Amy Ridenour

Amy Ridenour's picture
Contributing Writer

Amy Ridenour (pronounced RIDE - en - our) is chairman of The National Center for Public Policy Research.  As the founding chief executive officer, she has since 1982 promoted the conservative perspective on U.S. domestic, foreign and defense policy issues.  She frequently speaks on public policy issues and political organizing techniques and has done so across the U.S., in Central America and in Europe. 

Her opinion/editorials have been nationally-syndicated.  Her articles have also been independently published by USA Today, the Sacramento Bee, the Dallas Morning News, The Washington Times, the Los Angeles Daily News and many others. 

Latest from Amy Ridenour

The Atlantic is telling the world its own Andrew Sullivan is the 9th most influential commentator in the United States, which is hogwash (or did I miss the nation following Andrew Sullivan's obsession with Sarah Palin's last pregnancy?).

Members of the Project 21 black leadership group have come out swinging against New York Times columnist Paul Krugman for "scurrilously pinning racist motives on critics of President Obama's health care proposals."

(Earlier today, Clay Waters covered Krugman's column for NewsBusters here.)

In "Polling Helps Obama Frame Message in Health-Care Debate" in Friday's Washington Post, reporter Michael D. Shear writes, "Obama is known for his soaring speeches and his ready command of facts..."

Ready command of facts?

ABC News' Friday special, "Over a Barrel: The Truth About Oil," was reviewed by David Almasi, one of my colleagues at the National Center for Public Policy Research.  He found so much bias in the special, I knew his review would be of interest to Newsbusters readers:

ABC News Finds Selective "Truth About Oil"
by David Almasi

Last Friday, July 24, ABC News aired the special "Over a Barrel: The Truth About Oil."  It might have been more correctly titled "Charlie Gibson Hates the Oil Companies."

ABC News newsreader Charlie Gibson interviewed 18 people during the course of the program.  Seven were gas station owners, refinery workers and the like - people who were there to specifically deliver raw information about the operations of the oil industry.  When it came to the 11 people featured for their political insight, it was obvious Gibson only really wanted to hear one viewpoint.

As both Noel Sheppard and I reported recently, General Electric boss Jeffrey Immelt faced a tough crowd at GE's annual stockholder's meeting in April.

At the time of this writing, there are nearly 7,000 references to "George Tiller" in Google News.

There are under 500 for "William Long."

George Tiller, of course, was the Kansas abortion doctor murdered Sunday morning by a man who allegedly had political and religious motives.

William Long was the 23-year-old military recruiter murdered Monday morning by a man who allegedly had political and religious motives.

As readers here know from Noel Sheppard's report last night, at yesterday's annual GE shareholder meeting, CEO Jeffrey Immelt was challenged on the subject of media bias at GE-owned NBC, CNBC and MSNBC.

The story is far from over.


I know it may seem hard to believe, but even after many excellent Newsbusters exposes of scandalous Tea Party media coverage (Noel Sheppard on Janeane Garofalo's attacks, CNN's selective Susan Roesgen cove

When the New York Times today told its readers about the massive Henry Waxman-Ed Markey 648-page draft global warming bill, it bent over backwards to report the pros and cons of the proposal.


 The March 31 story, supplied by Darren Samuelsohn and Ben Geman of Greenwire:

Pretty much everybody over a certain age remembers the Bush-Gore 2000 presidential election wasn't settled on election night, right?

You might think so, but one of the nation's best-known political journals, Congressional Quarterly, seem to have forgotten it.

A March 27 CQPolitics article by Bart Jansen, "Despite Significant Vacancies, Obama Outpaces Bush in Nominations," begins:

Despite an occasional line likely to raise a conservative's eyebrow ("Dyson may be an Obama-loving, Bush-loathing liberal who has spent his life opposing American wars and fighting for the protection of natural resources, but he brooks no ideology," for example) writer Nicholas Dawidoff's 8,200-word March 29 New York Times magazine feature, "The Civil Heretic," on w

A New York Times editorial published this week has been excoriated by Walter Olson, proprietor of the popular "Overlawyered" blog and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and justly so.

When University of Washington Professor Eric Steig announced in a news conference and paper published in the January 22 edition of the journal Nature that he and several colleagues removed one of many thorns in the sides of climate alarmists -- in this case, evidence that Antarctica is cooling -- he received extensive worldwide attention in the mainstream press.

But when a noteworthy error was found in Stieg's research less than two weeks after it's publication, of the mainstream press, only an opinion column in the London Telegraph and a blog associated with the Australian Herald Sun carried the news.

The Stieg paper's release was covered by 27 newspapers, including the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle & Los Angeles Times, by CNN, by the Associated Press, by NPR and quite a few others (see reviews of the coverage at the end of this post).

After independent analyst Steve McIntyre discovered a major error in the data, and released his results on his influential blog Climate Audit beginning on February 1, based on a Nexis search I conducted today, none of these outlets chose to inform their readers.

Here's how the Stieg research showing supposed warming was received by the mainstream press:

Apparently complacent about criticism from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research that his family's energy use at his Nashville home is more than 19 times greater than the average American household's, Al Gore has committed conspicious energy consumption once again.

In Washington D.C.

Matea Gold's Los Angeles Times story today lets readers know what a close call it was that Jesse Jackson's off-color comments made it on the air yesterday.

But for an alert overnight transcriber, Jackson's comments, meant to be private, almost stayed that way. What a loss to the public interest that would have been. Not.

I believe the Washington Post knows perfectly well that the word "censor" does not belong in the lead of today's Juliet Eilperin story, but the editors left it in (or inserted it?) anyway.

The story, "Cheney Aides Altered EPA Testimony, Agency Official Says Ex-Administrator Says Official From Vice President's Office Edited Out Six Pages," begins:

Nearly two years ago on Newsbusters, I floated a proposal that newspapers require their editorial and other writers to police themselves for accuracy by requiring them to turn in footnotes with their copy. The process would force writers to check information they think they know that isn't so.

My husband David Ridenour shares his analysis of the spin coming from a sponsor of the late and unlamented Lieberman-Warner global warming cap and trade bill, and the media's response:
We've been hit with a fast-moving, spinning column of hot air - and it's not another midwestern tornado. It's Joe Lieberman.

After Senate Democrats fell 12 votes short of the number needed to invoke cloture to end debate over the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act and move to a vote earlier today, Senator Lieberman (I-CT) issued a press release boldly proclaiming victory.

If you plug the search terms "James Hansen" and "censored" into Google, you get 37,900 results. Do the same search substituting "Roy Spencer" for "James Hansen," and you get 610 results (the third of which is from Newsbusters [here and here]).

I already knew Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) wasn't a clear thinker, but I still had to chuckle at her quote in today's Washington Post article on climate change:
The president's plan to have America stand by while greenhouse gases reach dangerous levels and threaten America and the world is worse than doing nothing -- it is the height of irresponsibility.
What's the difference between "standing by" and "doing nothing"?

Why, no difference at all.