Is Cliff Kincaid Trying to Make AIM A White Nationalist Group? Topic: Accuracy in Media
Thanks to Cliff Kincaid and his love for American Renaissance's Jared Taylor, Accuracy in Media has been flirting with white nationalism for years. AIM takes its biggest step in that direction with a Jan. 2 column by, yes, Kincaid.
He ranted that groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center focusing on white nationalism "is designed to further demonize white Americans who are waking up to what President Obama has done to them during his eight years in office," addin, "Rather than admit that Obama’s legacy turned many white Americans against the Democrats, groups like the SPLC are attempting to portray racial consciousness among white people as something to fear. ... According to the SPLC, whites are just supposed to take it." Kincaid then quotes his favorite white-nationalist buddy:
Jared Taylor of American Renaissance comments that white Americans are “beginning to realize that they need an advocate for their interests, so they start searching the internet for an honest look at the facts—and they find us.” He hopes to raise enough money to hire a reporter to cover various racial angles in developing stories, saying, “Groundbreaking pro-white journalism is exactly what American Renaissance—and the country—need.”
Of course, "pro-white journalism" is arguably another phrase for "anti-black journalism." Maybe Colin Flaherty could sign up for that. Or Cliff Kincaid.
Is AIM chief Don Irvine OK witih Kincaid pushing his organization into a white nationalist direction? Kincaid still has a job there, so apparently not.
Russia and Putin Have A New ConWeb Friend in AIM's Kincaid Topic: Accuracy in Media
WorldNetDaily isn't the only ConWeb outlet that's been coming to Russia's defense over alleged U.S. election hacking. Vladimir Putin has another ConWeb friend in Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid.
In October, the usually staunchly anti-communist Kincaid actually cheered Russia's intervention in the election -- as long as it shared his own goal of electing Donald Trump and stopping Hillary Clinton. But as accusations of Russian meddling continued to mount, Kincaid's defense of Russia got more aggressive.
On Dec. 12, Kincaid asserted that the CIA confirming Russian meddling in the election meant that it -- the CIA, that is -- was "out to get" Trump. He huffed: "Clearly, having an “intelligence” connection doesn’t mean you are intelligent or have good judgment. Making “America First” is not a requirement for serving in the CIA and other intelligence agencies. You can have numerous skeletons in your closet and even be a transgender." Kincaid further complained:
After he takes office, Trump should immediately clean house in the CIA and other intelligence agencies. But it may be the case that the charges being directed against him at the present time are designed to prevent just that. If Trump cleans house, he will be accused in the press of trying to purge intelligence officials with evidence of a Russian plot to elect Trump!
We know that the media picked sides in the presidential contest. Now we are seeing more evidence of how the CIA picked sides, to the point of engaging in what is an obvious effort to bring down the Trump presidency even before it begins.
The next day, Kincaid continued his blame-the-messenger strategy:
Common sense tells you that Moscow was perfectly content to let Hillary win, and probably thought she would win. After all, Hillary sold out America to Moscow’s interests with a Russian reset that failed and opened the door to more Russian aggression. Her State Department also sold American uranium assets to Moscow. She was the perfect Russian dupe.
This whole discussion in the media about the Russians backing Trump is fake news.
The obvious conclusion is that Brennan is on a mission to overturn the election through propaganda and disinformation. This is not only the last gasp of sore losers but represents corruption of the intelligence process.
If the purpose of the Russian hacking was to undermine confidence in the American democratic process, as some “experts” originally thought, Brennan’s CIA is doing a good job of that.
We suspect Kincaid would not have a problem with the CIA purportedly trying to overturn an election if Hillary Clinton had won.
In a Dec. 18 column, Kincaid went deeper into conspiracy mode:
Could it be that CIA Director John Brennan fears that Trump as president could order an investigation into what the CIA has been up to under President Obama? What could that be? Could the CIA have been interfering in foreign elections, and if so, could such efforts have provoked Russian retaliation?
The CIA will want to hide its hand, not because the evidence may implicate Russia in election interference, but because the evidence we do have demonstrates that the CIA is currently interfering in the results of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. That’s the story that cannot be told, and the one which threatens our democracy. The Times and Post are vehicles for this insidious effort.
We do know that CIA Director Brennan is a far-left extremist—just like Obama himself—who once voted for a Communist Party candidate, and whose sympathies for radical Islam are well-known. Questions persist about whether Brennan, an alumnus of Catholic Fordham University, converted to Islam and why he took his oath of office on a copy of the U.S. Constitution and not the Bible.
As we'venoted, there's no evidence whatsoever that Brennan has converted to Islam, and those who are peddling the claim, like John Guandolo, have no credibility.
On Dec. 22, Kincaid defended Trump's national security adviser-designate Michael T. Flynn for allegedly meeting with "a leader of the Austrian Freedom Party": "It would be a dereliction of duty for Flynn not to meet with such a figure and try to understand the nature of the political upheaval in Europe." Kincaid makes sure not to mention that the Austrian Freedom Party is a far-right party founded by former Nazis.
Kincaid then rants: "Liberal Democrats have been so busy accusing Donald J. Trump of being a Russian agent that they have missed the real Russian agent on the international scene—Germany’s Angela Merkel. Her pro-Muslim immigration policies have not only destabilized Europe and increased terrorism but have also facilitated the rise of the right-wing political parties our media have expressed alarm about."
Kincaid continued to attack Merkel by defending Russia:
More than two years ago we asked, “Is the German Chancellor an Agent of Russia?” Among other things, she had made Germany more dependent on Russian oil and gas by terminating Germany’s nuclear energy program. The refugee crisis adds to the suspicions about her real agenda.
Commentators who don’t want to face up to the evidence against Merkel instead claim that Putin is trying to undermine her.
Trump, for his part, would like to stop the refugee flow and stabilize the Middle East. He seems to think he can work with Russia. But Merkel and the Russians have other ideas. Trump’s military advisers such as Lt. Gen. Flynn have to understand the correlation of forces they are facing. That’s why Flynn’s meeting with the leader of the Austrian Freedom Party is necessary and important.
In his Dec. 26 column, Kincaid whined that the Obama administration hasn't released sufficient proof of Russian hacking, declaring its evidence so far "very weak and vague in key respects." (We figure that, just like the birthers, no amount of evidence would be sufficient for Kincaid.) He pushed another conspiracy theory, that "the Obama administration decided to blame the Russians only after Trump won the election, perhaps for the purpose of complicating the foreign relations priorities of the President-elect."
But as others have noted, Obama did bring up Russian hacking before the election, but if Obama had been more forceful on the issue before the election, he would have been accused of interfering with the election -- something Kincaid would undoubtedly have been at the front lines on.
To sum up: Kincaid will always bash Obama and defend Trump -- even if he has to praise a foreign dictator to do it. That's how messed up Kincaid's loyalties are.
AIM's Kincaid Defends Another White Nationalist Group Topic: Accuracy in Media
Like the Media Research Center, Accuracy in Media is also in distraction mode when it comes to Trump adviser Stephen Bannon.
Cliff Kincaid's Nov. 15 AIM article immediately starts attacking the Southern Poverty Law Center for pointing out Bannon's promotion of alt-right white nationalist views as the guy who ran Breitbartn (and, by extension, media outlets that cite the SPLC), ranting that the SPLC "has no business being cited as a credible source by any responsible news organization. It smears conservatives for profit, diverting attention from real domestic threats, such as the Marxist extremists currently demonstrating against Trump in the streets and threatening to disrupt his inauguration."
Kincaid goes on to whine that "This journalist was named a member of the 'radical right,' a designation then transformed into a charge of 'Islamophobia' by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). The accusations are designed to silence First Amendment rights and discourage the media from going to conservative sources for news, information and commentary." Kincaid doesn't dispute the accusation or anything else in the SPLC's profile of him, but is simply attacking the messenger.
Kincaid then plunges into conspiracy-theory mode:
Even more troubling, SPLC President and CEO Richard Cohen was a member of the “Countering Violent Extremism Working Group” of the Department of Homeland Security in 2010. It is possible that Cohen, in this capacity, was able to get access to classified information, and that the SPLC, in turn, shared its erroneous data on conservative opponents of the Obama administration with federal law enforcement agencies.
Kincaid dismisses the allegations against Bannon by benignly describing them stemming from his leadership of Breitbart, which "features some unorthodox conservative views that Bannon’s critics have tried to pin on him." At no point does Kincaid rebut any of the specific charges made against Bannon.
Then, Kincaid goes off on a tangent:
Before [CBS anchor Scott] Pelley uncritically cited the SPLC, Kate Snow was on MSNBC talking about how Trump’s stand against illegal immigration was similar to that of the secretary of state of Kansas, Kris Kobach. She said Kobach had given “support” to the Social Contract Press, which she described as a “hate group” designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The Social Contract Press rebuts all of the accusations, while noting that the SPLC’s $300 million cash hoard “rivals that of [the] Clinton Foundation.” It was the Social Contract Press which published one of [Ken] Silverstein’s articles exposing the SPLC.
Indeed, Silverstein’s exposé was just one section of a major report the Social Contract Press published in 2010 that examined the SPLC’s strategy and tactics.
Yet, it’s Bannon who is being accused of being an extremist.
Kincaid is doing a lot of obfuscation here. The specific claim here is that Kobach, in 2015, gave a presentation at a conference hosted by the Social Contract Press. The SPLC has pointed out that the Social Contract Press, published by notorious anti-immigration activist John Tanton -- described by the SPLC as "a man known for his racist statements about Latinos, his decades-long flirtation with white nationalists and Holocaust deniers, and his publication of ugly racist materials" -- is an outlet for the writings of white nationalists and filled with race-baiting. Kincaid somehow failed to mention that.
The Social Contract Press' attack on the SPLC is, like Kincaid's, an attempt to deflect from the SPLC's documentation of its work by attacking the messenger. While Kincaid claims the Social Contract Press has "rebut[ted]" the SPLC's claims, he provides no link to it beyond its general SPLC-bashing work.
Kincaid's defense of the Social Contract Press is another instance of him siding with white nationalists. In August, Kincaid defended the honor of unambiguously racist white supremacist Jared Taylor, and has previously laughably denied that the organization Taylor runs, American Renaissance, is racist.
Why Does Cliff Kincaid Still Have A Job? Topic: Accuracy in Media
By Cliff Kincaid's own standards, he should be unemployed.
Kincaid uses his Nov. 11 Accuracy in Media column to call for the firing of anyone who got Donald Trump's election wrong:
Journalists and columnists should not be fired for their opinions, but for their lack of objectivity. It’s fine to have anti-Trump opinions, but that should not have interfered with an analysis of why Trump was striking a chord with the American people.
The problem with people like Stephens and publications like The Huffington Post is that they let their anti-Trump orientation interfere with the need for a professional analysis of what was actually happening in America’s cities and towns.
One Huffington Post writer with egg on his face is Ryan Grim, who was promoting the bogus story that Trump had raped a 13-year-old girl. Regarding the rape story, Grim informed his readers on November 2 that “a woman who says Trump raped her as a 13-year-old in the 1990s is planning a press conference at 6:00 EST today. I coincidentally was working on a piece explaining why this case has gotten so little coverage.”
It got little coverage because it was false.
The woman, who had a history of drug abuse, pulled out of the news conference. She was identified by name and dropped the lawsuit. The allegations were obviously fabricated.
But nobody in the media loses their jobs for getting the facts wrong and doing their work in an unprofessional manner.
By Kincaid's own standard, Kincaid should not have a job. We've documented how Kincaid has promoted false claims and overheated, paranoid rhetoric about Barack Obama. He also hurled false smears at a gay former Obama administration adviser and irrationally hates gays to the point that he endorsed a proposed law in Uganda that would permit the death penalty for mere homosexuality.
If that Huffington Post writer should be fired for reporting on the Trump rape case, Kincaid should be fired for promoting the work of discredited filmmaker Joel Gilbert. Kincaid promoted Gilbert's false film claiming that Frank Marshall Davis is Obama's real father and libelously asserting that Obama's mother posed for nude photos for Davis, and he also enthusiastically touted Gilbert's exploitative campaign to exploit Danney Williams' never-proven claim that he's Bill Clinton's illegitimate son (something we'll probably never hear about from Gilbert again now that Hillary Clinton lost the election).
Kincaid concludes by grousing, "Any ordinary business that got things so wrong and performed so incompetently would go out of business." Yet AIM still exists, and Kincaid is still employed there.
Does Kincaid have the guts and intellectual consistency to enforce his own standards on himself? Highly unlikely.
AIM's Kincaid Unhappy Danney Williams's Exploitation Was Pointed Out Topic: Accuracy in Media
It's abundantly clear that Danney Williams, who claims to be Bill Clinton's illegitimate so, is being exploited by discredited charlatan Joel Gilbert as a tool for political payback. But Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid -- who also wants some political payback against the Clintons -- won't accept that interpretation, even when it's laid out right in front of him.
In his Nov. 2 column, Kincaid rages against the Washington Post's Dana Milbank for pointing out the obvious, then twisting it into a charge of racism:
In a column with strong racist overtones, Milbank depicted Williams as a puppet for conservative filmmaker Joel Gilbert, who is white, and who introduced Williams and the other speakers. Milbank insisted that Williams had been “hauled” to the event by Gilbert and was given a speech to read. He was “looking to Gilbert for instruction” on what to say, Milbank wrote.
While he read a prepared statement about getting the Lewinsky dress, he spoke from the heart and in deep emotional terms throughout the news conference about how he has sought for many years to get Clinton to acknowledge paternity. Williams said he was prepared to file a paternity suit against Clinton if he does not get the DNA from the dress.
Milbank, who scampered out of the press conference as awareness grew about his real agenda, insisted in his column that he had not made fun of Williams. But his column was full of statements and suggestions that the young man from Arkansas was unable to articulate his own case and had to rely on a white man to guide him.
First, Milbank mentioned Williams' race only twice -- once while quoting Williams -- and did not mention Gilbert's race at all. Second, Kincaid can't possibly know that Williams "spoke from the heart." He was reading words Gilbert obviously put in front of him because Gilbert has seemingly promised him some unspecified something for allowing Gilbert to exploit him this way.
Kincaid then bizarrely claims that "One of Milbank’s more obnoxious lies was the claim that Gilbert had once done a film about a 'labor activist' by the name of Frank Marshall Davis, who was Obama’s mentor in Hawaii during his growing-up years." It's indisputable that Gilbert made the film; he's just mad that Milbank didn't call Davis "a veteran member of the Communist Party—with a 600-page FBI file—who dabbled in pornography and pedophilia."
But he curiously didn't mention the point of Gilbert's film: to claim that Davis is Barack Obama's real father. And he certainly didn't mention the film has been utterly discredited.
Kincaid, however, was so happy to help with Gilbert's exploitation charade that he took a picture with Williams:
By the end of his column, all Kincaid had left is mocking Milbank's beard and whining that Milbank is "the comedic sidekick who expects to be taken seriously while the audience laughs at him" and "his routine is getting tiresome and old." That's actually a more apt description of himself than Milbank, yet AIM chief Don Irvine still sees fit to give Kincaid a steady paycheck.
AIM's Kincaid Cheers Putin Meddling With U.S. Elections Topic: Accuracy in Media
Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid has normally despised Russian leader Vladimir Putin -- at least when acts as a foil for his right-wing views. Kincaid, who still lives in a Cold War mindset, has criticized Putin for pursuing "the Leninist dream of a world dominated by the KGB" and bashed Pat Buchanan for being "a slavish devotee of all things Putin."
But it turns out Kincaid is a slavish devotee of some things Putin. He has cheered Putin's anti-gay efforts and denied that he any kind of homophobe, declaring that "the Russian response to America’s export of homosexuality under Obama is understandable, not objectionable, and it doesn’t constitute 'homophobia.'" That "response" was a law that forbids people from saying anything nice about gays.
Nonw, in his Oct. 13 AIM column, Kincaid is cheering a foreign power -- Putin, no less -- involving itself in the U.S. election process by stealing other people's property and strategically releasing it to benefit Trump:
But he has professed his love for the Putin when he
The Hillary Clinton campaign says the hackers behind the leaked email evidence of their collusion with the major media are from Russia and linked to the Russian regime. If so, I want to publicly thank those Russian hackers and their leader, Russian President Vladimir Putin, for opening a window into the modern workings of the United States government-corporate-media establishment.
But the Russians, if they are responsible, have performed a public service. And until there is a thorough house-cleaning of those in the major media who have made a mockery of professional journalism, the American people will continue to lack confidence in their system.
Strange that an anti-communist like Kincaid is so happy that a foreign communist is meddling with American elections. Thats what happens when hate trumps intellectual integrity.
AIM's Kincaid Mad New Black History Museum Won't Push His Far-Right Agenda Topic: Accuracy in Media
Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media is so mad about the new National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington, D.C. that he devotes not one but two columns to complaining about what it won't cover -- which, coincidentally, hews closely to his own (and AIM's) far-right, commie-obsessed agenda.
Kincaid does concede that "many exhibits" at the museum "will be worthwhile," but adds, "In the spirit of truth and transparency, we offer examples of exhibits that we have reason to believe, based on advance publicity, will not be available to those visiting the museum."
In arguing that "The Democratic Party’s history of slavery" should be an exhibit, Kincaid trots out Dinesh D'Souza's terrible, factually challenged film on the Democrats, references Hillary Clinton's praise of Robert Byrd while censoring the fact that Byrd renounced his KKK ties decades before his death, and lamenting that "no Republican presidential candidate has gotten more than 15 percent of the black vote since 1965" while censoring the fact that the racists who refused to change with the times after the Democrats fully embraced civil rights in the 1960s quit the party and became Republican.
In other words, Kincaid wants the museum to promote a false claim: that the Democratic Party of the 1860s is exactly the same as the Democratic Party of today.
The rest of Kincaid's list -- again, so long it takes two columns for him to explain -- is similarly dubious, pedantic and even more commie-obsessed. Among them:
The Communist mentor of the first black President.
Martin Luther King Jr.’s womanizing, plagiarism, and communist advisers.
Paul Robeson: a black dupe of reds.
Why Richard Wright broke with the Communist Party.
The NAACP once opposed communism.
White people were also slaves.
Slaves helped burn down and build the White House.
Blacks Are Worse Off Under Obama.
Blacks in America have had a much better life in America than Africa.
Abortion is black genocide.
Kincaid's obsession withblacks who embraced communism in thte middle part of the last century ignores the political reality of the time: Unlike much of America, the Communist Party (in theory, at least) believed in black equality, and anti-communism started out in part as a way to suppress blacks. Indeed, communism helped push the rest of the country toward full civil rights for blacks. Is Kincaid so anti-communist that he won't give the commies credit for that?
In short, Kincaid's rants are said like a right-winger who sees blacks not as people but as a political talking point to be deployed and exploited to his own (and AIM's, since it willingly pays Kincaid to write this stuff) partisan purposes.
AIM Blogger Is Mad CNN Didn't Source The Obvious Topic: Accuracy in Media
This is an actual Sept. 23 Accuracy in Media blog post by Spencer Irvine:
CNN picked three historical markers, without sourcing, to say the following about the GOP presidential nominee:
At a rally in North Carolina on Tuesday, Donald Trump, the Republican nominee states: “Our African American communities are absolutely in the worst shape they’ve ever been in before. Ever, ever, ever.”
The statement is so patently absurd, fact-checking it seems kind of silly.
One fact was about the lynching of black Americans, another was about mobs, and the other was about poverty. They could be true, but the article was not sourced, which calls into question the premise of the ‘reality check’ fact-check article.
Huh? Irvine needs a source to back up the seemingly obvious assertion that lynching, white race mobs that wantonly burdered blacks and the economic effects of segregation were worse for American blacks than today?
Notice that nowhere in his brief blog post does Irvine question the accuracy of Trump's original claim -- apparenlty he assumes it's accurate, without sourcing it.
AIM's Resident Birther Now Claims Birtherism Doesn't Matter Topic: Accuracy in Media
In a September 2009 column, Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid was in full birther froth, proclaiming that he had released a copy of his own birth certificate, in order to demonstrate what needs to be done to resolve the growing controversy over the alleged birth certificate of President Barack Obama, adding: “My birth certificate includes the names of my mother and father, my mother’s doctor, and the hospital in which I was born. ... This certified copy of an original long form document is what anyone who wants to be president should be prepared to produce.”
Kincaid also claimed: “It is not unreasonable to ask questions about Barack Obama’s birthplace. Anybody who has an original copy of their own birth certificate, or a certified copy of their own original birth certificate, should immediately understand that the Obama version is lacking in basic information that should be publicly available." Kincaid denied that contemporaneous notices of Obama's birth in Honolulu newspapers were not sufficient proof that he was born there, further whining that "today’s pro-Obama journalists want to ignore those questions when it comes to the constitutional eligibility of the current occupant of the oval office."
Now, however, with birtherism unambiguously proven to be a discredited fraud -- and with Donald Trump beating a public retreat from his years of birtherism -- Kincaid wants to change the subject.
He makes that abundantly clear in the headline of his Sept. 18 AIM column, "It’s the Marxism, Not the Birtherism." Ah, but the birtherism still matters enough toKincaid to talk at length about it:
The “birther” issue is now being used by Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama and their media allies to get black people riled up. It’s part of their get-out-the-vote drive. Not surprisingly, the Post and other media play right along with it. They realize Obama has done little for black people. So they have to demonize Trump.
The Post’s Jenna Johnson reported on Friday afternoon that Hillary Clinton “said Trump owes Obama an apology for promoting a false theory about his birthplace. She did not directly address the Trump assertion that her own 2008 campaign promoted the same theory, but her current campaign flatly rejected that claim.”
This appeared under the headline, “Trump admits Obama was born in U.S., but falsely blames Clinton for starting rumors.”
Actually, Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle did admit that a Clinton staffer had spread the claim that Obama was born outside of the United States. Hillary did not personally apologize to Barack Obama for that. Yet now the cry is for Trump, who questioned the place of his birth, to personally apologize to Obama.
All of this is just racial politics. Hillary knows that most blacks are not as enthusiastic about her as they were for Obama. So she has to get them up in arms.
But Kincaid's current story is that Obama's purported relationship with Frank Marshall Davis is what really matters. "orget Kenya or Hawaii as Barack Obama’s birthplace. The issue is that he was mentored by a communist named Frank Marshall Davis, who taught him that blacks had a “reason to hate” and that Christianity was the white man’s religion," Kincaid insists. "That was the smoking gun in Obama’s life story, not the place where he was born. His birthplace was always a secondary issue."
Yeah, it was so "secondary" to Kincaid that he was such a devoted birther he felt compelled to release his own birth certificate.
Kincaid forgets he has a paper trail so his lies are easy to track.
It's Always the Cold War In Cliff Kincaid's Head Topic: Accuracy in Media
The Cold War ended decades ago, but Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid apepars not to have gotten the memo -- he's as obsessed with finding communists under every rock as any cold warrior. Thus, we have this overly lengthy Sept. 1 AIM piece from Kincaid that starts out thusly:
The lack of coverage in 2008 of the embarrassing facts in Barack Obama’s background, especially his deep personal relationship with a Communist by the name of Frank Marshall Davis, stands as a sensational example of how dishonest the national media can be when they are determined to elect somebody. If Obama’s opponent, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), had been linked to a Nazi or a Klansman, the press would have jumped on the story, with endless follow-ups. But the story of Obama’s Communist mentor was suppressed by a journalist for The Washington Post who had all the essential details and could have broken the story wide open.
We now know why the potential blockbuster story about Obama’s Communist mentor was deliberately ignored by Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post journalist David Maraniss. He had personal and political conflicts that prevented him from telling the truth about Obama to the American people. Simply put, his parents were Communists, just like Davis.
Maraniss, in other words, was a red-diaper baby.
The shocking truth can finally be told. His parents, Elliott and Mary Maraniss, along with Davis, were members of the same international conspiracy which had groomed Obama for the presidency, in order to hasten the decline and destruction of the United States.
We're into some serious guilt-by-association territory here. It's a very tangental attack on Obama by going after the author of a book Kincaid didn't like.
And Kincaid is just spouting off by claiming that Maraniss "deliberately ignored" and "suppressed" the story of "Obama’s Communist mentor." He knows no such thing -- he's just ranting and speculating.
And these sorts of weird, tangental attacks are a big reason why few people take AIM seriously as a source for credible media criticism.
AIM's Kincaid Defends the Honor of White Supremacists Topic: Accuracy in Media
For some reason, Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid loves Jared Taylor, the unambuguously racist head of white-supremacist group American Renaissance. He's promoted Taylor before, fretting that the Southern Poverty Law Center "has smeared Taylor as a 'white nationalist'" (it's not a smear if it's true, Cliff) and laughably denying that Taylor and AmRen are racist, insisting that merely deals with "racial issues" like the Congressional Black Caucus.
Well, Kincaid has struck again in an Aug. 29 AIM column. First, he's upset that Hillary Clinton's campaign is pointing out the white-nationalist support for Donald Trump and doesn't see why it's such a big deal: "I frankly don’t know who or what she is talking about. Is it objectionable for white people to defend their interests and even be proud of their race? Is that 'white nationalism?'"
Kincaid quickly moves from that to defending the honor of his white-supremacist friends at AmRen:
It would be nice if these columnists would let the pro-white groups speak for themselves. It would also be nice to have a few facts in place of their vitriol.
One good source of information on all of this is the website of American Renaissance, a self-described “white advocacy organization.”
American Renaissance declares, “The United States is not a territory that is up for grabs, and that belongs to whoever manages—legally or illegally—to get here. It was founded by Europeans, who gave it its culture and institutions, and America’s European core has every right to resist dispossession.”
Is there some doubt that European Americans founded this country?
American Renaissance goes on to say, “American Renaissance is a voice for all white people whose hopes for preserving their people and culture are being sacrificed under the delusion that diversity is a strength. Diversity of race, language or religion is a source of weakness and tension for a country. To ask whites—anywhere in the world—to ‘celebrate diversity’ is to ask them to celebrate their declining numbers and dwindling influence. It is to ask them to welcome oblivion.”
One can disagree with Trump on this or that issue. But the idea that it’s wrong to appeal to or attract white voters is simply ludicrous. Is it objectionable for whites to advocate policies advantageous to their race?
Kincaid then complains that if appealing to minorities is OK, why is it such a bad thing for anyone to explicitly appeal to whites, like Jared Taylor does?
It is perfectly fine, from the liberal media’s point of view, to appeal to blacks and other minorities. But whites are off-limits. Hence, to even speak of a “white identity” makes one a racist or a nationalist. This is complete nonsense, especially from a media that doesn’t even use the accurate phrase “illegal aliens” anymore.
In 2012 the Obama campaign ran a 60-second ad entitled, “We’ve Got Your Back,” appealing to black voters’ nostalgia about the election of the nation’s first African-American president. It called on those voters to “have the President’s back” and stand with Obama again in November of 2012.
Obama’s mentor had taught him that black people have “reason to hate.”
Where was the outrage?
We commented four years ago that Jared Taylor, author of the book, White Identity, had been banned from most programs because he dared to talk about whites as people with special interests of their own, separate from various minority groups. Taylor runs American Renaissance.
He’s getting more attention today because he is a target of Hillary Clinton’s campaign against Donald J. Trump. Taylor has been lumped into the alt-right category and branded as a “white nationalist.”
That's because he is a white nationalist, Cliff.
Kincaid concludes with what he thinks is his coup de grace: The real racist is Hillary!
Hillary has a $10 billion plan to fight drug addiction with “multi-faceted federal policy leadership.” Her plan says nothing about how to stop the heroin, which kills white people, from coming across the border.
Is she anti-white?
Um, no, Cliff -- you're just projecting. Further, as Vox explains, Clinton's plan does address the heroin epidemic through increased funding for prevention and treatment programs. It also proposes to increase access to naloxone, a drug that can reverse the effects of an overdose of heroin or other opiates.
Vox also points out that prescription opioid drugs have contributed to heroinuse, and Clinton's plan would also give doctors better training and tools to know which patients actually need painkillers and which may be likely to abuse them.
Kincaid apparently doesn't understand that one key way to address the supply of heroin is to address the demand; as the Economist notes, rising supply is linked to rising demand. Merely addressing supply without addressing demand, as Kincaid seems to want, does not solve the problem.
AIM Lets Anti-Gay Activist Attack 'Media Myths' About Gay 'Agenda' Topic: Accuracy in Media
Accuracy in Media -- never particularly friendly to gays -- has published a report claiming to "expose and refute some of the longstanding statistical lies and propagandistic myths of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) activist movement."
One huge sign the report wouldn't live up to the standards in AIM's name: it was written by Peter LaBarbera, head of the virulently anti-gay group Americans For Truth About Homosexuality. The Southern Poverty Law Center has detailed how LaBarbera and his group traffics in distortions and falsehoods about gays.
True to form, LaBarbera paints gays as filthy and disease-ridden, lovingly detailing how they are more likely to catch diseases like HIV and syphilis. He denies all evidence that homosexuality may have a genetic basis and thinks bans on conversion therapy are "highly dangerous" (as opposed to the therapy itself).
LaBarbera touts a study claiming that children of homosexual parents have more emotional problems than in other types of families, but that study has been criticized as using highly flawed data and was published in a for-profit journal that takes payments from authors to get published, meaning that its peer-review process was questionable.
LaBarbera also extensively quotes discredited anti-gay and anti-transgender psychiatrist Paul McHugh -- a favorite of CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman -- and his list of "helpful sites" all at least as gay-hating as his own, except for the Centers for Disease Control, which "is strongly pro-homosexual" but serves LaBarbera's purpose by issuing reports with "ample evidence on the relationship between homosexual/bisexual behavior and disease."
So anti-gay hate is "accuracy in media"? Apparently it is at AIM.
AIM Trots Out Ethically Challenged Journalist To Lament 'The Sad State of Modern Journalism' Topic: Accuracy in Media
Yes, this Aug. 8 Accuracy in Media article by Alex Nitzberg really exists:
Criticizing the current state of modern journalism, Tucker Carlson told Accuracy in Media (AIM) that journalists’ obsequious behavior, blatant bias and monolithic worldview have compromised the integrity of the nation’s fourth estate.
Carlson, a member of the Fox News team and a veteran journalist who co-founded The Daily Caller, asserts that many journalists bask in the presence of “the powerful” and are “…afraid to challenge anybody in power.”
He explained that regardless of the election’s outcome, the media’s advocacy has destroyed its claim to objectivity.
Pointing out that a conflict of interest will arise if Trump wins and the largely anti-Trump media must report on his presidency, he said, “… how are they gonna cover that, the administration? Can they? Haven’t they discredited themselves?”
Carlson believes journalists should seek the truth, “even if it leads them into uncomfortable places and especially if it leads them to places they didn’t expect to arrive…that’s what I thought journalism was, pursuit of what’s true, of accuracy, but not just accuracy, of truth.”
This would be the same Tucker Carlson whose Daily Caller has published numerous false and dubious claims as well as right-wing conspiracy theories. More recently, Carlson has admitted that he doesn't permit Daily Caller writers to publish anything critical of Fox News because he co-hosts a show there. So much for Carlson's pursuit of the truth.
That's who AIM thinks should opine on what the headline calls "the sad state of modern journalism": someone who's playing a key role in perpetuating it.
AIM's Kincaid Repeats Discredited Falsehoods About Margaret Sanger Topic: Accuracy in Media
Accuracy in Media's resident gay-obsessed, factually challenged Obama-hater Cliff Kincaid takes to AIM's sister site Accuracy in Academia to praise Dinesh D'Souza's Hillary-bashing film "Hillary's America," which also purports to detail the history of the Democratic Party. If Kincaid is any guide, the film is an ahistorical mess, playing on the fallacy that the Democratic Party of a century ago is exactly the same as the party today.
Kincaid writes of the film:
In one reenactment, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, is shown speaking to a women’s auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan. That’s followed by excerpts of a modern-day Hillary speech expressing her admiration for Sanger.
Liberals have tried to play down Sanger’s involvement with the KKK, saying she spoke to a variety of different groups. But Sanger’s own book, The Pivot of Civilization, included references to eliminating “human weeds” and sterilizing “inferior” races.
About Kincaid's first claim: Yes, Sanger spoke to a KKK women's auxiliary. But as we've noted, fact-checkers have pointed out that the KKK auxiliary was not the KKK itself, Sanger was not a KKK supporter, and Sanger pointed out in her autobiography that while she would speak on the issue of birth control to preetty much anyone who would have her, her KKK auxiliary speech was a surreal experience.
About Kincaid's second claim: As we've also documented, the term "human weeds" appears nowhere in "The Pivot of Civilization," and Sanger never called for "terilizing 'inferior' races."
If Kincaid is getting his information about Sanger from D'Souza's film, that kinda discredits the whole film, doesn't it? Not to mention further putting the lie to AIM's insistence that it cares about accuracy in media (or academia).
AIM Is Mad One Reporter Showed Its Benghazi Kangaroo Court Sham Topic: Accuracy in Media
In his July 5 column, Accuracy in Media's Roger Aronoff predictably complained that the "liberal media" mostly ignored the final report from AIM's Benghazi kangaroo court -- er, the Citizens' Commission on Benghazi. And he also complained about the one "liberal media" member that did, the Washington Post's Dana Milbank, who allegedly "regularly trolls conservative gatherings to heap scorn, sarcasm and peddle misinformation to his waiting readers. That is the sad state of journalism in this country today." Aronoff complains:
During the course of Milbank’s article, he called the members of the CCB “a coalition of far-right foreign-policy types,” “conspiracy theorists,” and “agitators.” This is all part of the attempt to discredit the messenger, because Milbank can’t really dispute the message—although he has certainly tried. But at least he was there, and spelled the names correctly, though he was wrong about the number of members on the commission (it’s 14, plus two advisory, not 11). Apparently the Post’s Fact-Checker was busy on other stories that day. Maybe they should hire more.
Milbank found our report to be what he called “full of inventive accusations.”
“They found ‘troubling evidence that Obama and Clinton were deeply and knowingly involved in running guns to al-Qaeda in Libya,’” writes Milbank, “as well as ‘a clear case of official U.S. government submission to the Islamic Law on slander.’”
“They determined that the Obama administration ‘switched sides in what was then called the Global War on Terror’ and ‘benefited this country’s worst enemies,’” he continues. “They wrote that Clinton herself blocked U.S. military forces from attempting a rescue mission, and they attributed the decision to oust Libya’s Moammar Gaddafi in part to financial interests of the Clinton Foundation.”
When Milbank quotes from the CCB’s findings, the obvious inference is that he finds these points to be baseless—and believes they could only originate from the minds of right-wing conspiracy theorists. The findings in the CCB’s latest report are, indeed, very damning accusations. But we back them up in every case, and encourage people to read the report and judge for themselves. Our military and intelligence experts—former admirals, generals, colonels, congressmen and CIA officers—are people with vast service to this country and outstanding reputations.
Aronoff doesn't want to talk about how the CCB is filled with far-right foreign policy types and conspiracy theorists because he knows that's indisputably true. His insistence that "our military and intelligence experts—former admirals, generals, colonels, congressmen and CIA officers—are people with vast service to this country and outstanding reputations" doesn't contradict the fact that they are, in fact, Obama-haters and birthers who had no intention of conducting a fair and balanced investigation.
Indeed, according to Milbank, one of the speakersat the press conference referred to Obama as "Barack Hussein Soetero Obama," a name only birthers and Obama-haters would use. Aronoff doesn't mention that.
Milbank also pointed out that the CCB included as a member Wayne Simmons, who was recently sentenced to prison on various fraud charges after it was discovered that he apparently lied about being a longtime CIA operative. Aronoff didn't note Milbank's reference to Simmons, let alone address why a commission that had him as a member has any credibility.
Aronoff is apparently under orders from AIM chief Don Irvine not to discuss Simmons; after news of Simmons' arrest broke last fall, AIM scrubbed its website of most references to Simmons and issued a statement on him that is the last public statement anyone at AIM has made about Simmons.
Like it or not, the presence of Simmons on the CCB, as much as AIM is now pretending it never happened, is a(nother) reason not to take the CCB seriously, as is Aronoff's refusal to discuss him.
Aronoff continues his complaint against Milbank:
It is Milbank who is being played for the fool by not looking at the evidence.
Apparently he doesn’t believe that Hillary Clinton, or anyone else, for that matter, “blocked U.S. military forces from attempting a rescue mission.” Yet American military assets were not sent to aid those in Benghazi. The Americans in Benghazi were left to withstand multiple terror attacks on their own, lasting approximately 13 hours from start to finish.
Actually, the reason to believe that Cliinton "blocked U.S. military forces from attempting a rescue mission" is because the commission offered no evidence that it happened.
Looking at the CCB report, the main source for that is an article at the far-right FrontPageMag.com by right-winger Ken Timmerman, whose headline falsely states that Clinton issued a "stand-down order" to troops purportedly ready to go to Benghazi on a rescue mission. Timmerman himself doesn't even claim that; he simply speculates that Clinton refused to authorize a military rescue into Benghazi, based on a memo issued by Jeremy Bash, an aide to then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.
In fact, as the Democratic members of the House Selecddt Committee on Benghazi point out, the Bash memo confirms previous testimony by Panetta and others that even if military assets were blocked from going in (which they weren't), Americans at the Benghazi facility were evacuated before they would have arrived.
Meanwhile, note who does get Aronoff's praise for reporting on AIM's little kangaroo court:
Jerome Corsi at WorldNetDaily did read the report, and he wrote a different sort of article illuminating the dereliction of duty by the Obama administration.
Corsi recounts how Charles Woods, the father of Ty Woods, spoke at the June 29 press conference, and asked to know who is “responsible” for his son’s death. Ty was a former Navy SEAL who was part of the CIA Annex Security Team. In fact, I hope every American will get the chance to watch the movie “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi.” It is available on demand on most cable TV services. I attended the premiere last January in Dallas.
Jennifer Harper of The Washington Times also highlighted the new report from the CCB.
Needless to say, neither Corsi nor Harper mention the conspiratorial, Obama-hating nature of the CCB members or that the discredited criminal Simmons was a member. And Aronoff doesn't admit that WND and the Washington Times have right-wing editorial biases.
In other words, Aronoff is praising WND and the WashTimes for uncritically repeating what it wanted to be made public. That's not "accuracy in media"; that's stenography.
And he's mad that one media outlet did raise uncomfortable truths about the CCB that he did not want discussed, an attitude that appears to contradict the whole "accuracy in media" thing AIM claims to be all about.