Klein's WND-Published Book Coming Soon Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Sept. 3 WorldNetDaily article marking the fifth anniversary of WND's book division touts upcoming books it describes as "imminent potential blockbusters." One is "Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists reveal their global plans – to a Jew!" by WND Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein. The Amazon page for Klein's book -- WND doesn't have one set up for it yet -- describes the book thusly:
Presented here for the first time are face-to-face conversations that noted journalist -- and Orthodox Jew -- Aaron Klein has conducted with leaders and members of terror organizations, including every major Palestinian Arab terror group, al-Qaida, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa Martyrs, Popular Resistance Committees, Arab liberation front, PFLP, Iraq insurgents, Taliban officials and even groups suspected of operating on U.S. soil (including Al-Muhajiroun).
This clever, often humorous but deeply disturbing book focuses not on how terror cells operate or how they get their funding, but on the individuals behind the masks and suicide bomber vests. It tells stories, often horrifying, about the events that have shaped, and are shaping, today's Middle East, as told by the perpetrators, in their own words.
Will Klein address the issue of his use of these terrorists to promote his conservative political agenda (as we've detailed)? Will he tell us if he has ever verified what these terrorists have told him, or why his readers trust what they have to say? Will Klein tell us what deals he presumably has made so that he, an orthodox Jew, can hang with Arab terrorists without them killing him? We shall see.
The promotional article hangs a lot of its anniversary weight on "the one that started it all," the first book under the WND Books imprint, Katherine Harris' "Center of the Storm," which "tells the inside story of that battle for the White House following the Nov. 7, 2000, vote." But as we've noted, Harris didn't really write the book at all; it was farmed out to a ghost writer and his students.
The article also laughably asserts that WND Books "to fill a void in the traditional book-publishing marketplace, just as the news site, launched in 1997, met a demand for news uninfected with corporate influences and political and social agendas." As we'verepeatedlydocumented, WND's news coverage is far from being "uninfected" by "political and social agendas"; rather, WND insists that its own political and social agendas infect its coverage.
Further, as we've detailed, WND was all too eager to turn its "news" pages into a promotional vehicle for Harris' book, and Klein himself is a veritablefont of biased reporting.
What's Wrong with MRC's Latest Study? Topic: Media Research Center
On Aug. 29, the Media Research Center released a study claiming that network morning shows have devoted more time to covering Democratic presidential candidates than to Republican candidates. Needless to say, there are a couple of holes in MRC's methodology that misleadingly pump up Democratic numbers.
Tim Graham sorta concedes one in an Aug. 30 NewsBusters post, responding to criticism of the study by the morning shows themselves (reported by the Associated Press) that coverage of Elizabeth Edwards' cancer relapse was included in the total. Graham wrote:
It's a decent argument to suggest that Elizabeth Edwards interviews about her cancer shouldn't count as campaign coverage. But her interviews are often partially (or even barely) about her illness, and mostly about her husband's campaign, or her husband's squabbles with Ann Coulter. Elizabeth's cancer is a constant undercurrent in their campaign, as in suggesting they know how important universal health care would be -- because of her illness. But it doesn't dominate her interviews when she's been on.
Graham offers no evidence to support these claims, however.
The study went on to assert that "the networks also aired more stories about the never-declared candidacy of former Democratic Vice President Al Gore than the actual candidacies of Republicans [Mitt] Romney and [Rudy] Giuliani," noting that Gore "was a network guest eight times, getting more than 48 minutes of airtime," later citing its methology behind it: "MRC analysts only counted interviews in which a potential Gore presidential campaign was discussed." But nowhere does the study note what we can likely surmise -- that much of the Gore coverage was centered around his global warming activism, specifically his promotion of the Live Earth concerts and his winning of an Oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth."
The study suggests as much, claiming that "Gore’s coverage consisted of praise for his work on behalf of a liberal global warming agenda." And nowhere does the study note that Gore has repeatedly disavowed serious interest in running for president in 2008.
It appears that if interviewers asked just a single question pondering if Gore was running in 2008 -- again, despite his repeatedly expressed lack of interest in doing so -- the MRC apparently counted the entire interview as coverage of a "Democratic presidential candidate." That's a stretch.
CNS Misleads on Clinton Donations Topic: CNSNews.com
Two CNSNews.com articles by Fred Lucas -- on Aug. 31 and Sept. 3 -- about the controversy surrounding Hillary Clinton fundraiser Norman Hsu fails to tell the full story about one Clinton donor.
In the Aug. 31 article, Lucas wrote regarding Hsu's practice of "bundling" donations to Clinton's campaign:
In one example, the family of William Paw -- a San Francisco area mail carrier who lives in a bungalow near the airport -- reportedly donated $55,000 to the Clinton presidential campaign. The money apparently was raised by Hsu.
Lucas similarly wrote on Sept. 3:
The most prominent example is the Paw family, who live in a one-story bungalow near the San Francisco International Airport. Having apparently never donated to a political campaign before 2004, the family has given $45,000 to Clinton's campaign organizations since 2005.
Combined, the family reportedly gave more than $200,000 to Democrats running for statewide office in New York. The Paw family is headed by William Paw, a mail carrier who reportedly earns $49,000 a year, and his wife Alice, a homemaker.
Lucas implies that the Paw family's donations are illegal because, consisting of a mail carrier and a homemaker, it can't afford to give that much money -- something for which he offers no evidence. But Lucas doesn't tell the full story of the Paw family, which would contradict Lucas' implication.
As the Wall Street Journal detailed, William Paw's "grown children have jobs ranging from account manager at a software company to 'attendance liaison' at a local public high school. One is listed on campaign records as an executive at a mutual fund." In addition, the family owns a gift shop. Further, as Media Matters noted, half of the $200,000 in political contributions reported by Lucas came from Winkle Paw, an adult son. The Journal reported Winkle Paw's statement that "I have been fortunate in my investments and all of my contributions have been my money."
By withholding all the relevant facts, CNS appears to be trying to gin up a Clinton controversy that isn't really there.
Graham's Falsely Smears Frank -- Again Topic: NewsBusters
A Sept. 2 NewsBusters post by Tim Graham carries the headline, "Remember Barney Frank As Larry Craig Resigns." In it, Graham states, "Frank was a lawmaker with a male-prostitution ring in his house," thus implying that Frank himself was running it.
As we noted the last time Graham attacked Frank on this line of reasoning, a House ethics committee investigation determined that Frank "did not have either prior or concomitant knowledge of prostitution activities involving third parties alleged to have taken place in his apartment."
Graham added that Frank "kept getting the pimp's parking tickets waved off," but didn't mention that the House officially reprimanded Frank for that infraction.
Graham concludes by attacking "the people who manufacture the news in America." But Graham's clearly not above manufacturing a few factoids of his own.
WND Still Mum on Correspondent's Gay-Porn Past Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has published two more dispatches from Matt Sanchez in the past few days -- an Aug. 29 article on how Iraqi children aren't afraid of "gentle giant" American soldiers, and a Sept. 1 column suggesting that Gen. David Petraeus will not report what there is "no doubt" about: that "the so-called surge is working."
Neither item, like Sanchez's first WND missive, mentions what we've detailed: Sanchez's past as a gay porn actor and alleged male escort.
Why is it important for WND to tell the truth about Sanchez? One, for the sake of full disclosure; and two, to live up to its own alleged policies, as voiced when the similarly seedy past of another conservative writer was revealed.
In a Feb. 23, 2005, column, WND founder and editor Joseph Farah attacked James Guckert, aka Jeff Gannon, for "eading a double life as a would-be purveyor of homosexual pornography and $1,200-per-weekend stud services on the Internet through now defunct websites such as Hotmilitarystuds.com, Militaryescorts.com and Meetlocalmen.com" while working as a White House correspondent for GOPUSA's Talon News service. Farah called Gannon "a right-wing political activist with a seriously compromised personal life. Somewhere along the line, he decided the best way he could make a name for himself or help spread his 'conservative' political ideology was to pose as a journalist," declaring that he hurt the cause of conservative journalism:
I have no doubts that the people who launched Gannon-Guckert in his ill-fated journalism career probably looked at the success of WorldNetDaily and said to themselves: "We can do this. Any one can start a website and claim to be a news operation, get access to government and use this platform to spread our ideology, befriend politicians we like and buy influence with politicians. It looks easy."
However, what the political activists pretending to be journalists never understood – and still do not understand to this day – is that you can't fool everyone.
Farah further delcared: "WorldNetDaily's mission is to telling the truth – no matter whose ox is gored. WorldNetDaily hires only serious and experienced journalists with the highest standards of ethics – both in their professional lives and their personal lives."
So, given that homosexuality is a pretty obvious disqualifer for employment at WND, how did Sanchez pass the test? According to Sanchez's blog, it was WND's idea for Sanchez to write for it.
It appears that WND is willing, if not eager, to compromise its principles -- its so-called "highest standards of ethics" -- when disseminating a certain message becomes a higher priority. WND has a verylonghistory of doing exactly that.
Meanwhile ... Topic: NewsBusters Wonkette beats us to noting that an Aug. 31 NewsBusters post by Tim Graham complains that coverage of Republican Larry Craig's arrest and plea after certain alleged activities has eclipsed that of "perhaps the first famous name that comes to mind when it comes to policeman arrests in a restroom," pop singer George Michael. Graham makes no note of the obvious -- unlike Craig, Michael was not a sitting U.S. senator.
In an Aug. 31 WorldNetDaily article, Les Kinsolving chimes in with his first report from a White House press briefing in more than a month, after engaging in a short-lived, passive-aggressive boycott of the briefings due to purported disrespect by White House press secretary Tony Snow. And, as we've come to expect, Kinsolving gets basic facts wrong. Kinsolving asked:
Reuters reports … that Fidel Castro has just described Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as 'an apparently unbeatable ticket.' But the Reuters report did not mention either of these two U.S. senators repudiating this endorsement. And my question: Does the leader of the Republican Party believe that Clinton and Obama should repudiate this dictator's endorsement or not?
But Castro didn't endorse Clinton and Obama. As Media Matters -- and Kinsolving himself -- pointed out, Castro called Clinton and Obama's pro-democracy views an "error," adding: "They are not making politics: they are playing a game of cards on a Sunday afternoon."
Kinsolving, by the way, has yet to respond publicly to Snow's claim that Kinsolving "twisted" his words or reveal the details of the "agreement" in which Kinsolving agreed to return to the White House press corps.
In his Aug. 30 WorldNetDaily column, Joseph Farah declares that Hillary Clinton should be arrested because one of her campaign fundraisers, Norman Hsu, "is a convicted felon and a fugitive from justice for the last 15 years." Farah writes of Hsu: "He's a convicted felon. As such, he doesn't even have a right to participate in the American political process. And by fraternizing and dealing with him, aren't Hillary and her attorney aiding and abetting a known fugitive?"
So, does this mean we can have Farah and WND reporter Art Moore for "fraternizing and dealing with" Peter Paul? After all, like Hsu, Paul is a convicted felon who was a fugitive from justice (fleeing to Brazil and fighting extradition for two years on charges regarding his role in a$25 million stock fraud scam). If a convited felon "doesn't even have a right to participate in the American political process," why is Paul uncritically repeating Paul's dubious attacks against Clinton?
Indeed, WND did so most recently in an Aug. 14 article by Moore that makes no mention of the fact that Paul is a convicted felon who, according to Moore's boss, "doesn't even have a right to participate in the American political process."
Farah goes on to conclude: "Are the laws on the books just for citizen saps, or do they apply equally to the benighted political elites like Hillary." But if the convicted felon is willing to attack one of Farah's political enemies, Farah is clearly willing to toss his own purported standards aside and treat him as a trusted member of a sort of "benighted" gathering of his own.
Klein Still Won't Acknowledge His Whitewashing of 'Outlawed' Kahanists Topic: WorldNetDaily
In an Aug. 29 WorldNetDaily article, Aaron Klein repeats criticisms he previously reported on a CNN documentary on religious extremism. But, as before, Klein fails to acknowledge his own whitewashing of Jewish extremists featured in the program.
As he had in an Aug. 23 article repeating the pro-Israeli, anti-Arab group CAMERA's attack on the documentary "God's Warriors," Klein bashed the documentary for mentnioning right-wing extremist Jew Baruch Goldstein's massacre of 29 Arabs inside Hebron's Tomb of the Patriarchs, asserting, "Goldstein's actions were widely condemned by Israelis and worldwide Jewry. The organization he was a part of was outlawed in Israel." But as we've detailed, Klein has favorably reported on other former members of the "outlawed" organization to which Goldstein belonged, Kach/Kahane Chai, while downplaying the group's history of extremist violence. Klein also does not mention that the CNN documentary features another Kahanist, David Ha'ivri, who refused to criticize a plot by Jewish extremists to detonate a bomb outside a Palestinian girls' school; Klein has positively depicted Ha'ivri in the past as well.
The 8-equals-93 meme won't die. The resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has given the ConWeb the opportunity to revive it yet again.
An Aug. 27 NewsMax article by Ronald Kessler stated:
To be sure, Democrats manufactured a scandal by pouncing on the firing of eight U.S. attorneys to create the impression that the Justice Department and the White House did something improper. In fact, the firings were no more improper than the Clinton administration’s dismissal of 93 U.S. attorneys in 1993.
Like Cabinet officers, U.S. attorneys are political appointees serving at the pleasure of the president. Moreover, a fair reading of the e-mails relating to the firings makes it clear that, rightly or wrongly, the eight were singled out because of job performance.
Kessler doesn't mention that the "job performance" issue has been largely discredited (as we've detailed).
In an Aug. 28 WorldNetDaily column, Joseph Farah asserted the Bush administration's firing of those attorneys was "a non-offense," adding:
The day Bill Clinton assumed the presidency in 1993, he fired all 93 U.S. attorneys. No one asked why. No major news stories resulted. No one called it "the January Massacre." No one accused Clinton of shenanigans (except me, because I knew what he was really doing).
Farah doesn't share with his readers was Clinton was purportedly "really doing" by replacing the prosecutors.
And then there's NewsMax's E. Ralph Hostetter, who offers his own, er, unique version of events in his Aug. 29 column:
President Bill Clinton dismissed all 72 U.S. district attorneys from the previous administration of President George Herbert Walker Bush. No reasons for dismissal were given and none were required. This was his prerogative.
The case of Gonzales' removal of seven U.S. district attorneys has been expanded into one of the largest congressional investigations since Watergate. The present investigation was designed to follow the "successful" pattern of the Valerie Plame case where presidential adviser Karl Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney were to be the selected targets.
Hostetter can't even get his numbers right -- he's spouting a 7-equals-72 meme.
An Aug. 29 CNSNews.com column by Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America, is an attack on a book for teens that pulls quotes out of context and doesn't mention what the book is about.
Barber bashes an Illinois school district for assigning "summer reading to 12- and 13-year-olds that is replete with harsh profanity and references to teen sex (even teen sex with adults)." He then offers salacious quotes from "one of the books," "Fat Kid Rules the World" by K. L. Going. Barber accused the school district of "educational malpractice" for purportedly "willingly -- if not eagerly -- contribut[ing] to their moral degradation by pushing this kind of vulgarity on them." But nowhere does Barber tell readers what the book is about or in what context those quotes appear.
So, what is this purportedly offensive book about? Here's a summary from Common Sense Media, which
Troy, a 300-pound high-schooler, is contemplating jumping in front of a train when he meets Curt, an emaciated, homeless, guitar-playing, drop-out legend in his school. Before he knows what has hit him, Troy has agreed to be the drummer in a new band Curt is forming, despite not playing drums. With a faith in him that Troy doesn't understand, Curt is Troy's nightmare and dream come true, often at the same time.
Though Troy's father suspects that Curt's a junkie, he ultimately supports Troy's efforts to learn the drums, the first thing he has seemed interested in since his mother died. But getting involved in Curt's world of punk rock and street life is more than any of them bargained for.
Common Sense Media raises caution flags about much of the book's content, but rather than issing blanket condemnations, it states for most of those flags, "know your kid." It seems to believe, unlike Barber, that the book covers subjects that adolescents can learn from. Indeed, as the reviewer states:
Troy's father, ex-military, is a rigid stereotype in Troy's, and for a while the reader's, eyes. But from Curt's point of view, and in the midst of crisis, his faults morph into virtues without too much gong-beating from the author. As often happens when we meet someone who has real problems, Curt brings with him a dramatic perspective shift, and young readers may have cause to reassess their opinions of their own parents.
Is that not a message Barber can endorse?
Common Sense Media aims to "provide trustworthy information and tools, as well as an independent forum, so that families can have a choice and a voice about the media they consume." It appears to be using more common sense and logic than Barber.
CNSNews.com is actually taking a stab at making its labeling in stories on gun issues a bit fairer -- sorta.
In the past, aswe'vedocumented, CNS has frequently juxtaposed terms such as "anti-gun" for any non-conservative position on guns, while portraying those on the other side of the issue as "Second Amendment supporters." An Aug. 29 CNS article by Nathan Burchfiel on protests outside of a gun shop from which guns sold there have been linked to numerous crimes, changes things up a bit; "opponents of gun rights" are pitted against "pro-gun demonstrators." Burchfiel uses the "opponents of gun rights" tag even though he quotes one protester saying of "pro-gun" counter-protesters, "We're not trying to take away the rights of the folks that are protesting behind us."
An Aug. 28 NewsBusters post by Bill Hobbs countered a blogger's claim that the roster of syndicated columnists at the Tennessean newspaper is overwhelmingly conservative by claiming:
While it's true that the paper does run a healthier selection of nationally syndicated conservatives than it does liberals, the Nashville blogger has defined the equation too narrowly - he's left out the paper's own editorials, which consistently lean leftward on national, state and local issues.
And the Tennessean does not employ a local conservative political columnist.
The paper's roster of national syndicated conservative columnists masks the paper's liberal leanings. Strip away all the syndicated stuff, liberal and conservative - which readers can get online and from a myriad of other print sources anyway - and what you have left is the local editorial and commentary content. And it leans heavily leftward.
Hobbs offers no evidence to his readers that the Tennessean's "local editorial and commentary content ... leans heavily leftward. Is he running on the normal conservative assumption that because a newspaper is not explictly conservative, a la the Washington Times and New York Post, it must ipso facto be liberal?
It would appear so. Who needs evidence when you have conservative shibboleths?
Huston: Bush Critics Hate America Topic: NewsBusters
Warner Todd Huston is still operating on a blown gasket. Fresh from ranting against anyone who identifies "Hillary haters," he's now asserting that historians who think George W. Bush ranks among the worst presidents are America-haters who lack academic credentials.
In an Aug. 28 NewsBusters post, Huston rages against a McClatchy article he calls a "pointless Bush bashing presidential rating story filled with quotes from partisan, hack 'historians.'" Huston asserted, "These "ranking" stories are always full of partisan left nonsense and this one is no different," adding that "these 'historians' are part of the far left University system we are saddled with." Note Huston's repeated use of scare quotes around "historians."
By contrast, a historian quoted in the article who said that history has yet to judge Bush is praised by Huston as a "reputable and brilliant historian"-- no scare quotes needed.
Huston then digresses to a rant about Andrew Jackson's place in history:
Every time we see these ridiculous stories, I harken back to the fact that from the 1820's until about the 1920s Andrew Jackson was considered one of the most famous presidents we ever had. How many "Jackson" towns, counties, schools, streets, and other such named municipal buildings do we have across America? "Historians" thought Jackson the best president ever until the PC idea that his owning slaves and fighting Indians made him persona non grata. Now, no matter what he did as president, his name is anathema to these so-called historians all his work forgotten, shunned even, despite the fact that his name is so ubiquitous across the country --now with no one even knowing why thanks to these "historians."
These Charles Beard/Anthony Zini [sic] influenced America haters have no standing by which to be believed. They are almost universally uneducated enough to assess economic history and this makes them completely useless in assessing any president after Andrew Jackson destroyed the Second Bank of the US. Worse, few if any of them have the slightest clue about Constitutional history and interpretation.
Huh? Andrew Jackson's presidential ranking was lowered by his owning of slaves? Huston offers no evidence to support the claim. Anyone who disagrees with Huston's idea of history have "clue about Constitutional history and interpretation"? Really?
And yes, Huston is saying that any historian who disagrees with him, and who would rank Bush low on the presidential scale, is an "America hater." He offers no evidence that any of the historians quoted in the McClatchy article were "influenced" by Charles Beard of Anthony Zinni, or why it's purportedly such a bad thing to have been "influenced" by them.
As an extra added bonus, Huston rails against Franklin Roosevelt:
The proof of this is the fact that these so-called historians continue to rank Franklin Roosevelt as one of our presidential "greats."
Roosevelt was a socialist in everything but name. He destroyed our Constitution, ruined the economy, made the Great Depression last decades longer than it had to, did nothing about Civil Rights, and lied our way into WWII. His "legacy" is high taxes, welfare, a broken and unconstitutional social security system and a Supreme Court run amuck. But to the extreme leftists in our Universities he is a great president despite all the harm he did to our nation.
This goes beyond revisionhist history to fiction. FDR "made the Great Depression last decades longer than it had to"? Social Security is "unconstitutional"?
And a strident supporter of President Bush bashing another president for having "lied our way" into war? Oh, the irony.
Huston Pretends Hillary Hate Doesn't Exist Topic: NewsBusters
Warner Todd Huston seems to have blown a gasket, angry at the idea that any journalist would write something that undeniably exists: "Hillary haters."
In an Aug. 27 NewsBusters post, Huston lambasted UPI for "shilling for their favored candidate; Hillary Clinton" by writing about "Hillary haters." Huh? UPI is owned by the Moonies, so it's highly unlikely that a Democrat is any UPI employee's "favored candidate."
(Actually, the UPI article appears to be a condensed version of a Chicago Tribune article on the subject that Michael M. Bates, to a lesser degree than Huston, lambasted on NewsBusters the day before.)
In response to the article's statement that the Hillary haters "aim to crystallize voters against Clinton, much the same way as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in the 2004 election denigrated John Kerry's military service in Vietnam," Huston responded:
UPI forgets one little thing in their partisan dismissal of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against Kerry. What they Swift Boaters had to sell was truth. That is why it hurt Kerry so bad. The truth came out and it hurt him. They weren’t selling hate, they were revealing truth and that is why it worked so well against him.
Um, actually, no -- the Swift Boat Vets made several false or misleading claims.
And in response to the article's calling the attack site StopHerNow.com "snide," Huston retorted:
Unlike Koz, and other far, far left sites, you will not find cursing, foul language, or wishes for Hillary to die in baneful language like you do for conservatives and other GOP candidates on those other sites. You just won’t find the kind of REAL hate you see on those leftwing nutroots sites if you go to StopHerNow.com.
In focusing on only one conservative site, Huston conveniently ignores sites like Free Republic, where we were immediately able to locatenumerousthreads in which Hillary is called "Hitlery." Does Huston consider that "REAL hate"? We suspect not.