MRC Completely Bypasses Opportunity to Bash '60 Minutes' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center usually doesn't pass up an opportunity to bash one of the most prominent mainstream-media targets of the right wing, CBS' "60 Minuets." But it has been silent about the latest trouble the show is in.
We've already documented how the MRC promoted a recent "60 Minutes" story on the Benghazi attack, featuring what MRC writer Matthew Balan touted as "an actual eyewitness of the attack." But it turns out that this supposed eyewitness, who went under the pseudonym Morgan Jones but whose real name is Dylan Davies, had told his bosses at the security contractor he worked for that he was nowhere near the Benghazi compound that night. This, of course, means that Davies/Jones was either lying then or is lying now, and is therefore suffering a severe lack of credibility.
The MRC has yet to tell its readers about the conflicting stories of this supposed Benghazi eyewitness. It passed up the the chance to do so once again in a Nov. 7 item by Matt Hadro. In the item, Hadro focuses very narrowly on CNN host Chris Cuomo's claim that there's "a negative mythology to what happened in Benghazi that is not supported by fact, it's supported by speculation." Hadro went on to complain that "CNN has failed miserably in holding the administration accountable on Benghazi." The post was accompanied by a 30-second clip of Cuomo's statement.
Hadro didn't tell his readers that Cuomo's comment came within the context of a much longer segment in which CNN examined the controversy over the "60 Minutes" segement and its supposed Benghazi "witness." Media Matters has the longer video demonstrating the full context.
Why did Hadro refuse to tell readers about the full CNN report and only cherry-pick a statement out of context? Is he -- and, by extension, his bosses -- so afraid to admit that there is doubt about the evidence conservatives have been using to hammer President Obama over Benghazi?
Apparently so. Why else would the MRC not grasp an prime opportunity to attack one of its biggest nemeses?
UPDATE: The New York Times is reporting that Jones/Davies told the same story to the FBI that he told to his employer -- which, again, is fundamentally different from the one he told on "60 Minutes." Will that rouse the MRC into the kind of media-bashing it normally needs no rousing to do?
Is it possible that our propagandist-in-chief “innocently” impressed upon certain starry-eyed, Obama-worshiping journalists how tenuous he believes things are with regard to race in order to manipulate them into bringing these issues to the collective top of mind through their reporting? Further, might he be doing so as a precursor to some manner of “false flag” racial incident or incidents that are in the works? It does seem interesting that in addition to the usual suspects (like Jesse Jackson), we are seeing an upsurge in race-related rhetoric and reportage, despite nothing in particular having transpired in this area lately.
While race-baiting is nothing new for the left, the aforementioned incidents appear to have come somewhat out of left field with regard to the news cycle. Should some high profile, highly unpleasant race-related incident occur in the near future, it wouldn’t be the first time such a thing happened at a juncture that proved to be advantageous to the administration.
At this particular juncture, one might say that the Obama administration could use all the help it can get, considering Americans’ anger over the Obamacare rollout, mounting concern with regard to the several scandals in which the president is involved, his plummeting approval rating and the growing alienation of the press.
Let’s just hope that “help” is not forthcoming, for all our sakes.
Obama's natural disease to seek absolute power runs completely counter to the American Way of Life. And, perhaps because of the good-natured people that constitute this nation, we are loathe to identify exactly what is making us feel the warnings. But, acting as if it is not happening will not stop him from seeking and gaining that power, and the corruption that runs with it, hand in hand. In the case of Obama, not only is he the bully, but he has paid off the superintendent, the principal, and even the janitor.
WND's Unruh Not Even Bothering to Report Facts on ENDA Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bob Unruh's reporting on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is moving from the denigrating to the outright delusional.
In a Nov. 5 WorldNetDaily article, Unruh asserts that ENDA "provides special job protections and guarantees for homosexuals and transgenders." He doesn't explain how ENDA would do that since it simply adds protections for sexual orientation to current anti-discrimination laws, which do not provide similar job "guarantees."
Unruh also repeats previous false claims from anti-gay opponents of the law that ENDA protects pedophiles by not specifically excluding pedophilia, ignoring the fact that "sexual orientation" is already defined by federal statute as applying only to "consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality" and not to pedophilia.
Can you believe that Unruh used to work for the Associated Press, where reporting facts was a major part of the job? Oh, how the biased have fallen.
NewsBusters Misleads on Cuccinelli's Defense of Anti-Sodomy Law Topic: NewsBusters
Ken Shepherd claimed in an Oct. 31 NewsBusters post that the Daily Beast "misled -- and arguably lied -- to readers" by claiming that Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli "tried and failed to reinstate a ban on oral and anal sex in his home state":
Of course that's patently false. What Cuccinelli, the state's attorney general, did do was seek to prosecute an alleged sex offender for attempting to force an underage girl to perform fellatio on him. Cuccinelli argued that the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas did not apply to prosecuting acts of sodomy.
Indeed, as noted in the writ of certiorari -- basically the document you use when you ask the Supreme Court to take up your case -- Cuccinelli's office quoted from the ruling in Lawrence v. Texas that the decision in that case did NOT address sodomy committed by someone of consenting age upon a minor, as was the case in Moose v. MacDonald:
This was a case not about reversing Lawrence v. Texas and the resulting unconstitutionality about the legality of oral and anal sex between consenting adults. This case was about upholding the conviction of a sex offender, something that should not be troubling to anyone, regardless of whether they are liberal, conservative, moderate, or libertarian.
But what's precision and journalistic integrity when you're on a roll bashing a social conservative as anti-consensual oral sex?
Actually, Shepherd is the one who's not concerned with precision and journalistic integrity.
As Slate's Dalia Lithwick details, Virginia's anti-sodomy law has been found to be unconstitutional under Lawrence v. Texas, and Cuccinelli's appeal was about attempting to uphold by "a call for judges to read statutes to mean what they don’t say":
The sex offender in this case was William MacDonald, a 47-year-old man who solicited oral sex from a 17-year-old woman. (No sex was had). Because 15 is the legal age of consent in Virginia, authorities couldn’t charge MacDonald for statutory rape. Faced with other statutes to choose from, they opted to charge him with soliciting a minor by inducing her to commit sodomy, for which he served a year in prison and must now register as a sex offender.
But even with the tide of legal authority against him, Cuccinelli decided to appeal the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that Virginia’s anti-sodomy statute has no constitutional problem, if—as he concedes, and only if—the high court would just interpret the terrifyingly broad sodomy law to apply only to sex involving 16- and 17-year-olds. (Justice Kennedy left the thread of that argument hanging in his majority opinion in Lawrence.) In effect, Cuccinelli’s legal appeal asks the Supreme Court and the lower courts to ignore the clear meaning and intent of the law, to interpret it in a way that advances narrow goals he wants to advance.
Of course, Cuccinelli’s problem at the Supreme Court is that Virginia’s sodomy statute doesn’t mention age, so reading an imaginary age requirement into it is not “interpreting” the statute so much as rewriting it—a freewheeling position normally anathema to Tea Party conservatives like Cuccinelli. Moreover, the Virginia legislature actually tried to rewrite the law to salvage it for narrower purposes after the Lawrence decision, but Cuccinelli helped kill that bill. You can’t really stagger around swinging a huge, unwieldy legal mallet and claiming it’s the only tool you have against pedophilia. Not when you opted to turn down the offer of a scalpel.
The legal position Cuccinelli pushes creates truly bizarre results, which is normally a sign for reviewing courts that something smells funky. Asking a federal court to turn a state anti-sodomy law into an anti-statutory rape law means that if MacDonald had engaged in ordinary intercourse with a 17-year-old girl every day for a month, he would not face a felony conviction or be a sex offender. He’d just be that guy. But his decision to solicit oral sex, even his decision to just phone her and ask for it, under the imaginarily rewritten law, requires both.
Cuccinelli’s proposed revision to Virginia’s sodomy law would also mean that those older than 15 can legally consent to sex, yet, have no right of sexual privacy in actually having sex. Or, to put it differently, Virginia could charge any 16- and 17-year-old with felony sodomy simply because they happened to choose oral or anal sex over vaginal sex.
Shepherd didn't mention any of those important details, of course.
WND Likens Valerie Jarrett To A Serial Killer Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Nov. 5 WorldNetDaily article by Michael Maloof carries the headline "General blames 'Night Stalker' for military purge." Maloof begins the article: "Who, or what, is behind the “purge” of top-level U.S. military officers during the Obama administration, with estimates of the number of senior officers fired during the last five years edging toward 200?"
It turns out that Maloof is talking about Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, whom birther general Paul Vallely blames -- without evidence, of course -- for the dismissal of some senior military officers.
Maloof adds: "London’s Daily Mail newspaper notes that Jarrett’s insider nickname is 'Night Stalker' because of her exclusive, late-night access to the presidential family’s private quarters." But the Daily Mail article cites no "insiders" to back up the claim, stating only that "Jarrett is reportedly called 'the Night Stalker.'"
You might remember that "Night Stalker" is also the name that was given to Richard Ramirez, serial killer and avowed Satanist.
Why are we assuming that WND had Ramirez in mind when promoting this purported nickname for Jarrett and not, say, the 1970s TV series?
Let's go back to a June column by WND editor Joseph Farah. In it, Farah bragged that he was "the guy who bestowed" the "Night Stalker" title on Ramirez when he worked at a Los Angeles newspaper, further bragging that "I actually won an award for that headline."
We would say that Farah should know better if weren't for the apparent fact that Farah knows exactly what he's doing -- trying to associate the Obama White House with one of America's most infamous serial killers.
What kind of man is so amoral, so sick as to do something so depraved? The kind of man who lies about Obama with impunity.
Maloof piles on with his reference to "Who, or what, is behind the 'purge,'" suggesting that he doesn't even think Jarrett is human.
To CNS, Food Stamp Recipients And Government Workers Are No Different Topic: CNSNews.com
Here's how an unbylined Nov. 5 CNSNews.com article begins:
If the turnout in this year’s Virginia gubernatorial election is similar to the turnout in the state’s last two gubernatorial elections in 2005 and 2009, there are likely to be about 1.2 voters picking the state’s next governor for each person in the state collecting food stamps or a government paycheck.
CNS thinks food stamp recipients are no different from government employees? Really?
What, if anything, does that prove? That CNS will go to any ridiculous length to denigrate the government?
We have to wonder. Numerous CNS employees drew government paychecks after their CNS stint. Do Terry Jeffrey and his staff think these government workers are as parasitical as it considers food stamp recipients to be?
We'd love to hear Jeffrey's answer to that, to find out whether his personal loyalty trumps his ideology.
WND's Loudon Fearmongers Like A Hack Over Transgender Students Topic: WorldNetDaily
Gina Loudon's Nov. 3 WorldNetDaily column is headlined "Let's wage war on D.C. hacks," but the only hackishness we're seeing is from Loudon.
Loudon complains that "Democrats have found success in slandering conservatives as racist, women-hating homophobes." Then she writes this:
I’ve written before about the extremes that Gov. Jerry Brown has gone to here in California. One example is the new law enabling school children to decide their gender on a whim. One day a boy can “feel like a woman” and enter the girl’s locker room. Then, the next day, when he “feels” like a boy again, he can go to go to football practice and use the boy’s locker room again. I have personally spoken to gay Californians who are very uneasy with the direction in which the Democrat supermajority and Gov. Brown have taken the state.
For someone who claims to have a doctorate in psychology, Loudon is shockingly ignorant of what transgenderism is.There's simply no medical evidence that any person would "decide their gender on a whim" and change it from day to day depending on how he or she "feels," as Loudon claims.
In the real world, the California law merely affirms already-existing protections for transgender students, and no incidents of misconduct have been reported in California.
Who's the real hack here? Loudon might want to look in the mirror for the answer.
NEW ARTICLE: Last of the Redskin Lovers Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center tries to dismiss the idea that the Washington Redskins name is offensive -- but won't tell its readers that a prominent conservative the MRC has honored supports a name change. Read more >>
Earlier this year, WorldNetDaily columnist Mychal Massie felt the need to channel his inner Bull Connor and denigrate commentator Jehmu Greene with the "Negress" smear, doing so in three of four consecutive columns. "Negress" is an archaic term dating from the era of segregation, and Massie is clearly using it with the intent to denigrate.
Massie had let it go for a while, but Massie's inner Orval Faubus came bubbling up again in his Oct. 28 column as part of a rant against Fox News' Megyn Kelly:
I have a question for Megyn Kelly, a Fox News program host. Ms. Kelly, why did you rush to call Joe the Plumber a racist on your prime-time show when it is a fact that you gave a complete pass to the avowed racist Negress and ACORN member Jehmu Greene when she openly insulted Tucker Carlson for being a white male who disagreed with her? Or perhaps, Ms. Kelly, you presumed the smarmy Negress Jehmu Greene was actually embracing Mr. Carlson with words of love and kindness when she verbally attacked and insulted him live on camera on your show for what amounted to his being white. And before you disagree, let me remind you that it was your favorite Negress who hurled an insulting volley of racial epithets based solely on Carlson being white.
If, Ms. Kelly, you purpose to expose racism, why don’t you have Mr. Jamiel Shaw, a law-abiding, hard-working father whose wife serves in the U.S. Army, on your show? They can tell you about their son Jamiel Jr. who was murdered in cold blood at their doorsteps by an illegal-alien Mexican. Murdering innocent blacks is how Mexicans in Los Angeles earn their bona fides to become gang members.
Or, Ms. Kelly, would that be too much like really doing your job? Then again, you can have me on your show to debate your favorite Negress, radical racist Jehmu Greene. Oh, and for the record, I am black, and I stand by my comments. I don’t want you to blame another white person for what this American of color said.
What set Massie off is Kelly apparently attributing a column Samuel "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher reposted on his website, titled "America Needs A White Republican President," to him -- understandable, since Wurzelbacher failed to clearly identify the column as originally written by a black conservative.
Kelly's sin of misattribution is nothing compared to Massie's deliberate use of a racially derogatory term. But Massie apparently has too much hatred in his heart to know or care otherwise.
MRC, AIM Tout Benghazi 'Witness,' Ignore His Lies Topic: Accuracy in Media
In an Oct. 28 Media Research Center item, Matthew Balan touts how a segment by Lara Logan on "60 Minutes" about the Benghazi attack featured "an actual eyewitness of the attack":
Logan led with her "misinformation" line, and introduced Morgan Jones, a former member of the British military, who uses that pseudonym for personal safety reasons. Jones was in charge of the unarmed security force inside the walls of the main U.S. compound in Benghazi. He revealed that he snuck inside the hospital where Ambassador Stevens had been taken, and quickly learned about diplomat's death. Jones also outlined his concerns about the armed militia guarding the facility.
Similarly, in an Oct. 31 Accuracy in Media column, Roger Aronoff highlights the Morgan Jones interview:
The segment, which can be viewed online, interviews one “Morgan Jones,” a self-identified Blue Mountain security chief who was at an apartment 15 minutes away when the attack started at the Benghazi Special Mission Compound in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.
Jones raced to the compound, scaled the 12-foot wall, and attempted to enter the compound to assist those inside, but they had already been rescued by a CIA rapid-response team that included the now-deceased Tyrone Woods.
“[The attackers] said, ‘We’re here to kill Americans, not Libyans,’” recounts Jones in an emotional moment. “So they’d give them a good beating, pistol whip them, beat them with their rifle, and let them go.”
But so far, neither Balan nor Aronoff have told their readers that the account "Morgan Jones" told on "60 Minutes" differs sharply from what he told his then-employer, that he couldn't get anywhere near the Benghazi compound during the attack. The Washington Post reports:
But in a written account that Jones, whose real name was confirmed as Dylan Davies by several officials who worked with him in Benghazi, provided to his employer three days after the attack, he told a different story of his experiences that night.
In Davies’s 2 1/2-page incident report to Blue Mountain, the Britain-based contractor hired by the State Department to handle perimeter security at the compound, he wrote that he spent most of that night at his Benghazi beach-side villa. Although he attempted to get to the compound, he wrote in the report, “we could not get anywhere near . . . as roadblocks had been set up.”
Aronoff, to his credit, did note something Balan didn't: that Fox News reported that Jones demanded money to tell his story, and that Jones' book is published by Simon & Schuster, which is a division of CBS, which should raise questions about an undisclosed quid pro quo.
WND Pushes Last-Minute Attacks In VA Governor Race, Makes Stealth Endorsement Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is making a last-minute push in the Virginia governor's race, unloading a barrage of stories attacking Democrat Terry McAuliffe while ignoring the scandals of his Republican opponent, Ken Cuccinelli.
Garth Kant has penned a trio of anti-McAuliffe stories in the past day and a half:
One article complains that McAuliffe "has been at the center of major scandals during every step of his career, though he’s never been charged," but doesn't conclude that that's because he hasn't done anything illegal.
Another article recycles the "never been charged" lede of Kant's earlier article and cites a clearly biased source to detail McAuliffe's "latest pair of scandals." As with the earlier article, Kant talks to nobody who offers any rebuttal of the "scandal" claims.
A third article by Kant repeats an undocumented claim by a Republican lawmaker in Virginia who claims he received a "robo-call" by the Democratic Party of Virginia stating that Cuccinelli supports Obamacare.
None of Kant's articles, however, mention the scandal that has embroiled Cuccinelli: Along with current Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, Cuccinelli has received thousands of dollars in donations and personal gifts from a major Republican donor, Johnie Williams. Like McAuliffe, Cuccinelli has apparently done nothing illegal, but Kant apparently doesn't believe his readers need to know the full truth about Cuccinelli.
Perhaps that's an editorial decision that comes straight from the top. On Nov. 4, WND sent out an email containing Kant's first attack on McAuliffe, topped by an endorsement of Cuccinelli from WND editor Joseph Farah:
The hour is late to save our state from the kind of corruption that has infected Washington. Please read the WND story published today that provides a detailed overview of how Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe, currently leading in the race for the governorship over Attorney Ken Cuccinelli in tomorrow’s election, has been involved in scandals since he first entered politics and business.
Tomorrow’s election is vital to the future of the state and the nation. I urge you to vote for Ken Cuccinelli.
Joseph Farah Editor and Chief Executive Officer WND.com
The email does not explain whether this was a paid endorsement or a in-kind contribution to Cuccinelli's campaign. WND rarely does endorsements, and even more rarely sends one out via email that it didn't also publish on the WND website.
The strange nature of this stealth, last-minute endorsement, on top of Kant's barrage of last-minute dirt, brings up the question of whether there is some form of coordination between Cuccinelli's campaign and WND. Perhaps Farah can explain.
CNS' Jeffrey Unhappy That ENDA 'Bans Discrimination Against Cross-Dressers' Topic: CNSNews.com
As far as CNSNews.com editor in chief Terry Jeffrey is concerned, the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act is all about cross-dressers. He devotes a Nov. 4 article freaking out about it:
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which will come up for a cloture vote in the Senate today, mandates that employers in the United States permit men to dress as women at work and women to dress as men as long as they otherwise adhere to “reasonable dress or grooming standards.”
Section 8 of the proposed law specifically states that employers must permit workers who either have undergone “gender transition” or are “undergoing” a “gender transition” to dress and groom themselves according to the gender to which they have transitioned or are transitioning.
Jeffrey goes on to complain that "The proposed law does not define what 'gender transition' means."
If all that Jeffrey can muster against ENDA is tired transgender scare tactics, it's a sign of how bankrupt his employer's anti-gay agenda is.
WND's Washington: If Imaginary Books Are Counted, Liberals Have Burned More Than The Nazis Topic: WorldNetDaily
We guess that we can thank WorldNetDaily's Ellis Washington for finally giving up the pretense that he's not likening President Obama and other non-conservatives to Nazis while doing exactly that. That doesn't mean, of course, that such comparisons are factual or even intellectually honest.
Washington serves up another doozy of Godwinism in his Nov. 1 WND column:
The caption in the image above was perhaps written around 1943 and says that, “Ten years ago the Nazis burned these books … but in America we can still read them.” Although this statement tried to distinguish America from Nazi Germany, it is only partially true today. Why? Because while in a de jure (legal) sense America today doesn’t burn books, in a de facto (unofficial) sense through our book publishing industry, our literary agent industry, our media, our education system, our politics, our legal system and throughout culture and society, their exists an existential book burning, happening on a much greater scale by the Democrat Socialist Party, a scale the Nationalist Socialist Party could only dream of 80 years ago under Hitler and the Nazis. In modern times today, leftists creates this book burning atmosphere by deconstructing, perverting and destroying conservative ideas, particularly those out of the Judeo-Christian tradition of intellectual thought … without lighting one match or igniting one torch. Hitler would be pleased!
Only in such an anti-God, anti-intellectual society as America has devolved into during the Age of Progressivism (1860–present) and in the Age of Obama (2009–present) are Heine’s prophetic words tantamount to those of Moses, Isaiah and St. Paul when he wrote, “Where books (ideas) are burned, they will, in the end burn people, too.”
Yes, Washington really is claiming that progressives burn more books than the Nazis if imaginary ones are counted in the total. And, apparently, criticizing a conservative idea is exactly the same thing as setting it on fire.
Somehow, we doubt that Washington feels the same way about conservative criticism of progressive ideas; otherwise, that would make him a walking pile of oily rags and a box of matches.
We can also presume that Washington including "our book publishing industry, our literary agent industry" in his book-burning rant is probably about Washington's inability to get his works published. This overlooks the fact that the not-left-leaning website that publishes his column operates a book division. What does it say that even WND apparently considers Washington unworthy of having his work published in book form? Probably that WND actually has some standards after all.
Noel Sheppard Can't Separate Actor From His Role Topic: NewsBusters
Noel Sheppard, it seems, is unable to differentiate between fantasy and reality. How else to explain his insistence on referring to an actor using the role he played 40 years ago?
A Nov. 1 NewsBusters post by Sheppard carries the headline "Rob Reiner aka Meathead: Hillary Would Be ‘Most Qualified Person Ever to Run for President’." In it,Sheppard whines that Reiner, "aka Meathead in the famed sitcom All in the Family," called Hillary Clinton "the single most qualified person ever to run for President of the United States" if she chooses to do so. Sheppard then rants:
Because Hillary was senator for eight years and Secretary of State for four, she’s the most qualified person EVER to run for president of our country?
More qualified than George Washington who led our troops to victory against the British?
More qualified than Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of Independence?
More qualified than John Adams who was a pivotal figure in achieving our independence?
More qualified than Abraham Lincoln? And Franklin Delano Roosevelt? And Ronald Reagan?
Would any of these Hillary supporters be so gushing if she were a man with the exact same qualifications?
Of course not.
Much as these people championed Barack Obama despite his lack of qualifications, Hillary is the left’s current ideal not because of what she’s done, but for what she represents.
No wonder Archie Bunker referred to this idiot as Meathead.
But Sheppard wasn't done confusing the actor with his long-ago role. In a Nov. 2 post, in which he places "Rob Reiner aka Meathead" again in the headline, Sheppard gripes that Reiner, "made famous by his role as Meathead in the legendary sitcom All in the Family," said something else he didn't like.
Sheppard doesn't mention that Reiner's "All in the Family" character had a real name, or that Reiner has produced and directed several hit movies. As far as Sheppard is concerned, the only thing of any note Reiner has ever done is play a character named Meathead.