Preemptive Strike: MRC Pushed Biden-Is-Weak Narrative Ahead Of Russian Invasion Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center had a mission in covering tensions between Russia and Ukraine and role the U.S. played in trying to avert an invasion or other crisis: Blame Biden, no matter what. Before Russia invaded Ukraine, the MRC was doing just that. Nicholas Fondacaro used a Feb. 11 item to revive an old anti-Biden narrative to use against him over Ukraine:
In an apparent attempt to not repeat the bad optics and moral travesty of failing to get Americans out of Afghanistan by an arbitrary/self-imposed deadline, President Biden has decided to simply not try to get Americans out of Ukraine at all if Russia invades. And almost as shocking, the liberal broadcast networks, who were actually tough on Biden’s abandonment a few months ago, didn’t share the same outrage at what’s essentially a morbid promise by the President.
At no point did any of the networks invoke the Afghanistan withdrawal disaster, nor did they air any concern or criticism of the decision to leave Americans in a war zone. They treated it as the Biden administration giving them fair warning and getting out is on them now.
Mark Finkelstein devoted a Feb. 15 post to bashing MSNBC's Jeremy Bash for the sin of saying nice things about how Biden was handling the Ukraine crisis. Then, on Feb. 20, Kevin Tober cheered a right-wing attack on Biden under the ridiculous headline "GOP Guest Wipes the Floor With CNN Libs Over Biden's Russian Weakness":
On CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, during a panel discussion on the tensions between Russia and Ukraine CNN contributor and former Bush administration advisor Scott Jennings schooled host Dana Bash and her fellow leftist panelists on Russian sanctions.
At the beginning of the segment, Bash turned to Jennings and lectured him on the GOP’s stance on Russia. “you have a Republican Party which historically, largely, almost entirely has been about pushing back on Russian aggression” Bash observed before turning around and trashing the GOP. “And now you have some pretty loud voices in the GOP, Scott Jennings, from Fox News to Capitol Hill, questioning why the U.S. even cares about this, whether there's even an interest there?”
Jennings set the record straight “I would just point you to January when the Republican Party led by Ted Cruz in the Senate tried to put sanctions on Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden and the Democrats led a filibuster, a Jim Crow filibuster, their words, not mine, against these sanctions.”
Neither Jennings nor Tober mentioned that forcing those sanctions in January -- Cruz's motivation for which was the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, not Russia's aggression toward Ukraine -- would have broken the U.S. away from working with Europe in acting against Putin and might have even provoked Putin into attacking Ukraine earlier.
A Feb. 21 post by Kyle Drennen complained that ABC was "lobbing softballs" at national security adviser Jake Sullivan "and even suggesting the U.S. should appease Vladimir Putin with 'concessions.'" Drennen didn't mention that his fellow right-wingers were demanding that Biden appease Putin by declaring that Ukraine would not be let into NATO or even by dissolving NATO altogether.
As threats of sanctions by the U.S. and European countries failed to convince Putin to back off and he invaded into Ukraine, the MRC's narrative shifted to portraying Biden as a failure (not that Putin was a madman who would not have been deterred no matter what Biden did, including the NATO appeasement the MRC's fellow right-wingers wanted). A Feb. 22 post by Curtis Houck, for example, complained that "major broadcast network newscasts largely chose Tuesday to absolve President Biden and his team for Putin feeling emboldened to take another step in what he views as reclaiming the old Russian empire." The MRC's attacks continued:
And when commentators pointed out that Donald Trump's actions and policies toward Russia may have played a role in Putin feeling emboldened to invade Ukraine, the MRC lashed out. Alex Christy complained that "Morning Joe" on MSNBC "bizarrely tried to point a finger of blame at former President Trump instead. Hosts and pundits claimed the only reason Vladimir Putin didn’t further dismember the eastern European nation during Trump's presidency was because the Republican already gave Putin everything he wanted. " Christy sneered in response:
If Putin didn’t feel threatened by Trump and if Trump gave him everything he wanted, then what was stopping him from recognizing the separatist regions of eastern Ukraine or possibly conducting a full scale invasion?
Still, if Ukraine is defenseless, she declared that it's Trump’s fault: “...why didn't Putin do this during the Trump Administration? Because he thought Trump was weakening Ukraine, especially on these grounds. So this, the problem with Ukraine being unfortified goes back several years and—and-- much of the fault lies in the Trump Administration.”
Like Jordan’s explanation, Appleabaum’s theory makes no sense. Trump did more in terms of military support for Ukraine than the Obama Administration did as the latter refused to provide lethal aid. If Ukraine was so defenseless because of him, why wait until he was no longer president?
Christy didn't mention that Trump tried to blackmail Ukraine by threatening to withhold some of those weapons unless it came up with dirt on Joe Biden.
Houck devoted a Feb. 24 post to grumblling that some critics "took the farcical route by suggesting the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol was to blame." Houck never offered a coherent response to the idea, instead mocking it as a conspiracy theory and "galaxy brain opinions." When Alex Vindman -- the officer whose military career was destroyed by Trump for telling the truth about what Trump tried to do to Ukraine -- argued that Republicans have "blood on their hands" over the invasion because of how Trump emboldened Putin, Houck simply sneered in response: "Maybe making such an ardent liberal partisan the poster child for civil and military service in 2019 and 2020 wasn’t the best idea."
It's clear that Houck still can't see that clinging to Trump after five years of his lies and inciting an insurrection isn't the best idea either.
WND Magazine's Issue Of Whataboutism Topic: WorldNetDaily
Last month's edition of WorldNetDaily's sparsely read Whistleblower magazine was called "The Real Insurrection," which insists that Democrats are the ones trying to overthrow the country:
Of course, the Left is always trying to “reset,” “reform” or “transform” the world, as it holds a fundamentally revolutionary worldview. Barack Obama, just prior to being elected president in 2008, famously boasted, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Echoed Joe Biden, before he was elected president in 2020, “[We] won’t just rebuild this nation – we’ll transform it.” And Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, breathlessly anticipating the Georgia runoff races that would give control of the U.S. Senate to the Democrats, announced with a flourish: "Now we take Georgia, and then we change America!"
Under the banner of the “Great Reset,” progressive-Left elites in America, as well as globally, are totally obsessed with leveraging every crisis – whether real (COVID-19) or fake (the earth will be totally unhabitable in 10 years due to man-caused “climate change”) – into the establishment of a completely new authoritarian system. With them in charge.
Now, there’s an insurrection for you.
As if right-wingers like WND wouldn't be unhappy with Donald Trump as an authoritarian ruler.
Managing editor David Kupelian's introductory essay is, unsuprisingly, filled with distortions and lies to further the theme. He started with being butthurt about what President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris said on the anniversary of the Capitol insurrection:
One year after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, President Joe Biden gravely informed the nation that the incident, during which exactly one person, an unarmed female pro-Trump protester, was killed – unnecessarily shot to death at close range, without warning, by a Capitol Hill policeman – was “the most significant test of our democracy since the Civil War.”
Biden delivered this extraordinary assessment immediately after Vice President Kamala Harris solemnly equated the out-of-control D.C. protest to both the Dec. 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor that killed 2,403 Americans and injured 1,178, and the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks that killed 2,977 Americans and injured over 6,000. The Civil War killed an estimated 750,000 Americans.
How, wonder normal Americans, is it possible that the nation’s top political leaders could make such obviously insane statements? More important, what do such bizarre pronouncements say about where the progressive elites are secretly leading the nation?
Of course, Babbitt was in the midst of committing a crime inside the seat of government, and the officer who killed her had every right to stand his ground.
The projectionist Kupelian, also unsurprisingly, accused liberals of projection: "But first, understand that those on the revolutionary Left are, and always have been, slaves of projection: the compulsion to accuse others of the very sins and crimes of which they themselves are guilty. It’s in their nature, they can’t help it, it’s reflexive and automatic." Yet to this day, Kupelian and his boss, Joseph Farah, cling to the Big Lie that Trump actually won the election, and they would be perfectly happy to see the government overthrown to re-install Trump in the White House.
Another Kupelian whataboutism bullet point is built on a lie:
The Biden administration daily refers to regular Americans – say, parents who attend school board meetings to protest the Marxist indoctrination of their own children, or citizens who object to Biden’s tyrannical and dangerous COVID mandates – as “violent extremists.” But when actual violent extremists – virtually all on the Left, including Black Lives Matter and Antifa – were on full display during the summer of 2020, destroying, looting and burning down dozens of major American cities, killing dozens, wounding over 2,000 police officers and causing 1,300 times the damage as the Jan. 6 riot, Democrats and the major media blithely praised the massive, destructive riots as “mostly peaceful,” noble and historic civil rights protests.
In fact, nobody ever portrayed parents who merely speak out at school board meetings as "violent extremists." Does Kupelian think that parents who advocated violence or issue threats against school board members should be punished for their extremism? Probably not.
Kupelian also whined: "The Democrats then endeavored relentlessly, throughout the entire Trump presidency, to wrest control of the government from America’s elected leaders – including two fraudulent impeachment trials, in addition to the fraudulent Mueller investigation. Yet today, Democrats claim Republicans, conservatives and Trump supporters are trying to mount a multifaceted “insurrection” to illegally take control of the government." In fact, both impeachments were legitimate, as was the Mueller investigation -- which, despite Kupelian's insistence that it found no evidence of collusion, actually did find evidence suggesting collusion between Trump and Russia.
Kupelian further complained:
Historically, from Stalin to Mao to Chavez, Marxist/socialist leaders have never been truly interested in everyone being equal. That’s just happy talk to seduce the masses. First and foremost, these sociopaths crave power over other people, they want to be the arbiters of reality, they want wealth and privilege for themselves, they want glory, they want revenge on their enemies, and they want worship.
In a word, what they really want is to be gods.
As if Trump doesn't want to be a god, to rule by fiat, to have power over people? The fact that Kupelian can't breeak out of his Trump delusion to see that everything he's accusing liberals of applies at least as much to right-wingers like Trump, Farah and himself makes his commentary utterly partisan and unreliable -- and another reason why WND is going down the tubes.
Newsmax's Kerik Battles With Jan. 6 Committee, Touts Another Congressional Candidate Topic: Newsmax
Disgraced ex-New York City police chief Bernard Kerikjhas been keeping himself quite busy over the past several months.
Kerik has doing a little dance with the House committee looking into the Capitol riot, which would like to hear from him because of his presence in the "command center" at a Washington, D.C., hotel -- which Kerik initially paid for, and later got reimbursement from the Trump campaign -- for Donald Trump's efforts to try and overthrow the presidential election he lost. Newsmax reported in November that Trump was waiving attorney-clilent privilege to allow Kerik to testify to the committee (never mind that Kerik is not an attorney, let alone under Trump's employ at the time). A month later, Newsmax noted that Kerik said he would publicly release some documents the committee was seeking, while also whining that he didn't "trust" the committee. Kerik did eventually do a document drop on New Year's Eve, which is more interesting for listing the stuff Kerik won't release.
After much wavering, Kerik eventually agreed to a "voluntary interview" with the committee, during which he would not be placed under oath. That took place on Jan. 13.
In the meantime, Kerikhas been linking himself to some extreme local candidates in upcoming elections. We've noted how Kerik signed on to help Missouri Senate candidate Eric Greitens -- best known for being forced to resign as Missouri governor over accusations he tried to blackmail a woman he was having an abusive affair with -- as well as fringe Georgia governor candidate Vernon Jones.
Now Kerik is trying to lend his dubious magic to another congressional candidate. Scott Kaspar, who's running for a House seat in suburban Chicago -- is such a Kerik-lover that Kerik was by his side when he announced his candidacy in an effort to bolster a tough-on-crime image (never mind that Kerik spent years in prison for breaking the law). To that end, Kerik and Kaspar co-wrote a Jan. 31 Newsmax column pushing the usual tough-on-crime talking points:
Scott Kaspar lives in a sleepy corner of Orland Park, in suburban Cook County, Illinois. There, leaving your garage door open all day while your kids play in the neighborhood is common.
Doors usually are unlocked during the day, and traffic in the area is minimal.
In many ways, up until recently, his neighborhood was the closest thing to a Norman Rockwell painting.
However, we’ve seen crime explode in suburban Chicagoland in the past couple of years.
The occasional carjacking in 2020 has been replaced by weekly carjackings in Orland Park, if not more frequently.
Everyone in Scott’s community knows of a neighbor who has been the victim of a carjacking.
Solving the problem of crime plaguing Chicago and its suburbs is the real challenge.
Leaders at all levels in government do not have to reinvent the wheel — they can lean on experts like former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and like the co-author of this article, former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik.
They are reflective of leaders who have a proven record of driving down crime in their communities.
When Mayor Rudy Giuliani took office, New York City was the crime capital of the country with over 2,200 homicides per year. That’s more than Chicago, Detroit and Los Angeles combined. And by the time Mayor Giuliani and New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik left office in 2001, there were approximately 400 homicides per year.
Parents in some of New York City’s most dangerous neighborhoods used to put their children to bed at night in the bathtub so they wouldn’t get hit by stray bullets in the middle of the night — while they slept.
Under the leadership of Mayor Rudy Giuliani, New York City, saw a significant reduction in crime. By giving police more power and utilizing "stop-and-frisk" policies, homicides dropped by 70%, and in the black communities, by 80%.
No mention, of course, that Kerik is a convicted felon (whom Donald Trump pardoned) or that Giuliani has utterly beclowned himself in his efforts to attempt to overturn an election Trump lost.
Double Standard: CNS Covers Biden's Prayer Breakfast More Harshly Than Trump's Topic: CNSNews.com
When President Biden spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast last month, CNSNews.com rushed to frame it as negatively as possible. Its lead article, by Melanie Arter, hyped that Biden used an outdated racial term:
President Joe Biden referred to blacks as “colored” during a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday during Black History Month.
Biden was telling the story of seeing “colored kids” on a bus when he moved from Scranton, Pa., to Claymont, Dela.
“I remember going to a little Catholic grade school in Claymont, Delaware, which is a steel town that was dying, and the bus would --- my mother would drive me to the school parking lot. It’s called Holy Rosary School from a little—it was called Brookview Apartments, used to be Section 8 housing later, and I got out of the bus-- I got out of the car, and that’s where I-95 runs parallel to these days,” the president said.
“And I said mom, ‘Why are all those kids’ – who was then called colored – ‘Why are all those colored kids in that bus?’ Because in Scranton, there weren’t any. There were very few blacks. [My mother] said they’re not allowed to go to school with us here in Delaware. So you know, and Milton wasn’t what you might call the epicenter of desegregation, and so you’ve been through a lot, but you’ve done a lot as well, and I thank you,” he said.
Biden using the word "colored" was the only takeaway Arter got from him telling that story -- even though he explained that the word was in common use when he was growing up.That's the sign of a highly biased news outlet desperate to find negativity and hype it.
That was followed two and a half hours later not by another article on what else Biden might have said but, rather, by a column from CNS' favorite dishonest Catholic, Bill Donohue, bashing Biden's speech, which he turned into a partisan rant having nothing to do with religion:
It's a good thing that Vice President Kamala Harris didn't speak first at the National Prayer Breakfast. She would have made President Joe Biden look bad.
She gave a very good speech, ending with a prayer. He personalized his address, offering a mumbling account of his interactions with congressional colleagues, past and present.
Instead of rehashing old war stories and making silly comments on how "the world is changing," Biden could have taken the opportunity to address one of our most pressing social problems — the war on the police. He said not a word about the cop-killing spree that has become a national embarrassment. Oh, yes, he mentioned gun violence, but not in reference to police being shot.
The real reason crime is increasing at an alarming rate has everything to do with the leaders of Biden's party. Democrat-run cities with George Soros-funded DAs have sent criminals and cops a message: social justice means fewer penalties for violent criminals and less interest in the welfare of the police.
Biden blew it. He had a chance to make substantive remarks about real-life issues that the public is facing. Instead, he sounded more like an old man reminiscing about days gone by.
The headline of Donohue's column originally read, "Biden's Prayer Breakfast: Flashbacks and Silly Comments but No Discussion of Cop-Killing," but was later changed to the slightly more benign "Biden Failes At Prayer Breakfast Event."
It was not until an hour and a half after Donohue's negativity was posted that CNS got around to doing an article -- anonymously written, of course -- that reported on religion-related things Biden said at the prayer breakfast:
President Joe Biden addressed the National Prayer Breakfast today, which was held in the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center and attended by many members of Congress from both parties, and said the he prayed that “we follow what Jesus taught us.”
“I’ve attended many of these prayer breakfasts over the years—with our nation at war, in struggle, in strife, peace, in times of prosperity, when everybody was getting on, but a nation in prayer,” said Biden.
“Jill and I have been humbled by the prayers of so many of you, and it means everything to us,” he said. “We pray for our nation as we face an inflection point in our history.”
“You know, at a moment of great division of our democracy is at great—grave risk,” Biden said a moment later in his speech.
“I pray that we follow what Jesus taught us: to serve rather than be served,” said Biden. “I don’t always do it. I hope try. I don’t always do it.
“I pray to keep the faith,” he said.
By contrast, CNS' coverage of President Trump's speech at the 2020 prayer breakfast -- which came shortly after he was acquitted by Republicans in his first impeachment trial -- was much different. First up was an article by Arter uncritically repeating Trump's whining about being criticized:
One day after the Senate acquitted him on two articles of impeachment, President Donald Trump opened his speech at the 68th Annual National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday by lashing out at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats for trying to impeach and remove him from office.
“As everybody knows, my family, our great country and your president has been put through a terrible ordeal by some very dishonest and corrupt people. They have done everything possible to destroy us and by so doing, very badly hurt our nation. They know what they are doing is wrong, but they put themselves far ahead of our great country,” he said.
Without naming names, Trump lashed out at Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) for being the lone Republican to vote to remove Trump from office and referencing his faith before the vote. The president also lashed out at Pelosi, who attended the National Prayer Breakfast.
Without mentioning Pelosi by name, the president said he doesn’t like people who say “I pray for you” when they know they don’t.
“I don't like people who use their faith as justification for doing what they know is wrong. Nor do I like people who say I pray for you when they know that that's not so. So many people have been hurt, and we can't let that go on, and I will be discussing that a little bit later at the White House,” Trump said.
The U.S. economy is doing so well that employers are running out of people to hire and are employing ex-cons like never before, President Donald Trump said in a speech at the 68th Annual National Prayer Breakfast.
“We are lifting up the citizens of every race, color, religion, and create a period of bringing hope to forgotten communities and more Americans are working today, 160 million - a little bit short, just a little bit - 160 million, we have never been even close than ever before,” he said.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that she doesn’t know exactly what President Donald Trump said about her or Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) earlier at the National Prayer Breakfast – but, she’s sure it was inappropriate.
At a press event following the breakfast, Pelosi first accused Trump of saying something “completely inappropriate” about Romney:
“So, yesterday, the Senate acted – first time in history that a senator has voted against his own president in a decision regarding impeachment. God bless him for his courage.
“This morning, the president said that, when people use faith as an excuse to do – I don’t if he said, ‘bad things’ – but, whatever he said was just so completely inappropriate, especially at a prayer breakfast.”
Pelosi, then, assumed that Trump had referenced her when he said he didn’t like people who claim they pray for him (as Pelosi has claimed), but don’t actually do so.
Bannistser then huffed that "In fact, Trump did not actually mention either Pelosi or Romney by name in his prayer breakfast remarks, CNSNews.com reports" -- then quoted from the part of Arter's article in which she explained that Trump didn't use their names, it was clear who he was referring to. Which, of course, completely undermines his argument.
This is justthelatestexample of CNS treating Biden more harshly than Trump for doing similar things.
Flooding The Zone: The MRC's War on Whoopi, Part 2 Topic: Media Research Center
When last we left off, the Media Research Center played flood-the-zone over Whoopi Goldberg's misguided comments about the Holocaust and achieved its objective: she was suspended from "The View" for two weeks. Somehow, this was not the end of the MRC hammering away on this story.
The day after Goldberg's suspension, Mark Finkelstein lashed out at MSNBC's Joe Scarborough calling the suspension too harsh: "Anyone recall Morning Joe complaining about a conservative being canceled?" Nicholas Fondacaro returned tpo complain about "Whoopi Goldberg’s (stage name) anti-Semitic remarks about the Holocaust" anew, this time griping that despised MSNBC host Joy Reid thought that the incident should have been turned into a "teachable moment" instead of a suspension (which Fondacaro sneered was "a vacation":
She made it clear in the second tease that keeping Whoopi on TV was the goal. “Coming up, ABC suspends Whoopi Goldberg for her recent remarks on race and the Holocaust. Did the network miss out on a prime opportunity for discussion and learning,” she wondered.
In reality, Reid wouldn’t extend such grace if Whoopi was a conservative or espoused right-wing politics.
Fondacaro again complained that Goldberg "had been absolved of all wrong doing by Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt." Also, of course, Fondacaro would not be spewing so much hate if Whoopi was a conservative or espoused right-wing politics.
Fondacaro then appeared on Tim Graham's Feb. 2 podcast -- the second podcast he devoted to the issue. Graham gushed how Fondacaro "broke the story" of Goldberg's remarks despite the fact that "The View" has an audience of millions. Both Graham and Fondacaro lamented that token conservative Meghan McCain was no longer on the show. After Fondacaro again falsely called her remarks "anti-Semitic," Graham surprisingly pushed back: "I would say it wasn't anti-Semitic; it was very insensitive." They did both complain that Goldberg, in Fondacaro's words, "got atonement from the ADL."
Alex Christy got testy when George Soros got thrown into the conversation:
On Thursday's New Day, CNN's John Avlon rushed to defend liberal View host Whoopi Goldberg from charges of anti-Semitism after her offensive comments about the Holocaust. As part of one of his "reality checks," Avlon instead tried to deflect the controversy by claiming critics of left-wing billionaire George Soros using his immense wealth to push a radical political agenda were the real villains.
Criticizing mega donors is cool when the left does it, but when Fox does it, it suddenly becomes anti-Semitic. And of course, Avlon won't criticize his CNN colleagues for their Nazi comparisons and conveniently forgot to mention various progressive lawmakers engaging in the same anti-Semitic themes.
Alexander Hall renewed the MRC's attack on the ADL, accusing it of having "altered its definition of racism following The View co-host Whoopi Goldberg’s outrageous Holocaust remarks," adding: "In short, it appears that ADL has altered its own definition of racism multiple times to respond to modern events. When an influential organization like ADL updates a definition, it may signal a sea change for liberal organizations to follow its guidance." Hall also played the Soros card on Greenblatt, rehasing a claim from the right-wing New York Post that he once "directed an initiative at the Aspen Institute, a George Soros-financed, left-leaning nonprofit."
The MRC also published a Feb. 3 column by right-winger Ben Shapiro attacking Goldberg, followed by a post by Elise Ehrhard touting right-wing actress Gina Carano -- whom the MRC turned into a victim last year when she was fired from "The Mandalorian" for spouting dubious right-wing views -- opining on the case. (She's an employee of Shapiro's.)
For those counting at home, that's 14 Whoopi-centric post over four days. That's the definition of flooding the zone.
When Goldberg returned to "The View" following her suspension, Fondacaro served up a rehash-driven, glory-hounding, poorly edited Feb. 14 post to mark the occasion:
Whoopi Goldberg (stage name) was back on The Views [sic] Monday, a day earlier than her two-week suspension suggested. She was suspended after making anti-Semitic comments claiming the “ Holocaust isn't about race” but rather just "white people doing it to white people" (which NewsBusters was the first to report). But according to her boastful returning message to viewers, they were going to continue to have the “tough conversations.”
“Well, hello, hello, hello, and welcome to The View. And yes, I am back,” she boasted at the top of the show. Her return came a day early, having been suspended on a Tuesday but returning on a Monday.
“And I hope it keeps all the important conversations happening because we're going to keep having tough conversations,” she declared. “And in part, because this is what we’ve been hired to do.”
The idea that The View has tough conversations is laughable. They all occupy the same liberal bubble and are openly hostile to anyone who doesn’t share it. That truth is evident by the fact that the show is struggling to find a real conservative woman to replace former co-host Meghan McCain.
If Fondacaro is so concerned about ideological balance, why doesn't he walk down the hall and demand that the MRC's "news" operation, CNSNews.com, add a liberal columnist?
CNS' Favorite (Selective) Fact-Checker Fearmongers About Masks Topic: CNSNews.com
Just Facts and its leader, James Agresti, is a fact-checker the Media Research Center and its "news" division, CNSNews.com, really likes -- which should be a red flag as to its right-wing bias. Agresti returned for a Feb. 1 CNS commentary to peddle the right-wing narrative against mask mandates:
Allegations that “masks work” and “don’t cause harm” have been enforced by governments and corporations around the world for more than 18 months through arrests, censorship, fines, and denial of access to schools, supermarkets, hospitals, streets, and other public spaces. This has made it virtually impossible for many people to live without complying with mask mandates.
In recent weeks, however, more medical scholars and media outlets are coming to grips with facts about masks that Just Facts has been documenting for more than a year and painstakingly compiled in a September 2021 article sourced with more than 50 peer-reviewed science journals. Here’s a sample of people who are speaking up about the facts and their implications:
But the examples Agresti cites are, well, less than factual. His first is a commentary by Dr. Vinay Presad in which he huffed that " masking is now little more than an appealing delusion" and that decisions to mask schoolchildren are "ignorant, cruel, fearful, and cowardly." But Presad has a history of dishonesty on the issue of masking, and he rather ludicrously likened vaccine mandates to the rise of Hitler.
His next example was from Chad Roy, in an interview with the right-wing Washington Examiner, who said that "all this song and dance of wearing cloth masks with some presumption that you’re being protected from ambient virus is completely and positively 100% counter to how masks and respirators work." Of course, nobody is seriously arguing that cloth masks offer the same protection as an N95 mask, but they did offer some level of protection that is better than not wearing a mask at all.
After citing more questionable claims falsely claiming that cloth masks are totally worthless, Agresti moved on to victim mode:
Some of the most powerful proponents of masking continue to spread destructive fictions and withhold genuine facts from people. For a prime example, Google-owned YouTube recently censored a video from Just Facts about the dangers of N95 masks. Even though every fact in the video is documented with data from peer-reviewed science journals, OSHA, and the CDC — YouTube purged it with callous disregard for the health of people, especially children.
But the video engages in the same fearmongering he's doing here. He's deliberately trying to scare people away from using N95 masks by cherry-picking facts to make them sound dangerous -- they may be "facts," but they're highly selective and chosen to advance a political agenda rather than objectively informing people.
Then again, carefully selected facts designed to advance an agenda is what CNS and the MRC are all about too.
MRC Has Another Meltdown Over Cartoons Not Being Heterosexual Enough Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has spent the past few years hating the children's cartoon "Arthur" because it committed the offense of being relevant to the lives of its viewers -- thus, the MRC's meltdowns over the show featuring a same-sex marriage and discussing racism. Now that the show is ending its 25-year run on PBS, Elise Ehrhard devoted a Jan. 23 post -- headlined "Get Woke, Go Broke" -- to baselessly blaming those two episodes for the show ending:
After spending recent seasons alienating parents across America with homosexual and BLM propaganda, PBS Kids' Arthur, the longest running animated children's series ever on television, is officially getting the ax.
On January 18, the public broadcaster announced that the final four episodes of the series will be released next month. How did PBS Kids manage to ruin an iconic cartoon beloved by generations?
First, the series announced in spring 2019 that Mr. Ratburn, Arthur's teacher, was homosexual and premiered an episode with a gay wedding.
As if confusing prepubescent kids about sexuality wasn't enough "wokeness" for the show, it then premiered a short BLM-themed segment in the summer of 2020 which attempted to teach kids how to be "anti-racist" (i.e. Marxist). Arthur and his friend Buster talked about a video they saw of a cop killing a black person. Buster asked, “But how could it happen here, in Elwood City, outside the Sugar Bowl?” Elwood City is populated by animals.
Gosh, I wonder why this established show with high name recognition had middling ratingsas of late?
Never mind, of course, that Ehrhard offered no evidence whatsoever to back up her contention that the episodes that offended her so much are the direct cause of the show's cancellation. Nevertheless, she whined that the show's content will move online, meaning that "parents who want to teach their kids about gay and anti-racist anthropomorphized animals, will have to seek out such content online." She concluded by sneering: "Maybe PBS Kids will learn from this and quit the woke nonsense on children's programming, but I doubt it. Marxists cannot help pushing their agenda on kids."
Pretty much what you'd expect to hear from some one who thinks that merely acknowledging the existence of non-heterosexual people and racism is "propaganda."
This wasn't the only show the MRC was upset with for failing to be sufficiently heterosexual. Rachel Peterson huffed in a Jan. 25 post:
This is a warning to parents who want to introduce their children to their childhood favorite, "The Proud Family" - the upcoming reboot of it...is really "proud."
If you don't remember, the animated series "The Proud Family" aired from 2001 to 2005 and "[follows] the adventures and misadventures of Penny Proud as she does her best to navigate through the early years of teen-dom," according to the original version of the show's description on IMDb.
The show and the subsequent reboot are rated TV-Y7, which is designed for children ages seven and up. But the new reboot has themes and characters that may not be appropriate for children.
In the age of reboots, Disney+ is revamping the animated series with the upcoming "The Proud Family: Louder and Prouder," airing on February 23rd. This new take on an old classic gets both louder and prouder in the way of pushing the LGBTQ agenda. The show heavily leans into this as, according to producer Ralph Farquhar, the biggest change in the show is the "introduction of LGBTQ+ characters."
Yes, Peterson thinks that acknowledging the biological reality that people can be other than heterosexual is "not appropriate for children."
Peterson went on to grouse about the LGBTQ talent that would supplying voices for some characters in the reboot, including Lil Nas X, over whom the MRC spent last year being repeatedly triggered.
The MRC had previously grumbled that "The Proud Family" reboot would not be for its pro-heterosexual-obsessive employees.
NEW ARTICLE: The Continuing Crisis -- And Consequences -- At WND Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah and Co. would rather spread conspiracy theories than admit that spreading fake news and conspiracy-mongering is what's killing WorldNetDaily. Read more >>
Flooding The Zone: The MRC's War on Whoopi Topic: Media Research Center
One of the Media Research Center's anti-media tactics is best described as "flooding the zone" -- cranking out post after post about an issue it has designated to be an outrage with the goal of not only getting its fellow right-wing media outlets to join in the outrage but also to force non-right-wing outlets to pick up the story. We've documented the MRC's abortiveattempts to flood the zone before the story changed away from right-wing-friendly narratives, but that tactic also works on stories that stay on narrative but have been deemed to need a little extra oomph.
That explains why the MRC managed to wring a whopping 14 items over four days manufacturing outrage over Whoopi Goldberg's misguided remarks regarding the Holocaust. Now, her remarks didn't need much help to generate outrage, but because Goldberg is an enemy of the MRC for committing the offense of not being conservative, the MRC felt compelled to amplify the comments as much as it could. Nicholas Fondacaro was quick to brand her "anti-Semitic" while also getting in a a tacit endorsement of school book banners:
Following a Monday segment blasting podcaster Joe Rogan for spreading “misinformation,” co-host Whoopi Goldberg showed us that real misinformation and anti-Semitism was alive and well on ABC’s The View as she falsely suggested, “the Holocaust isn't about race” but just “two white groups” going at it.
As part of their discussion about a Tennessee school allegedly banning the Holocaust-themed graphic novel Maus (in reality it was simply removed from an 8th-grade reading list and they were open to bringing it back), Whoopi described the Holocaust as “ white people doing it to white people. So, this is y'all go fight amongst yourselves.
A few minutes later, Whoopi let loose her full anti-Semitic perspective on what the Holocaust was: “Well also, if we're going to do this, then let's be truthful about it because the Holocaust isn't about race.
Immediately following her false declaration, you could hear a pin drop on the set. It was broken by co-host Sara Haines saying “no” seemingly in agreement and Whoopi doubling down. “No. It's not about race,” she said.
Was Goldberg wrong and ignorant about the Holocaust by denying it was about race? Absolutely. Was it anti-Semitic, as Fondacaro insisted? Not so much -- she didn't deny the Holocaust, nor did she deny that Jews were its main victims, nor does she have any kind of history of anti-Semitism. But that's the narrative the MRC ran with -- even though it could be argued that the MRC is more anti-Semitic than Goldberg because of its obsession with George Soros -- at one point declaring him a Jew you're allowed to hate -- and its habit of using the anti-Semitic "puppet master" trope to describe both Soros and ex-CNN chief Jeff Zucker.
In a later update to his post, Fondacaro proclaimed himself "first on the scene" in capitalizing on Goldberg's comment and noted her apology that cited "comments from Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt scolding her."
But Fondacaro had a narrative to push. Soon after, Fondacaro wrote a post declaring that Goldberg went on "an anti-Semitic screed," gushing that right-winger Ben Shapiro went on Fox News "to unpack and call out Whoopi and the radical left-wing ideology that allow for her type of anti-Semitism." That was followed by Curtis Houck complaining that Goldberg appeared on CBS pre-apology where she "defended her vile comments about the Holocaust," dismissing the partial apology she made on the show as "mealy-mouthed pandering."
The day after Goldberg's original remarks, Fondacaro lashed out not only at her but, bizarrely, at Greenblatt for helping educate her on the truth about the Holocaust (while, again, bragging that he was "first to report" her statement even though she said it on national TV in front of an audience of millions):
Proving there’s a double standard when it comes to who politically gets to have their career survive and life’s work preserved after making controversial comments, on Tuesday’s edition of ABC’s The View, co-host Whoopi Goldberg (a stage name) got direct absolution from Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt after she falsely claimed: “the Holocaust isn’t about race” (for which NewsBusters was first to report).
Greenblatt did note that the history of hate against Jews doesn’t comport well with “the way we think about race in 21st century America, where primarily it's about people of color.”
Adding: “But throughout the Jewish people's history, they have been marginalized, they have been persecuted. They have been slaughtered in large part because many people felt they were not just a different religion, but indeed a different race.”
At no point did Greenblatt address the recent revelation that the ADL changed their definition of racism to suggest only white people can be racist. “The marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people,” they wrote.
Despite claiming a "double standard," Fondacaro cited no instance of a right-winger whose remarks unfairly cost them their career.
Kyle Drennen devoted a post to complaining that ABC's morning show didn't cover the story immediately, sneering: "Perhaps the network morning show was waiting for Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt to grant Goldberg absolution before it touched the story – something which occurred later Tuesday morning on The View." Another Fondacaro post again referenced "Whoopi Goldberg’s (stage name) anti-Semitic comments about the Holocaust" -- he's weirdly obsessed about noting that Whoopi uses a "stage name" -- and hying that "sources inside ABC said Whoopi’s in “deep s--t” with some pushing for her to be fired." At the end of the day on Feb. 1, Fondacaro got the climactic resolution he was hoping for, while still whining that Greenblatt worked with her:
ABC finally took disciplinary action against The View co-host Whoopi Goldberg (stage name) Tuesday night regarding her anti-Semitic comments about the Holocaust, in the form of a two-week suspension, effective immediately, according to a staff e-mail sent by ABC News president Kim Godwin and leaked to CNN media reporter Oliver Darcy.
As NewsBusters reported, Whoopi was conveniently absolved of her transgression by Anti-Defamation League CEO and former Obama official Jonathan Greenblatt during Tuesday’s show. It was something [ABC News president Kim] Godwin seemed thankful for.
Written like someone whose work to manufacture a narrative got the payoff he wanted -- and that was just two days of work and seven outraged MRC posts. But the MRC wasn't done complaining -- more soon.
More CNS Columnists Laud Putin, Bash Biden And NATO Topic: CNSNews.com
Pat Buchanan is not the only CNSNews.com columnist who is advocating that President Biden and the U.S. capitulate to Vladimir Putin's demands over Ukraine. Some just want to avoid war, while others simply love Putin or hate Biden that much.
Doug Bandow is the former camp in his Jan. 27 column, beginning by whining, "What is it about Republican legislators that makes them so fond of wreaking death and destruction upon others?" He then went on to write that "Nothing suggests that Putin wants what can never be given." The same day, a column by Ted Galen Carpenter lamented that "U.S. assistance to anti-Russian guerrillas would further poison bilateral relations" and that "actively assisting Ukrainian resistance forces could prove embarrassing and discrediting for professed U.S. commitments to liberty and democracy." Carpenter went on to blame the U.S. for the situation: "If Washington had not foolishly pushed the expansion of NATO to Russia’s borders and interfered in Ukraine’s internal affairs, turning the nation into a Western political and military client, Moscow would have few reasons to make trouble for the United States."
Michael Letts used his Feb. 14 column (also published at WorldNetDaily) to accuse Biden of wagging the dog over Ukraine:
My question is: Why do anything? The U.S. has no vital interests there. Ukraine is not a member of NATO. So there is only one possible compelling reason Joe Biden has to pull the Russian Bear’s tail, putting the U.S. at risk of receiving anything as fundamental as cyber attacks to full-scale thermonuclear World War III.
The reason is ratings.
Historically, being a wartime president is synonymous with high public approval ratings.
George W. Bush was not doing that well until 9/11, when he shot up to a 90 percent approval rating.
But are high poll numbers worth the risk? No.
Are high poll numbers even guaranteed to raise Biden’s chances in a future election? No.
Laurence Vance, a writer for a libertarian think tank, devoted a Feb. 16 column to parroting non-intervention talking points from uber-libertarian Ron Paul to argue against interfering in Ukraine: "Non-interventionism is practical, sane, moral, just, and right. It is the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers — and Ron Paul."
Jose Nino argued for dissolving NATO in a Feb. 21 column because it "has done scant little to uphold middle American interests" and "would incentivize countries to pursue more independent foreign policies and start taking defense matters into their own hands, like any self-respecting nation that believes in sovereignty should." He also touted "populist presidential candidates like Eric Zemmour" in France, who "have explicitly called for a rapprochement between Russia and France."In fact, Zemmour is a far-right politician, an anti-immigration Islamophobe who has been fined for peddling hate speech.
Carpenter returned for a Feb. 22 column whining that "Foreign policy hawks in the United States habitually equate a noncommunist Russia with the totalitarian Soviet Union, insisting that today's Russia is not the USSR and softpedaling Putin by comparison: "Politically, Putin’s rule embodies a conservative authoritarianism, not the outsized, revolutionary ambitions of the USSR’s communist rulers."
On Feb. 24 -- several hours before Russia invaded Ukraine -- R. Emmett Tyrrell suggested that Putin might be hesitating on an invasion, making sure to take a shot at Biden: "A couple of weeks ago, I saw something in Putin's eyes that I had not seen before. He seemed to lapse into hesitancy. For the first time ever, he seemed a bit flabby. Is he keeping with his martial arts regimen? Frankly, he looked stunned and put me in mind of our almost 80-year-old president, President Joe Biden. Could Putin be giving his grand design a second thought?"
The same day, Ryan McMaken complained that "countless media stories" were trying to link Russia with China, insisting that "Russia is not the geopolitically secure juggernaut many Russophobes apparently believe it to be."
Nino returned for a Feb. 25 column once again blaming NATO for Russia's invasion:
With Russia launching a military invasion of Ukraine on Thursday, the corporate press has grown shrill in its calls for punishing Russia with draconian sanctions, supplying Ukraine with increased military aid, and diplomatically isolating the Eurasian power as much as possible. The two-minutes hate against Russia has been cranked up to 11, thereby making any nuanced analysis of why the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has reached such a point almost impossible.
The failure of policy wonks to understand why Russia took decisive action against Ukraine is emblematic of a flawed grand strategy that has dominated D.C. foreign policy circles since the end of the Cold War. Once the dust settled from the Soviet Union’s collapse, international relations specialists were convinced that the U.S. had entered an “end of history” moment where liberal democracy would become the governing standard worldwide. Former Soviet Union (FSU) states would be the preliminary trial ground for this new liberal democratic project.
Carpenter served up another NATO-blaming column the same day: "Vladimir Putin bears primary responsibility for this latest development, but NATO’s arrogant, tone-deaf policy toward Russia over the past quarter-century deserves a large share as well." He also insisted that "It was entirely predictable that NATO expansion would ultimately lead to a tragic, perhaps violent, breach of relations with Moscow."
Meanwhile, Buchanan served up more praise for Putin and NATO-bashing in his Feb. 25 column:
Putin did exactly what he had warned us he would do.
Whatever the character of the Russian president, now being hotly debated here in the USA, he has established his credibility.
When Putin warns that he will do something, he does it.
Whatever we may think of Putin, he is no Stalin. He has not murdered millions or created a gulag archipelago.
Nor is he "irrational," as some pundits rail. He does not want a war with us, which would be worse than ruinous to us both.
Putin is a Russian nationalist, patriot, traditionalist and a cold and ruthless realist looking out to preserve Russia as the great and respected power it once was and he believes it can be again.
But it cannot be that if NATO expansion does not stop or if its sister state of Ukraine becomes part of a military alliance whose proudest boast is that it won the Cold War against the nation Putin has served all his life.
President Joe Biden almost hourly promises, "We are not going to war in Ukraine." Why would he then not readily rule out NATO membership for Ukraine, which would require us to do something Biden himself says we Americans, for our own survival, should never do: go to war with Russia?
Buchanan's column is only a couple days old, but it's already not aging well.
MRC Loves Gutfeld's Cruel 'Humor' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has a cruel streak, as seen by its immature gloating over CNN's allegedly low ratings. It loves when others are cruel to its preferred targets too, which brings us to this Jan. 24 post in which Nicholas Fondacaro enjoys Greg Gutfeld's casual cruelty:
In a hilarious and pointed segment on the Fox News Channel’s The Five on Monday, co-anchor Greg Gutfeld unloaded on CNN’s Brian Stelter for taking swipes at Fox News for reporting on the fact that violent and other forms of crime were on the rise throughout President Biden’s America. Even Democratic co-host and former Congressman Harold Ford (D-TN) took Stelter and his henchman Oliver Darcy to task.
After playing a clip from CNN’s so-called “Reliable Sources” where Stelter and Darcy whined about Fox’s reporting, Gutfeld declared: “It's got to be gross to work at CNN where all you do is push these elaborate hoaxes while denying actual human suffering.”
Gutfeld recalled his jokes about Stelter being “fat,” “bald,” and “homely” and how CNN host Don Lemon and disgraced former host Chris Cuomo would repeatedly mock the rise in violent crime on-air[.]
Yes, Fondacaro thinks mocking someone's looks is "hilarious." And Gutfeld's justification for his cruelty isn't any better:
People ask me why do I constantly point out how fat Brian Stelter is, how fat and bald and homely he is. And I always tell you that no insult is worse than their ideas, as long as they mocked the black-on-black crime and death in the streets, which there is tape of Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo laughing about it. As long as they believe that I got a pass on it, then everything is on the table. You can make fun of them about anything. Right?
So, they chose this hill to die on while cops and civilians are literally dying.
How does the fact Gutfeld doesn't agree with Stelter's criticism of Fox News' cirime coverage justify Gutfeld's viciously smearing Stelter over his looks? It doesn't. But Gutfeld thinks it does -- and Fondacaro thinks his cruelty is hilarious.It's clear neither of them see Stelter as a human bein, only an enemy to be destroyed for failing to conform to right-wing groupthink. That's how conservative cancel culture works.
Which tells you all you need to know about Fondacaro and the mindset that runs the MRC.
Joseph Farah's Biden Derangement Syndrome Watch, New Year Edition Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joe Biden took the presidential oath of office Jan. 20, 2021, repeating these words: "I, Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God."
Does anyone seriously question the words "solemnly swear," "faithfully execute," "to the best of my ability," and, most of all, "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God"?
I question every word he now speaks.
I always did.
There's so much oppression in this country. It represents the proof we have needed to know that Biden was always evil, out of touch with America, fully corrupt. Does anyone need convincing that he would steal an election if he could?
Again, I repeat what he said in his oath of office.
Does anyone seriously question the words "solemnly swear," "faithfully execute," "to the best of my ability," and, most of all, "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God"?
Whether it was done through the voting machines, phony ballots, illegal votes, Big Tech collusion, or just plain old corruption like Joe Kennedy once played in 1960 in the state of Illinois, anyone who still has doubts that there was widespread cheating in the 2020 election must have his head examined.
Does anyone think that Joe Biden actually got a record number of popular votes, more than Barack Obama – some 81.2 million – that year? How in the hell could he do that while hiding in his Delaware bunker?
Meanwhile, Donald Trump was drawing record crowds all over the nation. He supposedly only received 74.2 million votes.
Come on, man!
This was shameful! And we're only figuring it out now – and Joe Biden is seemingly figuring it out along with us.
What's the proof? Look at Biden now! He's so angry. He hates the American people. He blames THEM for his own failures!
How can the president of the United States not have respect and reverence for the people who (supposedly) put him in office?
Joe Biden has got all the trappings of power – and it will do him no good.
This was all predictable. I think of Barack Obama's words: "Don't underestimate Joe's ability to f–- things up."
That was stated in more normal times. But today we're witnessing Biden under extraordinary pressure – on the verge of losing his power to fool people. He's irrational. He condescending. He's frustrated. He's embarrassing himself and this once great nation.
You might remember, back in the administration of Barack Obama, there was a popular ditty by Victoria Jackson, late of "Saturday Night Live," called "There's a Communist Living in the White House."
Jackson had joined the Tea Party. She had already endorsed my buddy Rush Limbaugh for president, who died just a year ago. And she came on a WND cruise to Alaska with us. She just loved to strum her ukulele while singing odes to Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Mike Huckabee.
And the funniest thing she ever sang was "There's a Communist Living in the White House."
I was thinking about that recently. If Obama was a communist, what do we have today in the White House?
A pretender? A fascist? A dunce? An incompetent? A traitor to these United States and everything they stand for? A guy who is few French fries short of a Happy Meal? A tad cognitively challenged?
Biden sees Americans as domestic "enemies." Remember when he called Americans who believed in voter integrity racists like George Wallace, Bull Connor and Jefferson Davis – all Democrats?
And we're supposed to believe that this is the guy who won a record number of popular votes – 81.2 million – in 2020? I wouldn't be surprised if he actually got less than half of that. For being part of that fraud, he will always live in infamy, shame, dishonor and contempt.
He's irrational. He condescending. He's frustrated. He's angry. He's embarrassing himself and this once great nation.
What is there to like about Joe Biden? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
The MRC's Mean Girls Mock CNN's Ratings Again Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center loves to gloatchildishly over the allegedly low ratings on non-right-wing channels. Curtis Houck is the designated childish mocker of CNN's ratings, and he brought the immature hate again in a Jan. 21 post:
CNN’s New Day co-host and insufferable liberal pundit Brianna Keilar received her turn this week to audition for the vacant 9:00 p.m. Eastern slot and, instead of it being called CNN Tonight, it was labeled Democracy in Peril. According to Nielsen Media Research, no one seemed to care as she drew fewer viewers than shows like Food Network’s Worst Cooks in America, Game Show Network’s Chain Reaction, TLC’s My 600 Pound Life, and reruns of The Andy Griffith Show.
Needless to say, we’re not surprised that few seemed to tune in for a nightly dose of her penchant for spewing venom against just about anyone who disagrees with her. If they want fear porn about your conservative coworker or spouse, they probably watch MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace instead.
No matter how you slice it, things aren’t going well for her and the divisive, snarky kind of politics she espouses (masquerading as news).
That act normally wouldn’t fly in the eyes of any reasonable executive worth spending millions to make permanent, but given the way Jeff Zucker has operated, it wouldn’t be surprising if Keilar and Democracy in Peril receive the permanent nod.
Since the MRC has made CNN's Jim Acosta its longtimepersonalenemy, it's no surprise that lazy potshots were taken at him too.Kevin Tober whined about Acosta's turn in that timeshot for a Jan. 24 post:
If you are like the overwhelming majority of Americans and did not tune into Jim Acosta’s debut of the low-rated CNN show Democracy in Peril, you weren’t missing much. In fact, you can probably guess what was said by Acosta and his conga line of leftist guests.
The first guest Acosta had on was the left-wing election attorney Marc Elias who spewed all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories on the show. Jim Acosta was the first one out of the gate, asking Elias “how likely is it in these upcoming midterms that we're gonna see a scenario of multiple elections across the country becoming such a huge circus because of these bogus fraud claims?”
As expected Elias didn’t scoff at this notion, instead he fearmongered that “we are one, maybe two, elections cycles away from a real constitutional crisis.”
Tober made no effort whatsoever to disprove or counter anything that was said on the show, so maybe it's not as "crazy" as he would like us to believe.
Sure enough, a few days later, Houck served up another dose of immaturing in mocking Acosta's ratings:
Following New Day co-host Brianna Keilar’s spectacularly bad week hosting CNN’s poisonously partisan Democracy in Peril special, carnival barker Jim Acosta received his chance to audition for the primetime slot formerly held by Chris Cuomo and, through three days, Acosta did even worse. Among the shows he lost to, Acosta fell behind a Hallmark movie, History’s Forged in Fire, a rerun of Everybody Loves Raymond, Property Brothers, and, yes, My 600 Pound Life.
Yes, Houck sure seems to find fat people eminently mockable, doesn't he?
This petty gloating doesn't exactly make people want to the MRC seriously -- Houck comes off as a jerk, not a serious person.
WND Touted Quack Doctor's Video On 'Mass Psychosis' Topic: WorldNetDaily
The anti-vaxxers at WorldNetDaily eagerly embraced dubious doc Robert Malone's evenmore dubious concept of "mass formation psychosis" in an attempt to discredit COVID vaccines. As part of that, it promoted a version of the bogus theory coming from an even more discredited doctor. An anonymous Jan. 2 article stated:
Popular Dr. Joseph Mercola says we're in the middle of "an epidemic of madness" that occurs when a "large portion of society loses touch with reality and descends into delusions."
It's happening he says due to the "relentless fearmongering coupled with data suppression and intimidation tactics of all kind."
He cited a 20-minute video, "Mass Psychosis – How an Entire Population Becomes Mentally Ill," created by After Skool and Academy of Ideas, explains the tactics used to seed and nurture mental illness – on a grand scale.
A number of mental health experts have expressed concern over the blatant panic mongering during the COVID-19 pandemic, warning it can have serious psychiatric effects.
Dr. Mercola cites S.G. Cheah's report which said, "Even when the statistics point to the extremely low fatality rate among children and young adults (measuring 0.002% at age 10 and 0.01% at 25), the young and the healthy are still terrorized by the chokehold of irrational fear when faced with the coronavirus."
"It's one of the reasons why you're seeing so many people who'd happily approve the silencing of any medical experts whose views contradict the WHO or CDC guidelines," Dr Mercola suggests. "'Obey the rules!' becomes more important than questioning if the rules were legitimate to begin with."
WND won't tell you that Mercola is a documented quack witih a history of making false and even illegal claims and pushing drugs of questionable value. Instead, the anonymous writeruncritically touts Mercola's quacky claims:
It's adults who are inflicting this emotional trauma on an entire generation, Dr. Mercola insists.
Worst of all, mass delusion is leading us into slavery.
"The mass delusion must also be addressed because it's driving us all, sane and insane alike, toward a society devoid of all previous freedoms and civil liberties, and the corrupt individuals in charge will not voluntarily relinquish power once we've given it to them," he says. "Totalitarianism actually begins as psychosis within the ruling class, as the individuals within this class are easily enamored with delusions that augment their power."
The anonymous WND writer made no effort to ponder if the quack Mercola was the one suffering psychosis through his need to lie to people and fleece them to enrich himself.
MRC Is Upset M&M Characters Getting A Design Update Topic: Media Research Center
Last year, the Media Research Center was a top combatant in right-wing culture wars, whining about everything from cereal to Legos to Muppets mostly for failing to hate non-heterosexual people enough. It's a new year, but the MRC has the same old culture-war things to complain about -- like the female M&M characters being made less stereotypically female. Gabriel Hays was the designated complainer in a Jan. 20 post:
What a time to be alive! M&Ms has made its Green M&M mascot less sexy. All is well with the world.
Yep that’s a real news development and it’s not just about the green M&M losing her high heels and having her “come hither” demeanor turned way down. All the zany M&Ms characters that fill the candy product’s ads are getting their toxic personalities adjusted for the sake of inclusivity, as declared M&M’s parent company Mars.
Well this is downright pathetic.
I previously enjoyed M&Ms because I really loved objectifying the anthropomorphized piece of green candy-coated chocolate and her sexy voice.
Thankfully pervs like me will be snapped out of this lust by such soul-saving corporate decisions.
And Ms. Green M&M isn’t the only sexpot that’s being told to put some clothes on. The brown female M&M has “transitioned from high stilettos to lower block heels and a fresh pair of glasses.” Oh yes, because she’s sexy AND smart.
Though I don’t know, Mars. You might be playing right into the hands of guys who fetishize the sexy librarian look. Might we suggest putting her in a brown paper bag to be completely safe. Or how about putting her in a Burka? Actually yeah! Think of it! You’d get even more diversity points!
In addition to this marketing idiocy, Adweek mentioned that M&Ms “will stop attaching prefixes to the characters’ names to prompt people to focus more on their unique personalities rather than their gender.”
Well even if they removed peanut M&Ms from their candy lineup, M&Ms will always contain nuts. This is insane stuff.
But, really, what's more insane -- a company updating its image, or a right-wing activist getting paid to write several hundred words whining that the image update doesn't conform to his preferred gender stereotypes?