MRC Complains Again That Coverage Of GOP Candidates Was 'Negative' (Read: Accurately Reported) Topic: Media Research Center
Rich Noyes was roused out of retirement to crank out one of his usual highly subjective coverage "studies" for the midterm elections, which got featured in a Nov. 1 post:
Four years ago, TV’s midterm coverage hammered Republican candidates and then-President Trump with 88 percent negative spin while sparing Democrats similarly bad press. This year, Democrats are in charge of the White House and both chambers of Congress, yet a new Media Research Center study of ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts finds that Republicans are receiving coverage that is just as negative (87% negative) as in 2018, while Democrats — including the President — are drawing far less scrutiny than the party out of power.
And another favor for Team Blue: the dominant topics within these campaign stories — GOP candidate controversies, abortion rights and the danger of “election deniers” — perfectly match the topmost items in Democrats’ campaign playbook. Our study shows discussion of these issues within campaign stories far eclipsed that of the economy and inflation, issues that voters deem most important.
This year’s study looked at the same period of time as we did in 2018, from September 1 to October 26. This year, the Big Three evening newscasts aired 115 stories which mentioned or discussed the midterm elections during, with a total airtime of 213 minutes, or about 60 percent more than the 130 minutes we tallied four years ago.
It focuses only on a tiny sliver of news -- the evening newscasts on the three networks -- and suggests it's indicative of all media. Fox News was not evaluated at all.
The study explicitly rejects the idea of neutral coverage -- even though that's arguably the bulk of news coverage -- dishonestly counting only "clearly positive and negative statements."
It fails to take into account the stories themselves and whether negative coverage is deserved or admit that negative coverage is the most accurate way to cover a given story.
It fails to provide the raw data or the actual statements it evaluated so its work could be evaluated by others. If the MRC's work was genuine and rigorous, wouldn't it be happy to provide the data to back it up?
Indeed, Noyes whined:
Most of this year’s discussion centered on four candidates: Republicans Herschel Walker, Mehmet Oz and Kari Lake, and Democrat John Fetterman. Fetterman’s bad press (81% negative, mostly comments panning his dreadful debate performance) was the worst of any Democrat, but it was better than any of the top Republicans. His Senate rival, Oz, was hit with 82 percent negative press, while Georgia’s Herschel Walker was slammed with 50 negative statements vs. six positive ones, an 89 percent negative spin.
That’s still better than Arizona’s Kari Lake, who was on the receiving end of nine evaluative comments, all negative, giving her a 100 percent negative press score.
While no Democratic candidate other than Fetterman received heavy coverage, there were occasional positive features for several of them, contributing to the Democrats’ more positive press. Alaska House candidate Mary Peltola, for example, was profiled in a glowing September 24 CBS Evening News story about her “milestone” status as the first native Alaskan in Congress.
Of course, the MRC hurlednothingbutnegativity at Fetterman and played defense for Walker over the abortion allegations. Noyes offered no advice on Walker's abortion scandal should have been covered in a "positive" manner (read: framed in right-wing talking points).
Noyes dishonestly whined further:
Viewers and voters seeking election news have more choices than ever, but even today, the Big Three remain uniquely powerful, with relatively large audiences (collectively, about 20 million viewers per night) of citizens who are not as ideologically-established as the fans of wall-to-wall cable news.
So while the establishment media fret about dangers to democracy, there’s a danger in a powerful partisan media passing itself off as objective or centrist, when the reality is that the networks are now open advocates for the success of one party over the other.
Meanwhile, the MRC refuses to admit that right-wing outlets like Fox News have an ideological bias, let alone spend some of its "media research" evaluating just how biased they are. That's because it depends on those outlets to advance its partisan talking points, and exposing their bias would be counterproductive to an ally.
WND Columnist Touts Conspiracy Theory-Filled Anti-Fauci Film Topic: WorldNetDaily
There's lots to unpack in the opening of Rachel Alexander's Oct. 17 WorldNetDaily column:
When I first heard that the book Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote about Dr. Anthony Fauci was going to be made into a documentary by the "Fahrenhype 9/11" filmmaker, I was skeptical, because the left has been trying to defeat vaccine choice by falsely labeling our position as "anti-vaccine." It's part of a common tactic they resort to, portraying our positions inaccurately, because otherwise they would be unable to persuade people to gravitate toward theirs.
However, Jeff Hays is a respected filmmaker, despite how much big tech has banned him – I cannot find any of his movies on Netflix or Amazon Prime – and he explained to me that even Kennedy is not anti-vaccine; that's also a false portrayal. Kennedy mentions in every talk he gives about COVID-19 that he's not anti-vaccine, but the MSM doesn't report that part. Kennedy merely is skeptical of the effects of some vaccines.
First: Nobody on the left claims Kennedy. Second: Kennedy is indisputably an anti-vaxxer-- anyone who spreads liesand misinformation about vaccines is clearly not a supporter of them. Third: If Jeff Hays is working with anti-vaxxers like Kennedy, he cannot possibly a "respected filmmaker."
Fourth: Alexander is trying to be too clever by half in claiming that Kennedy "merely is skeptical of the effects of some vaccines." She later touts Kennedy pushing the claim that mercury in vaccines causes autism in children -- a discredited claim.
Fifth: She's also being too clever by half in claiming that being an anti-vaxxer is not "our position" and that she's being "inaccurately" portrayed as an anti-vaxxer and that she just wants "vaccine choice." She linked to a 2021 column she wrote complaining that "The left lies about the right being anti-vaccine. They routinely refer to us as 'anti-vaccine' when many of us have gotten the vaccine and merely want it to be a choice," adding: "Conservatives carrying signs that say 'Don’t jab on me' could be construed as being anti-vaxx, not anti-vaxx mandate. Stop letting the MSM refer to us as 'anti-vaxx.' It’s a lie. The left doesn’t follow the science with their insistence on mandates, because a lot of young healthy people have died after getting the vaccine." The thing is that there is no functional difference between being anti-vaxx and anti-vaxx mandates because there's so much overlap between the two groups.
Alexander went on to prove that Hays isn't a "respected filmmaker" by rehashing the conspiracies he put into his attack film on Fauci:
The film goes over Fauci's flip-flop on wearing masks, how he originally dismissed them as not working against respiratory illnesses. Masks are referred to as "a symbol of obedience" so people "remain in constant fear." It's a "mass psychosis where you keep the entire population in fear that their lives are under attack."
Mark Crispin Miler, a professor of media studies at NYU, said people believed what they saw on CNN and other mainstream media due to their prestigious reputations. CNN said popular podcast host Joe Rogan took "horse dewormer medication" in order to misrepresent ivermectin.
The documentary goes so far as to hint that perhaps there was something nefarious going on; since ivermectin has been around a long time used to treat ailments, it is now a generic, so pharmaceutical companies can't make much of a profit from selling it. Ivermectin was once considered as possibly being used to treat cancer, but due to the stigma given it during COVID-19, that's now unlikely.
In fact, Fauci's position on masks changed because of initial misunderstandings about how COVID spread and a need to make sure health care workers had enough masks due to early shortages. Also, it has been repeatedly proven that ivermectin is ineffective against COVID, and there is no evidence that it's being suppressed because "pharmaceutical companies can't make much of a profit from selling it."
Alexander's conspiracies continued:
Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates is singled out for criticism. Through his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Gates allegedly steered the World Health Organization away from its traditional role helping developing countries to a "single preoccupation with vaccines."
The legendary baseball player Hank Aaron was one of the first people to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, as part of an effort to convince blacks skeptical of it due to the Tuskegee experiment. But 17 days later, he was dead. Kennedy refers to the possible linkage as "suspicious," and even the left-leaning Snopes fact-checking site does not say the possibility of causation is false, labeling it "unproven." The documentary contains a long list of young athletes who collapsed from odd health problems shortly after getting the vaccine.
The documentary points out that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' own studies have found that the government's vaccine reporting system may be understating injuries by over 99%, in part due to no effort being made to make it more easily usable by the public.
Finally, when people started to become concerned about the adverse effects of the vaccine, Kennedy said Fauci killed the proposal for a vaccine safety commission.
Regarding the claim about Hank Aaron, doesn't Alexander think the claim that COVID vaccines caused his death should have to be proven before they are spread? Otherwise,she's just acting as a megaphone for unproven allegations. And the "vaccine safety commission" was proposed by Kennedy himself before the COVID pandemic as a ploy to foment distrust in vaccines, so it was not a good-faith idea and it's dishonest for him, Hays and Alexander to suggest it was any sort of good-faith effort.
It comes down to "fear disables critical thinking," according to the documentary. Kennedy doesn't get into the whys behind his research. He doesn't explain why Fauci has these biases, but some of the commentators in the documentary point out that Fauci has a contempt for classical medicine, instead preferring radical, dangerous new alternatives.
But Alexander won't call out how Kennedy and Hays are using fear to attack vaccines, and that Kennedy is the one who has a "contempt for classical medicine." Perhaps that's because she pushes that same fear.
MRC Ignores Facts To Cheer Alleged Demise Of Batgirl Film, Bisexual Superman Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center likes nothing more to lash out atsuperhero franchises who dare to offer protagonists who are anything other than white and heterosexual. An Aug. 4 post by Michael Ippolito -- under the headline "Get Woke, Go Broke" -- cheered the new owners of Warner Bros. and its DC comic franchises shelving a new Batgirl movie despite it being nearly completed, whining that the titular character wasn't white:
Some corporations have finally gotten the memo and are pumping the brakes on producing woke garbage.
According to The Wrap, Warner Brothers will not release the $90 million project BatGirl either theatrically or on HBO Max. The movie was slated for release later in 2022, and numerous worrisome reports, such as the race-swapping of the main character, indicated it was going to be another leftist propaganda film.
“The decision to not release Batgirl reflects our leadership’s strategic shift as it relates to the DC universe and HBO Max. Leslie Grace is an incredibly talented actor and this decision is not a reflection of her performance,” said a Warner Bros. Pictures spokesperson. “We are incredibly grateful to the filmmakers of Batgirl and Scoob! and their respective casts and we hope to collaborate with everyone again in the near future.”
The total movie budget reached a whopping $90 million due to COVID shutdowns, reshoots, and an increased budget. The movie was set to be the character’s big breakthrough with veteran actor Michael Keaton reprising his role as Batman. Early tests revealed that the moviegoers did not enjoy the film at all. Holy woke propaganda, Batman!
Ippolitio did not explain now, exactly, making Batgirl not white (she would have been Hispanic in this film) made the film "woke," nor did he identify any other content from the film -- which he could not possibly have seen -- that warranted the "woke" slur. Seems that Ippolito can't handle a person of color starring in a superhero film.
(Warner Bros. itself stated that a change in corporate strategy was the cause of the film's cancellation, and nothing was said about the film being too "woke," whatever that is.)
Matt Philbin was even more whiny and snarky -- with added homophobia -- about the alleged cancellation of another project in the DC universe in an Oct. 13 post:
Look! Up in the sky: it’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s a woke bisexual guy in tights! Except he’s not going to be there much longer.
According to Brittany Bernstein at National Review Online, DC Comics announced at the New York Comic Con that it’s canceling Superman: Son of Kal-El because it turned out nobody was really interested in an excruciatingly woke comic book.
Don’t ask me how comic book fans can pass up riveting story lines about Clark and Lois’s light-in-the-tights teenage son fighting climate change and other progressive bugaboos, but the series was less popular than CNN+.
“The fourth issue of the series sold just 37,500 copies, earning it an abysmal 55th place in October 2021 sales,” Bernstein reported.
So what the hell was DC thinking when it dreamed up this dud? According to the series author, “The idea of replacing Clark Kent with another straight white savior felt like a missed opportunity.”
So this was an expensive exercise in virtue signaling. Lot of that going around.
Philbin was too invested in his homophobia that he ignored the inconvenient fact fact that the comic isn't getting canceled at all -- it's being re-launched in a new six-issue series as "Adventures of Superman: Jon Kent." And despite Philbin's gloating about the series' purportedly terrible sales, CBR pointed out that at the time this narrative appeared, "the best-selling comic book on Amazon was Superman: Son of Kal-El #16, the series' most recent issue," and "Son of Kal-El" writer Tom Taylor said that he will contiunue to write the new series. Perhaps that will teach Philbin to not get his comic book news from a right-wing commentary magazine.
The MRC previously whined about the creation of the bisexual Superman, because, again, it thinks superheroes should only be white heterosexuals.
CNS Can't Stop Complaining About Committee Looking Into Capitol Riot Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com hatesNancy Pelosi and hated the House committee hearings looking into the Capitol riot, so it's unsurprising that its initial story related to the final committee hearing on Oct. 13 was not about what was discussed during said hearing but, rather, an Oct. 14 article by Craig Bannister on a video of Pelosi released after the hearing:
“I’ve been waiting for this,” House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says in a newly-released video, in which she says claims “punch him out,” if then-President Donald Trump comes to the U.S. Capitol during the January 6, 2021 riot.
“I’m going to punch him out,” House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said of Trump as the Capitol riot unfolded, according to video obtained from Pelosi’s daughter and aired by CNN Thursday.
CNN describes the scene, in which Pelosi declares that "this is my moment; I've been waiting for this," gesturing emphatically, before threatening to "punch" then-President Trump:
Bannister did tacitly concede, unlike WorldNetDaily, that Pelosi's remarks came in the context of a violent Trump-inflamed mob attacking the Capitol.
Indeed, CNS did no news article whatsoever on the contents of the hearing -- which arguably belies its claim to be a "news" operation. Instead, intern Lauren Shank wrote an Oct. 14 article uncritically repeating Donald Trump's grievances:
Former President Donald Trump spoke out against the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S Capitol, questioning why they did not ask him to testify months ago.
“Why didn’t the Unselect Committee ask me to testify months ago? Why did they wait until the very end, the final moments of their last meeting?” Trump asked on his Truth Social platform.
“Because the Committee is a total ‘BUST’ that has only served to further divide our Country which, by the way, is doing very badly – A laughing stock all over the world?”
In another post he wrote, “The Unselect Committee knowingly failed to examine the massive voter fraud which took place during the 2020 Presidential Election – The reason for what took place on January 6th.”
“Why didn’t Crazy Nancy Pelosi call out the ‘troops’ before January 6th, which I strongly recommended that she do,” said Trump. “It was her responsibility, but she ‘didn’t like the look.’ Crazy Nancy failed the American People!”
Shank refused to fact-check this claim -- if she had, she would have known that Trump never signed an order to deploy National Guard troops that day, so Pelosi could not possibly have turned it down.
Shank did eventually get around to describing something that actually happened at the hearing, while, of course, putting some biased spin on it:
While the potential of Thursday’s hearing may be its last on the Jan. 6 attacks, the committee, consisting of seven Democrats and two Republicans, all said “aye” in voting to subpoena Trump.
(The two Republicans, Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) and Rep. Lynne Cheney (Wyo.), had expressed their disapproval of Trump even before the events of Jan. 6, 2021 and had voted for his impeachment.)
Although Trump’s critics frequently describe the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol as an insurrection, to date not one person (of 900-plus arrested) apparently has been charged with insurrection.
The harshest charge has been “seditious conspiracy,” and brought against only 11 people.
Shank didn't expaloin why someone has to actually be charged with insurrection to describe the riot as an "insurrection."
Even though there will be no more committee hearings, CNS continued to attack the committee. Bannister invoked two of his favorite right-wingers to go after Pelosi again in a Nov. 10 article:
Democrats “never intended” their January 6 Select Committee to be political and “it was never planned as a political tactic,” House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) – who refused to allow Republicans to seat their own committee members – said Tuesday as the midterm elections were taking place.
Pelosi insisted that Democrats’ one-sided January 6 Select Committee hearings had no political agenda, when asked by PBS NewsHour Host Judy Woodruff about voters’ disinterest in the televised, public hearings.
“Well, well never intended it to be a political item. It’s about seeking the truth,” Pelosi responded.
“[I]t was never planned as a political tactic,” Pelosi added, repeating Democrats’ mantra that “democracy is at stake” in this year’s midterm elections.
But, as Constitution Scholar Mark Levin has explained on his “Life, Liberty & Levin” television program, the “illegitimate” hearings are an unconstitutional effort to indict and smear former President Donald Trump and his Republican colleagues:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R), who spent 20 years in Congress, has also explained how the one-sided hearings have been purely political.
“What I saw last night was a show trial worthy of Joseph Stalin,” Gingrich observed, following one of the hearings conducted in June. “Last night’s January 6 Committee propaganda show had nothing in common with legitimate congressional hearings.”
“There is a sense of fairness and Due Process which is central to American freedom and independence. The January 6 Committee has violated every aspect of due process, presumption of innocence, and impartial search for truth,” Gingrich noted.
Bannister didn't mention that because the committee hearings were not part of a legal process, there was not a duty to follow due process. He also didn't mention that Republicans had every right to hold their own hearings to build a counter-narrative to the House committee but chose not to.
Managing editor Michael W. Chapman tried to help Republicans fiorward a conspiracy theory about the riot in a Nov. 15 article:
At a hearing held before the House Homeland Security Committee on Nov. 15, FBI Director Christopher Wray declined to say whether the FBI had used "confidential human sources" "dressed as Trump supporters" in the Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection.
House Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) asked Wray, "Does the FBI have confidential human sources -- did the FBI have confidential human sources embedded within the January 6 protesters on January 6, 2021?"
FBI Director Wray replied, "Congressman, as I'm sure you can appreciate, I have to be very careful about what I can say about when -- may I finish -- about when we do and do not and where we have and have not used confidential human sources."
"But to the extent that there's a suggestion, for example, that the FBI's confidential human sources or FBI employees in some way, instigated or orchestrated January 6, that's categorically false," said Wray.
Higgins then asked, "Did you have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters inside the Capitol on January 6, prior to the doors being opened?"
Wray replied, "Again, I have to be very careful --."
At that point, Higgins interjected, "It should be a no. Can you not tell the American people no, we did not have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters positioned inside the Capitol?"
Wray then responded, "You should not read anything into my decision not to share information on confidential human sources."
At that point, Committee chairman Benny Thompson (D-Miss.) said Higgins' time was up and they moved on to another congressman.
Welcome To The MRC's COVID Cruise! Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is sponsoring a Mediterranean cruise next summer, and all the usual right-wing folks will be on this junket. Aside from the MRC's own Brent Bozell, Tim Graham and Terry Jeffrey, other right-wing activists getting their cruise comped include Rick Santorum, Dean Cain, Charlie Hurt, Cal Thomas, Jason Chaffetz and Joe Concha. The one unsusual guest -- in that he's not a prominent right-wing activist like the rest -- is Jim Jimirro, who has actually done something with his life by creating the Disney Channel and running Disney's home video operation, and he has an "impact series" on media issues named after him at the Paley Center for Media. Jimirro did, however, moderate a panel last year in which Graham went off on a New York Times reporter, so maybe that's how he got the invite.
Even though the MRC regularly rants that the "liberal media" isn't diverse enough, there will be no diversity of opinion allowed here. This cruise is all about figid ideological uniformity, as one of the features being promoted is the opportunity to hang out with "like minded fellow cruisers."
But there's another thing these cruisers may share: COVID. A key part of the MRC's cruise promotion is that nobody is required to be vaccinated. Ads promoting the cruise on MRC websites proclaim that "NO VACCINES OR TESTS REQUIRED," and the top of the cruise website has a sticker declaring "Covid19 VAX no longer required."
Actually, it's a little more complicated than that. Celebrity Cruises, which will run the MRC cruise, has protocols that it follows; while vaccines are not required, it does state that "Unvaccinated guests ages 5 and older will need to test 3 days prior to boarding U.S. sailings; and ages 12 and older for select Europe sailings" and that "Boosters are highly recommended, but not required, for those eligible at least 7 days before" (text color in original). It's also noted that "Guests must provide proof at terminal check-in of a negative viral COVID-19 test (PCR or antigen) taken within two days of their embarkation." The protocols further state: "Masks on board will be recommended, but not required, in the vast majority of venues. There may be select venues or certain situations in which masks are required. Celebrity Cruises is currently providing complimentary surgical mask(s) on board with replacements available upon request."
Given the MRC's penchant for spreadingmisinformation about COVID vaccines and overall hostility to COVID-related health protocols, the number of "like minded" cruisers who will be unvaccinated is likely to be higher than the general population and masking for onboard events will be minimal at best despite Celebrity's protocols, so these cruisers should prepare for a likely outbreak.
CNS Defends GOP Candidate's Mockery Of Paul Pelosi Attack, Pushes More Distraction Talking Points Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com was so committed to sticking to Republican narratives of whining and whataboutism regarding the violent hammer attack on Paul Pelosi that CNS writer Susan Jones rushed to the defense of a Republican candidate for making light of the attack.
Jones had already uncritically repeated Arizona GOP gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake whining that "You can't talk about Paul Pelosi, now you can't talk about Nancy Pelosi.. .. And I'm talking about all those things because I still believe we have a little bit of the First Amendment left." A Nov. 2 article by Jones criticized Hillary Clinton for bringing up Lake's dismissive attitude to the Pelosi attack and tried to invoke a "point of clarification" to defend Lake:
Former Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined MSNBC's Joy Reid Tuesday night in demonizing Republicans -- not just individuals, but the "whole" party.
Reid mentioned the attack on Paul Pelosi by someone she described as having "sort of (a) right-wing conspiracy theory mind."
Clinton followed the leftist’s lead:
"I don't see Republicans running for the Congress or governors in many other different positions taking down their violent ads, or I don't see them curbing their rhetoric," she said:
"You played something from Marjorie Taylor Greene, who was calling for the death, because of treason, for Speaker Pelosi.
"The level of just plain crazy, violent hate rhetoric coming out of Republicans -- you played something from the candidate, the Republican candidate for governor in Arizona. I want viewers, I want voters to stop and ask themselves, would we trust somebody who is stirring up these violent feelings, who is pointing fingers, scapegoating, making a joke about a violent attack on Paul Pelosi?
"Why would you trust that person to have power over you, your family, your business, your community? So, I want to take this a step further away from the incident, that terrible incident with Paul Pelosi, and broaden it out, because what we have with the rhetoric coming from the Republican candidates, from their party right now is so disturbing.
Jones huffed in response:
Point of clarification: Republican Kari Lake, running for Arizona governor, did not make a joke about the attack on Paul Pelosi, although liberal media outlets accused her of "mocking" the attack.
In remarks about school safety at a campaign stop in Scottsdale, here's what Lake said:
"Nancy Pelosi, well, she’s got protection when she’s in D.C. — apparently her house doesn’t have a lot of protection," Lake said, stating the obvious.
Lake’s audience laughed, and that gave rise to reports that Lake was "joking" about the attack on Pelosi. Lake continued: "If our lawmakers can have protection, if our politicians can have protection, if our athletes, then certainly the most important people in our lives — our children — should have protection."
That doesn't make Lake look any better, but it's clear that Jones will bend over backwards to try to clean up offensive remarks by Republicans.
Jones also stayed true to repeating Republican talking points by using an article the next day to invoke the exact same distraction its Media Research Center parent did regarding the alleged assailant:
The U.S. Justice Department on Monday released a federal criminal complaint and supporting affidavit against David DePape, the homeless man who attacked Paul Pelosi with a hammer after smashing his way into the Pelosi's San Francisco house.
But of all the facts detailed in the eight-page complaint/affidavit, this one was missing: DePape was in this country illegally.
But the first words of the Oct. 31 DOJ news release announcing the federal charges say this: "A California man was charged today with assault and attempted kidnapping in violation of federal law in connection with the break-in at the residence of Nancy and Paul Pelosi in San Francisco on Friday."
San Francisco is a sanctuary city.
Jones didn't explain how DePape being in the country illegally somehow made him a violent felon. She also didn't highlight the details on how that happened, which don't mesh with the right-wing "sanctuary city" rhetoric Jones was invoking: He overstayed a travel visa from Canada he received in 2008 -- meaning that Donald Trump likely had an opportunity to expel DePape during his presidency but did not.
MRC Whines About Late-Night TV Not Being Fox News-y Enough Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Reserarch Center loves to whine about late-night TV hosts who won't be right-wing suck-ups like Fox News' Greg Gutfeld (whom it adores). And as the midterm elections approached, the MRC continued to be mad at them for not sounding like they work for the MRC (like Gutfeld does). Tim Graham gushed over a Fox News PR piece in an Oct. 8 post:
Joseph Wulfsohn at Fox News reports that audiences are leaving the Old Media late-night "comedy" shows now the Trump era is over, but the #Resistance model of partisan hot takes remains.
CBS star Stephen Colbert was the king of late night as "The Late Show" became the most-watched late night show in the Trump era, averaging roughly 3 million viewers from 2017-2019.
But with Trump out of office, Colbert's liberal audience has shrunk to a 2.1 million viewer average in 2022, shedding 27 percent of his peak audience and losing his title as King of Late Night in recent months to Fox News host Greg Gutfeld, whose show "Gutfeld!" has edged out the CBS rival with 2.2-2.4 million viewers as of late.
Graham neglected to point out that Wolfsohn works for the same organization that airs Gutffeld, meaning that this is not legitimate reporting -- he made no effort to obtain comment from the hosts he's attacking -- but, rather, a biased Gutfeld promo that has no business being presented as "news."
Alex Christy spent a Nov. 8 post complaining that late-night hosts exercised their First Amendment rights:
From literal alarms over abortion to satirical Christmas songs to the typical anti-Republican diatribe, the men of the late night comedy shows used their Monday programs to deliver one last pitch to voters on why they should vote Democrat.
On ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live!, the host’s wife, Molly McNearney, interrupted his anti-Herschel Walker ramblings with a literal alarm and siren, “Because tomorrow is Election Day. And abortion rights are gone or in danger in 26 states. Even though the overwhelming majority of this country supports a woman's right to choose.”
Over at The Late Show, host Stephen Colbert kicked off his Election Day Eve program with a video of satirical Christmas songs. The assortment of singers then preformed, “Have yourself a gerrymandered district,” “I'm dreaming of a white turnout,” “I saw mommy kissing Herschel Walker, then he gave her 700 bucks”, and “It's beginning to look a lot like fascists.”
Also included were “Oh Q-anon, oh Q-anon, Joe Biden is a lizard” and “Here comes Dr. Oz, here comes Dr. Oz talking about crudité” along with a promotion to get a free copy of “How the Grinch Stole Democracy.”
No word if Someone Got Run Over by John Fetterman or if Mandela Barnes preformed O Little Town of Moscow and the spinoff, O Little Town of Tehran.
Looks like someone lacks a sense of humor -- or is auditioning for a job at the Babylon Bee.
Christy returned for a whining post-mortem in a Nov. 14 post:
The late-night comedy scene has been reliably liberal for a long time, but the 2022 midterm election was a regular messaging machine for the Democrats, a NewsBusters study has revealed.
MRC analysts found that during the fall campaign, from Labor Day through the Monday night before Election Day, liberal guests outnumbered conservative guests 47 to 0. It was 100 percent liberal and/or Democrat.
Hillary and Chelsea Clinton, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, and Texas Democratic gubernatorial nominee Beto O’Rourke were the guests who appeared multiple times during the length of the study.
Interviews were typically very friendly. Jimmy Fallon joked with the Clintons about how Trump was terrible about keeping documents secure (completely avoiding Clinton security scandals). Seth Meyers began his Kamala Harris interview with this tribute: “You, as an administration, you have accomplished a great deal despite only having a 50/50 Senate.”
After noting the affiliation of guest, Christy huffed: "No one is surprised that Fox News had zero." He shouldn't be either; afer all, he specifically states in his methodology that "Fox's Gutfeld! was not included.
Christy didn't explain why he excluded Gutfeld -- perhaps he was afraid that the numbers wouldn't look so stark if he included that right-wing shill. But if you're purporting to make a blanket judgment about all late-night television, wouldn't you include a show whom your employer has bragged has better ratings than the other shows you included?
That's shoddy "media research." But then. we expect nothing less from the MRC.
Newsmax Finally Gives Up On Lara Logan After Anti-Semitic Remark Topic: Newsmax
When Lara Logan lost her position year this year at Fox News -- where she was a regular guest and had a show on Fox Nation laughably titled "Lara Logan Has No Agenda" -- for her malicious yet ridiculous likening of Anthony Fauci to Nazi doctor Josef Mengele, Newsmax felt bad for her. When her talent agency dropped her over the hateful comment, a Jan. 17 article by Luca Cacciatore took a sympathetic approach. But the nasty smear wasn't disqualifying for Newsmax, just like it wasn't for the Media Research enter (which playedwhataboutism instead of criticizing her).
Logan got another sympathetic article on April 13 by the apparently unironically named Charlie McCarthy, which noted that Logan was completely out at Fox News (whom Newsmax dislikes(
Reporter Lara Logan said she was forced out of Fox News and its streaming service after publicly criticizing Anthony Fauci.
"Lara Logan Has No Agenda," a show streamed on Fox Nation, was dropped, and the former CBS News correspondent has not appeared as a Fox News guest since making her comments about Fauci late last year.
"I was definitely pushed out," Logan told The Eric Metaxas Radio Show. "I mean, there is no doubt about that. They don’t want independent thinkers. They don’t want people who follow the facts regardless of the politics."
Logan told Metaxas that mainstream media stories about her also have hurt her career.
"If they Google you, and they see a Washington Post or New York Times hit piece on you, well then they don’t want anything to do with you, right?" she told Metaxas. "Oh well, we can’t hire you for our event, or We can’t employ you, or whatever else."
McCarthy waited until the fifth paragraph of his article to detaiil her offensive attack on Fauci, and he didn't mention at all her journalistic failings -- like promoting a man who told a false story about the Benghazi attack -- that resulted in all those "mainstream media' stories about her.
Logan went on to spout inflammatory statements during appearances on Newsmax TV as well:
On April 25, she was given a platform to rant that "because of President Joe Biden's policies on immigration; the United States has ''no southern border,'' and that the Biden administration's statements on the border "is the language of the United Nations. It's the language of the global elite.''
On Sept. 15, Logan complained that "Vice President Kamala Harris has been "lying about the border from Day One" as the White House overlooks the migrant crisis" and that the administration is engaged in "a globalist strategy" that's purportedly "designed to dismantle this country."
On Oct. 6, she whined that "the Justice Department is stalling its prosecution of Hunter Biden and will likely undercharge him," going on to claim: "'They're going to give up something on Hunter Biden because the reality is that much worse,' she added, noting that the news could be a distraction to avoid a November blowout in the midterm elections."
But it turns that even Newsmax has its limits on what it will put up with from Logan. Mediaite reported on Oct. 20 about a Logan appearance on Eric Bolling's Newsmax show:
Bolling interrupted to ask Logan about God and immigration.
“I have to ask you this because my audience is very God-fearing, God-loving, etc.,” he said. “Is God ok with a closed border?”
Logan replied in the affirmative because, she said, God is a fan of national sovereignty:
It’s much bigger than that. God believes in sovereignty, and national identity, and the sanctity of family, and all the things that we’ve lived with from the beginning of time. And he knows that the open border is Satan’s way of taking control of the world through all of these people who are his stooges and his and his servants.
And they may think that they’re going to become gods. That’s what they tell us. you’ve all known [historian Yuval Noah] Harari and all the rest of them at the World Economic Forum. You know, the ones who want us eating insects, cockroaches, and that while they dine on the blood of children? Those are the people, right? They’re not gonna win. They’re not going to win.
Harari is a Jewish historian, so Logan’s decision to single him out is instructive, given her recent behavior. “Blood libel” as it is known, is a centuries-old myth about Jewish people murdering Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals.
Logan has made several questionable and outright anti-Semitic statements. She claimed the theory of evolution is a plot perpetrated by the Rothschilds – a wealthy Jewish banking family. She also shared a post alleging that Jews are behind a scheme to create a “one world government.”
Once a reputable reporter for 60 Minutes, Logan has become increasingly unhinged.
Indeed, And that, apparently. was the last straw for Newsmax. It went into damage control later that day, declaring that it "condemns in the strongest terms the reprehensible statements made by Lara Logan" and has "no plans to interview her again." Oddly, Newsmax did no stories itself on its own ban.
The MRC, meanwhile, censored all news of Logan's smear and said nothing after Newsmax's ban.
He has, however, been writing updates in emails to the WND mailing list -- and the news hasn't been good. He wrote in an Oct. 25 email: "As I revealed a few weeks ago, we need to raise a minimum of $100,000 before the end of October. We have about a week left, and are a little more than half way there. I hope you can help us." He has talked poor before a self-imposted deadline before in a bid to increase donations. But that magic didn't work this time. He wrote in a Nov. 5 email:
And right now, it pains me to tell you that not only have all WND’s staffers had to accept pay cuts, but making payroll is frequently delayed as we attempt to overcome multiple crises that constitute an existential threat to the nation's oldest independent Christian online journalism organization.
A few weeks ago I revealed to you that we needed to raise $100,000 by the end of October. Many of you generously pitched in – and thank you so very much to everyone who did. However, we still fell short – and we are still struggling to make payroll for our journalists. Therefore, if others reading these words are able to help in any way, large or small, that support is still seriously needed. I hope and pray you can help us during this particularly tough time for WND.
Farah also repeated the lie that WND "publish[es] entirely truthful information Americans desperately need."
Because of all the attacks on us, a few weeks ago I reluctantly revealed that we needed to raise $100,000 by the end of October. Many of you generously pitched in – and thank you so very much to everyone who did. However, we still fell short – and even today we are still struggling to make payroll for our dedicated journalists and a few other key bills necessary for our continued operation. Therefore, if others reading these words are able to help in any way, large or small, that support is still seriously needed. And if you have already contributed, but think you could pitch in a little more, that would be wonderful and appreciated. Every bit helps.
I hope and pray you can help us during this particularly tough time for WND.
Farah repeated that plea in emails on Nov. 20 and Nov. 21. He also repeated lies that WND is "publishing the TRUTH" and "that’s what we do for a living – report the news truthfully."
Farah is looking more desperate than shameless this time around -- and that may not be a good sign for WND. The fact that Farah lies about how WND is "publishing the TRUTH" though even a casual reader can identify misinformation and outright falsehoods that appear on a seemingly daily basis (or just peruse the ConWebWatch archives) suggests that whatever reality distortion field Farah has in keeping his website alive may not be working like it once did.
Is WND done for this time? We shall see. But it's not looking good.
NEW ARTICLE -- New Press Secretary, Same MRC Hate: September 2022 Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is still maliciously depicting Karine Jean-Pierre as an incompetent diversity hire, and Curtis Houck is still man-crushing over every utterance from Peter Doocy. Read more >>
MRC Stayed On Message, Whined About Final 1/6 Hearing Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center spent the summer complaining about the House committee hearings into the Capitol riot -- and when one more hearing was held last month, the MRC complained about that too. We've already noted that MRC executive Tim Graham complained that the "liberal media" covered the hearings but not John Durham's latest failed prosecution (which the MRC also largely ignored), butthere was other whining as well. Curtis Houck grumbled in an Oct. 13 post that hearings cut into valuable airtime pushing right-wing narratives about inflation:
On Thursday morning, ABC and CBS showed what matters to them most. They combined to have spent more time on the last hearing of the House Select Committee on January 6 and the latest leaks against former President Trump than Americans struggling to make ends meet amid record-high gas prices, soaring food costs, and surging inflation.
All told (and when you add in NBC), ABC’sGood Morning America, CBS Mornings, and NBC’s Today spent a total of 12 minutes and 50 seconds on January 6 and the Mar-a-Lago raid and 11 minutes and 50 seconds on inflation.
It should be noted nearly three quarters of the inflation total (eight minutes and 34 seconds) came from NBC’sToday, which was the only network to give more time to the state of the economy than January 6 and Trump (three minutes and 49 seconds).
In contrast, ABC and CBS gave far more time to their pet projects than showing any real concern for Americans wondering where their next meal is going to come from.
Houck didn't explain how he invented the claim that the Capitol riot hearings are the "pet projects" of TV networks. Kevin Tober engaged in similar whining later that day:
On Thursday, American consumers awoke to the news that they have been experiencing all along. That inflation continued to soar in September at a rate of 8.2 percent year-over-year and 0.4 percent over the previous month. This despite the Federal Reserve's steady interest rate hikes meant to curb inflation. Yet, the three evening news broadcasts gave that news a back seat to the latest January 6 hearing into the riots at the Capitol.
ABC's World News Tonight was the worst offender on this contrast in coverage. The network led with the news of the January 6 Committee voting to subpoena former President Donald Trump to testify before the committee. ABC devoted eight minutes and six seconds to the news while giving just 45 seconds to the red-hot inflation numbers.
Mark Finkelstein used an Oct. 14 post to complain that people on TVpointed out how the hearings made Republicans look bad:
After the House January 6 committee held its final hearing before the election, Morning Joe wasted no time on Friday's show in trying to translate those hearings into a blatant appeal to vote Democrat in the coming midterms. The election of a Republican majority is a vote for cheating, violence and the end of democracy.
First, looking directly into the camera, Michael Steele, the former Republican National Committee chairman turned member of the disgraced Lincoln Project, beseeched people to make the obvious choice for democracy and vote Democrat:
Finkelstein didn't dispuite the accuracy of anything that was said -- he just whined that it was said out loud. Meanwhile, Graham returned to spend his Oct. 14 podcast complaining about the hearings and tried to push the old right-wing narrative that nobody cares about them:
The final pre-election hearing of the Pelosi-picked January 6 Committee was overtly designed as midterm messaging for the Democrats -- including in fundraising emails. The media coverage suggests one party is in favor of democracy, and the other one is a mortal threat to democracy.
On MSNBC, Nicolle Wallace insisted to Rachel Maddow that "democracy issues" were a top midterm issue, but the January 6 hearings themselves aren't breaking through.
Politico just reported that "Overall, less than 2 percent of all broadcast TV spending in House races has gone toward Jan. 6 ads." CNN's Stephen Collinson wrote with great concern that "Voters may care more about the cost of French fries than January 6 panel’s compelling evidence."
We discuss the patterns with NewsBusters Managing Editor Curtis Houck, and he breaks down the major themes of this last hearing. It's safe to predict that if Republicans retake on or both houses of Congress in 2023, the networks that have provided all this live coverage will immediately lose interest in covering oversight hearings. They all think Trump scandals are urgent, and Biden scandals are a distraction.
As usual, Graham is confusing his right-wing media bubble with what happens in the real world. He also didn't explain why he apparently believes Trump should never be held accountable for his actions in instigating the Capitol insurrection.
WND Promotes Dubious Study Claiming COVID Virus Was Made In A Lab Topic: WorldNetDaily
Art Moore wrote in an Oct. 24 article under the headline "Study finds Dr. Fauci's 'fingerprint' on origin of COVID virus":
A new pre-print study has concluded the virus that causes COVID-19 has a unique "fingerprint" indicating it originated in a laboratory rather than in nature.
Dr. Alex Washburne, a mathematical biologist, worked with researchers in the U.S. and Germany who studied the SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence and compared it to previously discovered coronaviruses.
They detected "peculiar patterns" they concluded were the hallmark of a manufactured virus, describing it having a "synthetic fingerprint."
Moore is being dishonest here -- in fact, contrary to his headline, the pre-print study does not mention Fauci at all. Moore continued:
Meanwhile, Jeffrey Sachs, chairman of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission, a task force that investigated the origins of COVID-19, has concluded after 22 months of study that SARS-CoV-2 probably was laboratory-generated and that the technology likely came from gain-of-function research funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
The "synthetic fingerprint" discovered in the new study led by Washburne, says Sachs in an article published by Children's Health Defense, points to the work of Dr. Ralph Baric, a virologist at the University of North Carolina known for his NIH-funded gain-of-function research in cooperation with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Mopore didn't mention that Children's Health Defense is the group of famously anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorists headed by Robert Kennedy Jr., so the fact that Sach's paper was published there is immediately disqualifying.
In fact, it's not until the 19th paragraph that Moore finally gets around to referencing Fauci -- andit's devoted to whining that he largely discredited the notion that the COVID-19 virus originated in a lab:
Another critic, Kristian Andersen, a virologist at Scripps Research in California, famously joined with three other virologists in a January 2020 email to Fauci stating they saw strong evidence the virus that causes COVID-19 was engineered in a lab, as WND reported. But after a teleconference the next day with Fauci to discuss the virologists' conclusion, Andersen began dismissing the lab-leak possibility as among "crackpot theories" that "relate to this virus being somehow engineered with intent and that is demonstrably not the case."
In April 2020, Fauci was asked by a reporter during a White House briefing if the research at the Wuhan lab might be responsible for the pandemic. Fauci insisted a "group of highly qualified evolutionary virologists" had concluded the virus was "totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human."
The next day, Peter Daszak – the EcoHealth Alliance founder who received funding from Fauci's agency to conduct research engineering coronaviruses – sent a thank you email to Fauci. Daszak thanked the National Institutes of Health and Infectious Disease director for "publicly standing up and stating that the scientific evidence supports a natural origin for COVID-19 from a bat-to-human spillover, not a lab release from the Wuhan Institute of Virology."
"From my perspective, your comments are brave, and coming from your trusted voice, will help dispel the myths being spun around the virus’s origins," Daszak wrote to Fauci on April 18, 2020.
At no point did Moore prove his headline claim that a lab-manufactured COVID virus was Fauci's "fingerprint" -- that derives from old anti-vaxxer attacks on Fauci accusing the NIH of funding gain-of-function research. Moore then whined that Andersen attacked Washburne's study:
he new study by Washburne, Andersen said, is "so deeply flawed that it wouldn't pass kindergarten molecular biology."
"The study is a clear example of motivated reasoning with a heavy dose of technobabble to make it sound legitimate – but it's nothing more than poppycock dressed up as science," said Andersen.
"In plain language — this is uninformed nonsense and it's simply not worth engaging with."
Moore also quoted Washburne pre-emptively attacking criticism of his study:
In a post on Substack, Washburne reacted to criticism that his study was "very poorly controlled" and "cherry-picked."
"The topic is personally relevant to every person capable of being infected by a virus or impacted by pandemic policies," he wrote. "I invite people to prove us wrong and, if they do so, even if there are flaws in their work, I will not call them names or attack their credentials.
"I will celebrate their ingenuity and commitment to the Truth, and if I am proven wrong I will change my mind," he promised.
Washburne said science "can save lives and revolutionize our civilization, but only if scientists and our broader society remain honest, curious, and open-minded."
Meanwhile, Washburne's study is not holding up to scrutiny. In an article at Vox, Kelsey Piper argued that the study "doesn’t help resolve the question of how SARS-CoV-2 originated" and is based on "statistical inferences from the idea that a particular cloning strategy was used to modify the virus." Piper added:
Even scientists who think a synthetic origin for Covid-19 is a very real possibility — such as Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard who has made the case we need a full investigation to determine whether Covid was naturally or synthetically occurring — told me they thought this paper couldn’t prove the strong claim it was making.
Needless to say, Moore never followed up his stenography by doing actual reporting on what other experts think.That would have interfered with thenarrative he's paid (sporadically, given WND's financial issues) to promote, that there's some secret conspiracy that created and unleashed the COVID virus on the world.
CNS Uses Whataboutism And Whining To Deflect from Paul Pelosi Attack Topic: CNSNews.com
Mimicking its Media ResearchCenterparent, CNSNews.com reacted to the violent hammer attack on Paul Pelosi, husband of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, by complaining that Republican anti-Pelosi rhetoric was being blamed mixed with whataboutism. The first article referencing the attack was an Oct. 31 piece by Susan Jones complaining that a Democratic senator referenced "election deniers" in condemning the attack:
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) is among the many Americans condemning the violent attack on Paul Pelosi. And she laid some of the blame on supporters of Donald Trump, who "have been expanding into our politics."
"This has to end," Klobuchar told NBC's "Meet the Press."
"And there are several things we can do from the security standpoint, which I'm happy to share with you...but it is also about making sure we don't add more election deniers into our political system."
Host Chuck Todd asked Klobuchar, "What's the bigger challenge, getting Republican leaders to deescalate or figuring out how to get these tech companies to stop amplifying this garbage?"
"They're both humongous challenges," Klobuchar said:
Jones became a one-person content mill after that, following this article literally just eight minutes later with an article quoting Vice President Kamala Harris' condemnation of the attack while weirdly leading with President Biden saying that Harris is "making me look good." And 20 minutes after that, Jones cranked out an article repeating Biden's condemnation of the attack and adding that "you can’t condemn the violence unless you condemn those people who continue to argue the election was not real, that it’s being stolen, that all the — all the malarkey that’s being put out there to undermine democracy." An hour or so later, she moved to documenting Republican whining that they're being blaming for fomenting the attack, while sneering at another critic:
Republican Party Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said it's "unfair" for the Washington Post to blame "Republicans' increasingly violent and threatening rhetoric" for the hammer attack on Paul Pelosi.
In an op-ed published Saturday, the Post said: "For many Democrats, the attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband represents the all-but-inevitable conclusion of Republicans’ increasingly violent and threatening rhetoric toward their political opponents — a phenomenon that escalated under former president Donald Trump."
"Well, I think that's unfair," McDaniel told "Fox News Sunday."
MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski, her voice quivering with rage, took her cue from the Washington Post on Monday, saying that “years of Republican propaganda and Trump-fueled fascism led 42-year-old David DePape to break into Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco home, with the intent to harm her."
"There is no mischaracterizing what happened," Brzezinski said: "Are we to insist this attack was not the direct result of the dangerous, violent rhetoric we have heard from Donald Trump's Republican party over the last six years? The deranged man who violently assaulted Paul Pelosi got his idea from somewhere...
Jones didn't explain why it was somehow bad form for Brzezinski to be "quivering with rage" over the attack.
On Sunday, Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) wife responded to a flashback video tweet recalling how one MSNBC host made light of a 2017 assault that blindsided her husband and left him with six broken ribs.
After a vicious attack on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) husband on Friday, Jason Howerton posted the flashback video in anticipation of left-wing media attempts to blame the attack on Paul Pelosi on right-wing rhetoric:
“I remember when @RandPaul was viciously attacked and an MSNBC anchor accidentally let her true feelings come out: ‘...the incident that left Senator Rand Paul with six broken ribs, this might be one of my favorite stories...’"
Kelley Paul replied:
“I do too, @kasie. I was caring for Rand as he struggled to breathe in terrible pain as you called his attack and injuries ‘one of my favorite stories’ on air. Yet you still have a job.”
While Bannister plucked the "one of my favorite stories" quote out of context to manufacture right-wing outrage, he did surprisingly include the full statement by the anchor in question, Kasie Hunt -- who, it turns out, said it was one of her "favorite stories" because "the first assault on a sitting U.S. senator in decades" involved a dispute with a neighbor over lawn care, not politics.
Melanie Arter served up more mundane Republican denunciation of the attack:
For her first article on Nov. 1, Jones went to the whataboutism well to whine about heated Republican rhetoric being blamed for the attack, while making sure to describe the alleged attacker as an "deranged, homeless nudist" in an effort to further distance Republicans from him:
Democrat [sic] activists, particularly those with cable TV platforms, berated Republicans on Monday for stoking the violence unleashed by a deranged, homeless nudist on Paul Pelosi, who is recovering from hammer blows to the head and body.
Not so fast, said Republican lawmakers Steve Scalise and Rand Paul, both of them badly injured at different times by people opposed to their conservative politics.
"I mean, there's an eagerness on the left to make this political and immediately to start blaming Republicans, but where's the sympathy, even from the left, for Paul Pelosi?" Sen. Rand Paul asked.
"Laura, my thoughts and prayers are with Paul Pelosi," Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) told Fox News's Laura Ingraham Monday night. "[W]e need to be praying and hoping that he fully comes out of this and we stand up against any kind of violence, that is something I have been hearing loud and clear from all ends of the political spectrum, as it should be.
Arizona Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake says she's being "attacked by the media," because "I'm speaking the truth" about topics that a leftist media has "prohibited."
"You know, you can't talk about vaccines. You can't talk about elections," Lake told Fox News's Tucker Carlson on Monday night:
"You can't talk about Paul Pelosi, now you can't talk about Nancy Pelosi, and you can't talk about the elections, and you can't talk about COVID. And I'm talking about all those things because I still believe we have a little bit of the First Amendment left."
Lake said another thing the media won't talk about is illegal immigration and its effect on Americans:
She noted that the man suspected of breaking into her opponent's campaign headquarters is an illegal alien, but "you can't say that now because you can't talk about that. It's insensitive. And the press won't report that.
The husband of the House Speaker was brutally attacked, and all Democrats and their media cohorts can talk about is how they want to blame the attack on conservatives, in order to influence the midterm elections, Fox News Channel late-night host Greg Gutfeld said Monday.
In the opening monologue of “Gutfeld!,” the comedian-commentator mocked the left’s lone obsession regarding the vicious home-invasion assault on Paul Pelosi: scoring political points.
While Democrats and liberal media are desperately trying to tie the home-invasion attack on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) husband to Make-America-Great-Again (“MAGA”) extremists and criticism of liberal politicians, Republicans are actually focused on the issue of crime, like the one committed against Paul Pelosi, Gutfeld said:
“It’s MAGA extremists behind this - because they always attract illegal alien nudists who live in school buses, who think they’re Jesus Christ,” Gutfeld mocked.
But, the people freaking out never mention attacks on conservatives, Gutfeld noted: “Remember how many jokes were made about Rand Paul getting his ribs broken, ‘Ha, Ha, Ha.’”
Bannister contributed even more Fox News-assisted whataboutism in a Nov. 7 post:
On Sunday, President Joe Biden claimed that his party never glorifies violence, ignoring times in recent years when prominent Democrats have been criticized for doing just that.
Speaking at a campaign event supporting the reelection of Democrat New York Governor Kathy Hochul, Pres. Biden said he couldn’t recall another time since the Civil War “where violence is condoned.”
Biden accused Republicans of inciting violence and engaging in dangerous rhetoric. He also accused unnamed Republicans of “making fun of” and “making excuses” for, the recent, brutal, home-invasion assault on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) husband, Paul – but, provided no examples:
However, on Sunday, Fox News recalled just some of instances when prominent Democrats have appeared to support violence, based on their political goals:
The first alleged example Bannister noted was "Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) threatened Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh in 2020 during a pro-choice rally." In fact, Schumer merely said in that rally that right-wing justices "have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price." There was no endorsement of violence in that statement.
All of these articles made sure to note that Trump's rally "aired live on Newsmax." But Mack did one other article on the rally -- but he had to go past his usual stenography to help Trump:
Former President Donald Trump dropped a nickname on Florida GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis Saturday night — and the crowd went wild.
"We're putting them up," Trump told his Latrobe, Pennsylvania, crowd at his Save America rally, which aired live on Newsmax, as he showed the latest 2024 hypothetical presidential polls. "We're winning. We're winning big, big, big in the Republican Party for the nomination like nobody's ever seen before.
"Let's see: There it is: Trump at 71%. Ron DeSanctimonious at 10%. Mike Pence at 7% — oh, Mike's doing better than I thought. Liz Cheney, there's no way she's at 4%. There's no way. There's no way, but we're 71% to 10% to 7% to 4%. Ted Cruz is doing a good job, by the way, he didn't like me for a while, but we got to be friends."
Trump famously trolls his political rivals and DeSantis was no exception: This one targeting the very popular Florida governor Trump had once endorsed as a House member and the next governor of his new home state using the word sanctimonious.
To date, Trump has held off criticism of DeSantis — and held off making an official 2024 presidential campaign declaration.
Trump's mocking nickname of his longtime ally comes on the eve of a Save America rally in Miami on Sunday (starting at 5 p.m. ET on Newsmax). Trump will be stumping for Florida GOP midterm candidates, but notably DeSantis will not be there.
That last paragraph identified a sore spot that Newsmax needed to treat tenderly. An Oct. 26 article by Brian Pfail noted thatTrump "will hold a third rally for Florida Sen. Marco Rubio just ahead of the midterm elections" but "did not include Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis," adding that "The Florida governor is regularly second to Trump as the most popular potential presidential contender for 2024."
So Mack was forced to help Trump walk back that "DeSanctimonious" remark in one article on the rally, downgrading the insult to a "quip" while also advancing a stealth slight:
One night after labeling him "Ron DeSanctimonious," former President Donald Trump called on his Miami supporters Sunday to vote for the popular Florida GOP governor in Tuesday's midterm election.
Trump's "DeSanctimonious" quip in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, made headlines, but he did not repeat it stumping for Republicans in Miami less than 24 hours later.
He was specific, however, to say he was stumping for Rubio in Miami, making a rare call in saying it was his rally.
"Is there any better place to be than a Marco Rubio rally?" Trump said, eschewing his usual "Trump rally" cry. "This is a Marco rally. We've got to make sure you win big against a radical-left crazy person — one of the worst."
Mack did more cleanup in a Nov. 7 article on an election-eve Trump rally in Ohio: "When showing the 2024 presidential polls, Trump passed on repeating his 'Ron DeSanctimonious' moniker, calling Florida's governor, most carefully, Ron DeSantis this time. There's been much speculation that the two may wind up competing for the party presidential nomination."
Meanwhile, as we noted, Newsmax columnist Michael Dorstewitz fretted over the "DeSanctimonius" slight, complaining that "There’s no need and little reason to draw the blood of other Republicans." On election day, a video report by Leonardo Feldman emphasized that Trump voted for DeSantis that day, and an election-night article by Theodore Bunker made sure to note that "Although Trump recently mocked the governor as 'Ron DeSanctimonious' during an appearance at a Pennsylvania rally, he said on Monday that there is no 'tiff' between them."
Even after the midterms, Newsmax stayed in cleanup mode. A post-election Nov. 9 paywalled article by Marisa Herman framed the insult as merely "only the latest in a long line of biting nicknames that Trump has used to brand his political and personal foes – with many of the monikers proving to have staying power." Mack returned for a Nov. 10 article that featured Trump using the insult again on social media, which required even more spin:
Former President Donald Trump's promised announcement is still on for Tuesday — and Florida GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis has not said a thing — but the salvos are flying already.
Trump blasted the media for being "all in" on to trying to foment primary challengers, and "Ron DeSanctimonious" for lacking loyalty after Trump claims he pulled the governor across in finish line in 2018.
"Ron DeSanctimonious is playing games!" Trump wrote in a Save America statement Thursday night, posted to Truth Social. "The fake news asks him if he's going to run if President Trump runs, and he says, 'I'm only focused on the governor's race, I'm not looking into the future.' Well, in terms of loyalty and class, that's really not the right answer."
Trump laments DeSantis' unwillingness to publicly back off a 2024 primary campaign, allowing the media to foment more ways to attack him.
A Nov. 12 article by Mack featured Newsmax TV host Greg Kelly portraying the insult as both no big deal and totally justified:
The media, and even conservative media, is "getting it all wrong and overreacting" to former President Donald Trump firing salvos against Florida GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis, according to >Newsmax's Greg Kelly.
"All right, calm down, everybody — they don't know what they're talking about," Kelly said in his Friday night "Greg Kelly Reports" opening monologue. "Going after Ron DeSantis? You call this an attack?"
"This is child's play, what's happening between the DeSantis and Trump right now, and it's also politics. It's no big deal."
The "Ron DeSanctimonious" nickname is not only harmless by political standards, but it is fitting, according to Kelly, after a Florida gubernatorial campaign ad suggested DeSantis was delivered to Florida by the hand of God on the eighth day.
"Whoa! Whoa! He's the governor of a state, relax, all right?" Kelly said after playing portions of the sanctimonious campaign ad. "And there's a lot of politicking and glad handing. Easy there, please.
"I mean, 'DeSanctimonious' that totally works."
Mack was spinning for Trump once more against DeSantis in a Nov. 17 article:
While major media has been billing Florida GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis as a threat to former President Donald Trump in the 2024 GOP primary field, the latest Politico/Morning Consult poll taken just after the election still shows Trump holding a large lead.
Morning Consult's poll has Trump as a 14-point favorite over a very large field of potential candidates.
Trump made his official 2024 presidential campaign declaration Tuesday night at Mar-a-Lago in an address that aired live in its entirely on Newsmax. Other networks, including Fox News, cut away from Trump's speech at times.
Results such as these in past polls were read by Trump during a Saturday, Nov. 5 Save America rally in Pennsylvania when Trump coined the controversial term "Ron DeSanctimonious."
Do you think writers like Mack get tired of promoting just how much in bed their employer is with Trump?
MRC Repeats Unscientific 'Research' To Again Dubiously Accuse Google Of Bias Topic: Media Research Center
We've documented how the Media Research Center invented search terms to dubiously accuse Google of bias because Republican campaign websites didn't show up high enough in the results -- without offering any evidence, scientific or otherwise, that those results were supposed to be the result of those searches. The MRC's dubious methods got promoted a few days later with more shoody research highlighted in a Nov. 2 post by Brian Bradley:
Google is burying the campaign websites of its fiercest critics on Capitol Hill.
Shortly after MRC Free Speech America released its study showing that Google suppressed Senate Republicans’ campaign websites in its search results, it now appears that Google is hitting members of both the House and Senate who have been critical of Google’s tactics. This is happening just as the country is gearing up to vote during the midterm elections on Nov. 8.
"First, Google was caught sending GOP emails to spam. Then we found Google suppressing the campaign websites of Republican Senate candidates. Now, we have evidence that Google is punishing Republicans who dared to speak out or take action against Big Tech by hiding their campaign websites in search results,” said MRC President Brent Bozell. “If this isn’t election interference, I don’t know what is."
MRC Free Speech America analyzed search results from Google, Bing and DuckDuckGo for 10 key congressional races involving current politicians who have aggressively acted against Big Tech, either legislatively or vocally. Our researchers caught Google — again — burying Republican Party campaign websites while highlighting their Democratic and independent opponents’ campaign sites in organic search results. The results follow up on MRC Free Speech America’s previous search engine studies on hotly contested Senate races, and also House races, where polling shows the House does not hang in the balance.
MRC Free Speech America researchers found that Google search results highlighted the Republican’s challenger in all 10 of the total House and Senate races reviewed.
Google buried the campaign websites of lawmakers critical of Big Tech. Google censored the search results for Big Tech critics 100 percent of the time, either ranking their sites lower than that of their challengers or totally omitting Republican Big Tech critics’ campaign sites from the first page of results entirely.
Google completely hid seven of the 10 total campaign websites of Republican Big Tech critics in page one organic search results. Seven of 10 Big Tech critics’ campaign websites did not appear on page one results using Google’s organic search. At the same time, Google put 67 percent of the campaign websites of the Big Tech critics’ opponents in the top six items of organic search results.
Google showed egregious search bias when compared to Bing and DuckDuckGo. By comparison, when performing the exact same searches, Bing’s search results were relatively more neutral. Bing’s results highlighted the Republican opponent’s campaign websites 5 out of 10 times. DuckDuckGo elevated Republican opponents’ campaign websites in 4 out of 10 races.
The suppression could significantly impact the 2022 midterm elections, as over 90 percent of all searches are conducted on Google, according to Business Insider.
The methodology is trhe same as it was before:
MRC Free Speech America researchers searched each candidate's name with the words “House Race 2022” and "Senate Race 2022" using the algorithm. To determine bias, our researchers looked at Google’s results and recorded the rank(s) of each candidate’s campaign website.
Example(s): “Andy Biggs House Race 2022” and “Javier Garcia Ramos House Race 2022.”
And, as before, Bradley offered no explanation of why those particular search terms were chosen, that these are common search terms normal people use, or why these particular terms should have placed a candidate's website at the top of the results. That tells us this is a partisan work and not one that involves genuine research. Indeed, Bradley went on to hype right-wing activists portraying these results as somehow legitimate evidence of an election law violation:
Hans von Spakovsky, attorney and Election Law Reform Initiative manager with The Heritage Foundation, stated that Google’s suppression of search results could violate election law.
“It’s illegal for a corporation to make a direct financial contribution to a candidate, but the law and the regulations also prohibit [unreported] in-kind services,” von Spakovsky, a former Federal Election Commission (FEC) member, told MRC Free Speech America. “If, in fact, Google is burying the website and therefore restricting information on one candidate as opposed to another, that’s an in-kind service for that campaign.”
FEC rulings often come down to party lines and legal interpretations of the commissioners deciding the case, Foundation for Accountability and Civil Trust Executive Director Kendra Arnold told MRC Free Speech America.
The case for Google’s search suppression of certain candidates carries an extra layer of complexity because the technology aspect of how Google’s search works would need to be fully explained and proven, she said. Google is notorious for keeping its search algorithms under wraps. Failure to hold accountable Google and the tech industry writ large risks rendering future elections “meaningless” as it would let Big Tech “get away with subliminal manipulation,” liberal psychologist and researcher Dr. Robert Epstein, Ph.D said during 2019 Senate testimony.
Proving an election law violation would be more difficult in the case of Google search suppression, “because by nature it’s less visible and is more factual-intensive than other cases, which are quite simple,” said Arnold, who gave the example of “an advertisement running that everyone can see.”
Epstein was quoted in the MRC's other "study" as well, even though, as we've noted, Epstein's research alleging Google search bias in the 2016 election has been discredited. You can tell that Bradley is trying to boost Epstein's credibilty by adding "Dr." and "Ph.D." to his name.
Of course, the point of all of this was not to conduct legitimate "research" but to manufacture results for political exploitation. Which is why Bozell went on Fox News on Nov. 4 to rant about it:
Media Research Center President Brent Bozell on Thursday blasted Google on Fox News at Night after yet another MRC study exposed the Big Tech giant’s left-wing bias just days before the historic 2022 midterm elections.
Bozell didn’t hold back on the anti-American, anti-free-speech “Googlers” attempting to subvert American elections. “This is an illegal corporate contribution by Google, trying to affect elections,” Bozell said. “Anyone running for office, if you’re a voter, you want information, in seven out of ten cases, you couldn't find the candidate if he was Republican.”
“Google is manipulating information.” Media Research Center President Brent Bozell demanded Google be held accountable for its anti-American and anti-free-speech attempts at influencing American elections during a Monday segment on Fox Business.
“This is, I believe, an illegal contribution they’re making to the democratic process,” Bozell stated on the Nov. 7 edition of Fox Business’s The Evening Edit. He continued: “They have got to be investigated. The Democrats don’t want to do it. If the Republicans take over, they have got to investigate what Google is doing because I think democracy is in danger when they can manipulate the voters this way.”
Bozell knows nobody at Fox News or Fox Business will ever seriously question him about the shoddy, unscientific methodology his employees are using -- he'll be able to rant at length and the hosts will just nod and smile. That's how the right-wing outrage machine gets fed, after all.