MRC's Manhood Threatened By Men Getting Vasectomies
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center has shown a propensity for having its collective manhood triggered by various things, whether it's Harry Styles in a dress, Kid Cudi in a dress or the idea that pollution may be shrinking men's penises. Now there's a new threat: the idea of men getting vasectomies in response to the Supreme Courty decision overturning Roe v. Wade and extreme anti-abortion laws.

When an Oklahoma lawmaker introduced a bill requiring teenage boys to get a vasectomy in response to a bill that effectively outlawed nearly all abortions in the state, John Simmons had a meltdown in a May 24 post:

Abortions in Oklahoma were almost completely wiped out thanks to House Bill 4327, a bill that will only allow abortions if the child is a product of rape or incest (and confirmed by law enforcement) and if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother

However, before the bill was signed on Thursday, State Rep. Mickey Dollens (D, Oklahoma City) took the house floor to say that he was touting a bill that he thought would be a better solution than banning abortions.

Sorry fellas, but it involves you and your ability to produce a baby.

Dollens thought it would be better to pass a bill that would require all Oklahoman males to get a vasectomy once they reach puberty.

Simmons complained that Dollens is "just showboating for the base" by expressing "an emotional outburst a man who may or may not really believe abortion is healthcare and not murder."

Alex Christy started a July 12 post by complaining that  "The Tuesday tragicomic edition of CBS Mornings profiled a couple of men who had a suggestion on how men can do their part in the after of the Supreme Court’s ruling to strike down Roe v. Wade: get a vasectomy," further grousing that the reporter "played up ill-founded fears that birth control is next." Actually, if a Supreme Court justice advocated that the overturning of laws that legalized birth control should follow the overturning of Roe, it seems such fears are quite fouhded. Christy ultimately decided it was a good thing these two guys got vasectomies: "It is sad that it took the Supreme Court to instill some sense of responsibility for these two, but at least they will not pass their wisdom on to the next generation."

Wallace White, meanwhile, spent an Aug. 2 post have a major freakout, wildly accusing a hot dog stand of a "degenerate, antinatalist scheme" by giving free milkshakes to men who can show proof of having a vasectomy in response to another extreme anti-abortion law:

If abortion enthusiasts can’t kill babies in the womb, they’ll encourage people to stop them from being made in the first place. In Nashville, Daddy’s Dogs restaurant is giving out free milkshakes to customers that show proof of a vasectomy, as according to The Tennessean, and made the rounds on Twitter just recently.

Daddy’s Dogs (yes, that’s the real name), a hot dog restaurant in Nashville, wanted to voice its support for abortion, as owner Sean Porter made this Instagram post June 29 urging people to come claim their free sugery drink for the low price of sterlizing yourself, calling it his “snip for shake” deal. Clever and creepy. If anything symbolizes American consumerism, it’s this degenerate, antinatalist scheme.

Recently the post made its way to Twitter, sparking conversations and condemnation alike. The owner said to The Tennessean, “The world's a pretty crazy place right now, but I have a way to make it just a little bit better."

And please tell me how sterilizing yourself makes the world a better place? What kind of perversion of morals is this?

White then hufffed that those getting vaectomies were "half-men" who are serving "the Moloch cause," whatever that is:

One commenter on the Instagram post said that Porter was, “out here doing the Lord's work.” That is quite literally the opposite of the Lord’s work, but people who sterilize themselves in the name of abortion probably don’t care for the Lord.

Tennessee will end abortion after 6 weeks and protect the unborn. But that won’t stop deranged leftist half-men from getting vasectomies, and Daddy’s Dogs from rewarding their service to the Moloch cause with a milkshake. 

What a time to be alive.

What a time idneed, when a summer intern gets paid to hurl such hate and abuse over a vasectomy.

WND's Farah Begging For More Money Again
Topic: WorldNetDaily

The last time we checked in on WorldNetDaily's perpetual financial crisis at the end of June, Joseph Farah was proclaiming that WND had raised more than double his $100,000 goal, which has met our urgent needs and taken us out of crisis mode," adding that "we have been promised, by one particularly generous donor, another very significant contribution in the next week." Well, something apparently happened, because Farah was back to doing the hard-sell money beg just over a month later.

Farah began his Aug. 5 column by ranting about the purported deaeth of the First Amendment, causing him to rant:

If we can't speak and write the TRUTH, and can no longer operate freely according to the promises of our nation's Constitution, then we don't have a truly free press. And without a free press, we don't have a free country – they ALWAYS go together.

Yet there has never been an era in American history when lies were more ubiquitous and destructive, and Truth more desperately needed, than right now.

That may be true, but Farah's WND is not a place one will find it, as we keep documenting. Afer more dubiuos pontificating, Farah got down to the money beg:

Very simply, my friends, times have changed: If you value independent, fearless, truthful news and analysis in an age of radically increasing lies and deception, your partnership with us is essential.

Our current needs? We need to raise $65,000 by the end of August in order to pay our bills, including payroll. We're part way there, but have a long way to go.

Farah didn't explain why he was begging for money again so soon after declaring that his previous fund drive doubled its goal.But while Farah ranted about the purported death of free speech in a few subsequent columns that also included money begs, he hasn't referenced this end-of-August deadline again -- which seems strange if you're facing yet another existential crisis.

All of which makes us wonder about how badly WND really needs that money. Or perhaps money beg fatigue is setting in.

MRC's Jean-Pierre-Bashing, Doocy-Fluffing Watch
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's Curtis Houck began another month of smearing White House press sedretary Karine Jean-Pierre -- and fluffing Fox News' biased Peter Doocy -- with an orgy of Doocy-fluffing over the Aug. 1 briefing:

On Monday afternoon, reporters saw John Kirby emerge yet again for the White House press briefing as chaperone for the incoherent and stammering Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and while there were some tough questions for Kirby on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) rumored trip to Taiwan, Fox’s Peter Doocy made Jean-Pierre crumble on the so-called Inflation Reduction Act that, according to some estimates, raise taxes on low and middle-class Americans.

As he often does, Doocy began with a basic question: “Is President Biden thinking about pulling his support for the Inflation Reduction Act?”

A confused Jean-Pierre said “no,” so Doocy explained why he asked what he did: “Because he promised it wasn't gonna raise taxes on anybody making less than $400,000 a year, but the Joint Committee on Taxation says that is not true.”

Jean-Pierre maintained “that is incorrect,” so Doocy pressed once more: “So, the Joint Committee on Taxation, which you guys heralded as an effective body when you were selling the infrastructure package, is not to be trusted here?”

Like many of the Biden administration’s spending proposals, Jean-Pierre insisted the JCT was wrong because their analysis was “incomplete” and “omit[ted] the actual benefits that Americans would receive” on energy and prescription drugs.

[...]

Doocy pivoted with the timing remaining to see why the White House hadn’t responded to a provocative threat from a Communist Chinese government official that they would shoot down Pelosi’s plan if she were to visit Taiwan.

Given her ineptitude, Jean-Pierre initially said she had “not seen those reports” before condemning it as “unnecessary” since “there’s no change in the One China policy.”

Houck went the Doocy-fluffing route again against another Biden official for the Aug. 2 briefing:

As he did on Monday (and numerous times before that), National Security Council spokesman John Kirby helmed much of Tuesday’s White House press briefing to assist the inept Karine Jean-Pierre, but there were was still some tough exchanges and softballs. Of course, Fox’s Peter Doocy was in the middle of it as he battled Kirby over the inevitability of Afghanistan returning to its place as a safe harbor for terrorists following last year’s disastrous U.S. withdrawal.

“John, something you’ve just said is not consistent with what we were told last year. You’re saying that you’ve always known there was a small number of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. President Biden said, ‘What interests do we have in Afghanistan, at this point, with al Qaeda gone,’” Doocy began.

Kirby conceded that al-Qaeda hasn’t been “playing a major role,” but they nonetheless “had a presence.”

As he often does, it was Doocy’s second question that upped the heat: “So, we know that the Taliban was harboring the world’s most wanted terrorist. You guys gave a whole country to a bunch of people that are on the FBI Most Wanted list. What did you think was going to happen?”

With less first-hand experience with Doocy (though the Pentagon press corps are tough and professional), Kirby stammered, insisting he’d “take issue with the premise that we gave a whole country to terrorist groups.”

Before Kirby could finish, Doocy hit again: “The Taliban was harboring the world’s number one terrorist. How is that not giving a country to a terrorist-sympathizing group, if not giving them permission to have terrorists just sit on a balcony?”

For the Aug. 3 briefing, Houck amped up his narrative of Jean-Pierre as an incompetent diversity hire (and, of course, amped up his Doocy-fluffing):

Early Wednesday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre decided to face reporters solo for a press briefing, doing so for only the 14th time out of her 41 briefings since taking the top job. And, as part of this hapless endeavor, she faced questions from both the left and right on abortion with the Biden administration set to expand the funding for abortions s well as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) visit to Taiwan.

Fox’s Peter Doocy used his time to press Jean-Pierre on the latter topic, starting with this quip that left Jean-Pierre chuckling about his word choice: “How come Republicans seem more jazzed about Speaker Pelosi’s trip than the President?”

“You’re going to have to ask Republicans. 'Jazzed?' Do they have jazz hands, Peter,” Jean-Pierre replied, adding in her attempt at some parental humor.

[...]

Doocy kept pressing, wondering why it’s “so hard for the President just to say, ‘she’s a brave trailblazer, and I think it’s great that she went,’ like so many others” have, but Jean-Pierre followed John Kirby’s lead in sidestepping any attempt to praise Taiwan, insisting Biden views Pelosi in a broad sense as “a great trailblazer.”

Kirby was once again the target of Houck's ire (and Doocy-fluffing) for the Aug. 4 briefing:

A longtime diplomatic and military spokesman in the Obama and Biden administrations, John Kirby has exhibited a calm, cogent demeanor, so it was surprising on Thursday when Kirby appeared miffed as Fox’s Peter Doocy pressed him on the Biden administration’s posture towards China and then as Today News Africa’s Simon Ateba repeatedly interrupted the briefing and demanded he be called on.

Doocy led off with a cutting take for Kirby, who joined the inept White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre for the third time in four days: “Why is it that, over the last couple of months, President Biden’s been so much tougher on Russia than he is on China?”

Kirby seemed flat-footed, saying he “wouldn’t agree with the premise of the question.”

Perhaps Kirby thought it was a stupid quesiton given that, unlike  China, Russia has been engaged in an active, unwarranted war for the last couple months. something neither Doocy nor Houck had considered. But Houck was back to his usual, tired, Jean-Pierre-bashing soon enough:

Later, Doocy had a crack at Jean-Pierre: “Based on everything that's happening in Asia right now, does President Biden consider China to be an opponent or a competitor?”

When she failed to provide a real answer besides talking points about Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) having “the right to travel wherever she wants” and that’d include Taiwan, Doocy tried again: “[W]ith the relationship moving forward, though, would he consider China a competitor or an opponent of the United States?”

Jean-Pierre didn’t dodge this second attempt (even though it projected one of weakness): “[W]e want to be able to compete. We want to be able to compete with China and we want to be able to have those manufacturing jobs, investment in — in the United States and also strengthen our supply chain, make sure we strengthen our national security.”

Of course, Houck thinks any answer Jean-Pierre gives is from a point of "weakness" compared with his sainted Doocy.

WND Kept Ranting About Capitol Riot Hearings
Topic: WorldNetDaily

After promising that Secret Service agents would rebut Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony about Donald Trump's behavior after the rally that preceded the Capitol riot -- a promise did not age well, given how those agents have since clammed up and lawyered up -- WorldNetDaily remained salty about the hearings themselves and defended the participants. A July 11 article by Bob Unruh promoted how "the founder of Oath Keepers, one of the organizations whose members are facing charges for the events, wants to confront committee members in person." He served up this oddly benign description of events that day:

Hundreds went into the Capitol that day to express their distrust of the 2020 presidential election results. Some rioted, doing vandalism and such. And as of now, hundreds have been charged with offenses like trespassing and entering a closed government building, and many have remained behind bars without bond since their arrests.

Charges most prominently have been filed against members of several groups that mostly have acted in patriotic situations, like Oath Keepers and Proud Boys.

"Vandalism and such"? yes, assaulting police officers has been downgraded as "such" and less of a big deal than vandalism, as far as Unruh is concerned.

WND's columnists kept complaining as well. Andy Schlafly took another bogus whack at Hutchinson in his July 12 column:

Democrats had been counting on televised congressional hearings about the pro-Trump rally at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to be the game-changer they need to retain power, but their strategy hasn't worked. According to a new Harvard/Harris poll, 53% consider the hearings biased, 63% believe Congress should be working on more important matters, and 67% say the hearings are dividing our country.

The fizzling of implausible testimony against Trump has boomeranged against the J6 committee. The nonpartisan Secret Service disavowed the accusations by the surprise witness Cassidy Hutchinson, whose bizarre hearsay testimony would not be allowed in a real court.

That didn't happen in real life, of course. So Schlafly moved on to throw anything at the wall that might stick, including discredited election fraud claims: "Biden may have been placed in the White House through rampant ballot harvesting and the use of unattended ballot drop boxes, which were just declared illegal by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. These ballot dumps, often in the middle of the night, were done by hired Democrat ballot harvesters in battleground states."

In her July 13 column, Betsy McCaughey dismissed the hearing as a "miniseries" that are "as balanced as one of Josef Stalin's trials, or justice under Kim Jong-un." She then played whataboutism: "Why would anyone watch this unapologetically rigged process about a topic that pales in comparison to watching your quality of life and future plans destroyed by soaring prices?"

Michael Master returned for a July 13 column to justify the riot and bash the committee for not parroting Trump's Big Lie about election fraud:

On Jan. 6 of last year, a political rally of a quarter million people was held where Trump and his supporters petitioned the Congress for a redress of grievances concerning the 2020 election. Mike Pence and the Democrat-controlled Congress ignored that request for a redress.

Yes, a riot by less than a thousand people of those quarter million also happened on Jan 6. But the issue of the redress is still not resolved. That, not the riot, is the big issue, which the Jan. 6 Committee is ignoring. And it is looking more and more that Trump was correct in asking for the redress.

[...]

If Republicans retake the House in November, this should be its immediate agenda:

1. Replace the biased J6 committee with a balance of pro-Trump and anti-Trump members, instead of the current nine, who all voted to impeach the president. Then investigate everyone involved with Jan. 6, including Nancy Pelosi, the FBI, Mike Pence and the Capitol Police.

2. Investigate what the Biden administration did that cut the U.S. production of oil and hurt America's oil independence.

3. Empower a special investigator to figure out which states implemented illegal and/or unconstitutional election processes in 2020. Determine how many votes were affected and if the outcomes in those states were compromised, and then determine what do do about it now. Judges have already determined that Pennsylvania and Wisconsin implemented unconstitutional changes. How much did the illegal drop boxes and ballot harvesting in Georgia affect the election? How about in Arizona, Nevada, Michigan and Virginia?

4. Investigate Joe Biden over the revelations found on Hunter's laptop.

Things will get very interesting if/when Republicans retake the House. Democrats are worried. Karma is a b**ch.

A July 15 article by Unruh did actually notice apparently bad behavior -- which he then tried to bury under his usual right-wing narratives:

The newest turn in the "investigation" going on into the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol may be the most interesting yet.

It turns out the Secret Secret deleted its text messages from that time period, after being asked for them.

Other developments have included wild claims by the government that ordinary citizens protesting what they viewed as an unfair 2020 election were trying to overthrow the government that day.

And that the mostly wide-eyed tourists in the Capitol that day actually were intent on killing people.

And much more, all being investigated by Nancy Pelosi's partisan committee that has been interviewing people and staging public performances of select testimony that fits the narrative that President Trump was to blame for everything.

Critics view the committee's work as Pelosi's third attempt at "impeaching-and-removing" Trump – with the goal of making sure he doesn't run again in 2024. Her two earlier attempts during and after his term both failed.

Now the Intercept confirmed the Secret Service erased text messages dated January 5 and January 6.

That's from a letter given to the January 6 committee and reviewed by The Intercept.

Unruh also tried to attack Hutchinson again:

Also involving the Secret Service was testimony from ex-White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson whose claims that Trump tried to commandeer a limousine to go to the Capitol were immediately debunked by other witnesses.

Throwing doubt on Hutchinson's claims were members of the Secret Service themselves, the report said.

Again, those agents have refused to testify to the committee and have lawyered up in an apparent effort to get out of actually fulfilling their promise.

NEW ARTICLE -- Out There, Exhibit 83: The MRC's Year Of Freaking Out Over Transgenders
Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center spent the last part of 2020 and all of 2021 in continuous meltdown mode over the idea that transgender people exist and appear in on TV. Read more>>

CNS' Jeffrey Buries The Lead On U.S.-Russia Trade So Biden Doesn't Look Good
Topic: CNSNews.com

Part of CNSNews.com editor Terry Jeffrey's anti-Biden crusade in the runup to Russia's invasion of Ukraine was blaming Biden for trade deficits between the U.S. and Russia. He effectively did that again in a July 7 article:

The United States ran a merchandise trade deficit of $1,049,100,000 with Russia in the month of May, according to data released today by the U.S. Census Bureau.

During May, the United States sold $77,400,000 in exports to Russia and purchased $1,126,500,000 in imports, resulting in the trade deficit of $1,049,100,000.

The last time the United States ran a monthly trade surplus with Russia was in December 1995, according to Census Bureau data. That month, the United States exported $256,700,000 in goods to Russia and imported $227,300,000, resulting in a surplus of $29,400,000.

Jeffrey is violating normal journalistic style by writing out the full numbers with all the zeroes instead of using words like "million" or "billion"  because he thinks they look bigger and make his biased point. But Jeffrey buried the lead, which he waited until the fourth paragraph to get to:

Russia invaded Ukraine in February of this year. That month, the United States ran a trade deficit of $2,080,300,000 with Russia. In March, the U.S. trade deficit with Russia increased to $2,645,200,000. In April, it declined to $1,993,600,000. In May, it declined again to $1,049,100,000.

That's right -- the U.S. trade deficit dropped by half between March and May. But that number would make Biden look too good, and Jeffrey, as a highly biased right-wing activist masquerading as a journalist, can't have that. SoJ effrey spent the rest of his article rehashing trade numbers from 2021.

The news on the trade front got even better in June, according to the Census Bureau data Jeffrey cites -- the trade deficit dropped another 40 percent, to $603 million. Again, that makes Biden look good, so Jeffrey did no story at all about it. Good news for Biden is no news at CNS.

MRC Gets Help From National Review In Heathering Alyssa Farah Griffin
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's Heathering of Alyssa Farah Griffin for the apparently unforgivable sin of ceasing to be a Trump toady -- while still being a solid conservative -- got a boost when the right-wing National Review did a hit piece on her. Naturally, the MRC had to lavishly gush over it, and Curtis Houck did the slobbering honors in a July 14 post:

Writing Thursday morning at National Review, Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) fellow Nate Hochman penned a scathing examination of CNN political commentator Alyssa Farah Griffin, chronicling her rise from a well-known political family to the upper echelons of conservative political communications to liberal media darling and from Trump supporter to skeptic to card-carrying member of The Resistance.

And, upon the story’s publication, Farah Griffin offered a vivid reminder of how the Washington media and political elites have razor-thin skin and vehemently object to even the most gentle outside criticism.

Hochman explained how Farah Griffin has undergone a “change in tone and emphasis” since her start working for her father Joseph Farah at World Net Daily that was then parlayed into running communications for the House Freedom Caucus and Trump administration posts with Vice President Mike Pence, the Pentagon, and the White House as communications director.

As Hochman noted, Farah Griffin seemed like “a conventionally partisan Republican operative.”

However, she’s left that behind, instead drawing a litany of scoffs and dismissals from conservatives as she’s become what Hochman called not only “fervently anti-Trump,” but “sometimes anti-Republican” with newfound friends at CNN and ABC’s The View (where she’s the rumored frontrunner to become the fifth co-host).

[...]

When January 6 becomes your cri de coeur and everything else (e.g. abortion, gas prices, inflation, etc.) is secondary while painting a picture that your life is so difficult while also opulent, working people scoff. Farah Griffin should let the world know when she starts consistently having CNN hits and tweets that have nothing to do with January 6 and Donald Trump.

Both Houck and Hochman are well-paid partisan right-wing operatives, so there's no reason to ever think of them as "working class."

Neither Hochman nor Houck explained why criticism of Trump is so verboten that it's enough to get one kicked out of the right-wing bubble they live in (and make their living from). Nor do they explain why she must be punished for trying to run from the Trump taint of corruption and for criticizing his role in inciting the Capitol riot. They also don't cite the chapter and verse of right-wing dogma where it states that right-wingers in good standing are not allow to discuss the riot or blame Trump for it.

When Farah Griffin gave a statement to Hochman stating that she's "fiercely anti insurrection," Houck sniffed in response: "And there it is. All roads have to lead back to January 6." Again, there's no explanation for why she's not allowed to talk about it, even as events like the House committee hearings have kept it in the news. If anything, people like Houck and Hochman need to explain why they stay in the Trump cult despite the mounting evidence of Trump's corruption.

Houck offered a parting shot when he complained about a Twitter thread from Farah Griffin after the hit job was published in which she stated she hadn't read it: "Exit question: Did Alyssa think she’s too important to have to read it?" She knew it was going to be a hit job, and it was; she does not need to read about how much die-hard Trumpers despise her.

The next day, Nicholas Fondacaro returned to reference the National Review's hit job and attack Farah Griffin anew: "The Friday after the National Review published a scathing article calling out The View’s faux 'conservative' Alyssa Farah Griffin, she showed her true blue colors as she falsely accused Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis of scamming his supporters with a recurring donation 'grift.'" Like Houck, he didn't explain how Farah Griffin's departure from the Trump makes her a "faux 'conservative.'" He went on to complain that she is not an extemist anti-abrtion absolutist like he apparently is:

This wasn’t the only lie Farah Griffin told about the political party she purports to still be a part of. Earlier in the show, during a conversation about the 10-year-old Ohio girl who was raped and got an abortion (they omitted the part about the alleged rapist being an illegal immigrant), she parroted the leftist falsehood that the pro-life side didn’t care about the babies and women after birth.

“To be pro-life needs to mean supporting moms throughout their lives. It means paid parental leave, it means investing in foster and adoption care,” she said. “Frustrates me so much that my party really cares about them having the baby, but there's no benefits that they’re going to have after the fact.”

In reality, there are many pro-life organizations and charities that support women and babies after birth. In fact, the left hates how crisis pregnancy centers outnumber abortion mills 3-1 and they want to shut them down.

Fondacaro cited no evidence to prove that she purportedly lied, nor did he explain why it should be left only to "pro-life organizations and charities" to support women and their children and why the government apparently shouldn't.

WND's Attacks On Capitol Riot Hearing Witness Didn't Age Well
Topic: WorldNetDaily

We've shown how WorldNetDaily and its columnists lashed out at the House committee investigating the Capitol riot when its hearings began. When former Mark Meadows aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified that Donald Trump reportedly lunged at the driver of his limousine to keep him from being taken back to the White House instead of the Capitol, WND was ready to try and discredit her. Bob Unruh wrote in a June 29 article:

Agents of the U.S. Secret Service, bound by oath to support the Constitution and protect the president, are willing to testify that one of the star witnesses put on the national stage by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's partisan committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot, wasn't telling the truth when she was under oath.

Fox News reports that two Secret Service agents "are prepared to testify before Congress that then-President Donald Trump did not lunge at a steering wheel or assault them in an attempt to go to the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot."

Fox News' source directly contradicted the claims made by Cassidy Hutchinson, who formerly worked for then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.

That story hasn't aged well. As we've noted, not only has no Secret Service agent offered their testimony, the ones who said they would -- since identnfied as Trump yes-men -- testify are now refusing to testify and have lawyered up.

Unruh complained later that day, repeating those now-dubious attacks on Hutchinson and adding an attack on the entire committee:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's partisan Jan. 6 committee assigned to "investigate" the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol put on a hastily assembled and urgent show this week, revealing a witness who purported that President Trump literally tried to commandeer the presidential limousine on that day to go to the Capitol.

The truthfulness of that testimony already has been challenged by no less than the Secret Service officers involved, and is doubted because the witness was relaying only hearsay – she hadn't actually been a witness to anything.

But real purpose of the hearing now has been revealed, the Washington Examiner's Byron York wrote.

He pointed out that the testimony of Pelosi's latest witness "was not subject to the kind of basic scrutiny that witnesses receive in a normal congressional investigation."

Then the columnists -- in truth, not terribly disinguishable from WND's "news" content -- weighed in. Laura Hollis went on the attack in a June 30 column:

Everything about the congressional Jan. 6 Committee is political theater. The committee itself, per Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's insistence, could not include any members not already predisposed to find Donald Trump guilty of something. The accusations are outlandish and unsubstantiated. Witnesses' testimony and other "evidence" often lacks foundation or credibility. Most of the committee's performance (I won't call it "work"), substantively and procedurally, would never fly in a court of law.

There are plenty of reasons why these "hearings" are taking place, but finding the truth isn't one of them.

[...]

What really happened on Jan. 6, 2021, has not been revealed, and nothing happening in the Jan. 6 Committee hearings will reveal it. Everything they are doing is designed to obfuscate the truth, deceive the American public, entrench the power of the traditional political elite and make an example out of anyone who dares to challenge the official narrative.

Eviscerating Trump is just a sideshow.

Michael Master attacked Hutchinson in his June 30 column:

All of her testimony was personal opinion about the incident and hearsay about conversations from other members of Meadow's staff. Hearsay. No firsthand knowledge, witnessing, or participation. None.

What judge would have allowed such a testimony in a criminal trial? None. This incident represents more violation of due process by this Jan. 6 committee – and more failure.

Did Trump grab the steering wheel of the car and lunge at one of his Secret Service agents? Who cares? So what if he did? Did Trump want to go to the Capitol? Who cares? So what if he did? He stated in his presentation to those 200,000 people who attended his protest rally near the White House that he wanted to march with them "to" the Capitol building "peacefully" so "their voices could be heard."

In addition, the driver of the car, the Secret Service agent, and those people whom Hutchinson supposedly overheard say that none of the incidents Hutchinson claimed actually happened. None of them. None. And they have previously testified to the committee.

So why didn't this committee include those opposing testimonies at their hearing? Because it is just out to get Trump and is ignoring the due process Trump would have if this were an actual criminal court case. No judge would have allowed such hearsay or personal opinions at a criminal court case. No judge would have ignored the opposing testimonies.

The Hutchinson testimony was bogus – and members of the January 6 committee know it. The media know it. Yet, they all continue with it just like Democrats and media continue to claim that Trump colluded with Russians to affect the 2016 election, even after Robert Mueller stated no collusion occurred, and just like they've continued to claim that Jan. 6 was an "insurrection," even after two courts and the FBI stated that it was not, and just like Democrats and media continue to claim that there was no election fraud in 2020.

Like Unruh's "news" articles, Master's column did not age well with the agents' refusal to actually testify.

 

Hateful MRC Squicked Out By Animated Same-Sex Kiss
Topic: Media Research Center

The highly homophobic Media Research Center was predictably squicked out by a completely inoffensive (to normal people) same-sex kiss in the animated Disney film "Lightyear," a prequel of sorts to its "Toy Story" series. Michael Ippolito used a June 22 post to bizarrely cheer that the film didn't do as well at the box office as it supposedly could have and bizarrely insisted that the the movie's audience could only have been "groomers":

The latest Toy Story spin-off, “Lightyear,” which caused controversy over a same-sex kiss scene, had a lackluster opening, according to The Daily Wire

Over its three-day opening weekend, the film made a total of $51 million, an understatement considering the marketability of the Toy Story franchise. Comparatively, Toy Story 4, released in 2019, opened at $121 million.

[...]

Prior to the film’s box office bomb, lead actor and famous lefty loony Chris Evans had called those who did not want LGBT propaganda in a kids' movie “idiots.”

“The real truth is, those people are idiots,” Evans stated in an interview with Reuters on Tuesday. "Every time there’s been social advancement as we wake up, the American story, the human story is one of constant social awakening and growth and that’s what makes us good.”

For “Captain America,” a lesbian kiss is as American as apple pie.

Perhaps the true reason for the film's abysmal failure is that Disney has once again produced another terrible movie solely to appease their woke audience. For the groomer kingdom, it’s politics over profit.

Fortunately, they got an expensive lesson about what happens when you “get woke, go broke.”

It's a sign of how much Ippolito and his MRC co-workers absolutely despite the mere existence of LGBT people in real life that they get wildly offended at fictional ones too and screech that people who simply acknowledge their existence must be smeared as "groomers."

Ippolito returned to spew more hate at the movie in a July 7 post, which he began by lazily repeating himself:

Get woke, go broke! After years of shoving leftist propaganda into children’s entertainment, Disney has learned a hard lesson in playing identity politics.. 

According to BoundingIntoComics, cry-baby “Lightyear” Director Angus MacLane is attacking critics after getting beat by “Minions: The Rise Of Gru.”

Ippolito went on to whine that "McLane does not cite the lesbian kiss scene backlash as the reason for “Lightyear’s” flop but blames internet trolls," then ranted that hewas trying to "convey some grand political message" by acknowledging LGBT people exist.

Only at the MRC is it "political" to acknowledge the mere existence of certain people.

CNS Touts Cheaper Gas In Mexico, Censors That Its Oil Industry Is State-Owned
Topic: CNSNews.com

CNSNews.com took another oil-related shot at President Biden in a July 13 article by Craig Bannister:

The president of Mexico says that so many Americans are crossing the border into his country to save money on gas, that he’s doubling the fuel supply at gas stations near the border - and putting “over 1,000 kilometers of gas pipelines” at President Joe Biden’s disposal.

In a White House meeting with Biden on Tuesday, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador explained how he’s helping out while the American people are waiting for the Biden Administration to do something about high gas prices:

“In the meantime, while we’re waiting for prices to go down, we have decided that it was necessary for us to allow Americans who live close to the borderline so that they could go and get their gasoline on the Mexican side at lower prices.”

“And right now, a lot of the drivers — a lot of the Americans — are going to Mexico, to the Mexican border, to get their gasoline,” López Obrador said, noting that the price of a gallon of gas is more than a dollar and a half less expensive in Mexico:

“Right now, a gallon of regular costs $4.78 average on this side of the border.  And in our territory, $3.12.”

But Bannister didn't mention the main reason why López Obrador would have the ability to do that, and why Mexico's gas prices are cheaper than the U.S.: Mexico's oil industry has been nationalized and is operated by the Mexican government and has more control over gas prices than the private company-driven U.S.

This was followed by a July 15 article by intern Janey Olohan serving up Fox News stenography:

“The government of Mexico, in the middle of a drug war, is taking better care of its citizens than Joe Biden is taking care of his citizens. And that is shameful,” Fox News’ Tucker Carlson stated Wednesday on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” discussing the steadily increasing price of gas across the United States.

While the price at the pump at U.S. gas stations remains near its record-high set last month, the average cost of a gallon of gas in Mexico is significantly cheaper – so much so that Americans are now filling up their tanks across the border.

[...]

Carlson questioned the narrative being pushed by the Biden Administration and liberal media that Russian President Vladimir Putin is responsible for the increase in U.S. gas prices:

“So you have to ask yourself: if we’re paying more for gas because of Putin’s price hike, why isn’t Mexico paying more for gas because of Putin, too? Why is inflation up, when wages are down? This doesn't make any sense.”

U.S. government policies are the reason gas costs more in the U.S. than it does in Mexico, Carlson said:

Olohan touted Carlson noting that "spent $2 billion in subsidies to keep gas prices lower for consumers," but she failed to note that Mexico's oil industry is state-controlled, which give it much more flexibility to do such things than Biden can.

MRC Whines That NewsGuard Downgraded Its Beloved Fox News
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's loud and lame war against NewsGuard for committing the offense of pointing out the shoddiness of right-wing journalism has slogged along, heating up again when the news rating organization downgraded the MRC's favorite biased network. Joseph Vazquez raged in a July 22 post:

Leftist website ratings firm NewsGuard is back to show the world why it’s a pathetic excuse for an internet traffic cop by giving FoxNews.com a failing grade while completely undercutting its own complaint.

NewsGuard downgraded FoxNews.com July 18 from a green-shield 69.5/100 rating in December 2021 to a red-shield 57/100, noting that the website “fails to adhere to several basic journalistic standards.” This is coming from the same firm that left the liberal USA Today’s perfect 100/100 score intact after the newspaper removed 23 stories because one of its reporters fabricated sources. NewsGuard even praised USA Today for how its “stories quote reliable sources.”

One of NewsGuard’s contentions with Fox is that the news outlet allegedly fails to handle “the difference between news and opinion responsibly.” Apparently, NewsGuard couldn’t correctly discern the difference, either. A “Corrections” note put at the bottom of its “nutrition label” scorecard for Fox News admitted that an earlier version falsely “referred to Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham as anchors [who cover the news] instead of hosts [who lead opinion shows] of their nighttime Fox News Channel programs.”

As we pointed out when the MRC first attacked USA Today over this, the fact that it identified the problem and corrected the situation while explaining to readers what happened is likely the reason USA Today kept its high rating. By contrast, the MRC still has yet to make any sort of public statement about the Brent Bozell ghostwriting scandal or how one of its bloggers used white nationalist links to flesh out his posts.

Vazquez went on to defend Fox News while also playing whataboutism:

FoxNews.com clearly labeled Ingraham, Hannity and Carlson as hosts of talk shows, which are naturally opinion-based, but NewsGuard apparently couldn’t even be trusted to do its due diligence initially and make the proper distinction. 

It’s also interesting how both the leftist The New York Times and The Washington Post don’t disclose covering the news from a liberal perspective, as the MRC repeatedly illustrated, but NewsGuard didn’t seem to take much issue with that. In fact, both newspapers which both have perfect 100/100 scores, were determined by NewsGuard to handle “the difference between news and opinion responsibly.”

Note that at no point did Vazquez -- amid his unceasing tarring of other outlets as "leftist" -- properly admit that Fox News has a right-wing bias. Nor did he mnention that there's little daylight between Fox News" news and opinion sides since they both cover the same issues in the same way. And if NewsGuard's purportedlyly "'leftist" judgment can't be trusted, then by the same definition the MRC's highly biased right-wing judgment can't either on the purported bias of the media outlets it has declared its enemies.

Vazquez continued to whine about Fox News' rating drop in an Aug. 5 post:

It’s hard to take leftist website ratings firm NewsGuard seriously when it gave Fox News a failing grade while complimenting BuzzFeed News’s notoriously phony reporting with a perfect rating.

Leftist outlet BuzzFeed News promoted the Steele dossier, which was used as the pretext for a prolonged federal investigation against former President Donald Trump that bore no fruit. The dossier remains on BuzzFeed News’s website, but NewsGuard continues to give BuzzFeed a perfect 100/100 score.

[...]

BuzzFeed News continues to host the bogus January 2017 Steele dossier it published on its website that made erroneous and discredited claims about alleged collusion between Trump and Russia. However, NewsGuard still gives the outlet a perfect 100/100 score.

Vazquez censored the fact that, as we've documented, BuzzFeed never presented the Steele dossier as indisputable fact and never vouched for its accuracy. Vazquez then bizarrely attacked BuzzFeed for doing another story:

The outlet actually went to bat for disgraced CNN Chief Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin after he was caught with his pants down masturbating during a Zoom call for The New Yorker, where he was a staff writer. In a piece disguised as news and not labeled opinion, BuzzFeed’s main excuse was: Hey, doesn’t everyone masturbate at Zoom meetings? “Jeffrey Toobin Can’t Be The Only Person Masturbating On Work Zoom Calls,” read the laughable BuzzFeed headline.

BuzzFeed “senior culture writer” Scaachi Koul even wielded Scripture to wokescold Toobin’s critics: “Haven’t we all done something on a work call that, in normal circumstances, we’d never do during a meeting? Let he without sin cast the first stone.”

That’s some hard-hitting journalism, eh, NewsGuard?

Vazquez identified no factual errors in the Toobin story. And if Toobin's cringey incident wasn't newsworthy, why did the MRC spend so much time obsessing over it?

Another Newsmax Columist Tries To Defend Clarence Thomas
Topic: Newsmax

Larry Bell wasn't the only Newsmax columnist to offer space to gushing over Clarence Thomas. Michael Dorstewitz did much the same in his June 29 column. Apparently annoyed by Hillary Clinton's description of Thomas as a "person of grievance," Dorstewitz dug up a random anecdote of Thomas not being terrible:

First of all, Clinton was a year ahead of Thomas, so it's doubtful that they even shared any classes. Secondly, no one will die because of the Dobbs decision. Even states that ban abortions make exceptions to save the life of the mother. It's a matter of well-established medical practice.

Bryan Griffin, deputy press secretary to Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, called Clinton's assessment of Thomas "offensive, disgusting, and false," and countered it with a touching anecdote.

He recalled that seven years ago after he'd passed the bar, "I stopped [Justice Thomas] in a lobby in D.C. and asked him if he would do me the honor of swearing me in as a lawyer."

He could have said no. Thomas was a well-known Supreme Court justice; Griffin was a snotty-nosed kid fresh out of law school. But he agreed, and it was no rushed ceremony.

"He invited me to his office at the [Supreme Court] the next day, [after work] and spent hours with me in conversation, earnestly affording me his time and encouraging me. A friend and a law professor accompanied me."

Griffin attached a photo of his swearing-in ceremony as proof, and continued with his story.

"He showed us pictures from his latest vacation with his wife and fondly spoke of the love he has for her," he said. "We discussed America, and from everything he said it was clear he loves this country and the people in it."

And lest anyone assume Griffin was somehow connected, he added, "He did not know me or owe me anything. But he afforded me incredible kindness. I am certain he extends the same to others."

Griffin, by the way, has been living on this anecdote for years, making sure to highlight in his bios for think tanks he subsequently worked at that he was sworn in by Thomas as apparent proof of his right-wing credentials. Dorstewitz then served up another less-than-objective source:

And Michael Pack, who co-authored the recently-released book, "Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words," can attest to Thomas' willingness to freely give his time.

Both the book and a previously-released documentary film of the same name that Pack produced and directed were the result of more than 30 hours of interviews.

Of course a guy who wrote a book and movie -- with Mark Paoletta, who helped push Thomas' Supreme Court nomination -- is going to be self-serving and say only nice things about Thomas. He has a book and movie to sell, after all.

Needless to say, Dorstewitz is completely silent about the right-wing activism of Thomas' wife, Ginni -- particiularly her work in trying to overturn the 2020 presidential eleciton -- that would seem to demand that Thomas recuse from certain cases before the Supreme Court though he has not.

WND Has An Anti-Trans Meltdown
Topic: WorldNetDaily

WorldNetDaily had a bit of an anti-transgender freakout a while back. Art Moore hyped a dubious study in a June 13 article:

An analysis of studies finds that contrary to the claims of the Biden administration and establishment media, lowering legal barriers to make it easier for minors to undergo cross-sex medical interventions without parental consent does not reduce suicide rates.

In fact, there are higher rates of suicide among young people in states that allow the "sex-reassignment" measures, contends Jay P. Greene, a senior research fellow in the Heritage Foundation's Center for Education Policy.

He argues that studies finding that "gender-affirming" interventions prevent suicide fail to show a causal relationship and have been poorly executed, employing methods that prevent researchers from being able to draw credible causal conclusions about a relationship between medical interventions and suicide.

"Only a small number of studies make comparisons to a control group –and those studies employ correlational research designs that do not allow causal conclusions, nor have those correlational studies been conducted properly," he argues.

As we pointed out when CNSNews.com promoted the study, critics have demonstrated that Greene's methodology leaves something to be desired; further by his own logic of discounting data from groups that are "activist" in favor of transgenders, Greene's own data should be discounted because the Heritage Fondation is an anti-LGBTQ organization. Moore left his story highly bias by not permitting any criticism of Greene's study at all or even bothering to seek reaction to it from LGBTQ non-haters.

In a June 15 article, Moore whined that the Biden administration cracked down on dubious anti-LGBTQ conversion therapy:

President Biden signed an executive order Wednesday instructing his administration to explore ways it can crack down on therapy assisting people who have unwanted same-sex attractions.

The Executive Order Advancing Equality for LGBTQI+ Individuals, the White House said, addresses the "discredited and dangerous practice" of "conversion therapy."

It also directs the Department of Health and Human Services "to help prevent LGBT youth suicide by expanding access to mental health resources."

And the order calls on HHS to "study and address the disproportionate rates of child removals that LGBTQI+ parents face, especially women of color."

Moore gathered reaction to the executive order only from anti-LGBTQ activists like Ryan Anderson, who laughably called the order "Orwellian."

Bob Unruh used a June 29 "news" article to complain about the idea that transgender people might have rights:

Democrats in Congress have announced their plans to push the divisions in American society even deeper, with a transgender "Bill of Rights" that creates provisions in the law for people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Hill reports Democrats want to build into federal statutes the Supreme Court's 2020 decision in Bostock that protects gay or transgender workers from on-the-job discrimination. Their bill would further divide those who are tolerant of another's lifestyle but don't wish to support it, and those who insisted that everyone must be "affirming."

The Bostock decision, reviled by conservatives, ordered that a funeral home management had to accommodate a man dressing as a woman while meeting with potential clients and providing company services to grieving families.

Unruh went on to rant that the Bostok decision "grant[ed] employment protections to individuals based on their sexual proclivity." He's clearly (if not deliberately) unaware that being transgender is not a "lifestyle" or "sexual proclivity."

Unruh had another anti-transgender meltdown in a July 18 article:

The campaign to normalize – even institutionalize – the transgender movement in American society has moved into uncharted territory now, with a fight developing over the study of human ancestors, those historic bones uncovered and subjected to research for race, health, diet, movement and much, much more.

The dispute also could affect the situations in which remains have been found, and research is needed to identify a potential murder victim.

The fight is because those scientists are unable to determine how that dead person identified himself, or herself, or themself, as male, female or another alternative lifestyle choice, while alive tens, hundreds or even thousands of years ago.

It is constitutional expert and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley who has pointed out the looming war over the issue.

Unruh didn't explain what authority a "constitutional expert" could possibly have to speak on issues of anthropology.

This all led up to the July issue of WND's sparsely read Whistleblower magazine, with the theme "What's REALLY behind today's youth transgender craze?" Unsurprisingly, WND imagines conspiracies and the usual suspects:

One obvious factor, of course, is that in today’s increasingly godless, immoral and “postmodern” culture, there are simply lots of broken and deeply disturbed adults who are, right now, “teaching” America’s children. This is not speculation; they publicly advertise this reality on social media sites like Tumblr and TikTok, as the Twitter account “Libs of TikTok” amply documents.

Other factors include powerful LGBT nonprofits like the Human Rights Campaign, which raises tens of millions of dollars off promoting and championing the issue. Mega-corporations like Disney have profit motives intertwined with their radical support for the left’s entire “woke” agenda, however deranged. Liberal suburban parents who fear being labeled bigots, homophobes and transphobes more than death itself are easy recruitment prey for attending – with their children in tow – all manner of “pride parades,” “drag-queen story hours,” “kid-friendly” drag shows in gay bars, and other events featuring transgender activists.

Then there’s the leftist elite’s “1984”-ish obsession with compelling normal people to believe absurd things as a means of controlling their minds. As the history of totalitarianism demonstrates, it’s easier for would-be tyrants to rule a once-free people if, having been pressured to embrace absurdities (in “1984” it was “2+2=5”), they are degraded and intimidated into a more broken, conflicted, polarized and confused version of their former selves.

Furthermore – and critically – LGBT issues serve as the “sharp point of the spear” which the left uses to attack America’s foundational Judeo-Christian culture, which it loathes and fears. No other issue, not even abortion, serves so well as a direct attack on Christians and religious Jews as the LGBT agenda, which enthusiastically wars against the Bible’s clear moral standards.

No wonder the Biden administration, totally controlled by the radical left, is so deeply invested in transgender grooming and recruitment of the nation’s youth, with Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra fully supporting taxpayer-funded amputations of healthy body parts of these vulnerable children. Or as Becerra put it so ghoulishly, “We should help those have the life-affirming care that they need.”

But beyond all these factors, there are still deeper, more profound and truly mind-blowing core reasons for this sudden preoccupation, this rabid insistence on grooming America’s children – its most precious resource, the only hope for the nation’s future – to enter the ultra-dark world of transgenderism.

Why, after all, would children with absolutely typical youthful confusion and growing-up pains be deliberately channeled in such an utterly catastrophic direction?

Here’s a hint: Why do you suppose pedophiles are obsessed with sex with pre-pubescent children? There’s absolutely nothing sexually attractive about little children – quite the contrary. But the pleasure derived from sexually violating little children is not so much sexual, as it is the relief and satisfaction derived from corrupting and destroying their innocence. The experience of “putting out the light” of innocence in a child is cathartic, fulfilling and psychically and spiritually relieving to the abuser, who has already lost his or her own innocence.

Ah, yes, the old hateful slur of portraying all LGBTQ people as pedophiles. Managing editor David Kupelian kept up the in his essay for the issue:

Twitter recently banned the term “groomer” as being “anti-LGBT.” However, “groomer” is precisely the right term to describe those involved in today’s widespread phenomenon of “gender activists” indoctrinating, seducing and flat-out recruiting American children into “identifying” as transgender. 

He then rehashed hate from his book "The Marketing of Evil," in which he addressed "the high prevalence of homosexual molestation of young people." In fact, there's no evidence that LGBT people molest children any more than heterosexual people do. He concluded by ranting:

Bottom line: Those on the radical left are angry, obsessed – and arguably possessed – and have little regard for the God-given innocence of children. They prove that every day. Their abortion messaging has gone from “safe, legal and rare” a couple decades ago to openly reveling in being able to kill unborn children up to the very moment of birth, for any reason or no reason at all. They indoctrinate America’s youth with toxic doctrines like Marxist “critical race theory” and corrupt them with pornography and explicit “sex education” at absurdly immature ages.

Bottom line: Kupelian thinks everyone who's not a white, right-wing heterosexual Christian like himself is evil and probably a child molester. That hate-filled attitude is one big reason why WND is failing and must constantly beg for money to stay alive.

NEW ARTICLE: Whipping Up A False Narrative
Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center repeatedly claimed that network news outlets reported that Border Patrol agents were "whipping" migrants -- despite offering no evidence whatsoever that this was the case. Read more >>

MRC's Graham Grouses That Right-Wing Media Were Called Out For Trying To Discredit True Rape Story
Topic: Media Research Center

We've documented how the Media Research Center tried to pretend that it didn't try to push the right-wing narrative that the story of of a 10-year-old rape victim in Ohio who had to go to Indiana for an abortion was a hoax. That denial continued in Tim Graham's July 18 podcast, in which he whined that it was pointed out that Republicans "were trying to make hay of it" by pretending it wasn't true until they couldn't, then made the doctor who performed the abortion the bad guy. First, he whined that a Republican governor was questioned about not allowing rape execptions in her state

Excuse me? The Republicans were the ones to make hay out of it? This started with media jerks like Dana Bash on CNN throwing this in the face of Kristi Noem, the governor of South Dakota, pushing and pushing and pushing and shaming -- without a rape exception for abortion, you're making this fourth-grader carry a pregnancy to term. Now, Noem did a decent job trying to sort of fending this off by turning it around and saying, well, why don't we focus our outrage on the abortion -- or on the rapist, why aren't you focused on the rapist and not on the child, and she was like oh, yes, of course, you know. But this is the game: A pro-abortion journalist like Dana Bash is all about shaming and shaming and shaming, and they have no shame about killing the baby. There's no shame for that! At any point or for any reason, there's no extreme. And yet the Republcians are the ones making hay?

Graham switched his whining target to Fox News for not talking about abortion enough: "Fox News is squishy on abortion. Fox News has been eternally squishy on abortion." Finally, he got around to addressing how right-wingers desperately tried to discredit what was ultimately a true story, whining that "hack" Bill Carter called them out and that they aren;t interested in correcting the record:

Fact check false! Right-wing media never, ever wants to acknowlege they're wrong? Earth to Billy Carter: My work principle is, don't say "ever" or "never" unless you can back it up. To say the whole right-wing media do not ever want to acknowledge they're wrong ever -- Fox News corrects things, NewsBusters corrects things. I had one a few years ago where NPR and PBS had done a poll on the approval for Black Lives Matter, and the nubmers were 50 percent and 33 percent, and I got it wrong. I said 33 percent approve of Black Lives Matter, 50 percent disapprove. I had it exactly wrong, so we corrected it and I put on Twitter I corrected it, OK? So that happens. I'm not proud of that. Nobody want to have to correct something when you get something that obviously factually wrong, but everybody should.

NewsBusters may correct some "obviously factually wrong" but certainly not all of them. Nicholas Fondacaro's falsehoods remain uncorrected, for example, and the MRC still has never told its readers that the 2016 Fox News story it heavily hyped about Hillary Clinton's purportedly imminent indicted was retracted. What Graham didn't do, however, is acknowledge that right-wing media got it wrong in trying to discredit the story, nor did he point to any corrections made by those who pushed that false narrative.

Graham went to his old whataboutism warhorse: "Conservative media doesn't have a worse record on this than liberal media, OK? CNN's been pretty bad at corrections for decades." He then whined about being called out for advancing the hoax narrative, grudigngly offered a non-apology for advancing the narrative -- and, even worse, has to defend the hated Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler because his initial non-confirmation of the story fed the narrative:

One perpetual malcontent tweeted at me, 'Where's your correction and apology for falsely dismissing as a hoax the story of a 10-year-old girl was raped and had to get an abortion?" So clarify as I did on Twitter. I never said the story was a hoax, I never said the story was fake. I did say it seemed too good to check when President Biden pounced on this story. That caused Washington Post Glenn Kessler to do a fact-check. What he found was the Indianapolis Star reporter clammed up. The abortionist didn't want to talk. It looked suspect. So now it's confirmed, in part because of the pressure from Kessler and others. And so I'm sorry for the victim that this story is true.

[...]

Now, we know a Fox News host did say the word "fake," that it was made up, some used the word "hoax" -- and that, of course, is a favorite Brian Stelter word, he called the entire Fox News Channel a hoax, that was the title of his book. Now, if one of us said this story might be fake, that's not the same. That's speculating, which is pretty much what cable news does 24/7. So Glenn Kessler should not be dissed for attempting to verify a story. That's what journalists do.

Graham then went on his old tirade about how fact-checkers purportedly only fact-check conservatives. But he didn't note where that unnamed Fox News host corrected the record. Indeed, Graham spent much more time whining that his fellow right-wing media members were called out for pushing a false narrative (and that a "malcontent" on Twitter was criticizing him for his role) than demonstrating how they acted in any sort of responsible manner by correcting the record. That's a massive "media research" failure.