WND's Erik Rush: Try (And Presumably Execute) Journalists for Being Too Pro-Obama Topic: WorldNetDaily
Erik Rush uses his Oct. 24 WorldNetDaily column to mark Free Speech Week ... by advocating the trial and punishment, "no matter how severe," of journalists for "treason" for doing things like pointing out that President Obama did not go on an "apology tour."
MRC's Graham Has A 'Gay Agenda' Freakout Topic: NewsBusters
In an Oct. 21 NewsBusters post, Tim Graham has a fit over a Washington Post "puff piece" about Ellen DeGeneres winning the Kennedy Center's Mark Twain Award. Why? Because it suggested that DeGeneres' talk show doesn't have a "gay agenda." Graham ranted in response:
As usual, you have the distinct impression that liberals have a reaction for the social-conservative viewpoint: they want it punched in the face. The Post certainly won't give it more than two words of insult. Their denial that there's anything called a "gay agenda" is a denial of reality, and a denial of everything lobbies like GLAAD or the Human Rights Campaign are doing in America.
Needless to say, Graham never describes what this "gay agenda" is. The only example of how this supposed "gay agenda" can be found in DeGeneres' talk show is an anecdote about how she" put on a couple of little red-headed boys, and one said he favored the president, because "Barack Obama said that men and men can marry each other and woman and woman can marry each other and I think that’s right."
That's it. One example out of 11 years of shows. But apparently, according to Graham, the mere fact that DeGeneres is gay is enough evidence of a sinister "gay agenda."
WND, Newsmax Pretend Trump's 'Bombshell' Isn't A Dud Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily drooled at the prospect of what might be in the special announcement Donald Trump made on Oct. 24. It devoted an article prior to his announcement by repeating an unsubstantiated story that "Michelle and Barack Obama once seriously considered getting a divorce," followed by Trump's claim that "none of the speculation about the subject of the announcement was correct."
Well, Trump's big announcement turned out to be a self-promoting dud -- he vowed to donate $5 million to the charity of President Obama's choice if Obama would release his college transcripts.
But WND still needed to pretend like Trump's offer was anything but a fizzle. So Bob Unruh penned an article headlined "Kaboom! Trump drops Obama bombshell" that avoids mentioning Trump's actual proposal anywhere in the headline or the subhead and was mostly a updated cut-and-paste of the earlier article.
Meanwhile, Newsmax -- which has promoted Trump's presidential ambitions and tried to partner with him to host a Republican presidential debate -- played the same game of make-believe. An Oct. 24 article by Martin Gould treated Trump's dud with gravitas, even adding, "The Obama campaign had no immediate comment on Trump's video."
Too 'Feisty' For Bozell -- Or Too Female? Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell's Oct. 24 column is headlined "Say No to Feisty Liberal Moderators," but it's clear that he has only certain feisty moderators in mind.
Bozell wrote that "old PBS hand Jim Lehrer let the candidates debate, and for that he was savaged by liberals for 'losing control' of the evening. He also wrote that "liberal CBS anchorman Bob Schieffer did it right. He moderated without asserting his own political opinions. Indeed, if this was all you had as a compass, you'd never know where he leaned." (That, of course ignores the fact that Schieffer has a personal relationship with George W. Bush, whose debate Schieffer moderated in 2004 -- a relationship the MRC has thus far not mentioned to its readers lest that conflict with its lucrative "liberal media bias" storyline.)
Bozell then said that Schieffer and Lehrer were "a welcome change from the Raddatz and Crowley libfests." He continued:
In the second debate, ABC's Martha Raddatz demanded fiscal specifics (and then complained she wasn't getting them) from Paul Ryan, but refused to demand the same from Joe Biden. By the end of the evening, she was interrupting so much it seemed like she was interrupting Biden interrupting Ryan.
In the third debate, CNN's Candy Crowley outraged viewers at home by selecting questions from clearly left-wing "undecided voters." She then compounded the error by enabling Barack Obama in his Libya lies. Liberal in the media rallied around Crowley like she'd scored the winning touchdown.
Welcoming a feisty moderator sounds like a terrible idea — at least as long as the Republicans keep lining up a unanimous cast of four media liberals to do the moderating.
Welcoming a feisty female moderator sounds doubly terrible to Bozell.
We're sure it's just a coincidence that the two debate moderators Bozell found too "feisty" were both female. Make of that what you will.
WND's Farah: Pray For An End To The 'Obama Tribulation' Topic: WorldNetDaily
The tribulation Obama wrought on the nation did, indeed, produce perseverance – and that perseverance renewed character in many and that character gave us hope.
I already knew the hope of salvation in Jesus (Yeshua). But the hope I have today for America is that the tribulation we’ve been experiencing under Obama is coming to an end.
I pray fervently for my fellow Americans, that they have developed the character and the hope for a better America to bring the Obama tribulation to a quick end.
No, not this year is the author of “None of the Above” urging Americans to sit this one out – nor even to vote for a third-party candidate who will only hurt our chances of showing Obama to the exit door of the White House.
If Americans have any chance of restoring “liberty and justice for all” to this nation, there is only one option – vote for Mitt Romney.
He’s not likely to be the political messiah we would like. My hope is his election will simply buy us the time we need to ensure the Obama tribulation does not become more than we can bear.
Newsmax Does Post-Debate Romney-Fluffing Topic: Newsmax
Right on cue, Newsmax's David Patten -- a loyal right-wing apparatchik -- quickly moved after the Oct. 22 presidential debate into full Romney-fluffing mode with an article headlined "Pundits Proclaim: Romney Passes ‘Commander-in-Chief Test’." Patten began in a cheerleading fashion:
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney may have exchanged a tactical defeat for a strategic victory in Monday’s foreign policy debate, losing on points to the president by most accounts but scoring a solid performance that left major pundits declaring he had passed “the commander in chief test” in resounding fashion.
Of course, all of the "pundits" Patten quotes -- Judith Miller, David Gergen and Doug Schoen -- are conservative-leaning. Patten misleadingly describes Schoen as a "Democratic pollster" despite the fact that he's making his living these days in part by bashing President Obama.
WND's Obama-Iran Claim Backed Up ... By 'Whitey Tape' Charlatan Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've been detailing how WorldNetDaily has been trying to take credit for the New York Times' reporting about alleged proposed one-on-one talks between the U.S. and Iran, even though WND's Reza Kahlili made unproven, unsubstantiated claims that went far beyond what the Times reported.
Now, WND is trying to get others to back up Kahlili. its first choice, though, is a bad one.
An Oct. 23 WND article touts how "A former CIA analyst says a WND report that revealed Iranian sources confirming a deal between the Obama administration and a representative of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei over that nation’s nuclear program means the issue could not be used to “bludgeon” challenger Mitt Romney." It continues:
Larry Johnson, an ex-CIA analyst, said yesterday during an interview on the John Batchelor Show the revelation has pulled the rug from underneath any Obama campaign plans to take advantage of the situation.
“”There are two types of leaks in Washington,” he said. “One is when the official part of the administration gets it out there in order to help drive the story. The other is when someone who’s inside the administration who’s privy to what’s going on leaks it in order to derail it.
“I think this is a case of the latter. I don’t doubt Reza’s reporting at all. I think it’s quite accurate. What this ended up doing was derailing Obama’s attempt to try to take the high ground…”
If Larry Johnson's name sounds familiar, it should. He's best known for feverishly promoting the existence of what is infamously known as the "whitey tape" -- a supposed recording of Michelle Obama railing against "whitey." Just one problem: No such tape has ever surfaced. Johnson has peddled strange explanations about why the purported tape has never been released, always absolving himself.
We can presume that neither Batchelor nor Kahlili -- who was a guest along with Johnon on Batchelor's show -- asked Johnson about this alleged tape during his appearance. After all, that would have discredited Johnson and, by association, Kahlili -- and we can presume that right-winger Batchelor was not about to do that.
Meanwhile, a new follow-up article by Kahlili quotes more anonymous, unverifiable sources making related claims. Kahlili claimed that his "highly placed" source says that "after the WND revelation of the secret meeting, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was incensed." Kahlili added in yet another attempt to take credit for the Times' reporting: "The Iranian supreme leader demanded the Americans explain about the leak, which prompted the White House to leak a soft version of the story to the New York Times and deny the facts."
What facts? Kahlili has provided nothing that can be independently verified, and he has a history of making crackpot claims. WND has given its readers no reason whatsoever to trust anything Kahlili says.
Kahlili also has provided no evidence linking anything he has written to the Times' report, so he should really be less of an egomaniac about this.
In short: Unless Kahlili can deliver something beyond anonymous, unverifiable sources, he can't -- and shouldn't -- be trusted.
Fact-Checking the Fact-Challenged Seton Motley Topic: NewsBusters
Seton Motley has a growing reputation for falsely smearing General Motors in his NewsBusters post, and he continues to live up to it.
In an Oct. 18 NewsBusters post, Motley ironically attacks former auto czar Steven Rattner for allegeldy having "a bit of a problem telling the truth." Of course, it's Motley who actually has that problem.
He attacks GM for selling the electric Chevy Volt at discount prices -- even though that's standard business practice for dealing with slow-selling inventory.
Motley goes on to attack Rattner for wanting to eliminate previous practice of maintaining "over-bloated inventories on dealers’ lots," then links to newspaper articles citing high inventories of GM pickup trucks.
But Motley fails to explain why pickup inventories are elevated: As these industrywebsites note, the GM plants that make trucks are being shut down for several weeks in order to retool the assembly lines for a redesigned model, and production was increased prior to the shutdown in order to make sure dealers didn't run out of trucks while the plants were shut down.
Motley serves up even more huffy disingenuousness in an Oct. 23 post, in which he ranted: "Good thing President Obama separated us from our $85 billion - allegedly to “create or save” jobs. Mostly foreign jobs, but.... And as we’ve seen with Ford, no government bailout money was necessary to preserve a gi-normous member of the American auto industry."
Actually, that $85 billion wasn't given to GM alone -- it was also given to Chrysler and other auto parts suppliers. Much of that money has been paid back, and how much the bailout ultimately costs -- probably less than $25 billion -- depends on how much the government can get for its remaining stake in GM.
And while Ford did not take any bailout money, the company benefited from it. Ford CEO Alan Mulally told Fox News last month that without the bailout, a failed GM and Chrysler "could have taken down the industry and th U.S. economy from a recession to a depression," and that the entire auto industry "would have been in real trouble."
So: More dishonesty from Seton Motley. Anyone surprised?
CNS Fail: Reporter Is Three Weeks Late to Clinton Story, Still Gets It Wrong Topic: CNSNews.com
An Oct. 22 CNSNews.com article by Fred Lucas breathlessly reports on how former President Clinton 'talked about his eligibility to serve as the leader of both Ireland and France" during an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan.
However, as Lucas goes on to later note, this interview took place on "Sept. 30" -- more than three weeks earlier.
Why did CNS take so long to publish this story? We have no idea -- Lucas adds nothing to it that wasn't covered by otheroutlets when Clinton actually uttered those words.
Despite this article's lengthy incubation time, Lucas still gets basic facts wrong. His lead paragraph identifies Clinton's interviewer as "Pierce Morgan." Also, the interview aired on Sept. 25, not Sept. 30.
Given that Lucas took so long to write this article, you'd think he would have done a better job with it.
UPDATE: CNS has corrected the spelling of Morgan's name, but it as of this writing has not corrected the date of the interview.
Noel Sheppard Whiffs on Conspiracy Theory Over Libya Attack Topic: NewsBusters
The increasingly discredited NewsBusters associate editor Noel Sheppard decided to go conpsiratorial in an Oct. 20 NewsBusters post, Sheppard rants about NPR's Nina Totenberg saying that "There'd be no reason to send [United Nations Ambassador] Susan Rice out to lie if she was going to get exposed immediately" regarding the the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya:
Actually, I can think of numerous reasons.
First, the Obama administration believed – rightfully so! - that their media would take what Rice said hook, line, and sinker, especially weeks away from Election Day.
If this were to happen, the White House could create the illusion that this attack was all about protests associated with an anti-Muslim movie trailer and therefore deflect all blame and scrutiny.
The upside is that Obama's foreign policy credentials due to the assassination of bin Laden would remain intact, and he could continue saying on the campaign trail that al Qaeda has been decimated.
This is exactly why Rice, Obama, and other White House officials stuck to this “the movie caused it all” story for as long as they did.
Regardless of the number of holes that are now being revealed in this canard, so-called journalists like Totenberg aren't quite ready to give up the ghost.
They're probably hoping just as the administration is that they can hold this fallacy in place for another sixteen days and not have to really come clean to the American people until after the election.
As such, journalism really is dead, isn't it?
Actually, the only thing that's dead is Sheppard's ability to keep up with the news and examine things fairly. As he was writing that screed, his little conspiracy was getting blown up.
As first reported by the Washington Post's David Ignatius and confirmed by the Wall Street Journal, talking points prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the day that Rice did the rounds of Sunday morning talk shows, stated that the attack wasthe result of a spontaneous protest, and the CIA continued to push that view internally until Sept. 22.
Sheppard needs to do better research if he's going to peddle conspiracy theories like that. He's such an amateur -- yet he hold an editor's title at NewsBusters.
WND Lets Savage Bash His Former Radio Syndicator Some More Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has clearly takensides with Michael Savage against his radio show's former syndicator, Talk Radio Network. Now, WND is letting Savage launch more attacks on TRN.
In an unbylined Oct. 22 article, WND touts Savage returning to the air with his new syndicator, Cumulus Media Networks. It also drops this claim:
With his new syndicator, Savage told WND he expects to have more freedom to say what he wants.
TRN regularly censored him, seemingly at random, he said, making him feel like someone was looking over his shoulder.
“I don’t think anyone’s heard me do a full radio show,” he said. “It was a butchered show.”
It's unclear what Savage means by that, since his show is mostly live. How does TRN censor a live show? WND doesn't explain.
There's no evidence WND contacted TRN for a response, which is what a responsible news organization would have done.
We've previously noted how unusual it is for WND to have thrown TRN under the bus to side with Savage. TRN was founded by accused cult leader Roy Masters, whose Oregon ranch was the first home of WND upon its founding in the late 1990s. Masters' son, Mark Masters, currently operates TRN.
MRC Pre-Bashes Schieffer, Ignores His Pro-Bush Bias Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center keeps up its war against debate moderators with an Oct. 22 item by Rich Noyes bashing tonight's moderator, Bob Schieffer, for purportedly having "tilted left in his previous visits to the presidential debate stage."
Unmentioned by Noyes is the fact that Schieffer has had a lengthy relationship with George W. Bush. As we've detailed, the MRC has consistently ignored the fact that Schieffer was a golfing partner of Bush and that his brother was president of the Texas Rangers at the same time Bush was a partner in the team.
If Noyes is going to speciously accuse Schieffer of bias -- as per usual, no methodology is presented for determining how Schieffer "tilted left" -- shouldn't he detail all of the bias he's been accused of, even when it conflicts with the MRC's agenda?
How Is Ellis Washington Beclowning Himself Today? Topic: WorldNetDaily
Remember last week, when Ellis Washington dedicated his column to likening President Obama to Caligula? Well, that apparently wasn't enough for him, because he has devoted another column to furthering the ludicrous comparison:
I, Obama, am the most bloodthirsty president in American history. I love lavishing hundreds of millions of dollars annually upon Planned Parenthood, founded by the genocidal racist, Margaret Sanger, which murders over 3,000 innocent babies per day, over 1,300 of them black babies, totaling over 55 million innocents since Roe v. Wade (1973).
I, Caligula, also kept my favorite racehorse, Incitatus, inside the palace in a stable box of carved ivory, dressed in purple blankets and collars of precious stones. Dinner guests were invited to the palace in the horse’s name. And the horse, too, was invited to dine with the emperor. I, Caligula, considered making the horse consul over the Senate.
I, Obama, like my mentor, Caligula, delighted in humiliating Congress. For my first two years in office, I refused even to answer their letters on law, policy and budgetary issues of great urgency or meet with them unless I knew in advance that they would bow to my omnipotent will.
I, Obama, like my tyrannical predecessors Tiberius, Caligula, Nero, Domitian, Diocletian and Commodus, am narcissistic, ill-bred, ignorant and anti-Christian to my core.
I, Caligula and I, Obama, like Phaethon, have ruled like tyrants over once-great nations for just under four years. Caligula and Obama both possess the dangerous, obstinate, narcissistic tendencies of the typical sociopath, which prevents one from showing empathy to others, changing his mind or affirming the reality of truth when his diabolical policy initiatives come to their inevitable, catastrophic end. Thus, like Phaethon, Obama has abused his vast powers over politics, law, economics and culture and has brought society down upon our heads in a spectacular fiery inferno.
His Obama Derangement Syndrome seems to have reached an advanced stage that requires in-patient treatment and, it seems, extended confinement.
MRC Writer Bashes Springsteen, Doesn't Understand Poetic License Topic: Media Research Center
Lauren Thompson usually writes for the Media Research Center's Culture and Media Institute, where we caught her being angry that certain films exist, being sad that the media no longer slurs undocumented immigrants as "illegals," and keeping a secret list of everything that offended her about the now-canceled show "GCB." Now, she has taken to MRC division CNSNews.com to demonstrate how ignorant she is about how music lyrics work.
In her Oct. 18 CNS column (which was not posted at CMI), Thompson writes:
It must be nice to be a liberal celebrity with no accountability. Bruce Springsteen can campaign for gay marriage and use the term “fairies” in his songs without a shred of bad press, while conservatives are flattened for the same rhetoric.
Springsteen is often lauded by the media for his liberal tendencies. “The Boss” recently endorsed the pro-gay marriage campaign The Four 2012 to fight for “a civil rights issue that must be approved” in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington.
Springsteen told The New York Post he urged “those who support equal treatment for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters to let their voices be heard now.” The singer was heralded by USA Today and other liberal outlets for his stance on gay marriage despite the use of gay slurs in lyrics to two of his songs – songs her has continued to perform in public.
In the songs “Incident on 57th Street” and “Lost in the Flood,” Springsteen referred to homosexuals as “fairies,” – a derogatory term toward gay men.
“Lost in the Flood’s” lyrics read, “His countryside's burnin' with wolfman fairies dressed in drag for homicide.”
“Incident on 57th Street,” sang about “all them golden-heeled fairies in a real bitch fight.” Those lyrics come directly from the official Springsteen website.
Liberals are infamous for outlawing words or phrases that could “offend” sensitive minorities, and “fairy” is one of them.
Thompson conveniently fails to mention the fact that both songs come from very early in Springsteen's career, when casual slurring of gays was much more tolerated in the media. "Lost in the Flood" appeared on Springsteen's first studio album, which came out in early 1973, and "Incident on 57th Street" appeared on his second album, which came out in late 1973.
Nor does she explain the context in which those cherry-picked words appear. "Lost in the Flood" appears to be about a Vietnam War veteran; "Incident on 57th Street" is about the typical young and passionate Jersey characters he wrote about early in his career.
Which brings us to the concept of poetic license -- that Springsteen was not speaking for himself but in the voice of the characters he was writing about -- that Thompson largely ignores. She does quote "Springsteen expert Danny Alexander" defending the lyrics by pointing out that “Creative writers use slang, the voices of their stories, to tell those stories. They do not ever have to be politically correct," but she immediately dismissed it:
But that’s not what happens to conservative artists who get attacked even if they don’t support gay marriage. Country singer Blake Shelton was forced to apologize nationally after GLAAD politicized one of Shelton’s tweets.
Shelton can't exactly claim a tweet -- in Shelton's case, rewriting a lyric of a Shania Twain song with a homophobic tone -- is "poetic license" on par with a song lyric. Also, Thompson accusing GLAAD of having "politicized" the tweet by highlighting it is absurd; by that same standard, Thompson politicized "GCB" by keeping her secret list of offenses.
Does it say something that CMI wouldn't publish Thompson's misguided attack on Springsteen and she had to resort to putting it up at another MRC outlet? Perhaps.
UPDATE: CNS attempted this same ignorance-of-poetic-license stunt in 2008, when it rummaged through the fiction books of Democratic Virginia Senate candidate Jim Webb to find offensive statements that it dishonestly tried to portray as Webb's personal views -- a story that coincidentally came out at the same time that Webb's Republican opponent, George Allen, was publicizing the excerpts.
WND Tries to Take Credit for NY Times' Scoop on Iran Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've noted how WorldNetDaily has been trying to get attention -- in the form of lots of whining by Joseph Farah -- for its claim that the Obama administration will announce an "October surprise" in the form of a deal with Iran to curtail its nuclear weapons program. That's been overtaken by events, and WND is desperately trying to take credit for it.
Over the weekend, the New York Times reported that the U.S. and Iran have agreed to one-on-one negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. That claim -- which the White House has denied -- is not what WND's Reza Kahlili claimed, which was that a full-fledged deal exists.Nevertheless, WND wants credit for its still-unproven story.
WND posted an Oct. 20 article that tries to glom onto the Times story, insisting that it "fits the template for an “October surprise” already suggested by WND’s report this week that the Obama administration had cut a deal with Iran that would end many of the sanctions against the Islamic Republic in exchange for the promise of a temporary halt to uranium enrichment." WND claimed to have a "highly placed source, who remains anonymous for security reasons and is highly placed in Iran’s regime," to back up its claim. (Gee, ya think the guy is highly placed?)
Again, WND offers no evidence to back up the veracity of its source. Nor does WND mention Reza Kahlili's history of overwrought, fearmongering claims, like his discredited claim that Iran was planning nuclear suicide bombings with "a thousand suitcase bombs spread around Europe and the U.S."
WND also reposted Kahlili's original article under the headline "The story that started it all" -- even though Kahlili's claim goes far beyond what the Times reported and no evidence is presented that Kahlili's article "started" anything. Nevertheless, the reposted article includes an "editor's note" asserting that Kahlili's articles "provide the depth and context for this announcement."
Meanwhile, Farah uses his latest column to promote Kahlili's story yet again, asserting that "The media are asleep at the switch on what could prove to be the biggest story of the presidential campaign" issuing his usual complaint that "Even alternative media and talk radio are largely ignoring the critical details of the breakthrough reporting by Reza Kahlili for WND."
Farah, of course, doesn't mention that the reason WND's reporting is being ignored is because nobody believes it anymore. Even if there's some shred of truth to be found -- which WND repeatedly insists is the case here -- there's still no reason to believe it because of Kahlili's history of factually inaccurate fearmongeringand WND's pathological anti-Obama obsession, which has led it to publish lies and ignore inconvenient facts.
We've said it before, and we'll say it again: If Farah is looking for someone to blame for the rest of the media ignoring WND, all he has to do is look in the mirror.