MRC Mocked Matt Lauer Before Candidate Forum, Lauds Him Afterward For Furthering Its Agenda
Topic: Media Research Center

Prior to last week's "Commander in Chief Summit," the Media Reseaqrch Center mocked moderator Matt Lauer, with Kyle Drennen asserting that "one wonders if NBC couldn’t find someone with a little more gravitas to host the presidential campaign event" and citing, among other things, how "on three separate occasions Lauer has dressed as a woman for the Today show’s annual Halloween episode."

After the forum, however, the MRC has decided that Lauer is full of gravitas. Why?  He devoted a full one-third of his interview with Hillary Clinton to questions about her email server and gave Donald Trump a pass on his falsehoods like claiming to have always been against the Iraq war.

Thus, the MRC has repeatedly run to Lauer's defense over widespread criticism of his handling of the forum.

Curtis Houck touted how Lauer "hammer[ed] home concerns that the American people have about her with the private e-mail servers." He later complained about " near-universal excoriations ... of moderator and Today co-host Matt Lauer by the so-called objective media critics with reviews that the Clinton campaign probably couldn’t have written any better." Nicholas Fondacaro similarly cheered how Lauer "hammered Hillary Clinton repeatedly about her e-mail scandal."

Tim Graham whined that those reporting on critics of Lauer only cited "leftists" and tried to spin Lauer's softballing with Trump: "Let’s assume that’s about Trump claiming he opposed the Iraq war. CNN’s media team didn’t protest that Lauer also let Hillary say she has great respect for classified information and we didn’t lose an American in Libya."

Clay Waters also whined that "Those oh-so-objective journalists at the New York Times went after a fellow journalist, NBC’s Today show host Matt Lauer, for the crime of being unfair to Hillary Clinton and not sufficiently attacking Donald Trump."

Houck returned to claim:

With so-called neutral media critics throwing temper tantrums late Wednesday and early Thursday about NBC’s Today co-host Matt Lauer harshly questioning both presidential  candidates (including Hillary Clinton) at the Commander in Chief Forum, Fox News Channel’s Bill Hemmer and Howard Kurtz appeared to have had enough as they fired back at the desperate criticism on America’s Newsroom. 

Houck insisted that "there were many Trump supporters not happy with Lauer either so both Hemmer and Kurtz properly noted this fact and that it should instead lead to a conclusion that Lauer did a good job." He didn't mention that neither Hemmer nor Kurtz are "neutral media critics," being employed by Fox News but are simply parroting conservative talking points -- and Hemmer is actually a "news" anchor so he shouldn't be displaying any sort of bias at all (if the MRC ever bothered to apply its standards to any Fox News anchor besides Shepard Smith).

Houck's post, however, is the only post-forum MRC item to mention that the MRC mocked Lauer before the forum.

MRC research director Rich Noyes defended Lauer in an appearance on Fox News: "Well, I think Matt Lauer is getting bashed today not because Matt Lauer did a bad job. He actually has tough questions of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. He interrupted Donald Trump, but Trump stopped and didn't try to plow through him. He’s under fire from the left today because Hillary Clinton didn't do a good job answering those questions."

Noyes went on to claim that because of the criticism of Lauer, his NBC co-worker Lester Holt, who will be moderating a presidential debate, is "going to try to be very careful with the questions he's asking Hillary Clinton because of the way he's seeing his colleague being treated," adding, "It’s called playing the refs and I think, you know, it's something that Democrats are doing right now because they have a press corps that is sympathetic to the idea of stopping Trump."

Noyes didn't mention that his boss, Brent Bozell, was playing the refs more than a month ago -- before the debate moderator were even named -- was warning of biased moderators and declaring that "I'm watching to see to what degree are you going to have more impartial moderators this time."

Houck returned again to complain once more about criticism of Lauer, harrumphing that "the onslaught against Lauer has served as a reminder to readers and viewers where exactly the media’s priorities lie, no matter who they end up going after (e.g. one of their own)."

What Houck doesn't say: The fact that the MRC is defending Lauer shows where its priorities lie, even if it means contradicting itself.

Graham followed up by dismissing any criticism of Lauer as "Clinton-toady spin" (and insisting that "Lauer interrupted Trump more than he interrupted Mrs. Clinton"), then hilariously whining that Hillary Clinton is fundraising off Lauer's performance the same way Republicans like to fundraise off any perceived media criticism of them.

Graham wrote in another post: "It’s quite clear that if Hillary Clinton had actually won this side-by-side interview, the media elites would not be brutalizing Lauer. " It's even clear that if Lauer hadn't attacked Clinton more than Trump, the MRC would still be passing around that montage of a cross-dressing Lauer -- which is what the MRC really thinks Lauer is about. Funny how quickly that went down the rabbit hole once Lauer served the MRC's agenda.

Wash. Examiner Touts Trump As 'Doer-in-Chief' With DC Hotel Opening
Topic: Washington Examiner

We haven't paid attention to the Washington Examiner for a while, since right-wing financier Philip Anschutz turned it from a conservative daily newspaper to a conservative opinion journal more like its sister publication The Weekly Standard. But this was too egregious and ridiculous to ignore.

Paul Bedard, the Examiner's "Washington Secrets" gossip-ish columnist, wrote a Sept. 11 post that is a thinly Donald Trump press release that declares Trump a "doer-in-chief" for his new hotel in Washington, D.C.:

Donald Trump could be in Washington for the Jan. 20 inauguration whether or not he beats Hillary Clinton in November.

That's because his newest Trump International Hotel, inside the historic Old Post Office building on Pennsylvania Avenue, is expected to be operating at full capacity — and be sold out — for the 58th presidential inauguration.
 
The massive hotel, already being dubbed a Washington "grand dame," wasn't scheduled to open until August 2018, but on Monday managers plan a "soft launch" nearly two years ahead of schedule, proving his claim that he can get things done well and fast, at least in the world of development. At the end of October, most of the rooms are expected to be finished and the hotel will host a grand opening.

[...]

A walk around the Trump International Hotel Washington, between 12th and 13th Streets NW on Pennsylvania Avenue, found workers putting finishing touches on the brightened up exterior, which features awnings stamped with "Starbucks" and "BLT Prime," a steakhouse.

From the street, observers can see into some of the 263 guest rooms and suites fixed up in a $200 million rehab. All appeared to be painted in white and lit with a chandelier. Photos of the rooms on the Trump Hotel website show them decorated in white, gold and navy blue.

In fact, the Washington Business Journal reported February that despite the Trump Organization's insistence that the project is "two years ahead of schedule, "the opening is in line with what Trump has been projecting all along — it was always slated to open in late 2016."

And who's calling the hotel a "grand [sic] dame"? Bedard cites nobody actually doing so. A Sept. 6 Boston Globe article called the building the hotel is in, a historic building originally constructed as a post office, an "architectural grand dame," but that was in the context of asking whether Trump's divisive presidential campaign is hurting business by keeping people from staying at Trump-branded hotels.

Further, Bedard's touting of the hotel's restaurants (of which the second most prestigious is apparently Starbucks) omits the fact that the celebrity chefs behind the two restaurants originally planned for the hotel pulled out after Trump's disparaging remarks about Mexicans. BLT Steak is one replacement, and the space where the second restaurant was to be located will become a conference room instead.

We know the Examiner is an unambiguously conservative publication that purports to be more journalism-y than The Weekly Standard, but such sycophantic cheerleading has to be embarrassing even for Bedard, who already demeans himself by doing a weekly post on whatever "liberal media" outrage Media Research Center wants to push that week, called the "Mainstream Media Scream."

WND Columnist: Entire Country Didn't Go Birther on Obama, Therefore America Isn't Racist
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Yes, Ben Kinchlow really does write this in his Sept. 4 WorldNetDaily column:

You have doubtless heard, read or seen the charges, direct or indirect, leveled against Donald Trump by the Clinton campaign and the mainstream media. Any statements attributed to certain candidates or conservative politicians that do not meet the standards applied by the mainstream media or liberal elites are directly or indirectly labeled “racist.”

As someone who lived through the bona fide days of legal, civic segregation and cultural racism here in America, I feel compelled to reiterate a position I have expressed before.

If America were as racist as her mostly internal critics insist, then every politician (including Trump and Clinton) would eagerly seek out the “racist” label. They would all, as one wing of the Democratic Party (once) did, to its sorrow, label themselves “Dixiecrats” and campaign vigorously on a platform of returning to those “thrilling days of yester-year.” If that were the case today, the mainstream media would have been Barack Obama’s worst nightmare and would have disparaged his campaign worse than they regularly demean conservative blacks today (i.e., Ben Carson, Condoleezza Rice, Justice Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Herman Cain). If you think the scrutiny given to George Bush and John McCain, including the challenge to McCain’s birth certificate and eligibility to be president, was fierce, just try and imagine the scrutiny that would have been given to an unknown “negro” who allegedly spent from $800,000 to $1.2 million in legal fees to conceal a hidden past.

Kinchlow's claim stems from charges by birthers that Obama has, as WND asserted, paid at least the amount he cited to "his top eligibility lawyer" following the election. The implication, which Kinchlow took the bait on, is that all of the money was spent to, as Kinchlow redundantly asserted, "conceal a hidden past." (If it's already "hidden," it doesn't need to be "concealed," does it?)

but as we noted at the time, Salon reported that WND doesn't prove its heavily implied assertion that every cent spent on those lawyers -- let alone any of it -- went to fight "eligibility" issues and that much of that money more than likely went to normal legal expenses related to winding down a presidential election campaign.

Also, think about what Kinchlow appears to be saying here. If attacking Obama's eligibility makes one "racist," what does that make the aggressive birthers at WND, the publisher of his column?

MRC Promotes Dubious, Republican-Friendly Review of 2000 Election in Florida
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's Tim Graham used a Sept. 5 post to tout a study of sorts published in the American Conservative and summarized at the right-wing Washington Examiner asserting that thousands of people were discouraged from voting when TV networks mistakenly declared all Florida polls closed during the 2000 president election (in fact, polls in the Florida panhandle were open another hour).

Graham declared that "liberal media inaccuracy and bias" was the cause for the 2000 Florida "frenzy," going on to rant that "the networks didn't want to take the blame. They blamed the Voter News Service, the consortium they formed, which they held responsible for telling them what times the polls closed. How lame is that buck-passing?" He added: "When Congress held hearings in February 2001, the networks were dismissive. Especially Dan Rather, who gave it just 29 seconds buried deep in the newscast."

But Graham engaged in more than a little of his own bias here. First, he identifies study co-author C. Boyden Gray rather blandly as a "former Bush lawyer." That should raise red flags about the study's potential bias, but Graham sees no need to pursue it. In fact, not only was Gray was White House counsel for George H.W. Bush, he served in George W. Bush's administration as ambassador to the European Union and a special envoy for European affairs. Additionally, Gray defended the Supreme Court decision that ultimately made W. president and appeared to endorse a Republican plan to take over the recount process in Florida if Bush wasn't made president.

Second, in his bashing of the "liberal media" over Voter News Service, Graham leaves out the fact that Fox News was also a member of the consortium -- which Gray and co-author Elise Passamani note in their study -- and that it too got the poll closing time wrong. Graham also doesn't mention whether Fox News was as "dismissive" about the hearings as the other members of the consortium.

Third, Graham carefully quotes from Gray's report to hide the fact that, his ranting aside, Voter News Service really was the problem, not the "liberal media." The report states that "The VNS operated as the media's sole source for information ranging from exit polling to poll closing times."

Fourth, Graham apparently never read the full report in the American Conservative, which should have raised another red flag. Gray and Passamani's big claim is that Bush would have received 11,000 more votes from the panhandle counties if it had not been erroneously reported on TV (which, again, includes Fox News) that the polls were closed. Their only evidence for this is an extrapolation of voting data and "sworn, notarized testimony of a pair of poll workers who were on duty as inspectors that day in Precinct Eight, Escambia County" who offer anecdotes about how few voters showed up to their precinct in the final hour. The authors also state, "one can only imagine how many people would have voted in that last, deserted 40 minutes, but for the misinformation dispensed by the network and cable news anchors."

Gray and Passamani must "imagine" this because they cite no testimony of an actual voter who was discouraged from voting due to the erroneous reports. If there were truly 11,000 people discouraged from voting, they shouldn't be that hard to find, right?

Actually, they are -- and they were then. As we noted at the time, WorldNetDaily's Paul Sperry reported that Republicans were hunting for discouraged voters to bolster their lawsuits over the outcome in Florida, but mostly failed:

After a week-long dragnet, Republicans have been able to scare up just a handful of Bush supporters willing to testify that they canceled trips to the polls after the networks gave Florida to Gore 11 minutes before polls closed in the Panhandle’s Central time zone.

And even some of those witnesses are impeachable.

One lives 20 minutes from his polling place in White City, Fla., and probably wouldn’t have been able to make it there in time to vote.

Another isn’t even registered to vote in the county that includes his Pensacola, Fla., neighborhood, WorldNetDaily has learned. The man’s name and number were offered to the media yesterday by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla.

[...]

An aide to state Rep. Jerry Maygarden, R-Pensacola, told WorldNetDaily last week that several voters called her office claiming to witness people walking away from poll lines after the network announcements.

WorldNetDaily followed up with several of the callers, but none could provide names.

That would seem to be a glaring omission, and it is -- that's a giant hole in Gray and Passamani's study.

But the authors are close enough to endorsing the MRC's anti-media agenda that Graham will endorse it, overlook the holes and gloss over the inconvenient stuff.

WND Sets New Deadline for Holy Land Tour, May Actually Mean It This Time
Topic: WorldNetDaily

As we documented, WorldNetDaily is a little desperate for passengers on its upcoming holy land tour. It blew through its first deadline three months ago, blew through a second on a month later, then continued to push the tour without setting a new deadline.

Now, WND has set a new deadline, and given that the tour is set to launch in November, it might actually mean it this time. There's a new sense of urgency in a Sept. 4 WND article:

There will be no more extensions. No more second chances. No more delays. If you miss this opportunity, it’s gone forever.

The absolute final deadline for the WND Israel tour is here. With surging interest and unparalleled registrations, it promises to be the most spectacular pilgrimage in WND’s history. But you have to register by Sept. 10 or you are going to be left behind.

Jonathan Cahn, who will join WND founder Joseph Farah on the tour, urged anyone who is still considering joining this sacred journey to take the plunge.

“There is no experience on Earth like going to the Holy Land,” he promised. “It’s so unparalleled that it literally changes lives. God meets His children there in a special way.”

The article went on to assert without proof that "Attendance is surging and the 2016 WND Israel Tour is all but certain to break every record." If attendance really was "surging," why is WND still soliciting for passengers three months after the original deadline?

This was followed with a Sept. 9 article making one final-sounding push:

There are only hours left to join the 2016 WND Israel tour, being led by “The Book of Mysteries” author Jonathan Cahn.

Because no more registrations can be accepted after Saturday, Sept. 10.

With surging interest and unparalleled registrations, it promises to be the most spectacular pilgrimage in WND’s history. But you have to register by the end of Sept. 10 or you are going to be left behind.

Again, no proof of "surging interest" is offered. We'll see if this really is the "last chance to sign up."

CNS Still Plugging Mel Gibson, Hiding His Ugly Past
Topic: CNSNews.com

CNSNews.com "blog reporter" Mark Judge must really love Mel Gibson a lot to censor news of his anti-Semitic, woman hating past.

We've detailed how Judge makes a habit of promoting Gibson's new and upcoming film projects while remaining silent about Gibson's ugly personal history -- something his Media Research Center co-workers would criticize if it involved someone in the "liberal media." But Gibson made "The Passion of the Christ," so he apparently gets a free pass.

Judge strikes again in an Aug. 31 post:

The Christian Post is reporting that Mel Gibson recently addressed rumors that he is making a sequel to his 2004 blockbuster “The Passion of the Christ.”

Appearing Sunday as a surprise guest at the Christian gathering SoCal Harvest in Anaheim, California, Gibson was asked by Pastor Greg Laurie about the rumors of a sequel – and that the film would be written by Randall Wallace, who also penned Gibson’s Oscar-winning epic “Braveheart.”

Once again, there's no mention of Gibson's ugly past.  But Judge made sure to work in a plug for Gibson's "upcoming film 'Hacksaw Ridge' about Desmond Doss, a pacifist medic in World War II who saved as many as 75 soldiers during the Battle of Okinawa. It releases November 4."

Priorities!

MRC Runs to Trump's Defense on Bondi Donation
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's Nicholas Fondacaro complains in a Sept. 7 post that NBC "omitted some important details" in reporting on an illegal $25,000 donation by the Trump Foundation to Republican Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, shortly after which Bondi's office decided not to open an investigation of the scammy Trump University.

Those "details," Fondacaro writes, apparently involve uncritically quoting whatever a Bondi spokesperson has to say about it:

Earlier in the day CNN’s Drew Griffin reported on The Lead that, “Since Pam Bondi took office, up until the decision was made, Florida received just one complaint against Trump University.” Griffin quoted a statement from a spokesperson from Florida’s Attorney General, which stated:

It wasn't enough to justify Florida filing suit. Instead, staff, doing due diligence, reviewed the complaints and the New York litigation and made the proper determination that the New York litigation would provide relief to aggrieved consumers nationwide.

“In other words, Floridians could join New York's lawsuit,” Griffin simplified.

Actually, it's Fondacaro leaving out important details. The Orlando Sentinel's Scott Maxwell reports that the Attorney General's Office had received at least 20 complaints about Trump University, and that Bondi previously exhibited no reticence in joining lawsuits filed by other states:

She got involved in the multi-state fight to block Obamacare. She even got involved in a fight with the EPA over water-quality limits … in the Chesapeake Bay. Yes, the one in Virginia, where Bondi sided with organizations like the Fertilizer Institute to oppose a cleanup agreement in a body of water 770 miles away.

It doesn’t take much for Bondi to want to join in a legal fracas many states away -– if the politics are right.

Fondacaro concludes by writing, "Although the timing of the donation is suspect, it does a disservice to the public to withhold information just to be able to hit a presidential candidate." He might want to think about that himself a bit more before hurling accusations at others.

WND Is Lying To You: There's No Mystery About Hillary's 'Mystery Man'
Topic: WorldNetDaily

An anonymous WorldNetDaily reporter wrote in a Sept. 6 article:

After Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton suffered the worst coughing fit of her campaign Monday, a mysterious man seen by her side for many months on the campaign trail suddenly appeared on her plane.

As WND reported, Clinton suffered two coughing fits on Labor Day – one during a speech in Cleveland, Ohio, and a second one during a press conference on her plane.

In the past, the same man has been spotted helping Clinton up stairs and holding what appears to be a Diazepam pen. Some observers have referred to the man as Hillary’s “mysterious handler.”

[...]

Jim Hoft of the Gateway Pundit noted that the man is sometimes dressed like a Secret Service agent, “but his actions prove otherwise.”

[...]

At an earlier campaign appearance, the same man was reportedly seen carrying a long object that resembled a Diazepam pen.

Yes, this anonymous WND reporter is citing the Dumbest Man on the Internet to back up its speculation.

And that's all it is -- speculation dressed up as "reporting." The fact that the WND writer won't put his/her name to it is one big clue about the shoddy, dubious nature of this.

Another big clue: This "mystery man" is no mystery at all. A month ago -- a month ago! -- the Washington Post's David Weigel identified the man as Todd Madison, Secret Service assistant special agent in charge.

Further, Snopes pointed out -- also a month ago -- that while the object in Madison's hand that WND claims is a "Diazepam pen" is probably something else, since "a video of the agent using the above-pictured object shows that it is being used like a flashlight and not a Diazepam pen."

In short: The only way WND can treat this story as fact is by ignoring all the established evidence that it's not.

And the fact that the story isn't true didn't keep WND from rehashing the story (the reporter remaining anonymous, natch) two days later:

America wants to know: Who is the “mystery man” attached at Hillary Clinton’s hip while she campaigns for the White House?

He’s been on the stage, in her plane, by her side and following her everywhere she goes.

He touches her frequently, wrapping his arm around her or helping her up stairs, and responds immediately when Clinton has one of her coughing fits.

Some speculate he could be a physician on hand in case Clinton experiences a health emergency, a possibility considering nearly 71 percent of physicians informally surveyed by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons said concerns about Clinton’s health are “serious” and “could be disqualifying for the position of president of the U.S.”

Ah, yes, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons -- the far-right-fringe "medical" org headed by medical troll Jane Orient. Given that those likely to respond to an AAPS "informal internet survey" (read: not a scientific poll) are as right-wing as Orient, the survey has no credibility whatsoever (you know, just like WND).

WND tries to perpetuate the nonexistent mystery:

In fact, the man has been apparently tailing the Clintons since at least January of 2013 – more than two years before Hillary announced her run for president. He was reportedly spotted in a vehicle with former President Bill Clinton three years ago, according to London’s Daily Express. A photo caption said the two were leaving the New York Presbyterian Hospital after visiting Hillary, who was receiving treatment for a blood clot in her head that was discovered following a concussion.

[...]

As WND reported, after Clinton suffered the worst coughing fit of her campaign Monday, the “mystery man” suddenly appeared on her plane.

[...]

Radio host Tammy Bruce made an appearance Wednesday on Fox Business’ “Varney & Co.” in which she discussed Clinton’s “mystery man.”

“He actually moves other Secret Service agents off the stage,” Bruce noted. “We have not been informed who he is so we have to guess, in some way, who he is. But he seems to be playing a very personal role. He appears when she seems to be in trouble, either with the coughing or with some health issue or … in her own personal reaction to what was a heckler … It’s troubling because you’ve got a man who is also doing something that the Secret Service wouldn’t do. He’s very physical with her. He touches her. He has his arm around her. … It’s a legitimate question. Her health is legitimate.”

Bruce is a Hillary-hater from a while back -- a year ago she was predicting the demise of Hillary's campaign -- so her uninformed speculation should not be taken seriously.

Our anonymous WND reporter waited until the 10th paragraph to mention in passing that "others argue" the item in the man's hand "actually resembles a mini flashlight." It links to an Aug. 22 New York Times article -- yes, from two weeks ago -- but doesn't mention the date or the fact that the Times reporter solved the mystery through "a simple call to the Secret Service spokeswoman Nicole Mainor," something WND couldn't be bothered to do.

And our anonymous writer waits until the second-to-last paragraph of the 22-paragraph article -- after  numerous inserted videos, photos and grainy Photoshop collages -- to admit that "The Washington Post’s David Weigel identified the 'mystery man' as Secret Service Assistant Special Agent in Charge Todd Madison."

WND didn't mention Weigel's article was published a month ago.

Basically, WND is admitting it published an article based on a lie, something it knows is a lie, and that it's trying to con its readers into believing that lie.

No wonder WND is in deep financial trouble. Why would any (remaining) self-respecting reader trust WND after this stunt?

NewsBusters Blogger's Logic: Lena Dunham Is Ugly, Kaepernick Sucks As QB
Topic: NewsBusters

As befits a guy whose main gig is as a lower-tier sports radio host, NewsBusters blogger Dylan Gwinn is quick to insult anything and anyone he doesn't agree with and engage in childish name-calling, rather than try to bring any sort of worthwhile discussion to the debate.

On Sept. 3, Gwinn felt the need to weigh in on  an encounter between actress Lena Dunham and football player Odell Beckham Jr., particularly zeroing in onone writer's citing one possible reason Beckham rejected Dunham as "Perhaps (as the eternal rumors have it) he’s gay." Gwinn didn't menntion that the writer linked to a post on those "eternal rumors" as support for the claim about Beckham. Instead, in an apparently bid to appeal to the woman-hating alt-right, he lauches into a screed about how ugly Dunham is:

First of all, if this story is true, it doesn’t sound like Beckham had a problem “knowing what to make of” a woman who didn’t sexually interest him. He took a good look and got on his phone. Which is precisely what you do when confronted by an unattractive woman.

Secondly, if Dunham wore a tux and a bow tie, then there’s an excellent chance that Beckham thought Dunham as the gay one. Thus, eliminating any interest he might have had in her.

And last, but certainly not least, why would he have any interest in her? Lena Dunham is in no way sexually appealing. When trying to ascertain whether or not a man is interested in a woman, it is imperative to use an attractive woman.

Yet, this is precisely the point. Dunham knows she’s not attractive, and her leftist sycophants know she’s not attractive. Which is why she continuously gets naked and throws herself at men. She’s trying to make a feminist point about the superficial nature of men, accepted sexual norms, and female objectification.

Instead, she just ends up sexually stalking the beautiful people of the world. With her boyishly boyish looks. Much like Pat from Saturday Night Live. Except naked, and not funny.

Then, on Sept. 5, Gwinn resumed hurling personal insults at Colin Kaepernick over his national anthem protest, dismissing his concerns as "some Mulligan Stew of America-loathing, unpatriotic fervor."

Gwinn then sneered of the quarterback who led his team to a Super Bowl game that "Of course, Citizen Kaepernick’s activity will be spent primarily on the sidelines this year, as opposed to the football field."

Apparently mindless insults play as well for right-wing bloggers as they do for lower-tier sports radio guys.

WND Returns to Its Race-Baiting Ways
Topic: WorldNetDaily

WorldNetDaily was heavily into the alt-right-esque race-baiting thing for a while, spreading WND author Colin Flaherty's fearmongering obsession with "black mob violence" (even when no actual black people could be blamed). After Google threatened to cut off the ad revenue from the spaces it manages on WND's website, WND backed off, did its own pre-emptive ad-blocking so as not to jeopardize the ad revenue, and learned how to be a little more subtle about its race-baiting.

Perhaps unhappy that the alt-right is stealing its race-baiting thunder -- and perhaps even more unhappy that nobody considers WND to be "alt-right" so its name doesn't come up in discussions of the issue -- WND has apparently decided to be a little more blatant again.

The headline on an unbylined Aug. 30 WND article shouts "Elderly woman beaten, set on fire in black-on-white attack."

While the anonymously written article itself doesn't mention the race of the suspects or the victim, the article includes pictures of the (white) victim and mugshots of the (black) suspects to hammer the point home. The article also includes a plug for Flaherty's latest book, which wasn't published by WND and isn't available through WND's online store (the link is to Amazon).

This was preceded by an Aug. 14 article by Joe Kovacs warning that "Crowds of 'Black Lives Matter' rioters chanted 'black power' as they targeted white individuals for violence in Milwaukee late Saturday night and early Sunday morning, according to video posted online in the aftermath of a police shooting." Kovacs provided no evidence that the rioters had any formal link with Black Lives Matter.

But who needs facts when there's some race-baiting to be done, right, WND?

Shocker: MRC Finds Bias At Fox News! (Actually, Just Shep Smith Reporting Facts.)
Topic: Media Research Center

Fox News normally gets a pass from the bias-hunters at the Media Research Center because Fox's bias -- right-wing -- is something the MRC can get behind. (Also, it doesn't want to jeopardize Brent Bozell's appearance schedule on Fox News and Fox Business.) But there's one Fox host the MRC keeps an eye on for committing the offense of being the only one at the channel who won't play the right-wing-bias game and, thus, is considered a "liberal": Shepard Smith. To the MRC, it's the Stephen Colbert principle: Smith's truth-telling has a well-known liberal bias.

In an Aug. 25 post, P.J. Gladnick ranted:

Fox News' Shepard Smith strayed from the Fox News script today while interviewing Wall Street Journal reporter James Grimaldi following Hillary Clinton's Reno, Nevada speech. Actually that's putting it mildly. Smith crashed through the barrier of at least putting up the appearance of neutrality and broke into the realm of flat out bias of the worst sort by charging Donald Trump with racism. If you think I am exaggerating, watch the following video of the exchange for yourself and you be the judge.

Actually, Smith asked a guest if Trump "trades in racism" -- which he indisputably does. Gladnick will never admit it, of course, so he concludes by ranting, "And there you have it. A television news anchor flat out accusing Trump of racism. Sorry, Shep, but you owe a huge apology to your audience for your extreme unprofessionalism. Why? Because you trade in bias."

Curtis Houck followed in an Aug. 31 post complaining that Smith, in reporting that North Carolina's voter ID law was overturned, "showed his disdain for a simple means to preserve the electoral process that’s already under attack from hackers."

What did Smith say? "North Carolina put in one of those you-have-to-show-an-ID rules which, so often in Republican states, are designed to keep some minorities from coming out and being able to vote and they’ve tried to reach the number of voting days. The U.S. Court says that will not happen. Those rules will not go into effect in North Carolina this cycle."

Houck responded:

Longtime NewsBusters readers would recall how such asinine assertions about voter I.D. laws drove former managing editor and current Washington Times writer Ken Shepherd up a wall (see here, here, and here) as MSNBC pundits and writers bloviated about it being a coordinated “voter suppression” campaign against particularly African-Americans despite the lengths some states would go for forms of acceptable identification and allowing provisional balloting in the interim.

In fact, what happened in North Carolina is exactly what Smith reported -- North Carolina's voter ID law was found by a federal court to discourage minorities from voting.

The Washington Post reported that the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found that North Carolina lawmakers requested data on racial differences in voting behaviors in the state and then used that data to enact laws specifically designed to discourage minority voting. It prohibited the types of photo IDs African-Americans commonly use from being a valid voter ID, it reduced the number of early-voting days typically used by African-Americans and, in what judges called a "smoking gun," did away with Sunday voting after arguing in court that "counties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black" and "disproportionately Democratic."

Smith reported facts that the MRC didn't like, so he gets the "liberal bias" tag. That's going to become a meaningless attack if the MRC keeps abusing it like this.

NEW ARTICLE: The Snapping of David Kupelian's Mind
Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's managing editor had to completely abandon his sense of morality to endorse Donald Trump for president, and he's now trying to scare his fellow right-wing evangelicals into doing the same. Read more >>

MRC's Bozell Farts In Colin Kaepernick's General Direction
Topic: Media Research Center

The issue of NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick refusing to stand for the national anthem as a protest for how minorities are treated in the U.S. has nothing whatsoever to do with the Media Research Center's self-proclaimed mission of rooting out "liberal media bias." But the MRC knows a hot-button right-wing issue when it sees one, and its writers wasted no time in ignoring the point of Kaepernick's protest and instead hurling personal attacks at him and denouncing him as "anti-American."

You had to know MRC chief Brent Bozell wanted in on some of this sweet insult-hurling action. So he ran to Fox Business to spew: "I think this man is a disgraceful ingrate. I spit on him for what he has been saying."

Bozell left unspoken his taunt that he farts in Kaepernick's general direction and thinks his mother was a hamster.

Bozell cranked up the taunts in his and Tim Graham's Sept. 2 column in which they also attack anyone who dares to point out that Kaepernick is well within his first Amendment rights to engage in his protest:

Like so many leftists, this disgraceful ingrate is nowhere to be found when there are a thousand times more "bodies in the street" as casualties of drug dealers or gang-bangers. Almost 500 people have been killed this year in Chicago, Illinois, alone. Seventy-nine police officers have been killed in the line of duty this year. It's unclear if this means a thing to Kaepernick.

But what's even more disturbing is how so many Americans feel the need to express respect for his right to speak freely. On ABC, Sen. Tim Kaine lectured, saying, "You got to respect people's ability to act according to their conscience." No, you don't have to respect that. Nor should you, Sen. Kaine.

How dare this man dishonor all the men and women who gave their lives for that flag? How many men and women pine to throw a football, but are missing hands? Or want to run on the field, but are missing legs?

To many on the left, denouncing America and its flag is a precious right, even an act of courage, when they should not just object, but call that protester an ungrateful jerk. 

[...]

Since his team is from San Francisco, it's not surprising that it issued a mealy-mouthed statement. The anthem is a "special part" of the pre-game ceremony, the 49ers said, but "we recognize the right of an individual to choose and participate, or not, in our celebration of the national anthem." Blah, blah, cowardly blah.

We think the definition of "cowardly" applies much more to Bozell, who is too afraid to appear on TV with anyone who might disagree with him (hence the vast majority of his appearances being limited to the narrow world of Fox News and right-wing media) yet demands that the MRC's current target of rage, Jorge Ramos, engage in a debate with him, something he knows will never happen -- which is why he issued the dare in the first place.

WND's Far-Right Doc Pretends Armchair Diagnosis Is Just Like Telemedicine
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Jane Orient, head of the far-right-fringe Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, has long been a promoter of conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton's health. She tries to justify them in a Sept. 4 WorldNetDaily column, insisting that diagnosing someone you've never examined is just like telemedicine:

A number of physicians, including me, have dared to suggest that Hillary Clinton might have a serious health problem that would affect her ability to serve as president, and they have suggested some things that it could be, based on past known diagnoses and current public observations recorded on video. All have stated that to make an actual diagnosis, you need to see the patient – and all the records.

Dr. Drew lost his TV show, and others got lambasted in the mainstream media and the Twittersphere. How dare we diagnose Mrs. Clinton without seeing her? It’s nothing but a conspiracy theory.

It’s so ironic. Patients are being diagnosed every day, and treatments prescribed – or denied – by people who have not seen the patient. There’s telemedicine, and doctors signing off on patients seen only by a “mid-level.” Then there are people with no medical training at all, making life-changing decisions about insurance coverage. Where are Hillary’s supporters when that happens? They probably say, in other contexts, that you can’t trust those greedy doctors who actually see patients and get paid for it.

No, Dr. Orient, your politically motivated armchair diagnosis of Hillary is not the same as telemedicine. Telemedicine typically involves either a prior doctor-patient relationship or the ability to communicate relevant patient health data to a teleconnected doctor -- neither of which are present in Orient's armchair diagnosis, which apparently relies mostly upon selectively edited videos and photos promoted by her fellow right-wing Hillary-haters.

Orient then attacks a doctor who, unlike her, has actually examined Hillary, nitpicking the statement she released about Hillary's health.Orient whined that Hillary's doctor did not do a "detailed neurologic exam" or an EEG on Hillary to look into her purported "seizures, a known complication of traumatic brain injury." Orient huffed: "I challenge any doctor to say that any one of these items is unimportant in a person with Mrs. Clinton’s history and recently reported signs who aspires to a position as a bus driver – or U.S. president."

Yet, in contrast to the detailed medical information Hillary's doctor released, Donald Trump's doctor issued a laughable, bizarrely worded letter that revealed no medical information whatsoever about Trump -- and Orient hasn't said a word about that, et alone demand that his doctor -- actually, a gastroenterologist who is less than qualified to speak to Trump's full health -- do the detailed physical exam she demands from Hillary.

Orient was still in trolling mode -- a odd thing for a medical professional to be in -- in her Sept. 6 WND column, in which she complains about Hillary's appearance on a late-night TV show in which she opened a pickle jar to show she's healthy. Orient mocked: "A peanut butter jar might have been a better diagnostic test. The ability (or inability) to smell peanut butter has been used as a screening test for dementia. Conditions affecting the frontal lobes also frequently affect the sense of smell."

Orient then takes some personal shots at Hillary: It was a rare appearance, and she looked like a million dollars. Not at all old, tired, frumpy, or shrill. Perhaps it was a million-dollar makeup job and voice coaching. You couldn’t tell from her face that she’s nearly 70. Any tell-tale signs of aging on the skin of her neck? Couldn’t see it, hidden behind the stand-up collar of her bright red Mao jacket. Is clothing preference diagnostic of anything? Revolutionary red, a la Mao? She does have the endorsement of the Communist Party USA (though not of Vladimir Putin)."

She didn't mention that Trump has the Putin endorsement locked up.

Orient concludes by whining: "The comedy skit is very revealing and diagnostic in a non-medical sense. It shows Hillary’s view of Americans. The joke is on us. And we’re not the ones who are laughing."

No, the joke is on anyone who thinks Orient actually cares more about Hillary's health than she does about politics. It's rather shameful for a doctor to abuse her medical privilege in such a manner.

What LGBT Stuff Is The MRC Freaking Out About Now?
Topic: Media Research Center

It's that time again -- to summarize all the LGBT stuff the gay-haters at the Media Research Center have been freaking out about over the few weeks.

Elliot Polsky somehow managed to mostly withhold his hostility when a Brazilian rugby player got engaged to her female manager during the Olympics, though he did huff "The online media, including CNN and ABC, saw the opportunity to resurrect the 'love wins' slogan" and complained that "CNN’s headline was followed by a picture of the couple kissing."

Sarah Stites sorta makes up for that, though, in freaking out over World Wrestling Entertainment choosing to incorporate gay themes into its pro-wrestling storylines. Her headline: "WWE Goes PC: No Fighting the Gay Agenda." Stites portrayed the move as a publicity stunt to promote a new book by pro-wrestling legend Pat Patterson, who recently came out as gay, and huffed:

GLAAD will act as the PC police in this new endeavor, ensuring that the WWE’s screenwriters get everything right. "We've had GLAAD come in and speak to our entire writing team and give a whole tutorial on sensitivities, the right words, the wrong words, why those words matter," [WWE chief brand officer Stephanie] McMahon explained.

Considering that wrestling is not known as a particularly PC area of interest, some might wonder at the pro-LGBT strides WWE has taken. However, the fact that several of its programs air on the liberal USA Network certainly clarifies things.  

Alexa Moutevelis Coombs is mad that the ABC show "Mistresses" tackled "the transgender issue":

Once again the transgender issue rears its ugly head on ABC’s Mistresses. Perhaps they feared we didn’t get the message last time because now they’re beating us over the head about what is considered offensive, bigoted, and intolerant.

[...]

April goes on and on about tolerance, but we all know that tolerance is never enough when it comes to LGBT issues, we all must be made to support and celebrate them. Anything less is “offensive,” “bigoted,” and “intolerant.”

Stites returned to express her upset at a claim that Gore Vidal had contributed a gay subplot, never explicitly used though remnants remain, to the 1959 movie version of "Ben-Hur." Stittes huffed: "Here’s my take on it: I’ll never be able to watch the Heston classic with the innocent eyes of youth again. Thanks for that, Mr. Vidal."

Meanwhile, Coombs, who has apparently never seen an episode of "Match Game" in her life until now, is shocked -- shocked! -- that the show's panelists would inject sexual innuendo into it:

Poor Bert and Ernie just got called gay on national television! On tonight's edition of The Match Game on ABC, contestants were asked to fill in the following question: "'Sesame Street' is being rocked by a tabloid scandal. Instead of a rubber ducky, Bert and Ernie were photographed in the bathtub playing with BLANK."

The contestant's answer was "each other," which Jerry O'Connell matched exactly. Niecy Nash's answer "Each other's pee-pee" and Natasha Lyonne's "Each other's ding-dongs" were also counted. Immediately, everyone went the gay route. Very mature!

Never mind the fact that "Match Game" pretty much exists as a not-very-mature delivery vehicle for sexual innuendo. But Coombs was still in rage mode: "Thoughts of Bert and Ernie playing with each other only exist in the minds of sick liberals, not behind closed doors on Sesame Street."

And Matt Philbin took offense at "self-professed bisexual Christian writer" Eliel Cruz, who claims, in Philbin's words, that "scripture says transgenderism is just ducky. Or at least, it doesn’t say “Thou Shalt Not Pretend Thou Art a Chick,” which is, to Cruz, the same thing. Commence the trans-hate:

Contemporary cultural liberalism is essentially a cult of narcissism. If you’re an acolyte, you need to see your self-image – no matter how aberrational – reflected everywhere. Even in the Bible.

[...]

Pointing to Genesis 1:27, Cruz writes that the “and” in “male and female he created them” is not intended to be “binary.” To support this assertion, he declares that when God is the “alpha and omega,” he is not just “those two letters” but the “entire alphabet.” (Including, we’re to assume, the LGBTQ and sometimes Y letters. How convenient!)

Cruz calls readers to be wary of individuals “claim[ing] religious freedom to discriminate against LGBT people, while lacking even a strong theological backing.”

He needn’t worry. These days, any social justice warrior worth his/her/ze’s salt can bully most civil institutions into acquiescence and secure the now-common diversity quotas, safe spaces and speech codes. With a little push from like-minded media, universities, government agencies, corporations and the more boneless varieties of Christianity can’t get in line fast enough.

True, churches that maintain doctrinal traditionalism or Biblical fidelity are a special problem. If they aspire to be anything more than book clubs with self-affirmation pot luck suppers they have this Truth thingy that supersedes “personal truth,” and is darned inconvenient to the self-and sex-obsessed crowd.

Just as it's darned inconvenient to people like Philbin that transgendered folks exist and want to be treated as human and not "aberrational."