Media Research Center

Anti-Immigrant Leader Brent Bozell Launches Latino Media Watchdog

Yesterday, the Media Research Center launched a new affiliate called MRC Latino with support from Rand Paul and the American Principles Project, a Religious Right group. On the day of its launch, MRC Latino came out with a report attacking Univision and Telemundo for allegedly having a liberal bias, suggesting that the networks are “being used as pawns of public relations” by the Obama administration. Politico reports:

The study is part of the launch of MRC’s new Spanish-language media watch group MRC Latino, which is officially launching on Tuesday. Oliver-Méndez and MRC President Brent Bozell said they hope the study and MRC Latino will lead to more conservative voices in Spanish-language media and that they plan to meet with executives at the two networks to discuss the study.

“It’s going to be outreach that we’re going to do to hopefully sit down with some of the major players in the Latino media, go through these findings and try to see if we can have a constructive dialogue,” Bozell said. “I don’t believe in any suggestion that liberals shouldn’t have their world view presented, but a, conservatives need to have equal footing. And b, you can’t use your network to actively promote a political agenda.”

MRC Latino will be run by Ken Oliver-Méndez, who “led the Bush administration’s domestic ethnic and religious media outreach, including management of the White House Spanish language web site and serving as Spanish-language coach to the President.”

While Bozell insists that the Spanish-language press is unfair to Republicans, the activist who once compared President Obama to “a skinny, ghetto crackhead” may want to consider if he himself is playing a role in damaging the GOP brand.

For example, Bozell “called for a clean sweep of the House Republican leadership if it moved forward on the issue” of immigration reform, and his group “blitzed the speaker’s office with thousands of phone calls to jam the lines and protest his stance on immigration.” He also defended Arizona’s draconian anti-immigrant SB 1070, a law strongly opposed by Latino voters.

Even though Bozell says he now supports greater Latino outreach and engagement, he once criticized “Big Tent conservatism” for hurting the larger movement. “We reject completely the idea of Big Tent conservatism,” he told a Citizens United event in March.

He also dismissed the Latino vote, which swung heavily towards Obama, in the run-up to the 2012 election and attacked the media for being “too busy celebrating and pandering to minority voters as the most crucial, special voters of all.”

Time's cover carried the words "Yo Decido: Why Latinos Will Pick the Next President."

This is odd, since whites are still 64 percent of the population. Time and CNN select the Latino vote as crucial because they want to make the Republicans cry uncle on amnesty. Time's Michael Scherer began his cover story by slamming Gov. Jan Brewer for "the most incendiary immigration law in the country."

But who made that law a national issue? The liberal media did. They put all the political pressure on anyone opposed to illegal immigration. It was "incendiary" despite a Rasmussen poll finding 70 percent of Arizonans supported the tougher law. The Obama-obedient media never found it "incendiary" for Obama to announce in 2011 that he was suspending most deportations in a transparently political move.

Take a look at the numbers from the Pew Hispanic Center, which estimated that 69 percent of Latinos voted for Democrats in 2006 and 67 percent for Obama in 2008. But in 2010, that percentage dropped to 60 percent, even though liberals surely tried to make Tea Party "racism" an issue to Latino voters.

Republicans shouldn't write off the Latino vote, but they can wonder how much of that 9-percent slice of Latinos would vote Republican if they Xeroxed the liberal amnesty position. CNN and Time could wonder if Obama will hurt his Latino "landslide" by canceling pipelines and signaling a hard-left position on abortion, gay marriage and religious liberty. But they're too busy celebrating and pandering to minority voters as the most crucial, special voters of all.

Anti-Gay Backlash To Michael Sam Begins With Fears Of 'Raging Hormones,' End Of The 'Bromance'

The backlash to the announcement by University of Missouri defensive end and likely NFL draft pick Michael Sam that he is gay is troubling the usual suspects. Anti-gay author Michael Brown is out with a column criticizing Sam’s “selfish act” and suggesting that he should’ve stayed in the closet.

According to Brown, Sam’s “hormones might be raging for men the way the other players’ hormones rage for women,” which will make “the ‘bromance’ type of close relationships that many players enjoy” impossible since they won’t be “as physical and free with a homosexual teammate.”

But once they have made their announcement, how can everyone be expected to feel completely comfortable? And with the “bromance” type of close relationships that many players enjoy, would they be as physical and free with a homosexual teammate?

And since NFL players are hardly known for their sexual purity—with many notable exceptions—is it homophobic to think that Sam’s hormones might be raging for men the way the other players’ hormones rage for women?



Looked at from another angle, it was more of a selfish act, and not only in the sense that Sam is suddenly a national celebrity. (As of Feb. 10, a Google search for his name yielded more than 3 million hits. Just one week ago, his numbers would have been a fraction of this.) What I mean is that professional football is all about the team, and the focus must be on making a joint sacrifice in order to win rather than drawing attention to oneself.



Why can’t he just play the game, keep his private life private (as many public figures do), and when his career is over, if he wants to tell the whole world he’s gay, he can do so then?

Right on cue, Rush Limbaugh declared that Sam’s announcement is proof that heterosexuals are “under assault,” a claim he made during a rant against the gay “political agenda” that couples as a great example of heterosexual privilege.

The Media Research Center is upset that major broadcast networks “celebrated the announcement” and chided sports commentators for their alleged mistreatment of Tim Tebow in an article that seems to imply that Tebow is the first and only evangelical Christian ever to play for the NFL.

ESPN on Monday was a long parade of congratulatory guests, like columnist Kay Fagan, who used words like “authenticity” and “inclusion.” Fagan ended a rapturous column by saying of Sam, “His truth is now.” (Does homosexuality come with a separate truth? Or do you pay extra, like undercarriage coating?)

Ok, lets simmer down and wait for the backlash. It’ll come. It has to when personal life and philosophy and social issues intersect with the NFL. Here it comes … Er, no? But when Tim Tebow entered the draft he encountered a rain of hate from people worried for the sport, people who resented having to hear about the personal beliefs of “Saint Timmy,” as CBS’s Pete Prisco called him in April, 2010.

Pastor Ron Cantor took to Charisma to warn that Sam’s presence in the locker room “is going to make for an uncomfortable situation.”

Cantor asserts that the truly courageous people are those who are worried about having a gay teammate: “How ironic—in the past it was the homosexual who was afraid to come out. Now it’ll be the guy who doesn’t want to take a shower next to the homosexual who will be shunned and shamed—and he will be told to keep his mouth shut.”

Let me just be honest. If I had a job whereby I had to undress and shower several times a week with a roomful of very fit, attractive females—well, let’s just say I would struggle. And that clearly is the concern of heterosexual football players. It is a legitimate issue. I am not an expert, but if someone says to me that they are attracted to men and then are going to see them undressed on an almost daily basis, it is going to make for an uncomfortable situation. Right?

But don’t say it out loud—not unless you are willing to be skewered by the media elites. Oh, wait, too late. Jonathan Vilma of the New Orleans Saints already stated the obvious.

“I think that he would not be accepted as much as we think he would be accepted," Vilma said. "I don’t want people to just naturally assume, like, ‘Oh, we’re all homophobic.’ That’s really not the case. Imagine if he’s the guy next to me and, you know, I get dressed, [bare], taking a shower, the whole nine, and it just so happens he looks at me. How am I supposed to respond?”

Vilma made those completely honest and valid comments a few days ago—before Sam came out. For sure, he will be vilified and called immature. But come on, let’s be honest: No one expects adult men and women to take mass showers together on the job—for the obvious reasons. But Vilma is juvenile and uneducated for not wanting to shower next to an openly gay man?

I wonder if more NFL players will have the courage to speak up. How ironic—in the past it was the homosexual who was afraid to come out. Now it’ll be the guy who doesn’t want to take a shower next to the homosexual who will be shunned and shamed—and he will be told to keep his mouth shut.

Wildmon: Gay Rights Advocates 'Force Feeding The American Public'

American Family Association president Tim Wildmon yesterday joined other anti-gay pundits in criticizing the Grammy Awards for a performance that included a wedding service for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, which Wildmon said shows that liberals are “force feeding the American public” with homosexuality.

“Hollywood, the entertainment industry and the political left just can’t get enough ‘gay,’” Wildmon said.

He also attacked President Obama for inviting openly gay NBA player Jason Collins to the State of the Union address: “President Obama now has invited an NBA player to sit in the gallery for the State of the Union speech precisely because he has sex with other men and is proud of it. These people don’t just want acceptance, they want middle America’s approval.”

Tim Graham of the Media Research Center accused the Grammys of trying to “flush the Bible on national TV,” while Family Research Council senior fellow Peter Sprigg said the award show has been “shamelessly exploited in support of a radical social and political agenda.”

“Hollywood, the entertainment industry and the political left just can’t get enough ‘gay,’” American Family Association president Tim Wildmon told LifeSiteNews. “They are force feeding the American public. We have ‘Kinky Boots’ which are cross-dressers in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade, we got a homosexual wedding float in the Rose Bowl Parade and now we are pushing ‘gay marriage’ during the Grammy Awards. President Obama now has invited an NBA player to sit in the gallery for the State of the Union speech precisely because he has sex with other men and is proud of it. These people don’t just want acceptance, they want middle America’s approval.”

“It is unfortunate that CBS and the Grammys would allow an entertainment awards show to be so shamelessly exploited in support of a radical social and political agenda,” Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council, told LifeSiteNews. “It’s ironic that these ceremonies accompanied a song, ‘Same Love.’ The government has no legitimate interest in ‘love’ alone, but it does have an interest in encouraging procreation and mother-father households.”

The on-air same-sex “weddings” were the brainchild of Grammy producer Ken Ehrlich, who told theNew York Times he got the idea from his lesbian daughter, who told him that Macklemore and Lewis sometimes allow couples to propose marriage onstage during concert performances of “Same Love.” Ehrlich said he suggested the duo “[take] it a step further with a full wedding.”

But Ehrlich denied that it was just a stunt. “We’re serious about this,” he told the Times. He added that while he personally believes marriage should be redefined to include same-sex couples, “I would not want to make a broad statement that it represents the views of the [National] Academy [of Recording Arts and Sciences] or the CBS television network.”

But Tim Graham, director of media analysis for the conservative Media Research Center, strongly disagreed.

“They can say this is not a stunt, but that's exactly what it is, a piece of musical agitprop to mock the traditional values of conservative American Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others,” Graham wrote on the NewsBusters blog. “Entertainers never want to have a debate, just a series of arrogant ‘statements’ with no opportunity for a conversation as they flush the Bible on national TV.”

Right Wing Leftovers - 10/25/13

  • Rand Paul will join Ken Cuccinelli and Jerry Falwell, Jr. at a campaign stop at Liberty University. 
  • The right-wing myth that Obama is behind a change in the Marines’ dress cover has become so widespread that the Commandant of the Marine Corps had to put out a statement refuting the charges.
  • Rick Scarborough “must respectfully take issue with Dr. Russell Moore” who, he says won’t defend Christians who “are persecuted for refusing to bend the knee to the gay agenda.” 
  • Finally, “ex-gay” Dennis Jernigan describes his “anthem for ex-homosexuals.”

MRC: 'Sweetness Of Cam And Mitchell' Makes Modern Family 'Dangerous' And Misleading

Even the right-wing Media Research Center’s Evan Mantel was moved by the Modern Family episode where Cam and Mitch got engaged…which is exactly why the sitcom is so dangerous. “As a conservative blog on entertainment, I’m in a tricky predicament during episodes like these,” Mantel explains. “It moved me like a good art is supposed to do. But that’s the problem. It moved me.”

He said that while he works for an anti-gay group, Modern Family “made me feel joy for Cam and Mitchell after the Supreme Court over-ruled California’s Prop 8.”

These feelings of joy for gay couples being happy and getting hitched, of course, is exactly “what makes this show great. And dangerous. It relies on feelings which mislead.”

According to Mantel, “there is no logical argument in favor of gay marriage,” just the “sweetness” and “touching” feelings of Cam and Mitchell, which he wants viewers to remember is “not a realistic portrayal of reality.”

This was a classic Modern Family. And as such, I am upset. Wanna know why I'm upset? (if you don't, why are you even reading??? Why?)

I'll let you in on a little secret: I write for a conservative blog. (I'll wait for those gasps of shock to die down.) As a conservative blog on entertainment, I'm in a tricky predicament during episodes like these. With a crappy episode, (like this one; HIMYM LINK)it is easy to rip the flawed presuppositions.

But this was a good episode. I laughed. I cried. I felt. It moved me like good art is supposed to do. But that's the problem. It moved me. It made me feel joy for Cam and Mitchell after the Supreme Court over-ruled California's Prop 8.

And that is what makes this show great. And dangerous. It relies on feelings which mislead. There is no logical argument in favor of gay marriage, but the sweetness of Cam and Mitchell trying to outdo each other's proposal is touching. Their simple and spontaneous proposal was as sweet as the portrayal of those who don't agree with gay marriage as spitting babies was subtle.

So what is a person to do?

Watch, I say. Watch a classic sitcom, but know that what you are seeing is fiction and not a realistic portrayal of realty.

Bozell: Romney Lost Because The Media Failed To Report The Obama Was A 'Pothead'

Yesterday's Janet Mefferd program featured a truly idiotic interview with the Media Research Center's Brent Bozell about his new book "Collusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election---and How to Stop Them from Doing It in 2016," the premise of which seems to be that there were a variety of negative stories about Mitt Romney but none about President Obama.

Apparently, if the media had just dedicated more coverage to the fact that Obama smoked pot as a youth and ate dog as a child while living in Indonesia, Romney would be president today: 

Mefferd: You're not allowed to touch those on the left; you're not allowed to dig into the past of Barack Obama and expose what little was exposed before 2008.  And it just ramped up, didn't it?

Bozell: You just pitched me a softball. What about the past?  How should somebody's past be covered?  Well, we know about Mitt Romney, we know that because the Washington Post spent five thousand four hundred words of this, we know that had a dog on his roof.  Everyone knows that story.  Now why do we all know that story? Because it was reported endlessly because dogs on a roof are important to report. 

Well, if dogs on a roof are important, what about dogs in your stomach? What about eating dogs? Is that important? Now, am I making a false accusation or a nefarious accusation about Barack Obama? No, I'm quoting him in his own book. He had said how he ate dog. How is that not newsworthy but leaving a dog on a roof is?

The Washington Post; five thousand four hundred words devoted to an essay on Mitt Romney's youth and it all revolves around, remember, the haircut in 1965?  We had to know that. So that's the microcosm of Mitt Romney's youth.

They then did a five thousand word essay on Obama's youth, and it's all about his love for basketball.  He had a love for something else, Janet.  It was called marijuana. He was a pothead. He was a member of the Choom Gang. What they did was they'd get stoned all the time.  Is Brent making an outrageous accusation? No, it's right in Barack Obama's book.

Right Wing Leftovers - 7/1/13

  • Despite Tony Perkins’ claim that the tide has turned against gay rights, a USA Today poll released today found that 55% of Americans back marriage equality. 
  • Meanwhile, Rep. Tim Huelskamp has officially reintroduced the Federal Marriage Amendment. 
  • Concerned Women for America warns that if gay marriage becomes legal then “the meaning of those sacred [marriage] vows are [sic] no longer there.” 
  • Matt Barber says he is prepared to go to jail or die to fight gay rights. 
  • James Robison fears that “quoting the Bible concerning homosexuality could soon be illegal.” 
  • Judy Brown of the American Life League claims contraception, abortion rights and gay marriage are all part a growing “tide of indescribable evil.” 
  • Oliver North is worried that “the military being used as lab rats in a radical series of social experiments on the part of this administration.” 
  • The Media Research Center’s Dan Gainor thinks children are “abused” by the New Yorker’s Bert & Ernie cover.

MRC: 'The World's Gayest High School' on Glee Is an Insult to William McKinley

It is the job of Andrew Collins of the right-wing Media Research Center to watch shows like Glee and The New Normal, and then complain about them being too gay.

In his latest post, Collins attacks an episode of Glee for having a “particularly large dose of gay” and says that the high school is an insult to its namesake, President William McKinley, as it is “The World’s Gayest High School.”

“So many characters play for the other team it's hard to believe that there’ll be any future generations of McKinley High students to mock the Bible and cheer on transgendered [sic] performers,” Collins writes.

He goes on to lament that Kurt’s father stressed “the seriousness and permanence of marriage” when he told Blaine, Kurt’s off-and-on boyfriend, that he shouldn’t ask Kurt to marry him…because “his refusal builds the legitimacy of gay marriage even more.”

Pity William McKinley. Our 25th president was a Civil War hero who successfully prosecuted the Spanish-American War and presided over a booming economy. For his trouble, he was assassinated. Adding insult to injury, he’s the namesake of The World’s Gayest High School.

It’s no secret that “Glee” frequently and flamboyantly pushes a gay agenda. So many characters play for the other team it's hard to believe that there’ll be any future generations of McKinley High students to mock the Bible and cheer on transgendered [sic] performers. But as this season prepares to wrap up this week, things are heating up on "Glee." Last week’s episode featured a particularly large dose of gay.



And finally, in the most overt display of all, Blaine asks Kurt’s father for his son’s hand in marriage. His father is all in favor of the institution, those who support gay marriage are on the right side of history, he says. However, he says no because, like most parents these days, he believes high school is a bit too young for someone to be proposing. If anything, his refusal builds the legitimacy of gay marriage even more because he emphasizes the seriousness and permanence of marriage.

Gainor: Marriage Equality Advocates Will 'Undermine Our Entire Country and Everything That Made Us Free'

Media Research Center spokesman Dain Gainor, who last week argued that the media is engaging in “full-blown fascist propaganda” tactics to promote marriage equality, in a recent interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network maintained that gay rights advocates have America and freedom in their crosshairs.

After host Efrem Graham said that “now it’s Christians who stand up to traditional marriage who are actually the ones being discriminated against,” Gainor readily agreed: “That’s absolutely true and this is just the beginning.”

Gainor asserted that the left will move to promote polygamy as “the advocacy words they use for gay marriage, you could easily just replace just that and use it as advocacy for polygamy or who knows what.”

“The left wants a no holds barred, nothing is wrong morality,” Gainor asserted, “that is going to undermine our entire country and everything that made us free.”

Watch:

MRC's Gainor: Media Using 'Full-Blown Fascist Propaganda' to Promote Gay Rights

Dan Gainor of the Media Research Center is very, very, very angry at the media’s coverage of the Supreme Court’s marriage cases. In fact, he is so angry that he is accusing the media of pushing “full-blown fascist propaganda.”

After calling the comedy The New Normal a “propaganda show,” Gainor told the American Family Association’s news service that the media “are going to have almost no voices [from the other side] because they don’t believe that anybody should have a right to think otherwise.”

Dan Gainor, vice president of business and culture for MRC, said from the Post to the big three broadcast networks, the mainstream media is actively lobbying the American public.

“They even talk about the media component, how the media have propagandized our ‘media culture,’ in the words of [NBC news anchor] Brian Williams,” notes Gainor. “So they talk about it and they show Ellen DeGeneres, they show Modern Family clips, they show Will & Grace. They show a very tiny snippet The New Normal, which conveniently is NBC’s propaganda show.”



And Gainor tells American Family News that NBC has been the biggest violator of pushing its own gay agenda, citing its report that he says was “filled with images of TV’s gay icons.”

“That’s their strategy,” he remarks. “They’re going to have almost no voices [from the other side] because they don’t believe that anybody should have a right to think otherwise. It’s beyond bias; it’s actually I would even say beyond censorship. It is full-blown fascist propaganda.”

The MRC spokesman says while the Supreme Court may not be able to come to an agreement, the elite media has determined the issue to already be decided.

MRC's Gainor Says 'Complete and Utter Scumbag' Jon Stewart Is Leading the War on Christmas

The Media Research Center’s professional hyperventilator Dan Gainor appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday to warn conservatives that they are losing ground in the “War on Christmas” as the media and liberals have teamed up to stop Christmas celebrations everywhere! He channeled Bryan Fischer in arguing that the “War on Christmas” is really a “war on Christ” and part of the left’s evil plot to “eradicate” and “destroy” religion.

Gainor: If you are a person of faith in this country, any faith unless it’s Islam, the media are out to get you. They are particularly after Christianity, Judaism as well, any sort of traditional values religion, they don’t want your values, they don’t want your faith on TV, they don’t want it in the media and the left is out to eradicate it.



Mefferd: How much worse would you say that it is getting, this War on Christmas, compared with previous years? How much is it ramped up?

Gainor: I think it’s ramped up a lot. I think the left smells blood in the water and they have all year. This is not just a War on Christmas, that’s the point that everyone listening needs to understand, this is a war on faith, this is a war on Christians, this is a war on Christ. So when we saw the Chick-fil-A war, that was just one battle, it wasn’t a Chick-fil-A war, it was just one battle in a greater war where if you come out and express belief in traditional values, particularly traditional faith, the media and the left will seek to destroy you.

Gainor called The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart a “complete and utter scumbag” over a manger scene joke and falsely claimed he never makes jokes about Islam, adding that no one should make jokes about Islam either. In fact, Gainor’s own group is dedicated to attacking positive portrayal of Islam and negative stories on Islamophobia in the media.

Ironically after attacking people who boycotted Chick-fil-A, he called on people to “systematically target” broadcasters and advertisers of programs like The Daily Show and to boycott the Girl Scouts because it is “destroying young women” and the Salvation Army, purportedly for not saying “Merry Christmas.” If that is the Salvation Army’s greatest offense, then Gainor and Mefferd should join the Chick-fil-A boycott, as the fast food chain only uses the phrase “Happy Holidays” as well.

Gainor: The Huffington Post today, I think there is the ’27 Gayest Christmas Songs,’ they are all trying to undermine the holiday to make it their own lefty craziness. Then they say, ‘well you know it’s still Christmas.’ You’ve got Jon Stewart—let’s face it, Jon Stewart is very funny but he is also a complete and utter scumbag. He did a manger scene and this could be delicate to talk about on radio and he did this on TV, I’m trying to dance around this this being radio, but he did a manger scene that was displayed in the nether regions of a naked female, and he got wildly abused for this. Well you know Jon Stewart doesn’t celebrate Christmas so he doesn’t care, it’s not seen as a religious offense.

Mefferd: But there’s not that respect for other people’s religious beliefs.

Gainor: You don’t see him making fun of Ramadan the same way and he shouldn’t and I like to think I don’t. I have a neighbor who is Muslim, I respect him, he’s frankly one of my neighbors I get along with best. We shouldn’t be calling for them to start attacking other religions too. No what we should be saying is you have to have some respect here and if you don’t, we’re going to systematically target your broadcast outlets, we’re going to target your advertisers and we’re going to retaliate. That’s what I meant about Salvation Army, if a Christian organization is afraid to say ‘Merry Christmas’ then I’m done with them with my holiday money and I love giving to Salvation Army. But look I’ve defunded the Girl Scouts because as much as I love the cookies and I do, they are a lefty organization that is destroying young women in America now and I will not give them a penny. Even though one of my coworker’s has a daughter in Girl Scouts and he no longer can successfully sell cookies in our office.

Bozell: Obama must Yield to House Republicans because 'We Have a Larger Vote than he Received'

Media Research Center founder Brent Bozell appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show to discuss the demands he made alongside other conservative activists, including Marjorie Dannenfelser, Alfred Regnery, Richard Viguerie, Jeff Bell and Jenny Beth Martin, for Republican leaders in Congress to step down after their election defeats. According to Bozell and others, the GOP suffered humiliating losses because the party wasn’t conservative enough. He told Mefferd that figures calling on House Speaker John Boehner to compromise with President Obama are really asking Republicans to “surrender our principles” and that Obama should be the one who should succumb to the Republican position. “Why isn’t he compromising with us?” Bozell asked, “We have a larger vote than he received.”

Listen:

We have to surrender our principles, what they’re saying is: John Boehner, surrender that which got you elected, that which brought you to Washington, the beliefs of the people who voted you in, surrender them. No, why not say, wait a minute, we’re the ‘people’s House,’ we are on par with the President of the United States according to the Constitution, why isn’t he compromising with us? We have a larger vote than he received. He has no mandate on this, he got eight million votes less than he got last time.

Unfortunately for Bozell, President Obama received over 62,608,181 votes while just 53,402,643 votes were cast for Republican House candidates. In fact, Democratic House candidates garnered 53,952,240 votes, about a half a million more votes than their Republican counterparts, who heavily benefited from gerrymandering.

Mefferd: ESPN and Sports Reporters Push Liberal Ideology

On yesterday’s edition of The Janet Mefferd Show, the host and her guest, Matt Philbin of the Media Research Center, took aim at an unlikely vector of liberal ideals: the world of sports. Reflecting on an MRC report, Mefferd said that ESPN and other sports broadcasters are “using their sports platforms really to push this liberal economic and social ideology.” Philbin asserted ESPN hires people with a “liberal pedigree” and its website includes content that is in “support of the gay agenda.”

Philbin held up liberal commentator Keith Olbermann, who previously worked at ESPN, as proof of the network’s liberal bias. He conveniently ignored the fact that Texas Republican senate candidate Craig James is also a former ESPN broadcaster and ESPN’s chairman and vice president are both Romney donors.

Mefferd: If you are a big sports nut you’re noticing also that from time to time you’ll see a little bit of political material creep in on the sidelines and that’s really the intent of a lot of people on the left, they want to politicize the games, but it’s true of sports in general, and if you follow sports TV at all, ESPN, some of those other sports shows, you’ll see this, and in fact, the Culture and Media Institute of the Media Research Center has put together a report all about this documenting the trend of commentators and sportscasters using their sports platforms to really push this liberal, economic, and social ideology. Matt Philbin is with us, managing editor of the Media Research Center. So Matt, let’s talk about sports in general and what you guys noted looking at channels like ESPN or some of these other sports shows, where do you see this liberal ideology kind of creeping in?

Philbin: Well, you can see it all over the place, and uh, I would just, uh, just a reminder, that, uh, Keith Olbermann came from ESPN. Before he went to MSNBC, he came from SportsCenter which he actually helped create, I believe, uh, so, ESPN has a long liberal ESPN and you can see that in a lot of its programming. And you can see that on its website as well. Its website has always, for years now, has featured commentary in support of the gay agenda.

Philbin later maintained that sports journalists, like other journalists, have “an antipathy toward conservatives and toward traditional Americans.” The two also took umbrage in particular to the sports network’s supposedly cozy relationship with President Obama: Mefferd was dismayed that ESPN is helping the President “show his softer side” by broadcasting his NCAA bracket selection.

Of course, President Bush, a former baseball franchise owner, previously appeared on ESPN to talk fishing and baseball.

Philbin: They’re just pulling from the same sort of pool of people as the mainstream media is, sort of, uh, habitually liberal journalists who really have an antipathy towards conservative and toward traditional Americans.

Mefferd: What about ESPN and its relationship with President Obama, because they’ve sort of fawned over him as well, haven’t they?

Philbin: Oh, They think he’s terrific.

Mefferd: Sports picks and everything.

Philbin: Yes, you know, oh, They’ve had him on to pick his, uh, brackets in the NCAA tournament. They’ve had him speak about reforming college football’s BCS system. Things that really, a President doesn’t have much interest, or shouldn’t have much interest in talking about.

Mefferd: Well, he wants to be a man of the people I guess. Show his softer side, I guess. “They’re calling me a socialist too much, quick, ESPN, let me do my March Madness picks!

Philbin: That’s right, I’m, just like them.

Mefferd: Just like them. 

Parshall and Gainor Seem to Believe Conservatives Don't Like Boycotts

Yesterday during In The Market, Dan Gainor of the right-wing Media Research Center and host Janet Parshall are the latest conservative activists to deny their movement’s history of supporting boycotts in order to attack gay rights groups protesting Chick-fil-A, agreeing that “conservatives generally are against boycotts” while freedom-hating liberals just can’t help themselves:

Gainor: This is a line in the sand for everybody listening, for every American right now: what country do we want to have, do we want to have people just say ‘well I don’t like what you believe so we’re going to destroy your business’?

Parshall: Exactly. Dan let me pick up on that point because I think it’s a great one. Paradoxically, in the midst of this brouhaha with Chick-fil-A comes the announcement that Amazon.com CEO and his wife give $2.5 million to Washington state for the same-sex marriage battle going on there. I tell you what, I get an awful lot of press releases all day long and I’m still waiting, I have yet to hear a Christian group that’s saying we’re going to boycott Amazon.com because their founder and CEO has decided to make a multimillion dollar contribution to battle against something that I happen to hold dear and believe in. So this tactic, unfortunately, seems to be one sided, one the one hand I guess I can understand it, and on the other hand, it’s just not the way Christians behave in the marketplace.

Gainor: Conservatives generally are against boycotts. We’ll boycott occasionally for something that’s really extreme. But we accept that people have different values and different opinions, that’s called democracy, we tend to like that and like our Constitution and like our freedom of speech.

Parshall: I couldn’t agree more.

Huh, that’s odd since the National Organization for Marriage is boycotting Starbucks and General Mills, and the American Family Association and the Catholic League are boycotting countless companies. In fact, the AFA’s One Million Moms has said “so long Amazon.”

Concerned Women for America, Parshall’s former employer which recently urged shoppers to stop shopping at Macy’s and once endorsed a boycott of Disney, just today sent an email to members warning them about shopping at…Amazon.com! While they claimed that the group “does not participate in boycotts,” they suggested members shop at their website instead of Amazon.com due to their CEO’s pro-gay rights contribution:

Now Amazon.com Founder and President Jeff Bezos is wading into the moral morass by offering 2.5 million investor dollars (unlike Amazon.com, Chick-fil-A is privately owned) to same-sex "marriage" advocates in Washington state in retaliation for the Cathy's religious stance. (We're also taking it personally, as Maureen Richardson, State Director for CWA of Washington, has fought like a lioness against the efforts of liberal legislators to redefine marriage.)

Concerned Women for America (CWA) is supporting the Chick-fil-A Day of Appreciation on August 1, 2012, in defense of a Christian family that is being absolutely excoriated by the mainstream media, public officials, private companies, and irate liberals for honoring their faith.

While CWA does not participate in boycotts, we understand that the brazen, politically correct move of Amazon.com's founder and president may trouble some of our members and supporters. If you feel uneasy shopping at Amazon.com, we would like to take this opportunity to remind you that our own store, www.shopcwfa.org, carries over 170,000 Christian titles, and part of every purchase goes back to CWA so we can continue to be your voice on Capitol Hill and in the culture.

Gainor’s MRC promoted boycotts against McDonalds and Ford that were organized by anti-gay groups, denouncing journalists for not giving them enough attention, and MRC head Brent Bozell lauded the Southern Baptists Convention’s boycott against Disney as the “correct” decision:

The Mouse answered with a spit in the face. The Disney-owned production company Touchstone, along with Disney-owned ABC television, brought America the most hyped, high-profile homosexual happening in entertainment history: "Ellen." To no one's surprise, on June 18 the 1997 SBC overwhelmingly voted to undertake an all-out boycott of Disney and its subsidiaries.

Bozell also said that boycotts are an important tool for pressure groups and commended groups like CWA for joining the cause:

It certainly grew on August 27 when Dr. James Dobson announced that his organization, Focus on the Family, would join the SBC, the Catholic League, Concerned Women for America (CWA), the American Family Association (AFA), and several smaller groups. The SBC claims 16 million members; Focus on the Family four million; the Catholic League, the AFA, and CWA several hundred thousand each. Add those numbers up and you've got an awful lot of parents whose entertainment dollars have bought a lot of Disney products for their children.



A Disney executive has said his company thinks of the boycott as analogous to "a gnat on an elephant." But remember this: gnats are persistent, and if you've ever been plagued by a cloud of them, you know you'll do almost anything to make them leave you alone. If the boycott reaches gnat-cloud proportions - which it probably will given the tenacity of the boycott's leaders - Michael Eisner, et al, will want to shoo it away, and fast. The good news is that Disney can do so simply by returning to the family-friendly product that won it a special place in American cultural history.

But forget all that, conservatives don’t boycott!

MRC Upset Dan Savage Fields Questions from LGBT Students

The Media Research Center’s Culture and Media Institute has been tracking Savage U, the MTV show where Dan Savage offers sex and relationship advice to inquiring students, and has not liked what it has seen. It seems that the biggest complaint of writer Taylor Hughes is that Savage speaks directly and candidly about sex without pushing the abstinence-only-until-marriage message, but Hughes appears to be especially upset that Savage has “used the show to push the gay agenda.” How so? By having regularly “featured people dealing with LGBT issues, reinforcing in its own little way the myth that gays make up more than a tiny percent of the population.” Disturbed that Savage “often fields questions from gay or lesbian people during the show’s Q & A session,” Hughes goes on to label Savage a “Neanderthal” who is “barbaric and uncivilized”:

Savage has also used the show to push the gay agenda, of course. The show regularly has featured people dealing with LGBT issues, reinforcing in its own little way the myth that gays make up more than a tiny percent of the population. (It’s an effective tactic. About half of all Americans believe nearly 25 percent of the population is gay.) Savage interviewed a lesbian who is now becoming attracted to men, a man who used to date women but now is looking to date men, and a transgendered person in the midst of becoming a woman. He often fields questions from gay or lesbian people during the show’s Q & A session.



Surely his most recent attack on Republicans will only further solidify his role in the liberal media. On Monday, June 25, he attacked gay Republicans in an article titled “On Booze, Meth, Suicide ... and GOProud” stating, “like gay meth addicts who aren't satisfied harming only themselves, the boys at GOProud aren't satisfied harming only themselves. They want to harm other gay people—they want to harm all gay people—by getting Mitt Romney elected.”

Dan Savage is what his name indicates, barbaric and uncivilized, yet the liberal media accepts and endorses him because he is a cultural progressive. MTV and its ilk would give a Neanderthal a show about table etiquette, provided he hated conservatives enough.

Testing Media Research Center Spokesman's Advice to Pastors on how to discuss Gay Rights

Media Research Center’s Tim Graham talked to Janet Mefferd yesterday where he claimed that opponents of same-sex marriage can’t get on TV, a point which he then undercut when he admitted that anti-gay activists like Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Harry Jackson actually made the rounds on TV to respond to President Obama’s endorsement of marriage equality. Graham called Obama’s announcement a “tragic,” “dark” and “depressing moment” for America, and declared that he “would like to see what would happen” if pastors like Jackson could speak about same-sex marriage during interviews just as “he does at his church”:

Graham: I think for a lot of people Obama saying, ‘I think this should be the way it is in America,’ was really a tragic moment for the country, it was a very dark moment, a very depressing moment. Those people, like me, who have that opinion, try getting on television!

Mefferd: That’s what I was going to ask you, as you were surveying the landscape of the media over the weekend and since the President made this stand on his new evolution, which was really an old evolution that he brought out again, did you see many conservatives or many people who were in favor only of traditional marriage getting a say so on TV?

Graham: A little bit, I mean the most prominent one of course has been Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, and he has made the rounds a bit, I think some of the best things he said is again, in a political context they’re not really having a moral discussion, the media wants to discuss this in political terms. I think the hard thing for people to do, I saw Bishop Harry Jackson on News Hour on PBS, he doesn’t really do in the studio what he does at his church. He doesn’t reach for the Bible, he doesn’t make a testimony, I think people get intimidated saying ‘I’m here in this secular place and I’m going to say secular things.’ I just wonder, I would like to see what would happen, if you try to engage these people, because you have to explain this is where the opposition comes, it’s from a religious, traditional point of view.

Graham may be on to something, as TV interviews might be much more candid and exhilarating if Harry Jackson told the hosts at PBS or MSNBC that demonic forces, specifically the Queen of Heaven, are responsible for gay rights, just as he preaches in church:

Or if Perkins went on CNN or Fox News and said gays are “held captive by The Enemy”:

Conservative 'Pro-Family' Groups Silent on Rush Limbaugh's Sexist Outbursts

The Media Research Center criticized everyone from Perez Hilton and Gossip Girl to the cast of Jersey Shore for using the word “slut,” but after right-wing talk show host tagged law student and women’s rights advocate Sandra Fluke as a “slut” and a “prostitute,” the group that claims to stand up for “people and institutions that hold traditional values” has repeatedly come to Limbaugh’s defense. MRC’s Scott Whitlock said NBC’s depiction of Limbaugh’s sexist remarks as “ugly” represented “a left-wing attack” and Brent Baker dubbed coverage of Limbaugh’s rant a “left-wing effort to impugn and silence Rush Limbaugh.” The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer and Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber even tweeted in defense of Limbaugh, Barber even saying that Limbaugh “showed class.”

Apparently, the word “slut” is only acceptable when it is used by a right-wing ally.

Concerned Women for America, which describes itself as committed to promoting “decency” in the media, has been completely silent about Limbaugh’s tirade. But the group is happy to post a statement regarding the talk show host’s praise for CWA, along with claims about the supposedly sexist treatment of Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin by the media.

Focus on the Family considers the word “slut” a profanity and blamed “hip-hop/rap culture” for making it “become acceptable and even in vogue to be called a ‘slut,’” and urged people to stop buying music with words like “slut” that “objectify women.” But the organization still hasn’t commented on Limbaugh’s misogynist rants. In 2009 the group defended Limbaugh with a video, “When the liberals came for Rush.”

While these so-called “pro-family” organizations love to claim that they promote decency and values on the airwaves, they are either unwilling or uninterested in criticizing a prominent conservative who spent four days straight calling a student a “slut” on national radio

Media Research Center Demands Media Promote Belief that 'Someone Can Choose Their Sexuality'

Tim Graham, the Media Research Center’s Director of Media Analysis, appeared on Truth in Action Ministries’ flagship radio program Truth that Transforms today, where along with host Carmen Pate, he railed against the media for not giving more attention to “ex-gay” activists or promoting the “idea that someone can change, that someone can choose their sexuality.” Later in the interview, he twisted the recent statements of actress Cynthia Nixon, who said that while the way she identifies herself is a choice her sexual orientation is bisexual. Graham also criticized Glee and The Voice for “promoting the gay lifestyle” and accused the media of trying to “constantly exclude the conservative view on marriage,” which is par for the course for the MRC, which has a long record of attacking “gay propaganda” on shows like Glee and defending “reparative” therapy.

Pate: I think about the debate on marriage when you see the major news media talk about the issue they only present one side, they very seldom if ever talk to former homosexuals, people who left the lifestyle who are now enjoying heterosexual marriage. You don’t hear that side of it, you only hear one side, so that leaves the audience thinking there is no other side and that does change opinions over a time period when the truth is silenced.

Graham: I think the narrative they’ve tried to establish, and one of the reasons why they constantly exclude the conservative view on marriage, is that they want to present this as all historically inevitable, basically it’s already happened, let’s move on, why are we even discussing this anymore, it’s all done, there’s no need for debate, it’s over. What’s really intriguing, as long as we’re talking about the broadcast networks, is most of the news media coverage of this issue now will say, of course this is going to happen because you can see it on Glee, you can see it last night on The Voice, you can see it on all these television programs that are promoting the gay lifestyle. They’re using Hollywood and New York promoting these things as a reason for why this is going to happen and there’s no reason, just surrender, there is no way this is going to lose. It’s not just bias, it really becomes intimidation, you better come around to this point of view. And you’re absolutely right, one of the things that is so wildly controversial that you can’t even discuss it on television is the idea that someone can change, that someone can choose their sexuality.

Media Research Center Intensifies Campaign Against Glee

The Media Research Center is once again attacking the show Glee for its portrayal of gay and bisexual characters. The MRC’s Paul Wilson, writing for the organization’s Culture and Media Institute, appears to consider any depiction of the show’s characters that doesn’t kowtow to the MRC’s anti-gay sensibilities to somehow be an attack on Christianity and the Bible, accusing Glee of leading a “campaign against traditional sexual morality” and “mocking the Bible.” He lamented that in the last episode of Glee the “gay lifestyle was pushed on viewers” and said the show is fully committed to “pushing homosexual propaganda on its viewers”:

The TV musical “Glee” has a long history of pushing the envelope on sexual matters and promoting the homosexual lifestyle. The Valentine’s Day episode of Glee, titled “Heart,” marked a new low in Glee’s campaign against traditional sexual morality, by mocking the Bible.

A lesbian student, Santana asked a group of Christians called the “God Squad” to sing for her girlfriend as part of a “singing telegram” performance. The idea didn’t sit well with a new homeschooled student, who conveniently fit all the stereotypes liberals have of homeschoolers (the unsocialized, barefoot son of a Bible salesman who listens to talk radio but doesn’t own a TV). His reluctance sparked a conversation among the so-called “God Squad” about the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality.

The students of the “God Squad” claimed to respect his decision – and then mocked the Bible’s relevance on homosexuality.



The episode was full of “Glee’s” usual instances where the gay lifestyle was pushed on viewers, featuring lesbian kissing in the hallways and a student coming out that he was gay. Lesbian cheerleader Santana complained: “All I want to be able to do is kiss my girlfriend, but I guess no one can see that, because there’s such an insane double standard at this school.”

In a singularly ironic way, she’s right. There is an insane double standard at that school – in favor of the homosexual lifestyle.

By mocking the Bible, “Glee” has gone further down the rabbit hole in pushing homosexual propaganda on its viewers.

CNSNews Discovers More Yuletide Gays at the Smithsonian

CNSNews’ Penny Starr caused an uproar in 2010 when she published a story titled, “Smithsonian Christmas-Season Exhibit Features Ant-Covered Jesus, Naked Brothers Kissing, Genitalia, and Ellen DeGeneres Grabbing Her Breasts.” Starr’s story, a breathless review of a groundbreaking National Portrait Gallery exhibit on the gay and lesbian experience in American art, started a textbook case of the right-wing controversy machine, ultimately resulting in the Smithsonian’s removal of a work from the exhibit.

Apparently encouraged by last Christmas’s triumph, Starr is at it again. Her new target: a National Portrait Gallery exhibit on Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas. That the Smithsonian would twice in a row acknowledge the existence of gay people during the winter months is too much for Starr:

For the second year in a row, the federally funded National Portrait Gallery (NPG), a part of the Smithsonian Institution, held an exposition during the Christmas season focused on the homosexual lifestyle.


“Seeing Gertrude Stein: Five Stories,” an exhibition appearing at the NPG from Oct. 14, 2011 through Jan. 22, 2012, focuses on lesbian activist and writer Gertrude Stein.


The exhibit, set up in five rooms at the taxpayer-funded museum, highlights Stein’s lesbian relationship with Alice B. Toklas and Stein’s “second family” of homosexual men, some of whom collaborated with Stein on various projects.


On the wall at the entrance to the exhibit, Stein is described as “one of America’s most famous writers.” It gives brief descriptions of each of the five stories, including “Domestic Stein,” which “looks at the lesbian partnership of Stein and Alice B. Toklas, focusing on their distinctive dress, home décor, hospitality, food and pets.” The “Art of Friendship,” the introduction says, “explores Stein's relationships and collaborations after World War I with the neoromantics, a circle of international artists who were young, male, and gay.”
 

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious