Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee released the transcript of Donald Trump Jr.'s testimony about a meeting he had with a Russian lawyer and others in June 2016, in which the Trump campaign was reportedly offered Russian-linked intelligence damaging to Hillary Clinton.

CNSNews.com -- ever mindful of its role as a pro-Trump stenographer -- didn't want to report on that. So, instead, its first story on the transcript release focused on a side issue.

"Fusion GPS’ Glenn Simpson Dined With Russian Lawyer Before & After Her Meeting at Trump Tower" read the headline on the article by Susan Jones, and it did indeed focus on how "Transcripts released Wednesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee say that Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of Fusion GPS, had dinner with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya both the day before and the day after she met with Donald Trump, Jr. at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016."

How desperate is Jones to deflect from Trump Jr.'s actions? Jones admits that "Sen. Dianne Feinstein released the Simpson transcript earlier this year" -- in other words, the main part of her article was based on something that was released months ago, not the newly released transcripts.

The next day, Jones apparently figured out a way to put a positive spin on the transcripts by portraying the meeting as ultimately useless:

Both sides came out of the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower feeling misled and disappointed, transcripts show. So why did it happen and who benefited?

Certainly, that now-famous meeting has been the main exhibit among those politicians and media outlets fanning the Russian "collusion" theory.

Donald Trump Jr. told congressional investigators he agreed to meet with a Russian lawyer, someone unknown to him, when an acquaintance (a British-born producer for a Russian musician) told him "someone had official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary Clinton and her dealings with Russia and that the information would be very useful to the campaign."

[...]

Based on transcripts released Wednesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee, both Trump and two of the Russians attending that June 9 Trump Tower meeting later agreed that they were talking past each other.

"All else being equal," Trump Jr. said, "I wouldn't have wanted to waste 20 minutes hearing about something that I wasn't supposed to be meeting about." Asked if he took the meeting to try to get dirt on Clinton, Trump said, "I took the meeting to listen."

Of course, the point of the meeting -- if not ultimately fruitful -- was the Trump Jr. was clearly willing to collude with Russians. Jones didn't report that.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:14 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

WorldNetDaily managing editor David Kupelian's monthly begging-for-money letter to readers kicks off with the usual WND pro-Trump rah-rah:

We are bombarded daily with increasingly bizarre and surreal news reports. Like the outrageously biased Mueller investigation into Trump’s non-existent “Russia collusion.” Like embarrassingly deranged Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters constantly claiming President Trump is mentally incompetent and must be impeached. Like the Washington “swamp” – which includes treacherous, self-serving, never-Trump establishment Republicans – working daily to undermine America’s duly elected president as he tirelessly keeps his promises to revive America’s economy, stop the tidal wave of illegal immigration, protect America from terrorists, and successfully pursue the Reagan policy of “peace through strength” in North Korea, Iran and other potential nuclear powder kegs around the world.

Funny, WND had no problem spending the previous eight years trying to undermine a duly elected president.

Kupelian then went after his media colleagues: "As a veteran journalist, I can say unequivocally that today’s 'mainstream' news establishment is more unprofessional, unprincipled, unhinged, biased, lazy, dishonest, corrupt – and, in some cases, flat-out insane – than at any time during my 35 years as a newsman."

Actually, Kupelian might want to examine his own work first. The mainstream media would have to work extremely hard to be as unprofessional, unprincipled, unhinged, biased, lazy, dishonest and corrupt as WND has been. From massive amounts of fake news to out-and-out lying to its readers to pushing conspiracy theories to becoming pro-Trump state media, Kupelian has a lot to answer for regarding the so-called journalism that nearly drove WND out of business.

Kupelian then went into self-aggrandizement mode, proclaiming that WND "defends, in a professional journalistic way, the Judeo-Christian moral foundation of America," insisting that "our team of experienced, professional journalists strives to do one thing – to tell the truth that Americans desperately need and deserve to hear" and quoting his boss, Joseph Farah, declaring that WND "operate[s] from an independent truth-seeking drive with a God-centered worldview."

If that were actually true, WND wouldn't be publishing so many falsehoods and so much fake news.

Once again, Kupelian's case that WND deserves to live is undermined by the facts. Not that he'll ever admit that -- he and Farah are simply too dishonest to live up to their own empty, cynical rhetoric.

Posted by Terry K. at 6:19 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

The Media Research Center loves to Heather conservatives who stray from right-wing orthodoxy. It's also not afraid to give the Heathering treatment to its buddies at Fox News. The MRC's Brad Wilmouth complains in a May 7 post:

For a news network that is often caricatured as right wing, Fox News Channel peppered a pro-life guest with an awful lot of questions that were skeptical of Iowa's new law that bans abortion at about six weeks pregnancy.

In fact, Fox and Friends Sunday host Abby Huntsman (a veteran of MSNBC) even cited one poll alleging a majority of Americans want most abortions to be legal, and did not mention that other polling has claimed the opposite.

At 7:25 a.m. Eastern, after recalling that Iowa Republican Governor Kim Reynolds signed the law a few days ago, which bans abortion after a baby's heartbeat can be detected, Huntsman introduced Iowa Republican State Senator Rick Bertrand and immediately brought up a survey suggesting most Americans would oppose such a law:

You know this is one of the most controversial issues that we debate in this country, so, looking at recent polls and survey done on just how the country is feeling about abortion, there's a recent Pew survey that shows that 57 percent of the country supports legal abortion. That's compared to 40 percent who support illegal. So the question off the top is: Is this bill the most -- the strictest bill on abortion -- is this what the American people American people are wanting?

The polling she was referring to was a survey released by the Pew Research Center in June 2017. Not mentioned was that, in May 2017, by contrast, Gallup reported that 54 percent of respondents believe abortion should be illegal in most or all circumstances, while 42 percent supported abortion being legal in most or all cases.

For the rest of the interview, the FNC host did not ask a single question that was sympathetic to the effort to protect unborn babies.

Note Wilmouth's dig at Huntsman for having once worked at MSNBC -- pure Heathering at its finest.

And it's particularly hilarious to hear Wilmouth's complaint that Fox News is "caricatured as right wing" when -- in huffing that Huntsman failed to advance the "effort to protect unborn babies" -- he's demanding that it live up to that supposed caricature.

Posted by Terry K. at 2:53 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

CNSNews.com is never so slavishly pro-Trump as when it's clearly following orders from on high -- Terry Jeffrey? Brent Bozell? Sarah Huckabee Sanders? -- to push the Trump White House talking point du jour. For example, we caught them last month in one blatant example, in which it generated two entire agenda-driven articles about a single question during the Mike Pompeo confirmation hearing.

It does the same double-team talking-point drilling again. A May 9 article on Gina Haspel's confirmation hearing for CIA director dutifully repeats a conservative Republican senator's talking point:

During CIA nominee Gina Haspel’s confirmation hearing Wednesday, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) took issue with Sen. Mark Warner’s (D-Va.) assertion that the attorney general’s legal approval of the CIA’s interrogation program was a “get out of jail free card” for Haspel.

Cotton also wondered how many votes Haspel would receive if she were nominated by former President Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton if she had won the election.

“In fact, if you had been nominated by President Obama or if Hillary Clinton had won and nominated you to be CIA director, how many votes do you think you would have gotten to be confirmed as CIA director? You don’t have to answer,” Cotton said.

The next day, Susan Jones penned an article that pushed the same basic talking point from another angle, under the headline "Republican Senator: Democrats Hate Haspel Because Trump Nominated Her":

Sen. Jim Risch, an Idaho Republican, was asked by CNN if he could understand Democrats' concerns about interrogation methods used in the past that are now illegal:

"Well, sure," Risch said. "They hate anything that Donald Trump does in this town."

"The people in this town, many of them hate Trump so bad that no matter who he nominates, they're going to raise anything they can. You just hit the nail on the head, and that is that the interrogation had nothing to do with her. They're trying to get her to answer for this one. She was not involved in that," Risch said.

Well done, ladies. You have done the Trump White House a great service. The cause of journalism, however? Not so much.

Posted by Terry K. at 6:37 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Last year, Larry Klayman thanked WorldNetDaily for letting him indulge his many, many conspiracy theories on its website over the years, particularly those involving the Clintons. (He didn't call them that, of course.) He's at it again in his May 11 WND column, complaining that Fox News won't indulge said conspiracy theories and giving him an opportunity to rehash them yet again:

The problem with much of the conservative media, including Fox News, is that the information spewed forth each night is massaged or censored to be politically correct and not to ruffle too many feathers. Unfortunately, the time for niceties has long since passed, as if it were ever a genuine consideration. This explains the popularity – no matter what the rabid leftist media thinks – of our President Donald Trump. The Donald, much like yours truly, does not hold back! Which president in modern American history would call judges who deserve it biased and dishonest, “rip a new one” for the corrupt Justice Department, its Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency for its Deep State uncontrolled spying, not just on the commander in chief but also millions of Americans. Certainly not Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Hussein Obama, all part of the D.C. swamp!

Let me give you just a few examples, among many others, of what I am talking about. 

Back during the early days of Fox News, during the Clinton administration, it was verboten to talk on air about the likely cause of the death of White House Deputy Counsel Vince Foster, someone who was very close the first lady Hillary Clinton. Foster was in effect Hillary’s right-hand man and her former partner at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas. It was rumored that Vince was also Hillary’s “main squeeze” during a time when she had not totally turned her attention to the feminine gender, such as with her apparent “significant other,” Huma Abedin.

Again, this is unvarnished politically incorrect speech I am writing! Hillary’s relationship with Abedin is not just idle gossip; it explains much of what went on at the Obama State Department with all its coordinated lies and obstruction, including the tragedy at Benghazi and the resulting cover-up. The then-secretary of state and her top assistant and “loyal” significant other covered for each other. But now back to Vince Foster.

Foster met his end at Fort Marcy Park, and many thought, including the courageous CEOs Joseph Farah of WND and Christopher Ruddy of Newsmax, both my friends and colleagues, that his death was no accident. Nor was it believed to be a suicide. How Foster died was important to explain many of the Clinton scandals, including IRS-gate, Filegate and Travelgate, including the hard fact that scores of material witnesses died during the Clinton years. According to testimony in oral depositions I took of Linda Tripp and others, they believed that Foster was the one mildly ethical person in the Clinton White House. Yet, he was also the person who, given his rumored affair with Hillary, also covered for her, much like Abedin today. He thus knew where all of the bodies were buried, figuratively and perhaps actually.

And, for good measure, he rehashed a couple Obama conspiracy theories:

The same logic applies to our former “Muslim in chief,” Barack Hussein Obama. That this president was half Muslim, and fully Muslim under Shariah law, among tens of other indicia of his Islamic loyalties, helps explain his antipathy toward Jews and Israel, much less Christians, and many other pro-Islamic acts as president, including his now Trump-trashed Iranian nuclear deal. Again, Fox News barred its broadcasters from ever mentioning Obama’s Muslim roots.

And, then there was the legitimate issue of Obama’s place of birth and fraudulent birth certificate, discussion of which was also largely banned at Fox News.

Notice that he never bothers to offer any legitimate proof that any of this is true. All that matters to him is pushing the conspiracies to keep his dwindling readership riled up.

Posted by Terry K. at 2:58 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

We've already noted how WorldNetDaily is distorting the facts around AB 2943, the proposed California bill that would ban effectively ban anti-gay conversion therapy in the state. Nnow, the Media Research Center has joined the party with a May 8 MRC Latino piece by Morela Scull, which repeats only anti-gay sources in attacking the bill. For instance, the gay-bashers at the Alliance Defending Freedom:

In an interview with the MRC, attorney Matt Sharp from the Alliance Defending Freedom explained that “AB 2943 infringes upon the First Amendment right of counselors, religious organizations and so many others to speak freely on the ability of people to find hope and to explore all options as it relates to their sexual orientation and gender identity. This bill, if passed, would restrict that freedom of speech, telling people that certain viewpoints like the idea that people can change is now off limits and declared fraudulent in the state of California.”

Sharp added that “the idea that people can change and find true joy in embracing and living out their faith is at the heart of many religions. California should not be telling people that such faith is fraudulent”.

Actually, what's fraudulent is conversion therapy -- which is the whole issue. You generally don't have the right n America to peddle fraudulent things. Sharp is not quoted as explaining how a fraudulent process furthers the "true joy" of religion, and Scull offers no evidence to bolster the implication she's peddling that conversion therapy is safe and effective.

Scull also plays the First Amendment card, quoting someone named "René Scull, from the free-market champion Atlas Network" (Morela Scull does not disclose what her connection is, if any, to this person with whom she shares a last name, though she really should have), asserting that “it is absurd to try to interfere with the commercialization of goods related with ideological postures or postures against social attitudes because the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. Violating the rules of the market converts these measures that are trying to be implemented in something not only illegal, but also interferes with a healthy process of supply and demand.”

Again, this misses the point. Conversion therapy has been largely proven to be ineffective and even damaging to clients. There is no First Amendment right to provide an ineffective and damaging service, regardless of the processes of supply and demand. It's also not a restriction on religious liberty to stop a fraudulent practice.

Scull concluded by huffing: "The ramifications of the legislation go far beyond considerations about being heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or transgender; or about being a Christian or an atheist: it is mainly about the prohibition of freedom." No, it's pretty much limited to the former; people like Scull and the people she quotes don't believe being "homosexual, bisexual or transgender" deserves any consideration and that it should be stamped out. And that's where the real rights issue resides.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:30 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

You may remember WorldNetDaily columnist Michael Brown is an anti-gay, anti-transgender activist who pretends to have compassion for them while simultaneously mocking them. Well, he's at it again in his May 7 column, portraying self-proclaimed ex-gays as "the smallest, most rejected minority in our country":

Their numbers are very small, since they came out of a small community to start with. And it is only a small percentage of that small group who make a break with the rest of the LGBT community.

Most of them make that break because of their religious faith, often newly found. Others make the break simply because they no longer want to identify as gay or bi or trans. But for making that break, they pay a steep price.

They are mocked and maligned and bullied by the community they once called home.

They are told they do not exist. They are assured they will fail. Their motives are questioned. They are called liars and mercenaries. They are even mocked for being so small in number (even if they number in the thousands or tens of thousands, that represents the tiniest slice of the population).

All this simply because they want to lead a new life, because they do not embrace their same-sex attractions (or their gender confusion.)

Shouldn’t they be applauded for their courage? Shouldn’t they be lauded for doing what they feel is right?

Really now, what can possibly be wrong with a man wanting to be married to a woman, having natural children of his own? Why on earth should he be penalized for that?

What can possibly be wrong with a woman wanting to be at home in her own body? Why on earth should she be criticized for that?

And why is it that we put ex-gays and ex-trans individuals under such intense pressure? If they have one slip-up, they’re called phonies. If they still struggle with attractions or gender confusion, they are told they haven’t changed. But why?

Brown then demonstrates how little he understands about sexuality by likening being gay to alcoholism and addiction to pornography: "There are plenty of former alcoholics who fell off the wagon for a season, only to get back on track. Do we ridicule them, or empathize with them and show them compassion? Many of them identify as recovering alcoholics. Why can’t someone identify as a recovering homosexual?

Brown then goes on to reveal his real reason for embracing ex-gays -- because they show that sexual preferences aren't immutable: "That’s why those who say, 'I used to be gay, but I’m free today' must be maligned. Their existence must be denied. Their ultimate failure must be assured. If change is possible – again, through divine intervention or through counseling or both – then the whole push for 'LGBT rights' can be questioned."

Which, of course, is the fallacy in Brown's activism -- he seems to not understand that people have the right to be who they are sexually. His implication is that if you can stop being gay, then you must stop being gay. He offers no evidence to support his claim that people who are gay are somehow not "free."

Brown laments that "the great majority of those who came out of homosexual practice and transgender identification simply want to live their lives," but he doesn't understand that the LGBT community want to do the same thing. He cares only that his version of Christianity gets imposed on everyone whether or not it violates their rights to live as they desire.

He concludes by doing more false likening of "homosexual behavior" -- a term that denies the existence of sexual orientation -- this time to lying, adultery and theft. That tells you how little regard he really has for people who live differently from him.

Posted by Terry K. at 6:19 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

A May 7 blog post by CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman is a massive tirade against filmmaker Michael Moore for marking the 200th birthday of Karl Marx. Chapman starts out this way:

Documentary filmmaker and left-wing activist Michael Moore, who has an estimated net worth of $50 million, effusively praised Karl Marx, the intellectual founder of Marxist Communism, a brutal idology that killed an estimated 100 million people worldwide in the 20th century, and whose Soviet leaders -- Lenin and Stalin -- inspired the German National Socialist Adolf Hitler.  

May 5 was the 200th birthday of Karl Marx (1818-1883), a constantly debt-ridden economist and revolutionary who is best known for his pamphlet, the Communist Manifesto. 

On May 5, Michael Moore tweeted, "Happy 200th Birthday Karl Marx! You believed that everyone should have a seat at the table & that the greed of the rich would eventually bring us all down."

"You believed that everyone deserves a slice of the pie," said Moore. "You knew that the super wealthy were out to grab whatever they could."

That same day, Moore also tweeted, "Though the rich have sought to distort him or even use him, time has shown that, in the end, Marx was actually mostly right & that the aristocrats, the slave owners, the bankers and Goldman Sachs were wrong... 'Happy Birthday, Karl Marx. You Were Right!"

Given Marx's teaching, clearly explained in the Communist Manifesto, and his legacy, Moore might as well have sent birthday wishes to Hitler, or Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot. 

Chapman never actually gets around to responding to what Moore wrote about Marx -- or anything Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto, for that matter.He did, however, cling to his less-than-historical claim that communism and Nazism were one in the same because, um, Hitler and Stalin signed a nonagression pact:

Their allegiance to Marxist ideology was proven when Stalin allied with Hitler in 1939 and invaded Poland -- the leftist intellectuals had no complaints. During the 1930s, the Soviets graciously allowed Nazi troops to drill and practice war games on Soviet land. 

Chapman conveniently ignores the fact that Hitler was an anti-communist who expelled communists and Marxists from the German government when he gained power in 1933, having portrayed the Nazi Party as the only hope against a communist takeover of Germany. Chapman also forgets that Germany broke the alliance in 1941 by invading the Soviet-held portion of Poland and other areas under Soviet control under the pact.

But Chapman is mostly interested in right-wing, self-righteous  ranting against Moore for noting that Marx had a point:

It's not surprising that the multi-millionaire leftist Michael Moore supports Karl Marx, a man whose ideas led to the slaughter of 100 million people. In the 19th century and most of the 20th century it was the so-called "intellectuals" and leftist "artists" in the West who promoted Marx.

[...]

Like the Communist apologists of the past, Michael Moore is nothing more than a propagadist for Karl Marx, a man whose violent ideas sowed the fields of China, Russia, and Eastern Europe with blood. 

Moore's sentiments are repulsive and dangerous. He should be condemned for praising a man who is the moral and ideological equivalent of Adolf Hitler.

Mmore repulsive and dangerous than Chapman's disregard of facts in spewing his rabid case of Michael Moore Derangement Syndrome?

Posted by Terry K. at 2:08 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Mychal Massie's May 14 WorldNetDaily column is one long tirade of whataboutism -- and revisionist history -- an attempt to deflect from President Trump's history of lies and deceit by highlighting "what the pretenders before him did." For instance:

George W. Bush let two border agents rot in prison in defiance of a national chorus, my voice included, calling for justice for two brave public servants. Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean were sentenced to 11- and 12-year prison sentences, respectively. They shot – not killed, mind you – a Mexican illegal-alien dope smuggler who was apprehended as he attempted to smuggle several hundred pounds of marijuana across the border. The illegal-alien dope smuggler, named Osvaldo Aldrete Davila, was shot in the buttocks, i.e., butt, behind, arse, as he attempted to flee the agents.

The illegal-alien dope smuggler was granted a temporary conditional visitor’s visa in exchange for testifying against the brave border agents. The agents were fired and imprisoned Jan. 17, 2007. Ramos and Compean were found guilty of not being forthcoming regarding what had taken place at the time the illegal Mexican dope smuggler was wounded in his behind. He was wounded because he tried to escape.

Ramos and Compean were pilloried by a rogue judicial system, after being placed in a situation in which they understood that the Bush administration was trying to force amnesty for illegal aliens and open borders upon American citizenry. Thus the reason they made the decision to file a false report in attempt to cover up exactly what had happened.

Despite four years of united outcries from all quarters of America, including both sides of the political aisle, starting in 2005, Bush let the agents be persecuted and imprisoned, waiting until his last day in office to commute their sentences. This, despite the fact that Richard Skinner, Department of Homeland Security inspector general, later admitted and “apologized” that he had knowingly misled Congress per what factually happened.

Massie conveniently ignores the part where Ramos and Compean covered up their involvement by picking up their shell casings and failing to file an incident report, as well as the fact that pursuing fleeing suspects violated Border Patrol policy.

Massie also huffed: "Obama allowed a U.S. Marine veteran who had served honorably in Afghanistan to languish in a Mexican prison for nearly one year – during which time he was assaulted and held in solitary confinement. His crime was becoming directionally confused and unwittingly crossing the Mexican border with a firearm."

This is a reference to a Marine named Andrew Tahmooressi; as we noted the last time Massie referenced this case, even Tahmooressi's own lawyer belileved that diplomacy would have no effect on his case. After his release from Mexico, Tahmooressi later served a short prison term in Indiana for drug possession

Massie highlighted that "Donald J. Trump, citizen, wrote a personal check to help Sgt. Tahmooressi and family." He didn't mention that Trump's tweets about the case may have made it more difficult to get Tahmooressi freed.

Massie also indulged in his usual Clinton derangement, ranting that "Bill Clinton raped, battered and molested women, while Hillary sheltered him and personally denigrated his victims."

Massie concluded his column by declaring: "I am proud of President Trump. I wish the Constitution allowed him to serve several terms. If that were possible it might delay the impending doom that awaits the world and America when the Lord returns for His own."

Posted by Terry K. at 12:51 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

The Media Research Center likes to take potshots at NBC "Meet The Press" host Chuck Todd's wife works as a Democratic communications strategist and once donated to Tim Kaine, at the time the governor of Virginia. The MRC recently brought it up again in an attempt to deflect from Fox News' Sean Hannity defending Trump lawyer Michael Cohen on TV without disclosing he's a Cohen client.

Clay Waters complained that the New York Times "shamelessly quoted NBC News political director and Meet the Press host Chuck Todd, excoriating Fox News’ ethical standards, without mentioning Todd’s own lack of disclosure." Jeffrey Lord also highlighted Todd's "conflict" as scrutiny into Hannity intensified.

But the MRC was much more defensive when it came to a Todd-like conflict involving another Fox News host.

A 2009 NewsBusters post by Noel Sheppard hyped how "Greta Van Susteren is clearly sick and tired of people accusing her of advising Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin." But he never bothered to explain the source of the accusation, as outlined by the Politico article to which he linked: Van Susteren's husband, John Coale, was among Palin's political advisers; the Washington Post further described Coale as among the "protecters of the Palin brand." The Huffington Post noted that "Van Susteren has enjoyed unparalleled access to Palin and her family, conducting several interviews from Alaska — most recently with new mom Bristol Palin," though Van Susteren insisted her husband's link to Palin was not responsible for that.

Two months later, Sheppard complained that "Politico on Saturday accused Greta Van Susteren of being Todd Palin's 'host AND handler' at a pre-White House Correspondents' dinner brunch, and the Fox News host is none too pleased. Sheppard gave Van Susteren space to point out that Palin was a guest of hers at a "social brunch" and intervened when another reporter tried to interview him by pointing out the brunch was off the record. Sounds more than a little like a handler's job, doesn't it?

The capper? In 2010 and 2011, Sheppard touted Palin appearances on Van Susteren's show without mentioning her familial links to Palin. And in 2013, NewsBusters' Randy Hall devoted a post to Van Susteren gushing over Palin's return to Fox News after a yearlong absence -- without any mention whatsoever that her husband served as a Palin adviser or that Van Susteren herself played media handler for Palin's husband.

It appears that, as far as the MRC is concerned, these sorts of conflicts of interests are conflicts at all when you work for a conservative "news" organization.

Posted by Terry K. at 10:58 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

If Doug Wead was ever an objective reporter on the presidency, he stopped being so some time ago, what with his pro-Trump insta-book after the 2016 election and his bizarre conspiracy theory that there's a secret list of Bill Clinton's sexual assault victims.

Wead's pro-Trump sycophancy reaches new heights in a May 8 Newsmax tribute to Melania Trump about which the term "embarrassingly fawning" fails to do it justice:

We may be witnessing the unfolding story of one of America’s greatest first ladies, Melania Trump. And on this upcoming Mother’s Day, May 13, an example of a dedicated mother who puts her child ahead of other justifiably demanding, distractions.

Melania has been first lady for almost two years now. She continues to quietly and gracefully move through her public duties as wife of the president. While political storms rage all around her, she keeps her head held high, with poise, beauty, and a humble grace.

Her dignified performance is made all the more powerful when contrasted by a shrill and hysterical, corporate media, still angry that their chosen candidate lost the 2016 presidential election. Every negative thing her husband says and does is amplified while his remarkable economic and foreign policy record is ignored.

[...]

In history, Slovenians won their revenge by quietly succeeding, not through violent domination of their opponents.

This seems to be the first lady’s style. She maintains a dignity that makes her all the more mysterious when her critics rage. Sometimes she wins just by being still. And in some cases she is succeeding through her fashion sense, which is stunning, no easy thing.

So today, the media is in a frenzy about borrowed words from an old FTC document, as if it were sacred script that cannot be re-used. Tomorrow it will be something else.

Meanwhile, Melania, our beautiful, graceful first lady, whose life will one day cover entire bookshelves in libraries, can knock around the private quarters of the White House today, with a T-Shirt emblazoned with her wonderful new slogan for America’s youth, words that represent New York City meets Ljubljana — "Be best."

Apparently, Wead thinks he's "being best" when he slides into full Trump-fluffing mode.

Posted by Terry K. at 1:33 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

The Media Research Center keeps freaking out about LGBT stuff, so we have no choice but to document those freakouts.

Gabriel Hays complains that Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos is using his publication to push an "LGBT agenda" by its publishing a story about how communities in the hunt for Bezos-run Amazon's second headquarters should show consideration of the "rights for and acceptance of gay and transgender people." Hays doesn't explain how treating all people the same is an "agenda."

Dawn Slusher is unhappy about gay and transgender storylines in the "ultra-liberal" TV show "Rise," lamenting that "Catholic student Simon (Ted Sutherland) appears to finally give in to his feelings for his male castmate in the school’s controversial play." Slusher later whined: "Too bad we can't see all the tears from conservative viewers, if there are any watching. This will, God willing, get canceled."

Slusher continued her hate-watching of "Rise," huffing that a later episode "heavily implied that Catholic father Robert, who opposes the controversial school play and his son's role as a gay character, is really just “afraid” of the play because Robert is secretly gay himself."

Jay Maxson attacks a writer who calls for more openly gay pro athletes, complaining that the writer is "really psyched about two homosexual college football players" and thus believes that "the sexual confusion of high school and college athletes is encouraging."

Hays showed up once again to bash actor Jim Parsons:

Jim Parsons, the nerdy face of CBS’ Big Bang Theory desperately wants Hollywood to ratchet up the gay propaganda, and demands that audiences digest every bit of LGBT representation thrown their way. Even though it seems like every media production these days has that token gay or sexually ambiguous character -- far more than real-life representation -- we need to see way more, damn it!

When Parsons said he wanted to be "sick of too many gay rom-coms," Hays sneered, "We beat you to that, Jim."

Maxson adds a freakout over a news outlet merely covering something LGBT-related -- in this case, Yahoo News reporting on an LGBT summit hosted by the Minnesota Vikings. Maxson raged at former Vikings player Chris Kluwe for hosting the event, snidely dismissing him as a "has-been former punter" and "a nobody punter for the Vikes until he gained notoriety for his same-sex marriage activism," then ranted that the Vikings are "kissing up to Kluwe and his LGBTQ friends."

Finally, Slusher returns one more time to gleefully dance on the grave of "Rise" following its cancellation. She rehashed all the plot points she hate-watched, then concluded by sneering, "I, for one, have a big smile on my face knowing this liberal garbage is over for good, never to 'rise' again." Apparently, hate is more important than professional writing when you hate-watch something for the MRC.

Posted by Terry K. at 10:13 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

So far this year, WorldNetDaily columnist Jack Cashill has come to the defense of a convicted felon who falsely claimed he had sex with Barack Obama, a credibly accused terrorism suspect (who has since been convicted of plotting to bomb an apartment complex housing Somali refugees) and the Missouri governor accused of trying to blackmail his mistress. Why wouldn't he run to the defense of George Zimmerman once again?

You might remember that Cashill wrote a WND-published book trying to portray Zimmerman as a civil-rights martyr and the teenager he killed, Trayvon Martin, as a scary black thug. Now Zimmerman has gotten himself in trouble again -- this time for stalking, threatening and harassing a private investigator working on a documentary about Martin. Cue Cashill to initiate the whitewash treatment, which he does in his May 9 WND column.

But first, Cashill rehashes the narrative he's so invested in: Martin was "an aspiring MMA fighter" who "was high at the time he attacked Zimmerman," while Zimmerman was, yes, "a civil rights activist."

Cashill then uncritically served up Zimmerman's defense for his stalking and threats:  He was a victim of "entrapment," the investigator had contacted relatives using "a variety of subterfuges to circumvent security," andZimmerman "decided to turn the tables on Warren and harass him back."

Needless to say, Cashill and Zimmerman offer no proof of any of this.

Maybe Cashill should spend less time defending the indefensible and more time trying to figure out why nobody takes him seriously.

Posted by Terry K. at 1:26 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Randy Hall whines in a May 9 NewsBusters post:

While observing World Press Freedom Day on May 3, MSNBC aired an advertisement encouraging viewers to watch not just that liberal channel, but also follow more than 25 other left-leaning sources and newspapers while not mentioning Fox, the most-watched news network on cable TV.

[...]

On the print side, it included newspapers as The Guardian, Financial Times, USA Today, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Baltimore Sun, Philadelphia Enquirer, Florida's Sun Sentinel, The Daily Press (Newport News, VA), the Sun (Naperville, Illinois), and the New York Daily News.

Also mentioned were BBC News, the global Inter Press Service and magazines like New York Magazine, The New Yorker,  and The Atlantic.

The closest the advertisement to conservative outlets were the Wall Street Journal and National Review.

But Hall never proves that any -- let alone all -- of these outlets are "left-leaning." Apparently, he's just parroting the MRC's propganda that any media outlet that's not as far to the right as Fox News is "liberal." And his suggestion that the Wall Street Journal (owned by Fox News' Rupert Murdoch) and National Review are merely close to conservative and not actually conservative is ridiculous.

Hall spends the rest of his post complaining that the MSNBC ad didn't offer Fox News as an option. But he didn't note whether Fox News ran a similar ad to mark World Press Freedom Day -- probably because if it had, it almost certainly wouldn't have told people to watch MSNBC. Does Hall really think otherwise?

Posted by Terry K. at 1:44 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink