NewsBusters' Sheffield: 'Slut' Is A Tame Insult Topic: NewsBusters
If you'll recall, Media Research Center employees condoned and even cheered on Rush Limbaugh's tirade of misoygny against Sandra Fluke last year. The MRC, it seems, just can't stop minimizing Limbaugh's offensive behavior.
The latest to do that is NewsBusters' Matthew Sheffield, who insists in a Nov. 26 post that Limbaugh's comments were "much tamer" than what Martin Bashir said about Sarah Palin. Sheffield further suggests that Limbaugh made only a single passing comment about Fluke that was not "deserving of wall-to-wall attention."
Let's review the record, shall we? Limbaugh made 46 separate personal attacks on Fluke over three days, and he apologized for only two of them: calling Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute." Bashir, by contrast, made only one single statement about Palin, for which he apologized in a more profuse manner than Limbaugh did.
Sheffield goes on to complain that "Bashir has been neither suspended nor fired" for his remark, adding that "Journalists who were so quick to attack Limbaugh need to ask themselves why they aren’t willing to hold Bashir accountable for his consistent pattern of using deliberately inflammatory language in a pitiful attempt to save his low-rated show from cancellation."
Not only did Sheffield's MRC colleagues demand that Limbaugh be punished for his insults against Fluke -- that might have something to do with the "William F. Buckley, Jr. Award for Media Excellence" the MRC gave him in 2007 -- the MRC actually launched an "I Stand With Rush" website declaring that Limbaugh's wholly inadequate apology was good enough but "the radical left will never accept it because they despise him and want him off the air."
If Sheffield is going to complain about hypocrisy, he might want to start with his own side first.
Irony: WND Columnist Laments Dearth of Honest Reporters Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jim Fletcher begins his Nov. 28 WorldNetDaily column this way:
It’s a myth that reporters always “just report” the news. Further, it is a myth that media bias is a new thing. If we are honest, we understand that folks have been manipulating data and facts and narrative since the beginning of time.
CNS' Starr Upset Obama Acknowledged That Gays Exist Topic: CNSNews.com
Penny Starr is CNSNews.com's most homophobic reporter -- we've recently caught her putting the sexual orientation of two Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients before their accomplishments and freaking out over the State Department holding a "Transgender Day of Remembrance."
the hate continues in a Nov. 27 CNS article in which she tsk-tsks that President Obama acknowledged gays in his Thanksgiving proclamation:
In his annual proclamation on Thanksgiving, President Barack Obama signals his endorsement of same-sex couples – “no matter who we are or who we love” all Americans are alike, Obama wrote in remarks posted Tuesday at Whitehouse.gov.
“Thanksgiving offers each of us the chance to count our many blessings – the freedoms we enjoy, the time we spend with loved ones, the brave men and women who defend our Nation at home and abroad,” Obama wrote. “This tradition reminds us that no matter what our background or beliefs, no matter who we are or who we love, at our core we are first and foremost Americans.”
WND's Cashill Still Making Excuses for Zimmerman Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jack Cashill's bias in the death of Trayvon Martin has been simple: Martin's extracurricular behavior should be held against him even though there's scant evidence it was at play in his death, while his shooter, George Zimmerman, cannot be held accountable for his actions because he's the real victim.
That double standard is all too clear in Cashill's Nov. 27 WorldNetDaily column. In it, he complains that the Orlando Sentinel ran a "tasteless" article speculating on cast members for an imaginary Trayvon Martin movie, making sure to whine that "I can assure you that there has been no bidding war for the rights to my book." Cashill, meanwhile, has endorsed murder, which is arguable even more tasteless than anything the Sentinel could come up with.
Cashill goes on to complain that "the paper chose to know as little as possible about the real Trayvon Martin." He then launches yet another defense of Zimmerman, declaring that the five guns seized from Zimmerman's house after his arrest for domestic violence were "legally owned" and was not an "excessive" number, adding that thanks to the Sentinel, Zimmerman was "the most openly hunted man in America since Dillinger."
Of course, Cashill doesn't mention that his unquestioning defense of Zimmerman as a civil rights martyr even as Zimmerman becomes increasingly violent -- just the latest example of Cashill's soft spot for killers -- is probably the reason nobody's interested in optioning his book for a movie.
You'd think Cashill by now had gotten to the point where Zimmerman is no longer defensible. But he did write a book defending the guy, and now he has decided he won't cut his losses, choosing against all reason to continue lay in that particular bed he made.
WND's Movie Reviewer: Life Under Obama Is Just Like 'The Hunger Games' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Drew Zahn uses a Nov. 24 WorldNetDaily review of the new "Hunger Games" film to rather desperately draw a parallel to today:
If our elected officials scented in the popularity of the first “Hunger Games” a wave of outrage against the tyranny of centralized government, wait until they get a whiff of this one.
Here, then, is the point that’s suddenly so timely for today. The movie is well made – really well made. Audiences feel the rage and betrayal the characters feel, the stirring of revolution … when the overreaching central government breaks its promises.
And here we are in modern-day America, where a smug, isolated capital is filled with power-hungry politicos, the chief of which said he could be trusted with control of our health care because he promised, “If you like your health coverage, you can keep it.”
then again, Zahn also thinks Obama is a Decepticon, so why wouldn't he think this?
Noel Sheppard Gets Punk'd, Falls For Racist, Sexist Website's Story Topic: NewsBusters
Noel Sheppard ominously begins a Nov. 25 NewsBusters post:
Noel Ignatiev, a professor at Massachusetts College of Art, has for years advocated the total elimination of Caucasians.
During his final lecture before retirement last Monday, he told his white male students "you don’t deserve to live. You are a cancer, you’re a disease."
Just one problem: It appears not to be true. Sheppard hastily added an update to his blog stating that "It has come to my attention that this might be a hoax," noting that the source for the claim, a blog called Diversity Chronicle, describes its content as "largely satirical."
But Sheppard is not telling the whole story. Media Matters notes:
A scan of the list of blogs Diversity Chronicle recommends reveals a number of "white nationalist" blogs, including American Renaissance (amren.com), a white supremacist think tank. The site also recommends various articles with titles such as "Pedophilia More Common Among 'Gays'" and "Virgin Brides Less Likely To Divorce." Under a section labeled "Eugenics," Diversity Chronicles links a website supporting "humanitarian eugenics." The "Institute for Historical Review," which deals largely in anti-Semitism and Holocaust-denial, is also in the list of recommended websites.
Remember, Sheppard did run an anti-Semitic image with one of his NewsBusters blog posts, profusely apologized for it when he was caught -- then, a year later, did it again. Is it any surprise that he would consider a racist and sexist like like Diversity Chronicle to be a reliable source?
To quote Sheppard: Yes, that was a rhetorical question.
Failed lawyer Larry Klayman continues his record of failure -- not that you'd know it from reading WorldNetDaily.
The headline on WND's Nov. 26 article on its lawsuit against Esquire magazine is laughably vague: "Court rules in WND's 'birth certificate' lawsuit; 'This is an issue for the jury to decide.'"
It's not until you actually read the story that you realize that 1) WND's lawsuit was dismissed yet again, this time by a federal appeals court, and 2) the person quoted as calling for a jury trial was not a judge but Klayman. WND is so clearly incapable of objectively reporting on itself that it can't even put the main fact of the story in the headline.
The article curiously fails to link to the ruling, even though it was posted online, and it waits until the 11th paragraph to actually quote from the ruling while giving copious space to Klayman rant about why the lawsuit should not have been dismissed (but is really just demonstrating why he sucks as a lawyer).
Surprisingly, WND actually tells the readers the gist of why its lawsuit was dismissed -- no "reasonable reader" would take Esquire's satirical blog post about WND pulping Jerome Corsi's birther book seriously -- though it buries excerpts from the ruling with blather from Klayman. WND didn't tell readers, however, that the judges also pointed out that WND editor Joseph Farah "immediately recognized the blog post as a 'parody,' although he told The Daily Caller that in his view it was 'a very poorly executed' one" -- one of the reasons lower courts had dismissed WND's lawsuit, or that the judges ultimately ruled that Klayman had failed to state a legitimate claim.
Klayman added that in the current political environment, suggesting in any way that Obama might not be eligible would be career suicide for a jurist.
“These judges know that if they make an unpopular decision against the establishment that they will never be able to be promoted to the Supreme Court or any other position they might get through political patronage,” he said.
WND apparently doesn't realize that quoting such lunacy only makes Klayman appear even crazier -- and makes people wonder why WND has such trust in this incompetent lawyer.
NEW ARTICLE: James Hirsen, Right-Wing 'Media Analyst' Topic: Newsmax
Much of the Newsmax columnist's so-called media analysis is defending conservatives and bashing liberals. And that doesn't count his defenses of his buddy Mel Gibson. Read more >>
Craige McMillan writes in his Nov. 22 WorldNetDaily column:
Stacking a court with ideologically sympathetic judges isn’t a new strategy. During America’s earlier “never waste a good crisis” economic moment, known as the Great Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, after being rebuffed by the Supreme Court for his efforts to expand government beyond its constitutional bounds, took another approach: He attempted to turn the nation’s highest court into a rubber stamp for his utopian dynasty.
The current White House occupant has no such compunctions about the monarchy, assuming he is the monarch. Note the similarities in mindset to many of the poorest African nations: Whoever becomes the “monarch” distributes the spoils to his followers.
Picking the Washington, D.C., Court of Appeals as the packing victim was a good strategy for someone with disregard for the rule of law. Roosevelt was busted for his effort to stack the Supreme Court, so why not drop down one level and try it again? After all, the D.C. court decides lots of government-overreach lawsuits. Why not pack it with ideological sympathizers, so the answer is always the same: The feds can do anything they want, Constitution and all and the rest of you be damned!
The two examples McMillan provides are not remotely the same. FDR tried to add additional positions to the Supreme Court, while Obama is merely trying to fill already existing vacancies on a lower court.
McMillan also throws in some gratuitous birtherism:
You and the rest of the Republicans in the Senate can begin an investigation into the meaning of the term “natural born citizen,” as used during the period of history when the Constitution was written. You may actually find that the current White House occupant does not meet the constitutional requirements to hold the office of president.
Apparently McMillan hasn't noticed that even the website that publishes his columns has largely abandoned birther conspiracy theories.
MRC's Double Standard on MSNBC Hosts Saying Insulting Things Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has been in high dudgeon lately over Martin Bashir's remarks about Sarah Palin, for which he has apologized. But a few years back, another MSNBC host who said something offensive got much different treatment.
In 2007, when Don Imus described the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed ho's," the MRC really didn't want to talk about it. Brent Bozell -- in an example of cowardice that rivaled his treatment of Rush Limbaugh's sleazy remarks about Sandra Fluke -- conceded only that Imus' words were "stupid," then desperately tried to change the subject: "But where were these people when the subject was gangsta rap? With these arrogant and profane multi-millionaires routinely insulting and deriding people, especially black women, with language one hundred-fold more offensive than anything that ever came out of the I-Man's mouth?" Bozell also hypocrically accused CBS of hypocrisy for canceling Imus' radio show over the controversy.
When Imus got a new radio gig, NewsBusters' Noel Sheppard cheered on Imus seeking to "avenge" his firing by going after "the group that disseminated transcripts of his broadcast concerning the Rutgers women's basketball team, Media Matters for America." Sheppard added: "Right-thinking Americans across the fruited plain should hope that Imus is going to make it a crusade to expose the various entities in this nation such as Media Matters and the Center for American Progress which are indeed nothing more than propaganda arms of the Clintons. Good luck, Don. Give ‘em hell!" Sheppard couldn't even be bothered to criticize Imus' offensive remarks.
Does this sound like an organization that has any moral authority to speak out against Bashir? Didn't think so.
Last week, WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein had a minor fit over "The lead pollster and main crafter of the marketing campaign for Obamacare" having "once explained that when selling health-care reform to the public 'perceptions are more important than facts and reason.'"
Klein won't tell you this, but that's exactly the same way WND has been selling its "black mob violence" narrative. It actually gives the game away in the editor's note on top of every Colin Flaherty article: It states that Flaherty is reporting on "what appears to be a nationwide trend of skyrocketing black-on-white crime, violence and abuse." Not an actual trend -- what merely appears to be one.
As one key aspect of Flaherty's "black mob violence" meme has gotten more media exposure recently -- the "knockout game" -- it was inevitable that Flaherty's narrative would start falling apart upon closer scrutiny:
The New York Times pointed out that "police officials in several cities where such attacks have been reported said that the 'game' amounted to little more than an urban myth, and that the attacks in question might be nothing more than the sort of random assaults that have always occurred." The Times added that "police officials cautioned that they had yet to see evidence of an organized game spreading among teenagers online, though they have been reluctant to rule out the possibility."
The Daily Beast criticized the "media panic" over "knockout game" coverage, highlighting its "strongly anecdotal" nature, adding: "The 'knockout game' may or may not be a new phenomenon, but with a few instances out of tens of thousands of assaults, it’s not a trend, and media outlets shouldn’t treat it as one. A few teens may describe their behavior as a game, but to hold them up as signs of a crime wave is to cherry-pick data and mislead the audience. A little incredulity, in other words, would go a long way."
Slate notes that Flaherty "made it his life's work to report any single crime perpetrated by a black person in the U.S. against a white person. In a recent blog post, he lists as evidence six separate crimes in Philadelphia over the course of two years, which share nothing in similarity except for the fact that they involved black people." Slatte adds:
Imagine if another national "journalist" started doing the same for, say, any crime committed in Alabama, or any arson charge in the country. People would start to think Alabama was going through a crime epidemic, or that arson was becoming all the rage with criminals. That would be ridiculous, because it's ridiculous to assume that a few unrelated counts of arson make arson an epidemic. But when you inject race into the equation, it conveniently aligns with the assumptions of people who happen to be racist. That's the sort of twisted logic that justifies why more than half of the U.S. prison population is made up by black and Hispanic people, even though they comprise a quarter of the total population.
Flaherty and WND are not taking the exposure of its ginned-up coverage lying down -- they're in panic mode and flailing to push back. An unbylined Nov. 25 article attacks the Times and Slate in such a dishonest manner that it's clear they're panicking.
Without directly quoting from the article, WND misleadingly asserts that the Times called the knockout game an "urban myth" without mentioning that it's police officials who are characterizing it that way. But that created enough of a straw man for Flaherty to slap down:
“The New York Times is trying to hijack the narrative by calling it an urban myth and classifying black mob violence in the same sphere as Big Foot and the Easter Bunny,” Flaherty told WND. “It won’t work. There’s too much video, there are too many victims, and there’ are too many people writing about it for it to simply go away.”
Flaherty said it’s “an urban fact at this point, no matter what the New York Times says.”
WND and Flaherty also attacked Slate -- again without quoting from the article, thus creating another straw man:
“If you use a lot of statistics when you talk about race, the liberals accuse you of stereotyping. If you leave the statistics out and just report stories, then they accuse you of cherry picking. So Slate wants it both ways. Slate loves to speak to people’s motivations on why all of us are producing stories like this, but I don’t care about that. All I care about are making sure my facts are right,” Flaherty rebutted.
“When people read ‘White Girl Bleed a Lot,’ they’re going to read a book with over 500 examples of recent black mob violence around the country, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. That’s just a plain fact,” Flaherty said.
The fact that WND and Flaherty have to be so dishonest about their critics demonstrates how little truth is behind their narrative. All they've done is compile unrelated, anecdotal incidents over several years and call it an "epidemic."
CNS' Starr Frowns On State Department's 'Transgender Day of Remembrance' Topic: CNSNews.com
Last week, CNSNews.com's Penny Starr was gay-baiting recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom by obsessing over the sexual orientation of two of them.
Starr followed that up with a Nov. 22 article freaking out over Secretary of State John Kerry marking a "Transgender Day of Remembrance."
While Starr played it straight and didn't report any anti-gay tirades, she's so anti-gay herself that this story's existence is a demonstration of her disapproval of the "Transgender Day of Remembrance."
Has CNS ever considered keeping reporters with strong personal views on certain subjects -- as Starr clearly does on gays and abortion -- from reporting "news" articles on those subjects? Apparently not, even though that's the standard CNS' parent, the Media Research Center, demands of the "liberal media."
Is WND Trying To Foment A Military Coup Against Obama? Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've documented how WorldNetDaily's Michael Maloof has been drafting crazy birther ex-generals to push his conspiracy theory that President Obama is systematically firing military commanders because ... well, who knows why? Now it appears there might be a method to Maloof's madness.
After one of them called for the “forced resignations” of President Obama and congressional leaders in response to multiple grievances, including the alleged political purge of hundreds of senior military officers, two retired U.S. generals are creating a citizens’ commission to scrutinize Obama administration actions on national security and economic issues.
“America’s Provisional Leadership Council” will look at major concerns, as outlined by Army Gen. Paul E. Vallely and Air Force Brig. Gen. Charles Jones, in an eight-point paper titled “The Americans Project.”
Vallely told WND he sees The Americans Project as a “citizens’ commission” of prominent Americans to provide advice to legislative and executive branches of government.
America’s leaders, he said, will be “held to high standards of performance to solve the nation’s problems of governing. We will scrutinize and provide guidance to federally elected officials on behalf of the citizens.”
In calling for the forced resignations of Obama and the leadership of Congress, Vallely outlined suggestions for nationwide rallies and said a peaceful “civil uprising is still not out of question.”
The current crop of leaders, he said, must face a “demand resignation” process, which he explained requires massive grassroots protests and social networking which he envisions can be undertaken through his organization. And example of a “forced resignation,” he said, was that of President Richard Nixon.
“Our federal government continues down the path of destroying America,” Vallely said. “Americans must now stand up and put America back on the right track.”
Maloof is never going to admit it, but it appears that Vallely and Jones are trying to lay the groundwork for a military coup against Obama. Their creation of a "citizens commission" seems to be designed to give them cover to call their actions a "grassroots" campaign by regular Americans.
Maloof's descriiption of what the group plans to do once they take power sure looks like a military coup:
“Deceptive political intentions for the potential use of facilities, weapons, massive purchases of ammunition plus military-type vehicles and railroad cars are greatly objectionable to American citizens and an insult to the economic deficit of the nation,” they said.
DHS jobs could be given to the Department of Defense and the Interior Department, they claim. And FEMA would be recast as the National Emergency Agency with a reduction in manpower and merged into the Interior Department to be deployed during national emergencies.
“All weapons, munitions and military-type vehicles will be transferred to the DOD immediately,” they add.
Restricting "weapons, munitions and military-type vehicles" to the military? That's the very definition of the way a military junta behaves.
A "grassroots" campaign to overthrow the president led by former military commanders is all kinds of wrong -- if not actually treasonous. But Maloof won't tell you that.
Bozell Can't Quite Admit He's Heathering Scarborough Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell is not done Heathering Joe Scarborough, it seems.
On the heels of a column completely dedicated to bashing Scarborough for not lying about Mitt Romney's bleak presidential prospects and, thus, putting right-wing ideology ahead of reality, Bozell cranked out an open letter after Scarborough said on a radio show that Bozell was "very angry" with him for pointing out incompetently run Republican campaigns. Bozell, of course, is pretending he's not:
It is amazing. There's not a single thing you said about me that is true. What amazes is that you know you're not telling the truth and still you say it.
-- I was never "very angry" with you for saying critical things about Romney. I am critical of you for writing books at night lecturing Republicans on how they can win while spending your mornings on that network of yours doing what hosts on that network do: trashing Republicans at every opportunity.
-- I was "very angry" at you for pointing out that Romney was a flip-flopper? Joe, Joe: Next you'll state I endorsed Obamacare. But since you raised the subject of flip-flops, try this one on for size: You savage conservatives on a regular basis, then rush to chest-thump: "I'm a conservative first!" Maybe it's not a flip-flop. Maybe it's just intellectual dishonesty and nothing else.
-- "Just like he defended John McCain, he was very angry when I was critical of John McCain." The only person who finds that assertion more ridiculous than I do would be John McCain.
-- "[T]his all started when I started criticizing George Bush in 2004 for his big spending Republicanism." You've said the same thing about Rush Limbaugh. And Sean Hannity. And Mark Levin. You said it to me, remember? And remember how I told you you were being ridiculous? You say that about anyone critical of you, including now me. Joe, tell me: Is it that you're foolish or is this just intellectual dishonesty -- again?
-- Of me you say, "There are a lot of people in Washington DC who love establishment Republicans and make a lot of money churning up controversy, and basically say, "Be on our side no matter what." Joe, open the windows at MSNBC. The sound you'll hear in the distance is Capitol Hill erupting in laughter.
-- "He never criticizes me on ideology." Good Lord, how direct must I be to register on that score? More intellectual dishonesty. (Are we seeing a trend here, Joe?)
-- And finally, in this short exchange you find a way to suggest three times that I'm "very angry" with you. I'm not, Joe.
You're not worth it.
Needless to say, the fact that Bozell felt the need to crank out this open letter is all the evidence one needs to see that he is, in fact, very angry with Scarborough. What Bozell is attacking as "intellectual dishonesty" is his own refusal to acknowledge reality: Scarborough appears to be right about his criticism of the presidential campaigns of McCain and Romney given that both candidates lost.
Also note that Bozell never specifically denies that he wants Scarborough to lie about conservatives in order to preserve their chances of winning. It's so obvious that he does, even if he doesn't want it put in those words.
It is Heathering, pure and simple. Bozell should just acknowledge it.