Bozell Doubles Down on Sherrod Lie Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell doubles down on the lie that Shirley Sherrod is a racist, saying it even more emphatically on the July 21 edition of Mark Levin's radio show:
BOZELL: I watched the full tape. It gets worse, it doesn't get better. It's not that Andrew Breitbart took out something that was going to somehow get her off the hook. She hangs herself later on with footage that Andrew Breitbart, I believe, did not have on his.
[...]
She goes on to say, "Some of the racism we thought was buried, didn't it resurface?" The audience applauds. "We endured eight years of the Bushes, and didn't do the stuff these Republicans are doing because we have a black president." Here is a woman who is herself inserting racism into the debate, and conservatives somehow have to apologize?
[...]
I thought that what we were leading to was her saying that she had come to the realization it wasn't about racism, that it was about poverty. That was the theme of her speech. Until you listen to it carefully, and what's she saying is it's racism and poverty. She's inserting racism and class warfare into this debate. I mean, this is what we're up against.
Bozell is trying to change the subject from the fact he falsely smeared her as a racist. He's throwing more cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes around to disguise his own libelous behavior.Given that he has already embraced cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes to falsely smear Sherrod as a racist, there's no reason to believe that more cherry-picked quotes will make his point.
And if Bozell will not apologize for his false and libelous smear, he is certainly not going to hold Andrew Breitbart accountable for his irresponsibility in posting the cherry-picked clips in the first place.
It's yet another reminder that the Media Research Center cares abolutely nothing about media research -- it's all about partisan politics, which may very well violate its current tax-exempt status.
He has an already legendary taste for Kobe beef, one of the most expensive delicacies on the planet, and one of the fattiest, while his wife condescendingly chastises Americans for their diets and "lavish lifestyles." I don't know if I'd feel comfortable even admitting I had an affinity for that particular culinary extravagance – let alone indulging in it regularly – if I had any access whatever to the public purse strings, as does our president, Barack Hussein Obama.
This sort of cavalier behavior – even if the president does pay for his own meals – is pretty much standard fare for the progressive; it isn't given a second thought. Lacking even the rationale of the robber baron, who at least creates jobs through the goods or services he provides, progressives succeed by virtue of their lack of virtue, then enjoy opulence and privilege whilst living out a parasitic existence on the backs of those who do produce.
In the instance of our current chief executive, his inopportune indulgences and trust-fund-baby lifestyle, no pretext nor rationalization is forthcoming, let alone some justification, since his propaganda ministry, the establishment press, absolutely refuses to hold him accountable.
It is quite conceivable that President Obama has already decided to not seek a second term in 2012 and therefore can afford to ignore public opinion and "do the right thing" by his own compass – not only on border security and amnesty but all across the board. The problem for the nation is that his compass is set on the goal of a socialist America within a new international socialist order where borders – and the Constitution's limits on his power – are of little consequence.
After President Obama repeatedly and emphatically promised last summer that Obamacare would not use federal funds to pay for abortions (and even signed a supportive presidential order to boot), last week it was revealed that federal funds were being funneled to provide for abortive services in Pennsylvania and New Mexico.
This presidential lie is tragically just one more in an unprecedented string of flat-out falsehoods reaching back to Obama's campaign promise to "clean up both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue" with "the most sweeping ethics reform in history."
-- Chuck Norris, July 19 WorldNetDaiily column (making a claim that's unequivocally false)
Newsmax Disappears Breitbart From Sherrod Story Topic: Newsmax
A July 21 Newsmax article by David Patten portrays a "a chastened White House" apologizing to Shirley Sherrod after being '[b]lasted by pundits on both ends of the political spectrum for its firing of a USDA worker who made racially tinged remarks."
But Patten curiously disappears the name of the person who is responsible for posting the dishonestly edited videos that falsely portrayed Sherrod has having made "racially tinged" remarks -- Andrew Breitbart.
How does one write an entire story about Sherrod and fail to mention the person who put the false narrative in motion? We don't know, but Patten has achieved it. Then again, Patten is a horribly biased reporter.
Kincaid's July 19 AIM column is more of the same, touching on various anti-gay subjects he has made over the past several months -- gays in the military, gay marriage, "gay blood" -- with some updated right-wing talking points.
Kincaid also announces that he is "honored to be invited to be a part of" an upcoming "Truth Academy" being held by the rabidly anti-gay Americans for Truth about Homosexuality. He oes on to praise AFTAH leader Peter LaBarbera as "one of those brave few taking a leadership role in the effort to preserve traditional American social and religious values." Kincaid writes that LaBarbera has been "[f]ighting off the predictable smears of 'hater' and 'homophobe' from the gay-run Media Matters group and the Southern Poverty Law Center," failing to mention the fact that such statements are "predictable" because they are true.
Kincaid completed his point with photo promoting his column on the AIM front page, apparently ripped directly from his subconscious:
It's as if Kincaid is channeling the critic in the Onion article who said, "If this is repealed, what's to stop all-night sex romps from breaking out while U.S. servicemen are hiding in a bunker, or crawling around an irrigation ditch bathed only by the light of the moon, or, say, the dozens of other situations I've already thought through in elaborate detail?"
New Article: WorldNetDaily's Ethically Challenged Pollster Topic: WorldNetDaily
Fritz Wenzel left a newspaper job under an ethical cloud, and now he's asking skewed questions designed to give WND the anti-Obama poll results it desires. Read more >>
MRC Disappears Breitbart From Right-Wing Talking Points on Sherrod Topic: Media Research Center
Since the Media Research Center -- led by chief smearer Brent Bozell -- has no problem falsely smearing Shirley Sherrod as a racist, it should be no surprise that the MRC is perpetuating false right-wing talking points to keep the lie alive.
A July 21 item by Brent Baker complains that evening newscasts were portraying Sherrod "as a victim of distorted editing of the video of her remarks." Baker doesn't mention that his boss and fellow MRC employees were the ones who victimized Sherrod by falsely smearing her as a racist on the basis of that "distorted editing."
A July 21 NewsBusters post by Rich Noyes uncritically repeats the false claim by Fox News' Steve Doocy that his network "never mentioned the story until after Sherrod had quit." In fact, FoxNews.com reported the story before Sherrod resigned.
Neither Baker nor Noyes bother to mention the existence of Andrew Breitbart, who first posted the distorted video that Bozell and Co. based their false smears on, and without whom Sherrod would not have been victimized -- either by the MRC or the network news.
If Baker and Noyes are not going to mention Breitbart, they certainly aren't going to admit that the MRC did, in fact, falsely smear Sherrod as a racist, let alone issue the apology and retraction she deserves.
UPDATE: A July 21 NewsBusters post by Brad Wilmouth went into full fox News defense mode, complaining that MSNBC's Rachel Maddow "suggested that FNC would never show [Sherrod's] side of the story even though, by that time Tuesday night, several FNC shows had already informed viewers of some of the details in Sherrod’s favor." Wilmouth added that "Maddow’s show even chose to only present to her viewers clips from FNC that ran Monday and Tuesday morning which portrayed Sherrod’s comments as racist, without airing any of the clips from shows later Tuesday which showed FNC personalities conveying more of her side of the story."
Wilmouth didn't explain why Fox News' later coverage excuses its falsely smearing Sherrod as a racist or its initial lack of interest in telling the full story.
News Outlets Have Higher Standards Than Bozell Topic: Media Research Center
MRC chief Brent Bozell's demand that the media falsely smear Shirley Sherrod was silly on its face, but his claim that the media ignored the story was based on an even more silly assumption: that the media has the same abysmally low standards as he does.
Turns out the media was well aware of the story; they -- unlike Bozell -- just chose to wait until Sherrod's words could be put in context.
CNN's Rick Sanchez pointed out that the network "had the story ... Monday before noon, and we decided not to go with the story because we didn't have a chance to verify it, because we hadn't seen the speech ourselves, because we weren't sure if part of the speech had been edited, because we hadn't had a chance to reach out to Shirley Sherrod. So because we didn't have those things, we here at CNN did not do this story."
Fox News' Shepard Smith said that he didn't run the story on his show because "we didn't who shot it, we didn't know when it was shot, we didn't know the context of the statement, and because of the history of videos on the site where it was posted. In short, we did not and do not trust the source."
Are these standards too high for Bozell? It appears so -- he had no problem promoting misleadingly edited videos whose source he did not know and whose context he made no effort to learn.
That's a lot of things, but it most definitely not "media research."
P.S. Bozell has yet to apologize for falsely smearing Sherrod as a racist, thus opening himself up to potential legal action against him on libel charges. He should know the drill, since he's been sued over making false claims before, over which the Parents Television Council, which he headed at the time, ultimately had to pay millions in damages and publish a retraction.
Finally! Hirsen Reports on Gibson's Slurs -- But Still Defends Him Topic: Newsmax
It has taken more than twoweeks, but Newsmax's James Hirsen has finally gotten around to reporting on the hateful, violent phone calls of his friend, Mel Gibson.
Hirsen leads his July 20 "Left Coast Report" with the Gibson story, albeit narrowly focusing on the possibility of Gibson facing domestic violence charges. Hirsen makes no effort to describe the contents of the phone conversations that have been released; instead, Hirsen highlights claims that "experts concluded that the audio was edited" and a photo of Gibson's ex-girlfriend circulating on the Internet "has been altered." Hirsen also makes sure to note that Gibson’s estranged wife "said he never was abusive to her or acted in a violent way toward their seven children throughout almost 30 years of marriage."
After pointing out that Gibson "has no serious conviction on his record" and that the probable outcome for him would be "probation and counseling," Hirsen does something shocking -- he discloses his relationship with Gibson:
Note: Mel Gibson is a business associate and friend. My sincere hope is that he will receive fair treatment in the media and the courts. I hope, too, that he receives the best available assistance for the personal issues with which he is dealing.
As we've detailed, Hirsen and Gibson have a longstanding relationship dating back at least several years, and this is the first time he has disclosed it at Newsmax.
Hirsen does more defending of Gibson in a July 20 Newsmax interview, in which he asserts that the Gibson heard on the videotapes "is not the person that I know." Hirsen goes on to predict a comeback. From the accompanying article by Jim Meyers:
“For the moment, all the experts are proclaiming his career over,” Hirsen says.
“But he has his own studio. He is autonomous, so it’s not going to stop his work. It may stop certain people from working with him for some time, but that has to do with what actions he takes in the future.
“He has received a tremendous boost from people like Whoopi Goldberg, Robert Downey Jr., and mostly people who have had some sort of relationship with him and his family and know the man, as opposed to those who are judging him strictly by the stories and the tapes.
“He’s been in the business a very long time and there are tons of people who have worked with him and know him. That person on the tape is not the person that I know or that other people who have worked with Mr. Gibson know. He has a long history of being a tremendous family man, a good father, a generous person, easy to work with, with all kinds of positive attributes.”
Hirsen adds, "I think we have not heard the other side, and I think we need to wait and hear the other side of the story."
Newsmax does include excerpts of the Gibson tapes in the video, and the article notes that Hirsen "considers himself a friend of Gibson." As in his "Left Coast Report," Hirsen highlights claims that the tapes are edited and the picture of the ex-girlfriend is altered.
Hirsen also asserted that Gibson "has a long history of being a tremendous family man, a good father, a generous person, easy to work with, just all kinds of positive attributes."
So Hirsen is still defending his buddy -- just as he did when Gibson went on an anti-Semitic tirade. As we detailed, Hirsen insisted that Gibson had apologized sufficiently for the "untoward statements."
Corsi Repeats Discredited Lies About Obama, Kenya Topic: WorldNetDaily
In a July 19 WorldNetDaily article repeating discredited claims that a proposed new Kenyan constitution is a significant expansion of abortion rights, Jerome Corsi reached into his little bag of Obama smears and repeated false claims about what he claimed are "Obama's links to [Kenyan prime minister Raila] Odinga":
The Obama administration's funding of Kenyan internal politics appears to follow a pattern then-Sen. Obama first set on his 2006 Senate-funded visit to Kenya.
During that trip in 2006, Obama campaigned so openly for Odinga that Kenyan government spokesman Alfred Mutua went on Kenyan television on behalf of Kenyan President Kibaki to object that Obama was meddling inappropriately in Kenyan politics, as WND reported.
WND reported in 2008 that Obama raised almost $1 million for Odinga during the run-up to Kenya's 2007 presidential election.
Obama did not campaign for Odinga. As PolitiFact.com noted when Corsi made the same claim in his anti-Obama book:
What we can confirm is that Obama has remained neutral in Kenyan politics, and did not support Odinga during his trip. Odinga attended some of Obama's events while Obama was in Kenya, and clearly wanted to associate himself with Obama, but there is no evidence to indicate that Obama "openly supported" Odinga.
[...]
Corsi states that Obama "openly supported" Raila Odinga. We found public statements from Obama during the trip saying the exact opposite. We found no other evidence to support Corsi's statement, so we rate his statement False.
Further, as we detailed in 2008 when Corsi first told this lie, Obama did not raise "almost $1 million for Odinga." The documents Corsi is relying on to support the claim are clearly forged (and PolitiFact.com busted it as well).
Corsi implies that Obama has acted on behalf of Odinga because he is "a Luo tribesman like Obama's father." In fact, as PolitiFact noted, Obama "gave a high-profile speech the need for the country to move beyond corruption and tribal rivalries. This undercuts Corsi's theory that Obama was motivated by his Luo tribal heritage."
Will Bozell Apologize For Falsely Smearing Sherrod As Racist? Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell already called Shirley Sherrod a "racist" in his silly statement berating the media for not smearing her like he is. He goes on to write in his July 20 column:
The bigger problem for the NAACP is that it has its very own racists. Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government website revealed video of a NAACP banquet where U.S. Department of Agriculture appointee Shirley Sherrod talked about how she didn’t want to help a white farmer because he should be helped by “his own kind.” The contempt in her voice, in her face, and in the audience’s laughter is unmistakable.
As the full video of Sherrod's remarks -- which Bozell did not see, and apparently made no effort to seek out before spewing his smears -- shows, Sherrod is not a racist. The story she was telling that Bozell portrayed as "racist" was in fact an anecdote occurred 24 years ago and was meant to illustrate, in full context that Bozell ignores, that she had learned that race cannot be a consideration in aiding people.
Will Bozell apologize for and retract his smears? We shall see.
P.S. Bozell is not the only MRC employee to portray Sherrod as racist -- Kyle Drennen and NoelShepparddid as well, again without making any effort to see the full video beforehand. They owe Sherrod an apology and retraction, too, as does Mark Finkelstein, who falsely asserted that Sherrod "bragg[ed] about having declined to do everything in her power to help someone because of the white color of his skin."
Bozell Demands That Media Falsely Smear Woman Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell had this to say about "the explosive video footage of an NAACP banquet speaker admitting her racist views and abuse of power that led to her resignation as a Department of Agriculture official yesterday":
"The liberal media are deliberately spiking the shocking video that reveals an NAACP banquet speaker admitting her racist views and actions. We’ve waited a full 24 hours to see if any coverage of this exposé would surface. So far, nothing but crickets. The ABC, CBS and NBC evening and morning ‘news’ shows have all failed to even mention the damning video admission that is dripping with disdain for white people and that caused the official to tender her resignation.
Worse yet, it comes from the NAACP, the same organization that has feverishly accused the Tea Parties of racism. The thoroughly untrue accusation against the Tea Parties has been propped up and propelled by the incessant reporting of these same networks. Yet they decide to thwart this story about the NAACP.
The only thing more newsworthy than the charges of racism are the hypocritical charges of racism. The media must report this scandal."
Notice that Bozell didn't demand that Andrew Breitbart release the entire video so the speaker's words could be judged in their full context. Nor did Bozell demand that the story be fairly covered.
No, Bozell demanded that the selectively edited video clips be promoted by the media out of context. In other words, he demanded that the full truth be ignored.
The media is now reporting the story of the NAACP banquet speaker Shirley Sherrod, though perhaps not the story Bozelll wanted reported. It's now become all too clear that Brietbart's smear has self-destructed, and even the white farmer who supposedly was discriminated against by Sherrod is saying that Sherrod is a "friend" who "helped us save our farm."
Meanwhile, the NAACP has viewed the entire video -- unlike Bozell or any other MRC employee -- and now believes that "the organization that edited the documents did so with the intention of deceiving millions of Americans," and that "we were snookered by Fox News and Tea Party Activist Andrew Breitbart into believing she had harmed white farmers because of racial bias."
Bozell cares nothing about the media, unless he can make it conform to his right-wing agenda. His organization is more accurately titled the Right-Wing Propaganda Research Center.
WND Columnists Denounce NAACP, Mum on Mark Williams Topic: WorldNetDaily
Today's WorldNetDaily commentary page features no less than four columns -- by Dennis Prager, Thomas Sowell, Mychal Massie, and Joseph Farah -- parroting the right-wing talking points that the tea party movement is not racist and the NAACP is wrong, if not racist themselves, to claim they are. None of these writers mention the most compelling evidence to date of racism in the tea party movement: Mark Williams.
In fact, nowhere at WND can you read about Williams, the Tea Party Express spokesman who, on top of his long history of racially charged statements, penned a blog post mocking NAACP Benjamiin Jealous in the form of a letter to Abraham Lincoln asking him to reinstate slavery because all blacks really want are "Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house." Not even in the WND article quoting Farah challenging the NAACP to "repudiate racism as unequivocally as I have"makes any mention of Williams, even though his racist blog post got him and his Tea Party Express kicked out of the National Tea Party Federation. The fact that other tea partiers felt the need to distance themselves from Williams seems to prove NAACP's point.
Note to Farah: Refusing to acknowledge Mark Williams' racism does not equal a "repudiation" of it.
Meanwhile ... Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center vice president Dan Gainor tweets the following offer: "I'll give $100 to first Rep. who punches smary [sic] idiot Alan Grayson in nose. He's a caricature of a congressman."
MRC's Waters Insists on Separating Gibson's 'Artistic Achievement' Topic: Media Research Center
Clay Waters takes pains to separate art from artist in a July 19 MRC TimesWatch item, running to the defense of "The Passion of the Christ" as something wholly separate from Mel Gibson. Waters was complaining that New York Times columnist Frank Rich went after "not just the artist but his artistic achievement, 'The Passion of the Christ,' the bloodily authentic 2004 portrayal of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ directed by Gibson."
Waters offers no comment on the racist, violent Gibson tapes that have been released, but he denounces Rich's description of "The Passion" as "sadomasochistic," calling such a description a "slur."
Weirdly, Waters also avoids comment of Rich's observation that "The Passion" is "nakedly anti-Semitic, to the extreme that the Temple priests were all hook-nosed Shylocks and Fagins with rotten teeth." Is that because Rich has a point that Waters doesn't want to admit?
Waters' insistence on separating art and artist in Gibson's case contrasts with the MRC's treatment of Roman Polanski, convicted of having sex with a 13-year-old girl. For instance, Waters' boss, Brent Bozell, denounced critics for committing the sin of judging Polanski's latest film on its merits rather than the director's personal life.
Bozell also huffed that "the Beautiful People" in Hollywood believed that Polanski "had too much 'empathy' as an artist to be bothered" to be held accountable for his crime. Waters, however, seems to believe the same thing about Gibson.
CNS Still Pushing Abortion Funding Falsehood Topic: CNSNews.com
A July 19 CNSNews.com article by Penny Starr promotes CNS' longstandinglie that the Obama administration is funding abortion. Starr uncritically repeats the claim of a "revelation by the National Right to Life’s legal counsel that the new health care law will allow some states to use federal funds for abortion," and Republican Rep. Mike Pence's assertion that it "must not stand," without mentioning that the claim is utterly discredited.
As Starr should know, CNS reported that the Department of Health and Human Services and anti-abortion Rep. Bart Stupak both say that abortion will not be funded beyond current Hyde Amendment restrictions. Yet Starr chose not to include this information in her article.
This makes her either incompetent or willfully deceitful. Why does CNS continue to employ such a reporter?
