How Is CNS' Managing Editor Hating Gays Now? Topic: CNSNews.com
Michael W. Chapman, CNSNews.com's LGBT-hating managing editor, has kept up his agenda, with an extra emphasis on portraying them as filthy, disease-ridden degenerates.
As he has before, Chapman had a bit of a sad in the grim duty of reporting that President Trump doesn't hate gays as much as he does, noting in a June 7 article that Trump "applauded gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans in a recent tweet" and that 'his administration has launched an international campaign to "decriminalize homosexuality' worldwide." Chapman's response to that was spend six paragraphs of his article highlighting statistics that "Gay and bisexual men are the population most affected by HIV," including an entire paragraph on the hazards of anal sex.
Chapman did the same thing in a June 27 article highlighting a poll showing that "the percentage of non-gay Americans aged 18-34, who are considered allies of the LGBT community, fell from 63% in 2016 to 45% in 2018. He devoted the final three paragraphs to once again rehashing LGBT health risks, empahasizing that "anal sex is the highest-risk sexual behavior for HIV transmission."
Chapman went on to cheer a Catholic bishop for ordering his parishioners not to attend any Pride Month-related events, calling them "contrary to Church teachings on faith and morals," as well as another Catholic bishop who defended the other bishop by insisting that "that preaching the truth of the Gospel is not homophobic." Chapman added: "Unlike the unitive and generative nature of heterosexual coitus between a married man and woman, homosexual intercourse is non-unitive and non-generative."
Chapman also jumped aboard the MRC corporate bandwagon and denounced the Cartoon Network for failing to hate gays the way he does and for marking Pride Month. Chapman added another editorial comment: "June is celebrated as "Pride Month" in honor of the Stonewall riot in 1968, when gay partiers fought back against the police during a vice raid on the homosexual bar, the Stonewall Inn, which was then owned by the Mafia." Chapman didn't explain the relevance of pointing out who owned the bar.
And, for the heck of it, he touted one of his favorite anti-gay pastors, E.W. Jackson, denouncing "the fact that some U.S. embassies around the world are defying the order of the president to not fly the gay-rainbow flag next to or below the U.S. flag, an act in itself that is blasphemous, he said, and the equivalent of 'shaking your fist in God's face.'"
WND Columnist Tries To Puff Up Trump's Rally Crowd Numbers Topic: WorldNetDaily
Brent Smith gushed in his June 21 WorldNetDaily column:
Trump kicked off his reelection campaign with an oversized rally in Orlando, Florida, this past Tuesday. The Amway Center Arena, with a capacity of around 20,000, was filled to the rafters.
As various news agencies reported, people started lining up outside the facility up to 40 hours in advance. This type of loyalty is only reserved for major rock stars and once in a lifetime movie events. Certainly not for politicians, and most definitely not for second-termers.
But President Trump has been attracting these kinds of crowds for years now, and it appears his popularity has not waned.
Those thousands who line up for Trump rallies know exactly why they are there – camping out sometimes in the cold, snow or rain. It doesn’t seem to matter and never seems to dampen their spirits. And most times, double or triple the number of people show up than can be accommodated by the arena or other venue.
Except that's not quite true. As a real news outlet reported, while there were people camping in line outside the arena before Trump's event, the arena easily acommodated them, there were some empty seats in the arena when Trump started speaking, and an overflow area was virtually empty.
Smith then attempted a comparison:
Historically, the only way leftists can even hope to fill a venue of any size, or draw any crowds at all, is to pay them. Soros, Media Matters, public/private sector unions, etc., have all paid for crowds to gather. We’ve also seen where, if they’re not paid, sycophantic leftist virtue signalers are told via Twitter or Facebook to just show up at an event, where they are then given instructions as to what to do and say.
In response to this, leftists love to point to President Obama as a comparison who, back in 2008, packed every arena he booked. But that’s where the similarity between Trump and him ended. As Rush Limbaugh recently pointed out, in 2012 the leftist media had to go out of their way to prevent the television viewer from seeing what pathetic turnout there was during Obama’s reelection bid.
Smith offered no evidence that "Soros, Media Matters, public/private sector unions, etc." had ever paid for an audience? But you know who did? Donald Trump. His campaign paid actors $50 for three hours of work to act like enthusiastsic Trump supporters at his campaign announcement. And while Obama's 2012 campaign kickoff occurred at a less than full arena, by the end of the campaign he was drawing big crowds. He was also outdrawing Mitt Romney.
Fake News: MRC Falsely Portrays Reason For Anti-Abortion Group's Pinterest Ban Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Alexander Hall does PR duty for an anti-abortion group in a June 11 post:
Censorship of conservative and pro-life content isn’t limited to the main tech platforms. Even Pinterest, the online scrapbooking website, is banning conservative voices.
According to Live Action,Pinterest “permanently suspended” its account June 11 after a series of exposures about bias on the platform. In an undercover investigation by Project Veritas, an insider revealed how the site censors conservative content in general.
Project Veritas posted a video that featured an anonymous whistleblower explaining how the platform knowingly listed the pro-life website among a registry of porn websites blocked by the platform. Live Action, founded by activist Lila Rose, is the largest pro-life website, with more than 3.3 million followers.
In response to the story, Live Action President and founder Lila Rose wrote that, “Pinterest has targeted Live Action, I believe because our message is so effective at educating millions about the humanity of the preborn child and the injustice of abortion.” She later added “If Planned Parenthood can promote their message on Pinterest, then Live Action should be able to as well.”
Live Action offered no proof that its ban was based on anything Project Veritas supposedly exposed, and Hall apparently asked for none, since he's appparenlty going on nothing except what Live Action has claimed on its website. It appears there is no link between the two.
As an actual news operation reported, Live Action was banned not for conservative content but, rather, for using Pinterest to forward misinformation:
Pinterest decided that the organization violated its misinformation policies, the company told Motherboard in an email.
“We took action on LiveAction.org several months ago for violating our misinformation policy related to conspiracies and health,” the company said. “It was actioned and labeled for misinformation, specifically conspiracies and health misinformation.”
Pinterest did not elaborate on the specific posts that got Live Action banned, and wouldn't say the types of health misinformation that Live Action was posting. However, the group has previously shared posts claiming that abortion is linked to higher rates of breast cancer and depression on other social media platforms; there is no good science showing either claim is true.
As far as Live Action being labeled among porn websites, Hall ignored that Pinterest explained that the label was a quirk of the company’s internal content moderation tools due to such bans being originally directed at porn, and that the account was never labeled as pornography.
Hall should know better than to take anything issued by Project Veritas as face value. After all, even his boss, Brent Bozell, denounced the organization after one notoriously botched sting, yet it fell for another piece of disinformation from the group anyway.
Hall is doing neither his readers nor his employer any favors when he hides the truth in favor of serving as a stenographer for right-wing interests.
CNS Joins In MRC's Bashing of Taylor Swift For Expressing A Political Opinion Topic: CNSNews.com
Another branch of the Media Research Center has gotten in on bashing Taylor Swift for expressing political opinions. CNSNews.com published a June 6 column by Kelsey Bolar of the conservative Heritage Foundation's Daily Signal operation that berated Swift for speaking out in favor of the Equality Act -- the immediately leaped to a speculative talking point that anti-LGBT right-wingers have embraced: the specter of transgender athletes:
“Reports,” she added, “are that the majority of Americans across all parties favor these nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people (liberals at 81%, moderates at 76% and conservatives 55%.)”
It’s difficult to fact-check these statistics because the country singer-turned-pop-sensation didn’t cite her sources. But we do know the results from a more specific poll asking Americans how they feel about transgender individuals participating in sports.
According to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey, just 28 percent of American adults support letting biological males participate in girls’ sports—something that the Equality Act could allow to happen.
That’s a stark difference from the numbers Swift cited about the “majority of Americans across all parties” supporting undisclosed “nondiscrimination protections.”
In public policy, the devil is always in the details, and there’s always the risk of causing unintended consequences. It’s easy to say you oppose “discrimination” in the abstract until you realize what those protections will entail.
Bolar didn't mention that Rasmussen polls tend to have a right-leaning bias, making such results dubious at best.
Bolar sneered that "Swift’s misleading form of Instagram activism is nothing new" because "Hollywood elites have been virtue-signaling to us for years" -- as if Bolar herself isn't virtue-signaling from the right by raging against the eternal conservative bogeyman of "Hollywood elites" -- then lectured that her views on equality are incorrect because the rights of conservative Christians would purported be violated:
Taylor, if you support it so much, go on TV and debate it. Answer the tough questions about how the legislation would compel medical professionals to shut down foster care and adoption agencies, drug rehabilitation centers, and homeless centers. Talk to the foster kids who would never be placed with parents because their facilities would be forced to close.
Sit down and have a conversation with high school girls like Selina Soule, the 16-year-old track star from Connecticut, who lost the opportunity to compete in front of college recruiters because biological boys identifying as girls took her spot. Confront the uncomfortable fact that if this bill moves forward, middle-class families like hers could be robbed of scholarship opportunities that will go to biological boys instead.
Would that be equality or justice?
But Bolar admitted in the article she linked to that Soule finished in eighth place, meaning that even if the two transgender athletes had not competed in the race, she would have done no better than sixth. Do college recruiters really care about sixth-place athletes?
Bolar concluded by lecturing some more about how Swift can learn from her because, unlike Swift, she's in her 30s and now knows everything:
In my 20s, I learned that Instagram activism is the easy route—you’re not held accountable, and don’t really have to engage. The hard work begin with answering the difficult questions—the ones most other celebrities pretend don’t exist.
Luckily, Swift doesn’t turn 30 until Dec. 13. There’s still time for her to prove she’s not like the rest of them, and add this all-important life lesson to her list.
Hint to Bolar: You're not "answering the difficult questions" if you're staying in your right-wing bubble and automatically dismissing ideas that conflict with your worldview.
NewsBusters Blogger Attacks Time For Covering Story -- But Not Fox News Topic: NewsBusters
A June 11 NewsBusters post by Randy Hall is your usual Media Research Center bias blather:
The dinosaur publication Time magazine, which you may have forgotten still existed (or you only see at the dentist now), still pumps out liberal spin and reporting from a left-leaning perspective.
The latest example of that trend is an article published in the Sunday, June 9 edition that focused on a small hotel in Michigan offering pregnant women free stays and no-cost transportation from states that have “severe restrictions” on abortion.
Of course, the article depicted those on the other side as representative of violent haters ready to attack O’Brien.
Hall does acknowledge that the hotel owner has received violent threats, so the "violent haters" stuff is an accurate representation of her situation, whether he admits it or not.
The headline on Hall's item claimed that Time was "promot[ing]" the hotel's offer -- another example of the Depiction-Equals-Approval Fallacy, which falsely assumes that a given news outlet approves of the given news it's reporting on because it doesn't explicitly denounce it.
Curiously, Hall's post is illustrated with a screenshot of ... a Fox News report on the same story. Hall made no mention of the Fox News story in his item, let alone complain that Fox News was, like Time, "promoting" the hotel simply by reporting on its existence.
It's as if the MRC refuses to hold Fox News to the same journalistic standards it demands from media that aren't slavishly right-wing.
WND's Massie Doubles Down on Divine-Donald Narrative Topic: WorldNetDaily
The last time we checked in on WorldNetDaily columnist Mychal Massie, he was hopping aboard the divine-Donald bandwagon by declaring that "God has given us a window of reprieve through President Trump." Massie followed up in his June 17 column by doubling down, declaring that Trump's election represents a "season of Mercy for America" and that "judgment will quickly follow when President Trump leaves office":
I receive no joy in saying what should be obvious to every honest-reasoning American today, and I specifically reference those Americans who claim to be Christians.
I may have spent nearly all of my adult life in the political arena, but that does not negate my being a born-again Christian and ordained minister. I believe President Donald J. Trump’s tenure is a season of mercy for America. I believe his administration is a season for the people of America to repent and turn from their evil ways. It’s a season for the Christian Church to awaken out of its doldrums during which time it has embraced the attributes of wickedness.
Take a look around you, folks; only those who are driven by hatred refuse to say President Trump is doing a matchless job.
The ad hominem attacks directed at George W. Bush and family pale in comparison to those suffered by President Trump. But as a minister and student of the immutable word of God, i.e., the Holy Bible, I can tell you that while God often allows a season of mercy before judgment falls – judgment does fall if the people do not repent and turn from their wicked ways or if they fall back into evil after having turned from it for a period. Think of Nineveh and Jonah. Then think of Nahum.
I believe judgment will quickly follow when President Trump leaves office. That should concern people and especially the so-called Christian Church. No nation in the history of world has survived and enjoyed prosperity while practicing and promoting wickedness in the church and amongst political leaders.
Massie is presumably exempting his own wickedness from judgment , which includes hatred and lies about the Obamas and blacks who aren't as far-right as he is. He concluded with another portrayal of Trump the merciful:
I’m not asking you to believe what I’m saying. I’m telling you the end for the America we’ve enjoyed is closer than people realize and/or are willing to admit. Today God has given us a season of mercy to repent and turn the country back from wickedness; but every day has an end – a night, if you will.
And I personally believe the dusk of that night will come upon us when those of today who are calling evil good and good evil are able to finally elect one of their own.
It's good that Massie's not asking us to believe him, given his history of lies.
Media Bias: CNS Spins Away John Dean's Testimony Topic: CNSNews.com
For a "news" organization that's run by a "media research" group that rages against media bias, CNSNews.com sure publishes a lot of biased news. Its coverage of the John Dean's congressional testimony was another example.
CNS' framing was clear from the start, as Susan Jones' June 4 article on the announcement of Dean's testimony, portraying "the Democrat-led [sic] House Judiciary Committee" using Dean's testimony as an "attempt to move forward with impeachment." Jones also portrayed Dean as a serial complainer because "In March 2006, Dean also recommended the censure of President George W. Bush in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee."
As the testimony date neared, Jones served up more biased previews. She huffed in one article:
The hearing will feature long-ago White House Counsel John Dean, now a staunch anti-Trumper, who helped cover up crimes in the Richard Nixon administration, then became a key witness against Nixon.
John Dean has nothing to do with the case Democrats are trying to build against Trump, but he will serve as a publicity-generator for the pro-impeachment cause.
In the second, Jones went into pro-Trump spin mode, insisting that what Trump did is nothing like Watergate and treating a dubious Trump tweet as the indisuputable truth:
But one glaring area of difference between Nixon and Trump is that Nixon became aware, after the fact, of the Watergate burglary, the underlying crime that he tried to cover up.
The FBI opened its counterintelligence investigation into Donald Trump without a crime having been alleged.
As Trump repeatedly has tweeted: "NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION. Besides, how can you have Obstruction when not only was there No Collusion (by Trump), but the bad actions were done by the 'other' side? The greatest con-job in the history of American Politics!"
In fact, even conservative Fox News anchor Bret Baier has pointed out that "This was not, as the President says time and time again, no collusion, no obstruction. It was much more nuanced than that."
In CNS' only article regarding Dean's actual testimony, managing editor Michael W. Chapman stepped in to personally attack Dean and cite none of his actual testimony:
During Tuesday's House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Mueller Report, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) criticized witness John Dean, a disbarred lawyer and convicted felon, because he had "no knowledge of a single fact on the Mueller Report" and was only there, as a 1970's Watergate culprit, to function as a "prop" for the Democrats.
John Dean, 80, was the White House Counsel to President Richard Nixon from July 1970 to April 1973. Dean testified against his colleagues and was given a reduced sentence for obstruction of justice in the Watergate scandal. He was also disbarred as a lawyer. He has written several books about Watergate and abuses of executive power.
Rep. Gaetz said, “Here we sit today in this hearing, with the Ghost of Christmas Past [John Dean] because the chairman of the committee has gone to the Speaker of the House [Nancy Pelosi] and sought permission to open an impeachment inquiry. But she has said no, and so instead of opening an impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump … we’re here reopening the impeachment hearing inquiry potentially into Richard Nixon -- sort of playing out our own version of That '70s Show."
"What I really regret is you're here as a prop," said Gaetz to Dean. “You are functionally here as a prop because [the Democrats] can’t impeach President Trump because 70% of Democrats want something that 60% of Americans don’t.”
Chapman concluded by spinning the Mueller report, misleadingly claiming that it "concluded that no Americans and no one in the Trump 2016 campaign colluded with Russians to affect the election. In addition, the report found no evidence that President Trump had obstructed justice."
Jones served up her own follow-up, which framed Dean as among "anti-Trump partisans" who testified at the hearing. While Jones, unlike her boss, did devote a couple paragraphs to what Dean actually said, she gave much more space to Trump and pro-Trump Republicans attacking Dean.
MRC Has Another Anti-Gay Cartoon Freakout Topic: Media Research Center
Gay cartoon freakouts appear to be a trend at the Media Research Center. Jorge Plaza served up his contribution in a June 13 post:
Remember the days when you could plop your kid in front of the TV without worrying about lefty indoctrination? Well, those days are over. Yesterday, My Little Pony will premiere an episode featuring a lesbian couple on Saturday for Discovery Family. This is coupled with a tweet from the Cartoon Networkcelebrating Pride Month.
On the next episode of My Little Pony, the characters “Aunt Holiday” and “Auntie Lofty” will act as the parents of the school-age pony “Scootaloo.” The Aunt and Auntie pair were confirmed to be a lesbian couple on Twitter by the show’s writer and producer Michael Vogel. Vogel, who is gay, also tweeted that show writers Nicole Dubuc and Josh Haber are doing “what we can to bring more EQuality to EQuestria!! [sic] #PrideMonth”
A depiction of a pony as non-heterosexual is "lefty indoctrination"? That's apparently what that is in MRC world.
But Plaza wasn't done ranting about non-hetero cartoons, taking aim at the Cartoon Network and "Steven Universe":
The extremely popular Cartoon Network sells LGBT-themed merchandise on their website including a pillow case that depicts a cartoon lesbian wedding. The image is a reference to an episode from “Steven Universe” where the female characters Rose Quartz (a pansexual) and Pearl get married and perform a sensual “fusion.”
Steven Universe is one of Cartoon Network’s highest rated shows; it is currently entering its sixth season with a film to be released late this year. Most of the show’s characters are humanoid aliens that have the ability of “fusion” -- where two or more characters with a strong emotional connection combine their bodies to generate a more powerful form.
These fusions are often romantic, and the writers intentionally use them as a metaphor for sex in same-sex and/or polyamorous relationships. Premiered in 2013, the show’s first season revealed that one of the characters, Garnet, is the product of a romantic fusion between two other female characters, Ruby and Sapphire. In another episode, the middle-school aged characters Steven and Connie fuse to create “Stevonnie,” who identifies as gender queer and uses the pronouns “they/them.” The show’s creator Rebecca Sugar is bisexual and speaks openly about the show’s LGBT themes.
Plaza concluded by huffing: "With shows like Steven Universe, it’s no wonder that 59% of Generation Z (those born from the mid-90s to mid-2000s) believe that there are more than two genders with only two-thirds identifying as exclusively heterosexual. If parents are not vigilant, childhood gender dysphoria will only worsen as cartoons teach kids to explore their sexuality.
So Plaza thinks cartoons are making people gay? What's his stance on soy?
Irony: Anti-Vaxxers At WND Fret About Mumps Outbreak At Border Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily fretted in an anonymously written June 14 article: "Thousands of illegal aliens flooding across America’s southern border, part of what President Trump repeatedly has described as a national emergency, have been segregated now because they’ve been exposed to either mumps, chicken pox or both."
Yes, we are supposed to believe that WND -- which hasalengthyrecord of fearmongering people into not getting vaccinations for diseases like mumps and chicken pox -- is suddenly concerned about the spread of such diseases. Of course, as we saw when it falsely blamed Islam for a measles outbreak in a Somali immigrant community -- WND flip-flops on that policy when it can blame immigrants and migrants for disease outbreaks.
And that's exactly what WND is doing here, further ranting that "There also have been problems with measles and flu among the population of illegal migrants who have broken American laws to enter the nation, and now are being provided services at the expense of U.S. taxpayers."
Then, just as it did a few days earlier, it called up its favorite dubious doc to do even more fearmongering:
Meanwhile, a spokeswoman for Physicians for Civil Defense issued a statement that while public health officials “are preoccupied” with measles, there are hundreds of the newcomers arriving from the war-torn Democratic Republic of the Congo, “where thousands have Ebola.”
That potential impact is huge, since, “in the entire U.S., there are about half a dozen hospital beds equipped for safe treatment of Ebola victims,” the group said.
“We were very fortunate to escape a disastrous outbreak here during the epidemic in West Africa. There are two new vaccines that generate antibodies, but we don’t know how protective they would be – if you are one of the few who could get a dose.”
Further, HIV and drug-resistant tuberculosis both are prevalent in Africa.
The statement, from Jane Orient, M.D., said officials and news outlets all should be demanding to know whether entrants from Congo are screened for Ebola, and what precautions are being taken to protect workers.
“Double gloving? Masks and eye protection? Incineration of medical waste? How long are entrants quarantined? The incubation period can be longer than 21 days. What if there is a needle-stick injury? If a case of Ebola is suspected, what is being done to protect other migrants?” her statement continued.
We, of course, know Orient for her association with the far-right Association for American Physicians and Surgeons. Physicians for Civil Defense appears to be just Orient, and its website is just a blog.
But no matter which hat she's wearing, Orient is lying about the existence of an Ebola threat in the U.S. As we documented, any Africans arriving from the Democratic Republic of Congo likely left months ago, and as even she concedes, the Ebola incubation period is 21 days, meaning that any Ebola patient will be struck with the disease long before they arrive in the U.S.
MRC's Political Director Spouts The Company Line Topic: CNSNews.com
If the Media Research Center is supposed to be a 501(c)3 "research and education organization" that's not supposed to be very involved in politics, why does it have a political director?
Indeed it does, and Christian Robey is that man. And to show he's an MRC company man, he dabbled in the whole "media research" thing -- or, as it plays out that the MRC, kneejerk bashing of the "liberal media" -- in a June 11 CNSNews.com column. He begins by whining in classic MRC style we've heard a million times from his co-workers:
Ever since the Mueller Report was released on April 18th, and as America moves closer to the 2020 presidential election, our country is quickly wrenching itself apart along partisan lines. Disturbingly, the media are enthusiastically throwing gasoline on this rift.
Liberal journalists are not merely playing the role of partisan commentators. It’s bad enough that they are. Could it be as it appears, that some reporters may have actually colluded with entities at various government agencies throughout the ongoing Russia collusion saga?
Indeed the media may be the “enemy of the people.”
He continued by offering up a dubious defense of President Trump:
A State of the Union on CNN with Jake Tapper, where Tapper asked Kellyanne Conway whether President Trump's response to Charlottesville was, as he has said, “perfect.”
Conway forcefully made the case that the President's “very fine people on both sides” comment was clearly in reference to people peacefully opposing the removal of Confederate statues, not to the neo-Nazis. After several back and forths with Conway, Tapper simply wouldn’t drop his criticism of it not being “perfect.” Conway eventually shot back, “It looks like you, and others, looking at 2020, are worried that this guy can't be beaten fairly and squarely.” Obviously, Tapper was employing the racism dog whistle and Kelly Anne was not having any of it.
The problem with such an exchange is not the actual conversation, but the implication. Tapper’s comments were insidious accusations of racism speaking on behalf of the left. By harkening back to Charlottesville, Tapper was drudging up old accusations that the president and his “basket of deplorables” are the worst type of people this nation has to offer – neo-Nazis and racists.
But as an actual news outlet has documented, the Charlottesville rally was organized by a white nationalist and featured neo-Nazis and white supremacists, meaning that even if some people were defending Confederate statues, "this rally was clearly not one for your average supporter of Confederate monuments."
Robey also overgeneralizes by suggesting that the media is painting all Trump supporters as "deplorables." But even Hillary Clinton, in the speech transcript Robey attached to his article, described only half of Trump supporters as "deplorables ... racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it" whom Trump's campaign "has lifted up."
Robey concluded by repeating the bogus generalization: "When the media regard nearly half the American people with such disdain, and report the news accordingly – and during an already divided time in our history – the end result may well be a house divided against itself, which cannot stand. If and when it all comes down, the media will have played a pivotal role in bringing our American house down." Robey woin't tell you that he and the MRC have the exact same view from the opposite side: They dismiss and despise the half of America they deem non-conservative as "socialists" and "elites" -- and treat them accordingly.
Is that not just as divisive as what Robey claims the media is doing? Will that also "bring our American house down"? Sure -- just don't expect Robey to admit it. He's a company man, after all.
AIM Cherry-Picks To Pretend Trump Isn't A Liar Topic: Accuracy in Media
Accuracy in Media's Brian McNicoll is enough of a Trumpophile that he labors to find loopholes to prove that President Trump doesn't lie. He does this again in a June 19 piece claiming that the Washington Post "featured some of the claims of Trump lies that were among the 1,400 claims of 'false and misleading statements' that were debunked in Accuracy in Media’s 10,000 Lies in 10 Days series."
McNicoll runs into an immediate veracity problem, in that there really is no such thing as a "10,000 Lies in 10 Days series" at AIM, at least that we could find in the form McNicoll claims it exists. There areafewarticles in which McNicoll attacks the Post for tracking Trump's falsehoods, but only one of those appears after the Post reached the 10,000-falsehood milestone, and McNicoll doesn't link to any of them. Also, the Post doesn't call them "lies" -- which claims intent to lie on the part of Trump that the Post can't prove in many cases -- sticking instead to "false and misleading statements."
McNicoll's defense of Trump is rather lame. For instance:
The Post took issue with Trump’s claim that his tax cuts and reforms were the largest in American history.
“This is a Bottomless Pinocchio claim, our worst rating,” [Post reporter Salvador] Rizzo wrote. “Trump’s tax cut amounted to nearly 0.9 percent of gross domestic product, meaning it was far smaller than President Ronald Reagan’s tax cut in 1981, which was 2.89 percent of GDP. Trump’s tax cut is the eighth-largest on record – smaller eve, than two tax cuts passed under Obama.”
But as pointed out in “10,000 Lies in 10 Days,” Trump’s tax cuts were the largest in whole dollars in U.S. history, and whole dollars is a credible metric.
Well, not really. Whole, or current, dollars are always higher than dollars in the past, and adjusting for inflation is the only way to make a credible comparison between past and present monetary claims.
McNicoll did even more pro-Trump spinning:
It also claims Trump was lying when he said, “In the eight years before I took office, on average we lost 2,000 manufacturing jobs a month. Since my inauguration, we’ve added 16,000 manufacturing jobs a month. That didn’t happen by accident.”
Rizzo’s response was that Trump was lying because he chose January 2009 – the month President Obama took office – as his baseline, and that at this point, the U.S. was “smack-dab in the middle of the longest U.S. recession since World War II.”
Rizzo says manufacturing employment began a “slow but steady recovery in April 2010, during Obama’s second year in office. That steady rate of growth has continued and accelerated under Trump.”
This is false. In June 2016, President Obama gave a speech in which he accused Trump of having a “magic wand” because manufacturing jobs “are just not going to come back.” The U.S. had lost 31,000 manufacturing jobs from January 2016 till June of that year, and manufacturing jobs grew by 96,000 over the last 26 months of his presidency.
But the first 26 months under Trump brought 479,000 more manufacturing jobs – 399 percent more than Obama’s record.
Butr McNicoll is cherry-picking numbers just like Trump did. Manufacturing jobs under Obama did, in fact, grow at an overall steady pace from their lowest recession-driven number in March 2010, and over 900,000 manufacturing jobs were created from that point until January 2017, when Obama left office. McNicoll is not about to give any credit to Obama for that.
MRC Sports Blogger Sneers At Idea of Equity for Women's Soccer Topic: Media Research Center
Mysterious Media Research Center sports blogger is at it again, devoting a June 9 post to attacking the U.S. women's soccer team and player Megan Rapinoe in particular for filing a lawsuit against US Soccer for gender discrimination.
Maxson sneered that Rapinoe "earns a six-figure salary as a pro soccer player" but didn't his/her readers that the men's soccer players make much more -- the women make 38 percent of what the men do despite being much less successful in international play. Maxson sneered further: "Rapinoe also complained that men's soccer has the gall to schedule two tournaments while the women's World Cup is ongoing. Apparently, equality requires the men's game to come to a complete standstill during the women's World Cup."
In keeping with his/her gay-bashing ways, Maxson was similarly outraged that "four team members are pushing for radical cultural change" by co-founding a company to make gender-neutral clothing in inclusive sizing, to which Maxson huffed: "Non-binary ways inclusive, that is."
Maxson went on to grumble that "this team is heavily dominated by an LGBT influence. Ellis is married to a woman. The face of the national team in recent years has been lesbians Megan Rapinoe and Abby Wambach. The team has rainbow-themed uniform numbers, and a Christian hopeful of playing with the team last year, Jaelene Hinkle, was considered an undesired 'heretic' to hostile media and fans."
As we've noted, Hinkle declined a call-up to the team in 2017 because she was so bigoted that she refused to wear the rainbow-themed jersey. Sounds like Maxson's kind of people -- though he/she ignores several team players who consider themselves Christian and, unlike Hinkle, are not afraid to associate with people slightly different from them.
WND Helps Its Dubious Doc Play The Bogus Ebola Card on Border Crossings Topic: WorldNetDaily
Dubious WorldNetDaily doc Jane Orient of the far-right Association of American Physicans and Surgeons plays both sides of the fearmongering fence -- not only does she fearmonger about vaccines, she fearmongers about the diseases allegedly being brought into the country by unvaccinated people (which could largely be eradicated by, you know, the vaccines she opposes). She does the latter in a June 10 WND article by Bob Unruh:
Border Patrol agents are accustomed to dealing with illegal aliens trying to enter the U.S. And to handling drug dealers, or at least those who haul contraband into the U.S. There even are occasional shootings at the agency’s facilities.
But there’s probably nothing to trigger a surge in adrenaline for one of those federal workers as realizing that the person you just encountered may be infected with tuberculosis, or measles, or chicken pox.
It’s an issue that needs a lot more attention than it is getting, according to an expert, the executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Dr. Jane Orient.
She told WND Monday that things that immigration officers need to know about those coming into the country are whether they have communicable diseases, where they’ve been and who they’ve encountered, where they’re going and who will they encounter, and if they are getting – or should be getting – had medical treatment for various exposures.
“All of these things we really don’t know,” she said. “Deliberately.”
Orient was concerned.
“The problem is bringing in people who may have a disease you don’t know about. You don’t know where they’ve been, or where they’re going, who they’ve been in contact with,” she said.
Sometimes people are contagious with a communicable disease without showing symptoms, and can transmit a virus.
That, she warned, “can be fatal.”
She cited the Ebola cases found in the United States only a few years ago. Then, one patient just showed up at a Dallas hospital.
In fact, there is no outbreak of Ebola at the southern border -- it's basically impossible since Ebola has an incubation period of 21 days and Africans who turn up on the border have typically been in transit for months before they get there. Further, the case of Ebola involved a man who entered the U.S. legally from Liberia but failed to tell officials of his contact with an Ebola victim before his flight to the U.S.
Unruh also let Orient claim without evidence that "most immigrants may have" latent tuberculosis, failing to mention that Orient, as the managinging editor of the AAPS' Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, published a 2005 article that falsely claimed cases of leprosy in the U.S. have exploded because of immigration. Orient and the AAPS have yet to issue a correction.
Unruh didn't help his credibility by citing a second, even more dubious source: "Kalen McBreen reported at Infowars that 'hundreds' of newcomers today have come from an area in the Congo in Africa to San Antonio, and hundreds more are en route." It tells you someting about the state of journalism at WND that it considers Infowars a credible source.
Needless to say, neither Unruh nor Orient made any mention of vaccines that might help curb any actual disease outbreak they could blame on filthy immigrants.
MRC's Graham Mad That Conservative Put Logic Before Politics Topic: Media Research Center
Tim Graham is the Media Research Center's designated hate-listener to National Public Radio, and his NPR-related posts are largely dedicated to ranting that David Brooks, who appears on a fair-and-balanced weekly panel discussion, isn't ranty and shouty and kneejerk pro-Trump and far-right like Sean Hannity. In a May 26 post, Graham gave National Review's Ranesh Ponnuru -- subbing for Brooks on the weekly panel -- the same treatment, accusing him of the crime of being reasonable and logical:
National Public Radio has rotated some other pundits to sit in the "conservative" chair of David Brooks on their Week in Politics review on All Things Considered on Friday nights, often leading to a better, stronger representation of the conservative viewpoint. Sadly, on Friday, Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review was very Brooks-ish, throwing scorn on the declassification of intelligence that might explain the Russian collusion narrative. It's like he doesn't read Andrew McCarthy at NRO, who argues "Russiagate has always been a political narrative masquerading as a federal investigation."
It tells you a lot about Graham's right-wing worldview that he thinks conspiracy-monger McCarthy is the reasonable one.
Graham went on to grouse that Ponnuru "actually underlined that the Attorney General has lost any credibility to be seen as neutral. He said nothing about whether the FBI was neutral in 2016, or whether the media has ever been neutral on this." He further huffed:
No one expects a conservative pundit to agree with the administration on everything. But it would be nice to at least push back against the liberal narrative on taxpayer-funded broadcasting, that there is "no evidence" of wrongdoing in the Russian "collusion" shenanigans, and to note the fascinating take that the Left and the media suddenly oppose more transparency and declassification.
For representing the side of National Review, Ponnuru deserves a "high degree of skepticism on substance."
But Graham is very much expecting -- nay, demanding -- that Ponnuru be an unblinkingly defender of all things Trump, because Trump equals conservativism equals Republicanism, and no one is allowed to deviate from the path.
After Ponnuru responded to Graham at the National Review website by pointing out that Graham didn't actually respond to any point he made on NPR, Graham just had to sneer in response:
Let's start with this: Ponnuru is bringing more passion to attacking me than he did in offering any critique of liberals on NPR. This was the point.
Ponnuri is a whip-smart analyst. He shouldn't pretend he doesn't understand what I was saying, or what "going full David Brooks" means. Let's spell it out: Ponnuru, in tone and content, couldn't be distinguished from the liberal pundit, or the liberal NPR anchor. They all sounded the same.
No article would have been written if he had told the NPR anchor "the Russia-collusion story is over" or anything contentious. Why couldn't he call a liberal less than lucid on NPR? Is he afraid of not being invited back?
The inclusion of the word "collusion" was in reference to Hillary's campaign colluding with Russians on the Christopher Steele dossier, which was used to begin surveillance on Carter Page. [Sabrina] Siddiqui insisted there was "no evidence" of improper monkey business there. Ponnuru offered no rebuttal.
No, Tim, the Clinton campaign was not "colluding with Russians"; it paid Fusion GPS, who in turn paid Christopher Steele for opposition research, who uncovered the Trump-Russia links. All of which is legal.
Graham seems not to have considered that Ponnuru offered "no rebuttal" to Siddiqui is because there really is no "monkey business." To claim otherwise is to demand that Ponnuru promote a conspiratorial right-wing narrative, no matter how loony or bogus it is.
In short, Graham seems to be mad at Ponnuru because he has integrity in putting logic and facts ahead of a dubious political narrative.
Again? WND -- Which Loved To Diagnose Obama As Mentally Ill -- Complains When Others The Same to Trump Topic: WorldNetDaily
An anonymously written June 16 WorldNetDaily article complains:
Psychiatrist Bandy Lee, a Yale faculty member who repeatedly and unashamedly has announced a psychiatric diagnosis for President Donald Trump even though she’s never met him, and who previously has condemned him as unstable, dangerous and in need of being locked up, is at it again.
This time the member of the Yale department of psychiatry gave an interview to a writer expressing blatantly anti-Trump comments at Salon.
Chauncey DeVega sets up his Salon article by asserting that the report from FBI special counsel Robert Mueller presented to the nation a set of “damning” facts: “Donald Trump obstructed justice. Trump and his inner circle both publicly and privately sought to collude with Russian agents to influence the 2016 presidential election.”
From there, Lee explained how she convened a panel to evaluate Trump “based upon his behavior as detailed in the 448-page Mueller report.”
Wrote DeVega, “Their definitive conclusion: Trump is mentally unfit, a threat to the United States and the world, and as such should have his powers severely restricted while he is put under a doctor’s care.”
She’s not alone among psychologists who, never having examined Trump, have openly violated their own “Goldwater Rule” and labeled the president with frightening diagnoses ranging from “psychotic,” “narcissistic,” “paranoid,” “hypomanic,” “emotionally unstable” and “delusional” to “psychologically isolated.”
As we documented the last time WND issued a similar complaint, its own writers had no reticence about making armchair diagnoses about President Obama, including but not limited to ,"pathological narcissist" and "psychopath," not to mention engaged in "the date-rape of America." And WND continues to sell a book by psychiatrist Lyle Rossiter that makes a blanket armchair diagnosis of all liberals as mentally ill.
This is just another example of WND's projection in complaining that people are doing to Trump what it did to Obama.