Latest Posts

If you have tried to sign up for a NewsBusters account in the past few days, you may have noticed you did not receive your password information in your email. This bug has now been fixed, however, you will need to get your password resent by filling out this form.



Before and after Cindy Sheehan’s announcement Thursday that she was leaving Crawford to attend to her ill mother, the networks celebrated her supposed achievements and hoped they’d re-invigorate the anti-war movement. “Did just one grieving mother spark the beginnings of an anti-war movement? We'll give you the 'Inside Story,'" CBS anchor John Roberts promised before Wyatt Andrews trumpeted: "Her movement seemed to catch fire Wednesday night as tens of thousands of people in more than a thousand places attended vigils in support.” He insisted that it’s “very clear Cindy Sheehan has tapped the public's frustration." ABC anchor Elizabeth Vargas saw “a campaign born of sadness and resolution.” Thursday morning, ABC’s Charlie Gibson championed: "All across the country protests against the war in Iraq, inspired by the mother standing her ground at President Bush's ranch.” On screen, GMA put "MOM ON A MISSION: IS ANTIWAR MOVEMENT GROWING?" George Stephanopoulos claimed “a lot of Republicans would say” that “this is the President's swift boat moment.”

The AP’s Ron Fournier got into the act too, opening a Thursday night dispatch: “What began as one mother's vigil on a country road in Texas two weeks ago has grown into a nationwide protest, putting a grieving human face to the miseries of war and the misgivings about President Bush's strategies in Iraq.”

Full CyberAlert article follows. For Friday's MRC CyberAlert.



In the article, "Bush Aid Cuts on Court Issue Roil Neighbors," the "New York Times" distorts the true nature of the International Criminal Court and down plays American arguments against it.



NBC seems to be lending even more support to the far-left Air America radio network.


(As read on-air by Rush Limbaugh)

One hot and humid weekend this past July, America’s leading Democrats -- including some of the early favorites for their party’s 2008 presidential nomination such as Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN), Governor Tom Vilsack (D-IA), and Governor Mark Warner (D-VA) -- gathered in Columbus, Ohio at a conference hosted by the centrist Democratic Leadership Council.

Predictably, the press had a hard time controlling its glee when Senator Clinton was announced as the point-person to lead the DLC’s new political offensive -- code name “American Dream Initiative” -- to define the party’s agenda for 2006 and 2008.

As Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times put it:

The appointment solidified the identification of Clinton, once considered a champion of the party's left, with the centrist movement that helped propel her husband to the White House in 1992. It also continued her effort, which has accelerated in recent months, to present herself as a moderate on issues such as national security, immigration and abortion.

Unfortunately, Mr. Brownstein -- much like the rest of the mainstream print media as far as I can tell -- chose not to be completely honest with his readers -- or the American public for that matter -- concerning just how far to the right Mrs. Clinton was going by affiliating herself with this organization, and, maybe most important, what was actually in this “Dream Initiative”. (cont'd...)



The Free Market Project, a division of the Media Research Center that studies the media's coverage of the economy, concluded that despite the continued expansion of the economy, the "Big Three" networks chose to report negatively on the economy 62 percent of the time. Additionally, whenever there was a positive story, it would usually be treated as a brief. Amy Menefee, author of the report, noticed three key points:



Blog readers were among the first to see the results of a Media Research Center Free Market Project analysis that showed the economy doing well while broadcast media coverage has shown otherwise. Today's Wall Street Journal bears that out. In an editorial labeled "Media Bears," the Journal points to the Free Market Project analysis as an answer to the question: Why is the American public down about the economy.



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.



The front page of Friday’s Washington Post features an article with a lead clearly framed through a liberal prism intended to paint Supreme Court nominee John Roberts as an extremist and/or a male chauvinist. “Roberts Resisted Women's Rights: 1982-86 Memos Detail Skepticism,” declares the headline over the August 19 story it took three reporters to research and write, Amy Goldstein, R. Jeffrey Smith and Jo Becker (along with six more credited at the end of the article.) The loaded lead: “Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. consistently opposed legal and legislative attempts to strengthen women's rights during his years as a legal adviser in the Reagan White House, disparaging what he called 'the purported gender gap’ and, at one point, questioning 'whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good.’”

A look at the full quote, however, shows that the Post distorted the personal aside in the memo. Roberts was not making a disparaging remark about women but -- in response to a judging panel at Clairol considering an award to a female White House staffer who had convinced some homemakers to go to law school -- he simply offered a quip about whether society needs more lawyers: "Some might question whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good, but I suppose that is for the judges to decide."

[Update, 11:30am EDT: The New York Times got the joke.]



        Fox News' Bill O'Reilly has been busy recently zapping major newspapers for publishing misleading or false information.



The majority of Americans charge the Bush Administration is not prosecuting the war effectively. The mainstream media, however, use this polling information to advance anti-Bush, anti-war positions.



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.



I came across this otherwise obscure item via a Google search that I have which updates me on CBS News developments. Ex-CNNer Jason Bellini is joining a "gay and lesbian issues" news program on the Logo network, a network launched in late June 2005 by CBS parent company Viacom geared to gays and lesbians.


Surprise: Barney Calame wakes up and smells the scandal at the left-wing radio network.



On Wednesday night, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann labeled Rush Limbaugh as the day's "Worst Person in the World!" in a segment that airs regularly on his 8pm EDT Countdown show. He normally introduces three nominees for the dishonor -- tagged as "worse," "worser," and "worst." Olbermann took Limbaugh out of context in highlighting the Limbaugh quote promoted by a far-left group: “Cindy Sheehan is just Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents. There's nothing about it that's real." Olbermann snidely quipped: "I guess she made up that dead-son-in-Iraq business." He also gratuitously speculated that "painkillers wipe out your memory along with your ethics." (Video available Windows Media or Real Media)

But on his radio show on Wednesday, Limbaugh had already discussed the fact that his comments had been taken out of context by others, explaining that the media see both Sheehan and Burkett as "an opportunity" to exploit and that "it doesn't matter what the specifics of Cindy Sheehan's case are."

Full CyberAlert item follows. For all the articles in today's MRC CyberAlert.