Noel Sheppard Unhappy Obama Did Introduction for 'To Kill A Mockingbird' Topic: NewsBusters
How much does the Media Research Center so utterly despise President Obama? He's not even allowed to innocuously comment on a movie without criticism.
Thus, we get the spectacle of Noel Sheppard using an April 8 NewsBusters post to rant about Obama providing an introduction to the USA Network's broadcast of the classic film "To Kill A Mockingbird." Sheppard rather vociferously insists his criticism isn't about race or even the content of what Obama said, but the fact he was allowed to do it in the first place:
Let's be clear: there's absolutely nothing I disagree with concerning the content of the President's introduction.
"To Kill A Mockingbird" is my favorite film. Gregory Peck should win an Oscar every year for his remarkable performance, as should Horton Foote for writing a screenplay adaptation that is actually far better than the book. That's a very rare feat.
Beyond this, despite the concern of many conservatives, there was absolutely nothing provocative in this introduction. Thankfully, there was no mention of how the film somehow relates to the Trayvon Martin shooting.
But did the USA Network have to give the President more free face time in front of the public during an election year?
We saw the President before the Super Bowl. Just last week he appeared during the NCAA college basketball Final Four, and got a lot of airtime prior giving his bracket selection.
With the Olympics coming up this summer, it seems a metaphysical certitude we'll be seeing a lot of Mr. Obama during those Games. Likely the World Series just before the elections as well.
If Obama were a Republican, one envisions liberals shouting from the rooftops about such free face time, especially before a classic film revered by the Left for its treatment of racial prejudice.
With tongue in cheek, I daresay that for the 46 percent of the nation that doesn't approve of the job he's doing, having Obama introduce this film was "sort of like shooting a mockingbird."
Is Sheppard really this small and petty? Apparently so.
AIM Continues Freaking Out Over Non-Conservatives on Fox News Topic: Accuracy in Media
Accuracy in Media, it seems, just can't stand the sight of liberals on Fox News -- in January, Cliff Kincaid ranted about Fox's hiring of "open lesbian" Sally Kohn.
Now, Fox's hiring of Jesse Jackson's daughter, Santita Jackson, has brought a new round of freakouts. In an April 5 blog post, Don Irvine frets that the hiring will "confound conservatives who see no need for the top-rated cable news network to give liberals even more of a voice than they currently have. They already have MSNBC and CNN, along with the rest of the mainstream media." Irvine continues: "Fox runs the risk of alienating its conservative audience to the point that they will look elsewhere for their news, and eventually end Fox’s long run as the top cable news network."
Kincaid expands on the freakout in an April 6 article, claiming that Jackson's hiring is a bid by Fox News to "avoid left-wing attacks on its news operations and commentators," adding, "It is apparent that the left-wing attacks on Fox News, many of them directed through the Soros-funded Media Matters group, have taken their toll." Kincaid went on to attack Jackson's "taste for racial and divisive politics," then follows Irvine in fretting that Fox is losing its right-wing cred: "Is her father next in line for a show on the 'conservative' channel?"
That hostility is telling -- it shows that AIM is not interested in balance, which Fox is trying to achieve by adding liberal commentators, but cares only about shutting down liberal viewpoints.
AIM, by the way, had this same kneejerk reaction in 2006 when Fox hired Kimberly Guilfoyle as a commentator, attacking her as "a noted supporter of the homosexual rights movement" and "an active member in the San Francisco affiliate of the National Women’s Political Caucus, a pro-abortion feminist group." Of course, Guilfoyle has morethanprovenherself as one of the many, many conservatives on Fox that is need of being "fair and balanced" by an actual liberal commentator.
The Week In Gay-Bashing At the MRC Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has always had an anti-gay agenda. They felt the need to ramp it up last week.
In an April 4 MRC Culture & Media Institute article, Paul Wilson declared that NBC reporting on transgender beauty contest pageant contestant Jenna Talackova was the same thing as "hyp[ing]" it, thus invoking the Depiction-Equals-Approval Fallacy. Wilson went on to complain that "NBC would not allow any voices who might contradict the liberal mantra that gender is changeable, while sexual orientation is not."
The next day, Wilson attacked "a lesbian writing in the HuffPost Gay Voices section" for writing about the idea of a "queer Christ," huffing about Jesus being "converted into a gay icon in order to better promote the homosexual agenda," which "bears little resemblance to the Christ of the Bible." Dan Savage is dragged into this for some reason.
Perhaps that was on orders of his boss, Brent Bozell, who dedicated his April 7 column to bashing Savage's new MTV sex-advice show, which he grumbled was nothing more than "provocative, raunchy sex chatter." Bozell also rants that "MTV wants us to know that Savage’s homosexuality makes him more qualified as a sex therapist."
Meanwhile, back at CMI, Lauren Thompson -- who just can't seem to get around to posting her massive list of purported "anti-Christian" offenses in the TV show "GCB" -- found a new show to complain about. The ABC show "Scandal," she writes, is "a blatant platform for lefty views and policies." The particular offense here was a conservative war-hero character who was found to have kissed another man, and by the episode he "saw the light, and openly and proudly gave up his conservative lifestyle." Thompson whined: "Obviously lefties only celebrate military heroes who cover themselves in liberal ideology, while they decry true acts of valor as military propaganda. The real propaganda here was the flagrant and unashamed heralding of liberal policies, and the left’s complete intolerance of contradicting views."
Thompson's entire column, of course, is an example of right-wing intolerance of contradicting views. Ironic, isn't it?
David Kupelian has put up another one of his periodic treatises on the virtues of WorldNetDaily (and solicitation for donations, even though WND is a for-profit operation). He makes it clear that WND is nothing more than an anti-Obama sleaze machine and, as such, not terribly concerned with the truth:
As you know all too well, the biggest reason 69 million Americans voted to elect Barack Obama as president in 2008 was the elite news media’s scandalous failure to vet him – and their cult-like worship of him as a political messiah.
Well, we’re about seven months away from the 2012 election, and guess who is once again all geared up to usher in a second – and even more disastrous – presidential term for Obama?
Right – our friends in the news media.
And while you might think three-and-a-half years of Obama-style desolation would wake up the media, in some ways the situation now is even worse!
Kupelian touts how "the first official U.S. law enforcement investigation into the matter, led by Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, established 'probable cause' that the document released with great fanfare by the White House last April is a computer-generated forgery," but failed to mention WND's behind-the-scenes role in instigating the investigation (and, with Jerome Corsi's involvement, direct involvement with it), and it has hidden from its readers how the "investigation" cant be trusted because it competely ignored anyone who disagreed with Corsi's pet birther conspiracies, such as John Woodman. Of course, WND has similarly pretended that Woodman does not exist.
Kupelian also claims that the "investigation" found that "the family of unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers allegedly funded 'foreign student' Barack Obama through Harvard Law School," but the source of this claim, the Ayers' former mailman, is recalling conversations from more than 20 years ago, can't back up anything he says, and can't even prove that the supposedly "foreign student" is Obama.
We believe WND is the kind of news organization America’s founders would have approved. We don't mock patriotic Americans trying to set their country right. We don't rewrite White House press releases and call it news. We don't bow and scrape before President Obama or anyone else. We don't pretend abortion is OK, or that same-sex marriage is good, or that global warming is "proven science," or that more government is the solution to all problems, or that Palestinian leaders wants peace, or that the Constitution is old-fashioned, or that the "Federal Reserve" is good for America. In short, we're not politically correct and we have no sacred cows. Instead, our team of experienced, professional journalists strives to do one thing – to tell the truth that Americans desperately need and deserve to hear.
We've previously deconstructed earlier versions of Kupelian's letter to demonstrate WND's dishonesty and cravenness, as well as its bald-faced lie that it has "no sacred cows." Meanwhile, these are the virtues WND considers to be "truth" these days:
Do people really "desperately need and deserve to hear" such hateful fringe rantings, as Kupelian insists? We suspect not -- though Kupelian seems to think WND's readers are stupid enough to swallow it.
Flashback: When John Derbyshire Advocated Killing Chelsea Clinton Topic: The ConWeb
John Derbyshire's column in which he recommended that parents tell their children to be wary of black people -- which has been universally denounced and resulted in his firing from National Review -- is hardly the first time he's gotten in trouble for his writing.
In 2001, we reported on Derbyshire's National Review column in which he argued that Chelsea Clinton should be killed to remove "the taint" of her father. He later insisted that his column was "partly tongue in cheek."
CNS Nitpicks Obama's Statements About Jesus Topic: CNSNews.com
How much does CNSNews.com utterly loathe President Obama? It devoted not one but two articles to nitpicking religious statements he made.
In an April 4 article, Fred Lucas complains that Obama, at an Easter prayer breakfast, said that Jesus was "a son of God." In fact, Lucas huffs:
The Christian faith teaches that Jesus is theonly Son of God. John 3:16-18: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”
Then, on April 6, Lucas grumbled that Obama said that Jesus "knew doubt" and had "doubts.” Lucas dug up a "Christian scholar" to assist this attack:
Alan Schreck, a professor of theology at Franciscan University of Steubenville, understands why Obama would say Jesus experienced fear.
“In these accounts in the scripture, Jesus’ humanity is clear in terms of realizing fully the pain that he was about to accept freely for our salvation on the cross,” Schreck told CNSNews.com. “From that sense, to use the word ‘fear’ as a natural human revulsion against suffering physical pain--I think the accounts do show that, the mention of Jesus’s humanity.”
However, Schreck could not see a theological or biblical context in which Jesus experienced “doubt.”
“My question is what would He be doubting? Would He be doubting the Father’s care and merciful love? Is He doubting the value of his mission? I don’t think there is any real context that I could understand to say Jesus doubted,” Schreck said.
“The president doesn’t make it clear what He was doubting,” said Schreck. “He was giving a general statement. I don’t want to pretend I knew what the president intended but I would think the word ‘doubt’ would not be suitable because it doesn’t make it clear what He’s doubting. He didn’t doubt the mission he was sent on. He predicted his passion, according to the scriptures.”
Did Schreck know that he was serving a tool for Lucas' anti-Obama agenda?
Does Lucas have nothing more important to do with his life than nitpick the faith of others?
Full Metal Fluffing: Newsmax Unleashes Kessler to Fawn Over Romney Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax has, it seems, finally unleashed Ronald Kessler to be the Mitt Romney shill we know so well.
In his second pro-Romney column in a week, Kessler complains in his April 5 piece that the media has "suppressed" evidence of Romney's "human side," namely the story -- oft repeated by Kessler -- of Romney enlisting his Bain Capital to find the daugher of one of his partners, who had gone missing in New York. This story, Kessler insists, "that could potentially swing many voters to Romney." Which, presumably, is why Kessler keeps repeating it.
As Kessler is also wonttodo, he beats the dead horse of Jeremiah Wright, complaining that "the media" ignored his original Wright-bashing in 2007.
WND Denigrates Fox Anchor As 'Infobabe' Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Joe Kovacs, a Rush Limbaugh acolyte, apparently couldn't help himself in an April 4 article on an interview Fox News' Megyn Kelly conducted with Sheriff Joe Arpaio, resorting to a denigrating Limbaugh-ism to smear Kelly.
The original headline on Kovac's article: "Sheriff Joe flays Fox News 'infobabe'." Yes, "infobabe" is in quotes, even though he quotes nobody saying the word.
Somebody at WND apparently had a change of heart -- perhaps deciding that it's bad form to denigrate people on the same end of the political spectrum as they are. The headline now reads, "Sheriff Joe flays Fox News anchor." But the lineage remains in the article's URL, and it was promoted on its mailing list with the "infobabe" smear intact:
Thanks to the Internet and URL naming convention, Kovacs' smear lives on. He must be proud.
Noel Sheppard Shocked That Opinion Host Expresses An Opinion Topic: NewsBusters
NewsBusters' Noel Sheppard is often shocked by things that aren't shocking. He proves that again in an April 4 post complaining that Ed Schultz started his MSNBC show by saying, "Suck it up, righties." Sheppard whines:
Are the folks at MSNBC the slightest bit concerned anymore with showing even a hint of impartiality in their so-called "news" programming?
Interesting how he started with "Good evening, Americans."
After all, according to January's Gallup poll, 40 percent of Americans described themselves as conservative. This compared to only 21 percent claiming to be liberal.
This means Schultz began his show telling 40 percent of the nation to suck it up.
Is this really what should be acceptable on a so-called "news" network?
Just one little problem with Sheppard's rant: MSNBC doesn't consider Schultz's show to be "news." As Politico reports, MSNBC considers everything from 3 p.m. into primetime to be "point of view" shows.
In other words, Sheppard is complaining that a "point of view" host is offering a point of view.
We can't recall Sheppard complaining about the rampantopinion found at Fox News even on so-called "news" shows. But that's probably because it's an opinion Sheppard agrees with.
Is WND Ramping Up Its Shilling for Santorum? Topic: WorldNetDaily
Despite WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah joining in lockstep with other right-wing leaders to endorse Rick Santorum's presidential campaign, WND has surprisingly done not all that much to promote Santorum. One might have expected something along the lines of Newsmax's ridiculouslyblatant shilling for Newt Gingrich, but that hasn't happened. Birtherism trumps all, apparently.
But is that about to change? An April 5 article by Bob Unruh touts "a report released today by Rick Santorum’s campaign" claiming that "GOP primary tabulations assembled by the media are wrong, and the former Pennsylvania senator actually is much closer to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney than is being portrayed."
WND also linked to a Politico article on Santorum meeting with "a group of longtime conservative activists" reportedly plotting "a late attempt to rally the right and block Mitt Romney’s nomination from becoming inevitable." No word on whether Farah is part of that group.
It would not be surprising for WND to finally to "Newtmax" on us, and it looks like it's about ready to do that.
CNS Can't Stop Putting Words In Obama's Mouth Topic: CNSNews.com
In an April 3 CNSNews.com article, Fred Lucas writes:
President Barack Obama told a gathering of newspaper editors on Tuesday that journalists were being too balanced in reporting on his conflict with Republicans over the federal budget.
No, he didn't. Here's what Lucas quotes Obama as saying:
“I guess another way of thinking about this--and this bears on your reporting--I think that there is oftentimes the impulse to suggest that if the two parties are disagreeing that they are equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle, equivalence is presented, which reinforces people’s cynicism about Washington in general,” Obama said. “This is not a situation where there is equivalence.”
Obama is not talking about "balance," he's talking about false equivalence, a completely different concept.
Elizabeth Harrington lays a similar word-stuffing an April 5 CNS article that "Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Douglas Shulman said Thursday that paying taxes is a pathway taxes to citizenship for illegal aliens." Despite using the term "illegal aliens" several times in her article, Harrington offers no evidence that Shulman himself ever used the term.
Bozell Hypocritically Bashes NBC For Same Kind of Editing The MRC Does Topic: Media Research Center
It wouldn't be the Media Research Center if Brent Bozell wasn't being a craven hypocrite, and he proves that again in desperately trying to blow up in incident regarding an edited 911 tape in the Trayvon Martin case aired by NBC.
The Washington Post has reported that NBC will be investigating who at NBC was responsible for dishonestly airing a doctored 9-1-1 conversation between George Zimmerman to make it look like Zimmerman's intent was racially motivated. Media Research Center President Brent Bozell stated this is not enough.
"This is a massive breach of the public trust. NBC is guilty of dishonestly fanning the flames of racial hatred in America by doctoring tapes. NBC cannot be trusted with the investigation. It's like Nixon investigating the Watergate tapes. NBC is guilty of deliberately lying to the viewing public, and NBC is going to be in charge of investigating itself? NBC’s parent company Comcast needs to investigate the intentional editing of George Zimmerman’s 9-1-1 call. Comcast needs to come clean. Everyone involved needs to be held accountable."
Yes, Bozell likened an edited audiotape to Watergate.
Of course, Bozell's organization selectivelyedits transcripts and video to promote their right-wing agenda onaregularbasis. Has Bozell demanded an investigation into his own operations? Has he held anybody accountable for their dishonesty? Nope.
When NBC issued an apology for airing the edited tape -- something the MRC's Tim Graham immediately took credit for by calling it "A Win for NewsBusters" -- it wasn't enough for Bozell.
Cue another indignant press release in which Bozell huffed that it wasn't enough and again invokes his ludicrous Watergate comparison:
"We reject this fraudulent apology,” said Bozell. “We're not surprised. After all, NBC 'investigated' itself. We again call on Comcast, not NBC, to investigate this matter -- thoroughly, honestly, and professionally.”
In NBC’s apology, they stated that an “error” was made and that they “deeply regret” it. "There was no 'error,' as if a 'mistake' was made. This was a willful distortion, deliberately taking the quotes out of context in order to twist their meaning and feed the narrative of a racist assault. The level of dishonesty and journalistic abuse of the public trust is astonishing,” contends Bozell.
Yesterday, the MRC issued a press release calling for NBC parent company Comcast to lead the investigation stating that having NBC conduct the investigation is equivalent to having Nixon investigate Watergate.
"It is unclear to me if NBC is laughing, or spitting in the face of the public with that 'apology.' The 'investigation' apparently was as thorough and honest as the explanation: two whole sentences of nothing.”
This is the same Bozell who thought that Rush Limbaugh's three-day tirade of misogyny against Sandra Fluke merely "crossed a line" and that the so-called "apology" Limbaugh issued -- dumped on a weekend in the wake of widespread criticism and an advertiser boycott, and which covered only two words he said and not the dozens of other insults he hurled at Fluke -- to be perfectly adequate. Bozell never called for any investigation into Limbaugh's long record of misogyny (perhaps because they are of like mind on the subject).
Bozell concludes by claiming that "NBC has lost its credibility as a news organization" -- ignoring his own loss of credibilty due to his own rampant hypocrisy.
Bozell is simply ranting about things that he does nothing about when his own organization does it, and he rejects an apology when he accepted much lamer ones. In other words, business as usual at the MRC.
CNS Uses NCAA Basketball Championship To Bash Gender Studies, For Some Reason Topic: CNSNews.com
An April 2 CNSNews.com article by Thomas Cloud uses the NCAA men's college basketball champaionship game between Kansas and Kentucky to ... bash gender studies.
You can spend four years earning a degree in “Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies” at the University of Kansas or a degree in "Gender and Women's Studies" at the University of Kentucky.
But the degree will cost you more at Kansas if you are an out-of-state student than it will at Kentucky.
At Kansas, according to the College Board, tuition plus room and board is currently $21,446 per year for an in-state student and $34,832 for an out-of-state student.
At Kentucky, it's $22,142 for an in-state student and $31,754 for an out-of-state student.
That works out to a cool $139,328 for an out-of-state student to earn an undergraduate degree in gender studies at Kansas versus just $127,016 for an out-of-state student at Kentucky. That's assuming the tuition and board and room costs don't increase--and the student finishes in four years.
Why spend so much time and money earning a college degree in gender studies?
The more logical question: Why did Cloud wasate so much time and money writing this bitter, mean-spirited piece of "news"?
Newsmax's Ruddy Channels Bozell to Defend Limbaugh Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax's Christopher Ruddy has decided to take the Brent Bozell approach toward Rush Limbaugh's tirade of misogyny toward Sandra Fluke -- pretend that what Limbaugh said really wasn't that offensive and play the persecution card.
In an April 4 column, Ruddy dismissed Limbaugh's denigrating attacks as nothing more than a "mistake," praising him for having gone so long without making such a "mistake" (which is not true):
It is a remarkable testament to Rush Limbaugh’s broadcasting acumen that in nearly 25 years as a national radio host, the worst mistake he’s made is his recent comments about Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke.
Think of it. Three hours a day, five days a week, almost a quarter of a century (roughly 20,000 hours) of air time – and the liberal establishment wants to get America’s most-listened-to radio host off the air for a comment he’s completely apologized for!
Ruddy insisted that Limbaugh's "apology" was "sincere," that "so many liberal commentators have said far worse without apology," and that "this brouhaha should have passed" as a result.
This, of course, is followed by Ruddy's lamenting of an "attempt to muzzle conservative voices," adding that "No one has ever stopped liberal hosts from broadcasting on radio." Which conveniently ignores the fact that a certain someone is trying to stop liberal hosts from appearing on TV.
Noel Sheppard Asks Questions Answered in the Transcript In His Blog Post Topic: NewsBusters
Does Noel Sheppard even read what he writes? Apparently not.
Sheppard rants in an April 4 NewsBusters post about "The Daily Show's" Jon Stewart discussing Sarah Palin's appearance on "Today":
Honestly, do you think there's anything this woman could do that would get favorable reviews from the likes of Jon Stewart?
Can anyone explain exactly what Sarah Palin has done to warrant the continued harassment she gets from liberal media members?
For myself, it's this kind of ad hominem attack that led me to stop watching the Daily Show in 2004.
And Stewart points fingers at Palin for dividing the nation.
From my perspective, he is far more guilty of it than the conservatives he mercilessly attacks night in and night out.
Sheppard apparently didn't even bother to read the "Daily Show" transcript he appended to his blog post, for the very first thing he quotes Stewart saying is: "The former Alaska Governor was actually quite good and likable in this setting." Which answers the question of whether Palin could ever get "favorable reviews from the likes of Jon Stewart."
Then, regarding Sheppard's questionn of "exactly what Sarah Palin has done to warrant the continued harassment she gets from liberal media members," Stewart spends the rest of the excerpt doing exactly that, starting the second sentence of the excerpt: "My issue was not with how I viewed Governor Palin as co-host of the Today show. It was mostly with how Governor Palin seemed to view it." Which is, as Stewart goes on to explain, "cynically exploiting a manufactured notion of yourself as a crusader against a monolithic exclusionary activist liberal media whilst actually enjoying a mutually beneficial, symbiotic relationship with them only to the detriment to the rest of the country."
If Sheppard had, y'know, actually read the transcript he copied-and-pasted into his blog post, he would have had his questions answered.
Is Sheppard being this obtuse on purpose? Or is he naturally dense?