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
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.
Times Watch reports on the latest Civility Update from the newspaper that put the anti-Gore "RATS" ad non-controversy on the top of the front page. They're loving a blogger whose site slogan is "Proudly Lowering the Level of Political Discourse." Lefty blogger Lee Papa's one-man show at the New York International Fringe Festival is all the rage to Times critic Margo Jefferson: How do we liberals show we're strong, he asks, and answers firmly: 'We have to rape Republicans.
The Post backing down on providing a little free ad space to a September 11 memorial walk for the employees murdered in the Pentagon is fascinating. They should put out a statement: "The Washington Post Company greatly regrets its support for the "Freedom Walk." We did not mean in any way to suggest that we are in favor of either freedom or America."
The bloggers at Get Religion (a nicely done conservative blog about religion and the news media) have posted an article for the Notre Dame Journal by Ken Woodward, the longtime religion reporter for Newsweek, exploring how averse the New York Times is in particular to the terminology of partial-birth abortion:
Byron York amazed folks this weekend with a Bush hater's comparison of Cindy Sheehan's "peace vigil" with the quashed Chinese democracy protests at Tiananmen Square. It makes me feel old to remember that back when the Tiananmen Square massacre happened in June 1989, liberal media people made bizarre American connections:
In one of the replies to Brent Baker's Grannies post, Phil R. took exception to the "good luck" comment NBC anchor Natalie Morales gave the "Raging Grannies" the other morning, raising the question: how much can we complain about anchors' well-wishing at the end of interviews? We hate to sound uber-touchy. Certainly, a certain amount of politeness is required, both for guest and viewer. Matt Lauer said "good to have you here" to Bernie Goldberg yesterday, for example. But our Geoff Dickens was struck by what Morales said:
A word about Paul Waldman of Media Matters for America making a big deal about the Cyber Alert item "exploiting death" by noting in passing our archive of Peter Jennings material. Not linking to it, mind you, but mentioning it. Anyone who reads the item will note it's pretty soft in tone, but apparently MMFA thinks it's unbelievably rude to "exploit" a death for political gain? But usually after someone prominent dies, their political legacy comes up for debate.