Ken Shepherd lives in New Carrollton, Md., with his wife, Laura, and children Mercy and Abraham. Ken graduated cum laude from the University of Maryland in 2001 with a Bachelors of Arts in Government & Politics and a citation in Public Leadership. 

Ken has worked full-time for the Media Research Center since May 2001 and prior to that was an MRC New Analysis Division intern from October 1998 to May 2001. 

In his spare time, Ken enjoys karaoke, tennis, reading, and discussing theology or politics.

Latest from Ken Shepherd
January 22, 2014, 4:15 PM EST

On Tuesday -- just one day before he hailed the 41st anniversary of Roe v. Wade -- President Obama's White House issued a press advisory noting that the president would meet with Pope Francis on March 27. Naturally the dutiful Obama acolytes at the Washington Post put staff write Juliet Eilperin hard at work spinning the forthcoming meeting as virtually guaranteed to be a net political coup for the term-limited chief executive.

With his papal audience, Mr. Obama has "an opportunity to highlight the problem of economic inequality, an issue he has placed at the forefront of his second-term agenda" and what's more the visit gives "the president a chance to frame one of his signature domestic issues in largely moral terms." (emphasis mine)

January 21, 2014, 1:25 PM EST

"Mwa ha ha ha ha!" You can almost hear the mad scientist laugh bellowing from Daily Beast's Michael Tomasky in the teaser for his January 21 story, "How Bad Does the GOP Need Chris Christie? Really Bad."

"Without the scandal-engulfed New Jersey governor, Republicans don’t have a candidate who could even come close to the votes needed to win the presidency in 2016," promises the subheader to the left-wing journalist's story. Tomasky made no effort to rise above his naked partisanship nor the smug self-satisfaction of his prognostication of certain electoral doom for the GOP two years from now (emphasis mine):

January 20, 2014, 6:00 PM EST

When a politician -- male or female, liberal or conservative -- writes a memoir*, anything therein is fair game for the news media and his or her opponents, particularly when claims made therein are false or misleading. But to the gang at MSNBC, Republican criticism of the network's anointed golden girl Wendy Davis is beyond the pale.

"Right attacks Wendy Davis," screams the top headline this afternoon. Clicking that teaser headline takes the reader to Zachary Roth's "Right pounces on news that Wendy Davis embellished life story." Roth went on to practically script a melodrama where Davis is the damsel in distress tied to the railroad tracks by those dastardly, vile Texas Republicans (emphasis mine):

January 20, 2014, 1:07 PM EST

A small but vocal band of critics has forced an actress to bow out of a stage production purely because of her political views. It's a brand of McCarthyistic bullying that the national media would (rightly) condemn if the politics of principals in the controversy reversed. But don't hold your breath for a firestorm of outrage in the case of Maria Conchita Alonso, a conservative/libertarian Latina actress who has strayed from the liberal reservation by not merely voting for conservative Republicans but cutting a campaign commercial with one.

Seema Mehta of the Los Angeles Times reported this morning:

January 17, 2014, 4:13 PM EST

Duck Dynasty returned to A&E last night with brand new episodes, the first since the row last month about Phil Robertson's comments regarding sin and homosexuality. The reality show, entering its fifth season, had strong numbers, but they were lower than the season 4 debut. That number was all MSNBC needed to seize on to see a moral victory for the gay-rights groups that had pressured A&E to fire Phil Robertson.

"'Duck Dynasty' ratings dip amid anti-gay flap," thundered the teaser headline on the landing page. Clicking the link brings the reader to Morgan Whitaker's January 17 article, "‘Duck Dynasty’ sees ratings drop in season premiere," which begins (emphasis mine):

January 17, 2014, 12:45 PM EST

A bill before the Wisconsin state legislature would repeal a provision in state law which mandates that employees of private businesses must get one day off after every six worked. Proponents of the bill argue the measure will allow business owners and their employees to have greater flexibility in scheduling and permit an employee to volunteer to work a seventh-straight day.

But to the folks at, the law could be a threat to the working man's down-time. "Could workers lose their right to a weekend?" an alarming headline on the network's main Web page asked. Clicking the link brings readers to Ned Resnikoff's January 17 story, "Wisconsin may eliminate ban on 7-day work weeks," which was slanted towards the perspective of liberal labor unions while dismissive of a business lobby backing the proposal (emphasis mine):

January 16, 2014, 5:46 PM EST

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard a case, McCullen v. Coakley, which calls into question a Massachusetts law which establishes a speech-free-zone extending 35 feet from the entrance to an abortion clinic. That law provides, however, an exemption for the speech of employees or agents of said abortion clinics, effectively serving as restriction on speech which is NOT content-neutral.

To the extent that liberals in the media have bothered to cover this, there is no shortage of sympathy for the abortion-rights absolutists who vociferously defend this law. That's why a kudos is in order for the Daily Beast not only publishing but promoting on its landing page pro-life liberal Kirsten Powers's warning to her fellow lefties headlined, "Anti-Free Speech Zones Used to Silence Pro-Lifers Could Come Back to Haunt Liberals." Here's an excerpt (emphasis mine):

January 16, 2014, 2:40 PM EST

In June 2007, actor Isaiah Washington was fired from ABC's Grey's Anatomy months after publicly apologizing for having used the term "faggot" in a heated argument back in October 2006 in reference to another cast member. Washington had apologized in January 2007 and added, "I know a mere apology will not end this, and I intend to let my future actions prove my sincerity."

Seven years later, the gang at the Washington Post's The Reliable Source column are still resolved to keep Washington in the doghouse, even if he's slowly but surely coming off a Hollywood blacklist and performing acts of penance like starring in drama about "a young boy who struggles with his sexuality in small-town Mississippi" and in which "Washington plays the supportive father." From Helena Andrews and Emily Heil's January 16 item, "An evolution for ex 'Grey' star?" (emphases mine):

January 15, 2014, 12:40 PM EST

On Tuesday a federal appeals court ruled that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) overstepped its legal authority in 2010 when it imposed so-called net neutrality regulations on broadband companies -- cable and fiber-optic Internet providers like Comcast or Verizon FiOS. The FCC had done this despite language in federal law which forbade the regulations under a "common carrier" provision.

While the Wall Street Journal's Gautham Nagesh and Amol Sharma gave readers a factual portrait of the ruling which dealt with the law and the economic realities of broadband service, the Washington Post's Cecilia Kang opted for the melodramatic in her January 15 front-pager, foreseeing a future replete with the Internet's fast lanes auctioned "to the highest corporate bidder" while "other Web sites [slow] to a crawl." "Ultimately," the Post national technology correspondent ominously warned (emphasis mine):

January 14, 2014, 3:37 PM EST

At least one prominent liberal Democrat well-acquainted with intelligence on the matter disputes the conclusions of the New York Times regarding the deadly September 11, 2012 attack on an American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) rejected the Times’s conclusion that al Qaeda wasn’t responsible for the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans," reported Julian Pecquet today, adding (emphasis mine):

January 14, 2014, 1:30 PM EST

When the Supreme Court sat yesterday to hear the matter of NLRB v. Noel Canning, virtually every justice was highly skeptical of the Obama administration's claim that President Obama's January 2012 "recess appointments" were a valid exercise of his constitutional authority. After all, the president made the appointments when the U.S. Senate was technically in session -- a minutes-long pro forma session, but in session nonetheless. Even former Obama solicitor general Elena Kagan, no conservative she, seemed critical of the White House's arguments.

And yet when MSNBC's Adam Serwer covered the story for the Lean Forward network's website, he predictably spun the matter as the conservative wing of the Court leading the way for an outdated, dust-covered "horse and buggy" reading of the national charter. "Supremes may let GOP block Obama recess noms," blared an early teaser headline, although that misleading, inaccurate headline was changed shortly thereafter to read "Supreme Court questions Obama's power," a slightly less erroneous headline but one which cast's the dispute in personal terms, not constitutional and institutional ones. (see below the page break for screen captures). Here's how Serwer opened his story (emphasis mine):

January 13, 2014, 6:35 PM EST

The Obama administration today revealed that more than half of the sign-ups for ObamaCare are aged 45 and older, hardly the sort of young, healthy insurance pool the White House was hoping for.

On their websites, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and New York Times all focused on the older/sicker skew of the signups. The Washington Post, however, tried to accentuate the positive for the administration. "Young adults make up almost one-quarter of health sign-ups," cheered the headline [see collage of headlines below the page break]. But as Louise Radnofsky reported for the Journal (emphasis mine):

January 13, 2014, 2:59 PM EST

Arguing that "[o]ur laws need to be drafted not just in the spirit of equality, but in the practice of it," MSNBC's Alex Wagner insists that "we must continue to ask ourselves why there isn't gender parity in Congress." In other words, in Wagner's mind, it's patently unjust to have federal law shaped by a Congress which is disproportionately male compared to the general population, never mind that every single member of Congress was elected to that office by an elective franchise equally open to women as to men. [screen capture follows the page break]

Wagner's comments were shared on the Lean Forward network's Facebook page this morning as part of the network's efforts to plug Wagner's new 4 p.m. Eastern time slot.

January 10, 2014, 6:59 PM EST

"Republican lawmakers Thursday blamed the Obama administration for the stunning resurgence of Iraq’s al-Qaeda franchise and called on the White House to take assertive steps to help Baghdad beat back militant uprisings in the country’s west." That's how Ernesto Londono opened his January 10 story "Republicans blame Obama administration for al-Qaeda resurgence in Iraq," a front-page-worthy story which Washington Post editors buried on page A10.

By contrast, the Post ran not one but two Chris Christie bridge-scandal stories on the Friday edition's front page. The other stories rounding out the front page centered on efforts to hash out a long-term security agreement with Afghanistan, the Washington Redskins announcing their new head coach, and privacy/data-collection concerns from dashboard computers in new cars.

January 10, 2014, 12:40 PM EST

In a strange way, you have to hand it to Timothy Noah. The contributing writer has found a way to twist the Chris Christie bridge scandal into a blanket indictment of "bipartisanship" and serve as an rally cry t to liberal MSNBC fans of the moral superiority of full-throated, left-wing Democratic partisanship. After all, the Lean Forward network is convinced it needs to energize Obama's base to limit the damage in this year's midterm elections.

Here's how Noah opened his January 10 story, "Christie and the menace of bipartisanship":

January 9, 2014, 5:29 PM EST

"Obama approval ratings turn around," exulted the landing page headline for Traci G. Lee's January 9 story, "Positive start to 2014 for Obama: poll."

Lee set about spinning the results of the latest Quinnipiac Poll, which shows President Obama sitting atop a 41 percent approval rating, up from a low of 38 percent in December, but still a net negative approval rating. Lee used the slight uptick in approval as a springboard to forecast that the president's economically liberal spending agenda could change his and his party's fortunes (emphasis mine):

January 9, 2014, 12:45 PM EST

My colleague Tim Graham noted how the Washington Post this morning hyped the "[b]ridge scandal engulfing [Gov. Chris] Christie."

Not to be outdone, the Post-owned tabloid Express contrasted "Bad Boss?" Christie with "Good Boss!" Bruce Springsteen on their January 9 edition [see image below page break]

January 8, 2014, 7:20 PM EST

"The New York State Legislature needs to Raise the Age of criminal responsibility, and they need to do it this year," demands the subheadline on's landing page this afternoon for a story headlined, "Stop charging kids as adults." The column, co-authored by former NAACP president Ben Jealous and actress Rosario Dawson, promotes a push by the Citizens Committee for Children of New York [CCCNY] to change Empire State law so that minors aged 16 years old cannot be charged as adults.

Jealous and Dawson don't disclose to what age they believe the age of criminal responsibility should be raised, but they do include a reference to mental maturity which suggests they might be happy with it falling somewhere in the mid-20s:

January 8, 2014, 5:15 PM EST

Apparently to Time magazine and Reuters, using the term "martyr" to refer to a Christian slain for the sake of his or her faith -- often at the hands of "radical Islamists" -- is deserving of scare quotes.

"Deaths of Christian 'Martyrs' Doubled in 2013," reads the top item in the "latest headlines" sidebar at Clicking the link takes you to a story by Charlotte Alter at, who in turn referenced reporting by Reuters:

January 8, 2014, 3:15 PM EST

Former Bush and Obama Secretary of Defense Robert Gates generally speaks warmly of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in his forthcoming memoir. But there is one passage in which he expresses his dismay at Clinton admitting that the reason she opposed President Bush's troop surge in Iraq was strictly political rather than based on a genuine disagreement with the policy.

But fear not, Hillary boosters, for the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza has your back, spinning away the admission in his 12-paragraph page A5 story in Wednesday's paper (h/t WMAL's Chris Plante, who addressed this on his January 8 radio program; emphasis mine):