Hypocritical MRC Writer Censors Facts To Attack His Target For Criticizing Trump Topic: Media Research Center
Mark Finkelstein began his Sept. 28 NewsBusters post by noting the line "I have always depended on the kindness of strangers," then adding:
That was the iconic line in the famous play (and movie) by Tennessee Williams, by which poor Blanche effectively admitted to having lived a life of prostitution. So when Tim O'Brien used that same line about Donald Trump, you know he was doing it with malice aforethought, and with the unmistakable goal of making the same insinuation against the president.
O'Brien uttered his insult during his appearance this morning on CNN'sNew Day. O'Brien was touted as the author of the bookTrump Nationthat claimed Trump was misleading voters by claiming to be a billionaire. (Trump sued him.)
First: Trump being described as a prostitute is an odd thing for Finkelstein to get offended by, given that just two days later ,his perpetually outraged MRC colleague Nicholas Fondacaro described people employed by the Disney corporation as "WHORES." We don't recall Finkelstein getting particlarly bent out of shape over that.
Second: Finkelstein curiously failed to mention the outcome of Trump's lawsuit against O'Brien: he lost.
In his book, O'Brien argued that Trump was actually worth between $150 million and $250 million, not the billions he has claimed to be. Trump sued O'Brien for a whopping $5 billion, claiming that O'Brien relying on anonymous sources to back up his claim could rise to the actual malice standard needed for public figures to prevail in a libel suit. But Trump was so unprepared for his deposition by O'Brien's lawyers that he touted a document showing his assets and liabilities despite it also declaring that it wasn't a reliable gauge of his wealth. Trump also said that his sense of financial worth on a given day depends on his feelings that day, and he supplied no reliable information to back up his own claims about his net worth.
To sum up: Finkelstein was not only hypocritical, he hid factual information because it made his target look better and Trump look bad. Par for the MRC course, we'd say.
CNS Hypes Trump's Nobel Peace Prize Nomination Topic: CNSNews.com
The Media Research Center may have complained that President Trump's dubious Nobel Peace Prize nomination didn't get the coverage it demanded, but its "news" division, CNSNews.com, was actively promoting it.
The first article CNS did on it was a Sept.9 item by Craig Bannister highlighting Fox News commentator Geraldo Rivera in his "daily twitter video" gushing at the own-the-libs aspect of the nomination. Bannister falsely claimed that the Norwegian lawmaker is "a populist Progressive Party lawmaker"; in fact, he belongs to the Progress Party, which is a right-wing party.
The next day, Patrick Goodenough noted that "A Norwegian lawmaker said Wednesday he was nominating Trump for the 2021 Nobel peace prize, citing his role in achieving the Israel-UAE agreement." He didn't note that the lawmaker is a right-winger, but shilled for the president by stating that "Mideast peace efforts have garnered the Nobel peace prize before." Goodenough repeated the Nobel reference in another article.
Bannister returned to gush that White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany touted how "the Nobel Peace Prize nomination for the president, two of them: very well deserved."CNS then sent an intern out to pester a Republican congressman with a softball question:
When asked if he believes President Donald Trump should receive the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on normalizing relations between previously adversarial nations, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said yes, the president deserved the peace prize. McCarthy added that it was Trump’s new approach to the conflicts that brought the peace deals to a closure.
At the U.S. Capitol on Thursday, CNS News asked Rep. McCarthy, “President Trump has been nominated for two Noble Peace Prizes -- one for Israel-UAE, one for Serbia-Kosovo, do you think he is deserving of these awards?”
When Trump got a third nomination, Melanie Arter was there to fluff it:
President Donald Trump received his third Nobel Peace Prize nomination by a group of Australian law professors on the basis of the “Trump Doctrine” on foreign policy, Newsweek reported.
"The Trump Doctrine is something extraordinary, as so many things that Donald Trump does. He is guided by two things, which seem to be absent from so many politicians. He has firstly common sense and he is only guided by a national interest, and therefore, in our circumstances, an interest in the Western alliance," law professor David Flint told Sky News in explaining why he decided to nominate Trump.
Arter censored the fact that Flint is a right-winger who wants to restore the monarchy to Australia.
Despite all this fluffing and lobbying for Trump, when the actual winner of the Peace Prize turned out to the World Food Programme, CNS couldn't be bothered to report on that.
Insensitive MRC Politicizes A Family's Tragedy Topic: Media Research Center
Leave it to Gabriel Hays -- whose stock in trade at the Media Research Center is mocking and smearing celebrities who aren't as far-right as he is and being enraged that cartoons teach children that racism is bad -- to politicize someone's tragedy.
Hays particularly hates model Chrissy Teigen. He has previously sneered at her for responding in kind to a nasty insult from President Trump, mocked her for having "quarantined in her luxury pad with her husband, singer John Legend" and cried "BARF" when a magazine did a story on them and declared her "the spokeswoman for 'Vaginal steaming.'"So when Teigen reported having a miscarriage, Hays was eager to exploit it for his right-wing agenda, using an Oct. 1 post to gloat that the "pro-choice" Teigen admitted she was having a child:
Sometimes, even the most pro-choice people on the planet have a hard time denying the reality that their unborn child is a living human being inside of them.
Hollywood couple John Legend and Chrissy Teigen tragically lost their third child due to pregnancy complications on October 1. In their mournful social media posts about the horrific loss, they revealed themselves as a pro-life family, if only for a moment.
The Grammy award-winning singer and his model wife very much treated their unborn baby “Jack” as a very real, and very human part of their family from the moment they found out Teigen was pregnant.
Hays offered a little sympathy lip service, but that's not he's really about. But he also devoted a paragraph to disputing whether Teigen actually miscarried:
It’s not clear how far along in the pregnancy Teigen was, but media were under the impression she had suffered a miscarriage. Though that’s the term for the death of an unborn child before 20 weeks of pregnancy due to malformation in the womb. All we know for sure is that Teigen had publicly confirmed that she was having a baby boy just only a couple weeks ago.
He even put "miscarriage" in scare quotes in the headline. That's not the sign of someone who truly has sympathy for Teigen and Legend.
Hays ended by claiming that "They should take solace in the fact that they may see him again in the light of God’s presence someday." Hays, meanwhile, is taking solace in how he pushed his political agenda on the backs of someone else's tragedy.
Your Weekly Mychal Massie Meltdown, Double Shot Edition Topic: WorldNetDaily
[T]he Democratic Party is loaded with miserable, contumacious, contentious, Erebusic harridans. Then there is Nancy Pelosi: a broom-rider who needs no introduction.
Pelosi is insulted at being expected to abide by the same rules/edicts as we commoners; after all, her hair salon visits are important. I could be sarcastic and say she is further aggrieved because the Halloween door-to-door costume events in her district have been canceled, which means she will be unable to showoff her latest ensemble, complete with pointed hat and facial contortions.
I believe the Democratic Party and the Biden campaign should be indicted and charged with elder abuse for what they're doing to Joe Biden. Look, I don't like rats or groundhogs, but I don't want to see them tortured endlessly for the exclusive benefit of the torturer. That's exactly how I feel about Biden.
It's a fact and attested to by his closest friends on Capitol Hill: Biden is at or near the very end of the line when it comes to brains. Newt Gingrich, among others who have known Biden for many years, admits publicly that Biden is a likable, funny guy, with no one at home upstairs.
Watching his campaign apparently pump him up with drugs and him still unable to coherently read the words on a teleprompter is beyond the pale. For them to resort to staged townhall events in which the persons asking the questions are part of his campaign team, and camera angles that conceal the fact the room/area is virtually empty save for his campaign people, and still watch him unable to answer questions lucidly is reducing Biden to a boorish joke punch line.
I'm not being mean-spirited; I'm being more honest than Biden's wife and family. I'm not making things up. There are countless YouTube and Twitter videos of Biden making one gaffe after another. These aren't doctored or edited to make him appear like a befuddled mentally challenged old man.
Attacking anyone and everyone who questions and/or points out Biden's clearly worsening dementia and accusing them of being supporters of President Trump, as Biden's wife is now doing, doesn't help Biden. Denying that Biden has massive mental health issues isn't prolonging his life. It's doing just the opposite.
If Jill Biden were a decent human being, she would put her husband's quality of life before the pursuit of a job he couldn't competently perform if it were handed to him by fiat. Biden the candidate is the clearest example of non compos mentis in history.
MRC Embraces Anti-Vaxxers To Own The Libs, Or Something Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center just can't stop embracing fringe-right causes to advance its bogus narrative that social media is unique discriminating against conservatives. Kayla Sargent actually wrote this in a Sept. 23 post:
Regardless of your stance on vaccination, hiding information about anti-vaccine groups and content probably doesn’t help anyone.
ZDNet, an Australian news website, reported that Facebook is attempting to hide what it deems “vaccine misinformation” from users.
Facebook recently submitted a report to the Australian Senate Select Committee on Foreign Interference through Social Media. In the report, Facebook stated that it is “taking a range of steps to make anti-vaccination misinformation harder to find and to elevate authoritative information about vaccines … .”
Yes, Sargent actually wrote that giving anti-vaxxers a platform is a good thing. (Also, ZDNet is not "an Australilan news site"; it's a U.S-based tech news operation owned by CBS.)
Sargent then tried to both-sides anti-vaxxers, but undermined it by rehashing its bogus narrative:
The anti-vax movement exists on both the far right and the far left. The Washington Post noted that there were several prominent anti-vax individuals, including Andrew Wakefield and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Facebook, in recent months, has attempted to crack down hard on “misinformation,” but its attempts have often resulted in the censorship of conservative voices.
Meanwhile, the MRC is still fretting about QAnon conspiracy theorists getting shut down on social media. An Oct. 7 post by Alexander Hall went the whataboutism route:
Facebook has been cracking down on conspiracy theorists while allowing groups that organize and share content in apparent conflict with Facebook’s policies. That means QAnon is gone but Antifa is still allowed.
Facebook previously established policies in August “that barred QAnon groups that called for violence,” The New York Times summarized, but this wasn’t enough for liberal news outlets pressuring Facebook. The Times illustrated that since then, “Facebook acknowledged that its previous policies had not gone far enough” in an October 6 update.
While liberals panic about people sharing conspiracy theories, extreme left-wing groups are using Facebook to organize civil unrest.
Among Hall's examples of "civil unrest" were "far-left Canadian organization Adbusters" allegedly undertaking "foreign political interference" and that "Facebook allowed activists to organize on the platform to harass sitting U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) at his purported home address about how he intends to vote concerning a replacement for deceased Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court."
CNS Weirdly Obsessed With Pelosi's Calls To Prayer Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com is a bit obsessed with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. When it's not trying to portray her as frail and senile, it loves to detail her calls to prayer.
In 2018, CNS published a mocking column from John Horvat II sneering at her call to pray for Dreamers, huffing that Pelosi "calls herself Catholic" and accusing her of having "politicized" her call to prayer. Last October, Susan Jones mocked her again under the headline "Pelosi, After Provoking Trump, Urges Prayers for His 'Health'," blaming her and Democrats for "deliberately provok[ing]" Trump (and , of course, not Trump for being so lacking in self-control that he allowed himself to be provoked).
After touting in February how Trump lashed out at Pelosi for allegedly "say[ing] I pray for you when they know that that's not so," CNS has spent the following several months being fascinated by Pelosi's various calls to prayer:
It's unclear what CNS wants its readers to take away from its fixation on Pelosi and prayer. Its uber-Catholic editors like Terry Jeffrey and Michael W. Chapman have never respected the way Pelosi conducts her Catholic faith -- it conducted a failed hit job on her over how she had "an epiphany on Easter" -- so they obviously don't believe her calls to prayer are sincere. So why promote them at all, except as a sort of backhanded acknowledgment that even the hated Pelosi believes in prayer?
That would certainly conflict with the prevailing frail-and-senile narrative at CNS, though. So it's a mystery.
NEW ARTICLE: The MRC Doesn't Care About Tara Reade Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has embraced a woman who accused Joe Biden of sexual misconduct a few decades back -- but only because she's useful to its agenda. By contrast, it demeans women who make similar allegations against President Trump. Read more >>
CNS Can't Let Go Of Its Biden-Is-Senile Narrative Topic: CNSNews.com
Formonths, CNSNews.com has been pushing the Trump-approved narrative that Joe Biden has some mental issues, if not actually senile (though it complains when Trump's mental slippages are highlighted). It continued to do so over the past month.
As he did in June, CNS' Craig Bannister played gotcha when Biden mistakenly said "millions" instead of "thousands" when describing the numbner of Americans killed by coronavirus. Instead of giving Biden the benefit of the doubt -- he said nothing when Trump embarassingly mispronounced "Yosemite" and "Thailand" -- he lectured:
For the second time this year, Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden grossly exaggerated the number of coronavirus deaths while visiting Pennsylvania, claiming hundreds of millions, instead of thousands have died.
The U.S. population is estimated to be about 328 million people, meaning nearly two-thirds of the nation have died from COVID-19 if Biden's claim were true, when, in actuality, nearly two hundred thousand people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19.
In an anonymously written Sept. 28 article, CNS took seriously Trump's taunt that Biden needed to take a "drug test" before the first presidential debate, intoning that Biden had "no comment" when asked about it. The same day, in another anonymous article, seriously portrayed Biden's obvious joke that he had first served in the Senate "180 years ago" as another example of sanity slippage, noting only that he "briefly chuckled" over the remark and lecturing, "Biden was first elected to the Senate in 1972, which was 48 years ago, and took his seat in January 1973, whcih was 47 years ago.
Susan Jones tried to drag Biden's wife into its narrative in another Sept. 28 article:
Delicately treading on Joe Biden's mental state, CNN's Jake Tapper gave Jill Biden a pass when she firmly rejected Tapper's suggestion that "your husband has been known to make the occasional gaffe."
"Oh, you can't even go there. After Donald Trump, you cannot even say the word gaffe," Mrs. Biden told Tapper in an interview that aired on Sunday.
Jones has previously gotten mad that "Liberal activists in the media are now focusing in particular on Trump's mispronunciations" even as she has aggressively refused to do so.
Biden's vice presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, wasn't immune either. In a Sept. 15 article, Bannister asserted that Harris "made the kind of verbal slip made famous by the party’s presidential candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden" by referring to "the Harris administration" in an interview.Bannister then hyped the "social media frenzy accusing Harris of a 'Freudian slip' based on the belief that she’ll actually be the one running the show if Biden wins the White House."
Later that day, Melanie Arter wrote that "One day after Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), the Democratic vice presidential running mate to former Vice President Joe Biden, referred to what 'a Harris administration' will do, Biden himself has the same gaffe." She waited until the end of the third paragraph of his article to admit that Biden"correct[ed] himself."
Months of CNS pushing this narrative (with the Trump's campaign's presumed blessing) set the bar so low for Biden at the first debate that he was easily able to surpass expectations. Thus, CNS hasn't suggested anything about Biden's purported cognitive decline again since the debate.But look for it to pounce on any future Biden gaffes in a way it will never do when Trump makes them.
Collusion? MRC Parrots Fox News With 'Ambush' Claim About Trump Town Hall Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has long been an aggressive defender of Fox News -- not surprising since they're both media arms of the Trump campaign. Butit seems the two might be so close they're working together to manufacture right-wing media narratives.
After President Trump sat down for a Sept. 15 town hall with ABC that didn't go the way the MRC hoped, Curtis Houck set the narrative: Trump was ambushed! Two entire posts were devoted to attacking ABC for asking Trump questions, under the headline "ABC Ambushes Trump With a Debate at Q&A, POTUS Brings the Heat." In the first, Nicholas Fondacarto complained: "What was pitched to viewers as a '20/20 Special Event' Tuesday, a town hall with President Trump, turned out to be the first 2020 presidential debate. But instead of Democratic nominee Joe Biden as Trump’s opponent, the President squared off against ABC’s chief anchor and Clinton lackey, George Stephanopoulos, who took every opportunity to battle his guest."
In the second, Curtis Houck echoed: "Billed as a presidential town hall with questions from undecided voters, ABC showed that they pulled a fast one on the American people as Tuesday’s The President and the People: A 20/20 Special Event ended up being debate prep for President Trump as, instead of Joe Biden, he faced 90 minutes of hostility from chief anchor and former Clinton official George Stephanopoulos." He further whined that this was an "ambush by a liberal operative."
But not only was this take not original, it may have even been workshopped beforehand. Fox News host Laura Ingraham wasportraying the town hall an "ambush."
So did they collaborate on their narrative? Who knows -- Houck and Fondacaro certainly aren't going to be forthcoming about it since they're true-believer Bozell-bots who would never, ever be critical of Trump or Fox News.
Meanwhile, Houck liked this narrative so much he clung onto it a couple days later. When a similar town hall with Joe Biden on CNN was purported less ambush-y, he invoked it again: "Illustrating the liberal media’s purposeful and shameless carrying of water for Democratic ticket, CNN’s presidential town hall was a cakewalk on Thursday for Joe Biden, thanks to no fact-checking, no snarky rebuttals, or major hostility at PNC Field in Moosic, Pennsylvania. That stood in stark contrast to the ambush President Trump faced on ABC Tuesday night in Philadelphia."
Hey, it's a Fox News-approved narrative. Why wouldn't the MRC run with it?
Newsmax Columnist Rants About Lower Alcohol Recommendations, Gets A Disclaimer Topic: Newsmax
When your publisher has to add a disclaimer to your column, that's a sign that you're perhaps a bit out of the mainstream. But Newsmax felt moved to begin Jared Whitley's Sept. 21 column by stating, "The following article has been authored by a non-clinician."
Indeed, what follows from Whitley -- whose Newsmax bio describes him as a "long-time politico" and, indeed, not a clinician -- is one long, annoying rant against a Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee recommendation that "moderate" consumption of alcohol be reduced from two drinks per day to one:
For DGAC to draw this hard line is basically the strictest the government has ever gotten with booze since Prohibition. And this recommendation might be as bad as some other ones they've made.
Note these are largely the same people who have defended the disastrous food pyramid, which dramatically over-prescribed carbohydrate consumption for decades and contributed to the country's obesity epidemic. They're also the ones behind our terrible corn-subsidies policy, which is a huge expense to taxpayers, bad for crop diversification, even worse for public health, and destroys the livelihoods of small farmers in the developing world.
The biggest problem with these new dietary guidelines as others have noted is that it focuses on just one of 60 available studies on alcohol intake. DGAC is conflating reasonable, regular alcohol consumption – like two beers – with actual alcohol abuse, like binge drinking five or more drinks at the same time.
If DGAC wants people to drink less, then it needs to start demanding we re-open society. People at bars don't binge drink – people shut in at home all alone do. But governments don't usually want to let go of power when they can grab it instead. Men are not angels, and this policy shows some nutritionists are drunk with power.
Serial ccoronavirus conspiracy-mongerer Michael Schisler is at it again in a Sept. 7 WorldNetDailiy column centered around Joe Biden and hydroxychloroquine. First , he served up a defense of the medicine:
Earlier this year Biden blasted Trump for purportedly taking hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a prophylaxis against COVID-19. And since Joe apparently only listens to those particular scientists who claim HCQ is ineffective and dangerous, it was an obvious opportunity for Biden to bash the current administration.
Of course, Biden has to ignore the fact that the study he relied on had to be retracted for cooking the data.
Yale professor Dr. Harvey Risch says that HCQ is an effective and safe treatment.
And Joe also has to ignore the fact that data from around the globe show the effectiveness of public policy that incorporates HCQ use:
First: The article to which Schisler links as alleged evidence of the study Biden "relied on" to raise questions about HCQ doesn't mention it at all, let alone document that Biden referenced it. Second: As we've documented, Rischhas been criticized for using cherry-picked data in his pro-HCQ research. Third: Schisler offers no source for the graphic purporting to cite ":data from around the globe" on HCQ effectiveness; the graphic states only "@gummibear737" as a source, apparently a reference to an anonymous Twitter account.
Schisler then went further into conspiracy territory by bizarrely suggesting that Biden is secretly taking hydroxychloroquine:
The fact is that Joe Biden is towing the Democratic line when it comes to HCQ. And its Joe's public position that HCQ is dangerous, ineffective and something that science has rejected.
But given Joe's long and illustrious history of not exactly being truthful with the American public, one has to wonder whether he actually believes the party line on HCQ. The American public is right to know whether in private, Joe Biden believes what he claims to believe in public about HCQ.
While Biden might not be the most truthful person on the face of the earth, and while he might be (is) a walking gaffe machine, Joe has proven to be on some level, a smart man. Joe knows he's old, and Joe has seen the data. Joe has seen that studies supporting his public position have been retracted, and Joe is aware of Dr. Risch's as well as countless others' positions.
Given these realities, it's unreasonable for anyone to conclude that Joe Biden truly believes that hydroxychloroquine is ineffective and dangerous. In fact, I think Biden would demand access to HCQ in a heartbeat if he contracts COVID-19. He's just towing the Democratic line on HCQ for purely political reasons.
And truth be known, I think there is a good chance Biden has already secretly taken HCQ for prophylaxis. He'd be crazy not to at his age and the amount of exposure he'll soon be subjected to.
So, what's it going to be, candidate Biden? You're the one who made the claim "I'm a smart fella. I listen to scientists." And you and your lab coats are telling the American people "no HCQ access for you."
Are you going to put your health where your mouth is and swear to the American public that you have never used HCQ and that you refuse HCQ treatment under all circumstances? And are you releasing all related health and treatment records to the public? You owe these things to the American people, and it's time for you to pay up.
Unless of course you want to admit to what everyone already knows is true.
Actually, not even Schisler knows it's true. But he's not getting paid by WND to tell the truth (if WND is even bothering to pay him for his work, that is).
MRC Censors New Trump Accuser As It Desperately Hypes Tara Reade Topic: Media Research Center
Formonths, the Media Research Center has obsessed over Tara Reade, the woman who accused Joe Biden of doing something untoward to her 30 years ago, hyping her claims as indisputably true even as it mocked and demeaned a woman who accused President Trump of assaulting her. It's still doing so.
In a Sept. 7 post, Brad Wilmouth complained that CNN had on Anita Hill -- another woman the MRC has mocked and demeaned for making sexual harassment accusations against a beloved conservative -- to talk about Biden while "Tara Reade's accusations of sexual assault against Biden were not mentioned at all." Wilmouth further complained: "Even though Anita Hill's claims against [Clarence] Thomas were entirely about inappropriate sexual talk, in contrast with the physical assault accusations against Biden by Reade -- who used to work in his Senate office in the early 1990s -- nothing at all was mentioned about the allegations against Biden."
Kyle Drennen took his own whack at Hill in a Sept. 29 post, smearing her as a "Supreme Court nominee smear artist" (never mind that Hill's claims about Thomas have never been disproven). Drennen sneered that Hill and CBS host Gayle King "discussed Hill’s endorsement of Joe Biden for president, supposedly because he would combat sexual harassment. Tara Reade might disagree with that rationale." He added, "King refused to press Hill on Reade’s accusation, instead concluding the segment by touting: 'I’m sure Joe Biden was glad to hear you’re going to endorse him.'"
The same day, Alex Christy complained that a commentator pointed out before the first presidential debate that "Trump is not above pulling stunts," citing Reade as a possible example." Christy huffed in response: "It's not a stunt to ask the Democratic nominee if he believes in the standard of evidence he applies for himself or the standard his party applied for Brett Kavanaugh or that he himself has pledged to apply to college students as a matter of policy."
Whitlock returned on Oct. 5, going far afield to find some Tara Reade coverage that fit his antiBiden bias:
Journalists have been derelict in their duty of investigating last March's bombshell sexual assault claims against Joe Biden, providing cover for the Democratic presidential candidate. So you may be surprised to know that 60 Minutes on Sunday spent 12 minutes and 56 seconds investigating Tara Reade and talking to a witness who corroborates her story. Except... it was 60 Minutes Australia. NOT the CBS program that airs in America and might be helpful in educating voters a month before the election.
Instead, American 60 Minutes on Sunday devoted 13 minutes and 15 seconds to comedian Jerry Seinfeld and his new book. So they obviously wouldn’t have time for Reade, right?
On the other side of the world, Australian reporter Alexis Daish talked to Reade on the subject of a slanted, biased media: “Unlike Trump’s accusers, Tara has received a barrage of scrutiny.Do you feel as though if Joe Biden wasn’t Joe Biden, your allegations would be taken more seriously?”
Reade called out the press: “Absolutely. If he was a Republican. I think the fact that he’s an elite Democrat put him in this untouchable position and the media was biasedand people were biased about it.”
While Whitlock and the MRC were continuing to flog the Reade allegations in an attempt to breathe new lilfe into them, they censored yet another Trump accuser. In mid-September, model Any Dorris stated that Trump sexually assaulted her at the 1997 U.S. Open, groping her and "shov[ing] his tongue down my throat."
Whitlock concluded his column by asserting: "Believe all women... unless they’re accusing a powerful Democrat who could be president." But he's a hypocrite; he obviously believes only women who accuse powerful Democrats who could be president, while powerful Republicans who already are president get a pass.
For Some Reason, CNS Did 2 Articles On Biden's Use Of 'Despacito' At Rally Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com lovestomake Joe Biden look as bad as possible on its "news" pages -- it is the inverted-pyramid version of the Media Research Center, the media arm of the Trump campaign -- so it's no surprise that it somehow managed to do two articles on Joe Biden using the song "Despacito" at a rally.
Patrick Goodenough complained in a Sept. 16 article that "Democrat [sic] presidential nominee Joe Biden prefaced his remarks at a Hispanic Heritage Month campaign event in Florida on Tuesday night by playing an excerpt on his phone of the 2017 Spanish-language hit song 'Despacito,' grinning and swaying to be beat as he did so." He then went into Trump-surrogate mode:
Twitter erupted after Biden’s opening, with words like “cringe” and “pandering” featuring prominently.
Trump campaign advisor Mercedes Schlapp was among many who drew attention to the meaning of the song’s title.
“Does @JoeBiden realize that Despacito means ‘slowly’? Fits well with Slow Joe,’ she tweeted.
“What is this all about?” tweeted President Trump, linking to a spoof video in which Biden seemed to be playing not Despacito but the hip hop protest song ‘F**k da Police” by N.W.A.
Goodenough concluded by snarking, "The song – as the video makes fairly obvious – is about sex."
Later that day, CNS managing editor Michael W. Chapman took that last sentence and ran with it, going full-on prude by presenting himself as offended by the lyrics:
Before he began his speech at an event in Florida to kick off Hispanic Heritage Month -- and try to appeal to Latino voters -- Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden played part of the hit pop-song "Despacito," which is a Spanish-language song about taking romance "slowly."
But the song also strongly alludes to engaging in sex "slowly" in order to, as the lyrics say, "show my mouth your favorite places (favorite, favorite, baby)" and "to make you scream."
The lyrics are in Spanish but The Sun translated them into English for an article headlined, "Controversial Tune Despacito is absolute FILTH in English ... here is what the lyrics really mean." The Sun also reported that the song was banned on state radio in Malaysia.
As a raginghomophobe, Chapman has had a longtime preoccupation with the sex lives of other people, real or fictional. But Chapman's sex obsession inadvertently undercut the "slow Joe" narrative Goodenough and Schlapp were pushing.
MRC's Graham Still Jealous Of Obamas' Memoir Success Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center -- mostly Tim Graham -- has been insanely jealous at the success of the Obamas' post-presidency dealings, from their Netflix production deal to the book deal for Barack's and Michelle's memoirs to the mere idea of them making money in general and buying houses with said money.
Graham spent his Aug. 19 column whining that "the media see it as their job to praise everything Michelle Obama does with overwhelming enthusiasm," huffing:
Please try this imaginative exercise: When has a “news” professional ever asked Michelle Obama a challenging question? When has she ever been portrayed as anything less than Barack’s “not-so-secret weapon”? If you want to smell a whiff of authoritarianism in America, it feels almost illegal to speak one discouraging word about the first black First Lady.
Michelle Obama is America’s most pampered princess, the most spoiled figure in our modern political history. Her every move is carefully prepared and managed, and no one ever disturbs her peace when she’s on display. Praising her poise and her cool is mandatory, and it’s easier to show poise when no one ever, ever challenges you as less than perfect.
This is what makes all of her Oprah-esque blather about empathy sound a little humorous. How can this multi-multi-millionaire author and celebrity with the Martha’s Vineyard mansion present herself to the voters as Just Like You? She has filmmakers make gushy films about how empathetic she is as part of the lucrative family business deal with Netflix, but who else gets that privilege?
Even conservative writers and media outlets want to hail her rhetorical bilge. Let’s stop that. Someone needs to break this sickening spell. Let’s dare to treat her like just another wealthy Democrat hack, selling a siren song of socialism in her glitter boots.
Graham petulantly refused to give Michelle credit for the fact that her book sold 10 million copies, grousing: "It’s true she had one of the most successful books in recent years, in large part because of fierce Democratic loyalty, and in part because of endless, breathless promotion by fiercely loyal 'news' outlets."
Graham turned his attention to Michelle's husband in a Sept. 17 post, finding things to complain about in the announcement of the November publication of Barack's memoirs: "The guy who mocked the bitter clingers to guns and religion is going to lecture about divisiveness. Obama has now split his memoirs into two volumes. This one will cover his life up through the takedown of Osama bin Laden in 2011. Don't bother looking for Reverend Wright in the index."
Graham pre-emptively declared Obama's memoir to be a fake -- never mind that it has yet to be published -- because his memoir "Dreams From My Father" was "full of fictional tales (never mind that it says right there in the book that "some of the characters that appear are composites of people, I've known, and some events appear out of precise chronology").
Graham concluded by whining that the media was pointing out how big of a deal Obama's book is to the publishing industry and that the $65 million the Obamas received for their memoirs appears to have been money well spent, given how many copies of Michelle's book were sold.
It's sad that Graham apparently has nothing else going on in his life, giving him time to spew hateful, partisan jealousy at the Obamas.
Newsmax's Dick Morris Is In Full Trump Suck-Up Mode Topic: Newsmax
A raft of failed predictions in 2012 sent Dick Morris into exile at Newsmax, which attempted one of its image rehab projects on him, which didn't really take given his irrelevance over the past few years as a political pundit beyond Newsmax's walls. While we weren't watching (it seems he's writing columns for Newsmax all this time), Morris has taken his pro-Trump sycophancy -- as touted in a 2016 book published by Newsmax's book division, Humanix -- to the next level. In his Sept. 16 column, the headline sums up Morris' suyck-up mode -- "Key to Trump's Victory — He Believes in America, Democrats Never Will":
The Democratic National Convention opened the door for the Trump campaign to run on a central theme: Belief in America.
The dour pessimism which oozed from every portal at the Democrats' convention sets up a beautiful contrast between the two candidates and their parties — optimism versus pessimism, That is, belief in America versus versus doubt over America.
Democrats believe the virus may conquer us.
Republicans believe we will conquer the virus.
Democrats predict a shaky economy at best and a prolonged recession at worst.
But Republicans believe the ongoing economic comeback will continue and, if Trump wins, accelerate.
So the Trump Campaign should say to the Democrats, "How can you lead a country when you don’t believe in its future?"
Republicans should respond sounding this theme: "Believe in America and make it great again."
The Biden campaign would rather make the race a personal referendum on Trump’s style, temperament, and personality. But the race will inevitably revolve around the Trump record and what it means for our nation's future.
The Democratic strategy is to throw mud at Trump with an unending series of suggestive, titillating accusations and inferences from a plethora of books to keep the president in a permanent state of rage.
But the Trump campaign, by echoing a message of optimism can cut through that miasma.
When we convert pessimists into optimists, we switch voters from Biden to Trump.
And, of course, when the vaccine arrives, its ballgame over.
On Sept. 28, Morris attempted a novel spin on Trump's tax controversy:
Contrary to the false impression in The New York Times story, Donald Trump did not avoid taxes.
He pre-paid them.
In 2016 and 2017, he requested and got an extension to file his returns.
As required, he made an estimated tax payment of $1 million in 2016 and $4.2 million in 2017. Then, it turned out that he did not owe that much in taxes, but, rather than demand the money back, he let the IRS keep it and apply it to any future tax he owed.
So — when he only paid $750 in taxes for the first two years of his presidency it was because he had already overpaid during the two previous years and just reduced his payment by that amount.
Over the longer term, Trump overpaid his taxes by $72 million.
Because some of that overpayment was more than two years earlier, he was not allowed to offset it against current taxes. But Obama changed the law to allow taxpayers to go further back and he offset his tax liability in future years by citing his overpayment.
So Donald Trump did not avoid paying taxes, he prepaid them.
So what's wrong with that?
Not much, aside from the fact that's not what actually happened. Trump has been trying to get a $72 million tax refund since 2010 by claiming $1.4 billion in losses in 2008 and 2009; claiming losses to avoid paying taxes is a longtime Trump schtick.
Morris wasn't done sucking up on the issue of taxes:
And, since no good deed goes unpunished in politics, the president also being skewered for taking a charitable tax deduction of $119 million for agreeing not to build homes on a 200 acre plot in Westchester, New York and a similar one in Los Angeles.
In each case, Trump bought the property planning to build a golf course and homes on them. Both times, the local zoning board refused to allow the development.
So Trump donated the right to develop develop this land to charity and took a deduction of $119 million, called a charitable easement.
So now the beautiful land in each location will be preserved forever wild as a place of refuge for people, birds, and animals.
Again, Morris is censoring the shady part of the controversy about the New York property known as Seven Springs:
Trump failed to develop the property after neighbors fought back so he took advantage of a historic conservation easement provision that allowed him to claim a $21 million charitable tax deduction when he signed a deal not to develop most of the property. He has also written off millions in property taxes as a business expense, classifying Seven Springs as an investment property rather than a personal residence, even though the Trumps appear to have used the sprawling estate as a summer "compound" and "retreat for the Trump family" for years.
Trump's tax records show that about $119 million of the $130 million in charitable contributions reported to the IRS have come from the Seven Springs scheme. The Seven Springs deduction is under investigation by New York's attorney general.
Morris concluded by invoking the right-wing defense of Trump on the tax issue: "He took advantage of every way to cut his tax burden. Do you know any taxpayer who doesn’t?"