Brent Bozell, Eric Heyl, and The Tribune-Review

You may have missed this from Jim Romenesko this past week:

The conservative Media Research Center often urges liberal news outlets to TELL THE TRUTH, but the Reston, VA-based press watchdog isn’t telling the truth about its own leader: Brent Bozell doesn’t write the syndicated column that appears under his byline.

It is longtime MRC media analysis director Tim Graham who writes “almost everything published under [Bozell's] name,” a former MRC employee tells me in an email. “That includes his weekly column. Same goes for his books, which at least carry Graham’s name in a secondary billing, but also aren’t written by Bozell (but Bozell keeps 80-90% of the advance and all profits!)”

Two other people with ties to MRC confirmed that Graham is Bozell’s ghostwriter – and that Graham is not happy with the assignment. [Emphasis added.]

The Daily Beast has a follow-up:

Employees at the MRC were never under any illusion that Bozell had been writing his own copy. “It’s an open secret at the office that Graham writes Bozell’s columns, and has done so for years,” said one former employee. In fact, a former MRC employee went so far as to tell The Daily Beast: “I know for a fact that Bozell didn’t even read any of the drafts of his latest book until after it had been sent to the publishers.”

The Graham-Bozell relationship can best displayed in this book talk for the book that the two nominally co-authored in 2008, Whitewash. At an event at the National Press Club, Bozell gives an introductory speech but then has Graham come up to take questions.

It's bad enough that the head of the a conservative media watchdog is being charged with, in effect, lying to his readers - all the while screaming for the rest of the media to "TELL THE TRUTH" but there's more to this.

It's here in Romenesko's story.  A defense of Bozell was given to Romenesko when his third MRC confirmation:

...defended the practice of “people signing off on agreeable words written for them.” He asked me: “How many speeches has Obama written the last ten years? Should he have prefaced the State of the Union with ‘My fellow Americans – I didn’t write this?’

Here's the interesting part.  It's the next two paragraphs:

I asked Pittsburgh Tribune-Review colunnist and National Society of Newspaper Columnists president Eric Heyl about this remark. He said:

“The argument that the columnist should be allowed to use a ghostwriter because the president has speechwriters is as limp as pasta left overnight in boiling water. The comparison is ludicrous. The columnist doesn’t have to spend much of his time dealing with a dysfunctional Congress or fretting over Iran’s nuclear program.”

See that?  Trib columnist Eric Heyl is quoted rejecting that defense of Bozell's ghostwriter.  I wonder if Romenesko knows that Bozell has had some columns published in the very same paper that Eric Heyl writes for?

That would be the Richard Mellon Scaife's Tribune-Revue, (as if you didn't already know where I am taking this) and that's where Brent Bozell had a (ghostwritten, it seems) column published as recently as this past Christmas Eve.

I wonder of Romenesko knows that?  I also wonder if he knows that Richard Mellon Scaife, by way of the foundations he controls, has given $3.7 million to Bozell's Media Research Center or how that's a little more than a fifth of the MRC's total foundation support.

So why is this such a big deal?  For that I'll turn to a former National Society of Newspaper Columnists president, P-G columnist Samantha Bennett.  to be clear, she's no longer an NSNC officer and she's not speaking for the NSNC.  This is her own opinion:

I didn't know about the ghostwriter allegation; I don't read Bozell. Or his ghostwriter. I don't know whether it's true or not. But I do believe it's a serious breach of ethics for any columnist of any stripe to put his name on stuff he didn't write. If you wrote it, own it. If you are a celebrity or "face" of a cause, write your own damn diatribes/marketing/agitprop/whatever or give credit to the person who does. Everybody knows corporate CEOs and presidents have speechwriters, but Mike Royko, Maureen Dowd, Dave Barry, Ernie Pyle, Erma Bombeck, Ellen Goodman and all other professional columnists string their own words and ideas together or suffer terrible consequences. You get drummed out of the corps for violating that code. And rightly so. Readers trust you. You can't lie to them.

It looks like Brent Bozell was lying to his readers on the pages of Scaife's Tribune-Review after his Media Research Center received $300,000 from the Scaife-controlled Sarah Scaife Foundation in 2011.

Any comments, Mr Heyl?

More Tribbing For A Tuesday Morning

Follow the money. That's what the man said.

Funny what you'll find when you follow the Scaife money around the pages of the Tribune-Review.

First something from this weekend:

Some FBI secrets are secrets no more -- thanks to Ronald Kessler, award-winning Newsmax.com chief Washington correspondent and best-selling author.

In "The Secrets of the FBI" (Crown), he discusses many FBI triumphs and tribulations, including J. Edgar Hoover's personal life; FBI involvement with Marilyn Monroe, Robert Kennedy, organized crime, major spy cases and the Ruby Ridge and Waco fiascoes; and its post-9/11 anti-terrorism orientation. Revelations give unprecedented insight, and Kessler says the book project enhanced his opinion of the bureau. Following are excerpts from the Trib's phone conversation with him.

How does it feel knowing you just read an advertisement that's only impersonating an interview? Why do I say this?

Look at where Kessler works: Newsmax.

Richard Mellon Scaife owns 40% of Newsmax.

Then there's this - where the Media Research Center covers for war criminal Dick Cheney. The author of the piece, Kyle Drennen, seems to be complaining about the "hostile" interview Matt Lauer conducted with Cheney. There's even a jab at a sign held in front of the camera at the end of the interview.


All of which is true, by the way. Waterboarding is toture and torture is a war crime and Dick Cheney should be prosecuted for it.

The Media Research Center obviously doesn't think so.

And the Richard Mellon Scaife controlled foundations (Carthage and Sarah Scaife) have given about $3.5 million to the MRC over the years.

Good to know where they stand on torture.

Trib, Scaife, Followthemoney...

From Sunday's Tribune-Review:

In his new book "Control Freaks: 7 Ways Liberals Plan to Ruin Your Life" (Regnery), Terence P. Jeffrey warns that liberals in the White House and Congress who disregard the Founders' principles are taking control over such everyday aspects of life as where Americans live, what they eat, what (and whether) they drive, how they use their property, what they listen to, watch and read, how many children they have and what those children are taught.

Following are excerpts from the Trib's phone conservation with Jeffrey -- cnsnews.com editor-in-chief, Human Events editor-at-large, syndicated columnist and national manager of Pat Buchanan's 1996 presidential campaign.

So Jeffrey's editor-in-chief at CNSNews.

Guess (just guess!) who's the largest "funder" at the Media Research Center (the outfit that owns CNSNews). That's right my friends. It's our old pal, our old buddy Richard Mellon Scaife.

According to media matters, he's tossed about $2.8 million at Brent Bozell and the boys over the years.

No mention of that, of course, in Richard Mellon Scaife's newspaper when Richard Mellon Scaife's newspaper mentions the Media Research Center or CNSNews. Ever.

The circle jerk continues.

Sunday Tribbing

It's called "projection" my friends and the Richard Mellon Scaife's braintrust does it well.

From today's Sunday Pops:

The Democratic National Committee's man at ABC News, George Snuffleupagus, er, Stephanopoulos, told viewers of "World News" on Tuesday that "we've got a new poll out tonight that shows the tea party may be losing steam nationwide." But as the Media Research Center's Brent Baker pointed out, Wonder Boy and ABC couldn't find time in the same newscast to report how the very same poll showed a plurality of Americans disapprove how President Barack Obama was handling BP's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Root, root, root for the home team, eh George?

Let's deconstruct what they're trying to say. Baseball and Sesame Street references aside, they're saying that because George Stephanopoulos is "The Democratic National Committee's man at ABC" he spins what should be unbiased news in favor of his "home team" (aka the DNC).

But look at whose "research" they're using: Brent Bozell's Media Research Center. Here's the piece from Brent Baker, the MRC's Vice President for Research and Publications:

Stephanopoulos and ABC, however, didn’t find time, in multiple stories on the oil leak, to inform viewers how the same ABC News/Washington Post survey, released Tuesday morning, found that by 49 to 44 percent the public disapproves of President Obama's handling of the disaster. In addition, “the number of Americans who think the President ‘understands the problems of people like you,’ at 51 percent, is down from 56 percent in a Washington Post poll in late March; and at 57 percent his rating as a strong leader is down from 65 percent in March.” [emphasis in original]

Do we need to point out who pays for the pencils at the MRC? I guess we do. From November, 2009:

Yes, the same Media Research Center that received $200,000 in 2006, $325,000 in 2007, and $325,000 in 2008 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation - a foundation run by Richard Mellon Scaife who owns the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the paper that ran that editorial.

Media Matters puts it at about $2.8 million over the years.

So Richard Mellon Scaife's braintrust told us that Scaife's man at MRC, Brent Baker, told viewers of "BiasAlert" that George Stephanopoulos selectively sited a Washington Post/ABC poll. But I'll point out that Baker Boy, the MRC and The Trib couldn't find time in the same piece to report that, according to the same poll they're using:

• While only 26% of those polled approved of the way Congress was doing its job (Question 5), a plurality (49%) approved of the way their own representative in the House was doing his/her job (Question 6) AND that more people trust the Democratic Party over the Republican party (44% to 32%) "to do a better job coping with main problems our nation faces over the next few years" (Question 7).
• A plurality of those polled (45% to 40%) believe the Democratic Party has "better ideas about the right size and role of the federal government " (Question 8).

Funny how Richard Mellon Scaife's Media Research Center and his Tribune-Review filtered those parts out, huh?

The circle jerk continues.

Another Two-Fer @ The Trib

Just a quickie this morning, sorry. Gotta get to work.

Trib Editorial:

If President Obama wants to bring some much-needed "discretion" to U.S. spending, as he insists, there's ample opportunity and valid reason to do so with what the United States spends at the United Nations. That's where fiscal discipline is a foreign concept.

In the past 10 years the U.N.'s regular biennial budget has more than doubled; its peacekeeping budget over the same period has increased threefold, according to the U.N.'s figures reviewed by The Heritage Foundation.

And the ever comical stand by Media Monday (with info from the Media Research Center) - both recipients of Scaife money that's never mentioned in the Scaife owned Trib.
Heritage Foundation: about $24 million from Scaife over the years.

Media Research Center: About $2.8 million from Scaife over the years.

Tell me again about how there's no vast right-wing conspiracy. Go ahead and tell me.

Tribbing and Jerking With Richard Mellon Scaife's Braintrust

An astute reader wrote in (and it should be noted that ALL astute readers are equally welcome to write in) with a tip about yet another unannounced conflict of interest over at Richard Mellon Scaife's editorial page at the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.

Let's cut to the chase. In today's Midweek Briefing we find:

Columnist Alan Caruba, writing for the Cybercast News Service, reminds that "green jobs" rely on "two of the most impractical and unreliable sources of electricity generation" -- the sun and the wind. And Mr. Caruba says the Obama administration "has openly declared war on the coal industry that currently provides half of all the electricity used by Americans." And whom did the United Mine Workers union endorse for president, class? That's right, the one and only Barack Obama.

For those who don't know the Cybercast News Service is run by an outfit called the Media Research Center. How do I know this?

Says so on their website:

The Cybercast News Service was launched on June 16, 1998 as a news source for individuals, news organizations and broadcasters who put a higher premium on balance than spin and seek news that’s ignored or under-reported as a result of media bias by omission.

Study after study by the Media Research Center, the parent organization of CNSNews.com, clearly demonstrate a liberal bias in many news outlets – bias by commission and bias by omission – that results in a frequent double-standard in editorial decisions on what constitutes "news."

Haven't we danced the "Media Research Center" dance before?

Why yes, yes we have. From way back in November, 2009:

CNSNews is run by Brent Bozell and the good folks at the Media Research Center.

Yes, the same Media Research Center that received $200,000 in 2006, $325,000 in 2007, and $325,000 in 2008 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation - a foundation run by Richard Mellon Scaife who owns the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the paper that ran that editorial.

That's $850,000 in three years. That's a lotta money being funneled to the MRC from RMS, innit?

And yet, none of that makes it onto the pages of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

The circle-jerk continues.

The Fairness Doctrine. Again

From Broadcasting and Cable:

Julius Genachowski, President Obama's nominee for chairman of the FCC, said Tuesday that he did not support reimposing the fairness doctrine.

He was asked at his nomination hearing by ranking Senate Commerce Committee Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) to publicly state the opinion he had expressed to her in a meeting--that he did not support the doctrine, even if it were arrived at by ancillary routes like localism mandates.

Genachowski said he strongly believes in the First Amendment and doesn't think the FCC should be involved in censorship based on political speech and opinion.

It doesn't get much more simple than that.

Huffingtonpost has more:

What is the "Fairness Doctrine?" Imposed in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine mandated that the scarcity of media resources made it necessary that FCC license holders allow competing points of view to have equal time and access. In practice, the Fairness Doctrine was always tricky to enforce, and so in 1987 is was done away with. In the immediate offing, right wing radio flourished. Of course, since then, the media has expanded to include satellite radio and cable television and the internet, eliminating the original "scarcity of resources" argument that underpinned the Fairness Doctrine in the first place, while greatly complicating a media sphere that the law couldn't handle well when it was implemented nearly sixty years ago.

So I guess Brent Bozell has an answer to his question:

The Federal Communications Commission rescinded in 1987 the so-called “Fairness” Doctrine, deeming it an unconstitutional abridgment of the First Amendment’s guarantee of the freedom of speech.

But in just the last couple of years, at least seventeen members of Congress have expressed their desire to see this form of government censorship reimposed.

Last June, a spokesman for then-candidate Barack Obama stated publicly that President Obama views the mis-named “Fairness” Doctrine as a “distraction” and does not want to see it reinstated. But on February 15, President Obama’s advisor David Axelrod was asked by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday “Will you rule out reimposing the Fairness Doctrine?”

To which Mr. Axelrod responded “I'm going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC, to, and the President, to discuss. So I don't have an answer for you now.”

Do you, Mr. Genachowski, have an answer for us now? Have you discussed the so-called “Fairness” Doctrine with the President? Will you reimpose it? Where do you stand on this form of outright regulatory censorship?

Anyone want to take bets on how long it takes Bozell to reinstate his feverish Fairness Doctrine jeremiad?

Trib Editorial Echo Chamber Is At It Again

Every Monday Richard Mellon Scaife's Editorial Board over there at his Tribune-Review publishes something it calls "Media Monday." The page describes itself as:

[S]ome of the latest outrageous, sometimes humorous, quotes from or about the liberal media, courtesy of the Media Research Center...

I know we've touched on this before, but the Media Research Center is also partially owned by Richard Mellon Scaife, through the Sarah Scaife Foundation, which he controls.

Nice how that's nice and circular, isn't it?

Anyway, today they join the conservative smear campaign against Judge Sonia Sotomayer, possible Supreme Court nominee. Here's what they write:

Some "centrist":

ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "I would say the leading candidate (for the Supreme Court), if there is one, is Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She's on the federal appeals court, Second U.S. Court of Appeals. She would be not only a woman, but the first Hispanic on the court. She's built up a strong centrist record on the court."

Judge Sotomayor's 2005 comments at Duke University: "Court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know ... I know this is on tape and I should never say that, because we don't make law. I know (laughter from the crowd). Okay. I know. I'm not promoting it and I'm not advocating it (More laughter). I'm, you know -- OK (Sotomayor laughs)."

Sounds pretty damning, doesn't it?

Until, of course, you look at the context. Which, if Scaife's editorial board even bothered to look, they choose not to tell you - the reading public. Not that they'd want stupid things like facts get in the way of a good smear.

Mediamatters.org is on this one. 4 Days ago, on the 7th of May, they published this debunking smackdown of a similar Fox "News" story (and so I am surprised that Scaife's board didn't just move on to complaining about Wanda Sykes or Obama's Dijon mustard).

Their summary:

Fox News host Jane Skinner asserted that Judge Sonia Sotomayor "is coming under some fire for making some comments that were recorded on tape a while back, saying that it's her job, really, to make policy from the bench." In fact, Sotomayor did not say "it's her job" as a federal circuit court judge to "make policy from the bench."

In the piece, Mediamatters prints out the whole paragraph from which the MRC (and therefore the Scaife's board) takes its snippet. In it she's responding to a question about the difference between being a clerk at a District Court and the Court of appeals. Here's where they take their snippet:

The saw is that if you're going into academia, you're going to teach, or as Judge Lucero just said, public interest law, all of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is -- court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know -- and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. OK, I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it, I'm -- you know. OK.

And here is her explanation of that. It's the very next sentence, by the way:

Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating -- its interpretation, its application. And Judge Lucero is right. I often explain to people, when you're on the district court, you're looking to do justice in the individual case. So you are looking much more to the facts of the case than you are to the application of the law because the application of the law is non-precedential, so the facts control. On the court of appeals, you are looking to how the law is developing, so that it will then be applied to a broad class of cases. And so you're always thinking about the ramifications of this ruling on the next step in the development of the law. [emphasis added.]

Oh, so that's what she meant by "policy."

To read the Scaife screed, you'd've thought she meant that the Court of Appeals just made stuff up.

And I bet that's what the Trib's Editorial Board wants you to think.