Newsmax Remains Unenthused About Romney Topic: Newsmax
As with the aftermath of Super Tuesday, the aftermath of Tuesday's primaries in Mississippi and Alabama is continuing to leave Newsmax less than enthused about the prospect of Mitt Romney as the Republican presidential nominee.
Here are a couple post-election headlines from Newsmax:
In addition, before the election, Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy posted a column that began: "I am continually amazed how those at the Romney campaign continue to act victorious when they have such a poor case to make about cinching the nomination."
Ouch. None of this unenthusiasm, by the way, precludes Newsmax fromcranking up its hype machine for Romney should he actually get the nomination. It's done that sort of flip-flop before.
Brent Bozell Demands That Obama Break the Law Topic: Media Research Center
Not content with merely dispiaying rampant hypocrisy in attacking liberals who say offensive things in order to distract fromthe offensive things Rush Limbaugh has said, Brent Bozell has expanded to launching a really dumb attack on President Obama.
For the past several days, Bozell has been tweeting this message, changing the number of days appropriately: "Obama's had XX days to decide what to do with misogynist Bill Maher's $1 million check. It should have taken one."
First, Maher did not donate that $1 million to Obama; he donated to Obama's PAC, which by law Obama has no control over. By asking Obama to direct his PAC to do something, Bozell is asking Obama to break the law.
Second, Bozell's raginbg hypocrisy again rears its ugly head. Whatever day Bozell lists as Obama havnig not yet decided "what to do with misogynist Bill Maher's $1 million check" is the exact same number of days Bozell has had to issue meaningful criticism of Rush Limbaugh's misogyny, and he has utterly failed to do so. As the man said, it should have taken one.
Why should anyone take direction from Bozell when he doesn't even have the basic decency to genuinely criticize Limbaugh for the same misogyny he bashes others for? We can't think of a reason.
Farah Laughably Claims He's Never Said Anything 'Hateful or Defamatory' About Gays Topic: WorldNetDaily
A March 14 WorldNetDaily article brands the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation's new Commentator Accountability Project -- which seeks to track statements made by anti-gay activists -- as an "enemies list" whose goal is "to limit the effectiveness of their media outreach."
The article includes the responses from numerous people on that list, one of which is WND's very own Joseph Farah:
In response, Farah said he has never spoken a hateful or defamatory word about homosexuals in his life.
“The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation should more accurately be called the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Criticism,” said Farah. “These people actually believe that if you have a different viewpoint and a different value system from them you are a hate-filled, bigoted monster. Here’s a group that claims in its own name that it is ‘against defamation,’ but actively defames those with whom it has disagreements. Not one example of hateful or defamatory language is offered as evidence against any of those listed in this report.”
Here are some of the things Farah has said about gays that we are to believe are not "hateful or defamatory":
Likening those to favor the legality of gay marriage to terrorists.
Expressing unhappiness that Rick Perry doesn't hate gays as much as he does, and advocating the dissolution of the United States over gay marriage.
CNS Oil Industry Shilling Watch Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com keeps up its shilling for the oil industry -- which has funded CNS' parent, the Media Research Center -- in a spate of recent articles.
In a March 13 article, Penny Starr lets the American Petroleum Institute uncritically attack Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s claim that the oil and gas industry is not taking advantage of the leases it already holds. Starr does not permit anyone to respond to the API's claims.
Melanie Hunter managed to derive three separate articles out of a C-SPAN interview with former Shell Oil President John Hofmeister. The first, in which Hofmeister claims that, in Hunter's words, "the U.S. won’t have enough oil to fill gas tanks whatever the price and that high gas prices could lead to another recession," is seemingly contradicted by the second, in which Hofmeister notes that the recession has reduced U.S. demand foroil, and has a result "the [oil] companies are not just going to let gasoline sit in storage tanks, when the demand by Americans has been reduced. They’re going to sell it outside the country, which is what they’re doing."
Hunter seems uninterested in exploring whether U.S. oil needs would be better met if oil companies weren't exporting U.S. petroleum products.
The third article reinforces the right-wing talking point that most new drilling takes place on private land and that federal land permits have been "dramatically reduced in the last several years."cns
Hypocritical Bozell Accuses MSNBC of Hypocrisy Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell writes to MSNBC president Phil Griffin:
Dear Mr. Griffin,
Your network, working on marching orders from Media Matters, is on a mission to take Rush Limbaugh off the air. Far from being an independent journalistic enterprise, MSNBC is the very essence of a political lapdog of the far left.
Just last night on MSNBC, Ed Schultz, Al Sharpton, and Lawrence O’Donnell all devoted time on their programs attacking Rush. In each case, they grabbed at thin air looking, looking, looking for the opportunity shamelessly to keep the story alive.
These assaults by MSNBC have nothing to do with what he said about Sandra Fluke, and everything to do with censoring prominent voices on the right. Gas prices are nearing $4 a gallon, the unemployment rate hovers over 8%, the US debt is soaring to astronomical highs, but MSNBC is too busy to cover these legitimate news stories. Instead you go after Rush.
And you're doing it in the most hypocritical manner imaginable.
While your network continues to attack Rush, you personally continue to employ Ed Schultz. Ed Schultz, the man who called Laura Ingraham a “right wing slut.”
If what Rush said is so offensive that it deserves your network's obsession with having him removed, then what are you going to do about a host who has a history of insults a hundred-fold worse than anything Limbaugh has ever said? Unless you fire Ed Schultz, you are a complete hypocrite.
It's time you take responsibility for hiring and promoting this hate-filled misogynist, and resign.
Hoo-boy. Where to begin?
We have the utterly shameless hypocrisy of a man who has offered nothing but the most tepid, milquetoast criticism of Rush Limbaugh's misogyny lecturing somebody else on hypocrisy about offensive remarks.
We have a man who has a regular weekly slot on Fox News, the political lapdog of the far right, lecturing somebody else about purported "marching orders from Media Matters" (which he offers no evidence of) and media bias.
We have someone who is paying his employees handsomely to steer the topic of discussion to anything except Rush lecturing someone about covering Rush.
And how, exactly, did Bozell calculate that Limbaugh calling Fluke a slut and a prostitute, that she's "having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills," that she's "round-heeled," that she "wants to be paid to have sex," and that she should "post the videos online so we can all watch" -- a torrent of sleaze inspired by one of Bozell's own employees, Craig Bannister -- is oneone-hundreth the insult of any single thing Ed Schultz said? Does the fact that Limbaugh is a conservative and, thus, is granted immunity by Bozell for these sleazy insults play a major role in that calculation?
If MSNBC must fire Schultz, Bozell must demand that Limbaugh not only be fired from his radio show but also that he return his Buckley award to the MRC. Unless that happens, he's an even more complete hypocrite than he already was.
WND Presents Pro-Birther News Report As 'Balanced' Topic: WorldNetDaily
A March 13 WorldNetDaily article touts the "stunner" of a purportedly "balanced" news report by a CBS affiliate in Phoenix on the press conference for the "investigation" by Joe Arpaio's cold case posse into President Obama's "eligibility."
But if you watch the segment, it's clear that it's slanted in favor of uncritically presenting only what the posse concluded, and there's no "balance" whatsoever in the form of telling the other side of the story, which is that birthers are pushing discredited conspiracy theories.
Funny idea of "balance" there, WND.
WND also presents as a "stunning challenge" birther posse leader Mike Zullo's claim that anyone who thinks the posse's conclusions are nothing but "B.S." should prove it.
But as WND should know by now -- but won't tell its readers about -- the posse's claims have been discredited. WND doesn't actually care about "balance."
NEW ARTICLE: Silence and Slime at the MRC Topic: Media Research Center
Not only have Brent Bozell's Media Research Center subordinates refused to criticize Rush Limbaugh for his misogynistic attacks on Sandra Fluke, they defended Limbaugh's purported humor and did some Fluke-bashing of their own. Read more >>
WND's Massie Just Can't Quit Larry Sinclair Topic: WorldNetDaily
Mychal Massie is apparently basing his Obama-hating columns on chain emails now, as his March 12 WorldNetDaily column:
If the media declared it their job to find the truth about George Bush, Justice Thomas, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, ad nauseum, why do they not feel the same way about Obama and his wife? Why are they not applying the same effort, and nearly unlimited resources, to once and for all settle Obama’s birth controversy? Why have they not applied the same determination in uncovering the truth surrounding the Obamas’ surrendering their law licenses? Lawyers I have spoken to tell me that lawyers would literally give up their families before surrendering their law licenses, unless there was a legitimate reason.
Sharon Bialek and Ginger White had a long history of impropriety and sordid pasts, but their accusations against Herman Cain were accepted as gospel truth. Anita Hill offered only disgusting allegations, but they were accepted as gospel truth. Do not the allegations of the late Larry Sinclair deserve the same investigative attention from the media that went into looking into President Bush’s past?
Sinclair, if you'll recall, is the man who claimed he did drugs and had sex with Barack Obama, a claim hyped by WND despite Sinclair offering no proof whatsoever to back it up.Massie ignores the fact that Sinclair is a habitual criminal who utterly discredited himself in a June 2008 press conference.
As for " the truth surrounding the Obamas’ surrendering their law licenses," Massie need only have consulted with the mythbusters at Snopes, which points out that both Barack and Michelle Obama placed their law licenses on inactive status because they didn't need them for the jobs they were performing at the time they surrendered them, not for any disciplinary action as Massie suggests.
It appears that Massie hates Obama more than he cares about the truth. Sad, isn't it?
Roland Martin Returns to CNN; MRC's Graham Hardest Hit Topic: NewsBusters
Tim Graham informs us in a March 13 NewsBusters post that CNN has lifted its suspension of Roland Martin as a commentator following what Graham called "Super Bowl Sunday tweets that offended the gay censorship lobby." Graham added, "CNN is apparently pleased with Martin's sackcloth-and-ashes apology tour with the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. Martin met with GLAAD lobbyist (and former CNN producer) Herndon Graddick on Valentine's Day."
As one of the lead gay-bashers at the Media Research Center, Graham made sure to get in some potshots by suggesting that Martin is still trying to curry favor with GLAAD: "He no doubt pleased GLAAD by complaining on Twitter Monday that no one had a sense of humor who was 'tripping' at the show 'GCB.' He said Christians should 'lighten up.' The show could not be made if it was titled 'Good Gay Bitches.'"
Of course, the MRC's idea of humor is Rush Limbaugh denigrating a woman for speaking out on birth control, so Graham and Co. may not be the best judges of what is and is not funny.
Graham added this detail of his tweet-fight with Martin over "GCB":
When I asked Martin if his wife the Rev. Jacquie Hood Martin objected or if the "bitches" title was okay because there were no black actresses in ABC's gang of "bitches," he only replied, "Nope. I get satire. But go ahead and knock yourself out, dude."
It appears Graham missed Martin while he was away and is glad to have someone to spar with again.
AIM's Kincaid Harshly Criticizes Limbaugh (But Not At AIM) Topic: Accuracy in Media
In contrast to the tepid critiques of Brent Bozell, there is one conservative who has offered forceful criticism of Rush Limbaugh's misogynistic attacks on Sandra Fluke. However, he's apparently not allowed to offer that criticism at the website of his employer.
Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid has harshly criticized Limbaugh, but you won't read about it at AIM -- that sort of thing has been relegated to the fringe-right site Renew America.
In a March 8 Renew America column, Kincaid lamented that "Limbaugh has turned out to be the best thing going for President Obama and the Democrats." After bashing Fluke and the general idea of birth control pills,Kincaid pointed out that Limbaugh was wrong to assume that "birth control pills have no other medical purpose than preventing pregnancy," also noting that Limbaugh "didn't even have the guts to call her personally to apologize, leading to speculation that the hasty statement was a last-ditch effort to stop the mass exodus of his advertisers." Kincaid concluded:
Limbaugh is losing this debate and may lose his show. He has no one to blame but himself. Armed with no facts and a series of smears, Limbaugh, a college drop-out, went into a battle with a young woman law student that he lost and is continuing to lose. Conservatives can and should do better than this. Limbaugh should go, before even more damage to the cause is done.
In a March 10 Renew America column, Kincaid responded to critics:
My advice to those of you who have been critical of me for standing up to Rush Limbaugh: think for yourself. Don't be a "dittohead" for his phony "Gospel" of personal invective. Please stand up for moral values. We cannot hope to save America if we encourage or defend those who drag America down. We should not defend "conservatives" who are in the gutter with the liberals.
We do not have to sink to their level. We should not resort to insulting or abusive language. As an alternative to Limbaugh, I recommend Christian conservative broadcaster Janet Parshall. She is on 700 stations from Alaska to the Virgin Islands. Please listen to her.
Despite Kincaid's claims, Parshall does engage in false and misleading attacks. She baselessly claimed that terrorists wanted John Kerry to defeat President Bush in 2004; treated a satirical right-wing attack on Hillary Clinton as real; and called the adoption of children by same-sex couples "state-sanctioned child abuse."
Is that really any kinder and gentler than Limbaugh? Perhaps it is in Kincaid's world.
Noel Sheppard Attacks Ex-McCain Advisers As Backstabbing Failures Topic: NewsBusters
Noel Sheppard really, really doesn't like the HBO movie about the 2008 McCain-Palin presidential campaign, "Game Change." Or, more accurately, he doesn't like the fact that it apparently tells that story through the eyes of two advisers who paint an unflattering portrait of the campaign.
Sheppard rants in a March 11 NewsBusters post that those two advisers, Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace, "not only were responsible for the worst presidential campaign in decades, but also ended up backstabbing the candidates they represented." He continued:
Instead, the film depicted this as being all Palin's fault, with her left afterward in an on-screen tantrum that concluded with the former Alaska governor throwing her cellphone at a wall.
Such disparagement was standard fare in HBO's "Game Change," which despite book co-author Mark Halperin's claim Palin critics would come away with a more favorable view of the object of their disaffection, this would only be true if you turned off your television after the first hour.
Hour two was filled with the typical Palin-bashing Americans have been exposed to since McCain named her as his running mate in August 2008.
In one scene, Julianne Moore as Palin doesn't know that the Queen of England has nothing to do with actually governing her country.
Sheppard went on to attack Wallace for setting up the now-infamous Sarah Palin interview with Katie Couric, and that "should have been excoriated given the results." But how is it Wallace's fault that Palin was unable to give a straight answer to a simple question like what newspapers she read?
Sheppard further ranted: "It appears that for a Republican to be held in high esteem by the liberal media, all he or she need do is run a failed presidential campaign - McCain-Palin suffered the biggest landslide since Michael Dukakis in 1988 - and then backstab the candidates you represented."
In fact, all Sheppard is doing here is engaging in NewsBusters' favorite pastime of Heathering any conservative who fails to toe the right-wing line with sufficient fealty. And, in the case of Schimidt and Wallace, committing the offense of telling the truth about the McCain-Palin campaign.
But Shepaprd's not done complaining yet. In a March 12 post, he further rants regarding Schimidt that "despite his failure as the McCain-Palin campaign’s senior adviser, and his subsequent backstabbing of the candidates he represented, HBO’s 'Game Change' made him the hero of its Palin-bashing film that premiered Saturday."
Sheppard made it clear that he prefers mindless spouting of talking points over telling the truth:
One quite imagines that if Schmidt had kept his mouth shut and remained loyal to those he had previously served, he wouldn’t be receiving this kind of media adoration nor be a contributor to MSNBC.
But this is what becomes of failed Republican campaign advisers willing to proudly disparage those they used to work for: they are heralded as heroes rather than goats by a fawning media with what should be an obvious agenda, especially to those on the receiving end of the hypocritical praise.
For his part, Schmidt - clearly lacking a soul or a conscience - is going to ride this wave as far as it can go, as for him, the selection of Palin really was a game change.
Actually, it's Sheppard who's the one lacking a soul or conscience by putting ideology before facts. But then, the MRC is presumably paying him well to do exactly that.
UPDATE: Sheppard still isn't done with his tantrum: He also interviews Palin shill John Ziegler to help him attack those "backstabbing failures."
Newsmax's Hirsen Likens Limbaugh Critics to 'Totalitarian Dictators' Topic: Newsmax
James Hirsen uses his March 12 Newsmax column to attack Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem for commiting the offense of criticizing Rush Limbaugh's misogynistic remarks about Sandra Fluke and others through what Hirsen called a "hit piece" on the CNN website. He complains that Fonda and Steinem "compare Limbaugh to Nazi propagandist Josef Goebbels, criticizing him for using the term 'femi-nazi.'"
After rehashing the usual decades-old "Hanoi Jane" attacks, Hirsen concludes:
Interestingly, while expressing disdain over the use of the term “femi-nazi,” Fonda and her cohorts have illustrated why Rush’s coined phrase for radical feminists has a ring of truth to it, since they are choosing to follow in the footsteps of totalitarian dictators who seek to silence those with whom they disagree.
In fact, Limbaugh has used "feminazi" to describe pretty much an non-conservative woman he disagrees with.
Did The MRC Kill Its 'I Stand With Rush' Website? Topic: Media Research Center
On March 5, as part of Brent Bozell's campaign to downplay Rush Limbaugh's misogynistic attack on Sandra Fluke, the Media Research Center created an "I Stand With Rush" website, where visitors could sign a petition denouncing "attempts by radical left-wing organizations and the media to censor Rush and his commonsense conservative message." In the accompanying video, as we noted, Bozell couldn't be moved to criticize Limbaugh beyond we can "all agree Limbaugh crossed a line" and changed the subject to attack liberals.
The also provided a place for Rush fans to contact advertisers who announced they were abandoning the show "but still advertise on left-wing hate radio. Call them and tell them to end the double standard."
So what happened? Did Bozell and the MRC suddenly have a fit of conscience and realize that their pro-Rush website looked like it was rewarding Limbaugh for his hateful remarks? Did they suddenly remember that Limbaugh's three-day-long tirade of misogynism, from which Bozell and crew are trying to distract, was inspired by an MRC employee? Or did so few people sign the petition that the plug was pulled after a week?
Whatever the reason, the MRC is keeping quiet so far, perhaps out of embarassment.
CNS Just Can't Stop Using Afghan War to Bash Obama Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com has regularly denigrated the war effort in Afghanistan by emphasizing the number of U.S. troops killed there under President Obama, something it never did during the Iraq War under President Bush.
CNS keeps up that bias with a March 12 article by Patrick Goodenough touting a poll claiming that "A growing number of Americans – including Republicans – believe the war in Afghanistan has not been worth fighting."
By contrast, to our knowledge, CNS did not report to its readers about polls that showed growing public disapproval of the war in Iraq in the final years of the Bush administration. And in his article, Goodenough makes no mention whatsoever of the war in Iraq.
That tells us that CNS is cynically using the Afghan war to attack Obama.
Bozell used this national platform to issue yet another tepid critique of Limbaugh's misogynist attack on Sandra Fluke: "Let's underscore here, Sean: Rush crossed a line, he acknowledges he crossed a line, he apologized profusely for doing that."
In fact, Limbaugh did not "apologize profusely"; he apologized only for using the words "slut" and "prostitute," not for the dozens of other attacks he hurled at Fluke.
Also, Bozell saying we should "underscore" his tepid criticism doesn't make it any less tepid.
Bozell and Hannity, of course, spent much more time attacking Bill Maher than they did Limbaugh. Bozell atone point said that MSNBC's Chris Matthews "called Bill Maher the funniest, smartest man in the businesson February 27 when he was his guest. Can you explain hypocrisy any better than this?"
Apparently, according to Bozell, denouncing Maher while giving Limbaugh a pass doesn't count as a better explanation of hypocrisy.