonian receives.
This isn't just about Bozell's attempt to control what the public can and cannot see at museums. It's also about attempting to choke off public funding for the arts.
The third time's a charm for CNSNews.com reporter and nascent museum critic Penny Starr.
In March, Starr complained that a Smithsonian exhibit asking "What Does It Mean to Be Human?" lacked "references to God, creationism, or pre-natal existence." In June, Starr was annoyed that a Library of Congress exhibit on Bob Hope "focuses more on politics than it does on the legacy of a movie star who used his talents to support the U.S. military around the world," seemingly ignoring that the exhibit focused on "performers, politics and pop culture."
Those didn't get much attention. But now, one of her gems of museum criticism has finally hit the jackpot. In a November 29 article, she writes:
The federally funded National Portrait Gallery, one of the museums of the Smithsonian Institution, is currently showing an exhibition that features images of an ant-covered Jesus, male genitals, naked brothers kissing, men in chains, Ellen DeGeneres grabbing her breasts, and a painting the Smithsonian itself describes in the show's catalog as "homoerotic."
The exhibit, "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture," opened on Oct. 30 and will run throughout the Christmas Season, closing on Feb. 13.
Bingo! Something about "homoerotic" and "ant-covered Jesus," combined with a mention of the Christmas season, seems to have struck the right nerve among right-wingers. Drudge linked to it, and the Breitbart empire has weighed in. And it seems more than a little convenient that top congressional Republicans have told Starr they want the exhibit shut down, quickly followed by Starr's boss, the Media Research Center's Brent Bozell, demanding not just that the exhibit be killed but also that Congress investigate this "direct assault on Christianity."
As Starr acknowledged in her article, the exhibit -- like every Smithsonian exhibit -- is not paid for by taxpayer funds. But Bozell doesn't care because, as he wrote in one of his letters to congressional leaders, "[i]t is housed in a federal institution funded by the American people."
It must be tough working on Media Research Center's blog. Think about it -- day in and day out, the fine folks at Newsbusters do their level best to shout down progressive media figures, manufacture scandals out of thin air and prove that no one does hypocrisy and ridiculousness quite like them. Some examples:
Much, much more here.
And what do they get for their hard work? Not much. Sure, Newsbusters' talking heads pop up on Fox News from time to time but you wouldn't know it if you listened to some of their natural allies on the right. It's sort of like one of those "out of sight, out of mind" situations.
Take this from Sean Hannity on his radio program yesterday for example (emphasis added):
First of all, these self appointed, well-funded media groups that spend their days literally taping, monitoring everything that every conservative in the country is saying in the hopes that they can catch a conservative saying that they find politically incorrect or distasteful. And then they can silence them. They can either target their advertisers or they could, you know, start an outright campaign, as in [Andrew Breitbart's] case, to get you off of coverage and get your voice silenced because they don't like what you say. Now this is troubling to me from a lot of aspects. Number one, they don't do the same thing to liberal groups. There's no conservative equivalent, if you will. And conservatives don't do the same things. They're not calling for these boycotts. *
Or this nugget from a discussion with discredited hack Andrew Breitbart on Fox News' Red Eye last week:
BILL SCHULZ: No one ever wants to talk about David Koch. It's always Soros.
BREITBART: What is the corollary that the Kochs are paying for that Media Matters -- which is the craziest, its reams and reams and reams of transcripts and disagreeing with every word that comes out. What have the Koch brothers ever funded ** that is the equivalent of [Media Matters]?
Or this from former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) last year:
"We need a communications organizations [sic] that can, again, match Media Matters."
Maybe Media Research Center needs to do some more legwork to establish Newsbusters on the right -- it's only been around for five years. Then again, Media Research Center has been around since 1987 so is there really any excuse for their allies to keep forgetting about their very existence?
** Yes, the Kochs have funded MRC.
"Liberal media bias" has been part of the conservative mantra ever since the Goldwater era, and in that time the supposed leftward tilt of the mainstream press has served admirably as a scapegoat for Republican political misfortune. A Democrat wins an election? The biased media carried water for that liberal. A Republican caught in a scandal? He was the victim of a liberal media witch hunt. And so on.
The plausibility of the claim is dubious at best, as it requires one to believe not just that the entire media stacks the decks for liberals, but that Republicans and conservatives are somehow able to thrive despite the fact that the American media -- without question the most potent political entity on earth -- is arrayed against them.
Nonetheless, the supposed liberal slants of journalists remain a concern for the right, and individual reporters are often singled out and attacked for their allegedly biased ways. That serves their immediate purposes well enough, but what happens when those same journalists act in decidedly un-liberal ways and report information that conservatives want to exploit? Predictably, those past accusations of bias quickly cease to matter. Consider the curious case of Bob Woodward.
Brent Baker uses a September 8 NewsBusters post to attack ABC's Christiane Amanpour for allegedly serving as a "public relations agent" to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf by spending "several hours" with him for an interview. Baker claimed that during the interview, Rauf "warned, as he did on Wednesday's Larry King Live, that if he doesn't get his way Muslims will murder Americans." Baker added: "Amanpour, however, didn't describe that as a protection racket or suggest he's employing blackmail."
That might be a valid concern if that's what Rauf is doing -- but it isn't. Baker is merely parroting the right-wing line that Rauf is threatening America with terrorist attacks if he's not able to build the Park51 Islamic center, and ignoring the fact that officials such as Gen. David Petraeus have said pretty much the same thing as Rauf regarding the national security implications of anti-Muslim protests.
In effect, what Baker is demanding is that Amanpour tell a lie by twisting Rauf's words to conform to Baker's political agenda.
Baker, by the way, is no low-level NewsBusters blogger
That a top MRC official wants the media to spread lies says all too much about the standard of "media research" at the MRC.
A couple weeks ago, when the Associated Press issued a memo advising its news organization members to avoid the term "Ground Zero mosque" to describe the proposed Islamic center in New York City because it's not at Ground Zero and isn't primarily a mosque, conservatives looked askance. At Michelle Malkin's website, Doug Powers suggested it was "a retread of a pro-mosque talking points memo" and asserted that the proposed center's site would be considered Ground Zero if the AP's headquarters were there.
The Media Research Center's Dan Gainor was just as harsh, claiming that the AP "had to choose sides" and was acting as "spinmeisters," adding that accurately describing things is "one of the games journalists play." He also repeated Powers' line about how the AP might think differently if its headquarters were closer.
Another day, another AP memo, a completely different reaction from the conservative media.
This time, the memo pointed out that "U.S. troops remain involved in combat operations alongside Iraqi forces, although U.S. officials say the American combat mission has formally ended." This was interpreted by the conservative media as a smackdown of President Obama, of which they approved:
Tom Blumer of NewsBusters -- operated by the Media Research Center, which attacked the AP over the "Ground Zero mosque" memo -- declared that in the new memo "at least one limit has been found to the establishment press's willingness to serve as this government's official apologists" and that "is asserting that Obama is at least not telling the truth in this instance." WorldNetDaily, meanwhile, carried an article on the memo with the headline, "Oops! Did Associated Press call Obama a liar?"
The lesson? The AP has been consistent in endeavoring to tell the truth. The only consistency the conservative media cares about is promoting its right-wing message; the truth is secondary.
Yep, the right-wing DC rag that never turned a profit was sold back to Rev. Sun Myung Moon -- the man who believes he is Christ returned to earth (seriously) -- for $1 after more than a year of turmoil.
So, what did right-wing internet types have to say when the Washington Post Co. sold Newsweek for the same price?
Media Research Center founder Brent Bozell issued the following statement:
There's something entirely believable about the Newsweek sale. A left-winger pretending to be centrist sold it to another left-winger pretending to be centrist. Newsweek is a dying magazine because no one wants to read their left-wing propaganda masquerading as 'news.' The $1 price tag, then, is probably just about right.
I haven't been able to find a statement from Bozell yet on the Times' identical sale price. So, if Newsbusters managing editor Ken Shepherd -- who posted Bozell's statement with the note that Newsweek was sold to "the guy from RoboCop Sidney Harman, for a grand total of one dollar" -- has one, let's have it.
Robert Stacy McCain called Newsweek's sale, "Jon Meacham's $1 Legacy" but apparently hasn't had time to write about the identical sale price of the Times.
Hotair had fun at Newsweek's expense too. Under the headline "Good news: Newsweek sold -- for a dollar," Allahpundit wrote:
Technically it's a dollar plus an agreement to assume their huge financial liabilities, but if you throw me an opportunity for a headline that sweet, I'm going to take it every time.
What are Allahpundit's thoughts on the Times' sale price? Crickets as far as I can tell.
I could keep going but you get the picture.
The Media Research Center's Tim Graham notices the fact that the New York Times gives more attention to supermarket tabloid claims about Barack Obama than it gave to tabloid articles about George W. Bush -- but he draws the improbable conclusion that this indicates liberal bias:
The New York Times prizes itself as the newspaper of record, as the very definition of prestige media. So it's a little shocking to see them spreading the latest headlines from the Globe supermarket tabloid. Sheryl Gay Stolberg's mournful story about Obama's "otherness" and how "Misperceptions Stick" about the president began:
Americans need only stand in line at the grocery checkout counter to glimpse the conspiracy theories percolating about President Obama. "Birthplace Cover-Up," screams the current issue of the racy tabloid Globe. "Obama's Secret Life Exposed!"
This must be more publicity for a Globe tabloid concoction than you'd see out of Fox News or the Rush Limbaugh program. But it's used to illustrate how the president is bedeviled by lies. Stolberg didn't seem to consider that the Globe and other supermarket tabloids also published stories about Laura Bush divorcing President Bush, of Bush is "back on the bottle," and so on. But that didn't seem to outrage the New York Times.
Graham's basic history is correct: The news media, which obsessed over tabloid gossip about Bill Clinton in the 1990s and has given great weight to spurious claims about Barack Obama, took a break in between, all but ignoring claims that Bush was drinking and heading for divorce. Actually, that isn't quite right: During the Bush presidency, the New York Times and other media did still amplify some tabloid claims -- those that were about the Clintons, as I explained in 2006:
At least [Jonah] Goldberg invented his own absurd anti-Gore story. The New York Times and countless other media elites -- David Broder, Tim Russert, and Chris Matthews among them -- chose instead to take the lead from the Globe supermarket tabloid.
The New York Times -- the same newspaper that couldn't be bothered to report a single word about new evidence suggesting that George W. Bush possessed insider information when he dumped his Harken stock -- this week devoted 2,000 words and a portion of its front page to examining the state of the Clintons' marriage, tallying the days they spend together and rehashing long-forgotten baseless tabloid rumors of a relationship between former President Bill Clinton and Canadian politician Belinda Stronach.
Rather than ignore or denounce the Times' decision to interview 50 people for a story about the Clintons' private lives, the Washington media elite embraced it, turning the pages of the nation's most influential newspapers into glorified supermarket tabloids. And television, predictably, was worse.
The Washington Post's David Broder -- the "dean" of the nation's political journalists -- quickly jumped in, suggesting that the Times might have explored the purported Clinton-Stronach relationship in greater detail and declaring the Clintons' private lives a "hot topic" if Sen. Clinton runs for president.
The New York Times repeats Globe speculation about Bill Clinton, so when can we expect to read on the front page of the Times about the Globe's report that George and Laura Bush have broken up and are leading "separate lives" in part because of "booze problems"?
So Graham is right about the history of the media giving less attention to tabloid reports about Bush than to those about Democrats. But his interpretation of that history is suspect. I have a hard time believing that Tim Graham would really have been happy if the establishment media had spent weeks talking about supermarket tabloid claims that George W. Bush was back on the bottle and that Laura was leaving him -- even if the media noted that those claims were unsubstantiated. Would he be happy if the Times had responded to Globe reports of a coming Bush divorce by devoting 2,000 words to tallying up the number of nights the couple spent apart? Of course not: He'd have denounced it as evidence of "liberal bias," and he'd still be doing so for years to come.
This strikes me as an example of conservatives having believed for so long that the media is out to get them that they just can't recognize how good they often have it. When the national discourse about a president with whom you're ideologically aligned is dominated by spurious tabloid claims, that's a bad thing. When the national media refuses to give weight to spurious tabloid claims about a president with whom you're ideologically aligned rather than obsessing over them for weeks, that's a good thing.
As Media Matters has reported, Media Research Center VP Dan Gainor has offered $100 to the first person who "punches smary [sic] idiot Alan Grayson in the nose." When chastised by a fellow conservative for offering to "finance violence," Gainor claimed to be kidding but added "I'd love to see the video" of Congressman Grayson being punched.
Now, you're probably thinking that a person who runs around offering to finance violent assaults on members of Congress probably doesn't get taken particularly seriously as a media critic. But Dan Gainor seems to be the favorite media critic of Washington Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander, who rarely cites ideological media critics by name -- but who has written two pieces in the past four months that prominently feature interviews with Gainor. And as far as I can tell, Gainor is the only professional ideological media critic Alexander has interviewed for a column or blog post this year. (I've found only one other such critic cited by name in an Alexander column or blog post this year: In May, Alexander extensively quoted a blog post by Gainor's colleague Tim Graham. You could add Andrew Breitbart to the conservative-heavy list if you consider him primarily a media critic.)
Last month, I explained that Alexander favors the arguments of right-wing media critics over their liberal counterparts. One way he does so is in his framing of criticism of the Post. If the Post does something that conservatives don't like, Alexander tends to note that conservatives don't like it, and that it contributes to their skepticism of the Post. But when Alexander writes about something the Post does that liberals criticize, Alexander doesn't mention them -- and certainly doesn't indicate that it may contribute to their skepticism of the Post. For example:
Alexander's column about Post reporter Dana Milbank calling Hillary Clinton a "bitch" didn't contain so much as a hint that the episode might damage the paper's credibility among liberals, or that liberals might already have some complaints about the paper that would be exacerbated by Milbank's video. No liberals were quoted or paraphrased; there wasn't even any mention that liberals were unhappy about Milbank's stunt. Contrast that to Alexander's write-up of [David] Weigel's departure from the Post, in which the Alexander dedicated four full paragraphs to the complaints of the conservative Media Research Center's Dan Gainor.
But that isn't the only time Alexander has favored Gainor with such prominent placement. In his March 21 column, Alexander devoted two paragraphs to Gainor's criticism of the Post's coverage of DC's move towards marriage equality -- and seemed to agree with Gainor's broad criticism of the Post:
And the conservative Culture and Media Institute said its review showed that in the week after March 3, The Post coverage totaled 543 column inches ("equal to nearly four full pages") and included 14 photos of "gay celebrations." Supporters of same-sex marriage were quoted 10 times more than opponents, the group said.
"As soon as this became law, it was basically The Washington Post standing up and saying 'Yay!' " Dan Gainor, the group's vice president, said in an interview. "It's news," he acknowledged, but the coverage was excessive and "one-sided." Conservatives see it as evidence that The Post is hopelessly liberal, he said.
The Post is not always sufficiently attuned to conservative perspectives. But with gay marriage coverage, the accusations of journalistic overkill are off base.
It seems the Post's Ombudsman is excessively attuned to the perspective of at least one conservative -- a conservative who offers cash for violent assault on a member of congress. (Good luck finding Alexander writing anything like "The Post is not always sufficiently attuned to liberal perspectives," by the way.)
From the June 30 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Loading the player reg...
In 1987, L. Brent Bozell III started The Media Research Center to preserve "traditional American values." As Bozell made clear early on, one of the "values" that needed preserving was the idea that gays and lesbians are irregular and immoral.
In Bozell's mind, media outlets and, especially, Hollywood demonstrated "liberal bias" by failing to portray gays as "morally wrong." "What lessons are we teaching American children with these shows?" Bozell said in a 1992 Hollywood Reporter article. "Why can't a single primetime show say -- with no strings attached -- that homosexuality is morally wrong?"
The entertainment industry, according to Bozell in a 1997 Baltimore Sun interview, is "demanding the public accept the gay lifestyle as normal and acceptable for families." The gay lifestyle and agenda, Bozell warned, includes attempts to "teach children, and that's in utter opposition to mainstream America."
Since its founding, Bozell and the MRC have often been on the front-lines against any attempt by Hollywood to treat gays as human. Over the years, they've complained about the negative portrayal of a movie character who disowned her gay daughter and objected to the presence of gay characters on television programs. A brief history of some of their complaints:
CNSNews.com, a subsidiary of the Media Research Center, "reports":
Middle Class--Not the Rich or the Poor--Pay Majority of Federal Taxes, Says CBO Data
Monday, June 21, 2010
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief
(CNSNews.com) - Middle-class Americans--not the rich or the poor--pay the majority of annual tax revenues taken in by the federal government, according to data released in a new Congressional Budget Office study. Households earning less than $34,300 per year, meanwhile, actually pay a negative average federal income tax rate.
Middle-class households that earned between $34,300 and $141,900 paid 50.5 percent of all federal tax revenues in 2007 (the most recent year analyzed), according to the CBO study released Thursday, and households that earned between $34,300 and $352,900 paid 66.7 percent of all federal taxes. [Emphasis added]
CNSNews is, of course, playing fast and loose with the definition of "Middle-class households" by including those households that earn up to $141,900 a year. Ninety-five percent of U.S. households make less than $141,900 a year. Ninety percent make less than $102,900. The 10 percent of American households that made at least $102,900 in 2007 paid 55 percent of federal taxes. So in order to claim that "middle-class households … paid 50.5 percent of all federal tax revenues in 2007," CNSNews included some of the very richest Americans among its definition of "middle class."
Why would CNSNews do that? Maybe because it's easier to argue for tax cuts for the wealthy if you call them the middle class.