MRC Upset That Trump Was Unfavorably (Though Not Inaccurately) Described At Bush Funeral Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is so fawningly pro-Trump that it sees any criticism of him as "liberal bias." And when media commentators couldn't help but notice the difference in overall demeanor between President Trump and President George H.W. Bush at the latter's funeral, the MRC fumed.
In a Dec. 6 post hyperbolically headlined "Washington Post Rips Trump a New One Three Times at Bush Funeral," Tim Graham complains in a fit of whataboutism:
The Washington Post loves to present President Trump as boisterously snide...and quite obviously, they can't imagine anyone would apply that description to them. On Wednesday night, the Post website was boasting at least three articles ripping into Trump's behavior at the funeral, or his bad optics. This isn't a "newspaper." It's an Insult Aggregator.
Let's acknowledge the elephant in the room: the president did present a picture they could suggest was bored or cranky. He only shook hands with the Obamas. Fine. But these "reporters" -- who sound much more like editorial writers -- were trying to make Trump, not Bush, the big story. Even their Thursday headline praising the late president -- "President, patriot, gentleman" -- could be seen as another knock on the current president.
Graham went on to huff that a Post story on the funeral, in which all other living ex-presidents appeared alongside Trump, "described others in the front row...by how Trump had insulted them," grousing: "Notice the Post could have done this 'reporting' both ways....listing the insults Barack and Michelle Obama offered about Trump, the insults Bill and Hillary Clinton lobbed against Trump, and then the insults Jimmy Carter threw at Trump. But the problem is the Post deeply enjoyed anything they said."
The MRC whining continued:
P.J. Gladnick claimed: "It was a funeral for former President George H.W. Bush but all the [MSNBC] show's panel could focus on Wednesday aftenroon was Trump, Trump, Trump. Any mention of the recently deceased was only in relation to President Donald Trump." He added: "Just a reminder again to everyone that Trump was sitting there not saying anything yet his mere presence at the funeral inspired this laughable outbreak of TDS among the panelists."
Nicholas Fondacaro asserted: "They just couldn’t help themselves. During their Wednesday evening reports on the deeply touching and emotional funeral service for the late President George H.W. Bush at the National Cathedral, broadcast networks ABC, CBS, and NBC had to get in their digs against President Trump for his behavior (or lack thereof). One even touted how Trump managed to keep his mouth shut about Bush all week."
Clay Waters insisted that a New York Times article's "focus was on attacking one of the attendants: President Trump, through biased interpretation of body language and some light mind-reading."
Mark Finkelstein shot back at a commentator who argued that giving credit to Trump for not screwing up anything during the Bush funeral is "a very low bar": "God rest the soul of George H.W. Bush. But God forbid that President Trump should receive credit for according H.W. all possible honors and conducting himself with grace during the funeral service."
None of these MRC posts, by the way, dispute the accuracy of the observations made, just the fact that they were made at all.
MRC Censors Just How 'Far-Right' (And Islamophobic) Activist Banned From Twitter Is Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Corinne Weaver spent a Nov. 26 post detailing how "Twitter's war on conservative thought" claimed a couple so-called victims. The first was right-wing radio host and failed congressional candidate Jesse Kelly, who was removed for unclear reasons but was actually reinstated the day after Weaver's post.
The second was "far-right journalist Laura Loomer," whom Weaver writes "was erased from the platform on November 21 for criticizing Muslim Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN)." Weaver added: "Loomer was booted off the platform on Wednesday for accusing Muslim Rep. Omar of being anti-Jewish, supporting Sharia law, and being pro-female genital mutilation. She was told that by doing so, she had “promoted violence against, threatened, or harassed other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.” Almost immediately after her Twitter ban, Loomer was given a 30-day Facebook suspension."
While Weaver earned a little credit for admitting that Loomer is "far-right," she failed to inform readers just how far right-- and Islamophobic -- she is. Loomer was banned rom using Uber and Lyft after she ranted that "Someone needs to create a non Islamic form of @uber or @lyft because I never want to support another Islamic immigrant driver" and complaining she couldn't find a "non Muslim cab."
A couple days after her banning, Loomer handcuffed herself to the door of Twitter's corporate offices in New York while wearing a yellow star of David as if getting kicked off Twitter for spewing hate was the same as getting Holocausted. (Quick, someone call Rabbi Spero!)
Loomer is clearly not a person who anyone should take seriously. But Weaver wants you to think she is in order to keep up the MRC's anti-social media narrative.
MRC More Angry At Criticism Of Redskins Name Than The Fact The Redskins Hired A Suspected Abuser Topic: Media Research Center
Proving that conservative correctness rules over all at the Media Research Center, mysterious sports blogger Jay Maxson writes in a Nov. 30 post:
Signing linebacker Reuben Foster, released earlier this week by the San Francisco 49ers for alleged domestic violence, opened up the Washington Redskins to collateral media attacks on their team nickname. ESPN Around the Horn commentator Kevin Blackistone, USA Today For the Win writer Steven Ruiz and others couldn't resist the temptation to take swipes at the Redskins' nickname while blasting the team for signing Foster.
Maxson went on to whine that "Ruiz emptied a bagful of grievances he has with the Washington team, much of it devoted to the issue of the Redskins' name, which many liberals want changed" and that Ruiz "blasted team founder George Preston Marshall, 'a man whose Wikipedia page features a 'Racism' section, ...' and who was the last NFL owner to sign black players." Maxson said nothing further about Foster.
That's right -- Maxson is more offended at writers criticizing the Redskins team name than he is about the fact that the Redskins signed a player credibly accused of domestic violence against his girlfriend. Shows you were the MRC's priorities are.
A few days earlier, Maxson had ranted about the idea that Colin Kaepernick -- about whom Maxson has regular attacksofderangement -- might be hired by the Redskins as a replacement quarterback. Maxson sneered that Kaepernick is a "notorious anthem kneeler" and a "SJW favorite," dismissing those advocating for Kaepernick as making "pithy powder puff arguments" and adding that "to objective people, these are flimsy, pathetically weak points. Beating a dead horse, the Kaepernick apologists are embarrassing themselves by begging and pleading for his return."
Maxson can't even be bothered to write more about Foster than he has about a former NFL player whose political views he disagrees with.
MRC Leaders Whine About Obamas Making Money Topic: Media Research Center
WorldNetDailiy's Joseph Farah isn't the only ConWeb figure feeling more than a little envious and jealous about Michelle Obama's new book being so successful. The Media Research Center's Tim Graham and Brent Bozell bitterly complain in their Nov. 24 column:
Michelle Obama has a new memoir out called Becoming. Add two words: “Very Wealthy.” The Obamas struck a reported $65 million book deal for his-and-hers memoirs, and put that next to their $50 million production deal with Netflix. They are set to cash in to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. One outlet has called them a "Billion Dollar Brand." None of their media sycophants media find this the tiniest bit controversial. They are the royal family. They cannot possibly be compensated enough.
(Trump's wealth? Wealth generated by a lifetime of work in the private sector? Unacceptable.)
We don't recall these two complaining about Ronald Reagan cashing in after his presidency by getting paid $2 million for a speech and other activities in Japan.
Graham and Bozell then descend into their usual whataboutism by grousing that Republican first ladies didn't get this kind of positive media coverage. Of course, Michelle Obama didn't put up blood-red Christmas trees in the White House.
MRC Still Harder On CBS Chief's Sexual Harassment Than Fox News Chief's Topic: Media Research Center
New allegations of sexual harassment have surfaced against for CBS chief Les Moonves, and the Media Research Center is back to tsk-tsk about CBS' coverage of it.
A Nov. 29 post by Scott Whitlock complained that "Despite a combined two and a half hours of available air time, CBS on Wednesday night and Thursday morning allowed just 94 seconds to the latest shocking sexual assault allegations against the network’s former chairman and CEO, Les Moonves," adding that "Often, This Morning hosts seem irritated about having to cover the alleged actions of their colleagues." Then, a Dec. 7 post by Whitlock huffed that CBS offered "spin" in its reporting on the alleged offenses by Moonves and other CBS hosts and executives.
Funny, we don't remember the MRC adding up the coverage on Fox News about the hosts and executives there accused of, and ousted for, sexual harassment of women -- including that of founder and longtime chief Roger Ailes.
We'll just remind Whitlock that, as we've documented, he and his employer have shown an almost complete lack of concern about sexual harassment at Fox News -- to the point that his boss, Brent Bozell, lionized Ailes upon his death by claiming that "The good Roger did for America is immeasurable" while completely ignoring the harassment claims and the fact that Ailes' victims would likely have a different assessment of his legacy.
The MRC's continued obsession with sexual harassment at other media outlets only makes its Fox News-shaped blind spot even more glaring.
MRC's White House Christmas Decoration Fail Topic: Media Research Center
Gabriel Hays spent a Nov. 27 Media Research Center post complaining that people were criticizing Melania Trump's Christmas decorations -- specifically, the blood-red Christmas trees. He then tried for a coup de grace at the haters:
People can have their tastes all they want, and they are perfectly fine to argue about what’s elegant or not. But let’s not pretend that if this exact same style was present in the White House during Christmas 2015, that these lefty celebs wouldn’t have been saying that Michelle Obama had done an incredible job with the presentation.
And let's not pretend that Michelle Obama done that same exact style in 2015, Hays and the MRC would be attacking her the way he now complains people are attacking Melania.
But as it so happens, the Washington Post has pictures of the 2015 White House Christmas decorations:
All very tasteful, and not a blood-red tree to be seen anywhere. Even Obama's most vicious haters -- as well as the haters at the MRC -- couldn't find anything to complain about, then or now.
The MRC needs to give up on such reflexive defense of Trump -- especially when its attempt to make an Obama Equivocation lacks logic.
MRC: Formerly All-White School Has One Black Student, So It Must Not Be Segregated Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Nicholas Fondacaro spent a Nov. 26 post ranting about "lies" purportedly told about Cindy Hyde-Smith, the Republican candidate in a runoff for a Mississippi Senate seat against Democrat Mike Espy. Fondacaro huffs regarding NBC's Kristen Welker:
Welker decided to condemn Hyde-Smith for the actions of her parents because they made her attend a segregated high school while growing up. “And tonight a new controversy,” she boasted, “the Jackson Free Press reporting Hyde-Smith attended an all-white segregated high school…” Welker then lied and insisted Hyde-Smith “sent her daughter to a similar school.”
While the school, Brookhaven Academy, was founded as a segregated school, it obviously no longer is because they do, in fact, have minorities in the student body. Hyde-Smith’s daughter graduated from there in 2017. Clearly, Welker and the rest of the liberal media don’t know what century we live in.
Fondacaro is hiding the fact that Brookhaven Academy has "minorities in the student body" only in the most token sense. As Jackson Free Press reported, in the 2015-16 school year the academy had just one black student and five Asian students ... and 386 white children.The town of Brookhaven itself is 55 percent black.
So, yeah, it is for all intents and purposes segregated, despite Fondacaro's insistence that the academy deserves to be thought of as fully integrated despite still being 99% white.
Fondacaro then claimed: "All of these lies were to create a smokescreen to hide the true controversy in the race: Espy’s deep financial ties to an African despot on trial in the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity." That would be Laurent Gbagbo of the Ivory Coast.
The funny thing is that conservatives used to love Gbagbo. Glenn Beck, for instance, attacked President Obama for expressing support for Gbagbo's opponent in a 2011 election, ostensibly because the opponent was a Muslim running against the Christian Gbagbo. Pat Robertson similarly stood by Gbagbo in a dispute over that election, declaring that "He's a Christian, he's a nice person, and he's run a fairly clean operation in the Ivory Coast."
WorldNetDaily also took Gbagbo's side in the election dispute, touting him as an “opening practicing Christian” and complained about “outsiders” supporting “an attempt by a Muslim to unseat a Christian president.”
We doubt that anyone at the MRC would have had any problem with Espy's ties to Gbagbo in 2011, so it a little strange for Fondacaro to make an issue about it now.
MRC Mad That Documentary Accurately Reported The Clintons Were Right-Wing Targets Topic: Media Research Center
Kristine Marsh complains in a Nov. 19 Media Research Center post:
On Sunday night’s miniseries The Clinton Affair, A&E took potshots at conservatives in their attempt to create a sympathetic portrayal of Bill and Hillary Clinton. While praising Clinton as a feminist president, the network gave soundbites to Democrats attacking anyone on the right who dared to criticize the political couple for their numerous scandals.
Right from the get-go, the series portrayed conservatives and Republicans as the villains of the story, with a barrage of soundbites from journalists, and Clinton operatives, attacking Newt Gingrich, independent counsel Ken Starr, and anyone who dared to be critical of the Clintons as fueled by “Republican lies,” out for a witch hunt against President Clinton:
Who did A&E blame for Hillary becoming an “object of hatred?” Right-wing commentators and Republicans of course. Immediately after those soundbites, the network played clips of Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh criticizing Hillary for implementing policy as First Lady.
Marsh headlined her piece "A&E Docuseries Paints Clintons as Victims of Conservative Hatred" -- which is what, in fact, they were. She might wnat to check with her boss, Brent Bozell, who declared in 2001 that "Yes, Virginia, the vast right-wing conspiracy did exist all along!"
So the right didn't merely "criticize" the Clintons for their "numerous scandals" -- it targeted them from the get-go. It's not "liberal bias" to report that fact, no matter what Marsh claims.
MRC Doesn't Want To Talk About How Facebook's Kowtowing To Conservatives Undercuts Its Anti-Facebook Narrative Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has long been a critic of Facebook, so you'd think it would be happy that the New York Times published an article shining a light on its dubious practices. But, weirdly, no: A Nov. 15 MRC post by Corinne Weaver described the article (to which she curiously fails to link) as a "hit piece" that "sent Facebook into a frenzy to fix its public image."
The problem, of course, is that the Times article completely undermined the MRC's narrative on Facebook.
Weaver rather benignly described the Times article as having "accused Facebook of working with conservative groups and generating stories from a conservative angle that discredited liberal activists funded by Soros, as well as Apple, and Google." In fact, it was about much more than that: the Times detailed how Facebook failed to act on messages from Donald Trump's presidential campaign that violated its hate-speech policies, dragged its feet on Russian-related activity designed to influence the 2016 presidential electionand hired conservative political consultants to deflect attention from Facebook and uncover any link between groups critical of Facebook and MRC-despised financier George Soros.
That runs contrary to the MRC's narrative, which paints Facebook as unfriendly to conservatves to the point of censoring conservative content. For instance, the MRC did a "special report" (of the not-so-specialkind, we can presume) earlier this year accusing Facebook and other social media cits of trying to "censor the conservative worldview from the public conversation." An MRC-commissioned poll in September sought to reinforce that narrative by claiming that nearly 29 percent of conservatives said they left or were considering leaving Facebook because of "censorship of conservatives." It included a quote from MRC chief Brent Bozell: "The question Facebook and other social media companies need to ask themselves is this: Do you want to be seen as an open platform for all political beliefs or would you rather be considered a left-wing public interest group that censors free speech worldwide? The latter will prove to be unbelievably costly."
In other words, the MRC is highly invested in this narrative. The Times article pretty much blew that up, pointing out how deeply Facebook is kowtowing to conservative critics. Needless to say, Weaver and the MRC didn't want to talk about that, and her post is the last we heard about this article.
For a while, anyway. A Dec. 3 MRC post by Julia Seymour returned to the article in a very narrow way: to insist that Facebook's investigation of Soros was totally justified. No, really:
Since when it is controversial for a company to research a powerful billionaire calling for it to be regulated and who could potentially impact its stock price? Since now — if the company is Facebook and its opponent is liberal billionaire George Soros.
The New York Times has become Soros’ press office now that Facebook has acknowledged looking into where his money goes. The paper has done 18 stories, columns or editorials about Facebook that also mention Soros since Nov. 15.
That was the day slightly more than two weeks ago that it ran a front-page investigative piece critical of Facebook: “Delay, Deny and Deflect: How Facebook’s Leaders Fought Through Crisis.” That story first mentioned the firm’s hiring of a “Republican opposition-research firm” that looked for connections between anti-Facebook protesters and the liberal billionaire.
Between Nov. 15, and Dec. 3, the Times published 11 news reports and published 7 columns or editorials in the newspaper including the editorial “Facebook Cannot Be Trusted to Regulate Itself” and a column from Michelle Goldberg headlined, “Democrats Should Un-Friend Facebook.”
Buzzfeed threw cold water on the controversy on Dec. 1, when it published a three-page document of research on Soros that firm provided to Facebook and calling it “largely innocuous.”
But it’s doubtful that the Times would have portrayed such an act as controversial at all if the scrutiny wasn’t of a prominent funder of left-wing groups. Earlier Times’ reporting led Facebook to launch a “liberal apology tour” and fire Definers Public Affairs, a “Republican-linked firm,” that it had hired. The group spread “public information about Mr. Soros’s funding of American advocacy groups critical of Facebook.”
In fact, the Buzzfeed piece notes that the document is only some of the research the oppo-research firm did for Facebook, not its entirety.
Seymour then weirdly obsessed about Soros having "broke the Bank of England," referencing it twice in her post, as if profiting from a financial gamble somehow underscores Soros' bad-guy credentials. Like Weaver, Seymour didn't want to discuss how Facebook hating Soros almost as much as the MRC does (though without the overt anti-Semitic imagery) undercuts the MRC's attacks on Facebook as not being conservative-friendly.
MRC Outraged That Female Genital Mutiliation Law Overturned, Silent On The Conservative Principle Invoked Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Bill D'Agostino huffed in a Nov. 21 post:
Liberal cable and broadcast networks have completely ignored a Detroit Judge’s finding that federal laws against female genital mutilation are unconstitutional. As of noon on Wednesday, Fox News remains the only television news outlet to have reported on this controversial decision.
The Detroit Free Press announced the ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Bernard Friedman overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit FGM [Female Genital Mutilation].
On its face, a Judge overturning a federal law against female genital mutilation sounds newsworthy. But although CNN at least is aware of the ruling (as evidenced by November 20 article on their website), they and other TV news networks have determined that it is not worth the time to inform their viewers of this court decision. Why might that be?
As outraged as D'Agostino is about the decision, he's curiously reluctant to explain the judge's reasoning -- perhaps because it involves a bedrock conservative principle.
As an actual news outlet explained, Friedman stated that "As laudable as the prohibition of a particular type of abuse of girls may be ... federalism concerns deprive Congress of the power to enact this statute," adding: "Congress overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit FGM ... FGM is a 'local criminal activity' which, in keeping with longstanding tradition and our federal system of government, is for the states to regulate, not Congress."
Federalism is generally adhered to by conservatives as a principle faithful to the Constitution by letting more issues be handled on a state-by-state level than mandated on a federal level. In other words, Friedman was simply applying a conservative principle to the issue of female genital mutilation and ruling that it should be regulated on the state level (not unlike what conservatives want to do with abortion by agitating for the repeal of Roe v. Wade).
The MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, did a slightly better job. A Nov. 21 article by Patrick Goodenough did explain that Friedman ruled that the practice "is for the states to regulate, not Congress," but allowed conservative activists to attack the decision without explaining that the judge invoked a conservative principle.
MRC Glosses Over Nasty Conservative Tweet To Bash 'The View' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Kristine Marsh complains in a Nov. 16 post:
Friday on The View, the hosts slammed conservatives as racists that were “obsessed” with the media’s favorite Democrat socialist, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. While they brought up the topic because of a stupid tweet from a conservative writer which mocked Cortez for her clothing choices, they used that tweet to accuse the entire conservative movement of having a racist agenda and obsession with the new congresswoman.
Notice how quick Marsh is to gloss over that "stupid tweet," as if it merits none of the scrutiny the MRC would give a stupid tweet from a "liberal" writer. Even the video clip accompanied Marsh's post omits any direct reference to the tweet.
Marsh won't tell you that the tweet was from Eddie Scarry, a reporter for thet conservative Washington Examiner -- with whom the MRC has a deal that started in 2012 to promote a weekly "Mainstream Media Scream" through columnist Paul Bedard -- who tweeted a picture of Ocasio-Cortez wearing a business suit and snarked: "I’ll tell you something: that jacket and coat don’t look like a girl who struggles" -- an implication that she should not have dressed so nice for her new job, which goes well beyond Marsh's claim that he "mocked Cortez for her clothing choices." Scarry was pilloried for it online, and even his fellow Examiner co-workers distanced themselves from him. In the wake of the tweet, the Examiner pulled Scarry off the "news" side (raise your hand if you didn't know that the Examiner had a "news" side where there there was purportedly not to be any bias exhibited) to the commentary side.
One can't help but think that Marsh was protecting Scarry in order not to have to criticize a publication with which her employer has a promotional deal and, thus, jeopardize that deal.
But Marsh wasn't done complaining, going on to insist that conservatives aren't really obsessed with ocasio-Cortez at all: "While no one at the table mentioned it, the media is far more obsessed with Cortez than conservatives are. Even the hosts of The View were enamored with her when she appeared on their show months ago."
Actually, conservatives in general, and Fox News in particular, are verymuchobsessed with Ocasio-Cortez. The Ocasio-Cortez derangement syndrome is so prevalent among conservatives that Washington Times columnist (and former WorldNetDaily reporter) Cheryl Chumley ranted that politicians like her with socialist leanings "don't belong in American politics" and that allowing her to serve in the House is "an abomination to the Constitution."
That's what you call obsession. Marsh simply doesn't want to admit it.
MRC's Gayle King Derangement Syndrome Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has never liked "CBS This Morning" co-host Gayle King because she's not a conservative and because she's friends with Oprah Winfrey and the Obamas. The MRC's obsession with King has really ratcheted up in the past month.
An Oct. 31 post by Curtis Houck sneered that King was a "Oprah Winfrey gal pal, and Obama donor and family friend" and complained about a "syrupy" and "gushing" profile of her in the New York Times. The next day, Scott Whitlock complained about "CBS’s Tangled Conflict of Interest With Oprah, Gayle King, and Democrats," since Winfrey is also a CBS contributor by way of "60 Minutes" who occasionally steps away for political work.
Houck returns to claim there were "seven instances" in which King showed her "liberal bias" during her coverage of the midterm elections. These included King pondering whethercelebrity endorsements helped Democratic candidates and pointing out the fact that many people don't think President Trump was telling the truth when he fearmongered about the migrant caravan, neither of which are "liberal bias."
On Nov. 12 Whitlock went on a tirade against both King and Winfrey:
Just 12 days after CBS special correspondent Oprah Winfrey “stepped away” to campaign for Democrat Stacey Abrams in Georgia, Winfrey is back on the network and you’ll never guess what she’s doing: Praising a Democrat. Winfrey’s best friend, Gayle King, introduced Oprah on Monday's CBS This Morning to reveal the next book club selection: Michelle Obama’s new autobiography.
Just to reiterate, Gayle King, an Obama and Democratic donor, introduced Winfrey, an Obama and Democratic donor to talk about how great Michelle Obama’s new book is.
Whitlock also complained about King's "lack of transparency"in not disclosing that she's an editor for Oprah's magazine -- an ironic and hypocritical claim since the MRC's own promotion of Bill Donohue regularly fails to disclose that MRC chief Brent Bozell is on the board of advisors of Donohue's Catholic League.
Two days later, Whitlock had upgraded that "conflict of interest" to full-on "collusion," grousing that "Democrat Winfrey and Democratic donor/co-host Gayle King have devoted 22 minutes and 44 seconds (since Monday) to the former First Lady’s new book, Becoming."
And on Nov. 26, Whitlock returned to King derangement mode, this time managing not to include Winfrey or the Obamas:
CBS This Morning co-host Gayle King on Monday prompted Senator Bernie Sanders, hyping his liberal policy prescriptions and encouraging him to attack Republicans. None of the co-hosts bothered to identify Sanders as a socialist or even a leftist. Instead, co-host Norah O'Donnell introduced the leftist as a “political independent,” touting: “Sanders, who was just reelected as a political independent, is pushing a bold agenda that includes protecting DACA recipients and comprehensive immigration reform.”
Whitlock and the rest of the MRC is never this critical of Fox News hosts who have conflicts of interests and give gushy interviews to President Trump and other conservatives.
MRC Again Whines That An Far-Right Social Media Outlet Was Shut Down -- But It Never Cultivated An Alternative Topic: Media Research Center
We've highlighted how the Media Research Center lamented the deplatforming of right-wing Twitter clone Gab, despite the fact that the MRC never offered its content on Gab despite its longtime campaign against Twitter for supposedly censoring conservative voices.
The MRC's Alexander Hall complained about another deplatforming in a Nov. 15 post:
“Go create your own website” has been a common reply to conservatives concerned about Big Tech censorship, but now Leftists can shut them down even when they do that.
Bitchute has marketed itself as the Free Speech alternative to Youtube, but has recently been blacklisted by PayPal. Bitchute founder Ray Vahey announced that PayPal shut down his website’s ability to receive funding through its payment service, effective immediately.
It should be noted that BitChute does have community guidelines about removing content that is truly illegal, violent, or qualifies as a call for violence.
Hall didn't mention what content on BitChute might have resulted in PayPal cutting off its services. As one website documents:
The front page of BitChute greets visitors with videos on very specific topics: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, censorship and conspiracy theories like "PizzaGate." Conspiracy videos capitalize on recent tragedies, alleging that survivors of the Parkland high school shooting are crisis actors. ... It’s the type of content that, if they were on YouTube, advertisers wouldn’t want their ads placed on.
It’s important to acknowledge who some of the biggest proponents are for platforms like BitChute and DTube are. They have the support of prominent alt-right voices, like ["ultra-nationalistic, xenophobic" videomaker Dave] Cullen; Stefan Molyneux, who is best known for his stance on eugenics and white supremacy; Mike Cernovich, one of the founding leaders of the alt-right; Jack Posobiec, a DeploraBall inauguration party organizer and a pro-Trump figure who headed multiple misinformation campaigns; Ethan Ralph, best known for helping to spearhead the hateful GamerGate movement; and conspiracy theorist Paul Joseph Watson.
Hall went on to complain:
When conservatives have previously voiced their concerns about the deplatforming of various Youtubers, many leftists and libertarians often smugly reply that in a free market, companies have a right to deny service, and that conservatives should build their own platforms. The issues with this line of thinking are twofold: 1) It is extremely difficult to build alternative platforms (consider how Google+ with all of their parent company’s resources and reputation, failed to provide a remotely competitive alternative to Facebook) and 2) Payment processors that keep platforms up and running can deny their services with no repercussions.
But mainstream conservatives are generally not affected by deplatforming -- far-right extremists are. And if the MRC were truly concerned about YouTube censoring content, it wouldn't have its own YouTube channel that, as far as we know, no content has ever been censored by YouTube (we certainly would not have heard the end of it if it had).
Once again, the hollowness of the MRC's deplatforming complaint is exposed. Just as the MRC never quit Twitter to move to Gab, it never abandoned YouTube to join BitChute. It has no standing to complain about deplatforming of social media outlets it never bothered to cultivate or support, let alone provide any content to. After all, it's easier to complain about Twitter on Twitter, and complain about YouTube on YouTube, than from another platform for which an audience has to be built.
It's saying something about the content on Gab and BitChute that even the MRC didn't want to associate itself with it -- which makes it cynical for the MRC to denounce their deplatforming without telling its readers about the content that caused the deplatforming.
NEW ARTICLE: Rep. Jim Jordan, R-MRC Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center loves the conservative congressman so much that it campaigned for him to become House GOP leader -- while also burying and censoring claims that ignored sexual abuse in a previous job as a coach. Read more >>
MRC Plays The (Lame And Hypocritical) Neil Munro Card to Attack Acosta Topic: Media Research Center
As part of its currentjihad against CNN's Jim Acosta, the Media Research Center got an assist from its favorite media outlet. Fox News. In a Nov. 13 post, Ryan Foley noted a segment featuring conservatives talking about Acosta -- no complaint, of course, that the panel was unbalanced for lacking a non-conservative. Foley got to invoke the MRC's favorite conservative media critic, Joe Concha:
Concha brought up the media’s reaction to Neil Munro, then a staffer for The Daily Caller, interrupting one of President Obama’s speeches. Concha read aloud some headlines written in response to Munro’s interruption of President Obama.
A headline from Politico read “Obama Interrupted by Heckling Reporter,” a headline from The Atlantic asked “Who is Neil Munro and Why is He Interrupting the President?” In the final example of a blatant double standard, Concha read aloud a headline from Mediaite: “CNN White House Reporter: Obama Heckler Let Him ‘Sound Passionate.’” As the segment came to a close, Concha remarked “I don’t hear anybody calling Jim Acosta a heckler now.”
As we'venoted, the MRC never criticized Munro's behavior, even as it apparently concedes that his behavior was no different from that of Acosta, about which it has spilled a torrent of anger. The MRC never complained that Munro crossed the line between reporting and editorializing by heckling President Obama during a news conference, there was no declaration that Munro was an activist masquerading as a journalist, or that Munro embarrassed himself and his profession, or that Munro is operating outside the confines of honest journalism, or that conservatives who expect fair and honest journalism should ignore Munro.
Indeed, one MRC writer accused Munro's critics of "flaming, presidential boot-licking hypocrisy."while another offered this defense: "Henceforth the Obama administration might want to signal when questions will be allowed from the media and when reporters will be expected to emulate statuary."
Of course, the Trump White House has signaled its question-statuary ratio by issuing new post-Acosta rules. Needless to say, the MRC is far from outraged by these rules: Curtis Houck cheered the "brief but simple guidelines" made necessary because of "bombastic, self-centered behavior."
Houck, his boss Brent Bozell and the MRC would have been screaming if these very same rules had been issued by the Obama White House in the wake of Munro's heckling. It's hypocritical for them to condone Trump's actions now.