"The statistics in his article were incorrect, but the points the article makes about liberal hypocrisy and liberal racism were not."
-- David Horowitz, May 10 FrontPageMag blog entry on Lawrence Auster's FrontPageMag article on "the legal lynching of the Duke students," in which he misinterpreted federal statistics to falsely assert that were no rapes of black women by white men in 2005.
We've written about Auster before. James Wolcott, with an assist from Undercover Black Man, has more on Auster's article, history of racism and his relationship with Horowitz.
In your May 11 WorldNetDaily column, you note that your April 16 article on the alleged health hazards of compact fluorescent lights is used as an "example" of a fallacious charge on Snopes. You write:
The story was so good, if I do say so myself, it was picked up internationally.
Everything in the story is 100 percent accurate and truthful – and not a word of the original story has been altered.
Snopes reports my story is an "example" of this ludicrous assertion: "An environmental clean-up crew needs to be called in to deal with the mercury dispersed by one broken CFL bulb."
Now, I dare you. Go read my story and tell me where I, the reporter in this case, suggested any such nonsense.
We'll take you up on that dare.
You did, in fact, suggest the "nonsense" that "An environmental clean-up crew needs to be called in to deal with the mercury dispersed by one broken CFL bulb." Quoting from your April 16 article:
So, last month, the Prospect, Maine, resident [Brandy Bridges] went out and bought two dozen CFLs and began installing them in her home. One broke. A month later, her daughter's bedroom remains sealed off with plastic like the site of a hazardous materials accident, while Bridges works on a way to pay off a $2,000 estimate by a company specializing in environmentally sound cleanups of the mercury inside the bulb.
The specialist warned Bridges not to clean up the bulb and mercury powder by herself – recommending a local environmental cleanup firm.
That company estimated the cleanup cost, conservatively, at $2,000. And, no, her homeowners insurance won't cover the damage.
Since she could not afford the cleanup, Bridges has been forced to seal off her daughter's bedroom with plastic to avoid any dust blowing around. Not even the family pets are permitted in to the bedroom.
Further, while the Ellsworth American newspaper article you apparently lifted the Bridges story from quotes a spokesman for Maine's Department of Environmental Protection points out that it "isn’t necessary to hire professionals at all” for a light bulb and quotes the state toxicologist as saying it would be unlikely that a person could contract mercury poisoning from the levels of mercury found in Bridges’ daughter’s room, you included none of that information in your article. By listing only the $2,000 cleanup job as an option for cleaning up the broken bulb, you committed bias by omission and created a highly misleading -- if not, in the words of Snopes, "fallacious" -- article.
If the "original article" that you claim "not a word of ... has been altered" is the Ellsworth American article, you did indeed "alter" it by not completely reporting all the relevant claims it made -- specifically, that a $2,000 cleanup job is not the only option Bridges has.
That newspaper article also noted that Bridges has "spent roughly two to three hours a day over the past several weeks, talking on the phone and in person and contacting local papers to get the word out on what she believes are dangerous light bulbs." Is WorldNetDaily one of the news outlets to whom Bridges shopped her story?
You conclude your column by stating: "Long story short: Learn to trust those with track records of honesty, integrity and standards. WND has those traits." No, it doesn't; Refusal to report crucial, complete information -- information you failed to include in your original article on CFLs -- is not the hallmark of a news organization that puts into practice "honesty, integrity and standards."
A May 6 WorldNetDaily article reported that Starbucks had a coffee cup in its "The Way I See It" series of quotes that included what it called an "anti-God" quotation. WND followed up the next day with an opt-in poll asking, "What do you think of the so-called "anti-God" message on Starbucks coffee cups?" The third-place answer, with 21 percent, was, "I bet Starbucks would not print a quote promoting the belief in the God of the Bible."
Nowhere did it note the fact that, as Pandagon pointed out, Starbucks does, in fact, have cups with "pro-God" sayings.
Pandagon's post appeared in the morning of May 9; WND followed up on the evening of May 9 with an article by Joe Kovacs proclaiming: "Starbucks markets more anti-God cups." Kovacs cites only one other "anti-God" cup that didn't appear in the previous WND article: a quote from humorist Joel stein stating that "Heaven is totally overrated" and that "They're basically getting by because they only have to be better than Hell." Kovacs even cited the results of WND's opt-in poll on the issue -- but didn't mention that the gripe out that Starbucks wouldn't promote God or the Bible.
It's not until the 16th paragraph of his article that Kovacs notes that "Starbucks provided WND with some cup messages that could be viewed as 'pro-God.' " One of them, though, is from 'Purpose-Driven Life" mogul Rick Warren, whom WND is currentlyfeuding with.
Doesn't the fact that Starbucks offers "pro-God" cups negate criticism over the "anti-God" cups? Or is Kovacs' and WND's goal to attack and marginalize anything that could be considered criticism of Christianity? They don't say.
CNS Follows WND's Template, Misleads on Fluorescent Bulbs Topic: CNSNews.com
A May 10 CNSNews.com article by Fred Lucas took a page out of WorldNetDaily's notebook to make misleadingly alarmist claims about compact fluorescent lights. Focusing on the that WND's Joseph Farah did -- that of the Brandi Bridges family -- stating that "Bridges dropped a fluorescent bulb in her daughter's room and it shattered, leaving potentially unsafe levels of mercury inside the rug. At the suggestions of the state's Department of Environmental Protection, she now has to pay $2,000 for a professional environmental clean up. Her seven-year-old daughter sleeps in the family room, as her room is sealed off by plastic."
But like Farah, Lucas descends into scaremongering and ignored information showing that the Bridges case was overblown. Like Farah, Lucas fails to mention that, according to the newspaper article from which they both apparently took their claims about the Bridges case, another spokesman for Maine's Department of Environmental Protection points out that it "isn’t necessary to hire professionals at all” for a light bulb, and that the specialist who responded to Bridges’ broken bulb was trained to respond to chemical spills and to clean up such spills to "appropriate standards."
Lucas wrote that "In Bridges' case, the shattered glass couldn't be easily removed from the carpet and reached a level of 1,939 ng/m3 (monograms per cubic meter) in the single area. For her daughter's entire room, the levels in the air were well below 300, considered the threshold for safety." But the newspaper reported the rest of the story:
State Toxicologist Andrew Smith said it would be unlikely that a person could contract mercury poisoning from the levels of mercury found in Bridges’ daughter’s room.
“In this situation, my understanding, was this 1,900 was the sign reading right at the spot of the floor where the bulb broke,” said Smith. “While 1,900 was certainly considered an elevated reading of mercury vapor, it was a very localized level that I would not expect to result in any sign of mercury exposure.”
Lucas also failed to mention that, acccording to the newspaper, Bridges "spent roughly two to three hours a day over the past several weeks, talking on the phone and in person and contacting local papers to get the word out on what she believes are dangerous light bulbs." Was CNS one of the news outlets Bridges contacted in her media blitz?
A May 8 WorldNetDaily article promoted a "Zogby Poll done for the National Abstinence Education Association" which claimed that "nine out of 10 parents agree being sexually abstinent is best for their child's health and future and, mostly, believe the message to wait is lost when sex education teaches the use of contraceptives." The article quotes Valerie Huber, the association's executive director, as saying that the poll "also reveals the preference for abstinence-only education programs rises sharply – from 40 percent to 60 percent – when parents understand that sex education programs encompassing contraceptives do encourage sexual activity."
But a closer look at the poll shows it to be, in essence, a push poll designed to elicit that response.
Of course, since the National Abstinence Education Association paid Zogby for this poll, the entire point is to obtain results that conform with their agenda, and a look at the poll questions show how that was done. Before the survey got to the que4stion asking whether "Sex Education classes in public schools should place more emphasis on promoting abstinence rather than on condom and other contraceptive use" (question 18), respondents were targeted with a series of questions with scary, unsupported and/or unexplained claims:
7. According to the publication Contraceptive Technology, among typical couples using condoms for birth control, more than one in ten become pregnant each year. Do you ... that your child should be educated on how often condoms fail to prevent pregnancy based upon typical use?
8. Since adults only use condoms consistently less than 50% of the time, according to a study done by the University of California Berkeley, it is even less likely for teens to correctly use a condom every single time they have sex[?]
10. According to the Centers for Disease Control, condoms do not offer 100% protection against any sexually transmitted disease or STD. Do you ... that your child should be instructed on the limitations of condoms in preventing specific STDs?
12. Do you ... that promoting different forms of sexual activity in sex education classes, such as showering together and mutual masturbation as alternatives to intercourse encourages sexual activity among teens?
The poll questions also, without evidence, unfavorably compare comprehensive sex education with abstinence-only sex ed:
19. If you knew that typical Comprehensive Sex Education programs spend as little as 5% of the time teaching abstinence, while instead, some programs spend much more time teaching students how to put condoms on models of male genitalia, would you be ... to support teaching Abstinence Education in place of Comprehensive Sex Education?
20. If you knew that typical Abstinence Education Courses place a higher emphasis on building healthy relationships, bolstering self worth and self-control, rather than on condom usage skills, would you be ... to support teaching Abstinence Education in place of Comprehensive Sex Education?
21. If you knew that some Comprehensive Sex Education courses may advise students to experiment with different flavors and colors of condoms as part of its sex education, would you be ... to support teaching Abstinence Education in place of Comprehensive Sex Education?
22. If you knew that typical Abstinence Education Courses teach teens how to develop healthy relationships to improve their chances for a healthy future marriage, would you be ... to support teaching Abstinence Education in place of Comprehensive Sex Education?
23. If you knew that some Comprehensive Sex Education teaches and promotes alternative forms of sexual activity, called outercourse, which may include showering together and mutual masturbation as effective ways to avoid pregnancy and disease, would you be ... to support teaching Abstinence Education in place of Comprehensive Sex Education?
24. If you knew that typical Abstinence Education Courses teach how an unplanned pregnancy and/or contracting sexually transmitted diseases can negatively affect a teen's future physically, financially, and emotionally, would you be ... to support teaching Abstinence Education in place of Comprehensive Sex Education?
25. If you knew that typical Abstinence Education Courses teach teens about increasing their self-worth as a method for reducing premarital sexual activity, would you be ... to support teaching Abstinence Education in place of Comprehensive Sex Education?
The poll offers respondents no evidence for its attacks on comprehensive sex ed, nor does it raise questions about the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex ed (remember who paid for the poll). Indeed, a week after the polling was completed, a congressional study reported that abstinence-only sex ed does not keep teenagers from having sex, nor does it increase or decrease the likelihood that if they do have sex, they will use a condom.
In other words, the Zogby study is too biased to be meaningful to anyone other than pro-abstinence, anti-comprehensive sex ed activists.
Speaking of Pots and Kettles ... Topic: NewsBusters
A May 9 NewsBusters post (and Times Watch item) by Clay Waters claimed it was a "pot meets kettle" moment when the New York Times described the New York Post and Fox News as being "known for their right-wing political bent and racy tone." Waters writes: "Strange how the Times never cops to its own undeniable liberal bias, yet doesn't hesitate to label Fox News as right-wing or conservative."
And it's equally strange how Waters offers no evidence to contradict the Times' claim. He and his MRC buddies just can'tquiteadmit that Fox News skews right. Perhaps doing so would jeopardize the fawning coverage Fox gives to them.
New Article: Scaring Grandma Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily wants you to believe that a new hate-crime law will result in your grandmother getting thrown in the slammer for "sharing the Gospel of Jesus." Unless granny is a bullhorn-wielding anti-gay activist, don't worry about it. Read more.
A May 7 NewsMax article is a regurgitation of a press release by the conservative Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) recounting the case of Arizona community college instructor Walter Kehowski, who was purportedly placed on administrative leave for, in NewsMax's words, "simply sending out an e-mail to colleagues containing George Washington’s 'Thanksgiving Day Proclamation of 1789.' " The NewsMax article contains only FIRE's side of the story and makes no attempt to contact anyone at the college.
What neither NewsMax or FIRE want you to know is Kehowski's history of promoting inflammatory anti-immigrant rhetoric -- which, along with his repeated violations of school email policy, is a more likely culprit behind his purported woes than e-mailing Washington’s Thanksgiving Day proclamation. After all, when the white "racialist" websites American Renaissance and VDARE are running to your defense -- as they have for Kehowski in the past -- the issue is bigger than George Washington.
The AmRen site reproduced a November 2004 Arizona Republic article stating that Latino faculty members have accused Kehowski of using his college computer "to send discriminatory messages and to create a Web site with links to White supremacist sites."
"The e-mails transmitted by Mr. Kehowski have, among other things, denounced 'multiculturalism 'and 'd-d-d-diversity' and encouraged recipients to acknowledge and celebrate the superiority of Western Civilization," the lawsuit claims. "These e-mails also contained excerpts from and links to articles denigrating Latinos, immigrants and many other minority groups, with titles such as ‘California’s Being Invaded, Too—By Hispanic Holidays.' "
"Plaintiffs, students and other employees complained directly to (college) officials," according to the suit, which describes Kehowski's computer transmissions as racially disparaging, abusive, threatening and hostile.
AmRen adds at the end of the article, "Tell Mr. Kehowski and Glendale Community College to stand firm," providing emails for both.
The column Kehowski forwarded titled "California’s Being Invaded, Too—By Hispanic Holidays" is a March 2003 article at VDARE by Joe Guzzardi, in which he bashes "Mexican celebrations that will dominate California school calendars and guarantee a steady stream of dopey newspaper articles."
In a Dec. 10, 2004 VDARE article, Guzzardi noted the Kehowski controversy and defended his column: "I merely observed that school age Mexican-Americans would be better served spending their time mastering English instead of participating in Cinco de Mayo celebrations." Guzzardi goes on to quote Kehowski at length, noting that he conducted "several interviews" with the professor. According to Guzzardi, Kehowski attacked the college's "Dia de la Raza" event -- which he described as sort of an anti-Columbus Day -- claiming that the school was "endorsing an explicitly racist event" and proposing a "a celebration of Columbus Day and Western culture" instead.
Glendale Community College's school newspaper reported that Kehowski's emails also included statements like, "It’s time to acknowledge and celebrate the superiority of Western civilization" and "the half truths of…multiculturalism and diversity versus the full truth of its anti-Western, anti-Christian, anti-American and ultimately anti-White Marxist agenda."
Also unmentioned by NewsMax or FIRE is the fact that, as reported by the Arizona Republic, school district chancellor Rufus Glasper has noted that Kehowski has "continued to disregard district policies despite previous sanctions and directives. Kehowski was suspended without pay for five days in September 2005 for a similar violation."
Given such a lack of honesty from FIRE about Kehowski's history and views, NewsMax may want to rethink its support of Kehowski -- and its refusal to fact-check FIRE's press releases.
Sheppard's Weasel Words (And Censorship) Topic: NewsBusters
A May 8 NewsBusters post by Noel Sheppard begins this way: "If Democrats had accused former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Illinois) last year of earmarking funds that could help real estate investments owned by his wife, would the media have reported it?" He continued: "Well, the Associated Press published a story Monday about current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) possibly earmarking funds that would benefit her husband's investments around the San Francisco Bay."
We've highlighted the weasel words above to show that Sheppard has no evidence that the earmarked money actually does benefit Pelosi's husband's investments. And in a fit of censorship, Sheppard chopped from his version of the article comments from Pelosi's office that put the situation in context: "Aides to the San Francisco Democrat denied any connection, noting that the waterfront improvements were requested by the Port of San Francisco and the four rental properties in question are at least a mile away."
Given that a mile typically comprises 12 to 16 city blocks, that's a long walk from Pelosi's investments to the port, making it unlikely that Pelosi would benefit.
Sheppard also did a censorship job in quoting from a New York Post article about the earmark, repeating Republican congressman Jeb Hensarling's statement, "The appearance is obviously not good, and she needs to be forthcoming about how this impacts her financial interest," but deleting the next paragraph in which the Post writes, "He didn't offer proof that Pelosi would benefit." Sheppard also excised a statement from Pelosi's spokesman:
Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said "1.1 miles is a long way in San Francisco," adding, "This isn't stuff that she pushed, this is what the port came to her with."
"This is another baseless attack from a Republican minority seeking to distract from real issues of the day."
Sheppard also quoted from a Congressional Quarterly article in which an anonymous "senior Republican aide" says, "If Tiger Woods teed a ball up at Pelosi’s million-dollar rental property, he could easily hit the earmark in two strokes, with a slight draw to avoid the water." That's an absurd claim, which Sheppard should know since he specifically censored the part stating that that the property is more than a mile away. We don't know of any golf courses with a par-2, 1,800-yard green; perhaps Sheppard does.
UPDATE: Media Matters has more on just how false that Tiger Woods comparison is.
A May 7 NewsMax article promotes the results of its latest poll, on Don Imus. Nowhere does NewsMax inform its readers that it's an opt-in poll whose results are meaningless as an indicator of overall national opinion. This applies to prettymuchevery "Internet poll" that NewsMax promotes.
While the aricle details results for questions such as "Should Imus make a media comeback to radio & TV airwaves?" and "Do you believe Al Sharpton has any credibility attacking Imus?" it doesn't share the results of the final question: "Who did you vote for in the 2004 election?" Perhaps NewsMax knows if that was made public, the poll would be revealed for the biased sham it is.
CNS Ignores False Claim by Romney Topic: CNSNews.com
A May 7 CNSNews.com article by Kevin Mooney featured several conservatives who praised Mitt Romney's commencement address at Pat Robertson-founded Regent University, where he stated that, in Mooney's words, "Americans who embrace self-sacrifice over self-absorption in the form of committed marriages help to set America apart from Europe." But nowhere did Mooney mention the false claim Romney made during the speech:
In France, for instance, I'm told that marriage is now frequently contracted in seven-year terms where either party may move on when their term is up. How shallow and how different from the Europe of the past.
Did Romney confuse reality with an Orson Scott Card novel or a French comedy film? Will Mooney (or anyone else at CNS) muster up the interest to find out, or will they continue to pretend he didn't say it?
Sheffield's Double Standard on Dual-Tier Stock Topic: NewsBusters
Matthew Sheffield's May 7 NewsBusters defense of Rupert Murdoch's bid for Wall Street Journal owner Dow Jones reminds us: In all of Sheffield's fulminations over the New York Times Co.'s dual-tier stock structure, not once has he noted that Dow Jones has a similar structure, with the Bancroft family controlling 64 percent of the company.
So, Matt: If dual-tier stock is bad for the Times, why isn't bad for Dow Jones?
WND's News Expo Dies A Quiet Death Topic: WorldNetDaily
Remember WorldNetDaily's News Expo? WND announced it back in January as "an interactive conference event for news breakers, news shakers, news makers and news junkies," the place where "some 1,500 journalists, bloggers, publishers, authors and news consumers are expected to gather to participate in the breaking of news, the analysis of events and the discussion of trends," held at "the biggest hotel ballroom in the nation's capital." Ann Coulter was tapped for the keynote address, and it would also feature a "10th anniversary party for the leading independent news source on the Net – WorldNetDaily.com." Even a battle of the bands was planned to pick a musical act for the event. WND editor Joseph Farah breathlessly promoted the idea in a January 15 column: "Together, in one giant room – the biggest in Washington – you'll rub shoulders with top newsmakers, top journalists, top bloggers, top authors as well as top exhibitors and sponsors from the world of media and publishing." (Farah also erroneously described the May 11-12 event as occurring during D.C.'s cherry blossom season.) Farah exhorted his readers: "[Y]ou should make your plans to attend right now as a show of support to me and WND. We need to make this event a big success if, indeed, it is to continue as an annual tradition and if it is to have the impact we envision."
Uh, never mind.
The big event is a week away, and there's nary a word about it on the WND website. Indeed, the last mention of it at WND is March 9, at the bottom of an article by Aaron Klein, who had been scheduled to be part of the lineup. The expo's website redirects to the website promoting WND's 10th anniversary, where there's also nary a mention of the event. And it's missing from WND's calendar of anniversary events.
Yep, we'd say it's dead, ceased to be, bleedin' demised, bereft of life, joined the choir invisible. It is an ex-Expo.
What happened? Given that WND hasn't mentioned it in two months, it certainly isn't about to enlighten its readers as to why. We suspect there was a cost-benefit ratio problem: If we recall correctly, the admission price for the full weekend including the banquet at which Coulter was to speak was more than $600, a lot to pay for hanging out with B- and C-list right-wingers (Coulter's a A-list right-winger, but we doubt she would be hanging around the entire weekend). Other featured guests had included Hal Lindsey and Jerome Corsi; Corsi was to take part in the one event that could be described as not explicitly right-wing -- a debate with professor Robert Pastor over the idea of a European Union-like "North American Community," which Corsi virulently opposes. (We proposed a debate between us and Farah over WND's style of news coverage, but we never heard back.)
Other WND anniversary initiatives, meanwhile, seem to be going apace. We haven't heard much about the Courage in Media Awards lately either, but the website's still live, so we'll assume that's still a going proposition, even though the award was to have been given out at News Expo. And the Caribbean cruise is still promoted on the WND website, where at least you get some nice Caribbean scenery for your money that helps to make up for being stuck on a boat with Joseph Farah and David Kupelian.
Is MRC In Cahoots with Giuliani's Campaign? Topic: NewsBusters
In a May 5 NewsBusters post, Noel Sheppard notes an Associated Press claiming that Rudy Giuliani's campaign "called NBC News to complain about Olbermann being part of the debate telecast" prior to last Thursday's Republican presidential debate. Sheppard cited the "disgraceful performance of clearly left-leaning media members at Thursday’s event," linking to a NewsBusters post by Brent Baker in which, uh, Olbermann is not even mentioned.
The more pertinent issue, though, is one Sheppard didn't mention: Is his employer, the Media Research Center, in cahoots with the Giuliani campaign?
While Giuliani was complaining to NBC about Olbermann, the MRC issued a May 2 press release in which Brent Bozell "denounces NBC for presenting such a notoriously biased and partisan propagandist as an objective anchorman":
“Keith Olbermann is an avowed enemy of the Republican Party,” stated L. Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, “yet NBC and MSNBC give him a microphone and turn a blind eye to his ultra-liberal, propagandist personal agenda.
“If they wanted to provide balanced coverage of the debate, why not pair Chris Matthews with a conservative? The answer is simple. Balance and objectivity are not part of their repertoire.
“NBC and MSNBC are losing what little credibility they had left.”
Coincidence or coordination? We report, you decide.
It's worth pointing out that in neither his NewsBusters post (the one Sheppard linked to) or his subsequent appearance on Fox News disingenously complaining about the "left-leaning questions" at the debate did Rich Noyes even mention Olbermann, let alone complain about his "ultra-liberal" comments.
And in another May 5 post, Sheppard asked, "is there a reason why Republicans should give Democrat shills like Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann a platform to advance their leftwing agenda while pretending they’re objective?" without detailing anything "left-wing" that Olbermann said. (Not to mention the fact that Matthews isn't exactly "left-wing"; Sheppard also brings up "the deplorable questions asked by liberal media members at Thursday’s GOP event" despite the fact that MSNBC's debate co-sponsor, the new Washington publication the Politico, whose John Harris and Jim VandeHei moderated the debate along with Matthews, isn't exactly filled with raving left-wingers either).
Where's the beef, guys? Could it be that Olbermann, in fact, said nothing the MRC could attack?