WND Still Not Telling Whole 'Philadelphia 11' Story Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Feb. 15 WorldNetDaily article continues its tradition of failing to tell the full story surrounding the "Philadelphia 11," the group of anti-gay protesters led by Michael Marcavage who disrupted a gay street festival in 2005.
In reporting on the dismissal of a lawsuit by the group against the city of Philadelphia for getting arrested and briefly detained over their disruption, the article -- based in part on an Alliance Defense Fund press release -- is devoted almost in its entirety to criticism of the decision, waiting until the final paragraph of the 14-paragraph article to actually quote from the ruling. No apparent effort was made to contact any representative of the city to comment.
Marcavage and his group are described in sympathetic, martyr-like terms, depicted as having been arrested for "quoting the Bible and speaking against the behavior" -- but does not mention that the group disrupted the event by standing in front of a stage with a bullhorn, interrupting a performance, as we've noted. The article also continues WND's history of never detailing Marcavage's extremist activist history.
The article also bizarrely described the gay event they disrupted as "a publicly funded celebration of homosexual choices" -- an cumbersome insertion of the fundamentalist view that gays choose to be so.
Hillary Clinton seems to view black voters the same way plantation owners viewed slaves – they are her property, they will do what she says, and she will make their lives hell-on-earth if she doesn't get her way.
She also knows how to keep the field hands in line: Make the house slaves do all the dirty work.
She is the mean plantation madam who believes the slaves will love her more if she has them punished thrice daily, and she will resort to philosophical lynchings, intellectual rape and rhetorical beatings to get it done.
-- Kevin McCullough, Feb. 16 WorldNetDaily column.
But aren't conservatives supposed to be offended by "plantation" references? In fact, weren't they specifically attacking Hillary for using it not that long ago? Yes, they were -- it's the Clinton Exception in action.
MRC Division Lauds Donohue's 'Thoughtful Arguments' Topic: Media Research Center
In a Feb. 13 article at the Media Research Center's Culture and Media Institute, Kristen Fyfe complained that "vitriol-spewing anti-Christian" blogger Amanda Marcotte was being turned into a "martyr" by the "liberal media" after the Catholic League's William Donohue led an effort urging the John Edwards campaign to fire her and another blogger for controversial posts made before their hiring by Edwards. Fyfe added: "None of these outlets reported Bill Donohue's thoughtful arguments regarding Marcotte."
That may be because Donohue is not exactly known for "thoughtful arguments." A guy who rants about "gook jokes" and "secular Jews" controlling Hollywood and bashing Christians, as well as a certain inconsistency in his outrage, in his using is hardly what most would consider a font of "thoughtful arguments."
Further, Fyfe fails to disclose that her boss, Brent Bozell, is on the board of advisors of Donohue's Catholic League.
UPDATE: A Feb. 13 CNSNews.com article also cited Donohue's criticism of Marcotte while failing to disclose Bozell's link to Donohue.
NewsBusters Plugs Fox News Comedy Show Topic: NewsBusters
The boys at NewsBusters are, unsurprisingly, plugging the new comedy show on Fox News. Matthew Sheffield endorsed it this way:
Here at NB and MRC, we often rightly complain at the media's leftward slant. This slant exists largely because the news and entertainment media shun and blacklist people with known conservative and libertarian politics, however, it's also a question of the right's interest in media.
If you're sick of every comedy show being run by left-wingers like Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, and David Letterman, join me in watching the "Half-Hour News Hour" this Sunday and tell everyone you know who might like it to tune in as well.
Fellow MRC staffer Brent Baker might be surprised to find Letterman described as "left-wing," given his frequentfeaturing of Letterman's Top 10 lists in MRC's more-or-less-daily CyberAlert, particularly the ones that bashliberals.
Those liberal-bashing Top 10 lists would seem to disprove Sheffield's notion that Letterman is "left-wing." which implies that they never make fun of their purported ideological soulmates. In fact, if Jon Stewart was the good left-winger Sheffield thinks he is, would he be doing this?
Will the Fox News "Half-Hour News Hour" tweak conservatives as much as the "left-wing" Letterman and Stewart tweak liberals? And will Sheffield find the show as funny if it does?
From a Feb. 15 NewsMax "analysis" by Phil Brennan:
As a blizzard of snow and ice pummels the Northeast after trouncing the Midwest, and waves of Arctic cold fronts drop much of America below sub freezing weather, the $64,000 question is, Where is Al Gore?
Gore claims that global warming is an immediate problem facing the United States and the world, and places like New York and Chicago could feel like Caribbean haunts.
If there is any doubt that God has a sense of humor, it has to be dispelled by a headline in Wednesday's Drudge Report: "House hearing on 'warming of the planet' canceled after ice storm."
But as Media Matters pointedout, weather conditions in a given location at a given time do not prove or disprove the fact that global warming is occuring, despite what conservatives like Brennan say.
The logical extension of Brennan's argument, should he choose to follow it, is here.
WND Tells One-Sided Story on Hate Crimes Bill Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Feb. 15 WorldNetDaily article by Bob Unruh features unsupported and unchallenged attacks against a proposed congressional "hate crimes" bill. The beginning of Unruh's article sets the tone, under the headline "Diss a 'gay'? Go to jail!":
Two Christians in Australia have been indicted for criticizing Islam, and another for criticizing Zionism. A filmmaker has been threatened with arrest for using the word "homosexual" rather than "gay." Now a German priest faces jail time for publicly criticizing abortionists, and in Holland, "fornicators" and "adulterers" are protected classes and cannot be criticized.
All courtesy of the concept of federal "hate crimes" legislation, which unless defeated soon could be mandatory in the United States, warns a rising chorus of critics.
Throughout the article, Unruh allows the bill to be characterized and disparaged by its critics. Nowhere does Unruh offer an objective description of the bill or allow its proponents to speak for it.
Unruh features as an opponent of the bill Michael Marcavage of the anti-gay group Repent America, who makes the unsupported claim that "Truth is not allowed as evidence in hate crimes trials." Unruh later notes that "some of [Repent America's] members already have served jail time simply for proclaiming the biblical message" (italics his). This is presumably a reference to the group members' arrest for disrupting a gay event in Philadelphia (charges that were later dropped), which WND turned into a cause celebre. As we've detailed, WND's reporting on the issue was slanted and failed to tell the full version of events -- that Marcavage (carrying a bullhorn) and his protesters staged their demonstration in front of a stage at the event, in the middle of a performance, and refused an order to go to an area on the edge of the event. Not exactly the simple "proclaiming the biblical message" that Unruh portrayed it.
UPDATE: Similarly, another Feb. 15 WND article claiming that "lawyers are arguing whether the words 'natural family, marriage and family values' constitute 'hate speech' " tells only the anti-gay side of the story. Further, WND does not disclose that attorney and repentant tattoo bearer Richard Ackerman, one of the attorneys for the anti-gay side, once represented WND, let alone that WND pimped Ackerman's defense against charges that he filed frivolous lawsuits against Planned Parenthood.
Weyrich Repeats False Pelosi Claims Topic: Free Congress Foundation
A Feb. 13 column by the Free Congress Foundation's Paul Weyrich (reprinted at NewsMax) repeats the discredited claim that Nancy Pelosi asked for a large, luxurious jet to fly to California and back.
"The Washington Times broke the story that the Speaker was demanding a 747 with seating for 40, a middle compartment with a bed and a desk for, in this case, whoever is the host," Weyrich wrote. But the Times' claim has never been substantiated on the record; in fact, the House Sergeant at Arms, not Pelosi, requested a plane that would be able to fly nonstop from Washington to San Francisco.
Weyrich also wrote:
Given that Ms. Pelosi is two heartbeats from the Presidency, I felt perhaps her request was not unreasonable. That is, until I learned the following: the plane former Speaker Hastert used is capable of flying 3,700 nautical miles without refueling. That is well beyond the requirement for a San Francisco to Washington D.C flight. No, that wasn’t good enough. She wanted the larger aircraft.
Weyrich then complained: "Her people attacked the messenger for breaking the story. The Washington Times, you see, is right-wing trash." The problem here is not that the Washington Times is "right-wing trash"; it's that it's incorrect, unsubstantiated trash.
Further, nowhere does Weyrich acknowledge that the White House took Pelosi's side on this issue; press secretary Tony Snow said that she needs an Air Force plane to travel between Washington and her home district for security reasons.
A Feb. 14 NewsBusters post by Noel Sheppard regurgitates an interview with Timothy Ball, whom Sheppard says "should be familiar to many conservatives as one of the leading international skeptics of man’s role in global warming." Sheppard similarly promoted more claims by Ball in a Feb. 5 post.
We've previously reported on NewsBusters' love of Ball, which excludes any reference to alleged ties to oil companies and a paucity of of published scholarly research on the subject by him.
MRC Embraces Tapper's Incomplete Quoting of Hillary Topic: Media Research Center
In a Feb. 13 MRC CyberAlert item (and NewsBusters post), Brent Baker praises ABC's Jake Tapper for "broach[ing] a subject few, if any, mainstream journalists have dared: How Senator Hillary Clinton's current claims that her 2002 vote on the Iraq resolution was not an endorsement of war do not match what she said in 2002":
In the World News version of his story, Tapper pointed out how "a month before her vote on the Iraq War, she said this:" Viewers then heard Clinton on the September 15, 2002 Meet the Press: "I can support the President. I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interests of our national security." But, Tapper noted, "Now, she says this:" He ran a clip of her in Berlin, New Hampshire on Saturday: "I gave him authority to send inspectors back in to determine the truth, and I said this is not a vote to authorize preemptive war."
In fact, as Media Matters points out, Clinton did specifically argue in favor of inspections during the very "Meet the Press" interview from which Tapper quoted. Further, in a Senate floor speech before the 2002 vote, Clinton stated explicitly that she expected the White House to push for "complete, unlimited inspections" and that she did not view her support for the measure as "a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption or for unilateralism."
In other words, Tapper got it wrong, and Baker applauded Tapper getting it wrong. Does the MRC have a lesser standard of accuracy for the Clintons than it does for conservatives?
WND Still Likening Non-Homeschool-philes to Nazis Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has latchedonto a case in which a homeschooled German girl who purportedly was "suddenly was snatched from her home by a SWAT team of police officers and sent to a psychiatric ward for her 'school phobia.'" In WND style, the articles on the case by Bob Unruh offer no substantiation of the charge beyond statements by mostly anonymous members of a German homeschooling association, and no apparent attempt has been made by Unruh to contact German education officials regarding the veracity of the claims.
Part of this crusade by WND is repeatedly reminding readers that homeschooling in Germany was banned under the Nazi regime -- thus suggesting that anyone, German or non-German, who criticizes homeschooling is a Nazi, as we've previouslynoted. WND has kept up the smear. From a Feb. 13 article by Unruh quoting a conveninently anonymous spokesperson for the German homeschooling group:
Officials there said historically the German phobia about homeschooling began with Adolph Hitler, whose design was to control the minds of children as they grew, leaving them with only his worldview.
"The 'Jugendamt' (youth welfare office) has its origin in the German Nazi state," the German group said. "German Wikipedia writes about the Jugendamt: 'In 1939 the Jugendamt [was] adopted ... as a part of government in the NS-state control of child-education. The Jugendamt controlled and observed families and children politically from their birth."
A spokesman for the group told WND, "Today the Jugendamt … is free to take the children away from their parents when in their opinion the child's welfare is jeopardized. A false accusation of neighbors is sometimes sufficient to capture the children from their parents."
Given that Unruh has never told the other side of this story, assuming motives on the part of German officials and letting their critics speak for them is not just presumptuous, it's bad journalism. Unruh worked for the Associated Press for nearly 30 years; he knows better.
Aaron Klein's Mighty Wurlitzer Watch Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Feb. 12 WorldNetDaily article by Aaron Klein features criticism of Israel prime minister Ehud Olmert by the Rabbinical Congress for Peace. But as in the past, nowhere does Klein describe the congress' conservative, anti-Olmert agenda.
The folks at NewsBusters may be the only people on the planet who are worried that Ann Coulter isn't aggressive enough.
A Feb. 8 post by Geoffrey Dickens expressed dismay that Coulter was "surprisingly chummy" during a "Today" show face-off with Michael Eric Dyson. A Feb. 12 post by Tim Graham, similiarly concerned by the "remarkably docile debate" between Coulter and "left-wing author and academic" Dyson, did some follow-up and found something disturbing: Coulter provided a a dust-cover blurb for Dyson's new book. That, of course, gave entree for Graham to loot the MRC archives for Dyson items, plus profess shock at "Dyson's high praise of the autobiography of the black Muslim leader Malcolm X" in a Newsweek article.
Dickens and Graham overlook the possibility that Coulter's "docile" performance could be a realization on her part that her shock-jock-conservative schtick was no longer selling. Or that she, in fact, had nothing to sell: The paperback version of "Godless" won't be out for a few more months and, thus, she had no reason to draw attention to herself.
New Article: Accuracy for Moonies? Topic: Accuracy in Media
Accuracy in Media defends the Unification Church-owned website that repeated a false smear of Barack Obama, then reprints a screed by its editor. Read more.
A Feb. 12 WorldNetDaily article -- based on a Discovery Institute press release -- touts the addition of another 100 people with doctorates who have signed the institute's petition declaring the skepticism of the theory of evolution.
As we'venoted, WND has written similar articles about the petition in the past, obscuring the fact that many of the signatories hold doctorates in fields other than biology that have little or no contact with evolutionary theory.
This time, the article does note that those eligible to sign the list include "scientists who have a Ph.D in engineering, mathematics, computer science, biology, chemistry or one of the other natural sciences," but it doesn't explain what qualifies someone with a Ph.D. in non-biological fields as engineering, mathematics and computer science to offer an informed opinion about a biological process.
The WND article goes a step further than the Discovery Institute release, delcaring that the list of signatories "truly is a "Who's Who" of prominent scientists in the world today," further stating, "The list represents the most educated people in the world from all branches of science." WND offers no evidence to support these claims.