MRC's DeSantis Defense Brigade Watch, NAACP Travel Advisory Edition
Topic: Media Research Center

When it wasn't aggressively pretending that his presidential campaign launch on Twitter wasn't utterly botched, the Media Research Center kept its DeSantis Defense Brigade deployed for its usual functions during the month of May. When the NAACP issued a travel advisory for Florida in part because of DeSantis "aggressive attempts to erase Black history and to restrict diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in Florida schools," the Defense Brigade assembled yet again. Nicholas Fondacaro ranted in a May 22 post:

Ahead of the Memorial Day weekend on Saturday, the far-left race-baiting fear-mongers at the NAACP issued a so-called “travel advisory” for the State of Florida and falsely claimed the state was “openly hostile toward African Americans.” Seemingly afraid of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s capabilities in the GOP presidential primaries, the flagship newscasts of ABC and NBC took the fake and politically driven “travel advisory” and broadcasted it into American homes Sunday night and Monday morning.

During Sunday’s World News Tonight, ABC fill-in anchor Lindsey Davis direly announced: “The NAACP is issuing a formal travel advisory for Florida, saying the state has become hostile to black Americans under Republican Governor Ron DeSantis.”

“Other civil rights groups have issued similar warnings in recent weeks,” she added, to add credence to the factitious advisory. She said this with the on-screen headline reading "NAACP Issue Flroida Travel WARNING" (pictured above)

Without any mention of the NAACP’s political affiliations and historic use of fear tactics to drum up support, correspondent Jay O’Brien boosted their accusations that Florida was not a safe place to visit or live if you’re a minority:

The same day, Kevin Tober declared without evidence that the travel warning was "fake" and "politically motivated," whining that a CBS correspondent "labeled DeSantis’s policies to protect children from being taught inappropriate topics in school a 'conservative crackdown,' and proclaimed that 'DeSantis has stirred both content and contempt, blocking a high school AP course in African American studies, also in schools, bans on teaching gender identity, sexual identity, and Critical Race Theory, and a ban on abortion after six weeks.'" He concluded by huffing that CBS was trying to "keep the left’s racism narrative alive" by reporting on "a racial smear campaign against the state of Florida."

Fondacaro returned to whine about the advisory again in a May 23 post:

Following the overwrought coverage from CBS Evening News the previous night, CBS Mornings co-anchor Gayle King clutched her pearls on Tuesday over the NAACP’s ridiculous and false travel advisory for black Americans, which told them to steer clear of Florida because the state was “openly hostile” to minorities. King feared for her two sisters who lived in the state and was beside herself with concern for the black folks who called the state home.

“The NAACP has issued a travel advisory for Florida,” King announced as if the far-left race baiters didn’t have a political motive. “It says the state is, quote, ‘openly hostile toward African Americans, people of color, and LGBTQ+ individuals’ due to a series of measures recently signed by [Republican] Governor Ron DeSantis” (The same DeSantis who was reportedly getting ready to launch a presidential bid later this week).

Trying to lend credence to the warning, she added that the NAACP was “not the first civil rights group that issues this kind of warning, which comes as DeSantis prepares for a presidential run. Equality Florida and the League of United Latin American Citizens have also issued warnings.”

Actually, wouldn't the fact that other groups have issued similar warnings mean that the NAACP is likely not acting  with a political motive? Meanwhile, of course, Fondacaro is very much acting with a political motive in his defense of DeSantis.

When White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was asked about it at a press briefing, Curtis Houck whined that reporter April Ryan, who asked about the "faux" travel advisory, "is always carrying water for the far-left Black organizations." He concluded by whining further that Jean-Pierre "finally wrapped with a helpful reminder for DeSantis and Florida Republicans, promising the White House would remain 'outspoken' against DeSantis and Florida Republicans because '[t]hat's what we believe it is our duty to do here.'" As if the White House has never criticized anyone from the opposite party before.

Meanwhile, any perceived criticism was attacked as usual:

• Orlando Sentinel Front: ‘Bully’ DeSantis Uses ‘Fear Factor’ to Push ‘Hard-Right Agenda’
• NBC Boasts DeSantis Is ‘Facing Even More Pushback From Disney’ Over ‘Don’t Say Gay’
• Hostin Decries ‘Dangerous’ DeSantis Raising Money for NY Marine Vet
• CNN Dismayed DeSantis Would Defend NY Marine from Lefty D.A.
• MSNBC Previews DeSantis 2024 By Labeling Him 'Pro-White Supremacy'
• MSNBC Dubs DeSantis 'The Face of The Erosion of Those Freedoms'
• Reid Frets 'Toy-Sized Mussolini' DeSantis Will Turn U.S. into Iran, North Korea

The MRC is also trying to build a narrative that because ABC is owned by Disney, any negative coverage it does regarding DeSantis had to have been ordered by Disney management -- never mind that it has never provided any evidence that this is true. Thus, we have Curtis Houck huffing in a May 16 post:

Disney returned Tuesday to use its broadcast network ABC and Good Morning America to throw another childish tantrum over Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s (R) conservative agenda driving a stake through the heart of wokeism. This time, the Disney-owned outfit bemoaned DeSantis signing into law a bill to defund Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs from public colleges and universities.

Houck also declared that "When Disney needs ABC to do them a solid, they do it" -- again, without providing actual proof of this other than its previous complaints that ABC's coverage of DeSantis is too negative.

Alex Christy defended DeSantis from another Disney-related controversy in a May 19 post:

Friday’s editions of CBS Mornings and NBC’s Today hyped Disney’s Thursday announcement that they are cancelling a billion-dollar office complex project in Florida as the sort of thing that naturally happens when Gov. Ron DeSantis decides to pick a fight with them. Neither network gave much thought to the possibility that DeSantis had little or nothing to do with the decision.

[...]

As for Disney-affiliated ABC and Good Morning America, they lumped the news into a larger preview of DeSantis as he prepares to launch his presidential campaign with brief summations of D’Amaro and DeSantis’s press team's responses.

Christy really had to struggle to force a Disney reference in here since he couldn't find a way to portray ABC's reporting as negative.

WND's Hirschhorn Can't Stop Misinforming About COVID Vaccines
Topic: WorldNetDaily

The COVID pandemic may have passed, but WorldNetDaily columnist Joel Hirschhorn continues to mislead and fearmonger about COVID vaccines. He began his May 31 column by hyping a case report about a woman in Taiwan who was reportedly diagnosed with leukemia a few days after receiving a COVID vaccines -- though he censored the fact that researchers stated that they "cannot conclude the causal relationship" between the two. After citing another isolated case of an alleged side effect, Hirschhorn wrote:

The highly regarded Dr. Peter A. McCullough made this observation about the new findings:

"I wonder how many elderly patients have died within a few days of the COVID-19 vaccine, unrecognized and not reported by families, doctors, or others. Only all-cause mortality data published in the coming months to years will give us a clue. In the meantime, all seniors should understand that even if prior shots were tolerated, the next one could be fatal."

And, of course, there have been many findings of young people dying from cardiac problems post vaccine shots.

The only people who think McCullough is "highly regarded" are anti-vaxxers like WND; Hirschhorn, meanwhile, didn't cite a single case, let alone "many," of "young people dying from cardiac problems post vaccine shots."

Hirschhorn began his July 3 column by stating: "For those of us who see a critical need to elect a conservative president to restore U.S. democracy and our economy, it makes sense to look at candidates in terms of how they saw the government approach to managing the pandemic." He then attacked the Trump administration for listening to Anthony Fauci, whom Hirschhorn virulently hate:

For simplicity, consider the top two conservative candidates, Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis.

First, it is important to understand that Trump went along with all the wrong policies on addressing the pandemic.

Though I think the Trump presidency did many great things for the country, it has always shocked me that on the key issue of the COVID pandemic he supported all the wrong actions and policies. It became clear by early 2021 that Fauci had pursued totally unsound ways of addressing the pandemic. Here is the mystery question: Why has Trump never openly said that he made a big mistake in listening to the "expertise" of Fauci? Tony Fauci was both incompetent and evil – a truth Trump should acknowledge and speak loudly about. Many attempts to get Trump to see the truth, such as actions by Dr. Scott Atlas and Dr. Peter McCullough, failed.

Trump deserves to pay a heavy price for stubbornly refusing to admit he made a terrible mistake in falling for the myth that Fauci was a top expert worthy of shaping national policy. If the former president is as smart as he thinks he is, then during his campaign for another term he should admit his big mistake as soon as possible – and he should ask for forgiveness.

Hirschhorn ranted that Trump allowed mask mandates and lockdowns and "prohibitions on using safe and effective generics for early treatment such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine; and even vitamin D, as a better alternative to the COVID 'vaccines' that are really gene therapy products that were poorly tested." In fact, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine have never been found effective against COVID in legitimate testing. He then touted how DeSantis purportedly did better:

In contrast to Trump, Gov. DeSantis did a much better job of addressing the pandemic by, for example, keeping workplaces and schools open. He also fought various mandates.

Because of the ever-present Fauci in and on every media outlet, in August 2022 DeSantis said: "I'm so sick of seeing him. … someone needs to grab that little elf and chuck him across the Potomac."

The failure of Fauci's policies must be honestly faced if future pandemics are to be better managed. What Fauci messed up explains why so many Americans have lost confidence in virtually all public health institutions.

Hirschhorn concluded: "The only Democratic presidential candidate with a correct, negative view of Fauci is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the author of 'The Real Anthony Fauci.' But Kennedy advocates many terrible policies that disqualify him for consideration." One can assume that Kennedy's promotion of anti-vaxx consiracy theories is not on his list of "terrible policies."

MRC Rehashed Praise For Unabomber -- But Censored That Musk Did Too
Topic: Media Research Center

The death of Unabomber Ted Kaczynski prompted a June 11 flashback-style post by Tim Graham:

The apparent death by suicide of "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski might come as a "who's that" from younger citizens. Between 1978 and 1995, Kaczynski mailed or hand-delivered a series of increasingly sophisticated bombs that killed three people and maimed or injured 23 others.

Nevertheless, our Best of Notable Quotables 1996 edition included several sickening examples of journalists praising the eco-terrorist

[...]

Leftist journalists tried to claim you couldn't pin the Unabomber on the Left: 

Graham went on to complain that "just days" after Kaczynski's arrest, "Bryant Gumbel was blaming the Oklahoma City bombing on conservative talk radio," and concluded by whining: "PS: In 2015, remarkably unfunny Comedy Central host Larry Wilmore compared Kaczynski to Ted Cruz: 'Ted Cruz went to Harvard, just like Unabomber Ted Kaczynski. Hey, Harvard, stop admitting dudes named Ted.'"

It seems that Graham's definition of  "remarkably unfunny" is anyone who makes fun of Ted Cruz.

But what Graham -- and all other MRC writers -- failed to mention is that among those who praised Kaczynski was the MRC's favorite erratic billionaire, Elon Musk. When a person on Twitter repeated the beginning of the Unabomber's manifesto, in which he stated that ""The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race" -- which Graham also made a point of quoting in an attempt to portray Kazynski as being "on the Left" -- Musk responded, "He might not be wrong."

But then, the MRC is Musk's PR division, and it publishes only positive things about him (as long as he continues to adhere to right-wing narratives and allow those right-wingers to spew anti-transgender hate).

Still, it's glaring hypocrisy when the MRC attacks all those who have praised the Unabomber -- except one person.

NEW ARTICLE: Another Priest Who Thinks He's A Right-Wing Pundit
Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com gave space to Catholic priest Jerry Pokorsky to spout right-wing opinions, while also continuing to do the same for another priest, Michael Orsi. Read more >>

MRC Elon Musk PR Watch
Topic: Media Research Center

There's lots of bad news about Elon Musk that the Media Research Center won't tell its readers. It has censored continuing criticism of Musk for bowing to censorship demands from foreign countries. Some of that criticism has come from Enes Kanter Freedom, whose criticism of Musk the MRC has previouly published -- then shoved down the memory hole when he showed interest in buying Twitter. And it's certainly not going to tell readers thatMusk's decision to no longer block anti-transgender hate could be a bad thing for transgender people -- it spent too much time haranguing Musk into doing so to ever admit that.Instead, it continued to suck up to him by serving as his PR operation. For instance:

• Elon Musk Burns Woke Target After Stock Downgraded
• Snopes Changes 'True' Rating After Citing No Scientists On Musk, Sub Comms
• Elon Musk’s Hilarious Response to 'Cage Fight' with Mark Zuckerberg

Luis Corneio spent a June 2 post portrayin the reluctance of Tweitter employees to spread anti-transgender hate from the likes of Matt  Walsh as an "internal revolt aghainst free speech," touting how Musk's interference in decision-making by allowing Walsh's anti-transgender film "What is a Woman?" had "amassed nearly 63 million views in less than 24 hours, marking a victory for free speech and common sense amidst a bevy of radicalized rainbow mafia propaganda sweeping across the United States and schools." In fact, Twitter's "views" metric is highly unreliable.

Meanwhile, Musk was still letting hand-picked writers promote selectively released "Twitter files" despite the diminishing returns. Ignoring all that, Joseph Vazquez brethlessly wrote in a June 7 post:

Just as CNN didn't blink twice when it described "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" in 2020, the joke of a media outlet is telling Twitter Files readers "don't believe your lying eyes" when it comes to Big Tech-Big Government censorship collusion.

CNN published what amounted to a Big Tech-Big Government press release June 6 headlined: “Twitter’s own lawyers refute Elon Musk’s claim that The ‘Twitter Files’ exposed US government censorship.” CNN’s sources? The lawyers for the censorship-obsessed, pre-Musk Twitter regime in Donald J. Trump v. Twitter, Inc.

Wow, who would have thought that people paid to defend pre-Musk Twitter would do just that! “Twitter’s own lawyers are disputing those claims in a case involving former President Donald Trump — forcefully rejecting any suggestion that the Twitter Files show what Musk and many Republicans assert they contain,” CNN claimed.

Talk about awful timing.

Just a day after CNN’s spin, The Grayzone News host Aaron Maté released a batch of “New Twitter Files” showing that the FBI actively assisted Ukrainian intelligence in censoring Twitter users and journalists accused of spreading so-called “disinformation” and “fear.”

Vazquez hyped how "Twitter Files journalist Matt Taibbi" hyped the latest release, but he failed to mention that not only has Taibbi stopped bieng a "Twitter Files journalist," he acrimoniously split with Musk over Twitter censoring links to Substack, where Taibbi mostly writes.

This was followed by another post that day, by Catherine Salgado, hyping Taibbi's comments. Like Cornelio, she  called Taibbi a "Twitter Files journalist" without mentioning that he no longer was.

Salgado returned for a June 13 post complaining about the guy who founded Twitter: "Anti-free speech Jack Dorsey just claimed that his pro-censorship tenure was generally characterized by 'fairness' and that the platform remains 'the most important public square.'" She concluded by touting and lecturing Twitter's current proprietor:

New Twitter owner Elon Musk arranged for the release of The Twitter Files to expose its previous heavy censorship. Musk has repeatedly affirmed his dedication to free speech, although censorship did initially increase under his ownership, and has still continued amongst the rank-and-file under his leadership. 

Is Salgado admitting that the "Twitter files" released are biased and designed to peddle a preferred narrative instead of telling the full truth? It appears that way.

Salgado touted another "Twitter Files journalist" in a June 21 post:

Twitter Files journalist Michael Shellenberger said the war on free speech has taken “the form of a world war.”

The Twitter Files and The Facebook Filesshowed direct government-tech collusion to censor free speech. MRC Free Speech America exposed a government anti-terror program, the “Targeted Violence & Terrorism Prevention Grant Program” (TVTP), weaponized against Christians, conservatives, and Republicans. Like the now-defunct Disinformation Governance Board, TVTP came out of the Department of Homeland Security.  In light of all this and global efforts to suppress speech, Shellenberger warned in a June 19 article on UnHerd of the fight against free speech. He said, “You can see its shadow in every Western country, from the US and Canada to Ireland and Australia, as well as in every multinational organisation, from the EU to the UN.”

Actually, that MRC Free Speech America report was so filled with misinformation that even Fox News felt compelled to debunk it. Salgado continued:

Much of the censorship work is justified by the claims that digital hate speech is sharply increasing, but that’s simply not true, Shellenberger argued. It’s an excuse for the suppression of information, often true information. Ultimately, Shellenberger insisted of leftists’ “misinformation” and “hate speech” cant that “[w]e need to train our ears to hear such language as pretexts for government censorship.”

An “elitist, anti-populist strain” is coming from governments and NGOs around the world, Shellenberger soberly noted. Even many private entities that are calling for censorship have received government funding, he explained. This created the “Censorship Industrial Complex,” partly exposed by The Twitter Files.

Salgado didn't mention that Shellenberger, like Taibbi, is no longer a "Twitter Files journalist." And she certainly didn't say a thing about reports showing that Musk is signing off on more "censorship" requests from other countries than pre-Musk Twitter did.

How Has WND's Brown Been Hating LGBT People Lately?
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Our catch-up on Michael Brown's anti-LGBT activism continues with a May 19 WorldNetDaily column complaining that gay activists wanted people not to hate them, which was "propaganda", citing the "gay activist book" "After the Ball: How American Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s":

As stated at the beginning of the book, the authors called for a "campaign of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising."

This "propaganda" even included the spreading of what they knew to be falsehoods, such as the idea that 1 in 10 Americans were gay (they admitted plainly that this number was inflated). But, in their view, spreading such falsehoods was only fair, since all kinds of negative falsehoods had been spread about their community over the years.

As to the success of their strategies, which reflected some of the thinking of other key gay activists and organizations, not even Kirk and Madsen believed that marriage would be redefined. Not a chance. That wasn't even one of their goals.

But even that sacred institution was outrageously redefined in 2015 by the Supreme Court primarily because the thinking of so many Americans had already been changed. Without that massive cultural shift, it is much more unlikely that the Court would have ruled as it did. In the view of many legal pundits, the cultural shift provided sufficient wind in their sails for the justices to make the change (at least, for someone like Anthony Kennedy, who was the swing vote).

To be sure, some of the shifts in American views towards gay and lesbian-identified people have been positive, recognizing the many positive qualities they may have as individuals or couples and embracing our shared humanity. Many of the other shifts have been disastrous, contributing to millions of Americans losing their moral and societal bearings.

Our children and grandchild are paying the price today, with as many as 40% identifying as somewhere on the LGBTQ+ spectrum.

The takeaway from all this is that, while we labor tirelessly to enact pro-life, pro-family legislation – and we should – we must never take our eyes off the greater prize: the conversion of the hearts and minds of Americans, not by the spreading of propaganda but by the propagation of truth, grounded in the love, goodness and justice of God.

We have the ultimate, lasting, winning argument.

In other words, he wants anti-LGBT propaganda to spread to restore the hommophobic right-wing order.

Brown spent his May 22 column insisting that gays and lesbians were supposedly fighting  back against transgender people:

As the resistance to transgender activism continues to rise and millions of Americans push back against the transitioning of children and males competing against females in sports, an increasing number of gays and lesbians are raising their voices as well. They are saying, "This is not who we are, and this is not our agenda. In fact, trans-activism is actually erasing our very existence."

Examples of this phenomenon would be online groups such as, "Gays Against Groomers," described in 2022 as "the newest crusader in the fight against radical LGBTQ activists said to be grooming young children in a sexual, indecent manner." They have joined other conservative voices in speaking up against things like Drag Queen Story Hours for children.

In fact, Gays Against Groomers is little more than a group of right-wing grifters seeking to profit on the anti-gay hate of people plike Brown. He went on to cite gay right-winger Andrew Sullivan for his claim that LGBT activists have purportedly overplayed their hand, then got mad at him over the idea that children shouldn't be taught to hate LGBT people:

To be sure, I applaud Sullivan's call to leave the children alone, and I affirm his calling out of the growing wave of what can only be called transanity.

At the same time, I must differ with Sullivan strongly.

First, gay activists have most assuredly targeted children for decades now, in particular in children's education, as I documented at length already in 2011 in "A Queer Thing Happened to America." They may not have targeted children's bodies the way trans activists have, but they have surely targeted their hearts and minds.

Second, the progression from LGB to T and Q is inevitable, a natural part of the deviation from the God-established, biologically essential, heterosexual norm. The long-predicted slippery slope was not a figment of the imagination of the radical, fundamentalist, fear-mongering, bigoted, Christian right. It was a logical, biblically based deduction.

[...]

Sullivan is also quite wrong in thinking that the gay revolution was all about, "Live and let live."

To the contrary, it became clear to me already in 2004 that for many of the key players who had come out of the closet, their ultimate goal (in fact, it was a necessary goal for their success) was to put conservative Christians (and other conservatives, both religious and non-religious) in the closet.

And so I warned that "if cross-dressing and, more radically still, sex-change surgery are fine – after all, we have to be true to ourselves, and, in the end, 'it's my life' – then the day will soon come when the mutilation of other body parts will be considered fine if it makes the person feel happy and whole. Why not?

[...]

The irony of this all is that, in the years to come, it could well be that the very reason the gay revolution ultimately fails is precisely because it succeeded so well. Metaphorically speaking, given enough rope, it hung itself. Andrew Sullivan's dream has become his nightmare.

Brown's May 25 column was devoted to a mandated right-wing complaint that the Los Angeles Dodgers were honoring the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence during a pride celebration, even as he complained he really didn't want to write another anti-LGBT column (though that's his thing):

I can't wait to go a week or a month or – who could imagine? – a year without writing a single article on LGBTQ+ activism. I imagine you can't wait to go a week or month or year without reading another article on the subject either. But here we are in 2023 in the midst of a cultural implosion, and common sense, decency, the fear of God and a deep love for people cause me to cry out. Again.

In the aftermath of the Los Angeles Dodgers reinviting the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence drag team to their June Pride Night celebration, CatholicVote opined on Twitter, "The @Dodgers have instantly become the @budlight of baseball."

But this is a gross understatement. The Dodgers have gone far beyond Bud Light, which has reportedly lost billions of dollars after making Dylan Mulvaney (a male) into an online poster girl.

Brown went on to repeat misinformation and falsehoods about right-wing anti-LGBT attacks on Target from chief homophobe Matt Walsh, taking the out that what Target was doing was "offensive" even if Walsh is lying about it, and it's all good because anti-LGBT hate is spreading:

As for Target, after years of declaring war on gender distinctions and fostering radical transgender activism, they have upped the ante now by allegedly targeting children with their obscene "tuck" bathing suit line.

Yes, these are female bathing suits that allow males who think they are females to "tuck" in their privates. And although both Politfact and Snopes have stated that the swimsuits are only available in adult sizes, contrary to Matt Walsh's claims, even if this were true, it is still grossly offensive. (According to Walsh, "What @Target is doing is far worse than anything Bud Light did. They are selling chest binders & 'tuck-friendly' bathing suits for children." For Megyn Kelly's pointed response, see here.)

Target also came under fire for featuring the products of an overtly Satanic, radical LGBTQ+ supplier. (Snopes branded this charge to be True.) The giant retail company suffered immediate financial losses and, under alleged threats against its employees, decided to remove a limited amount of LGBTQ+ Pride Month items.

[...]

As for the millions of offended customers, the vast majority of whom are presumably fair-minded, non-fanatical, decent people, there is no mention of them. But of course!

No wonder Americans in droves are saying enough is enough. Good for them. The pushback continues!

So it's OK for Walsh to lie as long as it fiurthers anti-LGBT hate? That doesn't seem very biblilcal.

Brown concluded with more misinformation, repeating his usual claim that he doesn't hate LGBT people, only LGBT "activism":

As for the millions of people who identify as gay or lesbian or trans or queer and are just seeking to live their lives without conflict, I say to each of you: You are not my enemy, I do not despise you, I do not look down on you, and I offer you the same divine love that transformed me more than 50 years ago. It is the radical activism that I will wholeheartedly confront.

Of course, he's lying here too. In Brown's world it is inherently "radical" for LGBT people to want (or even be allowed) to "live their lives without conflict" -- which means as long as he attacks "activism," he is also attacking people. Contrary to these words, he really does despise them, is looking down on them, and he considers them his enemy.

MRC-Fox News Revolving Door Watch
Topic: Media Research Center

There are more names to add to the list of former Media Research Center staffers who now work for Fox News -- bringing the total to at least nine.

Alexa Moutevelis left the MRC at the end of 2021, and she wrote her first article for Fox News in March 2022. Her most recent article was in June, so it's unclear if she's still working there, though her Fox News bio suggests she still does through the lack of any past tense. It doesn't mention her MRC stint, however, instead vaguely claiming that she has "previous experience covering politics, entertainment and culture."

Ken Shepherd had a bigger gap. The former NewsBusters managing editor left the MRC in April 2016, then worked for the conservative Washington Times. He joined Fox News in September 2022, his Fox News bio does admit his NewsBusters work but doesn't note that it was for a partisan right-wing organization.

Since for some reason the MRC doesn't like to tout how many of its former employees now work for a major right-wing "news" organization it aggressively defends, we typically have to stumble across them before we know. While it seems that neither Fox News nor the MRC want to talk about this robust pipeline, one has to assume that the MRC is internally proud of this.

WND's Farah Touts Bible Verses He Doesn't Follow
Topic: WorldNetDaily

We generally try not to get too much into examining WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah's religious-themed columns, but we've noted a couple recent ones that run at odds with how he actually lives his life -- just like his calls for repentence when he has no intention of ever repenting for all the wrongdoing he used WND to perpetrate. He wrote in his May 16 column:

Even many people who have never read the Bible know Jesus, or Yeshua, instructed us to "love our neighbor as ourselves." Was that a new commandment? No, it is found in Leviticus 19:18: "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the Lord."

It had always been a tough law to follow. Jesus reiterated it, of course, in Matthew 5:43-48 – but, as usual, He didn't lower the bar. He didn't dumb it down. He didn't make it easier. Instead, he raised the standard.

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; hat ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

[...]

The Leviticus prescription to love thy neighbor as thyself is also pretty sweeping, extending from family matters to business matters to courts of law to proper treatment of the poor and disadvantaged. It means sharing the Gospel, pursuing reconciliation, extending mercy and seeking justice – in other words, living as we will be expected to live in God's Kingdom.

Loving one's neighbor, of course, is the opposite of everything we know about Farah,  who loves to spew hate at anyone who's not as far-right as he is.

Farah pushed views that were similarly at odds to his reality in his June 20 column, headlined "What is truth in a world full of lies?":

Did you know that the word "truth" is found 224 times in the King James Bible? Did you know that even one of the names for our God is Truth? Truth is what the entire Bible is about.

Here's just a small sampling of verses about truth:
• "The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth …" Ex. 34:6
• "He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." Deut. 32:4
• "Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou has redeemed me, O Lord God of truth." Ps. 31:5
• "He who blesseth himself in the earth shall be blessed himself in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes." Isa. 65:16
• "When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth." John 16:13
But truth is controversial today as it always has been. There are still many people walking around the world today asking the same question Pilate asked of Jesus: "What is truth?" (John 18:38). They wonder if there is any truth – because they wonder if God is real. I often say, "You want to know if God is real? Just ask Israel."

It doesn't mean that all Israel currently knows the truth – the whole truth. But it does mean they are still the chosen people. Look at your Bible. What does it tell the story of – beside truth? Israel, of course. You can see it by dividing it up into the "Old Testament" and the "New." What are they both about? Israel, of course.

But Farah and truth have never gone together, from WND's years of Obama lies to its fake news about COVID. He is responsible for putting a lot of lies into the world, which he now ironically claimed is "filled with" them.

Farah concluded by declaring, "Knowing Jesus is, of course, knowing the Truth with a capital 'T.'" If Farah is unable to tell the truth, how can he know the Truth?

MRC's Jean-Pierre-Bashing, Question Evasion (And Toilet Reference) Edition
Topic: Media Research Center

Bill D'Agostino test-drove a new line of attack on White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre in a July 5 article:

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre has been widely criticized for her inability to field even basic inquiries about the scandals plaguing President Biden. Despite the President’s January 2021 pledge to “bring transparency and truth back to the government,” Jean-Pierre has failed to answer practically every such question she’s faced.

MRC analysts examined official White House transcripts of every briefing Jean-Pierre conducted between January 1 and June 30, 2023, recording every time she was asked about one of the scandals facing President Biden — specifically, the corruption allegations being investigated by House committees, and his mishandling of classified documents from his time as Vice President. Analysts found that while reporters asked Jean-Pierre 252 questions about either of these topics, only six received a definitive answer.

Of those 252 total questions, 217 (86%) were about the President’s misplaced classified documents, only five of which (just 2%) were concretely answered. The remaining 35 questions (14%) dealt with the various allegations of corruption against the President, with only one receiving a substantive response.

D'Agostino huffily concluded:

During the last administration, clips of White House correspondents grilling press secretaries about the latest Trump scandal were commonplace on evening newscasts. Now that they’ve disappeared following the decline in coverage of the document scandal, it’s a wonder why reporters even bother to raise such issues during the briefings.

D'Agostino conveniently forgets the actual history of press secretaries in the Trump White House. Its press secretaries once went more than a year without holding a briefing, and the final one, Kayleigh McEnany, was notorious for dodging questions and being mostly propaganda pieces that the MRC absolutely loved (and she also refused to do her job in the final weeks of the administration following the Capitol riot).So it's more than a little hypocritical for D'Agostino to criticize Jean-Pierre for not answering questions when his MRC cheered McEnany for doing the same thing.

Curtis Houck, meanwhile, spent his writeup of the July 5 briefing complaining that Jean-Pierre, yes, wouldn't answer questions involving the right-wing outrage du jour:

Whether it’s the Biden documents scandal, allegations of Biden family corruption, or the latest twist in Hunter Biden’s life of ruin to name a few, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre has consistently stuck to the theme of playing dumb when faced with even gentle questions from the liberal White House press corps. Such was the case Wednesday concerning the bag of cocaine found in the West Wing.

In the case of the pedestrian, the AP’s Josh Boak had the first question on it: “[P]er the intrigue over the holiday: Can you give any more details on where the Secret Service found cocaine in the West Wing and how it got there?”

This time, Jean-Pierre said “this is under the purview of the Secret Service” except to reiterate President Biden and his “family were not here this weekend” as well as the excuse that “this was discovered is a heavily traveled area where many...West Wing visitors come through.”

Reuters’s Steve Holland followed up to no avail, “Has the President said, ‘Hey, let’s get to the bottom of what happened here’ with the cocaine?”

Jean-Pierre didn’t budge, kicking the can to the Secret Service.

Tim Graham decided to tag Jean-Pierre with a disgusting toilet reference, sleazily referring to her as "Latrine Jean-Pierre" in the headline of his July 7 column:

White House briefings in the Biden years are often sleepy meetings compared to the Jim Acosta shriek-fests we remember under Trump. Joe Biden pledged he would be so much nicer to the press corps. He promised to “bring transparency and truth back to the government.” But the press is much nicer to him than the other way around.

Biden provides far less access than Trump did. He avoids press conferences and one-on-one interviews like the plague. He only surfaces for softball interviews with Nicolle Wallace or Drew Barrymore – and you could be forgiven if you’re not sure which interviewer was tougher, the cable “news” host or the movie star from 50 First Dates.

[...]

It’s common for press secretaries to defer tough questions to other departments or agencies, but Jean-Pierre is accomplishing some kind of Olympic-level record of blowing off questions. While many question her competence at the podium, her denials are clearly doing exactly what Team Biden wants – to bluster past the scandal questions without answering them. They’d like to pretend there’s no such thing as a Biden scandal.

Graham, like D'Agostino, failed to disclose that the Trump White House went more than a year without holding a briefing or mention McEnany's legacy of dodging questions.

In his writeup of the July 7 briefing, Houck cheered a right-wing reporter advancing a right-wing narrative:

Friday marked only the second White House press briefing of the week in which reporters could question Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre about the bag of cocaine found in the West Wing. While 13 reporters pressed Jean-Pierre on Wednesday about it, only one would on Friday (and a second to National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan).

This was despite the fact that the bag of cocaine’s tale had evolved from seemingly blaming tourists to an area enveloping tourists, staff, and cubbies near the Situation Room. New York Post’s Caitlin Doornbos asked whether “the cocaine belonged to the Biden family,” which drew a hissy fit from Jean-Pierre that “ask[ing] that...is actually incredibly irresponsible.”

A relative newbie to the Briefing Room, Doornbos first wondered what was up with (the cartoonish partisan) Biden aide Andrew Bates ducking a question Thursday about the cocaine probe during an Air Force One gaggle by citing the Hatch Act.

That aside, she cut to the chase: “Can you say once and for all whether or the not the cocaine belonged to the Biden family?”

Houck went on to complain that "nearly two dozens questions [sic] wereallegedly "skipped over" by Jean-Pierre that allegedly didn't need to wait for Secret Service clearance; needless to say, he was silent on his beloved McEnany's history of dodging questions.

Graham had D'Agostino on his July 7 podcast to discuss Jean-Pierre's question-dodging, while not similarlyh calling out the Trump administration's question evasion, in part by not holding press briefings at all.

Newsmax Continues To Exploit Tucker Carlson's Firing For Its Benefit
Topic: Newsmax

Newsmax has been aggressively covering the firing of Tucker Carlson by Fox News, in no small part because it would love to hire him for its own TV channel (and in fact has reportedly offered to give him total control over it), as well as giving it an excuse to tweak its much larger and more popular competition. That coverage has continued:

• Tucker Carlson Returns With Inaugural Twitter Broadcast
• Fox: Carlson Breached Contract With Twitter Show
• Tucker Carlson: 'Don't Know' Why Fired by Fox
• Tucker Carlson's Twitter Show Garners Nearly 80M Views (in fact those numbers are untrustworthy as an accurate metric)
• Tucker Carlson's Lawyer to GOP Lawmakers: Boycott Fox
• Tucker Carlson: Fox Caved on 'Wannabe Dictator' Chyron
• Tucker Carlson Hires Fox News Chyron Castoff
• Fox Fires Tucker's Staff as Replacement Named
• Tucker Carlson Interviewing GOP Candidates at Iowa Event

Also, it wouldn't be Newsmax if it wasn't trying to profit off Carlson's firing -- we've already noted how it was wrapped into a promotion for David Horowitz's Newsmax-published book. It also issued an "urgent poll" for readers to weigh in on the issue that included questions like "What is your view of Fox News?" and "Should Tucker Carlson join Newsmax as a prime-time host?" It has also created a promotion around an upcoming Tucker bio in order to sell subscriptions to Newsmax magazine:

He was the most powerful conservative voice in America.

And then, in a moment, he was gone.

At least from his perch at Fox News.

Now bestselling author Chadwick Moore reveals what really happened to Tucker Carlson in his new book, TUCKER  — set to be released on August 1.

Tucker Carlson has endorsed TUCKER — and Newsmax will be among the first to have copies — check out the FREE Offer Here Now.

[...]

Your FREE copy of TUCKER comes with a one year introductory subscription to Newsmax Magazine (with both print and digital editions) for only $19.95 — a savings of $30 at a regular rate.

Even more surprising than a promotion for a book about a man who long so long ago it was trashing for taking Russia's side in its invasion of Ukraine is that Newsmax isn't even publishing the book; promotions like this typically involve books published by its book division, Humanix.

WND Publishes More False Fearmongering Over A Federal Digital Currency
Topic: WorldNetDaily

WorldNetDaily just loves falsely fearmongering about governmental plans to explore getting involved in digital currency. The latest attempt is a June 9 column by Glenn Guest (which was promoted on WND's front page using the same stock photo art it used for previous fearmongerings). He started ominously:

At this moment powerful forces are constructing an economic system that will destroy our way of life and our God-given liberties. Once the architects of this economic system have completed and implemented their digital control system, they will rule over us in what can only be described as absolute despotism.

Even as you read this, they are working hammer and tongs forging the chains and shackles of your bondage, not of iron or steel, but of electronic ones and zeros that will form a digital currency. The global digital currency they are creating will result in the elimination of cash, with digital currency being the only one accepted in the new world economic order. This digital currency will be the mechanism by which they will control your finances and the finances of every person on earth – and by controlling your finances they will control you.

In March of 2022, Joe Biden issued Executive Order 14067 in which he ordered the federal government to begin the process of creating an electronic digital currency called "Central Bank Digital Currency," or "CBDC." In some White House documents this new electronic currency is referred to as "digital dollars."

Statements in Executive Order 14067 and other associated White House documents make it clear that our government has put the pedal to the metal in its effort to create a cashless economic system. Terms like "highest urgency," "whole of government approach" and "we must" are used throughout the White House documents.

As we and others have pointed out, the executive order merely asked the Federal Reserve to explore whether a digital currency should be created and that the impact of such a currency on financial stability and national security should be studied.

But Guest -- who is not an expert on finance but, rather, "pastor of Shiloh Baptist Church in Danielsville, Georgia" -- is here to baselessly fearmonger, not tell the truth. And baselessly fearmonger he does:

When the cashless CBDC monetary system is put in place your "money" will no longer be possessed or controlled by you. It will exist only in the computers of banks and government. Physical cash will be eliminated, and those who control the CBDC system will have control over your "money" in your account. Banks and the government will decide if and how you may use your "money." In fact, you will not be able to make any decision on your own, financial or otherwise, because all transfers of "money" (CBDC) will be subject to approval by whoever controls the cashless monetary system.

Every decision you make, whether great or small, economic or otherwise, will have to be in line with government policies if it is to be approved. Whoever controls the new system of electronic currency will have the power to decide what you may buy or sell and even if you will be allowed to buy or sell anything at all.

Your choices in life must yield to the whims of those who will exercise this tremendous power over you, or else. To attempt to exercise your will over theirs will mean that you could be declared an economic non-entity. If this happens, you will be banished from the new economic system. You will be unable to access to your financial accounts, unable to purchase even the basic necessities of life. To fall out of favor with those who control the system will mean that you will not be able to be paid by your employer or anyone else because your direct deposit will be deactivated. Any wealth you may have accumulated in digital currency will be stored out of your reach behind an impenetrable wall preventing you from accessing what is rightfully yours. If you are in this situation you will be unable buy food, pay rent or make a house payment. You won't have the option to use cash to make necessary purchases because cash will no longer be accepted.

In fact, FedNow is an infrastructure designed to speed financial transactions and is not linked to any sort of digital currency, real or imaginary. But, again, Guest wants to scare people, not tell the truth, so the fearmongering continued:

Indeed, the "Holy Grail" of tyrants is to have the ability to force the populous to comply with every command. Though control of the masses has been attempted many times throughout history, no government has ever achieved this goal by the use of police and military powers. However, the goal will be reached when government can control all buying and selling by the elimination of cash and its replacement with the digital CBDC monetary system. When the cashless economic system is fully implemented, you will find yourself living in a global gulag.

So, is there really a global conspiracy to destroy our God-given liberty and to to enslave us?

Well, almost 2,000 years ago, God gave us a warning that such a system would indeed exist one day. In Revelation chapter 13, God warns us of a one-world government and a global economic system wherein a person must yield to the dictates of a ruthless tyrant, one who will have almost absolute power. God also warns us that this tyrant will use his control of the world's economic system to compel people to worship him as God. God tells us that he will attempt to destroy those who believe in Jesus Christ. This dictator will rule over this world for a brief period of time and all those who do not believe on Jesus will worship him as God.

I believe that the cashless economic system that is being developed and will soon be forced upon us will play a essential part in the fulfillment of these prophecies.

As you consider what is coming upon our nation, the world and upon you personally, you might be thinking, "What must I do to be saved?" Your question has been asked before, and the answer is the same today as it was almost 2,000 years ago. This question was asked by a jailer in Philippi. He asked Paul and Silas, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" The answer to his question and to yours is, "And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."

The only place of safety is in Jesus Christ.

Search these things out for yourself and seriously consider the ramifications of a completely cashless economic system.

Guest needs to some searching for himself and ask himself why a pastor is repeatedly violating one of the Ten Commandments by lying to his readers.

NEW ARTICLE: The MRC vs. Dylan Mulvaney
Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center had already hated Mulvaney for the sin of being a transgender person popular on TikTok. But when Bud Light did a promotion with her, the MRC petulantly decided that the company must be destroyed too. Read more >>

MRC Keeps Pretending Right-Wing-Promoted Book Bans Aren't Really Book Bans
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center has long been in denial that right-wingers seeking to ban a book from a library are book-banners, insisting that any book ban pushed by a right-winger is automatically justified. Tim Graham kept up that narrative in his March 29 column:

The Left is in an uproar. Parents opposed to their indoctrinating ways are forming a resistance movement. One uproar is over books – assigned books in the classroom and available books in the school library. Disagree with the content of the books? You’re for “book bans.”

Technically, this is accurate inside the school, but the leftist press makes it sound like you’re banning books entirely from public view. They get to pose as the defenders of books and “book learning” and as compassionate defenders of the book-reading needs of the “marginalized.”

[...]

This is how the leftist media operate. They are all about channeling outrage about “book bans,” and spend no time explaining the pornographic passages and images that stoke the controversy. It’s all posing, and no disclosing.  

Curtis Houck whined the same day when it was pointed out that conservatives care more about guns than books:

On Wednesday’s CBS Mornings, co-host, Democratic donor, and Obama family friend Gayle King used the normally light-hearted “Talk of the Table” segment to lambaste Americans (and especially gun rights supporters) for “valu[ing] guns over children” and “the lives of fellow human beings” in light of the Nashville school shooting, adding in another veiled shot at conservatives and Republicans that they should stop “banning books” and work to ban “assault rifles”.

[...]

“Guys, they’re banning books in schools,” King bemoaned, ruling “books can’t kill your children,” but “they” are nonetheless “banning some books in schools, but yet, the rules are very different when it comes to guns.”

And there it is. Conservatives are fine with children being slaughtered, but are over their skis in wanting graphic sexual material kept out of schools for young children.

A May 5 post by Clay Waters complained that the "library lobby" was pointing out book bans:

The PBS show Amanpour & Co. went on an aggrieved rant Monday evening over the supposed threat of book banning. Host Christiane Amanpour set up the interview with the president of the notoriously liberal American Library Association, a group always eager to see dangerous book bans coming from the right, while ignoring squelching of both fiction and non-fiction from the left via Amazon, “sensitivity readers,” and posthumous editing.

The library lobby has put out yet another misleading report on “book bans” in America and Amanpour & Co. were ready to spread hysteria:

[...]

Yet peer behind the rhetoric and it’s clear that most book challenges involve parents being concerned about the age-appropriateness of sexually explicit material, often in picture form.

Waters offered no evidence to back up that claim.

Alex Christy issued a similar complaint in a May 17 post:

The cast of CNN Tonight was all in agreement on Tuesday that conservative attempts to “ban books” are “fascist,” similar to Nazism, and worse than the current trend of leftists re-writing books they did not write. At no point could anyone point to a book that was actually banned.

The genesis of the conversation was Salman Rushdie condemning both the attempts to control school library content on the right and revisionism on the left. For, The Atlantic’s James Surowiecki, the revisionism is wrong, but “But I think the bigger thing is the bans on books in school libraries and in schools that-- places like Florida, Tennessee, Texas, where some libraries, they've talked about shutting down libraries. I think that's far more consequential and far, far grimmer. So I'm glad he was, went after that.”

Re-writing books is actually “far, far grimmer,” because the original book disappears and sometimes for the dumbest reasons, such as the promotion of gender neutralism. Any book that is removed from a school library can still be accessed elsewhere and in its original state.

[...]

Another reason why lefties re-writing books is far worse is that these conversations rarely touch on the kind sexually explicit books that are being removed while ignoring all the fake news on books like Roberto Clemente biographies.

The link Christy supplied to support his claim of "fake news" about a Roberto Clemente bio being removed actually admitted that the book (along with many others) was removed from one school district's library pending approval by a "certified media specialist."

A WND Columnist Who's Not A Putin Apologist
Topic: WorldNetDaily

There may be a lot of pro-Russia apologists at WND, but they're not all Putin puppets. James Zumwalt used May 24 WND column to liken Vladimir Putin to the subject of the Jim Croce song "Bad Bad Leroy Brown," declaring that in invading Ukraine, Purin "bit off more than he could chew, having started a bar fight with someone tougher. Croce's description of Brown at fight's end is not too dissimilar to that of Putin's military today – looking 'like a jigsaw puzzle with a couple of pieces gone.' At least Brown's fight is over; Putin's is still ongoing." Zumwalt went on to complain in a very WND way about this as well, noting that Russians trying to avoid getting conscripted into the war are claiming to be transgender:

Not until months later, however, did members of Russia's legislative branch (Duma) discover a ploy some draft dodgers, perhaps preferring to remain in Russia or simply unable to get out, were using to avoid the draft. In 1997, the Duma had passed a law authorizing transgenders to change their gender identity simply by modifying it on their passport with a medical permission slip. In an ultimate slap in the face to Putin's war, at least 3,000 Russian males have recently changed their gender identity under that law. Finally recognizing this loophole, the Duma is working on legislation to mandate more than just a gender identity declaration and medical note by requiring body-altering surgery as well.

Zumwalt further took Putin to task for botching things in Ukraine:

Putin, who came to power in 2000 as a democratically elected president, has manipulated the government machinery to basically establish an autocracy. In 2020, the country's constitution was manipulated to keep him in power until 2036. There is no way the Russian people will tolerate this should the war in Ukraine not end soon.

The conflict now boils down to an unbending Ukrainian resolve and a tyrant's ego. Absent a major battlefield change – such as Putin pressuring Belarus to open a new front in Ukraine – or Ukraine's weapons suppliers withdrawing, a gambling man would bet Putin's days are numbered. Similar to Russia's last czar, Nicholas II, who violently learned the hard way over a century earlier, not listening to your people comes at a very high price.

Just because Zumwalt did one thing right doesn't mean we've forgotten things he's done wrong, like pushing nasty attacks against Alexandria Osasio-Cortez. He and WND also face legal peril after a Zumwalt column (which is still live at WND) promoted a far-right podcaster's false claim that an official with voting-tech company Dominion confessed to changing vote totals and worked with Antifa; that official is suing the podcaster and others for defamation.

MRC Annoyed By SCOTUS Ruling Striking Down Alabama Congressional Map
Topic: Media Research Center

Just because the Supreme  Court has a right-wing tilt these days doesn't mean that the Media Research Center will be pleased with everything it does. Ineeed, it was annoyed that the court struck down a congressional district map in Alabama for violating civil rights because it failed to apportion a second black-majority district. Kevin Tober complained in a June 8 post:

On Thursday, the Supreme Court struck down Alabama’s congressional map on the basis that it was a violation of the 1964 Voting Rights Act. The partisan decision was even more head-scratching when it was revealed that so-called conservative justices John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh joined the three leftists on the court. As was expected, the three evening news broadcasts gloated over the ruling. 

ABC’s World News Tonight was the most obnoxious with justice correspondent Terry Moran breathlessly hyping the “Supreme Court stunner.”

“Two conservative Justices, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Brett Kavanaugh joined the court's liberals in striking down Alabama's congressional map that critics said diluted the power of black voters,” Moran gushed.

Yes, Tober thinks it's "obnoxious" to preserve the voting rights of people.

Three minutes later, Cassandra DeVries served up her own complaint:

MSNBC asked three Democrats to discuss the Supreme Court’s ruling on Alabama’s redistricting plan, neglecting to acknowledge any alternate view point. NBC senior legal correspondent Laura Jarrett, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice Michael Waldman, and former Alabama Democratic Senator Doug Jones expressed surprise that the conservative Supreme Court would uphold Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act when they previously “gutted the 65 [Voting Rights] Act.”

“While the court isn't breaking new ground by just simply reaffirming what the law has been for the better part of several decades, it was a surprising decision, especially from this conservative majority,” Laura Jarrett said, alluding that a conservative court would traditionally choose to ignore the Voting Rights Act.

Michael Waldman, author of The Super Majority: How the Supreme Court Divided America, agreed with Jarrett’s assessment and added, “Overwhelmingly, that population growth comes in communities of color, and they are not being represented in the maps that legislatures have drawn. So this will have an impact beyond this one case as these rulings often do, though it is upholding what had been the law for decades.”

Waldman portrayed the court as doing the bare minimum in its ruling, which fits the narrative of his new book.

[...]

Even when MSNBC agreed with the Supreme Court’s verdict, it still portrayed the conservative court as corrupt. If this is how they treat decisions they support, one can only imagine their response to a decision they dislike.

In a delightful aside, DeVries' post was promoted on the NewsBusters front page with a headline claiming that the MSNBC folks were suggesting the court had "allterior motives" behind their decision. Doesn't anyone copy-edit anything over there before posting?