Tim Graham Still Hates Daniel Ellsberg, For Some Reason Topic: NewsBusters
Tim Graham was in the mddile of an Oct. 19 NewsBusters rant about the Washington Post review of the the documentary "Hating Breitbart" and its pointing out that "Breitbart's Web sites specialized in showing people behaving stupidly, which is (or should be) a relatively small part of what professional journalists do" -- something Graham doesn't contradict beyond whining about it -- when he added: "The Post's movie reviewers prefer radical-left rabble-rousers -- like Daniel Ellsberg. Forty years after his heyday, Ellsberg was still 'astonishingly germane.'"
Huh? What does Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times, have to do with any of this?
Graham links to a 2010 post he wrote about a Post review of a documentary about Ellsburg, in which he calls Ellsberg a "America-bashing radical leftist whistleblower,' going on to rant: "Ellsberg isn’t a leftist to the Post. He’s a 'consciousness-raiser.' He’s one of those leftists who thinks the public is largely un-conscious."
Graham's dragging Ellsberg into the conversation actually ends up demostrating how correct the Post review is about the Breitbart film. Leaking the Pentagon Papers -- which demonstrated how government officials deceived the public about U.S. involvement in Vietnam -- had an impact on the public discussion about the war, and resulted in a lawsuit that went all the way to the Supreme Court and resulted in a ruling that stood up for First Amendment rights.
The Breitbart sites, meanwhile, have little to point to in the way of accomplishment besides falsely smearing Shirley Sherrod and being so slavishly pro-Romney that not even Graham could have failed to notice the the bias, since it's so much greater than anything he's ever found on the TV networks.
Not that Graham will ever admit any of this, of course.
WND Finds Another Fringe Doctor To Fearmonger About HPV Vaccine Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has a history of invoking fringe medical figures -- like a man who has been called "Austria’s most notorious abortionist" -- to fearmonger about human papilloma virus vaccines like Gardasil. WND editor Joseph Farah has found a new fringe medical figure to carry on the tradition.
In his Oct. 18 WND column, Farah dismisses a new study saying that girls who get the HPV vaccine are no more likely to engage in sexual activity than those who don't. Farah doesn't mention it, but that goes against his website's previous reporting, in which it quoted factually challenged "researcher" Judith Reisman lumping in the vaccine with "promiscuity messages" the culture sends out. Farah added, "I would suggest they might even be less likely to become promiscuous. Because some of them will die and get seriously ill as a result of the vaccine."
Farah went on to cite his evidence:
Then there is Dr. Joseph Mercola. Like others, he has pointed out that the pharmaceutical companies making billions from these vaccines have spent a good portion of those revenues on promoting their drugs to doctors, universities, health journals and, of course, the Food and Drug Administration and CDC. In the old days before the government-media complex, we used to call these payoffs.
[...]
“It’s clear to me that this is another case where the precautionary principle needs to be applied, as currently no one knows exactly whether or not the vaccine will have any measurable effect as far as lowering cervical cancer rates,” says Mercola. “The results will not be fully apparent until a few decades from now, and in the meantime, countless young girls are being harmed, and we still do not know how Gardasil will affect their long-term health, even if they do not experience any acute side effects.”
He continues: “Deadly blood clots, acute respiratory failure, cardiac arrest and ‘sudden death due to unknown causes’ have all occurred in girls shortly after they’ve received the Gardasil vaccine. These are atrocious risks to potentially prevent cervical cancer one day down the road. Because let’s not forget that the HPV vaccine has not yet been PROVEN to actually prevent any kind of cancer. The benefit is just one big ‘maybe.’”
Farah doesn't tell us who Mercola is or what is qualifications are. There's probably a reason for that.
Quackwatch tells us that Mercola is a seller of health supplements who opposes immunization, fluoridation of water, and mammography; claims that amalgam fillings are toxic; and makes many unsubstantiated recommendations for dietary supplements. Still, his work has been promoted on the Dr. Oz TV show. On his own website, Mercola has touted Andrew Wakefield, whose research linking vaccines to autism has been discredited and withdrawn by its publisher.
According to Quackwatch, Mercola has been twice ordered by the Food and Drug Administration to stop making claims about his supplements that go beyond their intended uses. The FDA also ordered Mercola to stop making claims for thermography that go beyond what the equipment he uses.
Mercola has also seen complaints filed against him with the Better Business Bureau that his company did not honor money-back guarantees on his products, his customers have experienced unexplained delivery problems, and that Mercola's company provided customers with shipment tracking numbers that were not valid with their respective shippers, according to Quackwatch.
Given WND's history of fearmongering about vaccines, it's not surprising that Farah would turn to yet another fringe figure to fearmonger some more.
MRC Sticking With The False Obama 'Lie' Story Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center sure seems desperate to keep peddling a story that isn't true.
An Oct. 19 MRC press release declares that "both ABC and NBC continue to cover up President Obama’s lie about Libya during Tuesday night’s debate." It goes on to quote MRC chief Brent Bozell ranting, "It’s inconceivable that leading into the final presidential debate focused entirely on foreign policy that two broadcast networks would continue to spike Barack Obama’s lie about Libya. Obama’s feigned outrage over Mitt Romney’s demand to know why his administration lied to the American people about Libya over and over is outrageous and offensive."
But as we've pointed out, the MRC has proven no "lie" Obama has told -- indeed, the press release doesn't even bother to explain the "lie" it's attacking. Obama did refer to "acts of terror" in the Rose Garden speech following the Benghazi attack -- which the MRC has decided, by purporting to read Obama's mind, that Obama didn't actually mean to link the two and is "lying" about it now.
Bozell and the MRC cannot back up their claim of an Obama "lie," yet it will continue to crank out press releases insisting he did. That's not "media research," that's shilling for the Romney campaign, not to mention a lie in itself. Does the MRC's nonprofit tax status permit such a thing?
WND's Corsi Goes Romney-Fluffing On His Press Plane Topic: WorldNetDaily
We're seeing the fruits of Jerome Corsi's current traipsing about on Mitt Romney's press plane -- Romney-fluffing that would make Ronald Kessler proud.
Here's how Corsi began his Oct. 18 WorldNetDaily article:
An exceptionally upbeat and confident Romney camp left the second presidential debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., to hold two enthusiastic, overflow outdoor rallies in Virginia.
Romney left his hotel in Long Island at 9:30 a.m. Eastern yesterday accompanied by comedian Dennis Miller, who planned to join the Republican nominee at the Virginia rallies.
From all appearances, the Romney campaign – bolstered by a new Gallup poll putting the Republican nominee over the crucial 50-percent mark with just three weeks to go – is a smoothly run operation, with a corporate feel in which meetings and rallies are held on time, contingencies are taken into account and efficient staffers are responsive to media needs and requests.
Corsi then summarized Romney's stump speech, then notes that Romney headed to New York "to prepare for the 67th annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner at the Waldorf Hotel." Uh, Jerry? It's the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. Apparently, Corsi has no access to basic research tools while on the Romney press plane.
Corsi took a similar tone in his article the next day:
From the inside, the Romney campaign has more the feel of a professionally run, initial-public-offering road tour conducted by top Wall Street investment bankers than of a traditional presidential political campaign in which political operatives – for whom it’s just the next in a series of presidential campaigns – jawbone the traveling press about how well this season’s party candidate is doing.
Gallup’s national daily tracking poll of registered voters had Romney up 52 to 45 yesterday and 51 to 45 today.
Today, the Romney motorcade battled afternoon, midtown New York City traffic and contended with drivers of varying skill levels on the New Jersey Turnpike to arrive at Newark Airport with only a 15-minute delay.
Um, Jerry? Nobody cares about how your trip in the Romney motorcade went. Nevertheless, the fawning tone continued:
Like IPO investment bankers ever aware that a market can turn unexpectedly against their corporate client, the Romney team is not expecting the Obama administration’s current problems with its troubled narrative on the Benghazi terrorist attack to persist.
Writing about Romney's debate preparations, Corsi added:
That, Romney campaign spokesmen insist, is the reason the Republican nominee is traveling to Boca Raton early – not to enjoy the beach and sun as fall weather rapidly takes hold, but to use every possible remaining hour to prepare to counter a yet resilient and powerful U.S. president on foreign policy.
Really, did anyone expect anything less than total sycophancy from a near-pathological Obama-hater like Corsi?
Newsmax Hides Romney Links of Obama-Bashing Writer Topic: Newsmax
An Oct. 19 Newsmax article highlights a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Douglas Feith and Seth Cropsey claiming that "The controversy over the Obama administration’s handling of last month’s killing of four Americans in Libya points to the president’s failure to address Islamist extremism."
Newsmax identifies Feith and Cropsey only as "Hudson Institute Senior Fellows," failing to mention that Cropsey is also an adviser to Mitt Romney's campaign.
We know that Newsmax is in pre-election pro-Romney mode, but can'tthey do at least a little journalistic disclosure? We should perhaps give them a little slack, though, since the Journal didn't disclose it either.
Erik Rush's Oct. 17 WorldNetDaily column is headlined "Face it: Liberals are nasty." In it, he complains how liberals' "level of nastiness has increased almost exponentially as this election cycle progresses. From politicians to pundits to dedicated liberals online, the rhetoric and campaigns of character assassination aimed at perceived enemies have grown so poisonous, it was inevitable that people who aren’t ideologically-driven – most Americans, as we are led to believe – would catch on."
MRC's Bozell Invents Obama 'Lie' About Benghazi Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is taking its transcript trutherism to a new level by falsely delcaring President Obama to be a liar for pointing out that he called the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi an "act of terror" in a Rose Garden speech the day of the attack.
An Oct. 18 MRC press release complained that "NBC and ABC continued to run interference for President Obama last night by participating in the cover-up of his lie regarding the terrorist attack in Benghazi," then quoted Bozell saying that "Jan Crawford and CBS News deserve credit for exposing Obama’s deception and criticizing CNN’s Candy Crowley for her role in validating the President’s lie."
But at no point does Bozell or the MRC explain what the "lie" is. In fact, Obama referred to "acts of terror" in the Rose Garden speech -- which the MRC has decided, by purporting to read Obama's mind, that Obama didn't actually mean to link the two. The MRC also is silent about a speech Obama made the next day in which he said that "no act of terror will go unpunished."
Bozell kept up his lie about the "lie" in his Oct. 19 column, in which he ranted that Obama "lied, claiming he’d labeled the Libya attack as an act of terrorism," and that moderator Candy Crowley "leapt to Obama’s defense, declared a lie a truth." Again, Bozell failed to explain exactly what the "lie" is -- apparently, he believes that if he shouts "lie" long enough, his own lie will no longer be one.
That's the situation Bozell and the MRC finds itself in yet again -- factually deficient partisan advocacy masquerading as "media research."
WND's Bradlee Dean Distracts From His Lies By Accusing Others Of Lies Topic: WorldNetDaily
It's the oldest play in the liar's playbook -- distracting from his own lies by accusing others of telling lies.
We've documented how self-proclaimed preacher Bradlee Dean told numerous malicious lies about President Obama in a recent WorldNetDaily column. So what does Dean do in his follow-up column? Rant about the purported lies told by one of his political enemies.
Dean is upset that the "homosexual activist group" Southern Poverty Law Center "has attempted to infiltrate the public school system with its newly designed entry-level 'diversity' program called 'Mix It Up at Lunch Day.'" What is the supposed lie that Dean found so offensive?
The SPLC listed schools on its website that were “participants” of “Mix It Up.” However, the SPLC was reprimanded and exposed by administrators of public schools because it falsely listed its schools as participants without authorization or permission. How did the school systems respond? Get us off your list immediately!
Actually, what happened is that the anti-gay American Family Association had targeted its gay-bashing rhetoric at schools that were on the SPLC's list, prompting the schools to ask the SPLC to be removed from its list.
So it seems that Dean is telling another lie. Is anyone surprised?
When will Dean beg his readers and his God for forgiveness for the lies he can't seem to stop telling? Or is lying OK with the God he purports to preach on behalf of?
NewsBusters Still Shocked That Star of 'Totally Biased' Is Totally Biased (Plus: Mysteriously Deleted Post Found!) Topic: NewsBusters
NewsBusters is still shocked -- shocked! -- that a guy who hosts a show called "Totally Biased" is, uh, totally biased.
In an Oct. 15 post, Matt Vespa complains that W. Kamau Bell of FX’s "Totally Biased" appeared on CNN "to discuss politics and comedy in today’s discourse. However, this self-avowed 'lefty' pulled no punches in slamming Mitt Romney as a candidate whose robotic tendencies forced him 'to act like a human.'"
What, exactly, did Vespa expect from Bell? Or is only allowed to be totally biased only if you're a conservative?
Vespa, meanwhile, did manage to inadvertently solve in part a mystery we found a couple weeks ago. We had noticed that Ryan Robertson's post on "Totally Biased" -- which he also was shocked to discover was totally biased -- had disappeared from NewsBusters without explanation. Vespa links to Robertson's post, which turns out to be currently residing at the Media Research Center's video site, MRCtv.
It still doesn't explain why Robertson's post was retroactively judged to be not ready for prime time -- well, for NewsBusters. But it does live.
What's Jerome Corsi Doing On Romney's Press Plane? Topic: WorldNetDaily
Politico is reporting that WorldNetDaily's Jerome Corsi is currently traveling with the press corps following Mitt Romney. Asked why he was doing so, Corsi responded, "I am a Senior Staff Reporter for WND covering the campaign."
Never mind, of course, that there's no record of Corsi tagging along with any previous presidential candidate's press corps. Never mind that Corsi is one of the most dishonest reporters currently working, peddling hate and sleaze about Romney's opponent that's so factually deficient even birthers have stopped believing him.
Yet, somehow, the Romney campaign considers Corsi a credible enough reporter to cover its candidate.
What are the standards used by the Romney campaign that would provide press credentials to a mendacious hack like Corsi to get the same treatment as reporters for genuine news organizations that don't have their goal the personal destruction of President Obama?
We probably won't get an answer to that. But shouldn't someone at least try to ask?
Meanwhile, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow did a fabulous takedown of Corsi's presence on the Romney press plane, WND's rapidly diminishing influence even among its core far-right audience, and the overall "conservative alternative-reality fantasy bubble" that Corsi and WND represent.
Obama Derangement Syndrome Watch, Wayne Allyn Root Edition Topic: Newsmax
Christians will turn out in record numbers this year. Obama has offended Christians again and again. Last election 20 million evangelical Christians did not vote. They will turn out in record numbers in 2012 to defeat the most anti-Christian president in U.S. history.
How motivated are Christians? Did you see the long lines around the country to support Chick-fil-A a few weeks ago? I predict you’ll see those same lines on Election Day.
It's time to stand up to a man destroying our values, killing jobs, fatally damaging our economy, and abandoning Israel. Christians have had enough of turning the other cheek.
Voter rolls have been purged in 2012 of felons and illegals in many states — particularly Florida and Ohio. Turnout of Democrats will be nothing like 2008.
Which brings up another important question. What kind of political party relies on felons and illegals to win elections? The Democratic Party of Barack Obama.
The “enthusiasm factor” for Romney is huge. Conservatives are focused, intense, motivated, and enthusiastic. Democrats turned out for Obama in record numbers in 2009. Today they are demoralized. A big edge goes to Romney on Election Day as conservatives, white voters, middle-class voters, and independents turn out in record numbers for Romney.
I know several people who voted for Obama in 2008, but say never again. Does anyone know a McCain voter who will vote for Obama in 2012? There are none.
Finally, history proves that a majority of undecided voters break for the challenger. Romney will take most of the undecided voters on election day — just like Reagan did versus Jimmy Carter in 1980. Romney’s fantastic debate performance gave them confidence to choose the challenger.
This is Carter/Reagan all over again. The same horrible economy. The same economically ignorant fool in the White House bringing misery to Americans. The same economic collapse under the weight of socialist, pro-union, soak the rich, demonize the business owners, policies.
I predict the same result on Election Day. Mitt Romney in a landslide. Just remember where you heard it first.
And If I'm wrong: God help the United States of America.
NEW ARTICLE: Jerome Corsi's Ring Cycle Topic: WorldNetDaily
Even birthers don't believe the WorldNetDaily writer's claim that President Obama's ring says "There is no god except Allah." And that's merely the latest discredited Obama-bashing story Corsi has peddled. Read more >>
MRC Doubles Down on Benghazi Attack Transcript Trutherism Topic: Media Research Center
Matthew Sheffield set the template at the Media Research Center: He read President Obama's mind, and has decided that while Obama referenced "acts of terror" in denouncing the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi during a Rose Garden speech, he was not calling the attack itself an "act of terror" because "this is not what he meant by it."
Now, the rest of the MRC is doubling down on Sheffield's version of transcript trutherism to launch an attack on presidential debate moderator Candy Crowley for pointing out that Obama did, in fact, call the Benghazi attack an "act of terror."
Brent Bozell ranted, pretty much is only mode of operation, in an Oct. 17 MRC press release:
Candy Crowley was an utter disaster last night, and was, by far, the worst moderator of the 2012 election.
The Libya cover-up continues, and the national news media need to start asking some tough questions – including questions about one of their own. If Obama was correct that on Day 1 he said it was a terrorist attack, why did his UN ambassador say on five different national interviews that it was a YouTube video that was responsible, and who put her up to it?
If he saw this as a terrorist attack from the very beginning, why did the president himself blame it on a video six times during a UN speech? Why has he made the statement so many times, as has Hillary Clinton, as has Jay Carney, as have others?
And why did Candy Crowley validate this lie?
If the national media don’t start asking these questions soon, they also will be guilty of enabling a massive cover-up.
The rest of the release reiterated Bozell's remarks, while providing absolutely no evidence to back it up:
Last night, in what was the most stunning and disgraceful single example of moderator malpractice in the history of presidential debates, CNN’s Candy Crowley allowed Barack Obama to lie to the American people about his administration’s Libya cover-up. Even worse, she then validated this lie of extraordinary magnitude by certifying it as honest and by attacking Mitt Romney when he pressed the president on his administration’s cover-up. Crowley robbed tens of millions of Americans of the truth on national primetime television. Real journalists – who were fed the Obama Administration’s Libya lies for two weeks – should be furious.
The release went on to reference a MRC item that supposedly "documented that since 1992, moderators have called upon voters with a liberal agenda twice as often as those with a conservative agenda." But if you look at the Oct. 16 item, write Rich Noyes fails to document his methodology for categorizing the "agenda" of debate questions. Without that, Noyes' piece is meaningless as "media research" and is nothing more than partisan electioneering.
Noyes echoed this in an Oct. 17 NewsBusters post in which he purported to relay "The Facts" regarding the debate. He repeated his unsubstantiated claim that "since 1992, moderators have called upon voters with a liberal agenda twice as often as those with a conservative agenda," going on to declare that "Obama only speaking generically about how 'no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,' not assigning that label to the violence in Benghazi." But Obama did not specifically exclude the Benghazi attack from the "acts of terror" he was referring to, so word-parsing works both ways.
Other MRC writers have joined in the doubling down:
Clay Waters declared that "it's quite correct to say that Obama did not call the attack an 'act of terror.'" He also complained that New York Times writers " falsely insisted that President Obama had called the Benghazi attacks 'an act of terror.'"
Tom Blumer ranted: "Candy Crowley, her establishment press excuse-makers (for her and President Obama), and supporters of the President are going to have to resort to finding penumbras emanating from Obama's September 12 Rose Garden appearance -- y'know, the one during which the press and Democrats insist that the President really, really did call the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya a terrorist attack." Like the rest of his MRC bretheren, Blumer ignores that Obama did not specifically exlude Benghazi from his reference to "acts of terror."
CNSNews.com communications director Craig Bannister declared that "Obama did utter the words 'act of terror' - saying that such acts will not 'shake' America - but, did not specify that the attack on the U.S. embassy was such an attack."
That's the MRC's story, and they're sticking to it, no matter how much reality they have to ignore in the process.
In his Oct. 15 WND article, Flaherty peddles yet another story of "black mob violence" by highlighting what's called the "knockout game," chortling that the perpetrators messed with "The Wrong Guy," which resulted in one of them being shot dead. But as we've pointed out when Flaherty has done this in the past, the "knockout game" is not a "black thing," it's a product of a certin inner-city adolescent culture.
Then, in an Oct. 16 article, Flaherty turned his attention to University of Wisconsin football player Montee Ball, who "has not been the same since five black men attacked him in August, sending him to the emergency room with head injuries," meaning that "Black mob violence has claimed another victim: This time, the Heisman Trophy. And maybe even a national college football championship."
Well, actually, not so much. Last weekend, Ball ran for a career-high 247 yards and scored three touchdowns, in the process setting a the Big Ten record for career TDs.
But never mind the facts -- Flaherty just wants to fearmonger, declaring that "Black mob violence is a new feature of life at college campuses around the country" with his usual cherry-picked compendium of isolated incidents he's trying to cobble into an "epidemic." He even references a "college black mob violence tour" despite the fact that he identifies no "black mob" roaming from campus to campus across the country beating up people.
In an Oct. 16 NewsBusters post, Matthew Sheffield ranted that presidential debate moderator Candy Crowley "disgraced herself" by her "incorrect seconding of Obama's statement that he declared the Libya terrorist attacks to be 'terror.'"
Sheffield then asserted: "While Obama did indeed use the word, this is not what he meant by it. Instead, he was simply referring to 'acts of terror.' There was no mention of Al Qaeda or any of its affiliates with respect to the actual attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi."
Sheffield is not only parsing words, he's reading minds. How does he know what Obama "meant" by his reference to "acts of terror" in his Rose Garden speech? He doesn't. Nor can he prove has later assertion that Obama was "willing to deliberately misquote himself."
Sheffield also doesn't provide any evidence that it was known by anyone in the immediate aftermath of the attack that Al Qaeda was involved. If it wasn't, there would have been no reason for Obama to mention "Al Qaeda or any of its affiliates."
If Sheffield is going to play this sort of word-splicing game, he should also acknowledge that Obama did not specifically exclude the Benghazi attack from his references to "acts of terror," and that one can reasonably conclude that because he did not, Obama considered the Benghazi attack to be a terrorist act.
But Sheffield doesn't care about facts, he cares about trying to score political points and cares even more about Obama being defeated. He goes on to rant: "If Obama truly believed it was terrorism, he likely would have inserted this. He also wouldn't have gone on multiple fund-raising trips after the incident happened nor would he (and his underlings) have repeatedly blamed an internet video for the attacks for 2 solid weeks."
In fact, the video did play a role in the attack. The New York Times reported:
To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.
Sheffield wasn't done screeching about Crowley, though -- he called her essentially accurate claim "offensive," hyperbolically asserting that "America had just witnessed one of the most outrageous acts of liberal bias in history."
Sheffield isn't engaging in media analysis -- he's trying desperately to spin for Mitt Romney, repeating conservative talking points without regard for their accuracy. That's the mark of partisan activist, not a media analyst.
