The Snapping of David Kupelian's Mind Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've documented the mental contortions WorldNetDaily had to undergo in order to justify abandoning his far-right sense of morality and endorse Donald Trump, trying to console himself by clinging to the belief that Trump's "heart is good."
Well, there's no actual evidence that it is, and Kupelian doesn't want to admit it. And now all those contortions are apparently to rot his brain.
As evidence keeps mounting of Trump's apparent mental instability and rampant narcissism, Kupelian has to try and change the subject, so he dedicates an Aug. 2 column to going into full denial mode, addressing the issue of Trump's mental health by changing the subject:
Having recently researched this subject while writing my new book, “The Snapping of the American Mind,” allow me to bring a few startlingly eye-opening facts to the forefront of this challenge to the Republican candidate’s sanity.
First, rewind to the start of Obama’s presidency. In 2009, Obama’s Department of Homeland Security singled out conservatives, pro-lifers, constitutionalists, critics of illegal immigration and returning war veterans as potentially violent “rightwing extremists.” Later, peaceful tea-party folks were accused by “mainstream media” pundits of acting like “terrorists,” “vampires,” “zombies” and “cannibals.”
There are many such examples. During the Obama administration we have witnessed, non-stop, the modus operandi of the left, wherein those who through monumental deceit have conspired to transform Judeo-Christian America, upend her Constitution and impose an alien new system of governance and morality upon her, have the audacity to accuse the traditionally minded American middle class, which just wants its country back, of being ignorant, deranged and dangerous.
Psychologists call this “projection,” where one person or group literally projects its own wrongs onto another. Thus, for decades, the left – which throughout the 1900s gave the world its bloodiest century in history – has been busy denouncing and “diagnosing” conservatives and Christians. In the Soviet Union, this practice was integral to the ongoing operation of the communist state. Dissidents – the sanest and most courageous people in the country – were confined to psychiatric hospitals for “treatment.” If you had a problem with communism, you were mentally ill and diagnosed with made-up conditions like “philosophical intoxication” and “sluggish schizophrenia.”
Actually, the DHS was prescient -- and correct in identifying right-wing extremists as potentially violent (remember the Cliven Bundy standoff and the armed takeover of the Oregon wildlife refuge?) and identifying military veterans as potential recruits for violent extremism (it has repeatedly happened, from Timothy McVeigh to the Wisconsin Sikh massacre to the Dallas police shooting).
At no point in his column does Kupelian even try to defend Trump -- it's all the projection he claims liberals engage in. So far in denial is Kupelian that he writes this:
Ironically – almost comically – the most oft-cited armchair diagnosis of Donald Trump is narcissism. Really? After eight years of Barack Obama, whose behavior as president matches perfectly the clinical symptoms of “narcissistic personality disorder,” now his die-hard supporters are going to try to make that stick to Trump?
Actually, it's pretty easy. Did Obama ever do anything like this at any Democratic convention?
But Kupelian has a lot invested in his Obama-is-a-narcissist narrative. WND's Whistleblower magazine, which Kupelian is in charge of, dedicated an entire issue in 2012 to the subject "Why Obama Lies," and it starred an essay by Kupelian denouncing Obama as a "super-ambitious and vainglorious person" suffering from "extreme narcissism." Kupelian ultimately declared, "Obama lies because that’s how he gets his way, and getting his way is all he cares about."
All of that, of course, much more accurately applies to Donald Trump, and Kupelian could swap "Obama" for "Trump" in his armchair psychoanalysis and be much more accurate. Trump really is the narcissistic sociopath Kupelian has accused Obama of being, but he'll will never admit it because he wants Trump to win so badly he's in serious denial.
Kupelian should probably talk to a mental health professional about his condition soon.
Watching Kupelian's mind deteriorate further as he keeps on turning a blind eye to Trump's growing demonstrated lack of fitness for the presidency in order to justify his hatred of Hillary Clinton will be sadly, weirdly entertaining.
CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman really, really hates gays and transgenders. So much so, in fact, that he publishes -- and republishes -- articles by discredited anti-gay and anti-transgender psychiatrist Paul McHugh.
Chapman's still at it. In May, Chapman devoted an article to telling us that "Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University and former psychiatrist–in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital, who has studied transgendered people for 40 years, said it is a scientific fact that 'transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men.'"
Chapman states this particular McHugh rant came from "an article for The Witherspoon Institute," but he doesn't mention that it was published 11 months earlier -- meaning it had no news value and that he's very late in getting around to rehashing it. Or that CNS -- presumably upon Chapman's request -- republished McHugh's piece shortly after it appeared at Witherspoon.So Chapman is not only rehashing a nearly year-old piece, it's a rehashed nearly year-old piece CNS itself republished.
Then, in a July 21 article, Chapman tells us once again that McHugh is "the Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University" -- an appeal to authority that means nothing -- and that he now says "it is a scientific fact that 'there is no gay gene.'"
According to Chapman, McHuch states of his claim:
"The best data, of course, [comes from the Framingham Study],” said Dr. McHugh. “If you are a man and you grow up in a rural environment, you are four times less likely to have homosexual relationships than if you grow up in a metropolitan area. That's not left-handedness.”
“If you are a lesbian, you are much more likely to be college-educated,” he said. “That's not something that happens at conception.”
McHugh appears to be referring to the Framingham Heart Study, which is a study of heart disease, not homosexuality.
Oh, and these statements are even more out of date: the interview Chapman is quoting from was published in January 2010. That's right -- Chapman is presenting a six-year-old article as something new.
Nedless to say, in neither article does Chapman present a view counter to McHugh's, despite the fact his anti-LGBT views have been widelydiscredited. That violates the mission statementof the "news" organization he runs, which "endeavors to fairly present all legitimate sides of a story."
It seems Chapman cares nothing about journalism despite running a "news" organization, interested not in news or even current events but, rather, pushing a biased, partisan agenda and silencing opposition. But we knew that already.
WND's Farah Doesn't Read His Own Website Topic: WorldNetDaily
Does Joseph Farah even read the website he runs? It appears not.
In his Aug. 2 WorldNetDaily column bashing Khizr Khan for criticizing Donald Trump, he takes issue with Khan pointing that Donald Trump wants a ban on Muslim immigration to the U.S.:
Despite what you hear, see and read in the Big Media on a daily and hourly basis, Donald Trump is not suggesting a ban on Muslim immigration. From the very beginning, Trump said he was concerned about the way Obama has been actively importing Muslim refugees into the U.S. by the tens of thousands without any ability to know if they represent a threat to the safety and security of the American people. At most, Trump called for a moratorium on such immigration, not a ban. Doesn’t that make sense? Who in their right mind could argue with such a policy – besides Obama and Hillary Clinton, the latter proposing a 500 percent increase in Muslim “refugee” resettlement?
Actually, a moratorium is a ban. The fact that it's presented as temporary -- Trump has not said how long his moratorium would last, if he even intends to lift it at all -- does not make it less of a ban.
Farah then bashes Khan again: "Instead, knowingly or unknowingly, he is perpetrating a fraud. No one believes all Muslims represent an inherent threat to the safety and security of the American people. That would be foolish."
Farah apparently hasn't read the WND "news" article that appeared thet same day as his column, in which Leo Hohmann cheered that a "mega-mosque" in Virginia would not be built due to "resistance from residents." Hohmann approvingly quoted one resident opposing the mosque:
At one meeting in November, a sheriff’s deputy reportedly halted the meeting after one man got a little too riled up. The male resident was captured on video pointing a finger at the imam and saying, “You’re a terrorist. Every one of you is a terrorist, I don’t care what you say. You can smile at me, you can say whatever you want, but every Muslim is a terrorist.”
Is Farah going to go up to that man opposing the Virginia mosque and tell him that he is foolish?
Farah also seems to have missed WND's entire coverage of settling Muslim refugees in the U.S., in which the word "refugee" is put in scare quotes, as if to suggest that all Muslims are would-be criminals, if not secret terrorists.
Of course, if Farah's not reading his own website, he's far from alone -- to the point that Farah must beg for money to keep WND alive.
MRC Begs For Money To Make Film Distorting Obama's Record on Coal Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is getting into the crowdfunding business, seeking $15,000 for "completing the production and marketing" of a "short documentary" about "the devastating human toll of the EPA's war on coal," to be called "Collateral Damage":
Several months ago, MRCTV sent a camera crew to the southern counties of West Virginia to document the impact of the EPA regulations on the coal industry and the local communities that have historically relied on it for survival. What the team found was devastating.
The effect of shuttered coal mines and the loss of thousands of coal jobs has trickled down into nearly every facet of these communities, crippling local businesses, destroying the housing market and forcing desperate families from their homes. Thousands are without work, while still thousands more live under the constant threat of job loss and bankruptcy. Local charities struggle to meet the needs around them, only to be quickly overwhelmed. While the media are focusing on "climate change," hardworking Americans are left to wonder how they will keep the lights on in a house they're struggling to hold on to.
Through a compelling series of up-close footage and brutally honest interviews, "Collateral Damage" will expose in stark detail the real, human impact of President Obama's promised and delivered assault on the coal industry, and on the hardworking Americans and their families in Central Appalachia.
This is a true American story about real American people. And we need more Americans like you to help us get it out.
The solicitation doesn't explain why a multimillion-dollar organization like the MRC can't pony up a measly $15,000 to edit and promote footage they've already shot.
And it looks like this documentary will be on the dishonest side. In the trailer -- which frames President Obama and his EPA as the sole source of misery in coal-mining country -- there's a clip of Obama saying, "You know, the irony is that what's actually hurt coal is not any EPA rules." That clip is cut off abruptly.
Why? Because Obama's full statement under mines the entire premise of the MRC's film. Here's the full statement by Obama, with the tiny snippet the MRC used in bold:
You know, the irony is that what's actually hurt coal is not any EPA rules as much as it is any really cheap natural gas that has come from fracking, a new technology that we developed that allowed the United States to become the leading producer of natural gas in the world. And those gas-fired plants -- natural gas-fired plants are now so much more efficient that even if there were no rules whatsoever, coal would be replaced by natural gas in terms of generating electricity. Natural gas is a little cleaner than coal, and what we are saying in the same way that natural gas has replaced a lot coal-fired plants, well, let's see if we can get that same kind of progress on solar and wind and, you know, hydro and other clean energies that are sustainable over the long term.
And what we to then do is invest in those communities that used to have a lot of coal miners, which was a tough, dirty job. Let's retrain them so that they're the ones who are installing wind turbines. Let's retrain them so they are getting jobs in the solar industry. And that's the nature of American innovaton and American change. We used to have a lot of folks who hworked on farms. Farms became really efficient here in the United States, and what we did then is said, let's set up public schools and let's set up community colleges and land-grant colleges and let's have them work in the factories. And then now we're having them work in the digital world.
And you know, we can't abandon those communities, and there's still some market for coal. And I'm still investing, by the way, in technologies that could potentially pull the carbon out of coal so that -- there's a lot of coal here in the United States as there is in China and India. If we could figure out a way to do that cleanly, that should be part of our smart energy mix. But we can't stand still. America never has, it never will.
So it's not the EPA who's the only villain here -- it's also fracking, something conservatives like the MRC have championed. And Obama has not maliciously abandoned coal miners -- he supports retraining them for new jobs. Betcha none of that appears in the MRC's little film.
Also, apparently nobody has told the MRC that Obama is not running for re-election, so bashing him seems rather pointless.
It looks like the only "collateral damage" we'll actually being seeing from the MRC is to the truth.
CNS Buries Trump's Attacks on Parents of Deceased Soldier Topic: CNSNews.com
As we'vedocumented, CNSNews.com is simply not interested in publishing -- or, when it does publish, giving any meaningful promotion to -- negative news regarding Donald Trump.
For days, CNS refused to mention the story of Donald Trump's attacks on Khizr Khan, father of a deceased American soldier who spoke at the Democratic National Convention, on its front page -- no mention of the attacks or the bipartisan criticism of them. CNS did enter a few AssociatedPressarticles on the controversy into its website, but they never appeared on the front page. Given that it's highly unlikely that most CNS readers venture beyond the front page, that means CNS effectively censored the story.
It was only when President Obama commented on the controversy in a way it disapproved of that CNS deemed the story worthy of its front page - and even then, Trump's attacks were not the focus of the story.
Note the framing used by Melanie Hunter in her Aug. 2 CNS article, under the headline "In Front of Foreign Leader, Obama Denounces Trump as ‘Unfit to Serve’":
During a joint White House press conference with Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, President Barack Obama spent more than five minutes explaining why he thinks GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump is “unfit to serve as president,” pointing to recent statements Trump made about the parents of Capt. Humayun Khan, a decorated Army veteran who was killed in Iraq.
Thus, CNS makes the issue not Trump's attacks on the parents of a dead U.S. soldier but Obama criticizing the attacks in front of a "foreign leader."
While Hunter went on to summarize the back-and-forth between Trump and Khan, she failed to report that Trump's (and, presumably, Hunter's) fellow Republicans have criticized Trump's attacks -- something she knows exists because she linked to an AP article documenting that criticism.
Hunter's bias and incomplete reporting would seem to be yet another violation of CNS' mission statement, which claims that it "endeavors to fairly present all legitimate sides of a story."
On July 31, WorldNetDaily's Garth Kant wrote a glowing profile of Kansas Rep. Tim Huelskamp, touting how "Kansas voters have always liked him. But the Republican establishment apparently loathes him." Kant gave Huelskamp an open platform to attack his Republican primary opponent, Dr. Roger Marshall -- Kant did not give Marshall an opportunity to respond to the attacks -- portray himself as an enemy of the Republcian establishment despite running for his fourth term in Congress and tout how well his secret polls have him doing:
One Kansas poll has the race as a dead heat, while Huelskamp’s own polling gives him a nine-point lead.
A poll commissioned by the Topeka Capital-Journal published on Sunday showed a dead heat, with Marshall at 40.9 percent of likely voters, and Huelskamp at 40.3 percent. A significant number, 15.3 percent, are still undecided.
According to the paper, “If Republican voters oust Huelskamp, it would send a shock wave through Washington, D.C.”
But Huelskamp’s campaign criticized the poll’s methodology of surveying random Kansas landline and cell numbers.
“Our internal poll, taken during the same time by a reputable polling firm with a 100 percent track record, surveyed twice as many respondents and showed congressman Huelskamp with a strong 47-38 lead,” a Huelskamp spokesman told the paper.
Well, the election was Aug. 2, and well, somebody's polls didn't work out so well: Huelskamp lost to Marshall by a whopping 13 percentage points.
Kant had to figure out a way to spin this embarrassing loss -- which he portrayed as unlikely if not impossible in his puff piece -- somehow. He went with the war-on-right-wingers approach.
In an Aug. 3 article, Kant portrayed Huelskamp as a victim of GOP infighting and how the "establishment" -- which, curiously, Huelskamp was not a part of despite holding his seat for many years -- targeted those who are too far to the right:
There are two schools of thought among conservatives. Some extremely prominent commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter have portrayed the Kansan’s defeat as vindication for GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, whom Huelskamp initially opposed, then endorsed. But others, particularly the congressman’s right-leaning colleagues in the House, warn it is nothing less than an all-out assault by House Speaker Paul Ryan and the GOP establishment on conservatism itself.
Worse yet, they see it as a template the GOP establishment, having tasted initial success, will now use to try to drive conservatives out of the Republican Party for good.
That template is said to employ a wolf in sheep’s clothing ploy: harnessing the prevailing deep anti-Washington sentiment among Republican voters to gin up support for an establishment-backed insider pretending to be an outsider, while portraying an incumbent conservative as an entrenched D.C.-insider.
Kant also recruited WND author Daniel Horowitz to go further into right-wing freakout mode: "This is a warning shot. This is very disturbing,” he warned, because this means that conservatives now have no place in their own party. You’ll be taken down by the special interests. You can have delegations of people that go with Democrats left and right, and that’s no problem. ... Conservatives are now just as welcome in the Republican Party as they are the Democratic Party."
Kant made no mention of the rosy -- and wildly inaccurate -- electoral predictions in his previous article, and he once again failed to contact Marshall to let him have his own say instead of being repeatedly maligned by his opponents and critics.
UPDATE: Kant also failed to report that Huelskamp's loss was apparently part of a larger revolt by Kansas voters against right-wing politicians in general. Under right-wing Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, the state is runing large deficits, education and highway funding is in trouble and its credit rating has been downgraded.
Dick Morris’ new book "Armageddon: How Trump Can Beat Hillary" has soared to the very top of the Amazon.com bestseller list Thursday – making it the most purchased book in the country – trailing only an unreleased Harry Potter book.
That makes Morris' book the #1 non-fiction book in the nation.
"Armageddon" had already been #1 on several Amazon categories, but the Amazon top ranking confirms Wednesday's report that the book had debuted at No. 4 on the August 7 New York Times nonfiction list.
One important thing Richter doesn't mention: Morris' book is published by Humanix Books -- which, as we've previously documented, is a division of Newsmax Media. Which makes Richter's story an in-house advertisement, not a "news" article.
Needless to say, Newsmax is doing another one of its loss-leader giveaways to promote Morris' book, giving it away with a discounted subscription to Newsmax's magazine. The promo laughably claims that "Dick Morris is admired for his probing, insightful, hard-hitting, and clear commentary." That requires readers to ignore Morris' spectacularly wrong predictions in the 2012 presidential election, which forced Newsmax to do some heavy career rehab for him.
The promo also states that "Time magazine has dubbed him 'the most influential private citizen in America,'" without mentioning that Time did so 20 years ago or that it came just before he was forced to resign in disgrace from Bill Clinton's re-election campaign for dalliances with a call girl.
MRC Totally Cool With Newspaper Publishing Nude Pics of Melania Trump Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center normally freaks out at nudity in the media, real or suggested, such as with that Kanye West video, an anti-Trump book or Miley Cyrus in general. So you'd think that a major metropolitan newspaper running nude pictures of anyone, let alone the wife of the Republican presidential nominee, would crank up the MRC outrage machine.
Well, you'd be wrong.
On July 31, the New York Post published a nude front-page photo of Melania Trump from her modeling days, complete with stars over her nipples, with the headline "The Ogle Office." The Post followed up the next day with an even steamier cover photo of Trump in a position the MRC might denounce as lesbian. The Post's website featured even morepictures from the shoots those cover photos, with even less left to the imagination.
So, spittle-flecked MRC rants about a vulgar, sleazy attack on the wife of a Republican and prudish rants about nudity on the front page of a major newspaper, right?
Wrong. The MRC has published absolutely nothing about the Post's nudie covers.
Why? Two possible reasons. First, the MRC may be exhibiting some passive-aggressive behavior regarding its support for Trump. While it's being a good Republican tool and defending Trump most of the time, it will deviate from the script on occasion, as when it defended Ted Cruz for not endorsing Trump at the Republican National Convention.
The second: The New York Post, like Fox News, is a Rupert Murdoch-controlled property that is normally reliably conservative. That means, like Fox News, the Post can commit no "media bias" in the eyes of the MRC, even when it's overly exposing the wife of the Republican presidential candidate, and even when it would have bashed any other non-conservative publication that published the exact same photos.
Such double standards make the MRC's claim to care about media bias ring hollow. But at least the MRC finally found some public nudity it's totally comfortable with (silence equals assent, after all).
UPDATE, 9/22/17: Image of New York Post cover removed because Google AdSense thought it was too explicit, despite the fact that it appeared on the cover of a relatively major U.S. newspaper.
Shocker: WND Engages In Actual Journalism! Topic: WorldNetDaily
Even WorldNetDaily, the least credible news operation in America, can stumble upon doing some actual journalism on occasion -- stopped clock, and all that -- and we would remiss if we didn't recognize it.
Art Moore traveled to the Republican National Convention in Cleveland -- since WND is a little short of funds these days, we suspect Moore lives close to Cleveland and went there on his own dime -- and interviewed a couple people, both of whom were critical of Donald Trump. Surprisingly, Moore let them have their say, portrayed their comments fairly, and even posted the full video of the interview:
A Colorado delegate pointed out that conservatives do not trust Trump and that he's willing to let Hillary Clinton win in 2016 in order to save conservatism.
A black Cleveland resident pointed out that the Trump campaign dragged out the Melania Trump plagiarism controversy much longer than it needed to go, that the convention was too negative about Hillary and that Trump himself was too negative. The resident also noted that contrary to "a lot of people" Moore cited, he didn't think racial relations have gotten worse during the Obama presidency, adding “With me being an African-American male, I’ve dealt with this all of my life."
Odly, neither interview was conducted at the convention site itself: The Colorado delegate was interviewed at the airport, and the Cleveland resident was interviewed "while traveling on a commuter train west of downtown after the Republican National Convention."
That's not to say Moore didn't try to guide the conversation WND's way -- which is, Hillary must be destroyed at all costs. Moore told the Colorado delegate:
There are some who would argue that we've had eight years of fundamental transformation, as Obama promised before he took office, and four years even -- let alone eight years of Hillary would more or less cement that fundamental transition for generations. We're talking about Supreme Court picks -- could be 30 years that one of those picks would serve in a court that right now is 4-4 divided. With Trump at least you can roll the dice and there's a chance. With Hillary there's no chance you'll get a Scalia. So how would you argue with somebody who's saying, look, we don't have another four years, we understand the whole concept of a war but the war could be over before the next four years is up?
See, WND? Actual journalism -- as opposed to the biased right-wing advocacy that normally passes for "journalism" -- isn't that difficult. You even have employees who are capable of doing it if they are allowed. Y'all should try it a little more often if you want to have any chance at all of restoring your credibility.
CNS Touts MIchael Vick Praising God, Ignore His History of Animal Cruelty Topic: CNSNews.com
Michael Morris writes in a July 27 CNSNews.com blog post:
For National Football League (NFL) fans it’s the offseason, but that doesn’t mean you won’t hear some players making a buzz in the media about games, stats, past performances and how they stack up against the competition.
In a recent interview on The Dan Patrick Show, NFL free agent and all-time NFL rushing leader for quarterback Michael Vick confessed that he felt bad for some defenders who had to play against him in the league and noted that he is “just thankful that God seen me through.”
According to Fox Sports, Michael Vick has rushed 6,109 total yards, averaged 7.0 yards per carry and 42.7 yards per game, picked up 343 first downs and scored 36 touchdowns on the ground.
But the 36-year-old doesn’t think he’s done just yet.
“You know, I’m just thankful that God seen me through up until this moment and still give me the passion to want to go play and want to perform at a high level,” said Vick. “And I still have the work ethic now, and even more, to, you know, try to put myself in that position, so, you know, I just got to be patient from here and wait for things to happen.”
Morris doesn't mention that Vick's God-guided football career was interrupted by a 21-month prison sentence for running a dog-fighting ring that also killed the dogs who didn't perform well.
MRC's Utterly Dishonest Convention Speech Coverage Comparison Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Geoffrey Dickens writes in an Aug. 1 post under the headline "DOUBLE STANDARD":
Two weeks ago at the Republican National Convention (RNC) a grieving mother blasted Hillary Clinton for the debacle of the 2012 Benghazi attack. Last Thursday, at the Democratic National Convention (DNC), grieving parents gave a speech criticizing Donald Trump for his statements against Muslims.
While all the grieving parents deserve sympathy, the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) network evening and morning shows seemed to only care about the parents that showed up at the Democratic Convention. Khizr Khan and his wife Ghazla’s DNC appearance earned 55 minutes, 13 seconds of Big Three network coverage, nearly 50 times more than Pat Smith, whose RNC speech honoring her son earned just 70 seconds of airtime.
And, of course, there's a chart to illustrate the alleged DOUBLE STANDARD:
Dickens also huffs:
This is a textbook case of bias-by-agenda: One of these stories (the Khan story) matched the Democratic agenda, and the partisan media couldn’t push it hard enough. The other (the Smith story) reflected poorly on the Democratic nominee, so it was barely mentioned.
But Dickens is making a dishonest comparison. Smith's RNC speech got little coverage because nothing happened afterwards. Khan's DNC speech would have been the same -- had Donald Trump not felt the need to attack Khan and his wife. Thus, the story stopped being about the speech but about Trump.
Yet Dickens is including coverage of Trump's attack on the Khans as part of of the Khan speech coverage when it is, in fact, not about the speech. The two stories are not equivalent, and Dickens treating them as such makes his comparison utterly dishonest.
Also note that Dickens includes only the broadcast networks in his study and completely ignores the cable news channels -- another form of dishonest research.
No, Mr. Dickens, this is not "a textbook case of bias-by-agenda." It is, however, a textbook case of shoddyMRCresearch.
But Dickens' boss, Brent Bozell, loves this kind of statistical dishonesty. Shortly after the comparison was posted at the MRC, Bozell was ranting about it on Fox News: “For those keeping score at home, that's 50 times more coverage, a negative on Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton. How in the world can this be a press saying that is showing any modicum of fairness in this campaign?”
Of course, it's not like Bozell actually cares about fairness.
UPDATE: Mike Ciandella updates the numbers and touts how Eric Trump "brought up the MRC study on this topic during an interview on CBS This Morning, to point out the media’s double standard." He doesn't mention the lack of equivalence between the two stories. He echoes Dickens in huffing: "One of these stories (the Khan story) matched the Democratic agenda, and the partisan media couldn’t push it hard enough. The other (the Smith story) reflected poorly on the Democratic nominee, so it was barely mentioned."
WND's Corsi Dedicates His New Anti-Clinton Screed To a Convicted Criminal Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jerome Corsi's new WorldNetDaily-published anti-Clinton book, "Partners in Crime," is scheduled to be released today as part of WND's anti-Clinton jihad-slash-witch hunt. Given Corsi's penchant for promoting lies, there's a track record to consider, and thus, there's no reason for anyone to believe he's telling the truth in this book either.
Also of import regarding Corsi's book: It's dedicated to a convicted criminal.
That would be fellow Clinton- (and Obama-) hater Dinesh D'Souza. In a WND video, Corsi explains that he dedicated "Partners in Crime" to D'Souza because he is "a true U.S. hero and a personal hero of mine." Corsi falsely claimed that "Barack Obama tried to imprison Dinesh D'Souza for a technical violation of the FEC laws" -- an offense that, "if a Democrat had done the offense, would have been overlooked with a minor hand slap and a fine" -- in order "to politically silence him."
Corsi, needless to say, provides no evidence that Obama personally went after or "tried to imprison" D'Souza over the election law violation (for which he pleaded guilty, by the way). While D'Souza could have been imprisoned for up to two years for his crime, he was instead sentenced to eight months in a halfway house and five years probation. The judge who sentenced D'Souza noted that he had taken no responsibility for his actions and beleived his sentence needed to have some teeth.
The judge also found no evidence to substantiate D'Souza's claim that he's a political prisoner, adding that "the defendant’s claim of selective prosecution, legally speaking, is 'all hat, no cattle.'"
In other words, Corsi is lying again. If Corsi is putting that much work to creating lies to justify his book's dedication, that doesn't bode well for the rest of the book.
NEW ARTICLE: The MRC vs. The Truth Topic: Media Research Center
Because Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is an inveterate liar, the Media Research Center must defend him by attacking fact-checkers. Read more >>
The fail starts early in Robert V. Carl's July 29 Newsmax article on the upcoming remake of "Ben-Hur":
The first time "Ben-Hur" hit the big screen, the Cold War was raging and the Civil Rights movement was in full swing. The film's themes of faith, social upheaval, and redemption resonated powerfully with the audiences of the day, who jammed into theaters to watch it.
No, the 1959 film was not "the first time 'Ben-Hur' hit the big screen." It was first filmed in 1907 (but just the chariot race), and it got a more elaborate silent production in 1925.
But facts aren't the point of Carl's article -- spin is. Much of his article is devoted to how "Distributors Paramount and MGM have been screening the movie for influential Christian leaders" to avoid the plight of "recent big-budget biblical films that took so much liberty with the source material that they failed to attract the faith-based audience they sought."
But the real purpose of Carl's article is unspoken: to respond to the negative buzz surrounding the film.
The Hollywood Reporter states that "Early tracking suggests Ben-Hur will open in the $14 million to $15 million range over the Aug. 19-21 weekend, a sobering start for the faith-centric ancient epic, which reportedly cost just under $100 million to produce," adding that the film's projected opening date has slid from February. And even the conservative PJ Media notes that "the director, Timur Bekmambetov, is known for what are more or less flops: Wanted (2008) and Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012)."
It's an interesting bit of Hollywood spinning reminiscent of another Newsmax writer, James Hirsen, who consistently championed the increasingly erratic and vile Mel Gibson without disclosing his insider relationship with the actor or his heading a foundation that worked to advance the ultraconservative Catholic faith of Gibson's father.
WND's Coverage of Trump's Remarks on Khan Censors the Controversy Topic: WorldNetDaily
Is Donald Trump one of the contributors to WorldNetDaily's plea for cash to stave off its existential financial crisis? If he isn't, he should be.
The Trump campaign's PR flacks couldn't have written a better "news" article spinning away the firestorm of controversy over Trump's attacking a Muslim couple whose son died in the Iraq war for committing the offense of criticizing him at the Democratic National Convention than the unnamed WND writer who managed to address the controversy by ignoring it completely in his or her July 30 article:
Donald Trump wants to set the record straight about his interview with ABC News “This Week” in which he has been accused of diminishing the sacrifice of Humayun Khan, a Muslim U.S. soldier killed in Iraq, with others.
Trump Saturday night called Khan “a hero,” urged vigilance in defeating radical Islamic terrorism and attacked Hillary, again, for destabilizing the Middle East with her policies as secretary of state.
At the Democratic convention, Khan’s father, Khizr Khan, had leveled criticism at Trump in support of Clinton for president.
“Captain Humayun Khan was a hero to our country and we should honor all who have made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our country safe,” Trump said in his statement. “The real problems here are the radical Islamic terrorists who killed him, and the efforts of these radicals to enter our country to do us further harm. Given the state of the world today, we have to know everything about those looking to enter our country, and given the state of chaos in some of these countries, that is impossible. While I feel deeply for the loss of his son, Mr. Khan who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution, (which is false) and say many other inaccurate things. If I become president, I will make America safe again.”
Trump continued: “Further, Hillary Clinton should be held accountable for her central role in destabilizing the Middle East. She voted to send the United States to war against Iraq, helped lead the disastrous withdrawal of American troops years later that created the vacuum allowing the rise of ISIS, and has never met a regime change she didn’t like (which have all been disasters) – not to mention her invasion of Libya and her abandonment of American personnel in Benghazi. The loss of these lives in Libya is directly traceable to Clinton, but their families’ testimonials were rejected by the media. Clinton’s actions have been reckless and have directly led to the loss of American lives. And her extreme immigration policies, as also laid out by American victims in Cleveland, will cause the preventable deaths of countless more – while putting all residents, from all places, at greater risk of terrorism. As Bernie Sanders said on numerous occasions, Hillary Clinton suffers from ‘bad judgement.’ She is not qualified to serve as commander in chief.”
Below is the full, unedited transcript of Trump’s interview with George Stephanopoulos On “This Week.”
It's nothing more than a mild rewrite of Trump's own press release, which also includes the interview transcript.
WND doesn't seem to understand that stenography -- which is what reproducing a transcript is, especially when Trump is not disputing the accuracy of any of the things it was reported he said -- is not journalism. Nor is simply rewriting someone's press release to put it in inverted pyramid form while retaining the Trump campaign's dishonest spin.
Trump would normally have to pay a news outlet under the table (as it's alleged he has with Breitbart) to get that kind of fawning, uncritical coverage. Joseph Farah and WND could certainly use the cash right now, and we doubt Farah is above accepting money for favorable coverage.
In cash-strapped WND, Trump can buy himself an entire "news" outlet on the cheap -- if he hasn't already.