A Sept. 21 CNSNews.com article purported to detail that "Hugo Chavez's Bush-bashing tirade at the United Nations on Wednesday drew little or no response in most quarters, except for liberal Democratic blogs, where cheers for Chavez dominated the discourse."
While Jones cited only one "liberal Democratic blog" in support of her claim, she also repeated claims that "A number of Democrats also have said derogatory things about President Bush." Among them was Rep. Charles Rangel, who"told the Congressional Black Caucus, 'George Bush is our Bull Connor.' " Needless to say, Jones failed to note that conservatives have similarly compared Democrats to Bull Connor -- like Mychal Massie, who ironically later condemned Rangel for doing so.
But later the same day, CNS' Melanie Hunter wrote an article highlighting Rangel's criticism of Chavez's speech, in which he stated, "You don't come into my country, you don't come into my congressional district, and you don't condemn my president" (even though the United Nations is technically not part of the United States, let alone in Rangel's congressional district). Thus far, Jones' article has not been updated to reflect that Rangel has criticized Chavez -- which would seem to be the fair and journalistic thing to do, since Hunter's citing of Rangel and two other members of Congress seems to contradict Jones' claim that the speech "drew little or no response in most quarters."
Then again, it just may be that CNS would rather let Rangel's remarks about Bush stand unbalanced in Jones' article lest it blunt the article's attack effect -- which, after all, was the point of it.
AP Responds to Malkin; Will WND, CNS Print It? Topic: CNSNews.com
WorldNetDaily and CNSNews.com run Michelle Malkin's syndicated column, and bothran her Sept. 20 column bashing the Associated Press for hiring photographer Bilal Hussein, who conservative bloggers like Malkin accuse of collaborating with terrorists in Iraq.
According to NewsBusters, the AP responded with a letter that is has requested be printed by print and online subscribers to Malkin's column, calling it "filled with innuendo, distortion and factual error." (Malkin responds here.)
The big question: Will CNS and WND, as subscribers to Malkin's column, print the AP's response? We'll be watching.
New Article: The 'Forced Homosexualization' of Joseph Farah Topic: WorldNetDaily
Out There: WorldNetDaily's editor and CEO is so paranoid about anything gay-related that not only does WND pursue a distorted anti-gay agenda, he thinks people critical of it are out to kill him. Read more.
CNS Treats 'Elitist' Meme as Fact Topic: CNSNews.com
A Sept. 20 CNSNews.com article by Kevin Mooney accepts as fact claims by Republican Rep. Peter King and the conservative Center for Immigration Studies that there is a "gap between the elite and public opinion" on the issue of immigration, unquestionly forwarding the CIS' "elite" terminology to describe those who oppose the hardline (er, "enforcement-only") immigration bill in the House.
Mooney even served up a list of these "elitists" -- "the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (USCC), President Bush and U.S. senators who support more lenient immigration legislation such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.)" -- but made no attempt to explain how supporting "more lenient immigration legislation" -- presumably, the Senate immigration bill -- makes one "elitist," let alone obtain any response from these purported "elitists" to find out their views about being placed on such a list.
Mychal Massie's Sept. 19 WorldNetDaily column, presented as a open letter to Jesse Jackson, contains the usual rhetorical flourishes ("Who brought 'discredit' on America in the years preceding 9/11, as the mongrel followers of a pedophile and false god bombed American interests around the world?") and personal attacks and smears ("You are the man who rubbed the blood of a fallen hero on your clothing and then lied, saying he died in your arms") that we've come to expect from Massie. But he also gets stuff wrong (which we've also come to expect). He wrote:
You intentionally and erroneously labeled domestic eavesdropping "warrantless wiretapping," never mentioning that it prevented Lyman Farris from blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge, was instrumental in protecting the Sears Towers and was key in uncovering the UK suicide bombers' plan to blow up 10 international passenger planes just one month ago.
Massie never explains why the term "warrantless wiretapping" is erroneous; after all, there is wiretapping and no warrants were obtained to do said wiretapping. And the program, in fact, played no signficant role in thwarting the alleged plot of Iyman Faris (not "Lyman Farris") to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, and there is only scant evidence that warrantless surveillance played any role in breaking up the British blowing-up-airplanes plot.
Matthew Sheffield, in a Sept. 20 NewsBusters post:
Sometimes when I'm talking about the media with someone who's smart but not particularly that political, they'll sometimes wonder why it's worth pointing out press bias or unfairness. The way they figure it, basically everyone is smart enough to take everything they see in the press with a grain of salt. If they come across something that's not true, they'll reject it.
It's a nice idea in theory, but in practice it just doesn't work that way. Most people are either too busy, too apathetic, or not intelligent enough to question the accuracy of something they see on TV or read somewhere.
Is that why Sheffield keeps falselyclaiming that liberals were trying to "censor" the ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11" because it put Clinton administration officials in a "bad light" when, in fact, they were complaining that it put them in a false light?
Breaking: New WND Reporter Is Biased! Topic: WorldNetDaily
With his hiring by WorldNetDaily, Bob Unruh has apparently said "screw that" to everything he learned about journalism in his nearly 30 years' experience with the Associated Press. Here's the lead paragraph of his Sept. 20 article:
Another three dozen major American corporations have acceded to the demands of homosexual activists in their corporate decision-making process and have been given a top ranking in an activist group's annual assessment of their accommodations.
Unruh offers no evidence to back up his claim that "demands" have beed "acceded" to. Unruh also misspells "Volvo" as "Volva"; apparently, they don't have those fancy imported vehicles out where he is.
We suspected this would happen. This is apparently the reason he punted his AP career for WND -- he wanted to write biased news and not be held to any sort of standard of fairness. And WND is more than happy to indulge that urge.
Farah Gets It Wrong About Anthrax Topic: WorldNetDaily
Via Orcinus, we learn that WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah has been engaging in false fear-mongering. In his Sept. 11 column regarding the unsolved post-9/11 anthrax attacks, he wrote:
ABC News reported in October and November 2001 that at least five experts had identified a substance called bentonite that was used to upgrade the anthrax found in the letter sent to Sen. Tom Daschle's Washington office. ABC's experts, as well as former U.N. inspectors that worked in Iraq, claimed that bentonite "was a trademark of the Iraqi germ warfare program."
ABC wasn't the only news agency that reported the bentonite discovery. The Wall Street Journal also claimed it was detected in the anthrax mailings that nearly paralyzed the country.
Remember bentonite? It turns out one of the largest manufacturers is (get ready for this, Michael Moore) a subsidiary of Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney's former employer.
In fact, bentonite was not found in the anthrax mailings. David Neiwert at Orcinus links to a website compiling evidence about the anthrax attacks, which points out that, contrary to ABC's claims, no trace of aluminum -- an indicator of bentonite -- was ever detected in tested anthrax samples.
Orcinus also notes that Michelle Malkin linked and excerpted Farah's column as evidence for the erroneous bentonite claim.
A Sept. 18 NewsMax article by Ronald Kessler paints the Bush administration's faith-based initiative in glowing terms, complete with the Bush sycophancy Kessler has become known for:
The media have characterized Bush's faith-based initiative as a way to introduce religion into the public sphere. Because he prays and reads the Bible every day, they routinely portray Bush himself as a religious zealot.
In fact, many of Bush's closest friends going back to Yale say he has never brought up religion with them. Bush talks about religion publicly only when asked questions by reporters.
Kessler himself declares:
While the initiative may seem like a way of mixing church and state, further examination reveals that it is simply a way to make sure that organizations that help the needy are not deprived of federal funds simply because they are affiliated with a religious group.
Kessler features Jim Towey, the current occupant of the White House's Faith-based and Community Initiatives office, but fails to mention the first occupant of that post, John DiIulio. That could be that after he resigned the post in 2002, he complained that the Bush White House cared much more about politics than policy, infamously calling it "the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis."
Apparently, if Kessler can't turn it into a straw man, he won't address it at all.
WorldNetDaily still can't get over the thought of female (not male) high school teachers having sex with students. A Sept. 19 WND article plays up "the latest instructor following in the path of other female teachers who rape their students and receive little or no jail time."
And once again, WND includes its lengthy list of cases illustrating "the phenomenon of teachers accused or convicted of having sex with their students" without noting, as we did, that some of the incidents on that list date back as much as 15 years and was plucked from a gossip website.
This time, though, WND did admit that its obsession is confined to female teachers, noting that its list includes only "cases involving women." What WND has never explained, though, is why it is holding only female teachers to such close scrutiny. Don't male teachers have sex with students, too? Why isn't WND calling them out?
NewsBusters' Greg Sheffield didn't like it one bit when conservative radio hosts were accused of inciting harrassment of Muslims. From a Sept. 18 post:
Blame it on talk radio. That is what Washington Post reporter Michelle Boorstein accepts as the reason for an increase in the harassment of Muslims in the U.S. It has nothing to do with terrorist attacks or threats of violence against those like the Pope who dare question any aspect of Islam.
In a media ranking of all those who are capable of committing a sin, talk radio hosts are near the top, while Muslims are close to the bottom, between baby lambs and blind orphans.
But NewsBusters is quick to accuse others of incitement when it's politically advantageous. In a Sept. 19 NewsBusters post, Mark Finkelstein accuses Keith Olbermann of trying to incite a revolt against the Bush administration:
Olbermann didn't call on the Kosmonauts, netrooters and assorted Moveoners of the world to take to the barricades today. But with an entire universe of provocative statements from which to draw for his hypothetical, Olbermann chose the one invoking the people's right to rebel and overthrow an oppressive government. Let's say he put revolution in the air.
Of course, being an Olbermann post at NewsBusters, Finkelstein threw in the requisite Olbermann-bashing content, such as claiming that Olbermann "plays to his Daily Kos demographic with vitriolic condemnations of all things Bush" and references to "hyper-partisanship" and "the nec plus ultra of nastiness."
Why is hurling accusations of incitement bad when liberals do it but perfectly fine when conservatives do it? Because it's a conservative double standard.
Seesholtz Responds to WND Topic: WorldNetDaily
Mel Seesholtz -- the victim of Joseph Farah's current hysterical anti-gay jihad -- has issued a response to Farah's latest paranoid broadside. The e-mail Seesholtz quotes from a WND reader is quite entertaining.
WND Books, WorldNetDaily's book division, is publishing a new book next month co-written by right-wing radio host (and WND columnist) Melanie Morgan. Called "American Mourning," it's being promoted as telling "the whole truth about Cindy Sheehan." Given that things promoted by WND as being the "whole truth" usually aren't (Diana Lynne's book on the Terri Schiavo case comes immediately to mind), we have our doubts.
The prime piece of evidence is the bias of co-author Morgan. She is the chairman of Move America Forward, which bills itself as a "pro-troops" group. Last year, it sponsored the "You Don't Speak for Me, Cindy" bus tour; as The Hill reported, "Sheehan is the main villain in Move America Forward’s war narrative." Morgan's columns also contain much anti-Sheehan rhetoric:
A December 2005 column lists Sheehan as among those who "hold a twisted hatred of this country."
A column from March wrote of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez: "Apparently he cringed at the notion that Cindy Sheehan might outdo him in shameless conduct."
An April column called Sheehan part of a "a leftist jihad on our campuses that tolerate only one point of view."
A June column referenced "the generation of Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan and anti-war activists protesting at the funerals of military personnel" despite the fact that Sheehan does not protest at military funerals (that would be these guys).
Morgan is so eager to be "pro-troops" that she has forwarded dubious claims and falsehoods about the war.
In a July 7 column, Morgan claims that she "truly ha[s] empathy for" Sheehan, but it's not what we're seeing from her. Will Morgan really serve up the "whole story" of Cindy Sheehan? Given her track record, we wouldn't count on it.
CNS Ignores Other Side of the Story Topic: CNSNews.com
A Sept. 18 CNSNews.com article by Randy Hall details a report by a "conservative think tank" that claims that "[l]abor leaders have established a close relationship with anti-American, anti-war activists." But Hall fails to obtain any response from labor leaders to the study.
Hall uncritically repeats the report's claims, by the anti-union National Legal and Policy Center, such as referring to antiwar groups as "tight and incestuous" and "shadowy" and a demand that "Congress should repeal the forced-dues collection clause in the National Labor Relations Act ... so rank-and-file union members are not required to subsidize subversion."
Hall does quote "Toby Chaudhuri, communications director at the Campaign for America's Future - which Horowitz claims is a 'union-funded' group" as claiming that "the conflict in Iraq was caused by different partnership than the one discussed in the report," but 1) Chaudhuri's group is not a union organization and therefore not a primary target of the NLPC report, and 2) Hall does not quote Chaudhuri as responding to the report's conclusions but, rather, a small part of it that allows Hall to portray Chauduri as a radical -- thus reinforcing the NLPC's anti-union attack.
Will Hall bother to do a follow-up with a response to this report from union officials, and let their remarks stand without being countered by the NLPC, as Hall allowed their report to stand unchallenged here? Don't count on it.