CNS Frames Volunteers' Emotional Support As 'Abortion-Related Care' Topic: CNSNews.com
Melanie Hunter tries to make it sound as scary and offensive as possible in an April 26 CNSNews.com article:
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) found that members of AmeriCorps, a federally funded service organization, were allowed to provide abortion-related care to pregnant women at three New York City clinics operated by the Institute for Family Health (IFH) between 2013 and 2015.
But what is this "abortion-related care" that Hunter finds so offensive? She doesn't tell us until the fifth paragraph:
According to the report, NACHC [National Association of Community Health Centers, an AmeriCorps grantee] in Bethesda, Md., allowed “a few AmeriCorps members to provide emotional support (doula care) to women during abortion procedures” at three IFH clinics in New York.
Wait ... providing "emotional support" is the offense? Apparently.
Since Hunter doesn't bother to explain what "doula care" is -- all the better to make it sound more sinister, as if AmeriCorps was directly providing abortions -- we had to go elsewhere on the internet. Here's how one abortion doula provider explains what they do:
We provide nonjudgmental, compassionate and empowering support focused solely on nurturing your needs during your experience with pregnancy. Having a Full Spectrum Doula during your experience can alleviate anxiety and help with healthy aftercare. We listen to you and respond compassionately without judgment. We honor your unique needs and feelings throughout your experience. Your well-being is our only concern.
Apparently, the anti-abortion activists at CNS don't want anyone involved in providing "nonjudgmental, compassionate and empowering" support.
But it's not just them; this was apparently a Republican-led provision that AmeriCorps violated, given how Hunter provides ample space for Republican Rep. Diane Black to rant that AmeriCorps "broke trust with the American people" and provided "support of abortion" (even though, again, it provided emotional support for those having one, not for the procedure itself).
But Hunter doesn't explain why volunteer compassion is forbidden when it comes to abortion. Which tells us she's more interested in pushing an agenda than being an actual reporter.
WND's Malloch Actually Claims His Trump Fanboy Crusade Is 'Moderate and Reasoned' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Donald Trump fanboy Theodore Roosevelt Malloch recently went to Canada's Regent College to give a speech, and was aghast that some students criticized said Trump fanboyism. As Malloch described it in his April 21 WorldNetDaily column, "I was treated rudely, disregarded and accused of hate."
Fair enough. But then Malloch asserted that he had endeavored to "write the editorials supporting Trump from a moderate and reasoned perspective." He added: "The idea that my editorials on Trump might be fairly argued and moderately written appears to be antithetical to the far-left Bernie socialists, including former weathermen and now the overtly aggressive Black Lives Matter radicals who populate today’s protest marches, mixed together with anarchists from the Occupy movements, as well as those being paid by wealthy socialist forces like Soros to disrupt free speech and cause harm to the very fabric of civility."
OK, stop right there. Malloch is claiming his Trump fanboyism is "moderate and reasoned" and "fairly argued." This is the same guy who:
Fantasized that Trump's first six days would parallel that of God's first days of creation.
Likened Trump to Aristotle (albeit in that they guy can competently give a speech).
Went vaguely racist in touting Trump's appeal to the "white working and middle class."
Insisted that Trump is a "principled actor" in politics, again ignoring his actual history of unprincipled politics.
Malloch went on to sneer at the name of the college's newspaper, noting that it is "named “&c,” whatever that means." Well, it's an alternate rendering of "et cetera," something you'd think a guy with a doctorate and enough pretentiousness to insist on being called by his entire full name, two of which belong to another man to whom he's (as far as we can tell) not related by blood, would know.
Malloch then takes potshots at the entire country in apparent revenge for being treated rudely there:
Trump supporters agree America is not a sovereign nation as long as the southern border with Mexico is left open and largely unguarded.
This is why in the United States we have 12 million illegal immigrants and more on the way, not to mention a drug war.
Would Canada allow such a travesty?
Trump may better be portrayed as a gladiator in the arena who will fight for the common person, who will defend freedom, who will build and rebuild American infrastructure and who will in his own theme: Make America Great Again.
Is this unappealing to Canadians and others who for decades have depended on American largesse, on our military shield, on our nuclear deterrence, on our charity, on our economic engine of growth?
Malloch also serves up some of that so-called "moderate and reasoned" Trump fanboyism. He states that "Trump has made it clear he intends to defend the national interest to bring jobs back by negotiating better trade deals," then adds: "Isn’t that what Americans expect of a leader? Is it authoritarian or hateful to suggest and enforce real policies, or is it the responsibility of a leader who truly wants to serve his people? In the great tradition of Western civilization, the notion of a servant leader, expressed in Christ, is a model to follow and uphold not decry."
Yep, Malloch really is suggesting the thrice-married Trump is Christ-like.
Malloch concluded by whining about "students who appear to hate Trump as much as they hate the idea of a traditionally moral Christian America dedicated, as our Founding Fathers understood, to Christian morals that supported profitable business founded with an understanding of spiritual capital."
Yeah, that massive logical leap was totally moderate and reasoned.
MRC Whines That Curt Schilling Was Fired, Won't Show The Post That Got Him Fired Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has done a lot of whining over ESPN's firing of Curt Schilling:
Coward-hiding-behind-a-fake-name "Bruce Bookter" complained that Schilling was fired because he "posted a picture of a transgender person, and made a comment regarding the effort to let transgender men use women’s restrooms."
Matthew Balan wrote that Schilling was fired after "Tweeting out a controversial image" that another writer (who Balan makes sure to tell us "moonlights as a cross-dressing musician in a rock band") said "many deemed transphobic."
"Bookter" wrote again that Schilling's firing was what "so many members of the liberal sports media openly, and privately, rooted for" but mentioned the image only in quoting another article.
Kyle Drennen asserted that Schilling was fired because he "objected on social media to liberal demands that transgender people be allowed to use whichever bathroom they choose." He mentioned the image only in quoting others.
Clay Waters declared that Schilling was fired "after sharing a post on his Facebook account against allowing transgenders to choose which bathroom they use, accompanied by a crude photo of a large man in unflattering drag."
Yet for the centrality of the image in Schilling's firing none of these MRC wreiters reposted the offending image. Is that perhaps these writers know the image does not help Schilling's -- and right-wing anti-trans activists' -- cause?
For the record, here it is:
One derives from Schilling's posting that he clearly thinks this image is an accurate depiction of transgenders, which makes us think that he also believes a pickaninny is an accurate depiction of black people.
The only place at the MRC the image appears is in an April 20 NewsBusters post by Dylan Gwinn, though he posts it only in block-quoting a USA Today post that was more offensive to him because it noted that transgenders have a higher suicide rate and Schilling's offensive post probably isn't helping things.
Gwinn ranted that it's "not funny at all" that the writer implies a link "between Schilling’s conservative views and transgender suicide, and besides, "middle-aged white males --by far-- the group most likely to commit suicide." He then downplays the suicide risk:
Seriously, though, people commit suicide for all kinds of reasons. Like, depression, drug abuse, mental illness, poverty, dysfunctional upbringings. All things that apply to transgendered people. And all things that many of them suffered from way, way before they ever knew what a Curt Schilling or a conservative ever was.
Conservatism doesn’t kill. Being forced to watch I Am Cait every week kills. (Violently clears throat.)
Dylan, honey, nobody's forcing you to hate-watch shows you don't want to watch. You have -- and have always had -- the choice to walk away. Apparently, that MRC cash must be good for you to put yourself through such torture, eh?
WND's AAFP-Linked Doc Still Trying To Blame Zika on Vaccines Topic: WorldNetDaily
The last time Jane Orient -- WorldNetDaily-fave doc and executive director of the far-right Association of American Physicians and Surgeons -- weighed in on the Zika virus, she was blaming the microcephaly Zika was believed to have caused on vaccines instead, even though there was no actual evidence to support the claim.
Now, the Centers for Disease Control has definitively confirmed that Zika causes microcephaly and other fetal abnormalities. Guess who isn't buying it?
Yep, it's Jane Orient. In an April 15 WND column (a version of which was also published April 18 at Newsmax), she rants that the CDC is offering "politically correct advice on Zika," and she's sticking to her anti-vaxxer conspiracy theory:
Zika virus has been found in the brain of a few babies born with microcephaly. But two things are very clear: MOST microcephaly is NOT caused by Zika. About 7 of 10,000 babies born in the U.S. have microcephaly – no thanks to Zika. Most (more than 90 percent) of the Brazilian babies recently confirmed to have microcephaly tested negative for Zika.
Additionally, MOST mothers who have Zika during pregnancy give birth to a normal, healthy baby. Mothers in northeastern Brazil also had a lot of other problems, including malnutrition, heavy exposure to toxic agricultural chemicals and an aggressive vaccination campaign.
We don't know where Orient got her claim that "Most (more than 90 percent) of the Brazilian babies recently confirmed to have microcephaly tested negative for Zika," since she provides no link for it. She may be referring to a report last month that of 2,197 have so far been investigated by Brazilian officials, 854 have been confirmed as microcephaly, and in 97 cases laboratory tests have confirmed a link with the Zika virus. But Nature reports that while Brazil lacks reliable historical baselines for comparison, "an increasing number of reports on individual newborn babies, or stillborn or aborted fetuses with microcephaly, show Zika viral RNA at the scene of the crime."
Orient is eager to downplay the threat of Zika -- "while Ebola has killed thousands, Zika has likely not killed anyone," she writes, ignoring those stillbirths linked to Zika -- but the fact remains it's the first mosquito-borne virus linked to congenital brain defects.
Orient, meanwhile, is still not done fearmongering about vaccines:
A registered clinical trial that sought 50 pregnant volunteers to test Tdap (adult tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis) vaccine, in Vietnam, was scheduled for completion in 2015. But Tdap had already been given to thousands of Brazilian expectant mothers some months before reports of microcephaly started to surface. There was no control group of unvaccinated women. It was not, after all, research, but a public health response to an increase in pertussis (whooping cough) cases.
A Zika vaccine would likely be a live virus, and all live virus vaccines are contraindicated in pregnancy – and possibly while nursing. That includes measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, shingles and rotavirus. There is a case report of a nursing infant who got meningoencephalitis, probably from yellow fever vaccine virus. Nursing Labrador puppies got canine distemper, a relative of measles, after their mother got a booster shot.
WHO and CDC are quick to indict Zika virus, which might eventually turn out to be an innocent bystander.
Actually, the microcephaly outbreak in vietnam may not only be related to Zika, but may be linked to a chemical, pyriproxyfen, used in the country to kill mosquitoes.
Speaking of which, Orient renews her call to un-ban DDT, which she called "the safest and most effective public health weapon in history." She doesn't mention that most mosquitoes are now immune to DDT's effects, making it ineffective and unnecessary.
Orient adds: "In the 1990s, Mexico agreed to abandon its DDT program as a condition of NAFTA. Mosquitoes travel." Actually, according to the Global Health Group, Mexico had largely abandoned DDT use by the time NAFTA was approved because it was no longer working; using alternative treatment and vector control methods, cases of malaria, a mosquito-borne disease, in Mexico dropped 83 percent from 2000 to 2010. Further, Mexico has the potential to be free of malaria by 2020.
Orient concludes by declaring that "Alarm about Zika will be a public-relations exercise." So what's Orient's excuse for raising needless alarm about vaccines?
MRC Attacks How Networks 'Censor' Anti-Abortion Hearing, Ignores How Its Own CNS Censored It
In an April 21 NewsBusters post headlined "Networks Censor Congressional ‘Pricing of Fetal Tissue’ Hearing," Katie Yoder complained: "A congressional probe into whether or not businesses profited from aborted baby body parts should scream big news. But not so for the three broadcast networks."
But Yoder ignored the censorship of infor mation in the hearing going on down the hall at another Media Research Center division, CNSNews.com.
CNS published three articles on the hearing:
Lauretta Brown played up Republican Rep. Mia Love's assertion that fetal tissue donation was like organ donation and asking, "Who protects the minor’s interests in this case?"
Melanie Hunter touted Republican Rep. Joe Pitts sneering that the deceptively edited anti-Planned Parenthood videos issued by the Center for Medical Progress uncovered "the Amazon.com of baby body parts." Neither Hunter's or Brown's article quoted a person at the hearing who was not anti-abortion.
Brown wrote another article actually getting around to quoting the other side, noting that "Reps. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) and Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) expressed concern at a Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives Subcommittee hearing Wednesday." Unlike with her other article, Brown inserts the other side: "Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.), a cardiac surgeon, interrupted Speier to ask that it be noted that he took 'personal offense for it being said that I, as a physician, am here to allow people to die.'"
But Brown and Hunter, along with Yoder, deliberately excluded information from the hearing that didn't make the anti-abortion side -- the one CNS and the Media Research Center are on -- look good.
The Washington Post's Dana Milbank pointed out that committee chairman Marsha Blackburn, a Republican, ave an opening statement mentioning the buying and selling of “baby body parts” no fewer than seven times despite the fact that none of the several state investigations launched in the wake of the misleading videos have found any wrongdoing, and that Blackbur's staff handed out an exhibit claiming without evidence that abortion clinics have no costs in obtaining fetal tissue so payments made to them for the tissue are "pure profit" -- despite other exhibits noting that clinics do have reimbursable costs. Rather than offer evidence to back up the claim, Blackburn simply insisted there was "no discrepancy."
And while Yoder complained that "MRC Culture found that the six Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Select Investigative Panel had received more than $81,000 from Planned Parenthood," neither she nor the CNS reporters mentioned that, as Milbank mentioned, Blackburn took part in an anti-Planned Parenthood protest before coming to the hearing -- which you'd think would compromise her hearing's objectivity at least as much as Planned Parenthood donations to Democrats.
Even though the hearing's witness list was stacked in favor of Blackburn's anti-Planned Prenthood agenda, there were at least two witnesses who were on the other side: one who pointed out the state investigations finding no wrongdoing, and another who noted that the committee has yet to order CMP's David Daleiden to testify under oath, presumably because she knows his stories wouldn't hold up under penalty of perjury. Neither Yoder nor the CNS reporters mentioned this testimony.
If Yoder really wants to have an easy job of finding journalistic censorship, she doesn't even have to leave the MRC offices. But perhaps she's totally down with censorship that helps her agenda.
NEW ARTICLE: The Gallup-ing Conspiracy Theorist Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily wants its author Carl Gallups to be taken seriously, but his promotion of wild conspiracy theories (not to mention his birtherism) keep putting WND in cleanup mode. Read more >>
MRC Hides Behind Levin Again To Criticize Fox Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center still can't quite find a way to criticize Fox News in its own voice.
As it did last month, the MRC uses right-wing radio host Mark Levin as cover for its Fox News criticism. Tim Graham writes in an April 20 NewsBusters post about how Levin was "hitting back at all the election propaganda being spouted by the media and pundits after the New York primary results," going after Fox News in particular:
The Fox News Channel – the Donald Trump super PAC – hasn’t discussed any of this, all day long. Instead, the pom pom boys and girls are dancing all over the place. Telling you that everything’s changed, even though nothing’s changed. They repeat what Donald Trump says. They repeat what his sycophants say, his surrogates say.
Graham doesn't explain why the MRC doesn't criticize Fox News itself and instead trots out Levin to do the dirty work for them. Because Brent Bozell would like to continue appearing on Fox, perhaps?
WND's Bitter Its Dubious Miriam Carey Crusade Didn't Win A Pulitzer Topic: WorldNetDaily
Back in January, WorldNetDaily proclaimed that it had submitted its reporting on the death of Miriam Carey, killed by law enforcement agents in 2013 after apparently attempting to crash the White House gates and then fleeing. In usual self-aggrandizing fashion, WND editor Joseph Farah is quoted as saying that "WND has already been cited by other news agencies for its determined leadership in rolling back the layers of an enormous and scandalous cover-up" (despite citing only one actual example of such, Mother Jones, which noted only that WND was obsessed the story). Farah followed up with an even more self-aggrandizing column declaring that "If WND’s diligent commitment to this case resulted in a Pulitzer Prize or two, it would give the Miriam Carey case more prominence and exposure – the kind that could ultimately result in a measure of justice being served."
Well, the Pulitzers were awarded last week, and WND's entry did not win. We're guessing it's because its lead reporter on the story, Garth Kant, apparently did little more than file FOIA requests and has not proven that Carey's death was the result of a conspiracy instead of being merely a tragedy involving a woman driving suspiciously and erratically in a nervous Washington, D.C., just two weeks after a shooter killed 12 people at D.C.'s Navy Yard. The facts that nobody believes WND , the Pulitzer bid is a desperate stab and acquiring some credibiity, or that it's Farah is clearly using the Carey story to continue his (largely failed) war on President Obama are probably irrelevant to the Pulitzer judges. The bitter headline of WND's article on the awards says it all: "Major WND probe snubbed by Pulitzers."
Speaking of bitter, Farah devoted a column to the Pulitzer snub, beginning with rehashing old glories and then whining that the "new media" didn't win any Pulitzers:
Only Old Media news organizations were selected for the honors, even though the public long ago began getting its news from the New Media.
I’m only a little disappointed because what happened is just what I expected.
The old institutions die hard. The good old boys’ networks don’t usually open their doors unless you knock them down.
But I’m also more than a little disappointed that the Pulitzer insiders didn’t see the value of honoring our reporting on the Miriam Carey case. Their recognition would have done something much more significant than make my day. It would have made it nearly impossible for the official cover-up and stonewalling by the most powerful people in America over the death of Miriam Carey to continue.
CNS Slobbers All Over Brent Bozell's Buddy, Charlie Daniels Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell is not just a huge fan of country music artist Charlie Daniels -- he's Daniels' buddy as well.
In a 2015 column, Bozell huffed that critics of the Confederate flag were by extension attacking Daniels, "a friend of mine." In 2010 he devoted an entire column to Daniels, touting how "In recent years, I’ve come to know Charlie Daniels personally." And in 2012, Bozell wrote in a NewsBusters post: "Charlie Daniels, a man for whom I have so much respect, sent me his new video," adding, "Amidst all the anti-American garbage poisoning our culture, it gives me—and I’m sure you—great comfort to know that patriots like Charlie Daniels continue to make such inspirational, pro-military music."
So it should not be a surprise that CNSNews.com, the "news" division of Bozell's MRC, has made Daniels a regular columnist, which he has used to tell lies about Margaret Sanger.
It should also not be a surprise that CNS also gives Daniels fawning "news" coverage.
On March 29, CNS managing editor Michael W. Chapman wrote what is effectively a press release on Daniels' upcoming induction into the Country Music Hall of Fame -- indeed, all of the information from the article appears to come straight from a Country Music Association press release, so rewriting it and putting a byline on it seems superfluous. Maybe Chapman was trying to kiss up to the boss.
On April 19, CNS' Brian Lonergan repeated a Twitter post from Daniels announcing that he will not be canceling any concerts in North Carolina in protest of that state's new anti-gay law. In other words, not news at all. Fully half of Lonergan's article is biographical information copied from Chapman's article.
As much as the MRC likes to complain about other media outlets giving allegedly fawning coverage to its political enemies, it clearly has no interest in holding itself to the same journalistic standards.
AIM's Kincaid, An Obama Birther, Won't Touch Cruz Eligibility Topic: Accuracy in Media
WorldNetDaily's not the only ConWeb outlet that wants nothing to do with Ted Cruz's eligibility issues. Cliff Kincaid writes in his April 20 Accuracy in Media column, in the midst of an anti-Trump tirade complaining that "there is no eligibility requirement to be a Republican":
Trump, for a while, was harping on the fact that Cruz was born in Canada, as if that had any bearing on his credentials as a Republican. It was a diversion from the fact that Trump really wasn’t a Republican and had no business in the race. The real question, therefore, is not the eligibility of Cruz but the eligibility of Trump.
Kincaid, however, did think Barack Obama's eligibility was an issue. From September 2009, AIM proclaimed that Kincaid released his own birth certificate in order to raise questions about Obama's:
“My birth certificate includes the names of my mother and father, my mother’s doctor, and the hospital in which I was born,” said Kincaid. “This certified copy of an original long form document is what anyone who wants to be president should be prepared to produce.”
Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
“Journalism used to ask who, what, when, where, why and how,” said Kincaid. “But today’s pro-Obama journalists want to ignore those questions when it comes to the constitutional eligibility of the current occupant of the oval office. They would rather accept what the Obama campaign (and now administration) wants them to believe. The Obama document may reflect what is in another document, but we really have no way of knowing. The only way to address these questions is to identify where exactly he was born, in what hospital, and what doctor was present. All of this information should be on an original birth certificate.”
Kincaid continued, “It is not unreasonable to ask questions about Barack Obama’s birthplace. Anybody who has an original copy of their own birth certificate, or a certified copy of their own original birth certificate, should immediately understand that the Obama version is lacking in basic information that should be publicly available.”
Kincaid asked, “Whatever happened to the public’s right to know?”
We haven't found anything by Kincaid stating that he's satisfied by Obama's release of his long-form birth certificate. He has promoted discredited filmmaker Joel Gilbert's debunked claim that Frank Marshall Davis is Obama's father.
Additionally, several members of AIM's "Citizens' Commission on Benghazi" kangaroo court are serious Obama birthers who, as far as we know, have not raised similar questions about Cruz.
Apparently, Kincaid's concern about "the public’s right to know" doesn't extend to questions about candidates he supports.
MRC's Graham Joins Bandwagon to Defend Discredited Anti-Obama Filmmaker Topic: Media Research Center
Now the Media Research Center is joining the right-wing bandwagon to portray far-right filmmaker Joel Gilbert as the victim of Democratic meanies at the Federal Election Commission.
MRC director of media analysis Tim Graham writes in an April 19 NewsBusters post:
Our friend Paul Bedard at the Washington Examiner reports that the Republicans and the Democrats on the Federal Election Commission are divided over a vote to punish anti-Obama filmmaker Joel Gilbert for distributing free DVDs in 2012 of his movie Dreams From My Real Father, which made unsubstantiated claims that Obama's real father was the communist Frank Marshall Davis.
Lee Goodman, a Republican commissioner (and former chairman) at the FEC, issued a statement accusing the Democrats of “regulatory avarice within the agency to regular press entities.”
In 2014, anti-birther activist Loren Collins filed an FEC complaint against Gilbert, arguing that the filmmaker had a responsibility to disclose his donors. He wanted the FEC to force Gilbert to disclose his funding sources. The FEC only recently deadlocked in a 3 to 3 party-line vote. Gilbert was considered “press,” and thus not subject to donor disclosure.
Graham is understating the lack of veracity of Gilbert's film. Gilbert's claims weren't merely "unsubstantiated" -- they were outright lies. Even the far-right American Thinker debunked Gilbert's insistence that Davis is Obama's "real father," and his claim that Obama's mother posted for nude pictures has been similarly discredited.
Graham also doesn't explain how being forced to disclose the source of the funds he used to make those millions of DVDs of his discredited film to key swing states during the 2012 election is "punishment." He also doesn't explain how someone who has promoted demonstrably false claims -- and deliberately so, since he adjusted the promotion of his film as its claims were debunked -- should be covered under the First Amendment.
It's telling that Graham cites Paul Bedard, who has also helped to ridiculously portray Gilbert as a victim despite the fact he effectively won his case, as his source. He's such a "friend" of the MRC that he writes a weekly item trumpeting the MRC'slatest bit of "liberal bias," which the MRC then compiles at NewsBusters.
WND's Anti-Hillary Witch Hunt Continues, Still Isn't Transparent Topic: WorldNetDaily
True to form -- and as we predicted -- WorldNetDaily is not telling anyone who's funding its anti-Hillary witch hunt. But WND editor Joseph Farah has an update on how exactly it's witch-hunting:
Maybe conventional wisdom is right, for once.
Perhaps Hillary Clinton will get the Democratic presidential nomination.
It certainly appears Barack Obama’s Justice Department is not going to derail the Democratic presidential nominee with an indictment – no matter what the FBI turns over.
But will she be able to survive the storm brewing from a series of investigative articles, books, movies and surprise witnesses about to unload on her character, her past, her secrets and her blunders?
Yes, it’s all coming. Soon the world will know more about Hillary Clinton’s shocking foibles, failures and follies that Hillary has conveniently forgotten.
Much of what’s coming is a result of the work of the Hillary Clinton Investigative Justice Project, which is about to break a series of reports that may short-circuit her January 2017 plans to move back into the White House she looted 16 years ago.
But, as the center of gravity for the anti-Hillary effort, the project headed by Jerome Corsi and Joseph Farah says there’s plenty of head-turning potential ahead.
WND is apparently also coordinating with the right-wing Judicial Watch for this hit job: "series of investigative reports to be published in WND coinciding with Judicial Watch’s upcoming questioning of Hillary Clinton and her top aides, including Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills. That’s right. It looks like there is no stopping Judicial Watch from deposing Clinton and her two top aides."
And because this is WND, this would not be complete without Farah begging for money (not that he'll tell you how he's spending it, of course):
So, if you’re serious about stopping Hillary before she becomes the next president of the United States, there’s something you can do about it – no matter who you support to beat her.
Now’s the time to halt the Hillary Express dead in its tracks by making your best financial contribution to the Hillary Clinton Investigative Justice Project, which is doing its best to ensure she doesn’t have a second chance in the White House.
The root problem with all of this, of course, is that WND's history of factually flawed anti-Democrat hit jobs demonstrate that it has no credibility, and even if there were some substance to its anti-Hillary hit job, WND's past as a nakedly partisan smear artist virtually guarantees that it will never be taken seriously.
Dear MRC: Hate-Watching TV Shows Does Not Make Good TV Criticism Topic: Media Research Center
Dylan Gwinn starts his NewsBusters review of the latest episode of "The Real O'Neals" by declaring: "To say that my hate for ABC’s The Real O’Neals burns with the heat of a thousand suns, would be…well…an accurate statement."
Well, if you hate it so much, Dylan, perhaps you shouldn't be watching it. And you shouldn't be blogging about how much you hate watching it.
But hate-watching is what the Media Research Center is paying Gwinn and others to do. Gwinn also hate-watches "Blackish" for the MRC, the latest in a long line of white MRC staffers and bloggers to pass (usually negative) judgment on a show aimed at a black audience.
The MRC's hate-watchers are particularly tuned to any hint of gayness, and they predictably freak out over it when it happens. Alexa Moutevelis Coombs had the anti-gay cow you'd expect when there was a girl-on-girl kiss on the show "Once Upon A Time":
Alas, we know that Disney has not been wholesome for years and once again they are purposefully pushing a gay agenda. Once Upon a Time's executive producers have said their gay advocacy is "important to do" and something that needs to be "normalized," not "marginalized." Last year, when announcing the storyline was coming, they said, “It’s [an LGBT relationship] something we think is due and important to do on the show. This is the world we live in.” But then they became uncomfortable with the hype the news was receiving, saying, "[T]he more we talk about it, the more does it seem marginalized as opposed to normalized."
It's no wonder that gays continue to be over represented in the media and thus in the public's minds when you have show producers wanting people - especially kids - to think it's normal and every day life. But it's just another Hollywood fairy tale.
Gwinn also hate-watches the reality show "I Am Cait," about the former Bruce Jenner, and he recently ranted about a "stunt" in which "Caitlyn and the Trans friends that the E! Channel provided him with" checked out a bridal shop. "I too thought this day would never come. Let me fix that, I hoped and prayed this day would never come," Gwinn sneered. "And yet…here we are."
And Karen Townsend was appalled that Smithers came out of the closet on "The Simpsons," complaining that "The writers of The Simpsons have slowly brought homosexuality into the show over the years" and whining that "the storyline is also a piece of political activism." She adds, "What will be next for the liberal writers -- transgender characters?"
Townsend also freaked out about a recent episode of "Empire": " A familiar subject in prime time television was broached between Jamal (Jussie Smollett) and Cookie (Taraji P. Henson) tonight - fluid sexuality. What is with Hollywood liberals pushing this theme on TV lately?" She then huffs that "Hollywood is determined to promote fluid sexuality as normal behavior."
Really, what good does the MRC apparently forcing (as Gwinn suggests) its lower-level bloggers to watch shows they clearly despise and have no interest in reviewing in any objective manner?
Hate-watching does not make for good criticism. The MRC apparently hasn't figured that out yet.
WND Complains About Trump Impeachment Talk -- But Promoted Hillary Impeachment A Year Ago Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah rants in his April 19 WorldNetDaily column:
Barack Obama has defied the Constitution in dozens of ways since swearing an oath to uphold and defend it on Jan. 20, 2009 – maybe hundreds.
He has, by his own admission, exceeded his executive authority to rewrite laws, defy laws and neglect his responsibility to enforce laws.
Pledging the most “transparent administration in history,” his administration has been characterized by secrecy and stonewalling.
Before his first term was even finished, it took an entire book to catalogue the “Impeachable Offenses” he had committed.
Yet, no matter what he did in his campaign pledge to work toward “the fundamental transformation of America,” the Republican Congress gave him all the money he need to accomplish his objectives – even if was borrowed from future generations. The Republicans never even considered impeachment. In fact, they took if off the table early in the first term.
Yet before Donald Trump even gets the presidential nomination of the Republican Party, there are already forces in the Washington establishment – including some Republicans – talking about impeachment!
Who’s talking about impeachment more than six months prior to the election and months ahead of the convention that will nominate a Republican candidate?
Second: Who was talking about impeachment more than 18 months prior to the election and months ahead of the convention that will nominate a Democratic candidate? WorldNetDaily.
In May 2015 (!), WND's Cheryl Chumley touted an effort to impeach Hillary Clinton even before the election:
Special Operations Speaks PAC, an organization to educate Americans about threats to the United States, has started a petition to impeach Hillary Clinton – and so far, nearly 31,000 have signed.
“Fact is, congressional precedent dictates that all elected officials remain subject to impeachment and disqualification from holding office even after resignation,” SOS said, on its website.
As such: the PAC says Clinton must go.
Just in time for the 2016 election, hear Hillary Clinton say she would NOT run for president, in “Hillary Unhinged” by Thomas Kuiper.
“[SOS] is calling on the United States Congress to impeach former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ pursuant to Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.”
The organization lists three reasons to impeach Clinton. First, she “absented herself from the besieged in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, costing four American lives.”
Second: “As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton received, through the Clinton Foundation, emoluments from foreign governments, despite Article 1, Section 9, which proscribes the reception of foreign ‘gifts’ by U.S. officials without the express consent of Congress.”
And third: The groups decried Clinton’s “unlawful” storage of official secretary of state emails on a private email server set up in her New York home, calling it a “detriment of national security” and a violation of the Freedom of Information Act.
That's right: WND promoted an effort to impeach Hillary Clinton before the election. And Farah is complaining about a proposed impeachment of Donald Trump that wouldn't take place until after he takes office?
MRC Documents Fox News Bias, Won't Use The B-Word To Describe It Topic: Media Research Center
On April 14, the Media Research Center's Kyle Drennen touted how Fox News host Megyn Kelly "ripped into her media colleagues for their excessive and skewed coverage of the billionaire’s campaign." Of course, as we've documented, a lot of that "excessive and skewed coverage" of Trump appears on Fox News itself. But, hey, Kelly typically gets a free pass from the MRC, even as she laughably denies that Fox News is biased.
Now, the MRC has finally gathered evidence of Fox News' pro-Trump and anti-Democrat bias. But, even more laughably, it won't say the B-word.
Perhaps tired of us pointing out that the MRC's political coverage analyses have focused almost exclusively on the broadcast networks seemingly to avoid having to document bias at Fox News, the MRC has at last gotten around to analyzing cable news coverage of the 2016 peridential election.
An April 18 NewsBusters post by Rich Noyes and Mike Ciandella admits the obvious:
Our study found that FNC spent much more time interviewing Trump and his surrogates than either of his GOP competitors. Over the past four weeks, Trump was interviewed for a total of 178 minutes on Fox, vs. 106 minutes on CNN and 43 minutes on MSNBC. (Interviews includes network-sponsored town halls as well as sit-downs with a network host, but not debates or live coverage of rallies or speeches.)
Adding in the airtime for campaign surrogates (family members, campaign staff, or designated surrogates), Trump’s tally grows to 397 minutes on Fox, or nearly 60 percent of the total, compared to 164 minutes (25%) for Cruz and 105 minutes (16%) for Kasich.
We don't know why the MRC excluded rallies and speeches from candidate coverage, even though they star the candidate. Perhaps that would have made the Fox News numbers even more skewed for Trump.
Interestingly, Noyes and Ciandella refuse to use the word "bias" in describing Fox News' hlighly skewed coverage of Trump, though the post given the "Bias by the Minute" taxonomy.
The next day, Noyes and Ciandella highlighted an even more stark example of Fox News' bias, noting that while "the three main Republican candidates (Trump, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, and Ohio Governor John Kasich) and their surrogates were interviewed for a total of 666 minutes on the Fox News Channel during this period ... neither former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton nor Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders gave any interviews to any of FNC’s prime time programs during the four weeks we examined, and their surrogates appeared for a total of only 13 minutes — a greater than 50-to-1 disparity."
Noyes and Ciandella given excuse and justify Fox News' clear anti-Democrat bias:
What’s the reason? Since 2007, Democratic presidential candidates have generally boycotted Fox News, refusing to let the top-rated cable network host any of their presidential debates. Earlier this year, Fox News anchor Bret Baier pressed DNC chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz about “letting the Fox News debate team handle” one of the then-upcoming debates; Schultz demurred.
At the same time, FNC’s core audience is decidedly right-of-center. A 2012 Pew Research Center survey of the Fox News audience found conservatives outnumbered liberals by a 6-to-1 margin (60% to 10%), while on shows such as Hannity the gap was a whopping 78 to 5 percent. So FNC may have concluded — not unreasonably — that its audience is more interested in hearing from the GOP candidates and their surrogates than the Democrats.
Those aren't excuses the MRC are likely to grant to the "liberal media" for their allegedly biased coverage. And, again, at no point do Noyes and Ciandella use the word "bias" to describe Fox News' clearly biased coverage.
As we've noted, the MRC has a vested interest in not being more explicit in pointing out Fox News' media bias -- its officials appear regularly on its air, something that would likely stop if the MRC actually held the channel to account.
You can bet that if Kelly or any other Fox News host denies the channel is biased, the MRC will ignore its own research and continue to give them a pass.