MRC Touts Misleading Attack on Judicial Nominee Topic: Media Research Center
A video highlighted at NewsBusters, hosted by MRC's Eyeblast video site, and promoted by MRC chief Brent Bozell as a "MUST WATCH" is an attack on Obama appeals court nominee Robert Chatigny, whom the video -- created by Naked Emperor News -- falsely portrays as having "empathy" for serial rapist and killer Michael Ross by granting motions delaying the killer's execution.
The video selectively cites facts, includes Ross' sexually charged testimony for inflammatory purposes, and downplays the fact that Chatigny believed that Ross' mental competency had not been addressed, particularly by Ross' defense attorney.
The video -- and the MRC -- also ignored the fact that a review panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which included future Bush attorney general Michael Mukasey, cleared Chatigny of misconduct charges, calling Chatigny's action, while "unusual," reasonable under the circumstances.
Shouldn't the MRC be ashamed to be promoting such a biased and factually deficient attack? We think so.
A May 25 WorldNetDaily article by Drew Zahn uncritically promotes Dick Morris' agreement with Sean Hannity that it was an "impeachable offense" for the Obama administration to allegedly offer a job to Joe Sestak in exchange for dropping out of a Pennsylvania Senate primary race agaisnt Arlen Specter:
If a Democratic member of Congress is to be believed, there's someone in the Obama administration who has committed a crime – and if the president knew about it, analysts say it could be grounds for impeachment.
At no point does Zahn explain that not only is this not unusual -- not only has Karl Rove bargained with candidates to move them out of races to clear the way for the Bush White House's preferred candidates, the Reagan administration reportedly offered a job to a California senator in exchange for not seeking re-election -- legal experts (of which Morris is not one) have explained that the alleged behavior regarding Sestak is not illegal, let alone an "impeachable offense."
But reporting the truth is not WorldNetDaily's purpose -- destroying Obama at any cost is.
The press routinely flogged itself in the Bill Clinton years for being too quick to acknowledge when women suggested they'd had affairs or been harassed by Clinton. They would have been extremely slow to relay a cheating allegation with no details or proof. So why are national media outlets repeating an unproven adultery allegation....and against a woman? When the guy has a domestic violence record?
Because she's a Republican? In Mark Sanford's South Carolina? Sarah Palin-endorsed South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley has seen an unsubstantiated adultery charge spread by the Associated Press, The Washington Post, Newsday, and CNN, whose Wolf Blitzer ran to the evidence-free story on The Situation Room Monday[.]
Graham discounts the one piece of evidence that there is -- the person who is making claims of an affair is the one who says he had an affair with her.
Of course, claiming rumors of a candidate's affair shouldn't be reported because the only evidence is the person the candidate had an affair with says so runs completely counter to the MRC's history, which eagerly reported claims by Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers of affairs with Bill Clinton when there was no other evidence.
For 9instance, a November 1994 MRC MediaWatch laments that "the national media" won't dig into "the questions surrounding Clinton's personal life": "The stories of Gennifer Flowers or the state troopers on Clinton's personal security detail have been downplayed, as have the sexual harassment claims of Paula Jones."
Since Graham's post appeared, the man who claimed to have an affair with Haley has released a series of text messages on the issue. Is that enough evidence for Graham?
The MASH television spectacle of Corporal Klinger wearing women’s dresses to get out of the military may now give way to the Pentagon actually permitting transgendered male soldiers to openly wear women’s military uniforms. This is what repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” could mean.
While some might scoff at the idea of transgendered soldiers ever serving in the Armed Forces, the transgendered are an essential component of the so-called LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered) community pushing repeal of the military’s homosexual exclusion policy.
Don’t forget that the Obama Administration has already claimed credit for the first openly transgendered appointee to the federal bureaucracy–a man/woman at the Commerce Department named Mitchell/Amanda Simpson.
Kincaid also repeats his hateful disease-ridden-gay meme:
One major problem is not in any sense comical. And that is that, since male homosexuals are currently prohibited from donating blood, their entry into the Armed Forces could mean disease and death for those who come into contact with their blood and bodily fluids on the battlefields of the world. Male homosexuals have been prohibited from donating blood because they carry life-threatening and deadly diseases such as HIV/AIDS.
Here’s what our media will carefully omit from their coverage of this matter: a decision to repeal the policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) would mean that gay soldiers could be put in the position of donating infected blood to other soldiers in desperate need of blood transfusions. So a solder desperate for life-giving blood could die as a result of the transfusion from a gay soldier.
By the same token, a profusely bleeding gay soldier could threaten those caring for him on the battlefield, ultimately taking the lives of his fellow soldiers.
Consider that the U.S. Government has already spent $200 billion on HIV/AIDS and no cure or vaccine has been found. Meanwhile, gays flaunt their lifestyle, engaging in dangerous sexual practices like bare-backing, a form of anal intercourse in which one partner is HIV positive and the other is not and neither uses any form of protection at all. Despite the risks and the stakes–life and death–the experts say unsafe sexual practices are on the rise among male homosexuals.
It stands to reason that admitting open and active homosexuals would increase the number of troops coming down with HIV/AIDS, thus increasing the problems for the military and costing taxpayers billions of more dollars.
Kincaid concludes: "My foreign policy non-profit America’s Survival, Inc, has produced a new video on the dangers of gay soldiers and gay blood. You won’t find this information in the media." Apparently, we won't find it at America's Survival either -- as of this writing, the link Kincaid supplies returns a "page cannot be found" error, and it appears not to be anywhere else on the America's Survival website.
Glenn Beck Cribs From WND Columnist Topic: WorldNetDaily
Glenn Beck went on a tear about "global governance" on his May 25 Fox News show, starting with a series of quotes on the subject he appears to have lifted form a May 22 WorldNetDaily column by Henry Lamb.
A May 24 WorldNetDaily article quotes Brian Sussman, author of the WND-published book "Climategate," attacking Al Gore for saying the Gulf of Mexico oil leak was "spilling out the equivalent of one Exxon Valdez oil spill every four days":
"The Gulf leak is oozing roughly 5,000 barrels of oil per day," countered Sussman. "The 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in the Alaska poured 250,000 barrels of oil into Prince William Sound. At the current rate of 5,000 barrels per day, it will take the Gulf leak 50 days to total the Exxon Valdez."
Gore may be wrong, but so is Sussman. As we detailed when S.E. Cupp made a similar claim, experts peg the spill at around 70,000 barrels a day. Further, BP -- from whom the 5,000-barrels-a-day figure first emanated -- has essentially conceded that the spill is a lot larger than that.
In a May 25 post on her blog (warning: her blog tends to get infected with malware, so click at your own risk), Taitz speculates about WND's sudden embrace of the angle of allegedly multiple Social Security numbers used by Barack Obama -- and spills some interesting details about how birthers make use of WND's mailing list, and how WND profits from it:
WHY WND DIDN’T WRITE ABOUT OBAMA SS FRAUD FOR A YEAR AND A HALF, THAT I HAVE BEEN WRITING ABOUT IT? Posted on | May 25, 2010 | No Comments Svetlana Submitted on 2010/05/24 at 9:58pm
I just don’t understand why WND didn’t run with the SSN story long time ago ???
Answer from Orly: I can’t tell for sure. I have been outspoken about SS fraud for a year and a half now. For the first time that I remember speaking about it publicly, was a press conference at the National Press Club December 12, 2008. It was shown on C-span. I included this info in all the pleadings. When my site was hacked and erroneous messages of malware were posted by Google, some were blaming me, now of course, anyone who writes about Obama’s SS fraud, experiences hacking of his web site and malware warnings from Google.
I sought mass e-mailing through WND, however it can be done in 2 ways only: either by splitting donations in half, and I don’t have a set up for this. Pay pal told me that they can’t do it, they can’t split donation in half, or it can be done by paying their fee, which is high. WND charges $9,000 for one round of mass e-mails to 300,000 of their readers. Other conservative publications charge $12,000-$18,000 for one round of e-mails. For example, when Gary Kreep sends his monthly appeals for donation, he splits donations in half with WND or pays a fixed fee of $9,000 for one time use of their 300,000 e-mail addresses of their readers, who might donate. If he sends his mass e-mail through Newsmax, he pays $12,000-$18,000 to Newsmax every time he sends a mass e-mail. Same is with the Republican pack. It was just too expensive for me to push.
Recently I took out a full page ad in Wash times, which is a competitor of WND. They charged me $1,200 for the ad. It was much more affordable. Wash Times writer John Spokes has written a lengthy article about it on his own blog. When WND writer Jerome Corsi saw my pleadings and Wash Times ad and the article by John Spokes, he decided to copy it and write an article in WND and went on Jeff Kuhner show in DC and spoke about it. Too bad, that when he went to this Jeff Kuhner show, he didn’t mention that the material came from my pleadings. O, well, that’s life.
So, I don’t know, why exactly they didn’t advertise this issue that much for a year and a half that I’ve been speaking and writing about it. Maybe, the reason is in the fact that Gary Kreep was paying a lot in advertising dollars and I wasn’t, so they wanted to promote him more, that is why people were getting a lot of e-mails asking for donations for United States Justice Foundation- which is Gary Kreep. That why most donations went to Kreep and WND, while I got very little in terms of donations, even though I brought most of legal actions, traveled all over the nation to popularise the issue and currently spent a fortune on my campaign for CA sec of state, to clean up elections in my capacity as a secretary of state. WND still have written about me, as it was news and promoted the paper, and it’s standing in ratings, it brought advertisers to them, but all the targeted appeals for donations went to Gary Kreep because of the financial deal made by Gary Kreep with WND.
At this point the most important thing is to bring Obama to justice. Let the bygons be bygons. It will help me though, if people spread the word and help with me with donations to my campaign and legal actions.
If Taitz is to be believed, this is interesting stuff. WND is being more accomodating to Kreep than it is to Taitz and is even willing to split the donation money raised. This raises questions about ethics, since it's yet more evidence that WND directly profits from its birther activism. Further, Kreep has had a relationship with WND as far back as 2002 -- a relationship it frequently fails to disclose when reporting on Kreep's birther-related activities, which is yet another ethical breach -- so this has been quite lucrative for Kreep as well.
Also of note is the relative bargain price for use of WND's mailing list compared to use of Newsmax's mailing list. That may be a reflection of Newsmax's efforts to appeal to a more affluent demographic. (Newsmax, by the way, has its own ethical issues in its relationship with Dick Morris.)
WND's lack of ethical behavior is just one more reason it can't be trusted on anything it reports.
Jerome Corsi goes into a laughable spasm of fearmongering in a May 24 WorldNetDaily article:
If President Obama repeals the Bush tax cuts and imposes a 20 percent value added tax, or VAT, on the U.S., Americans may be facing tax rates where more than half of everything earned is confiscated by the federal government in the form of income taxes, Jerome Corsi's Red Alert reports.
Add Social Security taxes and the tax burden quickly advances to more than 60 percent.
"Adding state property and income taxes to the burden, the amount government confiscates could be in the 75 percent range before Americans have a chance to vote Obama out of office in 2012," Corsi wrote. "Are Americans willing to be taxed 75 percent of every dollar earned?"
"In a five-day work week, will Americans be willing to work four days for the government?" Corsi asked.
Let's see, how many ways is Corsi wrong here?
1) Obama has never said he would "repeal" all the Bush tax cuts -- indeed, there is no "repeal" at all, since the cuts will expire by law. Obama's 2010 budget would retain the tax cuts for everyone except those making over $250,000.
2) No proposal has been formally introduced to add a VAT, let alone a VAT of 20 percent -- indeed, it's not even being considered. Corsi also baselessly assumes that should a VAT be instituted, other federal taxes would not go down. This is just straight-up fearmongering.
3) Federal income taxes are marginal -- higher tax rates apply to income above certain amounts, not the entire income. So Corsi's claim that Americans will be "taxed 75 percent of every dollar earned" is a flat-out lie because no American would ever be taxed 75 percent on all income.
4) Income over $106,800 is not subject to Social Security taxes; Corsi is making another misleading suggestion that all income is subject to the tax.
But then, Corsi is a sucky economist, so it's no surprise he would get basic taxation wrong too.
In a May 17 NewsBusters post, Geoffrey Dickens was offended that one of the viral videos NBC's Meredith Vieira cited to mark YouTube's fifth anniversary was the 2006 clip of George Allen, then a Republican candidate for a Virginia Senate seat, calling a staffer for opponent James Webb who was videotaping Allen's campaign appearance "macaca." Dickens huffed that Vieira's highlighting of the video and noting that it "sunk" Allen was an "unexpected cheap shot," adding: "Vieira failed to point out what really drove the hits to the Allen video were the Democratic Party of Virginia and all of its enablers in the liberal media like NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and of course the Washington Post."
Kyle Drennen, while not as huffy as his MRC colleague Dickens, documented in a May 24 post that the "Macaca moment" also appeared in YouTube anniversary pieces by CBS' Katie Couric and CNN's Howard Kurtz.
Um, guys? It's been nearly four years now. Time to suck up that macaca and move on.
When Mr. Obama speaks, my heart fills with anger instead of the pride I used to feel with past presidents. To me, this man can't possibly be the president of the United States. Presidents defend their nations; they don't attack them.
Our attorney general is no better. When I see him squirm and obfuscate when answering simple questions, I sense a great void of justice filled with "hate America" spin. The lawyer of the American people prefers to make excuses for foreigners who break the laws he has sworn to uphold and enforce.
And when Janet Napolitano addressed failed terrorist attacks and the potential for further attacks, I felt a lack of security, not an enhancement thereof. She instills fear with her lack of understanding, and yet she is tasked to keep the nation safe? Her disregard of the seriousness of the threats against us is bone chilling.
We have come to a point in America where those of us who love this country shutter each time the president takes the podium, knowing somehow during his remarks he will reveal his deep animosity toward this nation. As much as he appears to dislike America, why in the world would he want to be her leader?
I join the growing group of Americans that is embarrassed by Mr. Obama and his goons.
When the House is returned to competent, sane hands in November and Nancy and Harry are sent to their rooms without dessert, Congress will resume the role of keeping the executive branch accountable. Congress will stand up and defend our nation against the seething attacks of Obama. Fiscal sanity will also return as our representatives listen to the people and not the polls.
And within a decade our ship will be sailing for smoother waters. It'll be a ship less burdened with bureaucrats and waste – a ship that has thrown all the liberals overboard where they belong.
CNS Takes Berwick Out of Context Topic: CNSNews.com
A May 24 CNSNews.com article by Fred Lucas takes the words of Donald Berwick, President Obama’s nominee to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, out of context to claim that -- through uncritically quoting Republican Sen. Pat Roberts -- the Obama administration is "implicitly admitting" that health care reform will lead to rationing of health care.
In fact, Berwick has pointed out that insurance companies also ration health care, and that is the context in which Berwick was speaking.
It's not until the fifth paragraph that Lucas quotes a White House official as saying, "The fact is, rationing is rampant in the system today, as insurers make arbitrary decisions about who can get the care they need. Don Berwick wants to see a system in which those decisions are transparent – and that the people who make them are held accountable."
Lucas also quotes Roberts as saying, "I am opposed to rationing whether it is done by the government or by an insurance company," but no evidence is offered that Roberts has done anything to address health care rationing by insurance companies.
Further, Lucas highlights Berwick's comment that "Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane must – must – redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and less fortunate" without noting that programs such as Medicare and Medicaid are inherently redistributive, or that even right-wing radio host Laura Ingrham has said on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News show that Berwick is right: "[O]f course, every safety net, Bill, and you and I are both in favor of there being a safety net where people don't go untreated, where people who need help get help. Obviously to pay for those people, it's obviously going to involve taxes and taxes come from people who make a living and make income. So that part is right."
Finally, Lucas fails to allow anyone in the Obama administration or any Berwick supporter to respond to Roberts' attacks on Berwick so readers would have a fair and balanced examination of Berwick's views.
MRC Quiet As NYT's Blumenthal Story Falls Apart Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center loves to hammer the reporting and commentary at the New York Times -- heck, it has an entire division devoted solely attacking it.
But those attacks are not about the Times' journalistic quality -- it's about its occasional conservative incorrectness. Out of the dozens of articles the Times publishes each day, the MRC's TimesWatch can identify only a paltry few that violate its standards of not being conservative enough, which would seem to undermine the right-wing notion that the Times has a liberal bias.
So when the Times publishes a factually deficient story that attacks a Democrat -- as it did with its May 18 article accusing Connecticut senate candidate Richard Blumenthal of lying about his service in Vietnam -- the MRC not only ignores those problems, it defends the article as accurate.
The only article at TimesWatch on the Blumenthal story is a May 19 item by Clay Waters that strains to find something, anything, to criticize about it -- that it waited until the third paragraph to identify Blumenthal as a Democrat and that the accompanying photo "didn't identify Blumenthal as a Democrat either."
Meanwhile, the rest of the MRC was eager to promote the story -- despite its history of attacking the Times' reporting. Scott Whitlock used a May 19 item complained that CBS didn't report on Blumenthal's "military scandal," that ABC "devoted less than a minute to the topic." and that NBC didn't identify him as a Democrat.
NewsBusters' Tom Blumer, meanwhile, was incredulous that Blumenthal would even be allowed to defend himself: "These Times-delivered facts and quotes are not subject to "dispute." They are part of the historical record." Nevertheless, he still strained to attack the Times, complaining that the story appeared "only four days" before Connecticut Democrats meet to choose an official candidate for the Senate seat, adding that they are unlikely to "dare to withhold or deny an endorsement to its highest state officeholder." Also at NewsBusters, Alex Fitzsimmons was similarly incredulous that MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski wanted to hear Blumenthal's side of the story.
Tim Graham also didn't believe that Blumenthal should be allowed to defend himself. In a May 19 NewsBusters post, he wrote that PBS "NewsHour" anchor Judy Woodruff reported on Connecticut Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal’s lies that he served in Vietnam, but reported with a straight face that he didn’t lie on every occasion." Graham added that the idea that Blumenthal might have misspoke about his service was just a "weasel word" and that a reporter from "the liberal Hartford Courant newspaper ... aggressively worked on the damage control squad for Blumenthal."
NewsBusters' P.J. Gladnick piled on, attacking Times columnist David Brooks for being "both absurd and contradictory in the same paragraph" for suggesting that Blumenthal claiming he servedin Vietnam was an "accident" and that while the claim that he did was "dishonorable ... everybody expects politicians to lie."
Meanwhile, the Times' story was starting to unravel. The Associated Press reported that among the evidence the Times cited against Blumenthal was "a video of Blumenthal saying at a 2008 event that he had served in Vietnam," but that "[a] longer version of the video posted by a Republican opponent shows Blumenthal at the beginning of his speech correctly characterizing his service by saying that he 'served in the military, during the Vietnam era.'"
MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan had the temerity to say the Times was telling "only part of the story" because it didn't report Blumenthal's other statement in the video, so MRC analyst Kyle Drennen scoffed that it was "[h]ardly a statement that would have corrected the record for the audience." When Ratigan noted that the Times story has received "criticism from NPR, Columbia Journalism Review, and others," Drennen retorting by quoting National Review's Jonah Goldberg -- not an unbiased media analyst -- claiming that "everyone outside the realm of naked partisan politics agrees that Blumenthal is a liar and shameful one at that."
Since then, the Times story has continued to unravel. It claimed that Blumenthal was never on the Harvard swim team despite having been described as team captain; in fact, Blumenthal was on the team, and there's no evidence he ever claimed to be team captain. It has also been revealed that the Times had the full video of Blumenthal's speech before publication. Further, Times public editor Clark Hoythas admitted problems: "Were there flaws in the story? Yes: It should have said more about how it originated; it should have provided mitigating information far higher; it should have noted that his official biography was accurate. The full video should have been posted so readers could make their own judgments."
Still, despite these problems, Mark Finkelstein attacked Times reporter John Harwood for "casually dismissed the candidate's lies about having served in Vietnam as just a case of getting 'a little carried away,'" adding that "Mark Halperin of Time essentially sided with Harwood." At no point does Finkelstein mention the problems that have been identified with the Times story.
The lesson: The MRC doesn't care about journalism, only politics. It's willing to stand by the distorted conclusions of a badly reported article when a Democrat suffers from the bad reporting.
WND Still Hiding Manning's Obama-Hate Topic: WorldNetDaily
Remember last week when WorldNetDaily penned a fawning story about the so-called "trial" of Barack Obama held by rabid Obama-hater James David Manning? Unsurprisingly, Manning's kangaroo court found Obama "guilty," and WND's Stewart Stogel has penned a similarly fawning May 22 article.
Stogel allows Manning to baselessly and ludicrously claim that "the fact that the Secret Service, charged with protecting the president and investigating threats, allowed the 'trial' to take place constitutes evidence it was legitimate." Strangely, though, Stogel doesn't detail any of the "evidence" that Manning used to arrive at his "guilty" verdict -- too crazy even for WND, perhaps?
As he did before, Manning failed to detail evidence of Manning's visceral hatred of Obama, such as calling him a "long-legged mack daddy." Instead, Stogel deceptively portrays Manning as having "heaped praise on the 42nd president" -- which goes against Manning's history.
Stogel appears to know that if he told the truth about Manning, it would discredit WND through its promotion of him. And Stogel is not getting paid to discredit his employer, so he deceives his readers instead.
New Article: Klein the Slime v. Elena Kagan Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein has hurled repeated attacks -- many of them distorted or completely false -- at President Obama's Supreme Court nominee. Read more >>
Cashill Revives An Old Conspiracy Topic: WorldNetDaily
Back in 2006, we detailed how WorldNetDaily's Jack Cashill tried to portray then-Rep. Curt Weldon as the victim of a conspiracy by the Clinton Shadow Government to keep him from investigating "the truth behind Sandy Berger's shredding of stolen files, the Rosetta Stone of the Clinton saga."
Cashill revisits that conspiracy in his May 20 column, occasioned by the defeat of Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania Senate Democratic primary by Joe Sestak, who ultimately defeated Weldon in 2006. The FBI raid of the homes of Weldon's daughter and a friend a couple weeks before that election -- as part of an investigation into whether Weldon used his office to steer defense-related contracts to family members --were politically motivated, Cashill again insisted, ominously adding: "By noon of that same day, a group of nearly 20 Democratic activists were protesting outside Weldon's district office in Upper Darby, carrying matching signs that read, 'Caught Red-Handed.' This, too, had to be coordinated."
Cashill concludes by stating, "Oh, by the way, Weldon has never been charged with anything." Cashill is quiet, however, about who has been charged in the investigation.
As TPM notes, a lobbyist and "very good friend" of Weldon's, Cecelia Grimes, was charged in 2008 with destroying evidence in the investigation, including throwing away her Blackberry. She pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five months of home detention. And in 2007, Weldon's former chief of staff, Russell James Caso Jr., agreed to plead guilty to helping a consulting firm championed by Weldon obtain federal funds and for concealing money the firm paid his wife. He was also sentenced to home detention.
Gee, wonder why Cashill doesn't want you to know about that?