Media Research Center executive Tim Graham spent a Jan. 29 post complaining that PBS and NPR reported something that didn’t conform to his right-wing narratives:
PBS and NPR are funded by taxpayers – federal, state, and local. But they’re “owned” by the Left. Look no further than a very biased Planned Parenthood study fishing numbers out of the air to assert that there were more than 64,000 “people” who became pregnant from rapes in red states with abortion bans. No one who would criticize or even question this effort was allowed on air. The stories were unanimous.
On Thursday, the PBS NewsHour brought on Dr. Samuel Dickman to discuss his study, published by the journal JAMA Internal Medicine. Anchor John Yang pointed out that Dickman is chief medical officer for Planned Parenthood of Montana. Yang asked “Is there anything in what you found in your study that surprised you?” and then added “you’re saying that this could actually be an undercount.”
Notice Dr. Dickman admitted “these are just estimates.” Yang continued with the facilitation: “Why did you undertake this study?” And: “As we mentioned, there are five states that do have exceptions for rape, but under very tight restrictions. Given those restrictions, how meaningful are those exceptions?” This PBS-pampered abortionist said they were meaningless.
The PBS NewsHour website provided a second promotion, an article by health reporter Laura Santhanam that was just as one-sided.
On Wednesday, NPR’s comically named All Things Considered aired a story by reporter/abortion advocate Selena Simmons-Duffin that never considered any critics. Instead, the soundbites came from the doctor from Planned Parenthood – oh, wait, the reporter never mentioned Planned Parenthood, Dr. Dickman was just an “abortion provider” – another doctor endorsing the research named Rachel Perry, and a rape victim that guessed this was an undercount.
Graham added, “For an opposing viewpoint, Michael New trashed this research at National Review.” But all New did, based on the excerpt Graham provided, is nitpick numbers he didn’t like and didn’t actually discredit the study itself. Graham also didn’t disclose that New is an anti-abortion activist who works with the Charlotte Lozier Institute to draft and defend laws that restrict abortion, so his response should be treated as a political tract designed to attack a paper that undermines his anti-abortion narratives. Yet Graham wants us to believe he’s a reasonable critic. Also, note that in the headline of his post, Graham put “study” in scare quotes if it was not one — even though he failed to prove it wasn’t.
Graham concluded with a massive whine about public broadcasting:
They want you to think that “public broadcasting” is so professional that it thoroughly reviews “studies” like these. But the actual stories suggest they are barely considered “rip and read” segments that amount to a press release. They weren’t alone: New pointed out “This study was quickly and uncritically covered by a number of mainstream media outlets including CNN, NBC News, the Houston Chronicle, Axios, Time, and the Huffington Post.”
Graham didn’t explain why this study shouldn’t have been reported in the media — in fact, the coverage seems to indicate that the study was worthy of news coverage and should have been censored instead — and even though Graham uncritically quoting New attacking the study was more of a “rip and read” than anything he’s accusing PBS and NPR of doing. He believes that anything not as right-wing as he is on “the Left” and that reporting of a story that doesn’t mesh with his preferred narratives is “promotion.” Graham’s post is yet another reminder that he and the MRC are in the business of politics and censorship, not genuine “media research.”