MRC Censored News of Tucker Carlson's Racist Writer -- Even As It Wrote About Carlson Topic: Media Research Center
Last week, the head writer for Tucker Carlson's Fox News show, Blake Neff, was caught making years of racist, homophobic and misogynist posts under a pseudonym on a message board -- not to mention test-driving white nationalist memes that would later appear in sanitized form on Carlson's show. He quickly resigned followed by Carlson pretending to be horrified by Neff's comments, attacking the people who exposed Neff, and quickly exiting to take a "long-planned" vacation for the rest of the week.
You didn't read about any of this at the the Media Research Center's main outlet, NewsBusters -- even while it was touting other things Carson did at the same time.
In a July 11 post -- the day after Neff's offensive writings and subsequent resigation came to light -- Ryan Foley touted how "Tucker Carlson had it right when he described CNN anchors, including Lemon, as 'compliant' people who 'say what they’re told,' 'tell the audience what the moment demands,' and 'never stray from the script.'" Foley didn't note whether Carlson was reading from Neff's script when he said that.
On July 13, Krstine Marsh complained that "the media has renewed their efforts to force high-rating Fox News Channel host Tucker Carlson off the air," grumbing further that hosts on "The View" had "claimed he was a homophobic racist who sends “dog whistles” to Fox News viewers with his commentary." She too made no mention of Neff's exposure and resignation three days earlier.
The same day, Nicholas Fondacaro wrote about how Carlson had as a guest "St. Louis lawyer and home defender Mark McCloskey" and how "Carlson also wanted to look at how the media were abusing them," gushing over how Carlson "astutely" handled the segment.He didn't mention that on that very same show, Carlson addressed the issue of his racist writer and announced his hasty "long-planned" vacation.
We heard nothing at all from Gabriel Hays, who spent last month mocking late-night host Jimmy Kimmel for leaving on a summer vacation after old blackface skits he did resurfaced. You'd think Carlson's disappearing act would be ripe for mocking, especially since abrupt vacations after disturbing revelations are a Fox News staple.
It wasn't until July 14 -- four days afater Neff was exposed and resigned -- until the MRC referenced the controversy ... in a way favorable as possible to Carlson, of course. Marsh portrayed Carlson as a victim of a "left-wing effort to get him taken off the air" and complained that the hosts of "The View" did what her co-worker did to Kimmel a few weeks earlier:
For the second day in a row, The Viewhas gone after Fox News primetime host Tucker Carlson, aiding the left-wing effort to get him taken off the air. Only host Meghan McCain blasted the “cancel culture,” anti-free speech power trip the left is currently engaging in. But her co-hosts vehemently disagreed with her, proudly calling their intolerance for conservatives actually “accountability,” not “canceling.”
After Tucker Carlson addressed his head writer, Blake Neff, resigning after posting offensive comments under a pseudonym online, Carlson announced he would be taking a “long-planned” vacation the rest of the week. The liberal Viewhosts pounced on that announcement, saying his response about the show’s former writer wasn’t enough, before floating conspiracies that this “vacation” was Carlson escaping scrutiny:
Marsh didn't menion that her co-worker Hays was, by the same definition, pursuing a "conspiracy" against Kimmel, nor did she acknowledge that Fox News hosts have a history of abruptly departing for "vacation" in the midst of a controversy.
marsh further complained that co-host Whoopi Goldberg "repeatedly suggested, without evidence, that Carlson was a racist so he should be punished." It's as if Marsh has never watched Carlson's show. From there, it was straight to whataboutism: "Funny how it’s just conservatives who are held 'accountable' while nothing happens to left-wing hosts like Joy Reid for similar situations. [Meghan] McCain actually brought that up, and Whoopi promptly cut her off to go to commercial break."
At no point did Marsh explain the "offensive" remarks that Neff made, nor did she express any criticism of them.
The MRC's effective silence on Carlson and Neff tells us how sympatico they actually are with Carlson's white nationalist-friendly agenda.
NEW ARTICLE: WND's 'Real News' Failure Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily managing editor David Kupelian is no Joseph Farah, so his insistence that WND cares about the "truth" rings even more hollow. Has he forgotten that WND has a 20-plus-year track record of spreading misinformation and lies? Read more >>
CNS Still Giving Alveda King Bogus 'Dr.' Title Topic: CNSNews.com
Foryears, CNSNews.com has insisted on gracing anti-abortion activist Alveda King with the "Dr." honorific even though her "doctorate" is an honorary one and not earned. It just can't seem to stop:
A June 5 article by Melanie Arter stated that "Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece, Dr. Alveda King, said Friday that the protests in honor of George Floyd, who was killed by police last month during an arrest in Minnesota, have “nothing really to do with skin color” as evidenced, she said, by the arrests of African-American police officers in Atlanta who were charged with using excessive force against two college students."
On June 16, Arter wrote that "Dr. Alveda King, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece, told “Fox and Friends” on Monday that the police are looking at black people as perpetrators, not people 'a lot of times.'"
A June 18 article by managing editor Michael W. Chapman stated: "Dr. Alveda King, niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., said several years ago that neither her grandfather nor her uncle 'embraced the homosexual agenda.'" for King's quote, Chapman linked to an article by the Catholic News Agency, which also called her "Dr."
Arter returned on June 19 to write that "Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece, Dr. Alveda King, told Fox Business’s 'Mornings With Maria Bartiromo' on Friday that it’s a dream come true for her to see Juneteenth acknowledged more broadly, but she hopes there’s a Juneteenth for the unborn."
If CNS wants to be taken seriously as a news organization and not just an amplifier of pro-Trump and right-wing talking points, it needs to act accordingly. Gracing someone with a title they didn't earn because you like their politics doesn't cut it.
ConWeb Cash: MRC, Newsmax Take Federal Coronavirus Relief Money Topic: Media Research Center
Conservatives profess to hate it when the federal government runs up deficits. But they -- and the ConWeb in particular -- apparently have no problem accepting money from the federal government when it suits them. According to Small Business Administration loan data, both the Media Research Center and Newsmax have taken money from the Paycheck Protection Program, set up to help small businesses through the coronavirus pandemic with potentially forgivable loans.
The MRC received between $1 million and $2 million, while Newsmax Media received bwtween $2 million and $5 million; both amounts were approved on April 13. As near as we can tell, neither the MRC nor Newsmax have disclosed this information to their readers. By contrast, one MRC NewsBusters post and an article at the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, attacked Planned Parenthood for accepting PPP money while not disclosing that the MRC has taken the money.
Even more curious, though, is how the MRC described itself in its PPP application, stating that it's in the industry of "Marketing Research and Public Opinion Polling." That's a far cry from the MRC's usual description of itself as "a research and education organization operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code" where "contributions are tax-deductible to the maximum extent of the law." It also apparently failed to identify itself as a nonprofit in the application; that is left blank, according to the loan database.
That sounds like a conflict of stated mission. Why does an organization that represents itself to federal officials as a "marketing research and public opinion polling" group need nonprofit status? The MRC might want to explain that one.
(Newsmax Media represented itself as being involved with "Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals," which is what it does.)
Looks like the MRC has some explaining to do -- not just to its readers about why it violated conservative principles in accepting federal money, but also to federal officials regarding what kind of operation it's really running. The fact that it's operating as a de facto arm of the Trump re-election campaign is not helping that case right now.
WND Touts Anti-Abortion Angle In Coronavirus Vaccine Fearmongering Topic: WorldNetDaily
Fearmongering about a possible coronavirus vaccine is very on-brand for WorldNetDaily. Now it's trying to mix an anti-abortion argument into the fearmongering. An anonymously written June 22 WND article states:
As the Trump administration expresses optimism about the development of a vaccine for the coronvirus, a religious-liberty group is warning that the top vaccines under development are made with "aborted baby cell lines."
The vaccines are not from aborted fetuses but from aborted baby cell lines used by researchers, says Liberty Counsel, which is running a campaign urging members of Congress and governors to oppose a government plan to force vaccinations.
"As an American citizen who loves my country, my Constitution and my right to refuse forced vaccinations, I urge you to end all consideration of mandatory vaccinations," Liberty Counsel says.
Strangely, neither the WND article or the Liberty Counsel report the article is based on offer any proof that this is the case; Liberty Counsel cited only "reports." Nevertheless, WND uncriticallyreported how "Liberty Counsel Chairman Mat Staver is concerned that the top five vaccine research companies are 'using aborted baby cell lines to fuel their research and build their vaccines.'"WND also gave to Liberty Counsel to foward a conspiracy about drugmakers wanting a vaccine to make money:
The Liberty Counsel campaign points out vaccinations are big money for pharmaceutical companies.
Liberty Counsel said vaccines developed using aborted baby cells are easier to research and therefore cheaper to develop, increasing profitability for the pharmaceutical companies and their investors.
"And what better opportunity to make those profits skyrocket than to demand mass vaccination of the entire population … even though COVID-19 is now known to have just a 0.26% death rate, roughly the same as the average annual flu," the group said.
"It is absolutely imperative that we stop this push for mandatory vaccinations before it goes any further. Religious exemptions for vaccinations MUST stand. ALL people must be free to decide for themselves whether to take a vaccine – without the heavy pushing of multi-billion-dollar profiteers abusing our political system to remove those choices."
In fact, that 0.26 percent number -- which came from a report by the Centers for Disease Control, comes from a range of estimates and is subject to change, and the actual death rate is in all likelihood higher.Also, coronavirus is much worse than the flu.
MRC Acts As Trump Campaign Surrogates In Attacking Coverage of Trump's Tulsa Rally Topic: Media Research Center
As a de facto operation of President Trump's re-election campaign, the Media Research Center does not tolerate any criticism of Trump in the media, even when it's for things that warrant criticism -- such as his decision to hold a campaign rally at an indoor arena in Tulsa, Okla., in the middle of a pandemic.
In a Jnue 18 post, Bill D'Agostino played whataboutism:
The news media are up in arms about President Trump’s planned rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, arguing it would be “ extraordinarily dangerous” to hold a large gathering in the midst of a pandemic. However, some of us are old enough to remember when the same outlets were celebrating the Black Lives Matter protests, arguing that they were necessary and worth the risk.
As others have noted, the Black Lives Matter protests are outdoors, where there's less risk of transmission that in the tightly packed indoor arena Trump was hoping for. Further, the BLM protests tend to be loosely organized at best and calling it off for health reasons could be difficult, whereas one person -- Trump -- had the say-so over whether the Tulsa rally took place.
The MRC, however, is so invested in that bogus talking point that Kristine Marsh spent a post whining about "the media’s obsessive harping about the rally being 'unsafe'" and Scott Whitlock declared that CBS anchor Tony Dokoupil was "smug" and "sanctimonious" about pointing out the difference: "Dokoupil replied with this nonsensical retort: 'Protests are outdoor events and they're not organized by something like a major political party or the President of the United States.' Well, as long as protests aren’t officially organized or supported by the President, COVID threats can be ignored?"
Ryan Foley tried to play gotcha with the MRC's least favorite CNN reporter in a June 20 post:
Delivering a report from the White House on Friday’s edition of The Situation Room, CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta scolded White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany for saying that she would not be wearing a mask at President Trump’s campaign rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Ironically, as Acosta criticized McEnany, who described the decision to wear a mask as a “personal choice,” the CNN reporter apparently made the same “personal choice,” as he was not wearing a mask.
Foley seems not to have noticed the difference between standing in front of a camera in Washington, D.C., and being a large political rally in a state where coronavirus cases are on the rise.
As for the rally itself, the MRC did its pro-Trump duty and managed to be outraged both by non-Fox channels not giving Trump a free campaign ad by failing to air the rally live in its entirety, and by the same channels pointing out that rally attendance was very low:
Scott Whitlock complained that an "unhinged" CNN "didn't plan to show the event. Instead, reporters spent two hours gloating over a lower crowd size and questioning Trump’s fitness to serve."
Nicholas Fondacaro whined that ABC was "mocking" how the rally wasn't full and "acted more as an opposition press that was gleefully pouncing on an embarrassing moment." (Isn't gleefully pouncing on embarrassing moments one big reason why the MRC exists?)
Whitlock cranked out a so-called "study" headlined: "During Live Coverage, CNN, MSNBC Censor 97 Percent of Trump’s Rally." Randy Hall, meanwhile, spun: "While many outlets in the 'mainstream media' slammed the Donald Trump rally held Saturday evening in Tulsa, Okla., as attracting fewer people than usual for President Trump’s events, the Fox News Channel set a record of 7.7 million viewers that night."
Duncan Schroeder groused that CNN "taunted President Trump for appearing “defeated” in a video of him after his rally," further mind-reading, "Clearly CNN wanted to make sure viewers associated Trump with "defeat" by repeatedly using the phrasing."
The MRC even found a way to blame China for the low rally attendance after it was revealed that users on TikTok, a social media short-video platform owned by a Chinese company, apparently organized to flood the Trump campaign with requests for tickets to the rally that they had no intention of attending. Fondacaro huffed:
It wasn’t long ago that CNN media reporter Brian Stelter was decrying social media platforms like Facebook who weren’t going full bore against President Trump. But during Sunday’s so-called “ Reliable Sources,” Stelter found a social media platform he loved: the China-owned video platform TikTok. According to Stelter, one TikTok user’s plan to “sabotage” or “prank” the Trump campaign by bombarding their website with fake requests to attend Saturday’s rally was something to marvel.
Alexander Hall similarly whined: "The news media have spent four years screaming about allegations that Russians hacked the 2016 election. Fast forward to 2020 and people are now using the Chinese app TikTok to sabotage President Donald Trump’s election rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma."
Brad Wilmouth, meanwhile, took offense to comparisons of Trump's speech -- coming 99 years after a horrific race riot in Tulsa in which dozens of blacks were killed, as well as having to be rescheduled to avoid conflicting with Juneteenth observances -- with Ronald Reagan's speech in Mississippi during his 1980 campaign that allegedly was "an effort to appeal to Southern white racism." As hehas before, Wilmouth defended Reagan's speech, insisting the county fair he spoke at (the same county were three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964) "was the best place to get exposure to voters from all over Mississippi at a time when the state was more politically competitive" and insisted that "Reagan's use of the term "states' rights" was not a phrase he only uttered near Southern whites when, in fact, he had a documented history of sometimes using the expression in other venues that would have reached plenty of non-Southerners as well."
CNS, MRC Mourn Death of Charlie Daniels Topic: CNSNews.com
Charlie Daniels, CNSNews.com columnist and close personal friend of Brent Bozell -- and, thus, someone the MRC never told to shut up and sing -- died last week.
In a brief death notice recounting a 2017 interview he did with Daniels, CNS editor in chief Terry Jeffrey proclaimed him "great" and recounted an anecdote. A full obit by intern Bailey Duran called Daniels a "patriot" twice in the first two paragraphs -- but it didn't disclose that he was a conservative or that CNS published his column.
Jeffrey devoted his July 8 column to Daniels, gushing that he "was a great musician, a great man and a great example of what makes this nation great," adding: "He should be remembered not only for his contributions to popular music but also as a role model for the American dream." In neither of his articles did Jeffrey disclose that Daniels was a conservative and a CNS columnist.
over at CNS' parent, the Media Research Center, an anonymous post touted how in 2016, "MRC founder and president Brent Bozell presented Charlie with the tenth annual William F. Buckley Jr. Award for Media Excellence for his passionate writing and advocacy." Unlike anyone at CNS, this post did disclose that Daniels wrote at CNS.
And in what appears to have been his final public appearance, he appeared in the MRC's pro-Trump ad disguised as a conservatrive response to "the mob" featuring more of Bozell's fellow travelers purporting to "stand up to those who would destroy our country’s heritage." The video was released a day after Daniels' death was announced.
MRC Plays New York Whataboutism To Defend Fla.'s GOP Gov Over Coronavirus Surge Topic: Media Research Center
A couple months back, when Florida had relatively low coronavirus infection and death rates, the Media Research Center was a huge fan of Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis. In a May 22 post, for instance, P.J. Gladnick proclaimed that DeSantis "took measures that resulted in a not only a flattening of the coronavirus cases curve but a general decline despite his state having a large elderly population" and touted how he "unleashed on the media for their absurdly unfair coverage as you can see."
In that same post, Gladnick attacked Rebekah Jones, who claimed she was fired as a Florida state employee for refusing to artifically lower coronavirus numbers on a state dashboard website, as "disgruntled" and "discredited" and someone who was "fired for poor performance." He cited a right-wing website parroting the DeSantis administration's claim that Jones was fired for "insubordination" and accusing her of having an "extensive criminal history."
The next day, Alex Christy similarly praised DeSantis, touting how "Florida's coronavirus numbers have done better than expected," then bashed CNN for having Jones on as a guest, echoing the DeSantis camp's assertion that her claims have been "debunked" and the personal attack on her by referencing "her open cyberstalking and cyber sexual harassment cases."
On May 25, Kristine Marsh groused: "It doesn’t seem that the media has learned anything after they completely mangled their predictions that red states like Florida and Georgia would see catastrophic consequences for opening up early. On MSNBC this afternoon, “conservative” analyst Rick Tyler was ready to make more hyperbolic predictions about red states getting “hit hard” by the coronavirus in coming months.
But that's exactly what happened in Florida -- the state is a burgeoning epicenter of coronavirus cases. (Don't expect Marsh to apologize; that's not what the MRC does.) The MRC has gone into defense mode for DeSantis. When a CNN host criticized DeSantis aand pointed out how Florida numbners are growing while New York numbers are decreasing, Duncan Schroeder used a June 25 post to throw some misleading numbers around:
This was a preposterous comparison, as New York has far more coronavirus deaths than Florida. New York has the most COVID deaths of any state at 30,934 deaths, while Florida has 3,172 deaths. Furthermore, New York has had over three times as many total cases as Florida, at 393,257 cases to 100,209 cases. Per a thousand people, New York has had 159 deaths, while Florida has only had 15.
[CNN analyst Juliette] Kayyem’s attack on DeSantis and Trump for wanting to reopen the economy is absurd. How dare they want people to be able to go out, support local businesses, work, and make a living! Would she rather the 46 million Americans who have lost their jobs due to coronavirus remain unemployed?
Michael Dellanno made basically the same argument on June 30:
On Saturday, MSNBC’s AM Joy, host Joy Reid created a platform dedicated to vicious attacks against Florida Governor, Ron DeSantis’s handling of coronavirus, as well as other GOP governors’ reopening approaches. The panelists maliciously went after the Florida governor, even going as far as giving him the nickname, ‘Governor Disastrous,’ all while completely giving a pass on Democratic governors mishandling of the pandemic. ... [N]o state should be compared to New York, not a single state will nearly be as bad as the Democrat run state of New York.
Schroeder attacked "good Democrat" Kayyem once again in a July 7 post for having "spouted venom at Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis,"talking down the entire threat of coronavirus to protect the governor:
If Kayyem wanted to provide actual data about a Republican run state, she could have mentioned that the death rate has declined nationally by 76% over the last 10 weeks. Or that over half the deaths in the majority of states are not related to children but are in nursing homes, which is .6 of America’s total population. She could have mentioned that the overall death rate from COVID is 0.26 percent and that the CDC says that school age children almost never die from COVID or even need to be hospitalized. Or that asymptomatic spread of the virus is very rare.
That fit of number-slinging would seem to make Schroeder a good Trump and DeSantis Republican.
Schroeder complained on July 11 that DeSantis was criticized again, huffing the commentators ignored "the fact that the majority of the leading states in cases and deaths are run by Democrats.
Adam Burnett joined in pushing the New York whataboutism angle in a July 13 post: "While it is true that Florida edges out other states for the most in the country, the death rate per 100k people pales in comparison to the media’s favorite state to praise for coronavirus handling, New York. Florida currently has 19.7 deaths per 100k, New York has 78.4 per 100k. But the media will never call out Democratic New York Governor Andrew Cuomo like they do Governor DeSantis, since reporters are so deep in the tank for the Democratic Party. "
Burnett also lectured: "It must be easy to be part of the left-wing media machine. Aside from writing or talking, all you have to do is cherry pick your information and then blast out a partisan narrative to your audience that exclusively aides [sic] Democrats." He didn't describe how easy it was to be a right-wing "media researcher" who cherry-picks information and then blasts out a partisan narrative to his audience.
CNS Promotes Right-Wing Narrative That Pelosi Is Frail And Senile Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com has been ramping up its biased, negative reporting on Nancy Pelosi in recent months, just in the for the election (remember its failed hit job on her over her statement that she had an "epiphany" about President Trump on Easter). Now it's trying to portray Pelosi as going senile or becoming physically frail.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) at her press briefing on Thursday forgot the name of Rep. Rodney Davis (R.-Ill.), who is the ranking member of the House Administration Committee.
“This, I think, we're moving, uh, we had bipartisan talks for a while,” Pelosi said. “There’d been some, again, everybody expressing opinions for a long while. Mr. Hoyer, Mr. McGovern, Ms. Lofgren, Chair of House Admin, Chair of Rules, Democratic Leader of the House with the Republican Leader of the House and the corresponding chairs, Mr. Cole and Mr. Um … Randy.”
When she said “Mr. Um … Randy,” she looked down and shuffled some papers on the podium in front of her.
Then she turned to someone to her right---who is not seen in the C-SPAN tape of the event.
“Randy something,” it sounds like she mumbles in that direction.
Then an unseen person (on the C-SPAN tape) sitting in front of the podium—where the reporters sit--said: “Davis.”
Pelosi turned in that direction and said: “Hmm?”
Then another person sitting in front of the podium said: “Davis.”
And the first voice that had said it repeated: “Davis.”
Then Pelosi said: “Davis, yeah.”
In fact, Rep. Rodney Davis (R.-lll.)—not Randy Davis--is the ranking member of the House Administration Committee. He has served in Congress since 2013.
Someone put in a lot of time transcribing this video and didn't get credit for it.
One CNS writer not afraid to put his name on his bias is Craig Bannister, who declared in a June 4 article:
House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) appeared to experience a ten-second mental lapse Thursday during an on-camera press conference.
Pelosi was reading from a letter she had sent to President Donald Trump earlier in the day expressing concerns about “the increased militarization” of law enforcement efforts in the Nation’s Capital amid the violent protests and riots ravaging the city.
Pelosi reads from the letter, looks away from it for a moment – then loses her train of thought and stutters, unable to collect her thoughts, until she refocuses on the letter:
Pelosi, who was born on March 26, 1940, is 80 years old.
That was followed on June 9 by another anonmyously written article:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) on Monday took a knee in the U.S. Capitol for 8 minutes and 46 seconds to honor George Floyd and others who “were abused by police brutality.”
But at the end of the kneeling session, as captured by CSPAN’s camera, she had trouble standing up.
She reached out to someone to help her and a woman standing nearby immediately came to her assistance—as did House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D.-Md.).
“It’s better not to have on high heels,” Pelosi said as she was helped to stand.
And on June 26, Bannister threw to its favorite right-wing radio host, Mark Levin, for another article accusing Pelosi of senility:
On Friday, House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (C-Calif.) appeared to forget what President Donald Trump and Republicans did that prompted her to accuse them of being complicit in the “murder” of Minnesotan George Floyd.
While explaining why she wouldn’t retract her claim, Pelosi first forgot what was in the Senate Republicans’ police reform bill that offended her – then, she couldn’t even recall what Trump did to draw her ire, saying, “Then, the president comes out with his – whatever it is, saying, uh, uh”…
“Time for Pelosi to join Biden in a padded room,” conservative commentator Mark Levin tweeted Friday, comparing Pelosi's lapse to those of former Vice President Joe Biden.
Bannister made sure to build his biased narrative by adding that "On June 4, Pelosi suffered an even longer on-camera mental lapse, CNSNews.com reported at the time."
Promoters Of Scammy Cybercurrency WND Gave Away To Donors Arrested Topic: WorldNetDaily
Remember when WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah spent severalmonths in 2018 trying to entice people into donating money to WND by throwing in some scammy-sounding ersatz bitcoin-style cybercurrency in which convicted felon (and WND author) Jack Abramoff was involved? Well, it has certainly lived up to its scamminess.
Last month, Marcus Andrade, founder of the NAC Foundation -- which issued the AML Bitcoin cybercurrency that WND gave away to donors -- was indicted on charges of fraud and money laundering, accused of raising money from investors by claiming the funds would be converted into AML Bitcointhat went elsewhere, as well as of falsely stating the extent of his relationships with governmental officials in Panama and California. Abramoff was indicted as well on similar charges.
The indictments had the fallout of costing Peter Ferrara -- a conservative writer with ties to the right-wing Heartland Institute -- his job as an instructor at King's College in New York City when it was revealed that Ferrara published an article in the similarly right-wing Investor's Business Daily touting AML Bitcoin while not disclosing that Abramoff had arranged compensation for him in apparent exchange for the mention.
The feds have also accused Abramoff of arranging payment to other conservative writers who advanced a narrative that NBC had refused to run a SuperBowl ad promoting the nascent cybercurrency -- a claim that was easily proven to be fake.
You will not be surprised to learn that WND hasn't told its readers about any of this, despite managing editor David Kupelian's laughable insistence that WND publishes the "truth." The last mention of the cryptocurrently at WND is an October 2018 column by Farah trying to sucker more donors: "It's possible that your contribution to WND will in the future pay for itself and then some. In fact, I'm counting on it!"
As of this writing, an AML Bitcoin is valued at 17 cents. So much for Farah's prediction.
Groupthink At MRC: If You Didn't Like Trump's Mt. Rushmore Speech, You Hate America Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Bill D'Agostino and Curtis Houck provided the only acceptable interpretation of Trump's pre-July 4 speech at Mount Rushmore: "On Friday night, President Trump began the Fourth of July weekend with a 42-minute speech celebrating American history, our Founding documents, and patriotism at Mount Rushmore." If you're a media outlet that didn't interpret Trump's speech the way D'Atostino and Houck demand, the MRC smeared you has an America-hater.
This is not an exaggeration. Houck lashed out this way at MSNBC -- in a post literally calling the network "America-hating" in the headline -- for failing to treat Trump's speech with pro-Trump rah-rah:
MSNBC debased itself Friday night with a vile display of hatred for America, the Constitution (except the freedom of the press), the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers, and positive celebrations of both where the country has been and where we hope to go."
Led by The Beat host Ari Melber, it was a despicable 103 minutes of venom for President Trump's speech at Mount Rushmore and filled with calls to go beyond Confederate statues and “cancel” the Founders from American history and convince people that not only was America never “great,” but its ideals of equality and freedom have always been “a myth.” Rather, America has been and continues to be one of “white supremacy.”
Houck's selective quoting -- which he strangely chose to emphasize with his random bolding -- tells us that he's probably not telling the truth but, rather, applying his own right-wing distortions to what was said.For instance: Houck's rant that somebody said that "not only was America never 'great,' but its ideals of equality and freedom have always been 'a myth'" appears to have come from a statement from analyst Yamiche Alcindor that "there’s really a myth of America that this idea that America treated people well, that they treated men and women equally, that --- that we founded this country just by our own wits, that that is actually a lie and we're seeing a celebration of America's independence on land that was stolen from Native Americans."
Houck never disputed the accuracy of what was said on MSNBC; he merely flew into a rage that it was said.
D'Agostino and Houck similarly ranted that "CNN and MSNBC chose to declare [the speech] 'a culture war bonfire,' 'a love letter to white supremacy,' 'divisive,' and laden with 'racist dog whistles.'" Again, they never dis prove those interpretations; they just descend into name-calling, describing the coverage as "farcical and yet hateful" as well as "drivel."
The closest they came was complaining: "As usual, talking heads were quick to suggest that Trump was defending Confederate monuments specifically -- despite his making no mention of either the former Confederacy or any of its members." The duo pretend there's no such thing as context, omitting the fact that Trump did, in fact, defend Confederate statues a few days before the speech. They also gloss over the fact that Trump "making no mention of either the former Confederacy or any of its members" also means they were not specifically excluded from his statue defense.
Houck even thinks you hate America if you don't give Trump an uninterrupted propaganda opportunity in an election year by choosing not to air a Friday night speech. He ranted that "CNN and MSNBC put on display their hatred for America by either completely ignoring or barely covering," specifically attacking MSNBC "host Ari Melber and his panel of America-trashing, far-left journalistic hacks." Rich Noyes served up a companion "flashback" post mining old claims that purport to describe "buckets of leftist media contempt for America’s Founders and ideals."
Tim Graham also pretended there was no context to interpreting Trump's speech in a July 5 post ranting against the Washington Post pointing out Trump's "racial animus": "If you read the actual speech, it’s not a racist speech. Trump quoted Martin Luther King and credited Lincoln for 'extinguishing the evil of slavery.'"
Houck gushed even further over Trump's speech in a July 6 post, giddy that he parroted the MRC's narrative by attacking the media:
A day after a stirring speech at Mount Rushmore, the liberal media reacted to by spewing hate, lies, and venom. President Donald Trump spoke Saturday night from the White House and called out them out for “falsely and consistently label[ing] their opponents as racists” and declared that their attacks on America as racist “slander” those who’ve fought and died for the country.
ABC, MSNBC The New York Times, and to name a few wildly distorted Trump’s Friday remarks, so the President had enough and took nearly three and a half minutes to “say a word to those in the media who falsely and consistently label their opponents as racists, who condemn patriotic citizens who offer a clear and truthful defense of American unity.”
Trump all but called liberal journalists cowards and wimps, insisting that those who’ve died for America are “much braver and more principled than you.”
Seeing as how liberals have refused to back down on their hatred for this country, it’s safe to say they refused to heed the President’s advice and continue “slander[ing]” their fellow Americans who feel blessed to have been born in and live in the greatest country ever known to man.
For while many people believe America can do even better and its best days are yet to come, the far-left refuses to hold those two ideas in concert, instead demeaning this great land and people as irredeemable without a thorough reeducation.
As if Houck and the MRC aren't engaged in pro-Trump re-education.
Adam Burnett served up a like-minded post on July 6: "In an ongoing debate over America and our history, MSNBC has clearly picked a side. And they are not on the side of the American people." He fuirther ranted that Alcindor is "a radical activist disguised as PBS NewsHour's White House correspondent."
The MRC served up further attacks on anyone who failed to served as servile Trump stenographers:
Is there anything sillier than The New York Times in these Trump years calling anyone else's tone "dark and divisive"? ... This is where we are. Speaking up for America and her greatest presidents is a "divisive culture war message." As if the Times isn't waging war on Trump? -- Clay Waters, July 5, in a post headlined "NY Times HATE."
You want "divisive?" MSNBC is divisive. The vile Al Sharpton described President Trump’s speech at Mount Rushmore as a “love letter to white supremacy.”... Sharpton tied in the weeks of Black Lives Matter protests in order to push forward his agenda to make 2020 about race. He does not want Americans to look at historically low unemployment rates for African Americans, criminal justice reform, and historic funding to HBCUs<; instead Sharpton’s goal is to label our founders and Trump as white supremacists to further divide us. -- Michael Dellanno, July 6
The media's deliberate misinterpretation of President Trump's Mount Rushmore speech as part of a pro-Confederate culture war continued on Monday's MSNBC Live as the Washington Post's Philip Rucker cited unnamed Republicans who fear that Trump is planting the party "on the wrong side of history." As Tim Graham noted, Rucker and Robert Costa wrote a nasty front-pager on Sunday shaming Republicans for not standing up to Trump's "culture war," as if Black Lives Matter and the statue-ripping squads aren't waging one. -- Alex Christy, July 7
By omitting the rest of the speech, with its mentions of Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt and Jefferson, its proposed National Garden, and its denunciations of the radical left’s attempts to erase history, Univision was able to reduce Trump’s speech to COVID and Confederates, which fit the network’s narrative. -- Jorge Bonilla, July 7
Graham capped things off with a July 8 column rehashing this narrative:
The Grand Canyon is a fitting metaphor for the difference between the uncensored version of President Trump’s Independence Day speeches gleaned from live television and the feverishly distorted versions of the “reality-based press,” as the leftist journo-braggarts call themselves.
Any American watching the live speeches would see positive and patriotic remarks, with some defiant words thrown in against the vandals who rip down statues and seek to “erase our history.” But the “reporters” from our most pseudo-prestigious outlets, both print and broadcast, were churning out aggressive “news analysis,” presenting two “dark and divisive” speeches with tiny little snippets that drain every carbonated fluid ounce of Fourth of July feeling out of the event.
Stated like a good pro-Trump, anti-media propagandist.
After a slow March and April when actual news and aggressive defense of Trump took center stage, CNSNews.com stepped up its fawning stenography of right-wing radio host Mark Levin, doing at least 18 aricles on him or his guests during May and June:
That's a total of 39 articles through the first six months of 2020, which is still well off its usual pace over the past three years, during which CNS devoted at least 96 articles annually to Levin's alleged pearls of wisdom.
CNS also touted how "Gen. Michael Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, appears to be following Constitutional Scholar and conservative pundit Mark Levin’s suggestion for how to deal with the judge who refused to grant the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case against her client" by filing a writ of mandamus after Levin appeared on Fox News to tell her to do exactly that.
CNS needs to step things up even more if it wants to better fulfill the cross-promotion deal the MRC and Levin appear to have going.
MRC Attacks Jimmy Kimmel Based On Anonymous Rumors Topic: Media Research Center
You know how the Media Research Center gets hypocritically upset at anonymous sources in the media when it embraces anonymous sources as long as they forward its right-wing narrative? Well, they've done it again. Gabriel Hays tries the conservative equivalent of salivating in a June 19 post:
Looks like Jimmy Kryin’ Kimmel is finding out that if you feed the rage mob, it will end up coming for you.
In this time of leftist media-manufactured racial unrest, the Trump-hating host of Jimmy Kimmel Live! has decided to take a summer break from his late night activis– ahem, comedy show. Daily Mail however, speculated that Kimmel’s upcoming hiatus might not be due to fatigue but due to a certain blackface debacle he had earlier in his career.
With Black Lives Matter trying to destroy anyone and everyone who has been politically incorrect on race at any point in their lives, Kimmel’s history of using blackface to portray famous African Americans during his early 2000s stint on The Man Show means he has probably been compromised.
The outlet reported that the comedian is “facing increasing pressure to follow his fellow comedian Jimmy Fallon and apologize for wearing blackface in skits.”
Hays should perhaps know better than to cite the notortiously unreliable Daily Mail as a source (and he screwed up further by linking to the article's comment section instead of the article itself). Indeed, the article cites no sourcing whatsoever for its claim that Kimmel is facing "pressure" from anyone over his long-ago blackface skits, and it quoted Kimmel saying he was merely taking the summer off after 18 years on the job.
Hays' post was edited after the fact to downplay the fact that the post is not based on facts. The original headline read, "Rumor Has It That Jimmy Kimmel Is Getting Cancelled for ‘Blackface’," which got changed shortly after posting.
In a post four days later about Kimmel, Hays repeated his never-proven claim that that Kimmel’s upcoming summer “vacation,” as he called it, was actually him taking a break because of Black Lives Matter’s campaign to eradicate anyone and anything with a spotty racial history," citing only "speculation" on the internet.
In neither of these posts does Hays mention the MRC's opposition to news stories based on anonymous speculation (when done by the non-conservative media, anyway). But he did once again refer to Kimmel as "Kryin' Kimmel," an apparent reference to Kimmel expressing on-air concern that his newborn son needed open-heart surgery to repair a heart defect; the MRC went all cancel culture on Kimmel , trying to shut him up for using his personal experience to advocate what it dismissed as "socialized medicine."
So Hays is actually mocking Kimmel for being concerned about his family. This is the MRC, folks.
WND's Simpson Defends Confederate Statues As 'History' Topic: WorldNetDaily
In much the same way, the South has gone mad with the removal of history – taking down statues of Confederate generals and others associated with the Civil War. The madness has crept into Washington, D.C., as Speaker Nancy Pelosi is using her clout to push for the removal of nearly a dozen statues of Confederate personas from the National Statuary Hall Collection. She said they "pay homage to hate, not heritage."
She also, just days ago, ordered the removal of at least 4 paintings of former Confederates who had served as House speakers. She apparently just found out about them.
There is also an effort to remove buried Confederate soldiers from Arlington National Cemetery and the move to change the names of military bases named after Confederate generals is also in the works.
Across the capital city, varied statues and monuments have been targets of racist graffiti as have similar statuary across the country. Many cities have already removed many of the statues – some before and others after they were defaced.
What's the point of all this? We are told it's because we should not "honor" people who were traitors or people who enslaved minorities – whether blacks or Native Americans.
But what about history? Isn't it bad enough that our schools have so bastardized the teaching of history that our children have NO sense of what happened in the past and why? Seeing what the people of the past looked like will not rot their brains and, in fact, might make them see history as something that really happened and really influences our lives today.
MRC's Graham Still Clinging to Fiction That Antifa Is Behind Unrest Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is not going to let a little thing like lack of evidence keep it from blamingAntifa for recent unrest, just as President Trump instructed it to do. Tim Graham took his shot in a June 25 post complaining that a Washington Post op-ed pointing out that inconvenient fact, as well as giving Trump a four-Pinocchio rating for blaming Antifa. As a lazy "media researcher," Graham can't be bothered to disprove the Post,so he tries to insult it instead:
Perhaps we could suggest that left-wing “news” sites could try to investigate Antifa and identify their activities with one-hundredth the ardor they chase after tiny factions of Klansmen. Instead, we get octopus-ink articles claiming Antifa is formless, shapeless, and blameless.
Graham further displayed his immaturity by feeling the need to mock the name of the Post's op-ed writer, a German university professor named Curd Knupfer, tossing out the juvenile insult of "Cheesy Curd." Graham also describes Knufer as a "leftist" but provided no evidence to back up his claim, unless he's assuming that anyone who researches the content of right-wing media is automatically "leftist" by defintion.
Despite being, again, a lazy researcher, Graham felt the need to attack Knupfer's valid research method of using software to "scrape" Antifa-related articles from right-wing websites: "'Scraped' the articles? Does that mean someone actually read them? Or just used crude computer analytics? Why are the leftists to averse to actually reading when they analyze media?"
Graham got further enraged when Knupfer pointed out that these right-wing websites spoke of Antifa only in vagure terms and never quoted anyone identifying themselves with the group:
Dear Curd: This might be a little tough when they dress up in black masks and don't hand out business cards. Black-bloc hooligans are more likely to beat on camera crews than do interviews. Clearly, this man thinks negative writing about Antifa somehow fits into a framework of "criminalizing dissent." Instead of, say, criminalizing criminal activity, like vandalism and fighting cops.
The MRC, meanwhile, designs its "media research" methodologies to further its rigiht-wing anti-media narrative rather than to conform to accepted research standards, so maybe Graham doesn't have a lot of moral standing to criticize Knupfer, who -- unlike anyone who works at the MRC -- is a trained and experienced academic researcher.