Advertising Masquerading As News Topic: WorldNetDaily
More evidence that part of the deal in advertising at WorldNetDaily is that you get a "news" story written about you: an Oct. 26 article about the Life Donor program (which aims to "educate pregnant young women about their options to abortion, saving countless unborn lives in the process"). This story has regularly appeared on WND's front page ever since.
Life Donor appears to be getting the same deal from WND as advertisers such as Voice of the Martyrs (whose profile of its founder is currently a "news" article on the WND front page, even though it was written back in July) and Swiss America (which got a free plug when WND editor Joseph Farah steered a plagiarized article toward Swiss America's line of business).
Why doesn't WND explain to its readers why it continually breaches the wall between news and advertising to benefit its advertisers?
Contradiction Topic: WorldNetDaily
Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez, Jr, sees the 60 miles of the Texas-Mexico border his deputies patrol as a frontline in the war on terror – his biggest fear is smugglers will bring terrorists and dirty bombs into the U.S. through his county. Gonzalez, Zapata County's chief lawman and chairman of the Border Sheriff's Association, told a San Antonio conference yesterday it's not a matter of "if," but "when," a terrorist will enter the U.S. through Mexico with a dirty bomb or some other weapon of mass destruction.
Vallely and More Topic: Newsmax
NewsMax tried its hand, as part of its smear-Patrick-Fitzgerald campaign, to hop on the Paul Vallely bandwagon in a Nov. 9 article by citing three other people, as well as Vallely, quoted as claiming that Joseph Wilson was running around Washington telling anyone he could buttonhole that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. Media Matters shoots it down.
A Tale of Two Articles Topic: CNSNews.com
The general approach taken by CNSNews.com is encapsulated in two Nov. 11 articles by Randy Hall. The first summarizes documents a Democratic event celebrating recent election victories; Hall quotes Republicans picketing outside the event.
The second article by Hall summarizes a Veterans Day speech by President Bush, in which he criticizes Democrats for "claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war" and claims that ""while it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." Hall does not quote any Democratic response to Bush's claims.
CFIF: We Love Torture! Topic: The ConWeb
The Center for Individual Freedom, whom we've most recently noted as making bogus claims about judicial picks, recently sent out a email via NewsMax's mailing list encouraging folks to pay CFIF $20 (preferably more) to send out blast faxes opposing the anti-torture bill. (Here's the link to the CFIF site on this.) How does CFIF back the idea of torture? Mostly by not calling it that:
You may be alive today because some interrogator wasn’t too fastidious about how he got his information from some proud, smirking jihadist.
No cruel or inhuman treatment... that sounds reasonable... or does it?
But the phrase “degrading treatment” – which could have been invented by Amnesty International -- is so vague and full of holes you could drive a Hummer through it.
Solitary confinement, harsh language, ridicule, mild threats, good-cop-bad-cop -- the Senate wants to outlaw all of these standard questioning techniques and restrict interrogators to the etiquette of a ladies’ lawn party.
These terrorists are butchering women and children all over the globe -- as well as launching sneak attacks on our troops – and we’re supposed to walk on egg shells when we try to find out which Americans they intend to kill next?
Exactly what are our troops suppose to do when questioning these terrorist thugs in an attempt to save American lives?
"Pretty please Mr. terrorist... I beg you...could you please tell us the details of your NEXT attack on innocent Americans?"
That's about the size of it folks. After all, we will now have to be extra careful not to do ANYTHING THAT WOULD DEGRADE OR INSULT THESE KILLERS!
Let’s Clear Up A Few Things Right Now
We don’t torture prisoners. We don’t blindfold them, threaten them with execution, and televise their pathetic pleas for life.
We don’t condone cruel and unusual punishments. We don’t lop off prisoners’ heads in front of TV cameras or on the world wide web.
With few exceptions, we treat prisoners as humanely as any enemy has ever treated its enemies. Ask the handful of U.S. troops who survived captivity how the terrorists treated them.
Abu-Gharib was the exception -- not the rule -- and mere child's play in comparison to how these terrorists, murderers and thugs treat our people -- or even their own people for that matter.
The only atrocities going on at Guantanamo Bay are the atrocities that these murderers and thugs who are being detained are heaping upon the fine U.S. soldiers assigned to guard them.
We give these terrorists their own Korans, prayer rugs, clean living conditions, indoor plumbing and three square meals a day... many of them NEVER had it so good.
First, Malzberg buys into the false claim, promoted elsewhere at NewsMax, that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said that Valerie Plame wasn't a covert CIA agent. In fact, as we noted when other NewsMax writers made the same claim, when Fitzgerald said that "we have not made any allegation that Mr. [Lewis "Scooter"] Libby knowingly or intentionally outed a covert agent," he was referring to the fact that the charges against Libby for perjury and false statements are not linked to whether Plame was covert, not a determination that Plame was not covert. And Malzberg insists that "Democratic partisans and their media enablers" are the ones who get this statement "dead wrong."
Then, in responding to MSNBC's Chris Matthews' assertion that Plame's neighbors didn't know she worked for the CIA, Malzberg wrote:
Too bad that Chris hadn't read the Washington Times story of July 15, 2005. Reporters spoke with a former CIA agent who was himself covert from 1966 to 1990. Fred Rustman also happened to supervise Valerie Plame early in her career and he says that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she worked for the agency.
Too bad Malzberg didn't read that story either. That very same Washington Times article does quote a neighbor as saying he didn't know Plame worked for the CIA. Additionally, Fred Rustmann is not Plame's neighbor and has not supervised Plame in 15 years, making anything he has to say about Plame tenuous at best.
Seems that Malzberg has a bit of the loony factor going too.
Lynne Ratchets Up Michael-Bashing Topic: WorldNetDaily
Diana Lynne ratchets up her attack on Michael Schiavo in a Nov. 10 WorldNetDaily commentary, saying that the mere act of Terri Schiavo's marriage to Michael set the stage for her death.
Since Lynne, as she has all along, is clearly interested in telling only one side of the Terri Schiavo story -- that which paints Terri and her parents in the most flattering light and Michael Schiavo in the most negative light -- shouldn't WND be honest with its readers and stop promoting Lynne's book, "Terri's Story," as "comprehensive"?
WND and Vallely Topic: WorldNetDaily
Media Matters (full disclosure: my employer) does a good rundown of the ever-shifting story -- heavily promoted by WorldNetDaily -- of Paul Vallely's claim that Joseph Wilson claimed that his wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA well before her outing by Bush administration officials in mid-2003. Let's summarize and expand regarding WND's treatment of the story.
-- WND won't say that Vallely's story has changed from his original claim. In its original Nov. 5 article, WND claimed Vallely said that Wilson told his wife's job "over the course of at least three, possibly five, conversations in 2002."
Vallely retracted most of that claim three days later -- though, of course, that's not how WND's Art Moore put it in a Nov. 8 article. Rather, Moore wrote that Vallely "clarified the number of occasions Wilson mentioned his wife's status ... [a]fter recalling further over the weekend his contacts with Wilson." Vallely is now claiming that Wilson mentioned his wife's occupation only once and "that it likely occurred some time in the late summer or early fall of 2002."
-- Another Nov. 8 WND article (this one unbylined) notes a claim that National Review contributor Victor Davis Hanson said that Wilson had told him of his wife's occupation in a pre-outing green-room conversation. WND added: "But contrary to a report, Hanson said Wilson did not disclose his wife's CIA employment."
Whose mystierous "report" is WND debunking? One by radio host John Batchelor -- on whose show Vallely made his original, mostly retracted claim, Media Matters notes.
-- That same article also quotes Vallely as saying that "There's no personal vendetta here" against Wilson. But WND has never reported Vallely's background. As Media Matters details, Vallely is an official at the conservative Center for Security Policy, whose current president is Washington Times columnist Frank J. Gaffney Jr. Current and former CSP advistory board members include Former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle, and radio host and former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, former deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, and former undersecretary of defense for policy Douglas J. Feith.
There's a lot of this story WND has not told or otherwise made clear to its readers.
Who's Paranoid? Topic: Newsmax
A Nov. 8 NewsMax article tweaks some Democrats for floating allegations that faulty voting machines would cause the Virginia governor's race to go to the Republican, Jerry Kilgore, instead of the Democrat, Tim Kaine, under the headline "Election Night Deja Vu for Paranoid Dems." "Democrats were all set to cry foul" with "conspiracy theorists running wild at lefty web sites like Democratic Underground and the Daily Kos" when early returns showed Kilgore ahead, NewsMax wrote, adding: "Of course, that was before their candidate won the race."
It's really no different from what NewsMax did before the 2004 presidential election in trying to seed claims that if John Kerry had won, it would have been because Democrats rigged the election. As an article I wrote for Media Matters summarizes, NewsMax was claiming a month before the November 2004 election that "Democrats and their supporters may be laying the groundwork for a massive effort to 'steal' the election come Election Day" and other similar allegations, though the activities it described were 1) legal and 2) also being done by Republicans.
In other words, NewsMax knows quite well the so-called paranoia that it accuses Democrats of promoting, having promoted the same thing itself.
More Michael Schiavo Bashing at WND Topic: WorldNetDaily
Following an unbylined smear of Michael Schiavo a few days ago, WorldNetDaily's Diana Lynne (she of the unbalancedTerriSchaivoreporting for WND) affixed her byline to a Nov. 8 article bashing Schiavo's endorsement of an candidate in the Virginia governor's race based solely on comments on a message board. No word on whether she was responsible for the Nov. 4 article that prominently displayed the American Spectator's smear that Schiavo was "America's most admired widower this side of O.J. Simpson."
Lynne bizarrely adds at the end of her article that "Michael Schiavo joins the ranks of presidential wannabes soaking up the wattage of the political spotlight in Virginia." Huh? When did Michael Schiavo say he was running for president?
Horowitz also announced that Richard Poe is being promoted to "senior fellow, director of research and investigative projects" for Horowitz's CSPC. He adds that Poe will be "taking charge of a new investigative unit at CSPC, which will dig deep into the secrets of the left. It will follow the money trail and expose the left’s hidden agendas and relationships through hard-hitting articles which will appear in FrontPage and DiscovertheNetworks."
CNS Reporter Gets Lazy Topic: CNSNews.com
Do CNSNews.com reporters read the work of their fellow reporters? Apparently not.
A Nov. 7 article by Jeff Johnson brings another attack from conservatives on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals regarding a survey given to elementary school students that contained sexually oriented questions. Johnson quotes Allan Edgar, principal of the Emmanuel Christian School in Manassas, Va., as saying, "They call this an 'inappropriate survey.' ... Well, how did they let this go through without approval (from school officials)?"
If Johnson had read the Nov. 4 article by his colleage Nathan Burchfiel, he would know the answer to that, having interviewed the superintendent of the school district at the center of the controversy:
But Palmdale School Superintendent Dr. Jack Gyves told Cybercast News Service Friday that the school district accepted responsibility for the "inappropriate survey" and apologized to parents before it ever went to court.
The survey was conducted by an outside health services consultant who was conducting research for her dissertation, and Gyves said the questionnaire given to the students "was not the version of the survey that had been approved by the district.
This information appears nowhere in Johnson's story.
Johnson also claims that the ruling results in "denying parents the right to opt their elementary school-age children out of a public school sex survey." There is no evidence of that; as Burchfiel's article notes, a parental consent form was issued as part of the survey, but it didn't mention that there were sexually oriented questions because, as noted above, the school did not know that the questions were included. If Johnson had read Burchfiel's article, he would know this.
Johnson also quotes Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, as saying that "The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overruled circuit in the country," which is false and easily fact-checked.
And, of course, we have to wonder: Which CNS employee's kids attend the Emmanuel Christian School in Manassas, Va.? It's a suburb of Washington; CNS HQ is in Alexandria, Va., another DC suburb.
Covert vs. Classified Topic: Newsmax
NewsMax has a bee in its bonnet over the proper description of outed CIA operative Valerie Plame.
On Oct. 29 and again on Nov. 4, NewsMax insisted that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating Plame's outing, said that Plame was not "covert," meaning that any reference to her as such -- NewsMax came up with "more than 3,100" in a Nexis search -- is erroneous.
But the Fitzgerald quote NewsMax uses to support this claim, from his Oct. 28 news conference, doesn't say that Plame wasn't covert:
"I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward . . . We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion."
In other words, contrary to what NewsMax is putting into his mouth, Fitzgerald has made no determination as to whether Plame was covert.
NewsMax did admit that Fitzgerald said that Plame had "classified" status -- a statement which NewsMax, for some reason, did not want to quote directly; it was replaced by the ellipsis in the above quote -- but then discounted it as "a security status enjoyed by almost everyone who works at the agency."
In the Oct. 29 article, NewsMax adds: "Surely the press will begin issuing its Leakgate retractions any minute now." That statement might have more resonance if NewsMax retracted its claim that it never reported that U2 was holding a fund-raiser for Rick Santorum. C'mon, NewsMax, set an example.
Balance! Topic: CNSNews.com
A Nov. 4 CNSNews.com article does something very few ConWeb articles do -- tell the other side of a story that has become a cause celebre for conservatives without setting it up as a straw man for conservatives to knock down.
The article, by Nathan Burchfiel, serves up the reaction of the superintendent of the California school district at the center of a lawsuit over a questionnaire of elementary-school students that included sexually oriented questions. That lawsuit resulted in the 9th U.S. District Court of Appeals dismissing the suit and ruling that "There is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children."
Burchfiel's article quotes the superintendent as criticizing the motives of the parents who sued the school district over the survey, noting that the district had apologized to the parents and admitted that the questions weren't appropriate. It serves as balance to CNS' Nov. 3 article on the case, which carried the headline "Appeals Court Declares Parenthood Unconstitutional, Group Says."
WorldNetDaily, meanwhile, has reported only criticism of the ruling and didn't note the school district's apology or admissions prior to the lawsuit being filed.