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
The latest direct-mail fundraising letter from Walter Cronkite for the liberal Interfaith Alliance begins with the ludicrous sentence: "When I anchored the evening news, I kept my opinions to myself." (SURE you did.) It continues: "But now, more than ever, I feel I must speak out. That's because I am deeply disturbed by the dangerous and growing influence of people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell on our nation's political leaders."
Within a day of Katrina whipping the Gulf coast, Time.com leads with "Is Global Warming Fueling Katrina?" Jeffrey Kluger notes that "to hear a lot of people tell it, we have only ourselves—and our global-warming ways—to blame." His idea of sounding moderate is to allow generously that hurricanes did occur before the arrival of Rapacious Capitalist Humanity: "One thing’s for sure: hurricanes were around a long, long time before human beings began chopping down rainforests and fouling the atm
School may not have started yet, but Christopher Fotos at the PostWatch blog has done some homework on the WashPost's Cindy Sheehan coverage. After reviewing a pile of 15 Post stories on "Mother Sheehan," he finds a regular pattern of omitting her most vicious language, such as:
President Bush is an "evil maniac" who should "sign up his two little party-animal girls" for the war.
Ken Shepherd noted that the front page of Monday's WashPost carried a story with the headline "Access to Abortion Pared at State Level." But I had a different take on reporter Ceci Connolly's piece. It begins: "This year's state legislative season draws to a close having produced a near-record number of laws imposing new restrictions on a woman's access to abortion or contraception." This language of danger to "women's access" sounds like abortion-advocate wording.
Sam Coates, a British journalist on loan to the Washington Post as the annual Laurence Stern fellow, ends up with the assignment of puffing up Cindy Sheehan's forces over the weekend. His story today (typically touting how protests "expand in the heat") has one particularly annoying habit, comparing "pro-war" and "pro-Bush" protesters against "anti-war" ones.
NewsBusters readers were amused at the idea of liberal bias in the Washington Post sports section, so for a little weekend fun, let's revisit a couple of examples of wild editorializing in strange places in the newspaper. In 2003, this New York Times quote earned a Runner-Up mention in our Best of Notable Quotables with this memorable clip from an article on Norway's seafood:
Brent Bozell decries the Saturday night fireworks celebration of the pathetic suicidal end of gonzo writer Hunter Thompson's life, which was a big story in the Sunday papers. (As L.B.B. notes, Hunter was on A-3, Pope Benedict on A-20 of the WashPost). But so-called "objective" journalists were at the front of the line of his admirers, as he spewed hate at Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and two President Bushes through his crazed, glassy, drug-hazy eyes.
The Washington Post is so committed to liberal bias that it can't even keep it out of the Sports section. The back page of Thursday's Sports is topped by an article on former EPA administrator Christie Todd Whitman, ostensibly about golf, but really about conservative Republican-bashing:
The contretemps, brouhaha, and (ten dollars please) rodomontades over Pat Robertson are only the latest proof that the very secular media see Robertson as a Born-Again Freak Show. And the latest outburst -- not prompted or prodded by a talk-show opponent, but calmly scripted -- doesn't help. The contrast between Love Thy Neighbor and Kill The Venezuelan Tyrant does cause a bit of whiplash.
1. Another sign the Washington Post REALLY wants Cindy Sheehan to succeed. See this headline from Sunday: "Refusal to See Sheehan Is Second-Guessed: A Decision Characteristic of Bush Has the Potential to Be a Consequential Act." And....it has the potential to be forgotten by almost everybody after a while.
Mike Allen (or at least his editors at the WashPost) are REALLY reaching now to keep plugging the Cindy Sheehan Brigade even after Cindy Sheehan has left the ranch. On the front page of the Style section is this don't-lose-hope-lefties puff piece: "They Are Stardust, And in Texas: At the Crawford Protest Camp, Growing Echoes of Woodstock."
New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller drew headlines for the odd practice of writing a letter to the editor of his own Book Review. (It's almost like writing a letter to himself.) He's highly offended that anyone would suggest he doesn't have a passion for tough reporting on liberals. (Earth to Keller: how about that little Air America scandal?) The actual letter from today's paper is here.
Charles Jaco (whom older people might remember as "C.D. Jaco" from his days as a reporter for NBC and CNN) goes a little berserk in attacking bloggers on the Romenesko Letters page. It's one thing to protest the idea that the press isn't positive enough on Iraq, but he lost me when he started mocking conservatives' lack of "opposable thumbs," not to mention the crackpot Nazi smear at the end:
Sometimes you pick up the Washington Post in the morning and you just want to throw it across the lawn. Today is one of those times. "Roberts Resisted Women's Rights"? Why not just say "Roberts Supports Dragging Women By Hair"?
What screams liberal bias here is the idea that a headline saying Roberts "resisted women's rights" is to imply he believes women don't have or deserve rights, an odd position for a guy whose wife helps Feminists for Life.
In his live chat today, Washington Post reporter/Master of the Snarky Arts Dana Milbank lowered himself to answering a conservative complaint that Cindy Sheehan is lamely attempting to achieve a second "do over" meeting with the President. Milbank replied: "No doubt the request for a second meeting is contrived. It's not as if Sheehan really believes she would change the president's mind.