ConWebBlog: The Weblog of ConWebWatch

your New Media watchdog

ConWebWatch: home | archive/search | about | primer | shop

Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Blatant Headline (And Reporting) Bias at CNS

As we've noted, is effectively the Media Research Center in inverted-pyramid "news" form.CNS helpfully provided a blatant example of its right-wing bias by playing these two headlines side by side for easy screencapping:

The bias extends to the articles themselves. Susan Jones begins her biased article on Clinton this way:

At Monday night's presidential debate, Democrat Hillary Clinton embraced climate change as the crux of her job-creation plan.

"Take clean energy," she said. "Some country is going to be the clean-energy superpower of the 21st century. Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. I think it's real."

"I think the science is real," Clinton repeated. "And I think it's important that we grip this and deal with it, both at home and abroad. And here's what we can do. We can deploy a half a billion more solar panels. We can have enough clean energy to power every home. We can build a new modern electric grid. That's a lot of jobs; that's a lot of new economic activity.

In fact, according to the clip accompanying Jones article, at no point did Clinton claim that climate change was "the crux of her job-creation plan" -- it was an example she cited from her overall economic plan as a response to one question. Later on, Jones does concede that Clinton also said her economic plan includes "jobs in infrastructure, in advanced manufacturing, innovation and technology, clean, renewable energy, and small business, because most of the new jobs will come from small business."

Jones also wrote the article on Trump. But in contrast to her Clinton-focused article -- in which she devotes eight of her article's 18 paragraphs to Trump countering Clinton's claims -- only three of this article's 16 paragraphs quote Clinton countering Trump's claims.

Isn't this the kind of media bias the MRC was founded to fight when it comes from the "liberal media"? Apparently, there's no swuch thing as right-wing media bias, which gives people like Jones free rein to

Posted by Terry K. at 11:04 PM EDT
MRC Latino Comes To The Defense of White People
Topic: Media Research Center

How much does the Media Research Center hate Univision anchor Jorge Ramos (beyond trying to get him fired)? Its Latino division is defending the honor of white people after Ramos criticized Donald Trump.

MRC Latino's Edgard Portela does just that in a Sept. 24 post:

There’s a new aspect of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump that Univision anchor Jorge Ramos finds deplorable.

In an opinion column lamenting Trump’s recent meeting with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, Ramos now faults Trump for wanting “to isolate the United States from the world and preserve its Anglo-Saxon tradition.”

Crass generalizations by Ramos aside, let’s pause to realize this is coming from a man that finds it perfectly fitting to celebrate Hispanic heritage month in the United States, but preserving (much less celebrating) the country’s central, founding Anglo heritage is somehow unacceptable? Go figure.

It should be noted that in the English version of the column, Ramos substitutes the precise reference to Trump’s support of the United States’ “Anglo-Saxon heritage” and instead uses the phrase “European heritage.” 

So it is that in the weird world of Jorge Ramos, there’s apparently something inherently wrong with wanting to preserve anything that the tens of millions of immigrants of European extraction who immigrated to the United States have contributed to making the country what it is today.

What about Mexico and the rest of Latin America’s European heritage? Is Ramos equally self-hating about that? After all, the reason Ramos is even on the scene in the first place and speaks Spanish is because a certain European country ruled Mexico for more than 250 years, right?

Has Portela been hanging out a bit too much on white-nationalist websites lately? Because his post sure reads that way -- as if the only worthwhile contributions to the country came from European (and, more specifically, Anglo-Saxon, or northern European) immigrants. Anglo-Saxon identity is a key part of white nationalism, which Trump's campaign has brought to the forefront.

How bizarre is it that a Latino conservative is defending white people? It's been that kind of election.

Posted by Terry K. at 3:03 PM EDT
WND Trolls For More Armchair Diagnoses of Hillary
Topic: WorldNetDaily

WorldNetDaily once thought going birther was a winner, and look at it now. WND has now decided that obsessing over Hillary Clinton's purported health problems is a winner, attacking it in the same it went birther on Obama -- with lots of self-proclaimed "experts" who are nowhere near close enough to the situation to even examine Hillary, let alone offer an informed judgment.

A Sept. 15 WND article by Bob Unruh insisted that "a significant number of top physicians expressing concern that the American people aren’t being told the truth about Hillary Clinton’s health," but as evidence he served up only two non-prominent ones, Jane Orient and Lee Hieb, both of whom are right-wingers linked to the far-right-fringe Association of American Physicians and Surgeons who put partisan politics and scaremonger before responsible health advice.

Hieb declared: “From a distance, without formal evaluation there are still three things I know for sure regarding Hillary Clinton’s medical condition: 1) She has a neurological disorder; 2) pneumonia did not cause the episode on 9/11; and 3) she and her staff have been lying to cover up the truth of her condition for months if not years.” Well, no, Hieb does not know these things because she has never examined Hillary. (And neither has Orient.)

On Sept. 19, chief health-monger Jerome Corsi does what he does:

Two physicians agree Hillary Clinton is suffering a serious neurological disease that should disqualify her from being president.

Theodore “Ted” Noel, a retired anesthesiologist in Orlando, Florida, with 36 years experience and a background in critical care medicine explained to WND he was so convinced Clinton has Parkinson’s disease that he has now produced several videos arguing that point.

Dr. Daniel Kassicieh, D.O., a dual board-certified osteopathic neurologist and a leading headache specialist who directs the Florida Headache and Movement Disorder Center in Sarasota, Florida, told WND that while he agrees she has a neurological disease, he believes it is not Parkinson’s.

Whatever the precise diagnosis, the physicians separately have come to the conclusion she has a serious neurological disease that should medically disqualify her from being president.

We've previously noted that Noel's training is as an anesthesiologist and really has no apparent formal training in diagnosing or treating the neurological disease he claims Hillary has, but Corsi gave him space to justify his diagnosis that when Hillary said "What difference does it make?" during her Benghazi testimony, she was suffering from "Parkinson's rage":"I’m not a neurologist treating Parkinson’s disease patients, but I am an anesthesiologist, and I have to know how to handle administering anesthesia to a patient who has Parkinson’s disease." He added that his old armchair-diagnosis videos were "using the declarative mood, where I should have been using the subjunctive mood." Kassicieh, for his part, insists from afar that Hillary has post-concussion syndrome.

Corsi returned Sept. 25 with an article citing yet another armchair diagnoser, Paulette Metoyer, who insists that according to her "expert analysis" that Hillary is suffering from epilepsy, including petit mal and grand mal seizures. Corsi didn't mention that she's been published by the far-right American Thinker, which raises serious credibility issues.

Again: None of these people Corsi and Unruh are presenting as "experts" have never examined Hillary and many of them appear to be motivated more by trying to destroy Hillary's campaign than being of any genuine help to her. You know, a lot like the birther movement.

Posted by Terry K. at 1:00 AM EDT
Monday, September 26, 2016
AIM Blogger Is Mad CNN Didn't Source The Obvious
Topic: Accuracy in Media

This is an actual Sept. 23 Accuracy in Media blog post by Spencer Irvine:

CNN picked three historical markers, without sourcing, to say the following about the GOP presidential nominee:

At a rally in North Carolina on Tuesday, Donald Trump, the Republican nominee states: “Our African American communities are absolutely in the worst shape they’ve ever been in before. Ever, ever, ever.”

The statement is so patently absurd, fact-checking it seems kind of silly.

One fact was about the lynching of black Americans, another was about mobs, and the other was about poverty. They could be true, but the article was not sourced, which calls into question the premise of the ‘reality check’ fact-check article.

Huh? Irvine needs a source to back up the seemingly obvious assertion that lynching, white race mobs that wantonly burdered blacks and the economic effects of segregation were worse for American blacks than today?

Notice that nowhere in his brief blog post does Irvine question the accuracy of Trump's original claim -- apparenlty he assumes it's accurate, without sourcing it.

Posted by Terry K. at 8:07 PM EDT
Working the Refs: MRC Attacks Debate Moderator Lester Holt
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center has been in ref-working mode on the moderators for the presidential debates since before they were even named. In August, a month before the debate moderator were announced, MRC chief Brent Bozell was warning of biased moderators and declaring that "I'm watching to see to what degree are you going to have more impartial moderators this time."

When NBC's Lester Holt was named the moderator of the first debate, the MRC was quick to downplay the fact that he was reportedly chosen to appease Donald Trump. Tim Graham huffed in a Sept. 2 post that "Trump likes Holt, but it's not out because he's been tough on Hillary" and was mad that Trump committed jounalism by asking Trump "about his 'staggering negatives' and outrageous statements." Geoffrey Dickens followed up by omitting all mention of the Trump-appeasing choice of Holt to rummage through the MRC archives to dig up "a few examples of Holt’s most liberal moments in his time at NBC."

On Sept. 9, the MRC's Rich Noyes ran to Fox Business to complain that criticism of NBC's Matt Lauer for his hard questioning of Hillary Clinton, and relatively mild question of Trump, during a presidential forum  means that Holt is "going to try to be very careful with the questions he's asking Hillary Clinton because of the way he's seeing his colleague being treated." Noyes didn't mention that his employer was mocking Lauer as a lightweight before the forum by mockingly posting photos of his cross-dressing Halloween antics.

The MRC then hilariously went into projection mode, whining about others doing the exact thing it's doing by trying to influence Holt before the debate:

  • Under the headline "Working the Refs: Journalists Push Debate Moderators to Be Tougher on Trump," Dickens grumbled that "the liberal media have set the stage for NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt and his fellow presidential debate moderators to be rougher with the GOP nominee," emphasizing that Holt is "liberal-leaning."
  • Bozell projected in a Fox TV appearance that "Hillary Clinton is already just sort of pre-playing this a little — that the media will be responsible if it shows media bias and doesn't go tough on Donald Trump, that it’s intimidated by Trump, that maybe Lester Holt will be intimidated by Donald Trump just as they argue Matt Lauer was at an NBC town hall event," adding, "They’re working the refs and this comes out of the Clinton playbook." It also comes out of the MRC playbook as well, but Bozell won't tell you that.

Then, when it was revealed that Holt is a registered Republican, the MRC -- which for years has complained about reporters who are registered Democrats -- suddenly decided that party registration was meaningless.

The MRC's NewsBusters Twitter account sent this comment from Bozell on the matter: "So is Colin Powell. So what?" And Graham when into full sulk mode:

The Washington Post and Time magazine are trying to play up the fact that debate moderator Lester Holt is a registered Republican – as if this means anything about his performance. Registering only gives you the right to vote as a Republican. It doesn’t mean that you actually do. It could just be a public-relations ploy.

To prove this, Graham has to go back a whopping 26 years, citing a 1990 MRC item about one journalist who said he was a registered Republican to balance out his Democratic wife and get campaign literature from both sides. But that journalist, Tony Kornheiser, was a sports reporter at the time and, thus, irrelevant to the current discussion.

Graham went on to complain that "If Holt had acted like a "registered Republican" on the air, he'd have never made it to the anchor desk," adding, "Liberals would not suggest that 'a case for partisan bias against Chris Wallace will be tough to make' based on his voter registration." Yet the MRC has not been forthcoming with a greatest-hits item of Wallace "liberal bias." Why is that? Because Wallace is the MRC's guy -- in 2007, Bozell said that the GOP "ought not to suggest, but demand, a Brit Hume or a Chris Wallace as moderators" for a Republican debate.

Graham added, apparently without irony, "The amount of 'gaming' by the Democrats has been intense, even on the morning of the debate." As it has been by the MRC.

Posted by Terry K. at 3:40 PM EDT
WND's Cashill Forgets He's Been Discredited on Obama Ghost-Writing Conspiracy
Topic: WorldNetDaily

WorldNetDaily columnist Jack Cashill is apparently counting on his readers to have very short memories.

In his Sept. 21 column, Cashill attacks the Huffington Post's Sam Stein for dismissing the idea that Bill Ayers ghost-wrote Barack Obama's book "Dreams From My Father" as the conspiracy theory it is (and, perhaps more importantly, not giving Cashill credit as its originator). Cashill then calls in his character witness to back up his conspiracy:

As a self-professed “deplorable,” however, I can understand why Stein would overlook the tons of evidence I gathered proving Ayers’ involvement.

Christopher Andersen is another story. An establishment journalist with credentials of the first order – Time, People, Vanity Fair – Andersen had written 13 New York Times best-sellers in the 20 years before his 2009 book, “Barack and Michelle, Portrait of an American Marriage.”

This book was not a hit job, far from it. USA Today accurately described it as “a glowing ‘Portrait’ of the Obamas’ rock-solid marriage.”

Andersen did not talk to me, but his sources in Chicago’s Hyde Park led him to the same conclusion I reached through analysis of the text.

As Andersen tells the story, Obama found himself deeply in debt in the early 1990s despite a generous book contract and “hopelessly blocked.”

At “Michelle’s urging,” Obama “sought advice from his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers.” What attracted the Obamas were “Ayers’s proven abilities as a writer.”

Noting that Obama had already taped interviews with many of his relatives, both African and American, Andersen elaborates, “these oral histories, along with his partial manuscript and a trunkload of notes were given to Ayers.”

In fact, Andersen specifically quoted Cashill in his book to support his claim that Ayers made a significant contribution to Obama's book. What Cashill is doing here is circular: He's claiming he's right because Andersen -- who cited him as a source -- came to the same conclusion.

Cashill is also conveniently ignoring the fact that Andersen unambiguously backed off the key part of Cashill's conspiracy, that Ayers secretly wrote the book. In a 2009 interview with Howard Kurtz, then with CNN, Andersen said: "I definitely do not say he wrote Barack Obama's book. Again, I'm putting up, you know, the accurate picture, which is that they knew each other, they -- he helped a little bit, gave his opinions. That's all I'm saying. And in fact, he did not write Barack Obama's book."

This was all pointed out at the time Andersen's book came out, but Cashill is pretending it doesn't exist -- and he could very well also be lying about Andersen not talking to him. Does Cashill not know the Internet exists?

Posted by Terry K. at 1:18 AM EDT
Sunday, September 25, 2016
MRC Invokes Clinton Equivocation Again to Defend Trump
Topic: Media Research Center

You remember the Clinton Equivocation, right? The right-wing idea that right-wing media will give a pass to the bad behavior of any conservative candidate because it's presumed that a Clinton has already done it first and worse. The Media Research Center has invoked it a couple times already to defend Donald Trump, and it's doing so again.

This time, Nicholas Fondacaro does the honors in a Sept. 20 post in an attempt to shield Trump from emerging accusations about the shady accounting of his Trump Foundation. Fondacaro is quick to give Trump a pass because, in the words of commentator Mark Halperin, "But this does not involve the government, he was not a government official." That's all the license Fondacaro needs:

That is an important distinction Halperin made there, because that is what the Clinton Foundation is accused of. Recently discovered e-mails show how Clinton Foundation donors were able to obtain special meetings with Secretary Hillary Clinton, and the ability to ask for favors. Even though what Trump was alleged to have done is terrible, it is not quite up to par with having access to the US federal government.

So: Trump is "terrible," but he's not Hillary -- who by definition of being a Clinton is presumed to be always worse, regardless of the actual evidence -- so his sleaziness gets the MRC's stamp of approval, and its effective endorsement of Trump stands.

Posted by Terry K. at 11:49 PM EDT
WND Columnist: Trump Is Too Much Man for Hillary To Handle
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Earlier this year, WorldNetDaily columnist Kent Bailey -- excuse us, Kent G. Bailey, Ph.D. -- cheered the racist appeal of Donald Trump's campaign, touting the "tall, blond and Nordic 'warrior extraordinaire'" who wants to "Make (white and traditional) America Great Again."

Now, Bailey is cheering Trump's sexism. The tone of Bailey's Sept. 20 column is clear from the very beginning:

Hillary Clinton looks more stressed, haggard and out of focus with each passing day. The brutal head-to-head war between the Donald and her is taking a terrible toll on her psychological well-being, sense of self and physical health. From a paleopsychological standpoint, it simply is not natural, normal, or fair for a diminutive, pudgy, non-athletic and cerebral old lady to be forced into combat with an imposing, 6-foot-3-inch, 237-pound septuagenarian who drives a golf ball 300 yards and eats nails for breakfast.

Baily then lets his woman-hating flag fly, under the guise of "paleopsychological observations" (italics his):

First, it is a medical and scientific fact that stress is powerfully correlated with the causes of a wide range of physical and psychological pathologies, and it can also aggravate just about any pre-existing condition. Moreover, chronic and prolonged stress of the kind plaguing Hillary is especially problematic, and it is reaching a fever pitch as her polls sink and the debates are days away. I am amazed that she has not completely fallen apart already.

Second, traumatic and unexpected events contribute to stress, and Hillary never expected to meet Trump, of all people, on the political battlefield. Surely, she would face an establishment Republican “nice guy” like “low energy” Jeb or a chin-quivering John Kasich, and she could trade intellectual barbs, if required, with Ted Cruz. And maybe she might luck out and have an all-girl gab fest with Carly Fiorina – but Donald Trump, never. I don’t think she has ever fully recovered from the shock of the Trump nomination.

Third, our species’ history and our human nature have no place for head-to-head combat between the genders because females are simply too valuable to waste on hopeless and non-adaptive ventures. To try it is to court the worse forms of stress for the woman. There is simply no woman in the world who would have any chance whatsoever against a strong, angry and combat-ready male. Prior to being knocked out in second round by Holly Holm in a championship match a year ago, unbeaten MMA phenom Ronda Rousey bragged she could compete against male fighters. After her drubbing by Holly, it is unclear that she will even fight women again.

Fourth, when a woman is faced with male aggression, her first instinct is to cry for help and then find a male protector to do the fighting for her. Hubby Bill has been the real power behind Hillary’s entire political career and her two attempts at the presidency, and he has rushed to her aid frequently in past weeks. Then last week her “friend” and master of charisma Barack Obama came in like a tag team wrestler to nip at Trump and try to improve the ratings. If that were not enough, Al Gore has recently added more male support to the Hillary cause. And that scion of boredom, Tim Kaine, is always around to excuse Hillary’s gaffes, provide emotional support, and testify to her health and well-being. Unfortunately, this quartet of feminized girly men does not add up to one really tough guy. Ten of them might make one Donald Trump … maybe.

Fifth, during the hunting and gathering phase of human history, females depended on males for provisioning and protection and depended heavily on both males and other females during pregnancy. Given the dangers and privations of this way of life, the human female is, by nature, cautious, conforming, highly adaptable under varying conditions and deferential to potentially dangerous male authority figures. She has always needed male protection and continues to need it today. With terrorism on our doorstep, many wise women will realize this fact and shift their vote to Trump by election day.

Sixth, the human female has never defined band, tribe, or national borders nor, once defined, defended them. That is and always was the province of the male of the species. In fact, this principle holds for other species as well as human beings. In Jane Goodall’s masterwork, “The Chimpanzees of Gombe,” she described how adult male chimps first define the borders of particular group territories and then defend them against interlopers – often with extreme and deadly violence. This is never the responsibility of the female chimp. In humans, we have seen how well human females “defend” borders with Angela Merkel welcoming immigrant hordes across the borders in Germany and Hillary Clinton set to do so in America if elected on Nov. 8.

Seventh, if Hillary Clinton is elected, the continuing infantilization and feminization of American men will further explode, society as we know it will crumble, and the regression back to our pagan roots will be complete. The feminist program was never designed to win by defeating men in direct competition, but, rather, to produce “equality” but turning men into women and needy children. And that program has been disastrously successful. That is, until Donald Trump declared political correctness null and void, and he finally put the Democratic Party Republican Guard – the establishment media – in its place.

In conclusion, it is not natural for a woman to engage in direct combat with a man, and it borders on the bizarre when sick and unsteady Hillary is forced by circumstance onto the field of battle with Goliath. It will take more than Candy Crowley to save the day this time.

Bailey is a retired college psychology professor. Be glad you never had to take a class from him, especially if you are female.

Posted by Terry K. at 11:09 PM EDT
Saturday, September 24, 2016
MRC: CNN's Amanpour 'Angrily Maim[s]' Hillary Critics
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's Curtis Houck goes a little too far into hyperbolic-rhetoric territory in his Sept. 13 post:

CNN International host Christiane Amanpour was at it again on Monday night in flashing her far-left ideology as she used her eponymous show to angrily maim critics of Hillary Clinton and (a select few) in the media as sexist for raising questions about her health and hiding the pneumonia diagnosis and unwilling to let “a girl have a sick day or two.” 

Amanpour is "angrily maiming" her critics? We know Houck is going for hyperbole here, but sheesh.

Houck goes on to write this:

Needless to say, it’s clear Amanpour left the idea of objective analysis in the dust and ignored the initial dismissals of Clinton’s 9/11 episode as just part of their broader “conspiracy theory” narrative being raised not by sensible journalists and voters but the obscene grocery store tabloid The National Enquirer.

Houck seems to have forgotten that his employer had no problem with "the obscene grocery store tabloid The National Enquirer" when it was going after Democrats like John Edwards. He also seems to be unaware that the Enquirer has been promoting Trump throughout the entire presidential campaign by pushing sleazy attacks on his opponents -- including, yes, speculation about Hillary's health -- and that Enquirer CEO David Pecker is a close friend of Trump.

Posted by Terry K. at 10:33 AM EDT
WND Removes Article Bashing NY Times Over Book Classification
Topic: WorldNetDaily

As Richard Bartholomew first noted, WorldNetDaily quietly deleted without explanation an unbylined article complaining that the New York Times won't classify the work of WND buddy and messianic rabbi Jonathan Cahn in a more prominent category. The original link to the article returns a 404 error.

Under the headline "N.Y. Times shafts best-selling Christian author – again!" the uncredited author complains that the Times won't list Cahn's new book "The Book of Mysteries," which came out earlier this month, on its fiction bestseller list, whining:

Apparently, the book is too mysterious to classify for the guardians of the New York Times list.

Or maybe they’ve just had enough of Cahn’s domination of their charts every other year.

While “The Book of Mysteries” clearly outsold almost all the competition and appears on multiple bestsellers lists in its first week of release, the New York Times refuses to classify it as fiction, which it is.

Nor will the Times classify it as non-fiction, which it isn’t.

So it sits in a New York Times list limbo – unable to appear because it is unlike most other books with the exception of possibly appearing on a monthly list with the miscellany.

For some reason, WND really, really wants you to know that Cahn is a fiction writer. It emphasizes that "The Book of Mysteries" "consists of 365 stories of short revelations a fictional seeker of biblical wisdom receives on a spiritual one-year journey. The daily insights can thus be read as daily devotionals." It also points out that "all the other best-sellers lists have no problem with the fiction classification of 'The Book of Mysteries.'" Even WND editor and Cahn friend Joseph Farah gets in on the act:

“Ironically,” said Joseph Farah, the producer of Cahn’s “The Isaiah 9:10 Judgment” and “The Harbinger Man” and WND’s founder, “one of the reasons I was determined to make that movie as a documentary was because of the classification of ‘The Harbinger’ as fiction. While that was a proper classification, given the narrative format, I wanted people to understand that what happened in that book was actually true – simply using fictional characters to make the point. Thus was born ‘The Isaiah 9:10 Judgment.'”

Wait, "The Harbinger" is fiction? We don't recall WND ever promoting it that way. Even the WND online store listing for "The Harbinger" states no fiction designatio, nor does it sell it that way: "Hidden in an ancient biblical prophecy from Isaiah, the mysteries revealed in "The Harbinger" are so precise that they foretold recent American events down to the exact days. It’s all decoded by the author in convincing fashion. The revelations are so specific that even the most hardened skeptics will find them hard to dismiss. It sounds like the plot of a Hollywood thriller with one exception ... IT’S REAL."

Also, the only book listed under the WND store's "fiction" category is "Pilgrim's Progress."

All of this may very well be the reason for why WND mysteriously disappeared this article. The normally loquacious Cahn "declined to be quoted for the article," WND states. Bartholomew suggests that Cahn "didn’t want to risk antagonizing the New York Times," but it's also entirely possible that WND's heavy insistence on how his books are works of fiction didn't sit well with Cahn, who has a reputation as a self-proclaimed biblical scholar and akin-to-prophet to protect (and trade on).

And WND most definitely doesn't want to piss off Cahn, on whose coattails WND has been riding and may actually be WND's most consistent revenue stream -- important for a company with serious financial problems. While it doesn't publish Cahn's books, it has made two films based on him and his work. As a blurb link to the WND store inserted into the article notes, "Jonathan Cahn’s always a No. 1 bestseller in the WND Superstore."

There's nothing noticably false in the article, unlike too many other WND articles. Our guess is that, for whatever reason -- but likely either harm to reputation or desire not to hack off the Times -- Cahn wanted the article taken down, and whatever Cahn wants from WND, we're pretty sure Cahn gets.

But before it goes away for good from the Google cache, below is a copy of the deleted WND article, saved for posterity.

* * *

Refuses to recognize fiction label, previously refusing to acknowledge nonfiction categorization

WASHINGTON – Jonathan Cahn, the two-time New York Times best-selling author, knows what it’s like fighting the odds as a Christian to make the vaunted list – despite having the sales to warrant it.

He made it twice with his first two books, 2012’s “The Harbinger,” which remained on the New York Times’ fiction bestsellers list for more than 100 weeks, and 2014’s “The Mystery of the Shemitah,” which made the list for more than 12 weeks. But the messianic rabbi’s readers won’t be seeing his latest release on the Sept. 26 list.

It’s not for lack of sales for “The Book of Mysteries,” which came out Sept. 8.

Apparently, the book is too mysterious to classify for the guardians of the New York Times list.

Or maybe they’ve just had enough of Cahn’s domination of their charts every other year.

While “The Book of Mysteries” clearly outsold almost all the competition and appears on multiple bestsellers lists in its first week of release, the New York Times refuses to classify it as fiction, which it is.

Nor will the Times classify it as non-fiction, which it isn’t.

So it sits in a New York Times list limbo – unable to appear because it is unlike most other books with the exception of possibly appearing on a monthly list with the miscellany.

WND attempted to contact the New York Times for comment, but had not received a response at the time of this report.

However, sources in the publishing industry have shared some of the brewing controversy details.

It begins with an unusual book.

“The Book of Mysteries” is indeed hard to pigeonhole in traditional publishing. It consists of 365 stories of short revelations a fictional seeker of biblical wisdom receives on a spiritual one-year journey. The daily insights can thus be read as daily devotionals. The New York Times reportedly made this point in talks with Cahn’s publisher – as a disqualifier to the traditional fiction classification.

But, then again, the New York Times did not conclude it was simply a devotional. And, if it were, would that disqualify any Christian devotional from making the list?

Cahn himself, who worked with WND Films on the best-selling faith film of 2013 and 2014, “The Isaiah 9:10 Judgment,” a documentary-style adaptation of “The Harbinger,” declined to be quoted for the article.
The New York Times has a long history of problems counting Christian books for its celebrated list.

In 1980, the New York Times set out to learn what the best-selling book of the 1970s had been. Much to the shock and amazement of the editors, it was Christian evangelist Hal Lindsey’s “The Late Great Planet Earth,” which had never made the Times best-seller list for a single week or a single year during the decade but sold tens of millions, outselling all other fiction and nonfiction books alike for that time period.

So the paper set out to change its metrics for calculating best-sellers, which still remain as mysterious to the public and the publishing industry as “The Book of Mysteries” appears to be for the New York Times.

“Ironically,” said Joseph Farah, the producer of Cahn’s “The Isaiah 9:10 Judgment” and “The Harbinger Man” and WND’s founder, “one of the reasons I was determined to make that movie as a documentary was because of the classification of ‘The Harbinger’ as fiction. While that was a proper classification, given the narrative format, I wanted people to understand that what happened in that book was actually true – simply using fictional characters to make the point. Thus was born ‘The Isaiah 9:10 Judgment.'”

Farah’s publishing company, WND Books, has produced the highest percentage of New York Times bestsellers of any publisher in the world over the last 15 years. About 10 percent of WND Books releases over that time period have made the grade.

“I’ve been studying the list for decades,” says Farah. “I worked with Hal Lindsey when the New York Times discovered his book sold more than any other book in the decade of the 1970s. I worked with other best-selling authors as a collaborator through the 1990s. And in 2001, I launched WND Books. So that’s nearly 40 years of experience with the New York Times best-sellers list.”

The problems started for the New York Times calculations when they didn’t measure sales in Christian bookstores, he says. There’s also still a lot of secrecy about which bookstores they sample for sales.

“It’s almost like the New York Times wants its list to be mysterious,” Farah said. “It’s a prestigious list, but just because your book sells more copies than others doesn’t mean your book will make it on the list. That’s always been true and still is today.”

Meanwhile, all the other best-sellers lists have no problem with the fiction classification of “The Book of Mysteries.”
The Wall Street Journal lists it No. 7.

Publisher’s Weekly has it as No. 4.

USA Today has it as No. 29, but among all books of every classification – fiction, non-fiction, etc.

But here’s the real surprise. While claiming the book is not fiction, it also won’t classify it in the list’s “miscellaneous” category. Why? Reportedly because the Times maintains that the book is fiction after all.

There were only three hardcover fiction books that sold 15,000 or more copies in the first week “The Book of Mysteries” was in release. Cahn’s book was one of them. It sold more than double 12 of the titles that made the New York Times best-sellers list for hardcover fiction that week. It sold triple the number of copies of seven of the top 20 hardcover fiction titles on the list.

It’s not the first time Cahn has experienced categorization issues with the Times.

His second book, “The Mystery of the Shemitah,” was clearly a non-fiction title. However, the New York Times refused to consider it as such, instead, classifying it in its “how to, advice, miscellaneous” category. It apparently didn’t hurt sales.

Posted by Terry K. at 1:27 AM EDT
Friday, September 23, 2016
MRC Flip-Flops on Debate Moderators Vetting Trump
Topic: Media Research Center

Tim Graham and Brent Bozell whine in their Sept. 21 column about presidential debate moderators:

Already, Fox's Chris Wallace drew liberal outrage by declaring: "I do not believe that it's my job to be a truth squad. It's up to the other person to catch them on that." Wallace sees his role as being like a referee in a heavyweight boxing match, where no one remembers him being there. But the left hounds today's liberal media, saying that being a mere referee is being an accessory to evil.

Funny, we remember when the Media Research Center felt the opposite way about vetting Trump -- earlier this year, to be exact. This time, though, the MRC's Nicholas Fondacaro was complaining that NBC's Chuck Todd said what his bosses are now praising Wallace for saying:

For Chuck Todd to insinuate that it’s not the media’s job to dig into a candidate’s past or fully vet a candidate for the public is just plain ridiculous. Todd laid the this duty at the feet of the other candidates stating “Folks, those are all inconsistencies that a normal campaign that was running against Donald Trump would probably put together, into TV ads and try to see if it would leave a mark with voters.”

For a member of the media to advocate for campaigns alone to do the vetting is an abdication of journalistic duty.

So, to summarize: In February, when Trump was the MRC's enemy, it was "abdication of journalistic duty" not to vet Trump or point out that he's lying. Now, with Trump the Republican nominee and the MRC obliged to defend him no matter what, not vetting Trump or pointing out when he's lying is the highest form of journalism.

Graham and Bozell also kept up the anti-fact jihad against fact-checkers, complaining that Trump has been caught by fact-checkers in more lies than Clinton -- " PolitiFact routinely fails to assign its "fact-checkers" when Team Clinton lies through its teeth" -- without apparently stopping to consider the seemingly obvious fact that Trump has told more lies than Clinton.

But, hey, when you have to defend a candidate that seemingly lies all the time, attacking the mere existence of facts is pretty much the only defense you have.

Posted by Terry K. at 2:14 PM EDT
WND's Substance-Free Attack on Hillary Over Haiti
Topic: WorldNetDaily

For WorldNetDaily, flamboyant and prolific trump factual every time. Which brings us to this Sept. 20 WND article by Jerome Corsi:

Now, flamboyant and prolific Haitian human-rights lawyer, playwright and poet Marguerite Laurent, who goes by the nom-de-plume Ezili Dantó – a pseudonym taken after Ezili Dantor, the spirit in Haitian Voodoo for motherhood, commonly represented by the Black Madonna of Częstochowa – is using her considerable influence in the Haitian community both in the United States and in Haiti to endorse Donald Trump for president.

“Hillary Clinton preyed on Haiti,” Dantó, writing from her position as leader in both the Free Haiti Movement and the Haitian Lawyers Leadership Network, HLLN, noted on her blog Sept. 7.


“The earthquake [that hit Haiti on Jan. 12, 2010] weakened the victims and she used her power to crush them some more,” she said. “Dressed as ‘savior’ at the Obama State Department, Hillary Clinton betrayed innocent Americans who desired to help with recovery. If we are scientifically and objectively balancing facts, then Donald Trump, arguably a bigot and perhaps a sexist, still clearly has less of a record of lies, looting, lawlessness and implementing systemic governmental/institutional racism than Hillary Clinton.”

A lot of hate there, but very little substance. That comes sometime later:

“Addressing Haiti is a debacle for [Bill and Hillary Clinton],” she continued. “It brings up the 2010, Michel Martelly presidential election that Hillary Clinton and, her longtime consigliore, Cheryl Mills, help to doctor. It brings up their association with the convicted fraudster Claudio Osorio, who never built any of the 10,000 housing units in Haiti that the U.S. government put in a $10 million grant for him to build, and which the Clinton team heavily facilitated.”

She continued: “It brings up the pay-to-play, money laundering scheme they call the ‘Clinton Foundation.’ The Clintons cannot justify why they prey on hurt quake victims and poor Haitians to put money in their Foundation – a slush fund where 85 percent of the money collected goes to salaries, travel, luxury hotels, dinners and overhead, all tax free.”

Yes, Osorio is a fraudster who wormed his way into the Clinton circle and did use the grant money to pay off investors in his other schemes, but there's no evidence that anyone at the Clinton Foundation who helped Osorio get the grant knew he was not going to follow through. And, yes, Martelly did turn out to be the latest in a long line of terrible Haitian leaders. But it's a giant leap from that to accusing the entire foundation of being corrupt.

And Danto shows she doesn't care about the facts with her assertion that the foundation is "a slush fund where 85 percent of the money collected goes to salaries, travel, luxury hotels, dinners and overhead, all tax free." That claim has been proven false -- PolitiFact explains that at least 80 percent ofthe foundation's money goes to programs. And Corsi shows how little he cares about the facts by uncritically regurgitating her lie.

But Laurent/Danto is saying nasty things about Clinton and willing to be a shill for Trump, so that's good enough for Corsi -- inedeed, he quotes her at length touting Trump as a "non-establishment politician" who could help free Haiti from "Hillary Clinton and her promiscuous, politicians-for-sale, Clintonite team."

Corsi's article was followed the next day with an unbylined article that found a former Haitian politician to make more unsubstantiated attacks on Clinton (who just so happened to be at a "pro-Trump rally"). So dedicated to falsehoods is the article that it simply copied-and-pasted Laurent/Danto's lie about the Clinton Foundation being a "slush fund."

Oh, and by the way, Corsi's Clinton-bashing book continues to be a major flop despite WND's plea for its readers to buy it in bulk; it's currently ranked at No. 16,201 at Amazon. Looks like nobody else is buying his BS either.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:15 AM EDT
Thursday, September 22, 2016
NewsBusters' Double Standard on The Meaning of 'Many'
Topic: NewsBusters

In a Sept. 10 NewsBusters post, Tom Blumer -- he of the racism whitewashing -- had a conniption when the Associated Press, writing about Hillary clinton's "basket of deplorables" remark, stated in a headline that she had put "many" of Donald Trump's followers in that basket: "Mrs. Clinton was describing fully "half" of Trump's supporters — or roughly 25 percent of all Americans, given that recent polling is virtually dead-even — and not just 'many' of them."

Blumer's fuss over descriptors is rather funny, given that four days later, his Media Research Center colleague Brad Wilmouth wrote a post with the headline "MSNBC's Hayes Admits Many Clinton Voters Fit Liberal Definition of 'Racist'." Wilmouth also asserted that "according to a Reuters poll from earlier in the year, a large percentage of Clinton supporters also hold views on race that by his standards would be considered 'racist.'"

What's the number in question? A poll finding that 31 percent of Clinton supporters believed blacks are more violent than whites. That's neither a "large" numer, nor is it "many"-- and, more importantly, it's a much smaller number than that of Trump supporters who believe the same -- 49 percent.

But since Wilmouth's misuse of "many" advances the MRC's agenda, we doubt that Blumer sent him a message schooling him on the finer points of grammar.

Posted by Terry K. at 7:57 PM EDT
Kupelian's 'Islamic Zombie Apocalypse' Essay Doesn't Live Up to Its Title
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Some time back, we noted that an anti-Muslim issue of WorldNetDaily's sparsely read Whistleblower magazine featured an article by WND managing editor David Kupelian titled "The Islamic zombie apocalypse." WND has finally gotten around to publishing Kupelian's article on WND proper. And, well, it's pretty lame.

First of all, Kupelian doesn't even use the term" Islamic zombie apocalypse" in his article at all -- it's just a clickbait headline come-on.

Kupelian engages in his usual rote liberal-bashing, blaming "infiltration, subversion and corruption of every single American institution by what we cryptically call 'the left'" for the "spiritual vacuum" of American culture and "all but eliminating the former Christian character of this nation’s culture." As a good anti-Muslim, Kupelain can't be bothered to make any meaningful distinction between the vast majority of peaceful Muslims and violent extremists using Islam, even accusing Muslims of being complicit with the violence: "Unfortunately, a disturbing number of Muslims in America, while not necessarily supportive of terrorism, are nevertheless in agreement with the end result desired by Islamic terrorists. And that is, the ultimate supremacy of Islam over the entire world and the imposition of Shariah law everywhere." He even blames the film "Avatar" for creating "distraught and disillusioned young people ripe for transition to a radically different reality," which somehow equates in Kupelian's mind to joining ISIS.

Kupelian then ironically laments that ISIS sympethizers and genocide perpetrators don't see their victims as human. Ironic, because Kupelian is a key factor in dehumanizing Barack Obama for the past eight years -- not just with birtherism but also portraying him as a Nazi and even as the Antichrist.

He's currently giving the same dehumanization treatment to Hillary Clinton. He spent an entire column maliciously likening her to Nurse Ratched and declaring she's "someone who never strikes any familiar chords within our souls of genuine decency, humanity and heartfelt shared values." That is, someone who's not human.

If all Muslims are suspect as terrorists for dehumanizing their opponents, Kupelian should be too.

Posted by Terry K. at 2:47 PM EDT
NewsBusters Tries to Justify Racism of Trump Supporters By Insisting It's Not Racist
Topic: NewsBusters

NewsBusters blogger Tom Blumer wants you to think that because Donald Trump's supporters believe racist things, it doesn't mean they're racist. No, really.

Blumer complains in a Sept. 19 post that Juan Williams, in a column for The Hill, agrees with Hillary Clinton that a significant number of Trump supporters are "deplorables," citing a poll showing that a large percentage of self-described Trump supporters describe black people as more “lazy” than whites, “less intelligent” than whites, more “rude” than whites, more “violent” than whites and more “criminal” than whites, and that 58 percent of Trump supporters have either a “very unfavorable” or “somewhat unfavorable” view of the entire religion of Islam. But Blumer doesn't want you to believe your own eyes:

Let's make one thing clear: All six of the views identified (five relating to blacks, and one relating to Islam) are NOT presumptively racist views. (Islam is a religion and not a race, so I'll set that matter aside after observing that the over 29,000 Islamic jihadist attacks around the world since 9/11 certainly influence the high percentage of Americans who view Islam unfavorably.) I would argue that the vast majority of people holding those views don't have a racist bone in their body. I'll demonstrate the accuracy of that argument later in this post.

That's right -- according to Blumer, it's not racist to believe blacks are inferior.

After trying to distract from the issue by noting that polls also showed a significantly lower number of Clinton supporters held similar views, Blumer hits us with his "accuracy" argument:

Holding any of those views is not an automatic indicator of racism — and this fallacy, which should be obvious to anyone, has seriously polluted political discourse in the U.S. for far too long.

You identify a genuine racist by asking the "born that way" question. That is, are blacks as a race inherently inferior because they are born less intelligent, lazier, more rude, more violent, and more criminal than members of other races? Only people who would say "yes" would likely qualify as racists. I would argue that fewer than 5 percent of all non-black Americans agree with even one of the five statements; my guess is that it's more like 2 percent (to be clear, this was not always so; it's a credit to the people of this nation that these attitudes have changed as much as they have in the space of no more than four generations).

Prove me wrong, pollsters, if you dare, and ask the questions properly. Sadly, most of won't even think about asking properly formulated questions, because doing so would delegitimize their own or their clients' agendas.

Not only is Blumer trying to obfuscate the issue --  for him, it apparently doesn't follow that declaring another race is violent, lazy, etc., is, in fact, a de facto "born that way" question -- he's trying to mainstream racist views.

In the original version of his post at his own blog, Blumer goes even further by explaining that "There are perfectly good reasons why respondents who are not racist in any way, shape or form would agree with each of the five statements." Which, somehow, gets even more racist while also trying to blame liberals in the process.

Blacks are less intelligent, Blumer argues, because "A disproportionate percentage of the black population receives substandard educations at inferior urban public schools and/or live in family situations where the parent or parents fails to treat childhood education with sufficient seriousness." He adds, "Those who have seen this disparity play out in real life will regretfully agree, without any hint of racism, that black adults in 2016 America are on the whole less intelligent than non-blacks, as much as they sincerely wish it were not so."

Lazy blacks? That's because "LBJ’s Great Society programs have devastated the black family and urban areas" and " Minimum-wage laws shut young blacks out of work ethic-building opportunities." Again, he adds: "Those who have seen this disparity play out in real life are going to regretfully agree, without any hint of racism, that black adults in 2016 America on the whole do not have as strong a work ethic as non-blacks, as much as they sincerely wish it were not so."

Rude blacks? "Again, we go back to the disastrous influence of the Great Society and its impact on the black family. Then add in the cultural influences which have filled the void, including violent and pornographic rap music." And again: "Those who have seen the difference in behavior in real life are going to regretfully agree, without any hint of racism, that blacks in 2016 America on the whole are more rude than non-blacks, as much as they sincerely wish it were not so."

Violent blacks? "The voluminous violent crime and other crime statistics, especially among black juveniles and early adults compared to non-blacks, speak for themselves. Sadly, those who are aware of the crime statistics are going to regretfully agree, without any hint of racism, that blacks in 2016 America on the whole have a record of more violence and more criminality than non-blacks, as much as they sincerely wish it were not so."

Finally, Blumer insists that Trump supporters are not racists but, rather, realists:

What that failure all too often shows is an inability to recognize or admit the sad realities in America today — again, as much as one sincerely wishes that these conditions did not exist. One could also argue that Donald Trump’s overwhelmingly non-racist supporters are more willing to recognize those realities, unintimidated by people like Juan Williams, [Slate writer] Josh Voorhees and so many other misguided commentators and thought-police enforcers.

Yeah, realist like, uh, this Trump supporter.

As Trevor Noah has noted, if the only time you see black people is when they're in a criminal situation, you will believe that all black people are criminals. And if, as is apparently the case with Blumer, if the only media you consume is partisan-motivated right-wing media that portrays blacks as lazy and violent and insists that liberals made them that way as part of their political agenda, you will believe that. That seems to be why he is trying to tell us we shouldn't believe our own eyes with regard to the racist views of Trump supporters.

We highly doubt that Blumer "regretfully agrees" with the inferiority of blacks, as much as he sincerely wishes it were not so -- it's too good of a right-wing talking point for people like him to be regretful about.

Blumer is trying to thread a needle that nobody this side of VDARE believes should be threaded -- and he's making NewsBusters look racist in the process. The Media Research Center surely knows this, since it edited out the most offensive and indefensible part of his post. But what remains -- Blumer's insistence that obviously racist views can't possibly be racist -- is still pretty offensive and indefensible.

Not to mention an incredibly desperate and bizarre attempt at right-wing "logic."

Posted by Terry K. at 12:36 AM EDT
Updated: Thursday, September 22, 2016 9:54 AM EDT

Newer | Latest | Older

Bookmark and Share

Get the WorldNetDaily Lies sticker!

Find more neat stuff at the ConWebWatch store!

Buy through this Amazon link and support ConWebWatch!

Support This Site

« September 2016 »
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30

Bloggers' Rights at EFF
Support Bloggers' Rights!

News Media Blog Network

Add to Google