MRC Tries to Politicize Congressman's Shooting -- As It Bashes Others for Politicizing It Topic: Media Research Center
If there's one thing that the Media Research Center reliably does in the face of a shooting tragedy, it's complaining that others are politicizing said tragedy by discussing gun control -- and it did just that after yesterday's shooting of a congressman and others in Virginia.
"Shameful: Journalists Immediately Politicize Congressional Shooting With Gun Control Calls" read the headline of a post from Scott Whitlock, i which he huffed, "Apparently, it’s never too soon for liberal journalists to politicize a tragedy."
Madeleine Post followed with a post headlined "Celebs Brazenly Politicize Scalise Shooting, Declare ‘Too Many Guns’," complaining that "celebrities were more concerned with the politics of gun control than the fact that a U.S. congressman was shot."
Of course, the MRC has its own ways of politicizing tragedies, and it did so here as well.
MRC researcher Nicholas Fondacaro rushed to blame the media in a tweet complaining, "Meanwhile, @CBSNews recently complimented a play depicting the assassination of Trump," with the added hashtag #MediaPlayedARole.
Yes, Fondacaro is apparently blaming the shooting on a production of "Julius Caesar" that portrays a Trump-esque titular character.And the last time we checked, Fondacaro's attempt to make #MediaPlayedARole a thing utterly failed -- even his fellow MRC employees weren't picking it up.
Fondacaro was silent -- as was the rest of the MRC -- about a 2012 production of "Julius Caesar" that assassinated an Obama-esque titular character.
But, hey, why let double standards get in the way of a good attack line?
A Tale of Two Mass Shootings At WND Topic: WorldNetDaily
As expected, WorldNetDaily was quick to politically exploit today's mass shooting in Virginia that injured Republican Rep. Steve Scalise and others.
An article by Leo Hohmann made sure to highlight that the alleged shooter, James Hodgkinson, was a "supporter and campaign volunteer of Bernie Sanders" who liked "far-left political organizations like, um, Right Wing Watch and Media Matters and was "an admirer of former President Obama."
That was joined by an article by Joe Wilson that focused on how Hodgkinson "apparently was a fan of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which nearly five years ago was linked to a domestic terror attack at the Washington office of the Family Research Council." Never mind that the two incidents have nothing whatsoever to do with each other and WND is simply playing guilt by association.
Guilt by association, of course, was something WND utterly refused to do regarding Dylann Roof's 2015 massacre of nine blacks in a South Carolina church -- presumably because it would have been the one that looked guilty. As we documented, Roof's views on blacks mirrored that of WND authors like Colin Flaherty and Jack Cashill, and his love of apartheid-era South Africa echoed that of then-WND columnist Ilana Mercer (and, more recently, WND author Alex Newman).
But WND refused to explore that aspect of Roof -- instead, it rushed to dismiss him as a mentally ill drug abuser, and Cashill doubted Roof's ability to write the hateful manifesto attributed to him.
No talk of drugs or mental illness regarding Hodgkinson so far at WND. That would ruin its narrative that he was driven by left-wing ideology.
The MRC vs. Shakespeare Topic: Media Research Center
Having dispatched Reza Aslan, the revenge machine at the Media Research Center has set its sights on a bigger target: William Shakespeare.
Or, more accurately, a New York City production of "Julius Caesar" in modern dress, in which the titular character -- who gets assasinated at the midpoint of the play -- looks not unlike Donald Trump.
A June 9 column by the MRC's Tim Graham and Brent Bozell rants about the production's "poorly disguised Trump" and about "the play's Trump assassination plot" and the "bloody murder of Trump." Well, no.
Graham and Bozell give no indication that, in addition to any evidence they have ever seen the play they're attacking in any form, the theater company rewrote any of the play's prose to make it a "Trump assassination plot," which means that, staging aside, it's the same play it has been for the past 400 years or so -- in which the point of the entire production is not the assassination but its aftermath.
But it appears Bozell, Graham and the rest of the MRC are as ignorant of classic theater than they are of opera, so it has decided to take down Shakespeare:
Kristine Marsh whined about "overt depictions of killing our president."
Tom Blumer declared that the play has a "sick, modernized plot" -- not presenting any evidence that the plot itself was actually "modernized" -- and that the play would not have been ignored "if it had been adapted to show the assassination of Barack Obama while he was in office."
Bozell weighed in again, huffing that the media "has put aside any semblance of objectivity, any semblance of fairness, any semblance of journalistic ethics" by not immediately condemning a modern interpretation of a classic play.
Scott Whitlock vaguely described "Julius Caesar" as "a shocking New York play in which a Donald Trump look-alike is stabbed to death."
Madeline Post attacked "The View's " Whoopi Goldberg for pointing out the obvious -- that the play "is not the story of Donald Trump" -- and went on to assert that "Julius Caesar" has an "unmistakable satirical nature."(Actually, the play is considered a tragedy.)
Over at the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, Gage Cohen is also unfamiliar with classic theater, complaining that the theater company offered "free tickets to anyone who wants to see President Trump assassinated" and later describing the play as a production "in which President Trump is portrayed as being brutally stabbed to death." Cohen later complained that the company putting on the play that "depicts PResident Trump stabbed to death, received an average of $976,296 from the government annually between 2010 and 2014."
Despite Tom Blumer's denial of wuch, there was amajor production of "Julius Caesar" in which Obama was depicted at the titular character -- a 2012 production by the storied Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis. We found no evidence that Bozell or anyone else at the MRC objected to that production.
In other words, this is just another partisan game by the MRC. If Bozell and Co. didn't speak in 2012, they have no moral authority to speak up now.
David Kupelian feels the need to devote an entire June 10 column to "understanding Trump Derangement Syndrome." First, he lectures:
Well, what’s “absolutely true” would be one of two opposing propositions: Either Donald Trump is a modern Hitler and his supporters the equivalent of Nazis, slave-owners and Klansmen as depicted in this colorful but basically accurate characterization of the left’s view of Trump’s presidency – or else the people claiming this are not just staggeringly delusional, but reckless as well.
First, let’s agree on what is indisputably true: The left frequently compares Trump to Hitler, and I’m not talking about just Facebook rants and anti-Trump protest signs. The Washington Post, as I documented last October in a pre-election article titled “5 Washington Post writers liken Trump to Hitler,” spent 2016 explicitly and continually comparing Donald J. Trump to one of history’s most evil and universally reviled genocidal monsters.
Specifically, five different Post writers, one after the other, cited Trump’s “Hitlerian thinking,” claimed his rise was “uncannily reminiscent” of Hitler’s, evoked “Nazi sympathizers,” called Trump a Hitler-like “megalomaniacal demagogue,” and, of course, pegged him as a dangerous “sociopathic liar” in the tradition of Hitler.
In reality – and I wish I didn’t have to keep pointing this out – Hitler murdered 11 million innocent people, while Trump, a billionaire New York real estate developer who wrote one of the best-selling business books of all time and got himself elected president, has never killed anyone.
Let's agree on another thing that is indisputably true: WND -- of which Kupelian is managing editor -- frequentlycompared President Obama to Hitler.
But Kupelian is not in a self-reflective mood, nor is he even remorely self-aware:
But why quibble over details? Those on the left – including the Democratic Party, its propaganda wing (the “mainstream media”) and many in the permanent federal bureaucracy (the “deep state”) – feel so threatened by Trump’s presidency they are engaged in an ongoing do-or-die campaign to destroy him in multiple ways, including by spending almost a year falsely accusing him of being a traitor who colluded with Russia to rig the election.
To accomplish all this, they must seriously demonize him.
But constantly likening Trump to Hitler (and his supporters, administration, policies and political party to Nazis, Klansmen and slave-holders) is not merely totally insane. It’s also extremely dangerous to American society. Not only does it further polarize and divide a once-unified nation, but worse, it gives implicit permission to members of “the resistance” to commit whatever lawless and/or violent acts might occur to their enraged minds in hopes of overturning, at all costs, what they see as America’s new Nazi regime.
And so on. Basically everything Kupelian accuses "the left" of doing to Trump, he and WND did to Obama.
Trying to overturn the will of the electorate "in hopes of crippling, imeaching and prosecuting" him? Check.
Kupelian finally compains that the left's "unwilling to face the truth," and that "can easily generate seething hatred and violence." You mean like how mass murderer Anders Breivik's manifesto cited WND six times? And how massacre perpetrator Dylann Roof's white-nationalist rhetoric was reflected in WND columnists' love for apartheid South Africa?
It's also amusing how Kupelian is lecturing us on Trump derangment when he and his website was invected with a virulent case of Obama Derangement Syndrome. As we've documented, Kupelian thinks Obama is an actual Manchurian candidate, falsely accused him of suppressing military votes, seemingly blamed military suicides on Obama and lamented that his re-election meant that "Team Obama would have another four long years to transform and dismantle all that Americans loved, all that we fought for, all that we 'built.'"
So a guy who thinks Obama is date-raping an entire country is going to warn us about Trump derangement? Oh, please. He's just projecting -- and hoping that people don't remember what WND has been publishing the previous eight years.
Terry Jeffrey's Transgender Freakout Topic: CNSNews.com
Looks like Tim Graham isn't the only Media Research Center employee who's prone to freaking out when the subject of transgenders comes up.
It appears CNSNess.com editor in chief Terry Jeffrey has found the next target in the MRC's revenge campaign: an independent filmmaker who received federal money that made a film for federally funded public television about a transgender teen, called "Real Boy."
In a June 7 article, Jeffrey rants that the film is a "pro-sex-change documentary," which in right-wing speak means that the filmmakers failed to shame the teen for choosing the gender identity that fits best. Jeffrey takes particular offense to the press kit for the film, which references guidance from GLAAD about moving transgenderism "closer to acceptance."
Jeffrey then shares the hostile, biased questions he fired at the film's producers, the Independent Television Service:
Citing this guidance, CNSNews.com asked ITVS by email: “Is it fair to say that one purpose of the ‘Real Boy’ documentary is to advance the cause of moving transgenderism ‘closer to acceptance’ in America?”
ITVS responded: “ITVS had no participation, funding or otherwise, in the press kit referencing ‘closer to acceptance.’”
CNSNews.com asked: “Does the film not seek to move transgenderism ‘closer to acceptance’ in America?”
ITVS responded again: “ITVS had no participation, funding or otherwise, in the press kit referencing ‘closer to acceptance.’
CNSNews.com asked: “Why should American taxpayers be required to pay for the production and broadcasting of ‘Real Boy’?”
ITVS responded: “Americans broadly support public broadcasting's mission to help inform civil discourse essential to American society.”
CNSNews.com asked: “Why should Congress maintain a law that requires taxpayers to fund a private documentary producer like ITVS?”
ITVS responded: “ITVS supports independent producers from all corners of our country who tell stories about Americans representing a range of complex topics. The organization serves as a public pathway for producers and characters untethered to a single public television station, television series, geographic area or set of interests.”
CNSNews.com also asked PBS:“Why should American taxpayers be forced to pay for the broadcasting of Real Boy?”
The PBS spokesperson responded: “This film represents just one title among the many hours of high-quality programming offered by PBS stations each year spanning genres including news and public affairs, science, history, drama, arts and children’s content. I would refer you to recent statements we’ve made about the importance of federal funding, as well as research that shows strong support across the political spectrum for federal funding for public media.”
Then, in a June 12 article, Jeffrey tried to manufacture further outrage by complaining that "The website of the federally funded Public Broadcasting Service will host a blog posting about transgender dating, which will be advertised on air next Monday evening when PBS broadcasts the transgender documentary 'Real Boy.'" Yes, Jeffrey is complaining that a blog post will appear on a website.Again, Jeffrey showed off his hostile questioning:
CNSNews.com asked ITVS if the blog post about transgender dating would be written by one of ITVS’s regular bloggers and when it would be posted. CNSNews.com also asked ITVS if it would be posted on the regular Independent Lens blog page at pbs.org/independentlens/blog, if the blog post’s Q&A format would feature observations by transgender individuals about their dating experiences and/or advice on dating as a transgender—or, if that were not the blog post’s subject matter, what the subject matter would be.
ITVS did not respond.
CNSNews.com asked PBS about the planned blog post: “Is it acceptable to PBS that ‘Independent Lens’ promote on a PBS broadcast and post on the PBS website a blog about ‘dating when you are trans’?” CNSNews.com also asked PBS: “If so, is there any human behavior that PBS would find unacceptable as the focus of a blog posting based on a Q&A with people who engage in that behavior and that PBS would, therefore, not allow to be posted on its website?”
PBS did not respond.
The MRC would not put up with such biased questions if asked by the "liberal media." Why is it tolerating them from one of its own employees?
WND's Farah Has A New (And Totally Bogus) Conspiracy Theory For You Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah serves up a new and exciting conspiracy theory in his June 2 WorldNetDaily column:
It must be nice to be Jeff Bezos.
How do you become one of the richest men in the world by founding a company that only recently gave a thought to profitability?
But it was less than three years ago that Amazon began to achieve any profits to speak of. And, even today, you’d be shocked to know how high its revenues are and how relatively low its profits are.
For instance, in 2015, Amazon’s fourth quarter revenues were an astronomical $35.7 billion. But its net income was, by comparison, a measly $482 million. Last year, Amazon’s fourth quarter revenue was up 22 percent to $43.7 billion. It’s net income was $749 million.
Of course, net income is after Jeff Bezos gets his astronomical salary, which has helped him to be a mega-billionaire.
I tell you all this so you don’t think what I’m about to tell you represents chump change for Amazon and Bezos.
The first profitable year for Amazon was 2013. Fourth quarter profits were $239 million and $274 million for the year. The year before, Amazon posted a loss for 2012 of $39 million.
What happened to make 2013 so much better than the year before?
Amazon won a $600 million cloud computer contract from the CIA. That was the difference – more than the difference.
Later that year, Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post for $250 million.
To put that another way, Bezos used less than half the money he got from the CIA to buy the Washington Post.
Do you think that was a sweetheart deal?
I do. And like others, I believe it’s something Americans should know about.
You'd think that someone who has publicly begged for money to keep his website alive, like Farah has, would understand that businesses on the Internet run a little differently than regular businesses.The reason why Amazon didn't show a profit for many years is that profits were reinvested in the company in order to grow it further. Has Farah never heard of reinvesting profits? Has he never done that at WND?
Despite Farah's envious fantasy, Bezos does not make an "astronomical salary" -- it's only $81,480 (as we pointed out the last time someone didn't understand how Bezos gets paid). Even though Bezos received an additional $1.6 million in compensation last year, he still isn't the highest-paid employee at Amazon; that would be the guy who runs Amazon Web Services, the company's cloud services division and the one that the CIA contracted with for cloud computing in 2013. AWS is a $10 billion business, and the CIA is just one of more than 1 million clients who use its services.
Bezos' wealth is driven by the stock price of Amazon, given the fact that he's Amazon's largest shareholder. Which means Bezos didn't need that CIA contract with AWS to buy the Washington Post -- he just had to cash in a little stock.
Also, the CIA-AWS deal appears to be a beneficial one in modernizing the CIA and actually helping it run a little more like a business by outsourcing services, which right-wingers like Farah claim to want government to be like. The Atlantic reported on the deal at the time:
If the technology plays out as officials envision, it will usher in a new era of cooperation and coordination, allowing agencies to share information and services much more easily and avoid the kind of intelligence gaps that preceded the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
For the first time, agencies within the intelligence community will be able to order a variety of on-demand computing and analytic services from the CIA and National Security Agency. What’s more, they’ll only pay for what they use.
“What we were really looking at was time to mission and innovation,” the former intelligence official said. “The goal was, ‘Can we act like a large enterprise in the corporate world and buy the thing that we don’t have, can we catch up to the commercial cycle? Anybody can build a data center, but could we purchase something more?
“We decided we needed to buy innovation,” the former intelligence official said.
Nevertheless, Farah is demanding "an investigation into the collusion between John Brennan, Jeff Bezos, Amazon, the Washington Post and the CIA."
Farah's conspiracy theory that the CIA gave Bezos the money to buy the Post is another ridiculous, paranoid WND fantasy. One might even call it fakenews.
NEW ARTICLE: The MRC Plots Revenge Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center couldn't save Bill O'Reilly's job, but it's trying to save Sean Hannity's by hiding the truth, and it's lashing out at anyone who dares to criticize President Trump. Read more >>
Dubious WND Doc Opines on Climate Change Topic: WorldNetDaily
In a June 5 WorldNetDaily column, Jane Orient goes far afield from her stated profession of medicine (though she's not exactly in the mainstream there, either) to opine on President Trump pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accord. As befits the leader of a group of fringe-right doctors, she approves.
She calls the accord an "economic suicide pact" and claims without evience that "The average U.S. family would have to pay $30,000 more for electricity over the next decade." (That apparently comes from the right-wing Heritage Foundation.)
Orient then finally stumbles upon a health-related angle: "What about heat waves and people perishing from heat-related illnesses? The physicians tout the health benefits of walking and bike-riding, but say nothing about turning off the air conditioning in Miami." She names nobody who has actually demanded that the air conditioning in Miami be turned off.
Orient also complains that supporters of the Paris accords are "leaving out some 31,000 scientists who disagree." That's a reference to a petition promoted by climate denier Art Robinson; as we've pointed out, that number is a tiny fraction of the millions of scientists in America, and the vast majority of those signatories have no confirmed or demonstrated expertise in climatology.
That's the kind of that that happens when opine on things you don't know that much about.
The author of that last post, Curtis Houck, complained: "If people aren’t going to have a serious debate about actual issues, perhaps not obsessing over dumb things like the President’s typo would give the media and their fans more credibility."
Houck seems to have forgotten that he too obsessed of someone's dumb typo. In fact, he devoted an entire April 21 post to it:
Folks, you can’t make this up. Typo of the year? I think so!
In a Tuesday storyabout a Jewish Republican Congressman responding to White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s comments about Adolf Hitler and chemical weapons,The Hill’s Cristina Marcos referred to Spicer as Hitler (yes, you read that right).
Houck did eventually admit that we all make mistakes and the article was corrected 20 minutes after it first was posted.
And a June 8 post by Mike Ciandella needlessly highlighted another quickly corrected typo:
While live tweeting the Senate hearing for former FBI Director James Comey, NBC News Chief Global Correspodent accused Attorney General Jeff Sessions of telling Comey to call the Russia investigation a “matter” instead of an “investigation.” Except, Comey had been talking about former Attorney General Loretta Lynch telling him to call the Hillary Clinton email investigation a “matter.”
This tweet has since been deleted, but not before it could be screen captured for posterity.
If Trump's "covfefe" tweet wasn't news to the MRC, tweets from reporters that are quickly corrected shouldn't be either. But nobody has ever claimed the MRC's standards are equally applied to both conservatives and non-conservatives.
WND Clinging to Conspiracy Theories Over Arch Reconstruction Topic: WorldNetDaily
It appears WorldNetDaily is fully committed to its fake news about the reconstruction of the Arch of Palmyra.
Two days after we published our summary of WND's conspiracy theories about the arch, WND appeared to feel the need to rebut it with a June 3 article headlined "Historic artifact replica, or demonic harbinger?" The anonymous WND writer continues:
The replica of the arch of the Temple of Baal has been on a world tour the past few years, having been put on display in London, New York and then Dubai for a global summit. And it was recently rebuilt for yet another global summit, this time the G7 meeting of the leading industrialized nations held in Florence, Italy.
The arch, a reconstruction of an ancient Roman building destroyed by ISIS in Syria, has been promoted by its creators at the Institute of Digital Technology as a symbol of defiance against terrorism and a tribute to world heritage.
But why is a reconstruction of a gateway to a temple of a pagan god whose rites were marked by child sacrifice and ritual prostitution being so persistently publicized at globally important gatherings?
One rabbi, a member of the nascent Sanhedrin attempting to recreate the ancient Jewish legal body, sees dire implications in the repeated use of the arch. Rabbi Daniel Assur told Breaking Israel News the arch is a harbinger of the “New World Order.” He declared the arch’s repeated appearances at prominent locations indicate “a pattern moving toward a specific goal – Messiah.”
As usual, WND can't be bothered to actually talk to the Institute of Digital Technology for their thoughts about the arch. It once again goes to its coterie of end-times pastors, like birther Carl Gallups:
Gallups also said it is profoundly interesting – and worrying – that the arch always seems to be in a location of deep significance to the elite-driven movement to create a global government.
“It is a heavily documented fact that when the Palmyra arch was reconstructed, the places chosen for the display of the arch, complete with ceremonious activities of dedication and honor, were indisputably centers of globalistic power,” Gallups observed.
“Each of these locations had direct connections to the United Nations, the World Government Summit, the G7 Conference and the major economic engines of the world. And this tour started in London, perhaps the world’s most important financial capital, during the pagan festival of Beltane – during a time specifically dedicated to Baal worship. From there, it went to New York City and then to global governance meetings.
“How could anyone, with any spiritual discernment at all, miss the demonic message being audaciously broadcast to the world?” Gallups asked.
He warned that the global leaders are meddling with dark forces.
“In the spiritual realm, it is as if Satan is ‘marking’ his territory,” the pastor said. “And the leaders of the world are gladly doing his bidding – even summonsing his presence and ‘blessings.’ We are living in extremely prophetic times. The demonic realm is engaged in an unprecedented outpouring, just as the Bible said would happen.We are living in the most prophetic times since the first coming of Jesus Christ.”
Or, you know, sometimes an historical arch is just an historical arch. None of WND's interviewees acknowledge that the temple to which the arch was an entryway also served as a Christian church and a mosque. Nor do they offer any commentary on ISIS' destruction of the arch and other historical artifacts in the Middle East.
It seems WND has found even more people who have found some behavior by ISIS they can totally get behind.
MRC Gets Its Scalp: Reza Aslan Leaves CNN Topic: Media Research Center
It looks like the Media Research Center has gotten the first scalp of its revenge campaign: Reza Aslan had the second season of his CNN show "Believer" canceled following the shrill, partisan attacks by the MRC for comments made on his private Twitter account and not on CNN's air.
A June 9 MRC post by Curtis Houck was quick to cheer the news, slamming Aslan as "an anti-Christian, far-left pundit." Only in the right-wing world of the MRC would a scholar who wrote a book about the life of Jesus be considered "anti-Christian" and simply criticizing Persident Trump be considered "far-left."
America has sent an unmistakable message to CNN. We will not stand idly by while their so-called "religious scholar" smears the president of the United States and conservative leaders with obscenity-laden insults. MRC supporters generated an avalanche of over 7,000 phone calls to CNN this week demanding Reza Aslan’s removal. CNN paid attention and ultimately did the right thing -- which they should have done immediately. When left-wing pundits and journalists use social media as a platform to slander those with whom they disagree, including President Trump, there will be consequences. It is reckless, sophomoric and unprofessional. Our campaign to hold the liberal media accountable does not end here. This is just the beginning.”
The "unmistakable message" we're seeing, though, is that the MRC's shrillness has been rewarded and it's out for more blood. And that the MRC will never hold, say, Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbuagh to same standards it held Aslan. And that the MRC's goal is not to "hold the liberal media accountable" but, rather, to censor any criticism of Trump, no matter how justified.
The MRC is obsessively seeking out its next scalping victim as we speak. There's no need to pretend there's any principle behind it -- it's just a power play.
WND Can't Stop Lying About Bogus Religious Discrimination Case Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bob Unruh laments in a June 5 WorldNetDaily article:
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the case of a U.S. Marine who was court-martialed for posting Bible verses at her desk.
The Marine Corps’ chief argument is that it has the authority to decide whether or not a particular religious practice is important enough to be protected by the First Amendment, said the non-profit legal group First Liberty, which represents Lance Cpl. Monifa Sterling.
Unruh is lying -- Sterling was not "court-martialed for posting Bible verses at her desk."
As we've noted and Chris Rodda doucumented at the Huffington Post, the charges against Sterling at her court-martial included failing to go to her appointed place of duty, disrespecting a commissioned officer, and disobeying direct orders from her superiors to wear the proper uniform. The Bible-verse charge was the least of her offenses.
Unruh doesn't mention any those inconvenient facts, presumably because he's simply taking dictation from Sterling's lawyers at First Liberty instead of acting like a real journalist and seeking out all the facts.
In dishonestly focusing on a single aspect of Sterling's case in order to falsely portray heras a victim instead of the run-of-the-mill violator of Marine standards she actually is, First Liberty is lying too. But, again, Unruh is not being paid by WND to tell that truth to his readers.
MRC Blogger Oozes With Contempt for Kaepernick, Cheers He Still Doesn't Have A QB Job Topic: Media Research Center
Dylan Gwinn and "Bruce Bookter" may have departed NewsBusters, but the Media Research Center has someone new to rant about sports being too liberal: Jay Maxson. But that, like "Bookter," could be a fake name as well for all we know, because his archive page includes no photo or related Twitter account and vaguely describes him only as a "Contributing Writer for MRC Culture."
He knows how to parrot the right-wing line as well as his predecessors, and like them he takes glee in attacking NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick for taking a principled stand on an issue.
In a March post, after Kaepernick became a free agent, Maxon wrote a sneering "letter" for Kaepernick to send to interested teams:
Any time I couldn’t find an open receiver and it looked like I was going to get clobbered, I ran like a kid in Ferguson getting chased by cops for no good reason – rushing for 2,300 career yards. As you can see, I will be a great double threat as a passer and runner as your QB.
I believe in coming out of my gated community now and then giving back to the people who buy my #7 shirts. So I will be available work with the Jets’ community outreach department to help spread Black Lives Matters power principles. When I’m not busy doing BLM fundraisers, I will be available to speak to school groups and to urban journalists friendly to the cause.
A couple weeks later, Maxon cheered that Kaepernick hadn't been immediately signed, even though there was months to go before the NFL season starts:
No matter the reasoning of the general managers, Kaepernick is learning a hard lesson. In your free agent year, you might want to think twice about showing disrespect for the symbol of freedom and the sacrifice of those who fought and died for our country. Now he’s paying the price for activism that evoked strong opposition from fans across the nation. He’s learning that NFL executives don’t appear to be among those who supported his radical stand and the distractions it brought to his team.
The next day, Maxson still wouldn't acknowledge that Kaepernick is backing up his words on charitable donations, instead promoting "the many good things happening through the Tim Tebow Foundation."
Maxson wasn't done with the irrational anti-Kaepernick tirades:
He attacked commentators who said Kaepernick is being "whiteballed" as engaging in "sports fantasy" with their "unique ability to read the minds of NFL owners and general managers" -- never mind that mind-reading is exactly what Maxson himself did in his sneering fake-Kaepernick letter.
He criticized everyone defending Kaepernick as "liberal media apologists."
He even bashed a writer who pointed out that Kaepernick has better character that a couple recent NFL draft picks accused of violent crimes, insisting that "it's not an either/or choice between Kaepernick and the new draft picks with the heavy baggage" -- thus bizarrely equating taking a knee for the National Anthem with rape and assault.
He ranted in a May 16 post: "can all the teams in the NFL be wrong about the distraction Kaepernick will bring to the table? They know that signing the guy is a blatant endorsement for hatred of public safety officers."
In promoting an obscure blogger's attack on Kaepernick, Maxson ranted further that Kaepernick "gets a ton of press only because left-wing media are using him to advance their own political beliefs."
Maxson's well of biased animus toward Kaepernick is apparently bottomless. In a June 5 post, Maxson attacked the "left-stram sports media" (whatever that is) for noting that the Seattle Seahawks didn't pick up Kaepernick, screeching that "Seattle is already loaded with hyper-active leftists and it appeared that by corralling the flag/cop-hating Kaepernick the Seahawks would create the greatest assortment of far Left athlete-activists ever."
A June 7 post by Maxson once again whines about the "media bias" on Kaepernick and once again cheering that Kaepernick hasn't yet found a job because he "offended millions of veterans, police officers and patriots by refusing to stand for the national anthem last season. Responding to a New York Daily News writer's claim that he'll boycott the NFL this fall if Kaepernick doesn't find a quarterback job, Maxson huffed: "Now that a representative of the New York Daily News has admitted his contempt for a majority of Americans and elevated bias and activism over good principles of journalism, a boycott of this bigoted rag is more than justifiable."
But is that writer really more filled with contempt that Maxson?
WND's Farah Trusts 'Creator God' Over Science on Climate Change Topic: WorldNetDaily
Climates have always changed throughout history. That’s not the issue that has prompted President Trump likely to withdraw this week from the United Nations Paris climate agreement. The issues involve these key questions:
Is human activity causing catastrophic climate change?
Is there any evidence human activity is substantially contributing to detrimental climate change ?
Should the world’s economic activity be reordered with the central goal of reducing man’s production of carbon dioxide, a natural gas essential for all life on the planet?
The unequivocal answer to all three of those questions is no.
The bigger question is why so many world leaders, cultural institutions, multinational corporations and governments have been eager to embrace a lie, to perpetrate a hoax, to propagate a global fraud.
The answer is simple. There are always powerful people in the world who want to retain and maximize their wealth and authority by lying, deceiving, prevaricating and misleading.
Paris represented a massive global wealth transfer that would result in widespread suffering throughout the world – like any gigantic, unsustainable international welfare program administered by unaccountable global elitists would.
It really comes down to this.
Whom do you trust more – nameless, faceless lying bureaucrats working at the behest of wealthy international socialists or your Creator God?
If you trust your Creator God more, is there any reason to believe He is concerned about how much CO2 you produce? Or, is He more concerned about how much sin we commit?
CNS' Pro-Trump Bias Descends Into Parody Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com has always had a pronounced pro-Trump bias, but former FBI director James Comey's testimony before Congress has sent the Media Research Center "news" operation into new heights of pro-Trump fervor (if only to distract from the growing scandals around Trump).
After Comey released a copy of his opening statement, chief Trump fangirl Susan Jones served up a hilariously creative interpretation of it -- presented as "news" -- that portrays Trump as a victim, claming that Comey's statement "shows that President Donald Trump became increasingly frustrated by the ongoing Russia investigation, not because he had anything to hide, but because the leaks and media speculation were interfering with his ability to get things done for the country."
Jones counterfactually insisted that "Comey's statement does not back up the liberal media speculation that Trump may have obstructed justice by asking Comey to drop or back-off the Russia investigation or the investigation of Michael Flynn." Jones also referenced the notorious Trump dossier claiming that "Trump had engaged in perverted sexual acts with prostitutes during a trip to Russia"; Jones called the dossier "unsubstantiated and frankly ridiculous." We'll agree with the former; the latter is opinion not backed up by reality that has no business in a "news" article.
Jones followed that with a pre-hearing screed -- also falsely presented as "news" -- under the headline "Liberal Media That Are Out to Get Trump Run Eager Headlines on Thursday":
With the Comey circus in town on Thursday, Washington is a-quiver with anticipation that the former FBI director might/could, will-he/won't-he (please-oh-please) hand investigators evidence of criminality on the part of President Trump.
Former FBI Director James Comey's written statement to the Senate intelligence committee, released on Wednesday, drew cries of somber outrage from Democrats -- "Obstruction of justice!" "Crossing a line!" "Unethical!" "Unprecedented!" "Inappropriate!" -- but no calls for handcuffs just yet.
Several Democrats on Thursday morning stopped short of saying Trump's conversations with Comey amount to obstruction of justice. They told cable news shows they'd leave the legalities to federal prosecutors.
Here are some of the headlines and front-page blurbs from newspapers and cable channels that have been trying to undermine Trump since his election:
Jones used yet another purported "news" article to whine: "As Congress and the liberal media chase Russia-Trump conspiracy theories, the people’s business languishes."
CNS was on post-hearing spin patrol as well, focusing heavily on doing stories that claim to clear Trump and make Comey look bad:
Jones then passed the ridiculously-biased-commentary talking stick to blogger Craig Bannister. First, he parroted a Republican congressman's silly parsing of Trump's reported statement that he hoped Comey would drop the FBI investigationinto former national security adviser Michael Flynn, cheering that the congressman "got Comey to admit that 'hoping' is not a crime - yet." But as observers less slavishly devoted to protecting Trump have noted, a threat does not have to be explicit to be clear, and people have been convicted of obstruction charges for making an "I hope" statement.
Bannister followed that up with a crude smear job relying on out-of-context words to portray Comey as an incompetent FBI director:
In Senate testimony Thursday, James Comey portrayed himself as someone who was “confused,” “stunned,” lacking “presence of mind” and not “strong” enough during his tenure as FBI director.
Comey also pleaded ignorance, declaring “I don’t know” on 45 different occasions during his appearance in the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing looking into his dealings with President Donald Trump regarding Russia and the 2016 election.
While Comey repeatedly said he was “confused” by his firing, he painted a picture of himself as an FBI director who was unsure of himself while in office. Nine times in his testimony, Comey referred to himself as “confused.” Twice, he called himself “stunned,” and he twice said he didn’t have the “presence of mind” to do his job properly.
Surprisingly, CNS did not play this as "news" but as a blog post. But as we've seen, that's a diestinction without a difference at CNS.