AIM Cites Biased Tweets To Attack Article's Alleged 'Biased Framing' Topic: Accuracy in Media
Carrie Sheffield spends a May 29 Accuracy in Media post complaining that "The Washington Post relied on anonymous sourcing and biased framing in its reporting that “President Trump’s new executive order giving the attorney general broad authority to declassify government secrets threatens to expose U.S. intelligence sources and could distort the FBI and CIA’s roles in investigating Russian interference in the 2016 elections.'" Her idea of rebutting things was to cite a partisan figure's tweets that are, yes, filled with biased framing:
Former George W. Bush White House spokesman Ari Fleischer called out the Post’s Shane Harris for his framing and assertions:
“Flynn was unmasked and the info leaked,” he tweeted. “Hillary’s campaign funded a false dossier that the FBI used to justify a FISA warrant. Comey’s briefing to Trump about the dossier was leaked. But Barr is the problem?!”
Fleischer called out the unprecedented nature of questionable actions taken by Obama officials.
“The headline on the story should be ‘Obama officials exposed secrets, politicized intelligence with Russia probe,’” Fleischer tweeted. “The subtext here is that if Trump does something, it must be wrong. If Obama does something, it must be right.”
In fact, corrupt Trump official Michael Flynn was "unmasked" -- a revealing of the identity of the person communicating with a foreign entity who intelligence sources were monitoring -- because, according to then-national security adviser Susan Rice, she was trying to understand why the United Arab Emirates was trying to establish a back channel of communication to the incoming Trump administration without alerting U.S. officials of the effort. Despite right-wing insistence to the contrary, there's no evidence the unmasking was done for political purposes. There's no evidence Rice leaked Flynn's identity or that the Obama administration "politicized intelligence."
Of course, Fleischer doesn't explain why Flynn's secret communications with Russian and other officials should have been kept secret -- and Sheffield doesn't either.
Further, while some details of the Steele dossier of raw intellligence remain unproven or have apparently turned out to be false, its overall message -- that Russia worked to help Donald Trump win the 2016 presidential election -- is true and was arguably confirmed by the Mueller report. That's far from the "false dossier" claim Fleischer makes.
P.S. Someone at AIM should probably be alerted that the stock photo of the Washington Post building it used to illustrate Sheffield's post is wildly out of date; the Post sold the building and moved its offices elsewhere a few years ago, and the building has since been torn down and replaced.
MRC Loves Levin's New Book, Almost As If It Was Being Paid To Do So Topic: Media Research Center
Right-wing radio host Mark Levin has a new media-bashing book out, and the Media Research Center is there to lavish praise on it -- almost as if it was being paid to do so. (Levin and the MRC have had previous cross-promotion business deals, after all.)
That comes straight from the top, and Tim Graham and Brent Bozell gush in their May 22 column:
Best-selling author and talk-radio star Mark Levin has another terrific new book that debuted at number one on the charts. The media habitually ignore Levin's books -- no New York Times reviews, no TV interviews, nothing -- and it must drive them insane that he still sells 1 million copies. But this one's is called Unfreedom of the Press, and this one's a direct shot at them, so some may find it impossible to resist a response.
This is why the liberals don’t want to engage with Levin or his books. Most won’t seriously debate serious conservatives because as with issues like these, it's a lost cause. There are laws of nature, and this horse manure doesn't fly. They spent eight long years ignoring or dismissing the foibles of Obama while advancing anything he deemed necessary. When Obama aide Ben Rhodes boasted – in the New York Times! – that he had easily created an “echo chamber” in the press to promote their Iran arms deal, they didn't blink in surprise, or embarrassment. They winked.
When Obama was president, there was no resistance, no argument for “standing up to history’s judgment.” There was only teamwork. The team is still intact, now devoted to the proposition that this president ought never have been elected, and now must be removed.
Buy Unfreedom Of the Press. Just imagine what will be the look on Annalisa Quinn's face when she learns Levin has sold a million hardback copies again.
(Actually, we reviewed Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny" for the Huffington Post back in the day, uncovering several factual errors in the process, and Levin had no interest in engaging with us to respond.)
Bozell's MRC minions followed in lockstep. Under the headline "Watch Levin Take a Blowtorch to the ‘Thin-Skinned’ Liberal Media," Curtis Houck effused in a fit of meta-promotion:
Conservative talk radio host Mark Levin dedicated Sunday’s edition of Life, Liberty, & Levin to promoting his new book Unfreedom of the Press (set for release Tuesday) with Fox & Friends: Weekend co-host Pete Hegseth and, as expected, “the Great One” didn’t hold back, throwing the liberal media through a wood chipper and calling out their rampant Trump hatred.
Levin set the table within the first few minutes, providing yet another invaluable history lesson[.]
Throughout the interview, Levin highlighted example after example of how past Presidents in every century actually worked to undermine the First Amendment, illustrating how overblown the liberal media’s hyperventilation over President Trump are.
Graham returned for damage-control mode in a June 2 post when someone defied his prediction and did engage with Levin's book in a Washington Post op-ed. When that writer pointed out that right-wing activists "purport to analyze the leftward lean of the press with a scholarly veneer," Graham insisted that "We would put our own books at the Media Research Center into that "wake," analyzing liberal bias with a 'scholarly veneer.'" Aswe'vedocumented, the MRC's "media research" is very much just a veneer, more interested in manufacturing data that fits its right-wing, anti-media agenda than following the data where it leads.
But Graham being Graham -- that is, unable to keep from hurling personal insults at anyone who disagrees with him -- he huffed: "It's always funny when liberal professors lard their books with their analysis, and that is 'scholarly,' but conservative media research has a 'veneer,' like it's fraudulent." That's because conservative "media research" cares only more pushing a political agenda than "scholarly" things like balance and documentation.
When the writer accurately pointed out that the New York Times and the Washington Post are not "liberal equivalents of Fox News," Graham went on attack again: "That's hilarious. But it's the media equivalent of his 'I'm scholarly, you're fake.' It's almost not worth quoting, but Lerner uncorks the time-worn cliche that liberals are the open-minded cosmopolitans that make the best journalists."
Of course, the idea that the Times and the Post are farther to the left than Fox News is to the right is a foundational MRC belief, and Graham can't let it go unchallenged, even if can only offer juvenilie mockery in response.
UPDATE: Graham attacked another less-than-glowing review of Levin's book in a June 5 post. First, he played whataboutism by complaining that the reviewer liked a book critical of Trump by Michael Wolff, "the guy who claimed without evidence that Trump was having an affair with U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley." (Levin falsely claimed that President Obama directly intervened in a Israeli election in 2015, and we didn't hear Graham demanding a fact-check over that.)
Graham then inserted Twitter posts from Levin making the same attack against the reviewer. Great minds (are maybe paid to) think alike.
In their continued efforts to deceive the public, Muslim terrorist-sponsoring groups have engineered an Erebusic plan of subversion that has been successful in its early stages.
I submit that they are in the beginning stages of packing elected offices with Muslim women who are, by all appearance, Americanized. These women do not view themselves as Americans – they view themselves as Muslims. The best example of this is Ilhan Omar, D-MN.
This Omar person is the vilest form of myiasis infesting our government today. Her reasoning is singularly loyal to Islam. It was clear by her questioning of the Pentagon official that her concerns and loyalty laid exclusively with the well being of the Islamic terrorists.
We the people of America view her remarks as an insult to our brave military members who were responsible for rescuing her Somalia village.
She came to America under a cloud of falsified documents, the belief that she married her brother to gain citizenship and rumors that the incestuous marriage was not only consummated, but that she bore children from him. As I said, these things are alleged; but with her kind of Muslim, history proves rumors about them are often true. At the very least, the rumors should be thoroughly investigated.
I find it interesting that as she waxed poetically about her time spent in the Kenyan refugee camp, she omitted the rapes and brutality that took place in same. Perhaps it is because it was reminiscent of her village in Somalia. But I digress.
Since she has such cherished fondness for being in a refugee camp overrun with filth and terrorist-driven Muslims, why didn’t she return there when she became of age? Why did she stay in America, a country she so despises?
Massie concluded by sneering: "Maybe Omar would have been better off living in squalor as the personal possession of some goat herder with rotten teeth who took baths seasonally. I can say with confidence that America would be better off without her and her kind – specifically those being used by terrorist front groups to further the Muslims agenda.
Massie is stillpeddling conspiracy theories about another black politician he doesn't like, Barack Obama.
MRC Mad That Whoopi Goldberg's Veracity Not Treated The Same As Trump's Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center bigwig Tim Graham's current schtick is to "fact-check the fact-checkers" -- which mostlycomesdown to complaining that President Trump is being fact-checked at all. Graham whines again in a May 3 post:
Can you say "coup" nowadays? It was fun to recall this week that liberal TV news stars like Dan Rather described the impeachment trial of President Clinton that "this is in fact a kind of effort at a quote, ‘coup’?" Some liberals like Whoopi Goldberg on The View are using it right now for Bill Barr: "When the top law man in the country can't give you a straight answer, it makes me uncomfortable. It feels coup-y. Like, it's like a coup of some sort."
But when Donald Trump uses this rhetoric, PolitiFact ranks it as "Pants On Fire."
Yes, Graham is demanding that a talk-show host be held to the same factual standards as the president of the United States.
On May 23, Graham was similarly mad that Trump's overheated Biden-bashing rhetoric was called out:
The liberals at PolitiFact are so touchy about President Trump mocking Democrats that they slap a "Mostly False" on things that just make them angry. Take this statement: "Don't forget Biden deserted you. He's not from Pennsylvania. I guess he was born here, but he left you, folks."
PolitiFact admits Biden hasn't lived in Scranton since 1953...that's 66 years ago. But it's "false" because you can't "desert" a state when your family moves to another state when you're in grade school. So they're basing a "fact check" on not liking the word "deserted." Obviously, Biden could have returned to reside in Pennsylvania when he became an adult, but he never did.
Jacobson made a brief reference to the fact that Biden's longtime home state of Delaware has no television stations, so Biden needs to get on the air in Philadelphia. And it's easier to project "blue collar-aligned roots" by tying yourself to Scranton. It's also an obvious political move since Pennyslvania is a much bigger player in a presidential election. Mocking any of that as electioneering? Well, that's "Mostly False," according to Democrats who work as "fact checkers."
PolitiFact concluded: "The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate the statement Mostly False."
That's classic subjective Fact Checker-speak. They object to Republicans ignoring facts that would leave a positive "impression."
And Graham is invoking classic subjective anti-fact-checker speak because he's angry that Trump is being put into context -- something he selectively cares about.
Shocker: WND Attempts Balance On Vaccines Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has been giving a lot of space lately to anti-vaxxers even as a measles epidemic fueled by lack of vaccination is raging. But WND suddenly has a surprise: a May 20 column that takes an unusually balanced (for WND) view of the vaccine.
There's a second surprise: the person who wrote this relatively balanced take is Rachel Alexander, who we last saw trying to portray criminal ex-congressman Steve Stockman as the victim of a "Deep State" conspiracy.
Alexander admitted that "Vaccines prevent hundreds of thousands of cases of a deadly disease – but it’s true that they may come at the expense of a smaller number of side effects. The controversy arises over determining the degree and type of side effects caused by the vaccines." She alsodid something we've rarely seen at WND: point out that claims linking vaccines to autismhave been discredited, and that anti-vaxxers who refuse to vaccinate their children endanger the health of others:
One condition that has been blamed on vaccines is autism. A 1998 study in the prestigious British journal The Lancet linked the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine with autism. Investigations concluded the research was fraudulent 12 years later, and the lead author was stripped of his medical license. A legal review called the Omnibus Autism Proceeding found no causal relationship between the two. But partially as a result of the article, more than 5,000 cases were filed by 2010 claiming a link between vaccines and autism.
Charles Nelson, a professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and a neuroscientist at Boston Children’s Hospital, said progress is being made researching autism. Doctors are seeing signs of autism at three to six months of age, well before babies are vaccinated with the MMR vaccine at 1 year old.
Over 90 percent of kindergarteners in the U.S. are vaccinated for most types of immunizations. Some states have laws that allow exemptions. But if parents decide not to give their child the MMR vaccine, they risk not only infecting their child and their peers but also babies under 12 months and people with cancer or weakened immune systems.
Alexander wavered a bit at the end, claiming: "While it appears that the evidence weighs in favor of vaccines, it is best to be fully informed about the controversy before deciding either way." Still, for the anti-vaxxers at WND, it's a definite change of pace.
Lest you think that WND has taken our advice and examined its editorial policies, or that Alexander has suddenly become a reasonable columnist, you can rest easy: Alexander's column the following week was yet another defense of Stockman, insisting he was targeted by "corrupt, left-leaning prosecutors in the Department of Justice" and begging President Trump and Attorney General William Barr to "thoroughly clean out the DOJ from top to bottom."
AIM Stop Talking About The Mueller Report! Topic: Accuracy in Media
Accuracy in Media really, really wants to move on from the Mueller report, if an anonymously written May 30 post (credited only to "AIM Staff") is any indication:
With special counsel Robert Mueller holding a press conference Wednesday to discuss the infamous Mueller Report, expect to see the mainstream media obsessing over every single word Mueller said.
Expect lots of news stories that ignore the facts – especially that after almost two years of investigating, Mueller found no collusion on the part of the President – and instead misrepresented the facts in order to fit their own narrative.
Never mind that the Mueller Report makes it clear there was no collusion. Never mind that Mueller had almost two years to find something and found nothing. Never mind that the Department of Justice has determined this matter has been thoroughly investigated and is now considered closed.
The media will use this press conference as an excuse to write another series of articles calling into question the investigation – the same investigation they championed when they thought it would hurt President Donald Trump.
While the national media continues to obsess over Mueller, most are ignoring the real news of the day, including a new poll from Monmouth University showing that public support for tariffs and the trade war are waning.
Trump’s talk on trade helped him win some of those Midwest states in 2016 like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Gordon’s home state of Wisconsin. But with these new numbers coming out, the Trump campaign will likely be reconsidering whether that same message will work again in 2020.
So AIM wants us to stop focusing on one Trump mess (no, AIM, Mueller never said there was "no collusion," just that it didn't rise to a level of criminality -- even conservative Fox News anchor Bret Baier agrees) and focus on a new Trump mess? Got it.
Gay Cartoon Characters Send MRC Into Anti-Gay Freakout Mode Topic: Media Research Center
At the Media Research Center, the mere existence of non-heterosexual character in a children's cartoon makes it automatically unsafe for children to watch. Annie Piper explains in a April 29 post:
In this day and age, parents have to be extra cautious about what their kids watch as not all cartoons are actually kid appropriate. Fortunately, there are some innocent shows out there, but then there are shows that aren’t as innocent as they seem. One such show, She-Ra and the Princesses of Power, proved to fall in the latter category when the first part of their second season debuted on Netflix on April 26.
The series is a revival of a popular kids action show from 1985, and follows heroine Princess Adora (Aimee Carrero) AKA She-Ra. Upon first glance, the show is something most parents would be comfortable with their kids watching as long as they could handle the fantasy violence, but in its second season the TV-Y7 rated series starts to really push the gay agenda—without actually telling you it is.
And how is the show "pushing the gay agenda"? By acknowledging that one female character "has a crush" on another female character and that another character has two dads" (Piper sneered, "yes, that was plural"). Piper then lectured:
By now, we’re (unfortunately) used to most of the prime time adult shows having the requisite gay character and, more recently, even the gay child coming out has become popular on hit shows, but it seems like Hollywood isn’t content to stop there. They are now not only pushing this agenda on fictional kids, but actually pushing it to the children in their audiences, and it seems as though they’re hoping conservative parents don’t watch past the first couple of episodes. Moral of the story: if you don’t already, you might want to research your kid’s favorite shows a little more thoroughly.
Yes, acknowledging that gay people exist is an "agenda," according to the MRC.
The MRC similarly freaked out when a teacher on the long-running children's show "Arthur" married his gay spouse. Take it away, Gabriel Hays:
Some say that if a hero lives long enough, they’ll eventually see themselves become the villain. Well, that certainly can be said for PBS children's classic Arthur. The show, now in its 22nd season, has taken beloved character, Mr. Ratburn, and made him gay. In the season premiere, the 3rd grade teacher and male role model for Arthur and his gang said “I do” to a male anthropomorphic muskrat (or something) in a wedding ceremony attended by his students. As one character exclaimed, “It’s a brand new world.”
That's right -- if you're gay, you're a "villain," according to Hays. And Hays also apparently believes that the show arbitrarily "made [Mr. Ratburn] gay."
Hays goes on to complain that the show dragged out the wedding ceremony "like some sort of grand reveal that ultimately feels insidious rather than celebratory," then sneers: "Let’s just say that Arthur has officially overstayed its welcome."
When a public broadcasting affiliate in Alabama refused to air the "Arthur" episode, the MRC rushed to their defense. Matt Philbin huffed that "The lefty Twitter mob is predictably enraged" by the decision to not air "federally funded gay propaganda." And Kyle Drennen complained that one discussion of the show refused to "acknowledge the controversy of using a kids cartoon show to push a liberal social agenda" and that "journalists immediately attack anyone who objects and demand that they 'celebrate' the effort."
Yes, showing that gay people exist is apparently "propaganda" and an "agenda." And there's no explanation frm the MRC of why the existence of gay people must be suppressed from children.
WND's Cashill Sees Secret Message In Choice For Trump Rally Site Topic: WorldNetDaily
One of WorldNetDaily columnist Jack Cashill's favorite conspiracies is the one surrounding the crash of TWA Flight 800 in 1996. Despite the conclusion of an extensive investigation that the likely cause was a short circuit that caused a fuel tank to explode, Cashill has clung to the idea that it was shot down by a missile.
Cashill got to rehash that conspiracy theory yet again in his May 22 column, with the added hook of a new conspiracy theory: that the choice of location for a rally by President Trump sent a secret message to conspiacy-mongers like him:
On Monday, President Donald Trump held a rally in Montoursville, Pennsylvania.
Not many people have heard of Montoursville, a pleasant little town of fewer than 5,000 people. But those who have include the CIA analysts, FBI honchos and Clinton White House operatives who orchestrated the cover-up of the TWA 800 crash.
On July 17, 1996, the ill-fated 747 was shot down off the coast of Long Island, almost surely by accident, killing all 230 people on board.
Among the dead were 16 French-club students from Montoursville High School and five of their chaperones. I have been to Montoursville and spoken with people who lost their children. They are still waiting for answers.
Many people are waiting for answers, including the hundreds of TWA veterans with whom I have spoken, most recently at a heavily attended LAX event led by retired TWA Capt. Al Francis.
The TWA vets lost 53 of their colleagues on board that plane. If there is one among them who buys the government line that a rogue spark blew up the center fuel tank, I have not met him or her.
A question I have heard often, and I suspect Capt. Francis has too, is whether President Trump can or will reopen the investigation, there being no riper example of deep state treachery than the TWA 800 investigation.
I am not optimistic, but Monday’s rally gave me a glimmer of hope. In the special congressional election held the following day, Republican Fred Keller did not need the president’s help: he won by a greater than 2-to-1 margin.
Presuming that the election inspired the trip, the obvious site of the rally should have been the nearby and much larger Williamsport, the county seat and celebrated home of the Little League World Series.
Indeed, there are many towns in Pennsylvania’s 12th district larger than Montoursville. But the president chose Montoursville.
Cashill then served up a lengthy list of bullet points of "what Trump’s people need to know" about the crash of TWA 800. He rehashed that, plus another discredited claim: that Clinton Justice Department official Jamie Gorelick created the "wall" that kept law enforcement and intelligence agencies from sharing information, which became an issue after 9/11. As we documented at the time, when Gorelick later became a member of the commission looking into the 9/11 attacks, that "wall" was erected in the late 1970s, and the George W. Bush administration's Justice Department reaffirmed it shortly before 9/11, well after Gorelick left government service.
Cashill ominously concluded: "Those responsible for the cover-up had to sleep just a wee bit uneasily Monday night. They know what 'Montoursville' means. Here’s hoping the president does too." Meanwhile, Cashill -- who a few months ago lost his wingnut-welfare job at the Sentinel, a "news" operation run by a right-wing think tank in Kansas -- sleeps the sleep of the aggressively unashamed.
MRC Still Defending Right-Wing Hate-Mongerers As 'Non-Violent' Conservatives Topic: Media Research Center
We've documented how the Media Research Center has stood by hate-spewing anti-Muslim writer Laura Loomer by painting her as a free-speech hero as gets deplatformed for her hate -- it can't admit she's anything more than a "controversial Jewish activist." The MRC has continued to promote her stunts as newsworthy and downplay her hate and extremism.
A May 2 article by Alexander Hall complained that PayPal as "deplatformed non-violent conservative activists like Laura Loomer. A May 7 post by Hall promoted how Loomer, ihn protest of her banning by Facebook, "showed up to Facebook’s lobby on May 3, skewering the company for showing solidarity for everybody but Jewish and Christian people." Hall benignly described Loomer only as a "recently deplatformed activist," silent once again on her well-documented-elsewhere hate; instead, he huffed that "Facebook, like many other big tech companies, is famous for a left-wing political monoculture."
Hall used a May 14 post to give free publicity to a film about "five people who have been shut down and silenced on social media," including Loomer, whom he described only as a "Jewish-American activist/performance artist." Hall tried to whitewash other hatemongers featured in the film as well. Tommy Robinson is described only as a "British activist" when, in fact, he's the leader of the far-right anti-Muslim English Defence League; Gavin McInnes is described only as a "former CRTV host" when he's also the founder of the violent, misogynist Proud Boys (and, thus, a former employee of MRC buddy Mark Levin, though he was fired only after Levin's CRTV merged with Glenn Beck's The Blaze).
Hall didn't mention that one of the makers fo the film, George Llewelyn-John, is a colleague of Robinson's, and another, Caolyn Robertson, is Robinson's former cameraman and best known for a video rant following an incident in London in which six pedestrians were killed by a Muslim in a car, where Robertson asserted that "if you import a culture, you get a culture." In other words, this film is nowhere near as objective as Hall suggests it is.
A May 17 post by Corinne Weaver noted Loomer was only among the "individuals" banned by Facebook with no mention of why she was banned. On May 21, Hall had another benign description for Loomer -- "Jewish American activist" -- and complained that she and Infowars conspiracy theorist Paul Joseph Watson were among "controversial but ultimately non-violent YouTubers" who have been "purged."
Gabriel Hays contributed to the whitewashing in a May 23 post, complining that a vulgar song by a French rapper nobody's ever heard of remains on YouTube "while internet personalities like Laura Loomer and Paul Joseph Watson have been removed for 'far less violent content.'"
Hall again touted that dubious film in a May 24 post, and how it features "interviews multiple conservatives who have been targeted by Big Tech purges such as Laura Loomer and Tommy Robinson."
CNS Managing Editor Continues His LGBT-Bashing Ways Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com's continued hostility toward the LGBT community is led, asalways, by managing editor Michael W. Chapman.
In a May 7 article, he reports on Bud Light partnering with GLAAD in offering a rainbow aluminum bottle that, in Chapman's words, is "devoted to promoting and celebrating the agenda of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders." He then complains that "GLAAD has spent years trying to obscure the fact that in the United States HIV/AIDS is a disease that has largely affected the gay population" and illustrates his article with pictures of stock photos of outrageously dressed people in gay pride parades, as if they are representative of the entire LGBT community.
On May 14, Chapman highlighted how "Twitter recently locked the account of esteemed sexual psychologist Ray Blanchard, Ph.D.--apparently for posting that "transsexualism" and "gender dysphoria are types of mental disorder"--and then unlocked his account and apologized." Chapman then engaged in a rare bit of so-called reporting:
Following Dr. Blanchard's ordeal, CNSNews.com contacted Twitter's communications department by email and tweet on two occasions. CNSNews.com cited Dr. Blanchard's post and asked, "Given that Twitter states it 'made an error' in this case, is it permissible to post -- without having one's account locked -- on Twitter that, 'Transsexualism and milder forms of gender dysphoria are types of mental disorder'?"
Nicholas Pacilio with the Twitter press office responded on May 14, "We would decline to comment further beyond the May 11 and 12 communications [of Blanchard] you've cited. Thank you."
Twitter apparently is unwilling to state whether people can post the scientifically held view that transsexualism and gender dysphoria are types of "mental disorder."
This reminds us of the time that CNS obsessed over ex-FBI agent Peter Strzok's sex life to the point that it rewrote an article so it could pester the FBI about whether the agency had a policy against employees committing adultery.
On May 16, Chapman harrumphed: "Reverend Franklin Graham denounced a recent episode of the PBS cartoon 'Arthur,' which showed two male characters getting married and Arthur and other characters applauding this blatant promotion of male sodomy." Neither Chapman nor Graham explained where "male sodomy" was mentioned anywhere in the episode.
Chapman spent a May 22 article complaining that "the percentage of Americans who think same-sex marriage should be recognized by the law as valid, just like real marriage between a man and a woman, has more than doubled from 27% in 1996 to 63% in 2019. In addition, the percentage of Americans who believe gay relations are morally acceptable has increased from 40% in 2001 to 63% in 2019. In roughly two decades, Americans' support for homosexual behavior and so-called gay marriage has dramatically increased."
Chapman then huffed: "Sodomitical 'marriages"'were legalized by the Supreme Court in the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision," then misquoted the poll; it referenced "gay and lesbian relations"while Chapman insisted on calling it "sodomitical relations."
Chapman dedicated a May 30 article to the latest rantings of notoriously homophobic minister E.W. Jackson that "gay couples cannot be parents in the real sense because they do not procreate, by definition as homosexuals, and can only 'manufacture' children for 'their own entertainment' through scientific manipulations."
Chapman also came to the defense of Israel Folau, a soccer player who lost his job after he tweeted anti-gay sentiments, which Chapman spun as merely "expressing his Christian beliefs." Chapman cheered Folau's anti-gay rantings a year ago.
By contrast, Chapman seemed to have a sad in a scare quote-laden May 20 article that President Trump doesn't care that Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg "is gay and 'married' and that he appears on stage with his 'husband.'" Chapman also thinks we need to know that Buttigieg "met his 'husband,' Chasten Glezman Buttigieg, on the dating app Hinge."
The MRC Hate-Watches 'Supergirl' For Trans Character, Pro-Journalism Storyline Topic: Media Research Center
Lindsay Kornick has been stuck with the Media Research Center assignment of hate-watching the CW show "Supergirl." And as is her job, she found a lot to late.
At the top of that list is the fact that the show has a transgender character named Nia. We've already noted that Kornick ranted about it in February, insisting that "most children who go through gender dysphoria eventually outgrow it by the time they become adults." and that "transitioning Nia at a young age is probably the opposite of affirming her authentic self."
She wasn't done ranting, though. In an April 29 post, Kornick complained:
Let’s face it, CW’s Supergirl has always been preachy. But there’s preachy, and then there’s obnoxiously, sycophantically preachy. The superhero series flies towards the latter in yet another episode >proclaiming how being trans is being "strong" and "authentic" nowadays.
In the meantime, our transgender hero Nia Nal (Nicole Maines) has stepped up to protect the city as the superhero Dreamer - and, yes, that is what they’re calling her with a straight face. Despite not having the mantle for long, she’s apparently doing a decent job against crime. However, that doesn’t stop all of the xenophobic attacks. The super friends then decide to come up with another idea to combat hate.
Supergirl, using her alter ego as reporter Kara Danvers, gives a public interview with “Dreamer” to promote a positive image of human and alien unity. After all, Nia is the product of a human father and an alien mother as well as a trans woman. That last detail really has nothing to do with the alien crisis, but the show just can’t help but remind us in this pandering speech.
The other characters predictably hail her words as brave and inspiring instead of the preachy and cringey mess they really are. They act like we’ve never heard these words before in the media or even on th>The Children of Liberty then come to arrest Dreamer for “an illegal seditious broadcast,” only to be stopped by CatCo Media editor James Olsen (Mechad Brooks). In full social justice warrior fashion, he defends the broadcast saying, “All I see are journalists exercising their right to freedom of speech and doing their duty to uphold freedom of press.” Strangely, I doubt that these characters would say the same thing about people discussing how men cannot be women. Or how landing on Earth shouldn’t automatically make you an American citizen. Then it would probably be considered a hate crime.
Supergirl continues to be one of the more hypocritical shows on the air, but now it’s definitely one of the more obnoxious shows as well. If we never get another episode waxing about sharing "our authentic selves," it’ll be too soon.
Meanwhile, nobody's stopping Kornick from being as preachy as she wants to be. But that's the only reason she hate-watches "Supergirl": She's also mad that ity says nice things about journalism that deviate from the MRC's anti-media narrative.
Kornick huffed in a March 10 post that the show gave "unmitigated praise towards journalism," which is apparently forbidden at the MRC. She lectured: "It’s so annoying that Supergirl acts like its storyline and journalism are apparently single-handedly stopping bigotry. The only bigotry I see is assuming everyone on the opposite side are angry, hateful jerks. Maybe Supergirl isn’t above this, but most of America should be."
And in a May 19 post, Kornick whined that the show's season finale was "honoring the real heroes of the show: journalists." She complains that Lex Luthor "is literally winning because of fake news and a stupid public" and was stopped only because Supergirl's alter ego "writes an expose on Luthor, detailing evidence that he committed treason, along with the President, to orchestrate his heroism. The article is so successful it leads to the Cabinet invoking the 25th Amendment. It’s truly a liberal dream come true."
And since only liberals like journalists, gaying good things about journalists is clearly an evil liberal plot:
I’m honestly surprised anyone can brag how “the fourth estate saved the day” with a straight face anymore, but that’s how delusional this show has become over the last four years. It somehow imagines a world where noble journalists can take out evil presidents and single-handedly stop all political tension. In the meantime, it never seems to discuss journalists causing harmful tension or spreading fake news or genuinely not saving the day. Maybe that’s why they call it science “fiction.”
Kornick's link on "spreading fake news" was to a NewsBusters post about one of the Covington kids suing CNN even though CNN eventually corrected the story. It did not link to any MRC post that heavily promoted a false Fox News story during the 2016 election that Hillary Clinton faced imminent indictment. The MRC never corrected the record, let alone apologized.
As followers of Jesus, we are called to submit to the laws of the land and to honor those in authority. The New Testament is very clear on this (see especially Romans 13:1-7). It is also very clear that there are exceptions to this rule, namely, when the authorities require us to disobey the Lord (see Acts 5:40-42). In that case, with respect, we say, “We must obey God rather than man” (see Acts 4:18-20; 5:29; to be perfectly clear, I’m speaking of non-violent resistance to the law.)
That time has come for parents in California.
In good conscience, they must say NO to the school authorities and YES to the Lord. It’s time to declare to the schools of California, “Quit using our children as pawns in the culture wars! Quit sexualizing our kids!”
I’m speaking about the radical new sex-ed curriculum being imposed on all students in the public schools, K-12, without exception, and without the option of parents removing their children from objectionable classes.
We’re talking about kindergarteners – little children just 5-6 years-old – being indoctrinated with transgender talking points. Indeed, “a book for kindergarten through third grade teaches kids that they can be a boy, girl, neither, gender queer or gender fluid and that adults might not understand their gender identity.”
Parents, say NO to your impressionable little ones being exposed to trash like this. How dare the school bring such confusion to your precious children.
We’re talking about introducing boys as young as 9 to slang words for sexual organs. Yes, “A book for fourth, fifth and sixth-grade boys discusses slang words for genitals and explains masturbation and sexual fantasies.”
Parents, say NO to turning your little, pre-pubescent boys into sex-savvy, worldy-wise street-talkers.
We’re talking about promoting outright perversion to your high-school kids. To be specific, “A book for high school studentsintroduces sex acts for all sexual orientations and introduces the concepts of bondage, body fluid, blood play, fisting and other sexual behaviors once considered to be acts of debauchery.”
Parents, you must say that ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
Brown clearly thinks that the education about the LGBT community -- when they're permitted to be referred to at all in school -- must only be about demonization and immorality. Brown then hammers that point home:
Really now, who appointed the school system to be the moral conscience of your family? Who appointed teachers to enter your homes on behalf LGBT activists and sexual anarchists? How can you tolerate an invasion like this?
But, one way or another, I urge every Christian parent in California to refuse to allow your children to be polluted by an immoral educational system, whatever it takes. (Again, I am speaking here only of peaceful means, not violent means, God forbid.)
Apparently, we're supposed to be comforted that Brown's extreme rhetoric doesn't involve calling for violence against LGBT people.
Then, in his May 24 WND column, Brown complained that his hateful rhetoric was called out:
Last week, I encouraged Christian parents in California who had children in public schools to defy the law and pull their kids from the state’s extreme sex-ed curriculum. How did the Friendly Atheist’s resident Episcopalian blogger respond?
According to Sarahbeth Caplin, I want these parents to teach “their kids that transgender people don’t exist.” (Yes, she actually wrote this.)
In sum, “This is just faith-based, hate-fueled fear-mongering. It’s the only subject in which Michael Brown is an expert.”
What a sad commentary on the nature of liberal illogic. And what a misrepresentation of the facts.
My article says absolutely nothing about the existence or non-existence of people who identify as transgender.
Instead, it protests the idea that kindergarten children should be told that perhaps they’re actually boys in girls’ bodies (or the reverse, or some other option).
Brown doesn't admit that he has always hated transgender people, and mocks any non-denigrating discussion about them as "transanity."
The headline of Brown's column complains that liberals "misrepresent & demonize" him, but he has always misrepresented and demonized LGBT people.
CNS Eager To Highlight that Colo. Shooting Suspect Is Transgender -- But Censored Another Shooter's Christian Link Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com's "news" articles on the mass shooting at a synagogue in Poway, Calif., in early May, killing one, were all centered on President Trump:
Susan Jones gushed: "At a Sunday afternoon news conference, an emotional Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein thanked President Donald Trump for his words of "comfort and consolation" following the shooting on Saturday at a synagogue near San Diego."
Melanie Arter wrote up how Trump condemned the shooting at the National Prayer Breakfst -- and touted how Trump boasted that "he’s most proud of repealing the Johnson Amendment, a provision in the U.S. tax code that prohibits non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates," though it's completely irrelevant to the shooting.
Arter returned to push the divine-Donald narrative by highlighting Goldstein's claim at the National Prayer Breakfast that "the president was the first person to begin healing him following the shooting last week at the synagogue that claimed the life of one of his parishioners and injured three others."
None of these stories reference the shooter by name or his alleged motivation -- or that he wrote a manifesto spouting right-wing Christian theology alongside his anti-Semitism (which upset a writer at CNS' owner, the Media Research Center when a reporter pointed that out).
By contrast, CNS did only one article on a mid-May school shooting in Colorado, in which one died -- and that article focused on one of the alleged shooters because he was transgender. Jones wrote in great detail about that alleged shooter's gender identity:
The two suspects, 18-year-old Devon Erickson and 16-year-old Alec (née Maya Elizabeth) McKinney, have been in jail since they were arrested on May 7 inside the school they both attended.
Douglas County Sheriff Tony Spurlock told a news conference last week that when the suspects were taken into custody, officers believed they were both young men.
"It wasn't until we got to this office, where we were able to determine that one of the suspects was a female," Spurlock said. "You have to understand that this individual was a young person. This individual is a small, young person and the identity wasn't definitive, obviously -- obvious to us when they were taken into custody."
Press reports since the shooting have said that McKinney was transgender and transitioning from female to male, a situation the school would have had to accept under the prevailing nondiscrimination policy.
According to the Douglas County School District Code of Conduct for 2018-2019: "The Board of Education is committed to the policy that no otherwise qualified student shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any District program or activity on the basis of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, or ancestry. For purposes of this policy: 'Sexual orientation' means a person’s actual or perceived orientation toward heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgender status."
Clearly, Jones is trying to imply that the alleged shooter's trangender status played a role in motivating him -- which is of a piece with CNS' overallhatred of the LGBT community. Of course, she and the rest of CNS didn't want you to know the motivation of the Poway synagogue shooter even though he wrote a manifesto -- the idea that Christianity could inspire violence is an idea that must be suppressed.
MRC's Graham Mocks Complaints About WH Press Pass Purge Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's utter disdain for journalists and journalism is legendary. We see that again in a May 10 MRC post by Tim Graham mocking the Washington Post's Dana Milbank for being among the dozens of journalists whose permanent White House press passes were effectively revoked in favor of a system that requires renewals every six months. Graham began with the sneering headline "Democracy DIES in Darkness! WashPost's Dana Milbank Offered Lesser Press Pass!" and descended from there:
It might surprise you that Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank has a White House press pass. Six other Post correspondents have them. But since his was revoked.....DEMOCRACY DIES IN DARKNESS. He wrote about it in a column appropriately titled "The White House revoked my press pass. It’s not just me — it’s curtailing access for all journalists."
Milbank announces up front that he's a had a "hard pass" for 21 years. I can tell you this from my two years in the White House press corps. Milbank's almost never there for the briefing. That's why no one can remember him lobbing smirky self-satisfied questions at Sarah Sanders. But of course, he says "I strongly suspect it’s because I’m a Trump critic."
Insert laugh track. As if everyone else there (including the six Post reporters who still have passes) are wearing MAGA hats.
Of course, a White House press corps full of MAGA hat-wearing scribes engaged in dutiful stenography of Dear Leader -- you know, kindalike the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com -- is exactly what Graham would like to see.
Being a loyal Trumpist, Graham proclaimed that the White House restrictions for a permanent press pass -- being at the White House 90 of the previous 180 days, which most reporters can't fulfill even without factoring in that the Trump White House has effectively discontinued standard press briefings, giving reporters even less of a reason to be there -- to be "not an unreasonable place to start."
Graham is also giving too much credit to his "two years in the White House press corps" to ground his experience. First of all, that was nearly 20 years ago, when Graham briefly left the MRC to work for the religious publication World. Second, he didn't say if his time then met the new, restrictive standard.
Needless to say, if the Obama White House had done this, Graham would be screaming bloody murder about how Obama was restricting press access. But because it's the Trump White House, it's "not unreasonable."
AIM Writer Defends Trump's Tariffs As A Good Thing Topic: Accuracy in Media
Accuracy in Media's Brian McNicoll has shown himself to be little more than a Trumpshill, defending and promoting him at every opportunity. he did so again in a May 16 column, trying to defend President Trump's trade war with China as a good thing that has "benefits" for the U.S.
"It has become common practice among the mainstream media every time news erupts in the current tariff war with China to produce stories about the negative impact of the moves but ignore the positives," McNicoll wrote in a May 16 column about an Associated Press story pointing out that American soybean farmers are being hurt by Chinese tariffs launched in retaliation for U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods. McNicoll then wrote: "But are the tariffs really the problem in farm country? To some extent yes, which is why Trump is pushing for a cash bailout for some farmers." Then it was time for pro-Trump spin mode:
What [AP reporter David] Pitt or others rarely point out is what the U.S. gets from these trade negotiations. For one example, the U.S. just raised tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods. The Chinese retaliated with $60 billion in tariffs on US goods. We simply have much more to place tariffs on that they do.
But tariffs are not "trade negotiations," as McNicoll seems to think. And pretending that farmers won't be hurt by tariffs -- and if they are, that farm subsidies will make it all better -- isn't helping.