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 new book Unmasked: Big Media's War Against Trump as well as 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 2001 and 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
Bloomberg Businessweek magazine penned a puff piece on CNN president Jeff Zucker for its "Bloomberg 50" cover package on "The people who defined 2019." CNN defined 2019? And Fox -- often with double or triple the viewership -- did not? Bloomberg's magazine also picked losers like Stacey Abrams and Greta Thunberg.
On CNN's Reliable (Liberal) Sources on Sunday, host Brian Stelter discussed the "impeachment messaging wars." In one corner, he put Rudy Giuliani and the "ultraconservative" OANN network making a "glorified anti-Biden attack ad." Meanwhile, "Democrats continue to take over daytime TV, for televised testimony from witnesses, and Republicans continue to claim the hearings are boring. The messaging war is vital, so which side is winning?" Olivia Nuzzi said Democrats were like a Ken Burns PBS documentary, while the Republicans were....The Wizard of Oz???
The nation's leading newspapers have asserted their role as the most important "independent fact-checkers" in politics. So why do they fail to fact-check their own interviewees? On Twitter, Jeryl Bier noted The New York Times had to add an embarrassing correction to a two-month old story on Friday. Reporter Trip Gabriel did an entire story on a Trump voter iin Erie, Pennsylvania changing his mind....except records showed the man never voted for Trump. He never voted in 2016.
Supposedly right-leaning New York Times columnist David Brooks paid unctuous tribute on NPR and PBS Friday night to Nancy Pelosi's slashing attack on Sinclair reporter James Rosen. It was "one of the more beautiful political moments of the year." Somehow, when liberals attack reporters, they qualify as a "pro" and a "craftsman," just "very impressive."
A recent article in the fashion magazine Harper's Bazaar featured British actress and model Jameela Jamil (now starring on NBC's The Good Place) interviewing/celebrating legendary feminist extremist Gloria Steinem. They discussed how abortions are a wonderful choice for women and pro-lifers are authoritarians, like Hitler.
Washington Post "gender and society" columnist Monica Hesse is a lot like her colleague Robin Givhan, the fashion columnist. It doesn't matter what their supposed beats are. They coo over liberal women and brutalize the conservative women. Hillary is a gift to America. Melania is like "a garage-sale lampshade."
Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan has offered a perfect example of how the pompous Post sees itself. It exists to provide enlightenment to the masses, and the masses are supposed to respond and give liberals victory at the polls, both at election time and when the media pollsters work the phones. It is their job to destroy Trump's "darkness" that's allegedly killing democracy.
The website of taxpayer-boosted Boston PBS superstation WGBH posted a commentary by local professor Dan Kennedy on December 3 provocatively titled "How Fox News Is Helping Destroy the Planet." Kennedy writes a column weekly for WGBHNews.com and is a panelist on their local show Beat the Press. He began: "Want to fight climate change? Tell your elderly relatives to turn off Fox News."
The other day, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki subjected herself to a hard-hitting interview with Lesley Stahl on CBS's 60 Minutes. Stahl lectured her for allowing “harmful” or “hurtful” speech to be posted on her platform, without any fact-checking. Welcome to the latest demonstration of the traditional “news” media mercilessly pounding away at social media for having the audacity to allow dissenting information that undermines their expert narratives and authority.
The television networks have been intensely critical for three and a half years now of Donald Trump’s alleged destruction of journalistic norms. How have they covered and/or condemned Bloomberg’s destruction of journalistic norms? Most of them haven’t even mentioned it, let alone condemned it. Since Bloomberg threw his hat into the ring on Sunday, November 24, ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS have all failed to utter a single word – positive or negative or neutral – on their major morning or evening or Sunday interview shows on the Bloomberg News policy.
In the second term of President George W. Bush, former CIA agent Valerie Plame was the darling of the anti-war Left, including the liberal media. In 2019, Plame is still a media darling, as demonstrated by a Monday puff piece in The Washington Post. "Plame was hard to miss....She looks astoundingly good, at 56, as if the high-altitude desert air has preserved her skin since the day she arrived here 12 years ago."
If it's Sunday, Chuck Todd is exasperated and yelling at a Republican. This week, the victim was Sen. John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana. But first,Todd demonstrated his double standard by asking sympathetic questions to Democrat Sen. Amy Klobuchar. Then Todd turned a harsh eye on GOP Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, insisting three times he was a pawn of Russian intelligence.
PBS NewsHour anchor Judy Woodruff turned to liberal pundit Mark Shields on Friday and said time may be running out for Democrats to impeach without interfering with the primaries early next year. Then Shields said something weird about Pete Buttigieg. It was a product placement for PBS. Buttigieg is a regular Mister Rogers!
ABC aired the American Music Awards on Sunday, November 24, and the big surprise was that none of the featured pop stars launched into a political diatribe about the horrors of the Trump era. The shock factor was reserved for one of the most vicious assaults on God ever projected by Hollywood.
Meg Kelly of the Washington Post "Fact Checker" squad came running to defend Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from ten seconds of a negative ad.
The conservative American Action Network begins with a clip of AOC saying "This is about preventing a potentially disastrous outcome from occurring next year." Then a female announcer adds: "Now, it’s crystal clear their partisan impeachment is a politically motivated charade.”
On Fox's The Five on Tuesday, co-host Greg Gutfeld launched into a monologue about how comedians are swearing off performing on college campuses. The latest to walk away is Saturday Night Live cast member Pete Davidson, who "many people" -- to use NBC News argot -- think isn't the least bit hilarious.
Billionaire “news” media mogul Michael Bloomberg is running for president. How will his Bloomberg News empire cover this? Trump gets a full blast. But Bloomberg has a long-standing policy banning his reporters from investigating him or his businesses. Now he’s banning any investigation of him as a presidential candidate, along with all of this fellow Democrats! How does this not look like a massive, credibility-crippling conflict of interest?
Does the Washington Post Twitter account offer an appearance of liberal tilt? On Thursday, November 21, the Post was covering the last day of Adam Schiff’s impeachment hearings, as well as the previous night’s Democrat presidential debate on MSNBC. In the 24 hours of Thursday, the Post’s main Twitter page posted 183 tweets (including retweets). Seventy of those focused on impeachment, and another 29 were about Trump or his administration. In contrast to that 54 percent of tweets, the Post-sponsored Democrat debate drew only 17 tweets (nine percent).
The front of Sunday's Outlook section in The Washington Post is a complete spit take. There in bold type is the blatantly false headline "Barack Obama, conservative." David Swerdlick is an employee of the Post Outlook section, so this isn't some freakish freelancer. At first glance, this seems like an obvious ploy to explain away just how radical the current crop of Democratic presidential candidates are by comparison.
During the 2016 convention, New York Times fashionista Vanessa Friedman thought Hillary's white was right. “In her white suit, with her white crew neck underneath, Mrs. Clinton looked supremely unflappable: perfectly tailored and in control,” she gushed. “Not a hair out of place (but some hair nicely waved). The kind of person who could carry the nuclear codes with aplomb.” But how that Hillary-bashing Tulsi Gabbard's wearing white, it's now symbolidzing "somewhat combative righteousness (also cult leaders).... It has connotations of the fringe, rather than the center."