In a Nov. 10 WorldNetDaily column defending Rudy Giuliani (though it curiously doesn't mention Giuliani's name) as "a mayor who led rather than dithered" after 9/11, Jackie Mason and Raoul Felder wrote:
With the visual acuity of hindsight, the Emergency Response Center could have been constructed differently and in a different location. Different precautions could have been taken to protect first and second responders. But who knew? If we knew when it was going to rain with any degree of certainty, we would never be caught without an umbrella. The city acted on the best available information both before and after the event – and, incidentally, as far as the Emergency Response Center was concerned, various federal agencies were located in the same building and in the vicinity, and they, too, were devastated.
But as author Wayne Barrett points out, there was opposition to putting the New York City Emergency Response Center on the 23rd floor of a building in the World Trade Center coand mplex because the WTC had been the target of a terrorist attack in 1993 was at the top of the the terrorism vulnerability list that his own police department prepared. Further, the head of Giuliani's emergency management office recommended that the center be located in downtown Brooklyn, but Giuliani insisted that it had to be within walking distance of City Hall.
In his Nov. 10 WorldNetDaily column, Ellis Washington declared that Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf's declaration of a state of emergency was "necessary" (though "draconian") because he faced "a crucial Supreme Court decision was to be handed down that could overturn his recent election victory" and a related "tide of anarchy raging throughout Pakistan." Washington endorsed the arrests of "a couple hundred" lawyers "[b]ecause the Supreme Court and their willing minions, the Pakistani bar, has time and time again undermined the rule of law in Pakistan and thus frustrated Musharraf's ability to effectively rule his nation." Washington offers no evidence to support this view. Washington then likened these Pakistani lawyers to the "damn liberal lawyers" in the U.S. who are "directing the war" in Iraq.
In case Washington's views on lawyers wasn't clear enough, he began his column with the Shakespeare quote "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," though he seems to moderate this view by the end and suggests we should "shred the bar cards" of the lawyers instead. Or maybe arrest a couple hundred.
Sheppard Source Fell for Anti-Global Warming Hoax Topic: NewsBusters
A Nov. 9 NewsBusters post by Amy Ridenour complained that Reuters "tried to make a mountain out of a molehill" by reporting that a number of global warming skeptics fell for a hoax study that purported to claim that "pointing to ocean bacteria as the overwhelming cause of global warming" and, thus, supporting skeptics' claims that global warming is not manmade. Among those who fell for the hoax, Ridenour noted, was "Benny Peiser, who forwards copies of news articles and studies on climate matters to his 'CCNet' e-mail list several times each day. Peiser sent a copy of the hoax study to his list Wednesday without comment and sent out a hoax warning to the list about an hour later."
Turns out that Peiser is a source for a number of claims repeated by NewsBusters' Noel Sheppard (though Sheppard didn't repeat the hoax study). Sheppard cites Peiser as a source here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, among numerous other posts.
Whether or not Ridenour realizes it, what we really got to see here is a glimpse of the skeptics' transmission belt. Lead deniers like Peiser feed any scrap of information, no matter how dubious, to secondary deniers like Sheppard, who is also not interested in entertaining questions about the veracity of these sources, as we've detailed.
Peiser's "claim to fame" in the war on climate change science was a 2005 study that he claimed refuted an earlier study by Dr. Naomi Oreskes. Originally published in the prestigious publication, Science, the Oreskes study looked at 928 research papers on climate change and found that 100% agreed with the scientific consensus. Peiser originally stated in January, 2005 that Oreskes was incorrect and that "in light of the data [Peiser] presented... Science should withdraw Oresekes' study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the integrity of science." On October 12, 2006, Peiser admitted that only one of the research papers he used in his study refuted the scientific consensus on climate change, and that study was NOT peer-reviewed and was published by American Association of Petroleum Geologists[.] Peiser's incorrect claims were published in the Financial Post section of the National Post, in a May 17, 2005 commentary authored by Peiser himself.
Deniers like Sheppard and Peiser and Marc Morano don't seem to care whether the claims they make are true; all they care about is that they attack a political position they oppose. They pretend they're telling the "truth" about global warming when all they're actually doing is what they accuse their opponents of: playing politics.
UPDATE: EnergySmart (via Orcinus) cites an interview with the anonymous hoaxster, who says:
Its purpose was to expose the credulity and scientific illiteracy of many of the people who call themselves climate sceptics. While dismissive of the work of the great majority of climate scientists, they will believe almost anything if it lends support to their position. Their approach to climate science is the opposite of scepticism.
A Nov. 9 CNSNews.com article by Randy Hall claims that "only three State Department employees have been killed in Iraq since the U.S.-led coalition invaded the country more than four years ago." By Hall fails to mention a certain relevant B-word -- Blackwater.
Blackwater USA serves as the security contractor for State Department employees in Iraq, and has been embroiled in numerous controversies that have resulted in, among other things, the resignation of the State Department’s security chief after a panel found serious lapses in the department’s oversight of such private guards.
None of this is mentioned by Hall, though one would think it would be revelevant to what he wrote about: the security of diplomats in Iraq. But it appears Hall is more concerned with portraying State Department employees complaining about possible forced assignments in Iraq as wusses.
Sheppard Ignores Willey's Lack of Credibility Topic: NewsBusters
A Nov. 9 NewsBusters post by Noel Sheppard complains that Kathleen Willey's new book isn't being "welcomed with open arms by evening television magazines like '60 Minutes' and morning shows like 'Today.'" While raising the dark specter of "liberal media bias," Sheppard ignores the more logical explanation: Willey has a history of contradictory claims and, thus, has no credibility as a Clinton accuser.
Not, of course, that forwarding claims by people who lack credibilty has been a problem for Sheppard in the past.
Sheppard also asserts that "only Fox News has even mentioned" Willey's book. Apparently, in Sheppard's handbook of media bias, lengthy appearances ontwo Fox News programs (plus Hannity's radio show) translates to "mention."
'Even the Liberal' (Yet Anti-Union) Denver Post Topic: Washington Examiner
The Washington Examiner printed an edited version of our letter regarding its Nov. 7 editorial bashing Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter for signing an executive order permitting state employees to form unions. We noted what the editorial didn't -- that the order is a rather weak one, given that it prohibits state personnel from pressuring employees into joining a union, forbids strikes and binding arbitration, and grants the Colorado legislature the right not to fund provisions in collective bargaining agreements.
But the Examiner edited out one relevant point that we originally wrote. The editorial stated:
Now, even the liberal Denver Post is calling Ritter a modern-day “Jimmy Hoffa,” a “toady to labor bosses” and “a bag man for unions and special interests.” And that was just in the introductory paragraphs of a rare front-page editorial by the Post last Sunday.
Doesn't the fact that the Post opposes the order and called Ritter "a modern-day 'Jimmy Hoffa,' a 'toady to labor bosses' and 'a bag man for unions and special interests'" -- in an editorial on the front page of the paper, no less -- mean the opposite, that the Post is not a "liberal" paper? Indeed, Post owner William Dean Singleton is known to bustunions at the papers he owns. "Liberal" newspapers are not exactly known for doing that.
Farah's Double Standard on Violence-Tainted Advertising Topic: WorldNetDaily
In his Nov. 9 WorldNetDaily column, Joseph Farah announces that he has canceled his subscritption to the Washington Post because it published "a six-page advertising supplement by the totalitarian government of China boasting about its 17th National Congress of the Communist Party." Farah added, "I'll bet no one at the Washington Post even gave a second thought to whether the paper should accept advertising money from a totalitarian police state responsible for unspeakable crimes against its own people."
We've previouslynoted CNSNews' double standard on political books: Conservatives are allowed to rebut claims in books by liberals, but liberals generally don't get a chance to rebut claims in books by conservatives.
CNS keeps it up in a Nov. 7 interview by Terry Jeffrey and Michael Chapman of M. Stanton Evans, author of a new book claiming that "Sen. Joe McCarthy was right about the communist threat and that liberals have ignored the evidence and distorted history." Presented in a Q-and-A format, the questions are of the softball variety, and no apparent effort is made to offer up anyone with a contrasting opinion of McCarthy.
NewsBusters Still Shilling for O'Reilly After All Topic: NewsBusters
Despite its recent shocking correction of claims made by Bill O'Reilly, NewsBusters is still content to pretend that some false claims made by O'Reilly are true. A Nov. 7 post by Justin McCarthy claimed that "O’Reilly also dispelled the false 'New York Times' story that 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' (O’Reilly only said 'MSNBC' without mentioning Olbermann by name) is competitive with 'The O’Reilly Factor.' In fact, 'The Factor' dominates the 8:00 PM slot dwarfing 'Countdown.' "
In fact, as Media Matters points out, the Times article is correct. Its claim that "Countdown" "has even come tantalizingly close to surpassing the ratings ... at least among viewers ages 25 to 54, which is the demographic cable news advertisers prefer" is absolutely true, and O'Reilly's claim that "In the past five weeks, 'The Factor' has beaten them by 225 percent in total audience and 100 percent in the key demo" is misleading. The article also noted that "Most of the time, though, Mr. O'Reilly outdraws Mr. Olbermann by about 1.5 million viewers over all at the same hour, according to Nielsen Media Research," something O'Reilly and McCarthy failed to mention.
CNS Plays Up ENDA Attack, Ignores Provision Contradicting It Topic: CNSNews.com
A Nov. 8 CNSNews.com article by Susan Jones on the passage in the House of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act reported that "House Republican leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the bill would undermine state and federal marriage laws across the country." But Jones didn't mention that, as the San Francisco Chronicle reported, ENDA includes "a reaffirmation that the Defense of Marriage Act banning federal recognition of same-sex marriage remains intact."
Finkelstein Defends His Attack on Obama's Patriotism By Claiming It Wasn't One Topic: NewsBusters
In response to criticism on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" of his Oct. 20 highlighting of a picture of Barack Obama standing without his hand over his heart at a campaign event during what he first claimed was the Pledge of Allegiance (later corrected to the national anthem), Mark Finkelstein wrote a Nov. 7 NewsBusters post defending his original item.
Fineklstein complained that "the MJ panelists and the Obama campaign have seized on the fact that it was the anthem and not the pledge to excuse Obama's failure to put his hand over his heart. That is a distinction without a difference: the tradition is to place the hand over the heart for the anthem as well as for the pledge." Actually, there is a arguable distinction: it's somewhat more accepted (rightly or not) to not put hand over heart for the national anthem, as the crowd at any given sporting event can attest.
Finkelstein then insisted:
I don't question Barack Obama's patriotism, though it is obvious that he's not enthralled with certain traditional expressions of it that many Americans appreciate.
That's a tad disingenous. By making the effort to highlight this photo on a conservative website, Finkelstein absolutely was questioning Obama's patriotism -- as indicated by the number of comments on the post citing the photo as evidence that Obama is unpatriotic. It's also indicated by his statement that "I found it jarring that Obama, asked about it, went out of his way to state 'I won't wear that pin on my chest' because it was 'a substitute for I think true patriotism.'"
The whole point of conservatives like Finkelstein making a big deal out of Obama not wearing a flag pin or not assuming a specific position during the national anthem is, implicitly or otherwise, to question his patriotism. If not, why bring it up in the first place?
UPDATE: Finkelstein's post has apparently morphed into an anonymous email that (falsely) accuses Obama of not having hand over heart during the Pledge of Allegiance and (presumably) questions his patriotism. In debunking it, the Washington Post has found photos of Obama with his hand over his heart -- which seems to contract Finkelstein's suggestion that Obama hasn't been acting in a patriotic enough manner on the campaign trail. Will he let his NewsBusters readers know about this?
MRC- Fox News Appearance Watch Topic: Media Research Center
The MRC Business & Media Institute's Dan Gainor is surerackingup the appearances on Fox Business. His latest, on Nov. 8 -- at least the fourth in the past month -- follows the template: solo, and no acknowledgment that Gainor and the MRC are conservative.
"If she was watching 'Today' this morning, you can imagine Hillary Clinton using her best North-Korean-parliament rhythmical clapping in response to what she saw. It might be 'ronery' in her Georgetown or Chappaqua spreads, but it's always heart-warming to know you've got friends at the highest-rated morning show."
-- Mark Finkelstein, June 29, 2006, NewsBusters post
"They love these lunchtime meetings. And they're always at -- [Hillary's]usually standing in front of the camera, and she's clapping, like she's Chinese. I know the Chinese clap at each other, but what is she clapping at?"
-- Chris Matthews, on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Nov. 7
Actually, it turns out that Matthews has a long history of likening Hillary Clinton's clapping to that of Asian communists, which suggests that Finkelstein may be channeling Matthews instead of the other way around.
And all this is especially funny because Finkelstein regularly attacks Matthews for being a horribly biased liberal. And now they sound alike? What's up with that?
A poll currently running on NewsBusters asks: "Does Fred Phelps Get Less Media Coverage Because of His Democrat Views?"
This attempt to hang Phelps around the neck of the Democrats ignores the fact that the two things he and his clan are known for -- anti-gay activism and protesting at military funerals -- are not views held by any Democrat, despite NewsBusters' previous suggestion to the contrary.
Unfortunately, none of the answers to the poll is "No, because Phelps' anti-gay activism is much closer to the mainstream of conservative thought than any Democratic view."
New Article: Once and Future Bias Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com took a stab at serving up relatively balanced reporting earlier this year. With the arrival of new management, however, that's all gone. Read more.