MRC, Not A Fan of Hispanics, Launches Effort to Monitor Hispanic Media Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has launched MRC Latino, described as an attempt to subject Spanish-language media to "consistent conservative engagement and scrutiny for fairness, accuracy and journalistic integrity."
Of course, the MRC's "research" is hardly anyone's guide for how to monitor for "fairness, accuracy and journalistic integrity" since it is so skewed and unscientific. That would seem to undermine the entire premise of the enterprise.
So would another salient point: the MRC has long been hostile to Hispanics and their causes, like immigration reform.
Right Wing Watch notes that MRC chief Brent Bozell has called for the expulsion of Republican leadership if it moved ahead with immigration reform, and he complained that the media was "pandering to minority voters as the most crucial, special voters of all," Latinos in particular.
A look through ConWebWatch's archives reveals more MRC hostility to Hispanics:
MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, repeatedly portrays any form of immigration reform as "amnesty," despite the inaccuracy of the term.
The MRC has complained that the media won't uncritically parrot right-wing attacks on immigration reform (like calling it amnesty) and that it dares to present undocumented immigrants as human.
CNS editor in chief Terry Jeffrey has a laughably simplistic view of illegal immigration, suggesting that illegal immigrants are all uneducated liberals who refuse to attend church (though the opposite is true).
As Right Wing Watch states, Bozell -- who once compared President Obama to "skinny ghetto crackhead" -- may want to consider if he himself is playing a role in damaging the GOP brand by attacking Hispanic media.
WND's Klein Again Champions His Favorite Traitor, Jonathan Pollard Topic: WorldNetDaily
Talk of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard being released by the United States as a bargaining chip in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations is having one completely expected result: WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein once again coming to the defense of his favorite traitor.
Klein whitewashes Pollard's deeds yet again in a March 31 WND article:
Pollard worked as a U.S. Navy intelligence analyst and was indicted in 1985 on one count of passing classified information to an ally, Israel, and sentenced to life imprisonment in spite of a plea agreement that was to spare him a life sentence.
Pollard’s sentence is considered by many to be disproportionate to the crime for which he was convicted. He is the only person in U.S. history to receive a life sentence for spying for an ally. The median sentence for the offense is two to four years.
The unprecedented sentence was largely thought to have been driven by a last-minute secret memorandum from Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger, in which he accused Pollard of treason – a crime for which he was never indicted – and claimed Pollard harmed America’s national security.
But Pollard did, in fact, harm national security. As we documented, prosecutor John L. Martin has said that the classified documents Pollard gave Israel access to would fill a space 10 feet by 6 feet by 6 feet, and the law makes no distinction between spying for an ally or an enemy. Former prosecutor Joe diGenova pointed out that Pollard received about $500,000 a year plus expenses for giving intelligence documents to Israeli agents, and that it "cost between $3 billion and $5 billion to fix because of what he compromised."
Yet Klein still thinks Pollard caused no damage and was punished unfairly.
NewsBusters' Ken Shepherd devotes a March 25 post to laboriously explaining why voter ID laws are needed even if the voter fraud such laws would prevent doesn't really exist.
Responding to an MSNBC article pointing out that voter-fraud allegations are overblown, Shepherd writes:
Granted, it is fair to highlight and criticize a politician for exuberant rhetoric, but that alone does not seem to be MSNBC's aim. Regardless of how prevalent voter fraud is, prophylactic measures to prevent FUTURE fraud are legitimate policy measures for state governments to pursue. What's more, while there may be only a handful of cases in the past 13 years that progressed far enough in an investigation to strongly suggest if not prove voter fraud, that by no means suggests that every instance of voter fraud in the past few years has in fact gone detected and documented. There are plenty of crimes which occur on a daily basis a large number of which are never reported, much less investigated.
What's more, in instances where an election was not substantially close but the losing party has suspicions of voter fraud, investigations into the same would not have generated a change in the electoral outcome and, accordingly, may not have been pursued.
Shepherd is really stretching things here by going into purely speculative mode. It demonstrates the weakness of his argument.
Nevertheless, he goes on, responding to a claim that voter-ID laws are ineffective against the most common form of voter fraud, misuse of absentee ballots:
Of course, in-person balloting is similarly done via secret ballot, which is all the more reason why it's important to prevent someone fraudulently voting in person when claiming to be another individual.
Suppose it's 7:30 a.m. on election day and a Joe Jones fraudulently obtains a ballot intended for a Sam Smith, who has not yet voted. The precinct worker crosses Sam Smith off the rolls as having voted, and Joe Jones votes a secret ballot which, of course, cannot be un-voted. Later in the day, Sam Smith comes in to vote after work only to find his name has already been crossed off the voter roll. The best case scenario is that Mr. Smith will get and mark up a provisional ballot, which may not be counted when all is said and done, while Jones's fraudulently-cast ballot will most certainly be counted.
In the final analysis, this may not swing the election held that day, but in a real sense, Smith was disenfranchised and Jones was able to cast a vote which he was not entitled by law to cast.
That argument might have some weight if he hadn't conceded earlier in the post that there is no widespread voter fraud of that type.
If the MSNBC network really cared about the public policy issues in play, they could give viewers and website readers a thorough exploration of the pros and cons of voter ID laws. But alas, the aim is not illumination but excitation: whipping up the Democratic Party base in an election year to fear and loathe the GOP, all in service of protecting Democrats from an electoral bloodletting.
Shepherd, on the other hand, is trying to whip up the Republican base to fear and loathe Democrats by fearmongering about voter fraud he can't prove exists.
Knowing Joseph Farah By His Fruits Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah writes in his March 27 WorldNetDaily column:
I was harshly criticized when I questioned Barack Obama’s claim to be a Christian back in 2008 when he was running for president.
It’s not an easy thing to do to dispute what someone else says he believes. For most people, faith is a private matter. Americans are often uncomfortable talking about religion. It’s considered taboo to scratch beneath the surface of spiritual claims and assertions by politicians. It’s considered bigoted, closed-minded, gauche.
From the reaction, I must have been the first who dared point out the contradictions in Obama’s own description of his brand of Christianity in which many roads lead to the Kingdom of God.
I can’t tell you how many times I was instructed and admonished about Jesus’ words from Matthew 7, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”
But, as a Christian, scripture informs me that we will know people by their fruits. Obama’s fruits were well-known and well-documented by the time he first ran for president. Any true believer in the One True God would have had the discernment to view what he had sown and reaped.
Today it’s growing increasingly clear that far from being a believer, as Obama claimed in 2008, he is an enemy of believers – a tormenter of Christians, a persecutor.
By that same measure, we can say that we know Farah by his fruits, as demonstrated later in his column:
Obama has placed his ideological passion for abortion and homosexuality above freedom of religion.
But it’s more than that.
I believe Obama and the agenda he personifies have used abortion and homosexuality as battering rams against the Christian faith.
For the proponent of unlimited government, God is truly the enemy because He is the author of liberty. He is the enemy because no one must serve a higher god than government. Men have been placing themselves in God’s place, divining right from wrong, since the Garden of Eden. There’s nothing new under the sun. It always leads to one end – disaster, catastrophe, death, destruction, misery, hopelessness.
That is the fruit we know Farah by -- hate, lies and deception, all in the service of making money (i.e., keeping right-wing extremists reading WND).
Farah knows what he needs to do about his history of hate and deception, for he identifies it in his column: "It’s up to His people who are called by His name to humble themselves and pray and seek His face and turn from their wicked ways. Only then will this judgment on us be lifted, for He will hear our prayers, forgive our sin and heal our land."
Farah's career in the past couple of decades has been defined by wicked ways. But Farah made no apparent attempt to repent for his misdeeds during the "National Day of Prayer and Fasting" he promoted, and there's no evidence he has an interest in doing so now.
We're pretty sure the Bible has something to say about those who preach piety and repentence but have no interest in doing so themselves. Perhaps Farah can enlighten us.
NewsBusters Has Difficulty Describing Who State Senator Insulted Topic: NewsBusters
In a March 26 NewsBusters post, P.J. Gladnick mocks the Providence Journal for a story on Rhode Island state senator Joshua Miller directing an insult at someone, adding that "There was just no easy way to describe exactly what Miller was "apologizing" for but staff reporter tried his best without being explicit.
But Gladnick describes the target of the insult only as a "radio host," then attacks Miller's apology as insincere because it was "chock full of excuses can't really be sincere." But it no point does Gladnick fully describe who the guy was that Miller insulted.
His name is Dan Bidondi, and he works for the Alex Jones conspiracy website Infowars.com. In the apology that Gladnick deemed insufficiently sincere, Miller noted that Bidondi was "interrupting legitimate members of the media who were attempting to conduct interviews" and had "antagonize[d] an elderly veteran."
No, Gina Loudon, Obama Is Not Giving Away The Internet Topic: WorldNetDaily
Gina Loudon rants in a March 30 WorldNetDaily column:
President Obama is selling out American sovereignty at every turn. He did it with unilateral missile disarmament and his constant bent to fix our Constitution, which he believes is the problem. He does it with the constant reverence for international law, of himself, and all his judicial appointees. He did it when he canceled the space shuttle program and made America dependent on Russia for trip to the American … err International Space Station. His most glaring violation of American sovereignty may be his agreement to simply give away American control of the Internet to the “global community.”
The travesty is that we Americans actually did build the Internet! (No, not you, Al! You only built the fraudulent green movement hysteria.) Even Bill Clinton said giving away control of the Internet was idiotic. We have the strongest tradition of free speech in the world. You can kiss that goodbye, Internet lovers!
As we've pointed out when others made this misleading claim, the plan to transfer ICANN, the body that manages Internet names and addresses, to international control has been in the works since 1998, and it was always the plan that the U.S. would eventually relinquish control over ICANN.
But Loudon is in full frothing mode, and the facts don't matter to her:
So now Obama is handing the global community the ability to control our speech, and our technological advances. The international body will have the ability to control us by controlling our speech, and we handed it to them. What are we getting in return?
This may be the most historic outrage in the history of this country, if not the world, and it happened while they entertained us with bread and circuses.
If the country doesn’t wake up and find a way to throw these colluders with terrorists – these traitors – out of office, it will be too late. It may be time for us to seriously consider our options, very seriously.
History will record the truth. The next entity to control the Internet, space and nuclear technology will not be so good as the Americans, who have controlled it since its birth. It cannot be, because no republic shares our bedrock foundations of free speech and individual liberty. America is founded on principles that are reverent, grace-filled and believe the best in people, and for people. What will the Internet look like when it is controlled by people who believe the state comes first?
CNS' Chapman Race-Baits On Apparent Illegal Immigrant's Crime Topic: CNSNews.com
A March 28 CNSNews.com article by Michael Chapman has a weird tone:
Luis Enrique Marin Noyola, a 20-year-old Hispanic man, was arrested by Winston-Salem police officers and charged with raping a 3-year-old, and a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer has been put in place in the case.
According to the Winston-Salem Police Department, Noyola entered an apartment on Bruce Street in Winston-Salem, N.C., early on Sunday morning, Mar. 9, and raped the 3-year-old and then fled the scene. After further investigation, police arrested Noyola on Mar. 11.
First, why does Chapman put Noyola's ethnicity in the first paragraph? What does that add to the story? Given that the man is in custody, identifying his race is completely irrelevant.
Second, why is CNS even doing this story? It's a local crime story. Even Noyola's status as an apparent illegal immigrant doesn't raise its news value.
It seems that Chapman, CNS' managing editor, is looking to bring an element of race-baiting to his "news" organization, a la WorldNetDaily's Colin Flaherty.
WND's Chastain Forgot About Poland Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jane Chastain writes in her March 26 WorldNetDaily column:
In 2008, as Putin was peeling off two provinces in Georgia, Bush sent warships to the Black Sea, shelved a nuclear agreement and isolated Russia politically. Yes, he could have done more, but he did prevent a complete takeover of the region.
Meanwhile, when Obama took office, he forgave Russia’s transgression in the infamous “reset.” Worst of all, as a gift to Russia, he pulled the rug out from under Poland and the Czech Republic by canceling our agreement to provide those countries with missile-defense.
The Media Research Center reports that NewsBusters assistant editor Noel Sheppard has died at the age of 53. He had stopped writing for NewsBusters earlier this year while being treated for cancer.
In a tribute, Matthew Sheffield notes that Sheppard actually sold his financial planning business to pursue blogging full-time for us at NewsBusters: "Noel loved attention and NewsBusters readers loved his work, making him by far the blog’s most popular writer. Very frequently, he single-handly brought in half of the site traffic each month."
Bob Unruh's Double Standard on Domestic Terror (And More Lazy Reporting) Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bob Unruh seemed to be on a scoop in a March 26 WorldNetDaily article:
The FBI has scrubbed its web listing for hate-crime “resources” of a reference to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which was fingered by confessed domestic terrorist Floyd Lee Corkins II as the source of his information when he planned to murder staff members at a Christian organization.
WND reported late last year that the FBI was utilizing the SPLC as a “resource” on its web page regarding hate crimes, but the current page has eliminated the organization that came to the attention of authorities when Corkins attempted a mass murder at the Washington offices of Family Research Council.
Just one problem: the truth was much different. Unruh, being the lazy and biased reporter he is, simply cribbed from a Washington Examiner article and did no actual reporting of his own.
In fact, an FBI spokesperson told the Daily Caller that the relationship between the FBI and the SPLC has not changed, and that it simply removed outside organizations from that list of resources, preferring to focus on resources within the federal government.The FBI continues to list SPLC as a partner in the fight against hate crimes on its website.
So Unruh had to walk it back in a March 27 article, but still tried to frame the removal as meaningful and portrayed the SPLC as claiming it was "no big deal."
The vast majority of both of Unruh's articles were devoted to attacking the SPLC as being "linked to domestic terror" because the shooter in an incident at the Family Research Council headquarters got some of his information from the SPLC's website.
Meanwhile, a March 29 article by Unruh promotes the work of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue while not admiting that, under the definition he used for the SPLC, Operation Rescue had an even greater role in promoting domestic terror. Scott Roeder had numerous contacts with Operation Rescue before he shot and killed abortion doctor George Tiller in a church. Operation Rescue had previously exhorted activists to enter Tiller's church, and Roeder's car contined a Post-It note with a phone number for Operation Rescue official Cheryl Sullenger.
CNS' Bannister Now Doing PR For Sean Hannity Topic: CNSNews.com
A March 27 CNSNews.com blog post by Craig Bannister is basically a press release for Sean Hannity's radio show:
"It's puzzling that Michael Savage would want to brag about his listening audience" given that the "numbers show that Savage is losing the audience that he inherited from Sean Hannity in droves," Eric Stanger, Vice President, Operations and Affiliate Marketing: "The Sean Hannity Show" with Premiere Networks said in a statement provided to MRCTV.
Savage had been boasting of beating Hannity in key markets, prompting the response from Hannity's network. "I stomped him. And, it's gratifying to me because Hannity's never had any competition," Savage told Mediaite.
"In New York on WABC-AM as well as on Dallas on WBAP-AM, in the key demo of A25-54, Savage has lost a whopping 49% of the audience that he inherited from Sean Hannity," Stanger says, citing Nielsen Audio data for the period December 2013 through February 2014.
"Meanwhile, Sean Hannity has more than doubled the total audiences where has started on new stations after leaving Cumulus in New York (+108%), Los Angeles (+172%), and Dallas (+128%)," Stanger said.
The Sean Hannity Show airs on more than 500 radio stations nationwide, with an estimated audience of over 11 million listeners, while the Savage Nation airs on around 200 stations with an estimated audience of less than 3 million, Stanger notes.
Did Hannity pay Bannister for performing this valuable PR service for him? Because he might as well have.
For WorldNetDaily, efforts to ban discrimination against transgenders has meant only one thing: co-ed showers and bathrooms (complete with irrelevant images of Ferris Bueller, for some reason).
But that scare tactic has been discredited. Media Matters details how experts in 12 states that have banned discrimination in public accomodations based on gender identity have reported no problems whatsoever with sexual assaults or any other crimes in connection with this accomodation.
But this is WND we're talking about here, and it loves to hide facts from its readers. A March 25 article by Bob Unruh provided an opportunity to WND to report actual facts on the issue of transgender rights.
Ah, who are we kidding? This is Bob Unruh we're talking about here -- the guy who won'treportnews that doesn't conform to his and WND's right-wing agenda.
Indeed, Unruh's article contains a false reference to "coed bathrooms" right in the headline and the first paragraph. Unruh goes on to laughably call the anti-discrimiation law in California a "sex indoctrination law," quotes only opponents of the law, and devotes several paragraphs to a completely unrelated California law honoring Harvey Milk.
Unruh doesn't say a word about how the anti-transgender fearmongering has been utterly discredited. But really, did anyone expect such a lazy, biased reporter to start doing his job now?
MRC Tries, Fails To Blame Defective GM Cars on Federal Ownership Topic: Media Research Center
Sean Long tries his best to manufacture a controversy in a March 21 Media Research Center Business & Media Institute item:
When lives are lost due to a faulty product the media point fingers all the way up to the top of the company. Just not when the government owns the company.
The broadcast networks have aired 42 reports on the GM safety recall of faulty ignitions; malfunctions that resulted in more than 300 deaths. But in the course of their reporting, ABC, CBS and NBC only once said something that could remind viewers that GM was, for a time, Government Motors. More than half of fatalities occurred during the period of federal ownership of GM.
The networks’ refused to criticise the government in GM stories, yet they insisted on blaming Mitt Romney for Bain Capital’s actions throughout his candidacy. It is particularly egregious in the case of GM because many victims cannot pursue legal action against GM due to the terms of its 2009 bankruptcy.
While running 42 stories between the Feb. 13 recall and March 17, the broadcast networks have ignroed the federal government’s bailout of General Motors 98 percent of the time (41 out of 42 stories), completely ignoring the fact that 176 fatalities occurred during the government’s ownership.
But Long omits the fact that the vehicles that are a focus of the controversy were manufactured between 2003 and 2007 -- and, thus, before the government had any ownership interest in GM.
While there are reports that GM knew of the problem before issuing a recall, that too dates before government ownership of GM. The only thing that GM might be guilty of during government ownership is continued suppression of knowledge about the problem, but Long provides no evidence that any government official knew about it.
Long's attempt to liken the situation to Romney and Bain Capital is similarly misguided. The federal government did not create GM and, again, the defective cars in question were manufactured before the government took an ownership stake. By contrast, Romney was a co-founder of Bain Capital, and he continued to maintain an ownership stake for years after leaving the company's day-to-day management, and he continued to be described in SEC filings as "sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President."
Whenever someone asks whether something is racist, it probably is. Diana West does this is her March 27 WorldNetDaily column:
It may surprise some Americans to learn that almost one-quarter of the people living in Switzerland are foreigners. Even so, just over 50 percent voted last month to cap immigration, which, unchecked, could leave indigenous Swiss a minority in 50 years. Newsweek’s headline over the story was typical: “Switzerland’s Sudden Fear of Immigrants.”
Fear. Immigrants. The German publication Spiegel Online wrote also about “scaremongering.” The enlightened reader’s thought-bubble is now supposed to register the word “racism.” But was it really “fear of immigrants” – read: “racism” – that drove sufficient numbers of Swiss to the polls to check their own demographic extinction as a recognizable culture and nation-state? Or was it a nearly anachronistic instinct to survive as a recognizable culture and nation-state?
I see it as the instinct to survive – and applaud the Swiss for deciding to limit the influx of Europeans, Slavs, Muslims, Africans and others, whose demographic waves are otherwise sure to transform indigenous Swiss culture into a global multiculture. I also envy them for mustering this basic vital sign, this narrow-edged popular will to control their own borders. It is something that has all but flat-lined in America, where capping immigration – let alone halting it to attempt some measure of assimilation and economic resuscitation – is not even a part of the political debate.
Given that it's almost always white people like West who talk about limits on immigration and that the targets of such limits are almost always white people, then yes, it is a bit racist. West goes on to make her racial concerns clear:
Such population replacement is under way everywhere non-assimilable blocs become entrenched – with or without “amnesty.” But We, the People, have never voted for it. It just happens, forced or enabled from above. It could be that a majority of us want to disappear in a global multiculture – or, in the case of states like California, into an enclave-pocked Mexican monoculture. But that’s not why we have borders and immigration laws. Tragically, we also have a political class and presidents who lawlessly refuse to enforce these laws, making a mockery of our borders, not to mention the democratic process. This makes a mockery of our nationhood, too. It looks like a means to an end – the end of that nationhood.
West then embraces a right-wing activist who's also largely racially driven:
The demographics of The Hague, Netherlands, for example, are not too dissimilar from those in California. As in other major Dutch cities, about half of the people living there are from another country, with non-Western immigrants, mainly Muslim and often Moroccan, making up over one-third of the population. That non-Western figure approaches the halfway mark in the under-21 demographic. Short of a sharp reversal and coupled with high rates of Dutch out-migration, it becomes highly unlikely that the future of the Dutch seat of government will be Dutch.
Is it “fear” and “scaremongering” to point this out? Is it “racism” to oppose the demographic obliteration of a nation clearly under way? According to what is aptly described as the Dutch establishment – from the prime minister, leading mayors, Dutch media, plus, quite shockingly, the U.S. ambassador, who, in a break with diplomatic etiquette, has publicly commented on Dutch affairs – the answer to both questions is yes. This past week has seen yet another public hate campaign by this establishment to smear, demonize and thus neutralize the one Dutch party that opposes the nation’s suicide – the Party for Freedom led by Geert Wilders.
I’ve written more on these events at my blog, www.dianawest.net. For now, it’s worth noting that the Dutch are lucky. With the steadfast and brilliant Wilders leading a popular movement, at least they have a chance to survive.
Wilders is an anti-Islam extremist who has equated "less Moroccans" with "less problems" in the Netherlands. Perhaps West doesn't see such statements as racist, but most sentient beings do.
Overkill: CNS' Starr Has A Massive Margaret Sanger Freakout Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com's Penny Starr has long been guilty of using her so-called reporting to further her right-wing anti-abortion agenda. She has taken her political activism to absurd lengths this week.
The news that Planned Parenthood was planning to give Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi its Margaret Sanger Award prompted the expected reaction: a March 21 hatchet job headlined "Pelosi to Receive Planned Parenthood Award Honoring Eugenicist." Needless to say, Starr ignores the historical context of Sanger's views -- while eugenics is correctly considered reprehensible today, it was a mainstream view during much of Sanger's lifetime.
But for some reason, one attack on a woman who has been dead nearly 50 years was not enough for Starr. She followed that up with three additional articles cherry-picking Sanger's writings.
In a March 26 article, Starr highlights a claim that Sanger "wrote that large families would be doing what was 'most merciful' if they killed one of their infants." But Starr takes that statement out of context. As Planned Parenthood points out, "Sanger was making an ironic comment — not a prescriptive one — about the horrifying rate of infant mortality among large families of early 20th-century urban America."
Starr flip-flops in another March 26 article, suddenly portraying Sanger as a virtuous woman who opposed abortion, despite her two previous articles implying otherwise.
Starr goes back to implying Sanger supported abortion in a March 27 article, citing a statement calling some children "human weed," further implying the statement was racially motivated. In fact, as Planned Parenthood notes, Sanger never described any ethnic community as "human weeds."
It's this kind of sloppy, hate-motivated reporting -- writing four articles when no more than one was needed -- that's putting CNS on the path to WorldNetDaily-like irrelevance.