MRC's Double Standard On Anonymous Whistleblowers, Part 2: The Oppo-Research Link Topic: Media Research Center
Aswe'vedocumented, the Media Research Center loves to complain about anonymous sources in the media -- unless those anonymous sources are making claims that advance the MRC's conservative agenda. This hypocrisy continues over the whistleblower who exposed President Trump's quid-pro-quo phone call with the president of Ukraine, whom the MRC has attacked for remaining anonymous (even though the whistleblower's claims have largely been corroborated).
In an Oct. 9 post, Geoffrey Dickens gushed over a claim from the Washington Examiner's Byron York that the whitleblower had a "significant tie to one of the Democratic presidential candidates, complaining that "So far ABC and CBS have spiked the story, even with President Donald Trump tweeting about it on Tuesday evening." But Dickens didn't tell his readers that York's sources for this claim are themselves anonymous; he cites three anonymous people "with knowledge of what was said" by the intelligence community's inspector general, Michael Atkinson, over the situation, with no on-the-record confirmation.
Of course, fear of being called out on double standards wasn't going to stop the MRC from running with this story. Kristine Marsh got excited when "CBS was the only network to concede that their own reporting corroborated the President's claims" -- though she didn't note whether CBS had on-the-record confirmation of the claim. (Funny how "liberal media" outlets like CBS suddenly become credible when they report something the MRC thinks helps its right-wing agenda.) Marsh also didn't mention the fact that York's sources are anonymous.
Kyle Drennen touted how "as reported by Washington Examiner’s Byron York, the whistleblower having a “political bias” and “professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates” was something revealed by Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson during recent congressional testimony," complaining that the whistleblower's "attorney denied the connection, but didn’t offer any actual evidence to 'refute' the charge."
When another Washington Examiner article reported that the Joe Biden was the candidate the whistleblower had a relationship with, the MRC pounced on that too, with Curtis Houck turning in the standard MRC "the liberal media won't report this right-wing claim so they're obviously biased" article. Scott Whitlock whined on Oct. 14 that "The fact that the CIA whistleblower had a “professional tie” to Joe Biden still hasn’t garnered any interest on the network morning and evening newscasts. Three and a half days after it was first reported by The Washington Examiner, ABC, CBS and NBC yawned at the story."
But, again, that claim is anonymously sourced; the Examiner article cites only "intelligence officers and former White House officials" -- specifically, a "retired CIA officer," "an experienced CIA official" and a "former Trump administration official." Neither Houck nor Whitlock told their reader that the Examiner's claims are anonymously sourced.
The MRC will never admit that the Examiner is a conservative outlet and, thus, effectively an opposition-research arm of the Republican Party (like the MRC is). Remember, the MRC has a deal with Examiner columnist Paul Bedard to do a promotion of an MRC item every week as the "Mainstream Media Scream."
CNS Still Putting Pro-Trump Spin On Syria Withdrawal Topic: CNSNews.com
We've documented how CNSNews.com put a pro-Trump spin on the first week of coverage over President Trump's decision to remove U.S. troops from northern Syria, thus exposing Kurds in the region to attack from Turkey (which is exactly what happened). That spin continued largely unabated in the second week of coverage.
An Oct. 14 article by Patrick Goodenough noted that Trump's withdrawal was a "widely-criticized decision, but devoted his article entirely to Trump defending his decision and not mentioning what, exactly, those who opposed the decision were criticizing. That was joined by a Goodenough article highlighting further U.S. troop withdrawals "in the face of Turkey's military onslaught," not mentioning that the withdrawals are what's prompting the military onslaught in the first place; it's not until the 22nd paragraph that Goodenough mentions one key reason Trump's decision was criticized, that it could allow ISIS to reconstitute itself. An article by James Carstensen highlighted European Union criticism of Turkey's invasion, but made almost no mention of the U.S. withdrawal that facilitated it.
Meanwhile, Melanie Arter served up a third article featuring Republican Sen. Rand Paul's support of Trump's withdrawal, and Susan Jones played whataboutism in an article highlighting Democratic criticism of Trump's "precision airstrikes" in Syria in response to the country's "gassing of civiliians" while criticizing Trump's withdrawal, not noting the significant differences between the two situations.
On Oct. 15, Goodenough highlighted U.S. sanctions on Turkey "in a bid to pressure its Islamist government to change direction on policies seen as inimical to U.S. interests." It's not until the 21st paragraph that he notes Trump's withdrawal "has drawn flak from critics who argue it amounts to abandoning those Kurdish allies, risks strengthening the hands of Russia and Iran in Syria, and could result in a resurgence of ISIS."
An Oct. 16 article by Arter uncritically repeated another Trump defense of his withdrawal. Goodenough, meanwhile, served up pro-Trump spin on a letter Trump sent to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan under the sycophantic headline: "Trump Urged Erdogan Not to be ‘a Tough Guy’ and ‘a Fool.’ Erdogan Ignored Him and Went Ahead"; Goodenough made no mention of the fact that Trump's letter has been almostuniversallypanned as unprofessional and disrespectful and, thus, utterly ineffective as a tool of diplomacy (Erdogan himself threw the letter away).
The next day, Goodenough repeated a claim from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that Trump could adjust his withdrawal decision, claiming that "My experience with the president is that he makes decisions and then absorbs data and facts, evaluates situations"; no mention of why Trump doesn't absorb data and facts before making a decision. Arter did more Trump stenography in another article, repeating claims from White House deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley's claims that the media is lying about the withdrawal giving Turkey a green light to attack Syria.
Surprisingly, CNS also published an Oct. 17 op-ed from Hans Bader criticizing the withdrawal, highlighting that the Turkish invasion in the face of the U.S. withdrawal has resulted in the deaths of "hundreds of people" and that "the Kurds relied on the Trump administration’s claims to their detriment," adding: "Our shameful treatment of the Kurds is one of many examples of American politicians being unreliable in their dealings with foreign peoples. That discourages people in foreign lands from helping and cooperating with the United States." But Bader also made sure to play whataboutism, referencing what he called "the Obama administration’s even more disastrous military intervention in Libya," which is what got his op-ed published at CNS.
Seemingly to offset that, CNS also published twomore columns by Pat Buchanan cheering the withdrawal.
Meanwhile, the pro-Trump spin continued: Arter touted how Vice President Mike Pence announced that "the United States and Turkey have agreed to a ceasefire in Syria, and Turkey will allow for the withdrawal of YPG forces from the safe zone" -- no mention, of course, of the fact that the decision effectively lets Turkey get away with its invasion -- though a follow-up by Goodenough points out that the cease-fire "applies only to one relatively small section of the strip of Syrian territory that Ankara wants as a buffer zone" and quotes a Turkish official admitting that the country got what it wanted under it.
Arter did, however, add a late-Friday article featuring Republican Sen. Mitt Romney's criticism of Trump over the withdrawal.
MRC Complains Its 'Right-Wing Media Machine' Is Called Out, Offers Only Whataboutism In Response Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Tim Graham and Brent Bozell huff in their Oct. 2 column:
CNN media reporter Oliver Darcy is warning the public about a "right-wing media machine" that has demonstrated "zero willingness to abide by any traditional rules of engagement." That shameless "machine" opposing President Trump's impeachment and removal is, of course, composed of Fox News, talk radio, conservative websites and an "army of trolls" on the internet.
We're all shameless manure spreaders in the eyes of CNN (and its shrinking band of die-hard fans). "The next few months will test the power of this right-wing media machine," Darcy says. "To succeed, it will not only have to suspend reality for its audience, but also feed the millions who watch, listen, and read a counter-narrative to fill actuality's void." Trump's survival depends on this reality-denying machine, Darcy insists: "If Trump sees support on Fox or talk radio erode, it would help shift the tide and give Republicans wiggle room to turn on him."
Darcy, who graduated from college in 2011, is perhaps young enough to have no idea what the left-wing media machine — especially CNN — did to protect and defend Clinton, his lying in court under oath, his lying to the public about his affair with "that woman, Miss Lewinsky" and his attempts to instruct others to lie on his behalf. At a recent panel discussion in New York, Darcy's colleague Brian Stelter yelled that Clinton "was crushed by the media," just "destroyed by the press corps!"
Wolf Blitzer should really take these youngsters out to lunch and tell them how CNN fiercely smeared Clinton's opponents and denounced itself for having reported anything about Clinton's scandalous behavior.
At no point do Graham and Bozell actually address what Darcy said, let alone rebut the claim of a "right-wing media machine" or admit he's a major part of it. Indeed, their MRC has been engaging in machine tactics by aggressivelydefending Trump in the face of an impeachment inquiry, even embracing conspiracy theories in the process. It's also so eager to make money off defending Trump that it's boldly proclaiming that the facts don't matter.
Instead, they play whataboutism, cherry-picking anecdotes about what the claim the media allegedly did in 1998 during President Clinton's impeachment. One typically lame retort: "Clinton wasn't indecent; the media were. In the Trump era, CNN insists this president is a morally unfit tyrant and the media are the heroic enforcers of fact, oozing integrity in every article and interview."
Graham and Bozell then unironically write: "It's easy to portray your opponent as operating a nefarious 'media machine.' It's easy to say your opponent is 'weaponizing' information or specializes in 'disinformation.'" Instead, that statement leads to a rant that "nobody should put up with the leftist media's duplicity."
But Bozell and Graham never explain why anyone should have to put up with theirs.
WND's Massie: Jimmy Carter 'Isn't Half The Man President Trump Is' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jimmy Carter was, is and, just like Hillary Clinton, Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren, always will be a liar. And what's more, Carter is a ruthless bigoted racist who hides behind austere images of being a "good ol' boy from 'jo-jah.'"
In my syndicated op-ed titled "Nero in the White House," I wrote: "Three significant historical events have been eclipsed by Obama," the first of which is that Jimmy Carter will no longer be looked upon as the worst president in American history (Sept. 26, 2011).
Well, apparently Carter wants the title back as worst president in American history. He thinks attacking President Trump is the means to have people refresh their memories of his abysmal presidency.
The American people rejected a second Carter term, favoring instead Ronald Reagan in a landslide. So it's ironic to see Democratic campaign fundraising literature promoting Carter saying: "It would be a disaster to have four more years of Trump." (Democrat campaign fundraising letter; 9/23/2019)
Carter is a pernicious liar and morally opprobrious, but as long as he attacks President Trump he is treated with journalistic amnesia by the vicars of agitprop who worship at the feet of Ba'al.
Carter isn't half the man President Trump is, and Carter and his bigoted Democratic Party members combined haven't done for America in their history what President Trump has done in three years.
Carter should kiss the feet of Obama for getting him off the hook as the worst president in history. And the Maranatha Baptist Church should be questioned how they can defend having a person like Carter teaching Sunday School. Is the church taking Carter's money and closing its eyes to what he represents?
President Trump has not lied to the public about what he was before God opened his eyes to the evil of abortion and the destruction of family. President Trump, despite being attacked and undermined by Democrats and Republicans alike, continues by the grace of God to "Make America Great Again."
MRC Joins Right-Wing Revenge Mob Against Reporter Topic: Media Research Center
Revenge is rarely justified and never pretty, as we've seen when the Media Research Center does it. That doesn't keep them from engaging in that ugliness again, of course.
The story begins with a Iowa man, Carson King, whose sign pleading for more beer money via his Venmo account appeared on ESPN's college football show and he got thousands of dollars in contributions, which he ended up donating to the local children's hospital; additional donations pushed that amount to over $1 million. A Des Moines Register reporter looked into his background and found some offensive tweets he had issued during high school, which prompted a pre-article apology from King.
But the right-wing media is always in search of a new victim, and King fit the bill -- and any old villain will do in that victim's defense. And who does nonsensical attacks on the media better than the MRC? Curtis Houck signed up for this mission, and he had his vitriol thesaurus ready to roll for a sept. 25 post:
Illustrating the putrid state of the liberal media and their gleeful embrace of the “cancel culture,” the Gannett-owned Des Moines Register and reporter Aaron Calvin decided late Tuesday to impugn the character of Iowa State-fan-turned-cancer fundraiser Carson King using tweets from when the 24-year-old Iowan was 16.
Their reason? It was just “a routine background check” and done for “the public good.”
King took the high road, insisting that the newspaper “has been nothing but kind in all of their coverage, and I appreciate the reporter pointing out the post to me.” However, it doesn’t change the fact that a major media organization decided to engage in character assassination of someone who, if it weren’t for his act of kindness, would be a private citizen.
But Houck's fellow right-wing mobsters -- which he innocuously credited as "our friends and other accounts across Twitter " -- dug into the reporter's tweeting history and found offensive tweets there, and the revenge plot was set into motion:
So to be clear, dumb tweets from someone raising money for children with cancer is a horrendous offense. But racist, ugly tweets from the journalist assigned to scrutinizing this person like an elected official? Supposedly, it’s more of an imperative to destroy the former.
Perhaps folks should keep all this mind before deciding to do something undeniably good or risk having the news media try to destroy them.
At no point does Houck challege the accuray of the reporter's work; he's simply mad that it was reported at all.
But Houck and his right-wing mob got its scalp; the reporter was fired. But that wasn't enough for Houck -- he wanted more blood, more revenge. He screeched the next day in a headline with "WIMPS" in all-caps:
With a stench of arrogance that can only emanate from the news media, Des Moines Register executive editor Carol Hunter published a Thursday night column expressing no apologies for their campaign to ruin viral sensation Carson King “because readers depend on us to tell a complete story” and, as per her past statement, was done for “the public good.”
Hunter also revealed reporter Aaron Calvin was “no longer with the Register” after his ghoulish hatchet job against the cancer fundraiser over tweets King sent in high school, but the damage was done. As if they had let Jay Rosen or Brian Stelter pen this, she demonstrated a holier-than-thou proclamation from on high to us peons below that the paper will do better. Yeah right.
And in true Oliver Darcy or Stelter fashion, Hunter lashed out at those criticizing them: “We hadn’t yet published anything about his tweets when some people on social media began accusing the Register of doing King wrong and ruining a potential opportunity to continue raising millions of dollars to help sick children.”
On her first point (“Doing background work”), Hunter lectured readers like kindergarteners: “Some of you wonder why journalists think it’s necessary to look into someone’s past. It’s essential because readers depend on us to tell a complete story.”
Funny, because Houck has been an enthusiastic mob member with even ghreater arrogance, all too happy to destroy a reporter's career not because he reported anything wrong or false, but because he reported something Houck didn't like. Houck is the one being holier than thou by decreeing -- along with his mob -- who can never be critically reported upon and how pure the reporters must be who report on them.
The MRC doesn't care about journalism -- it cares only about working the refs (in this case, the media) to advance its political agenda. This sort of revenge campaign is working the refs in its most extreme form.
Houck is too indoctrinated in the MRC's anti-media philosophy to understand -- or care -- that he's damaging people; after all, damaging people who get in the way of his employer's agenda is what he's been trained to do.
Revenge is not "media research." But Houck thinks differently.
CNS' Love Affair With Candace Owens Continues Topic: CNSNews.com
We've reported before on CNSNews.com's love for right-wing activist Candace Owens, to the point that it falsely credits her as the "founder" of the Blexit movement to turn blacks away from the Democratic Party (the actual founder claims that Owens co-opted her movement and has threatened to sue Owens over it) and ignores the controversy of her claim that Hitler would have been OK if he didn't have "dreams outside of Germany."
That love has continued to spread over the past few months, uncritically promoting more of her claims:
Most of these were written by Craig Bannister, who helpfully adds in most of them that "Owens’ Blexit movement is an initiative to introduce conservative values to urban society." Actually, her Blexit website is filled with falsehoods.
Naturally, all this got Owens invited to the White House for a "young Black Leadership Summit" in early October, and CNS reported on that too. First came a post by managing editor Michael W. Chapman echoing CNS' descent into divine-Donald thinking:
During the Young Black Leadership Summit at the White House on Friday, female Ethiopian immigrant Mahalet went to the podium to pray for the nation and especially for President Donald Trump. Mahalet thanked God for "giving us a great leader like Mr. Donald Trump," and asked God to "protect us" and "protect our presuident."
Mahalet was born in Ethiopia. She was abandoned by her parents and eventually adopted at age 11 by a Christian family from the United States. Vidoe [sic] of her prayer was taken by Turning Point USA.
She continued, "All right. Dear God, I just want to say thank you for giving us this opportunity to be in the White House. Thank you for giving us a great leader like Mr. Donald Trump. And I would like to thank you for waking up our nation."
"God protect us," she prayed. "God protect our president. He’s going through so much now, so much scrutiny. God, I believe you gave him to us and I know he’s going to accomplish so much more. I know you have more for us. Jesus, I ask you to protect us and walk with us."
A second article by Arter touted Owens' ridiculous claim that "for the first time in decades, we had somebody who was telling us the truth, and he just kept on telling it all around the country, dropping bars. Honestly, Trump might be my favorite rapper right now." The video accompanying Arter's article weirdly superimposed a label on top of the C-SPAN video it used identifying Owens as the "Blexit Founder" -- which, again, she isn't.
Meanwhile, CNS has said nothing about Owens' bizarre tweet last week about Matt Lauer being innocent of sexual assault allegations because the woman he allegedly assaulted continued to have an affair with him (the woman said she was afraid Lauer would ruin her career).
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.