Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's methods of defending Elon Musk have been a bit extreme lately -- for example, calling on racist cartoonist Scott Adams to defend Musk's attacks on the Anti-Defamation League for pointing out anti-Semitism on Twitter (well, X) and cheering death threats (that Musk helped incite) against former Twitter offical Yoel Roth for doing his pre-Musk job and refusing to be a Musk toady. And it continues to lash out at anyone who won't uncritically repat the pro-Musk narrative. Clay Waters spent a Sept. 16 post complaining that PBS asked tough questions of Walter Isaacson, author of a new, largely favorable biography of Musk:
Two shows that air on tax-funded PBS, the NewsHour and Amanpour & Co. (which also airs on CNN) invited journalist and Amanpour regular co-host Walter Isaacson to discuss his new biography of entrepreneur Elon Musk, who now owns X (formerly Twitter).
This was not the usual journalist-to-journalist validation, with the reliably liberal Isaacson getting testy over some of the questions and feeling the need to defend his treatment of Musk, a figure loathed among journalists and the left -- or is that redundant? Over the two interviews, Musk was accused of racism, sexism, and even supporting Vladimir Putin.
On NewsHour, host Amna Nawaz unloaded on Musk:
Elon Musk is one of the most famous people on the planet, for the tech companies he's founded and acquired, and he's one of the wealthiest. But Musk is also among the most controversial public figures because of his behavior, including the spread of misinformation, racist and sexist remarks, and his political ideas….
After a squabble over Isaacson’s reporting about the details of Musk refusing to let Ukraine use his Starlink satellites to guide their submarine drones to attack Russian forces, Nawaz hurled a pro-Putin accusation at Musk.
[...]
Isaacson discussed Musk being bullied as a child and how it may have shaped him. Nawaz was merciless.
Nawaz: Walter, a lot of folks have traumatic childhoods, right? And they don't always turn into people who are abusive towards their staff, or, as he has done, tweeted racist, or sexist, or offensive things. He has a very huge platform. He's a very powerful man and a very, very wealthy man. And I wonder if you think he's also a potentially dangerous man because of those combinations.
Isaacson actually pushed back a bit: Well, I won't agree with all of the characterizations you put on some of the tweets….
Isaacson also appeared with Christiane Amanpour on Thursday. Amanpour called Musk “a villain to some and a genius to others,” and brought up criticism from lefties who found Isaacson’s book had insufficient” pushback” and didn’t “make judgments” against Musk.
By contrast, Luis Cornelio was in full stenography mode, spending a Sept. 21 post touting a Republlican congressmasn spouting right-wing pro-Musk narratives at aGOP-led House hearing:
A defiant Attorney General Merrick Garland stumbled over his words Wednesday when faced with tough questions about his alleged targeting of X owner Elon Musk.
In a contentious five-hour-long hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Garland endured scorching criticism related to the motives behind two investigations against Musk.
Specifically, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) pressed Garland over allegations that the Department of Justice is targeting Musk as a result of the politically damning evidence revealed in The Twitter Files. “These look like mafia tactics,” a fired-up Massie said.
“Elon Musk was a Democrat who admittedly supported Biden but then he became a critic of the administration and exposed the censorship regime,” Massie continued, likely referring to the Twitter Files, which exposed a disturbing web of censorship collusion between the social media company and the federal government. “Now, per public reports, the DOJ has opened, not one but two investigations of Elon Musk.”
The Kentucky lawmaker made reference to a Wall Street Journal report alleging that federal prosecutors in New York are scrutinizing perks Musk received during his tenure as the owner of electric car company Tesla. As reported by The Journal on Sept. 19, the DOJ probe, led by the U.S. District Attorney for the Southern District of New York, comes in addition to a Securities and Exchange Commission civil investigation into the same matter.
Cornelio did not note whether there is anything beyond mere coincidence to the conclusions Massie is leaping to -- perhaps because there is no substance to the attack. Cornelio's stenography continued:
Massie drew attention to the disparate treatment of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, whose financial involvement in the 2020 presidential action triggered the ire of Republican lawmakers and numerous governors. “Mark Zuckerberg, on the other hand, spent $400 million in 2020, tilting the elections secretly for Democrats—no investigations whatsoever,” Massie remarked.
Corneilo refused to fact-check Massie, so we will (with a little help). Money was made available by a Zuckerberg-funded noprofit to government election offices across the country to help them conduct the 2020 elections, affected by the COVID pandemic. Some of that money was used by governments for get-out-the-vote efforts,but there is no evidence of political favoritism in how the money was distributed or spent, and the giveaway did not violate election laws.
IN other words: Massie is basically lying byat Zuckergurg's money "titled" the election to Democrats, but Cornelio won't call out the lie because it serves pro-Musk narratives.
