How Is The MRC Fearmongering About Soros Now? Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's dirty war against George Soros has continued apace since the last time we checked in, cranking out posts with a heavy emphasis on his alleged support for countering disinformation (which you'd think the MRC would support) and freakouts over "Soros-funded prosecutors":
We've already noted how the MRC was blaming Soros for pointing out that two straight quarters of negative GDP may not be a completely reliable indicator of a recession and bizarrely accusing Soros of someone forcing Wikipedia to change the definition of a recession (showing that the MRC doesn't understand how Wikipedia works). But it also reserved ire for media-related claims. A June 4 post by Jorge Bonilla (also in Spanish) freaked out that a non-conservative owners with a tangental tie to Soros are buying several Spanish-language radio stations in Florida and elsewhere:
After years of whining about "Spanish-language disinformation" and watching the Democrats continue to lose Hispanic electoral share to the GOP, the left has had enough.
In what is clearly a panic move, a Soros-led investment group has backed the acquisition of 18 Univision radio stations by a media organization led by former Obama and Clinton operatives.
The deal fundamentally recreates the footprint of the failed Univision America talk radio network, with affiliates in: Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, McAllen, Miami, San Antonio, and Fresno. As a deal sweetener, Univision threw in WADO-NY, the Spanish-language home of the New York Yankees, and most importantly WAQI 710 in Miami- the iconic anti-communist Radio Mambí.
The latter is important because Mambí has long been a thorn on the side of an entitled left that demands absolute control over what media Hispanics consume.
Doesn't Bonilla's freakout over this business deal suggest that he's the one who doing the "panic move" here? Meanwhile, one observer pointed out that Radio Mambí is not just the "anti-communist" Bonilla describes it as; it's "anti-Democrat, anti-Biden, pro-Trump and spreads beliefs that Democrats stole the 2020 election and are conspiring to steal the 2022 midterms and the 2024 presidential election," and some hosts "have gone so far as to praise the militant far-right Proud Boys and speak favorably about violence as a way to combat 'a looming Democratic Party dictatorship.'"
But because Bonilla had a narrative to advance, he ignored inconvenient facts and pushed his storyline: "In sum, the move appears to be primarily fueled by panic over Democrats’ continued loss of influence over the Hispanic vote ahead of the 2024 presidential election. This is a significant development inasmuch as it lays a marker down, but not one that is permanently transformative or even a game-changer, given the left's current existing near-monopoly on Spanish-language media."
Meanwhile, the MRC was similarly appalled that Soros was being allowed to express opinions on a website he helped pay for. Jeffrey Clark ranted in a July 5 post:
iberal billionaire George Soros claimed that the greatest threat to the U.S. is “far-right extremists” on the U.S. Supreme Court and not dictators like China’s Xi Jinping or Russia’s Vladimir Putin.
But there was one thing the chair of Open Society Foundations neglected to mention in his tweet. A radical leftist opinion site — one Soros pays for, called Project Syndicate (PS) – published Soros’s article. PS delivers thousands of extremist, far-left op-eds to a global audience and boasts a membership of “over 600 media outlets” in 156 countries. Soros and wealthy leftist philanthropist and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates funded PS with $1,242,105 and $5,280,186, respectively, from 2012 to 2019, according to Foundation Directory Online.
Of course, any content that's even slightly to the left of the right-wing rants published by the MRC are "radical" and "extremist" in Clark's eyes. Indeed, so opposed is Clark to the mere idea of Soros being allowed to express an opinion that he bizarrely complained that "Soros then ridiculously suggested that because he is partisan, he can comment on nonpartisan issues." Clark has never applied that logic to any of his MRC co-workers.
An Aug. 1 post by Clark ranted that Soros "is pushing back big time against critics of woke prosecutors that he helped elect across the country. He claimed in a recent commentary that the 'agenda' of his 'reform-minded prosecutors' is both 'popular' and 'effective.'” But he hid the fact that the op-ed appeared in the Wall Street Journal -- hardly a "radical leftist opinion site." Clark apparently didn't want to admit that a Rupert Murdoch-owned publication bets known for its right-wing commentary deviated from that agenda to publish something written by Sorosl.
CNS Jim Jordan & Mark Levin Stenography Watch Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com still loves quoting Ted Cruz (likely because editor Terry Jeffrey's daughter works for him), but it has (at least temporarily) dialed down its stenography of another Republican representative, Jim Jordan. Here are the articles it devoted to him during July, August and September:
That's just six articles in the third quarter, for a total so far this year of 26 -- and, of course, continued censorship by CNS on his alleged failure to do anything about a doctor who had been accused of sexual abuse by wrestlers on a college team where Jordan was a coach.
Meanwhile, a onetime favorite of CNS, right-wing radio host Mark Levin, didn't fare much better, suffering a similar drop-off in stenography in the third quarter despite a full complement of summer interns:
MRC Laughably Attacks Outlets That Won't Push Anti-Hunter Narrative As 'Liberal Rags' Topic: Media Research Center
Lots to unpack in the lead of a Sept. 7 Media Research Center post by Brian Bradley:
Two liberal rags pooh-poohed a letter sent Thursday by House Republicans to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg that seeks more information from Facebook about its communication with the federal government that led to censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
Headlines Thursday from both Bloomberg News and The Hill screeched that a letter from 35 House Republicans requesting records of communication between Zuckerberg and the FBI reflected a House GOP effort to “target” Facebook as part of a ploy to nab Hunter Biden.
It's a testament to just how far-right the MRC is that it thinks any media outlet not as right-wing as them is a "liberal rag."Indeed, Bradley labeling either of those outlet as "liberal rags" is utterly ridiculous. According to AllSides, the right-leaning checker that is apparently the only bias-checker the MRC trusts, The Hill is rated in the "center," though onecould make a case that it leans farther right given that its most prominent writer is right-wing "media critic" Joe Concha, whom the MRC loves so much he's a featured guest on their upcoming Mediterranean cruise. AllSides lists Bloomberg as "leans left," though given AllSides' bias, that means it's quite center. Further, given Republicans' (and the MRC's) obsession with Hunter Biden, it's entirely reasonable to believe that Repubicans targeting of Facebook is all about trying to "nab" Hunter.
Bradley's factually deficient tirade came in the wake of Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg stating on Joe Rogan's podcast that Facebook limited the spread of the New York Post story making claims about Hunter Biden's laptop because the FBI warned it to be aware of misinformation being spread online. Of course, the MRC had its own biased framing of this story, screeching that "Facebook censored the Hunter Biden laptop." This leaves out the important fact that, as we've noted, the New York Post refued to provide independent verification of the story in a way that would suggest it was anything other than an October surprise that had the hallmarks of Russian disinformation of the kind that was found to have happened in the 2016 presidential election.
Bradley eventally got to the nub of his attacks on Bloomberg and The Hill, complaining that they wouldn't push the right-wing narrative on this story:
Rather than focus on alleged corruption between Facebook and the government, Bloomberg focused on political ramifications of Republicans retaking the House next year. The rag warned the GOP would “focus heavily” on censorship, potentially by using its “subpoena power” and presenting a “risk” to tech companies “reviled by conservatives.”
The Hill wasn’t much better. That publication ignored the impact of Big Tech’s and Big Media’s censorship of the Hunter Biden scandals, which helped steal the 2020 election for Joe Biden. The Hill largely skirted the election issue, opting to portray the reduced distribution of the Hunter Biden story merely as being “argued” by House Republicans as preventing Americans from seeing the full picture of the Bidens’ alleged corruption.
Media Research Center revealed in November 2020 that Big Tech and Big Media’s censorship of the Biden family scandals helped steal the election for Joe Biden.
As we've documented, the only thing the the MRC "revealed" was that it used Trump's own pollster to further its own version of Trump's "Big Lie" about the election being stolen.
The fact that the MRC is still citing this ridiculously biased conspiracy theory -- and its silly dismissal of reputable publications who refuse to blindly push right-wing narratives as "liberal rags" -- shows just how unserious and untrustworthy the MRC has become in putting partisan attacks ahead of any sort of real "media research."
Farah's WND Publishes Article Attacking His Estranged Daughter Topic: WorldNetDaily
The last time we checked in on familial strife in the Farah household, WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah declared that he was not invited to the wedding of his daughter Alyssa. Things apparently haven't gotten any better, because Farah's WND republished an article attacking his daughter. A Sept. 5 article was a repost of a Fox News article bashing Alyssa after becoming an official co-host of "The View":
New "The View" co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin said Monday she hopes to represent former President Trump's voters in the ABC show's Republican seat, although she has become one of his staunchest critics and hopes he never returns to the White House.
"I'm a millennial and I worked in the Trump administration," she said on ABC's "Good Morning America" in a segment previewing the show's upcoming season. "I've also since criticized the former president, but I still want to be a voice for the 74 million Americans who voted for him, and kind of tell them, from my experience, here's why I won't support him again, but here's what a future Republican Party can and should look like. So that's really what I'm hoping to meet the audience with."
Griffin held a number of key positions in the Trump administration, including Vice President Mike Pence's press secretary, Pentagon press secretary and White House communications director. Griffin resigned in December 2020, expressing pride in her time in the administration in her departing letter. Since Trump left office, Griffin has spoken out strongly against his stolen 2020 election rhetoric and become one of many Republican critics of Trump with lofty media perches.
The article -- co-written by Gabriel Hays, formerly of the Media Research Center -- went on to complain that Farah Griffin and a fellow new arrival, fellow conservatrive Ana Navarro, "are hardly reflective of their fellow party members, which polls show remain broadly supportive of Trump." Hays and co-writer David Rutz went on to complain that "Since Trump left office, Griffin has spoken out strongly against his stolen 2020 election rhetoric and become one of many Republican critics of Trump with lofty media perches."
Interestingly, neither the Fox News article nor the WND excerpt of it mentioned that Farah Griffin is the Joseph Farah's daughter. It's a subtle underbusing that Joseph Farah did of his own daughter, but it's an unmistakable one all the same.
MRC's Jean-Pierre-Bashing, Doocy-Fluffing Watch Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's hatred for White House press secretary continues unabated. A Sept. 15 post by Tim Graham whined about fact-checkers again, parroting a Fox News report claiming that "nearly every major fact-checker has completely ignored White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre since she took over for Jen Psaki. Fox has energetically pointed out KJP preposterously claimed no one walks across the Southern border, which no 'fact checker' touched." Kevin Tober pushed the malicious incompetent-diversity-hire angle in a Sept. 20 post:
On Tuesday night's edition of Alex Wagner Tonight on MSNBC, host Alex Wagner brought on White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre for a wide-ranging interview on everything from the ongoing Biden border crisis to President Joe Biden's claim on 60 Minutes that the COVID-19 pandemic is over. Comments that sent his own public health advisors into a frenzied clean-up afterward. Yet Jean-Pierre's incoherence when answering questions no matter how simple isn't just displayed during press briefings when pressed by the White House press corps, she even struggles when given softballs by friendly press.
In light of the controversy of Governors Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and Greg Abbott (R-TX) sending migrants to liberal states, Wagner asked about a report that "DHS officials have presented the White House with some options including flying migrants to the country’s northern border with Canada to alleviate overcrowding on the U.S. Mexico border." Wagner then asked, "how that is meaningfully different than what DeSantis and Abbott are doing?"
Proving how she is nothing but a diversity hire, Jean-Pierre mumbled and fumbled her way through that very simple question without actually answering it in any comprehensible way:
Wagner never corrected her for her many false statements like claiming the border "is not open" and that Republicans are playing games on immigration. Neither of which is true.
Toher offered no proof to support either claim. Meanwhile, chief Karine-hater Curtis Houck was on the attack again in his writeup of the Sept. 20 briefing:
The inept White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre continued her penchant Tuesday for stumbling her way through press briefings with the latest topic being Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL) flying illegal immigrants to Martha’s Vineyard and Governors Greg Abbott (R-TX) and Doug Ducey (R-AZ) bussing them to liberal cities.
And, for once, NPR put your tax dollars to work in a positive manner as correspondent Franco Ordoñez grilled Jean-Pierre on the Biden administration’s refusal to work these governors to secure the border.
For the Sept. 23 briefiing, Houck cheered his mancrush Peter Doocy being nastier than usual to Jean-Pierre (which he baselessly insisted was "rare" of him):
Friday’s White House press briefing sent viewers into the weekend with a bang as Fox’s Peter Doocy showed a rare moment of anger as White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre blatantly and repeatedly refused to answer his question as to whether President Biden believes in any limit to abortion.
Doocy began as he always does with a basic, rather innocuous question. This time, it touched on her opening remarks lambasting the 15-week abortion ban proposed by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC): “Following up on your topper, does President Biden favor any limits on abortion?”
Jean-Pierre said “[w]e've been very, very clear” in “talking specifically about” Graham’s plan, but Doocy interjected to push her along: “And your position on his plan is clear. 15 weeks is unacceptable.”
She then continued: “I was speaking to — directly to what Republicans are trying to do. They are calling — they are calling — they are calling for a national ban, which takes us backwards.”
Continuing to stammer her way along, Doocy fact-checked her by noting Graham’s proposal is only for 15 weeks and not an outright ban.
Jean-Pierre continued to lie, claiming “it's a national ban, which will take us backwards and will put at risk the health of women” and would be the first step by “extreme Republican officials” in ending “privacy” and “contraception” and attacking “marriage” (as in gay and interracial marriages).
“I'm not going to get into specifics here. I’m just going to lay out what — what they have said that they’re going to do,” she hilariously added.
Doocy seized on that nonsense: “Why not get into specifics? The Republicans are saying we don't want abortion after 15 weeks. Why can't you say how many weeks the President thinks the limit is?”
Jean-Pierre again diverted by invoking House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and the House GOP’s Commitment to America, but Doocy wasn’t having it, saying he’s “not asking about Kevin McCarthy” and instead about “Joe Biden and his position on abortion.”
After being asked one last time “how many weeks,” Jean-Pierre filibustered with a meandering answer about Republicans “trying to take away the rights and freedoms of Americans.” Doocy tried to push back, but Jean-Pierre moved on to Bloomberg Government’s Courtney Rozen.
Doocy almost always complies when Jean-Pierre (or Jen Psaki) would move on, but not on this day as he exclaimed, “[y]ou did not answer my question”(click “expand”):
Only in Houck's rightpwing bizarro world could a biased reporter like Doocy be seen as asking almost exclusively "innocuous question."
CNS Rushes To Claim Queen As A Christian After Her Death Topic: CNSNews.com
Following the death of Queen Elizabeth the Media Research Center rushed to claim her as a Christian -- but was weirdly reluctant to put any CNS employee on the record doing that. An anonymously writtten Sept. 8 article declared:
Queen Elizabeth, who delivered a Christmas message to the British people every year, said in her last Christmas message this past December (eight months after her husband, Prince Philip, had died) that the teachings of Jesus Christ had been “the bedrock of my faith.”
“And for me and my family, even with one familiar laugh missing this year, there will be joy in Christmas, as we have the chance to reminisce, and see anew the wonder of the festive season through the eyes of our young children, of whom we were delighted to welcome four more this year,” Queen Elizabeth said in that address.
Another anonymously written article that day did much the same thing:
Queen Elizabeth delivered a Christmas address in 2016 in which she talked about some of the things she had learned from the examples of St. Teresa of Calcutta and Jesus Christ.
“I often draw strength,” said the Queen, “from meeting ordinary people doing extraordinary things: volunteers, carers, community organisers and good neighbours; unsung heroes whose quiet dedication makes them special.
A Sept. 9 article -- surprisingly carrying the byline of Patrick Goodenough -- took a shot at newly declared King Charles for not being Christian-y enough by dredging up what he even admitted was a statement from "several decades ago":
When Britain’s new monarch is formally enthroned, among the titles he will assume, in line with tradition dating back to the 16th century, will be that of “Defender of The Faith” – “The Faith” referring to the doctrine of the Church of England (Anglican Church).
Prince Charles automatically became King Charles III at the moment Queen Elizabeth died, but his official accession and formal coronation await.
Several decades ago, the then-Prince of Wales generated debate over the question of adopting a more inclusive title – “Defender of Faith” – reflecting a more ecumenical view of the world, and an interest in other denominations and religions.
Many Christians and traditionalists were appalled at the idea of a change, which would have required parliament to amend longstanding legislation enacted in 1953.
But in a 2015 interview, the heir to the throne indicated he would not seek that amendment, and suggested his views on the matter had been misinterpreted.
Goodenough followed that with another fluffy article stating how "As many around the world mark the death of Queen Elizabeth, Sunday’s 21st anniversary of 9/11 provided a reminder of her response to the terrorist attack on America, including a break in centuries-old tradition and words of condolence that touched many on both sides of the Atlantic" by a post-9/11 changing of the guard ceremony at Buckingham Palace "featured a playing of The Star-Spangled Banner."
A Sept. 12 article by Goodenough expressed relief that Charles stuck to the original "defender of the faith" pledge while grousing that he still endorsed interfaith dialogue:
Britain’s King Charles III was formally proclaimed king and “Defender of The Faith” in a weekend ceremony, and in his first speech affirmed his “particular relationship and responsibility towards the Church of England,” even as he pledged to serve the citizens of Britain and its realms, “whatever may be your background or beliefs.”
A longstanding advocate of interfaith dialogue, Charles as heir to the throne sparked debate when he suggested that “Defender of Faith” would be a more inclusive and all-embracing title, although in an interview seven years ago he sought to lay the controversy to rest. “The Faith” refers to the Church of England, the country’s state or established church.
Needless to say, CNS still found a way to inject its right-wing anti-biden bias into the queen's death. A Sept. 19 article by Craig Bannister chortled that "President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill had to wait to take their seats at Queen Elizabeth’s funeral Monday – because they didn’t arrive on time."
WND Complains Its Slack Account Was Suspended Topic: WorldNetDaily
Around the same time it created its own problems with Google by having a malware-infested website to which that Google rightly refused to direct its search traffic, WorldNetDaily was having issues with another vendor who wanted nothing to do with it. An anonymously written Sept. 2 article detailed:
One day after WND got word that the blocking of its website by Google had been resolved, employees of the news site woke up to find they no longer could communicate through the company's Slack instant-messaging account.
There's been no response from Slack. The only communication is a web page stating, "This workspace has been suspended."
In June, a major non-profit that opposes illegal immigration had its Slack account canceled.
The group Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, was banned, according to a Slack spokesman, because it violated the tech company's policy forbidding incitement of hatred or violence and that the nonprofit is "affiliated with a known hate group."
"When we learn of an organization using Slack for illegal, harmful or other prohibited purposes, we conduct an investigation and take appropriate action in accordance with our policy," the spokesman told the Washington Free Beacon in June.
WND failed to mention that Slack, as a private business operating in a free-market economy, has every right to decline to do business with anyone it chooses for any reason -- particularly ifit has declared that it won't do business with companies involved in "illegal, harmful or other prohibited purposes." Given WND'sundeniable reputation for publishing misinformation and conspiracy theories and spreading hate, that seems reason enough for Slack to cease doing business with WND.
Indeed, the misinformation continued in this very article: "FAIR is listed by the notoriously biased, left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group, as is WND." WND loves to make this claim about itself -- but it's not true.
WND hasn't referenced the Slack suspension again after this article, so we assume it's still in force and that WND has found an alternate way of communicating with its emloyees.
NEW ARTICLE: Flip-Flopping To Fix A Failed Narrative Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center fed right-wing claims that a story of a raped 10-year-old who had to go to another state for an abortion wasn't true -- but when the story was proven true after all, it simply changed the narrative and refused to apologize. Read more >>
MRC Unsurprisingly Hated Biden's Speech Topic: Media Research Center
Like WorldNetDaily and its "news" division CNSNews.com, the Media Research Center did not like President Biden's speech calling out their fellow right-wingers as the threats to democracy they are. In a pre-speech post, Nicholas Fondacaro set up the right-wing narrative of Biden (and not thte highly divisive Donald Trump) as the real divider, and whine about CNN as well:
In another example of his open defiance of new CNN boss Chris Licht’s order to be less egregious in their partisanship, Don Lemon spent part of his eponymous show on Wednesday arguing with Republican Scott Jennings and absurdly claiming that President Biden was “unifying” the country by calling Republicans fascists. He even suggested it was “the truth about what is happening in the country” and asked, “where’s the lie?”
Jennings noted that Biden had abandoned his message of unity from his 2020 campaign and inaugural address. “Yes. But a lot has happened between now and his inaugural address,” Lemon scoffed at the objection.
After the speech, the pro-Republican Bill D'Agostino started the whinefest by complaining that people outside his right-wing bubble liked it:
President Biden’s Thursday night speech was a big hit on the pro-Democrat TV networks. CNN, MSNBC, and NBC News Now all carried the event and heaped effusive praise on their favorite president’s rhetoric.
CNN and MSNBC were rife with the usual Democrat cheerleading that viewers have come to expect from left-wing cable. Panelists praised the speech as “fascinating,” “optimistic,” and “very, very patriotic.”
Curtis Houck insisted it was "GROSS" (as he stated in all-caps in his headline) for Biden to call right-wing extremists what they are:
The “big three” networks of ABC, CBS, and NBC eagerly reported Friday morning how President Biden spent Thursday evening declaring former President Trump and his 74-million-plus voters not only dangerous but threats to national security (despite Biden’s attempts to walk it back).
Instead of offering pushback or noting how the speech was an official White House event in Philadelphia with Marines flanking him, the morning news shows trumpeted his “blistering,” “charged,” and “fiery...speech” leveling of the GOP.
Don Lemon responded to President Biden’s Thursday partisan screed by accusing GOP critics of playing word games, because in his mind there is a big difference between allegations that Biden called Republicans fascists and the fact that he called MAGA a semi-fascist ideology. Lemon further alleged that anybody who doesn’t appreciate this difference is suffering from hearing loss.
Arguing with Republican strategist Alice Stewart, Lemon claimed, “So, Alice, we have been -- since he made that speech, we have been going, you know, back and forth about exactly what was happening, who is he calling. You know, the -- I think it was the semi-fascism. He made a clear distinction tonight.”
Stewart is correct, for all Lemon’s talk about MAGA Republicans and fascism versus semi-fascism, Biden also vilified pro-lifers and fear-mongered about contraception. That sounds like he was talking about more than 20 percent of the population.
Scott Whitlock huffed: "Doing the dirty work of Joe Biden, MSNBC vilified half the country on three separate shows, comparing the Democrat to Abraham Lincoln’s fight to save the union or Franklin Roosevelt’s rhetorical fight in 1940 against fascism. "
P.J. Gladnick tried to establish an alternate narrative, claiming that "As a reflection of just how poorly Joe Biden's dark speech in Philadelphia on Thursday about what he labeled as MAGA extremism was received, even a number of liberals criticized it." But he named only one person, a Washington Post columnist whom he did not prove was a "liberal." Tim Graham's podcast predictably stuck to the narrative:
President Biden gave a nasty primetime speech on Thursday night on how 'MAGA Republicans' are a threat to American democracy, and the media celebrated it as "reclaiming patriotism." He explicitly called out the entire Republican Party as threatening the future of democracy in America.
CNN’s S.E. Cupp traveled over to CNN International’s Amanpour and Company on Friday, which is broadcast in the United States on PBS, to discuss President Biden’s “semi-fascist” remarks. The allegedly conservative Cupp proclaimed the label to be “correctly” applied and it was “courageous” of Biden to do so.
Guest host Sara Sidner played a clip of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy condemning Biden for the remarks, which she saw as hypocritical, “Now, we certainly didn't hear McCarty saying anything like that for some of the comments that Donald Trump has made.”
Under that logic no Democratic can criticize Republicans without also denouncing Biden, but double run rampant at CNN and PBS. Stil, Sidner wondered, “is he correct that he -- that when Biden used this language, that he, basically, accused all Republicans with a similar brush, or do you think that he actually hit the right tone?”
Cupp responded by declaring that he did, “I think he correctly identified a strain within MAGA—MAGA— world. I mean, it -- there are very few words to describe what Republicans are doing.”
There is nothing less courageous than a Democrat calling a Republican a fascist given they know the media will defend them.
Not even a conservative like Christy smearing Democrats because his paycheck depends on it?
NewsBusters Executive Editor Tim Graham discussed President Biden's primetime speech decrying 'MAGA Republicans' endangering democracy on Friday's Fox News at Night. Fox host Kevin Corke noted The Washington Post editorial board criticized the speech as more partisan than patriotic.
Graham slammed Biden for suggesting the entire Republican Party was a threat to democracy: "Good for The Washington Post editorial board for saying it was a nasty partisan speech. It doesn't actually accomplish what he thinks it was supposed to accomplish."
Mark Finkelstein complained about MSNBC guest host Tiffany Cross and guest Roland Martin endorsing Biden's speech, adding: "And note that Martin wasn't singling out ultra-MAGA Republicans as "evil." In inviting Martin to comment, Cross explicitly said that Trump's followers are 'mainstream, establishment Republicans [who] are echoing these calls for violence. All but threatening it.'"
CNN’s John Avlon approached Tuesday’s so-called reality check on New Day claiming to be a man of data as he defended President Biden’s recent speech denouncing “MAGA Republicans.” Yet, as Avlon lamented the “gnashing of teeth” from Republicans in response, Avlon again claimed Republicans are more extreme than Democrats.
After citing another poll, this one showing that only 33 percent of Americans want Donald Trump to run again, Avlon shifted to Biden’s speech, “But somehow despite all of this, the outrage du jourwas directed at President Biden’s speech on defending democracy in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia. Now, there was gnashing of teeth around the bizarre lighting and the presence of marines in the background, but the main GOP objection was that Biden was demonizing, quote, ‘half of America.’ Now, here’s what the president actually said.”
The clip showed Biden claiming that “not even a majority of Republicans are MAGA Republicans,” but Avlon naturally omitted the part of Biden’s speech were he also went after generic GOP policy, such as being pro-life. He also declined to call out his colleagues who have defended Biden by also seeking to expand the definition of extremist Republican to cover basic conservative policy.
It's worth noting that none of these MRC writers attempted a factual rebuttal of anything Biden had to sauy in his speech. And just because Christy doesn't think "basic conservative policy" is extreme doesn't mean it isn't.
UPDATE: Jeffrey Lord whined about the speech as well in his Sept. 3 column:
Without the slightest sense of self-awareness, President Biden’s highly political speech in Philadelphia was delivered in front of two US Marines, sending the decidedly ironic message that the U.S. military was quietly behind Biden.
Recall when then-President Trump marched out of the White House to stand in front of the partially burned-in-a-riot St. John’s Episcopal Church across Lafayette Park from the White House — and was accompanied by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley? The media blew a gasket.
Lord went on to accuse supporters of the speech of engaging in "projection" -- while he's involved in his own projection by pretending that Trump never did anything "divisive."
WND Loses It Over Biden Speech Topic: WorldNetDaily
President Biden's Sept. 1 speech calling out right-wing extremists who threaten democracy didn't go over well at WorldNetDaily, which hurled all the invective it could find or invent to attack it. Bob Unruh was up first to parrot the response of right-wing evangelist Franklin Graham, who called the speech an attack on "freedom-loving Americans," followed by attacks from more of Unruh's fellow right-wingers. Unruh followed that by quoting the response of Donald Trump, who is the lead instigator in threatening democracy, and insert his own non-journalistic bias:
President Donald Trump, known for his blunt and often insulting social media comments while in office, was on familiar ground responding to Joe Biden's Philadelphia speech, in which the Democrat blamed patriotic Republicans for trying to kill democracy.
Trump suggested Biden is "insane, or suffering from late stage dementia."
Biden's speech, highly partisan while he stood in front of a blood-red backdrop and was flanked by U.S. Marines, essentially tried to make the entire 2022 midterm elections about President Trump.
That would divert the public's attention from Biden's own southern border crisis, rampant inflation that has hit America's low- and middle-income families extremely hard, food prices up by double digits, gasoline in the $6 range although it has edged back a bit in recent weeks, massive spending on "green" projects through the misnamed "Inflation Reduction Act" and more.
Then came the hyperbolic reactions from WND's columnists. Here's a sampling:
That speech given by Biden was intended to incite civil war in America. Biden and his communist comrades want violence and a badly divided nation. They're daring us to start a civil war.
You know – exactly like all the BLM and antifa events of 2020.
They want us to do exactly what they already did. Riots, looting, torching, robbing, murder, attacks on police, billions in damage, thousands of businesses destroyed – but with the media's protection, it was all forgotten.
They want conservative patriots to do the same – except this time, their business partners in the media will make us into "America's Most Wanted." They'll call us Nazis, fascists, extremists, traitors, domestic terrorists and insurrectionists. Oh, wait: Biden already called us all of that in his speech – before we've ever done a thing. Can you imagine what they'd say if we actually committed violence?
After hearing the president criticize the people who do not agree with him politically, I was left with a feeling of disgust. It seems to me that the man who is in the office of president of my country, declared the winner of the prior election, and considered the leader of the free world, would have more decency than to accuse his political opponent and his supporters of undermining democracy.
It was a cheap shot, and there was much more. He said that free elections are in danger, that our very democracy is at stake, and he warned of political violence, saying that those opponents are fanning those political flames.
All this – and the event was paid for by taxpayers. Great! Americans – Democrats and Republicans – were paying for their president to slam and insult them.
This guy is totally sick, depraved, a hater like no other elected American president in our lifetime, perhaps besides Woodrow Wilson.
We can talk about the influence of Biden's "handlers" – Barack Obama, Susan Rice, Marc Elias, the law firm of Perkins Coie, Ronald Klain. This sounded more like straight on George Soros with a tinge of Adolf Hitler.
From the standpoint of optics, it was a cross between what you would see from the Antichrist and Molech – only darker and more threatening.
And this was a speech about "the soul of the nation." Uh-uh. Rather, this was a reflection of Biden's soul.
In front of a creepy dark red backdrop, with men in military uniforms standing several feet behind him that has since been compared to a scene from George Orwell's dystopian "1984," Biden accused "the extreme MAGA ideology" of engaging in an "ongoing attack on democracy."
[L]et me discuss his Philadelphia debacle. It couldn't have been more crude and disgusting if Hillary Clinton, Stacy Abrams and the Obama woman dressed in two-piece string bikinis and lip-syncing the Dixie Chicks had replaced the Marine Corps Band.
However, I did agree with Biden 100% when he opined: "Too much of what's happening in our country today is not normal."
It's not normal in America to force men and women to have deadly toxins injected into them to maintain their employment or careers. That's blackmail and extortion promoted and codified by the federal government.
I've been around and involved in a lot of elections; I've never witnessed an election in America where a sitting president or presidential candidate who was as close to a guaranteed winner as could be, had millions of votes taken away in the literal middle of the night. This was third-world banana republic fraud.
Recently, Biden came out of hibernation, and his handlers put him on stage in an ominous, almost Nazi-like setting with a blood-red backdrop, flanked by military guards (never done before in America) as his staff prepped him to project a "tough guy"-Clint Eastwood image, declaring with clenched fists that he was "defending our democracy in the battle for the soul of our nation!"
In this nationally televised address coinciding with the previous day's speech (when he called out traditional conservatives as "semi-fascists"), G.I. Joe issued a red alert regarding the barbarians at the gate as he harangued against patriotic supporters of former President Trump and labeled them as scoundrels who are "extremists … angry … promoting violence … anti-Constitution … taking away contraceptives … stealing our freedoms … undermining our democracy."
Biden believes he is historically a "messianic" figure like Lincoln during the Civil War and FDR in World War II. I personally pray for him daily but believe he is cognitively deficient, living in a state of denial and devoid of a moral compass to protect human life in the womb, on the border or in war-torn Afghanistan where multitudes were callously left behind as the Taliban reconstitutes, enslaves masses and puts women back into slavery. Where is the outcry from the women of the world?
Like Jimmy Carter, Joe Biden is an accidental president. Carter was given the prize because of Nixon's resignation, Watergate and a weak Jerry Ford. Biden got the job because of COVID, collusion lies (launched by Hillary) and a biased media relentlessly trashing Trump while ignoring the scandal of Biden and his son along with Hillary Clinton's destruction of her 30,000 emails with no FBI investigation of her home.
To anyone not living in Joe Biden's Bizarro World it is clear that the Americans who do care about limited constitutional government and the rule of the law are the nation's conservative, those and a few stray friends.
How did such a twisted and demonic speech come out of the mouth of an American president? I speculate here, but I suspect that Biden's unholy ghost may have been Satan himself.
President Joe Biden's disastrous speech at Independence Hall in Philadelphia last Thursday made headlines, not only for the backdrop of blood-red lighting (which made the building's decorative molding behind Biden look eerily reminiscent of the stiff-winged eagle used by the Social Democratic Party of Nazi Germany), but even more for the deceitful and inflammatory accusations Biden leveled at half the country.
But this was no mere speech-writing misfire; the panic-pimping is deliberate.
It is Biden and the far-left Democrats who pose the real threat to the American system and our way of life. It is not enough to criticize Biden for his false and vicious attacks on Americans. He and his political cronies must be punished by removing them from positions of power for good.
Could OBiden's Nazi-themed speech of Sept. 1 have been subtle psychological preparation of the American people for imminent war with Russia and a not-so subtle taunt and mockery of Vladimir Putin's pledge to de-Nazify Ukraine (and the West)?
MRC Whines That Yelp Accurately Describes What 'Crisis Pregnancy Centers' Do Topic: Media Research Center
How much of an anti-abortionextremist is the Media Research Center? It gets mad when you accurately describe what anti-abortion "crisis pregnancy centers" do. Matt Philbin whined in an Aug. 23 post:
For the abortion-worshipping left, every live baby is a missed opportunity. For every unterminated pregnancy there’s a woman who can no longer have a big powerful career, carefree autonomy and meaningless casual sex. It’s a feminist nightmare.
So it helps to have tech companies like Yelp on their side. And make no mistake: Yelp has definitely chosen a side. It was an early entrant to the Moloch List, corporations who made a public show of offering to pick up abortion (and “gender affirming”) travel costs for employees who live in less bloodthirsty states.
Now, as reported by Axios, Yelp is putting warnings on listings for crisis pregnancy centers, lest babies slip through the abortion net.
Starting today, Yelp will add a consumer notice to both faith-based and non-faith-based crisis pregnancy centers noting that they "provide limited medical services and may not have licensed medical professionals onsite.”
Sure enough, if you look up such establishments on Yelp, the tag of shame is there.
As Axios explains, “Crisis pregnancy centers do not offer abortion services but promote themselves to people seeking abortions and then typically counsel the patients to go through with their pregnancies.” This, to the delicately attuned moral sensibilities of abortion enthusiasts, is unconscionable.
"Tag of shame"? We thought the MRC was proud of how CPCs deceived women and coerced them into not having an abortion (though it has lied in the past by denying that they do any such thing, despite copious evidence to the contrary). If Philbin is happy with what CPCs do, he should have no problem whatsoever with those services being accurately labeled -- after all, he made no effort to dispute the accuracy of that description.
(Oh, and the "Moloch List" is what the MRC maliciously calls its list of companies that will provide resources for employees who choose to have an abortion.)
But because Ohilbin lives in a hateful alternate reality, telling the truth is a threat to him:
Axios helpfully stressed that “Just noting that crisis pregnancy centers provide limited medical services doesn't address all the criticisms around such facilities.”
No, because most of the criticisms are window dressing on the pro-abortion gang’s hatred of women in crisis choosing to bring their babies to term. You have to wonder if the libertine left deep down realizes that those women who don’t kill their babies for convenience stand as a silent rebuke to the rest.
Philbin clearly doesn't believe women should have free will when it comes to the decision to carry a child to term, so he loves that CPCs deceive and coerce women -- and he would rather the world not know that inconvenient fact. So much for the notion that anyone at the MRC cares about telling thet truth.
CNS Targets Republicans Who Support Gay Marriage Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com -- in particular, homophobicmanagingeditor Michael W. Chapman -- does not like the idea of gay marriage, and it likes even less that its fellow right-wing ideologues are refusing to hate gay marriage as much as it does. (Reduced right-wing anti-LGBT hate is something it has previously complained about). So when gay marriage became an issue again this summer when right-wing Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion overturning Roe v. Wade that the Obergefell ruling that legalized gay marriage should be overturned as well, CNS was shocked to find that Republicans were not rushing to embrace that view. An anonymously written July 20 article, under the headline "47 Republicans Vote to Enshrine Homosexual Marriage in Federal Law," felt the need to name the names of the Republicans who deviated from right-wing ideology:
Forty-seven Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives joined 220 Democrats on Tuesday in voting to enshrine homosexual marriage into federal law.
The “Respect for Marriage Act” was passed 267-157 by the House with 7 members not voting.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, is designed to be a backstop if the Supreme Court someday issues a decision overturning Obergefell vs. Hodges, the 2015 opinion in which the court declared that the 14th Amendment had created a right for two people of the same sex to marry each other.
The 47 Republicans who voted to enshrine same-sex marriage in federal law included Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois; Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming; Rep. Lee Zeldin of New York; Rep. Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota; Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska; Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida; Rep. Ken Calvert of California; Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York; and Rep. Michael Waltz of Florida.
Yes, the anonymous writer insisted on using "homosexual marriage," even though it's a term that no normal human uses in real life.
Two days later, an article by summer intern Janey Olohan tried to corner Republican Sen. John Cornyn with a gotcha question noting the House passage of the bill: "Do you believe that a baby has a right to a mother? Or are two fathers just as good as a mother and a father?” Cornyn apparently disappointed CNS by answering that “It’s already the law of the land. I think it’s a contrived issue because the Supreme Court decided the issue, so I don’t see any reason for the Congress to act," which may explain why no other member of Congress was asked the same question.
When more Republicans came out in favor of gay marriage, Chapman was so outraged that he wrote two articles about it that basically said the same thing. In a Sept. 12 article, Chapman groused:
More than 400 former and current GOP officials have signed a letter backing the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation that would repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act and legally recognize gay marriage as valid under state law. The Supreme Court already ruled (in 2015) that same-sex marriage is legal and this bill would essentially codify that ruling into federal law.
The Democrat-dominant House passed the Respect for Marriage Act on July 19. The legislation is now in the Senate, which is split 50-50 Democrat-Republican. Democrats need at least 10 Republicans to sign onto the bill to attain the 60 votes needed to surpass a filibuster.
GOP Sens. Susan Collins (Me.) and Rob Portman (Ohio) are co-sponsors of the bill. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) supports the legislation, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has indicated she backs gay marriage.
The new letter signed by GOP officials in support of the Respect for Marriage Act was produced by Centerline Action and Conservatives Against Discrimination.
For reasons that are unclear, Chapman felt the need to write this article again two days later. This time, though, he made sure to put "gay marriage" in scare quotes and added more names:
More than 400 prominent Republicans have signed on to a letter in support of "gay marriage" and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, which would protect such couplings in federal law and repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
News of the letter surfaced on Monday, Sept. 12, and the list of names was released today by Centerline Action, a new organization that describes itself as being "focused on forging consensus to advance centrist policy solutions capable of defending core constitutional freedoms and liberties, preserving a free market economy, and limiting the role of government in Americans’ everyday lives."
Some of the 400-plus names of prominent Republicans who support "gay marriage" include,
Bob Packwood, former U.S. senator for Oregon
John Danforth, former U.S. senator for Missouri
Christopher Cox, former U.S. representative for California and chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Barbara Bush, daughter of former President George w. Bush
Mary Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney
Barbara Comstock, former U.S. representative for Virginia
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office
Mary Matalin, former assistant to President George W. Bush
Bruce Mehlman, former assistant secretary of Commerce for Technology Policy under President George W. Bush
Margaret Tutwiler, spokesperson for the U.S. State Department under President George W. Bush
Olympia Snowe, former U.S. senator for Maine
Christopher Shays, former U.S. representative for Connecticut
Mehmet Oz, current GOP nominee for U.S. senate for Pennsylvania
Tom Ridge, former assistant to the president for Homeland Security
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, former U.S. representative for Florida
Rick Lazio, former U.S. representative for New York
Tony Fabrizio, Republican pollster
S.E. Cupp, columnist and political commentator
Other signers of the letter are listed below.
Chapman seems to be putting his hatred of LGBT people ahead of fair and efficient journalism.
MRC Still PR Agent For Trump's Social Media Site -- And Censoring Its Growing Problems Topic: Media Research Center
Truth Social, the social media operation to which Donald Trump has lent his alleged prestige and encouraged his cult following to join, has been making news lately -- but for the wrong reasons:
It has reportedly been banning users who posted about the House hearings on the Capitol riot -- so much for it being the "free speech" platform conservatives say they want to to counter the likes of Twitter.
A man who tried to attack an FBI field office and then led police on a chase and was subsequently killed in a shootout was a prolific user of Truth Social, where he avdiy posted about his desire to kill FBI agents with no apparent intervention from content moderators.
Truth Social is falling behind on its bills and its stock price is plunging -- in no small part because it's so inextricably tied to a mentally unstable former president -- the board of directors can't get enough votes to secure an extension to merge the company into a shell company, and the shell company has changed its mailing address to a box at a UPS Store.
But the Media Research Center doesn't want to talk about that. It's a Trump shill, which means it's also been an even biggershill for Truth Social. It will only act as a PR agent, not be an honest reporter of facts. Autumn Johnson was in full press-release mode in an Aug. 23 post touting a new partnership:
On Tuesday, the Donald Trump-backed site Truth Social made a big splash when they announced that they will Rumble’s first publisher.
The video streaming platform released a statement detailing the partnership as the first of its kind.
"We are excited to have Truth Social as our very first publisher on the Rumble Ad platform," said Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski. "A significant part of the internet is now served through the Rumble ecosystem, which gives advertisers a new place to target customers aligned with our mission to fight back against cancel culture. We look forward to proving the incredible size and performance of this market."
Trump Media and Technology Group CEO Devin Nunes said with the partnership, both companies are "poised" to beat out major Big Tech platforms as a leading venue to interact with millions of people.
No bad news here, just a barely disguised press release.
Since the MRC loves it when its fellow right-wingers can play victim, Gabriela Pariseau afforded Truth Social that opportunity in an Aug. 30 post:
Google is barring Truth Social from the Google Play Store, meaning a reported 44 percent of Americans can’t access the pro-free speech application.
“Google is canceling conservatives ahead of an election. They’re not even hiding their efforts to sway elections anymore,” Media Research Center President Brent Bozell.
Axios reported that Google has not yet approved Truth Social’s Android app for distribution on the Google Play Store. CEO of Truth Social Devin Nunes said “when” former President Donald Trump’s social media app will be available on Android is “up to the Google Play Store.”
When reached for comment, a Google spokesperson told MRC Free Speech America:
On August 19 we notified Truth Social of several violations of standard policies in their current app submission and reiterated that having effective systems for moderating user-generated content is a condition of our terms of service for any app to go live on Google Play. Last week Truth Social wrote back acknowledging our feedback and saying that they are working on addressing these issues.
You will not be surprised to learn that Pariseau did not mention the incident with the wannabe FBI murder that perfectly illustrates Truth Social's issues with content moderation. She also provided no evidence to back up her boss' claim that the rejection of the app is all about "canceling conservatives" -- which means that this post is a complete partisan fraud. Indeed, Pariseau spent the rest of the post attacking Google for purportedly "censoring information that goes against the left’s narrative on a wide array of topics" -- an allegation for which she also doesn't provide evidence.
The MRC will not tell you the truth about Truth Social -- it's too invested in the right-wing narratives it feels it must perpetuate.
Newsmax Still Airing Trump Rallies, Claiming It Has Better Ratings Than Fox News Topic: Newsmax
On top of touting Donald Trump's election picks and defending him from the Mar-a-Lago raid, Newsmax is still obsessively covering his weekend rallies -- and gloating that it gets better ratings than Fox News when it does so. For Trump's rally in Pennsylvania over Labor Day weekend, Newsmax did so again.
First came a couple preview pieces from Sandy Fitzgerald; the first repeated whatever rant Trump posted to his Truth Social pagt the previous night, while the second parroted Trump's unironic attack on the Democratic candidates in the state as "insurrectionists and lunatics." Needless to say, Fitzgerald didn't point out that Trump could very easily have been talking about himself, but she make sure to note that "Newsmax is airing Trump's rally live." Eric Mack followed up with an article detailing Trump's latest Truth Social insult-spewing; he furthered the Trump conspiracy narrative by claiming that the Mar-a-Lago raid was done "under the guise of retrieving documents for the National Archives," though he offered no evidence anything nefarious had been done by anyone but Trump.
Then came the usual raft of articles of various Trump statements by Mack, even though a single article would have sufficed:
Mack didn't fact-check anything he reported Trump saying, but he did do his corporate duty by pointing out that the rally "aired live on Newsmax."
The next day, Mack served corporate purposes again by touting a Trump post on Truth Social "saying the conservative network is opening the door for competition by turning to share the 'Democrat agenda.'" Mack added that "Previously, Trump has said 'Newsmax has been really good' while claiming that Fox News coverage cost him the 2020 election." That was joined by two more articles of Trump stenography from Mack:
Finally, after all this servile stenography, it was time to gloat. Jack Gornell did the job in a Sept. 6 article:
Newsmax's live coverage of former President Donald Trump's Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, rally on Saturday beat Fox News in key ratings, according to Nielsen.
Newsmax was the third most watched cable network during the Trump rally speech, with an audience so large it even surpassed the combined ratings of CNN and MSNBC, pulling in more than 21% of both networks.
Nielsen also reported that Newsmax had a total audience of 1.7 million viewers for Trump's speech, with its overall coverage drawing over 1.9 million viewers.
The Newsmax ratings were even more impressive considering the network is carried in 20 million fewer homes than Fox News, but still outpaced the cable giant.
Newsmax continues to find that fawning, uncritical coverage of Trump has an audience -- though nobody's going to call it journalism.
A large study on the impact of using ivermectin as a prophylaxis for COVID-19 found that regular users of the drug experienced up to a 92% reduction in mortality compared to those who did not.
Brazilian research scientist Dr. Flavio A. Cadegiani said via Twitter that his study in his home country showed a "dose-response effect," meaning that "the more you used, the more protection you had."
He observed that people who use ivermectin regularly every 15 days for at least six to eight weeks had up to a 92% reduction in mortality.
Cadegiani conducted a previous study of drug that evaluated whether its use could impact COVID-19 infection and mortality rates.
But as fact-checkers at actual news organization Reuters pointed out, the study is obsservational, not direct research, meaning that it "cannot prove that ivermectin is the reason for apparent reductions in risk of death from any cause or from COVID-19 specifically. And that's just the start of the study's issues:
First, in addition to being unable to confirm whether ivermectin users actually took all the medication they received from the program, the authors acknowledge but do not factor-in the possibility that people identified as non-users or irregular users could have acquired the drug outside the city’s program and taken it on their own.
Dr. Stuart Ray, professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, told Reuters via email that “the accuracy of inferred ivermectin use seems to be low based on reports from the local health authorities in Brazil that many people took ivermectin who were not prescribed, and many who were prescribed ivermectin did not take it.”
Second, the study doesn’t account for other possible differences between the groups that could introduce bias in the calculations.
“The main shortcoming here is that the program was optional – and we know well from decades of literature, that those who choose to seek healthcare and take medicines are inherently different from those who do not,” Dr. Mark Siedner, an infectious disease clinician and clinical epidemiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, told Reuters via email.
“There are also a number of additional shortcomings that have to do with missing data,” Seidner said. Referring to the 71,548 “moderate” users of ivermectin excluded from the analysis entirely, as well as the calculations based on small matched subsets of 283 people, he noted, “for example, almost half the sample appears to have been excluded and nearly 99% was excluded in their analysis that included age and health problems, and there is no good way of accounting for infection rates in people who were never tested.”
The study authors do acknowledge that they could have missed some hospitalizations, deaths, and COVID-19 infections that were not reported in the datasets they used.
In short: it's a low-quality study that ultimately can't definitively rove what it claims. Reuters summed up:
Observational studies like the one from Brazil help generate new ideas but do not provide the evidence required to make clinical or public health recommendations, Seidner said. “In light of so much better data showing ivermectin is not helpful, even in the early stages of COVID-19, the findings of this study should not be used for much more than to potentially encourage a better study to be done to explore its safety and benefit as a prevention agent.”
Moore won't tell you any of this, of course; instead, he spent the rest of his article rehashing oldgrievances about how legitimate medical authorities have repeatedly pointed out how legitimate medical research has shown that ivermectin really doesn't work against COVID, invoking shady COVID misinformers and fellow ivermectin enthusiasts like Pierre Kory and Harvey Risch.