From Media Research Center director of communications Seton Motley's Twitter.com account:
The Media Research Center's Rich Noyes has issued a "Media Reality Check" purporting to be a "report card" of how major media outlets covered the 9/12 anti-Obama protests. But Noyes' analysis is curiously incomplete.
For instance, Noyes noted the performance of only one newspaper, The New York Times, which "buried the protests on page A37 of Sunday's paper." Noyes didn't mention what The Washington Post did -- perhaps because it broke the MRC's faulty liberal-bias template by putting the protest prominently on the front page. (That high-profile placement wasn't enough for fellow MRC employee Tim Graham.)
Noyes didn't do any relevant comparison of coverage, complaining only that the Times' "932-word story [on the protest] was only slightly longer than the 724-word story the paper granted back in March to an ACORN protest with only 40 participants." But that protest was in the New York metro area and thus more directly relevant to its core readers than a larger protest outside of NYC.
A more direct comparison would be to a similarly sized 2002 anti-war protest in Washington. As we've noted, while the Times published a photo of the anti-Obama protest in its front page -- something Noyes failed to mention -- it did not do so for the anti-war protest; the articles on both protests were inside the A section.
Noyes also downplayed the extent to which Fox News fawned over the protest. He wrote: "By far, Fox News offered the most detailed coverage, with a two-hour midday program on Saturday plus regular updates throughout the day, and FNC stuck to presenting the protesters' point of view, not denigrating them."
Noyes fails to note that Fox News did a lot more than present the protesters' point of view -- it promoted the bejeezus out of the protest, to the point where it was an unofficial sponsor. That's some serious straying over the line from news into advocacy, but it earned Fox News an "A" for coverage from Noyes.
Noyes downgraded Fox News' rating on tone of coverage to an"A-" apparently for a single comment by Geraldo Rivera that Noyes called a "sour note." After all, balanced coverage of conservatives is not what Noyes and his MRC buddies really want -- nothing less than completely positive, sycophantic coverage will do.
Investor's Business Daily falsely claimed that the House tri-committee health-care reform bill includes "a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal."
Or, rather, Brent Bozell agrees with me.
Media Research Center Brent Bozell thinks the media should devote more coverage to "the tragic deaths of American soldiers in Afghanistan."
I agree. The media should do a better job of showing the human costs of war. In fact, I've been saying that for years.
Bozell, on the other hand, spent the Bush years attacking journalists who wanted to be able to bring their readers and viewers pictures of coffins containing troops who died in Iraq.
Anyway, it's great that he's come around.
Asked on Fox & Friends about the "damage done" by having Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews anchor MSNBC's election coverage, the Media Research Center's Tim Graham responded, "Not only is the damage already done, the damage continues. I mean, not only are they keeping these people on for an hour a night, they're adding this lesbian Air America radio host, Rachel Maddow, on every night."
On Hannity & Colmes, Brent Bozell criticized NBC News' decision to refer to the situation in Iraq as a "civil war," saying that there are "probably 100 generals" in Iraq "who would disagree" with that assessment. Bozell offered no specific examples of any high-ranking military officials who have said Iraq is not in the midst of a civil war.
Loading the player leg...
Media Research Center founder and president L. Brent Bozell III wrote that The New York Times -- in the articles it publishes and through its sponsorship of events such as the 2006 Gay Games -- is "rooting for the homosexual revolution" and "actively spread[ing] the gay gospel."
On CBS' 60 Minutes, former high-ranking CIA official Tyler Drumheller proved that the Bush administration dismissed clear-cut evidence undermining President Bush's central case for war -- that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. But in the nearly two days since this explosive report aired, the media have almost entirely ignored the story.
In his column, Media Research Center president L. Brent Bozell III criticized CNN's Paul Begala for referring to Hebrew University of Jerusalem professor Martin van Creveld as "one of the most esteemed military historians in the world." Bozell then denigrated van Creveld as an "obscure" fringe figure. In fact, according to a bio that appeared with an op-ed by the professor, van Creveld "is the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers."
L. Brent Bozell III claimed that "the media have been largely uninterested in investigating Saddam Hussein's reign of terror and his connection to terrorists" because of what Bozell described as their "refusal to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt." In fact, various media experts and major newspapers tell a very different story -- that the media failed to effectively question the administration's attempt to link Iraq to Al Qaeda in the run-up to the war, a link that has since been discredited by the September 11 Commission.
In his February 14 column, MRC president Brent Bozell wrote of Vice President Dick Cheney's February 11 hunting accident: "With apologies to the Cheney friend who received the pellet facial, the incident was funny." Bozell's column appeared well after news reports indicated that Texas lawyer Harry Whittington, the man Cheney shot, suffered a "cardiac event" brought on by birdshot lodged in his heart.
In his nationally syndicated column, the Media Research Center's Brent Bozell drew a false comparison between the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program and Bill Clinton's call for expanding anti-terror legislation following the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. In drawing the comparison, Bozell ignored key distinctions: Clinton publicly called for Congress to pass legislation; Bush secretly authorized a clandestine surveillance program without informing the public or seeking congressional approval.