MRC's Graham Doesn't Like Fact-Check That Fits His Interpretation Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center continues its politically motivated and desperate "fact-checking the fact-checkers" campaign -- which might be more meaningful if MRC was concerned about fact-checking itself first -- with a May 29 post by Tim Graham ranting about a New York Times fact-check that accurately pointed out that Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats were not defending the violent gang MS-13 by pointing out that they are humans and not animals,as President Trump apparently claimed.
Graham grumbled that the Times fact-checker "sounded like Pelosi's press secretary on the MS-13 charge. Pelosi says murderous gang members have a 'spark of divinity, dignity and worth,' but somehow that's not to be interpreted as defending gangsters?"Well, no, Tim. Pelosi did not deny that MS-13 are a bunch of violent thugs and did not defend or justify any MS-13 crime -- the textbook definition of "defending" a group.
Graham then complained that the fact-check accurately pointed out that because Trump phrased his "animals" comment ambiguously "he left room for interpretation," huffing:
This is why people criticize "fact checks." This is an interpretation check. You suggest that it's fair for Pelosi to "interpret broadly," and "FALSE" when Trump "interprets broadly" in return. To claim "Democrats have been precise" in exaggerating Trump's comments beyond MS-13 to all "immigrants" is to sound like a paid spokesman for the Democrats.
Here, Graham gives away his biased game. He's the one don't an "interpretation check" -- he has decided that Trump's words are unambiguous despite the evidence to the contrary, and that an after-the-fact CYA statement by the White House press office is the final word on what Trump allegedly meant to say. In Graham's eyes, anyone who accurately points out that what he said is different from what he may have meant is somehow lying.
Because the Times fact-check sticks to facts and doesn't bend to Graham's biased, reflexive defense of Trump, he rates it "deeply distorted." He's really talking about himself.
A shocking new book has torn away the curtain from the secret, subversive "Deep State" and exposed the plotting and tactics of those trying to destroy the Trump Presidency.
"The Plot to Destroy Trump: How the Deep State Fabricated the Russian Dossier to Subvert the President," written by Theodore Roosevelt Malloch, CEO of The Roosevelt Group, with a forward by leading Republican political consultant Roger Stone, is a hard-hitting book that rips the lid off of how the Deep State tried to use a phony dossier to spy on Donald Trump's campaign, smear him and block his election.
When that failed, Deep Staters continued to use it, to give birth to an investigation of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government – an investigation which, so far, has cost $16.7 million and produced not a whiff of proof that any such collusion exists.
"Make no mistake: there was a clear attempt, call it a plot, to take down the duly elected President of the United States,"Stone writes in his introduction to the must-read book.
Malloch is a pro-Trump sycophant most recently associated with WorldNetDaily who was reportedly for nomination as President Trump's ambassador to the European Union until he was busted for exaggerating his biography in, among other places, his WND-published autobiography. We last saw Malloch on the TV show of even more conspiracy-obsessed Alex Jones ranting about the "global elites" are being influenced by "Luciferianism." Roger Stone is, of course, a sleaze of the highest order whose unconventional sex life gets a pass from right-wing outlets who got the vapors when President Clinton had an affair with an intern.
The "advertorial" -- and, thus the book it's promoting -- gets off to a bogus start by portraying the Steele dossier as "phony" and "fabricated." As we've pointed out, several parts of the dossier have been corroborated. The "advertorial" adds:
The riveting book notes blatant errors in the dossier. For example, the dossier claims that Trump's attorney Michael Cohen met in "secret meetings with Kremlin officials" in Prague in August, 2016. Cohen has never been to Prague, according to his passport, and in August, 2016, was in Los Angeles for his son's college baseball tryouts.
Actually, special counsel Robert Mueller reportedly has evidence Cohen was in Prague in the summer of 2016 and that he entered through Germany, a trip for which he would not have needed a passport.
Nevertheless, the "advertorial" goes on to quote Malloch as saying that the dossier is part of a "carefully designed plot that begins with Christopher Steele and runs through the FBI, CIA and NSA, all in an attempt to subvert the Trump Presidency."
We suspect the dossier is more factually verified that Malloch's book.
MRC: Mocking Someone's Looks Is Off Limits -- Unless It's A Liberal Topic: Media Research Center
When Michelle Wolf made a joke about White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders burning facts to make a "perfect smoky eye" at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, the Media Research Center did its best to make it about Sanders' looks: Scott Whitlock, for instance, asserted that Wolf "Wolf made jokes at the expense of Sarah Sanders's looks," and "made jokes many saw as attacks on the physical appearance of Sarah Huckabee Sanders," and P.J. Gladnick declared that it "sure sounds like a slam on her appearance."
OK, so attacks on the looks of the people you're attacking are out of bounds. So how does the MRC explain this May 27 tweet from its NewsBusters Twtter account which unambiguously mocks commentator Mark Shields as having "JOWLS A FLAPPING!"?
Must be nice to never have to live up to the standards you demand others follow.
While the hardcover edition of the highly acclaimed “The Gospel in Every Book of the Old Testament” won’t release to bookstores nationwide until September, due to high demand and anticipation for Joseph Farah’s “breakthrough Bible book,” WND Books is making the digital e-book version available immediately in the WND Superstore and at Amazon.
The one-of-a-kind book has already attracted large advance orders from both Christian ministries and bookstore chains has been “adopted” by missions organization Gospel for All Nations, which is accepting tax-deductible contributions and grants to support the large first printing of an expected 100,000 copies.
The decision to release the e-book months before the hardcover is also an effort to generate the funds necessary for the large first printing necessary to meet unprecedented demand – the largest in WND Books’ 20-year history.
The claim that the digital release is intended to help fund the physical release -- and coming months before the planned physical release as well -- tells us that the fundraising campaign isn't going well.
Again, what WND doesn't say is more important than what it does. Where's the proof of these massive "advance orders" for the book? If those orders are so solid, why can't WND simply get a bank loan to finance the publishing? And why the scare quotes around "adopted"? Why not just tell readers the nature of the deal with Gospel for All Nations that lets WND take tax-deductible donations?
Meanwhile, the digital campaign doesn't seem to be going well. As of this writing, Farah's book is ranked No. 31,087 at Amazon's Kindle Store, and No. 5,863 in the "Religion & Spirituality" section. Even in one highly specialized category, it's ranked only 14th. That seems to contradict the idea of "unprecedented demand" for the book that Farah and WND claim exists.
Most of the article, meanwhile, is taken up with blurbs from Farah's fellow right-wing Christians touting the book -- which are little more than logrolling and not indicative of the book's quality or value.
CNS Managing Editor Freaks Out After Pope Refuses To Hate A Gay Man Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman thinks he's more Catholic than the pope. But he's also a raging homophobe, so he loves it when right-wing Catholic clerics hate gays as much as he does. So when Pope Francis reportedly refused to condemn a gay man, Chapman was on it.
Juan Carlos Cruz, who as a boy was sexually abused by the Chilean priest -- abuse that reportedly was covered up by the bishops of Chile -- said that in a recent meeting with Pope Francis, the Holy Father told him that God made made him gay and "loves you like this." The Pope apparently did not say that Cruz should seek to avoid homosexual behavior, which is "intrinsically disordered" and a serious sin, according to the 2,000-year-old teaching of the Catholic Church.
The Church also teaches that sodomy -- homosexual behavior, not the inclination -- is one of the four sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance.
Apparently, the Pope did not advise Cruz to try to avoid homosexual behavior and seek therapy that could help him to live a celibate life or be healed from his affliction.
The next day, Chapman complained that "several LGBT activists have praised the pontiff" for his reported remarks, huffing that "The Catholic Church does not teach that God made certain people homosexual." He also quoted a right-wing cardinal ranting that homosexuality "defiles everything, stains everything, pollutes everything. And as for itself, it permits nothing pure, nothing clean, nothing other than filth.…"
On May 23, Chapman had another follow-up quoting Cardinal Timothy Dolan calling for a "clarification" of what the pope said, adding that he does not think the Pope "would feel competent to speak" on whether one is born a homosexual. Chapman wrote that "It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that persons with same-sex attractions must be treated with the same dignity and respect accorded to all people" -- then quoted St. Bernardine of Siena calling homosexuality a sin that "has always been detested by all those who live according to God" that reduces people to "vile and useless and putrid things." He then quoted another saint calling sodomy "disgustingly foul."
Chapman didn't explain how these statements mesh with that whole "dignity and respect" thing.
WND's Cashill Finally Sours On One Of His Favorite Rogues Topic: WorldNetDaily
Back in April, WorldNetDaily columnist and rogue-lover Jack Cashill rushed to the defense of Republican Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens after he was accused of blackmailing his mistress with a compromising photo. Now that he has resigned, Cashill is finally starting to change his tune.
In his May 30 column, Cashill dismissed Greitens because he "took too long" to convert to conservatism, calling it "too convenient, too shallow" and huffing, "He either had not enough brains or too much ambition or, as history proved, both." He then lamented that "conservatives are held to a different set of standards than are liberals – by the media, of course, but also by their fellow conservatives."
Cashill then attacked the prosecutor in the blackmail-related case, calling her "stunningly inept" and guilty of "any number of irregularities." Those charges were ultimately dropped, but then Cashill cited the thing that ultimately forced Greitens to resign: the possible release of donors to a dark-money group that helped him get elected. Cashill concluded by lamenting once more about the supposedly "much tougher set of rules" Republicans must follow.
Cashill really needs to research his rogues a little closer before he rushes to defend them.
MRC Backs Away From Bogus Claim Federal Money To Planned Parenthood Pays For Abortion Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Katie Yoder has been among the mostegregious offenders in pushing the never-proven anti-abortion canard that federal funding to Planned Parenthood pays for abortion because money is "fungible" -- never mind that the money is specifically earmarked for other purposes and is prohibited by law from paying for abortion. Now it seems Yoder is edging away from her falsehood.
The Hyde Amendment generally bars federal funding (aka taxpayer funding) for abortion, but pro-life politicians note that money is fungible. The argument that Planned Parenthood could offset costs with public funds to free up other resources for abortion, is a point made by pro-life groups.
Yoder has ceased presenting the "fungible" claim as a fact, just something promoted by "pro-life" groups and politicians. That tells us she knows the argument is bogus.
Of course, since Yoder sympathizes with the anti-abortion activists, she'll never come right out and admit the talking point is false -- that wouldn't look good for her side. But, hey, it's a baby step toward honesty.
Jesse Lee Peterson's Incoherent Attack On His Fellow Blacks Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jesse Lee Peterson has always taken a dim view of his fellow African-Americans for failing to mindlessly follow the far-right, pro-Trump orthodoxy to which he is in thrall, and he basically attacks any black person who disagrees with him as no better than ghetto thugs or some other vague brand of "evil" (witness his years of Obama derangement).
Peterson's May 27 WorldNetDaily column was ostensibly about a Baltimore police officer killed by "a 16-year-old black male with an extensive criminal past," but it quickly degenerated into an attack on all blacks who aren't like him, and then to Democrats, and he eventually ended up here:
What do Chicago and Baltimore have in common? Both are run by liberal Democrats and are suffering from Obama-era policies that coddle criminals and prevent law enforcement from being proactive in their policing.
Blacks have been allowed to go out of control so they can be used by Democrats for political gain. They don’t want blacks to be moral, law-abiding people, because a moral people cannot be controlled.
Blacks must assume responsibility and stop blaming police for enforcing the law. These thugs who attack police don’t value life. Anyone who makes excuses and defends these criminals is part of the problem.
How funny that he thinks blacks have so little agency that he belives Democrats have "allowed" them to "go out of control" -- and then in the next breath demand that they "assume responsibility." It's an incoherent message, but it keeps him on the WND payroll.
CNS Spreads A Lie -- And MRC's Bozell Signs Off On It Topic: CNSNews.com
A May 29 CNSNews.com article by Melanie Arter touted a letter by "a coalition of pro-life leaders" objecting to Starbucks donating to Planned Parenthood. As per usual for this stenographer, there's no fact-checking of things like this from the letter as quoted in her article:
Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger once said, ‘We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,’” the pro-life leaders noted in their letter.
In your April statement responding to the arrest of two African-American men sitting in one of your stores, you declared that Starbucks’ ‘founding values are based on humanity and inclusion.’
As men and women who fight for the value and dignity of every human life, we ask:
“Where is the ‘humanity’ and ‘inclusion’ when your company matches employees’ donations to Planned Parenthood, whose founder Margaret Sanger was an outspoken racist with genocidal intentions?
King is lying. As we've documented, experts on Sanger know that while she was a eugenicist, she was not a racist, let alone one with "genocidal intentions." Further, the "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population" quote is taken out of context, as many anti-abortion activists love to do; fact-checkers have demonstrated that the full context of the letter from which that quote was ripped -- describing Sanger's "Negro Project" to make birth control available to blacks -- sought to recruit black leaders for the effort to allay suspicions blacks might have had about whites like Sanger being involved.
Arter may have extra motivation to stay in stenography mode: One of the signatories to the letter is Brent Bozell, described only as chairman of ForAmerica (Arter misidentifies Bozell as ForAmerica president; that would be his son, David Bozell, also a signatory to the letter) and never identified as the head of the Media Research Center, where he is Arter's boss. Don't want to make the boss look bad by pointing out he signed on to a lie.
(Hey, at least Arter managed to refrain from giving King that bogus "Dr." honorific, so that's a slight step toward honest journalism. If only CNS paid her to do that instead of lazy stenography.)
WND Portrays Roseanne Barr As A Victim; Peterson Says Jarrett Really Does Look Like An Ape Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is arguing that the real victim of Roseanne Barr's racist tweet about Valerie Jarrett is ... Roseanne Barr.
An anonymously written May 29 WND article on the post-tweet aftermath stated only that Barr "tweeted an insult of Valerie Jarrett, Barack Obama’s confidante. The bulk of the article, though, was devoted to "public shaming" of people who commit offensive behavior, with particular focus onone writer's lament about lives being ruined by "mass social justice"and a dismissal of a New York lawyer's tirade against two women who were speaking Spanish as merely "politically incorrect."
Then, WND's columnists felt the need to weigh in. Barbara Simpson approved of Barr's insult: "I thought it was funny in a twisted, insulting way. And I still do. It’s awful and insulting and in bad taste, but it is morbidly funny."
Simpson then rushed to blame everyone else but Barr -- the president of ABC Entertainment for being "the first black entertainment chief of a major broadcast network" ("That wouldn’t be a politically correct question to ask – but it is out there") and Ambien, a defense Barr offered that Simpson readily embraced. "Given the acknowledged side effects of Ambien, it is entirely possible that Roseanne Barr could have done those tweets while under the influence of the drug and not have any recollection of it," she wrote, adding, "Despite the reality of Ambien, Roseanne was cut no slack."
Simpson concluded: "I would submit If Roseanne Barr is guilty of anything, it’s stupidity. She’s had a career of insulting all kinds of groups, from political to religious to racial. And so far, she has gotten away with it because it’s done under the banner of comedy."
Then, Jesse Lee Peterson weighed in, defending Barr because she -- yes, he said this -- really does look like an ape. Then he descended straight into Obama derangement:
Why such strong, sudden moves by elitist media giant ABC? Roseanne put out a funny tweet discussing a Wikileaks report about the corrupt Obama administration. Valerie Jarrett’s name came up – a wicked woman who was Barack Obama’s senior advisor. Roseanne wrote on Twitter in the early morning hours Tuesday: “muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj” – meaning Valerie Jarrett.
Many people, including Roseanne apparently, didn’t know that Valerie Jarrett is mixed-race “black.” People do know Jarrett wears short, straight hair not unlike a “Planet of the Apes” movie character. Many also know Jarrett was born in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The “Fallen Messiah” Barack Obama and his allies oppressed and marginalized Christians, but supported and covered for Muslims any time Jihadists committed terror attacks.
Peterson's rant continued:
This is an unjust and un-American public lynching of Roseanne Barr, meant to shut white people up and put fear in them. The media made sure everybody called her funny tweet “racist,” overreacting and emotionalizing the situation to make it seem so important and “abhorrent.” Even normally down-to-earth conservatives called her tweet “racist.” Logically, her tweet was either fair or inappropriate – but it was not “racist,” and she had a right to say it. Shamefully, Roseanne apologized repeatedly and profusely. Stop apologizing to the children of the lie!
They don’t care when President Trump is called an “orangutan,” or when black conservatives are called monkeys. It is acceptable to hate whites and Trump supporters. It’s a double standard. They falsely labeled Republicans “Nazis” and the Tea Party “racists” and “terrorists.” The word “racist” is more dehumanizing and destructive to whites than the so-called “N-word” is to blacks. The only solution is for whites to drop their fear.
The left seeks to regain power through intimidation of white people, the people who most support truth and freedom in America.
Peterson concluded by once again calling President Trump "the Great White Hope" (still apparently oblivious to its racist origin) who "tells the truth" (yeah, not so much).
NewsBusters Blogger Oblivious To Fact His Fellow Bloggers Root For NY Times' Demise Topic: NewsBusters
Randy Hall complains in a May 26 NewsBusters post that "wildly liberal" New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio said he "will not shed a tear" if the conservataive New York Post goes out of business. Hall added: "It’s always refreshing when liberals join conservatives in having an adversarial relationship with those in the press. Of course, the Democrats often hope their enemies go under while Republicans don’t take such a hostile view of their adversaries."
First: As we've noted, if the Post were subject to the normal laws of supply and demand, the Post would have gone out of business years ago. It has lost money for decades and stays in business only becasuse its owner, Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. (also owner of Fox News) wants a New York newspaper presence.
Second: Hall has apparently not been reading the website that publishes him. The MRC enjoys rooting for media outlets it doesn't like to go out of business. For example, here's how it cheers for the failure of that other NYC paper, the New York Times:
In 2008, Tom Blumer gloated over the low stock price of what he mockingly called "Manhattan's quaint little alternative paper" and insisting that the market thought the paper to be "worse than worthless." Blumer declared that "There's a steep price to pay for insufferable bias, and NYT's shareholders are paying it" and that "The market is telling the company's shareholders that they'd be better off hanging on to the Red Sox and their interest in the headquarters building -- and shuttering or selling off whatever they can of everything else."
In 2009, Blumer further chortled over the New York Times Co.'s suspension of its quarterly dividend, sneering: "Perhaps we have arrived at the point many predicted would come to pass: The 'venerable' New York Times may no longer be the national newspaper of record."
That same year, Stephen Gutowski highlighted a right-wing blogger writing that "it's possible to take some" joy over the Times' financial problems and seemed giddy at the adea that "analysts give [the Times] less than a year to survive."
And Noel Sheppard was even more giddy at the idea of "the end of his paper being one of the leading proponents of socialism in a capitalist democracy. One can dream, right?"
Of course, the Times survived that financial crisis and is now a money-maker, remained influential, and its stock is doing fine -- much to the chagrin of NewsBusters and its Media Research Center parent. Perhaps Hall should be a little more attentive.
NEW ARTICLE: WND's Bitcoin Bubble Topic: WorldNetDaily
How desperate is WorldNetDaily to stay alive? It's now trying to save itself by giving away a dubious cryptocurrency variant to donors. Read more >>
CNS Still Perpetuates Misinformation About Planned Parenthood Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com has spent a decade perpetuating the lie that federal funding to Planned Parenthood pays for abortions. The Trump administration's decision to cut off Title X funding to facilities that perform abortions gave CNS a new opportunity to publish that misinformation once again.
In her article on the decision, CNS' Melanie Arter lies by juxtaposition: "In its latest annual report, Planned Parenthood said that it did 321,384 abortions in fiscal 2016 and that in the year that ended on June 30, 2017 it received $543,700,000 in "government health services reimbursements and grants." In fact, since federal funding is already prohibited from paying for abortion, there is no connection whatsoever between those two numbers, despite what Arter implies.
Arter also gives a pass to false statements she quotes from anti-abortion groups applauding the decision:
"Americans should not be forced to have their tax dollars fund abortion" -- Knights of Columbus.
"Americans don't want their hard-earned tax dollars paying for abortions, a fact polling consistently confirms" -- Ashley McGuire of the Catholic Association.
"Americans are well aware that the $50-60 million pouring into Planned Parenthood annually through Title X grants are subsidizing its main business, abortion" -- Grazie Pozo Christie of the Catholic Association.
"Planned Parenthood’s smoke and mirror accounting has been allowed to divert the 50-60 million dollars it receives yearly in taxpayer funds away from authentic healthcare for low income women for far too long" -- Andrea Picotti-Bayer, legal adviser for the Catholic Association Foundation.
But why would Arter correct them when, as we've seen, she has no interest reporting factually when the facts confict with her employer's right-wing agenda?
The nuclear explosions were seen as nothing less than the “flash from heaven” that said to every single Japanese: “You are hereby released from your duty to die for the emperor. You are released from that pledge because this is not just a new weapon. It is a new kind of weapon and one that changes the rules for all time.”
And Donald Trump is a new kind of person.
We’re familiar with the concept of a “prodigy.” Mozart was a musical prodigy. Bobby Fisher was a chess prodigy. Van Cliburn was a piano prodigy. And Donald Trump is a political prodigy. He’s admittedly no moral prodigy. Nor is he a “people person” in the Dale Carnegie mode. ;He is, however, most definitely a political prodigy! I feel awful watching Sen. Schumer stand there and try to best or even equal a Trump barrage. It’s cruel. High-school football teams play other high school teams. They don’t sacrifice themselves to the pros!
It’s absurd to let yourself get morose at all the unkind algebra here. Trump is to ordinary politicians what the atom bomb is to ordinary weapons. That’s why boxers and wrestlers fight in their own weight class. You can get hurt going up against an opponent who has muscles where you have just thin air. If you doubt you are “outweighed” by President Trump, just reflect for a moment on all Trump had to overcome to become the Republican nominee for president, and how much he’s accomplished despite all the destructive distractions arrayed against him by those who suppose they can bring him down through conventional means.
Republicans and Democrats alike have thrown everything at President Trump but the proverbial kitchen sink. And yet, like “Old Glory,” i.e., the American flag, flying proudly over Fort McHenry as it withstood the relentless assault of enemies committed to robbing American citizens of their freedom and subjugating us to bow before the Throne of England, President Trump soldiers on.
I cannot help but equate the enormous sense of pride I have for the flag with the leadership of President Trump, considering the viciousness of the assault he has championed through.
President Trump, like that historic dawn during the War of 1812, which witnessed “Old Glory” waving proudly amidst the “rockets’ red glare, bombs bursting in air,” gives us proof that the long night of shame and misery Americans suffered under the past administrations has given way to the dawn of a bold new day.
Wave after wave of their delusional madness has been fired at President Trump, yet he stands tall. We the People are blessed with each breaking dawn, knowing that he brings continued victory and a commitment to lead America and her people to a place of truth, prosperity and security.
When The MRC Loved Roseanne Topic: Media Research Center
Roseanne Barr's tweeted remarks about Valerie Jarrett were so unambiguously racist that even the Media Research Center couldn't defend them. All it could do was go straight to whataboutism -- for instance, this post by Corinne Weaver headlined "Nets Link Roseanne to Trump 31 Times, Ignore Weinstein’s Ties to Clinton, Obama."
This post by Gabriel Hays further typifies the MRC's whataboutism:
Good for ABC. What Barr tweeted was vile, and the network has every right to give her the axe. Still, it’s hard to be consistent with ABC’s values because they appear to be situational. There is no shortage of people at ABC and its sister network ESPN that have said or tweeted hateful, bigoted things. Could it be that this is another example of the heinous double standard against conservatives that the mainstream media has become famous for?
What Roseanne said was horrible. Canning her show is justified. But the evidence suggests ABC has different standards of decency depending on one’s politics. Rosanne is a Trump supporter (though not a conservative), and her show was the only one on TV that didn’t go out of its way to insult Trump and his voters. Progressives hated the idea that Roseanne could exist on mainstream television. She handed them an excuse to tear it down. Fine. But ABC talking about consistent values is funnier than anything Rosanne ever said.
The MRC would probably like to forget that it was a champion of the newly Trump-loving Roseanne. But we won't. Let's take a look back, shall we?
A March post by Kyle Drennen touted the "huge ratings" of the "Roseanne" revival, claiming that network executives have "suddenly discovered the value of shows set in red states with pro-Trump characters," then sneering: "If there’s a chance to make money, the liberal media become quite eager to hear from red state America."
Jeffrey Lord gushed that "Roseanne's" success illustrated the "mammoth battle - some might even call it a war - between the elites Rush [Limbaugh] has correctly described and the rest of us."
Karen Townsend cheered an episode of the reboot in which Roseanne's new neighbors are Muslims, relieved that the show "wasn’t all so heavy-handed that Americans should feel guilty for feeling cautious around strangers from countries in the Middle East." Yes, Roseanne made Townsend feel secure in her dubious fear of Muslims.
Nevertheless, the MRC couldn't stop deflecting. A column by Tim Graham and Brent Bozell blamed ABC for bringing back the show because "Barr has always been a loose cannon, and her politics have zigzagged from running on the presidential ticket of the nutty-left Green Party all the way over to backing Trump." They then resorted to more whataboutism.