MRC's Whitlock Serves Up Even More Hypocrisy on Corporate Whoring Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Scott Whitlock is so filled with hate for any non-right-wing news operation that he disgustinglysmearsthem as "WHORES" (his all-caps, not ours) for engaging in the common practice of offering promotion of other events or programs tied to corporate parents -- even though the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, routinely treats corportate MRC doings as "news." Whitlock did this again in a July 8 post under the headline "Corporate WHORES at ABC Abandon News, Shill for Disney Overlords Instead" (bold in original):
Some liberal journalists and media outlets like to mock Fox as not real “news,” given that the network doesn’t parrot their left-wing agenda. But no one should ever consider ABC actual “news.” The network is committed to producing propaganda for corporate overlord Disney. Thursday showcased yet another pathetic example as Good Morning America devoted more time to pushing Black Widow than covering the latest on the Surfside disaster in Florida.
Co-host Robin Roberts sounded like a talking Disney press release, opening the 7:30 hour by robotically cheering, “Black Widow finally hitting theaters tomorrow. It is one of the most eagerly anticipated movies of the summer! Fandango reporting that the Marvel movie has already zoomed past F9 in presales!”
Whitlock's reference to Fox News is interesting, since its parent companhy not only owns Fox Broadcasting but also owned 20th Century Fox studios until 2019. Is Whitlock really saying that Fox News has never engaged in the corporate synergy process to use Fox News to promote Fox Broadcasting shows or 20th Century Fox movies? It would be highly unusual if that didn't happen and would display a demonstration of ethics that Fox News is not known for.
Whitlock has been silent about this. Apparently he believes whordom is a good and virtuous thing when right-wingers engage in it.
UPDATE: Whitlock also wrote a July 30 post asserting that "ABC “News” seems to exist to shill for the network’s overlords at Disney" because one show "took their bosses side in the fight against Black Widow star Scarlett Johansson" regarding how the movie's simulatenous release in theaters and streaming violated her contract. Whitlock claimed that "ABC journalists repeatedly misrepresented how Disney+ harmed the box office totals," insisting that a movie that made $319 million "was not a hit." Whitlock concluded that ABC was engaged in -- you guessed it -- "corporate whoring for Disney bosses."
Curtis Houck joined the slur parade as well, declaring in a July 23 post that instead of covering Hunter Biden, there was "more corporate whoring on ABC’s Good Morning America for parent company Disney with a new Disney+ “cinematic experience”starring Billie Eilish."
According to a recent survey conducted by Rasmussen Reports, "58% of Likely U.S. Voters at least somewhat agree that the media are 'truly the enemy of the people,' including 34% who Strongly Agree."
If these statistics are accurate, this means that this extreme level of distrust cannot simply be blamed on former President Trump's rhetoric, from his calling the mainstream media "fake news" to referring to the media as "the enemy of the people." The distrust must go deeper than that.
As for Republican doubts about the reliability of the political news they are hearing, I would say the much higher numbers are due to: 1) the high percentage of mainstream news outlets that lean left; 2) Trump's incessant attacks on these outlets; 3) the amount of "fake news" that really is being propagated.
With regard to the second question, Nolte wrote, "When asked, 'how serious is the "fake news" problem in the media?' a WHOPPING 83 percent said very (55 percent) or somewhat (28 percent) serious. Only 14 percent said not very (9 percent) or not at all (5 percent) serious."
Again, the concern about "fake news" was bipartisan (92 percent of Republicans and 74 percent of Democrats agreed that fake news is either a very serious or somewhat serious problem), which also indicates the degree to which political news outlets in particular are known for being highly partisan themselves.
Just ask your average Republican if they trust CNN or your average Democrat if they trust Fox, and you're like to get the same answer from both, something like, "Are you kidding?"
Brown is feigning a lot of ignorance here. Right-wing hatred of the media didn't start with Trump -- he simply ratcheted it up to a new level. Right-wing orgs like the Media Research Center spend millions of dollars every year to reinforce the right-wing narrative that every non-right-wing media outlet is "liberal" and, thus, not trustworthy, conflating isolated incidents into blanket indictments.
Again, I have no doubt that some of the mistrust and animosity toward political news outlets has been stoked by Trump. But it's also clear that he was not simply punching the air. Instead, he threw a match into a bucket of gasoline that was already there.
What this should mean to all of us who, in any way, report on the news is simple: We need to do our best to be as accurate and unbiased as we can be, making clear where the news stops and our opinions begin. And we need to encourage pushback and scrutiny and dialogue and debate.
Otherwise, we do everyone a disservice.
He does have a point there. What he won't do, however, is apply that standard to the main media outlet that publishes him, WND. We'verepeatedlycaughtWNDpublishingfakenewsandmisinformation. What has Brown ever said about that? What has he done to steer WND in the correct direction? Nothing that we know of.
If Brown won't hold the outlets that publish him responsible for the accuracy of their reportage, his words are hollow, and he's just parroting right-wing narratives.
MRC Psaki-Bashing, Doocy-Fluffing Watch, Full Man-Crush Edition Topic: Media Research Center
Peter Doocy had the previous week off, so the Media Reserarch Center's Curtis Houck was not able to man-crush over him at Jen Psaki's White House press briefings. So with Doocy's return on July 12, Houck was ready to go into man-crush overdrive:
With Cubans having taken to the street over the weekend to protest the 62 years of communist rule that worsened during the coronavirus pandemic, AP and CNN White House reporters used Monday’s briefing to side with their friends in the Communist Party, and demand Press Secretary Jen Psaki blame former President Trump’s posture toward the island nation for its economic ruin.
Fortunately, Fox News’s Peter Doocy returned from a week off to call out the spin that the protests stemmed from coronavirus cases while the Daily Caller’s Shelby Talcott asked whether the administration agreed with The New York Times that the American flag — which Cubans waved as they marched — was “alienating the some.”
As for Doocy, he started with a back-and-forth about vaccine mandates (which left a flustered Psaki to sarcastically tell him, “welcome back”), but pivoted to Cuba and specifically the disconnect between Psaki claiming Cubans were upset with their government and the State Department blaming it on COVID cases.
Psaki tried to engage in damage control, but Doocy called out the insanity in claiming the Cubans protesting “freedom” and “enough” were demanding liberation from the coronavirus[.]
Of course, Houck was lying when he claimed reporteres were siding with "Communist Cuba," but the MRC is cool with any besmirching of the "liberal media," now matter how fanciful.
Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy went toe-to-toe with Press Secretary Jen Psaki during Wednesday’s briefing, challenging her on the hypocrisy surrounding Texas Democrats fleeing the state over proposed voter integrity measures and the administration’s refusal to denounce the evils of communism that have ravaged the Cuban people for 62 years.
While Doocy actually did his job as a reporter to challenge those in power, others in the room pushed the White House not out of accountability, but from the left to help allies will policy proposals into existence.
Once again, Houck covered up the fact that Psaki actually owned Doocy, writing of a Doocy questionabout Democratic Texas lawmakers leaving the state to stall a Republican-pushed voting restriction bill that "Doocy called out Psaki’s humorous dismissal, noting Biden’s eye-popping assertion that voter integrity measures pose the greatest threat to American democracy 'since the Civil War.'"IN fact, as a more honest outlet pointed out, Psaki did not make a "humorous dismissal" of Doocy's question:
She went on to say the president believes these Democrats “were making a statement through action in opposition to efforts in their state to oppose restrictions on people’s fundamental rights and their rights to vote in their state.”
He “certainly applauds their actions and their outspoken opposition to efforts to put in place restrictive measures in their state,” Psaki added.
“And maybe it is funny to think about it that way, but the president is talking about this as the most serious assault on democracy…” Doocy started to say.
Psaki jumped in to remark, “I don’t think anything about this is funny.”
The next day, Houck cheered even more hostile questions from Doocy designed to push right-wing narratives:
Three days after first asking her if the administration would condemn communism and the far-left ideology’s gruesome affect on life inside Cuba, Fox News’s Peter Doocy finally got White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki to condemn on Thursday both communism and demand the regime grant “freedom” to the Cuban people.
And, on another matter, Doocy pressed Psaki on the Biden administration inviting the United Nations Human Rights Council (which included oppressive regimes such as China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia, Somalia, and Venezuela) to examine the U.S. government and trash it as repulsive and systematically racist.
On July 16, Houck gushed that another right-wing reporter joined Doocy in attacking Psaki (while making sure not to point out they are right-wing reporters) under the overexcited headline "BOOM":
Friday’s White House press briefing grew tense as the Biden administration continued its collusion with Facebook and the rest of Big Tech to crack down on dissent (under the guise of fighting misinformation about coronavirus vaccines).
As usual, Fox News’s Peter Doocy and Real Clear Politics’s Philip Wegmann were the rare voices to raise concerns as they inquired about whether it could be seen as“spying on people’s Facebook profiles,” how long this partnership has been going on, and if there are any safeguards to protect speech.
Doocy set Press Secretary Jen Psaki up by leading with a question about China’s lack of cooperation into the origins of the coronavirus, citing one Chinese conspiracy theory that the virus came from smuggled in “frozen food.”
After Psaki said the administration is “concerned...about misinformation” from China, Doocy used that as a springboard to the federal government’s work with social media platforms: “[S]peaking of misinformation and the announcement from yesterday, for how long has the administration been spying on people's Facebook profiles looking for vaccine misinformation?”
Psaki immediately became disgusted, telling Doocy he had offered up “quite a loaded and inaccurate question, which I would refute.”
Yes, Houck thinks that spreading lies and misinformation about vaccines is merely "dissent" and that calling it what it is -- misinformation -- is a political term, not a statement of fact (as is the current MRC narrative).
Houck then proceeded to further denigrate Psaki, claiming she engaging in "word salad" and "gaslighting," two things he had no problem with when his beloved Kayleigh McEnany was doing them. Apparently still missing her, he went on to name-check her: "Exit question: If this were still the Trump administration with Kayleigh McEnany at the podium saying these things, what would the chances have been that everyone from Yamiche Alcindor to Jim Acosta to Peter Alexander to Brian Karem to April Ryan would have blown a collective gasket?"
And what are the chances McEnany would also be serving up "word salad" and "gaslighting" in response, and Houck would say nothing?
UPDATE: Houck engaged in more Doocy stenography in his July 16 post, touting that "Doocy pushed back on Psaki’s claim that the posts are 'publicly open information' and thus fair game, asking whether the 12 people the administration believes hold the lion’s share of blame for misinformation have been told that the government is surveying them." The Washington Post's Aaron Blake pointed out that Doocy was wrong to portray the government as spying on these people. In May, the Center for Countering Digital Hate issued a list of 12 people it found to be responsible for a majority of disinformation about vaccines, which were all taken from publicly available posts. Blake continued:
Nor did anything in Psaki’s comments Thursday suggest that this was from some kind of government study or research project. But Doocy jumped from her stat to not just assuming that it was, but also that this amounted to “spying” and that the “spying” was specifically done by the surgeon general’s office (perhaps because Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy appeared with Psaki on Thursday?).
This continues a long-standing, often tortured search on Fox for government spying on their allies.
Doocy’s claim that the stat Psaki cited was proof of yet more supposed spying is just nonsensical, as he might have found had he done even the slightest bit of due diligence. But at least another spying conspiracy theory that can be turned into cable news segments has now been seeded.
Houck will never admit any of this, of course -- the man-crush must continue unencumbered by the facts.
Fake News: WND Hyped Alleged Transgender Spa Incident That Appears To Have Been A Hoax Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily knows a hot-button rioght-wing issue when it sees one, as demonstrated in a June 28 article by Art Moore:
A heated confrontation at a popular upscale Los Angeles spa captured on a viral video illustrates the problem with males who "identify" as female -- while maintaining their God-given private parts -- using facilities designated for women.
An irate woman is heard on the video demanding to know why a man was allowed to walk around naked in an area reserved for females, including little girls, BizPacReview reported
The response of the front-desk employee she confronted is muffled, but he apparently made a reference to sexual orientation.
"What sexual orientation?" the woman fires back. "I see a d***. That lets me know he’s a man ... he is not a female."
Pointing out that other women were highly offended and traumatized as well, she demanded to know the company policy.
“So Wi Spa is in agreement with men that just say they are women, and they can go down there with their penis, and get into the women’s section? Is that what you’re saying?" she asks.
The woman drew widespread praise on social media.
Well done to that brave woman," said one Twitter user. "She didn’t just stand up for herself, she stood up for all women. Shame on these men who think it’s in their gift to give dictate and erase the boundaries of women and girls."
WND followed up with a July 4 article from the fringe-right Western Journal touting protests against the spa over the alleged incident that were joined by "antifa-related groups" (but made no mention of the fct that the anti-spa protesters included Proud Boys thugs). WND also stole -- er, republished a July 18 article from Fox News highlighting how "Protesters and counter-protesters descended on a Korean spa in Los Angeles that became the latest culture war flashpoint just weeks ago when a customer complained that a transgender woman allegedly disrobed in the women's area."
Just one problem with this story: The incident appears to have been a staged hoax. The Los Angeles Blade reported that the appointment-only spa said that none of its usual transgender clients were scheduled that day, and noted other evidence:
Several other factors cast doubt on the veracity of the claims in the video. Cubaangel’s Instagram account is almost exclusively Christian memes, which begs the question why she chose to go to a spa well known for being LGBTQ friendly. During Cubaangel’s video, no transgender person can be seen, and no other witnesses have come forward to confirm the allegations made. It’s also not the first time Wi Spa has been targeted for catering to transgender people. After the alleged, unconfirmed incident, Wi Spa was deluged with 1-star Yelp! and Trip Advisor reviews.
It also remains a possibility that there was a person, unknown to the Wi Spa staff, who pretended to be transgender to create an inciting incident. In 2015, anti-transgender activists in Washington State deliberately encouraged men to enter women’s facilities.
There's more to this story -- but WND doesn't want to know. Thus, it has allowed apparently fake news to remain uncorrected.
CNS Still Promoting GOP Rep. Boebert, Hiding Her Extremism Topic: CNSNews.com
Craig Bannister gushed in a June 29 CNSNews.com article:
The more Democrats threaten to deprive Americans of their Second Amendment rights, the more Americans will buy guns, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) said Monday in a speech on the House floor.
The congresswoman began by sarcastically “thanking” Democrats for fueling the sale of firearms in the U.S., attributing purchases to Democrats’ tolerance of violence and “threats to strip away our basic constitutional rights”:
“So, my colleagues from the other side, they can keep running our mouths and we will keep adding to our arsenals,” Rep. Boebert concluded.
CNS justlovesBoebert -- and as with fellow far-right Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, it also loves to hide her extremism and controversies. So you won't read about any of the following at CNS that happened over the past month or so:
Boebert calling people who would come door-to-door to vaccinate people against COVID "needle Nazis."
A prominent Republican women's group rejecting both Boebert and Greene as "carnival barkers."
Boebert rudely throwing a mask at a staffer who asked her to wear one in order to adhere to a new masking mandate on the House floor.
Revelations of a mysterious late-night tour of the Capitol that Boebert gave to family members in December, three weeks before she was sworn in as a representative and about three and a half weeks before the Jan. 8 Capitol riot.
But if Boebert again says something clickbait-y that advances CNS' right-wing narratives, CNS will undoubtedly be all over it.
MRC Rages At Jill Biden For Being On Vogue Cover Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is looking for any reason, no matter how lame, to attack Jill Biden. Before the election, for instance, the MRC tried to make a huge deal out of her breaking up her first marriage nearly 50 years ago to be with Joe Biden -- while never disapproving of Donald Trump's multiple marriages and infidelities.
The MRC seems to be weirdly offended that the Bidens actually love each other, something there was little evidence of with Donald and Melania Trump (whom the MRC can't stop defending). In February, Tim Graham whined that the Bidens got a "puffball" interview from People for Valentine's Day (does Graham think People does any other kind?), and P.J. Gladnick complained that Politico "presented a politically weaponized Valentine to Jill and Joe Biden, appropriately on Valentine's Day" that "went full gush over the couple's "PDA" (Public Displays of Affection) that many would object to." Only the MRC would complain that it's offensive for a non-conservative couple to demonstrate affection for each other in public (not like we saw any of that from the Trumps).
Tierin-Rose Mandelburg raged against Jill wearing a scrunchie in her hair while picking up a Valentine's gift for her husband and was offended that anyone would think of her as relatable: "She’s the First Lady of the United States. She is probably the least relatable person unless you’ve been a First Lady yourself. Her and Joe’s net worth is like $9 million. #relatable." The rant continued: "Does a normal/relatable person casually spend over $100 on cupcakes and macaroons? Does a normal person have a Secret Service squad accompany them to a bakery? Does a relatable person have a quality camera man follow them around to take pictures of them picking up pastries?" A couple days later, Duncan Schroeder picked up the scrunchie-hating baton, huffing that "While the liberal media nastily smeared Melania Trump by reducing her to being “arm candy” and a “trophy wife,” it has nothing but praise for Jill Biden."
And Graham returned to complain: "The Bidens may be great lovers. But everything at White House level has a large degree of calculation in it. Everyone should know the gushing liberal newspapers and magazines are aggressively engaged in the politics of humanization." He also tried for a calculated defense of Melania, insisting that she "began her tenure as First Lady behind the Eight ball. First, the liberal media always adores First Ladies who are Ivy League-educated lawyers or career educators, not just – ick – wives. Second, Melania Trump’s beauty was deployed against her: she was seen as 'arm candy,' a 'trophy wife.' She resisted any attempt at public affection for the cameras."
So when Vogue did a cover story on Jill Biden at the end of June, it was a full-on knives-out event for the MRC. Scott Whitlock ranted:
If you’re a Democratic First Lady, you can expect lots of puff pieces from outlets like ABC’s Good Morning America andVoguemagazine. If you’re a Republican? Not as much. GMA journalists on Tuesday gushed over Jill Biden appearing on Vogue for the first time, hailing the “inspiration.”
ABC reporter Janai Norman sounded like she was a PR rep for the Democrat, fawning, “Dr. Jill Biden, the First Lady who is also a former second lady, a current professor who is sometimes called Dr. B. But according to Vogue, in informal settings she'll say to call her Jill.”
Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour is a long-time Democratic donor, so we can consider this a donation.
Just like we can consider Whitlock's hit job a Republican donation?
The cover story comes with a bunch of pretty, posed pictures -- of Jill Biden, and Jill with Joe, and Jill with precious Biden grandchildren -- all by star photographer Annie Leibovitz. Some have designer captions: “Dr. Biden wears a Michael Kors Collection sweater and skirt.”
Troubling family topics – like Hunter Biden and his infernal laptop – are all airbrushed out.
There was no Vogue cover story for Melania Trump. Three years ago, Vogue instead was celebrating porn star Stormy Daniels (complete with posed, pretty Annie Leibovitz portraits) as a “catalyst of historic proportions,” destined to ruin the Trumps.
These sticky valentines underline that overall, journalists shouldn’t boast it’s their job to ask tough questions and hold powerful people accountable. Because they seem to do that about half the time. That’s the spin when the Democrats they supported didn’t win.
Graham didn't mention that Melania already appeared on the cover of Vogue -- in 2005, when she married Donald Trump, and it gushed over her ostentatious $100,000 wedding dress. Ane we see once again Graham denigrating a woman for having an affair with Trump, another utter hypocrisy at the MRC.
A July 3 column by Jeffrey Lord rehashed all the right-wing talking points -- Wintour likes Democrats, Melania wasn't on the cover -- bizarrely called Vogue "corrupt," then whined: "Under the guise of being a so-called “women’s magazine” Vogue is not about “women” or style or beauty or anything else. It is, like so many other American institutions that pretend to be about one thing, in fact about something else entirely. In reality Vogue is about a celebration of all things progressive. ... The Vogue< cover of Jill Biden is nothing if not a reminder of the game being played. And millions of Americans are now onto the game. The Devil may indeed wear Prada. But it is also very safe to say the Devil wears Liberalism on her sleeve — and her magazine covers."
UPDATE: We forgot to note that in March, Graham tried to revive the Jill-cheated story -- but he too apparently has no problem with Trump's multiple marriages and infidelities, so he looks like a hypocrite in doing so.
WND Embraces Anti-Google Researcher's Dubious Work Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've documented how the Media Research Center embraced Robert Epstein as a legitimate critic of Google -- specifically for his claim that Google built bias into its search engine to influence voters in favor of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election -- despite his shoddy research (extrapolating a mere 21 undecided voters). Now, WorldNetDaily has fully embraced Epstein's anti-Google sentiments. Art Moore interviewd him for a July 6 article, which weirdly started out by his taking credit for supposedly not being any search bias for Georgia Senate elections:
After finding that Google's search-engine manipulation in the 2020 election could have shifted a minimum of 6 million votes to Democrat Joe Biden, Harvard-trained research psychologist and Democratic voter Robert Epstein turned his sights to the Georgia Senate elections.
For the first time -- after having monitored three national elections -- he said in an interview with WND that his growing team of field agents found no political bias in Google's search results.
But Epstein believes that's a direct result of his monitoring efforts, and he plans to exponentially expand them.
Actually, Epstein's claim that millions of votes were moved by Google in the 2020 presidential election is disproven by the election itself, as the Washington Post's Philip Bump noted: "Of course, the idea that people primarily base their decisions on what they learn from Googling candidates — particularly at the presidential level — is dismissible on its face. President Biden got a record level of support from Democrats even as Trump earned near-universal support from Republicans. Which of them was influenced by his or her search results?" Also, no evidence was presented to back up that claim, with Epstein himself apparently conceding the speculative nature of it by having WND say it "could have" happened.
Moore gave Epstein space to push his allegedly liberal-leaning bona fides, claiming that "He emphasized to WND he is not a Trump supporter but a "supporter of democracy." He wanted Joe Biden to win, but wanted the election to be fair, recognizing that in the future the tech giants could put their massive power behind a candidate who is not of his choice." Moore also rehashed Epstein's defense of his earlier work by insisting that tht results "were based on an analysis of 13,207 election-related searches, along with the 98,044 web pages to which the search results linked" -- which still doesn't make up for the fact that the research was based on the work of 95 people, 21 of whom were undecided, and that his conclusions were based on how those 21 undecided voters reacted.
WND editor Joseph Farah touted Epstein again in his July 30 column:
Did you know that Google and Facebook have the power to throw elections?
Robert Epstein, a Harvard Ph.D. in psychology, has long studied Big Tech and its ability to swing massive numbers of votes.
In conjunction with the apolitical, nonpartisan American Institute of Behavioral Research and Technology, Epstein has watched carefully Big Tech's involvement with U.S. elections since 2016.
Stop right there. There's no evidence that Epstein's AIBRT is "apolitica" or "nonpartisan" -- indeed, it appears that Epstein is quite partisan given how much he caters to right-wing media with his research and wild anti-Google bias. Farah continued to be a reliable Epstein messenger:
You may recall what happened in the election for 2016. That was the year Donald Trump upset Hillary Clinton. Trump didn't have tens of millions of Twitter followers then. He didn't get any help from Big Tech that year. But Hillary did. At least 6 million votes – a combination of illegal ballots and manipulated data. But it still wasn't enough for Hillary.
Then came the next election – in 2018. Epstein estimated that Google and Facebook were in a position to turn about 12 million votes due to their overwhelming pro-Democrat bias demonstrated in their virtual monopoly dominance of search and social media platforms. That was the year Nancy Pelosi became speaker of the House.
But 2016 and 2018 were probably rigged elections, according to Epstein's projections.
Of course, that's all speculative extrapolation -- Epstein has no proof that 1) Google searches were definitively biased, 2) they were so biased they caused any voter to change his or her vote, or 3) that so many votes were changed to make those elections "rigged."
Epstein is saying what Farah and WND want to hear, and Farah and Moore are lapping it up.
NEW ARTICLE: The MRC's War on Jen Psaki (And Man-Crush On Peter Doocy), Part 3 Topic: Media Research Center
In April, the Media Research Center's Curtis Houck crushed harder (on Fox News' Doocy) and raged more viciously (against Psaki) than ever in his writeups of Psaki's White House press briefings. Read more >>
CNS Is Mad Again That CPAC Doesn't Hate LGBT People Enough Topic: CNSNews.com
Back in February, CNSNews.com was quite angry that the Conservative Political Action Conference was committing the offense of not hating LGBT people by giving an award to an "openly gay" man. With the summer edition of CPAC in July, it was outraged again. An anonymous CNS writer complained in a July 10 article:
The 2021 Conservative Political Action Conference, which is being held this weekend in Dallas, Texas, will feature two speakers who are self-professed gays.
Former acting Director of National Intelligence Ric Grenell, who also served as ambassador to Germany, had an on-stage “conversation” with American Conservative Union President Matt Schlapp on Saturday morning. Radio talk show host Tammy Bruce will moderate a panel discussion on Sunday that is entitled “Fuel for Thought” and will look at energy policy issues.
The anopnymous writer never explained why Grenell's and Bruce's appearances were problematic beyond singling out their sexual orientation, though the headline of the article put "Conservative Political Action Conference" in scare quotes without further explanation. CNS managing editor Michael W, Chapman, a notorious homophobe, singled out Grenell's appearance at the February CPAC, making sure to note that Grenell "is gay" and "lives with his long-time partner Matt Lashey." CNS also attacked Grenell's sexual orientation during his moves through the Trump administration.
The only coverage CNS gave the actual CPAC itself was for Donald Trump's speech, which somehow warranted two articles from Susan Jones:
MRC's Double Standard on Rooting Against America Topic: Media Research Center
Under the headline "CBS Roots for Team USA to Fail at Olympics," Scott Whitlock complained in a July 26 post: "According to CBS guest William Rhoden, arrogant Team USA need to be “humbled," and maybe losing several medals at the Olympics was the way to do it. Appearing on CBS This Morning, Monday, the liberal sports journalist derided the opening ceremonies as too nationalistic, saying they reminded him of 'white nationalism.'" He added that "Seeming to root against the U.S., the former New York Times columnist took pleasure in the American basketball team’s struggles," going on to criticize the "trashing of American athletes."
You know who else has been trashing American athletes and rooting against America at the Olympics? The MRC.
We've already documented the seething hatred the MRC has for any athlete -- particularly American ones -- who aren't heterosexual, and one got the sense they were rooting for the failure of these athletes at the Olympics solely because of this.
Jay Maxson explicitly did in a July 11 post exactly what Whitlock accued Rhoden of doing -- taking pleasure in the American basketball team’s struggles:
How the mighty – and the woke – have fallen! The dominant international men’s basketball powerhouse forever, Team USA, suffered a shocking, embarrassing pre-Olympic exhibition game loss to lowly Nigeria on Sunday. The NBA’s wokeness sure doesn’t fly on the world hoops stage.
Ranked 22nd in world, Nigeria downed the Americans 90-87. It was the USA’s first-ever loss to an African team. The USA is now 54-3 since NBA players took over U.S. Olympic basketball, and the team had won its last 39 games. In two previous games against Nigeria, the USA had won by a whopping 127 points combined.
Greg Popovich (at right in photo), the most woke and politically outspoken coach in the NBA, coached the U.S. to this disaster. It’s certainly a red alert for him and all the American NBA players who have been disgracefully carrying on about social justice, Black Lives Matter and Donald Trump in recent years.
Once again, we see that all the money and wokeness in the world - and the complacency that can come with it - doesn’t always beat heart, hunger and desire.
This was followed by a July 21 post in which Matt Philbin took immense pleasure in the U.S. women's soccer team losing its Olympic opener:
The U.S. Women’s National soccer team lost 3-0 to Sweden in their Olympic opener on Tuesday. That probably hurts the team’s chances for the gold. But let’s not forget that this was a victory of sorts too. The U.S. ladies proved they could maintain a busy schedule of politicized grousing, kvetching and posturing, and still find time to lose a soccer game. You really can have it all, gals!
Just in case sports fans forgot how deeply the team feels the world’s every injustice, they and their opponents knelt before the game to strike a blow against racism or something. Then they got down to the business of being trounced.
Oh sure, they missed the net and maybe the ball sometimes. But the Angry Amazons for Equity have other targets dead in their sights: “ racist infrastructures,” sexism, and reality based economics. And attractive women’s lingerie is toast.
The same day, Tim Graham used his podcast to ask: "How do we feel about kneeling American Olympians? Should Americans root for them anyway....or root for them to lose?" He admitted that MRC staff members "tend to root for these Americans to lose, even though they're Americans," but he didn't name any MRC staff members who believe that "Americans should always root for Americans." Graham then declared his "swishy Susan Collins-type centrist" position that "I root for the Americans, but I'm not going to be too upset if Megan Rapinoe loses."
So, yeah, the MRC is utterly hypocritical about this.
CNS Touts McCarthy Noting That Confederates Were Dems, Hides That 120 Republicans Voted Against Removing Confederate Statues Topic: CNSNews.com
Susan Jones wrote in a June 30 CNSNews.com article:
The U.S. House of Representatives voted 285-120 on Tuesday to remove more statues of Confederates from the U.S. Capitol.
Sixty-seven Republicans voted with 218 Democrats in support of the bill, and one of those voting for removal was House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who seized the occasion to note past Democrat racism, even as he condemned present Democrat attempts to stoke racial division in the United States.
"The bill we're voting on today we voted (on) before," McCarthy said in a floor speech. "And I supported it. I support it now. But let me state a simple fact: All the statues being removed by this bill are statues of Democrats," McCarthy said.
(The House resolution removes statues of John C. Calhoun, Charles Aycock, and James P. Clarke, all of whom defended slavery and fought for the Confederacy. And it replaces a bust of the late Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, author of the Dred Scott decision, with one of Thurgood Marshall, the first African American Supreme Court justice.)
McCarthy noted that the Confederate portraits removed from the Capitol one year ago were all of Democrats as well. And he noted that the statues identified in the House resolution were sent to the House of Representatives by states controlled by Democrats.
What Jones was careful not to mention: All Democrats voted for the statues' removal, and that all 120 "no" votes on this removal were cast by Republicans, which would seem to drive home the point that Democrats have repudiated its history or racism, while Republicans have picked up that mantle. While Jones gave McCarthy space to declare that "I'll vote for this bill today, just as I voted for it before," she gave no explanation for why 120 Republicans voted against it (and the leader of their caucus).
Jones went on to uncritically quote McCarthy making the case for Democrats changing the name of their party despite it not being germane to the issue of removing Confederate statues:
Just a few years ago, then-Vice President Joe Biden praised Democrat Senator Robert Byrd [D-W.Va.]. He was the exalted cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan. In his eulogy for Byrd, he said, for a lot of us, he was a friends, a mentor, and a guide.
Another leading Democrat who praised Byrd at the time was Speaker Pelosi. She called Byrd a friend, a great person, and a great American patriot.
Jones censored the fact that Byrd repeatedly apologized for his KKK involvement, and even the NAACP acknowledged upon his death in 2010 that he"went from being an active member of the KKK to a being a stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and many other pieces of seminal legislation that advanced the civil rights and liberties of our country."
Newsmax Cheers Evidence-Free Attempt to Defund NPR Topic: Newsmax
Charles Kim complained in a July 5 Newsmax article:
National Public Radio (NPR) is in a bit of hot water after posting an article during the Independence Day holiday Sunday that claimed the Declaration of Independence was “a flawed” document with “deeply ingrained hypocrisies,” leading to yet another call from people on the right to defund the organization.
“I’ve seen enough,” Republican Congressional candidate Irene Armendariz-Jackson said responding to the NPR post on Twitter. “Defund NPR.”
The article NPR posted Sunday included its tradition of staff members reading the document of America’s founding, a custom of some 32 years on the radio station, but also referred to the riots of last summer and the need to understand that the document contained things that some find offensive, like referring to Native-Americans as “merciless Indian savages.”
But Kim did not explain what was factually wrong with NPR's interpretation, nor did he quote anyone who did. Instead, he touted the history of right-wingers trying to defund NPR.
Meanwhile, even obsessive NPR hater Tim Graham at the Media Research Center didn't see enough in NPR's interpretation to devote a post to it. Instead, all it warranted is a couple paragraphs in his July 7 column trying to blame the "liberal media" for dividing America":
So-called National Public Radio tweeted out a thread of the original Declaration of Independence, blasting it as "a document with flaws and deeply ingrained hypocrisies." It says “‘that all men are created equal’ — but women, enslaved people, Indigenous people and many others were not held as equal at the time.”
See? You can’t see the text as a statement of idealism, a promise to be fulfilled in time. The Declaration is painted as a lie perpetuated by malignant, propertied white men...with your taxpayer dollars.
Graham conveniently omits the fact that it took the better part of 200 years for indigenous people to be treated as full Americans -- probably because that would bolster NPR's case.
Cashill Tries To Rewrite History Of Waco Siege, Tulsa Massacre Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jack Cashill served up a little, um, alternative history in his June 2 WorldNetDaily column:
"Some injustices are so heinous, so horrific, so grievous they can't be buried no matter how hard people try," said President Joe Biden in Tulsa on Tuesday.
Biden knows something about burying injustice. On April 19, 1993, he was serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee when a Democrat-controlled, FBI-led tank assault on the Mount Carmel religious community outside of Waco, Texas, left 74 people dead, more than half of them racial minorities.
As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Biden had the responsibility to redress the injustice that took place at Waco. He passed on that responsibility.
f the 74 killed that day, six were Hispanic. Six were of Asian descent. And 27 were black. The victims ranged in age from 6 to 61. And no, this is not something I read on the internet. I found a verifiable list of the dead, broken out by age and ethnicity, and counted them.
At Tulsa on Tuesday, Biden repeated his blood libel that "terrorism from white supremacy is the most lethal threat to the homeland today." Biden's goal at Tulsa, indeed the goal from the day he announced his candidacy, has been to frighten blacks into remaining within the Democratic fold.
Truth be told, Waco represented the single greatest federally orchestrated one-day slaughter of racial minorities on American soil since Wounded Knee in 1890, and there, at least, the Indians fought back, killing more than 30 American cavalry.
In Tulsa the blacks had better odds than they did at Waco. The initial encounter between black and white mobs left 10 whites dead and two blacks. A 2001 commission confirmed a total of 26 black dead and 13 whites, notwithstanding Biden's insistence that "the likely number is much more than the multiple of hundreds."
Actually, while the commission was only able to confirm the 36 dead, it also stated that "credible evidence makes it probable that many people, likely numbering between 100-300, were killed during the massacre." In other words, Biden is correct.
Of course, it's ridiculous for Cashill to try and diminish the Tulsa massacre by invoking the Waco siege. He, of course, leaves out inconvenient facts to the Waco narrative. For instance, he omitted nearly all mention of David Koresh, whom even former Branch Davidians admit was highly controlling and had sex with girls as young as 12. (There is dispute about whether Koresh could be accurately described as a cult leader.) Whatever mistakes federal officials made in handling the Waco siege, there's also evidence that the Davidians lit the fire that destroyed the compound and killed Koresh and his followers, but Cashill doesn't want to remind you of that either. Indeed, he still wants to whine:
For Biden and other Democrats, it is now axiomatic that black lives matter only when they are politically useful. As Biden has proved since his election, blue lives matter only when they, too, are politically useful.
The police are to be defended when serving the interests of the Deep State against the white supremacist hordes. So the killer of Ashli Babbitt remains unknown, and Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick is elevated to martyrdom though dying of natural causes.
In fact, the medical examiner pointed out that "all that transpired" at the Capitol riot "played a role in his condition" and led to SiIcknick's death. And Cashill is on the wrong side of history yet again, defending Babbitt, a domestic terrorist who was engaged in criminal acts as the time she was killed while breaking through a window inside the Capitol.
MRC Still Inexplicably Defending Crowder's Hate Amid Removal From TikTok Topic: Media Research Center
There's a boatload of misinformation in a June 28 Media Research Center post, in which Alexander Hall inexplicably continuestodefend hateful right-wing ranter Steven Crowder, under the headline "China Strikes":
TikTok can be subservient to the genocidal Chinese government, but the platform’s real offense was allowing conservative commentators, a leftist organization said.
“Comedian and conservative commentator Steven Crowder has been banned from China’s TikTok viral video platform,” Reclaim The Net reported June 26. Leftist organization Media Matters proclaimed it was behind the purge: “Far-right internet personality Steven Crowder has been banned from TikTok following a June 8 Media Matters report highlighting his bigotry on the platform,” the organization wrote in a June 24 update. “A TikTok spokesperson confirmed to Media Matters that Crowder’s account had been removed for violating its community guidelines.”
Media Matters leadership has received extensive funding from leftist megadonor George Soros, the record shows. Soros’ Foundation to Promote Open Society (OSF) tax forms has shown five separate donations between 2010 and 2014 totalling $1,575,000. Soros gave the organization money every other year during that time. The leftist group released a report earlier in June sliming Crowder for “using TikTok to spread hate to a younger audience.”
First: Hall offers no evidence that the Chinese government even knows Crowder exists, let alone that it ordered TikTok to remove him from the platform, as he suggests -- or, for that matter, that the Chinese government is so involved in TikTok that it polices all users or eve the those in America.
Second: Hall's complaint about Media Matters receiving funding from Soros interests is a red herring. He offers no evidence that any of it was used to target Crowder -- highly unlikely, since even its own documents notes that the last bit of Soros funding came in 2014. It's also a pittance compared to the money the MRC receives from rich conservatives like the Mercers.
In addition to claiming that Media Matters "slim[ed]" Crowder, Hall also asserted that it "spread fearmongering rhetoric about Crowder’s popularity" ... by pointing out his record of hateful rhetoric. Hall did not prove anything Media Matters said about Crowder to be false or misleading. Hall also laughably claimed that noting TikTok's "young user base" meant that "Media Matters may have also revealed the main reason why liberals are terrified of conservative commentators accessing platforms like TikTok to spread right-wing humor." The MRC likes to portray what Crowder does as "humor" -- giving him the comedian defense it won't offer to those whose sense of humor is farther to the left -- but offers no evidence that any of it is funny.
Indeed, Hall didn't quote anything from Crowder Media Matters found offensive -- just like it didn't directly quote the nastiness that got Crowder suspended from YouTube in May.
Crowder's TikTok suspension also made the June roundup of what the MRC claims is the "WORST censorship"; Casey Ryan laughably called Media Matters an "extreme far-left organization" and repeated Hall's complaint that it "spread fearmongering rhetoric about Crowder’s popularity."
It's just another reminder that Media Matters lives rent-free inside the collective heads of the MRC -- perhaps because it does its job more effectively than the MRC does.
WND Columnist Mad That Victoria's Secret, NFL Will Seek Customers Beyond Heterosexual Men Topic: WorldNetDaily
Wayne Allyn Root spent part of his July 5 WorldNetDaily column melting down over Victoria's Secret ratcheting back on catering to lustful men (like himself?)
This is stupidity. This is insanity. This is suicide. American companies and institutions are purposely destroying themselves. They're ripping apart billion-dollar brands that have taken decades of hard work to build. And they're doing it in a matter of days.
They're marching off cliffs like sheep.
Keep in mind sheep are idiots. They have no brainpower. They can't think for themselves. If one sheep walks off a cliff, they'll all happily follow. Did you ever imagine CEOs of billion-dollar companies could be as dumb as sheep?
Who committed suicide this week? Some of the biggest brand names in America.
Let's start with Victoria's Secret. I have a secret for them. You just killed your business. How clueless can you get? Victoria's Secret sells lingerie, bras, bathing suits. This isn't brain surgery. Those products are sold by beautiful female models. Always have been, always will be. They're so beautiful they're called "angels." And here's another secret for clueless Victoria's Secret: Men open up their wallets for beautiful women.
Most women want to look like angels, too. Even if only for one night with dim lights on. Even if only while wearing Victoria's Secret lingerie.
They've decided to fire all their sexy, gorgeous, skinny, busty models. The angels are being replaced by overweight, unattractive, feminist icons and transgender models.
Even if you personally believe this leftist, feminist drivel, that's fine. Be a Stepford wife in private. But to attach this insanity to your billion-dollar brand is suicide. No one will buy clothing, let alone bras, panties and lingerie from unattractive, overweight feminists and transgender models. Your business is ruined, thanks to your radical, absurd, insane political philosophy.
But that's not all. Root is also enraged that the NFL is trying to expand its audience beyond aggressively heterosexual men (like himself?):
But the NFL could be even more stupid and reckless than Victoria's Secret. Have you seen the latest TV ad for the NFL? It says, "The NFL is gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender." Insanity does not even begin to describe how clueless this is. I'm Exhibit A. I'm the prototype for your typical NFL fan.
I've loved the NFL since I was 5 years old. I live for Sundays to watch NFL football. I live and die with my Dallas Cowboys. I love America, faith, family, freedom, my fiancee and my NFL. That's not a brand. That's a religion. The NFL is part of my life. It's the DNA of America.
Why would the NFL ruin its brand by getting involved with politics? And not just any politics, but the most controversial and radical politics possible.
The NFL is about sports, gambling and violence. It's a perfect mix that attracts mostly macho, straight males – a majority of whom are conservative, Christian and unabashed patriots. I'd bet my life's fortune that a large majority of the fans sitting in the stands at NFL games voted for former President Donald Trump.
Like it or not, that's your audience. Like it or not, a majority of the NFL's paying customers have conservative views and values. They go to church; they believe in God; they own guns; they vote Republican; and they idolize Clint Eastwood, Sylvester Stallone and Donald Trump.
Why offend your customers? Why get involved in politics at all? But if you do, why pick a stand that alienates a majority of your most loyal fans? I have nothing against lesbians, bisexuals or transgenders, but how many pay for NFL season tickets? Maybe a dozen in a stadium that seats 75,000? Maybe.
Is the NFL trying to attract 0.0000000001% new fans while driving away 60% of their current fans forever? Is that a smart business decision? Actually, this is business suicide.
The NFL shouldn't hate gays, lesbians or transgenders. I don't. But what does anyone's sexuality have to do with football? Will there be a straight male Pride Month? Will future NFL television ads say: "We are macho, straight, Republican and proud"? I doubt it. But why not? That's your audience. That's who buys the tickets.
Actually, Root is very much showing his hatred for the LGBT community by insisting they don't deserve to be football fans.