MRC's Bozell Is Still A Coward, And A Liar Too Topic: Media Research Center
One almost has to admire Brent Bozell's ability to lie so nakedly.
In his weekly appearance on Sean Hannity's Fox News how, Hannity played a two-year-old tape of liberal radio host Ed Schultz calling conservative host Laura Ingraham a "talk slut," then asked Bozell, "Would a conservative survive that?" Bozell responded, "No, they'd be fired."
Not only does Bozell know that's not true, he put the Media Research Center's full support toward conservative host after he did the same exact thing.
As we've detailed, when Rush Limbaugh went on a three-day tirade of misogyny against Sandra Fluke, calling her a "slut" and a "prostitute" among many other things. Bozell refused to publicly denounce Limbaugh for saying those words -- after all, the MRC gave Limbaugh its inaugural "William F. Buckley, Jr. Award for Media Excellence" in 2007. The only outrage Bozell could work up was to tepidly declare, "Let’s all agree Limbaugh crossed a line."
When it seemed Limbaugh might get fired for his misogynistic attack, Bozell tried to make sure he wasn't by launching an "I Stand With Rush" website, where he declared that "I stand with Rush Limbaugh and appreciate the massive contribution that he has made to the conservative movement and our nation over the last 25 years." (Oddly, that website disappeared about a week after it was launched.)
When presented with an opportunity to evenly apply his professed moral standards on a nonpartisan basis, Bozell refused. Instead, he defended the man who spoke the very same words he found offensive when they came out of the mouth of a liberal.
Molotov Mitchell Laughably Claims He's The 'Best Friend' of Gays Topic: WorldNetDaily
Molotov Mitchell is still trying to spin away his hatred of gays.
Reading a letter from a critic who reminded him of his tacit endorsement of a proposed anti-gay law Uganda that permitted the execution of people for committing homosexual acts, Molotov responded in an Oct. 2 WND video:
Fact: Molotov Mitchell has never called for the execution of "the gay" in Uganda. Years ago, in an episode of "For the Record," I defended Ugandans' right to make their own laws concerning homosexuality. In the video, I referenced Uganda's cultural and historical sensitivity, and applauded their willingness to stand up to the mounting pressure of European political correctness. And as a Ron Paul, freedom-loving conservative, I thought and still think that white people in America should stop trying to control black people's lives in Africa. If Ugandans wants to ban homosexuality, as a white American, frankly it is none of my business.
And for taking that radical libertarian position, liberals still sling mud at me, calling me a hatemonger, a Nazi, a guy who wants to kill all "the gay." These people clearly have no idea what a real Nazi or a real hatemonger looks like.
He then dismissed his critics as "limp-wristed American liberals," concluding, "I may not want to hold hands with you, but I'm one of the best friends you've got."
Let's go back and look at what Mitchell actually said in that 2009 video. As we noted at the time, Mitchell justified the proposed Uganda law by claiming that "our founding fathers also made homosexuality a capital offense" adding that "don't think that our founding fathers wouldn't support this legislation all the way." Mitchell falsely claimed that Ugandans "don't want to kill the homosexuals" -- even though the proposed law at that time would have permitted exactly that. Mitchell also declared that "If gay Ugandans don't like the law, they are more than free to leave," ignoring the fact that the law also could be applied to Ugandans living outside the country, even in countries where homosexuality is legal.
Would Molotov be so vociferously defending Uganda's "right to make their own laws" and their "cultural and historical sensitivity" if it involved a law that permitted killing Christians? Doubtful. And if Molotov wanted to back up his statement that "white people in America should stop trying to control black people's lives in Africa," shouldn't he be criticizing people like white Americans like Scott Lively, who reportedly played a role in inspiring the law?
Ol' Molotov 's history shows that he believes that the execution of gays is perfectly acceptable to him. He's a self-proclaimed "zealot" -- even has the word tattooed on his arm -- and has stated that he favors the "abolition of homosexuality."
Molotov's claim that he is the gays' "best friend" rings as hollow as his "some of my best friends are gay" video that he produced in response to his original defense of Uganda's proposed law. Anyone who so eagerly invokes anti-gay smears as "limp-wristed" is no friend of gays -- or anyone, really.
CNS Bats Cleanup For Romney After the Debate Topic: CNSNews.com
CNS is moving beyond merely promoting right-wing talking points as "news" and becoming a full-fledged media arm of Mitt Romney's campaign. Several CNS articles published after the debate served to reinforce Romney's talking points, attack President Obama, and even elucidate on issues it felt Romney didn't sufficiently cover during the debate.
During Wednesday night’s presidential debate, when Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney explained why wanted to repeal and replace Obamacare, he cited four reasons, including because it is “expensive,” it “cuts $716 billion” from Medicare, it includes an “unelected board” that could determine what kind of medical treatments people get, and it “killed jobs.”
He did not mention as one of the reasons he would like to repeal Obamacare the fact that if mandates that all Americans must purchase health insurance, a mandate that conservatives have argued is unconstitutional and that only survived a Supreme Court challenge earlier this year when Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberals on the court and said the government had the authority to order people to buy things as long as it did so under the Constitution’s General Welfare Clause not the Commerce Clause.
Yes, pointing out that Romney failed to mention the individual mandate is the entire point of Lucas' article. He did concede, however, that an individual mandate exists in the health care plan Romney spearheaded as Massachusetts, though he fails to mention that the individual mandate had longtime support from Republicans before it was opposed by them in the wake of Obama's health care plan embracing it.
Then, Melanie Hunter claimed that Romney "corrected the president" on his claim that Romney supports a plan that calls for a $5 trillion tax cut. In fact, Romney made no correction; he simply denied that he has such a plan. But Romney arguably does -- the Tax Policy Center interpreted that Romney's call for a 20 percent tax rate reduction and other tax cuts he has called for add up to about $5 trillion over 10 years. Hunter fails to mention the TPC report; instead, she documents all the instances in which Romney countered Obama on the $5 trillion tax cut claim.
An article by Susan Jones dismissed Obama's claim that companies can "a [tax] break for shipping jobs overseas" because "the full story" is that it refers to a tax deduction for business moving expenses that doesn't discriminate on where the business moves to. Jones quoted a senator criticizing a bill that would disqualify business operations moved overseas for the tax break.
Another article by Lucas essentially calls Obama a liar for claiming that Americans can keep their health insurance under Obamacare because "the law’s regulations on contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs may compel some people to change their health insurance plans or drop them entirely." Of course, any such insurance change is not a mandate of Obamacare, it's a personal decision.
And Christopher Goins attacked Obama for claiming that Social Security is "structurally sound" because "Social Security’s Board of Trustees said in their 2012 annual report that the program faced $8.6 trillion in 'unfunded obligations.'"
How does CNS' blatant shilling for Romney square with the 501(c)3 tax-exempt status of its parent organization, the Media Research Center? Perhaps CNS editor in chief Terry Jeffrey can explain that to his readers.
WND Follows Our Lead on Savage's Replacement Topic: WorldNetDaily
Weirdly, we seem to be driving WorldNetDaily's "news" coverage of late.
As we've noted, the posting of our article on Jerome Corsi's bottom-feeding at Huffington Post appears to have inspired WND to post Corsi's latest sleazy attack on President Obama. Now, our blog post on WND having taken sides with Michael Savage against his former syndicator and longtime WND collaborator Talk Radio Network appears to have brought a response.
Some hours after our blog post went live, a WND article went up noting exactly what we had -- that TRN replaced Savage's radio slot with Jerry Doyle. WND didn't mention any of TRN's veiled attacks on Savage in its announcement of Doyle, such as its portrayal of Doyle as a program local affiliates "can sell locally with pride" and that "Jerry shows up 5 days a week, 3 full hours a day because his work ethic is second to none."
The WND article, however, went on to promote his inaugural Internet-only talk while he negotiates a new radio contract, which is "available through his website." The article didn't mention that WND hosts Savage's website.
Newsmax Career Rehabilitation Watch Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax has long been trying to rehabilitate the reputation of Ralph Reed, who has been tarnished by his association with scandal-ridden lobbyist Jack Abramoff and got stomped in a 2006 Republican primary for Georgia lieutenant governor -- even bizarrely letting him denounce political corruption.
Newsmax is still at it with an Oct. 3 article and video by Jim Meyers and Kathleen Walter allowing Reed to opine on what Mitt Romney had to do in last night's presidential debate. Meyers and Walter, needless to say, make no mention of Reed's connection to Abramoff or his political failure.
Guess this means we'll be hearing from fellow rehabilitation project VitoFossella pretty soon...
WND Falsely Claims SPLC Called It A 'Hate Group' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jack Minor began his Sept. 30 WorldNetDaily article promoting a hatchet job on the Southern Poverty Law Center published by the Capital Research Center -- employer of the factually challenged Matthew Vadum -- by claiming that the SPLC "has labeled WND and other conservative organizations 'hate groups."
In fact, it appears that the SPLC has never labeled WND a "hate group." An SPLC profile of WND published earlier this year, for example, never makes that designation, though it notes that WND has a record of publishing and associating with members of "anti-gay hate group."
Further, the SPLC's map of hate groups does not list WND under its longtime home base of Oregon, its current corporate home of the District of Columbia, or in Virginia where editor Joseph Farah resides.
That's not to say WND isn't a hate-driven organization, of course -- the published works of Mychal Massie and Jerome Corsi, to name but two, demonstrate that in spades. But you don't get to lie about others, even if the lie has the ring of truth to it.
George Stephanopoulos Proves The MRC Wrong Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Rich Noyes launched a pre-emptive pre-debate attack on ABC's George Stephanolpulos, bashing his allegedly "pro-Democratic" record on debate analysis and complaining that "in eight out of the last nine general election presidential debates (every one since he joined ABC News in 1997), Stephanopoulos has gone on his network’s airwaves to claim victory for the Democratic candidate, all in the guise of offering impartial analysis."
But Noyes offered no evidence that Stephanopoulos' view of those debates deviated from general public -- in fact, as we've pointed out, Stephanopoulos' opinion of the outcome of the 2008 debates accurately reflected that of the American public as indicated by post-debate polling.
Nevertheless, the MRC was a bit flummoxed that Stephanopoulos is continuing to reflect public opinion. From an Oct. 4 NewsBusters post by the MRC's Matthew Balan:
ABC's George Stephanonopoulos carried a eight-out-of-nine record of declaring the Democratic presidential candidate the winner into Wednesday night's Obama-Romney presidential debate. Surprisingly, the Clinton administration veteran affirmed that Mitt Romney scored points on President Obama: "I think Governor Romney definitely more crisp in his presentation tonight....he was able to be aggressive without being offensive."
Again, post-debate polling found that the majority of Americans thought Romney won the debate. It's not surprising at all -- the MRC simply chooses to play partisan politics by blaming everything it doesn't like on "liberal bias," even when the facts prove them wrong.
NEW ARTICLE -- Annals of Obama Derangement: Larry Klayman Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's resident sue-happy defamer is driven around the bend -- and toward clear acts of libel -- when it comes to President Obama. Read more >>
MRC's Graham Launches Pre-Emptive Attack on Debate Moderator Topic: NewsBusters
Tim Graham does his thing in an Oct. 3 NewsBusters post, doing a pre-emptive attack on debate moderator Jim Lehrer, with the headline "Can Jim Lehrer Moderate Debate Fairly Given Romney's Desire To Cut Subsidy For PBS?"
Of course, professional journalists put aside their biases in an attempt to be as fair as possible. Such professionalism, meanwhile, is not practiced -- and certainly not encouraged -- on the right, which is why Graham appears to be unfamiliar with the concept.
Graham also bizarrely takes Lehrer to task for cheering that the wildly corrupt President Nixon was taken down. We didn't know that Graham was a secret Nixon-lover.
All of Graham's ranting about Lehrer's supposed liberal bias ignores the fact that liberals have complaints about Lehrer's previous debate performances as well. Which seems to suggest that Lehrer plays things more down the middle that Graham will ever admit.
Then again, Brent Bozell is paying Graham to make such a reasonable analysis.
WND's Corsi Is Back in the Cesspool Topic: WorldNetDaily
Ah, serendipity. Just as the Huffington Post put a version of our article on Jerome Corsi's growing obsession with Barack Obama's purported sex life as a diversion from the failure of his birther conspiracies, Corsi lets fly with even more cesspool-dwelling.
Corsi's Oct. 2 WorldNetDaily article begins with this lengthy italicized introduction:
After nearly four years in office, many Americans still express frustration that much about Barack Obama remains a mystery as establishment media remain incurious about the Democratic president, while seemingly ready to dispatch crack investigative teams at a moment’s notice to probe into the personal lives of Republican figures such as Sarah Palin. Largely ignored in 2008 was research by the Hillary Clinton campaign based on contacts developed with members of the church Obama attended for two decades, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. This is the first of a series of articles WND has developed from months of in-person interviews with church members who have known Barack and Michelle Obama over many years. The sources requested that their identities not be published because they believe their disclosures would put their security at risk.
Corsi's article features "a source identified for this article as 'Carolyn'" who he claims "has played a role in church administration and knows the Obamas personally." As is usual for COrsi's reporting, there's no on-the-record substantiation of any of the claims made, just repetition of rumors.
Corsi also repeats Larry Sinclair's "sensational charge" of doing drugs and having sex with Obama, but failed to mention that Sinclair has a lengthy criminal record.
Corsi doesn't care about the truth -- only about sliming and destroying Obama by any means necessary. But then, being a bottom-feeder is what WND is paying him to be.
Newsmax's Ronald Kessler follows in the footsteps of NewsBusters in bashing the media for fact-checking.
Like NewsBusters, Kessler uses his Oct. 1 column to attack the Washington Post for a fact-checking item on President Obama and daily security briefings:
A stunning example of how journalists cover up for this president appeared last week in Glenn Kessler’s Fact Checker column in the Washington Post. Kessler — no relation — gave three pinocchios to an ad from American Crossroads pointing out that President Obama has skipped half of his intelligence briefings.
Kessler did not dispute that that was a fact. Indeed, Kessler wrote, during 2011 and the first half of 2012, Obama’s attendance record fell to just over 38 percent. But Kessler went on to offer excuses: Obama could not “skip” a briefing if he had not scheduled one. He reads the President’s Daily Brief. He meets with his national security advisers and asks questions. And some other former presidents also did not attend the briefings.
In a conclusion that is entirely beside the point, Kessler wrote, “Ultimately, what matters is what a president does with the information he receives from the CIA.”
But since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, what president who cares about the security of the country would risk blowing off the briefings? As noted in my story, "Former CIA Director: Intelligence Briefings Are Valuable," President Bush almost never missed one.
Kessler conveniently omits Kessler's statement that President Reagan attended very few briefings.
The Washington Post pointing out the fact that a lack of in-person briefings doesn't mean the president is not being apprised of national security concerns is presented by kessler as an example of "how journalists cover up for this president."
But Kessler is hardly an impartial judge of journalism. He repeats the right-wing falsehood that Obama "claim[ed] that roads, bridges, and teachers rather than businessmen are responsible for the success of their own companies."
WND Takes Savage's Side In Dispute With Syndicator Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has had a long symbiotic relationship with Talk Radio Network, founded by accused cult leader Roy Masters, whose Oregon ranch was the first home of WND upon its founding in the late 1990s -- and currently operated by his son, Mark Masters. This took its most visible form in WND's close relationship with TRN-syndicated Michael Savage, whose first few books were published by WND.
But now Savage and TRN have broken up, and WND appears to have taken sides -- with Savage.
A Sept. 27 WND article touts how Savage won a "historic" legal battle to get out of his TRN contract -- though entertainers trying to get out of contracts are not that uncommon -- uncritically repeating Savage's claims that TRN used “illegal and unenforceable contract provisions” and “other strong-armed tactics” to intimidate him and force him into accepting a “sub-standard agreement.” The article contains no comment from TRN; it's noted that "WND contacted TRN, but a staffer said no one in a position to comment was available."
That was followed a few days later with an article touting how Savage's show "has been ranked the No. 1 talk show on the Internet for the third quarter" -- a suddenly irrelevant claim considering that, in the wake of his acrimonious breakup with TRN, Savage is off the air until he finds a new syndicator.
Neither article mentioned WND's business relationship with Savage, as host of his website.
Meanwhile, TRN has replaced Savage with Jerry Doyle, taking a few pot shots at Savage along the way. In the press release announcing Doyle's new job, TRN declared that "For too long, we’ve had to choose between ratings and salability, but no longer," adding that with Doyle, "stations will get more light and less heat, a show that they can sell locally with pride, but also a show that will respect its stations, advertisers and audiences with a brilliance that sets great shows apart from good ones." TRN goes on to state that Doyle "understands radio isn’t about host ego, it’s about high levels of performance, and it’s about business. Jerry shows up 5 days a week, 3 full hours a day because his work ethic is second to none."
WND's taking Savage's side raises the question of the state of WND's relationship with TRN and the Masters empire. Has Joseph Farah decided he doesn't need TRN anymore now that Savage has left? Will Aaron Klein continue to make appearances on the show of TRN host Rusty Humphries?
MRC Still Falsely Smearing Rachel Carson Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is not done smearing Rachel Carson.
Liz Thatcher returns in a Sept. 27 MRC Business & Media Institue column to call Carson a killer of millions simply for writing a book. As she did in a previous column, Thatcher blames Carson's book "Silent Spring" for killing people, asserting that the book "can be linked to a legacy of easily preventable deaths from malaria since the United States banned the use of DDT in 1972."
But as we pointed out the last time Thatcher made these claims, Carson never advocating banning DDT, the U.S. ban on DDT didn't apply to the rest of the world, and DDT had been so overused that mosquitos had developed a resistance to it. Thatcher never mentions these facts in her column.
Thatcher also obsesses over Carson's suggestion that DDT is a cancer-causing carcinogen, a claim that has not yet been definitively proven; Thatcher cites right-wing activist Steven Milloy to claim that "while the link to cancer is based purely on hypothetical assumptions, that even if this link does exist, the risk might actually be worth it when the vast amount of deaths from malaria is considered."
But Thatcher doesn't mention DDT's effects on the environment. Slate's William Souder notes that "The threat of DDT to wildlife—as a deadly neurotoxin in many species and a destroyer of reproductive capabilities in others—has never been in doubt."