The MRC's Whining About Capitol Riot Anniversary Never Stops Topic: Media Research Center
Even after devotingthreeposts to how the Media Research Center covered the first anniversary of the Capitol riot, we're still not done -- there are a few odds and ends to discuss. P.J. Gladnick tried to invent a conspiracy theory in a Jan. 7 post:
On January 6, the media was chock full of stories about the events at Capitol Hill on the day of the riot. One potentially big event that could have overshadowed what happened at the Capitol building was a couple of pipe bombs planted near the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee buildings. Fortunately neither bomb went off, but the mystery remains of who was the pipe bomber that still remains at large.
Because of the January 6 anniversary, several media outlets were speculating about the mystery of who the pipe bomber was and why the FBI has not found him despite conducting an intensive investigation. You can see stories about the investigation into the pipe bomber suspect at such sources as CBS News, the Associated Press (via PBS), and The Atlantic.
One thing the stories all have in common is what appears to be a lack of curiosity why the FBI hasn't used a very common investigative technique to identify the bomber.
Why hasn't the FBI attempted to track the pipe bomber's GPS movements via the phone pinging off the cell phone towers? We know the suspect used his cell phone at least five times since his movements were tracked by surveillance cameras such as in the one provided by the FBI below.
And since the suspect's locations and times were known from video surveillance it should be a rather easy matter to find out where he started out from and where he went after he planted the bombs via GPS tracking as well as perhaps what phone number(s) he called.
So if the FBI can use cell tower tracking to identify grandmothers just standing around at the Capitol building on January 6, why haven't they used the same technology to find the pipe bomber?
Of course, Gladnick doesn't know that the FBI has not done this -- he's just baselessly suggesting that it has something to hide by not arresting anyone yet. Curiously, Gladnick offers no evidence that anyone in the right-wing media has done what he demands "the media" do, "pick up a phone and call the FBI or the January 6 Committee to ask them about this."
Brad Wilmouth used a Jan. 8 post to maliciously reframe remarks by reporter Yamiche Alcindor. She pointed out the inescapable fact that most of the Capitol insurrectionists were white and that a similarly violent crowd of people of color would have been treated much more harshly by law enforcement; Wilmouth twisted this to claim that Alcindor was "possibly disappointed that more of the 1/6 Capitol Hill rioters were not shot by Capitol Police."
Meanwhile, Tim Graham was the designated MRC whiner about Vice President Kamala Harris' 1/6 speech. First , he complained that Harris' likening of the riot to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor was not fact-checked, whining that Snopes ddinged right-winger Todd Starnes for falsely claiming she said the riot was "worse than" 9/11. "They didn't fact-check the leftist. They fact-checked the conservative," Graham huffed; note his description of Harris as a "leftist" but not Starnes as merely a "conservative" even though he holds very extreme views.
(Also, we don't recall Graham demanding a fact-check when a Fox News contributor likened the burning of the channel's Christmas tree to Pearl Harbor.)
Then, he complained that PBS interviewer Judy Woodruff didn't trash Harris like a Fox News employee would:
On January 6, Vice President Kamala Harris shamelessly attempted to compare the Capitol riot to Pearl Harbor and 9-11. Later that day, she was interviewed by Judy Woodruff on the PBS NewsHour, who asked absolutely nothing about that rhetoric. Instead, Woodward complained to Harris about election lies and poor attitudes and "deep polarization" -- as if the media have no role in all this. She began with a series of 1/6 softballs:
Then Woodruff heralded Liz Cheney for holding Trump fully responsible for creating the Capitol riot -- that he "summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack" -- and asked "Is she right?" Then Woodruff suggested (as a flock of "objective" journalists have) that Trump should face criminal prosecution: "If that's the case, then does that not mean there will have to be serious consideration of a criminal prosecution?"
This is the exact opposite of how she repeatedly shamed Mike Pence at the GOP convention in 2016, that "lock her up" talk was too vicious. (Unlike "lock Trump up.")
Graham didn't explain why Pence should not be held to account for what his running mate said.
The MRC was STILL whining about the Jan. 6 coverage five days later, when Geoffrey Dickens did a roundup piece on on Jan. 11 grumbing that "STILL to this day the media are exploiting the Capitol Hill riots as a way to push the Democrat’s agenda on everything, especially their desire to federalize elections." Apparently, Fox News isn't part of "the media.
UPDATE: Graham also spent his Jan. 7 podcast summing up all the whining the MRC has done about the anniversary coverage, summing it up in the NewsBusters post promoting it: "What makes the 1/6 coverage so inauthentic is that the liberal media does not object to all rioting. They object to Trump backers rioting. When leftists riot for 'racial justice,' they are fine with it, and dress it up in terms like 'rebellion' or a 'racial reckoning.' If the media were actually interested in building "shared facts" then they might share the fact that all rioting is horrible."
In the podcast, Graham went into a whataboutism rant: "We are not going to be be lectured on Jan. 6 about rioting and rebellions from people who want to defund police, who want to defund ICE, who want to abolish the prisons. You don't get to talk to us about insurrections!" He then went on to deny that Ashli Babbitt, the rioter who was killed by law enforcement inside the Capitol, was a martyr -- then complained that the Associated Press published a "snotty piece... attacking her character."
There was more: He whined that the anniversary got more coverage than the Benghazi attack, then falsely asserted that the person who shot Republican congressman Steve Scalise was "inspired by Rachel Maddow and Bernie Sanders." And he served up an old-school rant about Barack Obama's connections to Bill Ayers.
CNS Editor Likens Vaccine Mandate to Sterilization Mandate Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com editor Jerry Jeffrey began his Jan. 5 column with a provocative claim:
Can President Joe Biden order your employer to make sure you are sterilized? Or can he order your employer to make sure you have been vaccinated for COVID-19?
The first question here focuses on a hypothetical. The second does not.
Yes, Jeffrey is suggesting that getting vaccinated is like getting sterilized. He followed that with a blast from the past: an attack on a longtime target, former Obama administration officlal John Holdren, whom CNS was obsessed with throughout the Obama presidency because he once advocated population control efforts in the 1970s. Holdren has no connection with the Biden administration, of course, but Jeffrey suggests that his having "served with Biden in the Obama administration" is apparently close enough, though it's a guilt-by-association fail -- especially since Holdren never advocated population-control policies during his time in the Obama White House.
Jeffrey's reference fails for another reason: Jeffrey offers no evidence that Holdren ever advocated mandatory sterliization to achieve his onetime population-control beliefs. Nevertheless, he went on to stretch his hypothetical to the limit:
Now, suppose in America we were able to develop the technology to sterilize someone simply by giving them two shots in the arm three weeks apart — just like getting the COVID-19 vaccine.
Could some future president, given the environmental threat to our planet that some scientists believe is driven by population growth, order that every American who has had two or more children get these two shots?
Jeffrey concluded his column by grudginging admitting that vaccines work, then scaremongered anyway by making a sudden and unwarranted leap to abortion:
There is no doubt that COVID-19 vaccines have been good for America and for the world. They have saved lives.
But the president of the United States does not have the unilateral authority to order any American to undergo any medical procedure.
If the Supreme Court were to grant this unjustified power to Biden now, who does not acknowledge the right to life of the most innocent and vulnerable human beings (the unborn), what would he or his successors use it for next?
Jeffrey is making bad-faith arguments here, hitting right-wing hot-button issues where there's no serious discussion of the extremes he's suggesting in order to poison the wll against vaccine mandates.
MRC Sports Blogger Mocks Team On Wrong End Of Needlessly Lopsided High School Game Topic: Media Research Center
Who has two thumbs and loves poor sportsmanship on the high school level? This guy (or gal): the Media Research Center's Jay Maxson, who devoted a Jan. 7 post to complaining that a high school girl's basketball team was criticized for needlessly stomping an opponent 92-4 -- and to mocking the losing team:
What happens when one high school girls’ basketball team comes to compete, and the other team doesn’t? If you are the head coach of the first team, and your squad wins in a wipeout, you are scapegoated and suspended for a game. We’ve seen this sort of ridiculous thing before when a sports team is severely punished for achievement, and it’s never a pretty outcome.
Sacred Heart Academy, undefeated and ranked third in Connecticut, took a first-quarter lead of 29-0, and it was 56-0 at halftime. By the end of the end of the third period, it was 80-0, and it ended 92-4. Coach Jason Kirck will sit out the next game because his last opponent, Lyman Hall High School, sucks at hoops.
In other words, Sacred Heart, the next time you play Lyman Hall, leave your “A” Game at home.
Maxson didn't mention that Connecticut high school sports standards state that "Coaches will be aware of the competitive balance of contests and will manage the score in a manner that is sportsmanlike and respectful of opponents." Instead, he (or she) continued to pile on, Sacred Heart style:
The Lyman Hall coach went on WFSB-TV and accused his rival of “unsportsmanlike” conduct and running up the score.
Pressing is Sacred Heart’s game, but if another team repeatedly can’t get back quickly enough to stop the fastbreak, that’s on them. Furthermore, how can a school employ a coach who can’t prepare a team any better than this? It sounds like Coach Lipka got a get-out-of-jail card for not being a good coach.
Sports teach character and painful lessons as well, and coaches who complain about lop-sided losses sometimes need to look in the mirror and blame themselves for their team's bad performances. Other coaches need to yank their starters sooner when a blowout becomes inevitable. Just blaming the winning side doesn’t seem right.
If you're up 56-0 at halftime, there's absolutely no need to spend the rest of the game continuing to press for the sole purpose of running up the score.And there's absolutely no reason to leave starting players in until the fourth quarter, as Sacred Heart apparently did.
The fact that Maxson thinks poor sportsmanship is a good thing tells you all you need to know about the MRC.
WND's Mercer Calls Capitol Riot A 'PSYOP' Topic: WorldNetDaily
The anniversary of Jan. 6 is upon us. In deranged Democrat nomenclature, it was "an insurrection" – apparently the deadliest in U.S. history. To their disgrace, Jan. 6 has indeed become the Democrats' 9/11.
Deplorables should rejoice, for the Democrats are having a fit, and that's fun. Rejoice, but do not partake in or dignify the production. Ignore Jan. 6 as you would "spam for penis extensions."
Stay away from the force-field of evil that is the Democrats' Jan. 6 Psychological Operation (PSYOP). Much like the Russia hoax – a plot to unseat a president – the Jan. 6 monomania is meant to overthrow a people, MAGA America.
Since there is nothing much to commemorate, except for the cold-blooded, unpunished murder of an unarmed protester, Ashli Babbit, Jan. 6 must be viewed as a long-term, cynical political strategy.
Like them or not, our people are the ragtag bunch who would storm the plush seats of state power and corruption. The Democrats' people are Black Lives Matter and Antifa. Be they illegal voters and criminal aliens, or just good old vandals, rapists and murderers, the criminal class is now the armed and shielded wing of the Democratic Party: Courageously and audaciously, Democrats lionize and give license to their criminal constituents.
Odious Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, a Pelosi poodle and a Republican Jan. 6 reveler, is correct: There is a difference between a crime and a coup. Crimes against innocent fellow citizens are acts of cowardice; a coup against the State can be heroic – just like the American Revolutionary War was a coup against Britain.
Principled, conservative libertarians will therefore distinguish pro-Trump patriots from the criminal arm of the Democratic Party: BLM, Antifa and other riffraff. These weaponized Democrats, immunized by party leaders from criminal liability, romped through America in the summer of 2020, causing billions in damages. Like locusts, these cultural revolutionaries descended on their neighbors to menace them in places where they shop and socialize, sadistically threatening and often physically harming innocents, unless they knelt like slaves.
In contrast, the ragtag renegades of the MAGA movement, as misguided as they were, stormed only the seat of power and corruption that is the state. Once!
If Democrats can defend their rioters, the Republican Party must represent theirs and secure them their constitutional due-process rights still denied.
Above all, MAGA America must cancel Jan. 6. Consider it a civilian Psychological Operation intended to "induce" and "reinforce behavior" meant to politically and psychologically pulverize the Democrats' enemies: us.
MRC Protected Fox News Over Its Jan. 6 Coverage Topic: Media Research Center
We've seen the Media Research Center preemptively whine about Capitol riot anniversary coverage, then lash out at President Biden's speech marking the occasion as well as anyone who liked the speech. Now we've reached the stage where it tries to make Fox News look good by attacking CNN and MSNBC.
Mark Finkelstein got mad that MSNBC highlighted Repubican criticism of the riot:
The enemy of my enemy is my friend, per the ancient adage. And thus, as Democrats aggressively marked the anniversary of the January 6 riot to condemn Donald Trump, MSNBC took a moment to praise Liz and Dick Cheney and Karl Rove for taking a stand with the Democrats in condemning the riot. As if other Republicans didn't.
Nicholas Fondacaro, meanwhile, had a meltdown over CNN's special on the riot because it called out Fox News' role in stoking it:
For years now, the liberal media have been telling us the country is in a “cold civil war” or a “neo-civil war” because people and policies they don’t like have popularity. But according to CNN’s Anderson Cooper during the network’s January 6 primetime special (Live From the Capitol: January 6th, One Year Later) it was the folks at “other networks” – aka Fox News – that were “relishing the idea” of sparking another civil war in America.
But rather than offer any defense of Fox News, Fondacaro bizarrely focused on CNN's failure to say the words "Fox News" in its criticism, even though we all know who they're referring to: "Speaking of bravery, why couldn’t either of these men speak up and name names? Who was calling for a civil war? Who was against the police? That’s because if they did, then they would need to prove their accusations."
Curtis Houck, meanwhile, complained about how much time CNN and MSNBC spend on anniversary coverage:
It was bound to be a nauseating day for anyone who turned on CNN or MSNBC Thursday during their voluminous coverage for the first anniversary of the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol and, according to a NewsBusters tallying of their live programming (20 hours on CNN and 19 hours on MSNBC), they didn’t disappoint.
All told, the two far-left channels spent 1,653 minutes marking the occasion and demonizing all 75 million-plus Trump voters.
With the formal total clocking in at 1,653 minutes and two seconds (and translating to 27 hours, 33 minutes, and two seconds), MSNBC’s 838 minutes and 33 seconds surprisingly beat out the perpetually degrading and perhaps most insufferable CNN, which had 814 minutes and 29 seconds.
It's bizarre that Houck thinks telling the truth of what happened that day is "nauseating" -- what about the truth sets off that nausea? -- and the act of doing so makes one "far-left." And it's curious that Houck didn't serve up the amount of time Fox News spent on the anniversary. After all, wouldn't a comparison of coverage with his favorite TV channel be useful here?
Houck also sneered at a riot victim, huffing that "retired Capitol Police officer Michael Fanone — who’s cashing in on his service and anti-Trump rhetoric by becoming a CNN law enforcement analyst, proclaimed on New Day that the right’s 'still engaging in the same violent rhetoric' from a year ago, adding that Republicans are 'insurrectionist' 'jackasses.'" Houck didn't mention that rioters attacked Fanone with a stun gun, while another rioter yelled, "Kill him with his own gun!" Houck did not dispute any characterization of the rioters by Fanone, and for him to claim Fanone is "cashing in" on being severely beaten by a pro-Trump mob is sickening.
CNN and MSNBC spent over 1,600 minutes Thursday obsessing over the first anniversary of the January 6 riot on the U.S. Capitol, but it failed to translate into any success in the ratings department.
Thanks to early numbers from Nielsen Media Research, the Fox News Channel cruised to an easy victory in both total viewers with roughly 1.567 million and 245,000 in the 25-54 demographic.
According to a Fox News press release, FNC defeated CNN “in every hour across both categories” as the Jeff Zucker-led channel was only able to fetch 742,869 total viewers overall and 139,202 across Thursday in the demo.
MSNBC was able to best CNN in total viewers with about 1.049 million viewers, but narrowly lost in the 25-54 group as the Comcast-owned property garnered just 136,019 viewers.
Houck made sure not to mention the fact that CNN and MSNBC's coverage together beat Fox News, which demonstrated there was a bigger audience for that content. And, again, Houck didn't elaborate on the contents of Fox News' coverage (aside from mentioning a supposedly "challenging and substantive interview" with Liz Cheney on Fox) or how much time it spent on the anniversary.
WND Tries To Work Up Some Old-Fashioned Mosque Panic Topic: WorldNetDaily
Back in the day, WorldNetDaily loved to freak out over mosques getting built in the U.S., especially if religious freedom laws had to be invoked against Islamophobic officials to make it happen (even though WND approved when Christians made use of those very same laws). So, an anonymnously written Jan. 6 WND article was a bit of a throwback:
A federal judge has approved a consent degree involving Horn Lake, Mississippi, a suburb only a mile from the Memphis, Tenn., area, that requires city officials to ignore concerns over traffic, noise and potential fire hazards and allow a mosque construction project.
WREG reported the American Civil Liberties Union was boasting of obtaining a consent degree that will require the town of about 25,000 to allow a mosque project.
Local officials earlier had voted against it, and Alderman John Jones said there were unresolved issues involving traffic, possible noise violations, and fire hazards.
The federal court document requires the town to approve the building plan within 14 days and also pay $25,000 to the mosque building project.
The Gateway Pundit noted the "gigantic" mosque will "accommodate" the 15 Muslim families in the region.
The Gateway Pundit offered no evidenceto supp[ort its claim that the mosque will be "gigantic"; nevertheless, theproposed mosque is described as "huge" in the headline of the WND article. Unmentioned at all by WND was the fact that Horn Lake already has 13 churches.
The article also complained that "The ACLU claimed the town's decision was based on 'anti-Muslims bias'" but didn't mention the evidence for that: the mosque was denied even though the property was properly zoned and all paperwork was properly submitted, or that a city alderman literally said the mosque was denied "because they're Muslims."
WND also didn't mention that the ACLU lawsuit invoked the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act -- again, the same law that WND cheers when Christians invoke it. And while it hyped "traffic" as a supposed issue with the mosque, it also highlighted the mosque is being built for "the 15 Muslim families in the region"; it didn't explain how 15 families would cause traffic issues.
YouTube Temporarily Suspends Musician's Graphic Video, And MRC Turns Him Into A Victim Topic: Media Research Center
Last fall, the Media Research Center promoted a washed-up musician who performs under the name Five for Fighting -- who hasn't had a major hit in a good 15 years -- and his new song spouting right-wing anti-Biden talking points. Now he's claiming to be a victim, and we all know how much the MRC loves their right-wing victims. Alexander Hall conferred victimhood on the musician in a Jan. 11 post:
Musician John Ondrasik, also known by his stage name Five for Fighting, slammed YouTube for reportedly temporarily censoring his music video about Biden’s incompetence in the Afghanistan troop withdrawal.
Biden mishandled the end of America’s longest war so badly that Big Tech is haphazardly handling criticism of the president. “Ondrasik spoke out against censorship on Monday during an appearance on America’s Newsroom after YouTube temporarily removed and then reinstated a music video of his song ‘Blood on my Hands,’ which criticized the U.S. for its handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal,” Fox News reported on Monday. While YouTube reinstated the original video, Ondrasik slammed Big Tech leadership for being too quick to remove content.
Ondrasik explained to co-host Dana Perino that concern over free speech has become a value Americans only protect selectively rather than universally. "This YouTube issue, umm, it seems that freedom of expression only matters when the censorship applies to our side, our tribal team," he observed. "If it’s criticizing some, somebody that is on our side, ‘Well, so what?’ Censorship, it’s all political."
If Ondrasik has a ready platform at Fox News he can run to whenever he has a complaint to make, he's not really being "censored" the way he thinks he is. Besides, even Fox News itself called the video "graphic and chilling," including "horrifying videos of those who died trying to escape the country as well as those who were hanged, beaten and tortured by the new regime in power."
In other words, it appears to be little more than an artsy version of a snuff video -- content that Hall didn't reference in his post and more than likely the reason YouTube temporarily pulled it. Ondrasik apparently didn't reference the video's graphic content when he ran to cry to Fox, since Hall didn't note it.
The problem with the MRC's victim narrative is that it usually has to hide inconvenient facts to sustain that victimhood.
CNS' Jan. 6 Distraction: FBI Agents Soliciting Sex Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com wasn't terribly happy about having to report on the anniversary of the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, so about midway through the day, it apparently decided it was mostly bored with that eminently newsworthy story and decided to push one that has been an recurringobsessionforCNS: employees of the FBI, Department of Justice and other similar agencies who were invesigated for alleged misconduct. An anonymous CNS reporter did the deed:
The Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice issued an investigative summary on Dec. 14 in which it said that four FBI officials “solicited, procured, and accepted commercial sex overseas” and that “a fifth FBI official solicited commercial sex overseas.”
Additionally, the investigative summary reported that “a sixth FBI official committed misconduct by failing to report suspected violations of the 2015 Attorney General Memorandum titled ‘Prohibition on the Solicitation of Prostitution’ by other FBI officials.”
The investigative summary did not name the FBI officials involved or specify the foreign country where they engaged in this behavior.
The summary did say the while the inspector general was investigating this behavior by FBI officials all of the officials involved left the bureau—through retirement, resignation and removal.
While certainly an at least somewhat interesting read, it was not a timely one -- the DOJ investigative summary was issued a full three weeks before the article was published. There certainly wasn't any news hook demanding that the article be published in Jan. 6.
This article simply comes off as a feeble attempt to distract from the news of the day because that news made Republicans look bad.
MRC Hated Biden's Jan. 6 Speech, Attacked Anyone Who Did Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's coverage of the Capitol riot anniversary started with preemptively whining about everyone else's coverage before it even aired. The coverage continued by lashing out at President Biden's speech on the anniversary and at anyone who liked the speech. Kyle Drennen ranted at NBC's Chuck Todd for liking it, then praised other network commentators for being somewhat less effusive:
During NBC News special coverage of President Biden’s divisive speech using the anniversary of the January 6 Capitol Hill riot to attack Republicans, Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd absurdly claimed the screed was not partisan “if you’re pro-democracy and pro-America.” He also predictably hailed the address as Biden at his “best.”
“I thought it was an important moment that he did do this....This is important for now and it’s important for the history books here,” Todd gushed over Biden’s remarks. The journalist then promptly dismissed anyone criticizing the speech for being divisive:
In sharp contrast to Todd, CBS Mornings host Tony Dokoupil described Biden’s address this way: “He ended the speech with a reference to the United States of America, underlining that word ‘united.’ But much of the speech was anything but a unification message.” Though to be clear, Dokoupil wasn’t criticizing, he was thrilled: “[Biden] called the former president a defeated president and ticked off three lies that he laid at the feet of that former adversary...trying to restore the country’s attention to a particular set of facts that are important and are high-stakes for future of this nation.”
Meanwhile, during ABC’s special coverage of the presidential address, World News Tonight anchor David Muir proclaimed: “You could clearly hear the passion in his voice as he told the American people what’s at stake as we mark this one year mark since January 6th. Articulating the case that this democracy is fragile and must be protected.” Correspondent Cecilia Vega applauded: “...these were his strongest words yet on former President Trump since he has taken office....these attacks were personal and they were one after the next...”
On NBC, Todd cheered Biden as nonpartisan. On CBS and ABC, the President was celebrated for being highly divisive and launching personal attacks. Were they all watching the same speech?
The cavalcade of leftist media idiocy regarding the one year anniversary of the January 6th Capitol Hill riot reached a new low on MSNBC Thursday afternoon as anchors Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell ridiculously wailed that current divisions in the country were worse than during the Civil War. Todd went so far as to utter the historically illiterate nonsense that “Lincoln’s election was more accepted in 1860,” than Joe Biden’s election in 2020.
“The election, the peaceful transfer of power, something that since the Civil War, we have never argued about, we have never had a disagreement about – actually, since the founders,” Mitchell proclaimed early in the 2:00 p.m. ET hour. That prompted Todd to chime in: “Yeah, Lincoln’s election was more accepted in 1860.”
Apparently Todd missed history class the day it was taught that half the country seceded following Lincoln’s electoral win in 1860, sparking the Civil War, which killed 600,000 people. In April of 1865, just months after being reelected in 1864, Lincoln was assassinated.
Rather than challenge such an insane and blatantly false assertion from Todd, Mitchell agreed: “Exactly. And I was just thinking about that, even the Civil War, we did not disagree with the passing of power.”
Continuing Thursday’s theme of news organizations allowing all nutty comparisons to fly on the anniversary of the January 6 riot, ABC News presidential historian Mark Updegrove proclaimed after President Biden’s “powerful” speech that it belonged alongside those from “FDR after Pearl Harbor,” “Lyndon Johnson after Selma,” “George W. Bush after 9/11,” and, most egregiously, Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address.
Appearing on the network’s streaming platform and asked by host Kyra Phillips whether “history” can “be rewritten,” Updegrove replied that “the future of the country is at stake” without heeding Biden’s words (and thus his agenda), which served as “a powerful statement about democracy.”
“This was FDR after Pearl Harbor. This is Lyndon Johnson after Selma. This is George W. Bush after 9/11. Joe Biden wasn't able to make a statement after – after January 6th,” Updegrove said, adding that Biden had “wanted to unite the nation” at his inauguration, but it was time for a change.
Unfazed by the insanity that, as per his logic, Trump supporters are akin to al-Qaeda hijackers and Japanese bombers, Phillips invited him to explain “why is it so important for us to continue to remember this moment in history as we move forward.”
Having sufficiently lashed out at Biden and anyone who likes him, it was Nicholas Fondacaro's turn to lash out anew at more coverage of the anniversary:
As NewsBusters documented Thursday morning, the anniversary of January 6 was their Super Bowl as the broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) spent nearly 90-combined-minutes obsessing over the riot at the Capitol like their political careers depended on it. That infatuation cared over through half-time (to stick with the football nomenclature) to their evening newscasts where CBS and NBC each gave it over 80 percent of their total airtime.
NBC Nightly News was arguably the most political invested given their ties to MSNBC. Of their total airtime dedicated to delivering the news (18 minutes and 33 seconds) they spent 15 minutes and 27 seconds, or 83.3% on January 6 and stories related to it.
Not included in these time tallies are the opening teases, pre-commercial teases, teases of upcoming network content/reports, and commercials.
curiously, Fondacaro did not count up the amount of time Fox News devoted to the annniversary -- you know, for comparison purposes.
Kevin Tober, manwhile, was upset that NBC's Lester Holt did an interview with Nancy Pelosi:
NBC News has always been in the tank for the Democratic Party, and Thursday was no different. On NBC Nightly News during an exclusive interview with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the topic of the anniversary of the January 6 Capitol Hill riots, Lester Holt gave her a fluffy softball interview that was a borderline therapy session.
The first question was probably the most sycophantic toward Pelosi where he asked about President Biden's divisive speech earlier in the day where he attacked former President Trump. Lester praised Biden's speech and wondered why he hadn't given it sooner:
Next up, Holt played therapist instead of journalist and asked Pelosi to share her experience on January 6 and how she felt: "I want you to take me into that day if you will. We all remember you being quickly escorted off the podium. I’ve heard you talk about it before. You didn't want to go." Holt empathized: "Do you think now, though, knowing what you know, do you think about what would have happened had you stayed?"
Tober went on to pretend to be appalled that "Holt would try to portray partial-birth abortion-loving Pelosi as some kind of devout Catholic," going on to rant: "She has always been a bitter divisive partisan Democrat. The fact that Lester Holt would let her get away with this act shows how far in the tank he is for the liberal agenda."
Then again, Tober and the rest of the MRC crew are bitter, divisive, partisan Republicans, so maybe their media criticism isn't worth much.
WND Misleads On COVID Death Info Topic: WorldNetDaily
Art Moore wrote in a Jan. 3 WorldNetDaily article:
The head of a $100 billion insurance company says all-cause deaths have spiked an astonishing 40% among people ages 18-64 compared to pre-pandemic levels.
It's an unprecedented rate that is four times higher than a once-in-200-year catastrophe, said Scott Davison, CEO of Indianapolis-based OneAmerica, during an online news conference last Thursday reported by the news site Center Square.
"We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – not just at OneAmerica," Davison said.
"The data is consistent across every player in that business."
So far, so accurate -- though, weirdly, Moore didn't link to the article on Center Square he claims to be quoting from but, rather, to Center Square's "about" page. But because Moore must work a COVID conspiracy into everything, he started to deviate from the established facts:
Meanwhile, the daily number of deaths from COVID-19, according to the state dashboard, is less than half of what it was a year ago.
The news drew the attention of epidemiologists concerned about the collateral damage caused by COVID-19 mitigation efforts. And while there is no data showing a correlation between death and vaccination, experts concerned about the safety of the vaccines also took note.
Davison, referring to the third and fourth quarters of 2021, said it's not primarily elderly people who are dying, but "working-age people 18 to 64" who are the employees of companies that have OneAmerica plans.
Significantly, the CEO noted that most of the claims for deaths being filed are not classified as COVID-19 deaths.
But Davison apparently doesn't see a possible connection to the vaccines.
“Whether it’s long COVID or whether it’s because people haven’t been able to get the health care they need because the hospitals are overrun, we’re seeing those claims start to tick up as well,” he said.
Because of this, insurance companies are beginning to add premium increases on employers in counties with low vaccination rates to cover the benefit payouts.
In that Center Square article that Moore didn't actually link to, Davison was more specific:
“What the data is showing to us is that the deaths that are being reported as COVID deaths greatly understate the actual death losses among working-age people from the pandemic. It may not all be COVID on their death certificate, but deaths are up just huge, huge numbers.”
Instead, Moore decided to indulge a conspiracy theory from a prolific COVID misinformer:
However, Dr. Robert Malone, who has three decades of experience at the highest levels of vaccine development, said in an interview Monday morning that the insurance CEO's statistics point to vaccine injuries.
Davison, Malone told Steve Bannon on "War Room," is talking about a working population of people "who are likely to be highly jabbed because they’ve been under employer mandates."
"And what you need to do is compare that event rate that he is reporting to the event rate of death and COVID-related death in the general population," Malone said.
NEW ARTICLE: An MRC Microaggression Goes Macro Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center clings to the false narrative that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are somehow "anti-vaxxers" because they pointed out that an extremely untrustworthy Donald Trump was promising a COVID vaccine as a re-election ploy. Read more >>
CNS' Jeffrey Regularly Bashes Wealthy D.C. Suburbs (Where He Lives And Works) Topic: CNSNews.com
In what has basically become close to a yearly ritual, CNSNews.com editor Terry Jeffrey cites census data to attack the Washington, D.C., suburbs as 1) having too many wealthy people who 2) work for the government. We could see this way back in a 2014 column:
Those who live in this nation's richest county and those who live in its poorest have an important thing in common: a disproportionate dependence on government.
The independent City of Falls Church, Va. — which the Census Bureau treats as a county — was the nation's wealthiest. Its median household income was $121,250. Wilcox County, Ala., was the poorest. Its median household income was $22,126.
In both places, government employed people out of proportion to the national rate of 14.9 percent. In Falls Church, a suburb less than 10 miles south of Washington, D.C., 31.3 percent of the people with jobs worked for government. In Wilcox County, it was 25.4 percent.
Jeffrey's absurd comparison of a suburban city near the seat of government with a poor, rural Alabama county led up to an attack on "government investment in education and social welfare programs" promoted by liberals because Wilcox County is still poor. His solution: "Give every child in Wilcox County — and in every other American jurisdiction — a voucher worth as much as it costs to send a child to public school. Let parents, if they wish, send their children to private and religious schools, where they reinforce, rather than seek to replace, the family."
Just one problem with that: According to Wikipedia, the only private school in majority-black Wilcox County is a "segregation academy" -- that is, a school founded to serve white students after public schools were desegregated. So vouchers are not exactly the solution here.
Jeffrey continued to attack the wealth of the Washington suburbs on a nearly annual basis every time new census data came out, even though he admitted in that 2014 article that he lives near Falls Church (though he didn't admit that his office at the Media Research Center headquarters is also well in the D.C. suburbs as well):
Jeffrey did change things up a bit in 2020, writing an article claiming that "Twenty-six of the 27 richest congressional districts in the United States ... are currently represented by Democrats," and that "every one of the nation’s seventeen richest congressional districts, when measured by median household income as of 2019, are currently represented by Democrats."
After taking a couple years off, a Jan. 12 article by Jeffrey added San Francisco suburbs to his richest-county attack in an apparent swipe at Nancy Pelosi:
The eight richest counties in the United States in 2020, when measured by median household income, were all suburbs of Washington, D.C. and San Francisco, Calif., according to data released by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Five were in the Washington area and three were in the San Francisco area.
While this may all be factually accurate, Jeffrey is cherry-picking data to make a political attack. That kind of bias, sadly, is exactly what we expect from CNS.
MRC Won't Stop Helping Crowder Play The Victim Topic: Media Research Center
Steven Crowder is little more than a professional victim at this point -- and the Media Research Center is a willing accomplice in helping him play that role. Every time Crowder gets busted b y YouTube for spewing hate and homophobia, the MRC is right there to help him whine about being "censored." AS the hate and suspentions continued, so has the MRC's victim narrative. Catherine Salgado pushed that narrative again in an Oct. 19 post after Crowder got himself in trouble again:
“This is terrifying for the United States of America,” said comedian Steven Crowder after he was censored by YouTube for a Louder with Crowder episode highlighting recent reports of “transgender” rape threat to women. YouTube issued the strike just after Crowder finished a different episode on the reported “transgender” rape cover-up in Loudoun County, Virginia schools.
Crowder posted on Instagram late last week that YouTube had removed an episode of his Louder with Crowder show and temporarily suspended his channel. The censored episode included a comedy sketch based on reports of the increasing sexual threat transgenders pose to female inmates in California’s prisons.
Crowder shared alleged screenshots in which YouTube claimed that the episode violated the video platform’s so-called “hate speech policy” against the “LGBTQ+ community,” including “by indicating that trans people pose a rape threat to women.”
Yes, it must be "terrifying" for Crowder to face consequences for his beahvior. At no point did Salgado quote from the episode in question to show Crowder's transphobia for all to see. Nor did she point out the fact that the story he was mocking was false. Mashable also reported the content that got Crowder a strike, which Salgado doesn't want you to know:
In the segment, Crowder and his producers make transphobic remarks such as referencing male genitalia when discussing transgender women.
The segment also includes a "comedy sketch" which parodies the Immaculate Conception. In the sketch, an angel portrayed by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones (who was permanently banned from YouTube in 2018) appears before an actor playing the Virgin Mother. Jones tells the actor that her cellmate, played by Steven Crowder and described by Jones as a "guy dressed as a woman," is going to "rape" her.
Gabriela Pariseau rehashed Crowder's victimization -- again, without admitting the story he was spreading was false -- in a Dec. 8 post as the lead example of "100 examples of Big Tech censoring content and users who affirm only two genders or recognize biological gender differences over the last 11 months." LIke Salgado, Pariseau didn't directly quote anything Crowder actually said.
Crowder got in trouble again later in December, and this time it was Joseph Vazquez who played the victimization card in a Dec. 16 post:
The censorship overlords at YouTube have apparently continued their digital war with comedian and political commentator Steven Crowder.
Crowder posted a purported snapshot of a notice from the liberal streaming platform informing him that it deleted his recent Louder with Crowder episode headlined, “The LEFT Hates Elon Musk Because He's Too Based!" The purported notice from YouTube said, "Our team has reviewed your content, and, unfortunately, we think it violates our hate speech policy." Crowder responded on Instagram, "Well well well… Rumble and #MugClub it is!! INCOMING!!! 10AM ET. #LwC."
Adhering apparent MRC policy, Vazquez refused to quote what happened in the actual show. Mashable again reported what Vasquez wouldn't:
Crowder's show that day opened up with a music video for a holiday "parody" song about a man who discovers his ex-girlfriend is trans and transitioned after they broke up. Crowder's comments on transgender people were similar to the segment that earned him his first strike in October, when he made anti-trans statements concerning a since-debunked story that he sourced from an anti-trans group.
Autumn Johnson confirmed the suspension in a post the next day. Surprisingly, she did reference the hateful content that got him suspended, albeit in a benign way to remove any offense: "The show featured a parody song about a transgender individual in a romantic relationship and also discussed criticism author JK Rowling had received over her own comments on the issue."
In a Dec. 22 post, Johnson touted Crowder's victimization tour:
Libertarian author and pundit John Stossel interviewed conservative talk show host Steven Crowder about his recent ban from YouTube. Stossel discussed the ban with Crowder and further attacks from Big Tech.
“.@SCrowder has been suspended AGAIN from posting to YouTube,” Stossel tweeted. “What did he do that broke the rules? YouTube hasn't said. That's dumb.”
Crowder has recently discussed cultural issues, transgenderism, and election fraud. Stossel said that YouTube never disputed the accuracy of Crowder’s reports, the platform “just deleted them.”
Despite the fact that she had linked to Mashable's item just a few days ago detailing Crowder's transphobic content, Johnson was content to help Stossel and Crowder play dumb about what Crowder did.
It's clear that the MRC knows if it details the actual examples of Crowder's transphobia, he'll look much more like the bully he is and much less like a victim. That's why it stays vague at best about what he says -- that is, when it references that at all.
CNS Takes Shots At Efforts To Fight Islamphobia Topic: CNSNews.com
Patrick Goodenough wrote in an Oct. 22 CNSNews.com article:
Three months Secretary of State Antony Blinken in a letter to create the post of special envoy to monitor and combat “Islamophobia,” Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) on Thursday introduced legislation to achieve that aim.
The Combating International Islamophobia Act would create an “Office to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia” at the State Department, headed by a special envoy.
Note the scare quotes around "Islamophobia" in the first paragraph, which indicates that Goodenough does not approve.He went on to quibble about the word's definition:
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines Islamophobia as “irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against Islam or people who practice Islam.”
Other suggested definitions are more expansive.
“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness,” says the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims.
A working definition proposed by two legal experts to the UN. Human Rights Council (HRC) last year said, in part, that Islamophobia was “motivated by institutional, ideological, political and religious hostility that transcends into structural and cultural racism which targets the symbols and markers of a being a Muslim.”
This was weirdly and redundantlyfollowed by a anonymously written Nov. 1 article rehashing the bill.
Note that CNS is not especially hostile toward Muslims, but it is quite hostile toward Omar, most recently seeminglyendorsing far-right Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert's portrayal of her as a terrorist. Goodenough, in turn, is not a screaming Muslim-hater; instead, his tactic was to pedantically focus on defining Islamophobia -- which became a Republican talking point against the bill. Thus, Goodenough was happy to to be a Republican messenger against the bill in a Dec. 10 article:
A bill to create a special envoy to monitor and combat “Islamophobia” ran into Republican opposition in the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Thursday, as critics pushed for amendments to define the phenomenon – and some were themselves accused by Democrats of Islamophobia.
Authored by Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), the Combating International Islamophobia Act would create an “Office to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia” at the State Department, headed by a special envoy.
But GOP committee members argued that Islamophobia needs to be clearly defined to avoid misuse of the proposed envoy post.
Offering an example of the type of problems that could arise in the absence of a clear definition, Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) recalled an incident last summer when Omar came under fire for comments appearing to equate Israel and the United States with terrorist groups.
A dozen Jewish Democrats led by Rep. Brad Schneider (Ill.) in a statement then deplored Omar’s remark. In turn, Omar accused her Democratic colleagues of “harassment” and of engaging in “Islamophobic tropes.”
Goodenough linked to a July article he wrote in which he accused Omar of "stok[ing] Democrat [sic] divisions" through her statement critical of Israel. He did not explain why Israel should be exempt from criticism for its actions.
Goodenough went on to promote a proposed amendment by Republcian Rep. Steve Chabot "that would exclude what he called “legitimate, non-violent, evidence-based criticism” from statements or actions or material that would be regarded as Islamophobic":
He gave as examples: denouncing “Islamic fundamentalist terrorism,” condemning the mistreatment of women by the Taliban, calling out the persecution of Christians in Nigeria, combating “the brutal blasphemy laws in Pakistan,” and calling out those “calling for the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state.’
“Of course not all Muslims support these types of positions and I don’t mean to suggest that they do,” Chabot said. “But I think that we can all agree that criticism of these things is not Islamophobic.”
“So I would urge the adoption of this amendment. I think we need to define exactly what Islamophobia is.”
Goodenough later appended an update to his article noting that the bill had advanced out of committee and Chabot's amendment was defeated. When the bill was passed by the House, Goodenoucgh returned on Dec. 15 to once again play sematic games:
The House of Representatives late on Tuesday night passed a bill to create a special envoy on “Islamophobia,” after a sometimes heated debate in which Republicans criticized the legislation for failing to define the concept.
“This word appears nowhere in the federal statutes,” said Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas). “It is so vague and subjective that it could be used against legitimate speech, for partisan purposes.”
Republicans argued that without defining Islamophobia, the bill risked threatening free speech, and that someone could be accused of “Islamophobia” when, for example, calling out blasphemy law abuses or the mistreatment of women whose proponents cite Islamic teachings to justify their policies or behavior.
During the earlier House Foreign Relations Committee markup, Democrats voted down GOP amendments including one proposing that “legitimate criticism” should be excluded from speech that could be deemed Islamophobic.
When a Democratic senator recalled former President Trump's attempts at a "Muslim ban," Goodenough did what he usually does and rushed to Trump defense mode:
While arguing in favor of the bill, some Democrats raised former President Trump’s controversial travel proclamations – even though what detractors labeled a “Muslim ban” was built on security concerns determined under the Obama administration.
Trump’s E.O. 13769 of January 2017 restricted entry (with exceptions) to visitors from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
Those same seven countries had been identified the previous year by the Obama Department of Homeland Security as countries of concern regarding terrorism threats, with implications for visa-free travel – Iran, Iraq, Sudan, and Syria in January 2016, and Libya, Somalia, and Yemen a month later.
E.O. 13769 was later superseded by E.O. 13780 (which dropped Iraq from the original list) and by presidential proclamation 9645 (which removed Sudan, and added Chad, as well as some classes of visitor from Venezuela and North Korea.)
The Supreme Court ruling referred to by Reschenthaler, Trump v. Hawaii, related to presidential proclamation 9645.
The five Muslim-majority countries affected by presidential proclamation 9645 – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen together have a population of around 132 million, or about eight percent of the world’s estimated 1.6 billion Muslims.
Goodenough got another article out of the bill the next day:
During Tuesday night’s sometimes combative House debate over a bill to create a special envoy on “Islamophobia,” Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) was called out after accusing the bill’s author of being anti-Semitic and of being “affiliated with” terrorist groups.
Perry did not name Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) in his remarks – which were removed from the record – but his references to the “maker of this bill” made clear at whom they were directed.
Goodenough didn't seem as interested in seeking aprecise definition of anti-Semitism as it relates to right-wing criticism of Omar.
Dick Morris Pushing Evidence-Free Claim That Hillary Is Running In 2024 Topic: Newsmax
Before the 2020 presidential election, Dick Morris declared at Newsmax there was a "good shot" that Hillary Clinton would join the campaign. That didn't work out, as so many Dick Morris predictions don't. But hating the Clintons has been Morris' meal ticket for years, so he's already dragging out the Hillary-will-run-again thing for the 2024 election. He wrote in his Jan. 1 column:
How do you know if Hillary is gearing up for another presidential bid?
Her weather vane begins to twirl and points to the most advantageous direction for a candidacy. Following her ruminations and political gyrations is as accurate as monitoring polling data.
Lately, America's disgust with the woke progressives is registering with her, and she gives evidence of tacking to the center. It is triangulation all over again. She told MSNBC's Willie Geist that Democrats needed to do "some careful thinking about what wins elections, and not just in deep blue districts where a Democrat, and a liberal Democrat or so-called progressive Democrat, is going to win."
She is setting up the blame game for the likely Democrat losses even as they have not yet happened.
It looks like we are in for Hillary 3.0.
Never mind, of course, that Morris hasn't been on speaking terms with anyone named Clinton for a good couple decades now, and he offered no actual evidence of Hillary moving toward a presidential campaign.
Despite that utter lack of evidence, Newsmax touted Morris pushing this claim again in a Jan. 16 article:
Ex-Clinton adviser Dick Morris told "The Cats Roundtable" radio show Sunday that there is a "good chance" the 2024 presidential election will be between former President Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
Hillary "has set up a brilliant strategy," a "zero-sum game, where the worse [Biden] does, the better she does, because she's positioned herself as the Democratic alternative to Biden. Not just to Biden, but to the extreme left in the Democratic party," Morris told host John Catsimatidis on WABC 770 AM.
Morris adds that among the Democratic frontrunners, there will be a Black candidate, likely Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., "a crazy left-wing candidate, probably AOC, and you're gonna have Hillary."
Clinton is a stronger candidate, says Morris, because of her focus on "pragmatism" and not "ideological issues."
Writer Nick Koutsobinas tried to sell the idea that claiming that everyone else is doing it: "In the last week, multiple publications from The Wall Street Journal to CNN, from CNN to The Hill have all published stories sprurring the idea of Hillary making a 2024 run." Biut The Hill article was pure speculation, and the CNN item Koutsobinas linked to is a discussion spurred by the Hill article.