The MRC's Idea Of A 'Legitimate Journalist' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Scott Whitlock wrote in a Sept. 26 post (bolding in original):
Joe Biden took another slap at the press on Wednesday night, falsely stating that “no legitimate journalist” gives any credibility to claims that, as vice president, he improperly intervened on behalf of son Hunter Biden. After Jimmy Kimmel Live host Jimmy Kimmel wondered about the “gossip element” of the Ukraine story, Biden responded with an unprompted attack on unnamed reporters: “Look, you know, when you step back from it, this is not about me and my family. There's not one single solitary legitimate journalist in the world given any credibility to this.”
He added, “They've debunked all of what he had to say for the past — since Giuliani started this a while ago.” Of course, Kimmel let this go and didn’t challenge the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate.
In fact, award-winning investigative journalist John Solomon has written about Biden’s efforts on behalf of his son. Writing in The Hill, Solomon explained:
As I have reported, the pressure began at least as early as January 2016, when the Obama White House unexpectedly invited Ukraine’s top prosecutors to Washington to discuss fighting corruption in the country.
The meeting, promised as training, turned out to be more of a pretext for the Obama administration to pressure Ukraine’s prosecutors to drop an investigation into the Burisma Holdings gas company that employed Hunter Biden and to look for new evidence in a then-dormant criminal case against eventual Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, a GOP lobbyist.
In a separate story from April, Solomon detailed:
At the time, Burisma [Holdings] allegedly was paying then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter as both a board member and a consultant. More than $3 million flowed from Ukraine to an American firm tied to Hunter Biden in 2014-15, bank records show.
According to [political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington Andrii] Telizhenko, U.S. officials told the Ukrainians they would prefer that Kiev drop the Burisma probe and allow the FBI to take it over.The Ukrainians did not agree. But then Joe Biden pressured Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to fire Ukraine’s chief prosecutor in March 2016.
Of course, Kimmel didn’t mention any of this or challenge Biden’s attacks on the press.
And, of course, Whitlock didn't mention that John Solomon isn't exactly a "legitimate journalist." He's a right-wing shill who's working for the benefit of Trump, and his Ukraine narrative is factually flawed -- fake news, one might say. In fact, Solomon worked with Trump atorney Rudy Giuliani -- who leaked to Solomon a dossier regarding his dirty-tricks work in Ukraine -- to publicize this story (factual flaws and all) with the goal of hurting Biden presidential campaign and boost Trump's re-election. Solomon's shoddy reporting has paid off in a sweet new contributor spot at Fox News.
But Whitlock and thte MRC aren't interested in looking into Solomon's veracity -- at least, as long as he tells them what they want to hear.
CNS Plays Up 'Eat The Babies' Rant At AOC Town Hall, Censors Fact That It Was A LaRouche Stunt Topic: CNSNews.com
Patrick Goodenough dutifully wrote in an Oct. 4 CNSNews.com article:
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) faced awkward moments during a town hall meeting on Thursday evening, when a woman stood up and said it was time to “start eating babies” to save the planet from imminent climate-induced doom.
The incident in Corona, New York sparked some heated posts on Twitter later, with President Trump, Donald Trump Jr., 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders, and Ocasio-Cortez herself among those weighing in.
“We’re not going to be here for much long [sic] because of the climate crisis,” the woman began, after standing up uninvited and being handed a microphone.
“We only have a few months left!” she declared. “I love that you support the Green [New] Deal but it’s not ge – getting rid of fossil fuel is not going to solve the problem fast enough.”
The woman, who spoke with a northern European accent and appeared to be deadly earnest, then referred to recent news reports about a Swedish professor having said “we can eat dead people.”
Goodenough went on to tout how President Trump and Donald Trump Jr. referenced the incident to attack Ocasio-Cortez, then highlighted an article abourt "a phenomenon called 'eco-anxiety,' which the writer described as 'a fairly recent psychological disorder afflicting an increasing number of individuals who worry about the environmental crisis.'"
Buty, strangely, Goodenough didn't update his article to report the pertinent the fact that this was a stunt perpetrated by a supporter of Lyndon LaRouche, whose extremist followers once purported to be Democrats but are now supporters of President Trump. No other CNS article followed up the story with this important information.
Tim Graham's Double Standard on Softball Interviews Topic: Media Research Center
In a Sept. 26 post, the Media Research Center's Tim Graham ranted about Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy's "day of softballs," in a series of TV interviews, claiming that the interviewers "often come across as stenographers -- extremely accomodating, and not at all challenging." three days later, Graham was promoting a softball interview his favorite TV channel conducted with his favorite right-wing radio host. Graham began his Sept. 29 post this way:
Fox & Friends invited author and national talk-show host Mark Levin on Sunday to discuss the budding effort by House Democrats to impeach President Trump. Levin ripped the media repeatedly, and protested the idea that the Democrats are going to try and remove the president from office by using an anonymous "whistleblower" who didn't even have first-hand access to the events that are allegedly impeachable.
Graham somehow didn't mention that Levin also has a show on Fox News, which means this was never going to be a contentious interview -- it would serve as a platform for Levin to push his anti-media narrative at a friendly venue.
"Fox & Friends" co-host Ed Henry even gamely allowed himself to be a (mild) punching bag for the good of advancing Levin's narrative -- which, of course, is not the way Graham presented it, stating only that "Levin told Ed Henry, 'You know, Ed, I've been watching you and a lot of reporters, and you haven't once asked for the identity of the so-called whistleblower. Why is that?'" Grahamcontinued to portray Henry as a non-conservative (and this, suspect) interviewer: "Henry pressed on Levin with the usual morally intimidating question: 'Are you okay with a president asking his counterpart -- this is a simple yes or no -- to dig up dirt on former vice president Joe Biden and his son?' Many reporters using this line of questioning find nothing unseemly about President Obama and his government trying to spy on the Trump campaign in 2016. They don't talk about it."
But "President Obama and his government" did not spy on Trump's campaign -- it was gathering information on Trump campaign officials who had contacts with Russian operatives.
Graham didn't note that Levin didn't bother to answer Henry's question, instead uncritically quoting Levin changing the subject by saying that Trump "wouldn't have to reaise the issue" of the Bidens if the media "would do your damn job."
So irt appears Graham loves softball interviews after all -- when his ideological buddies are on the receiving end, anyway.
WND Columnist: Trump Deserves A Nobel Prize! Topic: WorldNetDaily
Simply by pulling U.S. forces out of Syria, the work to end the North Korean crisis and the efforts to end the Kashmir crisis, President Donald Trump is a far more worthy Nobel Peace Prize winner than Barack Obama ever was. He received the Nobel in the midst of escalating the war in Afghanistan, days after taking office. It was a scandal and a strong signal that the Norwegian Nobel Committee is politically rigged. Obama had done nothing to fulfill the Alfred Nobel requirements for the Prize.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has become notorious for almost solely giving the prize to the liberal U.S. media favorites, disregarding the will of Alfred Nobel.
I assert that Donald Trump is by far the most worthy candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize 2019. President Trump was a notable peacemaker in the North Korea crisis, which implied nuclear threats, and succeeded in averting an escalation; his repeated effort to halt the Syria war and now pullout has led to avoiding an all-out world war. His work to end the relentless neocon aggression on Russia is highly admirable as we now are all post Russia-gate, which turned out to be a hoax. Or an attempted coup, as director Chris Farrell of Judicial Watch asserted in a "Herland Report" TV show.
But will Trump get the prize in the current climate where the Norwegian Committee, with leaders that hardly speak English, with members lacking broad international experience, stuck in their ignorant Oslo bubble where the only respected view to have is the progressive, extreme leftist one? I say this as a Norwegian with long experience in participating in its media: The Norwegian press is completely and utterly submerged in outdated left-wing propaganda to a degree that reminds us more of the Soviet Union than anything else. They are so controlled and blind to reality that they don't even understand it themselves.
Totally sold to the narrative of the owners of CNN and New York Times, the Committee has the past years reduced itself to no more than an extended wing of the endless war-wishing, American neocon movement. It is a shocking scandal. The Prize goes to 15-year-olds from Bangladesh or the forests of Congo rather than to world leaders who have averted world wars.
NEW ARTICLE: The Epstein Deflections Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center first tried to make political hay over convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein's links to Bill Clinton -- then got mad that the media pointed out he was also linked to Donald Trump (not to mention the MRC's favorite "liberal," Alan Dershowitz). Read more >>
CNS' Allen West Misrepresents Facts of Kate Steinle Death To Bash Illegal Immigrants Topic: CNSNews.com
Allen West ranted in a Sept. 3 CNSNews.com column about the Kate Steinle case:
No one unwittingly picks up a gun and fires the gun accidently at another person. In the military we dealt with instances of “accidental discharges” of a weapon, but normally these occurred when someone was doing a functions check on their weapon or clearing it and not following proper procedures. And if you are a five-time deported illegal immigrant, one would think the last thing you would want to do is pick up and discharge a weapon in public.
The sad and tragic reality is that even an alleged criminal illegal immigrant is more important in California than the life of an innocent young American woman, Kate Steinle. And ponder this: all the talk from the progressive, socialist left about gun control when an incident suits their narrative. However, I spoke in California about the Second Amendment at Orange County College, and there were students who had never heard of Kate Steinle!
Why were there no national conversations and outrage about this tragic death of Kate Steinle? How could it be that an alleged criminal illegal immigrant was in possession of a firearm, firing it in a public space? And yes, I do find it rather perplexing that in a public space, there was a firearm just laying there wrapped in a t-shirt. After all, aren’t the gun control laws in California quite stringent?
West is misrepresenting the facts of the case. The defense the "criminal illegal immigrant," Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, used in his trial over the death of Steinle was that he found the gun -- which had been stolen a few days earlier from a federal Bureau of Land Management ranger -- on the pier and that the gun accidentally went off when he picked it up. He was acquitted of murder and involuntary manslaughter in Steinle's death after prosecutors failed to convince juror's that Garcia Zarate's acts were premeditated. A few days before West's column appeared, a California appeals court reversed Garcia Zarate's conviction on being a felon in possession of a firearm because picking up a gun he found on the ground did not constitute "possession."
West was all about bashing undocumented immigrants in his column, insisting with all the pathos he could muster that "the ideological agenda of the left is more important than the life of a young innocent American woman who died in her Dad’s arms and uttering the heart-breaking words that she did not want to die."
I don’t usually spout off in an angry tone like this — but I’m sick and tired — up to here — with this despicable, destructive, counter-productive, nation dividing name calling and libelous, criminal charges against public servants and elected officials — with no substantiation whatever.
Our culture, particularly our political culture, has seemingly deteriorated to such an amazingly biased and uncivil level that we don’t seem like America at this point!
Boone is lying -- he does, in fact, spout off in an angry, libelous, nation-dividing and name-calling tone on a regular basis. As we've documented, he particularly enjoyed doing so when Barack Obama was president. He loved to repeat lies and conspiracy theories about Obama including birtherism; one column was so filled with virulent hatred of Oama and Muslims that even Newsmax thought it was so over-the-top that it edited out the most extreme references. He mocked Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan by suggesting she was a lesbian, claming she's an "otherwise nice woman who likes her softball,"and he declared the American Civil Liberties Union to be the "American Taliban." He even rushed to the defense of Mel Gibson after his drunken anti-Semitic rants.
Boone went on to serve up more disingenous name-calling of non-conservatives he doesn't like: Nancy Pelosi has "eyes bulging with animosity and barely concealed hatred for her president," Adam Schiff is "equally distressingly pop-eyed," ranting that "evidence, audio and visual, has been uncovered in which Adam Schiff himself is heard inviting supposed information, offered by a suspicious foreign party — the very thing he’s hounding and trying to convict Trump for!"
Actually, that involved an incident in which Russian pranksters purported to offer to Schiff photos of a naked Trump -- which, actually, is quite different and not "the very thing" at all from Trump's allegedly offense of using U.S. foreign aid in a quid pro quo to seek personal favors from a foreign country.
Boone concluded his column: "The Bible soberly warns, “Judge not. For with the judgement you judge — you shall be judged.” We Americans, who still have the final say, must absolutely demand that the mudslinging and mindless smearing stop … lest our blessed republic itself be smeared beyond redemption."
MRC's Double Standard on Praising People Later Caught In Scandal Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Geoffrey Dickens sneered in a Sept. 20 post:
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau may very well survive his current “blackface” scandal, because he – like Virginia Democratic Governor Ralph Northram [sic] before him – is already getting the best protection possible from his allies in the liberal media, as they focus on conservatives “pouncing” on their precious prince from the North.
On Thursday morning, MSNBC’s Ron Allen seemed shocked that a “progressive” could ever be racist: “He is very progressive. To see this sort of thing happen is a head turning thing. It came out of nowhere, came as a big surprise” and noted “I can remember days when he was feted at the White House by President Obama. He is that young telegenic guy that a lot of media in Canada, and elsewhere certainly, love. So this is really quite a fall from grace. It’s really quite stunning.”
Indeed, the American press fell head over heels for the lefty Canadian PM when he first hit the scene in 2016. He got the pop star treatment with network anchors catching “Justin Fever” as they swooned over the “super hunky” “dreamy” and “adorable” politician they dubbed “Canada’s Obama.”
Dickens then listed "a few examples of the liberal media’s infatuation with Trudeau, as culled from the MRC’s archives." But he's not going to tell you that his employer is guilty of similarly falling for someone who later fell prey to scandal.
Aas we've documented, Alan Dershowitz was one of the MRC's favorite sources as a self-proclaimed liberal who was defending President Trump and other MRC-friendly causes. But as Dershowitz's ties to convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein became clear -- not only did serve as an attorney for Epstein, one of Epstein's victims accused him of having sex with her while she was underage -- he quietly disappeared from the pages of MRC websites with no admission of his ties to Epstein.
It seems, however, that the MRC is slowly easing into a little image rehab for Dershowitz. A Sept. 27 post by Brad Wilmouth cited Dershowitz among the "high-profile liberal professors" who have argued that the transcript of the phone call between President Trump and the Ukranian president "does not constitute proof of lawbreaking" -- his first mention at the MRC in two months. Needless to say, Wilmouth didn't mention Dershowitz's links to Epstein.
WND's Kupelian Whines About WND Critics -- But Never Refutes Them Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily managing editor David Kupelian has another complaint about Google -- and it seems oddly familiar.
Last month, Kupelian falsely whined that a column he wrote couldn't be found via the Google search he cited, though we found it immediately sing that very same search, demonstrating that he apparently doesn't understand how Google works. His latest anti-Google column, published Oct. 4, takes the form of his previous one -- he lazily recycles its opening and closing sections nearly verbatim.
The middle section has changed, though, this time complaining that doing a search for "WorldNetDaily" on Google brings up a lot of websites critical of WND:
Today, you can get a quick, personalized snapshot of what has become of the internet by doing a simple Google search for "WorldNetDaily." Of the top ten returns, seven are brutally condemning of the internet's oldest independent journalism website.
First – even before WND's website itself! – comes the ridiculous Wikipedia article, written by rabid anti-WND folks who lead off by describing us this way: "WorldNetDaily (WND) is an American news and opinion website and online news aggregator which has been described as 'fringe' and far right as well as politically conservative. The website is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories."
Thanks a lot. Next there's the page profiling WND by the discredited hate-group Southern Poverty Law Center, which leads with this: "WorldNetDaily is an online publication founded and run by Joseph Farah that claims to pursue truth, justice and liberty. But in fact, its pages are devoted to manipulative fear-mongering and outright fabrications designed to further the paranoid, gay-hating, conspiratorial and apocalyptic visions of Farah and his hand-picked contributors from the fringes of the far-right and fundamentalist worlds."
Uh huh. Next comes an apocalyptic article about WND by the leftwing Salon website, headlined "Shed a tear for WorldNetDaily – or maybe don't. But the downfall of a far-right site is instructive." Hey Salon people, we're still here.
Next comes the Seattle Times with this headline: "Inside the spectacular fall of WorldNetDaily, the granddaddy of right-wing conspiracy sites."
The next search result is something call Rational Wiki, which sizes up WND this way: "WND (originally an initialism for WorldNetDaily, or as it was affectionately known to its fans as WingNutDaily or WhirledNutDaily) is a far-right website founded by the impressively mustachioed Joseph Farah in 1997 as a project of his Western Center for Journalism. The site espouses a fundamentalist, Christian, creationist worldview with a healthy dose of jingoism. … WND makes Fox News look positively moonbatty in comparison. … The scary thing is, this bilge is actually slightly influential, with its made-up bulls**t making its way out the mouths of wingnut congressmen and cable TV pundits far too often."
Then there's the Washington Post with its vicious, lengthy smear article on WND's "downfall" – published immediately after the Post's reporter learned from Elizabeth Farah that her husband and WND CEO Joseph Farah had just suffered a devastating stroke. Nice, huh?
Then, to round out the first page of "top Google search results" for WorldNetDaily, there's the ridiculous RightWingWatch, a project of the super-duper-leftwing group People for the American Way. RightWingWatch – which has honored me personally with more than two dozen different articles highlighting my supposed wingnut antics – has this to say about WND: "Since California-based conservative writer Joseph Farah founded it in 1997, WorldNetDaily, now simply known as WND, has emerged as a leading online platform for conspiracy theorists, Tea Party activists and End Times prophets."
Kupelian is actually correct this time -- we got those same results on our Google search. But note that Kupelian doesn't dispute the accuracy of any of those "brutally condemning" articles and websites; all he does is harrumph "uh-huh" or "whatever." That's likely because he knows the key parts are true; WND is indisputably "a leading online platform for conspiracy theorists, Tea Party activists and End Times prophets."
Kupelian also can't stop whining about that Washington Post article on WND earlier this year; he doesn't refute that one either, only complains that it was "published immediately after the Post's reporter learned from Elizabeth Farah that her husband and WND CEO Joseph Farah had just suffered a devastating stroke." But as the article pointed out, WND didn't disclose that Farah had suffered a stroke until after it knew the article was coming out -- literally two hours after the Post reporter contacted WND for a response. As we noted, Kupelian used Farah's stroke as a excuse not to respond to the article's claims, which includes a litany of bad business decisions (i.e. bitcoin giveaways) and financial mismanagement -- never mind that he and Farah's wife, Elizabeth, are the top two company officials behind Farah and surely have some knowledge of said financial shenanigans.
(He also apparently hasn't figured out that the Seattle Times article is a reprint of the Post article.)
Kupelian then tried to make his case for WND:
OK. Back to reality – and to the gigantic if mostly invisible role Google and the rest of Big Tech plays in "fundamentally transforming" America. Along with reporting honestly on the rest of the news and exposing the "fake" variety, we at WorldNetDaily are sounding the warning trumpets day after day, month after month, about Big Tech's campaign to replace Judeo-Christian America with another country. As such, we're doing our job as "real news" journalists.
He's blatantly lying here. Obama birtherism -- arguably WND's signature story -- was always fake news. So was Seth Rich, and WND knew it all along, or should have known it. WND is still pushing fake news about vaccines.
Kupelian's definition of "real news" involves only stories that advance his right-wing Christian agenda, even if they're false. If they don't conform to his worldview, they can't possibly be true.
That's why Kupelian can't refuse all those stories about WND -- he knows they're true, and admitting that would reflect weakness in his eyes, and to do so would mean he would also have to admit he's been living a lie for the past 20 years. Being viewed as a discredited zealot is apparently preferable to admitting fault.
Kupelian's desperate griip on narrative over facts is yet another reason WND hasn't shown it deserves to live.
MRC Follows Trump's Narrative By Invoking Adam Schiff As A Distriction From Ukraine Scandal Topic: Media Research Center
Aswe'vedocumented, the Media Research Center is acting much more like an arm of President Trump's re-election campaign than a fair and balanced provider of "media research" in its coverage of the Trump-Ukraine scandal, rushing to Trump's defense at every opportunity. It's continuing to follow the Trump script by playing the distraction card away from Trump's alleged offenses and attacking Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff for relatively minor missteps.
When Schiff read what he described as "the essence of what the president communicates" during his infamous phone call with the president of Ukraine seeking dirt on Joe Biden in apparent exchange for U.S. aid, Nicholas Fondacaro ranted in a post that screamed "FABRICATED" in all-caps in the headline:
As part of his opening remarks during the highly anticipated House Intelligence Committee hearing with acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire Thursday, chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) read from a transcript of President Trump’s call with the president of Ukraine. The only problem was; he was making it up with the goal of dramatizing it into a mafia-style shakedown. And, while the broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) were busy pushing the narrative of a White House cover-up, they ignored Schiff’s wild tale.
Luckily, Fox News Channel andThe Story with Martha MacCallum gave Schiff’s stunt the air time and criticism it deserved.
Fondacaro failed to mention that Schiff described it as the "essence" of what Trump said, not a verbatim transcript, or that he said afterward his reading was "meant to be at least part in parody" -- let alone the fact that the released transcript itself is not verbatim but, rather, a rough version of what was said. He also didn't mention that Fox News, like the MRC, is an agent for Trump rather than a fair and balanced source.
Tim Graham touted how "Rush Limbaugh and conservative Twitter made a big deal on Thursday out of Rep. Adam Schiff with the president of Ukraine" and complained that NPR "never brought it up" in an interview with Schiff, whining: "Is it appropriate to make up stuff the president says? NPR doesn't seem to care." Like Fondacaro, Graham failed to tell his readers that Schiff didn't intend to do a verbatim reading.
Kristine Marsh huffed that Schiff "lied, fabricating quotations from President Trump and then claimed it was a 'parody' when called out for it," failing to note that Schiff described it beforehand as the "essence" of what was said, not a verbatim transcript.
Scott Whitlock declared that Shiff's reading was "fake," fabricated" and an attempt at "deception" -- again, ignoring the "essence" part -- and cheered Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow's attempt at MRC-esque deflection by attacking Schiff instead of answering questions he was asked during an interview.
Graham returned to whine that Schiff's "completely phony summary of Trump's phone call with the president of Ukraine" was a "false 'parody.'" Clay Waters groused that Schiff "grossly mischaracterized President Trump's phone call with the president of Ukraine, making up quid pro quos where none actually happened" (as if Trump had to explicitly verbalize the quid pro quo instead of merely implying it).
When Schiff claimed that he had no contact with the whistleblower on Trump's Ukraine phone call when it turned out his staff did have contact with him -- again, a minor concern given that the whistleblower's complaints about Trump have been largely corroborated -- the MRC was quick to go into a Trump-approved distraction rage.
Graham crowed that Schiff "Schiff was caught in a lie byThe New York Times on Wednesday" when it reported the discrepancy -- never mind that the report disproves the MRC's narrative of the Times as a relentlessly liberal publication. He went on to whine that "PolitiFact has exactly ONE evaluation of Schiff over the last 12 years, from 2017. Naturally, it's a 'True.'"
Mark Finkelstein bashed one commentator for noting an inconvenient truth for conservatives: that "the substance of the whistleblower complaint is more important than the process by which it was made public."
Fondacaro declared that ABC and CBS evening newscasts "suppress[ed]" the "bombshell" news about Schiff, going on to heap praise on his favorite biased "news" outlet: "Meanwhile, on the Fox News Channel’s Special Report, anchor Bret Baier recognized the seriousness of the report and led the program with it." Fondacaro also declared that "This seems to be another win for The Federalist, who noted yesterday that there were serious discrepancies in the timeline of events being put forward by though itching for impeachment," even though 1) the Times first reported this story, not the Federalist, and 2) Fondacaro's linked example of a previous Federalist "win" was the conspiracy theory he promoted about changes in a whistleblower reporting form.
Drennen followed up by complaining that network morning shows "worked to downplay the bombshell revelation." Then came a mini-lecture from Alex Christy:
If Schiff did in fact do nothing wrong, then at the very least he should be asked why he felt the need to lie about it to a friendly audience and whether this damages the credibility of his investigation, because it is just one more piece of evidence than he is just another run-of-the-mill political hack, not the great defender of national security his media defenders portray him as.
Finally, Graham clucked that the Washington Post fact-checkers gave Schiff four Pinnochios for his claim, but was less happy it pointed out that "Trump's earned a gazillion Pinnochios."
CNS Puts Pro-Trump Spin on Withdrawal of U.S. Troops From Syria Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com is framing its coverage of President Trump's declared withdrawal of U.S. troops from northern Syria -- thus clearing the way for a Turkish invasion of the region targeting the Kurds, who are U.S. allies -- in its usual pro-Trump fashion, by going on the assumption that Trump is right and downplaying the widespread and bipartisan criticism of his plan.
CNS' first story on the decision was an Oct. 7 piece by Trump fan Susan Jones, who waited until the fifth paragraph to mention what she called "predictable fury from pundits and politicians on liberal cable outlets as well as Fox News," then noted "criticism from both Republicans and Democrats" -- all the while uncritically repeating Trump's tweets defending his decision -- and it was not until the 11th paragraph (six of which were straight Trump quotes) that Jones offered a detailed criticism of Trump's decision.
The next day, Patrick Goodenough highlighted Trump's further defense of his withdrawal plan, but waited until the sixth paragraph to mention that it's "drawing strong criticism from many Democrats and Republicans" and offer no further mention of the nature of that criticism, focusing instead on the issue of repatriating captured ISIS fighters.
Jones, meanwhile, contributed an article touting Republican Sen. Rand Paul's comments on how he "strongly supports the president's move," even though "some Republicans, including Trump allies such as Sen Lindsey Graham, have joined Democrats in sharply criticizing the president's decision to withdraw an unannounced number of U.S. troops from northeastern Syria."
(In between, CNS published a column by Pat Buchanan cheering the "American withdrawal from the forever wars of the Middle East.")
An Oct. 9 article by Goodenough noted criticism of Trump right at the top, for once -- but from Turkish officials critical of "Trump’s threats to destroy the country’s economy if it acts in a way that he views as 'off limits' in Syria." It wasn't until the 21st paragraph of his article that he acknowledged that "Critics, including some senior Republicans, argue that withdrawing could benefit hostile elements like the Assad regime and its allies Iran and Russia, and facilitate a resurgence of ISIS," though he then noted a Department of Defense report linking a drawdown of U.S. troops in the region to a likely ISIS resurgence.
Also on Oct.9, Jones finally wrote the first CNS article putting criticism of Trump's withdrawal in the headline, from former national security adviser Susan Rice. That was joined by an article noting European criticism of the withdrawal.
The next day, however, it was back to the prevailing narrative. An article by Jones gave Secretary of State Mike Pompeo space to defend Trump's decision and to insist that it didn't give a "green light" for Turkey to invade northern Syria. It wasn't until the 11th paragraph that Jones got around to noting that "A number of Republicans have joined Democrats in criticizing President Trump's decision to stand aside for Turkey." And CNS touted Paul's support of Trump's withdrawal plan again, this time in an article by Melanie Arter.
An article by Goodenough the same day was a bit confused; he claimed Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham was "breaking with President Trump" by pushing for sanctions against Turkey over the military operation everyone predicted would take place upon announcement of Trump's withdrawal plan, but then quoted Trump saying he thought that was "okay."
What LGBT Stuff Is The MRC Freaking Out About Now? Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center just loves to descend into anti-LGBT freakouts. Let's look at the latest ones.
Gabriel Hays cheered a study arguing that there isn't a "gay gene" (though several genes do have an influence on sexuality), crowing that it threw "more skepticism on the idea that homosexuals are born that way. Hays then ranted that media outlets wouldn't put his preferred anti-gay spin on the findings: "What lefty rag would ever admit that homosexuality may just be is a lifestyle choice egged on by a increasingly degenerate society?" Of course, the research didn't prove that either.
Brad Wilmouth complained that, after an NFL player came out as bisexual, a CNN commentator was "essentially pining for more high-profile gay athletes to come out of the closet," huffing that "if there's any issue that CNN is more transparently to the left on than gun control, it's gay rights. Wilmouth later groused when another commentator brought up Michael Sam as an NFL player who didn't play after he came out: "They never considered that Sam just wasn't good enough for the NFL."
The mysterious Jay Maxscon was upset that NFL quarterback was branded as anti-gay because he appeared in a video for anti-gay group Focus on the Family, calling that a "smear" and complaining that one writer "incorrectly accuses Focus of the standard Big LGBT lie that conversion therapy relies on physical abuse to bring people out of homosexuality." Maxson then ran to the defense of the anti-gay group: "The Focus website lists referral services that do not engage in shaming, manipulative or shock therapy techniques, including the Restored Hope Network and The Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity. Organizations offering this kind of counseling only do so for people who submit that their same-sex attractions are unwanted." In fact, the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity is a rebranding of the virulently anti-gay National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.
Rice University's intolerant marching band turned Saturday's halftime performance into a protest against visiting rival Baylor University's biblically based policy on sexuality. Rice's Marching Owl Band and fans displayed anti-Christian bigotry and showed their support for LGBTQ students at Baylor who recently tried and failed to start an LGBTQ club there.
Actually, all that happened was that the Rice band spelled out "PRIDE" on the field while playing "YMCA" as people waved rainbow flags, as a tweaking of Baylor for rejecting the formation of an LGBTQ club on campus. But Maxson stayed in full froth, huffing that the Rice band was "anti-Christian" and "demonstrated intolerance and hypocrisy," while Baylor is simply "calling its students to live biblical lives."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been doing a lot of IMPORTANT work in past week. You know, postponing a bipartisan gun control compromise, risking the credibility of her entire party over a shaky at best impeachment initiative, and hanging with super flamboyant queer TV star Jonathan Van Ness while the Republic is in turmoil.
But she’s San Fran Nan, so kissing the fabulous rings of the Queer Eye squad for Instagram photos probably counts as constituent relations.
Hays also trashed the Eqality Act, declaring: "Too bad the reality is that this bill is about getting normal Americans to bend to the will of bearded crossdressers. Thanks, Nancy. You definitely have got your priorities straight these days." Hays didn't specifically identify any "bearded crossdressers" who would benefit.
Hays kept the gay-bashing alive in a freakout over the "Star Wars" universe adding same-sex couples:
The only surprising thing about Disney putting an alien gay couple in a Star Wars series is that it took this long. Now LGBTQers can finally dry their eyes because the galaxy far far away is incorporating otherworldly sexualities into the mix.
Because according to Disney, kids need to know that even indiscernable, non-human biological entities have same sex relationships too.
So this isn’t only about gay sex, but about inter-sepcies sex too? And to think, If we’re confused, how are the kids going to react to it? Granted you might accuse us of being the kinds of people who would complain that Donkey and Dragon got together in Shrek but that was obviously a joke. The difference here is that people at Indiewire see this as a milestone for representation and that’s disturbing.
Lindsay Kornick similarly lost it over the new "Batwoman" series: "Batwoman, featuring the first lesbian superhero lead on television, is the latest comic-book series adapted by the CW. Unfortunately, following in the footsteps of Supergirl and Legends of Tomorrow, Batwoman also is annoyingly preachy and obsessed with social justice. Even worse, it’s not even fun about it."
Dawn Slusher got upset when a 12-year-old boy character, Austin, on the show "The Conners," declared that he was "glad" he's gay: "Could it be possible that Austin might really be confused? Why isn’t that possibility mentioned? Puberty is a confusing time and the rush of hormones can cause you to feel some strange attractions and feelings that don’t necessarily stay. But Hollywood is really pushing the homosexual angle on children lately. Last fall ABC had pre-teens come out as gay on This Is Us and A Million Little Things. How long until they're declaring kids to be pansexual?"
WND's Massie: 'Roots' Was As Bad As Crack For Blacks Topic: WorldNetDaily
Sadly, many blacks have yet to differentiate between keeping it real and keeping it "real stupid." The fumarole through which the asphyxiating stupidity flows most freely is any discussion and/or point of view regarding slavery that doesn't encourage the "Kunta Kinte" version born out of a plagiarized fictional book and television series called "Roots." It can be argued that this mythical drama did as much to harm blacks as crack cocaine has done – because it celebrated the ingesting of a lie and validated the ignorance associated with same.
Anyone with a scintilla of integrity regarding historical accuracy will acknowledge slavery an immoral, painful period of time to both the persons sold on auction blocks and those who purchased them. Well, maybe not the Muslims, because slave trading was a key means of industry for them, but then again, I did draw the distinction of historical accuracy, but I digress.
Most blacks cleave to the idea of slavery as if it just ended a few weeks ago. The outright falsehoods and distortions that are used to keep people ignorant and angry are legion and with good purpose.
The purpose is draconian and Erebusic, and yet it is simplistic in the genius of its application. But, I'm getting a bit ahead of myself.
The truth is that blacks contributed massively to the betterment of America, but they neither built America nor was America built on their backs. There is a major difference in definition. Indians from British Columbia and other parts of Canada built New York's skyline. The Japanese are responsible for the far-reaching rail lines. Irish and Italians built much of the infrastructure of New York. How much of Chicago, Miami, Dallas, Houston, Minnesota, Nebraska, Colorado, North and South Dakota, Hawaii, Maine, Vermont and New Mexico did blacks actually build?
MRC's Graham Complains About Media 'Stenographers,' Forgets About Stenography At MRC's 'News' Division Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Tim Graham complained in a Sept. 26 post:
It's always amusing when reporters insist that they're not "stenographers to power," but when you look at their interviews with Democrats, they often come across as stenographers -- extremely accomodating, and not at all challenging. Take for example, Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut in his interviews on the Ukrainian kerfuffle on Wednesday. None of his three national TV interviews seriously raised the idea that he or other Democratic senators pressed Ukraine in a similar way to President Trump to cooperate with their domestic political goals.
CNN reported earlier that three Senate Democrats pressed in a letter that Ukraine had better cooperate with Robert Mueller's probe in the Ukraine, so as not to disturb the "robust and close" U.S.-Ukraine relationship.
Despite citing a CNN report, Graham did not link to CNN or even to the letter; instead, he linked to a Washington Post column by Trump toady Marc Thiessen ranting about the letter: "So, it’s okay for Democratic senators to encourage Ukraine to investigate Trump, but it’s not okay for the president to allegedly encourage Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden?"
Of course, the 2018 letter's content is different the either Graham or Thiessen portrayed it. The senators point out that while the suspended investigations had links to the Mueller investigation, they were also about corruption in Ukraine -- a key interest in the current Trump impeachment inquiry -- and they expressed concern that the probes were frozen because, according to a New York Times article, they were considered "too politically sensitive and potentially jeopardizing U.S. financial and military aid to Ukraine" and, specifically, "to avoid the ire of President Trump." Also, the investigations concerned former Trump campaign manager Paul Manfort's work in Ukraine, not Trump directly.
Shouldn't Graham and Thiessen be concerned that Trump was apparently using his influence as president to threaten to cut off aid to Ukraine if it didn't stop investigating a political ally? Apparently not.
Also: Graham's mocking reference to reporters and "stenographers to power" is highly ironic, given how his colleagues down the hall at the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, are verymuchpro-Trumpstenographers.
Employment statistics are not the only place where CNSNews.com does its pro-Trump rah-rah. Now that the 2020 presidential election is going into full swing, CNS is now publishing "news" article that may as well be Trump campaign press releases.
A Sept. 11 article by Kharen Martinez Murcia declared:
The number of people in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), popularly known as food stamps, has fallen by 6,686,087 since Donald Trump assumed the presidency on Jan. 20, 2017.
In January 2017, there were 42,715,593 people receiving SNAP benefits, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which oversees the program. As of June 2019 – latest data available – there were 36,029,506 people receiving SNAP benefits, a decline of 6,686,087 persons.
Then, in a Sept. 19 article, Susan Jones got positively gushy when writing about Trump visiting a border wall construction:
President Donald Trump smiled on Wednesday, as he received a briefing on a section of his long-promised border wall that is now under construction south of San Diego, California.
"I wanted to show you some of the details of the wall," Trump told the reporters covering him. "You can see a pretty good view. This is going to be close to 500 miles by the time we finish. Those are the areas that are most important.”
Trump said the wall will be either 18 feet high or 30 feet high, depending on the land where it is located and how heavily trafficked that area is. In some places, such as where he was standing near Tijuana, there is a double wall -- one on the border, and another one running parallel to it on the U.S. side.
Jones also uncritically repeated acting Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Mark Morgan sucking up to his boss:
Morgan disputed the "false narrative that this wall is the president's 'vanity project.'"
"I’m here to tell you right now, that's false," Morgan said.
"This president, this administration, what they did was exactly what the president just explained. He reached out to the experts, to the Border Patrol agents that are on the front lines every singles day, risking their lives protecting this country, enforcing the laws that Congress enacted.
“He reached out to those agents to those line agents and asked, what do you need to do your job more effectively to secure and safeguard this country, and those Border Patrol agents said, ‘We need this.’ So this president, thank you, you listened to the agents and you gave them exactly what they asked for,” Morgan added.
Despite the mention of the wall being "new," Jones didn't mention that what little wall has been constructed is a replacement for existing barriers, not barriers in areas that did not have them before.
The closest that Jones got to breaking from press-release mode was the very last paragraph, when she repeated Trump's claim that "three foreign delegations" had come to "study" the new wall then parenthetically added, "he didn't name them."