Tim Graham's Hypocritical Attack On Media Bias Topic: Media Research Center
Tim Graham huffs in his latest anti-gay freakout in a Nov. 19 NewsBusters post:
Washington Post “social change reporter” Sandhya Somashekhar wrote a front-page story for Wednesday’s editions on how the Barilla pasta company completely surrendered to the gay left. The headline was “A recipe for recovery: Barilla makes amends to gay groups.”
As usual, the Post divided the conflict into “gay rights groups” and “social conservatives.” Gay activist Bob Witeck described the conservative view as “stupid and backwards.” Conservatives said...nothing. There was no space for rebuttal. “Social change” moves faster when “backwards” gets censored.
Nobody in the story gets to say, for example, that "Human Rights Campaign" is a funny name for an anti-free speech group. "Discriminatory" speech -- soon to include sermons inside churches, if Houston is any example -- must be squashed. Nobody gets to say "discriminatory" things like "transgender-related health care" such as the amputation of breasts and genitals isn't "health care." In today's progressive Post, those things are better left unthought, not just unsaid.
Graham has not expressed that same concern about "censorship" when it's practiced by a "news" organization that operates down the hall from him.
As we've documented, CNSNews.com -- operated by Graham's employer, the Media Research Center -- frequently censors the parts of stories that conflict with its right-wing agenda, resulting in stenographical documents masquerading as "news" articles, to the point that it actually uncritically presented the Church of Scientology's stance against psychiatric drugs.
Unless Graham and his fellow MRC superiors can get CNS to act like the "news" organization it portrays itself as, Graham has no moral standing to attack the purported "censorship" of the "liberal media."
This hypocrisy undermines the entire mission of the MRC, but Graham, Brent Bozell and the rest of the MRC crew don't seem to recognize it.
Molotov Mitchell Abandoned His Far-Right Principles, Still Lost NC Election Topic: WorldNetDaily
In his Nov. 18 WorldNetDaily video, Molotov Mitchell reviewed his campaign for North Carolina's legislature, in which he lost by a 2-1 margin. Mitchell unsurprisingly spun his massive loss as positively as he could, insisting that he got more votes than any previous Republican in his "ice-blue district."
Mitchell also claimed that his campaign showed that voters respect conservative candidates who stand their ground, saying that "sticking to your principles and not running from them is an effective campaign strategy."
In fact, Mitchell did run from his principles during his campaign in order to make himself appear less extreme. Indeed, he tried to renounce the two things he's arguably best known for -- his birtherism and his disdain for gays. The Raleigh News & Observer reported:
He’s been weighing in on national politics for years through his video commentaries and other films. In the videos, he’s argued that President Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States, adding that “if I were a leader in the armed forces, I might be thinking coup d’etat right about now.” He’s called North Carolina’s Moral Monday protestors “ugly, mindless, littering, loitering hobos.” And his film “Gates of Hell” features a group of “black power assassins” who kill abortion doctors.
As a candidate, Mitchell has distanced himself from his video career. He says the commentaries were done in his role as an “entertainer.”
“It was to poke the bear on the left,” he said. “It doesn’t matter where Barack Obama was born.”
The News & Observer also noted Mitchell's attempt to distance himself from his support for anti-gay laws:
Mitchell has been called “anti-gay” because of a video he produced in 2010 supporting a Ugandan law that would impose the death penalty on homosexuals.
“What I supported was the right of Uganda to create whatever legislation it wants,” Mitchell said, adding that he doesn’t hate gay people or think they should be killed.
“I support the democratic process,” he said. “I really believe in freedom.”
That's an utterly disingenuous defense. As we've previously noted, Mitchell has called for the "abolition of homosexuality," and he defended his support for the law as something the Founding Fathers would also support. And it's unlikely Mitchell would be defending Uganda's right "to create whatever legislation it wants" if it was Christians instead of gays that faced the death penalty.
The News & Observer reported Mitchell's defense as it also noted that Mitchell ludicrously denounced a school anti-bullying policy as a “transgender kindergarten curriculum.”
In his video, Mitchell hinted that he would run for office again, even as he insulted his would-be consituents as "the most hard-core, Birkenstock-wearing, Che Guevara-loving socialists this side of Leningrad." That disdain for people who disagree with him demonstrates that Mitchell lost his election justly.
Also, Leningrad hasn't existed for decades. Mitchell might want to check out a map sometime.
Newsmax TV To Air What Sure Sounds Like A JFK Conspiracy Show Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax is strategically vague in a Nov. 13 article promoting a new show on its fledgling TV channel:
Marking the 51st anniversary of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination on Nov. 22, 1963, Newsmax TV will air the explosive, world premiere one-hour documentary "I Killed JFK" on Thursday Nov. 20, at 9 p.m. ET.
The documentary adds to the diverse programming featured on Newsmax TV, the new news, information and lifestyle channel that is currently ramping up to a formal roll-out in 2015.
Produced by Barry Katz Entertainment, "I Killed JFK" features never-before seen footage of the confessed killer of President Kennedy. The film presents compelling forensic and eyewitness evidence previously unavailable to the public. The documentary also includes interviews with the alleged assassin as well as two former FBI agents who found the assassin’s confessions credible.
"Until now, no one has ever confessed to the murder of JFK, and most people still believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the killer. After the world sees this special, I am confident that the greatest mystery of our generation will finally be solved," said Executive Producer Barry Katz.
"As we ramp up Newsmax TV for our official launch, we're offering a range of provocative and original programming that interests a large and under-served audience, including the generation raised in the aftermath of that tragic day in Dallas," Newsmax Media CEO Christopher Ruddy said. "They’ll see a movie that adds to the scholarship and the debate surrounding the president's assassination."
"We are heartened by Newsmax TV's decision to bring this important and revealing program to the American public. We all deserve to know the truth behind what was truly one of the saddest moments in our country’s history," added Ernest Cartwright, co-executive producer for the project.
We couldn't find any other information about this documentary beyond a bare-bones website promoting the producers' production company. Reading between the lines, one can surmise that it appears to be another one of those JFK conspiracy things. As far as we know, Oswald never confessed to killing JFK, so the references above to the "alleged assassin" who allegedly confessed is apparently a reference to somebody else.
That doesn't exactly bode well for Newsmax TV's attempt to be something of a mainstream news outlet.
Interestingly, Newsmax is not the only part of the ConWeb going with JFK assassination conspiracy theories. The URL CorsiOnJFK.com takes you to WorldNetDaily hack Jerome Corsi's latest e-book claiming to summarize " the most important new research investigating the JFK assassination." In it, Corsi says he "believes investigations into the JFK Assassination are close to establishing irrefutable evidence documenting the JFK assassination a government-organized coup d’état, not the act of a lone-gun assassin." The website add: "Dr. Corsi fully expects the final true history of the JFK assassination will expose to the American pubic the history of CIA lies and disinformation that have distorted U.S. history since World War II, in favor of a series of international conflicts and wars favored by the military-industrial complex that JFK lost his life trying to prevent."
The fact that Corsi has already discounted his e-book to $4.90 (original price $9.99) tells you pretty much what even its author thinks his book is worth.
MRC Still Clings To 'Climategate' Myths Topic: Media Research Center
A Nov. 17 Media Research Center post by Joseph Rossell tries to revive an old conspiracy:
President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s deal to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in both countries couldn’t have come at a more ironic time.
Their Nov. 11, announcement came just days before the fifth anniversary of ClimateGate, which cast a pall over the credibility of major climate research institutions. On Nov. 17, 2009, it was discovered that hundreds of emails and files were either hacked or leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA). According to Roger Pielke, Jr., months before ClimateGate, CRU admitted it did not have the raw data its climate science is based on.
Note how Rossell blithely notes the "Climategate" documents were "either hacked or leaked." By contrast, the MRC had a fit when documents detailing the conservative Heartland Institute's strategy to promote global warming denialism were released, screaming that they were "falsely obtained" in a "vicious" and "sleazy attack" by the head of a "George Soros-funded" group. Rossell expresses no concern that the "Climategate" emails were "falsely obtained" as part of a "vicious" attack against climate scientists because he agrees with such attacks.
Rossell then cherry-picks 10 random, out-of-context statements from the "Climategate" emails to portray them as killing the credibility of climate science. But Rossell ignores the entirety of climate science study, which affirms the consensus that global warming exists. For example, PolitiFact states:
So, to say that the CRU e-mails debunk the science supporting climate change leaves out the important point that CRU isn't the only organization looking at the issue. Indeed, there are reams of data that show temperatures are increasing and that greater concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are largely to blame.
An Associated Press review of the emails show that they "don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked" and "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."
But who needs facts when Rossell can simply regurgitate a discredited political narrative?
CNS'Hollingsworth Returns To Stenographer Mode Topic: CNSNews.com
Barbara Hollingsworth's Nov. 14 CNSNews.com article is yet another of her stenography extravaganzas, dutifully regurgitating the "seven reasons why [Americans] should not sign up for Obamacare" offered by the anti-Obamacare group Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom.
Hollingsworth even uncritically forwards CCHF president Twila Brase's tortured argument that health coverage through Obamacare isn't really private coverage even though the policy"says Cigna, or Kaiser or WellPoint."
As is typical for a Hollingsworth stenography piece, she makes no effort to balance her article with the views of someone who opposes the CCHF's anti-Obamacare ideology, even though the article is presented as "news." Thus, you won't hear any criticism of Brase's dangerous central argument, that it's better to have no health insurance than to have Obamacare. As Bloomberg View opined when Brase peddled this argument last year:
That claim is absurd on its face: Even if you believe that exchange-purchased insurance will offer fewer care options than other types of coverage, some insurance is leagues better than none. Forget about the penalty for not carrying insurance; what if that 22-year-old needs medical care? He can pay his doctors directly, Brase responded, or seek charity care.
So Brase's advice that people who can't afford insurance outside the exchanges simply go without makes perfect sense -- but only if you're rich, you never get sick, or you only get sick during open enrollment. And how about access to preventive care to keep you from getting sick in the first place, you ask? Well, if you're worried about that, you'd better reconsider your commitment to freedom, my friend.
Again, Hollingsworth doesn't care about journalism, she cares about forwarding an ideology. That makes her a failure as a journalist, but an apparent success as a CNS senior editor.
WND's Peterson Defends Bill Cosby, Blames 'Feminists' For Rape Allegations Topic: WorldNetDaily
The accusations of rape by Bill Cosby demonstrates he's the victim of a conspiracy, according to Jesse Lee Peterson in his Nov. 16 WorldNetDaily column:
First, Cosby has made national news for publicly airing black America’s “dirty laundry.” And black people hate for other blacks to criticize them in front of whites.
In 2008, he told a black audience, “We’re killing ourselves. We’re making fools of ourselves.” He took black parents to task who spend more money on sneakers than they do on their kids’ education, and allow them to bring “street-corner” language into their homes.
And Cosby ripped black “leaders” who took issue with the blunt manner in which he delivered his message.
The liberal elite power brokers in the Democratic Party can’t allow Cosby’s call for responsibility to get a foothold in the black community because it threatens the powerful grip they have on black voters.
Since the professional blame merchants want to keep the focus off black failure and blame white America, Cosby has been scapegoated as a “sell-out.” But now they’ve found another issue they can use to try and discredit and destroy the man – and, therefore, the message – of black responsibility.
Radical feminists are notorious for accusing American men of supporting a “rape culture.” They automatically accuse anyone who questions or challenges a woman’s allegations as “blaming” or “shaming” the victim. Therefore, it’s almost impossible for men to discuss or effectively defend themselves against accusations of rape.
Peterson declares that "Cosby has never been charged with rape in a court of law," and slams one accuser:
Then, Barbara Bowman, a woman who claims that while she was under the tutelage of Cosby, he drugged and “raped” her, aired her unproven allegations by penning an op-ed in the Washington Post headlined: “Bill Cosby raped me. Why did it take 30 years for people to believe my story?”
Maybe it’s because you never filed a police report. Or could it be because you waited 30 years to make your allegations known?
I don’t know if the allegations against Cosby are true, but the man has never stood trial or been convicted in a court of law; therefore, he deserves the benefit of the doubt. His accuser should have brought charges against him or sued him years ago. Now she needs to move on. Instead, she’s seeking publicity and pushing for legislation that would make sure that statutes against rape allegations never expire.
Peterson might want to talk with his fellow right-wingers who believed Juanita Broaddrick's allegation of rape against Bill Clinton despite the fact that she not only didn't file a police report but also actively denied for 15 years that such an incident occurred. Would Peterson tell Broaddrick she "needs to move on"?
As we've noted, Peterson has issues with women -- he defended an ESPN commentator who suggested that women provoke men into beating them, and he attacked the NFL panel addressing domestic violence issues in the league.
NEW ARTICLE: With A Little Help From Her Friends (At the MRC) Topic: Media Research Center
If former CBS correspondent Sharyl Attkisson really played her reporting straight, would the conservative Media Research Center be so effusively singing her praises? Read more >>
WND Spreads Lies About DOJ Peacekeepers Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Nov. 13 WorldNetDaily article by Paul Bremmer (a former NewsBusters blogger) has no other purpose other than to peddle right-wing lies about the Department of Justice's Community Relations Service:
Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said his organization has been tracking the CRS’ actions in Ferguson, just as they tracked the CRS’ actions in Sanford, Florida, after the 2012 Trayvon Martin shooting.
He does not believe CRS workers are impartial mediators.
“They obviously did not facilitate anything in terms of positive outcomes and community relations, and our work showing what they had done in the Trayvon Martin shooting controversy shows that they are not there as a neutral party,” Fitton said. “They go down there to advocate on behalf of the racialist point of view that the Department of Justice has.”
Fitton is lying. PolitiFact rated Judicial Watch's claims about CRS' work in Florida after the Trayvon Martin shooting to be "mostly false":
Armed with public documents, Judicial Watch said the Department of Justice sent the Community Relations Service to Sanford in the wake of Martin’s death "to help organize and manage rallies and protests against George Zimmerman."
Judicial Watch’s statement contends an element of truth: Justice Department employees were sent to Sanford, in part to deal with community uprising, including protests. But they were sent with the idea of keeping the situation peaceful and calm, not to instigate or condone protests or violence.
That’s a critical distinction being ignored in this particular claim. We rate it Mostly False.
Despire the utter lack of a factual basis for such attacks, Bremmer pushes them anyway, uncritically repeating similar comments by race-baiters like Colin Flaherty and Jack Cashill. At no point does Bremmer make an effort to contact CRS and permit them to respond to the racially charged attacks by Fitton, Flaherty and Cashill.
In fact, the CRS' record in Ferguson is that it has brought nearly all conflicting sides in Ferguson to the table to talk about their differences and try to develop a peaceful way forward.
The fact that Bremmer is peddling known lies -- or what he should know are lies, had he bothered to do even the most basic research into his subject -- is just another reason why nobody believes WND.
CNS Promotes Catholic Vaccine Conspiracy Theory Topic: CNSNews.com
Michael W. Chapman spends a Nov. 14 CNSNews.com article lavishing attention on a Catholic-generated conspiracy theory that a tetanus vaccine being used in Kenya "by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) is laced with a hormone that causes miscarriages and infertility."
While Chapman does concede that "UNICEF denies that the vaccine is tainted and the WHO says the 'allegations are not backed by the evidence,'" the bulk of his article isconcerned with presenting the claims made by "the Catholic Bishops of Kenya, along with the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association," as true and WHO and UNICEF as trying to hide something.
Chapman also brings in Donna Harrison, "an OB/GYN and executive director of the American Association of Prolife Obstetricians and Gynecologists," to bolster the Catholics' case. He doesn't mention that Harrison is an anti-birth control activist who peddles the myth that morning-after pills cause abortions.
While Chapman does eventually tell bothh sides of the story, he waits until the 31st paragraph of his article to note WHO's and UNICEF's evidence that the vaccines are not laced with infertility drugs.
Chapman's promotion of this anti-vaccine conspiracy theory is ironic because other branches of CNS' owner, the Media Research Center, have railed against those who promote anti-vaccine conspiracy theories (when they don't involve Gardasil, anyway).
We're aware of CNS' pro-Catholic leanings and reputation for unbalanced reporting, but can't Chapman -- who, remember, is CNS' managing editor -- try to attempt some actual journalism by fairly presenting both sides of the story instead of putting his thumb on the scale in favor of the Catholics, no matter how crazy their conspiracy theory sounds?
Apparently not -- to him, the political narrative is more important than the facts.
WND Can't Find Anyone Who Will Defend Ted Cruz On The Record Topic: WorldNetDaily
Garth Kant writes in a Nov. 12 WorldNetDaily article:
Aides to conservative senators are debunking a Politico article titled, “An army of one,” which claims Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, “is leading the charge against Obamacare but no one is following.”
The article states Cruz wants all Republicans to declare “all-out war” but portrayed his colleagues as hesitant because the downside, according to Politico, would divide the GOP and become a “PR disaster.”
“That whole story is total garbage,” one aide to a senator told WND.
An aide to another conservative senator told WND the lawmaker was looking to repeal and replace Obamacare any way that gets it done.
And an aide to Paul told WND, “Senator Paul supports repealing Obamacare fully. He supports whatever strategy would accomplish that goal including using reconciliation or funding riders on appropriations bills. Clearly, this is not an easy task, yet conservatives need to figure out how to continue a short- and long-term strategy that repeals Obamacare.”
Notice that all of these aides to conservative senators that Kant quotes in his article are anonymous. Kant does not explain why he has granted them anonymity to defend Cruz and bash Politico.
How sad is it that WND can't find anyone willing to speak on the record to defend Cruz and the conservative strategy to defend Obamacare? Consider it just another reason nobody believes WND.
Finally, the world’s most flagrant example of in-your-face dishonesty and corruption in government – the bogus “birth certificate” on the crime scene that is the White House website – must be firmly dealt with.
I know not whether Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. But it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the document on the White House website is not a genuine Hawaiian birth certificate. The corruption in Hawaii that created the forgery, and in Washington, D.C., that allows the forgery to continue in circulation, must be ended.
Congress must at once announce an investigation into the forgery.
-- Christopher Monckton, Nov. 9 WorldNetDaily column
Then it was revealed at the end of an interview in Forbes with pharmacologist David Kroll, about Ebola testing at Duke University Hospital, that national media have agreed not to report on suspected cases of Ebola in the United States until a positive case is documented.
In other words, pressure from above to ignore the issue unless there is a crisis.
Sounds like a cover-up to me to hide the number of suspected cases across the country. Since the administration refuses to order travel to Ebola countries stopped, every American is a risk.
The rout of the Democrats in the recent election has clearly taught Barack Obama nothing. The American people unequivocally declared to President Obama that we are on to him. And he shouted back, “Who cares?”
He has always held the American people in contempt, but now it’s official presidential policy. Now he is sending troops back to Iraq. Apparently the decision was made to send these troops back in September, but Obama held off on announcing it until after the election – in a Friday night news dump.
So now we know that for him nothing is sacred, not even human life. Under Obama, war is politics – and if it’s not politically expedient, then victims, nations and freedom be damned.
The conversion of large numbers of prisoners to Islam and their “radicalization” at the hands of Muslim chaplains with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other jihadist and supremacist groups is not just a scandal – it’s a time bomb. Irek Hamidullin won’t be the first or the last jihadi to light the fuse.
But the principal arsonist in this case will be Barack Hussein Obama.
Instead of issuing an order that people coming from Ebola-infected countries will not be allowed to deplane in the United States (which Obama could easily do and would cost nothing), he is now asking Congress to appropriate $6 billion to combat Ebola in West Africa! That’s so offensive that it’s hard to believe he said it, but if the New York Times reported it, he must have said it.
Maybe the new Republican majority doesn’t have the power to stop nonsense announcements, but Republicans surely can refuse to appropriate any funds for Obama’s harebrained schemes such as assuming the burden of curing disease in Africa. That’s not what we elected him for.
While Obama and his cronies have been very successful at operating outside the realm of believability (in that so many remain unconvinced they’re really out to destroy America as we know it), I think that Americans are far more open to digesting the truth about them now than ever before. Investigations into the plethora of scandals in which administration officials have been implicated are a logical first step.
This is the real lesson Americans at large need to learn, and would learn given such a scenario: that a system which could propel an utterly insubstantial, 6-foot-3 bowel extrudate with less in the way of accomplishments than most grade schoolers to the highest office in the land is a system that definitely needs a major overhaul.
It is the Republican failure to counter Obama that is pushing our nation into a real constitutional crisis. The U.S. Constitution provides a clear remedy for confronting a rising dictatorship. It is the refusal to employ constitutional remedy that is provoking a crisis.
And trust me on this: When the rule of law is in retreat, the rule of force is ascendant. If dictatorship in America ever comes to be seen as our inevitable fate, there will be unpleasant consequences beyond lawsuits, third parties, and exploding gun and ammunition sales.
Is there nothing Obama could do in his remaining 26 months that would persuade even Democrats to consider impeachment? Is Congress willing – by its silence – to declare Obama immune from impeachment no matter that he does? Does anyone believe that immigration is the only area where Obama will employ his “executive action” to achieve legislative goals he cannot get through Congress? Can you spell unilateral disarmament?
The ultimate question for Republican leaders is the same question we must all ask of our elected representatives: Is America ready for an official obituary to the rule of law?
Meet CNS' Resident Mark Levin Fanboy Topic: CNSNews.com
Michael Morris is CNSNews.com's assistant editor for commentary. He's also the website's chief Mark Levin fanboy. Over the ast couple weeks, he cranked no fewer than five CNS blog posts transcribing the right-wing ranter's latest alleged pearls of wisdom:
Morris claims to have a law degree, so you'd think he'd be sensitive to issues like conflict of interest. Apparently not -- which may be why he's working as an assistant editor for a right-wing website instead of as a lawyer.
If you live in Minnesota, your high-school daughter might soon be showering next to a male after athletic practice if a “transgender” policy being considered by the Minnesota State High School League is approved next month.
And beyond Minnesota? Such a policy could be coming to other states, too, if there is not already one in place.
Critics of the controversial measure in Minnesota, which has sparked fierce opposition across the state, told WND the policy was unneeded, dangerous and part of a broader radical agenda.
Needless to say, Newman ignores evidence that experts in 12 states that have banned discrimination in public accommodations based on gender identity have reported no problems whatsoever with sexual assaults or any other crimes in connection with accom,modating transgenders.
Indeed -- echoing another Unruh tactic -- Newman interviewed only critics of nondiscrimination ordinances for his article, making no effort whatsoever to give supporters a chance to respond.
And, as per usual for WND's anti-gay agenda, Newman's article is accompanied with a picture of a screaming Janet Leigh in a still from the film "Psycho."
Sharyl Attkisson Gets The Brent Bozell Endorsement Topic: Media Research Center
Just a few days after getting the coveted Joseph Farah endorsement, Sharyl Attkisson is getting a big thumbs-up from another right-wing activist.
The Media Research Center's Brent Bozell and Tim Graham devote their Nov. 12 column to singing Attkisson's praises. The first clue that they don't intend to tell the full truth is their shading of the MRC's past criticism of Attkisson:
She has a record of playing it pretty straight and digging into the facts. We've flagged her for an occasional tilt over the years, like this one against President Bush in 2001: "Adding yet another twist to the President's dilemma, even conservative senators from his own party are urging him to support stem cell research." For a "conservative," Attkisson picked the late Arlen Specter, who had a lifetime rating of 41 percent from the American Conservative Union.
Bozell and Graham have apparently forgotten -- or decided to forget -- about Attkisson's advocacy of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, which the MRC also dinged her for. But you see, Bozell and Graham all about bolstering Attkisson's supposed journalistic bona fides:
But liberals have tried to undermine her professionalism, starting with CBS colleagues who hypocritically charged her with having a "political agenda." When Attkisson appeared on MSNBC's "All In," host Chris Hayes laid out the liberal line, appropriately identifying it as "the most cynical."
The folks at MSNBC refuse to admit Attkisson has exposed the real cynicism inside the media, namely: Why would we look into rampant Obama administration corruption when it's "our job" to offer Obama a "successful presidency"? Chris Matthews announced that "most cynical" line on the purpose of TV journalism two days after Obama was elected president.
Sharyl Attkisson has never been a political operative. She's been a fairly objective journalist — something that MSNBC would never understand.
Needless to say, Bozell and Graham don't mention that Attkisson's post-CBS journalism has appeared almost exclusively in conservative-leaning media outlets.
And they refuse to admit one glaring fact: If rabid right-wing political operatives like Bozell and Graham are running to Attkisson's defense, she cannot possibly be "playing it pretty straight" or be "a fairly objective journalist." That's something the MRC would never understand.
But Bozell and Graham aren't the only MRC employees trying to ignore inconvenient facts about Attkisson. In a Nov. 10 NewsBusters post, Melissa Mullins fawns over the party being held for Attkisson's book, which included "members in the media, whistleblowers from other scandals, and the outgoing House Oversight committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa." Mullins highlighted Issa's speech lavising praise on Attkisson:
Darrell Issa, who has been just as much a key player in the Benghazi investigation by chairing the House Oversight Committee, also spoke to the crowd. "My committee is a desert island if not for a press that will look at stuff fairly and scrutinize it," Issa said. "In many of our investigations, Fox News led; CBS, on occasion, was there and made a big difference; on very rare occasions ABC; never NBC."
Investigations, he said, worked only "if the press, and particularly reporters, will go out and meet people and get the story from whistleblowers and then report it and give them a fair hearing."
Mullins expresses no curiosity about why a powerful congressman is attending the book part for a reporter. She doesn't mention that Attkisson uses her book to praise Issa and defend him against the not-unreasonable accusation that Issa's targeting of the Obama administration is politically motivated -- or that much of Attkisson's recent reporting has depended on leaks from Issa's office.
If Issa were a Democrat and he attended the book party for, say, Chuck Todd, the MRC would be howling about the unseemly mingling of media politics. But because this is Darrell Issa and Sharyl Attkisson, the MRC looks the other way.
Again: If Attkisson wasn't doing conservative-friendly things, the MRC wouldn't be so eager and desperate to defend her.
Jerome Corsi -- who wants us to think he's some kind of expert on Ebola, even though all he does is fearmonger about it -- plays the filthy-immigrant card in a Nov. 10 WorldNetDaily article:
The Chagas virus is a potentially lethal disease that international health authorities virtually universally agree has been brought to the United States in the flood of “unaccompanied minors” this year.
Corsi is implying that Chagas did not exist in the U.S. until this year, which is completely false. In fact, as Wired reported, Chagas was documented in New York City in the early 1980s and has been prevalent in Texas for years. Wired also warns against doing what Corsi is doing:
As I type that I can almost feel the default anti-immigrant response: “They” pose a risk to us, so if we only kept “them” on the other side of our borders, we’d be safe. The problem, of course, is that diseases and their vectors have no concept of borders — and thanks in part to climate change, there is now a competent Chagas vector on our side of the border, in Texas. A third paper, published two years ago in PLoS NTD, argues that Chagas is now endemic in Texas, traveling from Triatoma species through dogs and into people — and is going undetected because blood-donation screening is not mandatory in the state and physicians are not required to report the disease’s occurrence to health authorities.
Corsi goes on to cite Elizabeth Vliet -- a fearmongering-obsessed doctor affiliated with the fringe group Association of American Physicians and Surgeons -- blaming illegal immigrants for "bringing diseases the U.S. had controlled or virtually eradicated," including Chagas. Given the AAPS' history of falsely blaming illegal immigrants for spreading illnesses in the U.S., Vliet is simply not a credible source. Not that it will stop Corsi from citing her, of course.
(In the AAPS article by Vliet that Corsi cites, Vliet laments that "Vaccine-preventable diseases like chicken pox, measles and whooping cough spread like wildfire among unvaccinated children." She doesn't mention that the AAPS opposes mandatory vaccination of children, which probably contributes much more to the spread of such diseases.)
Corsi found another disease to blame on filthy immigrants in a Nov. 11 WND article:
Dengue hemorrhagic fever has been added to the list of diseases brought by the surge of “unaccompanied minors” who have illegally entered the U.S. this year.
“The big picture here is that we are getting all these diseases brought into the United States by the ‘imported disease people’ from Latin America,” Dr. Lee Hieb, past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, explained to WND in an interview.
Again, Corsi is falsely implying that there was no dengue fever in the U.S. before this year. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control reported cases in the U.S. in 2012.
Neither Corsi nor Hieb -- another factually challenged AAPS-linked fearmongerer -- present any actual evidence that the presence of dengue-spreading mosquitoes is the direct result of those filthy "unaccompanied minors," only mentions of "suspicion" and Hieb ranting about "the big picture." They don't mention that dengue fever is starting to become a problem in Key West, Florida, an area not known for problems with illegal immigration.
In short, these two articles are all about fearmongering and nothing about informing. He never proves that the unaccompanied minors have resulted in any actual increased risk of these diseases spreading in the U.S. Thus, he has failed in his fearmongering mission.