MRC's Bozell Makes Himself Ken Cuccinelli's Campaign Flack Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell uses his Oct. 30 column to serve as the campaign spokesman for Republican Virginia governor candidate Ken Cuccinelli (even though such explicit partisan advocacy probably runs afoul of the Media Research Center's nonprofit status). And like any good campaign hack, Bozell twists facts and peddles distortions to the benefit of Cuccinelli and the detriment of his Democratic opponent, Terry McAuliffe.
Bozell huffs that "McAuliffe is running a transparently, viciously anti-Catholic campaign all over television, trashing Cuccinelli as a woman-hating extremist for backing proposals that line up with Catholic church teachings on abortion, contraception, and divorce. Any reporter with fifteen minutes to kill can discover that." But shouldn't Cuccinelli be aspiring to be the governor of all Virginians instead of just the Catholic ones. And what moral authority does Cuccinelli have to impose his religious agenda on those who don't share his religion?
In the D.C. area, TV viewers are inundated with McAuliffe ads where the Democrat claims “Ken Cuccinelli tried to ban common forms of birth control.” Women echo: “Even the pill! Even the pill!” Then four people echo, one after the other, he’s “way too extreme for Virginia.” McAuliffe supporters in the “NextGen PAC” even accused Cuccinelli of “wanting to eliminate all forms of birth control.”
Cuccinelli has never supported a bill or taken a campaign stand for banning contraceptive pills, and McAuliffe knows it. In 2007, then-state Sen. Cuccinelli supported a “personhood” bill that simply stated “Life begins at the moment of fertilization.” Abortion advocates have twisted that simple sentence into some kind of church invasion of the state.
Note the word-twisting going on there -- Bozell is denying an accusation nobody has made. Nobody said that Cuccinelli "supported a bill or taken a campaign stand for banning contraceptive pills." But Bozell is hiding the fact that the "personhood" bill Cuccinelli supported could have had the same effect. PolitiFact broke down Bozell's evasive claim when Cuccinelli himself made it:
While he’s never cast a vote on legislation that explicitly restricted birth control options, Cuccinelli for a decade has been one of the strongest anti-abortion voices in Virginia. He’s supported personhood bills that recognized life as beginning at the moment of conception or fertilization and bestowed human embryos with legal rights. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says such legislation could outlaw birth control pills and other forms of contraception that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a uterus.
Cuccinelli’s wording also allows him to gloss over a vote he cast in 2003 against legislation that would have specified contraception does not constitute an abortion.
Bozell also wrote:
In another ad, McAuliffe trashed another of Cuccinelli’s Senate proposals: “2008: Ken Cuccinelli writes a bill to give Virginia among the most extreme divorce laws in America. If Cuccinelli had it his way, a mom trying to get out of a bad marriage, over her husband’s objections, could only get divorced if she could prove adultery or physical abuse or her spouse had abandoned her or was sentenced to jail. ” In another ad, a woman claims “He tried to change Virginia’s divorce laws to prevent women from getting out of a bad marriage.”
This is why people despise political ads. McAuliffe’s painting Cuccinelli as if he had proclaimed his biggest goal in life was to prevent women from divorcing abusive husbands. Cuccinelli offered a bill against no-fault divorce, but it was gender-neutral and designed to make it tougher for parents to get divorced quickly. Childless spouses were unaffected.
"Studies show that the dissolution of marriage has long term negative impacts on children and those marriages that last for five years are much more likely to go the distance,” he wrote. “For this reason, the state has an interest in marital preservation.” Here again, the media and the feminists justify these wild exaggerations by noting Cuccinelli is friendly with “father’s rights” activists. Men have rights when it comes to their children? Horrors!
Bozell leaves out some important facts -- namely, that as the Washington Post pointed out, "under Virginia’s current law, there’s no such thing as a quickie divorce." The Post continues:
McAuliffe’s ad, designed to take advantage of a gender gap in the race, emphasized the impact of this shift from the perspective of the woman. For instance, here’s what the state of Virginia says about proving adultery: “Proving adultery is very fact-specific. The evidence must be strict, satisfactory and conclusive that the other spouse did in fact engage in sexual relations with another person.” So if a no-fault divorce is not available, that’s the burden that a woman wanting a divorce would need to climb if Cuccinelli’s proposal had become law.
Bozell also portrays the "father's rights" movement that supported Cuccinelli's proposed elimination of no-fault divorce as some benign group. According to the Post, Cuccinelli's proposal won support from one specific father's rights activist, Stephen Baskerville.
If that name sounds familiar, it should. In September, we noted that WorldNetDaily was promoting a speech by Baskerville at the homeschooler-friendly Patrick Henry College, where he criticized “the system of unilateral and involuntary divorce, government’s purpose-built mechanism for dismembering families, seizing control over the private lives of innocent people and their children, summarily confiscating property,and criminalizing the embodiments of the hated ‘patriarchy’: fathers.”
One blogger reported that Baskerville used his speech to engage in denialism of basic concepts like rape, child abuse and domestic violence, and was "eavy on 'bitches be lying' and light on scripture."
The "father's rights" movement is a part of the men's rights movement, and it is mostly driven by "divorced men angry that their ex got custody of the kids, and now they have to fork over money to support them."
It seems that Bozell is so concerned about flacking for Cuccinelli that he has no idea what he's arguing in favor of. Or maybe he does, and he actually supports the retrograde "father's rights" stuff.
Molotov Mitchell is a birther, so why wouldn't he believe that a woman who fainted during an Obama speech was staged?
Indeed, ol' Molotov was ranting that very thing in his Oct. 29 WorldNetDaily video:
The fainting woman has become part of Barack Obama's schtick, if you will, a subtle homage to Elvis Presley perhaps, because nothing says you're loved by the people like women fainting at the sound of your voice.
I searched on YouTube and found five other incidents where Barack Obama had had a fainting person interrupt one of his speeches. But that doesn't mean that it's necessarily phony. What is strange is how he knew to turn around just as she was fainting.
Look at this video. How does he know that she's fainting? Is his messiah sense tingling? I mean, look, the guy on the right doesn't even see her falling, yet Barack Obama, a little focused on this important speech, he somehow knows that she's fainting without even facing her. And he doesn't just notice that she's falling, he turns around just in time to catch her. Again, the guy next to her can't even do it.
And notice how he speaks to her, saying "I got you" by turning his face toward the microphone so everybody else can hear what he's saying. Why doesn't he say "I got you" to her? And then notice after the whole thing's over how he goes back up and waits in silence for his people in the crowd to go ahead and initiate the applause. Totally phony!
WND has already been promoting this little conspiracy theory, so we shouldn't be surpised that Mitchell would join the fun.
MRC Is Still Defending Dick Cheney Topic: Media Research Center
Brad Wilmouth takes us back into time in an Oct. 29 Media Research Center item:
On Monday's PoliticsNation, MSNBC host Al Sharpton bizarrely devoted his regular "Nice Try" segment to Dick Cheney denying that he and Wyoming Republican Senator Mike Enzi are "fishing buddies," which the former Vice President did on Sunday's ABC This Week during a discussion of daughter Liz Cheney's bid for the Senate.
As he mocked the former Vice President, Sharpton managed to bring up the Iraq invasion and repeated the false assertion from the left that Cheney had claimed Iraq should be invaded because an Iraqi agent met with one of the 9/11 hijackers. Sharpton: "Is Cheney finally admitting that a 9-1-1 bomber didn't meet with an agent of Saddam Hussein? Cheney used that meeting to justify the Iraq invasion even though it didn't happen."
Sharpton was alluding to a series of edited clips from four interviews the former Vice President gave on NBC's Meet the Press which liberal entities like MSNBC promoted in 2004 to make it appear that Cheney had claimed that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
In reality, in each case, Cheney was answering a question from then-host Tim Russert about whether there were links between the 9/11 hijackers and Iraq. The then-Vice President informed viewers that a Czech intelligence agent had claimed that he observed one of the 9/11 hijackers meeting with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague, but also noted that there was debate whether the account was true.
Well, if Cheney couldn't prove it, why repeat the claim in the first place? Shouldn't Cheney have waited until the claim was definitively proven before repeating it in public?
As Wilmouth noted, Cheney made the claim four different times, which seems to indicated that there was an agenda behind doing so -- namely, justifying U.S. involvement in Iraq. And Cheney was still repeating it even after it had been all but discredited. Doesn't that indicate a pro-Iraq War agenda as well?
The evidence seems to indicate that Cheney wanted to tie Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. Wilmouth, however, seems to want to take refuge in Cheney's disclaimers to ignore the fact that if such disclaimers were necessary, Cheney should have never made the claim public.
WND's Maloof Recruits Another Obama-Hater To his Anti-Obama Conspiracy Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Michael Maloof apparently thinks he has something going with his conspiracy theory that Preident Obama is systematically removing military commanders, despite the utter lack of evidence to back up the claim. Maloof has found another dupe -- er, supposed military expert to sign on to the conspiratorial claims made by crazy birther Paul Vallely:
President Obama is aiming a “wrecking operation” at the U.S. military, according to a former Defense Department official who was reacting to a WND report about his dismissal of nine generals and flag officers so far during his second term.
Frank Gaffney, founder and director of the Center for Security Policy and former Undersecretary of Defense for the Reagan Administration, cast his lot in with Vallely.
“President Obama is engaged in a wrecking operation on the U.S. military particularly, and under the guise of ‘fundamentally transforming America,’ doing what he can to remake society in his image,” he told WND.
Get “Court Disaster: How the CIA kept America Safe and How Barack Obama is Inviting the Next Attack.
Gaffney said he believes Obama may be attempting to install military rule or martial law as part of his plans, saying, “One of the issues that has been raised by colleagues of mine who are serious students of national security policy and practice is that a way of accelerating the transforming of America would be essentially dispensing with our constitutional form of government under the rubric of ‘emergency measures,’ martial law, a military shutdown of our society.
“Does the wrecking operation of the military have something to do with that particular purpose?” asked Gaffney.
Gaffney answers his own question by claiming the existence of an ongoing “purge.”
“Increasingly of late, there is effectively a purge going on of people of faith from the U.S. military, a social engineering of the institution of the military between homosexuals and women in combat, the evisceration of the military’s training resources and in some cases, senior leadership. Could you at some point get to a point where that military was willing to enforce martial law against the people of the United States under circumstances less than national emergency?
“It’s a conversation we ought to be having,” he said.
“When you look at the assaults on the Constitution Obama is engaged in, when you look at the assaults on the military Obama is engaged in, at least it is a scenario [martial law] that could both explain what he is doing and … what he has in mind,” Gaffney continued.
He contends, “The American people don’t want any part of where Obama is taking us, despite the fact they have elected him twice, but I believe that’s mostly because they are not aware of how truly radical and subversive Obama’s agenda is.”
Maloof didn't mention that Gaffney is such an Obama-hater he thinks Obama may still be a Muslim, so he's hardly an objective or reliable source. But then, forwarding objective or reliable sources is not Maloof's intent, is it?
In a bombshell report for NBC News.com, NBC News senior investigative correspondent Lisa Myers found buried in the 2010 Obamacare regulations language predicting, “A reasonable range for the percentage of individual policies that would terminate is forty percent to sixty-seven percent.” Myers’ reporting shows that Barack Obama knowingly lied to the American people for more than three years when he regularly insisted that those who like their current health insurance would be able to keep it under Obamacare.
Yet, according to an analysis from the Media Research Center, this massive, deliberate breach of trust was worthy of only 21 seconds of coverage on NBC Nightly News, buried at the end of the show’s fourth story, with no follow up on Today. ABC and CBS completely censored Lisa Myers’ discovery with not one single second of coverage on either their morning or evening programs.
Media Research Center President Brent Bozell reacts:
“Barack Obama lied to the American people – repeatedly and with a straight face – every time he insisted that those who like their current healthcare could keep it under Obamacare. And he’ll keep lying to the American people because the liberal media refuse to hold him accountable.
“NBC News, whose own reporter found the language in Obamacare proving Obama knowingly lied to the people for over three years, gave this bombshell revelation a pathetic 21 seconds of coverage on Nightly News. There was no follow-up on Today. In other words, NBC News buried their own reporter to protect Obama.
“This sends a clear message to the American people. As far as the liberal broadcast networks are concerned, when Barack Obama lies, it’s not news. What would Richard Nixon have given for a press corps this corrupt?”
The MRC does not know what "censor" means. If something was reported, it was, by definition, not censored.
Choosing not to report something others have reported is not censorship.
Failure to play up a story to the extent Bozell wants a story played is not censorship.
Failure of a news outlet to play a story to the extent Bozell wants it played across all of its platforms is not censorship.
Failure to acede to a right-wing activist's demands -- or any activist's demands -- is not censorship.
Second: How does Bozell know that "NBC News buried their own reporter to protect Obama"? Does he have any reporting to back up this assertion? Or is he just doing a bit of mind-reading?
The fact that Bozell insists on describing as "censorship" a failure of media outlets to give in to his ideological demands exposes the bullying nature of his anti-media crusade.
NEW ARTICLE: If Jack Cashill Had A Book To Promote Topic: WorldNetDaily
The WorldNetDaily columnist takes a break from Obama conspiracy-mongering to portray Trayvon Martin as a criminal and George Zimmerman as a civil-rights martyr. Read more >>
TruthRevolt's 'Exclusive' May Not Be So Exclusive Topic: Horowitz
Ben Shapiro declared in an Oct. 28 TruthRevolt item: "Exclusive: PolitiFact Defends 'Half-True' Rating on Obama's Insurance Lie." Shapiro doesn't explain what is so "exclusive" about his post.
That would bed important to know, especially since NewsBusters also issued an Oct. 28 post by Matt Hadro with a similar headline: "What?! PolitiFact Says Obama's 'You Will Keep Your Health Insurance' Promise Is Still 'Half True'."
Unlike NewsBusters, TruthRevolt does not list the time of day its items are posted, so we don't know which post came first. But if the TruthRevolt post appeared after NewsBuysters, it would be really embarrassing -- not to mention dishonest -- to portray it as an "exclusive," especially since it contains nothing that wasn't in the NewsBusters post.
Again, it appears that TruthRevolt is simply apingNewsBusters. So if it's merely duplicating the content of others, what is its purpose, other than to further the David Horowitz cult of personality?
WND's Maloof Tries to Create Conspiracy Over Dismissed Military Commanders Topic: WorldNetDaily
Michael Maloof writes in an Oct. 28 WorldNetDaily article:
President Obama this year alone has fired some nine generals and flag officers, on top of at least four similar dismissals during his first term, suggesting that a purge may be the real reason behind the removals, which are being described as cases of personal misbehavior.
Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, claims it is part of Obama’s strategy to reduce U.S. standing worldwide.
“Obama is intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged,” he charged.
Duty personnel seem to back up this concern, suggesting that the firings are meant to send a message to “young officers down through the ranks” not to criticize the president or White House politics.
“They are purging everyone, and if you want to keep your job, just keep your mouth shut,” one source said.
Notice that Maloof cites only one on-the-record source for his speculation, someone who is not only "an outspoken critic of the Obama administration" but a crazy birther as well. His anonymous "duty personnel" are worthless if they can't step forward and back up their allegations.
Maloof is simply stringing together unrelated incidents to cobble together an anti-Obama conspiracy -- and he gets some of his facts wrong in the process. He writes:
In one case, U.S. Army Gen. Carter Ham, who commanded U.S. African Command when the consulate was attacked and four Americans were killed, was highly critical of the decision by the State Department not to send in reinforcements.
Obama has insisted there were no reinforcements in the area that night.
But Ham contends reinforcements could have been sent in time, and he said he never was given a stand-down order. However, others contend that he was given the order but defied it. He was immediately relieved of his command and retired.
Again, Maloof quotes no on-the-record sources. Contrary to Maloof's assertions, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has testified that due to a lack of "real-time informaton" about what was on the ground in Benghazi, "the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation." And Gen. Martin Dempsey has said that it is "absolutely false" that Ham was relieved of his command over Benghazi; his departure was "part of routine succession planning."
Maloof thinks you should trust his black-box anonymous sources and his crazy ex-generals over people who were actually directly involved in the incidents -- but he won't tell us why. That's a big reason right there not to trust anything Maloof has to say.
Shocker! MRC Finally Discloses Bozell's Link To Catholic Group (One Of Them, Anyway) Topic: Media Research Center
Tim Graham devotes an Oct. 25 NewsBusters post to expressing his unhappiness that, according to something called Catholic Education Daily, a class at Georgetown Law School "will have students working with a pro-abortion rights advocacy organization." (Apparently, Graham believes that some law students should be kept in the dark about certain aspects of the law for ideological reasons.) Graham concludes his post by noting:
PS: Catholic Education Daily is a publication of the Cardinal Newman Society. MRC president Brent Bozell serves on its board.
As near as we can tell, this is the first time anyone at the MRC has disclosed Bozell's right-wing Catholic activism to its readers. As we documented in 2009, CNSNews.com, the MRC's "news" division, had never disclosed Bozell's link to the Newman Society in four years of stories citing the group and promoting its dogmatic agenda.
On the other hand, the MRC has yet to disclose in itsitems on the Catholic League that Bozell is also on that organization's board of advisers.
So, hey, Tim Graham, you've made a good first step in doing the ethically correct thing in disclosing a conflict of interest. Now, try spreading the word to your colleagues so they can behave ethically too.
Colin Flaherty Confuses Race-Baiting With Being A 'Student of Racial Violence' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Colin Flaherty begins his Oct. 27 WorldNetDaily article by calling himself a "student of racial violence." Is that what they're calling race-baitersobsessed with purported "black mob violence" these days?
Flaherty makes his race-baiting agenda all too clear in the article by mocking the idea of white people rioting, calling it "the Holy Grail: often talked about, but so rare, some doubt it even exists." He then cites an incident in Delaware that he dismisses as not being up to snuff:
ABC national news could not decide if it was a riot or a near-riot, but it did report students destroyed at least one garbage can, and others walked on a few lawns. Other network affiliates in Philadelphia breathlessly followed suit.
But the video tapes reveal a more tepid drama. Though this “riot” had major league numbers – with 3,000 students running, jumping, laughing and stopping traffic on the main street of this Newark college town – the violence, anger, hostility and criminality was strictly minor league, especially when compared with recent black mob violence.
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has issued a new report boasting that "TV hasn't merely reflected the changes in social attitudes; it has also had an important role in bringing them about. Time and again, it's been shown that personally knowing an LGBT person is one of the most influential factors in shifting one's views on LGBT issues, but in the absence of that, many viewers have first gotten to know us as television characters."
If network executives were honest, they'd be slamming this report. If. Haven't they routinely insisted that TV shows have zero effect on the audience? That's their constant mantra when defending sex and violence on TV. They're silent. They know exactly how much they influence.
GLAAD and The Hollywood Reporter commissioned a poll last fall that found in the past 10 years, about three times as many voters have become more supportive of "marriage equality" (31 percent) as more opposed (10 percent). When asked how television has influenced them, 27 percent said "inclusive" TV shows made them more "inclusive," while six percent were more "anti-marriage equality."
In the 2012-13 TV season, GLAAD found a record number of LGBT characters — 4.4 percent, or at least double their actual percentage of the population. Fox was honored for having these characters in 42 percent of their programming hours — although that wasn't enough for "Excellent" status, merely "Good."
They want children indoctrinated as well. GLAAD is also not shy when it comes to Teen Nick, Cartoon Network and the Disney Channel. Apparently, children also desperately need the propaganda of gay characters in 42 percent of programming hours. They're extremely happy with the liberalism of "ABC Family" and have relayed that Disney Channel executives promised GLAAD they will "introduce LGBT characters in an episode of its original series 'Good Luck Charlie' set to air in 2014, a first for the network." The first of many, they expect.
Here's the catch: Gay characters never face any real opposition to the gay agenda on these so-called "inclusive" programs. There is no measure of Orthodox religious inclusion and no real debates. The victory of the left is assumed without thinking. When a conservative character is created — like Ellen Barkin's "Nana" in "The New Normal" — it's a vicious cartoon, the kind that those "against defamation" folks deeply enjoy.
More ridiculous than Bozell's gay-bashing, however, is the MRC's response to criticism of it. TimGraham writes in an Oct. 27 NewsBusters post:
Brent Bozell’s latest culture column has spurred anger from the so-called Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. The entertainment site Variety.com reports GLAAD advocate Wilson Cruz – who played a troubled gay teen on the ABC flop “My So-Called Life” in 1994 – found it “laughable,” “ridiculous,” and “misleading” for Bozell to ask for some kind of a debate on gay issues on TV, instead of the propaganda-fest we see routinely these days.
Borrowing the language of Orwell, Cruz said one-sided propaganda is “an accurate reflection of the American cultural fabric, which no longer accepts this kind of bigotry.”
Given that the MRC wants one-sided anti-gay propaganda of its own, Graham playing the "propaganda" card is hypocritical. And Graham offers no evidence to contradict GLAAD's claim that "the American cultural fabric ... no longer accepts this kind of bigotry." Of course, to do that, he would have to find a polling example outside the MRC offices, where the Bozell-enforced anti-gay agenda reigns supreme.
Right Wing Watch catches white nationalist and VDARE proprietor Peter Brimelow claiming that a recent column submission to WorldNetDaily was rejected as "too extreme":
What is in this too-crazy-for-WND column?
Brimelow argues that Democrats’ supposed support of an “invasion” and “colonization” of the US by non-white immigrants is treason because it reduces the percentage of the white population.
Hard to believe that WND, which has published Brimelow’s columns previously and is the home of anti-immigrant writers such as Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo and Jerome Corsi (who peddle the same fears about the death of White America and the GOP), would find anything wrong with this column.
We don’t know what WND’s editors were thinking, because this reads just like a column one would see on their site.
Noel Sheppard Wants False Balance on Fact-Checking Topic: NewsBusters
Noel Sheppard whines in an Oct. 27 NewsBusters post:
Is it possible for CNN's John Avlon to at least pretend to be impartial?
On Sunday's Reliable Sources, in the closing segment about PolitiFact's just announced new website PunditFact, Avlon showed three reports by the organization: one giving conservative author Ann Coulter a "Pants on Fire," another giving Fox News host Sean Hannity a "Mostly False," and a third giving MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell a "Mostly True"[.]
Yes, Sheppard is complaining that conservatives are found to be wrong more often than liberals, without offering any evidence that this is not the case. But lack of evidence to back up his claims won't stop him from complaining further:
Something also to consider is the appearance that PolitiFact over-fact-checks conservatives versus liberals.
Page one of PF's Health Care fact-checks currently has thirteen conservatives and only five liberals. Nice balance, huh?
But it gets worse because of the conservatives fact-checked on page one, NOT ONE was found to be Mostly True or True. By contrast, the statements by all five liberals fact-checked were found to be Mostly True.
Do the folks at CNN and PolitiFact actually believe that not one liberal politician or pundit has recently made a comment about healthcare that was either Half True, Mostly False, or Pants on Fire?
Notice that Sheppard is not complaining that conservatives are falsely accused of making less-than-true statements -- only that they're getting caught doing it.
Again, Sheppard offers no evidence that liberals have made as many false statements as conservatives. He's just repeating the right-wing "liberal bias" mantra, demanding a false equivalence whether or not it's justified.
Sheppard also comically missed the point about what Avlon's report:
And why did Avlon find it necessary to share exclusively negative reports about conservative pundits with a positive one about a liberal commentator?
Surely CNN could have found a conservative statement about ObamaCare PolitiFact rated positively such as the organization declaring Sarah Palin's remark about Obama having said the individual mandate wasn't a tax to be "True."
Avlon could also have shared PolitiFact finding Newt Gingrich claiming ObamaCare has never had majority support from the public was "Mostly True."
But NOOOO. The conservative pundits had to be "Pants on Fire" and "Mostly False."
Sheppard missed the part where Avlon was specifically citing examples regarding "the current debate over the seriously screwed up implementation of healthcare.gov." The Palin statement Sheppard cites dates from June 2012; the Gingrich statement is from last month, but it's not about the website which, again, Avlon stated he was focusing on.
This is what passes for "media research" at NewsBusters. It's the kind of work that keeps Sheppard employed as a NewsBusters associate editor.
One statement stood out to us in Joseph Farah's Oct. 27 WorldNetDaily column:
When I’m wrong I admit it.
I'll pause for a bit while you laugh hysterically.
Farah's statement, of course, is a bald-faced lie. We've compiled a whole column of falsehoods Farah has told that he has yet to admit, much less correct.
And even when Farah and WND admit errors, it's usually a protracted battle to get to that admission. The most egregious example of this is WND spending seven years fighting a libel and defamation lawsuit from a Tennessee car dealer whom WND claimed was a "suspected drug dealer," before abruptly settling the lawsuit out of court just before it was to go to trial, admitting that the claim was completely false and reaching a secret settlement that WND has refused to disclose to its readers.
Farah and WND admit no wrong until they're forced to, by threat of lawsuit or getting caught in such a massive boner they have no other choice.
We'd ask Farah to correct his claim to reflect reality, but we already know his record on such things.
Terry Jeffrey writes in an Oct. 24 CNSNews.com article:
Americans who were recipients of means-tested government benefits in 2011 outnumbered year-round full-time workers, according to data released this month by the Census Bureau. They also out-numbered the total population of the Philippines.
There were 108,592,000 people in the United States in the fourth quarter of 2011 who were recipients of one or more means-tested government benefit programs, the Census Bureau said in data released this week. Meanwhile, according to the Census Bureau, there were 101,716,000 people who worked full-time year round in 2011. That included both private-sector and government workers.
That means there were about 1.07 people getting some form of means-tested government benefit for every 1 person working full-time year round.
Actually, no, it doesn't. As Media Matters documents, the "means-tested government benefit" number is for "anyone residing in a household in which one or more people received benefits," thus including individuals who did not themselves receive government benefits. The full-time worker number, meanwhile, is a count of individuals.
Jeffrey's numbers also fail to account for the fact that some full-time workers also receive means-tested government benefits.
In other words, it's an apples-to-oranges comparison with some overlap. It's a very dishonest way for Jeffrey to report.