MRC Launches Misleading, Nitpicky Attacks On Ga. Senate Candidate Topic: Media Research Center
Almost as if acting on orders from their Republican overlords, the Media Research Center is going on the attack against the Rev. Raphael Warnock, the Democratic candidate in one of the Georgia Senate races that will help determine control of the body for the next two years.
Scott Whitlock went on a misleading anti-Warnock tirade in a Nov. 18 post under a headline laughably calling Warnock "Radical Raphael":
Journalists have already shifted from attack dogs for Donald Trump to cuddly puppies in how they cover Joe Biden. But they’ve been strangely quiet on the background of a man who could help the Democratic Party win the U.S. Senate in a Georgia runoff election.
Raphael Warnock is facing incumbent Republican Kelly Loeffler,. He is also a radical leftist who has condemned serving in the military and trashed America’s ally Israel. Yet ABC, CBS and NBC have shown no interest in these incendiary beliefs that could torpedo his campaign and Democratic control of the Senate.
Here are some of the shocking things Warnock has said or been connected to. Network journalists should do their jobs and investigate, something that cable outlets have at least attempted.
As Fox News reported, Reverend Warnock told church parishioners in 2011 that one could not serve in the military and be a good Christian: “America, nobody can serve God and the military. You can’t serve God and money. You cannot serve God and mammon at the same time. America, choose ye this day who you will serve. Choose ye this day.”
No, Scott, Warnock did not claim that "one could not serve in the military and be a good Christian." In full context, Warnock was fleshing out the old "cannot serve God and mammon" Bible verse and was speaking out against militarism, not military service.
In his Nov. 20 column, Tim Graham declared Warnock to be an "acolyte" of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whom the right-wing media spent years inveighing against for his links to Barack Obama. Graham also took Warnock's remarks about God andthe military out of context, listing it as among his allegedly "extreme sermons" (even though it's based on a Bible verse) and sneering, "If that’s about violence, he hasn’t claimed nobody can serve God and Planned Parenthood."
Since Warnock once said something nice about Wright, that gave the MRC license to bring up all the old attacks on him, including the notorious "God damn America" quote. When someone pointed out that the remark was taken out of context and that the right-wing outrage against both Warnock and Wright seemed to stem in part from the fact that both are black, Mark Finkelstein retorted in a Nov. 23 post that "When it comes to attempting to explain away the unexplainable, nothing's more hackneyed than claiming the offensive statement was 'taken out of context,'" then insisting that Loeffler wasn't being racist by attacking black pastors: "If Warnock had been defending a pastor of pallor who made the same despicable statement cursing our country, Loeffler would surely be bringing it to the attention of Georgia voters in a similar way."
Graham returned in a Nov. 30 post for yet another nitpicky meltdown against a fact-checker for checking facts. He whined that PolitiFact ruled that Warnock's statement that Loeffler is for "getting rid of health care in the middle of a pandemic" was "half true," huffing, "By the extremely literal logic that PolitiFact often applies to the GOP, it could be interpreted that 'getting rid of health care' means 'closing all the hospitals and forbidding doctors to work.'" Of course, getting rid of the Affordable Care Act, as Loeffler wants to do, without a replacement option means that you are, in fact, getting rid of some people's health care, at least in the form and at a price they're familiar with.
NEW ARTICLE: CNS' 2020 Election Bias, Part 1 Topic: CNSNews.com
The pro-Trump and anti-Biden bias CNSNews.com was blindingly obvious in the run-up to the election. Reporting only on polls that made Trump look good was just the start. Read more >>
MRC Enlists Another Biased Pollster To Push Its Election Conspiracy Theory Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has been building a conspiracy theory that the presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump. First, it baselessly claimed that pre-election polls showing Joe Biden with a big lead over Trump were faked. Then -- after attacking political polls as unreliable or faked -- it paid for a poll (from Trump's pollster, McLaughlin, who clearly has a conflict of interest) claiming to find that some voters wouldn't have voted for Biden if they knew about the dubious right-wing narrative on Hunter Biden.
The left-wing news media didn’t just poison the information environment with their incessantly negative coverage of President Trump going into the 2020 election. They also refused to give airtime to important arguments of the Republican campaign — both pro-Trump and anti-Biden — which meant millions of voters cast their ballots knowing only what the media permitted them to know about the candidates.
To measure the true effect of the media’s censorship on the election, the Media Research Center asked The Polling Company to survey 1,750 Biden voters in seven swing states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin), six of which (all but North Carolina) were called for Biden (survey details below). We tested these voters’ knowledge of eight news stories — all important topics that our ongoing analysis had shown the liberal news media had failed to cover properly. We found that a huge majority (82%) of Biden voters were unaware of at least one of these key items, with five percent saying they were unaware of all eight of the issues we tested.
This lack of information proved crucial: One of every six Biden voters we surveyed (17%) said they would have abandoned the Democratic candidate had they known the facts about one or more of these news stories. A shift of this magnitude would have changed the outcome in all six of the swing states won by Joe Biden, and Donald Trump would have comfortably won a second term as president.
First: Noyes didn't mention the fact that the MRC denounced election-related polling immediately after the election, and he gave no reason why this poll should be trusted.
Second: Noyes didn't disclose the fact that The Polling Company was founded by former Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway, raising the issue of a conflict of interest. Conway sold The Polling Company to Republican PR firm CRC Public Relations in 2017 after joining the Trump White House, giving her a windfall of up to $5 million -- and also, a company to which the MRC has paid more than $3 million for its services over the years.
Third: The MRC poll was clearly designed to push respondents toward Republican narratives.At one point, Biden is referred to as "the Democrat candidate" -- a deliberate grammatical error designed to denigrate Biden. The poll also asked biased pro-Trump questions like:
At the time you cast your vote for president, were you aware that in just the five months from May through September, the economy created more than 11 million new jobs?
At the time you cast your vote for president, did you know that the president had negotiated three different peace agreements between Arab countries and Israel, something never done before, and for which he’s been nominated for three separate Nobel Peace Prizes?
At the time you cast your vote for president, were you aware that Joe Biden chose as his running mate and successor Kamala Harris, rated the most left wing Senator in America, even more leftist that Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist?
At the time you cast your vote for president, were you aware of the Trump administration's unprecedented $10 billion effort to expedite effective treatments to fight COVID-19, with the promise of 300 million doses of a safe vaccine available to the public as soon as next year?
Are you aware that Facebook and Twitter censored President Trump or his campaign 65 times in the past year, but neither platform censored Biden or his campaign a single time?
As we've noted, the Nobel Prize stuff is effectively meaningless, and the stuff about social media "censoring" Trump and not Biden is MRC-directed language and censors the fact that Trump violated Facebook's and Twitter's rules while Biden did not.
Fourth, and most crucially: The poll did not ask respondents about their news-watching habits, so the poll could not possibly determine that the "left-wing news media" didn't sufficiently push GOP talking points. It also did not ask respondents whether they knew about negative attacks on Trump -- it asked about the sexual misconduct allegations against Biden from Tara Reade, but made no mention of the sexual assault accusation made against Trump by E. Jean Carroll -- so there is not a baseline upon which to establish how much the "left-wing news media" allegedly didn't report about Biden.
Of course, this is all getting the play inside the right-wing bubble that the MRC wants. Rush Limbaugh touted it, of course, making sure not to ask the questions that we did. MRC chief Brent Bozell also appeared with podcaster (and MRC board member) Bill Walton. Bozell didn't disclose that McLaughlin was Trump's pollster but did admit that the Polling Company was "Kellyanne Conway's old company (but didn't mention that Conway was a Trump adviser), then laughably claimed that both pollsters were "highly, highly respected" (in fact, McLaughlin as a C-minus rating from FiveThirtyEight, while The Polling Company has a middling B/C grade). Bozell also crowed that these results were "scientific," but he made no mention of (and Walton didn't ask about) his own attack on pre-election polls as deliberately fake. Presumably since he's on the MRC board, Walton did almost no pushback on Bozell's increasingly outlandish and dubious claims.
Again Defying Its MRC Parent, CNS Finds Another Pandemic Silver Lining Topic: CNSNews.com
Remember when the Media Research Center went hypocritically nuts over people found silver linings to the coronavirus pandemic -- i.e., reduced pollution and a healthier environment -- while its own "news" division, CNSNews.com, was touting its own silver linings (i.e., increased spirituality)? Well, CNS is pushing the double standard again. A Nov. 12 column by John Stonestreet and Shane Morris is positively giddy at the idea that divorce rates have gone down during the pandemic:
Divorce rates in the United States have declined, and marriages have grown stronger — during the pandemic.
Predictions of a COVID-induced divorce surge never materialized. And according to Dr. Bradford Wilcox, director of the University of Virginia’s National Marriage Project, divorce filings in five states that display them in real time are down between 10 and 20 percent since last year. While Wilcox admits that these numbers may also reflect “deferred” divorces, unhappy couples unable to get to the courthouse during lockdown, more and more data trickling in suggests trends more surprising and encouraging than initially assumed.
Last year, according to the American Family Survey, 40 percent of married Americans surveyed reported their marriages were in trouble. This year, that number is down to 29 percent. According to the same survey, 58 percent of married people between the ages of 18 and 55 report that their appreciation for their spouse has increased during the pandemic. Also, 51 percent report a deepened commitment to their marriage during COVID, while only 8 percent report a weakened commitment to their marriage.
For instance, during the pandemic, fathers have spent more time at home and have helped out more with household chores. The marital benefits of a father’s presence go far beyond the division of labor. Wilcox believes that the increased time men spend engaging in home life makes an incredible difference relationally with both spouse and children. Even more, for many during this pandemic, the home became the center of work, play, meals, and even worship, a trend far more significant than it sounds. In effect, COVID has at least temporarily reversed a long-term trend in which the home has been largely de-centered from modern life.
As Aaron Renn, a researcher with the Institute for Family Studies, pointed out back in March, pre-industrial families organized shared lives around shared labor, shared meals, shared recreation, and shared education. During the pandemic, however, families were forced to stop treating their homes as nothing more than shared bunk spaces and food repositories. As Renn predicted, many families have now rediscovered what he calls “the productive household.” And as Wilcox believes, a backyard garden, renovations, cleaning the garage, family projects, and even board games can re-center families.
And, maybe, instead of just leaving when conflict started, couples were forced to stay together. Maybe they experienced the long-term relational and personal improvements that comes when conflict is faced and resolved, as opposed to running away from each other.
Stonestreet and make sure to ignore that in some areas, the divorce rate has increased during the pandemic. So, maybe not the total silver lining they're touting.
WorldNetDaily is still -- still! -- pushing hydroxychloroquine to treat despite the complete lack of credible evidence that it works. Joel S. Hirschhorn ranted in a Nov. 11 column:
Hard to believe, but very few Americans have doctors who are using a safe, proven protocol for early home/outpatient treatment for those with COVID-19 symptoms or a positive test result. If they had, some 180,000 deaths could have been prevented so far.
How could this happen? Two main reasons. First, The National Institutes of Health have not sanctioned any treatment for home/outpatient use – but only treatment promoted for hospital use. Second, the Food and Drug Administration does not approve of the use of the key cheap, safe and generic drug used in the U.S. since 1955, namely hydroxychloroquine (HCQ).
Hirschhorn cites the usual dubious suspects in support of his argument: Harvey Risch, Vladimir Zelenko, and the bogus HCQ statistics assembled anonymously and touted by the group to which Hirschhorn belongs, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.And as befits a guy who put Anthony Fauci before a"grand jury" impaneled in his own fevered brain, Hirschhorn ranted that "The media-hyped meme that Fauci is a trusted expert is nonsense.
A Nov. 19 "news" article by Art Moore touted a congressional hearing that was designed to defend hydroxychloroquine -- Risch testified at it -- with one congressman claiming that "the drug hydroxychloroquine was used as a "weapon" in the presidential election after it was promoted by President Trump. While Moore gave some space to Dr. Ashish Jha, the sole witness who accurately testified about studies showing not only that hydroxyvchloroquine didn't work but also that some studies showed patients who took HCQ had a higher death rate than those who weren't, he also let another witness attack Jha's testimony as "wreckless [sic] and dangerous for the nation."
Hirschhorn returned on Nov. 24 to complain that "The leftist press has totally ignored the hearing and the main messages delivered by senators and distinguished doctors who testified." He attacked Jha as a "shill" for Democrats and accused Fauci of "malpractice," then proclaimed: "The big reveal of the hearing was that Democrats have no interest in expanding access to proven home treatments for COVID and saving lives. Right now, leftist Democrat politics are causing tens of thousands of preventable COVID deaths. All those who voted for Biden should know that Democrats are a fundamental cause of the rising numbers of COVID hospitalizations and deaths."
How Is MRC Sports Blogger Hating Gays Now? Topic: Media Research Center
Jay Maxson, the Media Research Center's mysterious sports blogger who has no internet presence outside the MRC and may not even be a real person for all we know, is still feeling the anti-LBGT hate as much as ever.
Black Lives Matter protest is so passé now that the National Football League's weekend focus Sunday was on "National Coming Out Day." The league released a 30-second long "National Coming Out Day PSA" on YouTube Saturday, which aired during early-game Fox broadcasts Sunday.
Let's be real here. Sports leagues frequently suck up to the LGBT pressure groups' agenda, to stay on their good side, to prevent boycotts and nastiness. They're fearful of being labeled "homophobic."
Now it's not important to just be a great athlete. By coming out of the closet NFL players are sure to get the Jason Collins treatment. The president, commissioners, coaches and athletes fawned all over the former NBA player for cravenly coming out as he retired from the NBA in 2014.
Maxson is clearly not fearful of acting like a homophobe, as exhibited by his depiction of an athlete's coming out as "craven."
On Oct. 21, Maxson whined that the teams in the World Series, the Los Angeles Dodgers and Tampa Bay Rays, were being noted for catering to their LGBT fan bases, sneering that they earned " LGBTQ alphabet points" and that "Tampa's lesbian mayor" threw out the first pitch at a game, adding that "The Dodgers were one of the first baseball teams succumbing to pressure to feature Pride Nights, hosting what is believed to be the first Gay and Lesbian Night in August of 2000."
Maxson ranted against transgenders in a Nov. 6 post:
Boise, Idaho, you can kiss your inclusion in March Madness next spring good-bye. The NCAA prefers a different version of inclusion for its host sites, one that doesn't ban males from participating in female sports like Idaho does. College sports fans, trans inclusion is rolling down the tracks and little can stop it.
SB Nation Outsports reports that the NCAALGBT hasn't yet rescinded its agreement for NCAA Tournament games in Boise, but the sport's governing association is in the tank for transgenders.
As if social justice activism hasn't ruined people's enjoyment of sports enough, it's just a matter of when college sports become more defined by the letters NCAALGBT than by biological gender and notions of fairness.
On Nov. 16, Maxson retorted against an article noting that longtime baseball coach Tonny Lasorda refused to acknowlege his son is gay by declaring him to be on his deathbed:
Can't a 93-year-old critically ill man be allowed to die in peace? Not if he is Hall of Fame former baseball manager Tommy Lasorda. Then SB Nation Outsports will dog him to his dying day because he never admitted his late son was homosexual.
Outsports writer Dawn Ennis goes lower than low in a shameful assault on Lasorda (seen in photo delivering his Hall of Fame speech), who managed the Los Angeles Dodgers from 1976-1996, won 1,599 games and two World Series. Inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1997, Lasorda is currently in an intensive care unit in a Los Angeles-area hospital.
Tommy Lasorda is not a "legend" because he didn't get on his knees to the LGBT fascists and say his son was homosexual. Ennis is a "legend" for contributing to cancel culture with her crassness, disrespect and lack of civility.
That's what passes for sports commentary at the MRC.
For unexplained reasons (but probably having something to do with the lack of a student intern), CNSNews.com published no Mark Levin stenography for just over a month, from Aug. 14 to Sept. 16. But with an election coming up (and a new fall intern in the building), CNS didn't want to ignore Levin's right-wing rants any longer. Let's look at the Levin stenography CNS published in September and October:
Despite the late start, that's 15 articles over the two-month period. That makes for a total of 76 articles in 2020, a little off the pace of the past three years, when it devoted at least 96 articles annually to Levin.
CNS also gave Levin space to whine on Oct. 5 that Facebook had restricted the visibility of"constitutional scholar, best selling author, and conservative talk-radio host" Levin over his promotion of fake news. Interestingly, the article by Lucy Collins doesn't explain exactly what the content was that got his page restricted. A couple days later, Craig Bannister followed up by repeating Levin's assertion that Facebook "backed down on censorship of his page."
MRC Attacks Reagan Film It Hasn't Seen Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has alongtradition of attacking the alleged content of TV shows or movies it hasn't actually seen. A new Showtime documentary about Ronald Reagan is another example. The show didn't debut until Nov. 18, but the MRC already had its knives out. Brent Baker huffed in a Nov. 13 post, personally attacking the film's director, Matt Tyrnauer, since he couldn't credibly go after content he hadn't seen:
The Showtime pay cable channel, owned by ViacomCBS, has become the latest media outlet to promote specious leftist attacks meant to destroy the credibility and respect for a political leader admired by conservatives.
On Sunday night at 8 PM EST (repeating at 11:30 PM and 1:30 AM EST, matching times in the West coast feed) Showtime will debut a four-part documentary series, The Reagans, devoted to smearing President Ronald Reagan as an anti-civil rights user of racist “dog whistles” who, in the words of its director, served as a tool of “plutocrats” who “in many ways paved the way for Trump.”
Reciting a series of mendacious liberal cliches, Tyrnauer asserted: “What really happened during the Reagan presidency is ignored: the advancement of the system of the one percent, the dismantling of the New Deal social safety net. He may not have seen himself as a cruel man, but when you look at the effect of his policies, he was, and he got away with it because he knew how to manipulate the media-industrial complex with his myth. It’s time to take a fresh look at it.”
No surprise that Tyrnauer come out of a liberal political background. In his Thursday review for the New York Times, Adam Nagourney recalled: “I met Tyrnauer while covering the 1988 presidential campaign; he was an assistant at the Boston headquarters of Michael Dukakis, the Democrat who would lose to George H.W. Bush.”
Baker's post carried the declarative headline "Showtime Documentary Smears Reagan as Racist Precursor to Trump" even though, again, he can't possibly know this is true having written this five days before the documentary aired.
Clay Waters did much the same thing in a Nov. 15 post -- three days before airing:
The cultural elite are sliming the legacy of President Ronald Reagan and using him as a cudgel to attack President Trump, reducing the former president to a racist proto-Trump, while suggesting the press and academia have actually been too soft (!) on Reagan’s legacy.
New York Times California-based reporter Adam Nagourney wrote a full profile Thursday on Matt Tyrnauer and his four-part documentary “The Reagans,” which begins airing on Showtime Sunday night: “Parsing the Seeds Reagan Sowed.” The text box: “A documentary about the former president examines the practice of dog-whistle politics.”
Still, Nagourney wanted Tyrnauer’s “harsh portrait of Reagan” to spur a “reappraisal” of his legacy, before teeing the filmmaker up for more of the tiresome “dog whistle” rhetoric.
Waters then attacked a Times review of the series as being "similarly receptive to the left-wing revisionism," further attacking the reviewer of having a "liberal worldview."
Interestingly, neither Baker nor Waters specifically rebutted anything they claim is in the film beyond denouncing it as "liberal."
The sole MRC post on the series that actually appeared after its debut was a Nov. 21 post by right-wing film reviewer Christian Toto -- and even he didn't review it. Instead, he wrote, "The just-released docuseries The Reagans does little to hide its rage against the nation’s 40th president. Early reviews highlight the film’s critical take on his presidency and cultural impact." Toto linked to Baker's attack on the director, which, again, isn't an "early review" since Baker hadn't seen the film.
Rather than actually bothering to see the film he's attacking, Toto denounced it as "It’s why another Reagan project is so very necessary, at the very least to add balance to the pop culture record." He went on to gush about a Reagan biopic currently in production starring Dennis Quaid as the president, also noting that the film also features Jon Voight and Robert Davi -- though he didn't note those two are wildlyconservative. He also didn't mention that the film's production had to take a break due to a coronavirus outbreak on the set.
WND Finally Launches Subscription Option, Is Still Lying To Its Readers Topic: WorldNetDaily
It's taken nearly two years after the start of its current, ongoing financial crisis, but WorldNetDaily has finally -- finally -- created a formal subscription option for readers.
As described in a Nov. 18 article, the "WND Insider" program offers ad-free content for a minimum of $50 a year, with higher subscription levels offering things like discounts at its online store and subscriptions to its sparsely read Whistleblower magazine. Of course, in making that announcement, WND made sure to portray itself as a victim of "Big Tech":
WND is currently under greater attack than ever by Big Tech, which wants to destroy the internet’s oldest independent news website.
But we have a solution.
First, a few of the latest assaults:
Since early September, Facebook has massively suppressed WND’s traffic – down to about 10% of what it was previously on Facebook. This hurts us tremendously. When asked repeatedly why WND has been put in “Facebook jail,” the social media giant’s reps offer no reason – ever.
During the same period, three major online advertising companies – TripleLift, AppNexus/Xander and Teads – all simultaneously “canceled” their engagement with WND, citing vague breaches of their terms of service (one company said WND engages in “hate speech”), which has seriously reduced the ad revenue on which we rely to fund WND’s operation and pay our journalists.
Google has written WND out of its search algorithm so thoroughly that unless you specify “WND.com” in your search terms, a WND story rarely shows up.
Other examples abound but you get the idea.
WND is deliberately vague about exactly why it faces such issues -- because it publishes fake news, as we point outeverytime WND insists that it doesn't. But it's still trying to gaslight its readers by insisting that it's the non-right-wing media that's the real "fake news" and that WND is the "desperately needed counterbalance":
For those who may be somewhat new to WorldNetDaily (WND): Since 1997, before almost all other online news sites even existed, WND has provided a desperately needed counterbalance to the one-sided, dishonest and ever more unhinged fake news media. WND is staffed by veteran professional journalists who, unlike most of today’s media, are unapologetically Christian, pro-American and pro-Constitution. In the last two decades, we have broken many huge stories, defended the Constitution, championed Americans’ God-given rights, boldly upheld the sanctity of life, exposed corruption and abuse, and endeavored to fulfill the Founding Fathers’ notion of a truly free press.
The Founding Fathers probably didn't support a "free press" that is as blatantly biased and has published as many falsehoods as WND.
MRC Thinks Conservative Misinformation Is Just Asking 'Honest Questions' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is in active denial about Facebook's attempts to mollify conservarives -- and now it's simply lying to itself about it and denying that conservartive misinformation about the presidential election was misinforming anyone. Alexander Hall ranted in a Nov. 10 post:
A liberal tech writer has blasted Facebook for allowing conservatives to ask honest questions about the controversial 2020 election. He also lamented that Facebook has allowed conservative posts to become wildly popular.
New York Times tech columnist Kevin Roose tweeted screenshots of multiple trending stories on Nov. 9 that showed allegations of voter fraud. Roose lamented above the screenshots: “Facebook is absolutely teeming with right-wing misinformation right now.” He followed up by later conceding that “The tricky thing, for Facebook, is that some of the most viral stories aren't strictly false.” He continued to complain: “But they are feeding a stolen election narrative that is going to be hard to dial back.”
Yes, Hall actually claimed that deliberate conservative misinformation was merely asking "honest questions" about the election. He then crowed that "Roose was then scorched by The Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon for brazen hypocrisy," but all Dillon actually did was play whataboutism, whining that Roose "never mentions 'left-wing misinformation.'"
Hall went on to portray conservative misinformation as normal -- note his biased dichotomy between conservatives "swaying public opinion" and "far-left influencers indoctrinating" people"-- but he's also forced to concede that not only does Facebook not actually censor conservative views to the extent the MRC insisted it has, conservative posts dominate the site:
Roose was disturbed not only by the fact that conservative news outlets are able to speak, but also at how popular they are. He mentioned what he called, “A Newsmax video full of debunked voter fraud conspiracy theories (dead people voting, poll watchers barred, software glitches)” and remarked on how it “is the 3rd most-shared post of the past three days. 15 million views, 345,000 shares.”
Roose acknowledged that Facebook has labelled conservative posts in an attempt to discredit them, but derides that tactic as useless:
To Roose, it seems that any conservative swaying public opinion is radicalizing people, whereas far-left influencers indoctrinating them is just creating upright citizens. He has frequently tweeted lists of Facebook’s trending topics and users, complained that the platform is often dominated by conservative commentary.
Having admitted that, Hall then labored to return to the misleading right-wing narrative by huffing that "Contrary to Roose’s recent accusation of Facebook enabling conservative election skeptics, Facebook has cracked down on conservative information in the past year." But he cited only one example, that of the New York Post's dubious Hunter Biden story -- and he won't even vouch for the veracity of the story, stating that it was based on "purported emails."
It appears that Hall wants conservatives to be able to mislead and lie with impunity.
UPDATE: Hall did the same thing in a Nov. 12 post claiming that "A Biden campaign staffer is furious that conservatives are still allowed to question the integrity of the 2020 election online" and was "slamming the platform for giving conservatives a voice." In fact, the staffer accurately pointed out that "Donald Trump voter fraud and election victory lies represented 17 of the top 20 posts on FB between 11/3-11/8. While Twitter disabled sharing of Trump’s election disinformation, Facebook continued to actively promote the posts in feeds." Hall again claimed that "Contrary to liberal critiques, Facebook has cracked down on conservative information in the past year, specifically that which could hurt former Vice President Joe Biden’s bid for the presidency," but again he cited only the New York Post story.
Jones was very busy on Nov. 9. First, she complained that Joe Biden has "been declared the winner by major news outlets," then gave Republican Sen. Roy Blunt space to refuse to acknowledge Biden won and huff that "the media doesn't get to decide who the winner is. There is a canvassing process."
Of course, Jones couldn't admit Biden won either. She demonstrated that denial in another article that day transcribing President Trump taking credit for the first announcement of a coronavirus vaccine, which she wrote "comes six days after the election that Democrats insist Joe Biden won, despite the continuing vote count and legal challenges in a few swing states."
After that, Jones indulged in pushing the right-wing (and CNS) narrative that Biden getting a record number of votes doesn't really matter because Trump got nearly as many: "Democrat Joe Biden won more than 75 million votes, the most of any presidential candidate; but President Donald Trump won 70 million votes, the second highest total in history."
Jones continued to promote pro-Trump narratives over the next few days, with minimal pushback if any, regarding the president's increasingly desperate challenges to vote counts across the country:
It wasn't until Nov. 19 that she wrote her first article on the reality of Trump's failing election challenges, under the headline "Georgia Secretary of State: 'We Have Not Seen Any Widespread Voter Fraud'." But even then she wasn't willing to competely give up the conspiracy theories, complaining that "partisan host Jake Tapper" pointed out that speculation about election software allows certain people to change vote tallies is "frankly crazy stuff, tin foil hat stuff."
MRC Hypocritically Attacks CNN For Doing What Fox News Does Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center will never inflict on Fox News the journalistic scrutiny it regularly inflicts on CNN and MSNBC, despite the fact that it's at least as guilty, if not more, of the things it regularly attacks those other news channels of doing. Note the whataboutism Joseph Norris uses in deflecting uncomfortable criticism in a Nov. 6 post:
Leftist-aligned CNN, noted Biden sympathizers, are now calling out Fox News for their pro-Trump reporting. This coming from party of the DNC controlled media that has spent the past four years trying to tear the President down. Rather than take a look in the mirror, CNN host Jake Tapper goes on the offensive: “So if you are a Fox reporter or anchor, somebody not on the opinion side and you're going to abide by this crazy instruction, you might as well hand in your press credential at the same time because you can't be taken seriously as a journalist.”
In a move that smacks of jealousy, CNN is taking the time to insult their leading competitor. And to do so with yet another unnamed source that the leftist media seems so fond of using. Leftist CNN anchor Brian Stelter joined the 9:00 am ET hour to discuss to memos he allegedly received from Fox that has requested the people on air to refrain from calling Joe Biden the “President-Elect” till the election is fully resolved in the courts.
Of course, CNN showed its usual bias, dismissing these cases as “frivolous lawsuits.” Instead, they outright accuse Fox of “Fox still assumes he's telling the truth, promoting voter fraud innuendo, they are denigrating cities like Philadelphia, and they are treating these long-shot lawsuits like they are serious pursuits.” I believe that is called reporting the news, something CNN could learn from.
So uncritically repeating anything Trump does is "reporting the news," even if it's obviously false or doomed to failure? We suspect that this MRC reporting standard will change when Joe Biden takes office.
Norris whined further:
These facts did not stop CNN correspondent Abby Phillip from joining the attack: “Fox is acting as an arm of the Trump campaign. And Trump is treating Fox as an arm of the campaign. … The Trump campaign wants Fox to get in line, and it sounds like, based on Brian's reporting, they are getting in line.”
Given how CNN has vastly favored their own preferred candidate and their ruthless attacks on Trump for the past four years, they should be taking a hard look in the mirror before making these attacks. The hypocrisy on display is astounding. But it is not surprising.
If this sort of media bias is a bad thing -- and Norris is, by letting CNN's statements about Fox News being an arm of the Trump campaign pass unrebutted, effectively admitting those accusations are true -- why won't Norris criticize Fox News? Perhaps because not only is the MRC also an arm of the Trump campaign, MRC staffers tend to appear on Fox News and it doesn't want to do anything to jeopardize that relationship. At the top of that not-to-do list is anything that might document how Fox News uses the exact same "bias" techniques it bashes CNN and MSNBC for using.
Which makes the "astounding" hypocrisy on display here that of Norris and the MRC, not CNN.
Hate-Filled CNS Editor Smears Biden As 'Evil,' His Supporters As Lazy, Godless Heathens Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com editor in chief Terry Jeffrey's hatred of Joe Biden is so unhinged that not only did he petulantly rant about a Biden speech interrupting a football game, he vented his anger at Catholic bishops who dared to congratulate only the second Catholic in history to be elected president. It turns out Jeffrey's irrational anger extends to anyone who voted for Biden as well, spending his Nov. 11 column smearing Biden voters as lazy, godless heathens, since an exit poll shows more people who don't work full time, aren't married and don't attend church voted for Biden:
Based on these polls — and looked at purely from a political perspective — there are certain cultural trends in the United States that would be good for Republicans and bad for Democrats (and vice versa).
If more people decided to work full time to earn a living, that would be bad for Democrats — and good for Republicans. If more people decided not to work full time to earn a living, that would be bad for Republicans — and good for Democrats.
If more people got married and stayed married, that would be bad for Democrats — and good for Republicans.
If more people started going to church or religious services, that would be bad for Democrats — and good for Republicans.
Indeed, in a nation where every voter went to church or attended a religious service at least once every four weeks, Trump would have won. Such an America would have been too religious for Biden to carry.
The ideal electorate from the Democratic political point of view would be dominated by unmarried people in their twenties and thirties who do not work full time and never go to church.
From the Republican point of view, it would be dominated by people who had experienced at least another 20 years in life, gotten married, found a permanent job and joined a church that they regularly attend.
Which electorate do you think would do a better job of keeping this country prosperous and free?
Jeffrey wasn't done with the smears. In his Nov. 18 column, he painted Biden as "evil" for supporting abortion rights and transgender rights in listing "five things candidate Biden promised to do as president can fairly be described as evil," and he's especially outraged (and hate-filled) by the transgender stuff:
The fourth evil act Biden has planned is to force public schools to treat biological males as females and biological females as males.
"By creating the human being man and woman, God gives personal dignity equally to the one and the other," says the Catholic Catechism. "Each of them, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity."
Rather than accept the God-given "sexual identity" of human beings, Biden plans to advance something he calls "gender identity."
"Biden believes every transgender or non-binary person should have the option of changing their gender marker to 'M,' 'F,' or 'X' on government identifications, passports, and other documentation," says his website.
He will also guarantee that "transgender students have access to facilities based on their gender identity."
"On his first day in office," says Biden's campaign website, "Biden will reinstate the Obama-Biden guidance revoked by the Trump-Pence administration, which will restore transgender students' access to sports, bathrooms, and locker rooms in accordance with their gender identity."
Under Biden's plan, an 18-year-old boy who says he is a girl can play on the girls' field hockey team and use the girls' locker room.
The fifth evil item on Biden's agenda is what he would force insurance companies and health care providers to do to such a boy.
CNS maliciously -- and falsely -- portrayed Biden as suffering from "cognitive decline," and the editor who greenlighted that unfair and highly biased coverage wrote the above hate-filled screeds.
Sore Losers: MRC Is Bitter About Trump's Loss Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has not taken Donald Trump's election loss well as Joe Biden's victory became more apparent. That bitterness was demonstrated in a Nov. 6 post by Alex Christy in which he lashed out at CNN for acknowledging Joe Biden's win:
With Joe Biden on the verge of being declared the winner of the 2020 presidential election, CNN's Friday afternoon coverage took the time to insist that all Americans should celebrate the historic glass-shattering moment of Kamala Harris becoming vice president. In addition, one of their elitist, leftist partisans informed us that we must also subscribe to the electoral conclusion that Biden has a mandate while ignoring the Democratic Party's horrid performance in House and Senate races.
The same day, Nicholas Fondacaro huffed in defiance of reality (and Trump's mutual defiance of same): "As the ballot counting dragged on Thursday in key states around the country and President Trump continued to fight for a second term, the partisan “journalists” at NBC News had grown obviously irritated that they couldn’t declare their candidate the winner. At no time was this more blatant than their primetime coverage when they demanded Trump be 'conciliatory' and handle his concession like former Vice President Al Gore did in 2000." Fondacaro went on to call the request that Trump concede "ridiculous" -- a description in itself has become more ridiculous as Biden has expanded his lead over Trump by, as of now, more than 6 million votes, which contradicts Norris'
Fondacaro served up more bitterness: "The Sunday after Democratic nominee Joe Biden was declared the apparent president-elect, ABC’s Good Morning America was working really hard for their nominee. While ignoring Biden’s history of demonizing his opponents, they celebrated him as a great uniter that would end the rancor. They also trotted out Cindy McCain to urge the current president to concede to her nominee."
Despite the fact that it was not a victory speech as news outlets had yet to declare him the 46th President, CNN reacted Friday night with nothing but admiration for Joe Biden, calling their candidate's remarks a “big,” “optimistic,” “presidential,” and “soaring” speech “about America” that “applauded democracy.”
This all stood in stark contrast to their collective meltdown over President Trump's Thursday night remarks, which were widely condemned by figures such as CNN senior political commentator and former Senator Rick Santorum and Fox News Channel host Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum (and with a level of sobriety most Zuckerville residents lack).
Houck linked back to a earlier post he did on CNN's response that, in fact, made no mention of Baier's and MacCallum's response to Trump's speech. Perhaps he, as NewsBusters managing editor, can look into that reporting gap and detail that "level of sobriety" for us.
The MRC was also embittered by the idea that Biden did well enough to have a mandate from the American people or that Trump was in any way repudiated:
Joseph Norris whined that "Despite the razor-thin election results, CNN is still trying to promote the fake news narrative that Tuesday's election was a "huge rejection" of President Trump." Again: A 6-million-vote lead is not "razor-thin."
Brad Wilmouth complained that one commentator "insisted Democrats have a 'mandate' to do as they see fit." Curtis Houck similarly complained about another commentator who "proclaimed" that Biden had "'a mandate' to implement his agenda."
The MRC also published a Nov. 12 column by Ben Shapiro, who huffed:"On Saturday evening, presidential frontrunner Joe Biden — who doesn't actually become president-elect until vote counts are certified — gave a preliminary victory address. In that address, he spoke of his mandate to govern: a mandate, he said, that extended to marshalling the 'forces of decency ... fairness ... science ... hope.' Which is a pretty vague mandate, as it turns out."
The MRC also defended Trump's increasingly desperate efforts to deny the fact he lost by launching specious legal attacks over vote counts in states. Duncan Schroeder grumbled that "On Sunday evening’s CNN Newsroom, host Ana Cabrera and national security analyst Samantha Vinograd nastily attacked President Trump for daring to question their candidate’s vote counts. Cabrera accused Trump of “a dangerous attempt to undermine” voting and Vinograd vehemently declared that “someone needs to FedEx President Trump a copy of the Constitution.”Schroeder also asserted that Cabrera was "crazily ranting that Trump desires 'to undermine' voting" -- as if it was perfectly sane for Trump to try to disqualify millions of votes.
Norris returned to complain: On CNN’s New Day, the leftist network completely dismissed Donald Trump’s claims of voter fraud and election interference in the 2020 presidential election. Rather than report on the ongoing investigation, we are apparently supposed to trust CNN’s judgement and credibility on this one." Norris offered no evidence that any of Trump's claims about election fraud were, in fact, credible; he played a mixture of handwaving and whataboutism by adding that "it remains to be seen if there is any more validity to the claims of voter fraud and misconduct, than there was about the litany of other scandals and claims made about Trump."
President Trump’s refusal so far to concede Election 2020 to Democrat Joe Biden, nine whole days after Election Day and with over two months left in his first term, and with the official Electoral College count still over a month away, terrified the New York Times into comparing him to a motley crew of world dictators, in a repellent report on the front page of Thursday’s edition: “Trump Borrows Election Tactics From Autocrats,” by reporter Andrew Higgins.
Higgins continued adding to his monster rally of dictators to shame Trump into conceding less than two weeks after the election, with votes still uncounted and the Electoral College meetings in December: “Gen. Augusto Pinochet, who seized power in 1973 in a military coup in Chile, accepted defeat in a 1988 constitutional referendum that would have allowed him to stay in office, and relinquished the presidency in 1990 after an opponent won a presidential vote.”
Waters didn't dispute the accuracy of the comparison, only complained that it was made.
Bill D'Agostino tried to falsely compare this year's situation to the 2000 presidential when, he claimed, "TV journalists indulged losing candidate Al Gore’s protracted attempts to overturn the election, treating his lawsuits and requested recounts with great respect." In fact, the 2000 elected was determined by a 537-vote margin in Florida (which Gore lost, despite winning the popular vote), while Trump is actively trying to throw out thousands of votes across several states.
Meanwhile, the MRC continued to indulge Trump's protracted attempts to overturn the election. P.J. Gladnick responded to one commentator's concern that Trump was trying to steal the election by retorting, "It's not 'stealing' if legal challenges throw into serious question the way the voting was conducted."
WND's Cashill Switches From Obsessing Over Obama To Slandering Biden Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily columnist Jack Cashill has managed to take a break from obsessing about Barack Obama (temporarily, anyway) to obsess about Joe Biden.
In his Oct. 21 column, Cashill complained about Biden's 2011 speech in Moscow at a time when the U.S. was trying to reset relations with Russia. He then rehashed the conspiracy theory about Russians gaining control of Uranium One at a time when "a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation" -- a claim pushed by right-wing activists that has been largely discredited.
On Nov. 4, Cashill declared: "As she has watched the events of the past month unfold – or, more accurately, not unfold – Hillary Clinton had to have been seething. If Big Media, Big Tech and the deep state had provided her the cover it provided Joe Biden, she would have shattered the glass ceiling in 2016 and swanned her way into the White House." He added: "Hillary had to know she was an awful candidate, but Biden was magnitudes worse. He was the guy caught on video groping little girls, not her. He was the guy who (allegedly) digitally raped a Senate staffer, not her. He was the guy who could not remember what office he was running for, but Hillary never forgot."
Cashill was in slander mode in his Nov. 18 column, smearing Biden as "a senile old pedophile who could not attract a thousand people to a rally" who stole the election from Donald Trump. The longtime conspiracy theorist then laughably complained that "the media filled the empty heads of their audience members with any number of conspiracy theories that the National Enquirer would have passed on." He then slandered some more, along with following the WND corporate line about election theft:
Biden was a serial groper of little girls and a credibly accused sexual predator. We also knew that Biden's mental faculties were fading fast. The major media and the increasingly oppressive Big Tech shielded their audiences from the obvious.
Driven by the fear and hatred the media generated, 70 million Democrats would have voted for an Anthony Weiner-Casey Anthony ticket had they been running against Trump.
Blissfully preserved by the same media in their ignorance, the remaining few million went to the polls not even knowing just how corrupt and perverted was the man they hoped to elect president.
Had the media shared the truth about Trump and Biden, the election would not have been close enough to steal. "Analysts" who explain the outcome in any other way are lying to themselves.
Cashill is lying to himself if he thinks accusing others of pushing conspirach theories will make people forget his amplydemonstrated love of same.