A Sept. 9 Newsmax article (actually, an associated Press article) carries the false headline: "Obama: Palin Like 'Lipstick on a Pig.'"
In fact, as the article itself states: "Obama's campaign said he wasn't referring to Palin; he had been talking about McCain immediately before the lipstick comment."
UPDATE: Newsmax has curiously replaced the AP article with one from Reuters, yet keeping the same false headline. The Reuters article is a little more ambiguous, claiming that Obama's statement "may have been misinterpreted by the audience." An updated version, under a more accurate headline, is now located here.
Posted by Terry K.
at 11:11 PM EDT
Updated: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 1:43 AM EDT
In his Sept. 9 WorldNetDaily column, Mychal Massie works in not only his favorite 50-cent word, "erebusic," but also "opprobrious."
The funny thing is that Massie spends his column running to the defense of the "uneducated women" that the "elites" in the media purportedly look down on. If Massie is trying to appeal to the "uneducated," why is he throwing around showoff words like "erebusic" and "opprobrious"?
Kincaid Endorses Misogynist's Views Topic: Accuracy in Media
In a Sept. 9 Accuracy in Media column, Cliff Kincaid approvingly cites Marc Rudov, who claimed that women who are critical of Sarah Palin are "fascist feminists." Kincaid described Rudov's column, posted on right-wing NewsWithViews.com, an "insightful article"; of Rudov's claim that Palin "has achieved success while expressing love and admiration for her husband, anathema to the misandrist underpinning of fascistic feminism," Kincaid added: "Palin can never be forgiven for this. That is why she must be destroyed."
But Kincaid avoids posting the parts of Rudov's article that are, shall we say, less than insightful:
Feminism, which took root in the late 19th century as an equality movement for women’s suffrage, has evolved into a militant, totalitarian train of entitlement, misandry, superiority, and privilege. To maintain the façade of pursuing equality, the National Organization for Women, self-designated voice for the “slighted” gender, presents a neverending, monolithic image of female victimhood. To achieve this monotony, NOW mandates that its badge-wearing acolytes talk, think, and act according to the the NOW playbook. I’m sure that Mussolini is smiling, wherever he is.
Women have amassed such unequal power since getting the right to vote in 1920 that they will destroy anyone attempting to remove said power or expose its fraud.
Joe Biden is the candidate who appeals to women? Gee, why is that? Could it be that Joe Biden is the father of VAWA, the unconstitutional Violence Against Women Act, the passport for female-on-male violence and false claims of male violence? Yes, that’s the same Joe Biden. The same Joe Biden who admitted in a 1990 Senate Judiciary hearing (Serial No. J-101-80; pp. 171-172), the precursor to VAWA, that he grew up with an abusive sister who was permitted to hit him with absolute impunity — no retaliation allowed, even in self-defense — and he still has the bruises to prove it. Sounds like Stockholm Syndrome to me. This is the VP candidate who appeals to women?
Considering that NOW is a fascist organization, a so-called feminist like [Sen. Barbara] Boxer portraying Palin as a dictator is laughable.
Plenty of conservative women have benefited from the handiwork of liberal feminists. Joe Biden could not have succeeded in his mission to villanize American men, via his unconstitutional VAWA, without the overwhelming support of his Republican colleagues in the Senate and House — both genders — and in the Oval Office, both Clinton and Bush.
Finally, it is ludicrous to think that only liberal women falsely accuse men of rape and domestic violence, fraudulently get their husbands to raise and support children fathered through extramarital affairs, and exercise their Roe v. Wade rights. In fact, conservative women do all of those things.
Additionally, Rudov is on record as:
Claiming that "that most American women are as shallow as" the characters on "Sex and the City."
Asserting that if "the woman is complaining that the man doesn't work enough around the house," it may be because "she said 'I do' at the altar and 'I don't' in the bedroom."
Said of Hillary Clinton: "The woman is not called a B-word because she's assertive and aggressive; she's called a B-word because she acts like one."
Described the downside of a woman president: "You mean besides the PMS and the mood swings, right?"
Claimed, against statistical evidence, that "women are equal-opportunity domestic abusers."
Does Kincaid think these misogynistic attitudes by Rudov are "insightful," too?
Brennan Cherry-Picks Global Warming Info Topic: Newsmax
In a Sept. 8 Newsmax article, Phil Brennan selectively reports climate information to assert that "The global warming theory is going into the freezer."
Brennan bases his article on an Aug. 20 Reuters report stating that "The first half of this year was the coolest in at least five years, according to the World Meteorological Organization." But Brennan failed to note Reuters' statement that temperature dips "do not undermine the case that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are causing long-term global warming, climate scientists say." While Brennan notes that one meteorologist blaiming La Nina for the cooloing and stating that "Up to July 2008, this year has been cooler than the previous five years at least," he leaves out another meterologist's statement that "La Nina is showing signs of moving towards a more neutral state," meaning that, according to Reuters, "The weakening of the La Nina effect over the last few months could see the global mean temperature creep up again in the latter part of the year."
Meanwhile ... Topic: WorldNetDaily
Media Matters points out that Jerome Corsi asserts that Barack Obama's campaign "failed to prove a single falsehood" in his Obama-bashing book -- then goes on to list the corrections that will appear in the next printing of his book, many of which were documented by the Obama campaign.
Farah Ratchets Up Lies About Obama Topic: WorldNetDaily
Among the pile of lies we've documented WorldNetDaily telling about Barack Obama is Joseph Farah's false claim that Obama's mention of a "civilian national security force" means he wants to create a police-state apparatus-- whhile failing to note that Obama is on record as describing "civilian national security force" as the State Department as well as "agricultural specialists and engineers and linguists and cultural specialists who are prepared to go into some of the most dangerous areas alongside our military."
Farah has now taken that lie one step further in his Sept. 8 column: he now baselessly claims that Obama wants to create "a boot camp for community agitators – paid for by you, the U.S. taxpayer." Farah bases his claim on an equally specious Sept. 4 Investor's Business Daily editorial asserting without evidence that the Obamas "plan to herd American youth into government-funded reeducation camps where they'll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of 'social change.'"
But Farah has overlooked the fact that IBD offers absolutely no evidence to support its assertion -- the story's just too good for him to fact-check. One would think he'd have learned his lesson about the consequences of not fact-checking things by now.
Instead of reason and accuracy, we get Farah howling about "Barack Obama's draconian plans to create a domestic army of radical extremists promoting bigger and more intrusive government," with absolutely no evidence to back him up.
Farah is a man bereft of journalistic standards, and this just further confirms it. Apparently he's decided that as long as he's spreading lies about Obama, he might as well make them whoppers.
Will Newsmax Retract Apparently False Obama Attack? Topic: Newsmax
A Sept. 3 Newsmax article by Ken Timmerman asserted that Barack Obama "was closely associated as early as age 25 to a key adviser to a Saudi billionaire who had mentored the founding members of the Black Panthers.":
In a videotaped interview this year on New York’s all news cable channel NY1, a prominent African-American businessman and political figure made the curious disclosures about Obama.
Percy Sutton, the former borough president of Manhattan, off-handedly revealed the unusual circumstances about his first encounter with the young Obama.
“I was introduced to (Obama) by a friend who was raising money for him,” Sutton told NY1 city hall reporter Dominic Carter.
“The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas,” Sutton said. “He is the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men. He told me about Obama.”
Sutton, the founder of Inner City Broadcasting, said al-Mansour contacted him to ask a favor: Would Sutton write a letter in support of Obama’s application to Harvard Law School?
Timmerman's story, however, seems to be falling apart.
First, Politico's Ben Smith reported (h/t Media Matters) that the Obama campaign denied the story, stating that "Obama did not know and does not know Khalid al-Mansour," Obama doesn't have a relationship with Sutton, and that "to our knowledge, no such letter was written." Further, Obama was in Chicago, not New York, when he applied to Harvard, according to the campaign. While Timmerman noted in his article that "The Obama campaign did not respond to requests for comment," he has not yet gone back to report the denial.
Smith further reported that the Sutton family was retracting Percy Sutton's claim:
The information Mr. Percy Sutton imparted on March 25 in a NY1 News interview regarding his connection to Barack Obama is inaccurate. As best as our family and the Chairman's closest friends can tell, Mr. Sutton, now 86 years of age, misspoke in describing certain details and events in that television interview.
We regret this unfortunate incident and we ask good conscientious people to extend compassion and grace to Percy Sutton, a man who has served America in many capacities; an officer with the Tuskegee Airmen in World War II and as a public servant who was the first elected African-American Manhattan Borough President.
Smith added that "there's absolutely no other evidence for the story, and much that contradicts it." Timmerman has made no mention of this, either.
So, will Timmerman acknowledge that his article has essentially been blown out of the water? Or will he try to cling to some shred in order to salvage it? We shall see.
Of course, being proven demonstrably false didn't keep Investor's Business Daily from uncritically repeating Timmerman's debunked claims.
A Sept. 8 CNSNews.com column by Dan Gainor criticizes the idea of nonprofit journalism, in particular bashing the website ProPublica. Making a big deal out of how ProPublica is funded by a family, the Sandlers, with a history of donating to liberal-leaning causes, Gainor cherry-picks stories off the site to claim that ProPublica has "an obvious left-wing tilt."
This ignores that ProPublica has also highlighted that John Edwards lied in denying his affair to reporters, tried to find out who was running Detroit while Democratic Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was in jail.
"Imagine how far the media might go without free-market constraints," Gainor then ponders. "Now envision a world where left-wing donors like the Sandlers or George Soros underwrite whole media outlets staffed with journalists out to 'make a difference.'"
But remember where Gainor's op-ed is being published: at a nonprofit media outlet underwritten by right-wing donors like Richard Mellon Scaife.
CNSNews.com is a division of the Media Research Center (as is Gainor's employer, the Business & Media Institute), a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. He's benefiting from the same kind of journalistic funding mechanism he asserts would be "scary" if liberals did it. He accuses ProPublica of being "staffed up with activist journalists from some of the best-known outlets in the country," but are CNS' writers any less "activist"? (Answer: No, they'renot.)
Oh, the irony. If Gainor finds nonprofit journalism so "scary," he should exit the MRC hothouse.
Graham Need Not Worry That Gibson Will Be Too Tough on Palin Topic: NewsBusters
In a Sept. 8 NewsBusters post, Tim Graham worried that ABC's Charlie Gibson will be too tough with Sarah Palin in their upcoming interview. "He has been anything but piranha-like with Barack Obama ... so the possibility of a seriously biased contrast is there if Palin gets a Russert roasting, and is not swooned over Obama-style as a symbolic test of American progress."
In fact, not only does Gibson have a record of tossingsoftballs to John McCain, he's already acquiesced to the Palin camp by declaring in advance he won't ask any questions about her family. Graham fails to mention any of this.
Graham goes on to complain that the media are allegedly looking into National Enquirer-promoted claims of a rumored Palin affair after ignoring the Enquirer's reports on John Edwards' affair. Needless to say, a couple months ago, Graham was all but demanding that the mainstream media repeat the Enquirer's reports on Edwards (as we've noted).
Aaron Klein Anti-Obama Agenda Watch Topic: WorldNetDaily
How anti-Obama are Aaron Klein and WorldNetDaily? Even when Obama does nothing wrong, he must be attacked.
That explains Klein's Sept. 7 article, suggesting it was "momentary confusion" that Obama mistakenly referred to "My Muslim faith" in a discussion about attacks on him falsely claiming he's a secret Muslim. Unsurprisingly, Klein uses this meaningless slip-up as yet another opportunity to regurgitate irrelevant claims that Obama had been registered in a school in Indonesia as a child. As we've noted whenever Klein does this, Klein is trying to conflate activity by Obama the child with Obama the adult -- sorta like blaming children who dreamed of being cowboys or ballerinas for not being cowboys or ballerinas when they grew up.
Klein thinks he's being a hotshot, hard-hitting reporter by doing this, but he actually looks like a desperate, hate-driven polemicist.
Kincaid Overstates Palin's 'Journalist' Experience Topic: Accuracy in Media
Cliff Kincaid joins Newsmax's James Hirsen in overstating Sarah Palin's journalistic credentials in a Sept. 7 Accuracy in Media column:
But nobody should underestimate Palin, a journalist herself before she went into politics. She should be able to handle any barbs sent her way. More than most, she should understand the journalism “profession” and its liberal bias.
Yeah, because being a sports reader for a TV station for a couple years after graduating college told her all she needed to know about the "liberal media"...
Meanwhile ... Topic: WorldNetDaily World O'Crap tells us what WorldNetDaily didn't in an Aug. 30 article about two teenagers arrested at the Democratic national Convention for "protesting Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama's support for abortion on public sidewalks." Turns out the teens apparently underwent indoctrination by a group of hardline anti-abortion activists that believes "provoking passersby is a critical strategy for the anti-abortion movement to succeed." Which suggests that there was a lot more going on with those teens, beyond writing on sidewalks, that WND didn't feel the need to tell us.
WND Misleads and Lies About Library's 'Erotic' Children's Books Topic: WorldNetDaily
The headline of a Sept. 5 WorldNetDaily article carries the biggest lie of the piece: "Libraries push 'erotic' children's books." The article offers no evidence that libraries "push" "erotic children's books," unless WND's definition of "push" is merely making books available.
The article itself, as does the headline, repeatedly conflates children's books with young-adult books, making no distinction between the two, by claiming that "A group of citizens is outraged at a growing number of sexually explicit children's books offered at local public libraries." No evidence is offered that any "children's book" offers "erotic" or "sexually explicit" content. Nor does WND or Citizens Against Pornography, who it cites as making this claim, make the case that the titles it singled out as "shocking" and containing "erotic" messages are "children's books." After all, a book with the title "Sexual Decisions: The Ultimate Teenage Guide" -- among the titles Citizens Against Pornography objects to -- is obviously not a "children's book."
Another book on the list is "Alice on Her Way" by Phyllis Naylor; the article notes that the earliest books in the Alice series are geared toward second graders and quotes a parent as saying, "By the time she's in middle school, there is stuff that just isn't for the eyes of an 11-year-old. ... You look at the cover and there's this little blonde-haired girl with braces smiling. It's just too sexually explicit."
One review says of the book: "Phyllis Reynolds Naylor's tender, wonderful Alice series — 20 books strong, and popular with both boys and girls — began following Alice as a tentative 8-year-old. Now she's a high school sophomore, dealing with driving lessons, best friends, and sex ed, all in a way that's heartwarming and, thankfully, not the least bit cloying." Another review sums up the book: "Alice McKinley takes a school trip to NYC, falls in love with Sam and then decides to break up with him, goes through a church-sponsored sex education class, and gets her driver's license."
So "Alice on Her Way" is not geared toward 8-year-olds, or even 12-year-olds. And it's probably a good bet that if the earlier books contain so-called "erotic" content, it's age-appropriate.
Another book on the list is "Looking for Alaska" by John Green -- again, no rationale is provided for calling it a "children's book." Indeed, it's not. As the author himself states (taken from a bluenose library-bashing site that helpfully counts each and every instance of objectionable words in the book -- "Fellatio: 11; Bitch: 13; Breasts, Boobs: 12; Butt: 7; Fart: 1" and so on -- as well as the book's juciest excerpts), the book is geared for readers age 14 and up, which makes it very much not a "children's book."
To WND's credit, it breaks it usual one-sidedstance on such issues and quotes library officials who are specifically talking about teen books, not "children's books." But still, the rest of it falsely portrays teen books as "children's books."
Unruh Continues to Mislead On Planned Parenthood 'Lies' Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Sept. 4 WorldNetDaily article by Bob Unruh repeats the unsupported claim, first made a year ago, that Planned Parenthood officials "incorrectly accused" anti-abortion activists of having a "well-documented history of advocating violence against both persons and property." Unruh again asserts that the claims "apparently were drawn from an old court case against Scheidler and the League brought by the National Organization for Women on behalf of abortion clinics nationwide. But any accusation in that case later was turned into a 'legal nullity,' ...because of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions to reject the claims on votes of 8-1, and 8-0."
But as we noted the last time Unruh reported this, declaring something a "legal nullity" doesn't mean they didn't happen in the first place. Further, the Supreme Court didn't reject the claims as never having happened at all; it rejected them as constituting a violation under the federal RICO organized crime statute.
In the article, Unruh and the activists in question, the Pro-Life Action League, its leader, Joe Scheidler, and his son Eric, offer no evidence that any specific claim made by Planned Parenthood is false or that anything declared a "legal nullity" didn't actually happen -- just a lot of baseless asserting by Eric Scheidler and other anti-abortion activists that Planned Parenthood "has been granted a license to lie" because their libel suit against Planned Parenthood was mostly dismissed after a judge ruled that Planned Parenthood's statements were protected under a new Illinois state law that offers greater legal protection to citizens speaking out on issues.
Sheppard's Interview Double Standard Topic: NewsBusters
In a Sept. 5 NewsBusters post, Noel Sheppard freaks out about Oprah Winfrey purportedly refusing to interview Sarah Palin (the truth: Oprah doesn't use her show for electoral politics, her personal endorsement of Obama aside).
Nowhere does Sheppard mention that Palin isn't doing interviews at all -- at least, not unless they're fluffy and unchallenging. So we can probably expect Sheppard to be granted his interview with Palin shortly -- after all, we know he will never ask why Palin's being kept in hiding out of fear she might be asked tough questions.