CNS Buries News of Trump Inviting Russia To Hack Hillary's Emails Topic: CNSNews.com
You'd think a presidential candidate inviting a foreign power to hack the email accounts of Americans would be big news at CNSNews.com, which purports to care a lot about national security.
But that candidate is Republican Donald Trump, so it wasn't.
CNS' initial article on the press conference in which Trump said he wished for Russia to hack Hillary Clinton's email, by Melanie Hunter, failed to even mention that he said it. Hunter began her article instead with Trump's statement that "he never met Russian President Vladimir Putin but as president, he would rather be 'friendly' with Russia so both countries 'can go and knock out ISIS together' along with other allies."
Hunter was in stenography mode, as most CNS reporters are when writing about Trump, and therefore she couldn't be bothered to note that Trump previously claimed he has spoken "directly and indirectly" with Putin.
Patrick Goodenough featured Trump's press conference in an article the next day -- but didn't mention the hacking invitation. Instead, he touted how "One day after Republican Donald Trump warned that China and Russia 'have never been closer,' China's military announced on Thursday it will hold joint exercises with Russian forces in the South China Sea."
Goodenough wrote an accompanying article that showed him in full spin mode, claiing that "The Russian government may soon release texts of emails hacked from Hillary Clinton’s private server during her time as secretary of state, a respected geopolitical affairs publication reported last month, citing Western intelligence sources." It wasn't until the 13th paragraph of his article that he noted Trump's invitation to Russia to hack Hillary's email, then immediately noted Trump ally Newt Gingrich's baseless assertion that Trump was making a "joke."
It wasn't until a full day later that CNS gave the hacking invitation a bit more prominence, in an article by Susan Jones -- but she, like Goodenough, spun Trump's words in a way to bury the whole treasonous aspect of it:
"It's just a total deflection, this whole thing with Russia," Donald Trump told a news conference on Wednesday.
"In fact, I saw her (Hillary Clinton's) campaign manager -- I don't know his title, Mook. I saw him on television and they asked him about Russia and the (DNC) hacking. By the way, they hacked -- they probably have her 33,000 e-mails. I hope they do. They probably have her 33,000 e-mails that she lost and deleted because you'd see some beauties there."
Trump repeated several times that it may not be Russia who hacked the DNC: "Nobody even knows this, it's probably China, or it could be somebody sitting in his bed. But it shows how weak we are, it shows how disrespected we are."
After telling the news conference that Russia -- or somebody -- probably already has Hillary Clinton's deleted emails, a reporter later returned to the subject, asking Trump why he doesn't tell Russian President Vladimir Puting to stop interfering with the U.S. presidential campaign.
"I have nothing to do with Putin. I've never spoken to him. I don't know anything about him other than he will respect me. He doesn't respect our president.
"And if it is Russia -- which it's probably not, nobody knows who it is -- but if it is Russia, it's really bad for a different reason, because it shows how little respect they have for our country, when they would hack into a major party and get everything.
"But it would be interesting to see -- I will tell you this. Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let's see if that happens. That'll be next."
A short time later, Trump repeated that nobody knows if the Russians were the ones who hacked into the DNC: "You know (what) the sad thing is? That with the technology and the genius we have in this country, not in government unfortunately, but with the genius we have in government, we don't even know who took the Democratic National Committee e-mails. We don't even know who it is."
Trump also said it's not about the hackers anyway: "It was about the things that were said in those emails. They were terrible things, talking about Jewish, talking about race, talking about atheist, trying to pin labels on people -- what was said was a disgrace, and it was Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and believe me, as sure as you're sitting there, Hillary Clinton knew about it. She knew everything."
Not only did Jones failed to mention the bipartisan criticism of Trump's remarks, she referred to something she called the "Democrat National Convention."That's not a mistake -- right-wingers have maliciously switched "Democratic" for "Democrat" for years.
Jones' commitment to partisan posturing over something as basic as getting names correct tells us what a hack she is -- and the lack of journalistic seriousness of her employer.
Dear CNS: Obama is Right, World Is Less Violent Than Ever Topic: CNSNews.com
On July 21, CNSNews.com published an unbylined article headlined "Obama: ‘The World Has Never Been Less Violent’." It's another bit of lazy stenography, cribbing from a speech in which Obama said that “we are living in the most peaceful” era in human history and that “the world has never been less violent.”
The powers that be at CNS are apparently going to trot that article out every time there's a terrorist attack or some other form of mass violence. CNS put it back on the front page earlier this week following terrorist attacks in Europe and adding "FLASHBACK" to the headline, though the "flashback" was to about one week ago.
But CNS won't tell its readers that Obama is pretty much correct. The World Economic Forum reports:
Last year may be remembered for barrel bombs, beheadings and the Bataclan massacre, but according to a Harvard psychologist, a remarkable long term downward trend in violence is continuing.
Wars are far less common and deadly than in the recent past, terrorism is rare, and the European refugee crisis is nothing new, said Steven Pinker, a bestselling science author.
“The news is a systematically misleading way to understand the world,” he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation in an interview.
In the past five years alone, conflicts have ended in Chad, Peru, Iran, India, Sri Lanka and Angola, and if peace talks currently underway in Colombia are a success, war will have vanished from the Western hemisphere, he said.
In his 2011 book “The Better Angels of Our Nature,” Pinker called the decline in violence “the most significant and least appreciated development in the history of our species”.
Compared to most of the postwar period, 2015 has been relatively peaceful, and dramatically so compared with earlier centuries. However, there has been a small uptick in violent deaths around the world over the past couple of years.
Pinker expanded on his view of the downward trend in world violence in an article at Slate:
The world is not falling apart. The kinds of violence to which most people are vulnerable—homicide, rape, battering, child abuse—have been in steady decline in most of the world. Autocracy is giving way to democracy. Wars between states—by far the most destructive of all conflicts—are all but obsolete. The increase in the number and deadliness of civil wars since 2010 is circumscribed, puny in comparison with the decline that preceded it, and unlikely to escalate.
Too much of our impression of the world comes from a misleading formula of journalistic narration. Reporters give lavish coverage to gun bursts, explosions, and viral videos, oblivious to how representative they are and apparently innocent of the fact that many were contrived as journalist bait. Then come sound bites from “experts” with vested interests in maximizing the impression of mayhem: generals, politicians, security officials, moral activists. The talking heads on cable news filibuster about the event, desperately hoping to avoid dead air. Newspaper columnists instruct their readers on what emotions to feel.
There is a better way to understand the world. Commentators can brush up their history—not by rummaging through Bartlett’s for a quote from Clausewitz, but by recounting the events of the recent past that put the events of the present in an intelligible context. And they could consult the analyses of quantitative datasets on violence that are now just a few clicks away.
CNS would never do that -- it's so much easier to push its right-wing agenda with misleading information.
CNSNews.com reporter Susan Jones has a nastyhabit of injecting editorial comment into her supposedly fair and balanced "news" articles -- you know, the exact same thing her employer, the Media Research Center, loves to accuse the "liberal media" of doing. She's so biased, apparently, that she cannot admit the near-universal bipartisan consensus that Michelle Obama gave a very good speech on the first night of the Democratic National Convention.
Jones had to find a way -- presumably under orders from editors Terry Jeffrey and Michael W. Chapman -- to denigrate the speech in her article on it, which seems to explain her very odd opening paragraph:
Children who need protection. Bullies and "hateful language from public figures." A White House built by slaves. Black SUVS and big men with guns. Little faces pressed up against the window. And at the end of First lady Michelle Obama's speech, an admission that "right now, this is the greatest country on earth."
Huh? What does that even mean? Is Jones so desperate to avoid saying anything nice about Obama's speech that she emulated a word cloud to open her article on it?
Much of Jones' article did find her in stenography mode summarizing the speech, but she couldn't resist getting one more dig in, adding at the end: "On the campaign trail in 2008, Michelle Obama made waves when she said, 'For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.'"
This negative spin contrasts with Jones' effort to put a happy face on Ted Cruz's speech at the Republican National Convention, insisting that Cruz's "powerful speech" was "well-received until the very end, when it became clear he would not endorse Donald Trump."
MRC's Bozell Won't Lead By Example on Right-Wing News Standards Topic: CNSNews.com
Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell surprisingly went after the standards of the right-wing media, according to the Daily Caller:
Founder of the media watchdog group Media Research Center Brent Bozell criticized bloggers in their “underwear” who write unsubstantiated stories at 3:00 am and their effect on the rest of the media.
Commenting to the division in conservative media, “I warn my fellow conservatives about this. We are very critical of the old media for all the rules that they break. But the new media, it’s the wild, wild west. There are no rules. And in the name of journalism you’ve got websites that are projecting things that are terrible [for] journalism.”
“The first rule of journalism is that if you don’t have two independent sources, you don’t have a news story,” Bozell said. “And you look at some sites, especially bloggers, and they put forward things that occur to them at 3:00 in the morning in their underwear and then the next site picks it up because it’s interesting and if it’s not true, well they just point to the blogger.”
“You can have the guy in his underwear but if you have an independent source that confirms what he said, then you got a news story.”
“So be careful. We have to all be careful,” he said.
That's a good point, of course, and it would mean something if Bozell practices what he preaches. He doesn't.
Instead of merely spouting off on journalistic standards, Bozell could lead by example by structuring and staffing CNS to be the model of the news organization it wants to see. But judging by CNS' nearly 20 years of bias, he has no intention of ever doing that.
P.S. Wasn't just a few weeks ago that Bozell's lieutenant-slash-ghost writer, Tim Graham, was insisting that right-wing media was just as good and original as the "liberal media"? Yes, he was.
Perhaps the Media Research Center isn't quite as solidly behind Donald Trump as we thought.
The MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, was in full spin mode on Ted Cruz's poorly received speech at the Republican National Convention, in which he pointedly refused to endorse nominee Donald Trump and was booed off the stage by RNC delegates. CNS' Susan Jones spun that Cruz's "powerful speech" was "well-received until the very end, when it became clear he would not endorse Donald Trump." Jones then went into full stenography mode, summarizing the speech and not mentioning the boos again until the 21st paragraph of her article.
Jones followed up with an article reciting Cruz's defense of his speech -- which curiously omitted any criticism of it by his fellow conservatives -- and uncritically quoted Cruz blaming the media for the controversy over it.
Meanwhile, at the side of the MRC that doesn't pretend to be a "news" organization, they were going after anyone who criticized Cruz's speech -- well, anyone who wasn't a prominent conservative or who regularly appears on Fox News (Charles Krauthammer, for example). Frequent MRC target Chris Matthews got bashed again, with Scott Whitlock insisting that his "unhinged" criticism was "more about his hatred for Cruz and less about righteous indignation in how the Republican treated Donald Trump."
Conservative political analyst Nicolle Wallace (on NBC) "melodramatically ranted" about Cruz, Kyle Drennen declared. And Nicholas Fondacaro even went after a Trump surrogate (on CNN) who "couldn’t seem to control his emotions as he let loose a stream of insults towards Cruz."
This is the same MRC, by the way, that has had no comment whatsoever about CNN's ethically questionable hiring of fired Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, even though such a thing should be in the MRC's bailiwick given that CNN is part of the hated "liberal media."
Remember that MRC chief Brent Bozell endorsed Cruz and denounced Trump during the primary process, and as recently as last month was still working behind the scenes to help plot Cruz's political future. One has to wonder if MRC's Cruz defense was ordered straight from the top as a passive-aggressive needling of Trump -- and whether Cruz's RNC speech itself was at least partly the work of Bozell and his secret Cruz cabal.
CNS Buries Story of Melania Trump's Plagiarism Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com did do some original reporting on the Melania Trump plagiarism controversy, but you wouldn't know it from looking at the CNS front page.
The headline on Susan Jones' story reads "Melania Trump: 'Our Country Is Underperforming'" and it begins with sycophantic slobbering over the speech:
In her well-received speech to the Republican National Convention Monday night, Melania Trump promised that the presidential race "will be hard fought all the way to November. There will be good times and hard times and unexpected turns. It would not be a Trump contest without excitement and drama," she added with a smile.
It's not until the second paragraph that Jones got around to noting that "The drama exploded shortly after Mrs. Trump left the stage, as accusations of plagiarism swirled around two passages in her speech, copied almost word for word from a speech delivered to the Democratic National Convention in 2008 by Michelle Obama."
But after noting that "Those similarities, played side-by-side on televisions across America on Tuesday morning, are noted below," Jones returned to stenography mode, explaining how "the heart of Melania's speech centered on her husband's love of family and country -- and how he will deliver the change that he says the country needs."
That was apparently more important to Jones than the details of Melania's apparent plagiarism, complete with a quote from the Trump campaign that avoided addressing the issue at hand.
Later, an update was added to the top of Jones' article in italics that uncritically transcribed Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's nonsensical denial plagiarism took place. But the plagiarism-avoiding headline remains.
Meanwhile, over at CNS parent the Media Research Center, they're trying to dismiss the story entirely by complaining that it's being covered, calling the coverage a "feeding frenzy" and grumbling that "In contrast, ABC, CBS, NBC and FNC during these hours collectively provided a mere 1 minute, 48 seconds of coverage to Pat Smith's emotional speech condemning Hillary Clinton's inept handling of Benghazi." It took seven MRC employees to register that complaint: authors Mike Ciandella and Rich Noyes and five others doing research.
Last Week's Trump Coverage At CNS: Finally, Actual Coverage Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com finally got around to acting like the "news" organization it claims to be by finally putting Donald Trump on its front page -- something it hasavoideddoingforweeks.
CNS did runseveralwirearticles on Trump on its front page, which surprisingly focused on the actual news of the week, which mainly involved Trump's vice presidential pick. CNS also ran its first original Trump-related "news" articles since June 29, and the subjects it chose were, well, a bit odd.
In a July 11 article -- closing the 13-day gap between original CNS Trump articles -- managing editor Michael W. Chapman huffed that possible Trump VP pick Michael Flynn "supports abortion and thinks homosexual marriage is fine." The next day, Chapman dutifully reported Flynn's flip-flop and his new declaration of being “a pro-life Democrat.”
Those were followed by a July 14 article by Patrick Goodenough on new British foreign secretary and former London mayor Boris Johnson, noting that Johnson is "no fan of presumptive GOP presidential nominee Trump" but has also said mean things about Hillary Clinton as well.
CNS Writers Spread Birth Control Misinformation Topic: CNSNews.com
In his July 6 column, CNSNews.com editor Terry Jeffrey decries the Supreme Court failing to take up a right-wing favorite case in which a pharmacy in Washington state claim their religious rights have been violated because it's being punished under state law for refusing to stock the morning-after pill.
Jeffrey repeatedly calls the morning-after pill an "abortifacient" or an "abortifacient drug," and he even quotes Justice Samuel Alito referring to "abortifacient emergency contraceptives."
Just one problem: the morning-after pill is not an abortifacient under the medical definition of the word. As we've previously documented, morning-after pills like Plan B primarily work by suppressing ovulation, thus preventing fertilization.
Jeffrey quotes the right-wing groups pushing the case claiming that "the FDA has recognized" that the morning-after pill "can prevent implantation of an embryo." But research has not definitively shown that the pill works this way, but even if it did, it would not be an "abortifacient" because, medically speaking, an abortion can only take place on a implanted egg.
Plus, as many as 80 percent of a woman's fertilized eggs fail to implant naturally, which would seem to make every woman a walking "abortion" factory. Jeffrey doesn't address that little issue.
Jeffrey also uncritically repeats the right-wing activists' case that "over 30 pharmacies carry Plan B" within a five-mile radius of the pharmacy involved in the case, as well as "from nearby doctors' offices, government health centers, emergency rooms, Planned Parenthood, a toll-free hotline and the internet."
But as the Atlantic points out, the flaw with that argument is that the case would seek to invalidate the law across the state, not just the urban area where the plaintiff's pharmacy is:
In its decision, the Ninth Circuit argued that there are good reasons for Washington not to make religious exemptions to its drug-delivery rules. While the owners of Storman’s argued that they would have been happy to refer customers to other pharmacies, “Speed is particularly important considering the time-sensitive nature of emergency contraception and of many other medications,” the Ninth Circuit said. “The time taken to travel to another pharmacy, especially in rural areas where pharmacies are sparse, may reduce the efficacy of those drugs.” Customers also shouldn’t get sent somewhere else when they ask for medication, the decision said, because “referrals could lead to feelings of shame in the patient that could dissuade her from obtaining emergency contraception altogether.”
At its conceptual core, that’s what this case is about: whether religious business owners and employees should be able to refuse to provide contraceptives to women, even when state regulations require them to do so.
Jeffrey, however, wasn't the only CNS employee dispensing contraception misinformation last week. Penny Starr wrote in a July 1 article bashing "longtime abortion advocate" Carmen Barroso discussing an abortion she had that "Barroso said she got pregnant while using an abortion-inducing intra-uterine device, which failed."
No, IUDs are not "abortion-inducing." As the Atlantic again explains, IUDs work mainly by killing sperm -- which is not abortion -- and it could also possibly work by preventing implantation (it's not clear whether it acually does), but that is, again, also not abortion under the medically accepted definition.
Jeffrey and Starr would better serve the public interest it claims to provide as a "news" operation if they would report facts instead of peddling biased misinformation.
Susan Jones throws out a bunch of numbers to start her July 8 article on the latest unemployment numbers:
The civilian labor force expanded in June, adding 414,000 people, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
The number of employed people increased by 67,000 to 151,097,000 in June, but the number of unemployed people increased even more, by 347,000 to 7,783,000.
The unemployment rate ticked up two-tenths of a point to 4.9 percent.
BLS said 94,517,000 Americans were not in the labor force in June, a slight improvement from May's record 94,708,000; and after dropping for three straight months, the labor force participation rate increased a tenth of a point to 62.7 percent in June.
Note that none of the numbers she's tossing around is the really important one: number of jobs created. Taht number -- 287,000 -- doesn't get mentioned until the sixth paragraph of her article.
Jones also surprisingly undermines her and CNS' obsession with presenting the labor force participation rate as a meaningful measure of employment by admitting the large number is largely driven by retiring baby boomers:
Last month, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen told Congress the Fed is keeping a close eye on the labor force participation rate. She said she expects that rate to "continue declining in the coming years because we have an aging population."
As baby-boomers retire, "they work less," she noted, even though younger people "participate more."
People who have not actively looked for work in the previous month are not counted as participating in the labor force.
Of course, that didn't get mentioned until the ninth paragraph of the article. Jones'noting that "Yellen told Congress that 'a sign of a strengthening labor market is to see people who were discouraged brought back into the labor force'" -- which further undermines the way Jones presented her numbers -- is buried even farther down.
Last Week's Trump Coverage At CNS: Again, Mostly Stenography Topic: CNSNews.com
NOTE: Our CNS Trump coverage tally for the final week of June somehow did not get posted, so we're doing that now.
The big Donald Trump campaign news last week was his campaign emailing overseas politicians begging for donations, in apparent violation of federal election law.
Did you read about that CNSNews.com? Of course not! CNS reports only positive news about Trump and/or stenographic quoting of Trump campaign officials. To that end, this is the only Trump-related news that made the CNS front page last week:
A June 27 article by Susan Jones trying to put a positive spin on Trump's need to stay on message and not go off-script with wild rants, quoting Mitch McConnell touting how Trump is "beginning to right the ship" by using a "prepared script."
A June 28 article by Patrick Goodenough uncritically quoting a Trump campaign operative declaring that "We’re not going to base national security off PolitiFact, or even the United Nations" after fact-checking sites pointed out that Trump got something wrong yet again.
A June 28 AP article on Trump criticizing international trade.
A June 29 stenography article by Jones regurgitating a Trump speech.
CNS has madeitclear that it will avoid putting negative news about the presumptive Republican presidential nominee on its front page.
Meanwhile, what else did CNS consider front-page worthy that week? A slobbering story by Barbara Hollingsworth citing the "high praise for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas" by "his former law clerks and colleagues in the Reagan administration" on the 25th anniversary of Thomas being named a justice.
CNS Obsesses Over Hillary Emails, Ignores Trump Topic: CNSNews.com
Apparently, CNSnews.com's blanket coverage of Hillary Clinton's emails -- at least 15 original articles over four days, as we'vecounted -- made CNS reporters too exhausted to put fingers to keyboard to write anything about Donald Trump, even to perform another act of speech stenography.
The only Trump-related story that made it to CNS' front page last week was a July 5 article quoting the Trump campaign denying any anti-Semitic intent in a tweet of a image of Clinton accompanied by a six-pointed star with the words "Most corrupt candidate ever!" despite the fact that the image originated on a website with numerous offensive images on it.
This means the last time CNS did an original article on Trump was June 29, with Susan Jones serving as dutiful stenographer on a Trump speech.
Certainly Trump did nothing newsworthy in the past week -- for example, his continued defense of the offensive image -- and certainly Hillary's emails were at least 15 times more front page-worthy than anything Trump did.
CNS is a "news" organization like they claim, right? (No, they're not.)
UPDATE: So what else did CNS consider front page-worthy that week? A interview by Mark Judge of Kevin Sorbo, the ex-Hercules who's now "playing Joseph the father of Jesus in the film 'Joseph and Mary.'" This means CNS has done more original stories on Kevin Sorbo in the past week than it has on the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
More CNS Bias: 7 Articles on Comey Testimony, Zero on Trump In Past Week Topic: CNSNews.com
As we've seen, CNSNews.com can marshal its reporting resources when moved to by its right-wing agenda. CNS did so again regarding FBI director James Comey's testimony before a Republican-dominated congressional committee on Thursday. Here are the original articles CNS got out of that hearing:
All of these seven articles are based on either Comey testimony or questions asked by Republican committee members. No article even mentions there are Democratic members of Congress at the hearing, let alone quote any of the questions they asked.CNS also failed to mention how Comey debunked several right-wing talking points about Clinton's emails.
That would appear to be another violation of its mission statement that it's "a news source for individuals, news organizations and broadcasters who put a higher premium on balance than spin."
Meanwhile, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump, is still nowhere to be found on CNS' front page. The most recent original CNS article on Trump appeared more than a week ago, on June 29. CNS cannot plausibly claim Trump has done nothing newsworthy since then.
To tally it up: Including CNS' earlier selectively wall-to-wall coverage of Comey's press conference on July 5, that's at least 15 CNS articles related to Clinton's emails, but zero CNS articles on anything Trump has done in the past nine days.
Is CNS a "news" organization, or is it a Clinton attack operation? Looks like it's the latter.
CNS Columnist Rant About 'Corrupt' Supreme Court After Abortion Ruling Topic: CNSNews.com
Right-wingers had a serious temper tantrum after the Supreme Court ruling on Texas' attempt to legislate abortion clinics out of existence (also known as the Hellerstedt ruling) failed to go their way, and that extends to CNSNews.com. In fact, CNS' stable of columnists are so upset by the ruling that two of them have declare declared the court "corrupt" because their pet cause was rejected.
Lynn Wardle -- who last we saw calling gay marriage a fad just like communism -- complained that the Hellerstedt ruling "overturned decades of small, carefully-crafted pro-life inspired regulations of abortion" -- Wardle doesn't seem to consider that maybe they weren't that carefully crafted after all if their aim of incrementally outlawing abortion with these laws was so blatantly obvious -- and hurled around the C-word:
We must speak up and speak out and write often to express our dissatisfaction, disgust, outrage, and non-acceptance of the corrupt abortion rulings and the corrupt judiciary that issues them.
The abortion rulings and judicial patterns of the past forty-three years are clear indicators that something is wrong, something is broken in our federal judicial system.
The Founders of the American experiment created an independent judiciary. After forty-three years of almost unbroken pro-abortion judicial rulings, it is clear that the federal judiciary is not really independent when it comes to abortion cases and abortion issues. It is a captive agency. The question is – who owns the Supreme Court?
He was joined by birther lawyer Herbert Titus, who along with law partner William J. Olson declared that the Hellerstedt ruling was "corrupt" because, well, Clarence Thomas said so in his dissent, and asserted that the majority ruling employed "corrupt precedents,"though in both instances their definition of "corrupt" appears to mean "didn't support the views of anti-abortion activists." They also ranted that "Truly, the U.S. Supreme Court has once again uttered lawlessness masquerading as a judicial decision."
Titus and Olson then gushed of Thomas' dissent: "This brilliant dissent should be required reading for every law school student who is increasingly unexposed to reasoning from fixed principles, and instead trained in the techniques of judicial balancing — as if the latter was all that law is about."
This from two guys whose own "fixed principles" appear to involve denigrating a court for simply ruling against their personal opinions.
CNS Bias: 8 Articles on Clinton Email, Zero on Trump's Anti-Semitic Tweet Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com claims in its mission statement that it's "a news source for individuals, news organizations and broadcasters who put a higher premium on balance than spin."
That's a total lie. CNS is interested only in spin.
The latest example: CNS marshaled its team of so-called reporters to crank out a whopping eight articles in the past day or so related to the FBI not recommending charges against Hillary Clinton over her private email server:
All eight of these articles got front-page play at CNS.
By contrast, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump tweeting out an image of Hillary Clinton considered anti-Semitic got no special coverage from CNS reporters. The only attention CNS bothered to give to this issue involving its preferred presidential candidate was an lone Associated Press article that appeared on the front page.
That story, by the way, was the only mention of Trump on CNS' front page this week despite the fact that he would seem to warrant coverage equivalent to Clinton. No CNS reporter has written about Trump for nearly a week; the most recent story was a June 29 article by Susan Jones serving as dutiful stenographer on a Trump speech.
If CNS really did put "a higher premium on balance than spin," Trump's peccadilloes would get the same attention as Hillary's. But they don't making CNS' mission statement a lie.
Accuracy in Media's Benghazi kangaroo court -- er, the Citizens' Commission on Benghazi -- released its final report last week, which unsurprisingly bashed President Obama and Hillary Clinton over the Benghazi attack, as if would do anything else. Given the fact that the CCB was filled with birthers and Obama-haters, that was pretty much the only option.
AIM effectively declared its bias in the press release announcing the report: "In reality, the Benghazi attacks serve as a Rosetta stone into Barack Obama’s administration—its motives, its ideology, its transparency, its judgment and its ethics. Their actions must be put in context, and their cover-ups must be exposed."
Needless to say, AIM's report omitted any mention of former member Wayne Simmons, whom AIM scrubbed from the CCB -- and pretty much the entire AIM website -- after he was charged with fraud in connection with falsely claiming to have been a longtime CIA operative.
Apparently, it was too much for other right-wing media report the truth of the CCB, so excited were they to have a Benghazi report that, unlike the one run by Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy, engaged in a lot of Clinton-bashing just in time for the presidential campaign.
Starr's second article featured retired admiral James "Ace" Lyons bashing the Gowdy committee's report as having "copped out." Lyons has previously spread Benghazi conspiracy theories.
Starr not only failed to report on the backgrounds of the committee members, she also made sure not to mention that the disgraced Wayne Simmons was a CCB member.
then again, Starr's employer, the Media Research Center, freaked out that the Gowdy committee report failed to bash Clinton sufficiently to hang Benghazi around her head for the fall presidential campaign, so portraying the CCB as legitimate may have been an order straight from the top.