MRC's Double Standard On 'Smut' Fiction By Politicians Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Gabriel Hays was in full moral-outrage mode in an April 4 post:
Stacey Abrams has a knack for fiction. These days, her skill manifests mostly in her refusal to admit she lost the Georgia governor’s race fair and square. But once upon a time, her creative outlet was authoring smutty books.
We know this only because during Wednesday night’s The Late Show, Stephen Colbert decided to poke some mild fun at Abrams by reading “steamy” excerpts from the politician’serotic fiction. A decade ago, writing under the pseudonym “Selena Montgomery,” Abrams chronicled the desires and carnal fulfillments of lonely, white-collar housewives with a penchant for sexually aggressive lawyers.
Colbert surprised Abrams by producing excerpts from one her novels, Reckless. Embarrassed (as she should be,) Abrams said “Oh Dear God,” and asked, “Can I leave now?” But Colbert pushed forward, chiding her by saying, “If you’re going to write a romance novel, make it a bodice-ripper.”
Abrams was embarrassed, yes, but it was all among friends. Not like when Newt Gingrich writes erotic scenes in historical fiction and sends the left into a pearl-clutching faint.
Double standards aside, it’s all just gross and the political celebrity thing is getting out of hand.
About those double standards, Gabe...
There wlasn't a "pearl-cluching faint" regarding Gingrich's scenes in a 1994 book. The New York Times article Hays links to in an attempt to prove his argument takes more of a bemused stance at the mere idea of a conservative policy wonk writing historical science fiction novels with erotic scenes.
Indeed, sex scenes written by conservatives get a blase response from the MRC. A 2006 NewsBusters post by Noel Sheppard reference only in passing Lynne Cheney's 1981 novel "Sisters" that includes what has been called an "explicit stemy lesbian" scene.
Hays should explain why Abrams wrote "smut" and Gingrich and Cheney didn't.
The Seth Rich Conspiracy Is Completely Dead. When Will WND Apologize? Topic: WorldNetDaily
The Seth Rich conspiracy theory was never true, and now the Mueller report has confirmed it.
The Daily Beast has detailed a finding from the report that WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange apparently knew from the beginning that the leaked Democratic National Committee emails that WikiLeaks released came from Russian hackers and not from Rich, a DNC staffer killed in what authorities call a botched robbery, but he publicly perpetuated the Rich conspiracy to obscure their sourcing. As it turns out, WikiLeaks didn't receive the DNC emails until four days after Rich's death.
It was a hoax all along -- and WorldNetDaily happily promoted it.
WND was< quick to embrace the conspiracy theory that Rich was murdered over the emails. The slow disintegration of the Rich conspiracy theory on other fronts hasn't moved WND to correct the record, nor has the revelation that Jerome Corsi, while still a WND employee in 2016, apparently knew that the emails came from Russian hackers and not Rich.
With that revelation, Corsi and WND now arguably face legal liability for pushing a story they knew or should have known was false from the get-go. Now that the Mueller report has completely blown the story out of the water, WND faces a reckoning as well.
However, we are talking about WND here, whose name is not exactly synonymous with journalistic integrity. a Google search shows that the last WND article to mention Rich was in July 2018, when it touted a "bombshell" claim by sleazy opportunist Jack Burkman that he had identified an alleged witness to Rich's death. But the Burkman press conference in which purported to reveal his witness -- who didn't appear and spoke only through a speakerphone -- was such a disaster that even WND didn't report on it, not even to report the disaster.
It behooves WND to be honest for once in its existence and follow the advice of Seth's brother Aaron: "I hope that the people who pushed, fueled, spread, ran headlines, articles, interviews, talk and opinion shows, or in any way used my family's tragedy to advance their political agendas -- despite our pleas that what they were saying was not based on any facts -- will take responsibility for the unimaginable pain they have caused us."
But will it do so before it gets sued? Or will WND go out of business before it tells its readers the truth?
MRC Sports Blogger Repeatedly Triggered By 50-Year-Old Protest Topic: NewsBusters
Colin Kaepernick is not the only athlete about whom mysterious NewsBusters sports blogger Jay Maxson goes into regular freak-out mode over. He (or she) is also triggered by something that happened 50 years ago: the raised-fist salute by medal-winning U.S. sprinters on the podium at the 1968 Olympics.
Last October, Maxson fumed when Kaepernick and the sprinters were mentioned in the same breath, dropping the term "social justice warriors" for both of them, which is apparently the most serious thing Maxson can think of to call them:
As the 50th anniversary of the protest-marred 1968 Olympic Games nears, the New York Daily News' Carron J. Phillips and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar are glorifying Colin Kaepernick, as well as the two disgraced sprinters who staged a black power salute during the national anthem in Mexico City. The International Olympic Committee stripped Tommie Smith and John Carlos of their medals and expelled them from the Olympic Village. A 1968 headline in the Evening News declared, "Games are Rocked by Black Power." Media reporting has shifted 180 degrees since then, as many reporters sympathize with radical social justice warriors.
In the decades since then, the sprinters have been turned into heroes by the Left. There's a statue honoring them in California. President Barack Obama celebrated them in the White House. They are the subjects of documentaries and invited, as heroes, to speak on college campuses.
October 16 marked the 50th anniversary of the 1968 Olympic Games protest by U.S. sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos. Their black power salute on the medal stand at Mexico City angered many Americans and divided the media. But today, the united American media celebrates them as royalty. Media treat another athlete disliked by many, Colin Kaepernick, as the successor to Smith and Carlos as a social justice icon.
Today one is hard pressed to find any opposition to Kaepernick and other SJW protesters. When he started protesting during the national anthem in 2016, he said, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”
In February, Maxson was still ranting, complete with another SJW reference:
Former U.S. Olympic athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos shocked with black power salutes at the 1968 Summer Games in Mexico City. They were sent home in disgrace then, but now that the media has a love affair with social justice warriors like Colin Kaepernick, Smith and Carlos are treated like heroes and adorned with honors by the progressive, social justice crowd. The Golden State Warriors saluted Smith during a game Wednesday, and visiting San Antonio Coach Gregg Popovich predicted that Kaepernick, too, will become greatly admired.
But, hey, it's 2019 and social justice warriors are cool now! No apology, no mea culpa are required in the Left's world of low standards. So then, in the far-, far-out world that is the Bay Area, Smith received a jersey from the Warriors in recognition of Black History Month.
For many Americans, social justice warriors in sports uniforms have disrespected America and turned them away from sports. The Nation's Dave Zirinhas made a slobbering career of apologizing for and glorifying these malcontents. He's written books on 1968 Olympic protester John Carlos and radical NFL player Michael Bennett. He staunchly defends Colin Kaepernick and others who politicize sports, too. Zirin is the "parallel universe," and this week he bitterly complains that Carlos and fellow '68 Olympic protester Tommie Smith are being disrespected by their alma mater, San Jose State University.
Fifty years ago, Smith and Carlos were America's top sprinters. In the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City they won two of the three medals in the 200-meter dash. On the victory stand, during the playing of the Star Spangled banner, they looked down at the ground and raised their gloved hands to the air in protest to racism. Those in the stadium and watching around the world were stunned. The International Olympic Committee booted them out of the Olympic Village and sent them home in disgrace.
America's disgrace became a "noble" cause for far Left writer Zirin and San Jose State U. He wrote the book, The John Carlos Story: The Sports Moment That Changed the World. San Jose State built statues to the two malcontent sprinters, but Zirin claims the two SJWs are now being treated horribly by the university.
Maxson noted Zirin quoting someone saying that San Jose State University removing the track where Carlos trained and replacing it with a parking lot was "another sad day for the Spartans," Maxson huffed: "A sad day for the Spartans and a sadder reminder for Americans offended by the acts of Smith and Carlos."
You know, if Maxson keeps getting so triggered by events that happened 50 years ago, maybe he's the one in a parallel universe.
CNS Can't Stop Obsessing Over Peter Strzok's Sex Life Topic: CNSNews.com
Despite calling itself a "news" organization, CNSNews.com is very selective about the news it reports -- espeically if it makes President Trump look bad. We've noted that CNS never reported on Paul Manfort's conviction on fraud charges or Michael Cohen's plea deal with prosecutors. Since then, CNS failed to do any story on Manfort being sentenced in March to 7 1/2 years in prison on those fraud charges, and it offered highly biased coverage of Cohen's testimony before Congress, featuring only Republicans' hostile questions to him and censoring any questiong from Democratic members of Congress.
By contrast, CNS can't stop obsessing about the sex life of a minor player in the Mueller investigation, former FBI agent Peter Strzok. When Strzok testified before Congress last summer, CNS writers took every available opportunity to brand Strzok as an adulterer because he was having an affair with another FBI agent while he was investigating Russian involvement in the 2016 election.
CNS returned to that well-trod territory yet again in an April 4 article by Susan Jones:
The man once responsible for all FBI counterintelligence investigations, including the Clinton email and Trump-Russia probes, told Congress in a closed-door session last June that the FBI has no policy forbidding agents from having adulterous affairs.
"There is no FBI policy that prohibits somebody from having an affair," FBI Assistant Director E.W. "Bill" Priestap told House Judiciary and Oversight Committee investigators on June 5, 2018. "There's no FBI policy that says you can't have an affair, and if you do, you're going to be punished."
A transcript of Priestap's remarks was released this week.
The subject of extramarital affairs arose several times in Priestap's interview, in connection with Priestap’s deputy, Peter Strzok, who was having an extramarital affair with FBI attorney Lisa Page. Strzok and Page were part of the Clinton email investigation and immediately afterward, the Trump-Russia investigation, both of which Priestap was overseeing.
Jones did not report on what the FBI thinks about a president of the United States who pays hush money to porn stars to cover up their adulterous activity.
MRC Goes On An AOC-Bashing Spree Topic: Media Research Center
CNSNews.com isn't the only Media Research Center outlet dedicated to attacking Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The MRC itself is targeting her as well, alternating over the past few weeks between complaining that she's getting media attention and attempting to justify right-wing media attention on her as legitimate.
Scott Whitlock complained about a "gushing cover story" on Ocasio-Cortez in Time, whining that the writer "cheered" and "hyped" her but "found no time to mention the cow farting and airplane elimination section that was initially part of the Green New Deal." Whitlock referenced cow flatulence two other times in his item, showing his goal is to make AOC look ridiculous and not to fairly report on her.
Kristine Marsh groused that during a "nauseating" appearance on "Late Night With Seth Myers," Ocasio Cortez was allowed to "freely tear into her conservative critics: and that Myers "invited the Democrat to take a swipe at both Fox News and her Republican colleagues for believing in 'conspiracy theories' surrounding her." Marsh then tried to reframe one lame right-wing attack as legitimate: "She shared a story of how a Republican asked her if she had been paid ten million dollars by Netflix. The pair laughed at the audacity of the question, but Cortez didn’t clarify that Netflix had in fact paid ten million dollars to air a documentary about Ocasio-Cortez, so the story wasn’t made up out of thin air." But it's still false, isn't it, Kristine?
Curtis Houck tried to deflect from the idea that he and his fellow conservatives are obsessed with AOC and that it's really liberals who are obsessed, as demonstrated by the Time article:
Whether you’re media types like Brian Stelter or outlets such as Vanity Fair, it’s Fox News and right-of-center news outlets that have an obsession with socialist Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). But segments like one on Thursday’s Last Word and cover stories like the latest issue of Time by lefty writer Charlotte Alter (and daughter of longtime liberal journalist Jonathan Alter) prove otherwise.
Christian Toto (shouldn't he be reviewing movies or something?) went ballistic on AOC, whining that people won't make fun of her to his satisfaction:
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the greatest gift to political satirists since a certain Apprentice star hit the scene.
The Democratic Socialist is a gaffe machine, spewing lies and distortions on social media and via interviews. She uses the word “like” more often than Papa Smurf says “Smurf.” That’s not even getting to her signature policy achievement, the Green New Deal.
If comedians ever tire of Trump jokes involving orange skin, huuuuge promises or small hands, she’s the next comedy revolution.
Only the vast majority of comics won’t lay a glove on her. Which brings us to Stephen Colbert.
Toto then served up the usual right-wing complaint that colbert "mock[ed] conservative talkers for attacking the Congresswoman. It’s giggle-snort stuff, except the talkers are simply repeating what she said."
Brad Wilmouth got huffy in defending right-wing attacks on AOC as completely deserved:
On Saturday's CNN Newsroom with Ana Cabrera, CNN's Nia-Malika Henderson claimed that the reason freshman New York Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is so often attacked by conservatives is because she is "incredibly charismatic," "a young Latina," and "incredibly eloquent."
The CNN reporter named everything except the actual reason -- her self-identified "socialist" views were so popular with her party's base that she defeated an entrenched Democratic incumbent.
And terrible media critic Tim Graham was in full whine mode while pretending to be "fact-checking the fact-chekers," weirdly complaining that a "recent rash of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defense items" on fact-checking site Snopes means "it's a liberal clickbait site." Graham smugly concluded: "We have rated these Snopes 'fact checks' as Half Baked."
Graham also took offense to another thing Snopes did that had nothing to do with fact-checking: "It's quite funny, after all this, that on April 14 in a news section, Snopes posted an AP story headlined 'Study: Fox News Is Obsessed with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.' As if liberal outlets are not!" The article repeated a claim from liberal watchdog group Media Matters that Ocasio-Cortez "was mentioned 3,181 times on Fox News Channel and its sister Fox Business Network during the six-week period of Feb. 25 to April 7, or just under 76 times a day." Needless to say, Graham offered no evidence that any "liberal outlet" provided anywhere near the same amount of attention to AOC.
WND Columnists Cheer Fox Host's Hatred of Omar Topic: WorldNetDaily
When Fox News host Jeanine Pirro was suspended by Fox News for a few weeks for making inflammatory remarks about Rep. Ilhan Omar -- accusing her of placing Shariah law before the Constiution because she's Muslim -- WorldNetDaily columnists were bummed because they completely agreed with Pirro's attacks.
Carole Hornsby Haynes argued that Pirro was right because all Muslims are liars:
Lying or dissimulation – taqiyah – is not only condoned, but recommended to Muslims in the Quran. A Muslim can and will lie without compunction if it is necessary to protect or further Islam.
Yet Pirro was correct in her opening statement that Omar submits to Shariah. Adherence to Islamic law can be visibly seen both in a Muslim’s dress and prayers (how they pray), as well as their comments and actions in life. Pirro was only stating a truth: that Muslim women are required to wear hijabs because Shariah requires it. Pirro also correctly indicated that Omar’s adherence to Shariah means that she cannot uphold the Constitution. Shariah is deemed divine law and does not permit Muslims to live under any other legal system, including the U.S. Constitution, which Muslims deem man-made law.
The Muslim Brotherhood has made it clear that its mission is to overthrow the U.S. Constitution and impose Shariah. The pattern of Islam is to use the courts, schools, art museums, political offices and other major institutions including outreach to churches, to infiltrate, gradually introduce Shariah and then finally take over a nation.
Progress toward attaining that goal will only increase as the numbers of Muslims in America increases.
Mychal Massie was even more enthusiastic in his praise for Pirro's attack, if not her trying to keep her job afterward, and his hate of Omar:
Not only am I not applauding Judge Jeanine Pirro’s return to the Fox News lineup; I think her return sends a message of “I’ll take the money and distance myself from the truth.” I tweeted the same thing a few days ago, and now I’m going to elaborate.
I was hoping someone would step up and say what I’m about to say. But, apparently no one is going to risk the wrath of media bigwigs for speaking the truth.
Pirro spoke the God’s honest truth when she addressed Ilhan Omar, the petulant Muslim Democrat hater of Israel and anti-American supporter of terrorist groups.
I would have pointed out that the foul little hate-filled bigamist who reportedly married her own brother is a blight on America. I would have demanded to know what part of the hate screeds Omar delivers standing in the United States Congress represents the people in Minnesota.
Ahhh, but there is the rub, isn’t it? Omar represents the part of Minnesota that has been taken over by Muslims. So, she is representing her constituents when she rails against Israel. How soon she and her kind forget that if she/they were back where they came from, they would be walking around with flies on them, eating dogs and being stoned for being a tramp – unless marrying your brother is considered honorable in Somalia.
(The idea that Omar married her brother is a never-proven right-wing conspiracy theory.)
Massie then took out his thesaurus to claim that "Omar, CAIR and all like them are rancid stenotopic calumniators whose sole purpose is to spread the satanic cult of Islam and overrun America."
Finally, Massie complained that because Pirro issued a half-hearted apology, she's been compromised:
It makes me grimace to say it, but we must now treat everything Pirro says on Fox News as suspect. Her integrity has been compromised for money. She will continue to seem her straight-shooter self, but I assure you she will be loath to speak the unadulterated truth going forward.
Everything she says moving forward will be said with the question in mind – whether or not she will be suspended or publicly reprimanded if she speaks the truth.
How Is CNS Hating The LGBT Community Now? Topic: CNSNews.com
You don't have to be a presidential candidate for CNSNews.com to abhor you for not being heterosexual.
A March 29 article by Alex Madajian complained that Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel ordered adoption agencies in the state not to cite religious beliefs in discriminating against "homosexual adopters." In addition to putting identifying Nessel as "Michaigan's Lesbian AG" in the headline, Madajian thought the following was important enough to devote the second paragraph of his article to highlighting: "Attorney General Nessel is a lesbian 'married' to her girlfriend, Alanna Maguire, and they have two children."
Madajian continued to be appalled that religious groups can't discriminate against people not like them: "If you are a Christian or Muslim group that believes children have a natural right to a mother and a father, you must nonetheless allow children to be placed into gay households, if that situation should arise." He then repeated attacks on Nessel as an "ideological extremist" showing "contempt for the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom" -- but provides no explanation of why prospective LGBT parents must be discriminated against solely for being LGBT.
Then, on April 5, CNS' gay-hating managing editor, Michael W. Chapman, commiserated with a fellow gay-basher over what the headline described as "Chicago's Lesbian Mayor":
Protestant minister E.W. Jackson, a Marine, Harvard Law School graduate, and president of S.T.A.N.D., criticized Chicago's newly elected openly gay mayor, Lori Lightfoot, for trying to disguise homosexual behavior as "love" -- a "satanic, demonic twisting of language" -- and for using taxpayer money to perpetrate her "filth."
Jackson added that God does care if people are engaging in same-sex behavior and "if God calls it an abomination, it’s an abomination.”
“They’re not talking about love, that’s not what they’re talking about," he said. "They’re talking about who you have sex with. And, really, specifically, they’re saying it doesn’t matter if you have sex with someone of the same gender. The euphemism is just disgusting."
"It really is," he continued, "because this is a satanic, demonic twisting of language to say exactly the opposite of what you mean. … They’re not talking about love. They’re talking about having sex with people of the same gender."
While Chapman was eager to pump up Jackson's military and educaiton credentials in an attempt to give his homophobia some unearned gravitas, he has yet to ackowledge that Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg -- whom CNS won't let us forget is gay -- is a military veteran and a Rhodes Scholar.
Additionally, Chapman showed that he hates gays even more than Muslims with a March 29 article touting how "mostly Muslim parents" objected to "homosexual propaganda" allegedly being taught at a British school, though it had " pledged to stop indoctrinating their elementary students with a pro-LGBT curricula." Chapman made sure to highlight a cultural behavior he seems to approve of: "Islam strongly disapproves of homosexual behavior and it is illegal and punishable by death in some Muslim countries, such as Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Nigeria."
MRC on Trump Cheating At Golf: Everybody Does It! Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is so in the tank for President Trump that it felt compelled to spend a post downplaying the fact that Trump cheats at golf.
The MRC writer with that grim duty is Alex Christy, who began his April 2 post grousing that MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program "missed April Fool's Day by a day" by having on respected sportswriter Rick Reilly, who found so much about Trump's cheating at golf that he wrote an entire book about it. Christy then went into full spin/sycophancy mode:
Reilly could not imagine why anyone would cheat or bend the truth to some extent on the links. He called a story of Trump hitting his ball into the water multiple times on the same hole, only to say he was putting for four. For Reilly, this sort of lie explains Trump. He recalled a conversation he had with Arnold Palmer who told him that he always played a round of golf with a would-be business partner, '"Because in four hours you can't hide who you are. So, if he cheats on the course, he'll cheat in business. If he's honest and fun, he'll be honest and fun in business."'
Certainly golf is a game of etiquette and players are trusted to be honest and apply the rules themselves, especially for those who play competitively or take their game seriously. For others who just want to have a good time, the use of the foot wedge or turning a six into a four is not a scandal.
However, according to Reilly, Trump is the kind of golfer who takes his game seriously and accused him of lying about his club championships. Co-host Joe Scarborough piled on the Golfer-in-Chief, also accusing him of lying about his scores. Reilly then charged that Trump selectively selected his best rounds to lower his handicap.
Has Trump been completely truthful about his golf game? Probably not. But it is not a national scandal that golfers fudge their handicap or take creative liberties with the USGA rule book.
Christy's shoulder-shrugging over Trump's cheating at golf is a continuation of the MRC's double standard on presidential golf, in which it defends Trump's golf-playing (honestly or otherwise) while it regularly attacked President Obama for allegedly playing too much golf.For instance, in 2012 the MRC thought it was a "startling observation" that Obama played 105 rounds of golf in his first term, only one of which was with a Republican, though Trump has played nearly as many in just the first two years of his presidency (and had criticized the amount of golf Obama played) and whined that it was reported that Obama had played his 300th round of golf as president (and keeps score and doesn't cheat and doesn't take mulligans).
Indeed, the MRC has resorted to whataboutism on the subject. For instance:
CNS Doesn't Want You To Forget That Buttigieg Is Gay Topic: CNSNews.com
As an anti-gay "news" organization, CNSNews.com is more than a little bothered by the fact that Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg is not a heterosexual. The latest instance of that came in an April 5 article by Madajian under a headline that refers to "Gay 'Mayor Pete'":
South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, an openly gay Democrat who is running for the Democratic nomination for president, said that President Donald Trump’s actions indicate he is not “somebody who believes in God.” Buttigieg, however, has been criticized for backing away from his view that “all lives matter,” and for stopping a pro-life group from opening an office.
First, Madajian offers no evidence that Buttigieg's views of Trump have any connection with the other views he cites. Second, like managing editor Michael W. Chapman beforehim, Madajian wanted to make sure we knew that Buttigieg was gay and didn't want to talk about the fact that Buttigieg is also a military veteran and a Rhodes Scholar, which are arguably more pertinent qualifications for the presidency.
CNS also ran its Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez strategy against Buttigieg, in which it puts out-of-context quotes in the headline to make him look ridiculous. A March 20 article by Susan Jones carried the headline "2020 Democrat Pete Buttigieg: 'My Face Is the Message'" -- an apparent attempt to portray Buttigieg as a narcissist. But as Jones eventually concedes (albeit after mockingly claiming that he was talking about his "physiognomy"), Buttigieg was pointing out that his youth is an asset in running for president.
Jones did also tried to downplay the idea there was anything special about Buttigeig, sneering that "Buttigieg, like many other Democrats running for president, wants to change the Supreme Court and abolish the Electoral College, among other liberal policy positions." While Jones did not single out the fact that Buttigieg is gay, she also failed to mention that he's also a military veteran and Rhodes Scholar.
Another WND Columnist Thinks 'Unplanned' Myth Is True Topic: WorldNetDaily
Laura Hollis serves up the usual propaganda in her April 4 WorldNetDaily column promoting the anti-abortion film "Unplanned":
As most who have followed the story know, Johnson was the director of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas – and the youngest director in the organization’s history. Like many women who volunteer or work for Planned Parenthood, she was initially motivated by a deep concern for women in difficult situations. But she began to question her career when it became clear that her objective to reduce the number of abortions ran counter to Planned Parenthood’s corporate policy; the organization rewarded and promoted employees on the basis of how many abortions were performed at their clinics.
The watershed moment for Johnson was when she was asked to assist with an abortion of a 13-week-old fetus. Johnson watched on the ultrasound, horrified, as the fetus squirmed away from the vacuum suction tube, only to be violently dismembered as it was sucked into the tube and killed.
Johnson subsequently left Planned Parenthood and became a nationally known activist in the pro-life movement. She has since founded “And Then There Were None,” a nonprofit organization whose objective is to assist abortion workers who have left the industry. Hundreds, Johnson says, have done so.
But as we've pointed out, Planned Parenthood stated that there were no ultrasound-guided abortions on the day that Johnson claims, Johnson did not assist on any abortion that day, and the only abortion patient that day who comes closest to the person described in Johnson's story was too early in her pregnancy to require the use of ultrasound. (Johnson has clamed withou evidence that Planned Parenthood doctored records to make her look bad.)
Hollis then complained about a "history of deep deception on the 'pro-choice' side that calls their motivation into question," whiile also praising anti-abortion pregnancy centers that are "addressing the fears of the women who come to them and providing them with resources to address their needs." In fact, many of these crisis pregnancy centers provide false or misleading information to woman in order to coerce them out of having an abortion or to promote abstinence-based sex education.
MRC Parrots Anti-Omar Narrative -- Then Gets Mad When The Narrative Is Pointed Out Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has eagerly parroted the right-wing narrative that Rep. Ilhan Omar insulted America by allegedly describing 9/11 as "some people did something."
For instance, Kristine Marsh huffed that Omar "outrageously called the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil as simply the event where 'some people did something'" and that an interview with CBS' Stephen Colbert "intentionally didn’t mention what she actually said." But in complaining that the interview focused on Fox News "daring to air these comments," Marsh intentionally didn't mention that one Fox News host -- outrageously, one might say -- questioned whether Omar was a real American.
Kyle Drennen called Omar's comments "offensive" and whined that some media outlets didn't give the right-wing narrative the coverage the MRC demanded in favor of other news, sarcastically complaining that "those stories were much more important that a Democratic politician dismissing the worst terrorist attack in American history."
Curtis Houck whined that the Omar's alleged characterization of 9/11 was "bizarre" and that the story was being framed as a "Fox News-fueled controversy" -- though it was largely driven by Fox News.
Mark Finkelstein was offended when MSNBC's Joe Scarborough said it was important for Omar to succeed as a member of Congress, arguing that she needed someone to "Ameri-splain" to her why "obfuscating the reality of 9/11" might be offensive, adding, "If Omar doesn't understand that by now, she richly deserves to fail."
But when anyone tried to counter the right-wing anti-Omar narrative -- or even point out the fact that it was a narrative -- the MRC cried foul.
Tim Graham was upset that a Washington Post fact-check put Omar's remarks in context -- and we know how much Graham hates that non-conservatives are given context (though he demands it when conservatives are selectively quoted). He was further upset that the fact-checker pointed out that PresidentGeorge W. Bush also vaguely described 9/11 in one speech, dismissing it as "weak connective thread."
Nicholas Fondacaro, went into rage mode when CNN's Brian Stelter pointed out the manufactured nature of the Omar controversy. After calling Omar's comments "disgusting," Fondacaro gratuitously insulted Stelter by calling him a "media dung-sweeper" with "few viewers." He then attacked Stelter for accurately pointing out that Omar's right-wing critics are acting in bad faith, then went into whataboutism mode:
Stelter paints these terrible phantom motives on his political opponents and then has the nerve to declare others were acting in bad faith. He described conservative media as the “right-wing rage machine”, but never considered that Omar’s comments were actually offensive to most Americans. Nope, to him, it was all part of some insidious plot.
Pretending to be an intellectual, Stelter opined about how “the big questions” needed to be asked: “where does the controversy come from? How was it created in the first place? Who created it? Who stands to benefit from it being created? And who stands to lose, who stands to suffer?”
That’s actually some good advice. People should think about how CNN creates controversies, how CNN stand to benefit from it, and who CNN is trying to hurt.
We already know that CNN boss Jeff Zucker likes to cook up entertainment instead of actual news. We know the network likes to pretend the revolving door between the White House and the media came into existence with this administration, or at least wasn’t used often. Pushing the collusion conspiracy was in their best interest because their ratings tanked (and still are) after Attorney General Barr announced no collusion was found. But Stelter defended their years of speculation. This is CNN.
Responding with rage at the idea of being called part of a "right-wing rage machine," while also hurling unprofessional, rage-filled insults in the process? This is the MRC.
AIM Not Accepting That Trump Wasn't Completely Exonerated Topic: Accuracy in Media
In a March 26 Accuracy in Media post, Brian McNicoll responded to a Washington Post news quiz about the Mueller investigation with the usual pro-Trump talking points. And, like Trump, McNicoll couldn't accept the fact that even Attorney General William Barr's summary concluded that Trump was not exonerated on the question of obstruction:
To the question: “Did Mueller conclude that Trump obstructed justice?” the reply was “Right, but it’s also a bit more complicated …”
To the question: “Did Mueller conclude that Trump DID NOT obstruct justice?” the response was: “Though Trump tweeted ‘Total EXONERATION’ following the release, Mueller did not come to a conclusion on the question and Barr’s summary of Mueller’s report said it ‘did not exonerate’ Trump. Citing ‘the public interest in the matter,’ Barr said he planned to release more of Mueller’s full report, though significant portions may be missing.”
It then supplied a quote from Barr’s summary: “While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
It never mentions that Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded Trump did not obstruct justice and would not be charged, or that they were likely on sound legal footing.
McNicoll also complained that the news quiz pointed out that Trump-connected individuals have been found guilty of crimes in the Mueller investigation, grumbing that "none of the crimes for which they were found guilty involved Trump or collusion or obstruction." In fact, at least one was: Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his communications with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition after Trump named him national security adviser.
McNicoll also involed a right-wing conspiracy theory that the Post claimed "without evidence" that "Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about conversations with Russians – although it doesn’t mention even the FBI now doubts he is guilty." But as we've noted, Flynn was being investigated on numrous other charges of making false statements, and in his plea agreement, Flynn pledged to cooperate with Mueller in exchange for the rest of the charges against him being dropped.
Alex Madajian dutifully writes in an April 1 CNSNews.com article:
A conservative civil liberties group is suing the University of Louisville (Kentucky) on behalf of a child psychology professor who was demoted, then effectively fired, he says, for his view that young children should not undergo life-altering treatment for gender dysphoria.
The university hired Dr. Allan M. Josephson in 2003 to be the chief of the Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology. Since then, the lawsuit contends, he has turned the division around, boosting its national reputation.
But Josephson ran afoul of the University's LGBT Center in the fall of 2017, when he took part in a panel discussion at The Heritage Foundation on gender dysphoria in young children.
But Madajian presents only one side of the story -- that of Josephson and the "civil liberties group" suing on his behalf, the right-wing Alliance Defending Freedom. At one point, he simply repeats how "the lawsuit lays out Josephson's position" on "young people experiencing gender dysphoria," framing Josephson's views as innocuous or mainstream. He does not quote anyone from his university or anyone offering a critique of Josephson's views -- which effectively makes this article little more than an ADF press release.
In fact, Josephson's views on transgenderism hew so closely to conservative disdain for it that Josephson has worked as a consultant for ADF on transgender issues in the past -- something Madajian didn't report.
Madajian also failed to report that in that Heritage Foundaton discussion, Josephson attacked "transgender ideology" -- a term, like "gender ideology," is only used these days by conservatives who think that's an actual thing that must be opposed.
Indeed, an actual news organization reported that one LGBT advocate pointed out that, contrary to Josephson's views, "The vast majority of folks who work with transgender adults and youth concur that supporting someone's decision to transition as early as they are sure about their desire to do it is what can save their lives."
Once again, the Media Research Center's "news" division engages in the exact same behavior it attacks when "liberal media" outlets do it.
NEW ARTICLE: Vaccine Misinformers Get A WND Platform Topic: WorldNetDaily
The fringe-right Association of American Physicians and Surgeons knows it can count on WorldNetDaily to let it peddle anti-vaxxer conspiracy theories unchallenged. Read more >>
MRC Mad At 'Black Press Only' Event, Silent On Pompeo's Briefing Only For 'Faith Based Media' Topic: NewsBusters
Randy Hall found something to be offended about in a March 29 NewsBusters post (boldface in original):
One of liberal Democrats’ favorite tactics these days is to smear anyone who doesn’t agree with them as a racist. However, they don’t always follow their own rules due to an apparent “do as I say, not as I do” mentality.
That philosophy was on full display in Savannah, Georgia, on Wednesday night, when reporters attempting to cover an event for candidates in the upcoming mayoral election were greeted with signs that said “Black Press Only.”
According to an article by Amanda Prestigiacomo, a writer with the Daily Wire, attendance at the Bolton Street Baptist Church was even more restricted than that, as other signs stated that “No Audio or Video Recording!” would be allowed.
Prestigiacomo then quoted the Savannah Morning News for noting that the event was coordinated by Rev. Clarence Teddy Williams, owner of the Trigon Group consulting group, "to garner support for just one black candidate in Savannah’s mayoral election."
While several black reporters and public officials attended the gathering, none of them would state they agreed with the overtly racist policy demonstrated there:
Of course, if this event had been arranged by a conservative Republican, and there were signs on the doors of “White Press Only” and “No Audio or Video Recording,” it would be virtually impossible to escape the scathing coverage across the country from virtually every outlet in the “mainstream media.”
Meanwhile, Hall -- not to mention anyone else at NewsBusters or any other Media Research Center website, for that matter -- has yet to mention a similar act of bigotry perpetrated not by a political candidate but by the Trump administration.
On March 18, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo held a press briefing conference call only for "faith-based media" -- thus effectively creating a religious test for reporters wanting to cover Pompeo. Not only has the State Department refused to release a list of the "faith-based media" outlets who took part in the briefing, it has also refused to release a transcript of what was said in the briefing.
If the coverage restriction by the Georgia candidate is so offensive to Hall -- as judged by the boldface he used in writing about it and the word "SEGREGATED" in all-caps in his headline -- why isn't Pompeo's discriminatory and segregated coverage restriction? We may never get an answer.