CNS' Chapman Finds A Franklin Graham Utterance He Won't Repeat Topic: CNSNews.com
We'vedocumented how CNSNews.com managing editor Michael Chapman has a peculiar obsession with documenting every last word right-wing evangelical Franklin Graham says. But it turns out Chapman's fixation with Graham has its limits -- when his words conflict with the agenda of Chapman's employer.
On the May 6 edition of "Fox & Friends," Graham denounced the Muhamma-cartoon exhibit in Texas where two would-be gunmen were killed, saying the attendees "were wrong" to mock Muslims:
"As a Christian, I don’t like it when people mock my Lord and savior, Jesus Christ, and what this event in Garland, Texas, was doing was mocking the Muslims. And I disagree with Islam, I don’t believe in Islam, but I’m not going to mock them and make fun of them," Graham said on "Fox and Friends."
Graham said that the cartoon contest, organized by Pam Geller's anti-Islam group, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, was offensive.
"I’m discouraged that people would do this. We live in a society now where there’s no civility, there’s no respect, we don’t honor people who have differences. We only attack each other. And so I agree that the folks in Garland, Texas, were wrong," he said. "They had the right to speak. I have free speech, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to go around and cuss people just because I have the freedom to do that."
He later added that even though he did not approve of the event, responding with violence was "wrong."
Even though Chapman has devoted dozens of articles in the past several months to Graham's various utterings over the past several months, he has yet to report this one, according to his article archive.
Why? Presumably because it runs counter to the expressed agenda of the Media Resarch Center, which own CNS, to support Geller.
The same day Graham made his remarks, CNS published a column by Chapman's boss, Brent Bozell, and Tim Graham expressing their support for the "exercise of free speech" at the Muhammad cartoon contest, insisting that while it was "provocative... it wasn't meant to result in two Islamic extremists showing up with assault rifles."
They don't know that, of course; it's entirely possible Geller wanted to provoke a violent response in order to justify her anti-Muslim agenda. Instead, Bozell and Graham complain that some in the media described Geller as "relentlessly shrill and coarse in her broad-brush denunciations of Islam." They don't dispute the accuracy of the claim, however.
Bozell and Graham go on to blame the Southern Poverty Law Center for an "assassin using their "hate map" to go to FRC's building and open fire, seriously wounding a security guard, with the intent to kill as many staff as possible, before being subdued." They add: "The leftist media know that. And still use SPLC as their source."
Funny, we don't recall Bozell or Graham running away from the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue after Scott Roeder had contacts with the group and later murdered abortion doctor George Tiller. In fact, the MRC has pretended there was no link at all between Roeder and the anti-abortion movement, and Bozell himself effectively endorsed Tiller's murder, calling him "a monster who personally murdered 60,000 babies."
If the MRC can't be bothered to unequivocally denounce a group for its links to a murder, Chapman certainly isn't going to challenge that sort of agenda.
UPDATE: Chapman added a post quoting Graham bashing ISIS. He's still ignoring Graham's statement denouncing Geller.
WND Columnist Pushes Obama-Baltimore Conspiracy Theory Topic: WorldNetDaily
Remember how WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah was nattering on about how his website employs "the most rigorous standards of fact-checking, multiple sourcing, the seeking out of primary sources and old-fashioned reporting and editing techniques," despite all the evidence WND does the exact opposite?
There is no evidence that WND columnist Morgan Brittany employed any of the rigorous standards Farah purports to advocate to come to her conclusion in her May 5 column that the unrest in Baltimore is part of President Obama's grand plan to institute martial law and cancel the 2016 elections:
Ever since the election of Barack Obama, racial tensions have ramped up. He was supposed to be the one to unite all Americans and heal the divide, but instead, he did everything he could to turn the heat up and make sure the divide became wider. He surrounded himself with racially divisive people in his administration like Attorney General Eric Holder. He inserted himself into every controversy that had a racial component, like the incident in July of 2009 with the Cambridge police, the Trayvon Martin case, Ferguson and more. And whether right or wrong, even before evidence was presented, he always took the side of the African-American. It became obvious that his concern was not for all Americans but a select few. In an attempt to show “African-Americans” that he cared, he instead succeeded in tearing off the scab of old wounds from the 1960s and fanning the flames of hate for the police.
Once the seeds were planted again, he teamed up with Al Sharpton who became a regular at the White House. Certainly their meetings were not about how to heal the divide after each racial crisis, because the rhetoric Sharpton spewed was a call to war!
From now until the verdict in this trial, the agitators will continue to travel and communicate city to city, town to town, stirring up unrest and hate, keeping people on edge waiting to see the result of this cliff-hanger. If the verdict is not what they want, perhaps Obama will have to institute martial law to preserve order, form a national police force and postpone the 2016 elections.
Crazy? Maybe, but we are on the edge in this country. Attacks are coming from all sides, from inside and outside of our borders, and we are becoming overwhelmed. What happens when Baltimore spreads across the country and our television screens show four or five cities burning at once? Who will we turn to at that point? “One Nation under God” – we need Him now more than ever.
Good luck, Mr. Farah, trying to convince the world that, against all evidence, WND is the "reputable and responsible journalism venture" you would have us think it is.
WND Marks 18th Birthday By Telling Lies, Pretending It's A Real News Organization Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has been spending the past several days celebrating its 18th birthday -- a number more appropriate for a teenager attaining new age-related privileges, not a "news" organization. As can be expected, much of it is self-aggrandizing and circular self-promotion, i.e., the people quoted as saying nice things about WND in an April 30 article are mosly WND columnists.
But there are other clues that point to an ulterior motive behind this odd-anniversary promotion. For instance, an April 27 article by Cheryl Chumley recounting WND's self-proclaimed "firsts," which she insists proves that WND is "a reputable and responsible journalism venture."
WND editor Joseph Farah followed that up with a May 3 column that at first engaged in his usual manhood-measuring by insisting that "no other founder of any other online news agency boasts that kind of resume" that he has (he did this to us in 2008 when we dared point out WND's many faults, as a way to deflect any criticism of his work). Farah then states this:
In an Internet environment heavy on commentary, unedited blogging and unverified claims, WND stands virtually alone in pioneering the most rigorous standards of fact-checking, multiple sourcing, the seeking out of primary sources and old-fashioned reporting and editing techniques.
That, as ConWebWatch readers know all too well, is a a huge sack of lying crap. To name just one example proving Farah a liar: Jerome Corsi's utterly discredited claim that President Obama wears a ring that reads in Arabic "There is no god except Allah." Corsi sought no "primary sources" for this claim; he regurgitated from the even more discredited anti-Obama filmmaker Joel Gilbert. Corsi and Gilbert's story was so wrong that Corsi's fellow birthers were moved to push back.
Yet Corsi's ringstories remain live on the WND website, intact and uncorrected, as does Farah's column insisting that this was "an important story – maybe one of the biggest of the presidential election year."
On top of that, a few days before Farah's nattering about how WND employs "most rigorous standards of fact-checking," it ran a story repeating a claim we first corrected seven years ago -- that Obama's reference to a "civilian national security force" in a speech meant that he wanted to create a police state.
And we haven't even gotten to WND's fact-free birther crusade, about which it has yet to admit fault, let along correct the reams of false reporting it engaged in.
But Farah wasn't done lying, adding this things he claims WND engages in:
While WND strives for “fair and balanced” news coverage, it believes a higher value not emphasized strongly enough by competitors is the pursuit of the truth.
In our work, WND reporters and editors are always encouraged and required to seek out multiple sources and contrary viewpoints in news articles.
More lies. Just take a look at the work of WND news editor Bob Unruh, which frequently tells only one side of the story and lets that side misleadingly frame the argument of the other side, which often never even bothering to contact anyone from that other side.
What makes Farah's declared commitment to telling the truth even more of a laugher is that a few years back, he proudly admitted that WND publishes misinformation.
Farah can't even keep logically consistent. He claims "WND is truly independent from party lines, pressure groups and political entanglements," then a few paragraphs later boasts about "the Judeo-Christian worldview we bring to our mission." Farah seems not to be aware that if a certain "worldview" is imposed as editorial policy, you are no longer "fair and balanced" or "truly independent from party lines, pressure groups and political entanglements."
All of this self-aggrandizing appears to be the result of WND finally realizing that its hypocritical birther crusade -- it won't hold Ted Cruz to the same "eligibility" standards it held Obama, which is why WND has gone almost completely silent on the issue -- and its singleminded zeal to destroy Obama has utterly destroyed any claim WND might have to be taken seriously as a "news" organization.
If WND genuinely wants to be taken seriously, it needs to walk the walk, not just engage in empty boasting. Here's a list of handy tips that Farah isn't apparently aware of despite all the media experience he likes to beat his critics with:
Act like the "fair and balanced" news org you claim you are. Present both sides of the story, and don't present one side as the "correct" one.
Correct your errors.
Tell your readers the truth you've hidden from them all these years -- that the birther crusade was never based in reality and was nothing more than pandering to the anti-Obama base.
Don't be spiteful to your critics. We've been blocked from following Farah and WND on Twitter, which shows just how thin-skinned they are.
That's just for starters. Any basic journalism textbook will have more. Farah professes to follow them, but his fruits tell a much different story.
Perhaps WND made a point of celebrating its 18th anniversary because it's in an adolescent state of mind -- defying authority and rules, paying lip service to tradition and Christianity but doing the exact opposite in reality.
If Farah wants to be taken seriously ever again, he needs to stop BSing WND's readers and start acting like a real journalist. That means telling the truth -- something with which he has so far been shockinglyunfamiliar.
Back in 2008, ConWebWatch dismantled WorldNetDaily's claim that then-presidential candidate Barack Obama's reference to a "civilian national security force" in a speech meant that he wanted to create a police state. In fact, Obama explained at the time he was referring to "soft power" diplomacy through the State Department and the Agency for International Development, not any further militarization.
It's now 2015, and guess what WND is writing about now? Take it away, Bob Unruh:
Back in 2008, Barack Obama, then a presidential candidate, called for a “civilian national security force.” And he wanted it wanted it as big as all of the nation’s military branches.
Now black activist Al Sharpton is suggesting a path that probably would accomplish that: nationalize America’s police forces.
Obama never advocated nationalizing the police, and WND knows it. But why should the facts get in the way of a good story?
Unruh even rehashes how his WND boss, Joseph Farah, "raised the obvious questions about Obama’s plans for a civilian army after the  speech." Of course, Farah never bothered to tell the truth about Obama's statement -- which is why it continues to flog this story to this day despite the utter lack of factual basis behind it.
That's abundantly clear in Graham and Bozell's May 1 column. When it starts "The last year could be described as The Year of Transgender Propaganda," you know it's straight from Graham, who has a lengthy history of transgender freakouts. And freak out he does:
The Hollywood and news media push on the latest frontier of "gender fluidity" demonstrates the libertine left's absolute arrogance that the LGBT revolution is an unstoppable juggernaut.
Time placed Laverne Cox on a "Transgender Tipping Point" cover last June, and the aggressive culture tipping took off. Amazon created a series around a retiree and father of three deciding he was a woman in "Transparent," and won Golden Globes. Fox's "Glee" had their female football coach grow a beard and be celebrated by a "historic" 200-member transgender choir.
The cherry on this vomit is Bruce Jenner.
Yep, it seems Graham thinks the existence of transgender people in the media is nothing but vomit.
Graham whines about the "the mainstream-the-fringe media" but has to admit that the Jenner interview on ABC drew 17 million intervies. He whines further that no anti-transgender views have been allowed to counter Jenner.
Graham concludes by lamenting "the decline and fall of our culture and our common sense." Then again, Graham thinks any mention of transgenders in the media is equivalent to "vomit," so he's not exactly an avatar of common sense himself. Or basic humanity, for that matter.
Maybe we’ve had avaricious, corrupt, ill-intended and even anti-American presidents before. We never “felt” them. Their evils and infirmities didn’t count. They didn’t interfere with our pride in being Americans. Do you gather what I’m gathering from Washington these days? The state of Oregon receiving a multi-million-buck bonus for enrolling the most residents per capita onto food stamps; Obama’s ham-handed attempt in 2009 to hand Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood, the same year he went voluntarily deaf to the pleas of freedom-loving Iranians for a word of moral support against the Islamic dictatorship; refusal to arm the Kurds, who’ve proven their ability to stand up against ISIS; and now we have the first fumes of an administration manipulating the handover of American uranium to Russia.
Benedict Arnold may have run West Point, but he never betrayed us from the White House!
The operatives in Baltimore are but one contingent of Obama’s Revolutionary Army; illegal immigration and amnesty activists are another, as are various other entitled and protected class groups the political left has cultivated over many years. Effective manipulation of these demographics will be integral in determining whether or not he can successfully turn us all against one another at the appointed time.
Social justice? Level playing field? Equal opportunity? Income inequality? Everyone should play by the same rules?
Cue the cheeky cherubs breaking through the pillowy clouds blowing sweet trumpet music in the heavenly skies.
Our embarrassing president and all the cult-of-denial goons that chant the above nonsense have clearly lost all sense of reason, logic, common sense and honesty, not to mention a basic grasp of human history.
Like everyone else who can’t wait for the Obamas to vacate the White House, I want to tell 2017 not to dawdle. No stopping to smell the roses while the rest of us are sniffing the swamp gas emanating from what has come to be known over the past six years as the Offal Office.
I’m not sure anyone could demean and cheapen the White House more than Bill and Hillary Clinton did in the 1990s.
There was a general sense the whole place needed to be fumigated after they left – carpets shampooed or replaced, linens replaced, but most of all our national psyche needed to be scrubbed to rid ourselves of the mental images the place conjured after reports of the debauchery that took place there.
But eventually the Obamas showed up.
There was Barack Obama waxing eloquent in a comedy sketch last week during the White House Correspondents dinner. He seemed disturbingly more at home telling jokes than discussing national policy. If he used a Teleprompter, he did it effectively.
MRC Defends Tony Perkins, CNS Gives His Lie A Pass Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell signed onto a letter with other conservative leaders attacking CBS' Bob Schieffer interview with Family Research Council head Tony Perkins, so it's allover MRC sites.
The letter, issued under something called the Conservative Action Project, rants that Schieffer issued "an assault against Judeo-Christian people of faith" by making simple statements of fact: that he was "inundated" with request to disinvite Perkins because he doesn't "speak for Christians," and noting that the Southern Poverty Law Center has listed the FRC as a "hate group" because of its anti-gay stance.
The letter then attacks the SPLC by bringing up Floyd Corkins, the man who attempted to shoot up the FRC headquarters, because the "homicidal SPLC supporter" Corkins said he found his target on the SPLC website. It claims the SPLC is "discredited" and "disgraced" but offers no evidence it has provided any false information or that it ever expressed any support for Corkins' crime.
That attack is irrelevant to the issue at hand. We doubt that conservatives like Bozell consider Operation Rescue to be "discredited" because Operation Rescue supporter Scott Roeder had contact with members of the group and later went on to murder abortion doctor George Tiller.
The MRC and NewsBusters sites reprint an MRC press release, but CNSNews.com serves up an unbylined "news" article on the letter that is also press release-like, but also takes a stab at looking like journalism with statements like this:
Schieffer also accused Perkins of saying that justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage should be impeached, an accusation Perkins denied.
“I didn't say anything about impeachment of the judges. What I said was that they're not the final say on this issue,” Perkins corrected him.
But Perkins' "correction" is a lie. As Right Wing Watch points out, Perkins appeared last week on the radio show of Iowa conservative Jan Mickelson, who ranted that Congress should attempt to strip the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction on marriage and “impeach [their] sorry keisters,” to which Perkins responded: “I don’t disagree with you, I think you are absolutely right.”
So, yes, Perkins did endorse the idea of impeaching SCOTUS justices who voted to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. It's a little inconvenient while the MRC and other conservatives are defending Perkins, so it will go down the memory hole.
Annals of Random Coverage Comparisons At The MRC Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center loves to compare coverage of its favorite hobby horses to other random things. The apex (or new low, if you prefer) of this randomness came in an April 24 MRC item by Dan Gainor headlined "Priorities: Networks Cover First Dog Bo 28 Times More Than Armenian Genocide." Yes, he really does go there:
The horrific mass murder has been mentioned in just four network stories since Jan. 20, 2009, when Obama took office. But all three networks found ample time to discuss other important Armenian issues – an Armenian company making a chocolate bar 18 feet long by 9 feet wide; Armenian brandy and Armenian Lula Kebabs.
All three networks also made room for other filler stories, such as the White House dog. Reporters spent story after story, oohing and aahing over the presidential pet, the Portuguese Water Dog Bo. Bo has been featured in at least 112 stories and briefs during the Obama presidency, 28 times more than the Armenian genocide.
Journalists on ABC, CBS and NBC had no problem finding time to talk about the important things – such as first dog Bo. Bo was everywhere on the networks – at least 112 times. That’s 28 more times than any mention of a genocide that killed 1.5 million people.
Bo was apparently more important. The networks focused on him doing just about everything. Bo during the Christmas holidays. Bo not joining the presidential family in Hawaii. Bo being taken to Petco by First Lady Michelle Obama. Bo barked when the first lady spoke and was worth $1,600 according to financial disclosure forms.
ABC showed viewers an image of Bo with bunny ears on for Easter 2012. On Aug. 20, 2013, then-White House correspondent Peter Alexander told Today viewers that Bo had company. “Move over Bo, there's a new dog in town, Sunny. And for her inaugural play date, the White House released its own music video. A pair of presidential pets frolicking on the South Lawn, that'll get tails wagging.”
At Christmas, more than a year later, White House correspondent Kristen Welker told about how the White House was decorated, adding, “There are even robotic versions of Sunny and Bo, the first family’s dogs.”
Americans learned enough about the first dog to fill several books. But barely enough about a horrendous genocide to fill a page in one of the worst chapters in human history.
Gainor seems to have missed the fact that the Armenian genocide occurred a century ago and, thus, is not "news." The debate over whether to call it a genocide is also not news -- it's been going on for decades.
Gainor should perhaps study the definition of "news" and get back to us on whether he thinks his genocide-Bo coverage comparison is still legitimate.
So, of course, that makes him the perfect columnist for WorldNetDaily.
And so, an April 27 WND article announces that Morris is an "exclusive weekly commentator." The article is filled with lots of laudatory claims about Morris' background as a former adviser to Bill Clinton and the claim that he was "called “the most influential private citizen in America” by Time magazine," adding: "As a former adviser to Clinton, Morris is uniquely positioned to write about and analyze the current presidential campaign of former first lady Hillary Clinton."
In fact, the "most influential private citizen" claim dates from 1996, just before Morris resigned in disgrace from Clinton's re-election campaign for dalliances with a prostitute. The WND bio of Morris doesn't mention that.
And WND's claim that Morris is "uniquely positioned" to write about Hillary Clinton is undermined by the fact that he has been out of the Clintons' circle for more than 20 years, making any insights he could offer somewhere between outdated and meaningless.
Let's see, discredited, irrelevant, pathologically hates the Clintons -- yep, Morris is a perfect WND columnist.
MRC Buries Schweizer's Political Bias, Lack of Evidence Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Jeffrey Meyer uses an April 26 NewsBusters post to complain about an interview ABC's George Stephanopoulos did with anti-Clinton book author Peter Schweizer. Meyer complained that Stephanopoulos cited "Democratic attacks against the author" and "quote[d] a 'independent government ethics expert' but didn’t mention he was a beneficiary of far-left billionaire George Soros."
Despite all that labeling, at no point does Meyer identify Schweizer as a conservative, though he obliquely referenced it by noting that Stephanopoulos highlighted Schweizer's "partisan interest" in attacking the Clintons.
Meyer further complained that "Stephanopoulos never appeared interested in the actual substance of Schweizer’s book, which alleges the Clinton Foundation took in millions of dollars in donations in exchange for potential influence with the U.S. government and instead acted as a Clinton defender." But he ignored the fact that Schweizer admitted during the interview that he has no "direct evidence" to back up his book's claims -- which would seem to indicate a decided lack of substance.
Meyer knows Schweizer admitted that -- it's in the transcript accompanying his post -- but he failed to highlight it in his item.
Meyer clearly doesn't like the fact that a conservative who made specious claims was called out on them.
WND's Race-Baiters Take Baltimore Mayor Out of Context Topic: WorldNetDaily
You had to know that the unrest in Baltimore had to bring out the race-baiters at WorldNetDaily, and they haven't disappointed.
An unbylined April 27 WND article is dedicated to taking Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake out of context, claiming that a statement she made can only be interpreted as giving rioters permission to destroy property. Cue the usual race-baiting suspects:
But civil-rights leader and author Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson blames Rawlings-Blake for her plan to permit demonstrators to destroy property.
She is “setting a dangerous precedent by allowing so-called protesters ‘space’ to ‘destroy’ property and assault people in that city under the guise of expressing their outrage over the death of Freddie Gray,” he said.
“Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake is in over her head. It’s insane to allow thugs space to destroy and loot. The police should not be hampered from doing their jobs. Allowing this lawlessness to continue will only encourage more violence in Baltimore!”
Jack Cashill, author of “If I Had a Son: Race, Guns, and the Railroading of George Zimmerman,” expressed bafflement at the mayor’s actions.
“I watched the video to make sure the mayor’s ‘safe space’ remark was not taken out of context,” he said. “Unfortunately, it wasn’t. For perhaps the first time in American history, a public official openly and casually took credit for allowing citizens to destroy property and terrorize innocent bystanders. Scarier still, the major media have not found this admission remarkable.
“In a city with a black mayor, a black police chief, and a predominantly minority police force, the protesters have so thoroughly ingested the anti-white propaganda educators and the media have fed them over the years that they feel comfortable in blaming Freddie Gray’s death on white people.”
Colin Flaherty, author of “White Girl Bleed A Lot: The Return of Racial Violence To America and How the Media Ignore It,” says the riots are simply part of a larger anti-white narrative that the mayor shares to some extent.
“The riots in Baltimore were not just about a black man who died in police custody. These riots and protests were all about how black people are relentless victims of relentless white racism. All the time, everywhere and that explains everything, especially why police arrest so many black people for apparently no reason whatsoever.
“Of course the mayor’s ‘safe space’ for property destruction during what she called ‘largely peaceful’ protests led to more violence. This is just one more example of black mob violence and how reporters and public officials ignore, deny, condone, excuse, encourage and even lie about it.”
It's obviously Cashill is lying about claiming the mayor's words were not taken out of context. In fact, the day before WND's article was published, the mayor's office issued a statement from a spokesman clarifying her inital (admittedly poorly worded) statement:
"What she is saying within this statement was that there was an effort to give the peaceful demonstrators room to conduct their peaceful protests on Saturday. Unfortunately, as a result of providing the peaceful demonstrators with the space to share their message, that also meant that those seeking to incite violence also had the space to operate. The police sought to balance the rights of the peaceful demonstrators against the need to step in against those who were seeking to create violence.
The mayor is not saying that she asked police to give space to people who sought to create violence. Any suggestion otherwise would be a misinterpretation of her statement."
WND makes no reference to the clarifying statement even though it, again, was issued a day before the article was published. But who cares about accuracy when there's political hay to be made? Much of the conservative media joined WND in taking the mayor out of context.
Oddly, one dissenter has been Accuracy in Media. Spencer Irvine wrote in an April 28 post about the mayor's complaint about being taken out of context: "Actually, she has a point. When you read the entirety of her remarks, seems like the news media took her 'space' comment out of context. Instead, it should have been reported that because the police gave peaceful protesters space to peacefully assemble, the violent ones abused that space and began to riot and loot."
Once again, WND has placed its right-wing agenda ahead of facts. Sadly, that's WND's modus operandi.
Newsmax's Ruddy Shoots Down Anti-Clinton Attack Book Topic: Newsmax
The new anti-Clinton book by conservative writer Peter Schweizer has been easy to dismiss for its bias and shaky claims -- so much so, in fact, that the ConWeb is not united in promoting it.
Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy -- who, over the years, has evolved from being a Clinton-hater to a Clinton supporter (though the Clinton hate has never disappeared from his website) -- devoted an April 27 column to defending the Clinton Foundation from the accusations in Schweizer's book, citing his evolution on Clinton as one reason he should be trusted on the issue:
In the 1990s I was described by both James Carville and George Stephanopoulos as the Clinton White House’s No. 1 press enemy. But after Bill Clinton left the White House, I came to admire him and his post-presidential work.
I was drawn to him largely for the very same reason he and his wife are being criticized today: the Clinton Foundation. Over time, I was impressed enough with its work that I even became a donor.
This may be difficult for many of the Clinton critics to stomach, considering the miasma of allegations now being made about them, largely due to a new book entitled "Clinton Cash" (HarperCollins) by Peter Schweizer.
A Fox News special that aired this past Friday detailed many of the allegations from the still-unreleased book. Fox said the book showed the "tangled" and "blurred" relationships between the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons' private or political activities.
After watching the Fox program, it became clear to me the only thing "tangled" and "blurred" are the numerous unsubstantiated, unconnected, and baseless allegations being made about them.
Ruddy goes on to note the corporate synergy going on between Fox News and the publisher of Schweizer's book:
I think the imperative for journalists is more appropriate: Follow the money. So let’s do that.
The sister companies of News Corp and 21st Century Fox own HarperCollins, which published Peter Schweizer’s book; they own The Wall Street Journal, which first raised the issue of the foreign donations; they own the New York Post, which broke the details about the Schweizer book; and they own Fox News, which gave the story oxygen and legs.
With so much media mojo from one company, there is no doubt they will be doing some pretty good "cashing in" from the many millions of dollars their new best-seller will generate.
That's something you won't read in the rest of the conservative media -- they're too busy trying to destroy the Clintons after 20 years that it still doesn't occur to them to be credulous about what they're promoting.
Newsmax deserves a little credit for evolving into a conservative outlet that is at least somewhat interested in fairly presenting views it might not disagree with. You won't see that at WorldNetDaily or CNS.
Will WND Correct Or Retract Its False Harry Reid Story? Topic: WorldNetDaily
Earlier this month, as we documented, WorldNetDaily boarded the Harry Reid conspiracy train with an article by Garth Kant uncritically promoting a claim that the injuries Reid suffered on a piece of exercise equipment were in fact inflicted by his brother.
Just one problem: that story was completely made up.
The Las Vegas Sun reports that the man who says he made up the story about Reid's brother, Larry Pfeifer, says he did so to see how far an uncorroborated story would get in the conservative media. Though Pfeifer revealed to the outlets that he was using a pseudonym, none of the outlets who promoted the story demanded proof of his true identity.
How is WND reacting to this information? By doing as little as possible. It stole the first few paragraphs of the Sun story for posting on its own website, but Kant's original story stands uncorrected and unretracted.
This development comes, ironically, as Kant's boss, Joseph Farah, is touting his supposed investigative skills. In his April 27 column, Farah "brag[s] about my editorial team" in pursuing his feigning of interest in the death of Miriam Carey, "especially WND news editor Garth Kant, a veteran of CNN and MSNBC – but don’t judge him too harshly for that resumé."
Farah insists that "the work we have done on the Miriam Carey case is the kind of work that once won Pulitzer Prizes." But copying stuff from right-wing websites and refusing to correct it when it turns out to be false, like Kant is doing, is not the work ethic of a Pulitzer Prize winner.
Perhaps Farah should focus on getting the basics of journalism right -- fairness, balance, accuracy, prominent correction of errors -- before indulging in his Pulitzer delusions.
Bizarrely, Gilbert's track record as a documented liar is not stopping Corsi and WND from promoting him.
In an April 23 WND article, Corsi touts Gilbert's latest stunt, a interview he conducted with President Obama's half-brother, Abongo Malik "Roy" Obama, in which Malik complains that Barack Obama "exploited the family in Kenya for political purposes and now has abandoned them."
Needless to say, Corsi makes no mention of how badly Gilbert has been discredited or that he himself has been burned by Gilbert's lies. It's also unclear whether Malik Obama was informed of Gilbert's history of falsehoods before the interview.
Among other accusations, along with Muslim Brotherhood fundraising, Malik has been accused of collaboration with Sudan’s radical Islamic regime, using money raised in his father’s and brother’s name for personal profit, and partnering with a cult leader.
Gilbert, who says he has gotten to know Malik over the past few months, insists Malik’s relationships “with questionable characters have been greatly misinterpreted.”
“All these relationships only have to do with Malik trying to find ways to help his extended family and his impoverished village financially,” he said.
“I can assure you that Malik is no terrorist-mastermind finance guy,” said Gilbert. “Malik has a 16-year-old son who is very ill. He doesn’t have money to keep his sick son in the hospital, and he can barely keep his car running.”
And who reported all of that about Malik Obama? Corsi -- he has repeatedlyattackedMalikObama in WND articles over the years in an attempt to smear President Obama by association.
In other words, Corsi is giving Gilbert a forum to contradict his own reporting. Apparently, Corsi is a glutton for punishment from Gilbert.
Given that neither Corsi nor Gilbert can be trusted, they seem to deserve each other.
Today in Tim Graham: An Old Anti-Clinton Attack, And An Aborted Insult Topic: Media Research Center
In an April 22 NewsBusters post, Tim Graham claims it's "trash talk" for Michael Tomasky to claim that the Clintons "aren't corrupt" simply because they've been the target of decades of partisan-driven investigations and have never been indicted:
Tomasky is obediently employing the Clinton tactic of lowering the scandal bar to a lack of indictment equals moral probity. He’s also suggesting that a lack of indictment somehow proves Hillary was never a “congenital liar.” This is the woman who denied they was any evidence of her husband's sex with Monica Lewinsky and shamed the media into covering the real sexual offender: the “vast right-wing conspiracy.”
Where have we heard this argument from Graham before? Oh, yes -- we remember now.
Back in 2007, we wrote an article on Graham and Brent Bozell's attack book on Hillary Clinton, pointing out that the bill of particulars they were peddling regarding her alleged corruption lacked context and mentions of exculpatory evidence, not to mention the fact that after all of those investigations in the 1990s, the Clintons were never indicted on corruption charges. Graham didn't take that well, writing a post containing a very familiar complaint:
In his article, Krepel is playing the same old Not a Crook card to exonerate his heroine. We said Ray found her testimony to be factually false. He notes that Ray declined to prosecute, citing "insufficient evidence." The Clintons and their Arkansas toadies like Krepel athletically raise the bar, implying that the Clintons didn’t lie unless they were indicted for it.
Our book isn’t claiming Hillary should be behind bars. Our book is claiming that the media cannot be relied upon to investigate the Clintons with any vigor, especially the television networks.
As we noted at the time, the MRC has done the very same thing we were accused of in portraying a lack of indictment as vindication; in 2005, MRC writer Brent Baker declared that Rove's non-indictment in the Valerie Plame leak case was a "vindication" for him and didn't question whether Rove still did unethical things that simply didn't rise to a prosecutable level.
It's also quite hypocritcal for Graham to sneer at Tomasky's supposed "trash talk" when he's perfectly willing to dish it out himself. Note the URL of Graham's post; it contains the word "dumbassky," which means that sneering insult of Tomasky was part of the original headline of the post.
By Graham's Clinton standard, he doesn't deserve a pass for not ultimately using it -- after all, it's in the permanent URL for all the world to still see.
The fact that Graham actually considered "dumbassky" as a headline for his Tomasky post shows his emotional immaturity and dogmatic need to attack anyone and everyone who doesn't conform to right-wing orthodoxy.