<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>

<rss version="2.0"
 xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule"
>

<channel>
<title>Media Matters - Frank Rich</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/tools/syndication/tag_rss/frank_rich</link>
<description>This link is for use by RSS-enabled software to retrieve Media Matters items matching the term: Frank Rich</description>
<language>en-US</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2008, Media Matters for America</copyright>

<item>
<title>&#x3C;em&#x3E;&#x3C;em&#x3E;NY  Times&#x3C;/em&#x3E;&#x3C;/em&#x3E;&#x27;  Rich misrepresented  Russert&#x27;s  misleading archives  question  </title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200801270002</link>
<description>&#x3C;em&#x3E;New York Times&#x3C;/em&#x3E; columnist Frank  Rich mischaracterized Tim Russert&#x27;s question to Sen. Hillary Clinton during the  October 30 Democratic presidential debate regarding a 2002 letter written by  former President Bill Clinton to the National Archives and Records  Administration. Rich wrote that &#x22;Bill Clinton exercised his right to insist that  all communications between him and his wife be &#x27;considered for withholding&#x27;  until 2012,&#x22; adding, &#x22;When Mrs. Clinton was asked by Mr. Russert at an October  debate if she would lift that restriction, she again escaped by passing the buck  to her husband: &#x27;Well, that&#x27;s not my decision to make.&#x27; &#x22; In fact, Russert  falsely claimed that Bill  Clinton&#x27;s letter asked that the communications &#x22;not be made available to the  public until 2012.&#x22;  </description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200801270002</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:15:37 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>From  cleavage to &#x22;cackle&#x22;? Media find new focus in coverage of Hillary  Clinton</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200710040003</link>
<description></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200710040003</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 3 Oct 2007 21:29:04 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Media figures continue to describe Imus firing as &#x22;lynching&#x22;</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200704160004</link>
<description></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200704160004</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:50:53 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>&#x3C;em&#x3E;Newsweek&#x3C;/em&#x3E;, Frank Rich misled on Giuliani&#x27;s support for Bush policy in Iraq</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200703060004</link>
<description>In its cover story for the March 12 issue, &#x3C;em&#x3E;Newsweek&#x3C;/em&#x3E; suggested that Rudy Giuliani has
not been a &#x22;staunch advoca[te]&#x22; of a troop increase, despite
reports that Giuliani has repeatedly
endorsed the Iraq
war and President Bush&#x27;s troop increase. Similarly, &#x3C;em&#x3E;New York Times&#x3C;/em&#x3E; columnist Frank Rich
alleged that Giuliani had not been a &#x22;cheerleader&#x22; for Bush&#x27;s
decision to invade Iraq.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200703060004</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 5 Mar 2007 20:26:20 EST</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>