After Newspaper Shooting , MRC Plays Down Trump's Anti-Media Rhetoric, Fears Right-Wing Media Criticism Is Threatened Topic: Media Research Center
The first reaction of the Media Research Center to the shooting at the Capital Gazette newspaper offices in Maryland was damage control -- for President Trump as well as for the MRC's brand of petty, mocking, politically motivated right-wing media criticism.
Curtis Houck whined that one CNN correspondent "blamed President Trump’s near-daily comments about the news media for the deranged gunman’s actions" (he didn't note that those "comments" involved trashing said media). He went on to huff:
Everyone should be careful with what they say in private and public, but most (or at least enough) people were raised to be responsible for their own actions. 2018 is certainly part of an era where the level of partisanship seems like it couldn’t possibly get any worse, so it would behoove all of us to take a few deep breathes.
However, recklessly blaming the President for a deranged and sadistic gunman’s actions serves no one besides push a partisan agenda. And such behavior helps no one on a dire day such as this one.
Two days earlier, however, Houck's MRC colleague Nicholas Fondacaro championed Fox News' Tucker Carlson pre-emptively blaming Rep. Maxine Waters for any possible violence resulting from her urging people to publicly confront members of theTrump administration -- despite the fact that Waters did not advocate violence and none had actually occured. Fondacaro hypocritically lamented that "many reasonable people were rightfully fearful that we might be headed for a tragedy" as a result of Waters' comments and insisted it was "out of control hatred" to liken Trump to Richard Nixon.
Despite that hypocrisy, Kristine Marsh complained that "journalists and media outlets irresponsibly sent out provocative tweets directly or indirectly blaming the president for supposedly inspiring the deadly shooting, even as reports revealed the shooter had a personal dispute with the paper, in 2012," and Scott Whitlock groused that "we've seen this attempt at blame play out on multiple media outlets.
Another post by Houck feared that by highlighting Trump's vicious attacks on the media in connection with the Capital Gazette shooting, it would hurt media criticism -- specifically, the MRC's version of it, which tracks closely with Trump's views though with slightly less viciousness. He pretended to read the minds of a couple of people on CNN, insisting that when they referenced "the rise of threats against journalists" they really meant "criticism of the news media." Houck then tried to deflect scrutiny away from his employer with a bit of unusual-for-the-MRC praise of the media:
Journalism is a basic tenet of our representative republic and democracies throughout the world, but that doesn’t mean they’re free from criticism and offering sober, substantive appraisals of media in all its forms. And that’s what we try to do at NewsBusters.
Feel free to laugh at that self-assessment.
Does Houck think his war on Jim Acosta for not parroting the Trump White House line -- which involves derisively mocking him for being worried about his safety because he's not an MRC-approved toady or for even expecting to have his words taken in context -- is sober and substantive? Does he think that his boss, Brent Bozell, was offering a sober, substantive appraisal when he called President Obama a "skinny ghetto crackhead"? Is freakingouteverytime someone in the media fails to hate the LGBT community the way the MRC does sober and substantive?
Sober and substantive media criticism is appreciated -- but that's not how Houck, NewsBusters and the MRC make their living, and Houck embarrasses himself when he tries to pretend otherwise.
WND Columnist Who Called Trump Accuser A 'Super Whore' Laments Decline of Civil Discourse Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jane Chastain spent her June 27 WorldNetDaily column lamenting that "legitimate discourse" has become an "endangered species," using lots of examples of the decline such as "baseless or outright false political Facebook posts" and attacking public officials -- all of which, of course, come from what she portrays as Democrats and liberals.
Just as with Joseph Farah, Chastain has apparently forgotten about the website that publishes her column, which is filled with bogus and misleading claims. She has also forgotten her own history of less-than-civil discourse.
We've noted that Chastain dismissed Stormy Daniels, who has made credible accusations of having an affair, as a "super whore" because she has worked as a porn actress.Chastain also went on a slut-shaming tirade of the woman of accused Roy Moore of perving on them as teenagers, calling the accusations against Moore "obviously politically motivated and attacking one woman as having teen a "trouble teen" with "problems" who may have "made up the story to impress" people, huffing, "Moore has led a moral life. [The accuser] not so much."
On the plus side, Chastain does concede that Fox News does have a "conservative slant." So there's that.
CNS Bashes Supreme Court Justices, Former And Future Topic: CNSNews.com
When Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement, CNSNews.com made sure to bid him good riddance.
A June 27 article -- credited to "CNSNews.com staff" but carrying the pedantic tone of editor in chief Terry Jeffrey -- complained that "The two opinions Kennedy wrote that may have had the greatest impact on American society and law were both in 5-4 decisions, where he was the swing vote. One upheld Roe v. Wade and declared abortion a constitutional right. The other declared that same-sex marriage is a 'right' and that the Constitution commands that the states recognize it." Putting the word "right" in scare quotes while discussing those decisions are a hallmark of this article; it devotes nine paragraphs of the 35-paragraph article repeating dissenting opinions from the same-sex marraige decision, which aren't really about Kennedy but are all about forwarding CNS' anti-gay agenda.
Jeffrey's July 3 column insisted that "History will remember Justice Anthony Kennedy for advancing an illogical argument to deny a God-given right" regarding the Casey decision that upheld a woman's right to an abortion, huffily adding, "That places him on the opposite side of a fundamental question from the great Roman senator Cicero — as well as from Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and Rev. Martin Luther King Jr." Jeffrey concluded by declaring that "in Justice Kennedy's world, all rights are mutable — subject to whomever holds five votes on the Supreme Court." Of course, that's the same on the conservative side as well as Jeffrey and his ideologues fight to ensure a five-vote majority.
And fighting for a specific ideology on the court is exactly what Jeffrey is doing by taking aim at one particular reported candidate for the job.
A July 6 article by Jeffrey complained that Brett Kavanaugh "declined to rule against Obamacare’s individual mandate and argued that the case could not be decided by a federal court until at least 2015 because of the Anti-Injunction Act, adding: "All nine members of the Supreme Court—including Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas—would later join in opinions (in the Obamacare case that the Supreme Court decided in 2012) that rejected the argument Kavanaugh embraced that the Anti-Injunction Act prevented a pre-2015 ruling on the Obamacare mandate."
Jeffrey followed that up on July 8 with an article grousing that Kavanaugh "accepted the assumption in a dissenting opinion he filed last October in the case of Garza v. Hargan that a teenage illegal alien caught at the border and put in detention has a right to an abortion in the United States," insisting that the assumption "contrasted sharply with the argument made by the states of Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma and South Carolina in an amicus brief presented to the court. Those states argued that Supreme Court precedent did not in fact recognize a right to abortion in the United States for an illegal alien caught entering the country—and that there was, in fact, no such right." Jeffrey did not explain that athese states have no actual interest in the case at hand, nor did he explain that an amicus brief is something parties without standing do.
If Kavanaugh actually is nominated, it will be interesting to see if Jeffrey and CNS keep up their opposition to him or if they will fall in line like the good little Trump stenographers they usually are.
WND's Farah Speculates About Obama-Weinstein Links Topic: WorldNetDaily
Despite fake news and conspiracy-mongering being one of the key factors that almost killed WorldNetDaily this year, WND editor Joseph Farah has no problem with continuing to indulge his conspiratorial tendencies. Hence, Farah's July 1 column, in which he tries to credit Harvey Weinstein for Barack and Michelle Obama's production deal with Netflix.
Farah insists that "it’s true the Obamas are long-time friends – thisclose, as they say in the biz" to Weinstein. The only evidence he provides is a claim that Weinstein "frequently" (italics his) visited the Obama White House (actually, it was apparently only 13 times, much of it likely linked to the fact that Weinstein was, in Farah's words, a "major donor" to Democrats), and that the Obama's daughter Malia worked an intership at the Weinstein Company before the allegations about Weinstein went public.
Farah then speculates that there was no way the Obamas could not have known about sexual harassment allegations surrounding Weinstein before the scandal broke: "The rumors and the actual stories have been around for many years – decades, in fact. Take, for instance, this story going back to 2010, which names names and details details. But anyone who has worked in and around Hollywood knows the Weinstein predator stories go back to at least the 1990s. I can tell you, as a journalist working in L.A. at the time, I heard the scuttlebutt in the 1980s." Oh, and that "story going back to 2010" is to some blog that nobody has heard of.
Did Farah report on any of that "scuttlebutt" when he was a L.A. reporter? He offers no evidence that he did. If he had, he could have had something more on which to hang his journalistic hat than his claim that he's the one who invented the "Night Stalker" moniker for serial killer Richard Ramirez.
Despite not having articulated any actual physical evidence directly linking Weinstein to the Obamas' Netflix deal or even that they had any knowledge of Weinstein's issues with women before the scandal broke, Farah sarcasically concluded his column by saying, "Imagine that! What a coincidence. That’s one scandal they just never saw coming. Who’d have guessed?
And who would have guessed that journalism high on speculating about "coincidences" and low on actual, provable facts would almost bring down Farah's website? Apparently, he just never saw that coming.
CNS Provides Trump-Friendly (Non-) Coverage of Melania And Her Jacket Topic: CNSNews.com
As we've noted, Melania Trump wearing a jacket emblazoned with the words "I really don't care, do U?" on her way to visit immigrant children in Texas that even leading Trump sycophant and CNSNews.com reporter Susan Jones called her out on it for being a "major distraction." Even then, though, Jones played her sycophant role well; after dutifully quoting Melania's spokesman saying that "I hope the media isn't going to choose to focus on her wardrobe "The media did indeed focus on her jacket and the odd message it sent," then quickly got back on message, declaring in the sixth paragraph of her article that she was "turning from her wardrobe to her actual words" and stayed focused on that for the remainder of her 24-paragraph article.
Meanwhile, Jones' fellow CNS Trump sycophant, Melanie Arter, couldn't manage even Jones' perfuctory mention of the jacket despite its significance as a story. Arter wrote a 10-paragraph article on Melania's visit that -- in apparent accordance with her spokeswoman -- make no mention whatsoever of the jacket and quoted only Melania's communications director.
Content that conforms with what the Trump White House wants to see is how CNS rolls.
Freeform’s dramedy The Bold Type is (unfortunately) back for another season, and it’s disappointingly more of the same extremely liberal, sex-obsessed storylines. Considering that the show’s target audience is teenagers, it becomes quite disturbing to see storylines such as an argument between two lesbian characters Kat (Aisha Dee) and Adena (Nikohl Boosheri) over Kat being afraid to “go down” on Adena, then an ensuing discussion about lesbian oral sex between the three main female characters Kat, Jane (Katie Stevens) and Sutton (Meghann Fahy) and, finally, the supposedly triumphant conclusion, shown in graphic detail, as Kat overcomes her fears and treats Adena to an obvious orgasm via cunnilingus.
Ashley Rae Goldenberg is offended for some reason that Apple CEO Tim Cook, "who famously came out as gay in 2014," issued a tweet endorsing Pride Month.
Matthew Balan huffed that "NPR shamelessly slanted leftward on Weekend Edition Sunday, with a segment that spotlighted a drag show in Vermont that was sponsored by a local veterans hospital," further huffing that this was a "taxpayer-funded segment" while providing no evidence that taxpayer money directly paid for any reporting related to that segment.
Gavin Oliver and Ken Oliver think that Univision shouldn't be reporting on LGBT issues because "the audience it purports to serve and know best - the U.S. Spanish-speaking Hispanic population" expresses (slightly) lower support for same-sex marriage than whites and the U.S. poplation as a whole, and besides, gays are "disproportionately influential" because "the LGBT community is estimated by Gallup to comprise only 4% of the population of the United States."
Rachel Peterson is appalled that some Christians are going to pride parades to apologize for theif rellow gay-hating Christians -- which Peterson frames as "Christian belief in traditional marriage" and "the biblical views of same-sex relationships" -- because doing so "further[s] the LGBT agenda."
Priorities: CNS Gives More Space To Trump Lowering Flags For Newspaper Shooting Than To Shooting Itself Topic: CNSNews.com
On June 28, CNSNews.com's Melanie Arter wrote a bare-bones article about the shooting at a newspaper in Maryland. Here it is in its entirety:
A suspect is in custody after a workplace shooting Thursday at the Capital Gazette newspaper in Annapolis, Md.
Multiple fatalities have been confirmed by Anne Arundel County Sheriff Ron Bateman.
Police are saying there may be more shooters as well as bombs.
The Capital Gazette is owned by the Baltimore Sun.
At most news operations, this sort of sketchy early story would ultimately be fleshed out with more details as they became available. For whatever reason, Arter's article never was updated.
By contrast, Arter's July 3 article on President Trump announcing he will order flags to be lowered to half-staff (the headline incorrectly states "half-mast") as a way of "honoring the five journalists killed last week during a shooting a the Capital Gazette newspaper in Annapolis, Md." received nine fully fleshed-out paragraphs, three of which directly quoted from Trump's proclamation.
While Arter noted that the Capital Gazette had reported that Trump would not at first consent to lowering the flags, she didn't mention Trump's contentious history with the media -- i.e. calling them the "enemy of the people" -- that might make such a gesture feel a bit hollow.
Just goes to show how much of a priority Trump-fluffing is at CNS over actual news.
WND's Farah Pretends Only Democrats Damage Political Discourse, Forgets He's The Editor of WND Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah complains in his June 26 column:
I really don’t think catastrophic climate change is for real – unless we’re talking about the political climate, the national discourse, the way politics in America is being waged like warfare, at least by one party.
How long has this been going on? Who started it? Can the country survive this?
Did it begin in the summer of 2017 with the shooting up of a baseball field full of Republican members of Congress by James T. Hodgkinson, a supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders, and the near death of Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana?
Or does it go further back – perhaps to the armed attack on the Family Research Council in the fall of 2013 when Floyd Corkins, inspired by the inciteful hate speech of the Southern Poverty Law Center, tried to kill every staffer at the organization’s Washington, D.C., headquarters only to be thwarted by a heroic unarmed security guard who was wounded in the incident.
Or perhaps its seeds were planted as far back as the presidential campaign of 2008, when candidate Barack Obama instructed his supporters in impassioned, fiery language to get in the face of his opponents by lying to them that their man actually supported the Second Amendment and wanted to lower taxes.
Whatever the case, Donald Trump, his supporters, officials, staffers and Cabinet members are in the crosshairs of uncivil political warfare that is unprecedented in the modern history of America’s civil society and political discourse.
It’s thoroughly ugly, unbecoming of our national heritage and ideals. The demonic zealotry of Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Maxine Waters and their friends in the so-called “entertainment” industry, as I wrote about yesterday, is palpable, irresponsible beyond words and irrational.
Funny, we thought it started in 2008, when Farah's WND began its eight-year war on Obama by portraying him as a foreigner with a forgedbirthcertificate -- not to mention a Nazi and even the Antichrist. Apparently Farah doesn't think that's ugly or unbecoming-- or that any anti-Obama vitriol WND has ever published fits that category. Indeed, Farah is pretending that right-wingers like him have never said anything untoward.
Nevertheless, he huffed that "the country can survive this. It may never be quite the same again, when one of the two political parties has descended to the depths of depravity, tastelessness, obscenity, vulgarity and incivility." He concluded: "Still, I fear, someone is going to get hurt because of this perversity."
We suspect Farah never had that fear when he published his flood of perverse smears of Obama.
NewsBusters' Sports Blogger Freaks Out (Again) Over ESPN Mag's Body Issue Topic: NewsBusters
Mysterious NewsBusters sports blogger Jay Maxson generally has two modes of operation: Colin Kaepernick derangement and ESPN derangement. Last year, he engaged in a massive form of the latter by freaking out over ESPN The Magazine's "body issue" featuring naked athletes but carefully shot to avoid showing naughty bits -- despite no record of ever complaining about Sports Illustrated's swimsult issue.
Maxson rectified that with his June 25 rant about this year's "body issue," in which he declares that it's worse than SI's swimsuit issue despite the fact the swimsult models aren't even athletes:
It's a well-known fact that ESPN doesn't always stick to sports. And this week The Worldwide Leader in (Liberal and Naked) Sports will prove again that it doesn't always stick to clothed athletes either. ESPN is unveiling—disrobing is a better word choice—its 10th edition of the Body Issue (online and in its magazine), and 16 current and former athletes will be featured without a stitch of clothing. For the past few days, the network website has been titillating viewers by featuring nude photos from an archive of the past nine years of body issues.
Apparently our sex-drenched culture needs one more media outlet appealing to people's prurient interests. Swimsuits and faux swimsuits painted on models sells magazines and gets clicks forSports Illustrated. ESPN one-downs SI by featuring completely buck naked athletes to raise viewership during the dog days of summer. No privates are visible on these immodest athletes; those are covered by side views and arms and legs, allowing the athletes to run, jump and cavort about with no fabric restraints at all.
He's particularly incensed about pictures of "rainbow athletes," such as two female pro basketball athletes "who are dating," complete with a sneering reference to "the world's most famous Olympic bronze medalist, Adam Rippon." (The MRC hates Adam Rippon.)
Maxson then tried to link the "body issue" to allegations of sexual harassment against ESPN employees, telling ESPN that if one allegation goes to trial, "you might want to downplay the Body Issue." But Maxon offers no proof of a link between the two that exists outside his fevered, nudity-addled brain.
WND Columnist Places A Christian's Right To Be Bigoted Against LGBT Rights Not To Suffer Bigotry Topic: WorldNetDaily
Rita Dunaway spends her June 25 WorldNetDaily column defending soccer player Jaelene Hinkle, who declined a call-up to the U.S. national women's soccer team because she didn't want to wear a jersey marking LGBT pride. Dunaway huffed that "U.S. Soccer has employed its power instead to divide, exclude and discriminate" -- despite the fact that the governing body did nothing to discriminate against Hinkle. She explained her convoluted logic:
Hinkle is in good company. Most devout Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Mormons and Orthodox Jews would also feel constrained by their faith to express “gay pride.” So why would U.S. Soccer force players to wear the emblem of “gay pride” – a religiously divisive emblem – if its goal is to promote “acceptance and inclusion” of individuals “from all backgrounds”? Why not the emblem of a dove, for peace; a heart, for love; or the world, for global connectivity?
As it stands, U.S. Soccer’s chosen means to “promote a culture of diversity, inclusivity and global connectivity” actually excludes devout people of many different faiths from the national teams. That’s not diversity, sports fans.
This all tells us one of two things about U.S. Soccer; either its leaders have an anemic, laughably unsophisticated understanding of the world’s diverse cultures and religions, or they are dishonest bigots. Either way, whether intentional or not, U.S. Soccer is promoting the very type of exclusion it claims to oppose.
Dunaway didn't mention that Christians have promoted exclusion against the LGBT community for centuries.
Her obliviousness to anti-gay discrimination continued by declaring, "Bigotry is always wrong, regardless of its object. But taunting and jeering at a person who has walked away from a lifelong dream in order to honor her faith is worse than bigotry. It is cruel." But Hinkle was not discriminated against -- she chose to discriminate. Yet Dunaway is concerned only with the person who displayed bigotry, however benign, and not the group of people who have suffered a history of bigotry by the group to which Hinkle belongs.
WorldNetDaily hasn't given up its history of pushing secret-society conspiracy theories -- despite the fact that editor Joseph Farah belongs to his own secret society, the right-wing Council for National Policy.
It recently published a pair of columns to promote a book -- which, strangely, WND is not selling in its own online store; it links to Amazon instead -- by Rodney Howard-Browne and Paul L. Williams, "The Killing of Uncle Sam: The Demise of the United States of America. The first cheered America's lack of diversity and warned of the "cabal of British aristocrats" who changed that:
America was a nation because of its lack of diversity. Its organic nature stemmed from its very tribalism, the fact that the people who inhabited the country shared a common heritage, a common history and a common faith. As a nation, it was personified by Uncle Sam, a character derived from Samuel Wilson, a meatpacker from Troy, New York, who supplied rations for American soldiers during the War of 1812. Gradually, however, this figure came to resemble Andrew Jackson, the rough and tumble president who won the Battle of New Orleans, abolished the nation’s central bank and nearly clubbed to death a would-be assassin with his cane. But even fictitious characters, no less than nations, can be killed.
The demise of the United States emerged from a cabal of British aristocrats who sought to establish a global government. Their motive was not idealistic. It did not stem from a dream of universal brotherhood, but rather from their desire to lay hold of the world’s riches. Riches do not come from paper currency but natural resources: gold, oil, natural gas, silver, copper, iron ore, uranium, coal, cobalt and bauxite. The scramble for these resources causes the breakdown of borders, the uprooting of native populations and the onset of war. Since no one possessed greater wealth than Uncle Sam, he had to be killed.
Uncle Sam is gone – visible only on Turner Movie Classics and reruns of “Ozzie and Harriet.” In his wake, the country has transformed into a place unrecognizable – a place plagued by drugs, poverty, pornography and violence. Schools have become warzones and racial conflict commonplace. Forty percent of the present-day inhabitants of the United States do not have a Northern European heritage. There is no blood that binds them. Fifty percent of Americans never darken the doorway of a church; one in five has no religious affiliation; and the country is now inhabited by more Muslims than Jews. There is no faith that unites them. Modern Americans remain almost completely oblivious of their history, with the vast majority (84 percent) unable to identify the author of the Constitution. There is no history that grounds them. Seventy percent believe that the strength of America lies in its “diversity,” and 90 percent remain unaware that a quota system ever existed. The country is not unified by language, let alone morality and religion.
In the second column, headlined "The secret socieites that led to the killing of Uncle Sam," Browne and Williams first attack Cecil Rhodes, then name-checks right-wing bete noires such as the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, as they face blame for the ultimate creation of the Federal reserve:
When the Federal Reserve was established in 1913, the small group of rich and powerful pilgrims gained control of the U.S. economy. They could increase the money supply to produce prosperity or curtail the supply to create a recession.
The name of the new centralized bank was a misnomer. The bank was not federal, since it was privately owned by many of the American and British pilgrims. It was not a reserve of real wealth since the money eventually was produced out of nothing. And it was not a system but rather a syndicate that operated beyond the control of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government.
With the Fed in place, the power elite of American pilgrims began to consolidate their holdings to establish new banks and businesses. The relationship between the pilgrims became so close that, as financial expert John Moody observed, it was impossible to separate the interests of Rockefeller, Carnegie and Morgan.
At the close of World War I, the pilgrims set up the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London (aka the “Chatham House”) and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in New York. In time, the CFR would gain a stranglehold on the U.S. State Department. Indeed, every U.S. secretary of state from the tenure of Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Barack Obama would be a prominent member of the inner circle of the CFR.
From the belly of the CFR and the Federal Reserve came the Bank of International Settlements, the central bank of central banks, in Basel, Switzerland. During the 1930s, the gold of all American citizens by executive order of FDR was confiscated and transported not to the vaults of the Federal Reserve in New York or Fort Knox but rather to the new bank in Basel. The American people were being led like lambs to the slaughterhouse.
In time, the CFR would give rise to other organizations, including the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and the Central Intelligence Agency – all of which would advance the interest of a money cartel, who remained bound and determined to strip the United States of its sovereignty.
WND is well-versed enough on this conspiracy to provide a link to its own online store to a conspiracy book called "The Creature from Jekyll Island" -- a reference the place where the "power elite of American pilgrims" allegedly met to formulate the Federal Reserve, which the book calls "the most blatant scam of all history."
WND clearly hasn't rethought the editorial policies that nearly killed it earlier this year, even though that should have been a wake-up call.
MRC Plays Down How It Championed Anti-Abortion Activists Opposing Trump Border Policy Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Nicholas Fondacaro huffs in a June 20 post:
With the stroke of a pen, President Trump signed an executive order on Wednesday that would officially end the policy of separating parents and children who come across the southern border illegally. It’s what many on the right and left wanted to see happen, but for the liberal media it wasn’t enough, as CBS anchor Jeff Glor demonstrated by opining about how Trump was trying to “ put out a big political fire with a few drops of ink.
In his rush to fulfill his job description of blaming the "liberal media" for everything, Fondacaro seems to have forgotten that his employer actually touted criticism from the right of Trump's family-separation policy. Not to cast aspersions on Trump, of course -- the MRC is sitll very much loyal pro-Trump state media -- but to defend anti-abortion activists.
The MRC published a pair of posts attacking celebrities claiming that anti-abortion activists don't care much about children after they're born, including those separated from their families at the border. Katie Yoder started her June 19 post by declaring, "Separating children from their parents is wrong – including when they’re in the womb. But don’t expect actress and producer Lena Dunham to understand that." Not that forcible separation by a government agency and abortion are in any way analogous.
Yoder insisted that "Pro-life politicians and others actually have denounced the separation of parents and children as it’s currently happening (think: Sen. Ben Sasse)," adding:
The argument goes both ways. Imagine, for a moment, Dunham responding to her argument in reverse: “My mind simply can’t comprehend that the same people who claim to care so much about immigrants’ children care so little about American children in the womb.”
But she won't.
Yoder followed up the next day by attacking more celebrites making the claim in addition to a repitition of her attack on Dunham. This time, though, she found more people on her side criticizing the policy, including "pro-life leaders like Live Action President Lila Rose, pro-life media like National Review editor-at-large Kathryn Jean Lopez, and pro-life religious leaders like Pope Francis. The list goes on." Yoder concluded by declaring: "But no, too often the media and Hollywood see only one way. And instead of investigating solutions, they’re pointing fingers."
Of course, pointing finger instead of investigating solutions is pretty much the mission statement of Yoder's employer. Indeed, Yoder's archive shows that she hasn't broached the subject since Trump issued his executive order -- which tells us that the issue is moot as long as the "liberal media" can be blamed for things and conservative opposition to family separation can be shoved back down the memory hole.
WND Still Whining People Are Doing to Trump What It Did to Obama Topic: WorldNetDaily
Art Moore complains in a June 26 WorldnetDaily article:
Amid the recent controversy over separation of families at the border, interview guests and analysts on CNN and MSNBC have frequently branded supporters of President Trump as racists and Nazis.
Grabien News reported filmmaker and frequent MSNBC guest Michael Moore likened Trump voters to accomplices to rape.
“If you hold down the woman while the rapist is raping her, and you didn’t rape her — are you a rapist?”
We would remind Mr. Moore -- who has been with WND since "shortly after 9/11," according to his bio -- that these are things WND has said about Barack Obama.
Who can forget thecountlesstimes WND writers have likened Obama to a Nazi? Or when WND columnist Erik Rush likened Obama to a "cellblock rapist"? Or hyped Michael Savage's rant that Obama is "the most racist president you can imagine" and devoted an entire issue of its sparsely read Whistleblower magazine on "Obama and the new racism," in which WND managing editor David Kupelian accused Obama of having "adopted an utterly racist modus operandi for running the affairs of the nation"?
Once again, WND is complaining that others are doing what WND has done. That's the epitome of hypocrisy.
Maybe Moore should familiarize himself further with WND's past content -- thoughhe's been there when much of it was posted -- before he makes even more hypocritical claims.
CNS Buries Rosenstein's Defense Of Himself Against GOP Attacks Topic: CNSNews.com
If you had read most of the media regarding last week's appearance by deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein before the House Judiciary Committee, you would have read that Rosenstein acquitted himself nicely against relentless Republican attacks on his work and reputation, in particular accusastions by GOP Rep. Jim Jordan.
If you had read CNSNews.com, you read something else entirely -- a highly cherry-picked selection of testimony designed to make Rosenstein look bad and his GOP inquisitors look important:
Susan Jones makes Rosenstein look like a weaselin an article featuring Rosenstein noting that, under questioning from GOP Rep. Ron DeSantis, that he is "not permitted to discuss any classified information."
Jones went the weasel route again in an article highlighting his comment, under questioning from GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz, that "since he wasn't working for the Justice Department on July 31, 2016 when the FBI launched its Trump-Russia investigation, he only knows what he's been told by the FBI."
An article by Melanie Arter touted how "Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) gave a five-minute speech, but didn’t ask a single question when it was his turn to question Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein."
None of these articles feature any questioning from Democratic members of the committee, nor do the mention the back-and-forth between Rosenstein and Jordan.
CNS waited until the next day to note the Rosenstein-Jordan back-and-forth. And while most other outlets noted how out of control Jordan got -- he referenced conspiracy theories he had seen on Fox News and accused Rosenstein of trying to subpoena phone calls, with Rosenstein retorting that Jordan was trying to "attack me personally" -- Arter chose to present the exchange as drily as possible in transcript form without highlighting any of the above or anything else that made Jordan look bad.
Arter also refused to include any questioning from Democrats in her article, though she made sure to complain that the Rosenstein-Jordan exchange "was repeatedly interrupted by Democrats on the committee."
CNS appears to have once again forgotten its mission statement to "fairly present all legitimate sides of a story," since Jones and Arter made no attempt whatsoever to fairly present Rosenstein's side of the story -- strange, since both are longtime CNS employees. It's as if that mission statement is window dressing designed to falsely portray CNS as a legitimate news operation instead of the highly biased pro-Trump PR shop it has become.