MRC's Bozell Doesn't Want Any Gay Content on TV Topic: Media Research Center
For the past few weeks, the Media Research Center has been leading a campaign to get ABC to strangle before it happens -- to abort, if you will -- a planned show based on the early life of activist and sex advice columnist Dan Savage.
The MRC has misled in its campaign, claiming that ABC "plans to air" the Savage based show when it has only ordered a pilot episode and has not green-lighted the series. While the MRC claims it's only concerned about Savage's "unspeakably vile statements" -- which, by the way, have nothing to do with the content of the proposed ABC show, which is about a teenage boy coming out as gay -- its hidden agenda runs much deeper.
MRC chief Brent Bozell inadvertently revealed the engame in an April 9 Associated Press article:
Even without Savage's involvement, Bozell said his group would probably oppose the show.
"Would a show like this bother me?" he said. "Sure. It makes a political statement. Where is the market demand for this? You might even resign yourself that this is the way that it is, but when I heard it was Savage, I gasped in disbelief."
In other words, Bozell is opposed to the fact that gays would be depicted on TV -- that is, if they aren't being denigrated. Apparenlty, any gay person on TV is a "political statement," despite the fact that Bozell can't identify any actual politics in a sitcom pilot.
Bozell has had a lot of anti-gay freakouts over the years. For example, his reaction to CNN's Anderson Cooper coming out as gay was to sneer that Cooper can "give us his expert opinion on teabagging now," and he declared that gay characters on TV mean "indoctrination" of viewers and that the characters "never face any real opposition to the gay agenda."
Bozell should stop pretending his crusade isn't only about Savage.
WND Questions Rubio's Eligibility -- But Not Cruz's Topic: WorldNetDaily
Remember a few weeks back, when WorldNetDaily's Cheryl Chumley finally got around to addressing Ted Cruz's eligibility issues (only after Donald Trump brought it up first)? She didn't reference any of WND's past work on eligibility -- even though by the strict definition of "natural born citizen" it has pushed over the years, Cruz does not qualify as one -- and portrayed Cruz as eligible.
A different Republican announcing his presidential bid, however, got a much different treatment.
Chumley's April 13 article on Marco Rubio's presidential bid made a point of noting that "Tea-party types from his home state say they’ve moved beyond the Rubio wagon" and that "Rubio’s not popular with hard-core immigration activists, either."
Then Chumley played the eligibility card:
Meanwhile, others contend Rubio’s not even a natural-born citizen and therefore, ineligible to seek the presidency. Rubio’s parents, as WND previously reported on at least two occasions, were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.
Rubio was born in Miami, Florida, on May 28, 1971, to Mario and Oriales Rubio, who were born in Cuba, though the senator has not released his birth certificate for the world to scrutinize.
As WND reported in 2011, Rubio press secretary Alex Burgos said the senator’s parents “were permanent legal residents of the U.S.” at the time Marco was born in 1971.
Then four years after Marco was born, “Mario and Oriales Rubio became naturalized U.S. citizens on Nov. 5, 1975,” Burgos told WND.
When asked specifically if Rubio considered himself to be a natural-born citizen, Burgos responded, “Yes.”
This time, Chumley linked back to a 2012 WND article featuring how "Larry Klayman argued today before Florida Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis in the presidential eligibility case brought by Democrat voter Michael Voeltz that Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution requires a person eligible to be president to be born to parents who are each U.S. citizens at the time of the birth. That definition of natural-born citizen would clearly disqualify Rubio from running either for president or vice president."
Chumley doesn't mention that this definition also excludes Cruz. In fact, Chumley mentions Cruz only once in her Rubio article but only as a member of the "crowded" field of candidates Rubio would be joining.
So, yeah, it seems WND is actively censoring any discussion of Cruz's eligibility -- presumably because it knows he doesn't qualify under its own definition.
Chapman is silent about the elder Cruz's history of saying incendiary and hateful things. Instead, Chapman touts how Cruz "fought against the Communists in Cuba, was arrested there and tortured," as if that was an excuse.
As with Graham's utterings, how any of this qualifies as "news" in Chapman's eyes is anyone's guess. Plus, note that both of these Cruz posts appeared after his son announced his presidential bid; it could be argued that Chapman is engaging in a little bit of unethical electioneering for Ted Cruz by promoting his father.
Not only is what Chapman doing unethical in a journalistic context, it may also be illegal, given the nonprofit status of CNS' parent, the Media Research Center, and the restriction on political activities that status confers. The "brink of destruction" post can be read as an implicit endorsement of Ted Cruz's campaign, given how Chapman dutifully quotes how the elder Cruz complains that "We have the most lawless administration we have ever had, where the rule of law, the Constitution is trampled every day."
CNS, it seems, is merely an arm of the MRC's political operation and not any sort of independent "news" organization, and Chapman appears determined to keep it that way.
More Irony: Another WND Columnist Laments Dishonesty In Media Topic: WorldNetDaily
Laura Hollis laments in her April 9 WorldNetDaily column:
There seems to be a collective shrug of helpless resignation when politicians or policymakers lie. But we should be appalled when journalists facilitate those lies (or create their own) because they share the liars’ social objectives.
When politicians can lie with impunity and “journalists” are more enamored with a “narrative” than with facts, we are in grave peril, indeed. It is hard to know which is more damaging: believing the lies we are being told or sinking into a state of cynical resignation, assuming that no one tells the truth anymore. Either result rewards the liars and corrodes the culture.
We deserve better. But we will not get it unless we demand it. From deceitful politicians, we can withhold our vote. From deceitful media, we can withhold our money. Those are – apparently – the primary currencies they understand.
Like fellow WND columnist Michael Brown a week before, she overlooks the inconvenient fact that her laments about honesty in media appear on the website of perhaps the most dishonest "news" organization operating today.
We offer the same recommendation to Hollis that we offered to Brown: Hold the organization that publishes you responsible for its lies and misinformation before complaining about others.
NewsBusters Runs Hoax Picture of Smoking Obama Topic: NewsBusters
Tom Blumer uses an April 12 NewsBusters post to promote a USA Today columnist's claim that President Obama's daughter faces more of an asthma risk from his smoking than from global warming. The image used to promote the post on NewsBusters' front page is one of Obama with a cigarette in his mouth (shown at right). The image appears again inside the post.
But that image is a fake. As the Museum of Hoaxes details, a cigarette was Photoshopped into a reversed 2004 photo of Obama.
Nowhere in the post does NewsBusters identify the photo as a faked image.
It seems that running hoax photos would keep NewsBusters from being taken seriously as a media watchdog, but apparently being taken seriously is not an issue.
WND's Corsi Hints At Secret (And Probably Nonexistent) Tape To Destroy Hillary Topic: WorldNetDaily
Remember the "whitey tape"? You know the purported recording of Michelle Obama railing against "whitey"? It was touted by extremists such as Larry Johnson and embraced by WND columnist Mychal Massie -- never mind the fact that no such recording has ever surfaced and probably never existed in the first place.
Jerome Corsi hints at a "whitey tape" equivalent for Hillary Clinton in an April 12 WND article listing the "tough questions" she'll have to face now that she's running for president:
One source close to the entertainment industry is shopping what are described as hours of telephone conversations allegedly recorded by a jilted lesbian lover in which an inebriated Mrs. Clinton supposedly trashes politicians and celebrities, including her husband. The opening bid for the recordings is $10 million. Whether their actual content will ever see the light of day is an open question. But would Clinton, already under fire for her erasing most of her emails as secretary of state, be able to handle the dropping of a bomb like that?
Corsi provides no further details, and his description is so vaguely written that it's almost meaningless. His lack of sourcing for this claim indicates that he may very well be making some of this up.
It certainly sounds like something Corsi wants to exist. But remember, Corsi also promoted clearly fraudulent documents purporting to link Barack Obama to a Kenyan political campaign as legitimate, and he wrote an article about a ring Obama wears that was so divergent from the truth that his fellow birthers were compelled to correct him.
Corsi is not a guy who lets the facts get in the way of a good story, or at least of a sleazy political attack. This is not the last you will hear about this purported tape, and you will likely hear about it from Corsi.
The MRC's Foolish Fail Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center recently started a website called "Liberal Media Fools," which claims: "Inside the liberal media echo chamber is a fools’ school churning out pathetic, biased reporting disguised as journalism. It’s as if each media personality is in the running for the dumbest quote of the year!" adding that "the stupid is strong."
Well, yes, it is -- on this website. The first entry highlights MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell calling Barack Obama's book "Dreams From My Father" "the finest literary work ever authored by a President of the United States," sneering: "Move over Federalist Papers, the Monroe Doctrine, and the Gettysburg Address, because according to MSNBC’s O’Donnell, these historical works have been overshadowed by Barack Obama’s Dreams From My Father."
The MRC ignores the fact that none of those documents were intended as literature. The Federalist Papers are a series of essays written in support of ratification of the Constitution (and only one of the three writers became president). The Monroe Doctrine was an statement of U.S. foreign policy. The Gettysburg Address was a speech. While they may be shining examples of political expression and speechmaking, they are not literature. By contrast, Obama's book was not a political manifesto but, rather, an examination of race and his upbringing.
The MRC also forgets the fact that O'Donnell was not acting as a journalist when he said that; he was the host of an opinion show. IN other words, O'Donnell's statement was never "disguised as journalism," as the MRC claims.
What does it say about the quality of the list that the first one is such a mess?
Needless to say, there's no benign purpose behind the website; it's an email-harvesting operation with the promise of a copy of the MRC's latest compilation of "the most outrageous quotes in the liberal media."
Joseph Farah Anti-Gay Rant Watch Topic: WorldNetDaily
In yet another anti-gay rant dismissing sexual orientation as a "lifestyle choice," Joseph Farah throws this into his April 9 WorldNetDaily column:
Health is a big issue for government these days. Anti-smoking proclamations are all the rage. Cities are banning transfats and Big Gulps. The first lady is telling kids what kind of foods they can and cannot eat. No one, however, is talking about the health effects of homosexuality, sodomy, promiscuity and adultery any more. Those topics, once understood by anyone and everyone, are not even open for discussion for fear of being called a bigot or a prude. But I’m going to risk the barbs by doing just that.
It was a big news story throughout the world 18 months ago when actor Michael Douglas explained his throat cancer did not come from smoking, but rather from a sexually transmitted disease associated with oral sex. Do you remember that? Nobody, by the way, disputed the diagnosis. Everyone seemingly therefore understands there are indeed health risks associated uniquely with sodomy and, presumably, to other types of sexual behavior.
Farah, as usual, is hiding a pertinent detail. Douglas' cancer was caused by the HPV virus; CBS notes that HPV can be blocked by a vaccine like Gardasil.
But, in addition to hating gays, Farah opposes the HPV vaccine as well.
WND has regularly fearmongered about Gardasil. Farah himself wrote an incredibly dishonest column in 2012 declaring that people "will die and get seriously ill as a result of the vaccine." He wrote that "There are more than 100 strains of HPV; Gardasil and Cervarix, the most commonly prescribed vaccines, offer protection against two of them." In fact, according to the article he cites to back him up, those two strains cause 70 percent of cervical cancers, and Gardasil also prevents two other HPV strains that cause 90 percent of genital wart cases.
Farah went on to cite Dr. Joseph Mercola as an expert in fearmongering about HPV. As we've documented, Mercola is a fringe seller of health supplements who has been twice ordered by the Food and Drug Administration to stop making claims about his supplements that go beyond their intended uses.
It seems Farah has no problem with letting people suffer and die of preventable diseases if he disapproves of how those diseases were contracted.
Tim Graham Transgender Freakout Watch Topic: Media Research Center
Tim Graham is apparently the Media Research Center's designated person to freak out that anyone but straight white people get portrayed in the media, and he's particularly sensitive to transgenders not being treated negatively, as they apparently should be.
Graham's latest transgender freakout actually involves cross-dressing, not transgenderism, but Graham is still upset:
In their constant celebration of gender-bending, NPR still has time for old-fashioned transvestites. On the April 3 Morning Edition, their headline was “Longtime Couple Found That Clothes Didn't Make The Man.” The producer, Liyna Anwar, tweeted “He's a Vietnam vet who teaches electric power tech. He just does it all in a dress.”
Naturally, this is a story of violent disapproval and bigotry in need of relief from NPR and other compassionate media outlets.
This report was part of the “StoryCorps” project dedicated to preserving the stories of American lives. As NPR explained, "These conversations are archived at the American Folklife Center at the Library of Congress, allowing participants to leave a legacy for future generations."
This narrative form cozily omits any questioning, especially critical questioning. That's simply not allowed when making America safe for "gender fluidity" is the morning subject.
Graham doesn't answer what purpose the "critical questioning" he seeks would fill, except to denigrate the subject -- which would seem to be the entire point as far as Graham is concerned.
I want to express sincere apologies to any country or people across the world who consider the United States their ally and friend – people who believe they could trust the U.S. to keep a secret, to support treaties, to encourage freedom, to be a peacemaker yet lead the free world, to maintain the military strength to support freedom.
I apologize because since the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama as president, all that has changed, and we are all at risk.
So a cornerstone of Obama’s agenda is to create an authority higher than the Supreme Court – secret, unelected U.N. tribunals with the power to overrule American lawmakers and courts. What part of this is consistent with the oath he swore to preserve protect and defend the Constitution?
This is a clear attack on our national sovereignty and our Constitution. Is this what Obama meant when he promised to fundamentally transform America?
Is he Andreas Lubitz in the Oval Office, setting the nation on a steady, gradual yet deliberate path to oblivion?
The silence from the U.S. government regarding the above atrocities is shameful. Barack Hussein Obama has long ago chosen his side. His quick condemnation of any alleged persecution of Muslims, and utter silence as Christians are slaughtered like animals, tells us all what we need to know. And his outrageous sellout of Israel both before and after its recent elections should have awakened every Jewish person.
We as Christians need to adjust to a new reality – our “leaders” will not save us. A new era of self-reliance must begin, and it must start now!
Liberals point out that Fox News is always looking for trouble in the Obama administration. Liberals fail to add how good Fox is at finding it! Only Fox, that I know of, emblazoned in a headline position in its coverage the story of Obama snubbing the secretary-general of NATO.
With something like a dozen different political parties fighting for supremacy in Israel, there is very little that Israelis ever agree about, but one thing they know for certain is that Obama hates Jews and has a soft spot for Islamics, even for the demented likes of the Ayatollah Khamenei.
President Obama has announced a “deal” with the government of Iran that allows the mullahs openly dedicated to our destruction to proceed on their path to develop nuclear weapons. No one is really surprised by the sellout, as it follows a long train of pro-Islamic policies and a willful blindness to Iran’s jihadist activities and ambitions.
The jihadist gun is loaded and pointed at our head, and soon those bullets will be nuclear warheads. Yet, none dare call it treason.
The alliance between leftists and Muslims against Christians may be more apparent in Britain than it is in America, since the process has advanced much further in the U.K. – but not to worry; President Barack Hussein Obama has been moving the course of Islamist infiltration handily along.
What if Obama isn’t looking to his “legacy”? What if the threat of nuclear devastation he helps to arm with this agreement (an America-hating Iran with nuclear bombs) is to be brandished, along with a related threat from ongoing terrorist uprisings on U.S. soil, to create the exigent circumstances needed to justify imposing martial law throughout the United States and a plausible excuse for demanding that Obama remain in office until the emergency passes?
There it is. The unthinkable scenario predicated upon the thought that Barack Obama and those who lifted him to power are precisely what they appear to be – the enemies of America’s power, its prosperity, its constitutional liberty, its moral strength, indeed of everything about America except their own boundless ambition. Why is it at all inconceivable that people willing to collude with and arm our boldest enemies may be doing so for the sake of their own power? Why should we be unwilling to ponder the possibility that the Obama faction has agreed to help Iran achieve hegemony in the Middle East in order to help themselves to dictatorial control over the United States? What certainty do we have that, in some secret, back-channel codicil, this agreement is not already in place?
You may believe a coup d’état “could never happen here.” But the danger we face is not some beer hall putsch. It’s is more like the consolidation of tyrannical power Hitler’s faction completed after he was appointed chancellor of Germany. But if such a denouement is already in view for the United States, isn’t it urgently necessary to begin doing what must be done to prevent its completion? As food for urgent thought, I will propose such a strategy in the next article to be published on my blog. Are you willing to think about it yet?
MRC Takes A Dump On Bob Schieffer Topic: Media Research Center
It seems that the Media Research Center doesn't believe anyone who isn't in lockstep with its right-wing agenda has any right to be treated with anything remotely resembling. It's true of the conservatives who fail to toe the right-wing line, and it's even more true of the news media the MRC despises.
MRC researcher Jeffrey Meyer's reaction to CBS "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer retiring after 46 years at the network -- a feat in itself that should earn maybe a little respect -- was to take a figurative dump on Schieffer, devoting an April 9 NewsBusters post to sneering at the network giving Schieffer a nice sendoff, under the disrespectful headline "CBS Oozes ‘Giant of Journalism,’ 'Amazing' Bob Schieffer Retiring":
At most companies, when someone who's worked for the company for 46 years retires, they get a nice speech and a nice watch. But at a TV news network, the audience is subjected to the most extreme fawning, complete with the bizarre notion that no one has ever criticized the retiring journalist.
Following CBS reporter Bob Schieffer announcing his retirement this summer, Charlie Rose deemed Schieffer a “giant of journalism” who had a “legendary career” at CBS News. While Rose claimed that he “never heard anyone at CBS or anywhere else say a bad word about Bob Schieffer” longtime CBS anchor was known for saying “bad things” things about Republicans.
We here at NewsBusters have compiled a list of Scheiffer’s worst quotes at CBS, from trashing Conservatives to cheering on Democrats to more recently praising Obama’s Lincolnesque speeches[.]
What Jeffrey calls the "worst" of Schieffer is mostly just Schieffer not blindly repeating the right-wing talking points the way the MRC wants them. Is Schieffer saying that Franklin Roosevelt was a great president or that Sarah Palin served as an attack dog for John McCain during their 2008 presidential campaign really the "worst" things he said? It is if you're offended by anyone who won't spout conservative dogma, as Meyer apparently is.
We suspect that when Brent Bozell or Tim Graham retire from the MRC, Meyer will be oozing profusely. Which makes him a hypocrite as well as disrespectful.
WND's Unruh Censors Cliven Bundy's Violent, Racist Rhetoric To Mark 'Liberty Celebration' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bob Unruh is in full hagiographic mode in an April 8 WorldNetDaily article:
A “liberty celebration” is on tap this weekend, Friday through Sunday, at the Bundy ranch in Nevada where just a year ago the family and hundreds of supporters stared down the federal government over plans to confiscate cattle from their historic grazing grounds.
And ranch patriarch Cliven Bundy says the fight really isn’t over for Americans until the federal government is pushed back into Washington and stays there.
Federal bureaucrats “are still moving forward,” he told WND.
“What they’re doing now, they are coming into organizations, county organizations, police forces, city forces, even state forces … buying their way in,” he said.
Bundy said the population of the U.S. – which he calls “We the People” – need to teach the federal bureaucrats their job under the Constitution is limited to designated responsibilities, such as establishing monetary policy and maintaining a national defense, and the rest is left to the sovereign states.
It was just a year ago that the Bundy family, reinforced by hundreds of like-minded Americans who converged on the Nevada desert to offer their support, stared down the federal government, which had come to confiscate the ranch cattle.
You'll recall, of course, that WND was one of Bundy's biggest backers, lionizing Bundy and those "like-minded Americans" who helped throw a temper tantrum and escalating the situation during last year's standoff.
Unruh made no mention of the threats of violence that came from Bundy and his "like-minded Americans" -- better known as militia thugs -- or a plan by one rogue militia member to use women as human shields during the standoff. Here's one of those charming "like-minded Americans" preparing to assassinate law enforcement during the standoff:
Unruh also fails to mention the racist statements Bundy made, claiming that blacks were "better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy." At the time, WND tried to do damage control by scrounging up the only black person it could find to explain away Bundy's offensive remarks: Alan Keyes.
It's telling that Unruh has to hide so many inconvenient facts about Bundy in order to present him as a right-wing hero. But then, nobody reads WND to get the facts, do they?
Newsmax TV Running Another Program On JFK, For Some Reason Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax breathlessly announces in an April 8 article by Bill Hoffmann:
An explosive new documentary reveals how President John F. Kennedy's unquenchable sexual appetite was just days from being exposed by the press when he was assassinated in Dallas.
"JFK's Women: The Scandals Revealed" — to be aired Saturday, 8 p.m. ET., exclusively on Newsmax TV — bares the truth behind the endless string of tawdry affairs involving the nation's 35th president.
From blonde bombshell Marilyn Monroe to mob honey Judith Campbell to East German stunner Ellen Rometsch, Kennedy shamelessly and indiscriminately hopped from bed to bed with beauty after beauty.
Kennedy was so hooked on random sex romps that he was seemingly prepared to risk his political career in return for quick carnal thrills.
And Newsmax TV's unflinching look at JFK and the women he bedded is essential viewing for all Americans who want to know what really happened in Camelot.
"JFK's Women: The Scandals Revealed" adds to the diverse programming featured on Newsmax TV, America's fast-growing news and information channel, carried in more than 40 million U.S. satellite and cable homes.
Despite its suggestion, this film is not a Newsmax production -- it appears to be the same documentary that aired on Canadian TV in 2013.
This is the second show in a year Newsmax TV has aired on JFK. Last November, it ran a program featuring the less-than-credible claims of someone who claims to have been the man on the grassy knoll at JFK's assassination. It's unclear why Newsmax TV considers films about JFK to be a key component toward ratings success for its fledgling cable channel.
WND Finally Boards Harry Reid Conspiracy Bandwagon, 6 Days After The MRC Topic: WorldNetDaily
This might be a first: The Media Research Center beat WorldNetDaily to a conspiracy theory.
Last week, NewsBusters' P.J. Gladnick excitedly promoted a conspiracy theory that Harry Reid's exercise injuries were actually from a Las Vegas mafia beatdown. WND's Garth Kant belatedly got around to doing his own version of the conspiracy theory in an April 8 article. He promotes speculative and unverified claims that Reid's own brother is responsible for the beatdown, which in the process violated the confidentiality of Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.
Kant suggests that the Capitol Police's declining to comment on the incident is some kind of cover-up, proclaiming that "Skeptics have begun to openly doubt the explanation" Reid gave for his injuries. Kant is simply rewriting the work of others and does no original reporting here. He couldn't be bothered to do something as basic as contact Reid himself.
Gladnick's article arrived a good six days before Kant's. The WND-ization of the MRC is continuing apace.
'Quote Mark Bias' Makes NewsBusters Angry Topic: NewsBusters
The Media Research Center appears to be running out of things to be offended about. Thus, we have an April 4 NewsBusters item by Quin Hillyer complaining about, yes, "quote mark bias":
Media watchers in the past week rightly have criticized multiple media outlets for suddenly deciding that religious freedom needs quotation marks, as in “religious freedom.” Leave it to the news pages of The Wall Street Journal, though, to use those quotation marks, which by their nature indicate that the very concept is in dispute, in the same story with the term gay rights published without the same punctuation.
So we have a situation where the notion of religious freedom, the very bedrock of America’s settlement in the 1600s and its founding as a nation in the late 1700s, is seen as such a questionable idea that it merits quotation marks. But “gay rights,” a concept only invented in the past 30 years or so, and one not even enshrined in federal law or recognized by federal courts as involving a “protected class,” nonetheless is expressed straightforwardly, unambiguously, as so uncontroversial that it can stand on its own without being set off by special punctuation or other emphasis.
Similarly, no quotation marks or other indicators of controversy attend the passage in paragraph five discussing “the rights of gay and lesbian couples to wed.” But the very next sentence – and this is where the editorializing becomes even more explicit than mere punctuation differences – says that the “political response” of religious people “has been to promote the so-called religious-freedom legislation at the state level.”
Read that again. It’s the so-called religious-freedom legislation. Really? Gay rights is stated as a given, but First Amendment rights are merely “so-called”???
Twice more the news article uses the term “gay rights” without quotation marks.
Hillyer ignores the idea that perhaps "religious freedom" deserves scare quotes if its enforcement restricts the rights of others. Observers have noted that the Indiana religious freedom law, as originally passed, was conceived tas a means of excluding gays and same-sex couples from accessing employment, housing, and public accommodations on the same terms as other people.
And why does Hillyer think "gay rights" is so controversial that it needs scare quote? Does he not think such a thing should exist at all and that gays must be discriminated against simply for existing? Judging by Hillyer's annoyance with gays being so darn public with their gayness -- he literally says they're "frightening the horses" -- apparently so.
Hillyer concluded by sneering, "All in all, a more biased 'news article' could hardly be imagined. Please note the quotation marks." Apparently, if a news article says something Hillyer doesn't like, it isn't "news."