ConWebBlog: The Weblog of ConWebWatch

your New Media watchdog

ConWebWatch: home | archive/search | about | primer | shop

Wednesday, December 13, 2023
MRC Whined About NBC Hosting GOP Debate -- But Won't Apologize After Liking It
Topic: Media Research Center

Long before the third GOP presidential debate took place, the Media Research Center was complaining about NBC being allowed to host it. Geoffrey Dickens huffed in a June 12 post:

With more candidates jumping into the GOP race last week, decisions on which news outlets get to host the Republican primary debates should be coming soon. 

Back on June 2, Axios reported NBC, led by Nightly News anchor Lester Holt, made a hard pitch to the RNC (back in February) to moderate one of the GOP primary debates to be presumably broadcast on NBC, MSNBC or CNBC.

However, the Axios story also reported Florida Republican Governor Ron Desantis has “been pushing back against” NBC hosting a GOP debate and with good reason given “MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell acknowledged ‘imprecise’ language….that implied DeSantis didn’t want slavery taught in schools.” 

It’s not just DeSantis who should be wary of NBC unfairly rigging the debates. Every GOP presidential hopeful may want to think twice before accepting an invite to an NBC produced debate. 

A review of the MRC’s archives shows a consistent and clear pattern of slanted questions to Republican candidates.


The pattern of bias is clear and established. Republican presidential hopefuls expecting NBC to change its tune for the 2023 GOP primary debates would be foolhardy at best.

As the debate neared, Dickens whined further in a Nov. 2 post:

NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt and Meet the Press host Kristen Welker are set to moderate (along with talk show host Hugh Hewitt) the third Republican primary debate on November 8 and, as NewsBusters warned before the NBC moderators were chosen, GOP voters should expect hostile questions that push a left-wing agenda and are hostile to conservatives and their policy positions. 

MRC founder and President L.Brent Bozell challenged Holt and Welker in this letter.

In September, Welker took over Meet the Press moderating duties from Chuck Todd. To help Welker’s first episode, former President Donald Trump agreed to appear. In return, he faced the usual liberal fact-checking interruptions, especially when answering questions about abortion.

Bozell's letter, by the way, was llitle more than a condescending sneer at Holt and Welker, whom he clearly considers to be his moral inferior (despite his having fathered an insurrectionist). There are preening statements like "First, you must understand your role in this debate. It is to present opportunities to the candidates to differentiate themselves from each other." He gushed that his fellow right-wingers "love their country, believe in the dignity of every human being, and have the humility to give thanks to their Creator for making them in His image," presumably unlike Holt and Welker. He also demanded that the hosts sound and act like they work for Fox News, stick to right-wing talking points on issues and "frame" them in right-wing narratives, ultimately demanding that they exercise every ounce of self discipline you can muster to resist the habit of functioning like a Democrat [sic] political operative." Bozell also laughably added: I’m also willing to be schooled if I am wrong." He's lying; part of Bozell's right-wing schtick has always been to never admit being wrong (i.e., his silence when it was revealed that Tim Graham ghost-wrote his syndicated columns; one has to wonder if Graham wrote this letter too).

The MRC was gifted an in-debate hit from one of the candidates, as highlighted in a Nov. 8 post by Nicholas Fondacaro:

One of the fieriest moments of the third GOP Debate Wednesday night was when candidate and businessman Vivek Ramaswamy asked Republican National Committee chairwoman Ronna McDaniel if she wanted to come on stage a resign given the GOP’s sweeping election losses on Tuesday. He also called her out for awarding NBC the privilege of hosting a GOP debate despite how the network pushed the Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax.


Looking into the audience, possibly at McDaniel herself, he said he’d yield her the balance of his time if she wanted to announce her resignation. He also decried how she awarded NBC debate privileges:

You that matter, Ronna if you want to come on stage tonight, you want to look at the GOP voters in the eye and tell them you resign, I will turn over – yield my time to you. And frankly, look, the people there cheering for losing in the Republican Party, think about who’s moderating this debate. This should be Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, and Elon Musk. We’d have 10 times the viewership asking questions that GOP primary voters actually care about and bring in more people into our party.

Ramaswamy drilled down by targeting moderator Kristen Welker. “I mean, we’ve got Kristen Welker here. Do you think the Democrats would hire Greg Gutfeld to host a Democratic debate? They would not do it,” he shouted.

In fact, the investigation into possible collusion between Trump and the Russians was not a "hoax," given that the Trump campaign had dozens of contacts with Russian operatives and campaign manager Paul Manafort leaked internal polling data to another Russian operative.

But a funny thing happened at the debate: it was good, even by MRC standards. Tim Graham conceded as much in his Nov. 10 column:

Conservatives were up in arms that the Republican National Committee was allowing NBC News to moderate a presidential primary debate. Given NBC’s record of hostility to Republicans in debates and in general, it seemed like a terrible idea. As it turned out, it was a sober and serious debate with no remarkably hostile or silly questions.

But because Graham had been planning to write about how bad the debate was because it was on NBC and he could no longer do so, he had to figure out something else to write about. So he wined about one media commentator complaining that NBC partnered with right-wing radio syndicator Salem for the debate, whcih contributed a co-moderator in radio host Hugh Hewitt:

Minutes before midnight, after the NBC debate, CNN media reporter Oliver Darcy seconded Barr in his “Reliable Sources” newsletter under the headline “Normalized by NBC News.” Darcy groused: “Respected news organizations typically do not partner with right-wing companies known for trafficking in extremism. But NBC News chose another path. On Wednesday evening, the news organization hosted the third GOP debate alongside Salem Radio and Rumble, helping to elevate and normalize both of the far-right outfits.”

Darcy offered the same dire warning on October 17. “It’s no surprise that the GOP, which veered sharply to the right during Donald Trump’s presidency, would select Salem and Rumble as partners,” he wrote. “But it is striking that NBC News would agree to link arms with such organizations.”

What Darcy did not include in these fulminations was the reporting from Puck News that his own network had floated names of conservative media personalities who could serve as co-moderators of a CNN debate, including….Hugh Hewitt.

You will not be surprised that neither post by Dickens attacking NBC over the debate mentioned that it was partnering with Salem.

Graham lamented further that he couldn't complain about the debate in his Oct. 10 podcast:

What do we do at NewsBusters when the GOP debate moderators skip the gotcha questions? The NBC debate was fine. We predicted it might be like John Harwood's CNBC snark festival in 2015, but it wasn't anything like that. None of the questions were unfair or silly... like "Which of your fellow candidates would you 'vote off the island'?" The only question that drew some negative attention was Lester Holt suggested you couldn't make any policy move that could quickly change gas prices.

Presumably, there was no soul-searching about how the MRC shouldn't constantly and reflexively attack and smear all non-right-wing media as "biased.," nor any walking back of his colleagues' attacks on NBC over a purportedly unfair debate. We have also seen no apology from Bozell despite hgis claimed willingness to be "schooled if I am wrong." Right-wingers never apologize, remember?

Posted by Terry K. at 9:27 PM EST
Newsmax Still Sniping At Fox News While Tooting Its Own Horn
Topic: Newsmax

One thing Newsmax loves to do is tweak its Fox News competition by portraying it as dying while Newsmax is on the asendency, as well as hyping any controversy that could be tied to it. When Fox News faced a tiny tempest because it allowed non-right-wing charities (and also the Satanic Temple) to take part in its employee donation portal, Newsmax got a couple of articles out of it:

Numerous Newsmax shows attacked Fox News over the donation policy. It even had Satanic Temple co-founder Lucien Greaves for a TV appearance to defend Fox News (and, thus, boost Newsmax as the non-Satanic right-wing channel), as documented in a July 24 article by MIchael Katz:

Lucien Greaves, co-founder of The Satanic Temple, which is at the center of a controversy involving Fox News matching employee donations to the nonprofit organization, told Newsmax on Monday conservatives are holding the cable news network to an “unreasonable” standard.


“I think Fox was just using a third-party app that was allowing contributions to any charitable organization that qualified as such,” Greaves told ldquo;Eric Bolling The Balance.” “On our side, nobody was shocked by this news. People within The Satanic Temple weren't worried that we had some kind of formal background affiliation with Fox, which they would also reject.

“I honestly think what we have going on here is kind of a conservative purity spiral. I think they're holding Fox to a standard that is somewhat unreasonable.”

Greaves said there is an expansive list of charities to which employees could contribute and that Fox wasn’t forcing anyone to contribute to a specific charity.

Newsmax also loved it when Donald Trump bashed Fox News (and occasionally promoted Newsmax as an alternative):

Speaking of Murdoch, Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy had some nice things to say about him upon his retirement -- while, of course, burying that with fluffing his own channel:

Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy said Wednesday night the news network experienced an unheard-of ratings jump during the third quarter of 2023 — up 73% across its prime-time programming compared to the same time period last year.

Appearing Wednesday on "Rob Schmitt Tonight," Ruddy noted, while Newsmax's ratings boom has come at the expense of Fox News, he praised its controlling shareholder Rupert Murdoch as a "great conservative."


Ruddy attributed the meteoric rise of his network to viewers "voting" with their remote control for independent media over corporate giants.

It is a trend he says will continue for quite some time.

"When Tucker Carlson was fired, we saw a big surge back early this year in April," Ruddy told Schmitt.


"Five months later, we're now going to the six months, those ratings are sticking."

"They're not disappearing, and we're getting a huge share of the Fox audience," he added.

Asked about former President Donald Trump's statement Wednesday calling Rupert Murdoch a "globalist," Ruddy said he a "high opinion" of Fox's founder.

"Full disclosure: I once worked for Rupert Murdoch in my earlier days in journalism," Ruddy said. "The man has made an enormous contribution to the cause of freedom not only in the U.S. but around the world."


"I don't believe Donald Trump would have been elected had there not been a Fox News," he said.

But he noted Fox is changing direction which has put the network at odds with Trump as he runs for the Republican nomination.

That's not really true, of course; at the same time Ruddy was saying this, Fox News had given more airtime to Trump than any other Republican candidate.

Of course, there were plenty of stories about Newsmax's ratings (good) and those of Fox News (bad):

Newsmax even nitpicked Fox News' reporting on one of its own polls. A Sept. 23 article by Eric Mack complained that the reporting didn't show Trump leading enough:

Fox Business misled viewers on a poll that had former President Donald Trump beating President Joe Biden, posting the graphic's numbers in a way to suggest Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis was performing better than Trump against the incumbent.

Trump led Biden by 2 points 48%-46% in the Fox News poll, but the on-screen graphic shown by Fox Business listed Biden's lower support first next to Trump's name, suggesting Trump was trailing the incumbent when he was actually leading.

Also, Fox, which is continually ridiculed by Trump for being pro-DeSantis, listed DeSantis versus Biden right below, showing Biden's 47% support next to DeSantis' name — ostensibly suggesting DeSantis was drawing a 3-point lead despite having mere 44% support and trailing Biden and doing worse than Trump.

The misleading graphic presentation was reported by conservative media, including The National Pulse.


Trump has not yet posted it on his Truth Social account, but the media is noting the ultimate broadcast of the results were spun to be confusing, if not misleading, to viewers.

Mack slipped yet another Fox-bashing tweak: "This all comes as Fox Corp. and News Corp. Chair Rupert Murdoch, long ridiculed by the former president as being anti-Trump, has stepped down."

Posted by Terry K. at 8:09 PM EST
Updated: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 10:19 PM EST
WND Tried To Portray Texas AG Paxton As Victim In His Impeachment Trial (While Ignoring What He Actually Did)
Topic: WorldNetDaily

We've noted how WorldNetDaily columnist Andy Schlafly rushed to defend Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton against an "ambush" impeachment -- even though corruption allegations have been flying around Paxton for years -- while refusing to tell readers why, exactly, Paxton was being impeached. The day after that column appeared, a May 31 "news" article by Bob Unruh upped the drama:

There was no sworn testimony. No documentation. No witnesses.

Yet after a three-hour hearing at which a bunch of lawyers hired by a legislative committee in Texas, many of whom were registered Democrats, the committee issued 20 articles of impeachment against Attorney General Ken Paxton and within hours, the full House voted for impeachment.

Republicans in the state, Paxton and many others have charged that the impeachment failed to follow basic due process, and was set up as a political stunt, making it illegal and unethical.

Now aides in the state AG's office have announced their confidence in Paxton, who is off duty while the legislative scheme plays out, by revealing they will take leaves of absence to defend Paxton.

But impeachment is a political process, not a legal one, and normal legal procedures don't apply. (We don't recall anyone at WND complaining that Bill Clinton didn't get "due process" during his impeachment.) And like Schlafly, Unruh refused to tell readers why Paxton was being impeached -- as a more reliable news outlet reported, it involves abuse of power, retaliation against whistleblowers and preferential treatment toward a political donor.

Schlafly whined a little more about it in a July 25 column, complaining that " Texas Gov. Greg Abbott "is a suspected instigator of the sham impeachment of the one Texas official who stood strong against the migrant invasion: Attorney General Ken Paxton."

Before the start of Paxton's trial, Unruh wrote a Sept. 6 article that laughably reduced the allegations against him to "bribery and such":

There's an impeachment going on in the Texas legislature now. Attorney General Ken Paxton is being targeted on allegations of bribery and such.

But the case also has been described as largely political by critics and as the proceedings begin, he already has support from eight of the 10 state senators he would need to be cleared.

That's the number who voted that most of the case should be thrown out because the events happened before his most recent election.

He was voted to trial in the state Senate by a vote in the state House, and is facing 16 counts related to misuse of his office.

A commentary from WND columnist Andy Schlafly charged that the case was an "ambush impeachment" and an "undemocratic assault on the will of voters."

Again, it's false to claim the impeachment was an "ambush" since allegations have swirling around Paxton for years. Unruh waited until the 15th paragraph of his article to actually mention one of the accusations, only to downplay it:

Apparently at issue is Paxton's connection to Nate Paul, and the nonprofit Mitte Foundation.

Paxton's defenders say he's never received anything of value from Paul, an Austin real estate developer.

Paxton's defense counsel explained a home remodel at issue was paid for by the Paxtons, and allegations that Paul's company hired a woman with whom Paxton allegedly had an affair was hired the old-fashioned way, by submitting an application.

Unruh didn't mention that there is also thet issue of Paxton hiring an outside attorney to issue nearly 30 subpoenas to harrass agencies and businesses investigating Paul.

WND didn't do much on the trial itself, only running an outside article after Paxton was acquitted. Joy O'Curran ranted about it, however, in her Sept. 25 column:

The recent impeachment of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton was a mockery of our constitutional system of government and the required due process. The number of shameful shortcuts the Texas House took to bring articles of impeachment to the State Senate was beyond embarrassing! All hearsay and zero evidence. Tucker Carlson's interview with Paxton was an eye-opener to the level of corruption even in Texas. There is significant movement from the Texas GOP to censure House Speaker Dade Phelan, especially since the Senate acquitted Paxton on all 16 convoluted and crazy counts.

O'Curran didn't mention that Carlson didn't allow anyone to rebut Paxton's claims. And contrary to O'Curran's claim that there was "zero evidence" against Paxton, more than 4,000 pages of supporting evidence has been published.

Schlafly himself also didn't do anything on the trial itself, but he did whine in his Oct. 10 column that "Gov. Greg Abbott needs to rehabilitate his political reputation after he quietly supported the failed sham impeachment of Attorney General Ken Paxton," further whining:

Gov. Abbott wasted five months and millions of dollars unsuccessfully trying to remove the Attorney General who has been the strongest in our country against illegal immigration, Ken Paxton. Abbott never defended Paxton against this witch-hunt, as Trump and many conservatives did.

Again, Schlafly refused to discuss why, exactly, Paxton was impeached or why it was a "witch-hunt." He also didn't explain why holding conservatively correct views exempts one from being held accountable for acts of crime and corruption.

Posted by Terry K. at 3:28 PM EST
Updated: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 4:01 PM EST
NEW ARTICLE: The MRC's Hunter Biden Derangement, Summer 2023
Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center spent the lazy summer months spreading lazy smears baselessly accusing Hunter Biden of stashing cocaine in the White House and exploiting his child for partisan purposes, as well as cheering the collapse of a plea deal. Read more >>

Posted by Terry K. at 11:24 AM EST
Tuesday, December 12, 2023
MRC Defends, Promotes Candidates After Third GOP Presidential Debate
Topic: Media Research Center

As it did with the first two Republican presidential debates, the Media Research Center went into defense mode on behalf of the candidates for the third debate. Jorge bonilla ran to the defense of Tim Scott in a Nov. 8 post:

As history has shown, moderators have a very hard time suppressing the urge to insert themselves into a debate. During tonight’s GOP presidential primary debate, NBC’s Lester Holt did just that, when asking Sen. Tim Scott a question on the economy.

WATCH as Holt tries to tell Scott that changes in economic policy don’t have an immediate impact on gas prices, only to quickly get schooled by Scott:


Holt tried, he really tried. Take note of the claim. “The idea”, said Holt, of increasing production isn’t enough to decrease prices. Scott folded that premise upon Holt’s head, Inception-like, by correctly pointing out that markets respond to the perception of confidence created by regulatory certainty.

We know this is true because of what happened to the price of gasoline after Election Night, 2020. The record reflects that it began to INCREASE based on the regulatory uncertainty that came with Biden’s election. And it really began to spike after Inauguration Day, 2021, the day he signed the executive order to tighten domestic energy production.

Facts are facts, no matter how much they may be despised by a legacy media anchor trying to insert himself into a presidential primary debate.

Actually, we don't know that is true, because correlation does not equal causation. Because so many factors in oil and gas prices depend on international factors and other things outside anyone's political control, it's highly unlikely that any increase in gas prices could be attributed solely to Biden getting elected.Also, it's not clear what Bonilla is talking about with his reference to Biden's "executive order to tighten domestic energy production"; it could be the executive order withdrawing the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline did not "tighten domestic energy production" because oil from Canada already arrives in the U.S. via rail. Facts are facts, right, Jorge? 

Tom Olohan cheered that the candidates spouted the approved narrative and attacked fellow MRC enemy TikTok:

Multiple Republican candidates referred to TikTok as a corrupting influence and threat to Americans’ data privacy Wednesday night, while several called for a complete ban.

At the third Republican presidential debate on Nov. 8, radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt asked the five Republican 2024 presidential candidates where they stood on banning TikTok. The co-host cited an op-ed by Congressman Mike Gallagher (R-WI) in which he said called TikTok  “predatory” and “controlled by our country’s preeminent adversary,” noting that the app is being used to divide and propagandize Americans. When Hewitt asked whether candidates agreed with Rep. Gallagher’s statements, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie laid into TikTok.


Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL) also spoke out in support of a ban, both to protect young Americans’ data and to insulate users from Chinese propaganda. DeSantis said,  "I'm concerned about the data that they're getting from our young people and what they're doing to pollute the minds of our young people."  

Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) told the audience that “what we should do is ban TikTok, period,” but pivoted to explain that former President Trump had been hamstrung by the courts when he had attempted to do so.  In lieu of a ban, Scott suggested, "If you cannot ban TikTok, you should eliminate the Chinese presence on the app, period."

Bonilla spent a Nov. 9 post complikning that MSNBC's "post-debate analysis featured dismay at the thought of candidates discussing (gasp) IDEAS and not flaying Donald Trump to their liking," further grumbling that host Stephanie Ruhle "is mad that the candidate field did not sufficiently entertain her. Substantive policy analysis is a Bad Thing now, inasmuch as it detracts from MSNBC’s raison d'être: to dump on Donald Trump and anyone who supports him or, in the case of GOP primary opponents, is deliberate and intentional about how they engage him. This is what Trump Derangement Syndrome looks like in 2023." Bonilla didn't explain how the candidates' refusal to talk about Trump must be considered anything other than avoidance.

Tim Graham spent a Nov. 9 post nit-picking debate fact-checks, such as this desperate gem:

Sen. Tim Scott said gas prices are “40% higher right now than they were just a little over two years ago.” Brian Cheung pounced: " This is false. A gallon of regular gas costs about $3.40 per gallon on average this week, compared with $3.41 per gallon in November 2021, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration."

He said "just a little over two years ago." Nitpickers. If he'd said "three years ago," they would have said part of that was under Trump.

Graham offered no evidence that a more generous definition of "a little over two years ago" would have in any way made Scott's claim any more accurate.

Curtis Houck whined that a debate that was skipped by the leading Republican candidate wasn't being taken seriously enough:

While NBC’s Today gave predictably sober, serious coverage Thursday to its Republican presidential debate from the night before, ABC’s Good Morning America lampooned the debate as a pointless trip into the “Twilight Zone” and “divorced from reality” and CBS Mornings dismissed its necessity given the “disciplined” and “smart” race being run by the Donald Trump campaign.

After a recap of the debate’s big moments from senior congressional correspondent Rachel Scott, co-host and former Clinton official George Stephanopoulos turned to chief Washington correspondent and soon-to-be three-time-bestselling anti-Trump author Jon Karl and complimented him for “hav[ing] the perfect headline for this debate: the Twilight Zone debate.”


Sure, Karl can huff and puff about the dangers of Trump, but no one should be bamboozled into thinking Karl isn’t in it for the Resistance cash and clicks and thus would be fine with infinite Trump campaigns.

As if Houck isn't in it for the right-wing cash and the clicks.He also identified nothing wrong with any of Karl's books.

Nicholas Fondacaro was upset that the debate was accurately identified as a contest for also-rans, not the main event:

MSNBC’s response to the previous two Republican presidential debates was to write them off as not worth anything and insist they knew who the nominee would be. And if you thought their tune would change just because their sister network, NBC was the one hosting the debate Wednesday night, you were very wrong. According to Last Word host Lawrence O’Donnell, the debate was held in the event former President Trump “chokes on a cheeseburger” and dies.

O’Donnell began his comments by bragging that this was “the first Republican debate I’ve watched” and “did not have to participate in any of this” because he was “luckily” enough to be “working at 10:00 p.m. during the previous Republican debates.”

“This is the debate for, you know, in case Trump chokes on a cheeseburger. That is what this debate is. If somehow, Trump falls out, it's going to be DeSantis or Haley. That’s what it looks like,” he decried the whole idea of GOP candidates speaking to GOP voters.

Unsurprisingly, Fondacaro did not criticize Trump for evading this opportunity to speak to GOP voters.

Posted by Terry K. at 10:35 PM EST
WND Still Falsely Suggesting That Obama Killed His Chef
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Part of WorldNetDaily's recent bout of Obama Derangement Syndrome has included falsely smearing him as having a role in the drowning death of his chef, which authorities have ruled was accidental. Despite the utter lack of proof behind that narrative, Joe Kovacs tried to revive it anyway in an Oct. 22 article:

Three months after Barack Obama's family chef died in a mysterious drowning off Martha's Vineyard, newly released records reveal the former president's presence at the emergency scene.

The disclosure comes from Judicial Watch, which announced Friday it "received 40 pages of records from the Massachusetts State Police that indicate the presence of Barack Obama for a witness interview in the death investigation of the Obamas' personal chef Tafari Campbell."

The heavily redacted records indicate Barack Obama arrived at the emergency response scene via motorcade. A short time later, a cold, wet woman, who was a witness, arrived. The next morning, the eyewitness was interviewed in the Obama residence, again with Barack Obama present. The records also detail the existence of a Secret Service video of Campbell and his paddleboarding companion entering the water, and the Secret Service emergency response in the immediate aftermath of the drowning. The state police records show they concluded "no foul play" in Campbell's "accidental" death.

The fatal incident took place on Sunday, July 23, and the documents were provided to Judicial Watch in response to a July 25 Massachusetts Public Records Law request for all records relating to the death of Campbell.

Just days after the mystery incident, Obama was photographed with bandaged fingers, as WND reported.

In fact, there is nothing "mysterious" about Campbell's drowning -- it was ruled an accident. He fell off his paddleboard and wasn't wearing a life jacket, and he drowned in eight feet of water. That Obama later arrived at the scene of the drowning proves nothing except to conspriacy theorists and Obama-haters like Kovacs. Further, the "bandaged fingers" of Obama that Kovacs noted and which WND previously hyped was actually golf tape designed to prevent blisters and split calluses while golfing, and Obama has been previously photographed wearing it.

Kovacs put "extremely murky" in the headline of this article in an apparent bid to increase suspicious about Obama; in fact, the phrase appears in the article as a description of the water Campbell drowned in, not anything Obama did or has been accused of doing.

This is shoddy and dishonest writing by Kovacs attempting to manufacture a conspriacy where none exists. No wonder people don't trust WND.

Posted by Terry K. at 8:55 PM EST
MRC's Graham Pushes Matthew Shepard Revisionism
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's Tim Graham complained that "The 25th anniversary of Matthew Shepard's murder in Wyoming became another opportunity to promote the LGBTQ agenda and denigrate conservative opposition" in an Oct. 22 post:

All this 25th anniversary hoopla overlooks major problems for the "gay hate crime" angle. Billy Binion at Reason posted a piece headlined "Matthew Shepard's Murder Was Almost Certainly Not an Anti-Gay Hate Crime." Something didn't add up.

It wasn't until the prominent gay journalist Stephen Jimenez published his 2013 book, The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard, that those gaps started to narrow significantly. [Aaron] McKinney and Shepard reportedly were connected by the drug trade, with Shepard set to receive a $10,000 shipment of methamphetamine around the time he was killed. Also relevant is that McKinney was allegedly not traumatized by advances from Shepard, as the two had been sexually involved.

Anyone care to challenge those allegations? The Jimenez book has been ignored for 10 years now.

Binion added that the AP reported in 2018 that Shepard assailant Russell Henderson claimed "neither he nor McKinney was motivated by anti-gay hatred when they offered Shepard a ride home from a bar. Instead, he said, they were out to rob him of money and possibly drugs when they drove him to the edge of town on the night of Oct. 6, 1998."

Graham omitted the fact that the AP article also reported that McKinney tried to mount a "gay panic" defense at his murder trial, but the judge blocked it.If he wasn't "traumatized," why did he push such a defense? Graham probably doesn't want to answer that question.

He also probably doesn't want to talk about how problematic Jimenez's book is.  As one reviewer noted, he plays fast and loose with quoted material, admitting that he invented dialogue "I did not personally hear; nor could the characters themselves recall every word exactly from memory," and he did not identify in the book what dialogus is real and what is invented. Jimenez also failed to offer credible evidence to back up his claim that Shepard was a major drug dealer. The lead sheriff's investigator on  Shepard's death stated that Jimenez's book contains "factual errors and lies." Then there's also the question of motive behind the book, given that Jimenez is a longtime friend of one of Henderson's defense attorneys -- it comes off a bid for leniency for the killers, given how they have changed their stories.

Neveretheless, Graham went on to whine that "when the Left has made a legend, they 'print the legend' and ignore inconvenient facts." But what he's portraying as "facts" is nothing but a right-wing legend, designed to ignore facts inconvenient to right-wingers in order to perpetuate the legend that LGBT people don't face violence because of who they are.Desprte working for decades in his job, he still doesn't (or deliberately won't) understand that just because a right-wing narrative may advance the story of the day, that doesn't mean it's true.

Posted by Terry K. at 4:04 PM EST
Updated: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 4:07 PM EST
NEW ARTICLE -- Michael Brown's Deceptive Anti-LGBTQ Attacks, Part 5: Pronoun Meltdown
Topic: WorldNetDaily
The WorldNetDaily columnist kept up his condescension toward transgender people, and he cheered that his fellow right-wingers and even his own granddaughter hate LGBTQ people as much as he does. Read more >>

Posted by Terry K. at 9:45 AM EST
Monday, December 11, 2023
MRC Has Found A New Democratic Presidential Candidate To Ironically Support
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center may have all but abandoned Robert Kennedy Jr. when he stopped being a Democratic presidential candidate, but it has found a new Democratic candidate it can ironically support in the hope of hurting President Biden's re-election hopes. Nicholas Fondacaro kicked off the ironic defense in an Oct. 27 post:

On Friday, Minnesota Democratic Congressman Dean Phillips threw his hat into the presidential race to challenge President Biden in the Democratic Party primary. And despite their broadcast competitors finding some time for it on their morning and evening newscasts, ABC’s Good Morning America and World News Tonight refused to give Phillips’ campaign any oxygen. Likely hoping it would suffocate before the caucuses and primaries kicked off next year.

World News Tonight didn’t want to give their viewers an opportunity to think about voting for Phillips over Biden, but they did find time to hype how you could vote to name a baby emperor penguin at Sea World! They spent 1 minute and 31 seconds on that story. They also allocated 15 seconds for rivers on Mars and 17 seconds for Taylor Swift becoming a billionaire.

Over on CBS Mornings, they spent 3 minutes and 39 seconds on Phillips’ challenge to Biden but Democratic donor and co-host Gayle King scoffed at him and even insinuated he had no campaign staff. “[H]e showed us that he's got at least two friends. I'm sure he has more than that. Does he have a campaign staff? Does he have a following?” she jabbed.

By the time CBS Evening News rolled around, they were tired of Phillips and chose to dedicate 24 seconds to local weather reports.

Fondacaro unsurprisingly gave a cookie to Fox News for adhering to the narrative:

Fox News Channel’s Special Report gave Phillip’s campaign launch a solid 2 minutes and noted that he had a habit of pushing for younger blood in Democratic Party leadership positions. “The 54-year-old Phillips called on former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to step aside last year. This presidential quixotic quest mirrors that,” reported senior congressional correspondent Chad Pergram.

Pergram also highlighted the internal struggle Democrats were having over who they wanted to be their nominee. “An early October Fox News poll of registered voters found 53 percent wanting someone other than President Biden as the nominee,” he noted. “Phillips runs because he believes another Biden candidacy could inadvertently elect former President Trump.”

After noting the “shadow campaign” of California Democrat Gavin Newsom, Pergram concluded: “The entry by Phillips into the presidential sweepstakes reflects Democratic fractures. The Democrat's left-wing coalition is splinting over support for Israel.”

Fondacaro didn't explain why Fox News' coverage of Phillips was worth his praise since it, like he,only care about Phillips as a potential spoiler and do not actually want him to be president.

Fondacaro brought his ironic support for Phillips to his daily hate-watch of "The View" in an Oct. 30 post:

Since last Friday, ABC News has avoided mentioning President Biden’s new primary challenger Congressman Dean Phillips (D-MN) on their flagship newscasts (Good Morning America and World News Tonight). They relegated all mentions of Phillips’ campaign to side programming like America This Morning (at 5 a.m.), This Week (their Sunday show), and The View, which spent part of their Monday episode railing against Phillips for having “a lot” of “arrogance” for thinking he could challenge Joe Biden, “the GOAT” of presidents.

After playing a sound bit of Phillips’ interview with CBS News, racist and anti-Semitic co-host Sunny Hostin shouted: “Who is that?!” She then proceeded to ridiculously suggest that Phillips shouldn’t have jumped into the race without first turning out the entire Democratic Party base ahead of time and how dare he run against the savior of the country:


Fake conservative Ana Navarro, who once bragged about introducing her “wealth clients” to allegedly corrupt Democratic Senator Bob Menendez (NJ), discounted Phillips as just a “wealthy guy in his 50s having a midlife crisis and I guess instead of buying a convertible corvette or a building a yacht, he decided to run for president.”

“I think it takes a lot of…arrogance to in November – practically, we're in November tomorrow – think that you can all of a sudden do this,” she squealed. “Look, the primary in New Hampshire is less than three months away. The caucuses in Iowa are less than three months away. You don't just drop, like, manna from heaven and think, here I am right now, your savior warrior.” She failed to mention Biden was not on the New Hampshire ballot.

It’s ironic Navarro would mention that buying a convertible Corvette was a sign of a midlife crisis when that’s exactly what Biden did, but then again she was a Biden sycophant. “Mother Teresa could resuscitate and I would still support Joe Biden...Frankly, I'm going to support Joe Biden until Joe Biden tells me he's not running. Until then, I’m not entertaining this,” she proclaimed last month.

Fondacaro didn't dispute any of the points the hosts made about Phillips. Anbd, again, it's worth noting that he thinks Hostin is a "racist" because he doesn't understdand how metaphors work, and the only example he provided of her being "anti-Semitic" a criticism of Israel, which does not equate to anti-Semitism.

Fondacaro got mad that it was pointed out that Phillips has virtually no chance of winning in a Nov. 13 post:

While trying to downplay Minnesota Congressman Dean Phillips’s chances against President Biden in the Democratic primary as “a long shot,” CNN This Morning engaged in attacks fit for a serious challenger. In the first hour of the show, they hinted that Phillips might be a racist because he didn’t go around to kiss the rings of the racial special interest groups that supposedly represented the Democratic Party base. And in the third hour, that narrative gave way to openly worrying about him harming Biden’s brand with attack ads.

CNN anchor and chief national affairs analyst Kasie Hunt did a sit-down interview with Phillips. But before she played any soundbite, she wanted it known that “the White House doesn't view Phillips’ challenge as a serious one that's going to ultimately result in him winning the nomination. Neither do most Democrats in Washington.”

This was followed up with a clip of Hunt sparing [sic] with Phillips because he dared to compare Biden’s low approval rating with that of former President Jimmie Carter [sic].


Following a clip of Phillips defending himself, Hunt boasted that she asked him if he kissing the rings of Democratic Party power brokers and race hustlers: “I asked him specifically: did you reach out to the Congressional Black Caucus, to the NAACP, to the Urban League ahead of your bid or since you announced your running and the answer was ‘No.’”

CNN political commentator Errol Louis huffed that Phillips wasn’t just ignoring the racial radicals of the Democratic Party, he was ignoring the other radical elements. “What is it he's trying to do? There are other parts of the Democratic base, which is ultimately a cluster of coalitions that could also see they feel disrespected. Did he reach out to the environmentalists? Did he reach out to the women's movement? Did he reach out to the labor movement?” he huffed.

Louis went on to suggest Phillips was only trying “to raise his profile to maybe end up with some kind of consulting gig or something like that when the smoke clears.”

In the third hour of the show, co-host Phil Mattingly scoffed at Phillips associating his campaign with the word “courage.” “Well, Phil, never be surprised by how someone who thinks that they should be president can believe that they can be president,” Hunt jabbed.

Hey Kasie, you should tell that to Hillary Clinton.

In none of these post did Fondacaro explain why he cares so much about a Democratic presidential candidate even though, as a right-wing activist, he will never vote for him and will viciously attack him if by some miracle Phillips actually does get the Democratic nomination because his loyalty is to Donald Trump.

Posted by Terry K. at 8:36 PM EST
Newsmax Offers Surprisingly Balanced Coverage Of Musk's Battle With ADL
Topic: Newsmax

Like the Media Research Center, Newsmax is turning into a bit of a PR agent for Elon Musk and defending him against criticism -- but, unlike the Media Research Center, its coverage was actually somewhat balanced. Mark Swanson hyped Musk's battle with the Anti-Defamation League over its exposure of rampant anti-Semitism on Twitter in an Sept. 4 article:

Elon Musk's weekend tussle with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) spilled over into Monday when the owner of X — formerly known as Twitter — accused the global anti-hate activist of being the "biggest generators of anti-Semitism " on his platform.

It capped a weekend of posts from Musk that sided with an Irish white nationalist over his #BanTheADL trend. Musk also blamed the ADL for the loss of advertising revenue on X since he took it over, and suggested an anti-defamation lawsuit against the anti-defamation organization.

Ironically, Musk's tweets all came in the aftermath of new X CEO Linda Yaccarino's meeting with ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt on Wednesday. That meeting was about the ADL's concern over a spike in racist, antisemitic, and homophobic content on X since Musk bought it last year for $44 billion.

Later Monday, Musk tweeted out, "To be super clear, I'm pro free speech, but against antisemitism of any kind."

The barrage began Saturday, when Musk liked a post by YouTube influencer Keith O'Brien, who goes by Keith Woods online and once called himself a "raging antisemite," over the trending "#BanTheADL," which he started. O'Brien's quest began the day after the Yaccarino-Greenblatt meeting.

"Perhaps we should run a poll on this?" Musk tweeted, adding that the ADL "has tried to very hard to strangle X/Twitter." Musk is an avowed "free-speech absolutist."

Then early Monday morning, Musk tweeted, "The ADL, because they are so aggressive in their demands to ban social media accounts for even minor infractions, are ironically the biggest generators of anti-Semitism on this platform!"

Newsmax also published a Sept. 5 wire article on Musk's threat to sue the ADL. A Sept. 6 article by Nicole Wells gave space to the ADL's response:

Anti-Defamation League (ADL) CEO Jonathan Greenblatt fired back at Elon Musk over the tech billionaire’s accusations that the organization has been “trying to kill” X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.

“I can’t really tell you what’s in his head,” Greenblatt said during an interview with CNN Primetime host Abby Phillip. “I’ve read the same tweets that you have.”


Musk’s latest comments, his “frivolous lawsuit,” and his interaction with controversial figures such as white supremacist Nick Fuentes have only served to bolster “bad actors with very hateful intent,” Greenblatt said.

Wells followed that, though with a Sept. 13 article filled with Musk getting defensive:

Tech billionaire Elon Musk says the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which has called for censorship of conservatives on a variety of social media platforms, was "instrumental" in getting former President Donald Trump banned from Twitter, now known as X.

The CEO of SpaceX and Tesla purchased the social media platform in October 2022 for $44 billion after months of waffling, verbal mudslinging, and lawsuits. Trump was permanently banned from the platform in January 2021.

"The ADL was instrumental in getting Donald Trump deplatformed," Musk told the "All-In Podcast." "And then when we restored the account, they made it super clear that they regarded simply restoring his account ... that constituted hate speech.

"He hasn't even said anything," he continued. "He has to at least say something, or post something, for there to be incremental hateful content. This is absurd. And what's this got to do with antisemitism? Donald Trump's son-in-law is Jewish; he has Jewish grandkids. I'm pretty sure he's not antisemitic, OK? I mean, he was at their wedding."

Wells uncritically repeated unsupported claims by Musk that, contrary to reporting by the ADL and others that anti-Semitism has increased on Twitter since he took over, there are supposedly "third parties that have all the data analyzed and said, actually, there's less hate speech.

A Sept, 14 article by Jim Thomas noted that Musk was slated to meet with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Neanyahu, which "marks the latest endeavor by Musk's associates and allies to defuse a conflict with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL)." He added that "Influential Jewish figures have stepped forward in an attempt to de-escalate the situation, as conveyed to the Washington Post." That was followed by a Sept. 18 wire article on the meeting.

Newsmax also publisehd an Oct. 4 wire article noting Musk blamingb advertising declines at Twitter om the ADL that also tgave space for a response that "the ADL said any allegation that it caused losses to X were false. The organization added it was prepared to begin advertising itself on the platform 'to bring our important message on fighting hate to X and its users.'"

Posted by Terry K. at 6:46 PM EST
WND Cheers Leak Of Shooter's Manifesto To Portray Transgender People As Violent
Topic: WorldNetDaily

We've shown how WorldNetDaily obsessed over ther alleged manifesto of Nashville school shooter Audrey Hale, demanding its release because Hale was allegedly transgender and it could be used to disparage all transgender people as violent psychopaths. That concern-trolling continued in an Oct. 17 article by Bob Unruh:

Students now have been scheduled to return to classes at The Covenant School in Nashville early in 2024, less than a year after a shooter killed three children and three adults in an attack on the educational facility at Covenant Presbyterian Church last March.

Audrey Hale, 28, shot her way through glass doors into the school, and fired more than 100 more rounds and destroyed the lives of Evelyn Dieckhaus, Hallie Scruggs and William Kinney, each 9, and Cynthia Peak, 61; Katherine Koonce, 60, and Mike Hill, 61.

Covenant students have been attending classes at Brentwood Hills Church of Christ since the attack.

But the fight over the violence, even though Hale was killed by police officers, is far from over, as there are groups that have insisted on her rantings in writing be released so the public may have the fullest information about a motive, and lawyers for parents and school have claimed releasing them would cause "harm" to students.

David Rausch, of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, said the writings are "journal-type rantings" but they remain secret, even though open-government advocates have explained state public records laws require their release.

The Tennessee Star bluntly reported that those lawyers contend the information would be so damaging to students that it would '"lead to suicides."

Unruh somehow forgot to mention that the movement to demand the manifesto's release is centered around Hale's transgender identity and largely comes from anti-LGBTQ groups.

When right-wing garbage human Steven Crowder somehow got a hold of a few pages of Hale's notebook -- not really a manifesto -- and leaked, them, Unruh was happy to  hype it as "political terrorism" (and make a bit deal of and Hale's transgender identity) in a Nov. 6 article:

The long-concealed "manifesto" of Audrey Hale, 28, the transgender woman who shot up a Christian school in Nashville earlier this year, killing three children and three adults, reveals that she hoped for a high "death count," according to a report from social-media personality Steven Crowder.

He posted images online of what he said were copies of the document that has been withheld by authorities who say they are investigating.


The fact that the document has not been available already was pointed out by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., who said, "Every shooter’s manifesto should be public. There is absolutely no reason to hide this. Unless of course our government wants to hide the fact that these shooters are on SSRIs and usually brainwashed by leftist’s propaganda."

Crowder explained in an online video the manifesto was leaked. Authorities said Hale once attended the school, and died at the scene of the shooting.


Commentator Andy Ngo wrote on X, formerly Twitter,, "BREAKING: I have reviewed the manifesto of the Nashville trans school shooter (scoop first obtained by @scrowder). Audrey 'Aiden' Hale expressed a violent hatred of those 'little crackers" [children] with "white privilege.'"

X user DC_Draino said on the platform, "This is why the DOJ suppressed the Nashville Manifesto. It shows how Leftist ideology radicalized a Trans shooter to murder Christian children. This was political terrorism & the Biden regime tried to cover it up We will not be silent after these children were slaughtered."

Police earlier said Hale's document would be released, but that has not happened but has been delayed several times, the latest over "pending litigation."

Unruh made sure to quote another right-winger making the transgender link to violence more explicit:

At RVM News a commentary said, "Authorities have had this information for quite some time. While you’re looking at the disgusting thoughts of a mentally ill transgender murderer, ask yourself why they would keep this hidden from the public…"

Jack Cashill -- who loves nothing better than a good conspiracy theory, no matter how bogus or implausible -- spent his Nov. 8 column obsessing over the manifesto pages and blaming critical race theory for it:

Presuming that the manifesto fragment leaked this past week to podcaster Steven Crowder is legitimate, the answer may be that young white people like Hale have been taught to hate their own race.

At the core of critical race theory, CRT, is the notion that white people are, directly or indirectly, responsible for all the evils of the world. Complicating matters is that CRT-influenced educators are quick to assign an "identity" to students based not on their character but on their race.

Kids get the message. Either in school or through social media, they hear repeatedly that white people enslaved blacks, killed Indians and despoiled the earth.

For people of color, this message is reassuring. It absolves them of responsibility for their own personal failures and encourages them to project blame on to the white people in their midst, their fellow students included.

For white students, the message is onerous. Says Chris Rufo, the nation's most effective CRT foe, "This ideology, critical race theory, is a cynical, pessimistic, fatalistic, entrapping ideology."

Cashill is doing Rufo's bidding here; he once wrote in an now apparently deleted tweet that his goal was to "put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category" and, thus, "to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think 'critical race theory.’ We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.” It's also worth noting that Cashill has been leaning more toward race-bnaiting content of late, having written a VDARE-endorsed book seeking to absolve white people of racism for fleeing cities in the 1960s.

Cashill did work right-wing transgender hate into his column, declaring that by refusing tyo release the manifesto, "The FBI was not protecting an investigation. It was protecting a narrative":

According to an FBI study, only 3.8% of mass shooters have been female. To prevent future such shootings, it would have been helpful to know whether Hale was taking any hormonal drugs that might have caused her to flip out.

We will likely never know. Other than Twitter, the major social media sites are blocking posts about the manifesto. To the degree that the major media talk about it at all, it is to cheer on the hunt for the "leaker."

Hale's entry ends: "I hope I have a high death count. Ready to die ha ha Aiden." She/her Audrey got the death count she hoped for, but the major media and the FBI refuse to give he/him Aiden the time of day.

Cashill didn't explain why he thinks "hormonal drugs" turn transgender people into violent killers.

Posted by Terry K. at 2:15 PM EST
NEW ARTICLE -- The MRC's Dirty War Against George Soros: The Next Generation
Topic: Media Research Center
In addition to spewing its usual hate of George Soros for the sin of not being conservative, the Media Research Center also targeted Soros' son for the sin of taking over his father's philanthropic efforts. Read more >>

Posted by Terry K. at 2:07 AM EST
Sunday, December 10, 2023
MRC Weirdly Quiet About Musk's Lawsuit Against Media Matters
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center loves it when Elon Musk gets all ligitious -- it cheered when Musk sued the Center for Countering Digital Hate for exposing how hate and lies on Twitter (well, X) have spread since Musk took it over, and it so eagerly hyped Musk's threat to sue the Anti-Defamation League for pointing out anti-Semitism on Twitter that it called in racist cartoonist Scott Adams as backup. So you'd think it would be all over Musk's threat to file a "thermonuclear" lawsuit against Media Matters, which he ultimately made good on (though past his original declared timeline), for its research showing ads from major advertisers being placed next to tweets filled with hate speech and neo-Nazi views, which caused several of those advertisers to drop their ads. The presumed goal of Musk in suing his critics, of course, is to intimidate them into silence and to play victim so right-wingers will come to the defense of the world's richest man (mission accomplished).

But the MRC has remained silent about the lawsuit. Media Matters is the liberal counterpart to the MRC (though it produces trustworthy and better quality content), so you'd think it would want to take the opportunity to knock its competition down a peg. The MRC, though, has an odd habit of trying to pretend Media Matters doesn't exist, so references to it are relatively sparse, and it doesn't refer to Media Matters unless it feels it has to. A Nov. 5 post by Tim Graham, for example, is all about the defensive response of right-wing radio host Mark Levin to a report from "the leftist site Media Matters" quoting him claiming that the parents of CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer "weren't victims in one way or another, of the Holocaust" though his parents were, in fact, Holocaust survivors; when CNN hyped that bogus claim, Graham sneered that "CNN and Media Matters are closely aligned." (By contrast, the MRC and Fox News are so closely aligned that several former MRC employees now work for Fox News -- something that cannot be said about Media Matters and CNN.) A Nov. 8 column by Graham, meanwhile, complained that Media Matters, "a passionate LGBT advocacy group," pointed out that violent threats against people and organizations often follow the highlighting of them on the virulently homophobic Twitter account Libs of TikTok.

That, as of this writing, is the most recent mention of Media Matters at the MRC's NewsBusters; Musk's lawsuit was filed Nov. 20. Its further-right counterpart, MRCTV, didn't do a story on the lawsuit itself, but there was a Nov. 21 post by Nick Kangadis on how Texas attorney general Ken Paxton opened a partisan investigation into the group. Kangadis labeled Media Matters as a "far-left outlet" without explanation, and he uncritically quoted Paxton calling it "a radical anti-free speech organization." If the MRC thinks Media Matters is "far-left," can we call the MRC "far-right"?

So why the silence? Perhaps because it knows that, by the same logic Musk used to sue Media Matters, the MRC could be sued by its targets -- particularly Google.

Over the past year or so, it has deliberately misinterpreted the results of a study about how Gmail works, claiming that it shows how Gmail's spam filter marks more conservative-related fundraising emails as spam than liberal lines -- even though the study authors say that's not what the study found, and even though the alleged bias goes away as Gmail learns from user behavior. It also whined when the lawsuit got tossed out of court. The MRC has also issued another partisan attack on Google, alleging that using a specific search term that no normal human would actually use, the results didn't rank Republican candidates high enough or that certain presidential candidates weren't ranked highly enough. One key claim in Musk's lawsuit against Media Matters was that its finding of prominient ads next to hate speech was not the experience of the typical user and Media Matters gamed things to achieve its results. The MRC can similarly be sued by Google for gaming its so-called research to crafting a search term to achieve the biased results it wanted, which it then exploited for partisan gain, which then may have had the effect of driving customers away from Google.

The MRC presumably doesn't want to be sued by Google over its shoddy, partisan work designed for political gain over actual fairness, and so it would not like to remind people of said shoddy, partisan work that -- one might call it fraudulent manipulation, as Paxton accused Media Matters of doing -- may have opened it to legal exposure. That, along with its general reluctance to acknowledge that there's competition in the media-monitoring space, is the likely reason it doesn't want to get much prominence to Musk's lawsuit against Media Matters.

(Disclosure: I used to work for Media Matters.)

Posted by Terry K. at 5:49 PM EST
Updated: Sunday, December 17, 2023 6:50 PM EST
WND's Brown Wants Transgender People To Be Denied An Identity
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Michael Brown's hatred of LGBT peple continued in his Sept. 29 WorldNetDaily column, in which he cheered the hate of his fellow right-wingers:

A June 2023 article states that, "Although the LGBT community can count on a lot of public and political sympathy, support for this minority group seems to be declining."

Based on polling data from 30 mostly Western countries, the article noted, "People are generally more positive about gay couples raising children, but similar patterns can be discerned there too. … Over the past two years, support for this practice received significantly less support in countries such as the United States, the Netherlands and Sweden."

On Dec. 29, 2022, NBC News ran this ominous headline: "2021 was supposed to be the 'worst year' for LGBTQ rights – then came 2022. Even with the enactment of a historic same-sex marriage bill, advocates describe a harrowing year for LGBTQ Americans."


I am simply pointing out that there is a serious pushback against LGBTQ+ activism (or, "rights," depending on one's perspective), with much of it a reaction to radical trans activism.

Just think of the Budweiser and Target boycotts. Even non-Christian voices like Joe Rogan were saying, "This is a bridge too far."

It's the same with the celebration of drag and drag queens. Many Americans who said yes to "love is love" and who affirmed same-sex couples said, "We didn't sign up for this."

Brown did not explain why LGBT people do not deserve rights.

Brown advocated for banning the word "transgender" to describe transgender people in his Oct. 4 column:

There are people born with biological or chromosomal abnormalities who do not fit perfectly into the male-female categories. They are called intersex (more precisely, those affected by disorders of sexual development, representing .018% of the population). They deserve our sensitivity and compassion, but they are the exceptions who prove the rule of the gender binary. There are also people who, to the core of their being, feel that they are trapped in the wrong body, often experiencing internal conflict and pain for many years. They too deserve our sensitivity and compassion. But to call them "transgender" is to do them a disservice.

Simply stated, since transgender identity, in sharp distinction from the condition of intersex, is a psychological condition, that identity is a perception rather than a reality. Consequently, to refer to transgender identity as if it were a biological reality is to do a disservice to the sufferer, not to mention damage society as a whole and deny biological realities and gender distinctions. (Obviously, in saying this, I do not believe that, from birth, trans-identifying people have different brains than others. If that were true, then their condition would be biologically grounded after all.)

To those of you who agree with what I have stated, this is nothing new. I am simply preaching to the choir. Yet there is a reason for this preaching. (I'll return to that shortly.)

Brown went on to insist that conservatives deny that transgender people are transgender:

To be clear, on a personal level, I have no point of reference for the experiences of people like Benaron or Shuping, or, for that matter, people like "Caitlyn" Jenner. I cannot begin to imagine what conflicts or pain or confusion they have lived with, nor do I pretend to understand.

But that doesn't mean for a moment that we should affirm their perceived identities.

To the contrary, the moment we affirm the outward symptoms rather than continue to look for inward cures, we do what is convenient rather than what is best.


Again, I understand that perception may feel like reality. But that does not make it reality, and it is high time that we take a stand for reality.

This means that, at the least, conservative news sites should stop using preferred gender pronouns, regardless of what professional guidelines call for. It's time to buck the system. (It would be great if all news sites stopped using such terminology, but obviously, those who affirm transgender identity would have no reason to do so.)

It also means that those of us who share my convictions should no longer refer to someone as, say, "a transgender male" but rather as a woman who identifies as a man. If we do use the "trans" word at all, it should be in the phrase "trans-identifying." That's because transgender, as a distinct biological reality, simply does not exist. The sooner we accept this reality, the better.

As he is wont to do, Brown dishonestly framed his hate as love:

I personally believe that, in the not too distant future, society as a whole will recognize this to be true. Why not, then, do the right thing today rather than simply swim with the tide when things shift in the years ahead? That's what compromisers do. People of courage and conviction do the right thing today, regardless of cost or consequences.

And we can do this while working to help those struggling with these deep internal conflicts and while showing them love on an individual level, even if they are put off by our style of communication.

Love does what's right, even when it's unpopular.

That's because love is driven by reality rather than perception. Love is driven by truth.

Brown didn't explain how such hateful denial of someone else's identity can possibly be portrayed as "love."

Posted by Terry K. at 2:18 PM EST
Saturday, December 9, 2023
MRC's Graham Whines That Right-Wing Reality Doesn't Mesh With Actual Reality
Topic: Media Research Center

Tim Graham began his Oct. 4 Media Research Center column with a lecture:

On an average day, the Left tries to dominate our culture and our politics by pretending it doesn’t actually exist. By that, I mean our media outlets and Hollywood propagandists rarely speak in public about being “liberals” or “progressives” or ideologues of any kind. They organize for nebulous-sounding causes, like “women’s rights” (abortion) and “civil rights” (racial quotas/equity) and “the planet” (fossil fuel abolition).

The exception came on CBS Mornings on September 29, during a segment promoting a new book by Republican-loathing leftist historian Heather Cox Richardson titled Democracy Awakening. The Left routinely insists they are “Democracy,” and “Democracy” is them.

CBS lauded Richardson upon arrival as a “one-woman Time magazine,” which certainly implies liberal propaganda. But they pretend it doesn’t.

Graham thinks he and his fellow right-wingers aren't ideologues, even as he dismisses any idea that's even slightly less conservative than he is as coming from "the Left." He continued by noting that Richardson was asked about the purported liberal tilt of higher eduction, and he hated the answer she gave because she invoked a prominent right-wing figure to rebut:

Richardson took that opportunity to unpack a box of lies. She suggested “one of the foundational documents” for conservative politicians is William F. Buckley’s 1951 classic God and Man at Yale: The Superstition of Academic Freedom. Let’s hope that’s still true.

Then she described Buckley’s argument in the most ridiculously inaccurate terms: “And what his position was that we should not focus on fact-based arguments when we tried to move the country forward. Because if you use fact-based arguments, people voted for the terms of the New Deal, the idea that the government should regulate business, protect a social safety net, promote infrastructure, and protect civil rights.”

The Left thinks they are Democracy, and they are also Facts. Richardson underlined the Stephen Colbert position with a straight face: “That what we're really talking about is the idea of basing our reality in reality, you know. And that -- you know, what do they say? Reality has a liberal bias. But I think all of us want to get back to a world that has our feet under us with actual facts.”

Graham thinks right-wing ideology is Facts and that anything that counters it is, by definition, not "fact-based." He continued:

She claimed Buckley's thesis was anti-factual: “Instead of actually using fact-based arguments, what we really should do was indoctrinate them, and that’s my word not his, but push the idea of Christianity and free-market capitalism.”

Richardson typically suggests it’s not “indoctrination” for professors to use the classroom to advocate for the superiority of atheism, socialism, and critical race theory. That’s just building “democracy” with “fact-based arguments.”

In 1951, the leftist tilt of America’s elite colleges was just beginning. By now, the Left’s “long march through” academia is complete. Today, professors have to worry that woke youngsters will get them fired, and “academic freedom” would save no professor from the mob.

But Graham offered no evidence that Buckley's book is anything but an anti-liberal screed. He also ignores the fact that the conservatives' plan for countering purported liberal "indoctrination" in higher ed -- which he doesn't prove is actually happening -- is to replace it with right-wing indoctrinaton, which is what Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is currently doing to Florida's New College.

Graham concluded by huffing: "In the end, the Left doesn’t tolerate dissent. Everyone who speaks against them should be punished." He's projecting, of course; the very modus operandi of his employer is intolerance of anything that dissents from right-wing dogma and to punish anyone who speaks against those preferred narratives.

Posted by Terry K. at 10:57 AM EST

Newer | Latest | Older

Bookmark and Share

Get the WorldNetDaily Lies sticker!

Find more neat stuff at the ConWebWatch store!

Buy through this Amazon link and support ConWebWatch!

Support This Site

« December 2023 »
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Bloggers' Rights at EFF
Support Bloggers' Rights!

News Media Blog Network

Add to Google