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 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.
Ken, it's sad to see coverage of embryonic stem cell research in general, which often omits is that the embryo is currently destroyed before the stem cells can be extracted. All the sympathy is expended on the Cody Unsers, who we recognize as fully human, but the embryos don't even have a cute ultrasound picture to show us they're fully human.
David Shaw, a well-regarded media reporter for the Los Angeles Times, died yesterday at 62 from a brain tumor. As Bill Powers of National Journal just explained, Shaw's 1990 series on media coverage of abortion was remarkable in its candor and according to Powers, influential across the media. (I'm not too sure about that, although the media did largely drop "pro-choice" in that era and switch to "abortion rights" lingo. But is the media less biased on abortion?