Topic: The ConWeb
A rogue's gallery of ConWeb writers do whatever it takes to slime Barack Obama. Who did the worst? Read more >>
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Is Corsi Taking Cues From Andy Martin?
Is Jerome Corsi, currently traipsing around Hawaii, following in the footsteps of Andy Martin? That's what Martin says:
Remember, WND believes Martin is a credible source -- Aaron Klein affirmatively cited Martin to attack Obama. Those of us in the reality-based community, meanwhile, know that Martin is an anti-Semitic nutjob, and even Fox News has apologized for booking Martin onto Sean Hannity's weekly Obama smear-fest (though, strangely, Hannity himself has not).
Martin, by the way, also believes that Obama's father is Frank Marshall Davis. When will Corsi be reporting that? Well, he's close: an Oct. 30 article claims that Obama and Davis sold drugs together, citing yet another of those anonymous, unsubstantiated yet somehow "credible" sources.
Newsmax Cites Discredited Columnist to Bash Obama
An Oct. 29 Newsmax article by Jim Meyers cites "Iranian-born commentator Amir Taheri" claiming in a New York Post column that Barack Obama's "'Islamic roots' have won him a place in many Arabs' hearts."
But Meyers does not note Taheri's history of false and misleading claims. As we've detailed, Taheri in 2006 asserted that Iran had passed a law requiring Jews and Christians to wear badges identifying themselves as such -- a claim later retracted. Earlier this month, Taheri claimed that Obama "tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence" until after the election -- also not true.
And as Richard Bartholomew reports, the Forbes website removed an article by Taheri suggesting that Obama is "the 'promised warrior' coming to help the Hidden Imam of Shiite Muslims conquer the world."
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Klein Finally Reports Khalidi's Link to McCain
Shocker -- Aaron Klein attempts to tell more than one side of a story!
In an Oct. 29 WorldNetDaily article -- in what may be his very first article critical of John McCain after dozens upon dozens attacking Barack Obama -- Klein actually reported that, like Obama, McCain sat on a board that gave money to an organization tied to Rashid Khalidi, the Center for Palestine Research and Studies, as first reported by the Huffington Post (to which Klein provides no link). As we pointed out (which perhaps shamed Klein into doing this article), Klein has for months made a big deal out of the organization whose board Obama sat on giving money to a Khalidi organization.
But after a couple paragraphs of balance, Klein quickly insisted there was a difference:
What follows is Klein's boilerplate bashing of Khalidi and Obama.
Klein describes Khalidi's work with the CPRS as being "for a time moderately involved," but he later writes that Khalidi was one of "seven Palestinian activists" who founded the group -- which indicates Khalidi's involvement was more than"moderate."
By contrast, Klein offers no comparable gauge of involvement with the other Khalidi-linked group in question, the Arab American Action Network. Klein recites the group's to "empower Chicago-area Arab immigrants and Arab Americans through the combined strategies of community organizing, advocacy, education and social services, leadership development, and forging productive relationships with other communities," but rather than describe how it does that, he cherry-picks the allegedly "anti-Israel" events but offers no evidence there are "scores" of them, as he claimed.
Klein also stated that "The AAAN website currently states the entire site is under construction," but we found it just fine -- and found what the group does that Klein won't tell his readers about. Among them:
In other words, Klein's depiction of the group as solely "anti-Israel" is highly misleading.
Klein suggests that the Khalidi connection taints Obama but not McCain, but he doesn't explain why. After all, it's the same man, is it not? If Khalidi was a bad man working for one group, why isn't he a bad man working for the other?
Klein has shown a shred of integrity by finally reporting something negative about his (and his employer's) chosen presidential candidate -- though he would have shown more integrity had he reported it months ago, when he was obsessed by Khalidi's connection to Obama. Now, will Klein go all the way and report to his readers McCain's endorsement by Al Qaeda? Or is he trying to concoct a way to spin that too?
Farah Attacks Obama Over Ayers, But Mum on Liddy
Joseph Farah writes in his Oct. 29 WorldNetDaily column:
Meanwhile, Joseph Farah was a youngster -- perhaps even 8 years old -- when domestic terrorist G. Gordon Liddy was breaking into buildings and plotting to murder and bomb innocent people. And Farah was an adult when Liddy told his listeners how to kill federal agents.
Farah surely knows about Liddy's history of felonious crime and violence. Yet Farah has not spoken a word about why he pals around with a domestic terrorist.
As long as Farah continues to hang with Liddy -- who is just as much, if not more, of a domestic terrorist as Ayers -- Farah has no moral standing to criticize Obama.
Ponte Adds Obama Smears to His Obama Lies
Lowell Ponte's repeated misleading claims about Barack Obama's relationship with ACORN apparently aren't taking hold, so he's using his Oct. 29 Newsmax column to resort to that old standby, the personal smear:
Ponte is, of course, still spreading lies about Obama, this time claiming that "Mr. Obama has vowed not to renew President George W. Bush's tax cuts set to expire in 2010. This would impose a $2 trillion tax increase that will batter American families earning as little as $42,000 per year." In fact, Obama has repeatedly said he would repeal the Bush tax cuts only for "the wealthiest Americans."
NewsBusters' Sheffield to Pump Up Wash. Examiner's Bias
Topic: Washington Examiner
NewsBusters executive editor Matthew Sheffield announced that he has been named managing editor of the Washington Examiner's website. The press release on Sheffield's appointment that he posted at NewsBusters describing his background is notable by its omission of the fact that all of the ventures he has been involved with are all linked to conservative activism. In fact, the word "conservative" appears nowhere in the press release, though it's crucial to his employment history.
The Examiner already swings to the right with an exclusively conservative editorial page under Mark Tapscott and the hiring of former Washington Times reporters such as Bill Sammon, Rowan Scarborough and Susan Ferrechio to helm its political coverage. Another conservative activist, Mary Katherine Ham, formerly of Townhall.com, already works as the Examiner's online editor. (We've detailed some of this.)
It looks like the Examiner is on its way to becoming the new Washington Times, in that its right-wing bias colors everything, including osensibly "fair and balanced" news coverage.
Does Washington really need another slavishly right-wing newspaper operated by a billionaire with bottomless pockets to fund it? And does the Internet really need another slavishly right-wing website?
NewsBusters to CNN: Don't Report Sexist News (If It's About Palin)
In an Oct. 28 NewsBusters post, Matthew Balan wrote: "CNN anchor Campbell Brown criticized the sexism of the 'diva' comment about Sarah Palin from a supposed anonymous McCain campaign adviser on Monday’s Election Center program, despite how it was her own network that highlighted this remark." He continued:
Is Balan really arguing that CNN should not have reported what that McCain campaign official said about Palin -- even though it's eminently newsworthy -- just because it could be considered sexist?
Would Balan raise the same "sexist" argument if, say, an "unnamed Obama campaign official" called Hillary Clinton a "diva"? We suspect not.
Newsmax Complains of Negative Palin Coverage, Ignores Own Negative Obama Coverage
An Oct. 28 Newsmax article by David Patten asserts that "the press" is "out to get Sarah Palin." His evidence? Carefully selected headlines from the Associated Press indicating "negative news reports about her."
But a look at Patten's carefully chosen headlines show that he appears to have mistaken factual for "negative." It's absolutely true that, as one headline stated, "GOP Spent $150,000 in Donations on Palin's Look." ANd we don't understand why Patten considers headlines such as "Palin Says Obama's Policies Could Lead to Crises" and "Palin Answers Several Questions from Reporters" and "McCain Says Obama Didn't Call Palin a Pig" are "negative.
Patten, of course, neglects to mention that Newsmax is fully participating in the anti-Obama frenzy of its ConWeb bretheren. Some sample headlines from Newsmax articles in the past few days:
Is Newsmax out to get Obama? You betcha.
Did Savage Liken Obama to Pol Pot?
From an Oct. 28 Newsmax article by Jim Meyers, reporting on Michael Savage's endorsement of John McCain:
Did Savage really liken Obama to Pol Pot? That's what Meyers seems to have written. We don't listen to Savage's show, so it's hard to tell otherwise. Then again, Savage has a long history of smearing Obama.
UPDATE: Here's the audio of Savage.
Quote of the Day
-- Dan Gainor, Oct. 27 CNSNews.com column
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Will Aaron Klein Report McCain's Ties to Khalidi?
One key staple of Aaron Klein's anti-Obama reporting for WorldNetDaily has been his claim, first made in February, that the Woods Foundation -- at a time when Barack Obama was a member of its board -- issued grants totaling $75,000 to a group run by Rashid Khalidi, who runs "a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a 'catastrophe.'" Klein further tried to tie Khalidi directly to the PLO at a time when it "committed scores of anti-Western attacks and was labeled by the U.S. as a terror group."
But Klein has never reported that John McCain has similar ties to Khalidi's group as well.
The Huffington Post reports that the International Republican Institute -- chaired for much of the 1990s by McCain -- gave another group headed by Khalidi numerous grants, including one for nearly half a million dollars, dwarfing the money he received from the Obama-linked Woods Foundation.
When will Klein report this to his readers? Probably about the same time he tells his readers that McCain was endorsed by Al Qaeda.
FrontPageMag Gets Obama's Comments Even More Wrong
In an Oct. 28 FrontPageMag article, ex-WorldNetDaily reporter Paul Sperry gets it even more wrong than his fellow conservatives about Barack Obama's statements on a Chicago public radio station in 2001.
Not only did Sperry assert that "Obama said it's a 'tragedy' the Constitution wasn't radically interpreted to force redistribution of wealth for blacks" -- in fact, Obama said it was a "traged[y]" that the civil rights movement relied so heavily on the courts to advance its agenda -- he repeated the lie that Obama said "the Warren Court was not 'radical' enough" -- in fact, Obama stated that the Warren Court's refusal to address the issue of "redistributive change" was evidence that it wasn't as radical as critics claim it was.
Sperry then takes a huge leap of logic and common sense by declaring that Obama's "remarks can only be interpreted to mean one thing: economic reparations for slavery." He then insists that government programs such as "universal health care, universal mortgage credits, college tuition, job training and even universal 401(k)s" are tantamount to "stealth reparations."
Sperry also embarks on creative reinterpretations of Obama's other work as well. He writes:
Sperry takes two apparently random statements hundreds of pages apart out of context to stitch together something Obama never said. From "The Audacity of Hope," page 248:
From "The Audacity of Hope," pp. 21-22:
Those two statements have nothing to do with each other, except in Sperry's fevered brain. But since he's already lying about Obama said in the radio interview, why wouldn't he lie about what Obama said in his book as well?
ConWeb Still Lying About Obama Statements
Topic: The ConWeb
For the second day in a row, the ConWeb lies and misleads about Barack Obama's 2001 comments to a public radio station.
The Media Research Center's Brent Baker claimed that "Barack Obama regretted that 'the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.'" CNSNews.com similarly asserted that Obama "lamented in a 2001 radio interview that the civil rights movement had failed to cause 'redistributive change.'" The claim that Obama "regretted" or "lamented" those things are pure inventions on Baker's and CNS' part (who, in turn, are just regurgitating Matt Drudge); rather, Obama merely factually stated that those things did not take place.
At NewsBusters, Lyndsi Thomas complained that NPR didn't report that "John McCain specifically addressed the recently surfaced audio and even quoted Obama as saying, 'One of the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.'" But Thomas failed to report that McCain falsely described the statement as meaning that "one of the quote -- 'tragedies' of the civil rights movement is that it didn't bring about a redistribution of wealth in our society." Scott Whitlock echoed Baker's lie that "Obama lamented to a radio interviewer that 'the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth.'" And P.J. Gladnick misleadingly claimed that Obama "called for legislative means to redistribute the wealth."
At WorldNetDaily, the poll question of the day is: "What's your reaction to Obama saying the Constitution is defective?" Of course, Obama said no such thing. Given that lie, it's no surprise that the leading response by far is, "Obama is defective, not the Constitution."
WND Misleads About GOP Foreclosure Vote Suppression
An Oct. 28 unbylined WorldNetDaily article downplays accusations of voter suppression in Michigan by Republicans in the form of using lists of foreclosed homes to challenge votes, claiming that the accusation is "based solely on unconfirmed reports and rumors" that "started on a leftwing blog in Michigan." At no point does WND report what that "leftwing blog" actually reported.
In fact, the Michigan Messenger quoted a Michigan county Republican leader as saying "We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren’t voting from those addresses" -- hardly "unconfirmed reports and rumors."
While WND reported that the Obama campaign filed a federal lawsuit against Michigan Republicans over the alleged scheme, it failed to report that the lawsuit has been settled. Michigan Democrats later stated that the settlement "acknowledges the existence" of such a scheme, while Republicans claimed there is "no proof ever existed" of it.
The bulk of the WND article, though, is dedicated to attacking Rep. Maxine Waters for promoting the charges, accusing her of "fann[ing] the flames of the deadly Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, earning her the nickname 'Kerosene Maxine,'" and suggesting that she will lead "unrest" among blacks on Election Day.
By contrast, WND regularly runs unconfirmed stories about Barack Obama -- and even outright lies, as well as claims it has previously debunked -- so WND's sudden concern about reporting "rumors" is the height of hypocrisy.
Buy through this Amazon link and support ConWebWatch!
Accuracy in Media
Capital Research Center
Free Congress Foundation
Media Research Center
The Daily Les
Western Journalism Center
Support Bloggers' Rights!