Grasping At Straws

It must be hard to work for Newsbusters. Every day, you have to get up, read the papers and try to find a way to twist everything you read to fit into your "everyone's against us" worldview.
Case in point, today's article by Tim Graham about Patrick Swayze's obituary.

WaPo Patrick Swayze Obit Gets to His Drag-Queen Movie Before 'Red Dawn'

By Tim Graham (Bio | Archive) September 15, 2009 - 08:35 ET

No, I don't think he's kidding.

Here’s a sign the Washington Post is a liberal newspaper: today’s Adam Bernstein obituary for Patrick Swayze begins obviously by noting his big hits "Ghost" and "Dirty Dancing," but doesn’t get to "Red Dawn" until paragraph 23. Even then, Bernstein wrongly suggests he had a supporting role:

That's right. The order in which Mr. Swayze's accomplishments are listed is evidence of media bias. Seriously.

"Road House", "Next of Kin", and "Point Break" appeared in paragraph 12.

What kind of a nut is taking the time to keep score in an obituary?

Road House", "Next of Kin", and "Point Break" appeared in paragraph 12.

The next paragraph even brought up the drag-queen turn: Most of the action films met with critical disappointment. So did his attempts for a more daring career, from the drag queen Vida Boheme he played in "To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar" (1995) to the suicidally forlorn American doctor who finds redemption in Calcutta in "City of Joy."

"Red Dawn" was not a prestigious film,

Au Contraire, Mr. Graham! It was our generation's Citizen Kayne!

"Red Dawn" was not a prestigious film, but it was a breakout lead role for Swayze, and a completely shocking product coming out of a Hollywood: a movie about American teens fighting a resistance against a Soviet invasion of the United States.

Coming out in the same era as Rambo, Missing in Action, and countless James Bond films, it could scarcely be less shocking. Unless you begin with the assumption that everyone in Hollywood is naturally out to get you and your rightward-leaning brethren. Then, yes it does seem shocking that anyone in Hollywood put down their copies of The Communist Manifesto long enough to make a movie that wasn't about how much they hated America.

There are clearly no fortysomething Reaganites working in the Washington Post newsroom.

Yes, one can clearly make that determination based on the order of film credits in Patrick Swayze's obituary. That's just good science!

The New York Times obit by Anita Gates puts the film in its proper perspective by going through the roles briefly and chronologically and noting it as a breakout role.

Now I'm confused. For as long as I can remember, righties like Mr. Graham have been telling us that the New York Times is a left-wing mouthpiece for gay Maoist abortionists. Now you're telling me that they got the Swayze obit right? How can that be? did Rupert Murdoch buy the Times? Also, there is no "proper perspective" in which to place the "film" Red Dawn. We're not talking about Intolerance or Battleship Potemkin here.

Here's the way an honest obituary of Patrick Swayze might read, devoid of political spin.

Patrick Swayze 1952-2009

Actor Patrick Swayze died last night after a long battle with pancreatic cancer. The man may be gone, but he leaves behind a legacy of horrible horrible movies.





Right?

























HMM?


























Okay?