MRC Still Standing Athwart History, Yelling 'Bias!' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is still angry that the media is calling historic things "historic."
Tim Graham devoted a lengthy June 8 post to complaining how "One obvious way the TV networks proclaim what is History In The Making is by putting it on live television – canceling their daytime line-ups and eating advertising revenue for 'public service,'" unsuprisingly asserting that "they have a liberal bias in deciding just which scandals get the daytime or prime-time live coverage." Of course, Graham says that about everything.
Graham actually complains that the Watergate hearings were broadcast live, because it "was a big moment for the empowerment of PBS."He went on to whine about broadcasting of the Iran-Contra hearings: "PBS cleared its decks to stick it to the Republicans, with the hope of electing a Democratic president in 1988."
As befits an organization that's never forgiven Anita Hill for talking about Clarence Thomas' alleged sexual harassment, Graham complains the testimony about her "unproven sexual harassment charges" were broadcast, whining: "No one singled out the Democrats as the dirty tricksters -- instead, Hill's unproven leak was praised as part of a trend of leakers doing a 'public service.'" Gotta love how testimony before Congress is somehow a "leak."
Graham is particularly incensed that the media didn't conform to the right-wing political agenda by airing live hearings during the Obama years. He was particularly upset that no Benghazi hearings were covered on live network TV, even though multipleinvestigations found nothing particularly scandalous and even Republican members of Congress admitted that the so-called scandal was designed to hurt Hillary Clinton's election chances.
Another post the same day on the same subject came from Scott Whitlock, who complained:
In case you didn’t realize just how excited liberal journalists were about James Comey’s testimony in front of Congress on Thursday, CBS This Morning reporters described it as “historic” or “history” six times. Of course, they even looked back at Watergate for a comparison.
Whitlock later listed the sponsors of the "biased" CBS segments. He doesn't explain where the supposed "bias" is in calling a historic event "historic" -- and he refused to concede that a fired FBI director testifying before Congress about the president who fired him was, in fact, historic.
NEW ARTICLE: Leo Hohmann's Muslim Freakouts Topic: WorldNetDaily
Muslim politicians, a church sold to a mosque, Muslims in general -- the WorldNetDaily reporter fearmongers about them all. Read more >>
CNS Tries Again -- And Fails Again -- To Troll Pelosi Topic: CNSNews.com
Apparently, it's one of the duties of an intern at CNSNews.com to ask a politically motivated gotcha question to Nancy Pelosi. In 2015, for example, CNS intern Sam Dorman deliberately tried to provoke Pelosi by asking her, “Is an unborn baby with a human heart and a human liver a human being?”
Well, CNS is at it again, set off by Pelosi's statement the President Trump dishonors God by pulling the United States out of the Paris climate accords.
Intern Teresa Smith hurled her gotcha question -- again, abortion-centric -- at Pelosi, as detailed in a June 22 article:
At Pelosi's press briefing on Thursday, CNSNews.com asked Pelosi if her understanding of what dishonors God extends to aborting a baby with a beating heart as well as pulling out of the Paris Accord;
CNSNews.com:"Three weeks ago you said we need to be 'responsible stewards' of 'God's creation.'"
Pelosi: Yes.
CNSNews.com:"And that it dishonors God to pull out of the Paris Accord."
Pelosi:"Yes."
CNSnews.com:"The Heartbeat Protection Act would prohibit aborting a baby with a heartbeat. Does it dishonor God to abort a baby with a beating heart?"
Pelosi did not answer the question directly but said:“I don’t—obviously you want to get into that discussion. What I say is: I completely respect a woman’s right to choose. I am a mother of five children, nine grandchildren. But my five grandchildren--my five children were born within exactly six years of each other. When my baby came home from the hospital, when we brought her home our oldest child was turning--I thought she might be here, she’s not allowed in the room, I guess--turning six that week.
Apparently deciding that Pelosi had been insufficiently trolled on the issue, CNS sent another out the following week to ask another version of the same question. This time Annabel Scott did the dirty work, similarly complaining that Pelosi didn't fall for her trolling:
At the Capitol on Thursday, CNSNews.com asked Rep. Pelosi, “On the health care bill, yesterday you said that ignoring the needs of God's creation is to ‘dishonor the God who made us.’ Do you believe that defunding Planned Parenthood dishonors God?”
Pelosi did not answer the question and instead said, “I think defunding Planned Parenthood disrespects every woman in this country, disrespects her judgment to make her own decision about the size and timing of her family, with herself, her doctor, her God, her family.”
“And so, I think we have to respect the dignity and worth of every person and their ability to make decisions to answer for their behavior,” said the House Minority Leader.
Pro tip to CNS: Pelosi knows you're trolling her. She's not falling for it. She also knows that you don't care about journalism and are just trying to score cheap political points in thte hope of getting linked on Drudge.
WND Race-Baits About Nightclub Shooting Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has largely backed off its race-baiting tendencies of late (funny what Google threatening to cut off ad revenue will do to moderate one's editorial agenda), but that doesn't WND won't race-bait if the opportunity presents itself.
And it did so in a weekend shooting at a Little Rock nightclub. The anonymously written July 1 WND article on the incident makes sure to note that "Video posted to Facebook shows a mostly black crowd, with the group Finese2tymes performing on stage" at the club prior to the shooting, and that "Posters promoting the concert by Memphis rapper Finese2Tymes featured a man pointing a gun at a camera." The article added that "Little Rock police have responded to a dozen drive-by shootings over the previous nine days."
The anonymous WND writer, however, undermined his/her own race-baiting at the end of the article by conceding the problem appears to actually be a poorly run operation:
Power Ultra Lounge’s license has been suspended 11 times for failing to pay taxes, and it has been cited seven times for 14 various violations including unknowingly furnishing alcohol to minors and allowing alcohol to leave the premises since 2012, ABC Director of Enforcement Boyce Hamlet said.
A hearing before the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board is scheduled for July 10. The charges are expected to be disorderly conduct, allowing possession of weapons on the premises and “failure to be a good neighbor.”
Lest there be any confusion about WND's race-baiting intent, there's WND's accompanying poll asking readers to "sound off on Little Rock nightclub shooting." The top answer by a landslide is "Somebody's got to say it -- there's a serious problem in the black community."
Yep, race-baiting is still very much a thing at WND.
MRC's Graham Redefines Partisan Media-Bashing As 'Journalism' Topic: Media Research Center
Terrible media critic Tim Graham has now decided that his partisan anti-media rants aren't about being partisan at all.
In a June 28 Media Research Center post, Graham rails at CNN's Brian Stelter for making the accurate point that partisan right-wing attacks on CNN are "anti-journalism." When Stelter decried right-wing outlets like Breitbart who liken CNN to ISIS, Graham dismissed that inciteful rhetoric as "just trolling." Graham can't know that, of course -- he's just downplaying the idea that the MRC's multimillion-dollar anti-media budget could possibly have any negative consequences. Graham then rants:
But Stelter and his crew are incredibly tolerant of leftists comparing President Trump to Stalin, Hitler, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Un, and terrorists. That’s another day at the office for the liberal media. The mellow liberals compare Trump to Richard Nixon.
Breitbart's James Delingpole offered a point Stelter won't consider, their laughable pretense that the liberal, partisan media isn't liberal or partisan. Delingpole recalled being on a panel discussion: "What amazed me that, while I was perfectly frank with the audience that Breitbart was a conservative media organization which catered for a largely conservative readership, both the guy from CNN and the guy from [the] New York Timeswere adamant that they were objective seekers-after-truth." The truth about their bias they just never admit.
Stelter insists that unless you honor and respect the intentions of liberal journalists – never questioning that their motives might be partisan – then you are “anti-journalism.” If you actually document that the media elites “cover up good news and invent bad news,” then you’re “anti-journalism.” If you document that journalists and Democratic operatives are operating hand in glove – like, for example, CNN analysts offering questions to Hillary Clinton in advance, or journalists sending e-mails offering Clinton officials the chance to edit their stories before publication – that’s somehow “anti-journalism.”
Graham concluded: "What we’re doing at NewsBusters isn’t 'anti-journalism.' It’s journalism on journalism."
So Graham and NewsBusters are all about "journalism" now? How precious. If they're so offended by a president being likened to Hitler, where were they when their fellow right-wingers at WorldNetDaily were likening Obama to Hitler and the Antichrist? Hiding, apparently. And it was soooo journalistic for the MRC to fail to denounce Obama birtherism until the charge was levied against Brent Bozell's preferred 2016 presidential candidate, Ted Cruz.
If Graham and NewsBusters care so much about journalism, why are they trying to justify Trump's vicious attack on a media figure who criticized him? And why is Graham so mad that the MRC's hostility to media fact-checkers was called out? Anmd why is NewsBusters insisting that Steve Scalise didn't give a speech he apologized for giving?
Graham's dogged insistence that CNN is a tool of the "liberal, partisan media" betrays the fact that he has never worked a day in an actual journalistic organization and, thus, doesn't know what journalism is. CNN tries to fairly cover a story -- something that can't be said about the MRC's own "news" division, CNSNews.com, which is content to be paid Trumpstenographers and PR agents for the fossil-fuel industry. (Graham would never concede that our work exposing CNS' slavish right-wing bias is "journalism about journalism.")
If Graham and the MRC actually cared about journalism, CNS wouldn't be slavishly devoted to pushing right-wing talking points and bashing anyone who disagrees with them.It would be a laboratory for showing the "mainstream media" how to do its job. Then again, CNS may be leading by example after all -- the MRC would much rather prefer the entire media to be devoted to pushing right-wing talking points. That's the very definition of "anti-journalism."
As much as he would have you believe otherwise, Graham doesn't give a damn about journalism -- he wants to replace it with right-wing stenography. Calling partisan hackery "journalism" doesn't make it any less hackish.
Alicia Powe writes in a June 26 WorldNetDaily article:
Days after James Hodgkinson unveiled his homicidal intentions against conservatives with a gun attack on Republican members of Congress who were practicing for a congressional baseball game, conservative journalists rallied in front of the White House to demand an end to attacks on and assaults against Trump supporters.
They are making the demands not just of those who are violent, or potentially violent, but of the mainstream media, the Democratic Party and the party’s liberal supporters.
Jack Posobiec, journalist and author of “Citizens for Trump,” told WND he organized the rally “because it is time to stand for peace.”
“It’s time for Trump supporters, people on the right wing, people on the left wing, people in the center, people who are independents, moderates, Republicans – we should all be able to stand up for peace,” he said. “There is too much violent rhetoric, and it is time, finally, for us to say, ‘Enough with the violence, enough with the violent rhetoric – we need peace and we need it now.'”
Powe's description of Posobiec as a "journalist" is laughable. She either doesn't know, or is hiding, Posobiec's true nature: that of a lying alt-right plagiarist.
Posobiec has promoted the completely discredited Pizzagate conspiracy theory and planted a "Rape Melania" sign at an anti-Trump rally in an attempt to discredit protesters. He has been caught plagiarizing the work of others.
This is who Powe and WND are portraying as a legitimate member of the media.
But Posobiec is not the only alt-right agitator Powe is calling a "journalist." Later in her article, she touted Mike Cernovich as an "independent journalist." As we've noted, Cernovich is an alt-right troll who makes racially charged statements and also promoted Pizzagate.
Powe also touted someone named Ali Akbar, described only as a "political consultant and president of National Bloggers Inc." Turns out Akbar is apparently a convicted felon and a terrible businessman, and it's not clear that "National Bloggers Inc." is even a going concern. Powe uncritically repeated Akbar's assertion that "the KKK was the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party," ignoring that well, it wasn't.
So, basically, Powe, Posobiec and Cernovich are are complaining that some in the media are treating Trump the way WND and the right-wing media treated Obama. How ironic.
MRC Pretends Anti-Muslim Group Isn't Anti-Muslim Topic: Media Research Center
In the wake of last month's sparse protests organized by right-wing anti-Muslim group ACT! For America, Tim Graham wrote a post headlined "WashPost, NBC Smear Anti-Sharia Protesters as 'Anti-Muslim' 'Hate Group'." But in all his complaining that the group was designated as a hate group by "the radical-left Southern Poverty Law Center" and that stories about female genital mutiliation in America "underlines what the ACT members" are protesting, at no point does Graham explain how ACT! For America is not anti-Muslim.
Indeed, he proves the opposite -- that ACT! For America is indeed anti-Muslim and not merely "anti-Sharia" -- nby including in an excerpt from an NBC article a 2007 statement by ACT! For America leader Brigitte Gabriel that a "practicing Muslim ... cannot be a loyal citizen of the United States." Graham lets that statement go by without comment, going on to insist that the group is simply engaging in "conservative protest."
At the very end of the article, Graham includes a statement that explains why he's running to the group's defense: "Disclosure: ACT for America founder Brigitte Gabriel has been a featured speaker on our MRC Cruise."
In a June 20 NewsBusters post, Stephanie Schmitt took another stab at defending ACT! for America, declaring that the group isn't anti-Muslim because, well, they said they weren't, and that's apparently good enough for her:
ACT is fighting against those specific parts of Sharia Law that go directly against the democratic vision of human rights (honor killing, female genital mutilation, etc.) They are NOT looking to dismantle the Islamic faith. This is explicitly stated. And yet, the media's main representation of the march has all focused on its "hateful" cause and combating hate speech.
Schmitt didn't mention Gabriel's explicity anti-Muslim statement, nor did she disclose the group's relationship with the MRC. Instead, she rants that Teen Vogue magazine, which had called ACT! for America's agenda "hateful speech," was encouraging the "snubbing of free speech" and the the magazine is just trying to "push liberal talking points."
Schmitt didn't acknowledge that her job is to push conservative talking points -- one of which, apparently, is that ACT! for America is a mainstream group that doesn't hate Muslims.
WND Is Still Pushing Fake-News Story About Macy's Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've detailed how WorldNetDaily loves to push the fake-news story that financial woes at Macy's are somehow directly tied to the department store chain discontinuing Donald Trump's clothing line. But WND is bizarrely trying to keep the false story alive, the latest attempt coming in a June 27 article by Liam Clancy:
Nearly two years after phasing out its Donald Trump line of menswear, Macy’s stock has plummeted to its lowest levels in years.
Macy’s dumped Trump merchandise in July 2015 after the then-Republican presidential candidate made “derogatory” comments about Mexican immigrants.
“Macy’s is a company that stands for diversity and inclusion,” the company said at the time. “We are disappointed and distressed by recent remarks about immigrants from Mexico.”
Trump responded by calling for a boycott of the store, tweeting: “Those who believe in tight border security, stopping illegal immigration, [and] SMART trade deals [with] other countries should boycott Macy’s.”
The boycott by Trump supporters has taken a toll, according to Fortune magazine.
Macy’s now plans to close up to 100 stores and lay off 10,000 workers as sales plummet.
As usual, Clancy ignores the actual reasons Macy's is in trouble: customers moving away from traditional department stores and shopping malls to online, fast-fashion and off-price retailers.
For a website that loves to complain about fake news, WND sure publishes a lot of it.
CNS Managing Editor Promotes Another Message of Hate Topic: CNSNews.com
We've detailed how CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman is particularly fond of sharing his hatred of all things LGBT. He shares the hate once again with a June 20 blog post touting how WorldNetDaily columnist Jesse Lee Peterson literally thinks gays are the devil's spawn and parents who teach respect and tolerance for others don't love their children:
Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, who runs BOND, which is dedicated to "rebuilding the family by rebuilding the man," said the people who are celebrating June as LGBTQ pride month are deceived because they actually are "celebrating sin," and contrary to their claims about being "children of God," they are "children of the lie" whose father is the "Devil."
He added that parents who allow their children to be indoctrinated in school with LGBT propaganda do not truly love their children, but turn them over to be "brainwashed."
[...]
"This month is so-called homosexual month -- can you imagine -- the whole entire month is dedicated to celebrating quote on quote wrong, celebrating sin, isn't that amazing?" said Peterson.
"We are all not children of God," he continued. "I don't know where that idea came from -- oh, from the children of the lie."
"We are not all children of God," said Peterson, "and this man Michael [who called in], this male Michael calls himself a preacher, so a lot of people are going to believe that lie simply because he says he’s a preacher."
"You're not all children of God," said Peterson. "You're children of your father, the Devil."
[...]
Peterson then explained how some parents do not truly love their children because they allow them to be exposed, indoctrinated in pro-LGBT propaganda in the schools.
"Most or many parents do not love their children today," he said. "They don't. They sacrifice their children to the children of the lie."
"They allow their children to be sacrificed for evil, and I'm mentioning this because this whole month of June they're celebrating homosexuality in schools and playgrounds and everywhere else, and there's no outcry about it anymore," said Peterson.
Chapman did not repeat Peterson's words because he disapproves of them -- he's repeating them because he agrees that gays are the devil's spawn.
Anti-Transgender Pastor Laughably Calls for 'Responsible Rhetoric' Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily columnist Michael Brown is on a reasonableness kick again.
In his June 16 column, Brown surprisingly holds both sides to account for extreme political rhetoric, concluding: "It’s time we speak with greater responsibility, measuring our words carefully, considering the implications of our accusations and pushing people to constructive, rather than destructive, action." And his his June 30 column, Brown argued against the right-wing urge to defend every utterance President Trump makes, particularly his vile slurs of Mika Brzezinski, stating that "for us to defend his every tweet is to make ourselves into stooges more than supporters, helping no one in the end."
Which is all very well and good -- the world needs more commentators who don't play favorites when the chips are down. Problem is, Brown can't bring himself to do that consistently.
Brown's rhetoric is much less responsible when it comes to LGBT-related issues -- he did, after all, write an anti-gay book called "A Queer Thing Happened to America" -- engaging in lazy stereotyping, inflammatory rhetoric ("Transanity!") and pushingfalsehoods.
Brown's rhetoris is also less than responsible when it comes to the subject of Islam. He huffed in a May 24 column:
And we need to call on Muslim leaders across the world to denounce Islamic terror and to combat it, without caveat or qualification. That means that if a Muslim suicide bomber blows up people in Israel or England or France, the action must be condemned unequivocally.
Islamic theologians and political leaders must unite and say, “That is not Islam, and that is a hell-bound murderer, not a martyr.”
While some Muslim leaders have done this with consistency (although, more rarely when it comes to attacks against Israelis) all too many others have not.
[...]
Only Muslim leaders can end this debate. If Islam is not, by nature, a violent religion, then the top Muslim voices across the world must denounce it and combat it. And they must help the West combat it. Is this too much to ask?
Nope. But apparently it's too much to ask for Brown to do some basic research before making such a claim. A Muslim college student has compiled a 712-page list of Muslim leaders denouncing acts of terrorism (posted online here).
Responsible rhetoric is a good thing. Brown just needs to walk the walk a lot more than he does before he starts lecturing the rest of us about it.
MRC Justifies Trump's Nasty Tweets -- Then Complains Media Is Covering Them Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center went into freakout mode last month when CNN's Anderson Cooper said of Trump defender (and NewsBusters columnist) Jeffrey Lord: "if he took a dump on his desk, you would defend it." But the MRC does that too -- and it just demonstrated a prime example.
Trump took a Twitteresque dump on MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski, and the MRC defended it.
Its first reaction -- as to be expected from an organization that joinedRush Limbaugh in smearing Sandra Fluke as a slut and attacked women who lodged sexual harassment allegations against 2012 Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain -- was using its NewsBusters Twitter account to justify Trump's attack by sending out a series of supposedly mean things Brzezinski said about Trump:
The MRC didn't mention that its leader, Brent Bozell, likened President Obama to a "skinny ghetto crackhead" but Obama did not respond in kind.
MRC official Tim Graham joined in the justification-fest by rudely asserting in a tweet: "Let's guess @PolitlFact won't check whether Mika had a facelift. Too rude to check."
The next day, however, the MRC had something of a change of heart -- after defending Trump's sleazy smears, it moved to attacking the fact the media covered them at all.
A June 30 post by Nicholas Fondacaro conceded that Trump "egregiously mocked" Brzezinski, then complained that the media -- once again narrowly defined as only the network evening news shows -- coveredd Trump's tweets much more than how, "in two bipartisan votes, the House passed both Kate’s Law and a measure to punish sanctuary cities."
Later that day, Kyle Drennen featured another narrow sliver of the media, the network morning shows, to complain that they "devoted a staggering 52 times the amount of coverage to the President’s social media attack than to Kate’s Law passing the House.
We'll leave it to CNN's Chris Cillizza to explain why the MRC's attack on coverage is so lame:
Here's the thing: Theonlyreason that the networks dedicated so much coverage to the Trump tweets is because it was the President of the United States cyberbullying a female journalist based on her looks.
That's a BIG story. Particularly when First Lady Melania Trump has spoken about the dangers of cyberbullying and how she wants to work to stamp it out during her time in the White House. And when it's part of a pattern of inappropriate and sexist comments over a period of years by Donald Trump.
The MRC thought it was a BIG story too -- until it realized that the blowback Trump was getting from his nastiness was universal, meaning it was time to shift into deflect-and-distract mode.
The MRC finally realized it had to stop defending the Trump dump. No word on whether Jeffrey Lord will do the same.
Islamophobic WND Tries to Deny Islamophobia Exists Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've seen it before: The Islamophobes at WorldNetDaily rush to blame all Muslims for an act of terrorism committed by an extremist, but is desperate to dismiss acts of terrorism committed by a white person as an isolated (see: Dylann Roof).
This happened again after last week after Darren Osborne, a white man, mowed down people leaving a mosque with his car, killing at least one. WND's Art Moore goes into serioius spin mode in a June 19 article, insisting that Osborne is not reflective of Muslim-haters like his fellow WND denizens because Islamophobia isn't actually a thing:
While politicians often are reluctant to assign motives to major violent attacks until an investigation is at least underway, British Prime Minister Theresa May quickly branded the man who plowed a van into a crowd of British Muslims exiting the Finsbury Park Mosque in London as a product of “Islamophobia.”
Alluding to two recent terror attacks carried out by Muslims, May said the incident early Monday in which one person was killed and at least 10 injuredwas “a reminder that terrorism, extremism and hatred take many forms; and our determination to tackle them must be the same whoever is responsible.”
“As I said here two weeks ago, there has been far too much tolerance of extremism in our country over many years – and that means extremism of any kind, including Islamophobia,” the prime minister said.
But counter-terrorism expert Andrew McCarthy contends 47-year-old Darren Osborne is not an “Islamophobe.”
“Islamophobia,” writes McCarthy for National Review, is “a smear label dreamed up by the Muslim Brotherhood, designed to demagogue any legitimate concern about Islamic doctrine as irrational fear and, of course, as racism.”
Osborne, he said, “is a vile specimen of anti-Muslim hatred.”
“His hatred does not render Islamophobia real. It does not convert into hysteria our worries that a sizable percentage of Muslims — for reasons that are easily knowable if one simply reads scripture and listens to renowned sharia jurists — construes Islam to endorse violence against non-Muslims and to command the imposition of oppressive sharia,” said McCarthy, who as an assistant U.S. attorney led the terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 11 others for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Moore goes on to quote other Muslim-haters -- whom he baselessly portrays as "experts" -- insisting there's no such thing as Islamophobia, even quoting anti-Muslim activist Robert Spencer insisting the mosque attack is somehow May's fault because her purported "supine response to jihad."
CNS Takes Trump's Side on His Insulting Tweets Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com is taking its Trumpstenography to new heights, effectively justifying President Trump's insulting tweets about MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski by publishing only the Trump administration's defense of them.
CNS' first article on the tweets was by Susan Jones, who uncritically recounted the tweets (but at least conceded they were "insulting"). Jones also tried to justify the tweets by calling Brzezinski "a liberal Democrat who has been particularly hard on Trump, saying outright, repeatedly, that he is a liar, incompetent, and probably mentally unstable"; Jones also sneered at her co-host, Joe Scarborough, dismissing him as someone who "also holds liberal views, although he calls himself a conservative."
Despite bipartisan criticism of Trump's tweets throughout the day, the only thing CNS found newsworthy was the Trump administration's defense of the insults. A later article by Jones touted White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders' unequivocal defense of the sleazy tweets, as well as right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh's praise for Trump's aggressiveness against his critics.
From there, it was full stenography time. An article from Melanie Arter simply transcribed an exceprt from a Huckabee Sanders press briefing. Arter uncritically repeated Huckabee Sanders' claim that "The president in no way, form or fashion has ever promoted or encouraged violence," despite the fact that the statement is a baldfaced lie.
Arter also wrote up another transcription of the Huckabee Sanders' presser, this time trying to avoid answering a question about whether she thinks Trump's tweets are acceptable behavior by asserting that the only "perfect role model" is God.
In none of their articles did Jones and Arter mention the bipartisan barrage of criticism Trump has received for his malicious tweets. Being a loyal Trump stenographer is apparently more important to them than acting like a journalist, apparently.
UPDATE: Jones wasn't done blaming the victim, asserting in a June 30 article that Trump's "insulting tweets" were "provoked by their own insults of the president" and complaining that Scarborough and Brzezinski, in a Washington Post op-ed responding to Trump, "never addressed their own rantings and deeply personal insults directed at the president."
WND Pushes Fake-News Poll To Boost Trump Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has a long, enduringlove of bogus polls, whether they be bought-and-paid-for results or meaningless opt-in polls that can be easily skewed.
That love pops up again in a June 23 WND article in which Liam Clancy touts the latter:
True, it’s an unscientific, anyone-welcome-to-vote poll.
But it’s on the Drudge Report, one of the most influential websites.
A stunning 92 percent of the respondents believe President Trump is doing a “great” or “good” job six months into his presidency, despite intense criticism and virtually a total-opposition approach Democrats and the establishment media.
Likely not indicative of the U.S. at large, the poll does suggest President Trump continues to hold strong support from his conservative base.
The percentage favor Trump varied by only fractions of a point as the response total rose to well over a quarter of a million over the day Friday.
The shocker here is that Clancy admits the poll is bogus up front, though he doesn't concede that Drudge is a highly biased right-wing operation.
Still, it seems that WND is so insecure about Trump's standing with the American public that it's reviving its old tactic of pushing bogus polls.
Another Day, Another Meaningless MRC Study Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Rich Noyes huffs in a June 27 item:
How much has the media’s obsession with the ongoing Russia investigation smothered the rest of the Trump policy agenda? A Media Research Center study of every broadcast network evening newscast in the five weeks since the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller on May 17 found a whopping 353 minutes of airtime devoted to the Russia probe, or 55 percent of all coverage of the Trump presidency during those weeks.
The networks’ relentless coverage of Russia meant little airtime was spent on important policy topics, as the investigation garnered 20 times more attention than the new health care bill, 100 times more attention than the administration’s push to improve the nation’s infrastructure, and a stunning 450 times more coverage than the push for comprehensive tax reform.
The first problem with this so-called study, as with many of these MRC reports, is that 1) it focuses only on a tiny sliver of "the media" -- the network evening news -- and ignores right-leaning media like Fox News. Second, there is no objective baseline provided as to what Noyes considers a proper level of coverage to the Russia story; therefore, any conclusion made is necessarily subjective. Noyes is obviously insinuating that the amount of coverage is excessive, but he can't or won't provide any evidence to prove it.
Noyes does concede that Trump's "ubiquitous tweets" on the Russia story demanded coverage, but then whined that "it’s not as if reporters felt compelled to cover all of Trump’s utterances." But Noyes will not admit that the Russia story as a whole deserved any media coverage whatsoever.
Indeed, Noyes complains that the Russia stories are hurting Trump, although he's doing so by hiding behind polls claiming the investigation is hurting the country:
TV’s obsession with the Russia investigation flies in the race of what the public says it actually cares about. According to a Harvard-Harris poll released late last week, “a majority of voters believe the Russia investigations are damaging to the country and are eager to see Congress shift its focus to healthcare, terrorism, national security, the economy and jobs.”
Given the disconnect, it should be no surprise that half of all voters see the media as biased against Trump, compared to only four percent who think the media are pro-Trump, according to a recent Rasmussen poll, with two-thirds of Republican respondents (68%) saying media coverage of the President is “poor.”
Noyes apparently has not considerred the possibility that Trump has earned the negative media coverage he's received.
This is just the latest biased and meaningless study from the MRC.
The Media Research Center is still angry that the media is calling historic things "historic."
Apparently, it's one of the duties of an intern at CNSNews.com to ask a politically motivated gotcha question to Nancy Pelosi. In 2015, for example, CNS intern Sam Dorman 
WorldNetDaily has 
Terrible media critic 
Alicia Powe writes in a June 26 WorldNetDaily 
In the wake of last month's sparse protests organized by right-wing anti-Muslim group ACT! For America, Tim Graham wrote a 
We've detailed how WorldNetDaily loves to push the 
We've 
WorldNetDaily columnist Michael Brown is on a reasonableness kick again.
The Media Research Center 
We've seen it before: The 
CNSNews.com is taking its 
WorldNetDaily has a 
The Media Research Center's Rich Noyes huffs in a June 27 
