MRC Touts Levin Loudly Leaving Facebook Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Alec Schemmel served up more PR work for right-wing radio host Mark Levin in a Dec. 30 post:
Talk radio star Mark Levin told his social media audiences that he would be leaving Facebook.
“Please follow me at Parler as I will leave Facebook in 4 days for continuingly censoring me,” Levin said to his social media followers on Dec. 28. Levin then sent out absecond post the following day indicating to his followers that he would be leaving the platform “in a matter of hours.” He called Facebook “corrupt.”
The announcements came after Levin had already hinted at boycotting the social media giant. Since October Levin received three notifications from Facebook indicating his page had been given “reduced distribution and other restrictions,” which has crescendoed in him announcing his departure.
“I've been restricted and censored on Facebook. Please make sure you transition to Parler ASAP as I will be leaving Facebook probably by the end of the year,” Levin said on Nov. 18.
Schemmnel didn't tell you that the reason Facebook "restricted and censored" Levin was that he spread lies misinformation and refused to correct false claims. As we've documented, Levin spread a claim that originated on the conservative blog Hot Air that misquoted Joe Biden; Hot Air later corrected itself, but Levin never did. Levin also p[osted another claim about Biden that falsely listed the date in which a picture of him not wearing a mask took place.
Schemmel also censored the fact that Levin had been claiming for weeks he was leaving Facebook without bothering to list a date certain; it was only after Mediaite called him on it that he said he would leave at the end of the year -- which occurred about a month before the Dec. 28 post that Schemmel cited.
Schemmel devoted two paragraphs to Levin touting his Parler page without disclosing that the MRC and Parler share a major funder in Rebekah Mercer, who also sits on the MRC's board.But Schemmel saved the kicker for his very last paragraph: "Levin has continued to post to his Facebook account following the announcement."
In other words, this is all performative PR. Just what you'd expect from an organization whose leader considers himself a close from of Levin.
CNS Gives Up On Reporting COVID Death Numbers Topic: CNSNews.com
One of CNSNews.com reporter Susan Jones' main jobs over the past year has been to try and spin coronavirua infection and death rates in an apparent attempt to make President Trump look good by comparing more reent numbers to the original surge last March and April. But as the pandemic rose to new heights, Jones couldn't do that. So the spin in her Dec. 17 article was that, yes, more people are dying, but they're mostly old people so it's not that bad:
In the past week, Wednesday to Wednesday, another 14,527 people, at least, died of coronavirus in this country, according to the most recent data posted by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
As the table shows, the vast majority of those COVID-involved deaths -- 13,816 -- were in people age 55 or older, according to death certificates filed with CDC's National Center for Health Statistics.
From the very beginning of the pandemic, medical experts warned that the elderly and infirm were particularly vulnerable to the virus, and that continues to be the case.
Jones went on to condede that "the COVID death toll has been rising sharply since early October" andthat "the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is urging Americans to "act now" to slow the spread" as winter sets in and holiday gathering occur. Trtump's name did not appear at all.
But that, apparently, was all the honesty about coronavirus that CNS could handle, because that was the last of these type of articles that Jones has written. While Jones did take some time off around the holidays, she has been on the job since Jan. 13, and COVID number are apparently no longer her concern.
Perhaps the change in presidents will bring a new concern over the numbers -- after all, she can now spin them to blame Biden.
Huh? MRC's Bozell Declares Serial Liar D'Souza 'Speaks The Truth' Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell is still spreading the lie that the election was stolen from Donald Trump, so it's clear he cares nothing about facts.We see this again in a Jan. 11 tweet in which Bozell promoted the new podcast by right-wing activist and convicted criminal Dinesh D'Souza by declaring: "The conservative movement needs story-telling. Dinesh is a master storyteller. He speaks the truth, and that's our strongest weapon. Arm yourself with it!"
Really? The guy who is so wrong so often about facts that college history professor Kevin Kruse effectively has an unpaidsecondjob debunking D'Souza's bogus narratives "speaks the truth"? The guy who pleaded guilty to lying in the course of trying to make an illegal campaign donation? That guy?
It would appear so. This embrace of a documented liar shows you which way Bozell's moral compass is pointing these days.
WND's Brown Admits Biden Won, Stays Viable As An Activist Topic: WorldNetDaily
In our last update on WorldNetDaily columnist Michael Brown, he was ever-so-slowly backing off his aggressive advocacy for President Trump as he pushed bogus claims that the election was stolen. Then the Jan. 6 Trump-inspired Capitol riot happened. That day, WND published a column by Brown that did not reference the riot but addressed the so-called prophecies by right-wing evangelical ministers claiming that Trump would be re-elected:
When it comes to the presidential elections, God never gave me any assurance that Trump would be reelected (although, as any of my readers would know, he was my preferred choice over Biden). Nor did the Lord ever give me any assurance that the prophets, who to a person proclaimed a Trump victory, were right.
That means that my faith will not be affected in the least with the anticipated inauguration of Joe Biden, although I will certainly be concerned with the direction he has pledged to take our country.
The Bible never told me (or you) that Trump (or any other presidential candidate) would be elected. And I can give a list of reasons why so many prophetic voices and Christian leaders could have been so wrong in their pro-Trump predictions. (We will certainly address that when the time is right.)
But my message to a watching world right now is simple: John 3:16 will remain true long after the Trump reelection prophecies are forgotten. Don't confuse what is written in the Word with some alleged prophetic words.
On Jan. 11, Brown tried to justify his and evangelical Christians' support for Trump even as "things are ending very badly for Donald Trump's presidency and some of his close associates are abandoning him," while concluding some people did "compromise" their values:
So, on the one hand, Trump won some short-term victories and also appointed many lifetime judges. He did much good on the national and international scene. On the other hand, we are now left with a real, national mess, with the balance of power shifting dramatically left and with the country as a whole vulgarized in many ways by the Trump presidency.
We had absolutely nothing in common with the white supremacists and other fanatics who stormed the Capitol last week. We were not xenophobes or racists or misogynists. But we were staunchly opposed to where the radical left might take us, hence our vote for a very flawed man.
Many of us also hoped that some of the godly leaders who surrounded him would be able to help him make some deep, fundamental changes as they spoke into his life with clarity and truth. And so we cast our vote.
Did we sell our souls in doing so? Did we compromise our values in the process?
For many of us, the answer is no, and we don't need to go on an apology tour for our vote. Even if some of our friends were more prescient than we were, seeing that things would end badly, we acted with sincerity before God and man. And if in the years ahead, our worst fears are realized and our country lurches even further to the far left, we will remember why we voted as we did.
That being said, many of us did sell our souls and compromise our values. There is no doubt about it whatsoever.
We diminished the importance of a leader's character and integrity. We became apologists for the president's sins and shortcomings. We mirrored his worst characteristics. We justified the unjustifiable. We put our trust in a man to fight our political and cultural battles. We became better known as "the Trump people" than as "the Jesus people." The list goes on and on.
To the extent that applies to any of us, we need to do some serious, private soul-searching along with some honest, public repenting, not in reaction to the attacks from the left but out of reverence before God.
Either way we voted, however, the reputation of Jesus has been trashed before the nation. What can all of us do to see His name lifted up again?
Brown used his Jan. 13 column to try to carve a center path between "Never Trump" and "Forever Trump":
To the Never Trumpers, I say this: If you genuinely love America and you are people of real character, now is not the time to gloat or say, "I told you so." You should be grieving that the nation is in so much pain, and you should be doing your best to heal the wounds rather than pour salt into them. And if you feel your fellow conservatives erred in supporting Trump, then seek out healthy discussion and dialogue. Condescension is not called for.
To the Forever Trumpers, I say this: You cast your vote for him twice, and you are standing with him now that he is being impeached for a second time. You see how the left finally has its moment and is trying pounce and destroy, so this is not the time for you to abandon Trump's side. All that is understandable.
But either way, impeached or censured or not, he will be out office in one week. It's time to move on. There's no need for you to tether your future political hopes to him.
Brown showed he was moving on in his Jan. 15 column, cheering Biden's election because right-wing evangelicals need an enemy, and "an adversarial presence in the White House could be the best thing that happened to the Church of America in years."
Finally, Brown declared in his Jan. 20 column under the headline "Joe Biden is president – by the sovereign will of God."
As for the issue of voter fraud, there are clearheaded, well-informed conservatives who are sure there is nothing to the charge of massive voter fraud, and there are clearheaded, well-informed conservatives who hold to the opposite view.
For argument's sake, though, let's just say that massive voter fraud did take place. How could I possibly point to divine sovereignty if Biden was fraudulently elected? Wouldn't this make God complicit in fraud?
Actually, in my view, that's one of the things that would argue in favor of divine action rather than against it. In other words, if the only way Biden could be elected was by massive fraud and yet God did not cause the fraud to be revealed in a categorical and undeniable way, then He chose to allow it to happen.
After admitting that Trump channeled "dangerous emotions," Brown lectured on how to pray for (or is it against?) Biden:
I would encourage you, then to: 1) make a list of everything you fear could go wrong under the Biden-Harris leadership and pray for the opposite; 2) pray daily that the Lord would restrain those whose vision would destroy our nation; 3) pray that Biden and Harris would have life-changing encounters with the Lord; 4) if the Biden presidency is meant as divine chastisement, pray that we would understand where we need to repent so that mercy may be poured out; and 5) pray that, no matter what happens, Jesus would be glorified and His kingdom advanced on the earth.
So Brown gets to have it both ways: a flawed ally if Trump won, and an convenient bogeyman under Biden. And either way, he still gets to be an activist.
MRC Whined That Bidens Appeared On New Year's Eve Show Topic: Media Research Center
How much does the Media Research Center hate Joe Biden? Lindsay Kornick devoted a Dec. 30 post to whining that Biden and his wife were making an appearance on a New Year's Eve program:
Millions of people still without jobs or locked in their homes can rest assure that the Bidens will have a fantastic New Year’s Eve. A recent announcement revealed that president-elect Joe Biden and his wife Dr. Jill Biden will join ABC’s New Year’s Eve special to give his last 2020 interview.
On the December 30 episode of Good Morning America, Ryan Seacrest announced the special guests expected to appear on 2020’s "Dick Clark's New Year's Rockin' Eve with Ryan Seacrest" special on ABC. On a list including "everybody that has had a hit this year," he listed performers such as Lewis Capaldi, Doja Cat, Miley Cyrus, En Vogue, Billy Porter and Cindy Lauper. However, he also added the presentation will include “the last interview of the year with President-elect Biden and future first lady Dr. Jill Biden."
Ending a year of frightening pandemics and endless lockdowns, Joe Biden and his wife will apparently take their time to give a softball sit-down with partying celebrities as his “last interview of the year.” If that doesn’t represent the hypocrisy that was 2020, I don’t know what does. Considering how Biden treats reporters who dare ask him actual questions, it’s unlikely we’ll get hard-hitting news from this night.
The Times Square Alliance and Countdown Entertainment previously announced that there will be no in-person audience for this celebration noting that “[s]afety of New Yorkers and participants is the priority of Times Square New Year’s Eve 2021.” All performances will be virtual, and any gatherings seen will be heavily tested and masked. If this night is made up of an empty Times Square, social distanced performances, and pandering presidential interviews, it might be best just to skip to 2021 already.
Influencing the world for worse is a distinction of which both Biden and Harris are wholly worthy. Biden has spent nearly five decades in political office with the summum bonum being the personal enrichment of his family, the best crack cocaine taxpayer money and Chinese/Ukraine money he could provide for his son, and the targeted imprisonment of the black youth Hillary Clinton called super-predators. Of course, Biden did engage in creepy behavior such as sniffing the hair of little girls, but "c'mon, man!" – that's just Joe.
As for Harris, she's representative of everything a decent parent would not want his daughter to be and everything a decent parent would not want his son to become involved with, must less marry and bring home. Harris lowered the bar for prostituting oneself to fame, fortune and political status. If the women of the Hollywood "Me Too" movement are to be believed, they were forced to be promiscuous in order get the best acting roles. Harris slept with married men because she is an amoral woman who delights and boasts of cheap, tawdry acts of sexual misconduct with such men.
Biden-Harris are co-conspirators in the global conspiracy to steal the presidency of the United States. It makes no difference what the media, RINOs and Democrats try to claim, there is no plausible way on earth that Biden-Harris legitimately defeated President Trump. This isn't sour grapes; it is fact.
Biden is a lecherous dolt with increasingly diminished cognitive ability, and Harris is more rabidly supportive of the systematic extermination of blacks than is Obama. Add to that the fact she has fewer morals than the Obama woman, and you have two people who perfectly represent what [Henry] Luce made clear.
There's no demographic of people more bigoted and prejudiced than white liberals. To that I add, chief among them is Andrew Cuomo, Democratic governor of the morally bankrupt and near defunct state of New York.
Cuomo and his kind engage in the most rabid form of lies, bigotry and overt racism witnessed in the history of America, with impunity. They practice the same subjugation based upon color of skin as Democrats codified during Jim Crow. Even more reprehensible is the fact that they openly boast of it, and their lapdogs in the mainstream media then sing their praises.
During Jim Crow, white Democrats openly called blacks "niggers" and uneducated sub-humans incapable of thinking for themselves. That is exactly what Cuomo just did when he banned sales of the Confederate flag on so-called state property. That he also banned the swastika was nothing more than a blind intended to conceal his inherent racism.
The Confederate flag is part of the history of America, and I cannot overstate my contempt for those who seek to rewrite and bastardize history. Cuomo isn't showing respect for me or for any thinking Americans. I am black, and I can think for myself. I don't need some bigoted white commie liberal telling me how I should view said flag. Especially when his kind condemn me for adhering to the Word of God.
America's God is no longer the Lord; America's god has descended to everything God Almighty condemns. Sexual sin on every quantifiable level is not only celebrated, but it is practiced openly without shame. Liars, thieves and the debauched are elevated to positions of admiration. They are heralded as models of citizenry. The so-called Christian church has been infested and infected with reprobates who practice the very behavior God abhors.
A nation whose governors boast that 100% of all baby-killing facilities are operating without interruption and where city governments vote unanimously to keep homosexual bathhouses open because they are deemed essential to the economy, and at the same time houses of worship are ordered closed, cannot be blessed by God.
A nation whose governors and mayors order the arrest of people for going to church, but keep liquor stores, cannabis stores and adult bookstores open cannot be blessed by God.
I wish I could point to a hopeful outcome for America, but from a biblical perspective I see none. I would be a liar if I tried to convince you of anything else.
Censoring the truth, censoring personal opinions and attempts to control political discourse ad nauseam, are not the actions of truth-tellers. They are the actions of those who have throughout history feared the revealing of truth, because the free expression and exchange of same will always be the greatest threat to satanic indoctrination.
Start with homosexuality. If said were a normal sexual practice, the instant assault upon anyone who embraces facts over sexual perversion would not take place. Homosexuality is sexual sin, and the Word of God makes clear that refusing to repent and turn away from such practice ensures the most horrific of eternal outcomes.
Instead of, at the very least, allowing for differing opinion, those who embrace biblical truth are called "haters." This is a satanic enterprise intended to undermine the Word of God. It's easier to squelch truth when it's done under the guise of opposing hate. But as a born-again Christian minister, why is it wrong for me to stand on the tenets of my faith in the teaching of the Holy Bible and Jesus Christ?
If Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton are such strong women, why was it necessary for Harris to sleep with a phalanx of married men to climb up the political ladder? Why was it necessary for Clinton to suffer a lifetime of public humiliation for the sake of political expediency? How comforting has it been for Clinton to endure a lifetime of public humiliation due to her husband, Bill, a violent sexual predator and serial sexual molester, in her pursuit of the political Holy Grail?
Another thing that appears to have gotten shocked into balance at CNSNews.com after the Trump-instigated Jan. 6 Capitol riot is its coverage of the unemployment numbers for the last full month of Donald Trump's presidency, which were released two days after the riot. Susan Jones served up the opposite of her usual pro-Trump rah-rah in her main article, which carried the unusually truthful (for CNS) headline "Final Employment Report of Trump Presidency Is Worse Than When He Started":
The final, lackluster jobs/employment report of Donald Trump's presidency shows the lingering effects of the year-long and continuing COVID pandemic.
The numbers released Friday by the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics are not as good as they have been under Donald Trump, nor are they better than they were when he took office in January 2017.
Total nonfarm payroll employment declined by 140,000 in December -- no job gains. According to BLS, the decline in payroll employment reflects the recent increase in coronavirus cases and efforts to contain the pandemic.
The only sidebar this time was the usual one by editor Terry Jeffrey cheering that "The number of people employed by government in the United States dropped from 22,679,000 in December 2019 to 21,401,000 in December 2020, a decline of 1,278,000." While Jeffrey typically cheers declines in government employment, the accompanying chart shows what Jeffrey couldn't quite say out loud: that the decrease was driven by the pandemic.
MRC Defends Melania On Her Way Out The Door Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has long worked to create a safe space for Melania Trump. It was totally cool with her posing nude -- in photos so explicit that Google AdSense made us delete it -- and didn't even criticize a newspaper for publishing them (it was the New York Post, though), whined that her plagiarism in her 2016 Republican National Convention speech was reported on, and it even found a way to defend her bizarre "I Really Don't Care, Do U?" jacket. That continued throughout the 2020 presidential campaign and its aftermath.
Back in October, it tried to defend Melania from secretly recorded phone calls of her complaining about having to decorate the White House for Christmas, huffing that reporting on the tapes omitted "the First Lady's anguished retelling of her intervention on behalf of a migrant child."
After years of defending Melania's odd Christmas design choices, the MRC did so again in a Nov. 30 post by Kristine Marsh that devolves into a bit of Obama-bashing:
CNN’s New Day took a break from their feverish panicking over coronavirus and President Trump not conceding the election to taunt Melania Trump, Monday morning. Co-hosts John Berman and Alisyn Camerota relentlessly ridiculed and laughed at the First Lady over whether or not she likes Christmas decorations, even bringing their rival Fox News into the childish and mean-spirited mockery.
But Camerota and Berman were itching to attack the First Lady over her former friend’s secretly recorded tapes where a frustrated Trump rants at how the media has demonized her and admits she doesn’t care about Christmas decorations. The New Day co-hosts eagerly played a partial clip before the journalists relentlessly mocked the First Lady as being part of Fox News’s “War on Christmas:”
To really take in how dramatic a swing the media has taken in their coverage of First Ladies, can you imagine CNN or any other liberal news network mocking former First Lady Michelle Obama on just about...anything?
In fact their devotion to Michelle Obama borders on parody. Last May, Don Lemon ranted how Melania was dumber and less attractive than Michelle.
On Dec. 14, Kyle Drennen complained that NBC defended Jill Biden from attacks on her use of the "Dr." title, though "This is the same network that just a few months ago criticized Melania Trump for condemning looting and has spent years hurling similar cheap shots at the First Lady." Two days later, on his podcast, "executive editor Tim Graham discusse[d] now the media have never been fair or balanced in their treatment of Melania Trump. They mocked her as merely a "former model" and routinely suggested she must be clawing her way out of her husband's clutches."
How clueless is John Berman? On the one hand, the CNN anchor trumpets the fact that Melania Trump is the first First Lady to leave the White House with a net-negative approval rating. On the other hand, his own sneering remarks are a perfect illustration of the kind of negative coverage that Melania has received during her years as First Lady that have contributed to her negative ratings.
Who but a malicious Melania antagonist would offer a "pop quiz" on her negative ratings? Berman's maligning of Melania is in line with the kind of coverage the liberal media has given her for years.
The View hosts talked briefly about President Trump’s legacy to kick off Tuesday’s show, but ended the segment with vicious gossip about First Lady Melania Trump. Moderator Whoopi Goldberg asked Joy Behar what she thought about the First Lady’s farewell speech and that prompted a nasty rant from the far-left co-host.
If you can believe it, just a few weeks ago, Behar boasted that The View had “been respectful to Melania” over the last 4+ years. Go to that post linked to see just how wrong that statement was even then. The lying continued on today’s show, as she delved into all sorts of nasty gossip about the First Lady, from suggesting she was afraid of the president, to too stupid to think for herself, to being a “co-conspirator” who is “as bad as Trump:”
Funny thing, The View hosts have never gossiped about Hillary Clinton being a “co-conspirator,” protecting her husband when he was accused of rape and sexual assault.
Marsh went on to huff that "Behar ended her trash talk by attacking Mrs. Trump for her "I really don't care" jacket, which Trump denied was about the child separation policy, but actually about how the media treats her. Still, that didn’t stop Behar from declaring that was what the jacket was about."
NEW ARTICLE: The Strange Case of Dr. Brown and Mr. Trump, Part 1 Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily columnist Michael Brown's main mission during the Trump years was to convince his fellow right-wing evengelicals to ignore President Trump's amorality and get behind because he was delivering on right-wing agenda items. Read more >>
CNS Joins MRC Parent In Rushing To Parler's Defense Topic: CNSNews.com
Last summer, CNSNews.com joined its Media Research Center parent in doing damage control for Parler, the right-wing Twitter alternative, as it came under scrutiny for the right-wing extremists making a home there. But both MRC operations were hiding a major conflict of interest: Both the MRC and Parler share a major financial backer in Rebekah Mercer, who also sits on the MRC's board of directors.
But when Parler's extremist users got new scrutiny after the Capitol riot, CNS once again followed its MRC parent in rushing to Parler's defense -- and shared the exact same failure to disclose a serious conflict of interest (not to mention how Parler was slowly being taken over by pornorgraphy, something the conservative MRC typically opposes).
In a Jan. 8 article, CNS commentary editor Rob Shimshock got an "exclusive" interview with Parler's CEO, which he introduced with this highly biased framing: "John Matze, CEO of Parler, the free speech-oriented Twitter alternative, responded Friday to the report that Apple might kick his app off its app store if it did not censor users." Neither Shimshock nor Matze mentioned the fact that the "free speech" in question was planning for the riot and explicit threats of violence against others. Shimshock did let Matze unironically claim that Parler has "rules against violence," though.
Two days later, when it was announced that Parler's web host, Amazon Web Services, was kicking Parler off for the abovementioned riot planning and violent threats, Craig Bannister served up Parler's defense, complete woth the dishonest framing of it as a "free-speech platform": "'This was a coordinated attack by the tech giants to kill competition in the market place. We were too successful too fast,' John Matze, CEO of the free-speech social media platform Parler said in a statement late Saturday announcing that Amazon will be shutting all its servers."
On Jan. 11, Bannister gave right-winger Dan Bongino space to rant that Parler getting shut down meant that the U.S. was at "stage two" of a "totaliatarian" takeover. Bannister noted that Bongino "has invested" in Parler -- but not that his paycheck is funded in part by the same woman who also funds Parler.
For a Jan, 12 article, managing editor Michael W. Chapman called up the right-wing current favorite legal expert, "Jonathan Turley, a professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, constitutional scholar, and columnist," to denounce the shutdown of Parler because "Parler is based on the original concept of the Internet as an open forum for free speech." Chapman made sure to call Parler "an alternative free speech platform" and claim that "The tech giants want Parler to comply with their restrictions and apply the censorship policies that they want," but he censored any mention of the exact type of "free speech" -- violence and hate -- that got Parler in trouble in the first place.
Meanwhile, CNS' favorite dishonest Catholic, Bill Donohue, was given a column to rant:
The censoring of Parler by Amazon, Google, and Apple is the most serious assault on freedom of speech we have ever seen by private companies in American history. Instead of addressing those who are responsible for abusing their free speech rights, e.g. those who are clearly fomenting violence, Big Tech is now seeking to censor conservative voices in general.
For justification, they are following the lead of pundits and activists who are blaming President Trump and his supporters for the violence that took place last week in Washington, D.C. The argument is more than absurd—it is pernicious.
Hans Bader -- last seen having a hypocritical meltdown over Jill Biden's use of the "Dr." title -- contributed a column blaming actions against Parler and other social media on "leftist officials' whims." Neither columnist mentioned the exact content that got Parler banned, and CNS didn't disclose its financial link to Parler.
The Tech giants used the claim that Parler allowed its platform to be used to advocate and coordinate violence at the capitol last week. If there was ever a case of the pot calling the kettle black, this is it. Homeland Security was forced to weigh-in this past summer in a letter to the social media giants saying the popular platforms appeared to play a role in facilitating "burglary, arson, aggravated assault, rioting, looting, and defacing public property."
Are Twitter and Facebook responsible for the burning of Portland or the siege of Seattle?
Then why are they holding Parler to a different standard?
We could not find that any Mercer foundation money went to Perkins' FRC.
Sore Losers: MRC Can't Stop Lashing Out At Warnock As He Wins Ga. Senate Runoff Topic: Media Research Center
We documented how the Media Research Center served as opposition research for Georgia Republicans in the Senate runoff races there through relentless attacks on one of the Democratic candidates, Raphael Warnock. (Is that even legal under the MRC's nonprofit tax status?) The attacks on Warnock continued on Jan. 5, the day of the election.
Gabriel Hays sneered at Atlanta hip-hop artists turning out for the Democratic candidates, but in a more jerkass way than MRC "news" division CNSNews.com did:
Atlanta, Georgia, the “Mecca of Hip Hop'' will be using its greatest cultural export in order to usher in a future of one party Democrat rule for our nation.
Even though African Americans need only open their eyes to see the disasters that the Democrat government has afforded them in cities like Chicago and Baltimore, pillars of their rap community like rapper Jeezy, Killer Mike and 2 Chainz have been performing at and hosting events aimed at turning out the vote for far-left U.S. Senate Candidates Raphael Warnock and John Ossoff.
Why would the majority African American hip hop scene want the same party that oversees a city with “virtually the same murder rate as Chicago” in 2020, to wield major power over the whole nation. And to think that much of the Democrat [sic] Party is thinking that less police is a productive solution to such problems. Seems pretty counterintuitive.
Clay Waters complained that the New York Times was "feverishly promoting both Democratic runoff candidates ... especially Warnock, while lobbing accusations at the Republicans." Tim Graham similarly whined: "The Washington Post explicitly advertised for Rev. Raphael Warnock’s Senate candidacy in a splashy profile on the front of Monday’s Style section. There was a huge picture of Warnock with the sun shining off his face." Both Waters and Graham portrayed the respective news articles they were attacking as free ads for Warnock -- even though the MRC's negative attacks are effectively free ads fort he Republican oppoents to Warnock and fellow Democrat Jon Ossoff, David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler.
When Warnock ended up winning over Loeffer (and Ossoff won over Perdue), the MRC didn't take it well. A Jan. 6 post by Kristine Marsh complained that "analysts and reporters echoed each other in hailing Democrat Raphael Warnock’s win as a rejection of Republicans’ racist messaging," which tried to make him a "scary black man." Marsh offered no factual rebutal of the claim other than to huff that "If there’s one thing you can count on, it’s that the media will never stop crying 'racism' anytime a black Democrat is challenged on their policies."
Despite Tuesday night showing a Democratic sweep in the Georgia Senate runoff election, the mood on MSNBC was anything but joyous. Instead, various hosts and panelists threw a pity party for fellow leftists, bemoaning supposed Republican voter suppression efforts and insisting Republicans should be shamed from political life as un-American racists who won’t win another presidential election.
Taken all together, let this be yet another reminder that, even when they get what they want, liberals and progressives will always be fundamentally unhappy people.
As if he and the rest of the MRC haven't been fundamentally unhappy over the past four years in attacking any perceived enemy -- even their own fellow conservatives -- on Trump's behalf.
Kyle Drennen's complaint was eerily similar, as if there was a narrative to which the MRC was directed to adhere:
On Wednesday, anchors on all three network morning shows couldn’t contain their joy over radical left-wing Democrat Raphael Warnock winning Tuesday’s Georgia Senate runoff, with each broadcast treating him to a fawning softball interview. Rather than press him on his history of incendiary comments, scandals, or far-left ideology, the hosts gushed over the Atlanta reverend’s victory being a “political earthquake” that reflected the “kind spirit of Dr. Martin Luther King.”
Again, none of the network’s bothered to ask a single challenging question of the newly elected Democratic senator or press him on his party’s leftist agenda.
Warnock even got the podcast treatment on Jan. 6, where "Executive Editor Tim Graham explains how the national newspapers and networks haven't so much covered Senate candidate Raphael Warnock as covered up for him. They only wanted voters to know he was the second coming of Martin Luther King, Jr, and he was 'no radical.'"
Newsmax Still Pushing For Bail Release of Jeffrey Epstein's Sidekick Topic: Newsmax
Last October, Newsmax columnist Jonna Spilbor devoted a column to demanding that Ghislaine Maxwell, sidekick to child-sex-trafficking criminal Jeffrey Epstein, be released on bail because she's purportedly not a flight risk and might even be innocent despite the serious nature of the accusations against her and who she was palling around with.
Well, Spilbor gave that another shot in her Dec. 21 column, which started off complaining that the judge's rejection of bail for Maxwell "was surprising to most legal scholars, because it signaled an unquestioned acceptance of the prosecution's proffers while ignoring history, justness and law," though she cited no actual legal scholars asserting that. Spilbor then lamented Maxwell's alleged conditions in prison and cited what Maxwell was proposing as a condition of her would-be bail:
Since then, Maxwell's conditions in custody have proven, in a word, punitive, and seriously impinging on her ability to assist in her own defense, down to and including waking her every 15 minutes, excessive searching and full body scans, guards and cameras that follow her every move, and mask-less, open-mouth exposure to guards who have been in proximity to inmates that have tested positive for COVID-19. Regardless of the nature of charges or the public sentiment surrounding them, no American should be treated this way.
With the benefit of hindsight, and the ramifications of a pandemic wreaking havoc inside the prison walls, Maxwell is prepared to pull out all the stops — including a nearly $23 million personal recognizance bond secured by Maxwell's entire net worth (as well as her husband's — yes, she has one), and another $5 million from numerous others who love and support her (she has those, too.)
In a most unusual (perhaps unprecedented) twist, the security company which is to guard her (at her expense) is prepared to put up a million dollars of its own money to guarantee that they won't let her slip away.
Maxwell has also, through counsel, enlisted experts both here and abroad to provide legal and other assurances to the court that, should she wake up one day stark raving mad, and decide to flee, it literally would be impossible for her to get six feet outside the designated curtilage before privately-paid security guards would release the hounds and pounce.
In the long history of similarly situated defendants whose cases wound their ways through the halls of Foley Square, Ghislaine Maxwell's proposed conditions of release are so strict, they're utterly airtight. Some would say, overkill. There was no sound reason for her bail to be denied before, and even less of one now.
Spilbor once again portrayed Maxwell as innocent and her accusers as compromised by the money they are allegedly making off their stories:
While Maxwell's release on bond should be a foregone conclusion, her guilt is far from it. Again, notwithstanding the baying of the hounds in the press.
Despite her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, Maxwell was never on a "Wanted!" poster or running from the law. Prior to Epstein's death back in August of 2019, Maxwell was living her life far away from his; a respectable family life which entailed charitable work and making meaningful contributions to society. Were it not for the newly resurrected sins of an old boyfriend, Maxwell never would have become the fodder for such unceasing contempt.
There is but one place Maxwell can escape from the antipathy, and that is, in our justice system.
Maxwell is not only presumed innocent, but steadfastly proclaims it. In any case like this one, with old, unsupported, and differing versions of events, the credibility of the accusers will be called into question. It is an inevitable, inalienable right to confront one's accusers. Yet to date, the government continues to hide their identities. Ironic, to say the least, when the accusers have all but outed themselves on Twitter, Netflix and anywhere social justice is sold.
Spilbor also declared that "Ghislaine Maxwell is not Jeffrey Epstein. For Maxwell to receive a fair trial, it's imperative to stop confusing the two. Having a friend who's an alcoholic doesn't make one a drunk."
Spilbor won't mention it, but Maxwell was not terribly cooperative in a 2016 deposition, in which she "harshly pounded" a table and accused questioners of trying to "trap" her and responding, I will not be trapped."
Alas, Spilbor's concern went for naught: The judge in the case ruled earlier this month that he still believes Maxwell is a flight risk and denied bail.
Dubious WND Doc Lies About Her Column Being 'Censored' Topic: WorldNetDaily
The Dec. 24 WorldNetDaily column by Marilyn Singleton -- who's affiliated with the fringe-right Association of American Physicians and Surgeons -- is headlined "The names of early COVID treatments had to be censored from this column." That's strange; WND is not known for censoring its writers -- heck, it can't even be bothered to fact-check them (which is likely to earn it a lawsuit in the very near future).
Much of Singleton's column is filled with blather about unproven coronavirus treatments, which she has long done in her WND columns. So what's different that purportedly got her "censored" this time? Well, in one paragraph she wrote, "Billions of doses of [censored] and [censored] have been safely used for over 50 years. Repurposing anti-parasitics as antivirals certainly is not out of the realm of medical innovation."
The link to the first "censored" goes to a study touting hydroxychloroquine -- a drug Singleton has long promoted. The second is a link to a study about another drug touted as a coronavirus treatment, ivermectin. That drug has been promoted by name in otherWNDcolumns -- including a Jan. 15 column by Singleton herself.
Singleton later wrote:
The COVID horse is out of the barn. We need to tame it. Let's start by educating patients, influencers and policymakers about early treatment with [censored] and preventive measures such as [censored] and the proven uselessness, arbitrariness and social and economic costs of [censored] that serve to make "poor people poorer" and erode trust in public health officials.
The first "censored" link goes to a website called c19study.com, one of two affiliated but mysterious websites designed to promote hydroxychloroquine that are filled with questionable studies and other psuedoscience. The websites' operators have remained secret -- hiding behind a wall of secrecy is not something legitimate researchers do -- but it's believed that the AAPS had some role in their creation. The second "censored" link goes to the AAPS website to send for a free booklet on "A Guide to Home-Based COVID Treatment," written by Singleton's fellow dubious AAPS docs, Jane Orient and Elizabeth Lee Vliet.
The final "censored" link goes to a study from last August claiming that lockdowns and mask mandates don't reduce coronavirus transmission rates or deaths. Given that rates and deaths have skyrocketed since then after initial lockdowns and mask mandates were lifted, it's likely no longer valid. Further, Singleton's claim that lockdowns and mandates "erode trust in public health officials" is disingenuous, since she's trying to foment that erosion of trust.
At no point did Singleton tell readers who, exactly, was "censoring" her.
We don't believe that anyone actually "censored" Singleton -- that's not how WND rolls. Her claim was nothing more than a lie and a gimmick to get people to read her column and try to overlook the fact that she was simply peddling the same right-wing conspiratorial hooey she's been dishing out for months.
Speaking of trust: Such a stunt is a textbook example of how one erodes public trust in oneself.
MRC Labors To Distance Conservatives From Trump-Instigated Capitol Riot Topic: Media Research Center
While their bosses Brent Bozell and Tim Graham had their own, um, various takes on the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, the Media Research Center's rank and file had one mission it usually has at times like this: to distance conservatives from the attack, even though the rioters clearly believed they were acting on behalf of Trump, and even though the MRC has sought to portray fringe-right extremists of the kind that led the insurrection as a part of mainstream conservatism.
Wednesday afternoon during live coverage of the violent assault on the U.S. Capitol, NBC’s Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd took a ghoulish victory lap of sorts, discarding any and all conservative and Republican denunciations of the Capitol violence as “a lot of empty rhetoric” and “empty concern” that, in his mind, means absolutely nothing.
In a moment requiring people of all political persuasions to come together in prayer and unity for peace, Todd chose to revel in schadenfreude and bragged how “a lot of people” that have long opposed President Trump (translation: only support Democrats) “are having their I told you so moment unfortunately right now.”
At a time like this, Todd decided to make fun and flaunt himself. Be sure to remember that the next time he urges viewers to choose love, patriotism, and unity.
We'll remember tyhis post the next time Houck urges people to choose unity instead of holding Trump accountable.
Wednesday saw disgusting acts of sedition and insurrection from radical elements of the far-right as Trump supporters launched an assault on the Capitol, breaching its halls and offices. The acts were roundly and justly condemned by most sound people on the right, both from lawmakers and right-wing media figures. But the CBS Evening Newswasn’t having it.
Instead, they ignored those evenhanded voices, demanded House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) join the chaos, and ignored the bomb that was discovered outside the Republican National Committee.
Curiously, Fondacaro ignored that a bomb was also discovered outside the Democratic National Committee headquarters as well.
The next day, Kristine Marsh cheered how a Republican congressman blamed the media for the riot, even though she admitted that "Trump supporters" took part while also trying to avoid blaming Trump for instigating it. Scott Whitlock echoed Houck's talking point: "The fact that scores of conservatives and Republicans have come out and condemned both the violence at the Capitol, as well Donald Trump himself, is apparently lost on MSNBC. Rachel Maddow on Wednesday night smeared the entire GOP as “fascist,” “violent, insurrectionist party.” Joy Reid mocked Republican condemnations, saying they “don’t matter.”
Kyle Drennen had his own very special meltdown in a post smearing MSNBC anchor Katy Tur as "nasty" for the sin of pointing out right-wing culpability in the riot:
Appearing on Wednesday’s Tonight Show for a segment aired early Thursday morning, left-wing partisan MSNBC anchor Katy Tur claimed that “decades” of conservatism somehow caused the horrific assault on the U.S. Capitol. She rushed to exploit the disgraceful event and claim that “Rush Limbaugh” and “Fox News” were to blame.
After host Jimmy Fallon asked, “what’s the big picture, how do we move forward as a country?,” Tur wailed: “You know, I think it’s going to be very difficult. There are voices, very loud, prominent, influential voices, that have spent decades tearing down trust in our institutions, tearing down education, tearing down facts, tearing down the media, et cetera, and you don’t build that back overnight.”
Moments later she, made it clear who she was referring to: “Most importantly, the conservative media, people like Rush Limbaugh, people on Fox News, the ones who have been tearing things down for decades for their own benefit.”
While conservatives can and do condemn violence from the right, as we saw yesterday at the Capitol building, it appears to be too much to ask the liberal media to condemn violence from both sides as well. On Thursday’s GMA 3 on ABC (which serves as the afternoon hour of Good Morning America), co-anchors T.J. Holmes and Amy Robach pretended they were publicists for the Marxist group Black Lives Matter, whose supporters engaged in many violent riots this past Summer. But instead of pointing that out, ABC covered for the left-wing organization by inviting their co-founder to stoke racial hatred against law enforcement over the terrible events of Wednesday.
As Patrisse Cullors called into the show, Robach touted a statement from the BLM Global Network essentially calling the actions of Capitol Police racist: “Make no mistake, if the protesters had been black we would have been teargassed, battered and perhaps shot.”
Marsh added, "Robach didn't challenge Cullors repeated claims that BLM was mostly peaceful." She offered no evidence that they weren't.
Meanwhile, Gabriel Hays took a break from to huff:
In the media’s mission to associate literally everyone and their Bible-thumping grandmothers with “terrorist” attacks at the Capitol Building from this past Wednesday, outlets are beginning to blame the violent actions of a vast minority of a Trump rally-attending crowd on pro-Trump Christians in general.
In a hare-brained piece titled the “A Christian Insurrection,” Emma Green of The Atlantic decided to insinuate that because there was a plethora of Christians at the January 6 Trump rally in D.C., and that because a tiny minority of the thousands upon thousands of people there broke into the U.S. Capitol Building, Christianity shares the blame for the attack and is now a weapon utilized by Trump to promote insurrection. They sure love a balanced approach, don’t they?
OK, so because a group of crazies went into the Capitol, does that mean the throngs of pro-life, Christian grandmothers, women and children outside were dupes whose faith was “weaponized” by Trump? No. Those Christians were supporting a president whose policies aligned with their values much more than anti-Christian, pro-abortion Biden Harris regime, and doing so peacefully.
And really, haven’t we spent all Summer watching the left parse out the violent BLM people form the “peaceful protestors.” Surely even though Black Lives Matter propelled arsonists, looters and cop killers, they told us that the slogan and the ideology it represented was for good, and represented mostly by its peaceful protests.
Hays offered no evidence that Black Lives Matter specifically "propelled arsonists, looters and cop killers." In fact, the accused killer of a security officer at a California courthouse and a California sheriff's deupty was a right-wing extremist -- something the MRC has yet to tell its readers despite hyping the shooting.
WND Obsesses Over Mich. Attorney General's Sexual Orientation Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Art Moore used a Dec. 27 article -- under the headline "Lesbian attorney general: Punish any lawyer challenging election" -- to complain:
The top law-enforcement officer in the state of Michigan is looking to punish lawyers who have challenged the results of the 2020 presidential election, claiming the lawsuits include "intentional misrepresentations."
Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat and open lesbian, says she'll pursue action against attorneys who filed vote-fraud lawsuits amid claims that Dominion Voting Systems machines were electronically switching votes intended for President Donald Trump to votes for former Vice President Joe Biden.
Moore did not explain why he felt the need to include Nessel's sexual orientation or why her sexual orientation had relevance to her actions. Perhaps that's because there is none -- a hetersexual AG could have taken these actions just as easily as a homosexual one.
Perhaps Moore understands that, albeit after the fact. Sometime after Jan. 4, the headline to his article was de-gayified, with "Lesbian attorney general" changed to "Michigan attorney general." There was no explanation for that either, though it might be related to trying to make WND News Center content look a lilttle less blatantly homophobic in the hopes that someone other than WND will publish it.