Doesn't Skewed MRC Poll Show Media Rejected Bias of CNS Too? Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center released a poll it conducted this week claiming that, among other things "7 in 10 (69%) voters do not believe the news media are honest and truthful" and "8 in 10 (78%) of voters believe the news coverage of the presidential campaign was biased."
Curiously, the full poll results weren't provided in the NewsBusters article announcing the poll. A link for that is buried in the article at the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, touting the poll. And that's where we find a bit of bias in the poll itself: The detail of sampling by region shows that just 16.9 of respondents were from the Northeast, while 24.6 percent were from the Midwest, 21.9 from the West and a whopping 36.6 percent were from the South. That seems a bit skewed.
The full results also show that respondents were questioned about "the media" or "the news media" in the broadest possible sense. This means respondents were responding not just to the MRC's favorite (andlconveniently narrow for research purposes) target, the three main broadcast networks, but to cable news and websites as well -- including the MRC's own CNS.
While the MRC is interested in promoting only the poll results that further its anti-media agenda -- i.e., "nearly a 3-to-1 majority believing the media were for Clinton (59%)" -- it also found that 21 percent of respondents thought the media was biased in favor of Trump.
And while Brent Bozell rants about the "institutional bias at major media networks" -- even though, again, the poll he paid for never asked about that specifically -- and insisted that "The public has rejected this institution as being either objective or truthful," he must apply those results to his own "news" operation, CNS.
As we've documented, CNS' election coverage was egregiously biased,with its reporters pouncing on everyalleged Hillary Clinton scandal while playing stenographer for Trump, uncritically transcribing his speeches and statements.
If the public has rejected the media, that means it has also rejected Bozell's own "news" operation. You'd think Bozell would be concerned enough about that to do something about it -- after all, it's what the MRC presents as the ideal website.
One last note: The press-release description of the MRC at the end of the NewsBusters article laughably states this: "We don’t endorse politicians and we don’t lobby for legislation." The MRC has to say that because it's not allowed to endorse candidates or act as lobbyists under its 501(c)3 nonprofit tax designation, but let's not pretend that its election-year work is anything other than endorsement of the Republican candidate for president, if not by name.
WND Reprints False Story About 'Paid Protesters' Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Nov. 14 WorldNetDaily article copies-and-pastes an item from the right-wing site ZeroHedge claiming proof of "professional agitators" leading anti-Trump protests in the form of "a video of 5 city blocks on the West side of Chicago lined with busses from Wisconsin (Badger Bus Lines) bringing in protestors."
Just one problem: The article is bogus. The Washington Post explains:
A story at the pro-Trump site ZeroHedge that was picked up by the Drudge Report shows a video recording a line of buses in Chicago, suggesting that the buses were used to bring people in from Wisconsin to protest Trump.
Think about that. Trump won Wisconsin. Someone needed to bus people in from Milwaukee (population: 600,000) to protest in Chicago (population: 2.7 million)? There's no evidence offered that the line of buses has anything to do with the protests, mind you. And a quick glance at Google Street View, captured in October, reveals that there's always a line of buses in that same place.
So the article is a lie, but there it sits at WND presented as fact.
Keep that in mind the next time WND complains about not being treated as a credible news site.
MRC Would Rather Distract Than Talk About Steve Bannon Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has decided how it will address the controversy of Donald Trump naming white nationalist- and anti-Semitic-linked Breitbart News leader Steve Bannon as his top adviser: distract, distract, distract.
First up is Matt Philbin, who wonders why the media wants to talk about Bannon and not "anti-Catholic bigot" John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager.Of course, the reason is that Podesta is not an "anti-Catholic bigot" at all -- as Philbin admits, Podesta -- a Catholic himself -- was critical only of conservative Catholicism. Nevertheless, Philbin sneered that Podesta is a "self-hating Catholic" and should "try the Episcopalians" if he wants a religion that respects gender equality.
Philbin then dismissed a media report pointing out Bannon's links to white nationalism because it came from "from Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is itself a left-wing hate group whose business model is screaming 'Neo-Nazi!' at conservative groups and then letting donations from aging lefties pour in." At no point does Philbin actually address the white nationalism charge -- he's attacking the messenger.
Sarah Stites was next in the distraction brigade, with the subject of distraction this time being gay activist Dan Savage: "The networks have all written stories condemning Bannon’s alleged anti-semitism, but what about Savage’s hateful words about the Catholic church?" Um, because nobody has appointed Savage to be a presidential adviser?
She was followed by Rich Noyes, who pointed to yet another not-conservative the media is purportedly ignoring to focus on Bannon:
Since Sunday evening, ABC, CBS and NBC (along with a host of other establishment media outlets) have been engaged in a feeding frenzy over Donald Trump’s appointment of Steve Bannon, with reporters relentlessly employing phrases such as “white nationalist,” “white supremacist,” “extremist,” “racist” and “anti-Semitic” to solidify the image of Bannon as a dangerous pick for a top White House position.
But since Friday, those same networks have been blind to the controversies surrounding the top candidate for Democratic National Committee Chairman, Rep. Keith Ellison. Ellison has been accused of ties to the radical Nation of Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood, and once suggested the 9/11 terrorist attacks were akin to the infamous Reichstag fire used to propel Hitler’s Nazi party into absolute power in 1933 Germany.
In fact, as Media Matters documented in noting the Islamophobic nature of the attacks on Ellison, the congressman hasn't had a link to the Nation of Islam since 1995 when he organized a group to attend the Million Man March, and Ellison has since denounced the Nation of Islam's "bigoted and anti-Semitic" statements.
By contrast, Noyes lamented that Bannon was being targed with "long-dropped charges of 'domestic violence,' and unsubstantiated accusations from Bannon’s ex-wife that he didn’t want his children 'going to school with Jews.'" When has the MRC ever refrained from attacking a liberal because the charges were "long-dropped" or unsubstantiated?
Finally, Brittany Hughes pops up at MRCTV -- seemingly replacing Dan Joseph, who near as we can tell is no longer an MRC employee after being a fervent never-Trumper during the election -- to harangue the media for even questioning Bannon (and found even more people to distract with) because HOW DARE THEY:
So, to all of you out there in the media who suddenly decided that you give a rip about ethics and morality, here's my response: Just. Shut. Up. This is why Americans are sick of you and it's why your ratings are in the toilet. They're sick of left-wing journalists pointing their almighty finger at conservatives whenever they scratch their nose wrong, while totally ignoring liberals who spew all kinds of filthy, nasty mess.
The Clintons have lined their pockets with millions from Middle Eastern countries that stone gay people and deny women basic rights, and somehow Hillary is still a feminist LGBT champion. Huma Abedin's family published a radical Muslim magazine that promoted Sharia law and advocated against women's rights, and Huma Abedin was listed as an editor on it for years, and you never batted an eyelash.
But who cares about facts? Hughes doesn't. She's on a spittle-filled roll, having apparently taken ranting lessons from her boss, Brent Bozell:
You just spent the last eight years defending a president who actively incites racial divides and who thinks terrorists are just climate change victims with employment problems. Yeah, it matters who Trump surrounds himself with. It matters that they have principles and ethics. But you do not get to point a finger at anyone in the Trump camp when you have done nothing but ignore the left's lies, race-baiting, Christian-bashing and open deception for years. So consider this your invitation to Shut. Up.
If Hughes' screed was meant to signal that only conservatives would judge Bannon, that part is a bit unclear because she was too busy screaming at the media to issue any sort of judgment.
The furious pace (literally, in Hughes' case) at which the MRC is trying to talk about anything but Steve Bannon tells us that they know his record is a legitimate issue to attack.
So, Any Chance Kupelian Will Un-Rig WND? Topic: WorldNetDaily
In his Nov. 15 column, WorldNetDaily managing editor David Kupelian does a lot of ranting about things being rigged. Like the media:
Thanks to WikiLeaks, the media collusion became so overt as to be darkly comical – with, for example, Donna Brazile (the new and improved DNC chair who replaced the disgraced Wasserman Schultz) being revealed to have acted as a Clinton mole while working at CNN, passing Sanders intel on to Hillary’s campaign and tipping off Clinton about multiple town hall questions ahead of time.
Sort of like quiz-show honchos fixing the contest by secretly “coaching” their chosen winner before show time.
Since most of what the public sees and hears about the presidential candidates comes to them through the totally pro-Clinton filter of the major media, the “rigged” label seemed fair enough.
Ironically, journalism is the one profession explicitly protected by the Constitution in the First Amendment. Why? So it could not be crushed, interfered with, intimidated or otherwise rigged by a power-mad government. Unfortunately, no law, not even the Constitution of the United States, can stop people – including journalists – from being dishonest, deluded or just stupid.
Kupelian is exhibiting an almost comical level of deliberate lack of self-awareness here. His WND is nothing if not dishonest -- witness the utter lack of credibility it has -- and it played a bit part in the rigging process as the preferred media outlet for the Clinton smears of the sleazy Trump confidante Roger Stone, who conveniently had the willing ear of WND hack Jerome Corsi.
So, no, Kupelian has no room whatsoever to complain about how the media "rigged" the election unless and until he confesses WND's rigging. And Kupelian has a lot to answer for, what with the selling out of his moral principles to back Trump and his hatred for the Clintons that's so obsessive that his final pre-election argument was to maliciously attack Hillary as more evil than you can possibly know.
He repeats some of that hate here, calling the election results "what many consider to be nothing less than a divine reprieve from having to endure the reign of a screeching, lying, ever-deceiving Hillary Clinton."
Kupelian does his usual, increasingly cartoonish liberal-bashing, which basically comes down to insisting that anyone who doesn't hold the same right-wing Christian beliefs he does is harming the country.
Kupelian concludes by writing, "Can we simply stop being seduced and believing pleasant lies, and instead stand up and calmly but firmly speak the truth, in love?" A guy who tries to seduce us with his lies wants to "speak the truth, in love"? And he also wants us to "stop hating and blaming"? How ironic.
CNS Whines 'Ouija Board-Using Gay Poets Home' Named A Historic Site Topic: CNSNews.com
See if you can spot the anti-gay bias in the headline and lead paragraph of this Nov. 10 CNSNews.com article by Penny Starr:
Feds Name New National Historic Landmarks: Ouija Board-Using Gay Poet’s Home, ‘Under World’ Relic and ‘Utopian Society’
The Department of Interior (DOI) and the National Park Service (NPS) have announced 10 new national historic landmarks, including the home of a homosexual poet, a relic from Shamanism, and the location of a “utopian society.”
Notice Starr's fixation on the poet in question, James Merrill, being gay, and plays up his onetime fixation on a Ouija board to make him even more evil. Starr repeats that later in the article, making sure to also note he died of AIDS complications:
The poet James Merrill’s house in New London, Connecticut is on the list. Merrill, who died of AIDs [sic] in 1995, also wrote novels, plays and a memoir. He is described by the DOI and NPS this way: “Over time, he introduced more radical material into his poetry, including well-crafted examination about homosexuality, art and spiritualism. He wrote with subtlety and sympathy of gay life, illuminating its anxieties and fulfillments.”
Much of Merrill’s later writing, such as The Changing Light of Sandover epic, was based upon his use of the occult Ouija board and poetic expression of otherworldly voices.
This, of course, is all of a piece with CNS' anti-gayagenda. But Starr also complains that other things that are not right-wing Christian are being protected: The "Man Mound" in Wisconsin, a prehistoric effigy mound that likely depicts "either a shaman or a Lower World human/spirit transformation," and a historic district in Ohio that once was the center of a "utopian society,both of which she outlines at length.
By contrast, one of the new landmarks that warranted only a mention on a bullet list was the Mississippi State Capitol. She didn't mention that it was the seat of a state government that perpetuated racism for decades. You'd think that might be a tad more offensive than a gay poet, or at least merit mention as part of its history, but apparently not in Starr's eyes.
Mission Accomplished: Facebook Too Intimidated By Right-Wingers To Stop Fake News Topic: Media Research Center
Earlier this year, we detailed how Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell joined other conservatives in attacking Facebook for alleged bias on its "trending topics" feed, even taking part in a right-wing delegation to Facebook HQ to rant at them the error of their ways. The MRC censored the views of delegation member Glenn Beck, who portrayed the visit as a shakedown.
Well, the visit had its intended effect -- and proved Beck right. Gizmodo reports that Facebook's news feeds have been swamped by items from fake news sites designed to boost Donald Trump's presidential campaign, and sources said Facebook was afraid to do anything about it lest it offend Bozell's brigade again:
According to two sources with direct knowledge of the company’s decision-making, Facebook executives conducted a wide-ranging review of products and policies earlier this year, with the goal of eliminating any appearance of political bias. One source said high-ranking officials were briefed on a planned News Feed update that would have identified fake or hoax news stories, but disproportionately impacted right-wing news sites by downgrading or removing that content from people’s feeds. According to the source, the update was shelved and never released to the public. It’s unclear if the update had other deficiencies that caused it to be scrubbed.
“They absolutely have the tools to shut down fake news,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous citing fear of retribution from the company. The source added, “there was a lot of fear about upsetting conservatives after Trending Topics,” and that “a lot of product decisions got caught up in that.”
Now that the election is over, Facebook is finally cracking down on fake news.
It looks Bozell and the MRC got what it wanted -- media outlets too intimidated by right-wing activists to something even so basic as fix a flaw that permits the dissemination of fake news. And as long as that fake news benefited a Republican, we have to assume the MRC is perfectly fine with that -- after all, we'd never hear the end of it from Bozell and Co. if the fake news Facebook wouldn't stop benefited Hillary Clinton.
As Its Readers Show Racism, WND Shuts Down Comments on Article About Racist Smear of Michelle Obama Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily rarely does much in the way of monitoring its comment threads -- it's much more interested in banning critics (we speak from experience) than banning anyone who says the most vile things about President Obama and his family. But, apparently, even WND has some standards every once in a while.
A Nov. 15 WND article by Art Moore tells the story of the mayor of a West Virginia town who resigned following the backlash she received from approving of a Facebook post that called Michelle Obama an "ape on heels." But three hours after the article was posted, WND closed the comments section after just 114 comments were posted.
WND rarely closes comment sections on articles, and it's almost unheard of for it to do it so soon after an article is posted. Then again, the article's subject matter inspired WND's Obama-hating readers to new heights of racism. A sample of the comments:
Michael Obama always looks like hes chewing a tire
Heels actually fit on hooves?
THE MOVIE WASNT THAT GOOD EITHER -- WHAT WAS THE NAME OF IT ? "GORILLAS IN OUR MIDST" -- I ALWAYS JUST THOUGHT SHE WAS CHEWBACCAS YOUNGER GENDER CONFUSED SIBLING -- WELL WHATEVER - GOOD RIDDANCE TO BOTH OF THEM -- TRAITORS ALL
How are they wrong? Michael (Michelle) is a former male football linebacker. How disgusting can it be to have a tranny and a dope dealing, dog meat eating queer in the White House...
Is "Obviously a man and not fooling anyone" in heels better?
Moochie is a guy. "Everyone knows she's a tranny and he's gay." --Joan Rivers a few days before Obama had her whacked.
Google "michelle is a man",,,,, that's the real story.
Not an ape, but a Human, I mean Hu-Man, err, a Huge Man in heels!
The mayor should've resigned, everyone knows the current 1st Lady is a Wildebeest.
Oddly, while a few comments in the thread were listed as deleted, the above comments were not as of this writing. That's a big clue as to what's considered acceptable at WND -- racism toward the Obamas is perfectly fine, as long as the readers don't overdo it ... and expose the full nature of WND's audience.
MRC Suddenly Loves People Mag's Fluffy Profiles (When They're About Trump) Topic: Media Research Center
A Nov. 11 Media Research Center post by Sarah Stites detailed the hostile reaction some people had to the new issue of People magazine featuring Donald Trump and his presidential victory. Stites complained that "Many people are taking the hashtag #NotMyPresident seriously, believing that any endorsement or recognition of Donald Trump’s new role is an acceptance of the man himself," adding, "In the end, Donald Trump is the President-elect, whether the media world likes it or not. So yes, news coverage is to be expected."
But Stites revealed her hypocrisy on the issue of fluffy celebrity coverage, making sure to also complain: "However, prior to the election results, People’s pro-liberal bias was clear. In the election weekend issue, a Hillary Clinton interview revealed softball questions about such topics as the candidate’s coping mechanisms and her thoughts on being the first female president." Stites linked to a post by the MRC's Tim Graham complaining about said interview.
Indeed, the MRC regularly denounces People any time it includes a liberal on its pages, with Graham apparently serving as the MRC's designated People reader:
Graham ranted that People covered Trump's history of sordid sexual behavior.
He whined that "People magazine’s interview with Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine in the October 3 issue carried the usual hard-hitting questions from Sandra Sobieraj Westfall: 'Here’s one you probably won’t get in the debates: What emoji best describes you?'"
He also complained that the magazine did interviews with Huma Abedin, apparently mad that it noted Abedin tried to fix her marriage to Anthony Weiner before apparently finally giving the boot after another sexting scandal.
So if People covers Trump it's just "news coverage," but if it covers Clinton or Abedin it's "liberal media bias"? That's how the MRC mind works, it seems.
WND Hides That Farah Was The Original #NotMyPresident Guy Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is a little concerned that Americans aren't accepting Donald Trump as their president:
A Nov. 13 article quoting far-right radio host Michael Savage advocating for the revival of the House Un-American Activities Committee expresses concern that "there is already a concerted effort to deny the legitimacy of Trump’s election, with 'Not My President' serving as a popular slogan for left-wing groups around the country."
Barbara Simpson's Nov. 13 WND column berates the "idiots are in the streets" protesting Trump's election and "screaming that he is not their president," adding: "Just for a moment, imagine what the reaction of the media would have been if conservatives reacted this way when Barack Obama was elected. Of course, that never happened, nor would it."
Actually, Barbara, it kinda did, and the guy who publishes your column -- WND editor Joseph Farah -- led it.
In a June 2009 WND article promoting a Farah appearance on Savage's radio show, a picture of President Obama is captioned not with "Preeident Obama but with the cumbersome "Barack Obama, the man elected president."
And in a June 2014 column, Farah made it very clear: "Obama has never been my president. I have steadfastly refused to acknowledge him as such. He is undeserving of the honorific. To this day, I am unconvinced he is even eligible for office."
So, it's rather rich for WND complain that some won't acknowledge Trump as president when WND's leader still refuses to acknowledge that Obama currently is. Had Twitter been around in 2008, Farah would have created the #NotMyPresident hashtag.
WND Flip-Flops on Trying to Influence Electoral College Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Nov. 10 WorldNetDaily article by Art Moore expresses concern that "more than 1 million people have signed a petition urging members of the Electoral College to vote for [Hillary Clinton] when they meet next month." He spends part of the article and defending it against a campaign to replace with the popular vote (which Hillary won).
WND previously had no problem with people messing with the Electoral College when election results didn't go its way -- in fact, it led a campaign to do just that.
A December 2008 article announced that "WND announced a historic first in its quest to establish Obama’s qualifications for office – a similar FedEx letter drive directed at individual electors" to one WND previously used to target the Supreme Court. The issue: birtherism, of course. The article continues:
As WND has reported, there remain serious questions as to whether Obama is “a natural born citizen,” as specified in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. While he claims to have been born in Hawaii in 1961, two Obama family members have told WND they were present at his birth in Mombasa, Kenya.
Further, Obama has steadfastly refused to release publicly his full birth certificate that would identify the hospital of his birth, the attending physician and other details. Instead, the campaign posted a document purporting to be a birth certificate devoid of these details. It has also come under fire as a possible forgery.
The article stated that "WND was able to track down addresses for all 538 electors. With the new 'FedEx the Electoral College' program, you can reach all of them with a one-page pre-written letter, with your name and address attached, delivered overnight for less than it would cost you to FedEx one member – if you had the address." That cost was $10.95 -- one of WND's many attempts to skim money off its readers to send letters in bulk to politicians regarding certain issues despite never offering any evidence that the letters had any effect.
WND editor Joseph Farah wrote a column promoting the campaign, declaring that "unless we’re going to live under an honor system in the future, one that relies solely on what a candidate says about his own eligibility, there is no reason to believe Obama is. There is simply no valid evidence to prove it, and there is plenty to raise doubts."
A later WND article indicated that just 3,653 readers paid WND for the privilege, meaning WND grossed $40,000 on the effort.
In other words, WND is now looking disdainfully at something it happily did eight years ago. Expect a lot more of this behavior.
MRC Plays Dumb About Trump's Anti-LGBT Connections Topic: Media Research Center
In a Nov. 11 Media Research Center post, Sarah Stites dismissed reports of an increase in suicides by transgender youth as probably not true and tried to downplay the idea that a Donald Trump presidency will be any sort of threat to the LGBT community as president:
This anxiety-ridden reaction to Trump’s ascendency is concerning, especially in consideration of the fact that the president-elect has not voiced strongly conservative views on LGBT issues. In fact, in an April 21 interview with Matt Lauer, Trump recommended leaving the bathroom situation “the way it is.” "People go, they use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate,” he explained, “There has been so little trouble.” When Lauer pressed, “So if Caitlyn Jenner were to walk into Trump Tower and want to use the bathroom, you’d be fine with her using any bathroom she chooses?” Trump’s answer was telling: “That is correct.”
Based on his historically unpredictable policy positions, it is probably safe to assume that Trump is no solid social conservative. Additionally, he has discussed his open employment of LGBT people and has voiced no ill will against them. If transgender youth have anything to worry about regarding America’s 45th president, it should be his caprice—not his ideology.
While Trump himself may not care about LGBT issues, he has surrounded himself with people who care about them very much, and not in a positive way.
The head of domestic policy for Trump's transition team, Ken Blackwell of the right-wing Familiy Research Council, believes that being gay is no different from being a kleptomaniac or arsonist and is a "lifestyle" that "can be changed." He has also compared same-sex couples to farm animals.
Trump also named several anti-gay leaders to a campaign advisory council, including Michele Bachmann, James Dobson and Robert Jeffress.
Trump's apparent disinterest in LGBT issues may very well mean that the anti-gay leaders riding his coattails will have free rein to impose their agenda. Stites, however, thinks LGBT people haven't been paying attention to that and is simply playing dumb about the threat.
Earlier this year, we noted how WorldNetDaily tried to perpetuate the conspiracy theory that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was murderered. It seems some aren't quite willing to let go of the conspiracy just yet.
Craige McMillan began his Oct. 21 WND column by asserting, "At least now we know why Justice Scalia was murdered. Democrats do not want a repeat of Bush/Gore in the Florida recounts if they can somehow move a close election to the U.S. Supreme Court."
McMillan engages in the usual anti-media ranting expected from an avid Trump supporter and Hillary-hater -- Democrats are plotting to steal the election, the media is claiming polls show Hillary ahead in order to discourage Republican turnout -- before hopping to this:
In the event you don’t think that Scalia was murdered, what did the autopsy report show? That’s your answer, isn’t it? A U.S. Supreme Court justice dies unexpectedly, at a private retreat owned and operated by a prior administration’s “fix it” man, and there is no attempt to determine the cause of death?
As we noted, the owner of the "private retreat" where Scalia died was likely showing his appreciation for the Supreme Court not taking up a case involving his company by letting Scalia stay there for free (which, somehow, McMillan doesn't find scandalous). Further, there was no evidence of foul play, Scalia had heart trouble and high blood pressure among other health problems, and his family felt no need to conduct an autopsy.
McMillan shows his lack of interest in facts later in his column when he rants, "Get a clue, America! The war on poverty has failed. The trillions spent fighting poverty have enriched only the ruling class now encamped in Washington, D.C., the richest ZIP code in the nation."
in fact, there are dozens of ZIP codes in the District of Columbia. And as the Washington Post reports, none of the five "richest" ZIP codes, as ranked by average income, are in the District of Columbia; three are in New York City, one's in Miami Beach, and one is in Wilmington, Del. All of those have an average income of more than $1 million; by contrast, the ZIP code with the highest income in the District of Columbia tops out at just $191,818.
McMillian is a WND columnist, after all, so why wouldn't he peddle falsehoods and promote conspiracy theories?
CNS Keeps Up Post-Election Stenography for Trump Topic: CNSNews.com
As we've documented, CNSNews.com thinks that simply regurgitating whatever Donald Trump has to say is the same thing as "reporting." With Trtump's victory, the stenography continues.
A Nov. 9 article by Susan Jones repeats Trum's victory speech, uncritically claiming that "He offered reassurance to racial, ethnic and religious minorities, promising that his movement will be 'comprised of people from all races, religions, backgrounds and beliefs who want and expect our government to serve the people -- and serve the people it will. Working together we will begin the urgent task of rebuilding our nation and renewing the American dream[']." Jones, who loves to inject snide editorial comments about President Obama and other things she doesn't agree with into her "news" articles, didn't see fit to note that Trump's claim of "reassurance" directly contradicts the rhetoric of his campaign, in which he insulted racial, ethnic and religious minorities (Muslims and Mexicans among them).
CNS Patrick Goodenough did slightly better in a Nov. 9 article noting Trump's post-election claim that "We will get along with all other nations, willing to get along with us." But instead of noting that it diverges from the much harsher tone of his campaign rhetoric, Goodenough states that Trump's "views on issues ranging from free trade to climate change to the Iran nuclear deal were sharply at odds with those of the Obama administration and many of its international partners."
But it was back to fawning stenography for a Nov. 11 article by CNS managing editor Michael W. Chapman that reads like a three-month-old Trump campaign press release:
As presented on the campaign trail and detailed on the Trump-Pence website, President–elect Donald Trump wants to implement school choice programs in all 50 states that will allow students and their parents to pick the school that works best for them, and the money to pay for it will follow the student, not the school bureaucracy.
“If we can put a man on the moon, dig out the Panama Canal, and win two World Wars, then I have no doubt that we, as a nation, can provide school choice to every disadvantaged child in America,” said Trump in a Sept. 8 speech in Cleveland, Ohio.
Remember that as the Media Research Center criticizes journalism that criticizes Trump, it runs a "news" division that is an arm of the Trump campaign.
WND Begs for Advertisers By Exaggerating Its Alexa Stats Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is now running house ads on its website begging for advertisers, insisting that "WND Works!" Here's the pitch:
At WND (formerly WorldNetDaily), we LOVE working with our valued advertisers and have a true passion to drive consistent, real results that help them grow!
Ranked by Alexa.com as the No. 1 Internet destination for “conservatives,” WND is the leading independent news source on the Internet–and, founded back in 1997, one of the most well-established and trusted.
With between 25–30 million page views each month, WND attracts more traffic than seven of the 10 top newspapers sites–including the L.A. Times, Wall Street Journal and the New York Post!
WND consistently ranks among the largest 500 websites of any kind in the U.S.–and among the top 10 news providers!
Well, as we've previously demonstrated, a lot of what WND claims about itself regarding its popularity is exaggerated or misleading, and that seems to be case here.
Traffic-wise, WND is doing well right now according to Alexa, but that's a function of the election cycle -- it's currently at a peak, and its traffic will decline as we get away from election time. It also derives more than 13 percent of its traffic from the Drudge Report, which seems like a weakness.
There is no straight "conservative" category on Alexa; it's a subgroup under "politics," which itself is a subgroup under "society." And the lead website under Society/Politics/Conservatism right now is actually Alex Jones' Infowars.com; WND is second.
Bozell's Trump Sellout Is Complete Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell wrote in the National Review in February:
Longtime conservative leader Richard Viguerie has a simple test for credentialing a conservative: Does he walk with us?
For the simple reason that he cannot win without conservatives’ support, virtually every Republican presenting himself to voters swears so-help-me-God that he is a conservative. Many of these politicians are calculating, cynical charlatans, running as one thing only to govern in a completely different direction. See: McConnell, McCain, Hatch, Boehner, et al. And for decades it’s worked. Conservatives look at the alternatives — Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Clinton, et al. — and bite the bullet. We so often “win” — only for nothing to come of it.
The GOP base is clearly disgusted and looking for new leadership. Enter Donald Trump, not just with policy prescriptions that challenge the cynical GOP leadership but with an attitude of disdain for that leadership — precisely in line with the sentiment of the base. Many conservatives are relishing this, but ah, the rub. Trump might be the greatest charlatan of them all.
A real conservative walks with us.
How times change. In May, Bozell flip-flopped and threw the full resources of his Media Research Center behind Trump, later enthustiastically endorsing and parroting Trump's anti-media strategy (which, after all, was based on that of the MRC).
Now, it appears that Bozell's sellout to Trump is complete. A Nov. 9 article at Bozell's CNSNews.com by Matthew Hrozencik uncritically quotes Bozell, at a press conference of conservatives, fawning over Trump's skills as a businessman:
I told [Trump] that the only way you’re going to fix broken government, I believe, is to bring a businessman into Washington. And the only way that you’re going to manage this kind of level of financial output is somebody with business sense, who brings in people who have management experience. I would hope that he would do that and I think he will.
Curiously, Hrozencik first describes Bozell only as "president and treasurer of ForAmerica," not mentioning his MRC connection until the final paragraph.
Hrozencik didn't mention Bozell's previous attack on Trump, let alone provide an explanation of why Bozell made a complete 180 on him.He did note, though, that among the other conservatives at this little presser was none other than Richard Viguerie, who inspired Bozell's earlier rejection of Trump.
Hrozencik also edits out a telling statement from Bozell. If you look at the full video of the event, Bozell prefaced the above statement by saying, "My first in an endless number of miscalculations in this campaign was when I told Donald Trump he couldn't win, and -- which was in May of last year. But I told him that I thought he should run anyway, because with his money, why not."
That's a step toward a mea culpa, but it's not a full explanation. It also suggests that Bozell is not operating based on any fixed set of principles but on "calculations" -- in other words, craven politics.
In short, Bozell sold out his claimed values to stay on the correct side of the Republican Party and remain a player in the conservative movement.