Tim Graham is Executive Editor of NewsBusters and is the Media Research Center’s Director of Media Analysis
Tim Graham is Executive Editor of NewsBusters and is the Media Research Center’s Director of Media Analysis. His career at the MRC began in February 1989 as associate editor of MediaWatch, the monthly newsletter of the MRC before the Internet era.
Graham is co-author with MRC president Brent Bozell of the books Collusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election and How To Prevent It From Happening Again in 2016 (2013) and Whitewash: What The Media Won’t Tell You About Hillary Clinton, But Conservatives Will (2007). He is also the author of the book Pattern of Deception: The Media's Role in the Clinton Presidency (1996).
Graham is a regular talk-radio and television spokesman for the MRC and has made television appearances on MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, Fox News, and the Fox Business Channel. His articles have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, National Review, and other publications.
Graham left the MRC to serve in 2001and 2002 as White House Correspondent for World, a national weekly Christian news magazine. He returned in 2003. Before joining the MRC, Graham served as press secretary for the campaign of U.S. Rep. Jack Buechner (R-Mo.) in 1988, and in 1987, he served as editor of Organization Trends, a monthly newsletter on philanthropy and politics by the Washington-based Capital Research Center.
Latest from Tim Graham
Both The Washington Post and Twitchy drew attention to the jokey disagreement between White House Correspondents Association president Jeff Mason of Reuters and his hired Trump-ripper of the night, Hasan Minhaj of The Daily Show. "I was explicitly told not to go after the administration," Minhaj said. "You were not told that," Mason said. Clearly, you don't set a no-Trump-bashing standard and hire a leftist hack with a Muslim background from Comedy Central.
In the minutes leading up to their live coverage of the White House Correspondents Dinner, CNN turned to media reporter Brian Stelter, who caused unintentional laughter when he claimed that the journalists inside the dinner had no political interests in their Trump coverage. They're "just trying to do their best work." He slammed the president's speech Saturday night as "insidious" and "poisonous," even as he admitted it was nothing new. He's perpetually outraged.
Faith Salie, a contributor to CBS Sunday Morning and a comedic panelist on the snarky NPR game show WaitI Wait! Don't Tell Me!, penned a piece for the fiercely feminist website Jezebel . The headline was "Bill O'Reilly Didn't Harass Me, But His Viewers Did."
The liberal site Slate was delighted with a new video message about the "war on drugs" produced by Green Point Creative. It’s not the same classic anti-drug message she famously delivered back in the ’90s, though she’s still got her frying pan and some eggs. But now it's about how the brown eggs get smashed by drug laws, not the white eggs. Get it?
It's something most conservatives a year ago would not have imagined: the opening act of Donald Trump’s agenda in the White House contains a real whiff of Ronald Reagan. To be sure, there's plenty the Reaganites won't like -- talk of trillion-dollar federal building campaigns, taxing business at the border, etc. -- but there's plenty to applaud as well. Historian Craig Shirley has written another book on Reagan's political career, and he might have some thoughts on what Trump can do to succeed.
NPR's new morning talk show -- out of D.C. station WAMU-FM -- is called 1A, for the First Amendment. So it would be embarrassing if the show came out against freedom of speech. On Wednesday, the show devoted an hour to Ann Coulter's canceled speech at the University of California in Berkeley. Host Joshua Johnson defended free speech, but the guests and social-media messages tilted toward the Left.
Johnson asked leftist professor Angus Johnston of the City University of New York: "But isn’t teaching students how to debate the Ann Coulters of the world part of the function of a university, I mean, it’s kind of like, you know, ‘You have to take Defense Against the Dark Arts to graduate’?"''
As we reported earlier, Politico hired an eight-year veteran of Bill Clinton’s White House to be its new CEO...at the very same time Politico was warning of how the liberal media bubble was hardening in Washington! In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Steel tried to suggest he “skews moderate politically,” which makes no sense when you consider he donated more than $50,000 to Democrats and zero to Republicans. That includes leftist Democrats like Zephyr Teachout and Rep. Jamie Raskin, favorites of The Nation subscribers.
Ultraliberal singer Barbra Streisand lamented Hillary Clinton’s election loss in an interview with Leonard Lopate on Wednesday on the New York public radio station WNYC. Like Hillary, Streisand blamed sexism, not Hillary, for the defeat. "Even this last election with Hillary, the kind of – the strong woman, the powerful woman, the educated woman, the experienced woman – being thought of as the Other, you know or too elite, or too educated,” she complained.
The Hollywood Reporter published a softball interview with NBC News president Noah Oppenheim, but there was one question that granted an unintentionally funny answer. When asked how the leftist tilt on MSNBC might shade public opinion of NBC News, he suggested the difference was that MSNBC offered “informed opinion in prime time,” while NBC defined “objective journalism.”
The executive wasn’t asked how comparing the Trump children to Saddam Hussein’s sons can be described as “informed opinion” rather than childish mudslinging. It’s amazing liberals still pretend that their product is “objective,” with no follow-up, such as “So how did hiring Chelsea Clinton as a reporter reflect an image of objectivity?”
One of the hallmarks of an arrogant press is the notion that they should not be criticized, that somehow criticizing them is to criticize democracy itself. CNN media reporter Brian Stelter highlighted Time Editor Nancy Gibbs for suggesting in her opening remarks at Tuesday night's Time 100 Gala that criticizing the press is anti-democratic and repressive. "To demonize the press," she said, "to treat it as an enemy of democracy rather than an engine, is to lay the groundwork for repression."
The time has come for the media to pull out the artificial measuring stick of 100 days to evaluate President Trump. If they’re kind, he’ll get an I for incomplete. But it’s more likely they’ll use I-words like inability, or incompetence, or incoherence. Whatever they say, it won’t be kind.
But eight years ago? Eight years ago, Time’s Joe Klein graded Obama with an S, for “spectacular.” And stupendous.
Politico's magazine published an article with a surprising title: “The Media Bubble Is Worse Than You Think.” Jack Shafer and Tucker Doherty began with the 2016 election results, which was “not just as an embarrassment for the press but as an indictment. In some profound way, the election made clear, the national media just doesn’t get the nation it purportedly covers.”
The writers know they are working for a liberal media outlet with mostly liberal readers, so they unconvincingly tut-tut the notion that the media favored Hillary in their coverage.
The website Snopes.com still advertises itself as the “oldest and largest fact-checking site on the Internet,” so I was puzzled when a Snopes researcher contacted NewsBusters about something that really wasn’t a fact check. It was a gaffe check. On Sunday, Snopes posted an article about an MSNBC analyst’s tweet: “Did a Counterterrorism Expert Call For ISIS to Bomb a Trump Building? Malcolm Nance's tweet was taken out of context in a ‘viral game of telephone’.”
Nance tweeted about the Trump Tower in Istanbul: “This is my nominee for first ISIS suicide bombing of a Trump property.” There is nothing in this tweet that is a “fact” to check. Nance was “nominating” a property for suicide bombing.
Paul Bedard at the Washington Examiner had the eagle eye in his take on Sunday’s Washington Post. The headline at the top of the front page was “Trump polls at record lows” and the subheadline (all caps) was “LEAST POPULAR PRESIDENT IN MODERN TIMES.”
That’s a little inaccurate, leaves out “at the 100 days mark.” But the Post dramatically submerged a comparison of just how unpopular Trump was: He still beats Hillary Clinton in a 2017 matchup.
The front page of Saturday’s Washington Post told the tale about the war on Fox News. It wasn’t about accusers getting a payout. It was about damaging the network by taking down its top star. The Post headline was “’'Mission was to bring down Bill O’Reilly’.”
Fox News took Bill O’Reilly off the air after a heavy campaign to fire him led by CNN’s media unit and The New York Times. If all the charges of sexual harassment are true, his case is indefensible. That said, it’s time for his media critics to stand down. They are guilty of rank hypocrisy.
These same media outlets despised the idea that Donald Trump would drag Bill Clinton’s sexual harassment lawsuits into the presidential campaign. The Times even called it a "sexist" attack on Hillary Clinton.
People magazine is no stranger to being used to rehabilitate liberals -- even when it sounds hopeless. (Case in point: Mr. and Mrs. Anthony Weiner). In the May 1 People they try to rehabilitate disgraced CBS anchorman Dan Rather, now hailed by liberals as an anti-Trump crusader. Online, the headline oozed: "Inside Dan Rather’s Unexpected Comeback 11 Years After CBS Exit: ‘I Was Aching to Do Something'."
Just in time for the end of The O'Reilly Factor -- or perhaps, timed to help end it -- Time magazine's list of most influential 100 people includes former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson, who turned Fox upside down by coming forward with allegations. That took guts, but Carlson knew the liberal media would back her when Fox was targeted.
But Carlson's encomium is penned by former NBC and CBS star Katie Couric, whose record in "speaking truth to power" in sexual-harassment claims matches very conveniently with the ideological persuasion of who is being accused.
The liberal media spent the entire campaign warning Donald Trump that bashing the media would be his undoing, but instead, Trump is president and the media further deepened the public’s disgust with their flagrant hostility. The same goes for TV's squad of "satirists."
Even the liberal magazine The Atlantic has published an article exploring “How Late-Night Comedy Fueled the Rise of Trump.”
As network news hosts chat up the idea of running Sen. Elizabeth Warren for president in 2020, the ultraliberal Harvard hero is out with a feisty new campaign book titled This Fight Is Our Fight: The Battle to Save America’s Middle Class. So The New York Times found a reviewer...or just a gob-smacked fan? They let their own socialist professor/columnist Paul Krugman write a fan letter thinly disguised as a book review.
It began by hailing activist professors (now there’s an unexpected twist...)