MRC's Houck Cranks Up The Hate For Jean-Pierre Topic: Media Research Center
After taking several days off around Memorial Day weekend, the Media Research Center's Curtis Houck was back in full denigrating form to attack new White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre with his overly quick narrative of incompetence in his hyperbolic (and Doocy-fluffing-filled) writeup of the May 31 briefing:
After K-Pop band BTS led Tuesday’s White House press briefing, economic adviser Brian Deese and Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre faced questions about the economy, gas prices, gun control, inflation, and student loans. In the case of Jean-Pierre, she continued using her briefing binder as a clutch.
Deese went first and dealt with mostly open-ended questions and softballs such as one from Team Biden potted plant Kelly O’Donnell of NBC about whether the recent pickup in administration outreach on the economy has been an “implicit...acknowledgement that you have not been telling the story of the economic picture in a way that has been satisfactory to the President.”
Things didn’t let up for the former MSNBC political analyst as it was Doocy Time, which began with a simple question:“Canada is making it impossible to buy, sell, transfer, or import handguns anywhere in that country. Would President Biden ever consider a similar restriction on handguns here?”
Jean-Pierre retreated to her notes and meandered about other gun control proposals (including Biden’s demand there be a “ban on the sale of assault weapons”) before insisting “[h]e does not support a ban on the sale of all handguns, to answer your question.”
Doocy moved onto gas prices and the fact that gas prices are now above the minimum wage. Predictably, Jean-Pierre insisted Biden knows what it’s like to struggle as ordinary Americans are currently (even though Biden’s been part of the D.C. elite since 1974) and, in response to a Doocy follow-up, Russia and Vladimir Putin are to blame[.]
Doocy wrapped with another basic question: “Does President Biden take any responsibility for his policies potentially contributing to inflation?”
Jean-Pierre replied with what could be described as reckless abandonment for basic grammar: “His policies has [sic] helped the economy gets back on its feet. That's what his policies has [sic] -- his policies has [sic] done.”
Houck continued to mock and insult Jean-Pierre the next day, as well as falsely putting words in President Biden's mouth:
Amid White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre’s worst press briefing yet as she faced questions Wednesday about the baby formula shortage, the economy, inflation, and presidential leadership, Bloomberg’s Justin Sink came from the left on abortion by twice wanting to know why Biden hasn’t made abortion more of a focus in his administration following the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion striking down Roe v. Wade.
Jean-Pierre replied that she didn’t “have anything to preview on his schedule, but the President is clear on this....that a woman has the right to make their own decisions when it comes to their own healthcare and their own health and their own reproductive rights.”
In other words, it’s that Biden supports abortion on-demand, up to the moment of birth.
Houck went full hate-blast for the June 1 briefing in order to fluff Doocy yet again for peddling right-wing narratives:
White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre suffered the first of what could be many terrible, horrible, no good, very bad days as reporters from conservative and liberal outlets as well as the front and back of the room hammered away with questions about the baby formula shortage, inflation, and presidential leadership. For Jean-Pierre, she had little in the way of answers besides lengthy, pre-written notes she used as a heavy crutch.
Fox’s Peter Doocy cut to the chase:“[W]ho is the person, in the West Wing, who decided after six or eight weeks that this baby formula shortage was finally something that somebody should tell the President about?”
Obviously, Jean-Pierre didn’t answer and instead said she’ll need “to go back and talk to the President.” Following more meandering, Doocy moved to inflation: “When are you guys going to admit that you were wrong about inflation?”
A flustered Jean-Pierre then offered up this quip that went over like a lead balloon: “No easy questions today. Huh?”
Doocy persisted:“The Treasury secretary says that she was wrong. So why doesn’t anybody here at the White House?”
Jean-Pierre blamed supposedly unforseen events like COVID-19 and Russia, so Doocy gave her one more chance to give a different answer (which she didn’t): “Just so that I understand the treasury secretary says that she was wrong but the White House was not wrong about inflation.”
We again remind you that Houck had nothing but praise for McEnany's " binder of facts," meaning that Houck is being utterly hypocritical in criticizing Jean-Pierre for similarly using a binder.
CNS Did Other Narrative-Pushing After Buffalo Massacre Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com defended the honor of the right-wing replacement theory after the racist Buffalo shooter invoked it in his manifesto, but that wasn't the only place it went into defense mode. A May 17 article by Susan Jones complaining that President Biden was going to Buffalo defended the theory without using its name (while also complaining that some critics wouldn't mention Fox News by name):
As some leftist pundits on cable television blame a rival conservative-leaning network for promoting racist "conspiracy theories," White House spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre on Monday refused to name names -- even when the reporter did.
Note that in Jones' world, the critics are "leftist" while Fox News is merely "conservative-leaning."
Melanie Arter served up a perfunctory stenography piece on Biden's appearance in Buffalo. Meanwhile, a May 19 article by Craig Bannister helped scandal-tarred lawyer Alan Dershowitz play whataboutism over the massacre by criticizing Democrats and non-white people, declaring that he said taht "Biden needs to take the next – and more difficult – step, by going to other cities and calling on Black leaders to denounce Black-on-Asian and Black-on-Jewish crime" and "In particular, Biden should also call out radical Democrats in Congress, like those who call themselves 'The Squad,' who represent 'bigotry, anti-Semitism and racism.'"
CNS also took a stab at sending its interns out to pester senators about the right-wing issue du jour. This this one, the question -- based on the fact that the Buffalo shooter and the one who perpetrated the massacre in Uvalde, Texas, were both 18 -- started out by asking: "Federal law sets the legal drinking age at 21. Should federal law also make 21 the legal age for buying guns?" These senators got that question:
But when an intern asked Democratic Rep. Andy Kim of New Jersey the question, it had been flipped around: "Under federal law, a person can buy a rifle at 18, but can’t buy alcohol until they’re 21. Should the drinking age be lowered to 18?"
The interns didn't ask that question in either form after that, apparently deciding it didn't sufficiently serve right-wing narratives.
WND's Kupelian Expands An Old Book Of His Topic: WorldNetDaily
Back in 2005, WorldNetDaily managing editor David Kupelian wrote a book called "The Marketing of Evil," in which he he used less-than-honest methods (one might even say evil) to promote his thoughts about how everything that isn't as right-wing and Christian as he is is "evil." He even used a synergystic relationship between WND and the right-wing legal group Alliance Defense Fund (now the Alliance Defending Freedom) to hype a legal case involving the book in an apparent effort to boost sales. Now the book is back and bigger (in size, anyway) than ever, as Kupelian explained in a May 20 article:
I’m pleased to announce that "The Marketing of Evil" has just been re-released in an expanded paperback edition including brand-new chapters explaining exactly how today’s truly unprecedented level of insanity, psychosis and evil has been skillfully sold to America.
In case you're unfamiliar with it, "The Marketing of Evil" essentially explains why and how so many millions of today's Americans have come to strongly embrace and defend ideas and behaviors that horrified every previous generation of Americans since its founding.
In the brand-new chapters, I dive right into the Trump and Biden eras, shining a bright light on the secret workings of today’s “marketers of evil” who figured out how to convince so many Americans that the least racist nation on earth is somehow actually the most racist, that Trump is comparable to Hitler, and so on. But even more fundamentally, I explore and document how the Left is able to brainwash huge numbers of people into believing – and acting on – literally anything, no matter how obviously insane, destructive or evil.
This coming from a guy who has been brainwashed into supporting the corrupt and amoral Donald Trump -- thus violating the Christian principles he purports to uphold -- and uses the WND website to spread lies about election fraud designed to help Trump. Further, Kupelian's complaint about people likening Trump to Hitler -- something he has repeatedly whined about --is utterly hypocritical because he and WND spent eight years likening Barack Obama to Hitler and other various and sundry Nazi, and he in fact is the one who's guilty of doing "literally anything, no matter how obviously insane, destructive or evil" to try and destroy Obama, including eight years of lies about where he was born.And one need only to look at how WND is teetering on the brink of financial failure to see how Kupelian's falsehood-laden war on Obama ended up as blowback on him.
So, there's nothing really new there -- unless Kupelian confesses to his own hypocrisy, which is highly unlikely.
Also of note is where Kupelian's updated book is being published. It was originally published by WND's in-house book division, which went defunct early in the midst of WND's financial troubles (and, of course, that Paul Nehlen thing). The updated edition is being published by company called Republic Book Publishers, a house dedicated to right-wing tomes co-founded by longtime right-wing book publisher Alfred Regnery. According to Republic's website, it's also serving up a "revised and expanded" edition of Kupelian's 2015 book "The Snapping of the American Mind," which was also published by WND and, again, is unlikely to discuss the snapping of Kupelian's mind into a slavish Trump-bot. Republic has also picked up one more former WND title: "The Antidote" by Jesse Lee Peterson, a right-wing black guy who sounds like a white supremacist and has issues with women and Barack Obama and who apparently gone so far afield that he isn't even a WND columnist anymore.
NEW ARTICLE: An MRC Writer Cashes In On His Transphobia Topic: Media Research Center
Gabriel Hays' years of spewing anti-LGBT hate from his perch at the Media Research Center earned him a new job doing pretty much the same thing for Fox News. Read more >>
MRC Pushes Republican Playbook Downplaying Hearings On Capitol Riot Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center had its marching orders from the RNC or whatever dark-money right-wingers run the show: Pretend that the public hearings being put on by House committee looking into the Capitol riot are meaningless and biased, and conservatives should spend more time being fed right-wing propaganda instead of watching them. The flagship piece for this narrative was a June 6 item by Curtis Houck lashing out at non-right-wing outlets for covering the first hearing, which carried the desperate-sounding headline "No One Cares":
Amid a decaying culture, rampant crime, record-high inflation, struggling wages, and surging gas prices (among other things), Monday’s CBS Mornings and NBC’s Today want Americans to focus this week on a different issue: primetime hearings from the House Select Committee on January 6. On Monday’s shows, the two combined for five minutes and 37 seconds of coverage doing the bidding of their loyal source, Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA).
CBS co-host Tony Dokoupil boasted that come Thursday, his fellow liberals are “promising to show Americans never-before-seen evidence of the most violent assault on the capitol in more than 200 years.”
NBC’s Today was also enthused at a pet project that matters little to those outside insufferably elite and liberal newsrooms and The Swamp.
A post the same day from Tim Graham complained that the committee made use of a former ABC News executive to help polish their presentation:
Now imagine if the Republicans stacked an investigative committee and then hired a Fox News president as an "unannounced adviser" for prime-time hearings. The liberal outlets would all scream that there's no difference whatsoever between the GOP and Fox. So, in this case, there's no difference whatsoever between Pelosi's hand-picked committee and ABC, and CBS, and CNN, and so on. ABC News apparently has no concern that Goldston's advising will hurt the image of ABC News.
Actually, the Trump administration did hire former Fox News executive Bill Shine as an adivser. Graham was mad that people pointed out that this revolving door showed just how tight Trump and Fox were.
Three days later, Alex Christy dismissed the hearings as a "made-for-TV spectacle" becaiuse of the ex-ABC executive's hiring. He didn't mention that Trump also hired a TV executive to help turn his administration into a made-for-TV spectacle.
A post by Kevin Tober groused that CNN's Brian Stelter pointed out that right-wing outlets Fox News and Newsmax would not be airing the first hearing live despite the word "news" in their channels' names:
CNN and particularly Stelter always want to dictate what the rest of the media should or should not be covering. Why would Fox News cover a hearing where Republican congressional leadership’s appointments to the committee were rejected by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi?
Also the committee and their Democrat allies have repeatedly lashed out at Carlson and his network, so why would they give them airtime? Stelter doesn’t get to demand what Fox News puts on air.
Um, isn't the MRC's main job lashing out at non-right-wing media outlets for not covering things that advance right-wing agendas? Graham similarly played dumb in a June 6 podcast echoing Tober's Stelter-bashing.
The MRC did a lot of other whining about the hearings both before and after the first hearing:
And as usual, the MRC also tossed around agenda-driven ratings numbers. A June 10 post by Bill D'Agoistino cherry-picked numbers to portray the first hearing as a failure:
The preliminary broadcast network ratings are in for last night’s January 6 committee hearings, and they paint a disappointing picture for Democrats and their media pals.
Based on the most recent ratings data, January 6 hearing coverage on broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) drew significantly smaller audiences than those networks’ own evening newscasts generally do on a standard weekday. Evening newscast audiences on any given night last week were 1.6 times larger than the total number of broadcast viewers who tuned into the hearings on Thursday.
Perhaps CBS morning host Tony Dokoupil was right when he proclaimed on Friday morning: “Obviously, January 6 is the big story today.” But based on the numbers, it certainly wasn’t the big story last night.
Graham pushed the same talking point in his podcast that same day, sneering: "Democrats talked all the networks (except Fox News) into a breathless hearing (or retelling) of January 6. But it felt like a summer rerun."
Meanwhile, back in reality, the first hearing drew more than 19 million viewers across all channels that aired it, dwarfing Fox News' non-coverage.And Fox News was so afraid that viewers might be distracted enough to change channels to the hearing -- and, thus, learn that Fox News has been lying to them about the riot and the events (and bogus claims of election fraud) that led up to it -- that it didn't run any commercials while the hearing was on, costing it hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions in revenue.
WND Ghouls Can't Stop Blaming People's Deaths On Clinton Topic: WorldNetDaily
The "Clinton Body Count" -- a list of people tangentally associated with Bill and/or Hillary Clinton who have died, causing hate-filled right-wingers to tie their deaths to purported misdeeds by one or both of the Clintons -- was discredited a long time ago, well before we did an exploration of it way back in 2005. Unfortunately, the hatred at WorldNetDaily for all things Clinton is so virulent and irrational that it's no surprise to see it has insistedonperpetuating the bogus list for lo these many years. (It still hasn't apologized to its readers or to Seth Rich's family for cynically spreading lies about his death in 2016 in order to add him to the list.) And it's still adding to it today. Bob Unruh wrote in a June 6 article:
The family of a onetime Clinton family associate is working to keep concealed the circumstances of his recent death, adding fodder to the longtime suggestions that the "Clinton Body Count," as Wikipedia describes it, has risen again.
The death of Mark Middleton – he reportedly was found hanging from a tree in Arkansas with a shotgun blast to his chest – prompted the Daily Mail to say, "His death adds to the number of close associates of the former president and first lady who have died unexpectedly, many in small plane crashes. The phenomenon has led to a conspiracy theory called Clinton Body Count which even has its own Wikipedia page."
According to reports, Middleton was a Bill Clinton adviser who admitted Jeffrey Epstein to the White House at least seven times.
Now his family, including father Larry and widow Rhea, are fighting to keep photographs and other investigative content about his death away from the public.
They have filed for an injunction that alleges blocking the release would halt what they describe as "unsubstantiated conspiracy theories."
The reports so far have said the married father-of-two, who lived in Little Rock, Arkansas, shot himself at the Heifer Ranch in Perryville, a half hour's drive from his home.
The Middleton family's reason for hiding images of their loved one's suicide is abundantly clear: to keep ghouls likje WND and the Daily Mail from splaying them all over the internet solely because they still -- after 30 years -- are nursing a grudge against the Clintons and are still des[perate to destroy them efen if the lives of innocent people get damaged or destroyed.
Unruh went on to lovingly and ghoulishly detail the method of Middleton's death -- as if he gets some sort of sick pleasure from it -- and further hype the purported connection to Clinton and Epstein. Unruh also rehashed a WND from last year when it tried to add another name to the list. Unruh concluded:
The actual "list" of Clinton Body Count individuals now totals well over 30.
Newsmax Joined ConWeb Spin On Durham's Failure Topic: Newsmax
Like the Media Research Center, WorldNetDaily and CNSNews.com, Newsmax didn'dt take it well when its beloved biased special counsel John Durham's prosecution of Democratic lawyer Michael Sussman failed with him receiving a quick acquittal. A May 31 article by Eric Mack repeated Jonathan Turley's conspiracy theory that the jury was too liberal because the trial was held in Washington, D.C., as well as rantings from the MRC's Curtis Houck:
Special counsel John Durham thanked the Michael Sussmann jury for their service, but critics are blasting the Washington, D.C., judge and jury for the verdict Tuesday.
Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley denounced a stacked jury that delivered the verdict, including admitted donors to Hillary Clinton, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and even a woman whose daughter plays sports with the Sussmann's daughter.
"I mean, he is facing a jury that has three Clinton donors, an AOC donor, and a woman whose daughter is on the same sports team with Sussmann's daughter," Turley said in a video posted to Twitter. "With the exception of randomly selecting people out of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] headquarters, you could not come up with a worse jury."
"Breaking: Ultra-liberal D.C. jury acquits their friend and former Hillary Clinton attorney for having concocted collusion between Donald Trump and Russia," Newsbusters Managing Editor Curtis Houck tweeted Tuesday.
Former federal prosecutor Brett Tolman said Americans should not be surprised a D.C. judge and jury followed the politics instead of the law.
As with his fellow ConWeb outlets, Mack did not mention that Durham had the opportunity to remove jurors he thought were biased during jury selection, and he also had the option to attempt to move the trial to a jurisdiction he thought could be more favorable to his prosecution.
An article by Sandy Fitzgerald turned to a Republican congresswoman to complain about the verdict:
Rep. Nancy Mace, speaking to Newsmax after a Washington, D.C., court's verdict that former Hillary Clinton-connected attorney Michael Sussmann was found not guilty of lying to the FBI, said she does not feel that special counsel John Durham or his prosecutors got their fair day in court, and that "no one is ever held accountable" for breaking laws.
"No one is ever held accountable in this country for breaking the law, particularly in the highest echelons of campaigns and the federal government," the South Carolina Republican said on Newsmax's "John Bachman Now." "It's inexcusable, really, and the frustration of the American people I'm sure will be palpable with this verdict. We just want someone, anyone, to be held accountable for the laws that they're breaking."
Speaking of politicians who haven't been held accountable for the laws they broke, Jay Clemons gave Donald Trump an article to rant about the verdict and other stuff. Clemons made no attempt to fact-check anything Trump said.
Dick Morris called in from bad take-ville for a June 1 column:
The acquittal of attorney Michael Sussmann by a Washington D.C. jury effectively means that no Democrat can ever be convicted of any crime involving corruption as long as the crime has political implications and the trial is before a D.C. jury.
We now have one-party justice in America.
Despite overwhelming evidence that he lied to the FBI, Sussmann was found not guilty by a jury filled with Democrats.
Hillary Clinton got 91% of the votes of the residents of Washington D.C. in 2016.
Biden got 95%, proving that the jury pools are so highly partisan there that they're incapable of judging the facts and acting impartially in a criminal case involving political charges against prominent Democrats.
Since the Department of Justice (DOJ) is located in the nation's capital, this effectively means there is no way to hold Democrats responsible for their corrupt activities.
Morris went on to huff that "Defense attorneys must be allowed to successfully pursue motions to change venue" -- which ignores the rfact that Durham was the prosecutor, not the defense, and he apparently made no effort to seek a change of venue. He went on to ignore Sussmann's actual defense to assert that "The case against Sussmann was overwhelming" and "His perjury could not be more obvious."
Larry Bell used his June 3 column to rant about the purportedly biased jury, then praise Durham for advancing right-wing narratives:
Durham must have recognized slim odds in a Washington, D.C., court venue where 91% of the electorate voted for Hillary; presided over by an Obama-appointed judge whose attorney wife has represented related scandal compromised former FBI attorney Lisa Page; and with a jury with one member whose daughter is on a high school rowing team with Sussmann’s daughter and as many as three were Hillary Clinton donors — including one who also supported U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Whereas a small rodent was set free, we can safely bet that Durham’s larger plan was always to use the trial as means to release information already in his possession as bait to bag much larger game in upcoming indictments and hearings.
Horace Cooper sung from the same choirbook as his Newsmax compadres in his June 4 column:
The evidence presented at trial was overwhelming.
By many accounts, Michael Sussman had indeed lied to the FBI about his reasons for meeting with FBI general counsel James Baker.
He did so to cover up his part in an elaborate role to weaponize the FBI against candidate Donald Trump.
On the other hand, the trial, to use G. Gordon Liddy’s term, was "stacked and packed."
Several Clinton campaign donors were seated on the jury and the presiding judge, an Obama appointee, issued rulings that prohibited Durham’s case preventing him from showing how Sussman’s false statement fit in as part of a far larger narrative.
This greatly affected the trial’s outcome.
Jury nullification is a poison that having been unleashed by the left could harm everyone.
Regardless of political sympathies, our legal system works best when all citizens — whether in blue or red states — truly do their duty and not simply follow their political allegiances.
Cooper failed to point out that Durham could have tried to move the trial but apparently did not, and also that Durham could have done a better job of keeping allegedly biased jurors off the jury but also apparently did not.
CNSNews.com summer intern Ben Kelley wrote in a June 6 article:
The Oak Park and River Forest High School in Chicago reportedly will change its grading system next year to “equitable grading,” an approach that eliminates such grading factors as class participation and turning homework in on time because underprivileged students may not be able to master those skills.
According to the school’s Strategic Plan, dated May 26, 2022, the school has found that “traditional grading practices perpetuate inequities and intensify the opportunity gap.” The presentation goes on to explain that teachers have begun implementing equitable grading practices such as “eliminating zeros from the grade book” and that the school “will continue the process necessary to make grading improvements that reflect our core beliefs.”
Supporters of “equitable grading,” such as educator Ken Shelton, claim it minimizes grading biases, which are “rooted in racism, anti-Blackness, sexism, transphobia, and ableism.” Critics, however, say “equitable grading” hurts students of color and “impede[s] their success as adults” – it is “bigotry of low expectations,” remarked Wesley J. Smith, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.
As reported on May 30, 2022 by the West Cook News, “Oak Park and River Forest High School administrators will require teachers next school year to adjust their classroom grading scales to account for the skin color or ethnicity of its students.”
But the erroneous story cited no actual policy changes, and the school said in a statement that the claim is false. “OPRFHS does not, nor has it ever had a plan to, grade any students differently based on race,” the statement said.
The article instead mischaracterized a May 26 school Board of Education meeting, at which a committee focused on grading and assessment presented an initial report. The report noted at one point that “traditional grading practices perpetuate inequities and intensify the opportunity gap.”
At “no time were any statements made recommending that OPRF implement a race-based grading approach,” the school’s statement continued.
Bizarrely, Kelley violated journalistic ethics by waiting until the sixth paragraph of his story to explain that the previous five were false:
On May 31, following criticism of the school’s reported decision, the Oak Park and River Forest High School announced that a final decision to implement a race-based grading system had not been made.
The school said the West Cook News article contained “a variety of misleading and inaccurate statements,” and explained that before any grading changes are made they must first be “made to the Board at a public meeting.”
Kelley then tried to justify spreading this lie by adding: "So, although Oak Park and River Forest High School has not made a final decision, it is discussing and considering 'equitable grading.'"
Again: Despite the fact that the real story is that an secretive right-wing website spread a falsehood, Kelley spread the falsehood and downplayed the fact that it was false.
It's hard to know who to blame for this. This story was debunked a few days before Kelley's story was published, so there's basically no possible way he could not have known that.Which leaves two explanations: 1) Kelley knew the story was false and wrote it up anyway, and 2) Kelley was made to do a bogus story by his CNS overlords. Neither of which makes CNS look good.
If Terry Jeffrey and Co. are going to force interns to write stories they know are false, what exactly is the value of a CNS internship? It certainly has nothing to do with "news" -- it's all about forwarding right-wing narratives no matter their accuracy.
If CNS is knowingly publishing false stories, that's a black mark on the organization and a reason nobody should trust its work.
We've contacted CNS to give it a chance to respond to our concerns. We'll let you know if it responds.
After Texas Massacre, MRC Goes To Kneejerk Defensive Pro-Gun Stance Topic: Media Research Center
The bodies weren't even cold in the school in Uvalde, Texas, when the Media Research Center kicked in its usual right-wing post-massacre stance: protect the guns, attack anyone who calls for even the slightest bit of gun regulation or criticizes the pro-gun absolutism of Republicans as an extreme radical who wants to take all weapons away from everybody.
A May 24 post by Kevin Tober got mad at Michael Moore for pointing out that stance and saying that "we love our guns more than we love our children," going on to whine that "Moments later he ghoulishly suggested that the parents should leave the caskets of the children who were shot to death open for the world to see their wounds. The thesis is that this would force Americans to support Moore’s beloved gun control."Tober didn't mention, even though Moore did, that this is how Emmitt Till's mother got America's attention on the issue of racism, or that his employer has endorsed the publishing of graphic images in one specific instance, so that "The world needs to see these images and know about the true tragedy of abortion." Tober apparently does not believe the world needs to see what gun violence does to children.
Nichoklas Fondacaro desperately tried to flip the script, bizarrely claiming that anyone who criticized the Uvalde massacre was getting off on the violence:
As their coverage of the tragic shooting in a Uvalde, Texas elementary school progressed into the night Tuesday, things on CNN got downright ghoulish and disgusting as paid analysts and guests were allowed to take things to dark and terrible places. Between former Homeland Security official Juliette Kayyem showing a bizarre satisfaction in talking about the “destroyed” “little bodies” of the 18 students killed in the attack and radical anti-gun Parkland parent Fred Guttenberg calling Republicans “evil,” the network was in a downward spiral.
While speaking with host Erin Burnett, Guttenberg praised Democratic Senator Chris Murphy (CT) for acting “heroic” today with his screed on the Senate floor. He then attacked Republicans by claiming they don’t love their kids.
For this go around, Kayyem flaunted a sick satisfaction with talking about the mutilated bodies of the young children. “I think it's important to be graphic. I think the word shooting can sound sanitary since we're dealing with them so often,” she argued as her justification.
Fondacaro also lashed out at Kayyem for calling the weaponry the killer used "heavy artillery," insisting that it really wasn't:
Claiming they were killed by “heavy artillery” was a gross exaggeration that went unchallenged by Cooper. The school was not shelled from miles away. Reports are conflicting but we believe the shooter had a handgun and a rifle.
Do you know whose schools are getting shelled by artillery and multi-launch rocket systems? Ukraine’s, by Russian invaders. And Cooper should have known better since he’s been there recently.
Well, that artillery was certainly heavy enough to put the body count in double digits, wasn't it, Nick? Poor guy doesn't understand that insisting guns aren't really deadly in the wake of a massacre is not only a losing argument, it makes him look like an idiot. Maybe Fondacaro finds some kind of sick satisfaction in doing that.
Margaret Buckley complained that Republicans pro-gun absolutism was called out:
On Wednesday, most people are mourning the losses of young innocent lives along with two teachers at the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. However, that did not prevent those on MSNBC’s Morning Joe from continuously blaming Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Governor Greg Abbott, and the rest of the Republican Party for the school shooting that took place.
The show started out with its main host Joe Scarborough going after Republicans, branding them as cowards, liars, hypocrites, barbarians among other things. Scarborough compared their reactions to those on 9/11 and January 6, expressing how “they want you to forget about it”, or simply think “that’s just the cost of freedom.”
However, the blaming did not stop there, as MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle remarked that you get Cruz and Abbott “when you mix insanity with hypocrisy.”
Scarborough even went after Fox News. He accused them of spreading paranoia across America, alerting gun owners that the government is coming for their guns and scaring these “freaks” and conspiracy theorists as a result. “We also hear something really gross from the same people who will desperately seek, to find any crime that an illegal immigrant causes and then run it on the TV network for 24 hours a day,” he added.
Buckley didn't dispute anything being said, instead rather lamely tried to distract by huffing, "It is easy to determine that the media will not get anywhere by tirelessly blaming the GOP on the mass shooting."
Tober concluded the day with a post headlined "WATCH: Tucker Reacts to Biden's Divisive Speech in the Way Only He Can." He thinks Tucker ranting and spewing hate "in the only we he can" is a good thing, of course:
Fox News host Tucker Carlson blasted President Joe Biden in the immediate aftermath of his bitterly partisan and divisive speech to the nation on the tragic elementary school shooting in Uvalde, Texas in which 18 elementary school children and one teacher were killed.
Carlson, who suspected Biden might decide to further divide the country during his speech warned viewers moments prior to the President coming to the podium that “if the President uses the deaths of children to try to make himself more powerful, he really is a loathsome man unworthy of leading this country.” But if he doesn’t, Carlson hedged, “he will get praise from us and from every American.”
Sadly, Biden did the former.
Instead of giving a speech to unite and calm a heartbroken nation, Biden decided to go after his political opponents and the “gun lobby.”
Only in Tucker's -- and the MRC's -- world is trying to stop future massacres considered "divisive." They, of course, deny that there's anything divisive about their pro-gun absolutism.
CNS Sticks To Right-Wing Spin After Durham's Trial Failure Topic: CNSNews.com
Even though the Media Research Center obsessedover John Durham's prosecution of Michael Sussmann, its "news" division CNSNews.com largely ignored Sussmann's trial. Prior to the trial, an April 5 article by Craig Bannister hyped how "In a court filing Monday night, Special Counsel John Durham presents an alleged text message from Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann falsely telling the FBI that he was not working on behalf of any client when he delivered anti-Trump research in 2016," citing biased website Just The News, and a May 6 article by Bannister touted how Republican Rep. Jim Jordan proclaimed that Durham "wants jurors to know the truth about the origin and handling of the FBI’s so-called 'Trump-Russia Collusion' investigation."
CNS devoted no "news" coverage to Sussmann's trial while it was going on; the only mention came in a May 26 column by R. Emmett Tyrrell promoting campaign operative Robby Mook's testimony at the trial. then unironically complaining that "I looked through The New York Times and The Washington Postwith my legendary thoroughness and could find no hint of Mook's testimony. Not even in the Help Wanted sections, not even in the much-vaunted Style section." He wouldn't have found it at CNS either, but he didn't mention that part. In an apparent bit of pre-verdict spin, Tyrrell then declared, "Once again, Hillary has been caught in a lie, perhaps the most shocking lie of her career. She tried to throw an election."
After the verdict -- in which Sussmann was acquitted -- a "news" article finally discussed the trial, in a June 2 stenography piece by Melanie Arter quoting former Trump attorney general Bill Barr spouting the approved talking points, that the jury was biased Durham advanced right-wing talking points:
A federal jury in Washington, D.C. -- a jury that included Hillary Clinton donors and supporters -- on Tuesday acquitted Washington attorney Michael Sussmann on a charge of lying to the FBI in 2016 about his actions on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign.
The case was prosecuted by Special Counsel John Durham, who was asked three years ago by then-Attorney General Bill Barr to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia "hoax," as President Donald Trump called it.
Barr on Wednesday praised Durham for doing "an exceptionally able job, both digging out very important facts and presenting a compelling case to the jury."
Barr told Fox News's Jesse Waters [sic] on Wednesday that although Durham did not persuade a D.C. jury to convict Sussmann, "I think he accomplished something far more important, which is he brought out the truth in two important areas.
“And in government cases, that means a D.C. jury, which is a very favorable jury for anyone named Clinton and the Clinton campaign. Those are the facts of life, and to get mad at law enforcement people because proving these cases beyond a reasonable doubt is difficult work --it's childish.”
"There are two standards of the law. And we've had to struggle with that," Barr said. "And people have done, I think, a very good job trying to develop this case in the face of very strong headwinds.
“And part of this operation is to try to get the real story out. And I've said from the beginning, if we can get convictions, if they're achievable, then John Durham will achieve them," Barr said.
Since this was only a stenography piece, Arter made no effort to balance her article with someone who supported the verdict and the rule of law, let alone mention that it was Durham's responsibility to keep potential jurors he thought were biased off the jury or to try and move the trial to a jurisdiction he believed might be more favorable to his case.
No other articles have since discussed the trial or its verdict, leaving Arter's biased piece as the only one, despite CNS' own pledge in the money beg at end of her article that it "covers the news as it should be, without fear or favor."
Joel Hirschhorn COVID Misinformation Watch Topic: WorldNetDaily
How is prolific COVID misinformer JoelHirschhorn misinforming people now? Let's take a look! He ranted in his April 28 column:
Here are the latest data from CDC:
Many billions of dollars spent. Not that much accomplished.
Despite massive use of COVID vaccines, COVID in 2021 was again the third-leading cause of death in the United States. COVID stayed the third-leading cause of death for the second year in a row, according to provisional mortality data collected by CDC from death certificates.
Not only has mass COVID vaccination not stopped high death levels, those who are fully vaccinated including booster shots, like Vice President Harris, keep getting new COVID infections.
hirschoorn didn't mention the anti-vaxxer movement he's part of that deliberately held down the number of COVID vaccinations, making that number less "massive" than he wants you to think it is.He also forgot to mention that the Omicron variant is much more contagious, making vaccines less effective against infection -- but that current vaccines do, in fact, protect against an infected person becoming hospitalized or dying, so it's not like the vaccine is a waste.
Hirschhorn used his May 12 column to return to the issue of long COVID, specifically focusing on the symptom of brain fog -- but, again, he tried to blame it on vaccines despite scant evidence to support it. Hirschhorn's May 16 column looked at those who didn't catch COVID despite "high exposure" to the virus; he dubiously declared that "They had no need for COVID vaccine shots."
Hirschhorn was back to misinformation mode in his May 27 column:
This is the big ugly truth many people will have trouble facing:
Only a small fraction of physicians have been heroic during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In some of my past writings, I have spoken about the failure of most physicians to truly understand pandemic issues and think and act independently to serve the public. Instead, they have served the interests of Big Pharma, their corporate employers and government agencies, most clearly as big pushers of COVID vaccines. They do not follow or know the medical research on many pandemic issues. They either do not have the time or interest or skills to independently follow medical research. Instead, they rely on big medical societies and government agencies.
However, the first "heroic" doctor he cited was Robert Malone -- a prolific misinformer in his own right.The second one was Vladimir Zelenko, a right-wing darling for his early advocacy of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID despite his lack of credible documentation to back it up. He continued to whine:
One terrible pandemic impact is the rational view by many people that their doctors have let them down. The many millions now suffering from long COVID and getting very little help from the medical establishment. Doctors had a choice to challenge what federal agencies were telling the public. They could have done what only a handful of doctors did, namely respect the considerable data showing ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine really did effectively prevent COVID infection when given early enough to stop viral replication. A number of other nations did what the Fauci-controlled U.S. government refused to do: namely promote early home treatment with generics. Instead, Fauci pursued a wait-for-the-vaccine strategy. And then as a lacky of Big Pharma, he lied to the public about the safety of COVID vaccines.
Doctors did not live up to their ethical commitment to first do no harm. They did harm by following the government dictates. They share the blame for 1 million dead and hundreds of thousands harmed by both COVID and vaccines. They take refuge in narrowly helping their patients with conventional illnesses, but they ignore what is all around them, namely the death and harm from COVID and vaccines.
Meanwhile, in the real world, studies claiming the efficacy of ivermectin in treating COVID continue to be retracted. Hirschhorn doesn't say how many people have died of COVID because they were deceived by charlatans and put misplaced faith in ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
Hirschhorn had a new anti-vaxx conspiracy theory to peddle in his June 16 column:
If you are a critical thinker who appreciates truth-telling about COVID vaccines, then you should be deeply concerned that there are data indicating the vaccines can produce one of the deadliest diseases known to medicine.
The disease is always fatal. Normally, only about a thousand Americans die from it annually. But now? Who knows? The government is not working hard to track Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD), which is known as a prion disease.
A recent French pre-print on CJD and COVID vaccination has indicated that the COVID vaccine may have contributed to the emergence of a new type of sporadic CJD disease that is a lot more aggressive and rapid in progression as compared to the traditional CJD.
The French found that within days of receiving a first or second dose of Pfizer or Moderna COVID vaccines, patients got the disease.
Hirschhorn's link for this went to the anti-vaxxer Children's Health Defense, another COVID misinformer. Meanwhile, actual fact-checkers pointed out that the French preprint -- which has not been peer-reviewed -- did not establish a causal link, with a medical researcher adding, "if there was any kind of link, it would be much more present than in one patient in Turkey and in 26 cases in France."
Nevertheless, Hirschhorn went on to cite unverified anecdotal cases and huff that "many vaccine-related deaths may have been CJD and gone undiagnosed because it takes a large effort to confirm CJD."
NEW ARTICLE: Psaki-Bashing And Doocy-Fluffing At The MRC, April 2022 Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Curtis Houck has nothing but contempt for Jen Psaki and nothing but cookies for Peter Doocy and other biased reporters who advance right-wing narratives. Read more >>
MRC Fearmongers About 'Pro-Abort' Violence, Censors Decades Of Anti-Abortion Violence Topic: Media Research Center
After the leak of a draft Supreme Court decision that would overturn Roe v. Wade and, thus, the right to an abortion across America, the Media Reserarch Center was eager to hype isolated incidents of violent protest into an huge issue. A May 4 item by Kevin Tober was typical:
Late Tuesday night, violent pro-abortion mobs took the streets in Los Angeles to express their rage over the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade and handing the abortion issue back to the states to decide. In videos posted to Twitter and reported online by Fox News and The Daily Caller, among other reputable outlets, the violent left-wing abortion activists were seen attacking police officers.
While all three networks mentioned protests taking place across the country, none of the big three evening news broadcast programs reported on the violence that took place across the city. Instead, they showed images of peaceful abortion advocates chanting in front of the Supreme Court or marching down the city streets with protest signs.
The fact that Tober thinks wildly biased outlets like Fox News and the Daily Caller are "reputable" reflects the MRC's own untrustworthy bias.
The MRC went on to rant that even demonstrably peaceful protests outside Supreme Court justices' homes were a threat:
The MRC then found an actual isolated incident of violence to obsess about, as Tober wrote in a May 9 post:
After a weekend of leftist abortion activists tormenting the six conservative Supreme Court justices at their homes and desecrating or setting pro-life clinics on fire, ABC’s World News Tonight decided on Monday to move on from the destruction of property and menacing behavior that took place for the simple reason that their behavior makes their demonic abortion agenda look bad.
ABC did cover it on Sunday’s World News Tonight and the overnight Monday shows World News Now and America This Morning, but left this act of terrorism in the dust by Monday’s Good Morning America.
ABC clearly realized letting their viewers witness what pro-abortion advocates are doing is detrimental to the pro-abortion cause. This is why they were moving the eyes of viewers away from images of their fellow leftists burning pro-life clinics with Molotov cocktails.
Kathleen Krumhansl highlighted this same incident in a May 12 post:
News of a violent terror attack against a pro-life clinic in Madison, Wisconsin, got the quickie treatment at the Latino networks, which spent a total of 74 seconds reporting the attack that included throwing two Molotov cocktails into the facilities, lighting a fire and posting a menacing graffiti warning that “If abortions aren't safe, then you aren't either”.
At MRC Latino we will be looking out for further reports on the arrests of the perpetrators of this intimidating and vicious attack over the Spanish-speaking press. Always watching.
Scott Whitlock ranted that "the corrupt network morning and evening newscasts" devoted "a scant 77 seconds" to the "terroristic attack" on the clinic, unironically adding, "Harassing citizens into complicity is not the way we do things in this country. And the press should call attacks like Madison for what they are: Terror."
By contrast, neither Tober nor Krumhansl mentioned an incident a few months earlier that, by their defintion, was also a violent terror attack: A Planned Parenthood clinic burned down in Knoxville, Tenn., on New Year's Eve, which investigators have determined was arson -- perpetrated, one may safely presume, by an anti-abortion activist. No fretting about something "demonic" happening here, of course.
The MRC also got mad when the history of violence from anti-abortion activists was brought up. A May 6 post by Alex Christy complained that CNN reported on "hypothetical Roe-related violence…from the 'far-right.'" A May 10 post by Christy noted that folks on CNN brought up "anti-abortion protesters outside of abortion clinics, blocking the way, making it almost impossible for women to go in and out of those clinics" as well as "sadly, bombing of some clinics,” then played whataboutism with the Wisconsin incident: "While CNN warns of right-wing violence, it makes excuses for left-wing intimidation tactics while pro-life facilities are targeted with Molotov cocktails." Curtis Houck similarly whined, right down to the same example of whataboutism, in a post the same day:
Tuesday’s CBS Mornings had a maddening end to its segment about the increasing threats to the lives of Supreme Court justices for striking down (or at least weakening) Roe v. Wade as congressional correspondent Scott MacFarlane claimed intelligence shared with CBS views “extremists” (meaning the far-right) as the group to worry about amid tensions surrounding the issue.
Why, you ask? According to MacFarlane, such “extremists” could be looking to carry out attacks on “abortion clinics and government officials.” If all that sounded familiar, it is as CNN spent Friday telling its viewers the same thing.
MacFarlane should share this with Wisconsin Family Action out in Madison, Wisconsin after their headquarters was terrorized, a Northern Virginia pregnancy center whose building was defaced, and Concerned Women for America, whose building was vandalized with someone urinating on it.
The MRC appears deathly afraid of reminding people of the anti-abortion movement's decades-long history of violence and aggressive protesting. As Lauren Rankin summarized at Slate:
At Metropolitan Medical Associates in Englewood, New Jersey, where I volunteered as a clinic escort for six years, protesters would stand right by the front doors, pointing their cellphones at patients walking in while screaming “You’re a murderer!” into a bullhorn. Some of the protesters would write down the license plate numbers on the cars of my fellow clinic escorts and sometimes those of patients. I have been smacked in the face, elbowed in the ribs, and sexually harassed by anti-abortion protesters while volunteering as a clinic escort.
Eleven abortion providers and clinic staff have been murdered by anti-abortion terrorists since 1994, including Dr. Bart Slepian, who was shot and killed in his own kitchen after returning from synagogue, and Dr. George Tiller, who was gunned down while serving as an usher in church.
Anti-abortion protesters have harassed the children of abortion providers at their own schools and harassed the landlords of abortion clinics. Recently, anti-abortion fanatic Lauren Handy and her co-conspirators were charged with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act after they invaded an abortion clinic in D.C. The FACE Act, enacted in 1994 with bipartisan support, made it a federal crime to block access to or intimidate someone from entering a reproductive health clinic.
This isn’t an issue of the past. Operation Save America, a spinoff of the fanatical anti-abortion group Operation Rescue that blockaded clinics, laid siege to EMW Women’s Surgical Center in Louisville, Kentucky, in 2017—cutting off access and supplies. Since 2010, death threats and physical threats of harm, as well as instances of assault and battery, have been steadily climbing at abortion clinics. In 2020 alone, there were five reported instances of arson at abortion clinics.
How’s that for “civility”?
Nope, the MRC isn't going to bring that up at all -- those facts conflict with its narrative of pro-choice people as the real violent ones. At no point in these posts did the MRC denounce ani-abortion terrorism, let alone admit that it exists, thus demonstrating that it is, in fact, quite cool with "harassing citizens into complicity."
Like the Media Research Center, WorldNetDaily also sought to spin the acquittal of Democratic lawyer Michael Sussmann on charges of making false statements to the FBI that were pushed by right-leaning special counsel John Durham. A May 31 "news" article by Art Moore downplayed Durham's prosecutorial failure to praise him for injecting anti-Hillary narratives into right-wing media:
A Washington, D.C, jury on Tuesday acquitted former Hillary Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann of lying to the FBI, but the most important outcome of the case for special counsel John Durham was the confirmation of Hillary Clinton's role in a plot to weaponize the FBI to launch an investigation of her Republican opponent in the 2016 election.
The jury saw compelling evidence that Sussmann falsely presented himself as a concerned citizen rather than as a member of Clinton's campaign when he gave the FBI data to support the bogus claim that Donald Trump had a secret communications channel with the Kremlin through computer servers owned by a Russian bank.
In Durham's indictment of Sussmann, he said the evidence against the Clinton lawyer reveals "a scandal much deeper than merely Sussmann's role in a second Russian hoax — a scandal that entangles the Clinton campaign, multiple internet companies, two federally-funded university researchers, and a complicit media."
The prosecution said during the trial that the material Sussmann gave to the FBI was "pure opposition research" for the purpose of concocting an "October Surprise" in the 2016 election.
The case also revealed that the FBI's top brass were excited about Sussmann's claim. An agent told a colleague in a text, "People on 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this server," referring to James Comey and the bureau's top brass.
And further, the Sussmann prosecution confirmed the Clinton campaign paid the opposition research firm Fusion GPS to produce the infamous dossier of unverified and now debunked claims against Trump compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele.
Moore then set up the same conspiracy theory that the MRC did in blaming thepurported bias of the jury for the acquittal:
Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley summarized the jury bias in an interview with Bret Baier of Fox News.
"I mean, he is facing a jury that has three Clinton donors, an [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] donor, and a woman whose daughter is on the same sports team with Sussmann’s daughter," said the George Washington University professor of law.
"With the exception of randomly selecting people out of the DNC headquarters, you could not come up with a worse jury."
Turley apparently didn't mention that it was Durham's responsibility as a prosecutor to keep potential jurors he believed were biased off the jury or, failing that, try to move the trial to a jurisdiction that might be more favorable to his anti-Hillary bias.
The next day, Bob Unruh pushed the jury conspiracy angle further:
Jury nullification in America's judicial system is the simple act of a jury deciding the outcome of a case based on what it wants, a decision that is not necessarily in alignment with the actual law.
It dates to the beginning of the nation, when in 1735 John Peter Zenger was on trial for seditious libel, at that time banning any statement against British rule, and he was acquitted.
Courts later condemned it, but it remains within the authority of jurors to decide – alone – the result of their jury room discussions.
And that's what the acquittal of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann looks like, according to several experts.
In fact, Unruh cited only two: Turley and onetime acting Trump attorney general Matt Whitaker, whose take could hardly be considered unbiased. And, like Moore's article, Unruh didn't mention that the Durham's prosecution team signed off on every one of those jurors, meaning that the existence of purportedly biased ones can be laid squarely on Durham. Instead, he repeated Moore's praise of Durham for injecting more anti-Hillary narratives into right-wing media.
Newsmax Actually Asked Zelensky If Trump Would've Stopped Russian Invasion -- Then Buried It Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax has demonstrated one key streak of independence from slavish right-wing orthodoxy by being a (mostly) solid supporter of Ukraine after it was invaded by Russia -- to the ppoint that it sent TV host Rob Schmitt to Ukraine and scored and interview with Ukraine leader Volodymyr Zelensky. Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy announced the interview in a May 31 article:
Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy met Tuesday in Kyiv with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at his presidential offices.
Mr. Ruddy expressed his admiration for the courage and tenacity of the Ukrainian people in their fight for freedom and sovereignty.
President Zelenskyy expressed his gratitude to the Newsmax audience for its strong support and for the strong support of the American people in Ukraine’s struggle to defend their country from Russian aggression.
After the meeting, President Zelenskyy sat down with Newsmax primetime host Rob Schmitt for a half-hour discussion about the security situation in Ukraine and across Europe.
But even then, it can't completely stop injecting a pro-Trump viewpoint into it. According to a report from the UK Independent:
Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky dismissed the suggestion that Donald Trump could have stopped Russia from invading his country in an interview with Newsmax.
Speaking on Tuesday with anchor Rob Schmitt, the Ukrainian leader said he “cannot predict” what would have happened if Mr Trump was still US president.
Schmitt proposed: “There are many Americans that believe that if somebody like Donald Trump was still in the White House that this invasion would not have happened. What is your position?”
“I am sorry if I’ll be saying something that you don’t like but for us as the country in war, it doesn’t matter whether it’s Democrats or Republicans,” Mr Zelensky replied.” It’s the people of the United States that support us”.
Mr Zelensky continued by saying that “anybody could become the [US] president”, including those who did not like Ukraine and those who were empathetic towards Vladimir Putin, the Russian president.
“Some might like Ukraine more, some less. Some might have respect for Putin, and some might not ...but the values our country is fighting for are definitely the ones shared by the US,” Mr Zelensky said.
Meanwhile, Newsmax cranked out several articles about its Zelensky interview:
But it was only in that last one that it was mentioned that Schmitt asked, and then it wasn't mentioned until the fourth paragraph. The article, by Eric Mack, reprinted much of Zelensky's response but not the part where he said to Schmitt, "I am sorry if I’ll be saying something that you don’t like." That statement still appears in the accompanying video clip.
It seems like Newsmax knew Schmitt's question was dumb and sought to downplay it. That's a sign of self-awareness that we haven't seen from WorldNetDaily.