MRC's Houck Viciously Maims the Art of Headline-Writing Topic: Media Research Center
Curtis Houck is the Media Research Center's new king of nonsensically hyperbolic headlines.
Last September, Houck huffed: "Ben Shapiro Eviscerates Jimmy Kimmel’s Health Care Tirades; ‘Egregious’ to Exploit His Son."
Houck used the word "deranged" in a headline twice in three days, broken up by the use of the word "nutso."
Houck's headline on Jan. 17 was "Limbaugh Torpedoes ‘Childish,’ ‘Unstable’ Liberal Media as ‘Unfit’ for ‘Their Constitutional Duties’."
In a Jan. 26 item, Houck declared, "Haley Obliterates Sexist Michael Wolff’s ‘Disgusting,’ ‘Highly Offensive’ Rumors About Sleeping With Trump." Haley strongly rebutting the rumors is hardly an "obliteration," given that Wolff was still alive the last time we checked.
For a Feb. 2 item, Houck's headline blared: "Blitzer Viciously Maims GOP Congressman Over Memo; It’s Your Fault ‘Putin Has Succeeded’." Yet that congressman was appearing from Salt Lake City, not in CNN's studio, so he couldnot possibly have been"viciously maimed" by Wolf Blitzer.
Apparently, a conservative politician being asked challenging questions by a reporter is tantamount to "vicious maiming" in Houck's world.
And on Feb. 8, Houck asserts, "Limbaugh Torpedoes CNN’s Brownstein, Lemon Over Their Supposed ‘Objective Journalism’." Apparently Limbaugh is Houck's go-to torpedoer.
Houck is starting to sound like liberals who overenthusiastically touted clips from the Jon Stewart-era "Daily Show." But even Stewart made fun of that.
WND Tries to Go the Big Damn Manly Route Topic: WorldNetDaily
One of the themes WorldNetDaily seems to be trying out in order to pull itself from the abyss is an attempt to be a more manlier website, whatever that is.
Self-proclaimed specialist in "human paleopsychology" Kent Bailey -- who has penned previous WND columns touting Donald Trump's maniless (and whiteness) -- returned with a Jan. 19 column to talk up Trump's manliness once again:
Why are Trump and masculine men so toxic and repulsive to today’s intellectual left and Democratic Party? Previously, I argued that the Republicans are the Daddy Party and the Democrats the Mommy Party. Although both parties – like our entire country – are highly feminized compared to adversaries like Russia, North Korea and numerous militant Muslim nations, there is still a residue of tentative maleness among Republicans. By contrast, the Democrats virtually swim in an ocean of estrogen and had the election gone as predicted, America would have quickly morphed into a gigantic harem ruled by Hilary the Great, replete with legions of male eunuchs and gloriously happy and safe “girly girls.”
But then the quintessential masculinist, warrior king Donald Trump prevailed, and their dreams were rudely shattered. And how they hate him for it, to the point of sheer madness!
As one might imagine, this quickly devolves into women he doesn't like:
All but the most militant feminists will concede that the male mind was at the forefront of the slow and arduous trek from the earliest precultural stages of humanity to the first-world, highly technological civilizations of today, but it seems Modern Woman does not need us guys anymore. She is ready to take over. Just ask any Democrat.
Modern Woman is “equal” to men in every respect – that is, except she cannot and really does not naturally want to compete head-to-head with men on a level playing field. She still wants and needs a residue of feminized and compliant men to fight the wars, keep the railroads running, police the streets and enforce silly and draconian PC “laws” that, ironically, go against male interests. That is, she is everyman’s “equal” as long as the entire American system is transformed into an awkward and gigantic “safe zone” where she can strut and act tough like Megyn Kelly did questioning Trump during the pre-election debates.
The last thing Modern Woman wants is true “equality” vis-à-vis the male gender. There would be no women’s golf – just golf; no women’s tennis – just tennis; no women’s classes – just classes; no female Olympics – just Olympics; no women’s standards in the military – just standards; and so on. That would mean the elaborate and multifaceted protections women enjoy in American society would be nonexistent. As a proud father of a daughter and lucky husband of a beautiful and accomplished wife, I am all for fair and reasonable protections for women. In fact, my daughter and wife live in my personal zone of protection, and they love me for it. But unearned strutting privileges, pushing men out of society, or expecting them to simply move aside while you experiment with running the country is pure PC madness.
Then, on Jan. 25, David Ruzicka informs us about the specific occasions, and only these occasions, when aman is permitted to cry, lest he huntyou down and make fun of you for it:
Big boys shouldn’t cry – with some exceptions:
Cutting onions. It’s not emotional, just biology.
Death of the best dog/best friend.
Acting like a total wuss. You should cry over that! Disgraceful. But crying about it makes you more of a wuss! It’s a vicious circle, so stay off the wuss train altogether!
During select manly movies. Like “The Champ” with Ricky Schroeder, “Old Yeller” and “The Patriot.” All Hallmark movies. Wait, what? Delete! Delete!
Totaling of a cherished car or truck.
If you’re God incarnate, completely infinite (John 11:35).
And obviously, you get a free pass for all crying if you’ve been in military combat service. Because you’re awesome, that’s why!
Bottom line: Crying is what the guys in “Twilight” movies do,neverwhat Rambo would do.
Someone: David, you sound like you’re promoting toxic masculinity!
Me:Sorry – no such thing. There is masculinity. And then there is a toxic male. One possesses God-given masculinity and does good things with it. The other is a meathead.
And mock he does later in the column, taking issue with Sen. Cory Booker saying he had "tears of rage" over Trump calling countries he didn't like "shithole countries."
No emotionally stable man has “tears of rage” over a comment like the one in question. I’ve never even met a man who has had “tears of rage.”
I could only find one example of “tears of rage” in recent history. After the abduction and murder of 6 six-year-old son, John Walsh wrote a book called, “Tears of Rage.” That crime is a reason for rage and tears. And he leveraged that rage to start a nationwide movement to track down over 1,000 fugitives through his TV show. Excellent man.
But Booker hears of someone else calling a bad place a bad name, and he beats up a woman with his raging tears.
I don’t believe him (He makes up whole people). And I can’t say enough bad about his fictitious tears. But you might think he’s being truthful – and in that case, his reaction is emotionally unstable. So fabricated or real, it’s a lose-lose for Booker.
There’s something about a good man who brings out the best in good people and who brings out the worst in evil people. A good leader ushers light and peace into the world around him, just as a wicked leader ushers in darkness and discord.
President Trump, despite all opposition to his efforts and endless attacks on his character, is truly making America great again!
Yeah, he's totally bringing out the best in all those white nationalists. Showing how much Peterson is to totally in the throes of hero worship -- he once again calls Trump "The Great White Hope," still apparently oblivous to the insulting history of that term -- Peterson add: "President Trump is like a good father to the country. He does not accept excuses, only solutions. I love him for the fact he pays no mind to the phony accusations of 'racism,' 'sexism' or any other '-ism.' He stands on truth, despite enemies and haters, and sets a good example for all."
Peterson doesn't explain how Trump "stands on truth" when he lies pretty much all the time.
CNS Lets Reagan Hagiographer Deny That Reagan Had Alzheimer's Symptoms While President Topic: CNSNews.com
As we'vedocumented, the Media Research Center is weirdly sensitive about the idea that Ronald Reagan may have had early symptoms of Alzheimer's disease. That sensitivity has migrated over to the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, which published a Jan. 25 column by Reagan hagiogrpher Craig Shirley trying to hammer the denial home.
Shirley was particularly put out when President Trump's doctor, Ronny Jackson, made the claim while talking about Trump's health:
It would be nice to dismiss Dr. Jackson’s ill-informed and without substance comments and move on, just as the White House would like to put the hearsay concerning Trump's mental health behind it. But he and Trump's tweets have now given new life to an old and most thought extinguished and ridiculous rumor. So once again, Reagan historians have to beat it down. Dr. Jackson's uninformed comments made news and even worse, they were uttered by a White House physician, giving the veneer of officialdom. Jackson’s comments were clumsy and the irony is, he could have availed himself of his office’s files at Bethesda Naval Hospital on Reagan and seen for himself what Reagan’s doctors said about the Gipper. The Trump White House could have easily cleaned up this mess, but so far … crickets. Some believe it serves their purpose to boost Trump by running down Reagan.
Because if Reagan did – and we must emphasize he did not – have early stages of Alzheimer’s in the 1980s, then that would include as big a conspiracy and cover up as JFK. Reagan had four physicians personally check on him, and every report came back stellar.
A man with Alzheimer’s does not write for his last journal entry as president as beautiful words: “Then home and the start of a new life.” He was 77 years old, but looking forward to the next chapter in his life. He knew where he was, what he accomplished, where he failed, where he could have done more. He had the faculties of an old, but wise, man, who knew that the presidency was an important part of his own and America’s life.
Finally, we arrive at the real reason Shirley is writing this:
To carelessly speculate about Reagan as Trump's doctor has now done results in the very same effect as the thinly-veiled attempts to simply delegitimize all his work, his Administration, his life. He did something conservative? Oh, it was the “Alzheimer’s.” This is the same man who successfully crafted the policies that drove the GDP rise from negative 0.3 in the last year of Jimmy Carter’s presidency to 4.1 percent in 1988. Inflation, which was 13.5 percent, dropped dramatically. The Soviet Union was on its knees, only to fall with the Wall (a very real wall) a couple years later. Relations restored with world leaders and the blight of communism was put in sight.
There is an old phrase which says, “A lie can make it around the world while the truth is just getting out of bed.”
Let’s instead put the lie to bed, now and forever: Ronald Reagan was many things – almost all very good – but he did not have Alzheimer’s during his presidency.
It's worth noting here that in December, Shirley declared that only conservatives should be allowed to write about conservative history: "This is what conservatives must jealously guard; the truth, our truth. And root out and eviscerate and disembowel liberals writing of our history."
Got that? Shirley is conflating "the truth" with "our truth." We would venture to guess that where the two conflict, "our truth" would likely win out in Shirley's eyes.
Newsmax's Hirsen Says Accused Sexual Harasser Losing His Job Is 'Tragic' Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax columnist James Hirsen is nothing if not a loyal right-winger, at least on thte sexual harassment front. He's still bashing Anita Hill after all these years, and he tried to slut-shame one of Roy Moore's accusers.
Hirsen's sympathy for accused sexual harassers -- the conservative-leaning ones, anyway -- continues in a Feb. 6 tweet, in which he links to an NBC News tweet announcing that casino mogul Steve Wynn was stepping down from his casino company after multiple accusations of sexual harassment. (He had previously stepped down as finance chairman of the Republican National Committee when the allegations first surfaced.) Hirsen's added reaction: "This is tragic."
Hirsen has yet to explain what he thinks is "tragic" about an accused sexual harasser losing his job.
MRC's Graham Gives Pro-Trump Book A Positive Reception Topic: Media Research Center
After Michael Wolff's unflattering book about the Trump White House was published, the Media Research Center fired off a fusillade of posts denouncing it. By contrast, a book written by an employee of the MRC's favorite TV channel, Fox News, got a much more favorable reception.
In a Jan. 24 post, the MRC's Tim Graham cheerfully touts Howard Kurtz's book "Media Madness" and his claim that reporting critical of President Trump has "radicalized" him. Graham did not raise the question of why eight years of anti-Obama reporting and commentary at Fox News somehow did not "radicalize" Kurtz.
Graham did note that New York Times reporter Jonathan Martin challenged a claim Kurtz made about him in the book, then framed the possible false claim as just desserts:
How many times have anonymous sources said ridiculous things that Trump thinks are "fake news"? But the New York Times and The Washington Post think their anonymous digs at the president are what keeps "democracy out of darkness." A spokesman for Regnery, which published the book, said the publisher and author “absolutely stand by everything reported in the book.”
Graham didn't identify Kurtz as a conservative, nor did he point out that Kurtz's publisher, Regnery, is in the business of publishing conservative books.
And the book can certainly be criticized; Mediaite's Lloyd Grove points out that the book does have decided pro-Trump slant, that Kurtz is apparently close enough to Trump that the president calls him "Howie," and that Kurtz never bothered to talk to most of the journalists he spends his book atacking.
A few days later, Graham attacked Washingotn Post media writer Margaret Sullivan for doing what he wouldn't -- acknowledge that Kurtz and his employer have a definite bias:
Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan unleashed a personal attack on Fox News host Howard Kurtz in a Sunday book review at the most transparent “Pot, meet kettle” level of criticism. She attacked Kurtz as an insincere creature of Fox News and as a tool of White House adviser Kellyanne Conway. Dear Margaret: Has your column ever boldly attacked The Washington Post, or strayed from its everyday spin?
She writes "Kurtz’s allegiance to his masters at Fox News is evident right from the start, when he offers something I never thought possible: a heartfelt defense of Kellyanne Conway’s coining of the infamous phrase ‘alternative facts’...He takes Conway’s side (as he does so often and so sympathetically that you may be tempetted to look for a Conway co-author’s credit)....”
The headline on B-5 of the Sunday Outlook section even bluntly accuses “Did Kellyanne Conway ghostwrite this book?”
If she hadn’t kicked Kurtz in the shins enough, Sullivan repeats her thesis near the end: “Overall, you can best understand Media Madness by considering the source: Despite his long history in journalism, Kurtz is a creature of Fox News now, as the host of a show called Media Buzz.”
It’s a shocking personal attack on Kurtz, and self-refuting in that Margaret does it while at the same time kissing up to the man who hired her at The Washington Post, with the apparent task of defending the liberal media at their most aggressively liberal: “For the most part, though, they (the media) are trying to cover him, not take him down. (As Post editor Martin Baron put it, ‘We’re not at war. We’re at work.’)”
Liberals like Baron (and his admiring employee Margaret Sullivan) think journalism and liberalism are the same thing. Sullivan concluded: “Although Kurtz emphasizes he is a journalist, through and through, with printers’ ink running through his veins, Media Madness clearly is meant to reinforce Fox Nation’s disdain for legitimate journalists who are trying to hold a norm-busting president accountable.”
In his book, Kurtz offers an entirely different conclusion on who is busting norms: "A common refrain among Trump's antagonists in the press is that they must resist normalizing his presidency. But in the process, they have abnormalized journalism."
Pointing out the indisputable fact that Kurtz is toeing the pro-Trump party line of his employer in his book is a "shocking personal attack"on him"? Maybe Graham should just rename the MRC -- which uses much harsher language against the people it hates -- the Shocking Personal Attack Center.
WND Calls Up Ex-Congressman To Rehash Old Clinton Derangement Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily was founded on Clinton derangement, and it's never ended there. That appears to be one reason why former congressman James Rogan -- one of the House Republicans who pushed for President Clinton's impeachment in 1998 -- has suddenly popped up to write some columns at WND.
The other big reason: Rogan's a WND author, and WND has some books of his collecting dust in its warehouse that it would like to unload for some desperately needed cash. So revered is Rogan at WND that it bought the domain "RoganCollection.com" and pointed it to the page at WND's online store that lists the books he's written for it. He also has a new WND-published book coming out in May (if WND is still in existence then, that is).
Iin his Jan. 20 column, Rogan rehashed all the old Clinton-bashing talking points from the '90s, insisting that Clinton's impeachment (the subject of Rogan's first WND-published book) mattered because "it wasn’t about sex – it was about the rule of law" and that "I still wonder why people back then didn’t care."
Rogan gave no indication that he cares about the political abuses and personal scandals of the thrice-married adulterer and shady businessman currently occupying the White House. But then, he's rumored to be on the shortlist for a federal judicial appointment to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals , and he certainly doesn't want anything to get in the way of that.
On Jan. 31, Rogan wrote a column lionizing Richard Nixon as "wholly gifted, wholly flawed, wholly undaunted – wholly American." Watergate merited mention for only half a sentence.
Then, in his Feb. 7 column, Rogan praises Donald Trump -- you know, the guy who might appoint him to that cushy appeals court seat -- as a political populist in the vein of, um, George Wallace. Sadly, Rogan means this as a complement.
To do that, of course, one has to whitewash, as it were, the history of Wallace, particularly as it relates to his 1968 presidential campaign, the subject of Rogan's upcoming (maybe) book. For instance, Rogan claims that "By 1968 Wallace had long since jettisoned his earlier segregationist message and instead focused on the populist themes he had used in 1964," but he also states that a key part of Wallace's platform was "states' rights" -- which, as any student of history knows, is a code word for segregation.
But it appears Rogan is most pleased with Wallace for splitting the Democratic vote enough to cost Hubert Humphrey, "a diehard liberal and a recent Vietnam peace convert" the election and "put Richard Nixon (a moderate-conservative and a Vietnam War hawk) in the White House."
These, it seems, are the kind of chits you call in when you're WND and can't actually afford to pay anyone for their content.
Your Monthly CNS Stenography Tally Topic: CNSNews.com
Over the past year, we've identified several people and organizations for whom CNSNews.com will simply roll over and dutifully transcribe anything they have to say without any sort of substantive (or even, in most cases, non-substantive) fact-checking.
Given that such stenography now makes up a significant percentage of CNS' content, it's worth taking monthly stock of it. Thus, here is our first monthly CNS stenography tally for 2018, covering thte month of January.
WND's Faces Of 'Soft Terror' Are All Muslim, For Some Reason Topic: WorldNetDaily
LeoHohmann may be gone from WorldNetDaily, but his Muslim-hating spirit lives on.
An anonymous WND writer states in a Jan. 26 article, under the headline "The faces of everyday 'soft terror' in U.S.":
Tnuza Jamal Hassan, 19, who is a former student at St. Catherine University in St. Paul, Minnesota, says she was angry over American military “crimes.”
So, Hassan, who had expressed radical Islamist ideas to her roommates while in school, police say, went on a two-and-half-hour arson spree at the campus she had recently left, reportedly to travel with her family to Ethiopia.
She reportedly set eight fires across the campus.
“You guys are lucky that I don’t know how to build a bomb because I would have done that,” she told police.
Hassan is one of many suspects and convicts of what might be called “soft terrorist” acts in the U.S. They don’t get much attention because their crimes don’t rise to the level of mass murder, shooting attacks and bombings. They don’t grab national headlines. Yet, the growing frequency of these acts of violence suggest an underlying Muslim rage much more widespread than the spectacular attacks that do.
WND cites only three examples of this "soft terror," one of which didn't even take place in the U.S. -- all of whom, of course, are Muslim.
Meanwhile, WND is much quieter about a much less soft former of terror on American soil. The Southern Poverty Law Center has counted 110 people killed or wounded by young male adherents to alt-right and white nationalist ideologies -- 60 of which were in 2017 alone.
Among that count are the nine people murdered in a South Carolina church by Dylann Roof, whose white supremacist views echo those made by WND over the years.
When The MRC Wasn't So Bothered By Nazi Comparisons Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Curtis Houck cranks up the hyperbole in a Jan. 29 post:
On Monday afternoon, CNN political commentator and liberal Republican Ana Navarro ghoulishly paraphrased a quote by World War II-era pastor Martin Niemöller to equate embattled current and former Justice Department officials to those murdered by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis (aka President Trump) during the Holocaust.
Navarro’s referenced President Trump as “he” in her mock poem with James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, and Robert Mueller making appearances in each stanza of the following tweet:
This demonic comparison between law enforcement officials to people murdered during World War II and Trump to Nazis is beyond the pale. Just imagine the reaction if a Fox News contributor did such a thing during the Obama years[.]
Well, we don't have to imagine it. A Fox News contributor did do such a thing, and the MRC's reaction to it was -- well, let's just start by saying that nobody used the word "demonic."
In 2011, conservative country singer Hank Williams Jr. appeared on "Fox & Friends" to claim that then-Speaker of the House John Boehner's recent golf game with President Obama was "one of the biggest political mistakes ever," adding, "It's like Hitler playing golf with [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu." Obama, of course, is the Hitler in that analogy.
The MRC's first reaction came from Tim Graham, who seemed more offended that Williams' offensive analogy got his theme for ESPMN's "Monday Night Football" taken off the air than by the analogy itself.
Ken Shepherd dismissed William's remarks as nothing more than a "bad joke," then played whataboutism: "Yet to our knowledge, we at NewsBusters are unaware of any similar edict by ESPN to prevent former boxer and convicted rapist Mike Tyson from returning on the network's programming or of any disciplinary action against the radio hosts who allowed Tyson to [Sarah] Palin 'met the wombshifter' when she allegedly had a fling with basketball player Glen Rice." Shepherd made the same "bad joke" claim in a later post in another flurry of whataboutism.
Noel Sheppard whitewashed Williams' statement as merely "intemperate remarks" and a "stupid comment" made by "a country singer with no prior history of inflammatory remarks," while also playing the whataboutism card. A year later, Sheppard proudly touted "another comment about Barack Obama that could get him in some hot water" made by Williams, saying his earlier comment was just a "joke."
And less than a year ago, Jay Maxson cheered the return of Williams Jr.'s theme song to "Monday Night Football" without explaining why it was pulled in the first place. Maxson described Williams as only "a critic of Barack Obama."
It's clear that the amount of invective the MRC is willing to hurl at someone making allegedly unfortunate Nazi references depends entirely on the offender's political affiliation -- and that of the person being likened to a Nazi.
WND's Double Standard on Denouncing Something Before It Happens Topic: WorldNetDaily
An anonymous WorldNetDaily writer claims in a Jan. 30 article:
Why should one wait to hear the State of the Union speech from Donald Trump before giving a reaction?
Some anti-Trumpers were not bothering to do so.
Take the PICO Network, which describes itself as “a national network of faith-based community organizations working to create innovative solutions to problems facing urban, suburban and rural communities.” Oh, and “non-partisan,” too.
Hours before the speech took place, PICO had this to say in a news release: “After promoting a tax giveaway to Wall Street and the wealthy, partially repealing the Affordable Care Act, working to detain and deport DREAMers, undoing Obama-era policies that reduce mass incarceration, President Trump today delivered yet another hate-filled, xenophobic and racist speech.”
The release quickly pivoted to add: “While President Trump has yet to deliver his first State of the Union address, if past is prologue, this is the introduction we’ll write after President Trump’s address.”
Mmmmmm. No doubt.
WND's tsk-tsking over criticizing something before it happens might be a little more credible if it hadn't done so itself. Aas we documented, a WND article last September that appeared before Hillary Clinton's book "What Happened" came out asserted that "Clinton reportedly lists all the outside forces responsible for her stunning defeat," adding that "someone – anyone – had to be blamed. Anyone but Hillary Clinton, of course." In fact, Clinton did partially blame herself and listed the mistakes she and her campaign made in the book.
WND has never corrected the article, let alone admit there was anything wrong with it. That sort of callous attitude toward journalism is one big reason WND is currently circling the drain.
Charlie Daniels, Conspiracy Theorist Topic: CNSNews.com
We almost lost our country last fall. America was unwittingly on the precipice of becoming a nation whose government was willing to go to illegal and devious lengths to maintain the status quo.
I believe that the information that will be forthcoming in the next few weeks will be both astonishing and frightening to the American public, information that was never meant to see the light of day, much less the scrutiny of the American people.
I believe there will be irrefutable evidence of collusion among the upper echelons of the Democratic Party, actually denying any candidate except Hillary Clinton a chance to be their presidential candidate.
I believe there will be evidence of the same people and their Democrat puppets in Congress to foist a false dossier, undocumented, totally unsubstantiated and paid for by the Democrats, on the American public aided by their serfs in the media that would falsely tie Donald Trump, his associates and members of his inner circle with the Russian government.
I believe there will be proof of the weaponizing of federal agencies and personnel and collusion between the Obama justice department and the FBI.
It was all planned out. Hillary would be elected by a landslide. All the dirt would have been covered up. The guilty parties would go free, and ultraliberal immigration policies would have been instituted, a quick path to citizenship established and an unbeatable voter base created to guarantee a Democrat government ad infinitum.
The entitlement rolls would have grown exponentially, the economy would have continued its downward spiral, as the Clinton government would have adopted the anti-business, pro-taxes policies of the Obama administration. The national debt, which Obama doubled while he was in office, would have expanded, and America would have continued to be viewed around the world as a wimpy, out of control former superpower, not worthy of either prestige or respect.
Our military would have continued to be neglected and downsized, and the velvet glove treatment of Islamic terrorists would be maintained.
Religious freedom would have continued to be stifled, and government bureaucracies and power would have grown until its tentacles would have reached into every facet of life.
America walked on thin ice and almost fell through, only the grace of God kept us from it.
NEW ARTICLE: WND, Your Pro-Trump State Media Outlet Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's thank-Trump e-card campaign shows just how far Joseph Farah and Co. will sell out and suck up to its favorite politicians. Not that it's actually helping WND's bottom line, though. Read more >>
CNS Pretends That Huckabee's Tweet Was Just A Joke, Censors Negative Response To It Topic: CNSNews.com
Michael Morris works hard to spin things in a Jan. 29 CNSNews.com blog post:
Gov. Mike Huckabee poked fun at the eldest U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on his Twitter account Sunday, suggesting it’s “not fair” to criticize her for “skipping” out on President Trump’s first State of the Union address tomorrow.
“It’s not fair that ppl are criticizing Justice Ginsberg for skipping SOTU!” exclaimed Gov. Mike Huckabee in a tweet. “Security concerns wouldn’t allow her to bring CPAP machine into House Chamber.”
It appears that Justice Ginsburg will be “skipping” President Trump’s SOTU tomorrow, as Gov. Huckabee jokingly points out, but it won’t be for the reason he suggested.
If Morris was a better reporter and writer -- though we know he's because 1) he works for CNS, and 2) he redundantly repeated Huckabee's full name twice, which is journalistically unnecessary -- he would have told the rest of the story: that a lot of people didn't the alleged humor in Huckabee's tweet, no matter how much Morris tries to sell it as him "joking" and "poking fun."
In fact, the response to the tweet from outside CNS' right-wing bubble was pretty much uniformlynegative. It was bad enough, in fact, that even another conservative media outlet was quoting a Republican congressman as calling Huckabee's tweet tasteless and despicable.
Intersting that only the "joking" tweet was newsworthy at CNS -- not the reaction to it.
Pot, Kettle, Black: WND's Farah Frets Over 'Prima Facie Libelous' Claims (Not Published By WND) Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah oozes concern about getting facts straight in his Jan. 29 WorldNetDaily column:
What do you suppose would happen if an author known for making up and embellishing stories, quotes and admitting that he can’t say for sure if what he wrote in his latest best-selling attack book on Donald Trump’s White House told a comedy show on HBO that U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and the president are having an affair?
Would an interview that incendiary and prima facie libelous be aired?
Would the media advance the rumor by asking Haley about it?
Would the media, after realizing there is no evidence to support the charge, denounce the rumor-mongering author and question all he had previously reported in his book?
And what about Bill Maher and HBO? Do they have any responsibility at all for airing such a defamatory and salacious interview with no evidence to support the accusation?
Yes, but only if Nikki Haley files a very expensive lawsuit. That’s essentially her only legal recourse. And the standard in First Amendment juris prudence is extremely high for public figures to get a fair hearing on the facts.
Farah seems to have forgotten that his WND has published numerous incendiary and prima facie libelous claims about the Clintons and Obamas. And that we've caught WND tellinglieafterlie, not to mention Farah himself telling lie after lie.
For instance: In 2016, WND published a claim by Sally Miller, who claims to be a former mistress of Bill Clinton, that Hillary Clinton "is a lesbian" who wants to kill her. WND offered no verification of the claim, despite the fact that Miller has long been considered to be an unreliable source even in Arkansas. In other words, WND has published a prima facie libelous claim without performing due diligence as to its veracity. Would Farah want Clinton to sue him and WND over this? Or does he feel safe in his knowledge that the "extremely high" bar for public figures to sue over libelous claims he laments for Haley will keep WND out of the courtroom over this and other similar claims against politicians Farah despises?
Another example: WND has repeatedly claimed without evidence that yogurt maker Chobani and its CEO, Hamdi Ulukaya, have a secret agenda to flood America with Muslims that it would employ at its manufacturing plants. It corrected the claim on its website months after the fact, though without public apology, presumably after contact from Chobani's lawyers. Should Chobani have gone ahead and sued WND for its prima facie libelous claim?
And one more example: In 2000, WND libeled Tennessee car dealer Clark Jones by falsely portraying him as a "suspected drug dealer." It stood by the claim for seven years as it fought a defamation suit Jones filed against WND over the claim. Then, just before the case was to go to trial in 2008, WND abruptly reversed course and settled with Jones, the terms of which remain secret to this day. The press release about the settlement laughably claimed that "WorldNetDaily.com and its editors never intended any harm to Clark Jones," which is simply not true -- Jones had a connection to Al Gore, whose presidential candidacy WND was trying to destroy when it made the false claim, so Jones had to be part of the destruction as well. It's noteworthy that WND never apologized to Gore for publishing false claims that it claimed played a role in Gore losing the election.
Of course, the difference between Jones and Gore, Clinton or Obama is that Jones was never a public figure who would have to meet a higher burden of defamation.
Farah might want to be careful what he wishes for. If Wolff, Maher and HBO can be sued over Haley, WND can be sued for all the libelous claims it has published about the Clintons, Gore and Obama. And that would definitely put WND out of business.
MRC Misses the Point On Both Ends of the Cross-Dressing Spectrum Topic: Media Research Center
We know the Media Research Center hates transgender people, so it's probably not a surprise that it also freaks out about a much milder variant of that in the form of cross-dressing.
First, it hates cross-dressing as played for laughs (even though it's been a comic trope since forever). When the Disney XD cartoon "Star vs. The Forces of Evil" has the main character cross-dress for an episode, NewsBusters blogger Matt Norcross could not find the humor in it:
Maybe the episode was done as a joke, similar to the cross-dressing jokes seen in the classic Looney Tunes cartoons. If that’s the case, so be it.
However, there is no doubt that this cartoon has been used by creator Daron Nefsy to push a progressive point of view. Keep in mind, this is the same show that has had multiple gay and lesbian couples kiss at once.
All of this is thanks to Disney-ABC Television Group chief Ben Sherwood and Disney Channel’s chief creative officer Gary Marsh (the latter being a Hillary Clinton supporter). Both of whom have completely destroyed the television division by using it to push a left-wing agenda.
There is no excuse to socially engineer very young children of both Disney XD and the Disney Channel. There’s nothing wrong with LGBT-themed content, as we’ve had to accept to the results of the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodgescase at the U.S. Supreme Court. But, when it goes as far as jamming this way of life in front of an audience as young as 10, that’s where things go too far.
On the other end of the spectrum, Lindsay Kornick watched an episode of the miniseries "The Alienist" and missed the point of the "several uncomfortable minutes of underage boys (some played by underage actors) wearing dresses with makeup and offering themselves for sexual pleasure":
It’s honestly hard to imagine that in a time where complimenting women can be seen as harassment, dressing boys up like female prostitutes, having them act and speak like girls, can somehow be considered good television. The show clearly paints the act as sad and pathetic, but apparently it’s fine when it’s done for art. That is, if degrading young boys can still be considered art. Somehow, I doubt there will be any Twitter movements regarding this unsightly treatment. After all, that would have to acknowledge two things modern-day feminists refuse to consider. One, that boys can be mistreated, and two, that boys can be (way too) oversexualized.
Kornick was apparently too busy hate-watching the show to figure out that the scene was supposed to be uncomfortable. As an actual reviewer points out, the miniseries is set in late 19th century New York City around the murder of a transgender prostitute, and the cross-dressing boys selling themselves is emblematic of the bleak existence of the immigrant underclass doing what they had (or were forced) to do to provide for their families.
If Kornick is squicked out by this, good. That's the whole point -- prostitution of this sort is supposed to be rather squicky.