Latest news with #MediaResearchCenter
Fox News
20-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Fox News
Dem lawmaker sparks social media firestorm with 'cringe' anti-Trump guitar performance: 'Talk about tone-deaf'
Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Georgia, garnered some backlash from conservatives on social for a rendition of "Hey Joe," which was made popular by Jimi Hendrix and other artists in the '60s, which he retooled as a criticism of President Donald Trump. "I hate to hurt your ears and everything, but I'm just learning to play guitar," he said in a video posted to X on Wednesday, adding that he was inspired by Black Music Month to provide political commentary through song. He noted that he was "just learning to play guitar," then proceeded to sing an anti-Trump parody of the famous song. "Hey Trump, where you goin' with that gun in your hand?" Johnson sang. "I'm goin' down the street to shoot democracy. You know I wanna be a king someday." As of Friday afternoon, the video had received over 800 comments on the platform, most of which were criticisms from conservatives. "Talk about Tone-Deaf messaging!" Media Research Center posted on X. "Democrat Rep. Hank Johnson releases hilariously bad anti-Trump song, and you just have to hear this." "This would make Jimi Hendrix advocate for a ground war with Iran," Josh Holmes, co-host of the Ruthless Podcast, posted on X. "Democrat Rep. Hank Johnson sings an Anti-Trump song on his guitar about Trump shooting down Democracy with a gun to be a king," conservative influencer account LibsofTikTok posted on X. "Yes, this is real…." Another user simply quipped, "I love the internet." "Heyyy Hank, Please tune that dang guitar if you can," another one wrote, directly pulling from the lyrics of the song. Hendrix most notably played "Hey Joe" at the notorious Woodstock Festival in 1969. "Democrats are doing another one of their cringe sing-a-longs," Ben Petersen, National War Room Director of the National Republican Congressional Committee, posted on X. "This horribly sounding performance is yet another waste of our tax dollars and proof of the uselessness of the Democrat Party," conservative influencer Paul A. Szypula posted on X. "Ok. A few things. If you're going to do a song like this, it's best to tune your guitar beforehand," Jeff Charles, news editor at Townhall, posted on X. "Also, covering Jimi Hendrix when you don't know how to tune a guitar is cringe AF. The lyrics are something I could have come up with when I was five years old. I'm almost embarassed for him." "Hank Johnson - Thinks Guam can capsize… Also Hank Johnson - Thinks he can play guitar," comedian Tim Young posted on X. "He's dumber than AOC. Fox News Digital reached out to Johnson's office for comment. The video comes as Democrats continue to experiment with different social media strategies during Trump's second term and have consistently faced criticism from conservatives for doing so, including earlier this year when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other House Democrats were lambasted online over "choose your fighter" TikTok video.
Fox News
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
CNN, MSNBC insist anti-ICE demonstrations have been ‘mostly peaceful' despite widespread unrest
CNN and MSNBC have bent over backwards to remind viewers that anti-ICE demonstrations and riots causing turmoil and unrest across the country were "mostly peaceful," according to a new study from the Media Research Center. Los Angeles, the epicenter of the anti-ICE chaos, has been hit with continued disorder and flash mob-style looting incidents as law enforcement has been forced to make mass arrests. Videos and photos of the disorder have taken the internet by storm and some businesses have even boarded up their shops. Anti-ICE protesters have also clashed with police in New York City, where several police vehicles were set on fire inside an NYPD parking lot overnight Wednesday. In Chicago, a car drove through a crowd of demonstrators Tuesday night as hundreds of anti-ICE protesters gathered, and multiple police vehicles have been vandalized in that city, too. While major cities such as L.A., New York and Chicago have received the most attention, there have also been anti-ICE demonstrations in Washington, North Carolina, Missouri, Texas, Indiana, Colorado, Georgia, and a variety of other areas. Through it all, CNN and MSNBC have continued to insist the demonstrations and riots were "mostly peaceful." The Media Research Center (MRC) analyzed all coverage from June 7-11 and found a staggering 211 examples of CNN and MSNBC personalities insisting the chaos was "largely peaceful," "mostly peaceful" or something similar. CNN was responsible for 123 claims that the riots were "peaceful," while MSNBC reminded viewers 88 times, according to the MRC. NewsBusters senior research analyst Bill D'Agostino, who conducted the MRC study, noticed that whenever there was violence, CNN and MSNBC attributed it to a nebulous, separate group that had no connection with the "peaceful protesters." D'Agostino told Fox News Digital he "counted any assertion that specifically [said] these riots or protests were 'peaceful,' 'largely peaceful,' 'mostly peaceful,' or any other permutation thereof," during segments in which the violence had been acknowledged or shown on screen. "No reporter acknowledged any link between the peaceful and violent elements of the crowds. The rioters were exclusively framed as 'rogue actors,' or 'lone wolves,' and there was never any assertion that they might share common cause with the more peaceful individuals," D'Agostino told Fox News Digital. "Conversely, there was also no instance in which a reporter acknowledged that the National Guard and Marines had been mobilized exclusively to address the violent elements of the crowd," D'Agostino continued. "There were numerous complaints about the use of military force against 'peaceful protesters.'" D'Agostino also only found one instance in which a journalist from CNN or MSNBC referred to the chaos unfolding in Los Angeles as a "riot," which CNN's Jake Tapper did on June 7.
CNN
12-06-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Conservative activists have waited decades to defund PBS and NPR. They are finally getting their chance
Richard Nixon tried. Ronald Reagan tried. President Donald Trump tried during his first term in office. All three Republican presidents wanted to strip taxpayer support for PBS and NPR stations. But all three men were stymied by Congress. This time, however, might be different. Trump, emboldened in his second term, sent a package of spending cuts to Capitol Hill earlier this month, and the House of Representatives is expected to vote on the measure Thursday afternoon. The bill, known on Capitol Hill as a 'rescissions' proposal, is the closest NPR and PBS have ever come to a complete loss of federal funding. The bill would strip all federal funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes taxpayer dollars to radio and TV stations across the country. If it passes the House, it will move to the Senate for consideration. Get Reliable Sources newsletter Sign up here to receive Reliable Sources with Brian Stelter in your inbox. For public media officials, the bill is a worst-case-scenario. But for conservative activists, it is a welcome change and the culmination of a very long campaign. 'We are thrilled to finally get to this point,' NewsBusters executive editor Tim Graham told CNN. 'I've been documenting their taxpayer-funded tilt at MRC for 36 years.' Advocacy groups like MRC, short for Media Research Center, which runs NewsBusters, have been arguing against NPR and PBS for decades, asserting that the taxpayer funding is unnecessary and unfair. The core contention is that public broadcasting is infected with liberal bias and thus is not representative of the public as a whole. The leaders of NPR and PBS reject that charge. 'One of the advantages of public media is that we serve everyone, and it is a requirement and a mandate. It's also a very important mission in polarized times,' NPR CEO Katherine Maher told CNN. One challenge with trying to be a middle-of-the-road platform is that 'people don't agree on what the middle is now,' she added. But the belief that PBS and NPR 'which spread radical, woke propaganda disguised as 'news'' (something the Trump White House claimed earlier this year) has become close to GOP orthodoxy. Trump has directed his administration to bring public media to heel, sparking several lawsuits this spring. If the House and Senate pass the spending cuts package, it will be a victory both for Trump and for generations of conservative activists. 'This could be our last, best chance to win the battle once and for all,' MRC's call-your-congressman website says. Republicans have been trying to take the 'public' out of public broadcasting for almost as long as the system has existed. In the 1998 book 'Made Possible By…: The Death of Public Broadcasting in the United States,' James Ledbetter chronicled how Nixon's administration had a 'smoldering animus against public television' that erupted several times in the early '70s. Nixon vetoed two bills relating to the system's funding structure. But even his veto memos defended the existence of public broadcasting and said it needed to be 'strengthened.' Reagan, and later George W. Bush, also proposed cuts to the system's budget and tried to slow its rate of growth. But the proposals always ran into congressional opposition, including from fellow Republicans who strongly believed in the system's mission. The power of educational TV programming like 'Sesame Street' was often invoked to protect public media's pot of money. Graham's group says those arguments are out of date now. And Trump has changed the contours of the debate by trying to zero out the corporation's budget altogether. Trump's anti-NPR, anti-PBS budget proposals were ignored by Congress during his first term. But this year's proposal is branded differently — as a 'DOGE' cut, referring to the much-debated Department of Government Efficiency. The upshot: Added pressure on Republican lawmakers to go along with the bill. The $1.1 billion in public media funds being targeted now, representing the next two years of funding, were allocated by congressional Republicans in a massive budget bill that Trump signed into law earlier this spring. The rescissions package singles out the funds and also claws back money for the US Agency for International Development. Graham said Republicans 'should vote on a party line' to defund what he called 'Democrat-run Broadcasting.' 'It's not state-run, because it sounds like the very opposite of state-run when Republicans are in power. It's Democrat-run at all times, and has been since Jim Lehrer gushed over the twice-a-day coverage of the Watergate hearings: 'As justice, it was pure delicious!'' Lehrer, the famed PBS anchor who died in 2020, made that comment about the fact that Nixon was plotting to defund the system but was sidelined by his own all-consuming scandal. PBS grew in popularity thanks to its live coverage of the Watergate hearings, and some Nixon allies never forgot. Public media officials often point out that news and current affairs programming is a small slice of the overall programming on stations across the country. Shows like 'Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood' and 'Antiques Roadshow' have ardent fan bases — and those supporters have been urged to contact Congress to defend the federal funding that's currently at risk. At the same time, however, Trump allies like Kari Lake have taken to the commercial airwaves to argue that the public dollars are not needed, citing all the changes that have taken place across the media landscape in recent years. 'If NPR and PBS are as amazing as they claim, they should have no trouble securing public funding from people who want to support them,' Lake recently wrote on X. 'But hardworking Americans should no longer be forced to fund content they find objectionable.' Public media officials say those arguments are rooted in exaggerations and misperceptions about what the networks actually air. CNN's Max Foster contributed reporting.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump, Congress can end abuse of taxpayers by PBS and NPR
Forcing taxpayers to bankroll the left-wing propaganda machine that is PBS and NPR is not just a slap in the face — it is flat-out illegal. President Trump's rescission package, yanking back $1.1 billion in taxpayer funds earmarked for these media behemoths, is precisely the gut punch these broadcasters have had coming for decades. For nearly 40 years, the organization I run has documented PBS and NPR thumbing their noses at the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which demands 'strict adherence to objectivity and balance' in controversial programming. Objectivity? Balance? They tossed those out the window faster than you can say 'state-run media.' The liberal media's howling about 'censorship' and waving the First Amendment like a shield is pure theater. The First Amendment protects free speech, not your right to a government handout. PBS and NPR are not entitled to a dime of hardworking Americans' money to amplify their one-sided narratives. For years, we have documented endlessly the seemingly infinite segments framing conservatives as villains, the soft-ball interviews with progressive darlings, and the relentless push for narratives that align with the far-left playbook. This is not journalism — it is activism masquerading as public service. Our archives are bursting with examples of their flagrant disregard for fairness. Trump's rescission is the first step toward dismantling this abuse of public trust. If PBS and NPR want to keep preaching to their choir, they have an audience already — let them do it on their own dime, not ours. Take PBS. A recent Media Research Center study found that liberal Democratic guests on 'PBS NewsHour' outnumbered conservative Republicans by more than four to one. Remove elected officials, and the gap grows to 6.5 to one. Even then, only anti-Trump Republicans were invited. That is not public broadcasting — it is taxpayer-funded activism. Consider PBS's 'On Democracy' series launched under Trump. It claimed to examine threats to democratic institutions. Yet the ratio of liberal to conservative reporters on the guest list (which featured Jeffrey Goldberg and Brian Stelter, for example) was a staggering 22 to 1. Even when the guest lineup appeared balanced, the conservative voices were merely used as straw men. And NPR? Its managing editor dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop story as a 'pure distraction,' even as the New York Post uncovered clear evidence of Biden family influence-peddling. Meanwhile, NPR ran sympathetic profiles on Hunter's addiction and ignored all the core allegations. Time and again, we found NPR promoting the left's agenda without pushback. In a 2022 interview with Biden HHS official Rachel Levine, NPR called 'gender-affirming' care 'lifesaving' and failed to include a single opposing voice, since this is a very controversial claim. By 2023, 67 percent of NPR's audience identified as liberal. Far from making itself an asset to the public generally, it had created a bubble for adherents of just one ideology. Former NPR editor Uri Berliner blew the whistle on NPR bias last year when he revealed that in its Washington headquarters, he found '87 registered Democrats working in editorial positions and zero Republicans. None.' Following that revelation, NPR took a $1.9 million grant to make 'editorial enhancements,' which supposedly included improving its objectivity. In awarding the grant, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting announced that the funding 'provides increased oversight to ensure objective, balanced, transparent, fact-based journalism.' Seven months later, the leftist bias of the taxpayer-funded public radio content organization lives on. Our Free Speech America division recently exposed how Google and Wikipedia helped sanitize NPR's mishandling of the laptop scandal. If you search 'Did NPR hide the Hunter Biden laptop story?' on Google, its AI Overview confidently answers 'No,' citing Wikipedia. That entry conveniently omits NPR's own admissions — coming both from former editor Terence Samuel and current CEO Katherine Maher — that the outlet failed to properly report the story. Such pervasive bias is not without consequences. A poll we conducted in 2020 suggested that the deliberate suppression of the news had acually changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Forty-five percent of Joe Biden voters were unaware of the New York Post's story about the Hunter Biden laptop, likely due to Big Tech censorship and news outlets such as NPR refusing to report the story. Had these Americans been fully aware of it, our analysis suggested that as many of 9.4 percent of Biden's voters would have abandoned him, likely flipping all six of the swing states he won to Trump. Congress now has a unique chance to act. Rescinding these funds will send a clear signal: if you want to push a partisan agenda, don't ask taxpayers to fund it. If NPR and PBS believe in their product, let private donors or advertisers fund it. We will not stop calling out their bias, but exposure alone is not enough. Lawmakers must act. Trump's rescission package is a practical, principled reform. Republicans have fought to defund these institutions for more than 30 years. Now, that goal could finally become a reality. Congress must follow through. This fight is not only about fairness and protecting taxpayer dollars from waste and abuse. It is about ending PBS and NPR lawlessness. Trump and Congress are duty-bound to strip these left-wing media mouthpieces of every taxpayer dime. David Bozell is president of the Media Research Center. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
11-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump, Congress can end abuse of taxpayers by PBS and NPR
Forcing taxpayers to bankroll the left-wing propaganda machine that is PBS and NPR is not just a slap in the face — it is flat-out illegal. President Trump's rescission package, yanking back $1.1 billion in taxpayer funds earmarked for these media behemoths, is precisely the gut punch these broadcasters have had coming for decades. For nearly 40 years, the organization I run has documented PBS and NPR thumbing their noses at the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which demands 'strict adherence to objectivity and balance' in controversial programming. Objectivity? Balance? They tossed those out the window faster than you can say 'state-run media.' The liberal media's howling about 'censorship' and waving the First Amendment like a shield is pure theater. The First Amendment protects free speech, not your right to a government handout. PBS and NPR are not entitled to a dime of hardworking Americans' money to amplify their one-sided narratives. For years, we have documented endlessly the seemingly infinite segments framing conservatives as villains, the soft-ball interviews with progressive darlings, and the relentless push for narratives that align with the far-left playbook. This is not journalism — it is activism masquerading as public service. Our archives are bursting with examples of their flagrant disregard for fairness. Trump's rescission is the first step toward dismantling this abuse of public trust. If PBS and NPR want to keep preaching to their choir, they have an audience already — let them do it on their own dime, not ours. Take PBS. A recent Media Research Center study found that liberal Democratic guests on 'PBS NewsHour' outnumbered conservative Republicans by more than four to one. Remove elected officials, and the gap grows to 6.5 to one. Even then, only anti-Trump Republicans were invited. That is not public broadcasting — it is taxpayer-funded activism. Consider PBS's 'On Democracy' series launched under Trump. It claimed to examine threats to democratic institutions. Yet the ratio of liberal to conservative reporters on the guest list (which featured Jeffrey Goldberg and Brian Stelter, for example) was a staggering 22 to 1. Even when the guest lineup appeared balanced, the conservative voices were merely used as straw men. And NPR? Its managing editor dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop story as a 'pure distraction,' even as the New York Post uncovered clear evidence of Biden family influence-peddling. Meanwhile, NPR ran sympathetic profiles on Hunter's addiction and ignored all the core allegations. Time and again, we found NPR promoting the left's agenda without pushback. In a 2022 interview with Biden HHS official Rachel Levine, NPR called 'gender-affirming' care 'lifesaving' and failed to include a single opposing voice, since this is a very controversial claim. By 2023, 67 percent of NPR's audience identified as liberal. Far from making itself an asset to the public generally, it had created a bubble for adherents of just one ideology. Former NPR editor Uri Berliner blew the whistle on NPR bias last year when he revealed that in its Washington headquarters, he found '87 registered Democrats working in editorial positions and zero Republicans. None.' Following that revelation, NPR took a $1.9 million grant to make 'editorial enhancements,' which supposedly included improving its objectivity. In awarding the grant, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting announced that the funding 'provides increased oversight to ensure objective, balanced, transparent, fact-based journalism.' Seven months later, the leftist bias of the taxpayer-funded public radio content organization lives on. Our Free Speech America division recently exposed how Google and Wikipedia helped sanitize NPR's mishandling of the laptop scandal. If you search 'Did NPR hide the Hunter Biden laptop story?' on Google, its AI Overview confidently answers 'No,' citing Wikipedia. That entry conveniently omits NPR's own admissions — coming both from former editor Terence Samuel and current CEO Katherine Maher — that the outlet failed to properly report the story. Such pervasive bias is not without consequences. A poll we conducted in 2020 suggested that the deliberate suppression of the news had acually changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Forty-five percent of Joe Biden voters were unaware of the New York Post's story about the Hunter Biden laptop, likely due to Big Tech censorship and news outlets such as NPR refusing to report the story. Had these Americans been fully aware of it, our analysis suggested that as many of 9.4 percent of Biden's voters would have abandoned him, likely flipping all six of the swing states he won to Trump. Congress now has a unique chance to act. Rescinding these funds will send a clear signal: if you want to push a partisan agenda, don't ask taxpayers to fund it. If NPR and PBS believe in their product, let private donors or advertisers fund it. We will not stop calling out their bias, but exposure alone is not enough. Lawmakers must act. Trump's rescission package is a practical, principled reform. Republicans have fought to defund these institutions for more than 30 years. Now, that goal could finally become a reality. Congress must follow through. This fight is not only about fairness and protecting taxpayer dollars from waste and abuse. It is about ending PBS and NPR lawlessness. Trump and Congress are duty-bound to strip these left-wing media mouthpieces of every taxpayer dime. David Bozell is president of the Media Research Center.
