Tim Graham is Executive Editor of NewsBusters and is the Media Research Center’s Director of Media Analysis. His career at the MRC began in February 1989 as associate editor of MediaWatch, the monthly newsletter of the MRC before the Internet era.

Graham is co-author with MRC president Brent Bozell of the books Collusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election and How To Prevent It From Happening Again in 2016 (2013) and Whitewash: What The Media Won’t Tell You About Hillary Clinton, But Conservatives Will (2007). He is also the author of the book Pattern of Deception: The Media's Role in the Clinton Presidency (1996).

Graham is a regular talk-radio and television spokesman for the MRC and has made television appearances on MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, Fox News, and the Fox Business Channel. His articles have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, National Review, and other publications.

Graham left the MRC to serve in 2001and 2002 as White House Correspondent for World, a national weekly Christian news magazine. He returned in 2003. Before joining the MRC, Graham served as press secretary for the campaign of U.S. Rep. Jack Buechner (R-Mo.) in 1988, and in 1987, he served as editor of Organization Trends, a monthly newsletter on philanthropy and politics by the Washington-based Capital Research Center.

Graham is a native of Viroqua, Wisconsin and graduated from Bemidji State University in northern Minnesota. 

Latest from Tim Graham
February 11, 2011, 7:46 AM EST

On Thursday, National Public Radio's Morning Edition decided to revisit the censorship controversy over the National Portrait Gallery removing a video image of ants crawling on a crucifix in an ideological exhibit promoting homosexuality. (The show closes Sunday.) The irony or the outrage in this story is that the "villains" of this piece -- conservative Christians and Republican politicians -- were not allowed to speak. NPR reporter Neda Ulaby quoted only the two left-wing curators of the exhibit, a left-wing critic for the Village Voice, and a left-wing man protesting the apparently ruined exhibit.

The most outrageous part was this soundbite of co-curator Jonathan Katz: "It's no longer the same game that it was 15, 20 years ago, where you simply had to point out the homo and yell 'Kill it!' And the mob attacked. Now, you have to clothe your homophobia in something else."

A story this biased makes it worth pointing out that Neda Ulaby is a lesbian journalist and activist who found this NPR job through the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association. The Advocate celebrated a list of openly gay people with cool careers and explained:

February 10, 2011, 2:45 PM EST

Brian Maloney at Radio Equalizer reports hard-left actor Ed Asner is slamming Obama as another "corporatist as president," another "president who represents corporations more than people." The remarks came on the liberal Stephanie Miller radio show:

ED ASNER: I’m on the board of Defenders of Wildlife, and at a recent board meeting the announcement was made for just wildlife alone the conditions are worse with this administration than they were when Bush was president and both houses were under Republican control.

STEPHANIE MILLER: Now, how so, why? What’s happening?

ASNER: Well, I guess you’ve got craven Democrats and you’ve got maniacal Republicans who are being infected by Tea Party candidates who got elected. I don’t know.

February 10, 2011, 8:28 AM EST

While conservatives were shocked at a video showing liberals at a Common Cause rally suggesting Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas should have his toes cut off one by one, be lynched alongside his wife, or be put "back in the fields," The Washington Post seems to find mostly a burst of liberal pride. On Thursday's Fed Page on A-17, reporter Dan Eggen's story is headlined "Uncommon forcefulness from Common Cause."  The Thomas remarks don't surface until  the end, in paragraph 17. The story begins with a smile, for the nerds have gotten rowdy:

Common Cause has long been something of a nerd among the jocks. While other activists staged loud demonstrations and nervy stunts, the 40-year-old good-government group was more likely to hold a forum on filibuster reform or the vagaries of redistricting. 

But suddenly Common Cause is manning the barricades, leading a rowdy campaign by liberal groups decrying the outsized role of big money in U.S. politics.

February 9, 2011, 8:55 AM EST

The Washington Post can pretty good at forgetting scandals, especially when it comes to Michelle Obama. The front of Wednesday's Style section has a story on Michelle Obama's "fluid staff" turnover: three chiefs of staff, two communications directors, and (soon to be) three social secretaries. But the headline isn't about how the FLOTUS can't be satisfied and keeps firing aides. It's headlined "Legacy in the making: Despite the changing look of her East Wing circle, Michelle Obama keeps her eye on the progress to come." If that doesn't sound penned by the White House, wait -- it gets better.

Reporter Nia-Malika Henderson becomes Nia-Malika Amnesia in this amazing passage of willful memory loss on Michelle: "She has told her staff then that there was little room for mistakes. Two years later, observers are hard-pressed to find any major flubs, and the first lady has staffed up for Michelle Obama 2.0."

Did the obsequious Post forget the Salahis' major security breach at a White House state dinner? That was only a major Post (and TV network) obsession. It caused the departure of social secretary Desiree Rogers. Some lefties wanted "public executions."

February 9, 2011, 7:56 AM EST

If liberals thought the celebration of the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth was a little sickening, they could always find comfort in the loopy leftist loathing of the Daily Kos. On Sunday, "Slangist" took the fruitcake with lines like this: "First elected Governor on a muted inclination to shoot student demonstrators, Reagan spent his political life as an apostle of reaction, repression and recklessness."

Reagan's contempt for the U.S. government was the "direct ancestor of Timothy McVeigh's, though Reagan's damage hit all American urban areas, not just Oklahoma City." He was McVeigh, only more murderous. This Kosmonaut also boldly asserted that Reagan was a worse liar than Bill Clinton:

February 8, 2011, 5:38 PM EST

Matt Lewis of AOL's Politics Daily is defecting from AOL in the wake of their purchase of The Huffington Post, and AOL's plans to put leftist Arianna Huffington the czarina in charge of all content. Right-leaning Lewis will leave for the Daily Caller in a few weeks since he felt uncomfortable about Arianna the "far-left liberal" curtailing his freedom to express himself once he's affiliated with "an overtly left-of-center (sometimes activist) outlet."

I've met Ms. Huffington exactly once -- on the set of "Nightline's" election night coverage. She could not have been kinder. Additionally, I have even authored an article or two for her site (on tech issues) over the years. This is all to say that I have no personal issue with Ms. Huffington, and that I am not a "Huff-hater."

However, writing a guest post is different from working for someone, and it occurs to me that AOL has vastly underestimated the public perception (I would argue the accurate impression) that Huffington is a far-left liberal.

February 8, 2011, 8:43 AM EST

Few people really pine for the opportunity to read an 815-page memoir of a former Secretary of Defense. But in Tuesday's Washington Post, the front of the Style section matches a book review of Donald Rumsfeld's new memoir Known and Unknown as equal with...a 110-page Rumsfeld torture fantasy concocted for the small magazine company McSweeney's. The title over both was "Two Shots of Rummy." In his review, novelist and former reporter Dan Fesperman suggested that the leftist "literary guerrilla action" is more authentic about Rumsfeld:

It is tempting at first to dismiss "Donald" as a mere literary guerrilla action, a publication-day ambush by two clever writers whose narrative voice, to their credit, may sound more authentically like Donald Rumsfeld than the former defense secretary's memoir.

If you were to cast this stunt as a war movie, co-authors Eric Martin and Stephen Elliott would be the wily tricksters who don fake uniforms to slip behind enemy lines, speaking the language like natives and clearing all checkpoints until they vanquish the opposing general with his own diabolical weaponry.

February 8, 2011, 7:36 AM EST

A few days ago, Dante Atkins at the Daily Kos accused pro-lifers of being the "American Taliban" for trying to curtail taxpayer funding of abortions. On Sunday, Atkins went at it again, in a blog entitled "The Rapeublican Party." It began: "To take a page from Senator Harry Reid's book: if you're a woman anywhere to the left of Fred Phelps, I don't understand how you can in good conscience vote for the Republican Party."

Atkins acknowledged that Rep. Chris Smith backed away from language that would seek to deny taxpayer subsidies for abortion in cases of statutory rape (where a child gives consent, but is below a state's age of consent). But like many advocates of abortion, Atkins wants to insist that pro-lifers are all about "punishing women for daring to have sex" instead of protecting unborn children from being ripped apart in the womb:

February 7, 2011, 11:18 PM EST

Time magazine knows it can't be all serious, so in addition to its cover story on Egypt this week, they have a gushy piece on Michelle Obama's fashions, written by Kate Betts, author of the new book Everyday Icon: Michelle Obama and the Power of Style. Michelle's so chic it's historic:

Given her widespread reputation as one of the most stylish women ever to inhabit the White House, you might think Michelle Obama automatically belongs in the Madison-Kennedy lineage. But her background argues differently. No one can claim that Michelle Obama doesn't know what it's like to work or that she entered marriage because she didn't get an education and lacked economic power of her own. It is plain that she has learned as much if not more from the example of Hillary Clinton as from the example of Jackie Kennedy.

What makes Obama exceptional is that she seems so at home in both camps. So at home that the whole debate about style and substance suddenly seems passé, an anachronism of the gender wars, a false dichotomy enforced by narrow-minded men and women at war with themselves. That Michelle Obama does not see style and substance as an either-or choice is a powerful statement that the underlying assumptions about women's roles and images have changed. Embodying the confluence of substance and style, she has helped reconcile the long-standing antagonism between them. She has, in some sense, made them one and the same.

February 7, 2011, 12:46 PM EST

ESPN host (and former longtime Washington Post sports columnist) Michael Wilbon had a thrill up his leg over being invited to the Super Bowl party at the White House with a couple of hundred Obama friends. In a column for ESPN, Wilbon boasted "Obama's capacity for, passion for, and range of knowledge" on sports is greater than any other recent president. He also said "tough spit" on any conservative talkers who'd try to find anything scandalous in the East Room event:

If you're looking for that TMZ moment, a revelation of Charlie Sheen getting drunk and turning the East Room into a piano bar or Tareq and Michaele Salahi slipping past security and sitting next to President and Mrs. Obama, stop reading right now. There wasn't even a confrontation between the Steelers and Packers fans, nothing salacious or awkward or anything worthy of YouTube. And if the conservative talking heads don't believe that when they take exception to whatever they think went on, as they inevitably will, tough spit.

February 7, 2011, 7:56 AM EST

The current liberal swooning over Al Jazeera English has naturally led to a full-page Washington Post ad today featuring the liberal swooning and the message 'WATCH AL JAZEERA ENGLISH NOW." The notoriously anti-American network is not on most cable systems, but they tout their YouTube channel and their mobile apps. These are the morning plugs (emphasis theirs):

"It Is Al Jazeera's Moment" -- The New York Times

"Thank You For What You're Doing" -- Sam Donaldson on ABC's This Week

February 6, 2011, 9:19 AM EST

The brewing controversy over Planned Parenthood officials being caught on video trying to help cover up potential sex crimes is being tamped down by one Stuart Schear, their vice president for communications. On CNN, he kept denouncing pro-lifers for being "very extreme" and opposing "health care" for women.

It may surprise no one, but Schear is a veteran of the liberal media, having spent five years as a producer for Jim Lehrer at the PBS NewsHour and a year at NBC News. He also spent a year on the Bill Clinton White House staff. From the Planned Parenthood press release last year:

February 6, 2011, 8:44 AM EST

While most media reports acknowledged at Reagan’s death the warmth and charisma of the man, and his powers as a “Great Communicator,” they did not note the strenuous attempts to rebut him by the array of powerful communicators known as the national media elite. The most notable omission in all the gracious obituaries and histories is the media’s own aggressive role in attempting to define the Reagan era down. Reporters, editors, and anchormen fought Reagan’s policies tooth and nail, built a scandal industry to taint Reagan with the “sleaze factor” (which they quickly dropped in the 1990s), and often dismissed him personally as a dangerously bellicose and ignorant man still lost in his old movie roles.

The hostility didn’t end when Reagan left office either. The media continued to paint the Reagan era as a horrific time of low ethics, class warfare on the poor, and crushing government debt. Even after he left office, Ronald Reagan’s legacy was still a juicy target for liberal journalists, who blamed his administration for everything from flammable pajamas to sexual harassment in public housing.

February 5, 2011, 1:02 PM EST

Washington Post TV critic Hank Stuever previewed three Reagan-at-100 documentaries, but he preferred the HBO version: "One of these is artfully nuanced and intellectually curious, which means it's on HBO." The pay-cable channel is known for going gushy over the Kennedys (and playing films by Kennedys), but Stuever hints that this film by Eugene Jarecki has lots of leftist gab in it:

Jarecki gets much more access to younger son Ron Reagan, now 52, who has just come out with a memoir ("My Father at 100"), and who, over the years, has evolved into generous yet frank authority on his father's personal and political complexities.

Jarecki's film is exceptionally organized and pretty fair - though something tells me it won't delight more conservative viewers, especially when left-leaning authors such as Will Bunch ("Tear Down This Myth") and Thomas Frank ("What's the Matter with Kansas?") surgically diagnose the ways in which the sunshine message of Reaganomics seduced the working middle class, to its own detriment. The film also manages to scintillate the basics of the Iran-contra affair in a way that makes it feel freshly scandalous.

February 5, 2011, 7:00 AM EST

The potentially democratic developments in Egypt inspired geopolitical musings from Rosie O'Donnell on her Sirius/XM radio show on Thursday. Predictably, what most offends Rosie in the current environment is her usual emphasis: America should never lecture about democracy and so on, because we aren't better than anyone else:

When we only judge other nations about their human-rights violations and don't really look at our own, when we don't spend the time on the news talking about the problems in American culture and what the results of them have been on our children, on our society...Things like the homeless rate, the divorce rate...corporate corruption...what we are guilty of here. We only look at someone else and say, 'Look at what's wrong with their culture'...I think it puts us in a really ethnocentric blind spot.

Rosie O'Donnell is now listing divorce and homelessness in the category of "human rights violations" -- defining "rights" down to get over our "really ethnocentric blind spot." (Would this make Rosie's "divorce" from Kelly Carpenter a human-rights violation?)

February 4, 2011, 5:09 PM EST

One common media-elite attack on Reagan’s domestic policy was the notion that Reagan was waging a “war on the poor,” which was often a shorthand way of suggesting a war on black Americans. Using their definition of “civil rights”—anything which adds government-mandated advantages for racial minorities is “civil rights” progress – liberal journalists suggested to less sophisticated readers and viewers that somehow Ronald Reagan was against liberty for minorities.  But it often grew worse, with inaccurate psychoanalysis which suggested Reagan was somehow gunning for blacks, encouraging bitter white supremacists by speaking of color-blindness.

Perhaps because they take all their race cues from liberal activist groups, the media ignored how blacks actually prospered in the Reagan years.  Even the liberal Joint Center for Political Studies estimated the black middle class grew by one-third from 1980 to 1988, from 3.6 million to 4.8 million. In addition, black employment from 1982 to 1987 grew twice as fast (up 24.9 percent) as white employment. Real black median family income rose 12.7 percent from 1981 to 1987, 46 percent faster than whites.  But reporters evaluated Reagan based on the evaluations of liberal friends, not hard data.

February 4, 2011, 8:59 AM EST

It's hardly surprising that The Washington Post would run an op-ed on Friday that argues about maintainting taxpayer-funded broadcasting in its current liberal-pleasing status quo. But it is surprising that the writers, Laura Walker and Jaclyn Sallee, would be so feckless in denying the bias of PBS and NPR. As usual they use a liberal poll instead of a content analysis:

Some will argue that public broadcasting should not be funded by the government it needs to hold accountable. But CPB's role as a buffer has worked remarkably well. The Pew study found that 72 percent of Americans feel that "most news sources are biased in their coverage." But they don't feel that way about public broadcasting - among the most trusted news sources anywhere.  

These public-radio lobbyists are citing a poll by Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm that works with the leftist website the Daily Kos. This year's poll found PBS was the "most trusted" news outlet -- but PBS was just added this year. Is someone trying to defend their taxpayer subsidies? They found 50 percent said they trusted PBS, and 30 percent did not. They surveyed 632 Americans in January, but did NOT ask: do you actually watch PBS? Could you name a PBS news anchor?  

February 4, 2011, 7:06 AM EST

 The New York Times is not known for delicate restraint in its treatment of the Catholic Church. Executive editor Bill Keller (despite somehow marrying his second wife in the Church) trashed Pope John Paul the Great in 2002: "One paradox of the Polish pope is that while he is rightly revered for helping bring down the godless Communists, he has replicated something very like the old Communist Party in his church." 

The memory of that fusillade was rekindled in a New York Times story on Thursday about  the sex scandals of prime minister Silvio Berlusconi and how they're outraging women in Italy. Times reporters Elisabetta Povoledo and Rachel Donadio include this loaded sentence: "By some lights, Italian women have come far in a country whose most entrenched power structures — the Roman Catholic Church and organized crime — remain male and secretive." 

This is a little like saying the NAACP and the Ku Klux Klan are both fraternal organizations based on race. But that wasn't the only example on this day. Kathryn Lopez of National Review found the Catholic Church was also compared to the terrorism-endorsing Muslim Brotherhood by reporter Scott Shane:

February 3, 2011, 5:43 PM EST

Ronald Reagan may have won the Cold War by forcing the Soviet Union to realize that it could not compete financially or technologically with a revitalized United States. But to the American media, the Reagan defense buildup seemed like a plot designed to deny government aid to poor and hungry people. It was seemingly the only spending that caused the budget deficit, even bankrupted the country. Cranking up spending on supposedly unworkable new ideas like a national missile defense system was “absolute nonsense,” as ABC’s Ted Koppel told Phil Donahue in 1987.

A 1985 Los Angeles Times survey of reporters found out how McGovernite liberalism dominated the press: 84 percent of reporters and editors supported a so-called “nuclear freeze” to ban all future nuclear missile deployment; 80 percent were opposed to increased defense spending; and 76 percent objected to aid to the Contra rebels fighting for democracy in Nicaragua. One side of this debate had an eye on permanent “peaceful coexistence.” The other side had an eye on victory.

February 3, 2011, 7:58 AM EST

At the Daily Kos blog on Wednesday came a rant by the blogger WinSmith against "rampant anti-Semitic paranoia" being central to the conservative movement, as allegedly demonstrated by "know-nothing reactionary racists and clueless buffoons like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin" riling up the ignorant masses:

This rampant anti-Semitic paranoia was that Jews were "redistributing wealth" to take down the true heroic Ayn Rand titans of industry, which were, of course, the Rockefellers, the Vanderbilts, the Henry Fords, etc.