Following in the footsteps of other right-wingers, the Media Research Center has declared that Michelle Obama’s cameo appearance at the Academy Awards to present the award for best picture was horrible.
Jeffrey Meyer grumbled in a Feb. 26 NewsBusters post that “the Washington Post’s Sally Quinn admitted that Michelle Obama’s Oscar appearance was, in Bill O’Reilly’s words, ‘Hollywood Left boosterism,’ but gushed that it was a ‘brilliant idea.'”
The headline for Meyer’s post, however, read: “WashPo’s Sally Quinn Admits Michelle Obama’s Oscar Appearance Was Propaganda; But Thinks It Was Brilliant.” Since when does “Hollywood Left boosterism” equal “propaganda”? Meyer doesn’t explain, perhaps because it’s something axiomatic among right-wingers or something.
Meanwhile, Clay Waters grumbles in a Feb. 26 TmesWatch post that Obama’s appearance was “intrusive” and “politicized” and whined that a New York Times didn’t read his mind and complain about the appearance like he wanted:
The question isn’t whether the first family can lower themselves to the level of popular culture; that was settled the night then-candidate Bill Clinton played saxophone on the Arsenio Hall show in 1992. It’s the question of the vastly different ways Hollywood treats those political figures, depending on their party.
[…]Steinhauer continued missing the point by insisting the question of Michelle Obama’s appearance was one of “propriety,” as opposed to a question of blunt and intrusive liberal political boosterism.
But Waters never identifies what, exactly, was “political” about her appearance.