WND Does More State-Media Work For Trump At Midterms Topic: WorldNetDaily
Becoming total pro-Trump state media didn't keep WorldNetDaily from circling the drain not once but twice this year. So what did WND do to prepare its dwindling readership for the midterms? Double down on sucking up to Trump.
An anonymously written Oct. 29 article updated one of WND's old tricks, a dubious list of Trump's alleged "accomplishments":
If Americans want more of deregulation, lower taxes, economic growth, record-low unemployment, job creation, immigration enforcement, border security, a stronger military, conservative judges, improved trade deals and unprecedented foreign policy victories with nations such as North Korea, the party of the person they vote for in congressional elections matters.
Since WND published a list of 183 accomplishments in Trump’s first 14 months, the president has continued to fulfill campaign promises.
Most recently, Brett Kavanaugh became the second judge confirmed to the Supreme Court who interprets the Constitution according to the text, following Neil Gorsuch. The negotiation of a trade deal with Mexico and Canada to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, fulfilled a major campaign vow. Another eight trade deals have been negotiated with Japan, South Korea, Europe and China.
In a typical diplomatic victory, the Trump administration, employing tough sanctions and behind-the-scenes diplomatic maneuvers, secured in October the release of pastor Andrew Brunson from an otherwise defiant Turkish regime, without any apparent concessions.
The only thing more embarrassingly fawning than this article was WND editor Joseph Farah's Nov. 2 column promoting it:
Who knows how things will turn out next Tuesday?
If the results were based on good outcomes, the party supporting the incumbent president might just turn the midterm jinx on its head.
But there’s the media, of course.
There’s also the media-amplifiers at Google and Facebook and Twitter.
Then there’s academia.
There’s also the Big Cities.
There’s the Deep State.
And then there are stupid people.
Otherwise, how could he NOT rock the house?
It shouldn’t even be close.
I’m optimistic. I was in 2016. I said so. In fact, I may have been overly optimistic – even fantasizing about how even New Yorkers and Californians could shock the country with their votes.
But here’s what I want you to do for us right now – before it’s too late.
I want you to spread this BIG, BIG, BIG LIST OF TRUMP ACCOMPLISHMENTS far and wide before Election Day.
It’s truly breathtaking.
Before Trump, my standard was Reagan. I didn’t think we’d ever see another president like him. I was wrong. He out-conservatived Reagan – without even trying.
Where does the man get the energy, the stamina, the grit?
God bless him.
He did what he said he would do.
How often do you see that?
I can’t even think of a significant disappointment. When has that ever happened?
Despite all Donald Trump as done in the last 24 months, and make note of it, we are on the precipice of throwing it all away.
This is what not just the “fake news media” have done. This is what Google and Facebook have wrought on us all when powerful, special interests turn the truth on its head.
Am I throwing in the towel?
Not at all. I have never sold Donald Trump short. He is a force of nature. I’m always been a fan. He has stood boldly and with clarity. But I’m just not sure how far his voice can carry.
Maybe God gave us a stark choice between Barack Obama and Donald Trump and said: “Choose.”
Farah than complained: "There was a time in America at which we could talk to one another, respect differences of opinion and agree to disagree. That is long gone. There is no tolerance for dissent or disagreement." He wrote that without irony, apparently oblivious to his and WND's major role refusing to respect differences of opinion (he refused to call Obama the president, remember?) and his own very thin skin regarding any criticism of him and his website.
And just a few paragraphs earlier, he was demonizing and maliciously mischaracterizing anyone who disagreed with his view of the midterms:
Choose between one who believes in nation-states and one who does not.
Choose between one who breaks the law and one who does not.
Choose between one who fosters the production of wealth and one who does not.
Choose between one who supports life and one who does not.
Choose between one who supports Brett Kavanaugh and one who promotes scurrilous, unsubstantiated accusations.
Choose between one who acts in the best interest of his country and one who does not.
Choose between whether sovereign citizens vote or just anybody.
You get the idea. This is what it has become in the United States of America in 2018. It’s a critical state of the affairs indeed. Though we have been blessed by two years of Donald Trump, the choice is clear, and about half the country appears relatively close to choosing unwisely – whether they have been manipulated or conned.
Is a person who thinks that anyone who disagrees with him must have been "manipulated or conned" into having those views really sincerely concerned with the failure to "respect differences of opinion and agree to disagree"? Highly unlikely.
CNS' Chapman Rants About 'Liberal Media' To Deflect From Trump's Heated Rhetoric Topic: CNSNews.com
We've documented how CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman is, at heart, a hard-right polemicist, and the commentary he chooses to publish -- as well as his own commentary, which leans hard in the hating-gays direction -- reflects that.
As befits a Media Research Center employee, Chapman reflexively attacks the "liberal media" for being biased despite running one of the most biased "news" organizations on the planet. His Oct. 29 blog post was a desperate bit of whataboutism designed to take the heat of President Trump's rhetoric in the wake of a series of pipe bombs sent to promient Democrats and actual news organizations by a Trump enthusiast and a massacre perpetrated by a man who hated a Jewish group for bringing in refugees in an echo of Trump's immigration policy:
The liberal media in America -- CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, New York Times, most newspapers -- complain because President Donald Trump often calls them "fake news" and "the enemy of the people." They also charge that Trump's criticism fuels an uncivil atmosphere that sparks violence, e.g., they are now blaming Trump's rhetoric for the mail bomber and the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting.
But the liberal media do not view their own extremist, hyperbolic "news reporting" and commentary as contributing to America's political incivility, even though their diction is far more militant, repulsive, and noxious than anything Trump has said about the press.
For instance, these liberal media prima donnas are comfortable in describing the president of the United States as a sociopath, a disturbed person, a traitor, white nationalist, white supremacist, white bigot, racist, sinister, destructive virus, treasonous, straight out of Munich 1928, Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, Nazi, evil, mentally unfit, dictatorship, Hitler, unfit to be human, domestic terrorist, psychologically troubled, hate monger, imperial wizard, neo-Nazi, Axis Power, unfit, a national security threat, piece of sh*t, killer, out of control, domestic terror group, a menace, nuts, dictator, mentally unstable, Putin's c**k holster, madman, giant a**hole, bigot-in-chief, and racist-in-residence.
What follows is a long list of things Chapman copied-and-pasted from his MRC cohorts down the hall of things Trump has apprently been called. They're out of context, of course, since that would take too much work to copy and paste, and most are from commentators offering an opinion, not reporters claiming to be objective. And he certainly would never admit that there's a factual basis to the name-calling.
Funny, we don't recall Chapman ever complaining about vile things conservatives have said about Democratic presidents and politicians -- no mention of Hank Williams Jr. likening President Obama to Hitler, no mention of Ted Nugent calling Obama a "subhuman mongrel" and a "chimpanzee" and telling him to "suck on my machine gun" (and calling Hillary Clinton a "worthless bitch") -- and certainly no mention of his boss, Brent Bozell, calling Obama a "skinny ghetto crackhead."
Chapman is being wildly and ridiculously hypocritical by attacking "liberal media" criticism of Trump whiled condoning the smear from the "media prima donnas" on his own side. But then, hypocrisy is the MRC way.
WND Gives Perpetual Congressional Candidate More Space To Tout His Sure-To-Lose Bid Topic: WorldNetDaily
Art Robinson is a perpetual candidate who keeps getting the Republican bid to run against Democratic Rep. Peter DeFazio for a congressional seat in Oregon despite his long record of losing to DeFazio. WorldNetDaily loves him, though, and keeps giving him promotional space that's so rote that WND managing editor David Kupelian was recycling endorsements of Robinson from election to election.
This year -- his fifth bid to seat DeFazio, which is expected to end with yet another loss for Robinson -- WND has already given Robinson space for one column, and it gave him another one on Oct. 31, in which he rants about DeFazio and "career politicians" in general and heaps praise on President Trump, laughably claiming that Trump "has a strong Judeo-Christian ethic and a strong constitutional ethic."
As far as we know, WND did not give DeFazio similar space to make his own arguments to its readers -- thus making an effective in-kind contribution to Robinson's campaign. We'd be bothered by it if anybody outside WND's offices and Robinson's campaign thought Robinson wasn't going down in flames yet again.
MRC Mad That 'Murphy Brown' Counted How Many Lies Trump Has Told Topic: Media Research Center
Karen Townsend served up some of that good ol' Media Research Center hate-watching in an Oct. 26 post about an episode of the rebooted "Murphy Brown":
The reboot of Murphy Brown is getting old quick. It has become a boring, paint by numbers exercise in liberal vanity, with shots (both direct and veiled) at President Trump, Melania, the Trump Hotel, and, of course, Fox News.
In the CBS show’s episode titled “The Girl Who Cried Wolf” airing October 25, Murphy Brown went to a frequent gag. Murphy (Candice Bergen) is forever in need of a new assistant and the show’s social media/tech guru comes up with a solution – an artificial intelligence one. Murphy is skeptical and then the techie, Pat (Nik Dodani), demonstrates by hammering Donald Trump as a liar.
Townsend then added a transcript in which the AI assistant notes that "President Trump has made false or misleading statements 5,247 times." She was apparently so bothered by this that she made this the headline of her piece: "Lame ‘Murphy Brown’ Hits at Trump for Lying '5,247 Times' in Office." Townsend doesn't dispute the claim, just complains that it was made.
Of course, Townsend can't dispute the claim because not only is it true, the number is actually underestimated. A few days after Townsend's post, the Washington Post reported that Trump has made 6,420 false or misleading statements since he took office.
Instead, Townsend laments: "Sadly, this show is still little more than a vehicle used to bash President Trump and conservatives, even if it’s only lame remarks sprinkled into the dialogue and a silly parody of a Trump property. I’d like to think it will be better in future episodes but I'm finding it hard to believe."
It seems that hate-watching TV for the MRC is starting to take its toll on Townsend.
Newsmax's Softball Article on Rep. King Downplays His White Nationalist Sympathies Topic: Newsmax
John Gizzi kicks off his Nov. 4 Newsmax article about Republican Iowa Rep. Steve King with a bit of soft gushiness:
With several polls showing a closer-than-ever race for Rep. Steve King (R-IA), the controversial Republican assured Newsmax that he was in strong shape to win a ninth term.
As national Democratic money pours into Iowa’s 4th District, King dismissed media claims he was facing a defeat.
“Things aren’t as bad for me as you’re hearing,” King told Newsmax. King is best known for his outspoken opposition to illegal immigration.
A new Emerson Poll shows him leading Democrat J.D. Scholten by 51 to 42 percent.
This then becomes full-blown misleading:
King has long been under fire from national media over his hardline stand against illegal immigrants.
This year, the “Des Moines Register” abandoned King and gave its endorsement to Democrat Scholten.
In addition, political action committees, including Land O'Lakes dairy company, have switched from King to Scholten.
Gizzi is falsely portraying King as being nothing more than merely "against illegal immigrants" and that the newspaper and Land O'Lakes abandoned King solely because of that stance.
The Register summed up its decision to endorse King's opponent without once mentioning his stance on "illegal immigrants" (unless you count a reference to King's "virulent xenophobia"): "In his almost 16 years in Congress, King has passed exactly one bill as primary sponsor, redesignating a post office. He won’t debate his opponent and rarely holds public town halls. Instead, he spends his time meeting with fascist leaders in Europe and retweeting neo-Nazis."
Similarly, Land O'Lakes withdrew its support for King after it was pointed out to the corporate entity that King "is the member of Congress most openly affiliated with white nationalism. He has retweeted a Nazi sympathizer and has displayed a Confederate flag on his desk."
Curiously, Gizzi never details any of King's white nationalist ties and sympathies, let alone admit that this is the reason for the current growth in criticism of King. It's only alluded to when Gizzi quotes a member of the National Republican Congressional Committee, tweeted that King’s “actions, comments and retweets are completely inappropriate. We must stand up against white supremacy" -- not that Gizzi ever describes the actions the person is referring to -- then allowsKing to play off the criticism by saying that "The NRCC hasn't backed me since 2012."
Gizzi's article is nothing more than a lame puff piece by a reporter who's more than willing to overlook the actual story.
CNS Gives Mark Levin's Hypocrisy A Pass Because Of Course It Would Topic: CNSNews.com
Like it has more than 100 times this year already, CNSNews.com promoted a rant by right-wing radio host Mark Levin on Oct. 25. This time, Levin was ranting about hateful rhetoric:
Do the media in this country understand that they are leading the charge on the heated and hateful rhetoric? Do you know, yesterday alone, Donald Trump – I counted four – four times was compared to Adolf Hitler on MSNBC and CNN? Six times, he was called a racist.
And yet they – they want to know if Donald Trump is responsible for the heated and hateful and divisive rhetoric that’s going on. Did Donald Trump compare somebody to Adolf Hitler? And he’s called a racist all the time.
Because it only does stenography when it comes to Levin, CNS will never report that Levin is a complete hypocrite. The Daily Beast sums it up:
In June 2015, Levin yelled about Obama being a “low-life” and a “racist” and a “hater” for using “the N-word.” (Levin was not impressed by the fact that Obama is black, or that then president was using the word in a frank conversation about racism.)
“So, Obama has an affinity for Islam far more than Christianity or Judaism, no question about it,” Levin alleged on his radio show two years ago, adding that Obama seeks to “destroy Israel.”
In November 2014, Levin warned the American people during a Fox News hit about Obama going “full Mussolini” after the midterm elections.
The year before that, Levin was all about how “the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated our government,” and that President Obama, though “not a formal member,” was a “sympathizer.”
So, basically Levin’s position for the eight-year duration of the Obama administration was that Barack Hussein Obama was constantly putting the country in Nazi-Islamist danger.
Meanwhile, FAIR found an instance in which Levin claimed that Obama was “really into these big German-like events that he creates in this country.”
Remember, Levin is a close buddy of Brent Bozell, whose Media Research Center runs CNS, and Levin and the MRC have had (and may still have) a cross-promotion agreement.
So Levin gets a pass, just like the misogynous, violent right-winger Gavin McInnes gets one because he has a show on Levin's CRTV.
WND Frets Some More About Alleged Decline of White Christians in Europe Topic: WorldNetDaily
Another manifestation of WorldNetDaily's white nationalist predeliction is to fret about a "demographic winter" in Europe in which swarthy, Muslim-y immigrants are allegedly replacing the white, Christian native population. It's been doing this morelately, and it happens again in an anonymously written Oct. 26 article:
The low birth rate across much of Europe has been a concern for a long time.
Now, with millions of immigrants flooding into the historically Christian nations, changing not just the politics and economics but the culture, Europe faces a “crisis of survival.”
That’s according to Giulio Meotti, the cultural editor for Il Foglio, who observes in a commentary at the Gatestone Institute that Europe is in a downward spiral, “slowly dying out by failing to reproduce.”
For example, 42 percent of children under the age of 6 in Western Germany now come from migrant backgrounds.
Well, there's WND's problem right there. Meotti was the person at the right-wing Gatestone Institute who wrote and item WND seized upon in August 2017 making the claim that only only were more mosques have been built in France in recent years, but churches were being "bulldozed." Except that claim was highly misleading -- France has a huge number of churches and the mosques are still a fraction of that number, and there's no link whatsoever between closing churches and opening mosques becausethe French government appropriated church property and church buildings more than a century ago. Gatestone has removed the false and misleading article, but the WND article it's based on appears to have been only recently deleted (it was still live when we last checked in early January of this year).
And as usual for those concerned about such things, Meotti downplays the undeniable racial angle to all this fretting, and WND follows suit, although it repeats quotes in Meotti's piece sliming African natives as "modern-day slaves."
MRC Tries to Shield Trump From Responsibility Over Pipe Bombs Topic: Media Research Center
When pipe bombs started showing up in the mailboxes of prominent liberals and "liberal media" outlets like CNN, the Media Research Center was at first indignant that the story was being covered at all -- then indignant at the idea that President Trump's rhetoric may have inspired the would-be bomber in an orgy of pre-emptive denials.
An Oct. 23 item by Nicholas Fondacaro huffed that the media reported the story of "a pipe bomb in the mailbox of shady liberal billionaire George Soros’ New York mansion," complaining that "their concern for Soros came after all of them had ignored violent assaults and threat against conservative candidates and lawmakers."Fondacaro then ranted that "While the media were faithfully echoing Soros’ condemnation of “hate,” they ignored his financing of radical leftist organizations" through "his racical Open Society Foundation."
Kristine Marsh complained: "The View co-hosts Sunny Hostin and Joy Behar were quick to condemn President Trump after a suspicious package was found in the mailroom of the Time Warner Cable Center in New York City, where CNN broadcasts from. Hostin and Behar even went further in suggesting this was a conservative who was motivated by Trump’s war with the media."
Gabriel Hays grumbled that "the Hollywood partisans couldn’t wait for details before blaming the president," singling out actor Josh Gad for having "donned the victimhood cap and also declared this as the fruits of the current administration’s rhetoric against the Democrats." Hays concluded by declaring: "Clearly, Wednesday morning’s physical threat to the liberal media and progressive icons is a condemnable and disgusting action. But to blather on about how it is Donald Trump’s fault and indicative of his followers rather than the actions of some deranged criminal is rash and irresponsible."
Kyle Drennen huffed that "MSNBC anchor Craig Melvin teed up a former Hillary Clinton aide to blame President Trump for the incidents without knowing who sent the explosives or why." Curtis Houck was mad that a CNN "panel of analysts, journalists, and pundits promptly lashed out at Trump, insinuating his guilt and deeming his remarks insufficient."
Mark Finkelstein asserted: "Maybe CNN lacks the guts to directly claim that a Republican sent those devices. And so it has resorted to the cowardly contrivance of putting the accusation in the mouths of others." He then bizarrely claimed that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo "seems to be suffering from a bad case of pipe-bomb envy," linking to an article accusing Cuomo of falsely claiming a pipe bomb was sent to his office (though a "suspicious package" had been sent).
Drennen returned to engage in anti-media rhetoric: "On Thursday, the network morning shows were aghast that President Trump would accuse the news media of incivility and divisiveness, even as they repeatedly suggested that his rhetoric was to blame for mail bombs being sent to prominent Democrats. Reporters ignored recent polling that found people across the political spectrum agreed that the press was one of the main sources of division in the country." He added: "While the journalists repeatedly longed for Trump to “take responsibility” for the foiled bombing attempts and the overall divided state of the country, they failed to spend one moment on any self-examination."
Fondacaro did basically the same thing: "President Trump and the White House refused to bow to the liberal media’s assertions that he was the one responsible for the bombs sent to CNN and other Democrats this week. In response, the liberal media spend most of Thursday throwing a temper tantrum. During ABC’s World News Tonight and NBC Nightly News, these two broadcast networks were clearly irritated as they took shot after shot at the President."
Fondacaro followed with some serious pro-Trump stenography: "Mere moments after President Trump called for national unity at a Wisconsin rally in the wake of attempted bombings of prominent Democrats and CNN, CNN host Anderson Cooper kicked off AC360 by decrying the President’s speech," further insisting that "In his speech, Trump forcefully denounced the attacks." He then sneered: "Even when Trump tries to be presidential, CNN has to fight him on it. This is CNN."
That’s right, NewsBusters readers. According to two of CNN’s top personalities on Wednesday afternoon, you have contributed to our coarsening American discourse and tacitly deserve blame for the bombs sent to, among others CNN and former Presidents Clinton and Obama.
While reporting from outside the evacuated Time Warner building, CNN hosts Chris Cuomo and Brian Stelter asserted without evidence on those behind the bombs and heavy usage of the word “but”that it’s the President and “right-wing commentators” and “outlets” who should look at themselves in the mirror.
So, to recap, it’s the people who bring you the latest liberal media bias, whether that be here at NewsBusters or with our friends such as Conservative Review, the Daily Caller, Townhall, and the Washington Free Beacon who have created a culture of incivility and that CNN (or anyone on the left) have little to nothing to do with that. Classy.
Houck also huffed that a CNN correspondent "offered a repulsive piece of analysis Friday night on the suspect arrested in this week’s mail bombs, comparing the President to Islamic terrorists like ISIS peddling online propaganda to help lone wolves become “self-radicalized” and carry out attacks.
Mind you, all of this came before the Oct. 26 arrest of Cesar Sayoc -- an enthusiastic Trump supporter -- on suspicion of sending all those pipe bombs.
Needless to say, the MRC will never apologize for insulting all those people for speculation that turned out to be absolutely correct. Instead it doubled down on defending Trump -- for a little while, anyway.
Scott Whitlock complained that "MSNBC guests and hosts went into full blame mode on Friday, lashing out at Donald Trump as 'terrorist sympathizer' in the wake of the arrest of alleged mail bomber Cesar Sayoc in Florida." Whitlock also strangely complained that in 2017, one MSNBC commentator "tried to smear Steve Scalise, the victim of Bernie Sanders-supporting attempted murderer James Hodgkinson.He promoted the discredited report that Scalise 'may have' spoken to 'white nationalists.'" As we've documented, Scalise apologized for speaking to white nationalists, so the claim is not "discredited."
Fondacaro railed at "Clinton lackey George Stephanopoulos" for "painting the violence and death of the last few days as the product of the President they couldn’t stand" on ABC's "This Week," ranting that "Blaming President Trump’s heated words for the physical violence of others was the undercurrent of the entire program." He didn't mention Sayoc's arrest, let alone that Sayoc was a huge Trump supporter.
Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace contrasted front-page headlines from The Washington Post the day after Republican Congressman Steve Scalise was shot at an Alexandria, VA baseball field by a Bernie Sanders supporter with The Post's headline following the capture of mail bomb mastermind and Trump supporter Cesar Sayoc. Not surprisingly, The Post made sure to emphasize that Sayoc's political views were mentioned in the headline while the assailant's political leanings were not mentioned in the Scalise shooting headline.
Of course, Foley didn't note that while James Hodgkinson, Scalise's shooter, merely liked Bernie Sanders and Rachel Maddow on Facebook -- neither of whom ever urged violence against those they disagreed with -- Sayoc had his van plastered in pro-Trump sentiments and "CNN Sucks" stickers. Big difference.
CNS Managing Editor Downplays Anti-Semitism to Justify Attacks on Soros Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com managing editor does a weird thing in an Oct. 30 blog post: he downplays anti-Semitic attacks on George Soros by claiming that the Israeli government hates him too:
Although some pundits, mostly on the left, have denounced criticism of left-wing billionaire George Soros as anti-Semitic, it is important to note that Israel has officially stated that criticism of Soros is legitimate because he "continuously" seeks to undermine the Israeli government and he funds organizations "that defame the Jewish state."
These same Soros-funded groups also seek to prevent Israel from defending itself, according to the Israeli government.
Chapman offered no substantiation of those "official" charges from Israel. He also did not concede that at least some attacks on Soros are very much anti-Semitic, specifically the oft-repeated false right-wing slur that a teenage Soros was a Nazi sympathizer during World War II. (Not to mention the anti-Semitic imagery Chapman's employer, the Media Reserach Center, has used to portray Soros as a "puppet master").
Chapman then recounts an incident in which "Israel's ambassador to Hungary criticized a government-funded billboard campaign that showed a photo of Soros and stated, 'Let's not allow Soros to have the last laugh.'" which was "deemed anti-Semitic by some organizations, including the Soros-backed Human Rights Watch," followed by Israeli officials backtracking by insisting that "In no way was the statement meant to delegitimize criticism of George Soros."
Chapman then touted a "letter to the World Jewish Congress" in which "Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban wrote that the Open Society Foundation and Soros 'bear personal responsibility for the growth of anti-Semitism in Europe. They have brought people to Europe -- among migrants -- whose political and religious views have dramatically increased the vulnerability of our Jewish communities.'" This was followed by noting that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "has praised Hungary's Orban as a 'true friend of Israel,' a leader who has fought against anti-Semitism and supported the Jewish state."
But Chapman didn't mention that the Voice of America article from which he sourced Netanyahu's praise of Israel also pointed out that "Orban evoked anti-Semitic language in denouncing Soros, saying that Hungary's enemies 'do not believe in work, but speculate with money; they have no homeland, but feel that the whole world is theirs,'" remarks that met with "global Jewish condemnation." Voice of America also cited one member of an Israeli opposition party as stating that ""Netanyahu has a thing with anti-Semitic leaders around the world, from Hungary and Poland, to the head of the Philippines, (Rodrigo) Duterte, who compared himself to Hitler, and instead of suffering condemnation, was invited as well for a state visit with the prime minister of Israel."
You might recall that CNS justloves the right-wing authoritarian Orban, whitewashing him as a "populist" who's merely trying to "reintroduce the Judeo-Christian ethic into a secularized Europe."
MRC Continues Its (Paid?) PR Campaign For Right-Wing Gosnell Movie Topic: Media Research Center
Phelim McAleer's "Gosnell" continues to show middling performance at the box office -- earning only about $3.3 million after three weeks in theaters -- but the Media Research Center is still on (apparenly bought-and-paid-for) PR patrol for the film.
In addition to publishing a column by Cal Thomas, the MRC is staying on message with its own work (with, presumably the McAleer stamp of approval). An Oct. 15 post by Gabriel Hays made a big deal out of how it "received a 99% score in terms of general audience approval" on Rotten Tomatoes, then launched into an anti-media tirade with the help of McAleer's wife and co-producer, Ann McElhinney:
McElhinney summed it up, stating prior to the movie’s release that “Most Americans have never heard the name Dr. Kermit Gosnell because mainstream journalists chose not to cover the trail.” However she seemed confident that after the release of the film, “the media who ignored the story will have to explain to millions of people who will see the movie why they censored this story.”
Considering that the movie has positive critic reviews and a stellar audience review, it seems as though McElhinney might be right. After all, even when the film was facing problems in trying to find a distributor early on, a historical crowdfund of $2.3 million made sure that the film was finished and set for release. With such a grisly story as that of Dr. Gosnell’s, people want to hear the truth, and hopefully the continued success of this movie will bring wider public awareness of not only abortion, but just how twisted and conspiratorial the media can be.
The media failing to cover something to the extent right-wing activists demand does not equal being "twisted and conspiratorial." The fact that Hays believes this -- apparently inculcated by his work at the MRC -- shows how twisted and conspiratorial his employer is.
The MRC's Tim Graham and Brent Bozell cranked out a column whining that major newspapers didn't review the film and dismissing anyone who might be critical of the film as "elites": "In short, the cultural elites who decry how conservatives live in a 'post-truth era' have sought to bury the truth about the abortion industry. Those factories of death are an important part of the liberal base, and for them, protecting abortion on demand is defending the essence of their cultural movement."
And just like right-wing activists made alleged lack of coverage of the Gosnell trial an issue, McAleer and Co. -- and the MRC -- are going the conspiracy route on the "Gosnell" film by blaming lack of media coverage of its polemic for its poor performance. An Oct. 22 CNS article by Emily Ward toutted how McAleer and McElhinney are attacking the National Society of Film Critics for purportedly conspiring against the film by not reviewing it. Ward gave no indication she contacted the National Society of Film Critics for a response that would have given her article balance.
(Ward also highlighted a right-wing media report about how "many movie theaters dropped the film in spite of clear interest from audiences" --never mind the fact that a film's opening week is typically the widest theater distribution a film sees and theaters drop it as interest wanes.)
Hays followed in kind in an Oct. 29 MRC post that simply repeats "a press release from the producers" of the film railing that the New York Times for not only not reviewing the film but denying it had been provided to the paper for review. "McElhinney and McAleer did not back down and insisted that this statement was a lie," Hays wrote, but he did not cite any documented proof the producers provided to substantiate their claim. Hays also apparently did not contact the Times for their side of the story.
Meanwhile, over at the MRC's "news" division CNSNews.com, Craig Bannister tried to spin the film's middling opening-weekend performance, where it placed 12th, by highlight that it was "breaking into the top 10 on Sunday." He also touted its Rotten Tomatoes viewer ratings.
CNS published a column by Sam Sorbo -- whose claim to fame is being married to a celebrity, onetime "Hercules" Kevin Sorbo -- repeating the right-wing line that Gosnell's trial was suppressed by the "main stream media' and parrots the movie's propaganstic message: "Let us only hope the movie succeeds as well as the media’s attempt to quash its lessons: Abortion kills, all the time, and the left’s concern for minorities directly corresponds to its financial benefit."
It also published a column by Grazie Chrstie of the Catholic Association -- a conservative group that monitors coverage of Catholicism in the media -- also staying on message, declaring that "The movie poses this question for a caring society: Should not abortion clinics be regulated more, not less, rigorously than manicure parlors?"
WND Columnist Is Sad Hitler Ruined The Idea of Nationalism Topic: WorldNetDaily
Rich Logis spends his Oct. 25 WorldNetDaily column being sad that Hitler ruined the idea of nationalism, meaning that liberals have a leg to stand on when criticizing President Trump's invocation of nationalism as his policy. He also throws in some right-wing hooey about Hitler being a Marxist:
Most Democrats who besmirch America First voters as Nazis have not a clue that Nazi is shorthand for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, which Wikipedia categories as “far-right.” Impugning Republicans and conservatives as Nazis is, of course, nothing new. Difference is with Trump, though, none of the lying opprobrium spewed by Democrats, the DMIC ["Democrat Media Industrial Complex"] and Never Trumper acolytes sticks. In fact, the more the lie is told, the bigger its untruth manifests itself to sensible Americans with working cognition. Hell, even the foreign minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran – that bastion of peace, prosperity, freedom and free markets – showed himself to be loyal to the Democrats, DMIC and Never Trumpers when he admonished the U.S. for her “Nazi disposition” under Trump.
No Republican before Trump would have lasted in the Third Reich-ian wilderness as long as he has, and that’s because history – truthful history – is on his, and we supporters’, side. Hitler didn’t invent nationalism; he adulterated and co-opted it.
Can we use Trump’s remark as an opportunity to once and for all lay to rest the falsehood that the Allies in World War 2 fought, sacrificed and died to defeat nationalism? World War 2, at its epicenter core, was a turf war between Hitler and Stalin – two Leninist/Marxist dictators.
The Allies – totaling 17 nations (including ourselves) – warred against the progeny of Leninism, Marxism and Mussolini’s authoritarian fascism; fascism is ultra-nationalism that was also the basis for Japan’s aggression in the war. Yes, we had to side with Stalin; he wanted only the Eastern European bloc, whereas Hitler wanted most of Europe and parts of Africa. Extreme collectivism forces good and just nations to pick the best of the worst choices.
The talking point of Democrats that nationalism leads to war and imperialism is correct in the context of the history of the Axis powers during World War 2. In Trump’s case, he hasn’t remotely looked like a pro-unnecessary-war president, and as a candidate, he promised war would be our last resort.
The worst part of this mindlessness is how the Democrats, DMIC and Never Trumpers whitewash the actual horrors of Nazism, as well as all the other tyrannical, murderous -isms, by constantly parroting the smear like a ventriloquist and his dummy puppet; ditto for the incessant accusations of “racism.” This is their version of tearing down inanimate objects known as “statues.”
I doubt Hitler would agree with the Democrats’, DMIC’s and Never Trumper’s definition of “Hitlerian.”
Also, Logis' link for the claim that Democrats "whitewash the actual horrors of Nazism" is to an article detailing how MSNBC host Joe Scarborough drew parallels between Trump and Hitler. That's not whitewashing Hitler; it's an opinion about where the U.S. could be headed if Trump continues unchecked.
Logis concluded by ranting: "The future isn’t Republican versus Democrat; it’s nationalism versus Americanized Leninism. America First patriots versus increasingly useful – and violent – useful idiots.
At The MRC, Conservatives Are Always Right, And Liberals Are Always 'Discredited' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center likes to pretend that the conservative position on a given issue is de facto the correct one and that merely repeating it equates to a debunking or discrediting of an alternative view.
So we see with the MRC's attacks on news and commentary about voter suppression tactics allegedly being used in Georgia under Republican Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who's running for governor and arguably has an interest in suppressing potential votes for his opponent.
For instance, an Oct. 12 post by Brad Wilmouth groused that "a number of shows on both CNN and MSNBC have pushed claims by Democrats that Georgia Republicans are engaging in "voter suppression" targeted at black voters," huffing that they "did not bother to inform viewers that the voters affected can resolve the issue on Election Day or at least cast provisional ballots so that the matter will not prohibit them from voting."
Wilmouth groused further in an Oct. 15 post that "several MSNBC shows threw around charges of racism by Georgia Republicans as the liberal news network continued hyping the story of 53,000 new voter registrations being held in a "pending" status until those voters verify their information. Even though verification should be simple for most to do on Election Day, MSNBC hosts and contributors repeatedly made charges of racism by Republicans across several shows." He further huffed: "The fact that the registrations can be fixed when voters show up on Election Day was usually buried well into the segments, and, like previous coverage of the story from Thursday and early Friday, it was not mentioned that the reason a disproportionate number of minorities were affected was allegedly because a limited number of liberal groups that focused on registering minorities had completed forms incorrectly."
Wilmouth never explained why these voters must wait until Election Day to "fix" their registrations when other voters do not have to do so.
An Oct. 18 post by Nicholas Fondacaro whined that the "liberal media" was "trying to scare its base to the polls, they were really working hard to paint the GOP as racist bogeymen" by referencing the voter suppression charges, such as voter applications being denied due to an "exact match" law, and complained that CBS "parroted Democratic talking points, asserting the GOP was purging the voter rolls in Georgia of minorities." Fondacaro retorted by parroting Republican talking points:
There was seemingly little research done into what the law actually did since [correspondent Nancy] Cordes was clearly relying on things “Democrats say.” “Kemp's campaign declined our request for an interview, but on Fox News, he insisted ‘exact match’ won't prevent people from casting their ballots... Election experts say the policy could still cause confusion.
Clearly, there were stop gaps and efforts to protect people who were registered. And regarding those 53,000 voters, Cordes was worried for, reporting by The [Atlanta Journal Constitution] stated “can cast a ballot if they show a government photo ID that substantially matches the registration application.”
And if they didn’t have one of the six forms of acceptable ID (“a state driver’s license, a state or federal ID card, a valid employee ID from any government agency, a U.S. passport, a U.S. military ID or a tribal photo ID”), they can still fill out a provisional ballot.
The next day, Wilmouth served up more talking points, bashing CNN's Don Lemon for having "engaged in "voter suppression" against black voters without mentioning key parts of the Republican side of the argument." Wilmouth declared that "Not mentioned on either night was Kemp's charge that the New Georgia Project, founded by Democratic nominee [Stacey] Abrams, which disproportionately registers minority voters, has a history of sloppily handling new voter registrations."
On Oct. 22, Wilmouth harped again about "'sloppy' forms being presented by a liberal voter registration group founded by Democratic nominee Abrams which disproportionately concentrated on registering minorities."
Over the past few weeks, the broadcast networks -- and especially CNN and MSNBC -- have promoted claims by Democrats that thousands of minority voters in Georgia have been discriminated against because at least 53,000 new voter registrations were put on hold as "pending" until mistakes could be corrected.
But those same networks have ignored recent revelations about why those applications were put on hold in the first place that discredit claims of racial discrimination.
But, earlier this week, both The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and conservative activist Erick Erickson have written up details of why many of the applications were put on hold. The bulk of the rejections -- about 39,000 -- did not contain proper Social Security numbers as required. And significant numbers of other applications on the list included 17-year-olds who had not yet turned 18, new American citizens who needed to prove their citizenship, applications with apparently made up names or improper addresses, and duplicates.
Wilmouth didn't mention that the Journal-Constitution article also pointed out that government databases aren't integrated and that "Inconsistencies appear to be common among voting records, creating the possibility that discrepancies could result in registrations being placed on hold, said Burrell Ellis, the political director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia," who cited his own experience of his name appearing differently in an online voter database and on his precinct card. The Journal-Constitution also cited another example of a man whose legal name is "Willie" being put on the pending list because government records changed his name to "William."
So it's not entirely true that faulty registrations are the sole issue, and it's not entirely false to claim that the "exact match" law is a little on the picky side. Yet Wilmouth insists that any questioning of the voter registration system in Georgia is "discredited."
And on Oct. 31, Wilmouth whined that "MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell gave former Virginia Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe an unchallenged forum to repeat discredited claims that Georgia Republicans have engaged in "voter suppression" targeting African American voters" and that ", McAuliffe repeated the discredited suggestion that about 50,000 voter registration applications were put on "pending" status because of picky 'exact match' issues." His link on the word "discredited"? His Oct. 26 piece that censors any information critical of how the "exact match" law was being implemented due to inconsistencies and inaccuracies in records.
And that's how the conservative argument becomes correct and the non-conservative argument becomes "discredited" at the MRC.
Serial Defamer Klayman Sues NY Times for Allegedly Defaming Joe Arpaio Topic: WorldNetDaily
Larry Klayman writes in his Oct. 19 WorldNetDaily column, headlined "Sheriff Joe and I take on libelous N.Y. Times":
Last Wednesday, on behalf of “America’s Toughest Sheriff,” my friend and client Joe Arpaio, I filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the New York Times and its editorial board member Michelle Cottle for defamation per se, tortious interference with prospective business advantage and false light.
The complaint can be found at www.freedomwatchusa.org and was filed as part of Freedom Watch’s Leftist Media Strike Force, which seeks to hold the dishonest and unhinged “fake news” left and other irresponsible and lawless publications accountable to the rule of law.
The filing of this complaint was reported by every major publication in the nation if not the world, with the exception of – you guessed it – the New York Times, whose tag line and motto should now be “all the fake news that isn’t fit to print.” Obviously, the Times, stung by our damage claim for over $147,500,000, felt it prudent to shut up for once! That is because few if any conservatives who have been trashed and their lives ruined by this despicable leftist rag previously had the guts, save for the good sheriff and me, to take it on frontally.
According to the brief Klayman filed, he never actually demonstrates that anything the Times wrote about Arpaio is, in fact, "false and defamatory." Instead, he claims Arpaio suffered "defamation per se " and declares that "As defamation per se, damage to Plaintiff Arpaio is presumed as a matter of law." The "tortious interference with prospective business advantage" stuff refers to Klayman's statement that Arpaio is planning to run in 2020 for the Senate seat formerly held by the late John McCain.
Of course, the idea of Klayman accusing someone else of libel is highly ironic, since he has spent so much time hurling libelous claims himself. We'venotedKlayman'sObama derangement over the years, which includes maliciously defamatory epithets like "mullah-in-chief, "Islamic mole," "traitor," "it is indeed more than likely that he pledges his allegiance to Allah," and "the most disloyal, anti-American, pro-Muslim, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, socialistic and destructive president in our country’s brief history."
If Klayman thinks Arpaio has a case against the Times, then Obama definitely has a case against Klayman.
(P.S. Remember when Klayman threatened to sue us for telling the truth about him? That lawsuit never happened, presumably because even a shoddy lawyer like Klayman understands that truth is an absolute defense.)
CNS Privileges Trump's Lie About Pre-Existing Conditions Topic: CNSNews.com
Craig Bannister was in full Trump stenography mode in an Oct. 18 CNSNews.com blog post:
President Donald Trump is slamming claims by Democrats like Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that Republicans want to eliminate health care coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.
Trump promised that, not only does he totally support pre-existing condition coverage, but all other Republicans do, too – or, they will, when he gets through with them:
“All Republicans support people with pre-existing conditions, and if they don’t, they will after I speak to them. I am in total support. Also, Democrats will destroy your Medicare, and I will keep it healthy and well.”
In fact, Republicans do want to eliminate health care coverage for those with pre-existing conditions -- something Bannister refused to report.
The biggest example of this is the lawsuit pushed by attorneys general in 20 states, all of them Republican, aimed at abolishing Obamacare -- thus also abolishing coverage for those with pre-existing conditions. Congressional Republicans also voted down a measure to elimiate short-term health plans that don't cover pre-existing conditions.
Further, Trump's own actions -- including reufsing to let Justice Department defend against the GOP attorneys general's lawsuit and the fact that one of the things he ran on was abolishing Obamacare -- show he's not really serious about preserving pre-existing condition coverage.
In other words, Trump is lying. And Bannister won't tell you he's lying.
When it comes to publishing lies and bogus claims, Bannister is having a verybad month. Poor guy.
WND's Farah Blames 'The Dark Angel' -- Not Himself -- For His Book Tribulations Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah knows who to blame for difficulties in writing and publishing his new Bible-related book, and it is most definitely not Joseph Farah. He writes in his Oct. 18 column:
I’ve seen some dark places in the course of my life, the kinds of challenges that leave little doubt about the existence of an evil adversary.
Thankfully, those experiences have not characterized my life.
In fact, I have never seen anything quite like the last two years – since I began writing my newest book, “The Gospel in Every Book of the Old Testament,” which officially begins shipping today from the WND Superstore and soon Amazon and bookstores throughout America.
There were days when I doubted it would ever happen.
There were days when I cried like a baby because nothing that was supposed to happen did.
I can’t even blame Google and Facebook for this. I can only blame the Dark Angel.
The good news is it’s finished.
The most important, substantive and meaningful project I have ever been involved in over my lifetime is completed – except for the promotional work.
I can’t wait for those of you interested in it to see it.
First, we would argue that Farah spendingeightyears trying to delegitimize a duly elected president by repeatedly insisting he was not born in the United States and deliberately censoring all the evidence discrediting that claim -- not to mention refusing to even admit that Barack Obama was president of the United States -- demonstrates that he is a man who is, in fact, operating from a very dark place that characterizes his life.
Second: Farah seems to have taken our advice to do a modest launch of his book commesurate with WND's current resources. You might recall that earlier this year Farah was begging for $200,000 -- later upped to $400,000 without explanation -- to do a massive first printing of 100,000 copies of his book, citing interest from the Billy Graham Library and the Museum of the Bible. Farah even set up a way to make tax-deductible contributions to support the book through a murky deal with a ministry called Gospel for All Nations.
Farah and WND never told us how successful that campaign was -- they simply stopped soliciting for it, which tells us it was decidedly less than successful and that it raised nowhere near the money being sought. The support for a massive first printing appears never to have been there in the first place; at this writing, Farah's book is ranked No. 10,138 at Amazon, and even when the category is ridiculously narrowly defined -- in this case, three catetories relating to Old Testament Bible studies -- it ranks no higher than 20th.
As far as Farah blaming "the Dark Angel" for his tribulations, he once again overlooks himself. It seems Farah took his eye off the ball, focusing on writing his book as WND's finances imploded, forcing him to do a hasty begging campaign at the start of the year and another one this summer. And, as usual, there's no acknowledgment of how WND's editorial policies of conspiracy-mongering and fake news played a major role in destroying his company.
P.S. We couldn't help but notice the self-aggrandizing bio of Farah on the Amazon page for the book: "Joseph Farah is the author, co-author or collaborator on more than a dozen books that have sold millions of copies." The vast majority of those "millions of copies" are due to one book: "See, I Told You So," which he ghost-wrote for Rush Limbaugh. Books under his own name have never sold anywhere near as well.