CNS Sends Interns To Pester Members of Congress Again Topic: CNSNews.com
It's a time-honoredtradition at CNS: Send its summer interns out to pester members of Congress with the resume-padding busywork of a quasi-loaded question. And, thus, CNS' interns spent late June hounding congressfolk with the highly scripted, pro-Trump-biased question: “Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution says the president ‘shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.’ Do you think that the president has a constitutional duty to enforce the immigration laws on the books?”
CNS got a whopping 14 articles out of this schtick by our count, one for each congressperson they cornered on the question:
There's little actual news value here. Part of the point of this exercise is get the intern some resume material in the form of being able to say they asked a member of Congress a question. That can be helpful -- look at where it got former intern Sam Dorman. But it's a gotcha exercise too; any congressperson who fails to give the conservatively correct answer will be pilloried at CNS, with the hope of blowing up the incident into the larger conservative media (and the intern can get partial credit for that too).
It also, however, reinforces the idea that CNS is less and less about reporting the news and more and more about crafting right-wing propaganda.
NEW ARTICLE: The MRC Suffers From Acosta Derangement Syndrome Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center just can't stop spewing hatred and venom at the CNN correspondent for the offense of failing to be a pro-Trump shill. Read more >>
WND's Peterson Takes His White-Supremacist Schtick To A Whole New Level Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've documented how WorldNetDaily columnist Jesse Lee Peterson loves to sound like a white supremacist while hiding behind his privilege as a black conservative to avoid facing any consequences for his extreme rhetoric. Since he faces no consequences, he took the white-supremacist schtick up to 11 in his July 7 column:
One man, President Donald Trump, is restoring America to its original greatness. God bless America, and God bless the Great White Hope, President Trump! With this year’s Salute to America on Independence Day in the nation’s capital, it’s finally clear that America is back!
I am 70 years old. I have not seen such an inspiring patriotic celebration since I was a kid. The president’s speech, and the event that he put together for the Fourth of July, expressed his pure love for our country.
I have noticed that no other group of people in the United States truly loves America as a whole like white people do. While growing up on the plantation, and throughout my life, I’ve watched white people proudly honor the country with visible displays of affection and respect. They support freedom, independence, true justice (not fake “social justice”), and adherence to our laws and Constitution like no one else. They work hard, create businesses, jobs and inventions, and – right or wrong – share these opportunities with others, and selflessly support others’ rights. President Trump is a perfect example of this love.
I wondered why it is that white people love the country so much, while blind people of color don’t share an appreciation for their opportunities. I realized that it’s because white men founded and built America, the greatest country on earth. Everybody and their mama want to come here – we can’t even keep the illegals out! But once they’re here, whether by choice or by force, they turn on the country and the white people who allowed them to be here. Nowadays, only whites have it in them to love and preserve America.
Last year, I declared July to be White History Month. Doesn’t July just feel white? It’s because of white people that we have Independence Day in America. In this country, we have the ridiculous “Black History Month” for so-called “African Americans” who don’t feel like they’re part of America. Homosexuals get two separate months! One celebrates so-called “Pride” and the other “LGBT history,” as if there’s anything good about homosexuality, transgenderism or any of that crap. Why not White History Month? Decent whites are hated – for no reason – by the people of color andchildren of the lie.
This is why I want white people to marry and make white babies. I call on all people of good will to appreciate white people. If we lose whites as a majority, we lose America.
All his greatest hits are there -- calling Trump the "Great White Hope" while igoring the racist history of the phrase , the gratuitous anti-LGBT smear, the hatred of his own race.
If David Duke said this, he would be treated like the white supremacist he is. Peterson is simply mimicking Duke -- and making himself look like a clown. But that sort of thing apparently goes over well at WND.
Even The MRC Can't Make A Decent Case For The Laffer Curve Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center intern Joseph Valle complains in a June 20 post:
President Donald Trump infuriated the left again on June 19, when he awarded supply-side economist Arthur Laffer the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
The left’s reaction was predictably vicious. An MSNBC analyst called Laffer one of the most “destructive forces” in economics since Herbert Hoover. New York Magazine writer Jonathan Chait minced no words about his anger over Laffer’s award ceremony, calling him a “kook” elevated to “metaphysical status” within the Republican Party. He ridiculed Laffer’s theory as “provably untrue” and based on a “fake curve.”
Laffer was an economic adviser for President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and developed his namesake Laffer Curve in 1974 describing the relationship between tax rates and total tax revenue. Laffer has been a proponent of tax cuts to stimulate the economy and advised Trump to pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. He’s also co-author of the book Trumponomics with fellow free-market economist Stephen Moore.
“Economists do not take Laffer’s claims seriously,” Chait sneered for NY Mag. Conservative economists would disagree with that claim, but the liberal media rarely give them the opportunity.
Oddly, neither did Valle -- at no point does he cite a conservative economist defending the Laffer Curve. Even the Investopedia explainer of the concept to which Valle links pointed out that "There are some fundamental problems with the Laffer Curve — notably that it is far too simplistic in its assumptions," and that "policy makers would be in practice unable to observe the shape of the Laffer Curve, the location of T* [the optimal tax level], whether multiple T*’s exist, or whether and how the Laffer Curve might shift over time."
Valle further undermined his case by citing conservative Noah Rothman pointing out that the Laffer Curve had "a lot against it over the years" -- making him sound not all that different from Chait (though Rothman went on to blame entitlement programs for federal deficit issues, like a good conservative).
If Valle can't even make a good case for the Laffer Curve while defending Laffer, that's probably a sign that no good case can be made.
Finally, Valle is silent on Laffer's flattery of Trump in the form of co-authoring a book on "Trumponomics" as a possible, if not likely, reason Laffer received his award from a vainglorious president (not to mention Moore's ill-fated nomination to the Federal Reserve board).
Instead, Jones actually includes Castro's full, lengthy answer, in which it's shown that remark is taken out of context because Castro was making a larger point about the perpetrators of crime not necessarily being defined by wealth or ethnicity:
Let me begin to answer that question by saying, look, all of us know as human beings that regardless of circumstance, whether people are rich, or poor, no matter the color of their skin, what their background is, that people commit crime. Crime happens.
Despite the headline, Jones' real purpose was to attack Castro for failing to hate illegal immigrants the way she does, since the question was framed as coming from "a woman who said an illegal immigrant stole her Social Security Number" and Jones was determined to suggest that all illegal immigrants are hardened criminals.
Jones huffed at the end in defense of her hero: "President Trump continually rails against 'open-borders Democrats' in Congress who refuse to fix the nation's broken immigration laws."
Between the headline and the story itself, Castro was victimized by two different types of media bias from CNS.
MRC Mad At Jon Stewart For Insulting McConnell Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center can't refrain from attacking a perceived enemy even when that person is acting on behalf of a good cause. Aiden Jackson complains in a June 18 post:
Everyone appreciates when a meddling celebrity with little understanding of governmental operations tells members of Congress how to do their jobs, sarcasm intended. This rings especially true when the member of Congress they are criticizing is a Republican. Nevertheless, Jon Stewart continued his endless attacks on Mitch McConnell during a guest appearance on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert Monday night.
Although pursuing a noble goal of securing compensation for the first responders of the 9/11 terrorist attack, it seems it is Stewart who is making the situation as politically charged as possible for no apparent reason by attacking Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. In responding to a video of McConnell calling Stewart “bent out of shape,” Stewart bemoaned:
No! No! No! No, Mitch McConnell, I'm not bent out of shape… Basically, we're saying, ‘You love the 9/11 community when they serve your political purposes, but when they are in urgent need, you slow walk, you dither, you use it as a political pawn to get other things you want, and you don't get the job done completely.
To suggest a person only cares about the victims of a terrorist attack when it suits their needs politically is a typically vicious claim coming from a liberal comedian. Especially when there is evidence to the contrary, neither McConnell nor any other sitting member of Congress has presented a barrier to passing the Never Forget Our Heroes Act.
The fact of the matter is, the Never Forget Our Heroes Act was never in danger of losing funding. Especially considering it has been renewed many times over in the past.
Jackson is simply parroting what McConnell himself has said -- which, of course, ignores the point Stewart was making: If the funding is so uncontroversial, there's no reason to wait until the last minute to approve it. If the funding "has been renewed many times over in the past," there's no reason to wait for it to get approved again. And there is some urgency, given that the fund is starting to run short of funds.
Stewart eventually got results -- McConnell will reportedly meet with 9/11 responder survivors, and he said a vote on the issue is upcoming. It's unlikely, of course, that Jackson will ever give Stewart for that because he's more angry that a Republican politician was insulted in the public square.
Fake News: WND Uncritically Pushes Obama 'Shadow Government' Conspiracy Theory From Trump's Attorney Topic: WorldNetDaily
An anonymously written June 25 WorldNetDaily article breathlessly asserts:
Yet another major Obama administration scandal has been uncovered.
This one centered on then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper leaking classified information that endangered national security “in an attempt to undermine President Trump,” according to the American Center for Law and Justice.
ACLJ’s Jay Sekulow said Clapper changed policy to make it easier to share intercepted information among intelligence agencies, according to documents obtained through several Freedom of Information Act lawsuits against the ODNI and the National Security Agency.
They revealed that Clapper, in the latter days of his tenure as ODNI, “rushed” put new procedures in place.
“The documents also reveal that ODNI’s Robert Litt told Office of the Undersecretary of Defenses’ Director of Intelligence Strategy, Policy, & Integration (and also USDI’s Liaison to ODNI): ‘Really want to get this done … and so does the Boss.”
The documents show the plan was approved by Clapper and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
“It was not immediately clear just how significant these revelations were. Now we know,” ACLJ said.
“Consider what we now know about the nature and degree of Deep State opposition to President Trump. With the public revelations about the infamous disgrace known as the Steele dossier, FISA abuse and the underpinnings of Crossfire Hurricane, as well as former-DNI James Clapper’s open hostility to President Trump and intentional leaking by senior law enforcement and intelligence actors – all of which appears to show a coordinated effort across agencies to oppose the Trump administration – the picture is coming into focus,” ACLJ said.
Except -- as with a lot of things WND publishes -- that's not exactly true. We'll let Wonkette explain what WND won't:
Here's the back story. In July 2008, outgoing President Bush modified a 2004 executive order (which was itself a modification of a 1981 EO signed by Ronald Reagan) on intelligence sharing. The new executive order made it easier for the National Security Agency (NSA), to share the vast quantities of data it was collecting with other members of the intelligence community (IC), particularly the CIA and FBI. Reasonable people can argue, as Edward Snowden did, that the NSA is amassing dangerous amounts of data and needs to be reined in. But after 9-11, the IC was roundly blamed for failing to share information that might have prevented the attacks. So George W. Bush, a Republican, ordered the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Defense to put their heads together and come up with some procedures for intelligence sharing between the agencies. These are the procedures Jay Sekulow is pretending were instituted to enable the DEEP STATE to spy on Donald Trump.
Which makes no goddamn sense, but HEY HELLO have you seen this email from Office of the DNI's General Counsel Robert Litt saying, "Really, really want to get this done ... and so does the Boss"? What if you knew that SOMEONE sent an email saying, "We could have a signature from the AG as early as this week, certainly prior to the 20th Jan?" Would you then be convinced that these plans which had been in the work for eight years were part of a sinister plot to tapp Trump's fraying, orange wires?
Check out the 26 pages of procedures for unaccountability to provide "classified information" to those "bureaucrats" at the FBI and CIA who have satisfied legally binding criteria establishing their need for it and undergone extensive training on how to keep it secure. Pretty nefarious of James Clapper and Loretta Lynch to want to get this signed before leaving office, huh Jay?
Moreover, as Marcy Wheeler points out, Trump could have rescinded that executive order any time in the past two-and-a-half years if he thought it was a license to spy on him. But he didn't give a damn until his lawyer managed to cherry-pick three pages from a document dump -- uploading them as three, separate PDFs with zero context is a nice touch -- and launched himself into a rant about DEEP STATE OBAMA FBI CONSPIRACY ARGLEBARGLE HENGHHHHHH.
And WND forgets to inform its dwindling reader base that Sekulow is also wearing the hat of Trump's attorney, which makes the validity of the claims -- which WND could not be bothered to verify -- even more suspect.
Burt why let the truth get in the way of a good conspiracy theory, right, WND?
New Book Sends MRC's Acosta Derangement Syndrome Into The Stratosphere Topic: Media Research Center
CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta's new book, "The Enemy of the People," was sure to set the Media Research Center's already highlevels of Acosta Derangement Syndrome into the stratosphere, and darn it if that isn't exactly what happened.
Tim Graham kicked off the MRC's Acosta book attack with a May 29 post complaining that Acosta used anonymous sources to back up assertions about Trump: "This is exactly the kind of anonymous sourcing that's irresponsible, just protecting someone taking a pot shot. Did either of these sources -- or it could be the same person -- work for President Obama? That would color the quote, wouldn't it? " Of course, the MRC doesinvoke anonymous sources when it serves its right-wing agenda to do so (and to attack Acosta).
On June 9, as we've noted, Nicholas Fondacaro actually agreed with Acosta that the media are not the "enemy of the people" before his ADS kicked in and he huffed about a "vomit-inducing interview" he did to promote the book.
Graham returned to sneer in a June 11 post after Acosta said in another interview that "I have never witnessed a concerted effort by any news organization to take a stand one way or the other on a political issue, to damage one particular party or help another," retorting in response: "This is about as plausible as saying 'I have never witnessed any person eating a hamburger.'"
Graham served up more mocking a couple days later and was too busy sneering at Acosta for serving up "bipartisan-unity talk" to fully acknowledge that Acosta was being interviewed by a conservative, Hugh Hewitt. He sneered that Acosta's worry about President Trump's repeated attacks on the media endandering journalisdts is just a "tale" and adding: "Yes, when you think of unifying people -- the kind that want to grab a Coke bottle and teach the world to sing in perfect harmony -- it's not Jim Acosta. If you wonder why Acosta doesn't sound like this on CNN, the answer is simple. CNN isn't television for Republicans. It's Resistance TV."
CNN chief White House correspondent and cartoonishly self-centered Jim Acosta released on Tuesday his 354-page work of narcissism, The Enemy of the People: A Dangerous Time to Tell the Truth in America. And, folks, it’s everything you thought it would be and then some.
From defending his showboating to admitting that he’s at times belligerent on purpose to conceding that fellow journalists loathe him, Acosta’s conceited argle bargle showcased Acosta at its worst and the dangers of the liberal media’s belief that the First Amendment only concerns them, neglecting how it also gives Americans the right to chant “CNN sucks.”
So, without any further adieu, check out this Notable Quotable-style package of quotes. And with 96 Post-It notes in the book obtained by NewsBusters, the following only represents a sampling of the nonsense.
In other words, you’re welcome, America.
Yes, Houck did link to a photo from his personal Twitter account showing how many sticky notes he put in Acosta's book while "reading" it.
Houck toned things down just a bit for a post the next day in which he proclaimed that Acosta was a "narcissistic Looney Tune" and included more samples from the book, whining at one point that "On pages 14 and 15 in his 354-page screed, Acosta dithered away for seven paragraphs about how he was incensed that, on the eve of the 2016 election, then-candidate Donald Trump 'refused the time-honored tradition for a presidential candidate of posing in front of the plane for a photo with journalists covering his or here campaign.'"
It seems that if anyone's acting cartoonish here, it's Houck in his way-over-the-top hate for Acosta. Does the MRC pay him by the gallon of bile he spews?
Interesting, that last Houck post was the last time the MRC has devoted a post to Acosta, about his book or him in general. Has it finally realized how ridiculous it has looked with its obsessive Acosta-hate?
Where Are They Now? CNS' 'Protester' Intern Now Writes for Fox News Topic: CNSNews.com
You might remember a few years back that a CNSNews.com intern named Sam Dorman got a bit of attention for asking a anti-abortion gotcha question to Nancy Pelosi that piqued her anger, then stoked right-wing outrage about being described as a "anti-abortion protester" over the question and demanded that he be acknowledged as "a credentialed member of the press" (though he later admitted that his question was designed to provoke hostility toward him). The folks who run CNS, the Media Research Center, then tried to raise money over the manufactured controversy, which told us that the question was, in fact, an act of protest.
Well, it appears Donman has managed to parlay that incident into a career: he's now a reporter for Fox News, which like CNS has similarly blurry lines between reporting and advocacy.
Much of his output is the usual right-wing stenography that woldn't look out of place at CNS; typical is a July 3 piece headlined "Ilhan Omar promotes ex-Hillary aide's unhinged anti-Trump attacks." He also penned a Jun 12 piece falsely privileging "Dr. Alveda King," ignoring the fact that her doctorate is honorary and not earned.
It appears that the MRC granted Dorman an entry into right-wing journalism by helping him manufacture a controversy, and he has exploited that to further his own career. Congratulations, or something.
Friday’s New York Times showed the paper again trying to falsely link the publicly harmful anti-vaccination movement to political conservatism. Reporters Julie Bosman, Patricia Mazzei, and Dan Levin drew the strands together for “Celebrities, Conservatives and Immigrants in Disparate Groups of Skeptics.”
It’s not the first time the paper has tried to falsely smear “conservatives” as the main thrust of anti-vaccine action, even though the most recent polling on the matter suggests it’s more of a left-wing cause. In fact, two “red states” often mocked as backward, Mississippi and West Virginia, are nationwide leaders in getting their children vaccinated.
Amazingly for a story whose headline blasts “conservatives” for being anti-vaccine, the first sentence features the anti-vaccine conspiracist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., of the famous uber-liberal Democrat political family.
Robert F. Kennedy, who falsely believes that vaccines cause autism, was not even identified as part of the liberal Kennedy clan, though he is the son of the late Democratic Attorney General (in the administration of his brother John) and a Democratic U.S. Senator.
At no point does Waters prove that RFK Jr. is a "liberal," despite playing guilt-by-association, as it were, by invoking the politics of his family -- in fact, the Kennedy family has distanced itself from him on the issue of vaccines -- nor does Waters link him to any anti-vaccine movement on the left. To the contrary: When RFK Jr.'s anti-vaccine activism first became known, it was right-wing outlets like WorldNetDaily and Newsmax -- not liberal outlets -- that gave him an uncritical platform. Indeed, Waters unironically illustrates his piece with a screenshot of RFK Jr. on ... Fox News in 2017, where Tucker Carlson fed him softball questions and did not challenge his anti-vaxxer beliefs.
Waters' evidence that anti-vaccine activism is "more of a left-wing cause" is a 2014 article on the right-wing Real Clear Science website sorting states with the highest vaccine exemption rates by the margin by which a presidential candidate won in 2012 -- which, of course, is an imprecise measure because it says nothing about the individual political views of those seeking exemptions. After all, while New York is considered a liberal state, this year's measles outbreak occurred mostly among unvaccinated people in an ultra-Orthodox enclave in New York City not known for liberal politics.
And, of course, Waters also forgets that the publisher of his blog posts was anti-vaxxer at one point, fearmongering that HPV vaccines like Gardasil had "dangerous" side effects and even encouraged children to have sex.
Pride Month Derangement Syndrome, Scott Lively Edition Topic: WorldNetDaily
The original goal of the LGBT movement in the 1950s was tolerance, what Dale Jennings of the Mattachine Society called “The right to be left alone.”
But exactly 50 years ago, in the Stonewall riots, homofascism was born – when the movement set its sights on replacing family-centered society with sexual anarchy. Activists’ detailed agenda was published soon after as “The 1972 Gay Rights Platform,” and they launched a united national campaign for “sexual freedom” to be recognized as a constitutional right.
Having fulfilled his globalist mission to establish “Gay Supremacy” in America, [Anthony] Kennedy recently retired from the court after (I strongly suspect) assuring that his legacy would be preserved by the nomination of his former clerk Brett Kavanaugh to fill his vacancy. (I sincerely hope I am wrong about Kavanaugh and will apologize profusely if in future cases he shows integrity in helping to reverse Kennedy’s errors.)
So here we stand in 2019, four years after Obergefell and the LGBTs instant pivot to “transgenderism” (and pedophilia), watching small children being deliberately infected with hyper-sexual transgender insanity to the applause of the entire leftist bloc, and Congress seriously debating the so-called Equality Act to criminalize Christianity in America.
Throughout this decades-long process, America has been pushed inexorably by the leftist elites through the five stages of homofascism until today celebration of all things LGBT is the norm, forced participation in “gay” culture is increasing rapidly, and punishment of dissenters is a virtual mandate of social justice in the minds of the millennials. God help us!
Can this process be reversed? I believe it can, but only if conservatives, including our presumed five-member majority on the Supreme Court, remember what it is that conservatism exists to conserve: the God-fearing, family-centered, constitutional republic our founders fought a bloody revolution to secure for us.
CNS Still Wants You To Know That 'Beto' Isn't O'Rourke's Real Name Topic: CNSNews.com
A whole back, we documented how CNSNews.com's coverage of Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke is so petty that it feels it must emphasize at every opportunity that Beto is not his given name (despite him going by that name since he was a child). That hasn't stopped.
A May 22 article by Patrick Goodenough begins: Democrat presidential hopeful Robert 'Beto' O’Rourke used the first question in a CNN town hall on Tuesday to accuse President Trump of calling immigrants 'animals' and an 'infestation,' and stating that the president tried to “ban all Muslims” from entering the U.S."
Goodenough was in an unusually fact-check-obsessed mood with this article -- unlike for, say President Trump -- for he immediately wrote afterward: "All three claims, made within minutes of the start of the CNN event in Des Moines, Iowa, have been contested. None were challenged by CNN’s moderator, Dana Bash." And when O'Rourke claimed that Trump tried to "ban all Muslims" from entering the country through executive orders, Goodenough huffed: "As CNSNews.com has reported, they apply to citizens of a small minority of Muslim-majority countries."
Susan Jones took her own shot in a May 28 article: "'Most asylum-seekers pose no threat or danger to the United States,' Robert 'Beto' O'Rourke told CBS's 'Face the Nation' on Sunday." Like Goodenoughh, she referred to O'Rourke as a "Democrat presidential candidate" -- a misuse of the word "Democratic" done when owning the libs is more important than correct grammar.
Jones also referenced "Robert "Beto" O'Rourke" in a separate May 28 article.
Craig Millward threw in as well in a June 17 article, though he got his grammar correct: "Speaking on CNN’s 'State of the Union' on Sunday, Democratic presidential candidate and former Rep. Robert Francis 'Beto' O’Rourke said he does not think the law regarding making illegal border crossings a crime should be repealed."
Shockingly, in a June 27 article, Jones let "Beto" stand without editing when quoting Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez referencing him.
MRC Adds False Attack On CNN Anchor to False Trump Defense Topic: Media Research Center
We documented how committed the Media Research Center is to a pro-Trump agenda by pushing the falsehood that President Trump saying he'd listen to a foreign government offering dirt on a political opponent is exactly the same as Democrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign paying for the Steele dossier. Joseph Chalfant regurgitated his version of the falsehood in a June 14 post:
On Friday's New Day, coverage again returned to a recent ABC News interview in which President Trump expressed a willingness to accept foreign information about political opponents. A panel of guests gathered around to spew their takes on the situation, with host Alisyn Camerota livid at Fox News and Republicans for pointing out that the Clinton campaign received dirt on Trump from Russia in 2016.
Camerota was blind to the correlation between the DNC-funded Steele dossier and the situation Trump described during his interview. Christopher Steele, a former British spy, was employed by Fusion GPS to obtain information on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. Steele used Russian sources to gather this information. The fact that it’s a crime for a foreign national to provide information of “value” to a candidate to influence an election is a violation of federal law was lost on the host:
CNN’s senior political analyst John Avlon stated that there was “no comparison” between Steele dossier and working with a “hostile foreign government.” CNN again forgot the Russian sources used for Steele’s report, as well as the fact that legally there is no difference between the two.
As we pointed out, there is very much a legal difference between the two -- the difference between paying someone to conduct opposition research in a foreign country about a candidate's connections in that country (which is what the Steele dossier was) and receiving information of dubious origin with the expectation of something in return, which is what Trump was proposing.
But Chalfant wasn't done. He added:
Co-host John Berman echoed this sentiment when he spouted: “Christopher Steele is not a country. Check the map. He is not a freaking country and Russia is.”
Berman urged the panel to move on from the topic, so Camerota helped wrap up the segment by saying this: “I think it's our job also to give people, the viewers, ways to shut it down if they are intrigued by that argument because they make it so often.” Camerota is wildly incorrect on what the function of her job is. An “objective journalist” should be striving to let the facts stand for themselves, not attempting to teach her viewers ways to debate with conservatives.
This point was emphasized under the headline "CNN's Camerota: 'It's Our Job' to Teach Viewers To 'Shut Down' Conservative Arguments."
But as we have proven, the "conservative argument" in question is false, and Camerota is right to challenge it. Chalfant is falsely putting words into Camerota's mouth, because she said nothing about the political orientation of what she was trying to "shut down."
The MRC still hasn't figured out how bad it looks to get pushing false narratives.
We've documented CNSNews.com's obsession with right-wing radio host Mark Levin (or his guests or guest hosts) and treating pretty much everything he says or does as wisdom from on high that cannot be disputed (and not at all because Brent Bozell, whose Media Research Center runs CNS, is a close buddy of Levin). That fealty has continued as usual over the past two months. Here's the breakdown:
That's 17 items in May and June. Add that to the total from the first four months of 2019, and that's a total of 60 items for the year so far.That's slightly off the 2018 pace, which saw CNS publish more than 135 Levin-stenography items.
Additionally, a article touted how President Trump tweeted "a video clip from Levin’s Sunday episode of “Life, Liberty and Levin” on Fox News Channel" attacking the Mueller report in which "the two constitutional scholars agree that the special counsel’s report is merely 'a bunch of crap.'" You know they're real "constitutional scholars" when they use scholarly terms like "a bunch of crap."
MRC Pushes A Hillary Whataboutism Lie To Deflect From Trump Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Nicholas Fondacaro and Curtis Houck did their best to play Hillary whataboutism in trying to deflect from President Trump's admission he'd take opposition research from foreign powers in a June 13 post:
President Trump made more headlines Wednesday night after he told ABC chief anchor George Stephanopoulos that he would be fine with taking “oppo research” on his 2020 opponent from foreign countries. This comment drew criticism. But during their almost two hours and 30 minutes of prime time coverage, or hair-on-fire panic, neither CNN nor MSNBC cared to mention that that’s exactly what the Clinton campaign did in 2016 with the now-infamous dossier.
While these networks spent all this time railing against President Trump, they failed to decry the Clinton campaign’s use of former British spy Christopher Steele to obtain dirt on Trump from Russian sources.
Sorry, dudes, but there's no actual equivalence between the two. The Washington Post explained:
Steele was hired by Fusion GPS to see what links might exist between Trump and Russian actors. Those connections, built during his service for the British government, were why he was valuable to Fusion GPS. It’s akin to a campaign looking to investigate an opponent’s history of real estate deals in Mexico: Hiring a Mexican firm that’s familiar with the available records would be perfectly legal, if the firm were paid with legally raised campaign contributions.
By contrast, these foreign countries would be coming to Trump unsolicitied and would presumably want something in return. Or, as Wonkette further explained:
Paying Fusion GPS -- which it should be noted again is an American company -- and therefore indirectly paying Chris Steele? Legal, because money is going out. Taking things of value from foreigns -- not just our sworn enemies, it's just that Trump likes to hang with America's sworn enemies, because let's be honest the president of the United States is America's sworn enemy? ILLEGAL. And what Russia provided Trump, which Junior clearly thought he was going to get from the Trump Tower treason meeting, but ended up coming through WikiLeaks releases, wasstolen goods.
The only way it could possibly be the same is if Hillary Clinton or the Democrats had hired foreign nationals to commit crimes. You know, like, say, for instance, hacking into their computers to steal their emails. Like Russia did for Trump.
We know Fondacaro and Houck have to forward a pro-Trump agenda as part of their job, but they don't get to lie, no matter how many times theyhave heard their fellow conservatives say the same thing. Isn't is their job to, you know, research things before publishing them?